Jump to content

Editing of DNF logs


Recommended Posts

I have noticed these logs on several cache pages for caches in my area. An edited log that has the original text of "looked all over but couldn't find it" and then " Yeah, we went back today and found it!" So now it's a smiley/found it, rather than the blue/didn't find it. My question is: is this common practice? The couple of times that I have had to go back for the find, I have created a second log. I think this practice messes up the stats on the cache. I like to look to see how many DNF's there have been without having to read every log.

Opinions please!

Link to comment

I have noticed these logs on several cache pages for caches in my area. An edited log that has the original text of "looked all over but couldn't find it" and then " Yeah, we went back today and found it!" So now it's a smiley/found it, rather than the blue/didn't find it. My question is: is this common practice? The couple of times that I have had to go back for the find, I have created a second log. I think this practice messes up the stats on the cache. I like to look to see how many DNF's there have been without having to read every log.

Opinions please!

 

I saw something recently I did like. An old DNF with an edit indicating they had come back and made the find. It's still a DNF with all the original content intact. And a brand new found log claimed their smiley.

Link to comment

I've seen that a couple of times. Seems kinda goofy.

 

Goofy? Is that a technical term? I like to read through old logs. If I read a particularly good DNF I have to scour all the logs to see if they ever managed to make the find. That simple note added to the DNF is interesting information to me. Not goofy at all.

Link to comment

I saw something recently I did like. An old DNF with an edit indicating they had come back and made the find. It's still a DNF with all the original content intact. And a brand new found log claimed their smiley.

That seems like a good way to handle it. Add a note to your old DNF log and then create a new "Found It" log. This seems like the best way to preserve the cache's stats, unless they create a "Found on 2nd Try" icon. :D

Link to comment

My advice has always been to log a DNF whenever you Did Not Find the cache. Each time.

 

When you find it - log a find.

 

Seems pretty simple.

 

Yea, that's what I thought. Although, I have to admit to not logging a 2nd DNF! It just seemed redundant... The cache is rated 5 stars for difficulty and apparently very evil - according to the 3 that have logged finds.

Link to comment

Not the norm. But people log how they log. You just admitted yourself that you sometimes don't log a second DNF, others will disagree with it. In the end it won't matter. Log how you wish and enjoy. You mentioned "scewed stats". You'll soon find out stats are always smeared. There is no way to keep them intact. In fact you just admitted that you've messed up someone elses stats by not logging a 2nd DNF. Maybe the hider wants to know ALL the DNFs, not just your interpertation of a DNF.

 

But...people log how they log and that's that.

 

Finally, you asked for my opinion. My opinion is that I wouldn't worry about it in the least.

Edited by Morning Dew
Link to comment
Goofy? Is that a technical term? I like to read through old logs. If I read a particularly good DNF I have to scour all the logs to see if they ever managed to make the find. That simple note added to the DNF is interesting information to me. Not goofy at all.

 

I'm sorry that we disagree.

Link to comment

I have noticed these logs on several cache pages for caches in my area. An edited log that has the original text of "looked all over but couldn't find it" and then " Yeah, we went back today and found it!" So now it's a smiley/found it, rather than the blue/didn't find it. My question is: is this common practice? The couple of times that I have had to go back for the find, I have created a second log. I think this practice messes up the stats on the cache. I like to look to see how many DNF's there have been without having to read every log.

Opinions please!

 

I think you are right.

Link to comment

I've seen that a couple of times. Seems kinda goofy.

 

I agree. If you log a dnf and then change it on a later visit to a found log - that is goofy.

 

Have to admit I might start editing my dnfs if I am logging a found to say now logging a find look up for new logg.

If the visits are really close together I may not log each and every visit. One cache got two visits on one day logged it once.

The harder the cache the less likely I am to log a new dnf.

If it has been months since I last looked I am would log a dnf.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...