Quick to post Easy Find - Never post DNF

[+Jasper Joe]

Sanity check here. I get irritated at times when people post 'Easy Find, walked right up and grabbed it.' Which I expect when it is rated a 1 or 2. However, when you make a hide a bit more difficult and they call you 2 or 3 times after they have made several trips, a DNF is rarely if ever posted.

 

What is the big deal about posting a DNF? I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?

[+Chrysalides]

Sanity check here. I get irritated at times when people post 'Easy Find, walked right up and grabbed it.' Which I expect when it is rated a 1 or 2. However, when you make a hide a bit more difficult and they call you 2 or 3 times after they have made several trips, a DNF is rarely if ever posted.

 

What is the big deal about posting a DNF? I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?

First, the important part. Deleting a found post just because they did not post DNF is wrong.

 

You can refuse to give hints unless DNFs are posted.

 

I think the reasons for not posting DNFs are varied:

 

1) shame / shyness

2) desire to not mislead others

3) laziness

4) didn't know better

 

I didn't know better, and didn't start logging my DNFs until about a month into geocaching.

[+simpjkee]

Don't delete a find for not posting a DNF and if the calls bug you, I would quit giving my number out or just tell them to post their DNF's like they should be doing.

 

I don't get why people don't post DNF's either. I get people who post their 1st DNF on one of my caches that says "My fourth time here. Can I have a hint?" Or find logs that say "Found it on my 3rd try! Thanks!"

 

Whats up wit dat?

 

DNF's are very important and useful logs. I don't get why anyone wouldn't post them every time.

 

I don't get irritated by it anymore (if I ever did). It's just what people do.

[+simpler1773]

I usually post a DNF after the second time I've been to the site and couldn't find it.

 

Mostly because I am new, I know I often miss the obvious (to a seasoned cacher), so I go to GZ and do my best to find it. If I DNF, I come home and read the logs, look at pictures, think about it and go back. Then if I still can't find it I know I've given it my all (until next time) and log the DNF.

 

I would DEFINATELY log a DNF before calling someone, although I don't think I'll ever really be brave enough to call someone anyway!

[+simpjkee]

Mostly because I am new, I know I often miss the obvious (to a seasoned cacher), so I go to GZ and do my best to find it. If I DNF, I come home and read the logs, look at pictures, think about it and go back. Then if I still can't find it I know I've given it my all (until next time) and log the DNF.

 

You being a newbie is a non-issue. I do the same exact thing. Though the first time I DNF it, I log a DNF with a log like: "Couldn't spot it on my first try. I'll look for clues in logs and stuff and give it another go."

 

There's nothing wrong with that and the DNF will let the owner know that someone has attempted it and not found it. DNF's being logged regularly on a cache can help the cache owner determine a suitable difficulty level for the cache. If DNF's are being logged on a cache, the cache owner may raise the difficulty level of the cache, thus helping you more accurately decide the difficulty of a cache. Aside from leading to more accurate difficulty ratings, the cache owner may decide to add a hint if they want it to be more easily found.

[+hydnsek]

You can refuse to give hints unless DNFs are posted.

That's my approach as a cache owner.

[+WRASTRO]

Not posting a DNF - for whatever rationalized reason - is simply stupid in my opinion. The definition of "searching" varies but the rationalizations for not posting DNF logs is truly astounding. Did you go the the general area of the cache and try to find it? Did you find it? Smilie! Did you not find it? DNF log. Or maybe a note if circumstances apply.

 

How hard can that be? There aren't any demerits in this game for crying out loud.

[+Harry Dolphin]

But, there is no requirement that DNFs be logged, either. Calling someone lazy for not doing something that is not required is specious logic.

[+simpjkee]

But, there is no requirement that DNFs be logged, either. Calling someone lazy for not doing something that is not required is specious logic.

 

I wouldn't call them lazy, but you're right. However, logging a find is not required, but cachers don't hesitate to log a find the first time every time. With DNF's, cachers invent all these stipulations and rationales for why they don't log a DNF the first time and everytime. whats up with that? Just log your DNF's. It's as easy and as relatively important as logging your finds.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I didn't know better, and didn't start logging my DNFs until about a month into geocaching.

 

Same here.

 

But there are still some occassions I won't log a DNF - this is where I didn't actually get to start searching for the cache (eg. too many muggles or place was closed).

 

For example I also see the opposite happening - people logging DNFs when they actually haven't attempted it. eg.

 

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one" or

"Didn't have time to look..."

 

For me a DNF means I actually tried looking for it, not just I was in the vicinity for a few minutes. perhaps it makes a cache appear harder than it actually is.

 

 

Footnote: If I didn't have the chance to actually search for and 'find' the cache, when I come back and log the found, I usually just mention in the logs "Was here the other day but didn't have time/too many muggles/came just as the park was closing"

[+runawaybunny]

I think people often interpret DNF as meaning "Gave up looking for it," which isn't always the case.

[+Jeep_Dog]

 

What is the big deal about posting a DNF? I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?

 

Question 1 - "What is the big deal about posting a DNF?"

 

Answer -

 

e⋅go  /ˈigoʊ, ˈɛgoʊ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ee-goh, eg-oh]

 

–noun, plural e⋅gos.

 

1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

 

2. self-esteem or self-image; feelings.

 

Question 2 - "I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?"

 

Answer 2 -

 

This is wrong. You as the CO is responsible to delete bogus logs. A legitimate find is not bogus. You could delete a bogus DNF, I suppose, but unlikely most people leave those around. It isn't even bogus that they didn't leave a DNF log, since it is not required by the guidelines, so you couldn't delete their non-entry even if that was an option.

 

Sympathetic moment -

 

I don't get it, either. I love DNF logs - both the ones that I leave (I'm up to 71 now!) and the ones left on my caches.

 

Is this lack of DNF business "laziness"? As Harry the Cetacean points out, that is fizzy logic ( ). Possible, but not conclusive.

 

I have a sneaky hide that I can regularly watch - and see many cachers looking, but nary a DNF on it yet. I can see how that may be frustrating to some COs.

 

Ah, c'est la vie in the world of "me."

 

Hey, that rhymes....

Edited September 15, 2009 by Jeep_Dog

[+Unkle Fester]

I had a guy send me an email a cache was missing and I needed to go check (it was found the day before). I asked him to post a DNF, he got nasty in his reply about my taking responsability for my caches. (I do) He then posted a Needs Archived and left it at that.

 

So that night I went out, verified it was there and talked to the reviewer who removed his Cache Disabled log. He is one of those people with thousands of finds and not one DNF.

 

I also sent him a note that he needs to look harder.

[+Walts Hunting]

Occasionally I have seen this statement in the description.

 

Additional hints may be requested after a DNF log.

