Jump to content

this is kinda annoying..


mchaos

Recommended Posts

I was hunting for caches the other day, and a 2 or them I could not find. According to the cache page, I looked where they were. they should have been easy finds.

 

I have noticed this with one other cache as well.

 

The other thing was that it has been months since some one has found them, but others in the area have been found. As well all previous finds find them easy.

 

It seems to me that people are prolly looking for these, but just not going on the page and logging a not found.

 

This is annoying because how will any one know that there is something wrong with the cache?

 

Any one else notice this sort of thing?

Link to comment

I see that all the time. Just the other day I did a series of caches down a 5 mile long dead-end road. I found all but one of them. The last log on that one was a found over 3 months ago, but all the others had been found a dozen times since then. Obviously those dozen cachers must have looked for this other one, too, but do you think a single one of them would log a DNF?

 

I proudly logged a DNF and pointed out the discrepancy with the other caches.

Link to comment

I see that all the time. Just the other day I did a series of caches down a 5 mile long dead-end road. I found all but one of them. The last log on that one was a found over 3 months ago, but all the others had been found a dozen times since then. Obviously those dozen cachers must have looked for this other one, too, but do you think a single one of them would log a DNF?

 

I proudly logged a DNF and pointed out the discrepancy with the other caches.

 

Not necessarily on caches that are missing like above, but I'll often see people say something like "finally, after my 3rd trip I found it". But there are never any DNF's for those other two attempts. I'll often log whether mine is a find or a DNF "funny, I didn't see any DNF's from cacher X". Assuming I know cacher X of course. ;)

 

Many caches that have gone an unusually long time with no logged attempts are good candidates for being missing, and I have actually taken this into consideration when looking for them.

Link to comment

If I've really looked for a cache and not found it, I log it as a DNF. If I've made a half-hearted effort, as would be the case in fading daylight or lots of muggles, etc., I may or may not consider it a DNF.

 

Just because the last person or two has logged a DNF on a cache, that is no reason not to look for it. However, if it is supposedly easy and the most recent logs are DNF and I can't seem to find it, I may give up quicker than if the most recent logs report finds. Likewise, if it is supposedly easy and the most recent logs very old and I can't seem to find it, I may give up quicker than if the most recent logs were more timely.

Link to comment

It happens all the time. As an "extremely prolific cache hider" (as I've been titled by one local) I get emails all the time asking me where one of my caches is. I reply by asking where their DNF log is.

 

Isonzo Karst's signature line is excellent for this topic: "Logging a DNF isn't giving yourself an "F""

Logging online is a source of information for all cachers, whether it be a Find, a DNF, even a Note. The DNF inparticular lets both cachers and the cache owner know that there may be a problem with the cache.

Link to comment

Okay, mchaos. I'll bite. You're about five miles west of me. Which ones were you looking for? STUMPED? Good luck with that one! I've found most of the ones you've found. (I ain't crawling through that drainage pipe!) Depending on the hider (and we have some very good cache hiders!), they aren't always as easy as you'd hope.

 

timberwoods and retail adventure.

 

I couldn't find stumped, But I know its there. I am going to try again eventually.

 

Retail experience was a mag key box, under a bench, and I checked every bench there. Had a lot of people staring at me. After my 2nd attempt I wasn't worried about mugglers on this one.

 

I spent an hour looking for timberwoods, and it was supposed to be hid where a lot of kids ride ATV's. according to the logs and the clue, it seemed like it was supposed to be under a ramp. the ramp was gone, and there was an imprint in the dirt shaped like a tuperware container which would have been under the ramps.

 

I looked everywhere any way. Bushwhacked a lot. checked all the trees, and i wasn't alone looking.

 

i cannot remember the other one but some of these haven't been check for at least 3 months

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8b-6157062b39c6

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d5-3256739e99cc

Edited by mchaos
Link to comment

shouldn't the cache owner be monitoring his caches and when it hasn't been found for awhile isn't it their responsibility to take care of their cache's. I know a DNF helps the owner but it is not a cache finders responsibility to take care of an cache owners cache.

 

I don't think anyone is saying the searcher has to take care of a cache for anyone. What is being said, and I agree wholeheartedly, is that people should log their DNFs just as they would log their finds! As for hides not being found for a while, lots of caches go for months with no activity and then one day there is a find. No activity doesn't necessarily mean it is missing.

