Jump to content

DNF - To Log or Not To Log?


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

So, how many of you are truly honest and log EVERY DNF you attempt? The first one I couldn't find, I logged as a DNF, and then as a 'Found It' after I went back and got the cache. Now, every time I look at my caches, I see that DNF looking at me. It's a sign of failure (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit...). Anyway, do you log every DNF or do you just log the ones you know you're not going to go back after?

 

I figure, I'll find it eventually - no need to keep everyone updated on how sucky I am at first...

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment

So, how many of you are truly honest and log EVERY DNF you attempt? The first one I couldn't find, I logged as a DNF, and then as a 'Found It' after I went back and got the cache. Now, every time I look at my caches, I see that DNF looking at me. It's a sign of failure (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit...). Anyway, do you log every DNF or do you just log the ones you know you're not going to go back after?

 

I figure, I'll find it eventually - no need to keep everyone updated on how sucky I am at first...

 

Thoughts?

 

Hey Newbie here. By the way I lived in Tomah for 3 years from 2000-2003, miss the state. I have logged a DNF after really trying to find the cache. I did it to make a record of it in case others can not find it also, which might flag a concern it was muggled. If I go looking and the area is too populated for a search then I don't log it as a DNF. Just my 2 cents worth.

Link to comment

As with many other answers to such questions.... it depends.

 

If I truly search for a cache and just can't find it then yes, I post a DNF. But if I can't get to the area becasue I approach it from the wrong direction or if I can't really look for it for whatever reason, then no, I don't post a DNF.

 

I think it is important to post a DNF in case the reason for not being able to find it is that it has gone missing. Another importnat reason is that so others can learn from your search and find it themselves. You as the DNF'er can then use this as motivation to go back and re-double your search.

Link to comment

Depends on your definition of a DNF. Some people will log a DNF anytime they punch it into the GPS and head that way. Some people will only log a DNF after they've searched extensively at GZ. Some people never log DNFs. I'm always amused at "Third time searching for this one. Finally found it." with no previous DNFs.

I log most of my DNFs (my definiton being: searched at GZ). I seldom log more than one DNF per cache. I will not log a DNF to inflate a sadist's ego! Waypoint One fifty feet off. Waypoint Two seventy five feet off. Cannot find Waypoint Three. (Found it on the third try. It was only One Hundred Seventy Feet off!) Nope. Sorry. Not into feeding your ego.

Link to comment

As with many other answers to such questions.... it depends.

 

If I truly search for a cache and just can't find it then yes, I post a DNF. But if I can't get to the area becasue I approach it from the wrong direction or if I can't really look for it for whatever reason, then no, I don't post a DNF.

 

I think it is important to post a DNF in case the reason for not being able to find it is that it has gone missing. Another importnat reason is that so others can learn from your search and find it themselves. You as the DNF'er can then use this as motivation to go back and re-double your search.

 

If I search for it and can not find it I log a DNF out of respect to the owner of the cache.

Link to comment

So, how many of you are truly honest and log EVERY DNF you attempt? The first one I couldn't find, I logged as a DNF, and then as a 'Found It' after I went back and got the cache. Now, every time I look at my caches, I see that DNF looking at me. It's a sign of failure (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit...). Anyway, do you log every DNF or do you just log the ones you know you're not going to go back after?

 

I figure, I'll find it eventually - no need to keep everyone updated on how sucky I am at first...

 

Thoughts?

 

Hecks ya! Everytime I look for a cache and don't find it I log a DNF, but I don't think the number of DNFs I have is indicative of the kind of cacher I am. Numbers aren't that important to me. Besides I'm of the sort that believes your reputation as a cacher, be it good or bad, is based on your hides NOT your finds.

 

Quality>quantity

 

I am constantly frustrated over non DNF loggers though. This weekend I had to go do some maintenance on one of my caches that is finally snow free, on the way I decided to swing by and grab a roadside micro, with a great hint: big rock. We pull up, find teh rock (obviously) and follow the trampled bushes down around the right side of the rock. We looked and looked and couldn't find the bugger so as a last resort I pull out the palm and read that it hasn't been logged since Nov07. How frustrating!! My own cache that I was maintenancing had just been found at least five time and was only .24 down the road. Bottom line is I'm pretty sure the cache is missing and if the cachers before me had had the courage to log a DNF I mighta been saved a fair amount of time and frustration.

 

Moral of the story? Log 'em if can't find 'em.

Link to comment
Depends on your definition of a DNF. Some people will only log a DNF after they've searched extensively at GZ.
This is basically how I am. I hate making the owner feel like his cache is gone unless I really tried and didn't find it. I see "trying" as an important element. I always log my entire experience when I give up (and log a DNF) or when I find it; so no history is lost. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

 

If I truly search for a cache and just can't find it then yes, I post a DNF. But if I can't get to the area becasue I approach it from the wrong direction or if I can't really look for it for whatever reason, then no, I don't post a DNF.