 

Also sounds like the compaint is self inflicted. You may be an easy touch. When someone calls ask have you logged a DNF? If they say no tell them to call back. I think this PAF has gotten a little out of hand and people are getting a little lazy.

[+Mudfrog]

But, there is no requirement that DNFs be logged, either. Calling someone lazy for not doing something that is not required is specious logic.

 

I wouldn't call them lazy, but you're right. However, logging a find is not required, but cachers don't hesitate to log a find the first time every time. With DNF's, cachers invent all these stipulations and rationales for why they don't log a DNF the first time and everytime. whats up with that? Just log your DNF's. It's as easy and as relatively important as logging your finds.

 

Here here!

 

And i too, figure that laziness isn't the reason. Some people just feel ashamed or silly for not being able to make the find. I've had many dnfs and not once, have i ever felt ashamed or stupid. Well, i do have to admit that i've kicked myself in the hiney a few times when i finally made a find and realized that it was actually simple and i should have spotted it the first time around...

[+The Jester]

For example I also see the opposite happening - people logging DNFs when they actually haven't attempted it. eg.

 

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one" or

"Didn't have time to look..."

 

For me a DNF means I actually tried looking for it, not just I was in the vicinity for a few minutes. perhaps it makes a cache appear harder than it actually is.

Isn't getting to a place and finding the gates locked an attempt to find the cache? Or getting to GZ and finding too many muggles to search, isn't that an attempt? Or running out of time to finish searching? I've logged GNF's for all of those. I guess it all comes down to when the "search" starts. For me, the search starts with finding my way to GZ - I logged a DNF when involved in a car accident on the way to the cache.

 

The reasoning that puzzles me is the "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing."

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

For example I also see the opposite happening - people logging DNFs when they actually haven't attempted it. eg.

 

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one" or

"Didn't have time to look..."

 

For me a DNF means I actually tried looking for it, not just I was in the vicinity for a few minutes. perhaps it makes a cache appear harder than it actually is.

Isn't getting to a place and finding the gates locked an attempt to find the cache? Or getting to GZ and finding too many muggles to search, isn't that an attempt? Or running out of time to finish searching? I've logged GNF's for all of those. I guess it all comes down to when the "search" starts. For me, the search starts with finding my way to GZ - I logged a DNF when involved in a car accident on the way to the cache.

 

The reasoning that puzzles me is the "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing."

 

I guess you don't go lunchtime caching then. So if you visited a site and the gates were locked 3 days in a row you'd log 3 DNF's one after the other?

 

If that was my cache you were doing it to, I'd be pretty ticked off - I'd probably message you myself and say - look if the gates are closed - YOU DID NOT GET NEAR ENOUGH TO SEARCH!

 

 

And "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing." is NOT my reasoning. I never know the cache is missing unless the CO says it is!

Edited September 15, 2009 by fitzwesley

[+Castle Mischief]

 

I guess you don't go lunchtime caching then. So if you visited a site and the gates were locked 3 days in a row you'd log 3 DNF's one after the other?

 

If that was my cache you were doing it to, I'd be pretty ticked off - I'd probably message you myself and say - look if the gates are closed - YOU DID NOT GET NEAR ENOUGH TO SEARCH!

 

 

And "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing." is NOT my reasoning. I never know the cache is missing unless the CO says it is!

 

Yes, yes I would. At the very least I'd post a note. If your description did not mention the fact that the gates are locked at such and such time then future hunters should have that information available to them.

[+StarBrand]

I know that about 1 in 6 times that I try to find a cache - I will walk away to go home and log the DNF. Even if the average cacher is 4 times better than me, then I should see lots more DNFs logged. Fact is, I don't. I will often see comments in logs left on my caches that read something like - "finally found it on 4th try" or "took me 2 trips to get this one". Yet that same cache will have 140 find logs and zero DNF logs.

 

Somehow many Geocachers view a DNF as a demerit or they hate to admit they spent 20 mintues and were the first of 140 to not find it. I often see qualifications from cachers for a DNF - things like "if I really tried hard" or "if I feel I gave it a good effort" or "only when I spent more than 30 minutes searching". Fact is - they did look and Did Not Find but were unwilling to log that simple fact.

 

Some of my recent DNFs on a trip was the first DNF in the 3 year history of the cache. Since that trip, I have looked back and 1 in 6 or so of the logs since then records a DNF. I strongly suspect nobody wanted to be the first.

[+doingitoldschool]

 

What is the big deal about posting a DNF? I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?

 

Question 1 - "What is the big deal about posting a DNF?"

 

Answer -

 

e⋅go  /ˈigoʊ, ˈɛgoʊ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ee-goh, eg-oh]

 

–noun, plural e⋅gos.

 

1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

 

2. self-esteem or self-image; feelings.

 

Question 2 - "I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?"

 

Answer 2 -

 

This is wrong. You as the CO is responsible to delete bogus logs. A legitimate find is not bogus. You could delete a bogus DNF, I suppose, but unlikely most people leave those around. It isn't even bogus that they didn't leave a DNF log, since it is not required by the guidelines, so you couldn't delete their non-entry even if that was an option.

 

Sympathetic moment -

 

I don't get it, either. I love DNF logs - both the ones that I leave (I'm up to 71 now!) and the ones left on my caches.

 

Is this lack of DNF business "laziness"? As Harry the Cetacean points out, that is fizzy logic ( ). Possible, but not conclusive.

 

I have a sneaky hide that I can regularly watch - and see many cachers looking, but nary a DNF on it yet. I can see how that may be frustrating to some COs.

 

Ah, c'est la vie in the world of "me."

 

Hey, that rhymes....

 

This is a great reply - may I agree completely and add that I think many cachers work into being more ready to post DNF's. Our first couple of months, it seemed like an admission of failure, and thus a badge of shame (yes, a bit melodramatic). As we cache more, we see the DNF as simply that - we didn't find it.

 

And cachers are just funny people sometimes. We have a cache that is difficult, right next to a friend's cache that is much easier. We both watch them, and sure enough, when someone posts a find on their's, they don't post their DNF on ours, even though they have to walk right by our cache, and we're pretty sure they looked (ie. it's members only, and we see that they have indeed looked it up)

Edited September 15, 2009 by doingitoldschool

[+tozainamboku]

But, there is no requirement that DNFs be logged, either. Calling someone lazy for not doing something that is not required is specious logic.

 

I wouldn't call them lazy, but you're right. However, logging a find is not required, but cachers don't hesitate to log a find the first time every time. With DNF's, cachers invent all these stipulations and rationales for why they don't log a DNF the first time and everytime. whats up with that? Just log your DNF's. It's as easy and as relatively important as logging your finds.