Link to comment

shouldn't the cache owner be monitoring his caches and when it hasn't been found for awhile isn't it their responsibility to take care of their cache's. I know a DNF helps the owner but it is not a cache finders responsibility to take care of an cache owners cache.

 

Sure it's the cache owner's responsibility to monitor his caches. The logs are a tool provided by this website to help them to do so. Why deny the cache owner this tool by not using it? He spent the time, effort and money to entertain you, so the least you can do is provide feedback.

Link to comment

Interesting. mchaos's DNFs are the first on these two caches. Timberwood's owner was a geocacher for four months last year, and hid one cache, and found none. It has been in bad condition for months, with the suspicion that the local youth had been playing with it. I'd ignore that one. Retail Adventure is an easy find. If you couldn't find it (and you read the hint correctly) then it is probably missing. Hopefully, the CO will replace it. Last found October 25th. This was the first recent DNF.

So, you've run into two different problems: Missing cache and missing cache owner on the one. Unfortunate, but it does happen. The other became missing fairly recently. You posted your DNFs. This alerts the cache owers, and other geocachers.

Link to comment

There is a cache near me that I cant seem to wrap my brain around.

It's just a 2/2 and at one point in time It had 9 DNFs in a row.

 

Flip side:

I have logged 2 DNFs on this cache and after my last visit (i didnt log it) I was informed that I was no longer allowed to look for it with my wife and kids. "But hooooooneeeeeey!" "I said no more."

Should I log that many DNFs? I think not, but I do believe that everyone should give at least one if they miss.

Link to comment

retail adventure should have been an easy find. every one found it easy. It was muggled once before so its prolly gone.

 

I just think that every one should be logging so that the owners can maintain them. no one will ever know there is a problem if no one says they couldn't find it.

 

As for the timberwoods, who ever hid it there was not a good cache hider. its a popular place for kids to ride ATV's and if it was hidden under a ramp, what happens when they pull up the ramp?

 

It could have been a good hide if it was off trail, and not on an atv track. I would imagine whoever upkeeps the ramp prolly found it a couple of times and tossed it into the brush as it has ended up there a few times. I'd actually like to take this cache over and move it to a better place, or rather put a new cache there in a better spot, because there is a nice trail there.

Link to comment

Just remember that you decided to go out geocaching to have FUN. If looking for a cache is no longer fun, and becomes annoying, but you keep looking for it then you have no one to blame but yourself for the lack of FUN you had after that point. If a location doesn't look like a FUN place to search for a cache, don't even bother looking for it. As a PM you can put them on an ignore list and never be bothered with them again.

 

Some people never log DNF's. It's a sad reality of the game. But don't let them spoil your FUN!! :D

Link to comment
shouldn't the cache owner be monitoring his caches and when it hasn't been found for awhile isn't it their responsibility to take care of their cache's. I know a DNF helps the owner but it is not a cache finders responsibility to take care of an cache owners cache.

 

A lot will depend on how many caches someone has hidden. I have few enough caches out there that I do exactly as you suggest -- I watch the logs and if I see a simple one that goes awhile without being logged I'll make a mental note to check on it the next time I go by.

 

It's as much an art as a science. My hiking caches naturally get found less than my drive-ups. My caches close to the city get found more than the ones further away. My puzzle and multi caches get found less than my traditionals. My newer caches get found than my older caches. All those factors combine to set off triggers in my head when I see things go beyond a "normal" time between finds.

 

So, to answer the OP's question: Yep, see that sort of thing all the time.

Link to comment

As for the timberwoods, who ever hid it there was not a good cache hider. its a popular place for kids to ride ATV's and if it was hidden under a ramp, what happens when they pull up the ramp?

 

It could have been a good hide if it was off trail, and not on an atv track. I would imagine whoever upkeeps the ramp prolly found it a couple of times and tossed it into the brush as it has ended up there a few times. I'd actually like to take this cache over and move it to a better place, or rather put a new cache there in a better spot, because there is a nice trail there.

