Is logging a DNF really that hard?

[+KBI]

ifloydian007;

 

I agree with your many reasons why it is good to log DNFs, and forgive me if this has already been covered -- I did not read the entire thread -- but I sometimes choose not to log DNFs on caches I fail to find, and I believe I have a very valid reason:

 

Logging a DNF sometimes prompts uninvited and unwanted spoilers.

 

Many times I have searched for a cache that I had good reason to believe (from the logs, etc.) was an excellent hide, and one which I therefore had good reason to believe would have been very satisfying to find on my own without help. Many of those times I have documented my first failed attempt with a DNF. Some of those DNFs have resulted in the cache owner, or previous finders, sending me emails with unwanted hints, or even total spoilers.

 

DNFs can be a good thing, but I have learned that the best way to prevent having a great cache hunt spoiled is to NOT log a DNF.

 

See this thread, which I started a about a year ago, for more discussion on this concept.

[+Mule Ears]

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.

 

So an effort to define DNFs in a way that eliminates some of the ambiguity would be helpful, no? And if the information came to you via a direct email or a Note it would still be helpful, no?

 

The failure to properly define DNF at the outset has allowed cachers to adopt their own standards, which mostly err on using this type of log as sparingly as possible. Many posters to this thread say that's not good and claim to abide by more stringent standards. But nobody except the OP has tried to get at any kind of solution. Not directed at you in particular, briansnat, but I don't think that the disapproval of forum posters is going to encourage more people to log their DNFs. Advocating a protocol that doesn't make sense (the "GOTO button") isn't going to help.

[buckeyealum]

There's a brand new cache in my area with no finders yet. The owner just posted the following note ... "We have gotten several e-mails asking us to check and see if the cache is still there, and as of first thing this morning it is still there. Good Luck!" Apparently, 'several' cachers have decided not to post DNFs.

 

I have also read a number of logged DNFs that say something like ... 'since I see others have posted DNFs, I guess I'll admit to mine also'!

 

Seems as though some cachers are embarassed to post DNFs. I just don't understand that, unless ... mmm ... wonder if it could have anything to do with the huge, traveling, 'DNFers Wall Of Shame' that is on display at all our area events?

[+muney4nuthin]

Also new to this and didnt know the people putting out the caches wanted us to log our dnf's...guess I will start logging them.

[+Firespinner]

here's an odd thing.....now that I have read all the replies and reconsidered when to log a DNF....I have ran across two instances yesterday (one in the forums, different topic and one on a cache page) where the owners do NOT want DNF's logged. One has deleted other cachers DNF's and the other specifically says on the cache page that DNF's should NOT be logged.

 

I guess it's one of those things that different cache owners will want different things......can't please everyone. **shrug**

[+Miragee]

here's an odd thing.....now that I have read all the replies and reconsidered when to log a DNF....I have ran across two instances yesterday (one in the forums, different topic and one on a cache page) where the owners do NOT want DNF's logged. One has deleted other cachers DNF's and the other specifically says on the cache page that DNF's should NOT be logged.

 

I guess it's one of those things that different cache owners will want different things......can't please everyone. **shrug**

Interesting . . . There is a cache owner in Yuma, Arizona who places some very devious, tricky, evil caches. He won't give out a hint until the cacher has posted a DNF.

[+Renegade Knight]

here's an odd thing.....now that I have read all the replies and reconsidered when to log a DNF....I have ran across two instances yesterday (one in the forums, different topic and one on a cache page) where the owners do NOT want DNF's logged. One has deleted other cachers DNF's and the other specifically says on the cache page that DNF's should NOT be logged.

 

I guess it's one of those things that different cache owners will want different things......can't please everyone. **shrug**

That really gets in the way of logging my caching experience. Like it or not I did have an experience at their cache. They may not want to hear about it but I want to capture it.

 

As an owner I'm with that Yuma cacher mentioned by Miragee. Don't ask for a hint unless I can see your DNF.

[+Miragee]

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.

 

So an effort to define DNFs in a way that eliminates some of the ambiguity would be helpful, no? And if the information came to you via a direct email or a Note it would still be helpful, no?

 

The failure to properly define DNF at the outset has allowed cachers to adopt their own standards, which mostly err on using this type of log as sparingly as possible. Many posters to this thread say that's not good and claim to abide by more stringent standards. But nobody except the OP has tried to get at any kind of solution. <snip>

Several months ago, I suggested a change to the "Log Your Visit" page where definitions of the Log Types could fill all the blank space on the right hand side of the page.