There are plenty of people who don't log their finds and many more that take their time an log finds weeks or months late. There are no requirements to log online either a find or DNF. Groundspeak can say the rules geocaching include

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

but there is no way to enforce such a rule.

 

Its fairly easy to explain to a newbie when to log a find. You find the cache and sign the physical log, then you can log a find online. (Of course there are debates about what happens if for some reason you can't sign the physical log with puritans saying that signing is required while others see the signing as simply a way to verify a claim). There is no such simple rule for logging a DNF. Some will say, "If l select 'Go To' on my GPSr, and it doesn't end in a find I log a DNF". Others will say "If I looked for at least 10 minutes and didn't find anything I log a DNF". Others will say "I've been to the cache site multiple times and and now giving up, so I log a DNF". There are those who won't log a DNF because they found the cache, but the were not able to sign the log for some reason. It's not a find but it's not a DNF either. Without a simple rule for when to log a DNF, it is no wonder that many don't log them at all.

[+kunarion]

What is the big deal about posting a DNF?

There’s another rationale to NOT log a DNF: I don’t want to alarm the Cache Owner. But after my DNF #3, one recent cache had the CO going to make a physical check on it.

 

I make DNFs (boy, do I ever). But really, after 4 or 5, I’ll begin to feel like I’m hogging the logging. AND now I’ve learned that on each successive one I must appear LESS stressed than the last one, so that the Cache Owner doesn’t run out to see if it's gone. “I’m sure it’s still there, man. Sometimes I think I’m getting worse. Your cache is fine. I’m probably sitting on it as I log this.”

 

I empathize with the forum poster. I’d like to see events logged, especially DNFs. The last Multi-cache I visited has no DNF for “Stage 1”. It’s the kind of Stage that throws you into a field and says “OK now what?” And EVERYBODY found it with ease?? I just can’t believe that. There’s no way I’m the first to be flabbergasted by it.

 

I’d also like to see logs for when people grab my signature items. Who liked it? Should I place more of that kind? Inquisitive people want to know.

Edited September 15, 2009 by kunarion

[+NYPaddleCacher]

For example I also see the opposite happening - people logging DNFs when they actually haven't attempted it. eg.

 

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one" or

"Didn't have time to look..."

 

For me a DNF means I actually tried looking for it, not just I was in the vicinity for a few minutes. perhaps it makes a cache appear harder than it actually is.

Isn't getting to a place and finding the gates locked an attempt to find the cache? Or getting to GZ and finding too many muggles to search, isn't that an attempt? Or running out of time to finish searching? I've logged GNF's for all of those. I guess it all comes down to when the "search" starts. For me, the search starts with finding my way to GZ - I logged a DNF when involved in a car accident on the way to the cache.

 

The reasoning that puzzles me is the "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing."

 

I guess you don't go lunchtime caching then. So if you visited a site and the gates were locked 3 days in a row you'd log 3 DNF's one after the other?

 

If that was my cache you were doing it to, I'd be pretty ticked off - I'd probably message you myself and say - look if the gates are closed - YOU DID NOT GET NEAR ENOUGH TO SEARCH!

 

First, I don't do lunchtime caching. There are no geocaches that I haven't found close enough that I can run out and get them on a lunch break.

 

Logging a DNF is not just for the benefit of the CO. If you've gone out on a lunch break to look for a cache and found that it was inaccessible due to locked gates, that's exactly the kind of information other geocachers would want to see and it's entirely possible that the CO might be unaware that the cache was inaccessible certain times of day. Posting multiple DNFs may be unnecessary if you tried 2-3 times to get near enough to search but could not, but posting one DNF after 2-3 attempts would definitely be appropriate.

[+simpler1773]

But, there is no requirement that DNFs be logged, either. Calling someone lazy for not doing something that is not required is specious logic.

 

I wouldn't call them lazy, but you're right. However, logging a find is not required, but cachers don't hesitate to log a find the first time every time. With DNF's, cachers invent all these stipulations and rationales for why they don't log a DNF the first time and everytime. whats up with that? Just log your DNF's. It's as easy and as relatively important as logging your finds.

 

I get what everyone is saying here. However, in my opinion the reason a person would "not hesitate to log a find the first time every time" is because the search is over, you are done, you got it, closed the chapter and are moving on.

 

With a DNF, it's not as cut and dry. When is it a DNF? When I showed up at GZ and left to go home and re-read the logs and clues? Well, if I had an iphone or fancier GPS (oh santa...please! I've been a good girl! Mostly ) I could sit down right there at GZ and do the same thing and half the time make my find.

 

I'm not opposed to DNF logs. I make plenty of them and often times I am the only one out of 100 finds to post a DNF.

 

We're back into that nit-picking, gray, fuzzy line in the sand area. Wherever judgement comes into play with large groups of people, you are going to have that. The answer, as others have said, is to draw your boundries so that you can feel good about where YOU stand. State your position clearly on the cache page and stand your ground. The beauty of the game is that while there are no rules stating you must log a DNF, there are also no rules stating you have to give your phone number and offer up clues for the clueless

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

For example I also see the opposite happening - people logging DNFs when they actually haven't attempted it. eg.

 

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one" or

"Didn't have time to look..."

 

For me a DNF means I actually tried looking for it, not just I was in the vicinity for a few minutes. perhaps it makes a cache appear harder than it actually is.

Isn't getting to a place and finding the gates locked an attempt to find the cache? Or getting to GZ and finding too many muggles to search, isn't that an attempt? Or running out of time to finish searching? I've logged GNF's for all of those. I guess it all comes down to when the "search" starts. For me, the search starts with finding my way to GZ - I logged a DNF when involved in a car accident on the way to the cache.

 

The reasoning that puzzles me is the "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing."

 

I guess you don't go lunchtime caching then. So if you visited a site and the gates were locked 3 days in a row you'd log 3 DNF's one after the other?

 

If that was my cache you were doing it to, I'd be pretty ticked off - I'd probably message you myself and say - look if the gates are closed - YOU DID NOT GET NEAR ENOUGH TO SEARCH!

 

First, I don't do lunchtime caching. There are no geocaches that I haven't found close enough that I can run out and get them on a lunch break.

 

Logging a DNF is not just for the benefit of the CO. If you've gone out on a lunch break to look for a cache and found that it was inaccessible due to locked gates, that's exactly the kind of information other geocachers would want to see and it's entirely possible that the CO might be unaware that the cache was inaccessible certain times of day. Posting multiple DNFs may be unnecessary if you tried 2-3 times to get near enough to search but could not, but posting one DNF after 2-3 attempts would definitely be appropriate.

 

As a CO, I appreciate DNFs. The first 3 DNFs I got on my last cache alerted me to a serious problem with my coords.

 

But seriously -- you have to judge whether a DNF is really that helpful to a CO or not when you know that the reason you didn't find it is actually that you were too lazy or physically unable to try.