 

I don't see any mention of a ramp at Timberwoods. If you adopted the cache and moved it, it wouldn't be the same cache, and the cache owner is inactive anyway. To place a new cache at the same location, the old one would have to be archived first. You might point out to the reviewer that the cache was in bad condition, and now seems to be missing. The reviewer might mark it inactive, and archive it after a while when no maintenance is done.

 

As you have discovered, not all caches listed are still there. This is a listing service. It is the owner's responsibility to maintain their caches. And there are many people who have hidden caches, and then stopped geocaching. This would seem to be the case with this one.

 

Most cache owners do not check their caches regularly. My first cache was hidden over four years ago, and I've never checked on it. In fact, eight of my caches I have never been back to. There has never been a reason to. I only check it there are worrisome DNFs, or logs with problems. For example, I checked on my letterbox hybrid last weekend because the previous two finders didn't see the stamp. The stamp was right where it was supposed to be! Oh, well.

Link to comment
If I've really looked for a cache and not found it, I log it as a DNF. If I've made a half-hearted effort, as would be the case in fading daylight or lots of muggles, etc., I may or may not consider it a DNF.

I tend to log all my DNFs, even if it was a "half-hearted effort," but I'll mention the conditions in my log. I tend to power-cache in a given area, and may not return to that area for a few months after more caches are added. Then when I pull up to a cache and I have that "Haven't I been here before?" feeling, I can look at the logs and see that last time I gave up because someone was sitting right on the park bench that holds the cache, or whatever went wrong.

 

Heck, even last night when I got home from a FTF run, I logged both my DNF and my find :D

Link to comment
I adopted some caches recently. One of them hadn't been found in over a year - but no DNFs. The caches along the trail on either side of it had finds. Funny how those cachers walked along that trail and all just skipped that one cache ;-)

We notice this every so often when looking at a new area to go caching. You'll see 4 or 5 caches in the park, all with finds, and then there's one lone cache, usually rated fairly easy, and it has no finds in months.

 

When we get the park, if the cache is on the way, we'll stop and give a look. Sometimes we find them, and sometimes we don't. When we find them, we wonder if people searched and couldn't find it and didn't log a DNF or if they just skipped it. Kind of strange that they'd do that, though if it's a "normal" cache.

Link to comment

I really highly doubt that the owner of timber woods will do anything with that cache. He hasn't logged in since Tuesday, September 25, 2007. over a year ago.

 

I hope I wasn't out of line, but I submitted a needs archive. Even if it was replaced, which isn't going to happen, it would get muggled again anyway.

 

Regardless, I am going to hid a cache in that area. It will be off trail and even if a muggler stumbled across it they would think nothing of it.

 

I am going to place it after I finish this multi I am putting together.

Link to comment

I've changed my thinking on the issue of logging DNFs. People get into the game for fun. Logging at all is a burden for some - there are a number of usernames in my area that I've never seen an online log; I know them from seeing them in logbooks. They aren't logging DNFs either, at least not that I've ever seen.

 

And for many, logging DNFs is just not fun at all.

 

I log 'em for my own memories, and for the benefit of other cachers and the owner, but it's a courtesy to others, a nicety, but not a requirement.

 

That cache I adopted (referenced above) was the only micro along that trail - it's certainly possible that the lack of logs reflected the number of people who routinely filter OUT all micros. I replaced it with a trading cache. It was there, however - not missing as I (and I suspect others) assumed.

Link to comment

fun or not, logging the cache helps with maintaining it. So when you log you are helping the sport.

 

Am i wrong?

 

You are correct. Logs are the cacher's way of saying "I went, and this is what I saw when I got there." Whether the log is a find or a DNF, the log helps everyone involved. The hider gets informed about what's happening with his cache. The logger gets a memory aid for when he wonders why he hasn't found this cache 200 finds later. The next hunter gets an idea of what probably lies ahead.

Link to comment

fun or not, logging the cache helps with maintaining it. So when you log you are helping the sport.

 

Am i wrong?

 

You are correct. Logs are the cacher's way of saying "I went, and this is what I saw when I got there." Whether the log is a find or a DNF, the log helps everyone involved. The hider gets informed about what's happening with his cache. The logger gets a memory aid for when he wonders why he hasn't found this cache 200 finds later. The next hunter gets an idea of what probably lies ahead.

