A question of good form...

[+TheDobbins]

Hi there,

 

Just a quick question really to find out a bit about good form when marking your status against a cache.

 

An example: tonight, on a multi-cache, we worked out the actual cache co-ordinates from the initial puzzle, and set about finding it.

 

However, we got within a few feet, but there were far too many muggles around who were obviously not going anywhere so we left it for another day.

 

Am I correct in logging this as a 'did not find' or would you not mark it until you'd done a full and proper search? Looking at the notes of some caches I've done already, it seems that some people do log DNFs like this, but I would rather check so I follow protocol and don't put any cache owners' noses out of joint.

 

Cheers!

Edited August 20, 2009 by TheDobbins

[+Castle Mischief]

You're going to hear many different answers, but I would have logged a DNF. Something like "Went to GZ, too many muggles. Will return at a later date."

 

In fact, I have logged a DNF like this. In my mind it gives the next hunter a sense of what to expect without spoiling the hide.

[+scorpio_dark]

I think it's up to personal preference. I would not mark it until done since it is in progress with no true end result yet. Others may want to put a note so that it holds the order in which they attempted the cache. A DNF could be more 'honest' if you view the game as a daily approach and want to track your attempts (just like some sports agencies keep track of goal attempts).

[+StarBrand]

You're going to hear many different answers, but I would have logged a DNF. Something like "Went to GZ, too many muggles. Will return at a later date."

 

In fact, I have logged a DNF like this. In my mind it gives the next hunter a sense of what to expect without spoiling the hide.

Thats the way I would have handled it as well. Anytime I set off to hunt a particular cache, if I end up not finding it - I log my DNF.

[+niraD]

I'll chime in with a different answer: I'd log a DNS (Did Not Search) as a Note. A DNF seems inappropriate if I didn't even search (for whatever reason).

[+secretagentbill]

I view DNF more along the lines of 'could not find'. So far, I have done most of my caching as I ride my bike on trails in the area. Before I head out, I load up my GPS with every single cache along my route. But realistically, I pass some up and save them for another day. Perhaps I stop in the area and see a person sitting on the bench next to GZ and pass it up, figuring on coming back some other time. Perhaps I see that the area has lots of poison ivy and I decide to come back sometime when I'm wearing jeans instead of shorts. In my opinion, these aren't really DNF's because I didn't look. If I look for it and it doesn't turn up, I'll post a DNF. I don't think it's a pride thing either. I just think that if you log a bunch of DNF's when you didn't even look, people might start to mistakenly believe that the cache may be missing, moved, difficult to find, etc., when in reality you just didn't look for it. I know you can explain it in your log, but maybe the better choice is a 'note' instead of 'dnf'.

[+StarBrand]

I view DNF more along the lines of 'could not find'. So far, I have done most of my caching as I ride my bike on trails in the area. Before I head out, I load up my GPS with every single cache along my route. But realistically, I pass some up and save them for another day. Perhaps I stop in the area and see a person sitting on the bench next to GZ and pass it up, figuring on coming back some other time. Perhaps I see that the area has lots of poison ivy and I decide to come back sometime when I'm wearing jeans instead of shorts. In my opinion, these aren't really DNF's because I didn't look. If I look for it and it doesn't turn up, I'll post a DNF. I don't think it's a pride thing either. I just think that if you log a bunch of DNF's when you didn't even look, people might start to mistakenly believe that the cache may be missing, moved, difficult to find, etc., when in reality you just didn't look for it. I know you can explain it in your log, but maybe the better choice is a 'note' instead of 'dnf'.

But you are failing to pass on critical information to both the cache owner and any future seekers. You DID look for the cache and found Poison Ivy growing nearby. You DID look for the cache and you found muggles very nearby. You had to have been looking for the cache with the intention of logging it to even have noted either situation - therefore you WERE searching. By logging a DNF in both circumstances you inform both owner and other seekers that they may also end up not finding it due to the same situations.

[+bunkerdave]

I think the purpose of DNF is really more to alert the CO that there may be a problem with the cache. It's not really a question of "honor" to log a DNF, I mean, who cares if you didn't find it? I usually post a DNF if I want to rant about what a lousy cache I think it was, or to warn other cachers that the bison tube in the Russian Olive grove is a total waste of time and blood. Generally speaking, I only log a DNF if I am reasonably sure the cache is missing.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Yep.

 

Posting DNF in that situation will give good information to cache seekers who follow.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+KoosKoos]

I'd probably log a note in that instance, but a DNF would be understandable too. For me, a DNF usually means I got to GZ, searched around, and couldn't find the cache. If I abandon the search without much effort, I usually won't log a DNF on it (and may or may not list a note).

