No stigma, eh?

[+Star*Hopper]

Everybody sez "There's no stigma attached to filing DNFs...." etc.

 

If TPTB could be convinced to add another parenthetical count for DNFs, right up there beside your name along with the 'Finds' count, would it result in more, or fewer DNFs ever being filed?

 

Not that I'm asking for the feature, just....what do you think?

~*

[jholly]

Everybody sez "There's no stigma attached to filing DNFs...." etc.

 

If TPTB could be convinced to add another parenthetical count for DNFs, right up there beside your name along with the 'Finds' count, would it result in more, or fewer DNFs ever being filed?

 

Not that I'm asking for the feature, just....what do you think?

~*

 

I don't think it will change things much. After all DNF = I failed, I'm a dummy.

 

Jim

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Everybody sez "There's no stigma attached to filing DNFs...." etc.

 

If TPTB could be convinced to add another parenthetical count for DNFs, right up there beside your name along with the 'Finds' count, would it result in more, or fewer DNFs ever being filed?

 

Not that I'm asking for the feature, just....what do you think?

~*

I would love to see this feature, but better, why not ask TPTB to remove the Finds count from the account name display box?

 

As I have stated many times before, I file DNF reports religiously, and I put more tender loving care into them than I do into Find logs. My wife Sue is pretty good about filing DNFs, but neither her Find logs nor DNF logs are as long as my logs, respectively.

 

I do not that this whole DNF topic keeps getting resurrected on the forum, again and again. In fact, the DNF topic gets revisited so frequently, and my so many different posters in so many different threads that it appears almost as if an occult hand had reached down from above and moved the players like pawns upon some giant chessboard.

 

.

[+sbell111]

I think that doing so would create a perceived stigma to logging DNFs and result in fewer DNFs being logged.

[+9Key]

I think that doing so would create a perceived stigma to logging DNFs and result in fewer DNFs being logged.

Ditto.

 

And ditto to Vinny's occult hand.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I don't think it will change things much. After all DNF = I failed, I'm a dummy.

 

Like the 1/1 MKH in a guard rail that I DNFed on Sunday???

[+hukilaulau]

I think that doing so would create a perceived stigma to logging DNFs and result in fewer DNFs being logged.

I disagree. I think that everyone knows they *should* log DNF's, and if there was a way to see a player's DNF list (as there is a way to see everything else they do) there would be a stigma attached to NOT having a DNF list. Then we would start getting threads about bogus DNF's on caches. (Player A logged a DNF online, but his name is in the physical log, can I delete his DNF? Should he be banned from geocaching?)

[+wimseyguy]

The real question is how many more threads about posting DNF's would this suggested change result in?

 

...and ditto the hand thingy too....

[+StarBrand]

I think that doing so would create a perceived stigma to logging DNFs and result in fewer DNFs being logged.

To some extent I think that would hold true.....

 

however,

 

There will always be a subset that would start logging DNFs enmasse in some futile new statistical war to see who could get the counter highest.

[+tozainamboku]

I think the number in parentheses should just be number of logs, not found it logs but just logs. It should count found it, attended, web cam taken, DNF, notes, SBA, Needs maintenance, changed coordinates, archived, disabled, enabled, owner maintenance, etc. The volunteer reviewers would have the highest counts just based on Published logs.

[+Colonial Cats]

Everybody sez "There's no stigma attached to filing DNFs...." etc.

 

If TPTB could be convinced to add another parenthetical count for DNFs, right up there beside your name along with the 'Finds' count, would it result in more, or fewer DNFs ever being filed?

 

Not that I'm asking for the feature, just....what do you think?

~*

I would love to see this feature, but better, why not ask TPTB to remove the Finds count from the account name display box?

 

As I have stated many times before, I file DNF reports religiously, and I put more tender loving care into them than I do into Find logs. My wife Sue is pretty good about filing DNFs, but neither her Find logs nor DNF logs are as long as my logs, respectively.

 

I do not that this whole DNF topic keeps getting resurrected on the forum, again and again. In fact, the DNF topic gets revisited so frequently, and my so many different posters in so many different threads that it appears almost as if an occult hand had reached down from above and moved the players like pawns upon some giant chessboard.