 

So what would the reason being for a cache owner deleting a DNF?

Link to comment
fun or not, logging the cache helps with maintaining it. So when you log you are helping the sport.

 

Am i wrong?

You are correct. Logs are the cacher's way of saying "I went, and this is what I saw when I got there." Whether the log is a find or a DNF, the log helps everyone involved. The hider gets informed about what's happening with his cache. The logger gets a memory aid for when he wonders why he hasn't found this cache 200 finds later. The next hunter gets an idea of what probably lies ahead.
So what would the reason being for a cache owner deleting a DNF?
Good question. I recently had someone delete a DNF I posted. It kinda perturbed me, since it's my caching history they altered. The cache, which had been replaced once, had fallen inside the spot it was in, irretrievable. If you looked in the right place, you could see both containers.

 

My log:

I can confirm that there are two cache containers inside. Visible from the right vantage point, but irretrievable without the right tools.
Actually helpful information! Deleted! :laughing:
Link to comment
Good question. I recently had someone delete a DNF I posted. It kinda perturbed me, since it's my caching history they altered. The cache, which had been replaced once, had fallen inside the spot it was in, irretrievable. If you looked in the right place, you could see both containers.

 

My log:

I can confirm that there are two cache containers inside. Visible from the right vantage point, but irretrievable without the right tools.
Actually helpful information! Deleted! :laughing:

Should this not be a "need maintenance" log instead of DNF? Regardless, I agree that it is a useful log, and at the very least the cache owner should provide you with an explanation out of courtesy.

 

I started logging my DNFs after I've read the opinions here on the subject, but I only log if I've actually searched.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment

While for the most part, I'd agree with the assessment that people simply aren't logging their DNF's, this post from another thread made me think of this topic:

If I'm going on a cache raid/run, I'll download a pq of 100 or so 1.5s or less of the area I'm going to hit, I'll load it in gsak and discard anything that hasen't been found in the last six weeks.

Then export a csv file to msn s&t look it over on s&t and decide which ones to do, then delete the rest. Some times I'll check the ones in gsak that I deleted in s&t then delete the checked ones in gsak, I usually end up with about 50 or 60 caches for the day.

I normally start my run around dawn on sunday mornings I've found this to be the best time of day for me, especially if there are any kiddie parks in the run, I usually quit about 1 or 2 in the afternoon or when ever I'm not enjoying myself anymore

Just remember everyone's different and will have their own way , just pick out what feels best for you :D<_<

I added the blue to highlight what struck me. Perhaps some of the later cachers are using this method? I've never actually filtered such caches, but I have, from time to time, looked at the last logs for a cache, seen that they were all DNF's, and decided to not even bother. Since I never even started hunting for it, posting a DNF wouldn't really be honest, either. OTOH, if the last log is from the cache owner, saying "I just checked on the cache, you guys who posted DNF's are loooooosers because it's still there!" you better believe I'm taking that as a personal challenge! :laughing:

 

And yes, if I don't find it, I will post my DNF.

Link to comment

Good question. I recently had someone delete a DNF I posted.

 

 

So did I. The same owner also deleted a "Note" log and a "Needs Maintenance" log the same day. In the case of the "Note" I posted it described that I didn't attempt the caches (Several inches of snow on a very steel hill) and was meant to provide information to other caches that attempting the cache would probably not be a good idea without special equipment when there are similar conditions.

Link to comment

If I've really looked for a cache and not found it, I log it as a DNF. If I've made a half-hearted effort, as would be the case in fading daylight or lots of muggles, etc., I may or may not consider it a DNF.

 

I'm new and came across 2 DNFs today. I feel no shame in logging them at all, but they were DNFs because the area was very muggley. Do I:

 

A- Log them as DNFs since I was chased away by muggles? And then log them as found when I go back to really find them without muggley eyes? :laughing:

 

or

 

B- Not log them as DNFs until I for sure can't find them?

 

Thanks for your help!

Edited by sweetpea3
Link to comment

If I've really looked for a cache and not found it, I log it as a DNF. If I've made a half-hearted effort, as would be the case in fading daylight or lots of muggles, etc., I may or may not consider it a DNF.