 

On the flip side, I logged a DNF in a similar situation to you describe. It was a fairly high terrain/diifficulty cache and I ended up scrambling to a point ABOVE it and decided I wasn't going to freeclimb down the 40' to try to get to it, so I left. After seeing my DNF, the owner asked me to change it to a note because there were several DNF's already (for various reasons) and they didn't want to scare off seekers.

 

As posted earlier, you'll see lots of different opinions, so I say play the game how you like!

[+geodarts]

I have done it both ways. If I cannot search because there are too many people around, I have often left a note, just to let others know that the area can be busy at times. But I just posted two DNFs for the same reason. Some people might think I am simply trying to inflate my DNF total so that I can lay claim to the title as my area's worst cacher, but its not just about the numbers. So don't spend too much time worrying about things like this. Do what seems right and have fun.

[+J-Way]

I'll chime in with a different answer: I'd log a DNS (Did Not Search) as a Note. A DNF seems inappropriate if I didn't even search (for whatever reason).

+1

 

If I arrive at ground zero and start to search, but do not find, then I log a DNF.

If I arrive at ground zero and start to search, but quit because a large group of muggles arrives and settles in for a long stay, then I log a DNF.

If I never arrive at ground zero, or never start to search, then I log a Note and give details (too many muggles, etc.) Example.

[+bittsen]

Post a "note" on the cache page. You can't "not find" something if you didn't really look for it.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Just two days ago I attempted a cache down in a ravine. I never actually started the search because I was attacked by muggles of the "bee" variety. Since I never started the search, it became a Note.

 

Had I started the search and then was attacked, well, that would depend on whether I feel I did a good search before being interrupted. My guess is that, in most cases, it would still be a note.

[knowschad]

It doesn't really matter as long as you post something. The cache owner and future finders will get the message either way. But do post something.

 

Two advantages to posting a DNF instead of a note, though:

 

1) Your DNF will show up in a pocket query at a later time. That may prove very helpful

2) You can get a list of all caches that you DNF'd by looking at your profile. You can't get a list of all caches that you've simply posted notes on.

[+CanDMan47]

Post a "note" on the cache page. You can't "not find" something if you didn't really look for it.

 

Agree 100%. That is what I have done the few times that it has been applicable. Future cachers will see the note just as they would see the DNF, and get the same information.

[+mfamilee]

Post a "note" on the cache page. You can't "not find" something if you didn't really look for it.

Ditto.

[+sbell111]

Hi there,

 

Just a quick question really to find out a bit about good form when marking your status against a cache.

 

An example: tonight, on a multi-cache, we worked out the actual cache co-ordinates from the initial puzzle, and set about finding it.

 

However, we got within a few feet, but there were far too many muggles around who were obviously not going anywhere so we left it for another day.

 

Am I correct in logging this as a 'did not find' or would you not mark it until you'd done a full and proper search? Looking at the notes of some caches I've done already, it seems that some people do log DNFs like this, but I would rather check so I follow protocol and don't put any cache owners' noses out of joint.

 

Cheers!

You could go with a DNF, or a note, or just not bother until you actually return to search for it.

 

In general, I don't log a DNF unless I actually arrive at ground zero and begin to search. If I abort the hunt before that point (for whatever reason), I log a note or nothing at all.

[+sbell111]

It doesn't really matter as long as you post something. The cache owner and future finders will get the message either way. But do post something.

 

Two advantages to posting a DNF instead of a note, though:

 

1) Your DNF will show up in a pocket query at a later time. That may prove very helpful

2) You can get a list of all caches that you DNF'd by looking at your profile. You can't get a list of all caches that you've simply posted notes on.

Sure you can. Just click on the link called 'Write Note' instead of 'Didn't find it'. It's a poorly named link, but it works.

[+Mudfrog]

Post a "note" on the cache page. You can't "not find" something if you didn't really look for it.

 

I look at it differently in that if i punch in a goto and start making my way towards ground zero to try for a cache, then technically, i've started a search for that cache. Doesn't matter why i didn't complete that search (ran out of gas, too many muggles, stumped my toe and went home, etc,,,), the bottom line is that i didn't find the cache that i started out for. DNF = did not find, and in the examples above, that's exactly what happened!

 

However, i do understand what you are saying and know there is no black and white answer here. It's more a personal preference that we all have to decide for ourselves...

[AZcachemeister]

It doesn't really matter as long as you post something. The cache owner and future finders will get the message either way. But do post something.