 

I agree with the poster above who worried about hogging the logs. Even if you do post a DNF, you only need one - it's kind of stupid to go back and keep logging them - if they contain no new information.

 

So I'll let you in on how lunchtime caching works. I sit at my desk, look at the map and then I decide which one I'm going to try nearby. I work in London so it's high on muggle count.

 

So I'll go for a lunchtime walk, and let's say that it starts raining halfway and I decide to quit and go to the nearest sandwich shop... well according to the logic I've seen above I should log a DNF as I clearly commited to go find that cache - I was actually moving towards GZ - even though I was still maybe 200m from GZ.

 

Then there is some that I've got there but there are muggles everywhere, so I walk by where GZ appears to be and take a glance, but I can't really stop and start bending down or moving things without looking like a suspicious type and drawing attention to the cache.

 

For me, walking past a cache, without stopping to look for it, even if I was intending to do it, is not a DNF. Otherwise I may as well sit at my computer desk each day and log DNFs on all the caches within half a mile here - I'm sure the COs in Blackfriars would love me for that!

 

"Nipped out for lunch, passed GZ but decided too many muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

 

^ Yes this is what you cache logs would look like, if I followed your logic ^

 

So for me I don't have an extreme approach to caching MUST be a DNF or MUST be a found. I go, I scope out the area, then I decide if I'm going to commit.

 

Let's have some common sense people.

[+StarBrand]

For example I also see the opposite happening - people logging DNFs when they actually haven't attempted it. eg.

 

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one" or

"Didn't have time to look..."

 

For me a DNF means I actually tried looking for it, not just I was in the vicinity for a few minutes. perhaps it makes a cache appear harder than it actually is.

Isn't getting to a place and finding the gates locked an attempt to find the cache? Or getting to GZ and finding too many muggles to search, isn't that an attempt? Or running out of time to finish searching? I've logged GNF's for all of those. I guess it all comes down to when the "search" starts. For me, the search starts with finding my way to GZ - I logged a DNF when involved in a car accident on the way to the cache.

 

The reasoning that puzzles me is the "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing."

 

I guess you don't go lunchtime caching then. So if you visited a site and the gates were locked 3 days in a row you'd log 3 DNF's one after the other?

 

If that was my cache you were doing it to, I'd be pretty ticked off - I'd probably message you myself and say - look if the gates are closed - YOU DID NOT GET NEAR ENOUGH TO SEARCH!

 

First, I don't do lunchtime caching. There are no geocaches that I haven't found close enough that I can run out and get them on a lunch break.

 

Logging a DNF is not just for the benefit of the CO. If you've gone out on a lunch break to look for a cache and found that it was inaccessible due to locked gates, that's exactly the kind of information other geocachers would want to see and it's entirely possible that the CO might be unaware that the cache was inaccessible certain times of day. Posting multiple DNFs may be unnecessary if you tried 2-3 times to get near enough to search but could not, but posting one DNF after 2-3 attempts would definitely be appropriate.

 

As a CO, I appreciate DNFs. The first 3 DNFs I got on my last cache alerted me to a serious problem with my coords.

 

But seriously -- you have to judge whether a DNF is really that helpful to a CO or not when you know that the reason you didn't find it is actually that you were too lazy or physically unable to try.

 

I agree with the poster above who worried about hogging the logs. Even if you do post a DNF, you only need one - it's kind of stupid to go back and keep logging them - if they contain no new information.

 

So I'll let you in on how lunchtime caching works. I sit at my desk, look at the map and then I decide which one I'm going to try nearby. I work in London so it's high on muggle count.

 

So I'll go for a lunchtime walk, and let's say that it starts raining halfway and I decide to quit and go to the nearest sandwich shop... well according to the logic I've seen above I should log a DNF as I clearly commited to go find that cache - I was actually moving towards GZ - even though I was still maybe 200m from GZ.

 

Then there is some that I've got there but there are muggles everywhere, so I walk by where GZ appears to be and take a glance, but I can't really stop and start bending down or moving things without looking like a suspicious type and drawing attention to the cache.

 

For me, walking past a cache, without stopping to look for it, even if I was intending to do it, is not a DNF. Otherwise I may as well sit at my computer desk each day and log DNFs on all the caches within half a mile here - I'm sure the COs in Blackfriars would love me for that!

 

"Nipped out for lunch, passed GZ but decided too many muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

"Nipped out to get lunch again, passed this one again, too busy with muggles, decided to leave it"

 

^ Yes this is what you cache logs would look like, if I followed your logic ^

 

So for me I don't have an extreme approach to caching MUST be a DNF or MUST be a found. I go, I scope out the area, then I decide if I'm going to commit.

 

Let's have some common sense people.

Nope - I'd only have to log such a cache at most 2 times. I'd either find a different time of day for the attempt or skip it altogether for having to high a muggle factor.

 

However - If I really ever did set out to find a cache that many times and end up with not finding the cache - yes indeed, I'd log all my DNFs.

 

Just me though........

[+uxorious]

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one"

 

Yes this would absolutely be a reason to log a DNF. It lets others know there may be times the cache is unavailable.

 

My personal policy on DNFs is if the reason for not finding is cache related, I log a DNF. If it is not cache related but is because I decide not to look for personal reasons, no DNF. Personal reasons could be, I may have pushed myself too hard already, (I have limited mobility, and can only go so far in a day.) Or I get to the area and do not want to let my dogs out to look, but cannot leave them in the car alone in that area.

 

If the reason I can't find it is cache related, too many muggles, a gate or area closed or I just can't find it, I will log a DNF. However, I do not log a DNF every time I look for a cache and don't find it. Just the first hunt, unless the reason for not finding on the later hunts is different.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

For example I also see the opposite happening - people logging DNFs when they actually haven't attempted it. eg.

 

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one" or

"Didn't have time to look..."

 

For me a DNF means I actually tried looking for it, not just I was in the vicinity for a few minutes. perhaps it makes a cache appear harder than it actually is.

Isn't getting to a place and finding the gates locked an attempt to find the cache? Or getting to GZ and finding too many muggles to search, isn't that an attempt? Or running out of time to finish searching? I've logged GNF's for all of those. I guess it all comes down to when the "search" starts. For me, the search starts with finding my way to GZ - I logged a DNF when involved in a car accident on the way to the cache.

 

The reasoning that puzzles me is the "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing."

 

I guess you don't go lunchtime caching then. So if you visited a site and the gates were locked 3 days in a row you'd log 3 DNF's one after the other?

 

If that was my cache you were doing it to, I'd be pretty ticked off - I'd probably message you myself and say - look if the gates are closed - YOU DID NOT GET NEAR ENOUGH TO SEARCH!