 

.

Bad Post. Sorry.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Colonial Cats

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Everybody sez "There's no stigma attached to filing DNFs...." etc.

 

If TPTB could be convinced to add another parenthetical count for DNFs, right up there beside your name along with the 'Finds' count, would it result in more, or fewer DNFs ever being filed?

 

Not that I'm asking for the feature, just....what do you think?

~*

I would love to see this feature, but better, why not ask TPTB to remove the Finds count from the account name display box?

 

As I have stated many times before, I file DNF reports religiously, and I put more tender loving care into them than I do into Find logs. My wife Sue is pretty good about filing DNFs, but neither her Find logs nor DNF logs are as long as my logs, respectively.

 

I do not that this whole DNF topic keeps getting resurrected on the forum, again and again. In fact, the DNF topic gets revisited so frequently, and my so many different posters in so many different threads that it appears almost as if an occult hand had reached down from above and moved the players like pawns upon some giant chessboard.

And, as an addendum to my earlier post, above, I suspect that this practice would result in more DNFs being logged.

[+Juicepig]

All a DNF shows is that you are big enough to show you can accept failure, and possibly if you have a sense of humor about yourself.

 

I occasionally announce my DNF milestones to the local caching group!

[+Renegade Knight]

I think that doing so would create a perceived stigma to logging DNFs and result in fewer DNFs being logged.

Likewise.

 

Yet I'd do it anyway since I like stats from every direction. Since I'll often look at my caching partners logs in their profile to see what I need to log (or vice versa if I log first) it would be handy to be able to see the DNF logs instead of just the finds. In other words instead of look up "caches found by" it would be "caches logged by". That's a little bit different than the OP's request but handy none the less. At least for those of us who like to see what our partnrs logged to help us log.

[+Team Black-Cat]

[+Team Black-Cat]

And, as an addendum to my earlier post, above, I suspect that this practice would result in more DNFs being logged.

 

Yes it would. It would be another number to use for competition.

 

After reading a lot of other DNF threads, I would have to say that I'm about in the middle of the spectrum. I will log a DNF when my search was worthy of a DNF or if I'm sure the container is missing. I'll also log a DNF on any local cache I don't find.

[+markandsandy]

I wish there was an occult hand that would reached down from above and log DNFs for the people who aren't honest enough to do it themselves.

[Andbabymakesthree]

I wish there was an occult hand that would reached down from above and log DNFs for the people who aren't honest enough to do it themselves.

 

I don't know so much about a hand..how about a foot?

 

AB3

[Clan Riffster]

I think that doing so would create a perceived stigma to logging DNFs and result in fewer DNFs being logged.

I agree. As it stands now, our forum has numerous old threads buried within it bemoaning the fact that many folks do not log every DNF. It seems the common element with these folks is that they are embarrassed to demonstrate their failure to locate a particular cache. I'm thinking that if the number of DNFs were made public, the embarrassment would be even greater, and the DNF logs would dwindle accordingly.

[+sbell111]

[+wimseyguy]

I agree, there will be even more once this product is used.

 

And some will even log bogus DNF's just to qualify for this cache. I say, stop the madness!

[+Star*Hopper]

The real question is how many more threads about posting DNF's would this suggested change result in?

 

 

Believe it or not, if others are discussing a subject which you don't like for some reason, it is perfectly alright if you just stay out of it.

 

~*

[+sbell111]

The real question is how many more threads about posting DNF's would this suggested change result in?

Believe it or not, if others are discussing a subject which you don't like for some reason, it is perfectly alright if you just stay out of it.

 

~*

He has a point.

 

It is my belief that the suggested change would result in more angst, not less. This would naturally result in more DNF-related threads.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I wish there was an occult hand that would reached down from above and log DNFs for the people who aren't honest enough to do it themselves.

 

There is nothing dishonest about not logging a DNF, just as there is nothing dishonest about not logging a Find.