 

 

I'm in the same boat as FobesMan. I'll log a DNF anytime I do any actual searching for the cache itself, but if I can't make it close enough to even begin the real searching for whatever reason, than I wouldn't call it a DNF since it wasn't a real go at finding it.

Link to comment

 

If I truly search for a cache and just can't find it then yes, I post a DNF. But if I can't get to the area becasue I approach it from the wrong direction or if I can't really look for it for whatever reason, then no, I don't post a DNF.

 

 

I'm in the same boat as FobesMan. I'll log a DNF anytime I do any actual searching for the cache itself, but if I can't make it close enough to even begin the real searching for whatever reason, than I wouldn't call it a DNF since it wasn't a real go at finding it.

 

Yes, why concern the owner over a DNF when you never really looked for it in the first place but please do post a DNF if you look and can't find. That lets the owners and others know that something might be wrong.

 

I think the forums might be the wrong sample for this survey however. Inherantly, people who like to write stories/logs/whatever are more likely to be in the forums and those same people are more likely to post a DNF because they like to share their experiences. Those that don't log DNF's are more likely not to even be in the forums in the first place and so they will never even see this question. All of this is of course, IMHO.

Edited by FobesMan
Link to comment

 

If I truly search for a cache and just can't find it then yes, I post a DNF. But if I can't get to the area becasue I approach it from the wrong direction or if I can't really look for it for whatever reason, then no, I don't post a DNF.

 

 

I'm in the same boat as FobesMan. I'll log a DNF anytime I do any actual searching for the cache itself, but if I can't make it close enough to even begin the real searching for whatever reason, than I wouldn't call it a DNF since it wasn't a real go at finding it.

 

Yes, why concern the owner over a DNF when you never really looked for it in the first place but please do post a DNF if you look and can't find. That lets the owners and others know that something might be wrong.

 

I agree with you. It's like "crying wolf" if you don't really try and then post a DNF. I think it's better to post a note if you want to document a feeble attempt.
Link to comment

I log all my DNFs . . . it isn't a sign of failure, it is a record of my experience at that location. ;)

Ditto. You need to get over the feelings of failure. It should never take away from the fun of the game. It's an action. You didn't find the cache. When I start making a hike to find the cache if I have to turn around before I reach the cache, I did not find the cache. I post a DNF. Notes are informational posts, mainly designed for other issues other than finding or not finding the cache.

 

I think if I were to say I didn't start looking for the cache because I didn't reach ground zero is only a method to kid myself in the end and only justifies not posting a DNF. I'm no purist, well, maybe I am, but entering the waypoints and going to the general location with the intent to look for the cache, that by definition is the beginnings of the search. I didn't go to that parking spot for any other reason than it placed me as close to the cache as possible. To say I didn't reach ground zero and therefore doesn't count as a search isn't really being honest with myself. And frankly, I've never had an owner come back and chastise me for the DNFs... well one... but it was because I griped about a micro in the woods.

 

For all intents and purposes, a DNF can be written up as an adventure with the subsequent Find as the successful follow up.

 

This game is what you make of it. Fear of failure in this game should only be the fear to fail to have fun.

 

-=-=all my edits are fixing spelling issues=-=- ;)

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment
This game is what you make of it. Fear of failure in this game should only be the fear to fail to have fun.
I agree. There is no game or sport that you win 100% of the time. There are some days that I needed to eat some more Wheaties because I couldn't find anything. Then there are the good days when I had an eagle eye and quickly spotted even the trickiest hides! ;)
Link to comment

I know this has probably been said before already, but I think it's important to log DNF's. It alerts the cache owner that there might possibly be a problem with their cache. It also alerts other cachers that it may take some time to locate the cache. I know a lot of cachers that go out on their lunch breaks and don't have a lot of time for searching.

Just my personal opinion...I'd appreciate logged DNF's on my hides.

Link to comment

I log all my DNFs . . . it isn't a sign of failure, it is a record of my experience at that location. ;)

For all intents and purposes, a DNF can be written up as an adventure with the subsequent Find as the successful follow up.

 

 

TL, you make a very good point and I agree with you that it would be better to say, "I ran into an inpenetrable wall of thorns 350ft away from the cache." then to say nothing at all. I just wish that everyone felt that way and would write their experiences down instead of saying, "Couldn't find it, will be back another time." or when they do find it, "Nice hide! TFTC!"

Link to comment

Please Please Please Log ALL your DNF's and do not delete them!

