Average ratio of DNFs to found caches

[Tally Dragon]

One of the things I like about Geocaching is all the statistics. Some of the more accomplished geocachers display a variety of statistics on their profile pages. This is a good thing because it shows how dedicated they are to the sport. However there is one statistic that would be interesting to see but is always missing. I’m talking about the number of times they looked for a cache and “did not find” it (DNFs).

 

So what would an average ratio of DNFs to found caches look like? Mine is 17 percent (32 DNFs to 190 found) which is probably not good, and the number would be worse if it reflected all of my DNFs and not just the ones logged. I suspect a lot of geocachers fail to log all their DNFs and some may not log them at all. This is another interesting statistic we’ll never know, the ratio of DNFs logged to ones not logged.

 

Why is it important to log your DNFs? It lets people know there may be a problem with the cache. If the cache suddenly racks up several DNFs in a row, the owner may want to check on it. You can assume that for every DNF logged there are probably twice that many not logged (we can only guess at that number).

 

You can find out how many DNFs you have logged by clicking on “MY PROFILE”, then choose “Geocaches”, then “Didn’t find it”. Count them and divide that number by the number of finds to get your ratio. This information is only available to you, but if you want to share it in a reply to this post, please do so.

[+Arrow42]

I think it's hidden to prevent/reduce stigma from being associated with the logging DNFs.

 

As for how many do I have... well, a lot I guess. 30% or so. But early on a thread like this convinced me to log DNFs religiously. And... I'm still new so I don't know all the tricks of the trade yet.

[+Walts Hunting]

One of the things I hate is everyone's concern about stastics. It's about getting out and enjoying yourself. Rising to challenges. And since I limit my time at each micro site to 60 seconds before it goes on my Ignore list would that be a realistid DNF. And yes I do use the GSAK micro generate stats for my site it is more of a reference for me than some contest.

[+Allanon]

Not again...

[+Unkle Fester]

Very interesting, I have 2098 finds and 183 DNF's logged. about 8 or 9%. Really should be more like 10%. I removed my DNF's my first two months after finding the caches and there are some I don't feel were worth the DNF.

 

Funny thing, I've done runs of 30 or 40 with no DNF's and I've have about 15 DNF's in a row (that was a horrid feeling). Just depends on the area and getting used to other cachers hides when moving into a different part of town.

 

I think about 25% I have gone back and found later. I do not remove the DNF's anymore.

 

I find it funny the people who claim never to have a DNF, like you've never run into a missing cache...

[+ventura_kids]

I think of logging DNF's as a tool to help the cache owner know the status of the cache.

It also helps me to remember that I didn't find the cache after searching for it.

 

Depending on the town we are in..... and the difficulty of the caches we are searching for.....and the time we allow to search for each one.....our average DNF percentage varies greatly.

 

Yesterday we had 14 DNF's and 78 finds.

One weekend in Porterville we had 58 DNF's and 256 finds.

It varies....

 

My suggestion is to select your caches by reading the cache page, and some recent logs.

If there are DNF's in the last one or two cachers logs, then you may expect some difficulty.

[+ras_oscar]

I log a cache only if it will help the hide. If I truly believe I have looked every conceivable place and it's not there. Otherwise I come back another day and try again, logging my total nunmber of trips when I maker the find.

[+webscouter.]

My ratio is 8.834%

 

And I log all my DNF's.

[+Entropy512]

My ratio is 8.834%

 

And I log all my DNF's.

I've only been somewhat nervous about logging some of my DNFs because there are some people who keep asking for ways to search for caches that have more than X DNFs in Y weeks so they don't "waste time" hunting it.

 

I don't want to reduce traffic to a cache because I'm too rusty to find something that is obvious to others.

 

I have set notes occasionally of "Turned back due to being unprepared" just so cachers know the owner is serious when they reccommend pants and shoes.

 

I'm probably going to go back and log my other DNFs after this thread. If the people who treat too many DNFs as not worth their time don't go to a cache because I didn't find it - their problem not mine.

