Is logging a DNF really that hard?

[+AndrewRJ]

I try to log the majority of my DNF's. Some days on a long number run I have a hard time remembering which ones I found, much less the ones I didn't.

 

A lot of my my favorite searches were DNF's and I have gotten many comments on my adventures.

 

Start looking about July 13, 2007.

[fastshutter]

I'm super new, so I don't want to log DNF's until I give it a second try a different day. I'm going to go back to a cache I couldn't find yesterday. It was suppose to be an easy to find ammo box and out of 100 finds, I would be the first DNF logged. I guess I don't want to be the poor blind guy who can't see what is right in front of him ::

[+Mule Ears]

CrippledBlindSquirrel, I can't see anything wrong with the decisions you made or the philosophy behind it. As a conscientious cache owner, I'm actually glad that most people are somewhat sparing with DNFs, or I'd be spending a lot of time checking up on caches that are right where they're supposed to be. This past winter I was tempted to delete a DNF on this cache, since it might be misconstrued to mean that there was a problem with the cache. The folks who logged it took a look at the rugged mountain and decided to pass it up. They posted the DNF as a way of linking to an album of photos they took in the area, though, so I let it stand.

[+Miragee]

I guess I've been looking at this in the wrong way....I'm new so I look at each trip as a learning experience. I have one that I have visited twice and two that I have visited once and haven't found yet. I've told myself when I go back the third time (each time armed with a little bit more experience) I will log the DNF if I haven't found it. Three strikes and your out and all....but based on the conversations I see here I guess I should have logged DNF's on each of the four visits.

 

There is another one that I had to give up on when the muggles started popping out of the woodwork. I misled myself on the "quick grab" and the muggles made it impossible to stand there and think about it. I don't think I gave that one a fair hunt....Like Arnold "I'll be back!" Does this one constitute a DNF?

 

There are two more that I abandoned before closing in on the cache because the terrain was not what I expected or the full summer foliage made the approach something I was not willing to do. I will go back to each of these when winter comes and I am prepared for the terrain as it exists. I don't think these two trips merit a DNF...am I wrong about that?

 

And finally there was one that was just not there (a 1/1 with no surprises). I got back and checked the logs and saw a DNF posted after I loaded the cache in the GPS. I chose to email the owner and ask him to check...he seemed happy with that and was out of town at the time and told me when he would check on it. I chose to do it that way because I felt that as a newbee (30 finds) I was as likely to not find it as it was not there because it had been muggled. I guess that should have DNF #5.

 

Is my thinking on this wrong. I am not worried about posting DNF's when I'm truly stumped by a cache AND I don't intend to return for another try, but I kind of figured that I should satisfy myself that I was really stumped by the hide. Like my tag line says...Even the blind squirrel will find the nut if he digs around long enough

As a cache owner, I appreciate either DNFs or Notes that tell me someone either looked for and couldn't find, or started out to look for my cache, but didn't quite make it. I can tell from the comments in the log whether I have to worry about a missing cache, or not, so I encourage new cachers to log their DNFs.

 

My own rule is to log a DNF if I actually get to GZ and look for the cache, whether I only looked for a couple of minutes, or looked for half an hour. If I didn't get to GZ for some reason, I'll log a "Note" on the cache.

 

I look at all my logs as an "online journal" of my caching adventures. Whether it is a "Found it" or a "Didn't Find it" or a "Note," the log helps me remember what I did. Someday, these online logs might be the only way I'll know what I did during my Geocaching years . . .

[+nikcap]

I log most DNFs, but I won't bother to log (and won't return to hunt the cache) if:

• I reach the cache vicinity and it's utterly lame or muggle-infested
  
• I look for a moment and realize that the "1" difficulty rating is nonsense (sandbagging)
  
• I get the sense that the cache placement is malicious (e.g., homeless encampment)
  
• I believe logging a DNF would cause some sort of backlash
  

Certain cache owners thrive on DNFs. They relish logs that describe protracted, frustrating, fruitless searches. That's fine as long as potential searchers know what they're in for. But these sadists aren't content with willing opponents; they want unsuspecting victims, too, so they understate the difficulty rating or otherwise sandbag searchers. Pfft. I don't need to feed their sickness.

...

 

Good words Mule Ears, I concur!

 

While I can't think of an instance where logging a DNF would cause some sort of backlash, I can understand this one.

 

For me, I'm probably more diligent with logging DNF's then I am with actually loging my finds, but that's another issue. I guess it's mostly lazy or that I find writing logs work, (I like writing something more then TFTC or TNLN)

 

And of course, some cache you just want to forget and not logging the DNF is the first step in that progress!

[+CrippledBlindSquirrel]

I guess I've been looking at this in the wrong way....I'm new so I look at each trip as a learning experience. I have one that I have visited twice and two that I have visited once and haven't found yet. I've told myself when I go back the third time (each time armed with a little bit more experience) I will log the DNF if I haven't found it. Three strikes and your out and all....but based on the conversations I see here I guess I should have logged DNF's on each of the four visits.

 

There is another one that I had to give up on when the muggles started popping out of the woodwork. I misled myself on the "quick grab" and the muggles made it impossible to stand there and think about it. I don't think I gave that one a fair hunt....Like Arnold "I'll be back!" Does this one constitute a DNF?