 

I'm new and came across 2 DNFs today. I feel no shame in logging them at all, but they were DNFs because the area was very muggley. Do I:

 

A- Log them as DNFs since I was chased away by muggles? And then log them as found when I go back to really find them without muggley eyes? :laughing:

 

or

 

B- Not log them as DNFs until I for sure can't find them?

 

Thanks for your help!

The way I do it - I log those as a DNF and in the log mention that it was because of the muggles. This helps alert other cachers that they may wish search at a low-muggle time. Other people might log a note - it accomplishes the same thing.

 

When I go back and (hopefully) find them, I add a new Found log.

Link to comment
Should this not be a "need maintenance" log instead of DNF? Regardless, I agree that it is a useful log, and at the very least the cache owner should provide you with an explanation out of courtesy.
A "Needs Maintenance" log and a DNF log each stand on their own. In my log I mentioned that I was confirming that there were 2 containers inside. I was confirming someone else's log, and they posted a NM. There was no need to post another, the CO was notified and didn't need to get 2 more emails telling them there was an issue. If this wasn't so, you would be correct in saying that I should have posted both a DNF and a NM.

 

On a side note, in most cases of a DNF, a NM isn't appropriate. If you simply didn't find the cache, how do you know it needs fixing? :D

I'm new and came across 2 DNFs today. I feel no shame in logging them at all, but they were DNFs because the area was very muggley. Do I:

 

A- Log them as DNFs since I was chased away by muggles? And then log them as found when I go back to really find them without muggley eyes? :laughing:

 

or

 

B- Not log them as DNFs until I for sure can't find them?

 

Thanks for your help!

I'd say "A", with the qualification that you mention in your log that you aborted the search because of muggles. 2 reasons:
  1. This lets the CO know that they don't have to go out and see if the container is there.
  2. It might help make future seekers aware that they need to look out for muggles in the area.

Link to comment

If I've really looked for a cache and not found it, I log it as a DNF. If I've made a half-hearted effort, as would be the case in fading daylight or lots of muggles, etc., I may or may not consider it a DNF.

 

I'm new and came across 2 DNFs today. I feel no shame in logging them at all, but they were DNFs because the area was very muggley. Do I:

 

A- Log them as DNFs since I was chased away by muggles? And then log them as found when I go back to really find them without muggley eyes? :laughing:

 

or

 

B- Not log them as DNFs until I for sure can't find them?

 

Thanks for your help!

 

I'd log the DNFs. Future searchers might see your log and will know to search when there are fewer people around. It's helpful information. Some would argue for a note instead of a DNF in that situation, but the way I see it is that you started the hunt for the cache and came up empty so it's a DNF. Note or DNF, it's a matter of personal preference, but log something.

Link to comment
A "Needs Maintenance" log and a DNF log each stand on their own. In my log I mentioned that I was confirming that there were 2 containers inside. I was confirming someone else's log, and they posted a NM. There was no need to post another, the CO was notified and didn't need to get 2 more emails telling them there was an issue. If this wasn't so, you would be correct in saying that I should have posted both a DNF and a NM.

 

On a side note, in most cases of a DNF, a NM isn't appropriate. If you simply didn't find the cache, how do you know it needs fixing? :laughing:

Well, if there is already a NM log, I wouldn't enter one either. Why the cache owner deleted your log is something only he / she can answer and I don't want to speculate. One could argue that you did find the cache, just that you couldn't retrieve it, so it does not count as a DNF. I'd have let your log stand, but I'm not the cache owner..

 

I agree that in most cases DNF != NM. I was only referring to this specific case you encountered.

 

Anyway, I'm doing my part - I attempted to find a cache today, and did not find it. Even though I'm pretty sure the cache is there, I still logged my DNF. So those of you who are annoyed by cachers who did not log DNFs, you have at least one convert here.

Link to comment
So what would the reason being for a cache owner deleting a DNF? Good question. I recently had someone delete a DNF I posted. It kinda perturbed me, since it's my caching history they altered.

We had a DNF get deleted before too. We weren't nasty in our log, but we did make an honest assessment of the area, saying there was garbage everywhere and lots of broken glass so we only did a cursory search for fear of getting cut.