 

THERE IS NO SHAME IN LOGGING A DNF!

 

A DNF LOG IS NOT AN ADMITION OF FAILURE!

 

In fact, the logging of a DNF is quite contrary to that notion. Logging a DNF is a very important and productive tool that benefits cache owners and other cache seekers. Unfortunately, logging a DNF currently carries very negative connotations, such as failure. This is highly unfortunate and the geocaching ommunity pays the price because of it. Here's why:

 

I like to think I am responsible cache owner for I check on my caches regularly. However, when no logs are posted on my cache I am left to assume that the cache has not been saught and I feel no need to check on it. When a DNF is logged, immediately, the possibility that it is gone is apparent and I take my next oppurtunity to check on my cache. Let's say for example that my cache for whatever reason disappears. The next day, a cacher visits the location and does not find the cache, but does not log a DNF. The second day, another cacher visits the location, doesn't find it, and also does not log a DNF. The third day, you visit the cache and can't find the cache as well. You log a DNF. When I recieve that DNF notice, I will take my next oppurtunity to visit the cache site to check on the cache. If it is indeed gone, I will disable, replace, and enable the cache as soon as I possibly can. Now, the point being, that if the cacher on the first day had logged their DNF, I would have checked on the cache that first day thus saving the cacher on the second day and you on the third day from wasting you time and money searching for a cache that was not present. Does that make sense? You will have paid the price for other cachers not logging their DNF's. In truth, the last thing I want is for someone to be looking for one of my caches when it is gone. I think a lot of cache owners will agree with this paragraph and also will assume that no activity suggests that the cache is not being visited, while checking the cache after a DNF.

 

This is not the only reason. There are others. For example, DNF's being logged regularly on a cache can help the cache owner determine a suitable difficulty level for the cache. If DNF's are being logged on a cache, the cache owner may raise the difficulty level of the cache, thus helping you more accurately decide the difficulty of a cache. Aside from leading to more accurate difficulty ratings, the cache owner may decide to add a hint if they want it to be more easily found.

 

These are just a couple of the reasons why logging a DNF is a very important practice. The next time you are out caching please be courteous to other cachers, including the cache owner, and log your DNF's. Logging DNF's is not a shameful experience. Take pride in the fact that you are informing other cachers that the find could not be made.

Edited by simpjkee
Link to comment

I think ......that in the back of the mind.......of many geocachers..... there is a strong belief..........

 

.....that nothing says LOOOOOOOOSSSSER!........like a DNF!

 

I think many geocachers "rationalize" NOT putting down a DNF by adopting a policy of....."Well, I am still going to LOOK for this thing, so I won't put down DNF, because I have not REALLY looked real hard or anything yet." ( Or some such ramblings!)

 

I think other geocachers may not want to take the time to log a "negative" entry, even if it would help the owner make judgements/corrections to the cache. Some might even think......."Somebody else will log a DNF and if it is really not there, it will be taken care of. I don't really need to get involved. I have to get some more smilies, I can't be logging DNFs all the time! Give me a break! Maybe I will come back, ok?"

(or some such ramblings!)

 

Still other cachers might take this approach......"Well this cache is just not here! The owner should be checking on his caches and this would not happen! He probably has more caches than he can take care of and lets things like this happen! I can't STAND an irresponsible person! If he thinks I am going to mark a DNF for his SORRY cache, he has another think coming! Some people!!!" (or some such ramblings!)

 

I would be willing to bet that there are many reasons why DNFs are not registered by cachers! Some of the above may be reasons why.

 

Or all of this may just be the rambling of a ........MADMAN! :):):huh:

Link to comment

Mainly you are logging a DNF to alert the cache owner that there may be a cache problem and for the cache owner to keep track of this cache. After 2 or 3 DNFs it would be the cache owner's obligation for maintenance on this cache container. If you later find the cache, you can always delete that DNF log if it bothers you. Happy caching and yes, log DNFs if you made an effort to find the container.

Link to comment
When I start making a hike to find the cache if I have to turn around before I reach the cache, I did not find the cache. I post a DNF. Notes are informational posts, mainly designed for other issues other than finding or not finding the cache.

 

I think if I were to say I didn't start looking for the cache because I didn't reach ground zero is only a method to kid myself in the end and only justifies not posting a DNF. I'm no purist, well, maybe I am, but entering the waypoints and going to the general location with the intent to look for the cache, that by definition is the beginnings of the search. I didn't go to that parking spot for any other reason than it placed me as close to the cache as possible. To say I didn't reach ground zero and therefore doesn't count as a search isn't really being honest with myself.

If Groundspeak didn’t mind the risk of overly-complicating things they could always expand the list of options available to a cacher who wishes to document his non-finding experience.