 

There are two more that I abandoned before closing in on the cache because the terrain was not what I expected or the full summer foliage made the approach something I was not willing to do. I will go back to each of these when winter comes and I am prepared for the terrain as it exists. I don't think these two trips merit a DNF...am I wrong about that?

 

And finally there was one that was just not there (a 1/1 with no surprises). I got back and checked the logs and saw a DNF posted after I loaded the cache in the GPS. I chose to email the owner and ask him to check...he seemed happy with that and was out of town at the time and told me when he would check on it. I chose to do it that way because I felt that as a newbee (30 finds) I was as likely to not find it as it was not there because it had been muggled. I guess that should have DNF #5.

 

Is my thinking on this wrong. I am not worried about posting DNF's when I'm truly stumped by a cache AND I don't intend to return for another try, but I kind of figured that I should satisfy myself that I was really stumped by the hide. Like my tag line says...Even the blind squirrel will find the nut if he digs around long enough

As a cache owner, I appreciate either DNFs or Notes that tell me someone either looked for and couldn't find, or started out to look for my cache, but didn't quite make it. I can tell from the comments in the log whether I have to worry about a missing cache, or not, so I encourage new cachers to log their DNFs.

 

My own rule is to log a DNF if I actually get to GZ and look for the cache, whether I only looked for a couple of minutes, or looked for half an hour. If I didn't get to GZ for some reason, I'll log a "Note" on the cache.

 

I look at all my logs as an "online journal" of my caching adventures. Whether it is a "Found it" or a "Didn't Find it" or a "Note," the log helps me remember what I did. Someday, these online logs might be the only way I'll know what I did during my Geocaching years . . .

 

Okay Dokey,

 

Here's the CBS's new logging rules based on what he has learned here and keeping his own thinking in mind.

 

1. I will post a DNF if I arrived at GZ, did my best lookey look, could not find the cache and have no reason to believe that I could do better with any future return and search.

 

2. If I arrive at GZ and feel like I am missing some important part of what I am supposed to know about this kind of hide and feel like I need to go back to school at other caches of this type or the logs and forums, I will post a note explaining myself and the fact that I'm not prepared to surrender quite yet. Who knows somebody might take pity on me and help me out!

 

3. If I have been back three times with no joy I will admit defeat and post the DNF while muttering under my breath about ever getting involved in this #@**# sport.

 

In all other cases where I did not make it to ground zero I will not post any comments to the logs.

 

I really think that I owe the owner something more a DNF but at the same time my danged old pride makes it necessary that I take a complete butt kicking before I give up!

[+Headhardhat]

I'm proud of my 564 dnf's.

 

I strive to beat Sir HorseGeeks DNF score with actual Finds (305)

[+GrateBear]

It is rather strange that people don't log DNFs. I've seen plenty of caches with many finds and not a single DNF. Hard to believe. On one of my caches, someone sent an e-mail asking for a hint as they could not find it. Did they log a DNF? No.

[+WRASTRO]

I continue to be amazed at all of the rationalizations cachers come up with for not logging DNFs or at least a note. You went, you looked, you didn't find. What is the big deal?

[+beejay&esskay]

I continue to be amazed at all of the rationalizations cachers come up with for not logging DNFs or at least a note. You went, you looked, you didn't find. What is the big deal?

 

Because they still view it as a failure that is too shameful to admit.

 

DNF=Did not find. Not "Did not find but I didn't search well" or "Did not find but since I'm a newbie I hate to admit it".

 

I'm a proud owner of 433 DNF logs.

[+WRASTRO]

I feel so inadequate. I only have 182 DNF logs. Plus that is now less than 10% of my finds so I need to get busy.

[+Isonzo Karst]

166 and counting. I have a sig line.......

 

 

As flask has already mentioned, I've encountered the idea that a DNF should only be logged when/if the cacher is convinced that the cache is missing. I'm not sure where this notion comes from.

 

I will say it took me a while to learn to create a DNF category in cachemate, so I'd have list of DNFs at the end of a day, and prior to working out that incredibly complex bit, I suspect I just plain missed logging a few.

[+Happy Humphrey]

There's an inference with a DNF that you were in a position where you feel you SHOULD have been able to get your hands on the logbook. The fact that you didn't, infers that there MAY be a problem with the cache: even though in fact it may have been down to your incompetence, or the hint being too vague.

 

If you started out for a cache but you know that you were never in a position to actually grab it (e.g. you got halfway down the trail and were turned back by thick vegetation), then post a note. This serves as useful information to others, but makes it clear that there's no reason to believe that the cache is missing.

 

... If there are tons of muggles, maybe I should go at night, or wear a fake moustache... DNFs are as much for searchers after you as for owners.

 

Interesting that in your part of the world, muggles all have moustaches but geocachers don't...

[+Mule Ears]

My DNF-exclusion rules haven't deprived the world of many DNFs. I've logged 44 DNFs and 1100-some finds. (That's not far off the ratio stated by a previous poster.) Most of the caches I search for have high terrain ratings and low difficulty ratings. High-terrain caches tend to be easy finds once you reach them.