 

 

I think some "definitions" of the log types on that page would be helpful.

 

For my own caches, I don't want to receive notice of a DNF unless the cacher actually got to GZ, but if they got there and didn't find the cache, I want them to log their DNF. As long as their log lets me know whether they looked for one minute, or twenty, I can make a decision about whether to check on the cache, or not.

 

Since my caches are very lonely, I would appreciate receiving an email for a "Note" if someone almost went on a search for the cache, like this recent "Note," but didn't really search.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think some "definitions" of the log types on that page would be helpful....

Mule Ears has a point.

My version of DNF means I came, I looked, I have given up in defeat having exaused all angles in my search. Conversly I don't want a DNF log unless it really got the best of them. I use DNF's to cross check my difficulty rating.

 

I've seen DNF mean:

"I set out for the cache but my girlfriend came over before I got to the car, and we did other things"

"I set out for the cache, then got a flat tire..."

"I got there but I was hungry so I got distracted by fast food"

"I got there, saw a lamp post, and left"

"I got there looked for a little bit, decided it's missing, and quit"

"I got there, looked in the one place where I would have put it, it's wasn't there, I'm stumped".

 

and so on.

 

Almost all of those versions don't help me rate the true and actual find difficulty.

[+CrippledBlindSquirrel]

Well after more than 100 posts and three pages of reading I think that I can speak for most of us who are new to caching when I say that it appears there is absolutely no concensus about when it is appropriate to post a DNF and when it is not. I also could not get a clear read on the appropriateness of posting a note about any unusual circumstances that prevented the completion of the search.

 

I guess I will continue to hold the rules I've established for myself (posted way up towards the start of this thread) since it would appear that they are at least as valid as those of anyone else. The first thing I noticed about the logs was the preponderance of the TFTCTNLNSL entries. I figured out pretty quickly that those log entries are of little benefit to both the owner and the searchers who follow. I make an effort to write something that speaks to both the owner and those that come behind me.

 

I think that I am like most other new cachers, we will accept instruction and adapt to the conventions of the sport. In the matter of DNF's there doesn't appear to be a convention.

[+WebChimp]

I have recently noticed that on a relatively new cache I hid that the are no DNFs logged. But that are a few references by cachers that they previously did not find the cache and returned. They only logged the find and not their previous DNFs.

So, my question is why do you think people don't sign the cache logs with DNFs on Geocaching.com?

 

Here's a novel approach........

 

Send an email to the cachers and ask them directly. My guess is they'll tell you the answer. Just think of all the speculation that could be avoided.

[+DanOCan]

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.

 

I agree. While I consider myself a DNF enthusiast, I will not log a DNF if I don't actually reach Ground Zero and begin a search. If I attempt a cache and I either can't find parking or the proper trail head I will likely log that experience as a Note instead of a DNF.

 

The whole reason I don't subscribe to the "the search starts as soon as I hit GoTo" is that I know a lot of people are like me and filter out caches if there is a certain number of DNFs in a row.

[+johnling]

With only 20 finds I had one cache I could have logged DNF. I decided I would just come back the next day rather than log a DNF. The next day I ran into the cache owner replacing it. It was not there when I was looking so I was glad I didn't log it as DNF.

[+beejay&esskay]

It was not there when I was looking so I was glad I didn't log it as DNF.

 

 

Just to point out the obvious:

 

Whether it was there or not, you still didn't find it.

[+Renegade Knight]

With only 20 finds I had one cache I could have logged DNF. I decided I would just come back the next day rather than log a DNF. The next day I ran into the cache owner replacing it. It was not there when I was looking so I was glad I didn't log it as DNF.

 

Apparently it was someone elses DNF that let the onwner know it was missing so they could replace it.

DNF serves a purpose. Had they not been aware it was missting your lack of a DNF could cause a bunch of folks to waste their time looking for nothing.

[+Renegade Knight]

Well after more than 100 posts and three pages of reading I think that I can speak for most of us who are new to caching when I say that it appears there is absolutely no concensus about when it is appropriate to post a DNF and when it is not. ...

 

Reverse the question.

 

At what point do you get the most agreement on what would be a DNF? Where is our common ground?

 

It's "I tried my dangdest to find your cache and failed".