 

In the box scores after a NASCAR race there are several codes used to indicate why a driver was not on the track or still running at the checkered flag:

 

DNF – Did Not Finish.

Driver was forced to quit after taking the green flag (engine, crash, etc.), yet participated in the race as an official-listed competitor.

 

In my mind this is comparable to the typical use of DNF in caching: seeker reached the cache coordinates but did not find the cache container.

DNS – Did Not Start.

Driver was not present at the start of the first lap
.

 

This might be more analogous to aborting the search attempt long before reaching ground zero.

DNQ – Did Not Qualify.

Driver’s qualifying time was not fast enough to make the starting field.

 

This code could even be used by those cachers who have something relevant to say about a cache, yet know they will likely never attempt the specific cache hunt due to not meeting some requirement, whether it be puzzle solving ability, hike endurance, scuba training, geographic location or membership status.

I would not be in favor of cluttering the list of official log choices beyond the already growing menu – especially considering that some folks get confused enough as it is – but a cacher could always elect to use the above codes informally in the text of his DNF log as a possible clarification, if desired. In fact, I think I might start using them myself.

Link to comment

Logging DNF's is not a sign of failure. That would be a FTF(failure to find) or a CNF(could not find) or a TSTF(Too stupid to find)

 

A DNF is just a DNF. I could log a DNF on every cache I have never looked for. This is a did not find, just because I haven't looked for them doesn't change the fact that I did not find it.

 

I log all my DNF's if I punch in the goto button on the GPS. Even if I don't get to the cache site. That might let the cache owner know that a parking location might be in order.

Link to comment
When I start making a hike to find the cache if I have to turn around before I reach the cache, I did not find the cache. I post a DNF. Notes are informational posts, mainly designed for other issues other than finding or not finding the cache.

 

I think if I were to say I didn't start looking for the cache because I didn't reach ground zero is only a method to kid myself in the end and only justifies not posting a DNF. I'm no purist, well, maybe I am, but entering the waypoints and going to the general location with the intent to look for the cache, that by definition is the beginnings of the search. I didn't go to that parking spot for any other reason than it placed me as close to the cache as possible. To say I didn't reach ground zero and therefore doesn't count as a search isn't really being honest with myself.

If Groundspeak didn’t mind the risk of overly-complicating things they could always expand the list of options available to a cacher who wishes to document his non-finding experience.

 

In the box scores after a NASCAR race there are several codes used to indicate why a driver was not on the track or still running at the checkered flag:

 

DNF – Did Not Finish.

Driver was forced to quit after taking the green flag (engine, crash, etc.), yet participated in the race as an official-listed competitor.

 

In my mind this is comparable to the typical use of DNF in caching: seeker reached the cache coordinates but did not find the cache container.

DNS – Did Not Start.

Driver was not present at the start of the first lap
.

 

This might be more analogous to aborting the search attempt long before reaching ground zero.

DNQ – Did Not Qualify.

Driver’s qualifying time was not fast enough to make the starting field.

 

This code could even be used by those cachers who have something relevant to say about a cache, yet know they will likely never attempt the specific cache hunt due to not meeting some requirement, whether it be puzzle solving ability, hike endurance, scuba training, geographic location or membership status.

I would not be in favor of cluttering the list of official log choices beyond the already growing menu – especially considering that some folks get confused enough as it is – but a cacher could always elect to use the above codes informally in the text of his DNF log as a possible clarification, if desired. In fact, I think I might start using them myself.

 

I like this concept! :huh:

 

My logs are a sort of trip report...whatever happened is what happened (or didn't happen!).

I do not always log second, third....fifteenth DNFs, but I will usually mention how many tries it took before I finally find it, if and when I do.

Personally, if I don't even get close to the site, it's a note. I can see this either way, though.

 

348 DNFs and counting. I earned them and I'm keeping them! :)

Link to comment

Log those DNF's.

As a hider of tough caches, I like to know how many cachers actually try and find them and don't. Let me know that my 4 or 5 star was well worth my time to make and hide them.

 

Its not a sign of failure. Failure is walking away knowing you will never do it again!

Link to comment

I log a DNF if I start to look around gz for the cache. If I intend to look for it but don't get there eg river was in flood I write a note. At least that way the owner knows that there are still people out there interested in finding their cache and hopefully they won't archive it.

Also could be an indicator that the difficulty or terrain rating (depending on the information in the dnf or note) needs to be changed.

Link to comment

As with many other answers to such questions.... it depends.

 

If I truly search for a cache and just can't find it then yes, I post a DNF. But if I can't get to the area becasue I approach it from the wrong direction or if I can't really look for it for whatever reason, then no, I don't post a DNF.