 

First, I don't do lunchtime caching. There are no geocaches that I haven't found close enough that I can run out and get them on a lunch break.

 

Logging a DNF is not just for the benefit of the CO. If you've gone out on a lunch break to look for a cache and found that it was inaccessible due to locked gates, that's exactly the kind of information other geocachers would want to see and it's entirely possible that the CO might be unaware that the cache was inaccessible certain times of day. Posting multiple DNFs may be unnecessary if you tried 2-3 times to get near enough to search but could not, but posting one DNF after 2-3 attempts would definitely be appropriate.

 

As a CO, I appreciate DNFs. The first 3 DNFs I got on my last cache alerted me to a serious problem with my coords.

 

But seriously -- you have to judge whether a DNF is really that helpful to a CO or not when you know that the reason you didn't find it is actually that you were too lazy or physically unable to try.

 

I agree with the poster above who worried about hogging the logs. Even if you do post a DNF, you only need one - it's kind of stupid to go back and keep logging them - if they contain no new information.

 

Did you read the last sentence in my response?

 

"Posting multiple DNFs may be unnecessary if you tried 2-3 times to get near enough to search but could not, but posting one DNF after 2-3 attempts would definitely be appropriate."

 

 

So I'll let you in on how lunchtime caching works. I sit at my desk, look at the map and then I decide which one I'm going to try nearby. I work in London so it's high on muggle count.

 

So I'll go for a lunchtime walk, and let's say that it starts raining halfway and I decide to quit and go to the nearest sandwich shop... well according to the logic I've seen above I should log a DNF as I clearly commited to go find that cache - I was actually moving towards GZ - even though I was still maybe 200m from GZ.

 

Then there is some that I've got there but there are muggles everywhere, so I walk by where GZ appears to be and take a glance, but I can't really stop and start bending down or moving things without looking like a suspicious type and drawing attention to the cache.

 

snip...

 

^ Yes this is what you cache logs would look like, if I followed your logic ^

 

So for me I don't have an extreme approach to caching MUST be a DNF or MUST be a found. I go, I scope out the area, then I decide if I'm going to commit.

 

Let's have some common sense people.

 

I think I have a pretty good idea how lunchtime caching works. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp. In my first few months as a geocacher I could go out at lunch time and after work to find a few caches. However, I've found all but one cache within 13 miles (and that one is a 2.5 mile round trip hike rated 5 stars for terrain...I think it's probably overrated) so as you might expect how I approach geocaching is probably going to be different than someone that has 20-30 caches to choose within walking distance on a lunch break.

 

As I also wrote, and as others have implied, a DNF log is *not* just for the benefit of a CO. It also provides information, beyond whether the cache might be missing, to other geocachers that might consider searching for a specific cache . There are quite a few DNF logs in my neck of the woods during the winter when snow depths have made it difficult to find a cache. That tells other geocachers that, perhaps until some of the recently fallen snow melts, it might be a good idea to avoid looking for that one. Similarly, if there is a cache in a park, and a couple people post DNF logs (or one person posts more than one) that indicates that they arrived at 4:00PM during the week and the gates were locked, that would tell other geocachers to try searching for it earlier in the day or on a weekend. I just recently got a note from another geocachers about one of my caches. He told me that the intramural soccer league he runs will be practicing on the fields close to the cache from 4-7pm during the week until the end of October. Adding that kind of information to a cache listing whether done by the CO or as a DNF log will help other geocachers decide when the best time is to look for it.

 

As I wrote earlier, I'm not saying that you need to post a DNF every time to approach the area and can't search for the same reason, but one or two DNF logs are very likely perfectly acceptable for most COs.

 

My general guideline for posting a DNF is if I made a reasonable attempt at searching for the cache and didn't find it, I'll post a DNF if I can also add information that may be of interest to either the CO or other geocachers. Heading in the general direction of a cache and changing my mind because it's started to rain wouldn't provide any useful information to anyone else. However, if it rained so hard that flood waters made the area temporarily inaccessible, that would be something that other geocachers and the CO might want to know.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

For example I also see the opposite happening - people logging DNFs when they actually haven't attempted it. eg.

 

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one" or

"Didn't have time to look..."

 

For me a DNF means I actually tried looking for it, not just I was in the vicinity for a few minutes. perhaps it makes a cache appear harder than it actually is.

Isn't getting to a place and finding the gates locked an attempt to find the cache? Or getting to GZ and finding too many muggles to search, isn't that an attempt? Or running out of time to finish searching? I've logged GNF's for all of those. I guess it all comes down to when the "search" starts. For me, the search starts with finding my way to GZ - I logged a DNF when involved in a car accident on the way to the cache.

 

The reasoning that puzzles me is the "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing."

 

I guess you don't go lunchtime caching then. So if you visited a site and the gates were locked 3 days in a row you'd log 3 DNF's one after the other?

 

If that was my cache you were doing it to, I'd be pretty ticked off - I'd probably message you myself and say - look if the gates are closed - YOU DID NOT GET NEAR ENOUGH TO SEARCH!

 

First, I don't do lunchtime caching. There are no geocaches that I haven't found close enough that I can run out and get them on a lunch break.

 

Logging a DNF is not just for the benefit of the CO. If you've gone out on a lunch break to look for a cache and found that it was inaccessible due to locked gates, that's exactly the kind of information other geocachers would want to see and it's entirely possible that the CO might be unaware that the cache was inaccessible certain times of day. Posting multiple DNFs may be unnecessary if you tried 2-3 times to get near enough to search but could not, but posting one DNF after 2-3 attempts would definitely be appropriate.

 

As a CO, I appreciate DNFs. The first 3 DNFs I got on my last cache alerted me to a serious problem with my coords.

 

But seriously -- you have to judge whether a DNF is really that helpful to a CO or not when you know that the reason you didn't find it is actually that you were too lazy or physically unable to try.

 

I agree with the poster above who worried about hogging the logs. Even if you do post a DNF, you only need one - it's kind of stupid to go back and keep logging them - if they contain no new information.

 

Did you read the last sentence in my response?

 

"Posting multiple DNFs may be unnecessary if you tried 2-3 times to get near enough to search but could not, but posting one DNF after 2-3 attempts would definitely be appropriate."

 

 

So I'll let you in on how lunchtime caching works. I sit at my desk, look at the map and then I decide which one I'm going to try nearby. I work in London so it's high on muggle count.

 

So I'll go for a lunchtime walk, and let's say that it starts raining halfway and I decide to quit and go to the nearest sandwich shop... well according to the logic I've seen above I should log a DNF as I clearly commited to go find that cache - I was actually moving towards GZ - even though I was still maybe 200m from GZ.