Edited July 25, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+CrippledBlindSquirrel]

Well after more than 100 posts and three pages of reading I think that I can speak for most of us who are new to caching when I say that it appears there is absolutely no concensus about when it is appropriate to post a DNF and when it is not. ...

 

Reverse the question.

 

At what point do you get the most agreement on what would be a DNF? Where is our common ground?

 

It's "I tried my dangdest to find your cache and failed".

 

I think that everyone agrees that "I tried my dangdest to find your cache and failed" is or at least should be the ultimate result that should generate a DNF but I have seen a great variety of opinions as to when one reaches that point. The range seems to run from when you hit the "go to" button and then don't ultimately find the cache for any reason whatsoever, including never completing the trip to ground zero - to the other extreme where you find ground zero nuked and would still not be required to log a DNF if you held a hope for a spontaneous regeneration of the site.

 

I have outlined what consitiutes my "dangdest" under all but the most unusual circumstances. There are many who don't think I'm right. I think the current answer in the caching community to the question "What's so hard about logging a DNF?" right now is - "Nothing - as long as I satisfy myself that it should be logged." That is an answer that allows everyone to do as they think best. I am up for that as long as 3/4's of the community doesn't want to slap me down for doing it.

[+two ninjas and mom]

I try hard to remember to log my DNF's both here in in my own blog - but unless it's driving me absolutely batty, I'll log one DNF and then when I finally find it I'll say 3rd times the charm or it took me x number of times. Usually it's my own stupidity that makes it a DNF - which reminds me...i have to go log some DNF's right now

[+frosted minny minks]

i think for newbies (speaking primarily from my 4-cache experience), there might be some intimidation involved, moreso than pride. i don't care if everyone knows i didn't find something, but i want to lay somewhat low at first and not clutter logs with inexperienced ramblings and rookie mistakes., especially if the hiders get emails every time someone logs. maybe i just didn't look hard enough. but now that i've read this thread (most of it, anyway) i'll be sure to use the DNF as a vital component of the system.

Edited July 28, 2008 by frosted minny minks

[+briansnat]

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.

 

I agree. While I consider myself a DNF enthusiast, I will not log a DNF if I don't actually reach Ground Zero and begin a search. If I attempt a cache and I either can't find parking or the proper trail head I will likely log that experience as a Note instead of a DNF.

 

The whole reason I don't subscribe to the "the search starts as soon as I hit GoTo" is that I know a lot of people are like me and filter out caches if there is a certain number of DNFs in a row.

 

It makes sense to me. When I hit Go To on my GPS I've begun the hunt for the cache. If I begin the hunt and don't find the cache it's a DNF in my book.

 

Reverse the question.

 

At what point do you get the most agreement on what would be a DNF? Where is our common ground?

 

It's "I tried my dangdest to find your cache and failed".

 

It's the point where most will agree that it's a DNF, but calling it common ground is misleading because many people don't agree with that as the only criterion for a DNF. It's more a lowest common denominator than common ground.

 

I know as a cache owner I want to know if people are hunting for my cache and what the end result was. If people are only logging their finds and their "tried their dangdest" DNFs, there will probably be a lot of hunts for my cache that I would never know about. I know cache owners who will archive a cache when it appears that the number of searchers has dropped off. If only Found Its and "dried their dangdest" DNFs are logged it may give the owner a misleading picture of how many people are actually looking for it.

 

I'm pretty sure that I speak for a lot of cache owners in saying that reading the logs is a big part of the joys of cache ownership and often the funniest or most interesting logs are DNFs where the hunter never even reached the cache site.

Edited July 28, 2008 by briansnat

[+Guinness70]

I see the purpose for a DNF now. I logged a DNF once and then few days later found it and changed the DNF to a find.

maybe better i had better left the DNF and put in a new log this time as Found it ?

 

-//-

I like to see the DNF's on my evil hides, -//-

isnt it all about masking the cache for mugglers but make it obvious to locate for cachers?

Edited July 28, 2008 by Guinness70

[+beejay&esskay]

I see the purpose for a DNF now. I logged a DNF once and then few days later found it and changed the DNF to a find.

maybe better i had better left the DNF and put in a new log this time as Found it ?

 

-//-

I like to see the DNF's on my evil hides, -//-

isnt it all about masking the cache for mugglers but make it obvious to locate for cachers?