 

Since I preferentially hunt high-T/low-D caches, when I don't find a cache it's either missing (which I'll always log) or misrepresented. I'm a lousy searcher, and I Geocache to get some fresh air, not to minutely examine every rock in a rockpile.

 

I've tried to keep this posting as snark-free as possible as an example for those who want to persuade others to follow a more stringent DNF protocol. Asserting moral superiority or assigning negative personality traits/motives to folks who don't follow your example is not persuasive. If you want to convince me that I should post DNFs for caches whose difficulty rating has been understated, tell me why. Tell me what's in it for me. Explain to me how I can avoid sounding petty and peevish in DNFing a cache that's been given a 1/1 rating, but requires an extensive search (borne out by other cacher's find logs). If you believe, as I do, that some cache owners relish DNFs and engage in deliberate sandbagging to attract more cachers to their traps, can you suggest some way to avoid rewarding this behavior?

 

Finally, does anyone have a link to the guidelines regarding DNFs?

[+briansnat]

for all those saying you will not log DNFs if you cannot search for cache due to poison ivy, wrong side of river, muggles, fallen trees or closed roads... This is exactly the kind of info I WANT as a searcher! I don't want to wade through poison ivy, or at least I would like to know so I can suit up properly... If there are tons of muggles, maybe I should go at night, or wear a fake moustache... DNFs are as much for searchers after you as for owners.

 

I agree. I believe that the hunt begins the instant I hit Go To on the GPS and the journey there is as much a part of the hunt as peeking inside hollow tree stumps. If there are obstacles that keep you from even reaching the cache, that is also important info to other geocachers and the cache owner. If I hit Go To on my GPS and come up empty, it's a DNF in my book.

 

I'm super new, so I don't want to log DNF's until I give it a second try a different day. I'm going to go back to a cache I couldn't find yesterday. It was suppose to be an easy to find ammo box and out of 100 finds, I would be the first DNF logged. I guess I don't want to be the poor blind guy who can't see what is right in front of him

 

That is the attitude that a lot of us are trying to fight - the idea that logging a DNF makes you look foolish. It does nothing of the sort. It only means that you hunted the cache and didn't find it. The reason is irrelevant. I once saw a geocacher who has close to 25,000 finds DNF a 1/1 cache that I had found in seconds. For a long time hers was the only DNF in the logs. Sometimes you just don't see it. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

 

Consider this. Most cache owners will check on their cache if there are a few DNFs in a row (I personally will go out there after 3. Maybe even 2 if it's a real easy one).

 

Say the cache is actually missing. Now you come along and don't log a DNF because you don't want to look silly. Then Cacher B arrives and doesn't log a DNF because he doesn't think he searched hard enough. Cacher C looks, comes up empty and logs a DNF. Then Cacher D searches and doesn't log a DNF because he plans on coming back. Now we've had 4 DNFs on the cache, but the cache owner only knows about one. So a needed maintenance visit will probably be delayed and more geocacahers will waste their time on a missing cache.

[+storm180]

I have only logged a few DNF's, because I will usually come back to a spot a few times before I call defeat. No sense to clutter the log file up with a bunch of DNFs if I go back there a few times. Other times I will post a DNF when I am sure the cache was muggled. I just did one last week, where it was under a bridge in a log and my team searched for almost 2 hours and nothing. Cache owner emailed me and asked me if I search in a specific area and I said yes. We made the determination that the cache was missing.

 

If I am caching out of state though and don't find one, I will log a dnf without an issue.

[Skippermark]

I don't get it either. All it means is that you couldn't find it. DNFs are helpful to finders because if there's a lot of DNFs and it's a low rated cache, it's possibly missing. Plus, they're helpful to the cache owner.

 

I log a DNF every time I attempt to search for a cache and will log multiple DNFs if I search more than once. Finds and DNFs are part of the caches history. If a cache only has finds, then it's not showing the true history of the cache.

 

If a cache has DNFs, the owner knows to go check on it. Plus, it can help with difficulty ratings.

 

An owner could place a new cache and may think is easy and rate it a 1.5, but finders actually have a tough time finding it. It's probably not a 1.5, but if no one logs DNFs, then the owner continues to think that people are finding it easy and an underrated cache lives on.

 

I've heard people say they've never logged a DNF. Others will only log a DNF when they've finally given up and won't return to search again.

 

Then there are some who won't log a DNF, but they'll write a note saying, "Tried 3 times but never found it. I won't be back."

 

Why write a note? It should be a DNF.

 

Ugh, don't get me started.

[Skippermark]

Whoops, a double post.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Skippermark

[+Firespinner]

There are several times I've NOT logged a DNF, and it has NEVER been because of laziness or for ego-protection.

 

The one's I've NOT logged:

 

1. I stopped by on the way home from work and only had 5 minutes to cache because I had to get somewhere, so I felt my hunt was half-a**ed anyway and I didn't want to cause a cache owner to think it was muggled since its just because I didn't make a good attempt.

 

2. I didn't have a GPS and was just 'guestimating' based on the map. Again, didn't want the cache owner or other cachers to think it had been muggled. Most likely, it was there and I was in the wrong spot because I didn't have a GPS yet.