 

Then there is some that I've got there but there are muggles everywhere, so I walk by where GZ appears to be and take a glance, but I can't really stop and start bending down or moving things without looking like a suspicious type and drawing attention to the cache.

 

snip...

 

^ Yes this is what you cache logs would look like, if I followed your logic ^

 

So for me I don't have an extreme approach to caching MUST be a DNF or MUST be a found. I go, I scope out the area, then I decide if I'm going to commit.

 

Let's have some common sense people.

 

I think I have a pretty good idea how lunchtime caching works. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp. In my first few months as a geocacher I could go out at lunch time and after work to find a few caches. However, I've found all but one cache within 13 miles (and that one is a 2.5 mile round trip hike rated 5 stars for terrain...I think it's probably overrated) so as you might expect how I approach geocaching is probably going to be different than someone that has 20-30 caches to choose within walking distance on a lunch break.

 

As I also wrote, and as others have implied, a DNF log is *not* just for the benefit of a CO. It also provides information, beyond whether the cache might be missing, to other geocachers that might consider searching for a specific cache . There are quite a few DNF logs in my neck of the woods during the winter when snow depths have made it difficult to find a cache. That tells other geocachers that, perhaps until some of the recently fallen snow melts, it might be a good idea to avoid looking for that one. Similarly, if there is a cache in a park, and a couple people post DNF logs (or one person posts more than one) that indicates that they arrived at 4:00PM during the week and the gates were locked, that would tell other geocachers to try searching for it earlier in the day or on a weekend. I just recently got a note from another geocachers about one of my caches. He told me that the intramural soccer league he runs will be practicing on the fields close to the cache from 4-7pm during the week until the end of October. Adding that kind of information to a cache listing whether done by the CO or as a DNF log will help other geocachers decide when the best time is to look for it.

 

As I wrote earlier, I'm not saying that you need to post a DNF every time to approach the area and can't search for the same reason, but one or two DNF logs are very likely perfectly acceptable for most COs.

 

My general guideline for posting a DNF is if I made a reasonable attempt at searching for the cache and didn't find it, I'll post a DNF if I can also add information that may be of interest to either the CO or other geocachers. Heading in the general direction of a cache and changing my mind because it's started to rain wouldn't provide any useful information to anyone else. However, if it rained so hard that flood waters made the area temporarily inaccessible, that would be something that other geocachers and the CO might want to know.

[+Mudfrog]

For example I also see the opposite happening - people logging DNFs when they actually haven't attempted it. eg.

 

"Got to the place but the gates were locked so couldn't do this one" or

"Didn't have time to look..."

 

For me a DNF means I actually tried looking for it, not just I was in the vicinity for a few minutes. perhaps it makes a cache appear harder than it actually is.

Isn't getting to a place and finding the gates locked an attempt to find the cache? Or getting to GZ and finding too many muggles to search, isn't that an attempt? Or running out of time to finish searching? I've logged GNF's for all of those. I guess it all comes down to when the "search" starts. For me, the search starts with finding my way to GZ - I logged a DNF when involved in a car accident on the way to the cache.

 

The reasoning that puzzles me is the "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing."

 

I guess you don't go lunchtime caching then. So if you visited a site and the gates were locked 3 days in a row you'd log 3 DNF's one after the other?

 

If that was my cache you were doing it to, I'd be pretty ticked off - I'd probably message you myself and say - look if the gates are closed - YOU DID NOT GET NEAR ENOUGH TO SEARCH!

 

 

And "I don't log a DNF until I'm sure the cache is missing." is NOT my reasoning. I never know the cache is missing unless the CO says it is!

 

Multiple DNFs are fine, as long as the potential finder is logging his or her's actual experiences. Seriously, why in the world would this tick you off?

 

For those of you who come up with all these excuses not to log dnfs,,, Just think for a second, what the initials DNF stand far.

 

DNF = Did Not Find

 

It's simply a statement of fact, with no positive or negative conotations.

[+Okiebryan]

I'd like to add a little different opinion on this subject.

 

I have many caches hidden in very remote locations. Locations that many people will avoid going to if the last few logs were DNFs. As a matter of fact, one of the things I (and many of my friends) do when managing caches in GSAK before a day of caching is to FILTER OUT ALL CACHES WITH THE LAST 2 LOGS AS DNF.

 

I hate it when a group goes caching, doesn't find my cache, then every one of them posts a DNF. All the sudden a perfectly viable cache looks like it's missing and has not been checked on. Then I drive 70-100 miles to find that the cache is right there and just fine. Those of you who use GSAK to manage your cache activity know exactly what I mean when you see that little 4 square grid over to the left of the cache name, and all 4 squares are red.

 

If you're caching with a group, really only one of you needs to post a DNF if you don't find a cache.

 

As for me out caching by myself, I won't post a DNF if I didn't look very hard. Muggles made me skip it? I post a note. That's just me. If I gave it a reasonable effort and failed to find it, I post a DNF.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yes, yes I would. At the very least I'd post a note. If your description did not mention the fact that the gates are locked at such and such time then future hunters should have that information available to them.

 

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting the modern concept of entitlement! Everyone should tell me everything before I go hunt a cache. Dadgum! The library is closed at mignight! Why didn't someone tell me that?

Got to do better than that. I have a cache in a park where you never know when it will be open. I get complaints about the gates being locked. Silly people! I knew that. That's part of the reason the cache is in the fence around the park.

I agree with FitzWesley. DNFs clutter up the cache page. I usually hunt with another cacher. Should we start posting two DNF logs and clutter up the page? After all, there were two of us hunting?

I still don't understand this 'importance' to logging a DNF (which is not required)! The only thing I see is 'entitlement'. It is optional. It is not required. Why do people keep insisting that everyone should do it? I have yet to hear a valid reason.

It's like that much abused 'Needs Maintenance'. I did maintenance after someone posted NM "Log very wet". It was barely damp, and still signable. Complete waste of my time.

[+The Jester]

I'd like to add a little different opinion on this subject.

 

I have many caches hidden in very remote locations. Locations that many people will avoid going to if the last few logs were DNFs. As a matter of fact, one of the things I (and many of my friends) do when managing caches in GSAK before a day of caching is to FILTER OUT ALL CACHES WITH THE LAST 2 LOGS AS DNF.

 

I hate it when a group goes caching, doesn't find my cache, then every one of them posts a DNF. All the sudden a perfectly viable cache looks like it's missing and has not been checked on. Then I drive 70-100 miles to find that the cache is right there and just fine. Those of you who use GSAK to manage your cache activity know exactly what I mean when you see that little 4 square grid over to the left of the cache name, and all 4 squares are red.

 

If you're caching with a group, really only one of you needs to post a DNF if you don't find a cache.