[+sunsetmeadowlark]

My ratio for logged DNF's is 11.4%, 44 logged DNF's to 383 finds. But there are a few caches I DNF'd on numerous times (one cache was 8 times!) and only logged them once or twice so in reality it would be 14.8%, 57 DNF's to 383 finds.

[+briansnat]

I log all my DNFs and the last time this came up I checked and I think my percentage of DNFs to finds was around 21 percent.

[+StarBrand]

I log all my DNFs - After 7.5 years of doing this I have about a 17% (about 1 DNF for every 6 finds).

[+bflentje]

One of the things I hate is everyone's concern about stastics. It's about getting out and enjoying yourself. Rising to challenges. And since I limit my time at each micro site to 60 seconds before it goes on my Ignore list would that be a realistid DNF. And yes I do use the GSAK micro generate stats for my site it is more of a reference for me than some contest.

 

My gosh, there are so many things wrong with your very short paragraph I don't even know where to start. So I'll look past the negativity and contradictions and just mention that your statement is irrelevant to the original post.

 

BTW, I log nearly all DNFs whether I put real effort into it or not and I am right around 12%.

Edited June 15, 2009 by bflentje

[knowschad]

One of the things I hate is everyone's concern about stastics. It's about getting out and enjoying yourself. Rising to challenges. And since I limit my time at each micro site to 60 seconds before it goes on my Ignore list would that be a realistid DNF. And yes I do use the GSAK micro generate stats for my site it is more of a reference for me than some contest.

 

You enjoy rising to the challenge, and yet you limit your time spent on micros to 60 seconds? (or were you referring to the "GSAK micro (sic)" )

 

 

16% today, although this weekend I probably boosted that number by a bunch. Out of 10 caches on Saturday, 8 were DNFs. I went back there yesterday and found two of them, but logged a 2nd DNF on 5 of the others (I skipped the 6th one)

 

log a cache only if it will help the hide. If I truly believe I have looked every conceivable place and it's not there. Otherwise I come back another day and try again, logging my total nunmber of trips when I maker the find.

 

Awww... please consider changing your ways? First, DNF's are also for the cache owner, both to judge if there is a problem, and also to properly rate the difficulty. But they are also for the other cachers. Don't you generally look at the number of DNFs logged on a cache (particularily recent DNFs) before deciding if you want to attempt it, or not?

Edited June 15, 2009 by knowschad

[+Mule Ears]

Stats like this will lead you seriously astray if you let 'em. I am a terrible searcher, but I have a low (4.25%) DNF rate. How can that be? Well, I restrict my caching mostly to backcountry caches where the getting-there challenge is very high and the finding-it challenge is very low. When I DNF a cache, it's either because the cache is not there or because the owner seriously understated the finding-it difficulty. Occasionally, on walks or bike rides around town, I'll visit the site of some devious micro and actually stumble upon the thing, but that's about the extent of my dalliance with the sort of cache that generates DNFs.

 

I've seen these DNF threads before, and I'll caution the pro-DNF crowd: Scolding people for their less-than-perfect DNF habits, or drawing conclusions from their stats doesn't accomplish anything, and smells like self-congratulation. Some of us simply dislike tricky hides and try our darndest to avoid them. Some sadistic cache owners know this, and employ a two-pronged strategy: (1) Lowball the difficulty, (2) Moralize about DNFs. Sorry, no sale.

[+wimseyguy]

A quick scan shows that I'm at about 9.8% with ~700 DNF's logged to almost 7200 finds. We did much better yesterday with only 2 DNF's and 100 finds.

 

Some of the DNF's are multiple misses on the same cache, and one is on a cache that I own but was unable to find for a maintenance visit and had to PAF to the previous finder.

[Skippermark]

I log all my DNFs too. I usually have a higher DNF to find ratio when I'm somewhere I've never been than when I'm in places where I cache regularly. I attribute that to becoming familiar with the hide styles of local cachers and how they think.

[+Colonial Cats]

This is all well and good, but remember that 42% of all statistics are made up.

[+wimseyguy]

Perhaps you missed my sig line? It's much higher than 42%.