 

1. I think most of us think it would be better to leave the original DNF as an indication of cache history. Just because you found it one day doesn't mean that your previous DNF was "wrong".

 

2. That was, probably, the initial thought. But as the game evolved quite a few cacher owners delighted in making it hard for cachers to find also. I haven't looked for any of wapahani's caches yet, but when I do, I will report the results in the online log (since DNFs are as easy to post as Finds.)

[Mr.Yuck]

Hi GeoFriends,

I have recently noticed that on a relatively new cache I hid that the are no DNFs logged. But that are a few references by cachers that they previously did not find the cache and returned. They only logged the find and not their previous DNFs.

 

"This was the second try. "

"When back after reading the info and could not believe I missed it."

"looked 4 about 15 minutes but i coundnt find it. So I came back today"

"I must admit that my first visit here was alittle hairy, as I was being watched! Second time I came after 7:30pm"

 

So, my question is why do you think people don't sign the cache logs with DNFs on Geocaching.com?

My thoughts are:

a ) their lazy

b ) they think DNFs make them look bad

 

 

I see this all the time!! It's great fun to say something in your find log along the lines of, "that's funny, I don't see any DNF's by so-so". Oh who cares, they're just "playing the game their way".

[+Mule Ears]

-cut-

I know as a cache owner I want to know if people are hunting for my cache and what the end result was. If people are only logging their finds and their "tried their dangdest" DNFs, there will probably be a lot of hunts for my cache that I would never know about. I know cache owners who will archive a cache when it appears that the number of searchers has dropped off. If only Found Its and "dried their dangdest" DNFs are logged it may give the owner a misleading picture of how many people are actually looking for it.

 

I'm pretty sure that I speak for a lot of cache owners in saying that reading the logs is a big part of the joys of cache ownership and often the funniest or most interesting logs are DNFs where the hunter never even reached the cache site.

 

As a cache owner, I like reading logs, too. But the reality is that people don't like logging DNFs. There's no positive incentive for logging a DNF and no guideline for doing so. Newcomers to caching either parse the phrase "did not find" and arrive at their own definition, or they emulate others. So we end up with a minimalist approach to DNFs.

 

If you want to see more logs that document folks' activities involving your cache, what are you willing to do about it? What incentive can you offer? Since the DNF log type is unpopular (and undefined), would you accept a Note under certain circumstances instead? If not, why not?

 

I made a recon run to check out the approach to a new cache this weekend. I had an hour to accomplish my purpose; roundtrip to the cache would have required eight. I posted a Note. Logging a DNF would have been nonsensical. If a GOTO guideline were in place, I would not have posted a log.

[+Renegade Knight]

Well after more than 100 posts and three pages of reading I think that I can speak for most of us who are new to caching when I say that it appears there is absolutely no concensus about when it is appropriate to post a DNF and when it is not. ...

 

Reverse the question.

 

At what point do you get the most agreement on what would be a DNF? Where is our common ground?

 

It's "I tried my dangdest to find your cache and failed".

 

I think that everyone agrees that "I tried my dangdest to find your cache and failed" is or at least should be the ultimate result that should generate a DNF but I have seen a great variety of opinions as to when one reaches that point....

 

If "hit goto" is your dangdest best effort to find a cache and you failed, well heck, then we are in agreement. The I posed isn't "When would you log a DNF?" it's When would we all agree that we should log one?" Perhaps the distinction is a bit too subtle?

[+CrippledBlindSquirrel]

I guess the last word in this discussion will be like the last words in the book of Judges...."In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did whatever he wanted." (Judges 21:25 HCSB)

 

That, I suspect, is both the strength and the weakness of this sport. I do like the idea of different/more logging choices (ala Mule Ears) to cover some of the major "what ifs" discussed here. I don't know how hard that would be to program - or even agree on - at Groundspeak.

[+briansnat]

I made a recon run to check out the approach to a new cache this weekend. I had an hour to accomplish my purpose; roundtrip to the cache would have required eight. I posted a Note. Logging a DNF would have been nonsensical. If a GOTO guideline were in place, I would not have posted a log.

 

If there was no intent to hunt the cache then I agree. For me hitting Go To has to be done with the intent of finding the cache.

 

If you want to see more logs that document folks' activities involving your cache, what are you willing to do about it? What incentive can you offer? Since the DNF log type is unpopular (and undefined), would you accept a Note under certain circumstances instead? If not, why not?