 

As for me out caching by myself, I won't post a DNF if I didn't look very hard. Muggles made me skip it? I post a note. That's just me. If I gave it a reasonable effort and failed to find it, I post a DNF.

It's your choice to filter out caches based on log >type< instead of log >content<. A DNF is not a flag that a problem occured with the cache, more likely a problem with the hunter (at least in my case). I've heard many people use the GSAK last logs column to filter out caches, and always wonder if they ever read any of those logs? As a CO I don't think a log with a DNF tag cause for concern because it's a DNF, it depends what the log says.

 

The other point, not often mentioned, is that DNF logs are part of my caching history. They let me know what I did when. I had a friend log a find on a difficult cache of mine with a "gee, this looked familiar" line in it. They'd tried it earlier, never logged a DNF, and forgot they had been there before.

[+Okiebryan]

I'd like to add a little different opinion on this subject.

 

I have many caches hidden in very remote locations. Locations that many people will avoid going to if the last few logs were DNFs. As a matter of fact, one of the things I (and many of my friends) do when managing caches in GSAK before a day of caching is to FILTER OUT ALL CACHES WITH THE LAST 2 LOGS AS DNF.

 

I hate it when a group goes caching, doesn't find my cache, then every one of them posts a DNF. All the sudden a perfectly viable cache looks like it's missing and has not been checked on. Then I drive 70-100 miles to find that the cache is right there and just fine. Those of you who use GSAK to manage your cache activity know exactly what I mean when you see that little 4 square grid over to the left of the cache name, and all 4 squares are red.

 

If you're caching with a group, really only one of you needs to post a DNF if you don't find a cache.

 

As for me out caching by myself, I won't post a DNF if I didn't look very hard. Muggles made me skip it? I post a note. That's just me. If I gave it a reasonable effort and failed to find it, I post a DNF.

It's your choice to filter out caches based on log >type< instead of log >content<. A DNF is not a flag that a problem occured with the cache, more likely a problem with the hunter (at least in my case). I've heard many people use the GSAK last logs column to filter out caches, and always wonder if they ever read any of those logs? As a CO I don't think a log with a DNF tag cause for concern because it's a DNF, it depends what the log says.

 

The other point, not often mentioned, is that DNF logs are part of my caching history. They let me know what I did when. I had a friend log a find on a difficult cache of mine with a "gee, this looked familiar" line in it. They'd tried it earlier, never logged a DNF, and forgot they had been there before.

 

Since my GSAK database contains about 4000 caches, no I don't go read the DNFs. I pick an area, center the database, filter the caches to eliminate caches that are not likely to be there, then download the results to my GPSr.

 

I am fully aware that that is my choice. However, many of the cachers in my local geocaching organization do the same thing, and that is not my choice. That is why I don't want 3 or more DNFs posted for a single visit to a cache by one group, especially on a more remote cache. I've had caches sit unvisited for more than a year because of this very reason, and logging a cache maintenance visit doesn't fix it in GSAK. I finally have to beg someone to go find it just to reset it from that "last 2 DNF" status.

 

However, I am fully aware that I can't control how others cache, and wouldn't even try to do so. I was just contributing my experiences and opinion to the thread.

[+wyld_bill2003]

I think I can answer this question.

 

1. If I log a DNF the frownie icon does not show up on my profile page.

2. My total number of frownies is not kept for me so I don't know how many frownie points I have.

3. How can any CO expect me to log my DNFs for a big numbers run when it is already enough trouble for me to log TFTC on the ones I find.

4. Its hard to log a DNF when I always find every cache I hunt.

 

 

***This post is all in jest.

[+Mudfrog]

I'd like to add a little different opinion on this subject.

 

I have many caches hidden in very remote locations. Locations that many people will avoid going to if the last few logs were DNFs. As a matter of fact, one of the things I (and many of my friends) do when managing caches in GSAK before a day of caching is to FILTER OUT ALL CACHES WITH THE LAST 2 LOGS AS DNF.

 

I hate it when a group goes caching, doesn't find my cache, then every one of them posts a DNF. All the sudden a perfectly viable cache looks like it's missing and has not been checked on. Then I drive 70-100 miles to find that the cache is right there and just fine. Those of you who use GSAK to manage your cache activity know exactly what I mean when you see that little 4 square grid over to the left of the cache name, and all 4 squares are red.

 

If you're caching with a group, really only one of you needs to post a DNF if you don't find a cache.

 

As for me out caching by myself, I won't post a DNF if I didn't look very hard. Muggles made me skip it? I post a note. That's just me. If I gave it a reasonable effort and failed to find it, I post a DNF.

 

I look at it totally different. First thing i do is read the logs and see what the trouble seems to be. Allthough it's not 100%, it still gives me an idea of whether i want to try for the cache or not. A couple of DNFs very seldomly cause me to skip trying for a cache.

 

As far as everyone in a group posting a dnf on a cache,,, Say there are 4 people in the group logging them. Seems to me that this is about the same thing as 4 different cachers coming in at 4 different times. In otherwords, 4 legitmate dnfs, meaning a good chance that there may be a problem with the cache!

Edited September 16, 2009 by Mudfrog

[+Everdaunt]

Wow, as a new cacher I had absolutely no idea that it was so good to post DNFs, for the same reasons everyone has already mentioned.

 

I mean mostly since I am new and I don't wish to mislead other caches. My rule has been don't post a DNF unless you are absolutely clueless. If it takes me multiple trips I will note that in my found it log so as to help others who didn't have luck on that first try.

 

But I guess I should reconsider this seeing as a lot of you seem pro-logging those DNFs.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

<snip>

 

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting the modern concept of entitlement! Everyone should tell me everything before I go hunt a cache. Dadgum! The library is closed at mignight! Why didn't someone tell me that?

Got to do better than that. I have a cache in a park where you never know when it will be open. I get complaints about the gates being locked. Silly people! I knew that. That's part of the reason the cache is in the fence around the park.

I agree with FitzWesley. DNFs clutter up the cache page. I usually hunt with another cacher. Should we start posting two DNF logs and clutter up the page? After all, there were two of us hunting?

I still don't understand this 'importance' to logging a DNF (which is not required)! The only thing I see is 'entitlement'. It is optional. It is not required. Why do people keep insisting that everyone should do it? I have yet to hear a valid reason.

It's like that much abused 'Needs Maintenance'. I did maintenance after someone posted NM "Log very wet". It was barely damp, and still signable. Complete waste of my time.

 

It's nice to see someone has perspective here. And from a paperless perspective I use CacheBerry which only shows the last 5 logs.

 

If 2 or 3 logs on there are DNF and basically stating something like:

 

"I looked around didn't understand the clue"

 

It's not very helpful, but a found log that says

 

"Ha, loved the joke..."

 

Helps me to refocus my search or be aware of what I should look for.