[+Team Perks]

I think we would see a rash of forum threads such as:

 

"Who has the record for the most DNF's?" (followed by much arguing about what constitutes a legitimate DNF)

 

"I think people are falsely logging DNF's. This is an outrage!" (followed by much arguing about what constitutes a legitimate DNF)

 

"Hey, a German team went to Florida and DNF'd 4764567843 caches in 24 hours!" "But they cheated!" "No they didn't!" "Yes they did!" (followed by much arguing about what constitutes a legitimate DNF)

 

"My DNF log was deleted! The cache owner said I didn't look hard enough! Now my DNF count is off!" (followed by much arguing about what constitutes a legitimate DNF)

[+Barnacle Bear]

In NWOgeo I am known as Dr. DNF.

I wasn't very good when I started and am not much better now.

 

If there is one thing at which I am successful it is recording DNFs.

I have no altruistic intentions. I record DNFs because my memory stinks.

Geocaching.com is kind enough to save them for me.

 

So, I can go back and relive the good times I've had, even though I wasn't 'successful'.

I do this several times per year. The Woman, The Count and I have had some real disasters.

Amazingly, in all but two cases I (we've) had great fun, fun worth revisiting.

 

DNFs are what you make of them. I choose to look at them as "Did Not Fail!"

Some of my best memories were because of DNFs.

 

Good Hunting!

 

bb

[+Glenn]

In NWOgeo I am known as Dr. DNF.

I wasn't very good when I started and am not much better now.

 

If there is one thing at which I am successful it is recording DNFs.

I have no altruistic intentions. I record DNFs because my memory stinks.

Geocaching.com is kind enough to save them for me.

 

So, I can go back and relive the good times I've had, even though I wasn't 'successful'.

I do this several times per year. The Woman, The Count and I have had some real disasters.

Amazingly, in all but two cases I (we've) had great fun, fun worth revisiting.

 

DNFs are what you make of them. I choose to look at them as "Did Not Fail!"

Some of my best memories were because of DNFs.

 

Good Hunting!

 

bb

 

Thats how I use my DNFs. When I decide to give a cache that I wasn't able to find a go again I check my DNF log. That is why I when I make DNF logs, particularly for caches that I plan on attempting again, I make sure the DNF log is something that will jog my memory and has some detail in it.

[+flask]

blast. i thought it said "no stigmata".

 

oh.

 

anyway. i don't care one way or t'other about whether the DNFs get compiled in the stats (although it would be nice to be able to look up someone's DNF the same way you look up his finds), but i would very much like to see the language on the log changed from "(cachername) couldn't find (cachename)" to "(cachername didn't find (cachename)".

 

that'd be more accurate.

 

sure, sometimes you can't find it, but a lot of the time, you just don't.

Edited February 25, 2009 by flask

[AZcachemeister]

I WOULD LOVE IT!

I am proud of each and every one of my DNFs.

I earned them, and the opportunity for everyone to share the glory would be awesome.

AMEN

[My Name is Earl]

Everybody sez "There's no stigma attached to filing DNFs...." etc.

 

If TPTB could be convinced to add another parenthetical count for DNFs, right up there beside your name along with the 'Finds' count, would it result in more, or fewer DNFs ever being filed?

 

Not that I'm asking for the feature, just....what do you think?

~*

It would make interesting reading. I rarely log finds on the site. I cache for my enjoyment not for numbers.

 

But I always log DNFs as a DNF can be very useful to a cache owner and other cachers if a cache has gone missing or moved from where it should be.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I think we would see a rash of forum threads such as:

 

"Who has the record for the most DNF's?" (followed by much arguing about what constitutes a legitimate DNF)

 

"I think people are falsely logging DNF's. This is an outrage!" (followed by much arguing about what constitutes a legitimate DNF)

 

"Hey, a German team went to Florida and DNF'd 4764567843 caches in 24 hours!" "But they cheated!" "No they didn't!" "Yes they did!" (followed by much arguing about what constitutes a legitimate DNF)

 

"My DNF log was deleted! The cache owner said I didn't look hard enough! Now my DNF count is off!" (followed by much arguing about what constitutes a legitimate DNF)

Funny you should mention this possibility! It just so happens that I have been "busted" publicly several times by the Groundspeak Police for having filed fake DNFs. It was very embarrassing and humiliating, and the stiff monetary fine and the prison sentence (and, how did I end up with a frog for a cellmate?) were no fun either. So, from now on, I am gonna be much more careful and circumspect when filing my fake DNFs, for I have learned that nothing angers people in the geo community more than fake DNF logs!