There isn't much anybody can do other than encourage the practice here in the forums. Nearly every time this thread comes up a novice or two realizes that he should start logging his DNFs. I know its only a small segment of geocachers, but its a start.

 

As far as accepting a note, I have little choice as the cache owner. I'm not one for deleting logs without good cause. I would prefer that the log types are accurate, but if someone wants to log a note instead of a DNF, no skin off my toenails. I think it's kind of silly to log a note to avoid logging a DNF, but people have the perfect right to be silly.

[+tozainamboku]

Well after more than 100 posts and three pages of reading I think that I can speak for most of us who are new to caching when I say that it appears there is absolutely no concensus about when it is appropriate to post a DNF and when it is not. ...

 

Reverse the question.

 

At what point do you get the most agreement on what would be a DNF? Where is our common ground?

 

It's "I tried my dangdest to find your cache and failed".

 

I think that everyone agrees that "I tried my dangdest to find your cache and failed" is or at least should be the ultimate result that should generate a DNF but I have seen a great variety of opinions as to when one reaches that point....

 

If "hit goto" is your dangdest best effort to find a cache and you failed, well heck, then we are in agreement. The I posed isn't "When would you log a DNF?" it's When would we all agree that we should log one?" Perhaps the distinction is a bit too subtle?

The problem is that some people wouldn't log a DNF even if they "tried their dangdest to find the cache and failed". Heck, some people don't even log their finds online. People confuse online logging with geocaching. A week ago there was no rule to log anything online. That changed with the update to the FAQ last week, but I still challenge how one could enforce a rule that says "Log your experience at www.geocaching.com." Of course this discussion in the forum is to try to come to consensus over when you should log a DNF. That should be somewhere in between "I hit the Goto button on my GPSr" and "I tried my dangdest and give up". But I doubt it will ever be narrowed down much beyond this. Seems like the only thing the community will agree on is that it is not "I looked at the cache page and since I'll never find that one, I'll post a DNF."

[+Mule Ears]

As far as accepting a note, I have little choice as the cache owner. I'm not one for deleting logs without good cause. I would prefer that the log types are accurate, but if someone wants to log a note instead of a DNF, no skin off my toenails. I think it's kind of silly to log a note to avoid logging a DNF, but people have the perfect right to be silly.

 

We're in agreement in principle, but disagree as to the meaning of Did Not Find. My interpretation is logical and consistent. I'll grant that yours is, too. But I'm silly, apparently, for disagreeing with your interpretation. I missed that chapter in How to Win Friends and Influence People, the one in which you bring people around to your position by trivializing theirs.

 

The fact that you'd even consider deleting a Note because by your reckoning it would more properly be a DNF is shocking. What about a find logged as a Note? Your finger would hover over the delete button, for that, too?

[+Renegade Knight]

... People confuse online logging with geocaching. A week ago there was no rule to log anything online...

 

Maybe we all can agree on this one. "Log your DNF online and not in the cache log book". But then, maybe not.

[+Renegade Knight]

...What incentive can you offer?...

 

Two things come to mine.

You can't even see the clue to decrypt it if you haven't logged a DNF. That would create a lot of angst and change the dynamic of the clue.

Being able to log a DNF but not attach your name to it. The owner would only know that the cache wasn't found. Handy to keep your rating accurate.

[+beejay&esskay]

Maybe we all can agree on this one. "Log your DNF online and not in the cache log book". But then, maybe not.

 

Thanks for a bit of humor in a thread where it is clear that there will continue to be profound differences.

[+Mule Ears]

...What incentive can you offer?...

 

Two things come to mine.

You can't even see the clue to decrypt it if you haven't logged a DNF. That would create a lot of angst and change the dynamic of the clue.

Being able to log a DNF but not attach your name to it. The owner would only know that the cache wasn't found. Handy to keep your rating accurate.

 

Those are actually interesting proposals and on-topic, to boot. Not a snow cone's chance in a pizza oven of being adopted, but interesting. Some owners informally promise additional hints and help to anyone posting a DNF. But anonymous DNFs? Heh. How many takers are you expecting on that one?

[+crevis79]

I always log the first and second attempt. after that if there are other people finding the cache i don't log more DNF's.

 

If I notice that there are other DNF's i will log again though...