 

3. Stopped by and there were too many muggles for me to get out of the car and walk into the bushes without arousing suspision in this type of area...so I didn't even leave the car. I only feel a DNF shoudl be logged if I got out and got into the vacinity of where the cache was supposed to be. But if I had gone twice and there were too many muggles to get in the vacinity and I was sucessful on the third try, I might say something in my log about finding it on my third attempt. It doesn't mean my first two attempts qualifiy as a DNF since it was my lack of stealth that kept me out of the area.

 

4. and numerous times I've been out with the husband or kids and something comes up so that I can't make a full-fledged attempt. Again, this doesn't mean its a DNF since I didn't get the chance to look, but in a later successful log I might mention that this was my second attempt....it IS my second attempt, but the original one wasn't an actual hunt so doesn't warrant a DNF.

[knowschad]

I used to religiously post DNFs back when I cached with paper. I am also a cache owner and so I fully appreciate the value of DNF logs from that standpoint as well.

 

Then I started "powercaching" with a friend that is big into the numbers game. Updating my paper slowed him down. So I started instead to log my finds by marking them as Found on my Legend HCx, which stores finds in the calendar. However, the HCx has no concept of DNF's and so I found myself relying on either memory (NOT good!) or scraps of found paper. I'd get home at the end of a day of caching, and instead of looking at my good old printed cache list, instead I'd be going through the caledar on my GPS to log my finds.

 

By the time I was finished, I'd often forget that I had DNFs, or forget which ones they were. So I know that I missed some during that period.

 

I now am a (somewhat) proud owner of a Garmin Colorado, which does have the concept of logging a DNF, so that should no longer be an issue.

[Skippermark]

One thing I like to do regarding DNFs is go back a couple weeks after I couldn't find the cache and see it's status.

[+briansnat]

1. I stopped by on the way home from work and only had 5 minutes to cache because I had to get somewhere, so I felt my hunt was half-a**ed anyway and I didn't want to cause a cache owner to think it was muggled since its just because I didn't make a good attempt.

 

I've heard this excuse many times, sparing the cache owner worry.

 

Rarely will a cache owner think a cache is missing because of one DNF. This is especially true if your log mentions that you only searched for 5 minutes.

[knowschad]

 

1. I stopped by on the way home from work and only had 5 minutes to cache because I had to get somewhere, so I felt my hunt was half-a**ed anyway ...

 

2. I didn't have a GPS and was just 'guestimating' based on the map...

 

...

 

4. and numerous times I've been out with the husband or kids and something comes up so that I can't make a full-fledged attempt.

 

And if you HAD found the cache in any of those situations, you also would not have posted a Found It log for the same reasons?

[+infiniteMPG]

for all those saying you will not log DNFs if you cannot search for cache due to poison ivy, wrong side of river, muggles, fallen trees or closed roads... This is exactly the kind of info I WANT as a searcher! I don't want to wade through poison ivy, or at least I would like to know so I can suit up properly... If there are tons of muggles, maybe I should go at night, or wear a fake moustache... DNFs are as much for searchers after you as for owners.

I can see your point but if someone logged a DNF on a cache I own because it was surrounded by palmetto bushes and they didn't like pushing thru palmettos, and the next person logged a DNF because they were too hot from the sun and turned back before getting to GZ, and the next person logged a DNF because the direction they approached from had too much poison ivy, and the next person logged a DNF because they heard something rustling in the bushes and they got scared, and the next person couldn't get to GZ because of muggles.... then my cache would have a ton of DNF's and no one would search for it as they would all see it as all DNF's yet it's still there and still active but no one put the effort into looking for it. Lots of people filter out caches with multiple DNF's and won't search for them. Lots of people still push thru palmettos and poison ivy and critters and heat and find the cache and note that in their logs. If someone's really concerned about the area around GZ then you would need to read logs anyway and text in a note will tell you just as much as text in a DNF log.

 

Especially nowadays with everyone just logging 'tftc' on finds, it seems the good info usually (almost always) comes from DNFs (which in my area are few and far between).

Agree with that sentiment more then you can imagine! If the cache was at least half way decent, give the owner a little notice for their efforts and write a log entry.

[+svladcjelli]

DNF does NOT mean cache needs the owner to go check on it, there is a whole other type of log for that.

 

Multiple DNFs should be (and in reality are) commonplace. There are a ton of reasons one could not make it to a cache site, any of which could be interesting to the next person or to the owner, and which at least tell a story.

 

The problem is that people do now filter by too many DNFs since the other shall-not-be-named logtype is underused by some and abused by others.

 

For me, if 3+ experienced cachers have DNF'd and say they have actively searched, if I don't find it, I will very likely drop the NM-bomb.

[+DanOCan]

I agree that logging a DNF is important. As a cache owner, I have now learned to assume that on my easier caches if I don't see any logs for a few weeks that likely it has a problem and people are just not logging the DNFs.

 

What can we do to get more people to log their DNF's?

 

1) At events or functions with new cachers I always stress the importance of logging DNFs when the topic comes up. Education is the biggest key when it comes to getting people to clue into the fact that a DNF is not a failure, it is not something to be ashamed of and hidden -- it is part of your caching history and part of the history of the cache in question.