 

I think it is important to post a DNF in case the reason for not being able to find it is that it has gone missing. Another importnat reason is that so others can learn from your search and find it themselves. You as the DNF'er can then use this as motivation to go back and re-double your search.

 

I pretty much totally agree with you. DNF's can be an important flag to the cache owner and others.

 

If I allocated the wrong amount of time to find the cache (yeah, that arrow can be absolutly no help sometimes), then I won't log a DNF.

 

If I'm walking around GZ for 30 minutes a DNF is getting logged.

 

I look at it this way, if I return to find a cache that I once posted as a DNF, it makes it a wash.

Link to comment
I look at it this way, if I return to find a cache that I once posted as a DNF, it makes it a wash.

Actually, that makes it a find. A DNF does not subtract from your find count. 0 + 1 = 1. I DNF-ed a cache twice before finding it; 0 + 0 + 1 = 1.

 

One thing not mentioned in this thread (I don't think) is that although when you log "not found" it's labelled "did not find", the email notifications of such logs say "couldn't find". Anyone reading such notifications could indeed get a different impression from what almost everyone here agrees it should be (including me, I log DNFs). I'd prefer to see the email subject changed and keep it as a simple "did not find".

 

Edward

Link to comment

Yep, I log them...every time I have new info that may be helpful to the cache owner or another searcher.

 

Now, if I went to hunt a cache I had already DNF'd before, got near the parking area, and my son telephoned me to ask for a ride home and I decided not to park and look, I probably wouldn't worry about logging a DNF. There isn't really anything new about the cache I could say--who cares if I give my son a ride home or not, after all? Well, I might still log one even then, or a note anyway, if no one else had been to hunt the cache recently---just to let the owner know someone was still interested in the cache.

 

But run of the mill, everyday, "I went to the hide area and couldn't find the thing" caches? Yep, I log them every time.

Link to comment

In the end, the DNF is to warn other cachers about a potential problem with the cache. At least, that's how it's taken. For instance you often get lists of caches with something like "FFFFN" (four finds then a DNF) at the side to indicate the status of the last five logs, the idea being that you'd expect trouble if there are recent N's. If you don't want extra trouble, then you might just not bother with the cache at all.

 

If you went to the cache and didn't find it, you're indicating that there's a chance that others may follow suit (for some reason) and the DNF is a useful heads-up.

 

BUT...there's an assumption that you did actually have a chance of finding it.

 

So if you post a DNF when you simply left the car and after getting halfway to the cache site realised that you were going to be too late home so you abandoned, then it's misleading to post a DNF. A note would be OK, or nothing, but not a DNF. That would indicate some doubt about the cache being in place: whereas in fact you know no more than the guy sitting at home whether this is the case.

 

So my suggestion is to only log a DNF when you know that there's a chance that the cache may be missing.

Link to comment

In the end, the DNF is to warn other cachers about a potential problem with the cache. At least, that's how it's taken. For instance you often get lists of caches with something like "FFFFN" (four finds then a DNF) at the side to indicate the status of the last five logs, the idea being that you'd expect trouble if there are recent N's. If you don't want extra trouble, then you might just not bother with the cache at all.

 

If you went to the cache and didn't find it, you're indicating that there's a chance that others may follow suit (for some reason) and the DNF is a useful heads-up.

 

BUT...there's an assumption that you did actually have a chance of finding it.

 

So if you post a DNF when you simply left the car and after getting halfway to the cache site realised that you were going to be too late home so you abandoned, then it's misleading to post a DNF. A note would be OK, or nothing, but not a DNF. That would indicate some doubt about the cache being in place: whereas in fact you know no more than the guy sitting at home whether this is the case.

 

So my suggestion is to only log a DNF when you know that there's a chance that the cache may be missing.

 

I completely disagree with this analysis

Link to comment

...my suggestion is to only log a DNF when you know that there's a chance that the cache may be missing.

I disagree with that thinking. When we first started caching, we DNF'd a fairly simple cache. The cache owner emailed me to say they only DNF'd a cache when they were pretty sure it was missing. My first thought was "Huh? How do you know a cache was missing if you didn't know where it was supposed to be?" It seemed a bit presumptuous to me, especially as a newbie. I knew I wasn't very good at finding caches yet, and I would have thought any cache owner would look at my log and think "Well, beginners luck didn't help them on this one"

 

Even now, hundreds of finds later, I don't dare presume a cache is missing just because I didn't find it; not even a 1/1. I've seen too many times when I can walked up to an evil cache and spot it right away, but fail to notice the next three "easy" caches.

 

I probably don't find a tenth of the caches I look for on the first try, and I'd guess that maybe one tenth of them are really missing. The other nine times, it's just that I didn't have the mojo going for some reason.