 

Our DNF was deleted, and the owner posted a note to the cache page, saying anyone who commented on the area would have their log deleted. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." :laughing:

 

Edit to fix wacky quotes

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

Shortly after I got into this I figured out that I wasn't going to find them all. What I do now is if I dont find it the first time, I figure maybe I'm having an off day or my GPSr is off. After the second try I'll post a DNF. I have posted a DNF in the middle of a string of finds. Don't bother me. :D

Link to comment
So what would the reason being for a cache owner deleting a DNF? Good question. I recently had someone delete a DNF I posted. It kinda perturbed me, since it's my caching history they altered.

We had a DNF get deleted before too. We weren't nasty in our log, but we did make an honest assessment of the area, saying there was garbage everywhere and lots of broken glass so we only did a cursory search for fear of getting cut.

 

Our DNF was deleted, and the owner posted a note to the cache page, saying anyone who commented on the area would have their log deleted. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." :D

 

Edit to fix wacky quotes

We had a DNF log deleted for a cache near where Mickey lives in SoCal. The owner made various claims. Cleaning up the page for future finders was the main one. The other was that they were in contact with TPTB and had been asked to reduce logs in order to conserve server space. :D

Link to comment

In my log I mentioned that I was confirming that there were 2 containers inside. I was confirming someone else's log, and they posted a NM.

 

I can see one reason to delete your log if I was the CO.

I didn't know the second cache was still there and I wanted to retrieve it before somebody decided on a freebie.

Huh? :D

Link to comment

In my log I mentioned that I was confirming that there were 2 containers inside. I was confirming someone else's log, and they posted a NM.

 

I can see one reason to delete your log if I was the CO.

I didn't know the second cache was still there and I wanted to retrieve it before somebody decided on a freebie.

Huh? :D

Too Tall said the dnf included information stating a previous container that was lost was also with the current container that made it into the same spot. If I was the CO and I didn't know that the first container was still around I would delete and information about its existence to reduce the likelihood that some other cacher would decide that they where going to take one of the containers.

Link to comment

In my log I mentioned that I was confirming that there were 2 containers inside. I was confirming someone else's log, and they posted a NM.

 

I can see one reason to delete your log if I was the CO.

I didn't know the second cache was still there and I wanted to retrieve it before somebody decided on a freebie.

Huh? :D

 

If you confirmed two containers, you could make a pretty persuasive argument to log a find, you did find the cache but it was inaccessable. I had one last week, GC10PPJ Cryptic Cemetary Revived, that I could look down the hidey hole and could see where a packrat or other critter (insert Zombie reference) pulled the log. I could see it and signatures. I logged the smiley, added a needs mainenance log and sent an email to the CO. Because of the detail, he checked the cache, and I kept the smiley.

 

Whether the CO keeps or deletes the note and NM is his deal, so long as it's fixed. As a cache owner, I would prefer to leave the logs intact so I and others can track if the cache has prolific problems with being muggled. I want my finders to have the best information to keep from getting frustrated.

 

I mean, think about it. If a cache goes several smilies and a few DNF's, gets replaced and goesthrough the cycle over and over, after the first DNF I know there is a high probability with this cache having problems. I need to move the cache, or get a better container. Finders can see that too and avoid a likely DNF until the darn thing is fixed.

 

If everyone was that polite this game would be a little more enjoyable.

 

The ones that grind my gears are the ones who delete smileys to reuse the number for a new cache... Different thread though.

 

If I log a DNF, usually (unless I'm convinced) I'll indicate I mised it and will try again. (9 out of ten I find the second go round.)

 

As for the argument of server speed, check out ORIGINAL STASH TRIBUTE PLAQUE by TEAM 360 (GCGV0P)

the most logged cache.

 

It's a conspiracy, Do I need to send out a Zombie army?

Edited by Unkle Fester
Link to comment

I don't have a lot of hides, but on the ones that I do have if they go unfound for a couple of weeks I take a trip out and verify that they are ok. I check the container and the logs. I think it is very nice of people to make notes on whether they can find or not find my caches but I don't expect them to maintain or help me take care of those hides. I put them out there and it is my responsibility. (for all of you that have put a DNF thank you, but you don't have too if you don't want to)

Link to comment
Do I:

 

A- Log them as DNFs

or

B- Not log them as DNFs

Put me in the "Write Note" crowd. For me, I won't log a DNF on a cache I didn't hunt for. I feel the hunt involves physically looking for the cache, not just meandering around the general area, then leaving because there are too many muggles. It just doesn't feel like I've actually looked for anything. That doesn't mean a DNF is wrong, or even inappropriate, if that's the log type you pick, it just doesn't work for me. On the other hand, if I actually do look, even a little bit, it gets a DNF every time.