 

.

[+Onyx5]

Ok, you're telling me in this posting that:

 

1. Folks are too worried about DNF's that they won't log them? C'mon folks, it's a GAME! I enjoy a smiley as well as the next guy and, yes, I'm a n00b, but sheesh... To me, a DNF is a challenge. I'll stay up at night trying to solve it. It's another puzzle to be solved.

 

2. This has been hashed out before.

 

3. Nothing has been resolved.

 

C'mon. Quit whining and get out and cache.

[+nittany dave]

I log most of my DNFs and I'm proud of them but I don't think having a separate count of them displayed as described is a good idea. Like others have already posted, I think it would result in even more threads about this old topic and have little net effect on whether people actually logged them or not. Those like me that do will still log them, those that are embarrased still won't. Those in the middle may split, logging them more or less often depending on the affect seeing their numbers has on them individually.

[+Stargazer22]

I think that doing so would create a perceived stigma to logging DNFs and result in fewer DNFs being logged.

To some extent I think that would hold true.....

 

however,

 

There will always be a subset that would start logging DNFs enmasse in some futile new statistical war to see who could get the counter highest.

 

I think StarBrand has a point. There always seems to be a counter culture element that will do things just because they can. It wouldn't modify my behavior one whit. I log my finds and DNFs the same.

 

Bishop to Queen's Knight six. Vinnie, that's check.

[janx]

It's a known metric fact (often not cited by consultants selling metrics) that you get what you measure.

 

The site measures Finds, by displaying them so prominently. The result is, people try to increase their finds, because Finds are good, and a high number is good.

 

Start displaying DNFs, and since DNFs are bad (can be implied), people will try to keep the count low. And that may mean failing to report a DNF on a cache that is missing, and really needs the DNF logs to prove the point.

 

I log DNFs for any cache I don't find. It helps me note that I looked for it, so I can revisit it, and it helps others validate if the cache is hard to find, or just missing.

[John E Cache]

I kind of see the point off counting DNFs, but I don't think it will have an effect. If a cacher's goal is to find all the caches they can, there is no point in wasting valuable caching time logging DNFs.

 

I frequent one site where if someone likes your post they can click the "Thank You" button and there is a thank you count and post count. Maybe they should implement "Thank You" counting here. A hider could give a finder a Thank You if the log was useful(DNF or not).

[+ThirstyMick]

I wish there was an occult hand that would reached down from above and log DNFs for the people who aren't honest enough to do it themselves.

 

There is nothing dishonest about not logging a DNF, just as there is nothing dishonest about not logging a Find.

 

I've been having a really hard time lately logging my finds. I managed to log about 50 on monday, from the past month. I still have 3 virtuals to log that I need to post pictures for, pictures are on my home computer which I'm never in front of, b/c by the time I get home from work I'm sick of looking at the computer. I like to write more than TFTC, so my logging duties build up when I don't have time, and the more they build up, the more there are and the longer it'll be before I get to them. It's a vicious cycle. Like the dishes in my sink.

 

When I don't log DNFs, it's laziness or disorganization rather than dishonesty. Usually though, I'm with my boyfriend who is very diligent about logging everything so I don't feel the urgent need to log the DNF b/c someone already has.

 

If I think a cache might be missing, I'll log the DNF, or if theres a good story I'd like to tell, then I'll log it, but otherwise, it's just another task that I haven't gotten around to. Also, when I log my finds, I usually just search for my boyfriends name and log the ones I was with him for. I cant search for his DNFs so I have no idea which cache was the DNF.

 

Editing to actually answer the question posed: I don't think I'd log them more or less often if the number were added, mostly b/c it wouldn't change the fact that I don't usually know which cache I didn't find. We do PQs, when I search PolskiKrols finds, I'll read the cache page and remember it, but otherwise, I don't know. Actually pulling out the GPS and looking at the list of finds/dnfs eh too much work. Also, I'm usually logging from work.

Edited February 25, 2009 by ThirstyMick