Link to comment

...my suggestion is to only log a DNF when you know that there's a chance that the cache may be missing.

I disagree with that thinking. When we first started caching, we DNF'd a fairly simple cache. The cache owner emailed me to say they only DNF'd a cache when they were pretty sure it was missing. My first thought was "Huh? How do you know a cache was missing if you didn't know where it was supposed to be?" It seemed a bit presumptuous to me, especially as a newbie. I knew I wasn't very good at finding caches yet, and I would have thought any cache owner would look at my log and think "Well, beginners luck didn't help them on this one"

 

Even now, hundreds of finds later, I don't dare presume a cache is missing just because I didn't find it; not even a 1/1. I've seen too many times when I can walked up to an evil cache and spot it right away, but fail to notice the next three "easy" caches.

 

I probably don't find a tenth of the caches I look for on the first try, and I'd guess that maybe one tenth of them are really missing. The other nine times, it's just that I didn't have the mojo going for some reason.

 

I totally agree with this analysis.

Link to comment

In the end, the DNF is to warn other cachers about a potential problem with the cache. At least, that's how it's taken. For instance you often get lists of caches with something like "FFFFN" (four finds then a DNF) at the side to indicate the status of the last five logs, the idea being that you'd expect trouble if there are recent N's. If you don't want extra trouble, then you might just not bother with the cache at all.

 

If you went to the cache and didn't find it, you're indicating that there's a chance that others may follow suit (for some reason) and the DNF is a useful heads-up.

 

BUT...there's an assumption that you did actually have a chance of finding it.

 

So if you post a DNF when you simply left the car and after getting halfway to the cache site realised that you were going to be too late home so you abandoned, then it's misleading to post a DNF. A note would be OK, or nothing, but not a DNF. That would indicate some doubt about the cache being in place: whereas in fact you know no more than the guy sitting at home whether this is the case.

 

So my suggestion is to only log a DNF when you know that there's a chance that the cache may be missing.

I really have to disagree with that line of thinking process. You don't know it's missing. You're being very presumptuous to think you can find every cache you go after. Even if one considered the search starts at ground zero, that's making large assumptions. Only the cache owner or someone who previously found the cache can say for certain it is missing and even then, I have seen errors on both counts due to cache migration, both intentional and not.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

I disagree with that thinking. ....

 

Even now, hundreds of finds later, I don't dare presume a cache is missing just because I didn't find it; not even a 1/1. I've seen too many times when I can walked up to an evil cache and spot it right away, but fail to notice the next three "easy" caches.

I think that you misunderstood my post.

 

I'm not saying that because you didn't find it that you're suggesting that it's likely to be missing. Merely that you were at the site of the cache (as far as you can tell) and you didn't see it, so there's a CHANCE that it's missing. Perhaps the chance is very small, perhaps you only searched for two seconds, perhaps it's more likely that you didn't look well enough: but there is a chance that it's not there, so the DNF is useful.

 

It might be that another minute later you would have found it, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is that you went there and looked.

 

If you never went there at all (and this is my main point), then posting a DNF is misleading as you know you never had any chance of finding the cache.

Link to comment

I really have to disagree with that line of thinking process. You don't know it's missing. You're being very presumptuous to think you can find every cache you go after. Even if one considered the search starts at ground zero, that's making large assumptions. Only the cache owner or someone who previously found the cache can say for certain it is missing and even then, I have seen errors on both counts due to cache migration, both intentional and not.

See my other post above, I was never saying that if I don't find it that it's missing. Yes, I agree that would be ridiculously presumptive.

 

But I think that when you said;

 

When I start making a hike to find the cache if I have to turn around before I reach the cache, I did not find the cache. I post a DNF.

 

you're saying that if you set out in search of a cache but don't make it to the cache site for any reason (including simply running out of time or inclination), then you post a DNF. That's what I'm disagreeing with, as I believe that it misleads rather than informs. I'd post or note (or nothing) in those circumstances.

Link to comment
In the end, the DNF is to warn other cachers about a potential problem with the cache.

 

Actually it isn't. It's simply a record of your experience with the cache - same as a found it log. Sure it has the effect of warning others about a potential problem, but that's not its chief purpose.

 

So my suggestion is to only log a DNF when you know that there's a chance that the cache may be missing.

 

So if you look for a high difficulty cache and come up empty you shouldn't log a DNF? Fine, but then as a cache owner how am I to know that people are hunting for my cache and how am I to judge that I had rated my difficulty correctly if I'm not seeing DNFs?

Link to comment

I really have to disagree with that line of thinking process. You don't know it's missing. You're being very presumptuous to think you can find every cache you go after. Even if one considered the search starts at ground zero, that's making large assumptions. Only the cache owner or someone who previously found the cache can say for certain it is missing and even then, I have seen errors on both counts due to cache migration, both intentional and not.