 

You can't get a list of all caches that you've simply posted notes on.

 

Yes, just say what happened, a note or a DNF will work equally well. Which to use would be a personal preference

 

Yes, you can get the list of notes you have posted:

 

[+Stargazer22]

I'll usually log a note under these circumstances. It's just personal preference really.

I reserve my DNF logs to situations where I actually searched and failed to find it. Some folks interpret DNF logs as an indication that either the cache may not be there or it may be fairly difficult to find. Neither may be true if I didn't have a chance to look.

I sometimes put the DNF ones on a watch list. That way if they are subsequently found by someone, I will know when it's OK to go back and try again.

You can put ones like this on a 'mugglesville' list to remind you to try them at times when fewer people are around.

[Clan Riffster]

I pretty much follow Stargazer's example.

(Hi Jerry!)

If I get to an area and waive off a search for whatever reason, (usually muggles), I'll post a note.

If I begin the actual hunt, I'll log a DNF. Neither one is right... or wrong.

Both are accepted as good form in the community, so long as you accurately describe your adventure.

[+TheDobbins]

Firstly thanks to all of you to have replied! It's certainly shown me that a) it was definitely a valid question, and it's a subjective thing.

 

Having read all the advice, I think you all put your points across well. In the absence of any 'official' guidance, I think this is the approach I will go with:

 

1) Arrived at general location - searched, but no find: DNF

2) Arrived at general location - searched for (what i feel is) a reasonable time, but no find due to interruption by muggles: DNF, but text to include part-search only

3) Arrived at general location - muggles, prevent the search: Note only - no DNF

4) In multi-cache where part-solved but prevented from finding cache due to Muggles: Note only - no DNF

 

I've just realised that I could go on and I'm keen not to make it too prescriptive! However, I feel that this approach generally will allow me to record those (in my opinion) 'genuine' DNFs where there is a chance that the cache has gone or I simply haven't found the right spot.

 

However, one of the main points is that I think it has given us, is the chance to realise not to solely rely on the numbers --- the text 'reviews' are the most important aspect.

 

Thanks again!

Edited August 21, 2009 by TheDobbins

[GreenLantern5000]

I would've just asked all the muggles to leave the area.....

 

Fine.... I would've done the same thing, logged DNF w/ notes about why, then go back later....

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I view DNF more along the lines of 'could not find'. So far, I have done most of my caching as I ride my bike on trails in the area. Before I head out, I load up my GPS with every single cache along my route. But realistically, I pass some up and save them for another day. Perhaps I stop in the area and see a person sitting on the bench next to GZ and pass it up, figuring on coming back some other time. Perhaps I see that the area has lots of poison ivy and I decide to come back sometime when I'm wearing jeans instead of shorts. In my opinion, these aren't really DNF's because I didn't look. If I look for it and it doesn't turn up, I'll post a DNF. I don't think it's a pride thing either. I just think that if you log a bunch of DNF's when you didn't even look, people might start to mistakenly believe that the cache may be missing, moved, difficult to find, etc., when in reality you just didn't look for it. I know you can explain it in your log, but maybe the better choice is a 'note' instead of 'dnf'.

But you are failing to pass on critical information to both the cache owner and any future seekers. You DID look for the cache and found Poison Ivy growing nearby. You DID look for the cache and you found muggles very nearby. You had to have been looking for the cache with the intention of logging it to even have noted either situation - therefore you WERE searching. By logging a DNF in both circumstances you inform both owner and other seekers that they may also end up not finding it due to the same situations.

 

The pretty much matches the way I play the game. Logging a DNF when I get out of the car, only to find that I can't successfully search the cache without compromising the cache (walking directly up to muggles and telling them what you're going to do is, IMHO, a viable option here) might tell other seekers that if you attempt this cache at a certain time of day or season they may have muggle issues as well. For example, I found a cache a couple of weeks ago on a college campus. There was nobody around on a Sunday morning. However, students have been arriving over the past week (with their parents) and trying to find that same cache this week would be nearly impossible without encountering muggles.

[+ecanderson]

Any time I am unable to do any sort of proper search, I'll post a log note rather than DNFing it. It could be because of muggles, or it could be that there was something else impeding my arrival on site. One time, it was a slide on a mountain road. Wrote the note to let other cachers know that until the slide was cleared, this one was going to be a problem. No sense DNF when it's a DNL (did not look), but sometimes there's information worth reporting regardless.

[+Arrow42]

If I found the first stage of a multi but had to abort the search for the second stage until latter I might not post anything if I was planning on coming back the next day. If I was going to wait for longer then that then yeah a note would be my preference.