 

2) When new cachers log DNFs on caches I own I make sure I send them an email thanking them for logging the DNF. Usually I say something like "Yes, the cache was actually missing, thanks for logging a DNF so I knew there was a problem." or "I went and checked on the cache and all is well -- I'm sure you'll get it next time. Thanks for visiting my cache and writing about your experience."

[+ifloydian007]

for all those saying you will not log DNFs if you cannot search for cache due to poison ivy, wrong side of river, muggles, fallen trees or closed roads... This is exactly the kind of info I WANT as a searcher! I don't want to wade through poison ivy, or at least I would like to know so I can suit up properly... If there are tons of muggles, maybe I should go at night, or wear a fake moustache... DNFs are as much for searchers after you as for owners.

I can see your point but if someone logged a DNF on a cache I own because it was surrounded by palmetto bushes and they didn't like pushing thru palmettos, and the next person logged a DNF because they were too hot from the sun and turned back before getting to GZ, and the next person logged a DNF because the direction they approached from had too much poison ivy, and the next person logged a DNF because they heard something rustling in the bushes and they got scared, and the next person couldn't get to GZ because of muggles.... then my cache would have a ton of DNF's and no one would search for it as they would all see it as all DNF's yet it's still there and still active but no one put the effort into looking for it. Lots of people filter out caches with multiple DNF's and won't search for them. Lots of people still push thru palmettos and poison ivy and critters and heat and find the cache and note that in their logs. If someone's really concerned about the area around GZ then you would need to read logs anyway and text in a note will tell you just as much as text in a DNF log.

 

 

This is precisely why I would like DNFs logged. Maybe all those hypothetical DNFs tell me (the cache owner) that I need to update the cache details with these concerns and/or change the difficulty/terrain ratings and/or my cache attributes. That way my potential visitors will be well informed of what experience they may have based on other experiences.

 

Thank you fellow GeoFriends for you input, I have definitely acquired some incite on my original questions.

 

After reading all your replies I still believe the benefits to logging DNFs ar greater for the hinders and finders as opposed to not logging them. I think how we log them and when we log them is critical to their effectiveness based our your replies.

 

To all my Geoniuses:

Thanks,

ifloydian007

[+ifloydian007]

I agree that logging a DNF is important. As a cache owner, I have now learned to assume that on my easier caches if I don't see any logs for a few weeks that likely it has a problem and people are just not logging the DNFs.

 

What can we do to get more people to log their DNF's?

 

1) At events or functions with new cachers I always stress the importance of logging DNFs when the topic comes up. Education is the biggest key when it comes to getting people to clue into the fact that a DNF is not a failure, it is not something to be ashamed of and hidden -- it is part of your caching history and part of the history of the cache in question.

 

2) When new cachers log DNFs on caches I own I make sure I send them an email thanking them for logging the DNF. Usually I say something like "Yes, the cache was actually missing, thanks for logging a DNF so I knew there was a problem." or "I went and checked on the cache and all is well -- I'm sure you'll get it next time. Thanks for visiting my cache and writing about your experience."

 

Great response. I think I will start thanking folks for logging DNFs, although I realize that they probably are not the target audience I want to reach - the ones that normally don't log their DNFs.

 

Thanks,

ifloydian007

[+Firespinner]

1. I stopped by on the way home from work and only had 5 minutes to cache because I had to get somewhere, so I felt my hunt was half-a**ed anyway and I didn't want to cause a cache owner to think it was muggled since its just because I didn't make a good attempt.

 

I've heard this excuse many times, sparing the cache owner worry.

 

Rarely will a cache owner think a cache is missing because of one DNF. This is especially true if your log mentions that you only searched for 5 minutes.

 

Good point. I guess i coudl still mark an DNF and explain that I only looked 5 minutes. I just thought it would be kind of rude and make people wonder why I bothered looking if I was going to go out and be lazy about it. After reading all these responses, I'll probably log them more often.

[+Firespinner]

 

1. I stopped by on the way home from work and only had 5 minutes to cache because I had to get somewhere, so I felt my hunt was half-a**ed anyway ...

 

2. I didn't have a GPS and was just 'guestimating' based on the map...

 

...

 

4. and numerous times I've been out with the husband or kids and something comes up so that I can't make a full-fledged attempt.

 

And if you HAD found the cache in any of those situations, you also would not have posted a Found It log for the same reasons?

 

Of course I would have claimed the find. If I found it within 5 minutes or a half-a'd search was sufficient, then it would count. I guess it just came down to the fact that I felt that logging a DNF was like claiming that I did make a justifiable effort to find it and if I didn't put the effort forth (for whatever reason) then I shouldn't claim to have done so.

 

I guess it's kind of a pet peave of mine when people claim to be something they're not or claim to do something after one half-a'd attempt. So I was thinking of a half-hearted search and DNF log along the same lines. ie..someone I used to know who claims that they love playing the guitar....although they purchased one, strummed it once, then tossed it in the closet to collect dust when they found out that learning took effort....they seem like a 'poser' since they still call themselves a guitar player because of that one half-a'd attempt 5 years ago. I know that might not make sense to most people...but then again, I've never claimed to be normal. LOL.