See my other post above, I was never saying that if I don't find it that it's missing. Yes, I agree that would be ridiculously presumptive.

 

But I think that when you said;

 

When I start making a hike to find the cache if I have to turn around before I reach the cache, I did not find the cache. I post a DNF.

 

you're saying that if you set out in search of a cache but don't make it to the cache site for any reason (including simply running out of time or inclination), then you post a DNF. That's what I'm disagreeing with, as I believe that it misleads rather than informs. I'd post or note (or nothing) in those circumstances.

I think if you hadn't closed with the line

 

So my suggestion is to only log a DNF when you know that there's a chance that the cache may be missing.

 

The remainder of your post may have been in context with your previous post.

 

As for the rest, this opinion differs from person to person and I'll be happy to say we agree to disagree. IMHO, the only way it misinforms is if you fail to read the posts. Using only the symbols to determine there is a problem is a poor method at judging the viability of the cache.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment
In the end, the DNF is to warn other cachers about a potential problem with the cache.

 

Actually it isn't. It's simply a record of your experience with the cache - same as a found it log. Sure it has the effect of warning others about a potential problem, but that's not its chief purpose.

That's why my next sentence was "At least, that's how it's taken.". You're right about the "chief purpose" but it's wise to bear in mind how others see it and how it affects them.

 

 

So my suggestion is to only log a DNF when you know that there's a chance that the cache may be missing.

 

So if you look for a high difficulty cache and come up empty you shouldn't log a DNF? Fine, but then as a cache owner how am I to know that people are hunting for my cache and how am I to judge that I had rated my difficulty correctly if I'm not seeing DNFs?

Yes, if you set out for a high difficulty cache and get half way to the cache site then turn back because you realise that you won't have time for the hike on that day, then my suggestion is to post a note. If you made it to the site and commenced searching, then I suggested posting a DNF.

Link to comment

Log those DNF's.

As a hider of tough caches, I like to know how many cachers actually try and find them and don't. Let me know that my 4 or 5 star was well worth my time to make and hide them.

 

Its not a sign of failure. Failure is walking away knowing you will never do it again!

Agree somewhat. I like to see the DNFs filed on my tuff hides. I think of it as, (re the hides you find)

"You want your numbers -- I want mine".

 

I kind've follow a line of reasoning. Some hides, I intend to be found without too much difficulty - but with enough to make the hunt worthwhile so you'll feel some sense of accomplishment with your find. Those are usually the ones where I'm bringing you to that place for a purpose - a nice view, the historical significance, or sometimes a facility you can enjoy - for example where your kids can have fun while you search. Those, a couple of consecutive DNFs alerts me something's possibly amiss.

 

And the other side of the coin....some hides I do just for pure meanness! *LOL* I know there are those who immensely enjoy the challenge of finding the tougher hides....so I ramp it up for that crowd - and they tend to be in places that don't otherwise offer much of a reason to visit, other'n the 'thrill of the chase'. On these, the DNFs tell me I was successful.

 

I know, however, I don't get the true picture -- some are just too prideful to file a DNF. I recently hid one that was found pretty quickly by one of the local FTF Hounds...then like 3 weeks with no further reports. Then I got a message requesting a hint, saying they Zero'd the GPSr & couldn't find it. I went back to verify it was still in place....and the grassy field approaching the forest looked like a snowy parking lot at the mall, with all the tire-prints running thru it!

 

"Failure is walking away knowing you will never do it again!"

That's where our thinking takes a different path. There's one local hide, that's by the dumpsters behind a greasy-spoon cheesesteak & burger joint. I've been after that one twice....and the last time I moved a board & about a bajillion huge cockroaches exploded out. Add to this that about a foot from your ankles, there's a pair of pit bulls going berzerk, maniacally barking non-stop while trying to tear the little board fence separating you & them apart to get at you. I don't intend to go back there again....not so much becuz of the dogs as just the sheer filth of the place. I swear you can see the ground moving with bacteria! It just NASTY, y'all!!

 

I don't look at that as a failure - it's a choice. If you want to look at it as my failure, well, help yo'self -- & I'll take one for the team!! A number by my name just ain't that important to me.

 

Verily.

~*

Link to comment

I think if you hadn't closed with the line

 

So my suggestion is to only log a DNF when you know that there's a chance that the cache may be missing.

 

The remainder of your post may have been in context with your previous post.

It was in context: I was merely saying that if you've been nowhere near the cache then you shouldn't suggest that you searched and failed to find it. Which IMHO is inferred by a DNF.