[+tozainamboku]

First of all, you are calculating the wrong statistic. It should be the ratio of finds to the total number of attempts to find a geocache. I call it the Geocaching Average. This would be roughly equivalent to batting average in baseball. The batting average is the number of hits divided by the number of at bats. Number of attempts to find a geocache may be as hard to define as at bats is. In baseball one would think that you would count an at bat every time the player comes to the plate to face the pitcher. But this is not the case. An appearance at home plate to face the pitcher is not counted as an at bat in the following circumstances

• The batter receives a base on balls (BB).[1]
  
• He is hit by a pitch (HBP).
  
• He hits a sacrifice fly or a sacrifice hit (also known as sacrifice bunt).
  
• He is awarded first base due to interference or obstruction, usually by the catcher.
  
• The inning ends while he is still at bat (due to the third out being made by a runner caught stealing, for example). In this case, the batter will come to bat again in the next inning, though he now has no balls or strikes on him.
  
• He is replaced by another hitter before his at bat is completed (unless he is replaced with two strikes and his replacement strikes out).
  

 

One could count an attempt at finding a geocache as any outing that results in either a found it or a DNF log. However, there is no official scorer to tell a geocacher when they must log a find or DNF online. Many geocachers follow a hard and fast rule for when to log a find; i.e., if they sign the physical log in the cache they may count this as find online. There is no similar widely accepted rule for when to log a DNF. Some cachers will say if they selected the cache waypoint in their GPSr that counts as an attempt. Others will say that if they got to ground zero and spent at least a specified amount of time looking they they will log the DNF if they did not find the cache. And then there is question of what to do if you find the cache but were unable to sign the log for some reason. Should you log a DNF? After all you now know where the cache is hidden. Perhaps you even opened it up and found a soaking wet log book and had nothing on which to leave a signature? There might even be those who think they should log this as a find . Like every other geocaching statistic these numbers should only be used for entertainment purposes and not to compare two cachers' ability.

 

My geocaching average is .875, but since getting a Garmin Oregon a month ago my average is .972 If this were baseball someone would accuse me of using a corked bat

[+J-Way]

My historic DNF/Find ratio is 17.8%. My DNF/(DNF+Find) ratio is 15.1%. So use whichever you want. I typically go for the harder caches so I'm surprised the ratio isn't higher. And of course this doesn't count the puzzles that I've attempted and never figured out.

 

Incidentally, in the last week on vacation to and from Pensacola, Florida, I had 11 finds, 5 DNFs, and 2 DNAs (did not attempts because of blocked access, recorded by notes). So my ratio for attempted caches was 7/11=63.6%, or 7/18=38.9% failure rate, depending on how you look at it.

 

I'm pretty confident that four of the DNFs are actually missing. All the tourist muggles, new construction, and hurricanes are apparently hard on caches.

[+bflentje]

This is all well and good, but remember that 42% of all statistics are made up.

 

Actually, my 329 DNFs divided by my 2870 finds is 11.46%. Not made up. It's a fact.

 

You used a great statement but in the wrong context

[+bflentje]

I've seen these DNF threads before, and I'll caution the pro-DNF crowd: Scolding people for their less-than-perfect DNF habits, or drawing conclusions from their stats doesn't accomplish anything, and smells like self-congratulation. Some of us simply dislike tricky hides and try our darndest to avoid them. Some sadistic cache owners know this, and employ a two-pronged strategy: (1) Lowball the difficulty, (2) Moralize about DNFs. Sorry, no sale.

 

Scolding people and suggesting that they reconsider are two different things. I don't think I saw any scolding going on. Some of us aren't making any judgements at all. Some of us merely stating our number, our position, and that we're proud of every DNF

[+RonnieGeo]

My historic DNF/Find ratio is 17.8%. My DNF/(DNF+Find) ratio is 15.1%. So use whichever you want. I typically go for the harder caches so I'm surprised the ratio isn't higher. And of course this doesn't count the puzzles that I've attempted and never figured out.

 

Incidentally, in the last week on vacation to and from Pensacola, Florida, I had 11 finds, 5 DNFs, and 2 DNAs (did not attempts because of blocked access, recorded by notes). So my ratio for attempted caches was 7/11=63.6%, or 7/18=38.9% failure rate, depending on how you look at it.