 

After reading all these comments everyone left to this topic, I will be re-thinking my position on this though and probably logging them more often.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Firespinner

[+Harry Dolphin]

I still do not see anything in the guidelines that posting a DNF is required, necessary, or even expected.

People seem to be making much ado over 'an option'.

[+ifloydian007]

I still do not see anything in the guidelines that posting a DNF is required, necessary, or even expected.

People seem to be making much ado over 'an option'.

 

Easy Steps to Geocaching

 

1. Register for a free account.

2. Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

3. Enter your postal code and click "search."

4. Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

5. Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS unit.

6. Use your GPS unit to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

8. Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

For that matter why log your finds too?

 

I don't think we're "making much ado over an option". We're pointing out the benefits of logging a DNF.

 

As usual, thanks for your thoughts on this matter.

ifloydian007

Edited July 24, 2008 by ifloydian007

[+briansnat]

I still do not see anything in the guidelines that posting a DNF is required, necessary, or even expected.

People seem to be making much ado over 'an option'.

 

There is nothing that says posting a Found it is required or necessary either. I think however both Found Its and DNFs are expected by most geocachers.

[+briansnat]

I can see your point but if someone logged a DNF on a cache I own because it was surrounded by palmetto bushes and they didn't like pushing thru palmettos, and the next person logged a DNF because they were too hot from the sun and turned back before getting to GZ, and the next person logged a DNF because the direction they approached from had too much poison ivy, and the next person logged a DNF because they heard something rustling in the bushes and they got scared, and the next person couldn't get to GZ because of muggles.... then my cache would have a ton of DNF's and no one would search for it as they would all see it as all DNF's yet it's still there and still active but no one put the effort into looking for it. Lots of people filter out caches with multiple DNF's and won't search for them. Lots of people still push thru palmettos and poison ivy and critters and heat and find the cache and note that in their logs. If someone's really concerned about the area around GZ then you would need to read logs anyway and text in a note will tell you just as much as text in a DNF log.

 

That's exactly why those DNFs should be logged. Perhaps as an owner you rated the terrain too low and people were getting in over their heads, then chickening out. You'd never know that if they weren't logging DNFs.

 

It would also tell me as a fellow geocacher that if I want to do that cache perhaps I'd better wear long pants to protect myself from the PI and palmettos, and allocate some extra time because it's no park n grab.

[+briansnat]

I can see your point but if someone logged a DNF on a cache I own because it was surrounded by palmetto bushes and they didn't like pushing thru palmettos, and the next person logged a DNF because they were too hot from the sun and turned back before getting to GZ, and the next person logged a DNF because the direction they approached from had too much poison ivy, and the next person logged a DNF because they heard something rustling in the bushes and they got scared, and the next person couldn't get to GZ because of muggles.... then my cache would have a ton of DNF's and no one would search for it as they would all see it as all DNF's yet it's still there and still active but no one put the effort into looking for it. Lots of people filter out caches with multiple DNF's and won't search for them. Lots of people still push thru palmettos and poison ivy and critters and heat and find the cache and note that in their logs. If someone's really concerned about the area around GZ then you would need to read logs anyway and text in a note will tell you just as much as text in a DNF log.

 

That's exactly why those DNFs should be logged. Perhaps as an owner you rated the terrain too low and people were getting in over their heads, then chickening out. You'd never know that if they weren't logging DNFs.

 

It would also tell me as a fellow geocacher that if I want to do that cache perhaps I'd better wear long pants to protect myself from the PI and palmettos, and allocate some extra time because it's no park n grab.

[+bluenoserstoo]

We have a cacher is our community who has no problem logging a DNF what so ever. When they do find the cache though they delete there DNF. They usually put something in the log like we worked for that find so we are taking back our DNF.

This is robbing the cache of it's history. I know that someone has spoken to them about this but it continues on. So really what can be done. They are going to continue on doing what they think is best.

At the end of the day it's just a game and we can't change everyone. We can educate new cachers coming in to the rules and regulations were they in turn will do the same.

 

We own several caches that are quite difficult and have found later that cachers have gone back 5or6 times to find it without ever logging a DNF. Yes we get fusterated but really what can you do. We recently were thanked for logging a DNF on a cache that we just couldn't find.I thought that was a nice touch that the cache owner took the time to email us.We may just have to start doing that ourselves.

[+NoHandsGPS]

I always log a DNF if I truly search for the cache. I always hope that the cache owner will give me some kind of clue. I usually only have my GPS and not a paper printout to help me locate the cache.

[+beejay&esskay]

I always log a DNF if I truly search for a cache and cannot sign a log.

 

Of course, for me "truly" is pushing the "go to" button.

[+TotemLake]

I've avoided responding to this because in truth, everyone has a different feeling about what the DNF is.

 

Newbs view it as an embarrassing experience. Right or wrong, it's an admission of having a hard time for any number of reasons at finding a cache when everybody else seems to be making it a cake walk.

 

DNFs aren't generally talked about thus adding more scuff to the shine.

 

Folks at events generally focus on their adventures of Finds and rarely talk about DNFs. And when it is discussed, there is a general consensus the DNFr might be looking for a hint to help find the cache.