 

As for the rest, this opinion differs from person to person and I'll be happy to say we agree to disagree. IMHO, the only way it misinforms is if you fail to read the posts. Using only the symbols to determine there is a problem is a poor method at judging the viability of the cache.

You're right that it's not the best method, but I've seen plenty of examples of people using the "latest logs summary" as an indicator of whether to bother with a cache, or at least having a quick scan of the latest logs. Particularly when planning a numbers run, or a day in a new area where there are hundreds of cache listings to look through.

 

You might not want to play the game like that, but there are many that will only put a cache on their list if it's a "FFFFF", and if it's "sullied" by an 'N' or two then it's missed out.

Yes, it's only my opinion so I don't mind if you disagree. :)

Link to comment

DNF's are very important to GCing. It lets me as a cache owner know something might be amiss, but on tougher 4 and 5 star hides, it lets me see how tough it really is.

 

I currently have 2, 5 star hides that only 1 was found and the other is still out there yet to be found.

I've only had 3 people log their DNF's on the second one, yet I know more people have been looking via another forum.

 

For me, as the owner of that cache, it says I must have done very well in hiding it by seeing all those DNF's by people with 4,000+ finds.

 

_________

 

In my opinion, if you start looking for a cache, no matter if its 2 minutes or 30 and you don't find it, its a DNF.

If you start walking for it and don't get within a 100 feet, then I wouldn't worry about DNF'ing it.

On tougher caches I might do a recon, but if I do it, then I post a note saying it was recon.

 

But hey, its just a sport and from what I have seen, most people do as they want anyway. Most people just don't log DNF's for a sign of failure. I look at it as a badge to say "hey I have been here, can't find it, but I will be back". Plus you may get a return email from the owner saying the cache was muggled. In that case, you watch and when they put it back out, its a easy find for you!

Link to comment

DNF = Did Not Find

 

A simple statement of fact. No details.

 

It doesn't say we looked for 30 seconds; It doesn't say we looked for 30 minutes.

 

It doesn't say we knew the cache was still there; It doesn't say that we thought the cache was missing.

 

It doesn't say any of the things that people have posted that they assume it means, other than that we Did Not Find the cache.

 

The DETAILS are in the logs.

 

I've posted a DNF because there were too many muggles near ground zero to safely expose the cache. Why a DNF? Because we Did Not Find the cache. The details in the log could alert other cachers that they may want to choose thier time to look for this one carefully.

 

This past weekend we were caught looking for a cache by someone who knew where it was. He even told us we were close before he left. Even with his clues, we couldn't find it. Logged the DNF. Not because we thought it might be missing, we knew it wasn't, but because we Did Not Find it.

 

We've recently logged DNF's on a couple of micro's in the woods. One was last logged over eight months ago, the other even longer ago than that. Both had occasional finds before that. Has nobody actually looked in all that time? Or have they just not logged the DNF's? We'll never know. If I were the CO, I'd want to know.

 

We even hold the only DNF on a cache that has had 118 successful finds. We logged the DNF, because we Did Not Find the cache. The details let other cachers know that sometimes you don't find them, for whatever reason, and that's OK.

Link to comment

DNF = Did Not Find

 

A simple statement of fact. No details.

 

It doesn't say we looked for 30 seconds; It doesn't say we looked for 30 minutes.

 

It doesn't say we knew the cache was still there; It doesn't say that we thought the cache was missing.

 

It doesn't say any of the things that people have posted that they assume it means, other than that we Did Not Find the cache.

Indeed. But you're still expecting people to assume that you actually physically looked for the cache container...or are you?

If you never got out of the car, or if you hiked half way then turned back, you also Did Not Find the cache. That's still a fact. DNF then? That might sound useful, but IMO a note is more useful in those circumstances.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

DNF = Did Not Find

 

A simple statement of fact. No details.

 

It doesn't say we looked for 30 seconds; It doesn't say we looked for 30 minutes.

 

It doesn't say we knew the cache was still there; It doesn't say that we thought the cache was missing.

 

It doesn't say any of the things that people have posted that they assume it means, other than that we Did Not Find the cache.

Indeed. But you're still expecting people to assume that you actually physically looked for the cache container...or are you?

If you never got out of the car, or if you hiked half way then turned back, you also Did Not Find the cache. That's still a fact. DNF then? That might sound useful, but IMO a note is more useful in those circumstances.

 

No assumption necessary.

 

You should have quoted one more line of my post.

 

It said, 'The DETAILS are in the logs'.

 

I agree there are times when a Note is appropriate. And to keep people from assuming anything, I will not post DNF's on the 99.99999999999% of the caches that exist that I have not even thought about looking for. :)

 

Personally, I don't care that much if other cachers log a DNF or a Note, as long as they log something.

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...