(edit to add: unless I find it!) :D

 

...they posted a NM. There was no need to post another, the CO was notified and didn't need to get 2 more emails telling them there was an issue.

Talking about multiple NMs reminded me that, when I revisited this cache, (helping some buddies with a numbers run), I noticed it had 7 NMs, with no action by the owner. This one had 5 NMs. Same owner, same inaction. That was the first time in almost 4 years of caching that I utilized the dreaded SBA log type.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

Been at this since August and it never occured to me that to log a DNF was a bad thing. I guess the one's who don't log DNF's also have Vanity plates on there vehicle. :)

 

Do I:

 

A- Log them as DNFs

or

B- Not log them as DNFs

Put me in the "Write Note" crowd. For me, I won't log a DNF on a cache I didn't hunt for. I feel the hunt involves physically looking for the cache, not just meandering around the general area, then leaving because there are too many muggles. It just doesn't feel like I've actually looked for anything. That doesn't mean a DNF is wrong, or even inappropriate, if that's the log type you pick, it just doesn't work for me. On the other hand, if I actually do look, even a little bit, it gets a DNF every time.

(edit to add: unless I find it!) :)

 

...they posted a NM. There was no need to post another, the CO was notified and didn't need to get 2 more emails telling them there was an issue.

Talking about multiple NMs reminded me that, when I revisited this cache, (helping some buddies with a numbers run), I noticed it had 7 NMs, with no action by the owner. This one had 5 NMs. Same owner, same inaction. That was the first time in almost 4 years of caching that I utilized the dreaded SBA log type.

Link to comment

My two cents:

 

I'm not smart. I love geocaching, I love looking for all kinds of paper to write my name on. Micros, hiking caches, LPCs, puzzles, whatever. But often, hiders are smarter than me. This seems particularly true of some of the COs in my area. There have been numerous times that I have looked for something many times and not found it, only to find it later or have to be told where it is and I think, "how did I not find that before?"

 

So knowing that a DNF will probably cause others not to look for it, I am hesitant to log an DNF because of my own stupidity.

 

Not that I'm against logging DNFs. Having since then become a CO myself for a few caches, it's nice to know that someone took the time to go to your cache no matter what the outcome. And I would run out the next day and check on the cache if someone logged a DNF. In fact, I try to go out and check on my caches whenever we get rain, just to make sure everything is fine (hey, I live in LA, we don't get a whole lot of it).

 

If I go to a cache more than once (or more, depending on level of difficulty) then I usually log a DNF. Often, I will email the cache owner directly if I think there may be a problem with the cache or to get a nudge in the right direction. I feel out the situation on a cache by cache basis. But I'm mostly in the "Write Note" category unless I've poked my nose in every single place I could think of for that cache to be hiding on more than one occasion. And that may also come from doing mostly urban caches because I live in the big city. If I was mostly looking for ammo cans in the forest, my philosophy might be totally different.

 

I will say though, reading this thread has made me think, and that's the best thing of all. Thanks all, for the new perspective.

Link to comment

So knowing that a DNF will probably cause others not to look for it, I am hesitant to log an DNF because of my own stupidity.

 

Say a cache goes missing and you come along and don't log a DNF because of your "own stupidity". Then Cacher B comes along and doesn't log a DNF because he plans on coming back again. Cacher C then looks for the cache and doesn't log a DNF because he didn't think he searched hard enough. Cacher D then takes a shot and he logs a DNF, and finally Cacher F looks and decides not to log a DNF because he's new and doesn't want to alarm the owner.

 

Now you have 5 people who searched unsuccessfully for the cache and the owner is only aware of one DNF. Everybody who didn't log a DNF thinks they have legit reasons, but in the end the cache owner and other geocachers were deprived of helpful information.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...