 

I'm pretty confident that four of the DNFs are actually missing. All the tourist muggles, new construction, and hurricanes are apparently hard on caches.

 

Well, I was thinking I was about 20%, but your math works better and I think it puts me at about 16% (85DNF, 470 Found).

 

There was a person on the forums (can't remember who) that had a link in their sig line to their "unresolved" DNF's. I kind of liked this for myself as I like to have closure. I don't know if there is software to calculate it, or she just did it herself.

 

I do like to go back through my DNF's and see which ones do not have "closure" and keep trying them. (Closure would be that either I did find it, it was archived, or I am not capable of completing it for physical or mental reasons).

[+Arrow42]

This is all well and good, but remember that 42% of all statistics are made up.

 

Wait, are you calling me 42% of a liar?

 

I guess if I'm going to be any percentage of a liar, then 42 is a good one!

[+Renegade Knight]

One of the things I hate is everyone's concern about stastics. ... And since I limit my time at each micro site to 60 seconds before it goes on my Ignore list ...

 

That's an interesting statistic.

[+J-Way]

This is all well and good, but remember that 42% of all statistics are made up.

Actually, my 329 DNFs divided by my 2870 finds is 11.46%. Not made up. It's a fact.

You used a great statement but in the wrong context

Not necessarily... it's just that your "fact" falls in the 51% of all statistics that are actually true. Edited June 16, 2009 by J-Way

[jholly]

This is all well and good, but remember that 42% of all statistics are made up.

Actually, my 329 DNFs divided by my 2870 finds is 11.46%. Not made up. It's a fact.

You used a great statement but in the wrong context

Not necessarily... it's just that your "fact" falls in the 51% of all statistics that are actually true.

 

I'm not even sure that is true. I think the fact is closer to 47.97932%.

[POLE POSITION]

Between logged and ulnogged, the percent is about 25-35%.

[+wandrlust]

26.92% of DNF's for all searches. (7 DNF in 26 searches) [] I'm not a very competitive person really...my pride is not hurt by logging a DNF. I am hoping that percentage goes down as my experience goes up, though, just because it's more fun to find than not to.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Not again...

 

Yes, again. Though this isn't scheduled until the first wek of July, especially since it is currently running in another thread.

 

Why is it important to log your DNFs? It lets people know there may be a problem with the cache. If the cache suddenly racks up several DNFs in a row, the owner may want to check on it. You can assume that for every DNF logged there are probably twice that many not logged (we can only guess at that number).

 

I find this reasoning to be incredibly specious. For instance, if BrianSnat punched 'go to' on one of my mystery caches, but got a flat tire twice, and urgent call from home, once, and found the road blocked off

once, and changed his mind once, I'd have five DNFs listed on my cache. And what does that tell me? Not a lot.

I log most of my DNFs. But only when I have something to say. "Yah. You stumped me yet again" is not one of them. I will usually only log one DNF per cache. My DNF to Find (which, as pointed out, is not the proper ratio to use) is 11.4%. Some days, I get three in a row. Mot days, I do not get any.

Checked a DNF today. One nearby. Yup. still there. I thought it would be. But you had me so worried that a DNF means that there is a problem that I ran out to check.

I find the value of DNFs to the cache owner to be overinflated. (Unless they are bad hides liable to be muggled frequently.) They are useful to me, and that is why I log them. If I think there is a problem (and I'm not always right about that) I will let the cache owner know. As it turns out, 56 of my 232 DNFs were, indeed, missing. The other 176 were there.

[+briansnat]

I find this reasoning to be incredibly specious. For instance, if BrianSnat punched 'go to' on one of my mystery caches, but got a flat tire twice, and urgent call from home, once, and found the road blocked off

once, and changed his mind once, I'd have five DNFs listed on my cache. And what does that tell me? Not a lot.

 

It would tell others that they had better have a spare tire when searching for the cache and there is a chance the road might be blocked off.

[+Sol seaker]

Some sadistic cache owners know this, and employ a two-pronged strategy: (1) Lowball the difficulty, (2) Moralize about DNFs. Sorry, no sale.

 

We've got a lot of sadistic cache owners in our area.