[+Machuco]

I just logged two DNF's because I went to the spot, looked around and didn't find the cache. I'm so proud of myself!

[+Always & Forever 5]

I log DNF's only when I don't plan to continue looking, either the same day or any other. In other words, on day one of a search, if I don't find the cache but plan on returning tomorrow to continue looking, then I don't log anything. After all, it's not a DNF if I haven't finished looking yet, is it?

 

However, if I have looked, not found, and don't plan on coming back to finish looking (for example, a cache I stop by to hunt on vacation somewhere), then I log a DNF. For the OP to assume it's either my laziness or I somehow have "failed" if I don't log a DNF is just a wrong assumption on their part.

[+briansnat]

As far as accepting a note, I have little choice as the cache owner. I'm not one for deleting logs without good cause. I would prefer that the log types are accurate, but if someone wants to log a note instead of a DNF, no skin off my toenails. I think it's kind of silly to log a note to avoid logging a DNF, but people have the perfect right to be silly.

 

We're in agreement in principle, but disagree as to the meaning of Did Not Find. My interpretation is logical and consistent. I'll grant that yours is, too. But I'm silly, apparently, for disagreeing with your interpretation. I missed that chapter in How to Win Friends and Influence People, the one in which you bring people around to your position by trivializing theirs.

 

The fact that you'd even consider deleting a Note because by your reckoning it would more properly be a DNF is shocking. What about a find logged as a Note? Your finger would hover over the delete button, for that, too?

 

Kindly point out where I called your position silly and where I said I'd considering deleting a note.

[+Mule Ears]

Kindly point out where I called your position silly and where I said I'd considering deleting a note.

 

I have advocated posting a note for situations that fall between GOTO and ground zero; you believe a DNF is appropriate from GOTO to give-up. You characterized this (using a Note where you believe a DNF is proper) as "silly."

 

As for the other:

As far as accepting a note, I have little choice as the cache owner. I'm not one for deleting logs without good cause. I would prefer that the log types are accurate, but if someone wants to log a note instead of a DNF, no skin off my toenails. I think it's kind of silly to log a note to avoid logging a DNF, but people have the perfect right to be silly.

 

The idea of deleting such a log would not have occurred to me. I was shocked to see it mentioned as an option. I guess you're saying that your only possible recourse would be deletion, not that you'd be tempted to delete the Note. Fair enough.

 

Look, I don't really want to spar with you. My purpose for participating in this discussion was to try to wrestle it on-topic, specifically on to the subtitle question "What can be done?" I was thinking that we could arrive at a suggested guideline that might eventually be incorporated into a finder's FAQ. Arriving at a reasonable criterion for employing the DNF log type is the crux of creating a guideline that more folks might follow. Setting the bar too high would, I believe, make things worse rather than better.

 

I apologize for reading worse-than-intended meaning into your posting. I believe you are sincere in your position regarding the DNF protocol, but I don't think that you're convinced that anything can or should be done about a guideline or about the DNF situation in general.

[+beejay&esskay]

if I don't find the cache but plan on returning tomorrow to continue looking, then I don't log anything. After all, it's not a DNF if I haven't finished looking yet, is it?

 

Many of us view the log as the result of a single hunt (or perhaps a single day) rather than a summary of our life experience with the cache.

 

So if we hunt on a day and don't find it, we post that we Did Not Find.

 

But others share your opinion, of course.

[+KC]

I personally only log DNFs if I think my extensive searching showed that the cache is not there, or there's some other problem. Logging a DNF after spending only 15 minutes looking is a little lame I think.

[+briansnat]

I have advocated posting a note for situations that fall between GOTO and ground zero; you believe a DNF is appropriate from GOTO to give-up. You characterized this (using a Note where you believe a DNF is proper) as "silly."

 

I characterized using a note to avoid logging a DNF as silly. I didn't say that it had to be my personal definition of a DNF.

 

The idea of deleting such a log would not have occurred to me. I was shocked to see it mentioned as an option.

 

I specifically said that it wouldn't be an option.

 

I believe you are sincere in your position regarding the DNF protocol, but I don't think that you're convinced that anything can or should be done about a guideline or about the DNF situation in general.

 

You are correct, I don't think anything should be done beyond education. Everybody's definition of a DNF

differs somewhat. I don't care if they use your criteria, mine or something in between as long as they log one. However if there was to be a guideline, my method gives a concrete definition, whereas most other ones are kind of fuzzy. What exactly is "looking hard enough" or "looking long enough"?