 

I got over my DNF fear because I ended up surrounding myself with people who had no problem with logging and talking about it. It turned out there were some pretty funny stories and great adventures at their attempt. They turned a misadventure into something to talk about over pizza and beer. TravisL, a notorious DNFr in our area had written some of his best logs describing his misadventures. I began to realize DNFs are as much a part of the game as a Find, and all of a sudden, it became cool.

 

Make DNFs part of your general conversations and you will begin to see a change in attitude about logging them.

Edited July 24, 2008 by TotemLake

[+ifloydian007]

We have a cacher is our community who has no problem logging a DNF what so ever. When they do find the cache though they delete there DNF. They usually put something in the log like we worked for that find so we are taking back our DNF.

This is robbing the cache of it's history. I know that someone has spoken to them about this but it continues on. So really what can be done. They are going to continue on doing what they think is best.

At the end of the day it's just a game and we can't change everyone. We can educate new cachers coming in to the rules and regulations were they in turn will do the same.

 

...

 

 

I've avoided responding to this because in truth, everyone has a different feeling about what the DNF is.

 

Newbs view it as an embarrassing experience. Right or wrong, it's an admission of having a hard time for any number of reasons at finding a cache when everybody else seems to be making it a cake walk.

 

DNFs aren't generally talked about thus adding more scuff to the shine.

 

Folks at events generally focus on their adventures of Finds and rarely talk about DNFs. And when it is discussed, there is a general consensus the DNFr might be looking for a hint to help find the cache.

 

I got over my DNF fear because I ended up surrounding myself with people who had no problem with logging and talking about it. It turned out there were some pretty funny stories and great adventures at their attempt. They turned a misadventure into something to talk about over pizza and beer. TravisL, a notorious DNFr in our area had written some of his best logs describing his misadventures. I began to realize DNFs are as much a part of the game as a Find, and all of a sudden, it became cool.

 

Make DNFs part of your general conversations and you will begin to see a change in attitude about logging them.

 

I think this is precisely the problem and I was hunting for a solution. To my knowledge, the Geocaching site doesn't inform cachers of what a DNF is, why we should log them, and what constitutes a DNF. The "Getting Started" section of the page has no such information. I am merely pointing out that some cachers don't log DNFs because they haven't been told to, nor told the importance of why to log them. As seen in this thread some people even believe that when logging a DNF they will not be able to log a Find because they don't know any better.

 

Maybe we can request that Groundspeak add this information to inform new users in a F.A.Q.?!?

Something to the effect of:

 

What is a DNF? Did Not Find

 

When should you log a DNF? When you have attempted to find a cache and were unsuccessful. When logging a DNF please try to describe your attempt to locate the cache. (maybe we could include some examples of a valid DNF as to not confuse this with someone giving up because they couldn't gain access to the cache site, were scared, didn't like the environment (poison ivy, etc.), etc)

 

Will logging a DNF deny me the ability to log a Find at a later date? Absolutely not! You can always return to the Geocaching page for the cache and log your find even after a previous attempt that ended in a DNF.

 

Does logging a DNF make me a bad person? By no means. Logging a DNF is a way of telling the cache owner and fellow cache hunters the status of a cache. Maybe it's more difficult than the Owners rating describes. Maybe its coordinates are a little off (soft). This information, in most cases, is beneficial for both Cachers and Cache Owners. In some cases Cache Owners may provide you an additional hint or you could request an additional hint. After a few DNFs are logged by different cache hunters a Cache Owner may decide to physically check for the cache's existence.

 

I think a similar FAQ can be created for logging a Find. Also, when to write a note.

 

Any thoughts?,

ifloydian007

Edited July 24, 2008 by ifloydian007

[+Mule Ears]

ifloydian007, that's a great start, and a pleasant departure from the frenzy of self-congratulation that's dominated this thread up to now.

 

The point that's likely to be sticky is this: The term is "DNF (did not find)." In the context of Geocaching, a "Find" is the result of a successful search. What constitutes a "search" then? One of the more stringent definitions that's popped up several times has been 'selecting a cache waypoint and hitting GOTO.' This doesn't make sense to me. When I'm suiting up for a hike and I press GOTO, I am not searching. The cache is miles away. If I find that the trail's closed and cancel my hike, it's not a DNF. If I ditch the hike at this point because bad weather blows in, it's not a DNF. If I get halfway through the hike and sprain my ankle, causing me to turn back (ha!), it's not a DNF. Until I have arrived at the general area in which the cache is located, I can't search. If I can't search, I can't find. If I don't find because I'm nowhere near the cache, logging my experience as a DNF makes no sense to me. If I have something to share via the cache page, a Note seems more logical.

 

The DNF enthusiasts will say that this is "just an excuse," but they've got a real uphill struggle convincing me that Did Not Get a Chance to Look is equivalent to Did Not Find.

[+beejay&esskay]

Maybe we can request that Groundspeak add this information to inform new users in a F.A.Q.?!?

 

When should you log a DNF? When you have attempted to find a cache and were unsuccessful. When logging a DNF please try to describe your attempt to locate the cache. (maybe we could include some examples of a valid DNF as to not confuse this with someone giving up because they couldn't gain access to the cache site, were scared, didn't like the environment (poison ivy, etc.), etc)

 

Any thoughts?,

ifloydian007

 

I suspect you will not get a FAQ entry because there is no general agreement on when you should log a DNF.