 

I try to log as many DNF's as I can because I know it helps the cache owners and it helps future cachers. If nothing else, it helps others feel better about not finding it too.

BUt most important is all the caches that come up missing. If people aren't logging DNF's then we don't know if it' missing. Lot's of people are out there searching for something that's not there.

 

I'm not perfect about logging DNF's just simply as a time thing.

It takes a lot of time to log finds, and logging DNF's is a hassle. I try to do it but forget sometimes. I've gone back and logged old one's I've forgotten and written in the dates not accurate, but I want them to know I didn't find it.

I don't care about the statistics. I don't know anyone in this community so I've got no one checking my statistics but me. And I've never checked my DNF's. Attempts are not failures. Hey I got out and tried. That's a success in itself.

 

As for the sadistic owners, one in my area gloats. He says, "Please let me know how evil I am. I like to revel in it". I did not, and will not log DNF's on caches like that. Generally I wont' even look for them. A friend wants to put a second cache on evil sites like that so suddenly everyone is logging a find. I think that's pretty funny.

[+NanCycle]

I just decided that I'm not going to log any more DNFs. Because yet another cache owner emailed me an unsolicited hint just because I posted a DNF on their cache. If I want a hint, I'll ask for it. (I was going to send this as a reply to the CO's email, but decided it sounded rather snotty, so I'm just ranting a bit here.)

[+bittsen]

I just decided that I'm not going to log any more DNFs. Because yet another cache owner emailed me an unsolicited hint just because I posted a DNF on their cache. If I want a hint, I'll ask for it. (I was going to send this as a reply to the CO's email, but decided it sounded rather snotty, so I'm just ranting a bit here.)

 

And yet on the other side of the coin, a cacher would LOVE to get a reply from a CO with an offer for a hint.

 

Perhaps leave a "Thanks but I don't need a hint" addition to your DNF log.

Not leaving DNF's is detrimental to the activity in general.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Roughly 10% - though I agree with toz, the number you want isn't the number your formula would generate.

 

In spite of my "logging a DNF isn't giving yourself an "F" " sig line, I've come full circle on the notion of logging DNFs. Cache seekers get into geocaching for lot of reasons, which don't necessarily reconcile with the cache owner's reasons for placing the cache, or the rest of the caching community's interests. As long as they're not maggoting caches, or taking and keeping trackables, their behavior is okay by me.

 

That is, they may NOT be logging DNFs, because that part of caching isn't fun for them. They may not be logging finds either, but it's rare to see someone start a thread about that. Logging anything online is a courtesy, not a requirement. And not logging online isn't grossly rude or awful, it's just a choice.

 

The cache seeker may not be interested in writing generally, or in typing. They may not care a fig about stats, or using the bookkeeping functions of this site.

 

Those who are, do.

 

I was recently caching with some friends. We found some velcro, no cache. One of the cachers called the cache owner and then made up a new hide on the spot. Attached the new container to the old velcro. 2 members of group logged finds on the new hide. I'd already marked the cache a DNF. I ended up logging nothing. Was that a find? or a DNF? or what exactly? for me it was no log. Stat that....

[+welch]

One of the things I like about Geocaching is all the statistics. Some of the more accomplished geocachers display a variety of statistics on their profile pages. This is a good thing because it shows how dedicated they are to the sport. However there is one statistic that would be interesting to see but is always missing. I’m talking about the number of times they looked for a cache and “did not find” it (DNFs).

...

You can find out how many DNFs you have logged by clicking on “MY PROFILE”, then choose “Geocaches”, then “Didn’t find it”. Count them and divide that number by the number of finds to get your ratio. This information is only available to you, but if you want to share it in a reply to this post, please do so.

 

Per your directions, I'm currently at 16.3%

 

I don't know if I agree with your statement thats stats show how dedicated they area. Yea ok, some people are totally nuts and need to do anything and everything remotely geo-related. But I think there are some people that do all the stats junks as some sort of chest thumping gloating ritual. I'm amused rather than impressed when they have lists of FTF, STF, most caches in a day, least time between XX finds, etc but have not a single meation of what their favorite cache (or hardest cache?).