 

I'm not saying my personal definition of a DNF is the only correct one, I'm just stating my definition and my reasoning behind it.

[+tozainamboku]

One thing I like to do with my DNFs is to calculate my geocaching average, like a baseball batting average. It's the number of finds divided by the sum of my finds and my DNFs. Briansnat would argue that logging either a find or a DNF every time one attempts to find a cache would give you a meaningful geocaching average. Well, this thread got me thinking. In baseball, the batting average is the number of hits divided by the number of at bats. At bats however does not count every time the player comes to the plate to face the pitcher. If the player is walked, hit by a pitch, hits a sacrifice fly or a bunt, or is awarded the base due to defensive interference it does not count as an at bat. And if the player reaches first base due to an error, a fielder's choice, interference, or a dropped third strike it does not count as a hit. Baseball has another statistics called on-base percentage which one would think would be the number of times the player reaches first base divided by the number of times he faces a pitcher. But on-base percentage only counts hits, walks, and hit by pitches divided by at bats, walks, hit by pitch, and sacrifice flies. It there is an error, defensive interference, an out made on a fielders choice, or if the player bunted it is not counted in the on-base percentage.

It seems that determining when to count an attempt at geocaching is as hard as defining an attempt at facing the pitcher in baseball. Until there are umpires and official scorers, I suggest that people log a DNF when they feel like it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

No one has shown me yet where it is expected that cachers log all their DNFs (whatever one's definition of swuch is.) It is an option that is available, to be sure. But, where does it say that's it is expected?

[+briansnat]

No one has shown me yet where it is expected that cachers log all their DNFs (whatever one's definition of swuch is.) It is an option that is available, to be sure. But, where does it say that's it is expected?

 

I don't think it says it anywhere. It's a courtesy. If some choose not to extend it that is their right.

[+B+L]

No one has shown me yet where it is expected that cachers log all their DNFs (whatever one's definition of swuch is.) It is an option that is available, to be sure. But, where does it say that's it is expected?

 

The expectations in this game are mostly self-imposed. The question of when and what to log really depends on how one defines *logging*. To some people, it might be important to have an accurate accounting, or even an audit trail. Others may prefer to paint in broad strokes, or not at all.

[+Mokzii]

some newer cachers in my area seem to think that you log a DNF when you think the cache is gone as opposed to when you just don't find it.

 

i haven't a clue why.

 

That's pretty much what I thought.

My reasoning behind it was - I thought if I hadn't really, really put a huge effort in to finding it, and just looked for a little while and decided "Eh. I'm moving on." that logging a DNF might concern the cache owner, or it might turn others off from looking for it. I know when I go to a cache page and see a few DNFs at the top of the log list, I'm less likely to put effort in to looking for it.

Now, if I put a lot of effort in to finding it, and couldn't, I'd log it so that the owner and others know that there could be a problem.

 

I now know that my logic is flawed. xD

I will log all of my DNFs from now on!

[+Mule Ears]

Proposed DNF Etiquette

 

Cache owners appreciate the information provided by DNF logs, which can help them adjust a cache's difficulty rating, or determine whether a cache has gone missing. There's never been a firm guideline for using the DNF log, though, so there is considerable disagreement about when or whether to use the DNF log. Here is a suggested etiquette for logging DNFs:

 

- Traveling to the cache: If you start out for a cache and end up turning back before searching, a DNF is not necessary. Post a Note if you have access information that might be helpful to other cachers (e.g., road/trail closure). If you believe the cache description or terrain rating are inaccurate, post a Note or email the cache owner directly.

 

- Searching for the cache: If you reach the cache site (GPS "ground zero") and search without finding the cache, post a DNF log. If you have to cut short your search before looking as thoroughly as the cache's difficulty rating suggests, a DNF log is optional, though greatly appreciated by the cache owner.

 

- Returning to the cache: If you've searched for a cache previously and DNFed, then come up empty on a subsequent search, a DNF is optional unless you have something new to report. If it's your final search--you're throwing in the towel on this cache--log a final DNF.

[+Hellolost]

I log all DNF's.

 

Why? Because I want to know where I have been. Why I haven't found something. Where I searched. There is a cache called Balok. I had a heck of a time there. Now reading back on my DNF posts I find it humorous.

 

Besides I like to go back and find it.