 

I searched for a cemetery cache yesterday. It was quite near a post covered by what appeared to be poison ivy and there had been poison ivy comments in the past logs.

 

If I had abandoned the search because of poison ivy, I would have logged a DNF and explained why.

 

I doubt that the cache owner would have rushed out to make sure the cache was still there.

 

The ratio of finds to DNFs gives some idea of how hard it is to find the cache...and PI is definitely a factor in finding some caches.

Edited July 24, 2008 by beejay&esskay

[+larryc43230]

ifloydian007, that's a great start, and a pleasant departure from the frenzy of self-congratulation that's dominated this thread up to now.

 

... Until I have arrived at the general area in which the cache is located, I can't search. If I can't search, I can't find. If I don't find because I'm nowhere near the cache, logging my experience as a DNF makes no sense to me. If I have something to share via the cache page, a Note seems more logical.

I agree with you overall, with one exception: I've gone after caches where the only real challenge is finding how to get to Ground Zero. There may be only one feasible way to get to the site due to terrain like rivers, cliffs, etc., and finding that approach is the only difficult part of finding the cache.

 

If I used your rules on when to log a DNF, there would be no (or few) DNFs for this sort of cache. Anyone not finding the approach would either not log at all or only add a Note.

 

--Larry

[+Mule Ears]

I agree with you overall, with one exception: I've gone after caches where the only real challenge is finding how to get to Ground Zero. There may be only one feasible way to get to the site due to terrain like rivers, cliffs, etc., and finding that approach is the only difficult part of finding the cache.

 

If I used your rules on when to log a DNF, there would be no (or few) DNFs for this sort of cache. Anyone not finding the approach would either not log at all or only add a Note.

 

--Larry

 

I'm not sure that maximizing the number of DNFs should be a goal of the guideline. A cache that's easy to find (once you get there) should have few DNFs. The fact that it's hard to get to should be clear from the terrain rating, description, and find logs. If there's some new wrinkle, such as a road/trail closure, it's appropriate to log a Note or to directly email the owner for an update to the description.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Mule Ears

[+Pottersarah]

 

Will logging a DNF deny me the ability to log a Find at a later date? Absolutely not! You can always return to the Geocaching page for the cache and log your find even after a previous attempt that ended in a DNF.

This is where I was confused, as a newbie. I thought you either found or didn't find a cache and couldn't go back and log a find. That was a big part of my not logging DNFs; I intended to go back to them and try again. I think an FAQ like this would be really helpful.

[+Patriot Games]

If we've put our best effort into finding the cache and just cannot find it we will usually, not always, log a dnf. especially if there are other dnf's logged, so the owner can check on it.

 

If we run out of time or it's getting dark etc. and we will be back to search again we don't.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I still do not see anything in the guidelines that posting a DNF is required, necessary, or even expected.

People seem to be making much ado over 'an option'.

 

Easy Steps to Geocaching

 

1. Register for a free account.

2. Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

3. Enter your postal code and click "search."

4. Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

5. Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS unit.

6. Use your GPS unit to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

8. Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

For that matter why log your finds too?

 

I don't think we're "making much ado over an option". We're pointing out the benefits of logging a DNF.

 

As usual, thanks for your thoughts on this matter.

ifloydian007

 

There was a point to this post? The subject is "Is logging a DNF reall that hard?" Not "What are the benefits of logging a DNF, and why should everyone log all of theirs?"

I log my finds because I enjoy doing so.

I think I've spelt out most of my reasons for not logging every DNF.

Both are options. Neither is required.

Still think you're making a big ado over an option.

[+briansnat]

The fact that it's hard to get to should be clear from the terrain rating, description, and find logs.

 

Should be but we all know that isn't the case. I've had a few caches where I needed to adjust the terrain and/or difficulty ratings. How did I know to do this? Because people logged DNFs.

[+ifloydian007]

I still do not see anything in the guidelines that posting a DNF is required, necessary, or even expected.

People seem to be making much ado over 'an option'.

 

Easy Steps to Geocaching

 

1. Register for a free account.

2. Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

3. Enter your postal code and click "search."

4. Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

5. Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS unit.

6. Use your GPS unit to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

8. Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

For that matter why log your finds too?

 

I don't think we're "making much ado over an option". We're pointing out the benefits of logging a DNF.

 

As usual, thanks for your thoughts on this matter.

ifloydian007

 

There was a point to this post? The subject is "Is logging a DNF reall that hard?" Not "What are the benefits of logging a DNF, and why should everyone log all of theirs?"

I log my finds because I enjoy doing so.

I think I've spelt out most of my reasons for not logging every DNF.

Both are options. Neither is required.

Still think you're making a big ado over an option.

 

Point to my post? Nope...not at all. You read it. You provided input. Thanks for that. It was helpful.

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled program....

[+paleolith]

I think some of it is the standardized test syndrome. Today we are taught that your score is right minus wrong. Of course in caching, wrong (DNF) doesn't count, just right. (And in Real Life it's about the same. I learned long ago that if I stick my neck out, mostly people remember when I was right and not when I was wrong.)

 

I found the first cache I looked for. Didn't find the second one. Logged both of them.

 

Edward