 

As I stated before, I like to scope out an area - y'know scout it before I commit to looking. Anyone here understand what a scout is...?

 

Jeez if the pro-DNFers were leading an army they'd send the scouts into battle and send the cavalry home when the battle was lost!

 

Heck, may as well fire up Google Streetview and start logging those DNFs now!

 

Wow, as a new cacher I had absolutely no idea that it was so good to post DNFs, for the same reasons everyone has already mentioned.

 

I mean mostly since I am new and I don't wish to mislead other caches. My rule has been don't post a DNF unless you are absolutely clueless. If it takes me multiple trips I will note that in my found it log so as to help others who didn't have luck on that first try.

 

But I guess I should reconsider this seeing as a lot of you seem pro-logging those DNFs.

 

My guess is that a lot of the pro-DNFers are practicing a false humility of "I'm not about the numbers" and "I'm not scared to log a DNF". You don't have to log a DNF if you don't really try for it.

 

I'm not about to log a DNF for every cache I walk or drive past, just because I changed my mind and didn't get out of the car.

 

If you're just scoping an area about before you stop to search for it this isn't a DNF. And despite what all these high-post count FMs are saying, there's no requirement to log a DNF, no-one is going to be checking your logs and reporting you to Groundspeak.

 

Just cache your way, enjoy it, and if you genuinely didn't find it let everyone know with a DNF.

 

I certainly won't be rushing to DNF for every cache location that I glance at, on the street, or on Google Streetview.

[+Jasper Joe]

Thanks for all the input. No, I guess I wouldn't delete anyone's smiley on them for not posting a DNF. And I wouldn't post one myself without at least 2 hard unsuccessful tries (just my own personal rule). I guess it's just another one of those things you have to put up with being a CO.

 

The reason I needed the DNFs posted for my last cache is because I rated it a 2.5 and 6 people tried it and couldn't find it but only 1 posted a DNF. After I got a latenight call from another cacher (who looked my phone number up because he knew where I lived from a cache I placed on my own property - big mistake) who said he had been there several times and needed a hint, I knew the difficulty rating should be raised and coordinates checked.

 

Oh, and in case you were wondering just how many DNFs I have? zip, zero, nada. There hasn't been a cache placed out there yet that I cannot find (sooner or later or after I PAF)

[Skippermark]

I know lots of people that don't log DNFs. I log the, but a lot won't.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Skippermark

[+Castle Mischief]

Yes, yes I would. At the very least I'd post a note. If your description did not mention the fact that the gates are locked at such and such time then future hunters should have that information available to them.

 

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting the modern concept of entitlement! Everyone should tell me everything before I go hunt a cache. Dadgum! The library is closed at mignight! Why didn't someone tell me that?

Got to do better than that. I have a cache in a park where you never know when it will be open. I get complaints about the gates being locked. Silly people! I knew that. That's part of the reason the cache is in the fence around the park.

I agree with FitzWesley. DNFs clutter up the cache page. I usually hunt with another cacher. Should we start posting two DNF logs and clutter up the page? After all, there were two of us hunting?

I still don't understand this 'importance' to logging a DNF (which is not required)! The only thing I see is 'entitlement'. It is optional. It is not required. Why do people keep insisting that everyone should do it? I have yet to hear a valid reason.

It's like that much abused 'Needs Maintenance'. I did maintenance after someone posted NM "Log very wet". It was barely damp, and still signable. Complete waste of my time.

 

What you call entitlement I call being a thoughtful member of a community. I appreciate reading the DNF logs of previous hunters and seeing some to the effect of "area is closed on Sundays". Even more so I like seeing DNF logs that expose what appears to be a permission issue- "gate was closed with posted no trespassing signs".

 

Why would you lead a person to a cache knowing that there are times that you can't even access it? Heaven forbid you "clutter the page" with useful accurate information.

 

 

And how is my logging a DNF somehow "entitlement" anyway? it's something that I'm doing for somebody else as a courtesy. Entitlement is when I expect that something is done for me without justification for my expectations. If expecting accurate, meaningful information on a cache page is entitlement then so be it.

[+Castle Mischief]

<snip>

 

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting the modern concept of entitlement! Everyone should tell me everything before I go hunt a cache. Dadgum! The library is closed at mignight! Why didn't someone tell me that?

Got to do better than that. I have a cache in a park where you never know when it will be open. I get complaints about the gates being locked. Silly people! I knew that. That's part of the reason the cache is in the fence around the park.

I agree with FitzWesley. DNFs clutter up the cache page. I usually hunt with another cacher. Should we start posting two DNF logs and clutter up the page? After all, there were two of us hunting?

I still don't understand this 'importance' to logging a DNF (which is not required)! The only thing I see is 'entitlement'. It is optional. It is not required. Why do people keep insisting that everyone should do it? I have yet to hear a valid reason.

It's like that much abused 'Needs Maintenance'. I did maintenance after someone posted NM "Log very wet". It was barely damp, and still signable. Complete waste of my time.

 

It's nice to see someone has perspective here. And from a paperless perspective I use CacheBerry which only shows the last 5 logs.

 

If 2 or 3 logs on there are DNF and basically stating something like:

 

"I looked around didn't understand the clue"

 

It's not very helpful, but a found log that says

 

"Ha, loved the joke..."

 

Helps me to refocus my search or be aware of what I should look for.

 

As I stated before, I like to scope out an area - y'know scout it before I commit to looking. Anyone here understand what a scout is...?

 

Jeez if the pro-DNFers were leading an army they'd send the scouts into battle and send the cavalry home when the battle was lost!

 

Heck, may as well fire up Google Streetview and start logging those DNFs now!

 

Those are two pretty lop-sided examples. Allow me to return the favor - how is a found log of "found it, thanks for the cache" somehow more helpful than "area was closed at noon unable to search for cache" if this information is not in the cache description?

 

A helpful log is a helpful log be it a DNF or a Found It.

[greenworldfeather]

DNF's are very useful because when the owner wants to know how long it has been since someone found it, or at least tried, even though they might have gotten a DNF, it is a bit critical so they don't have to go out and check on it for no reason other than because noone has posted anything except maybe a TB or GC drop or retrieval for several months. It helps a LOT with maintenence issues, and for people who want to go look for it, so they know whether it has been found recently, or if it might be missing or has problems associated with it like wasps/hornets for example. You never know when someone is going to come along that is allegic to wasps/hornets/bees or something like that. Plus, it is easier to deal with them when they are only an inch or two big and only have about 10-15 wasps total in the entire nest.

 

That brings up another important point. You need to update the attribute often sometimes so that people will know if something is going on near it. The ones that don't fit, if any, need to be posted in the description. We have a guy who actually did a challenge cache with the requirement that you needed to have logged 100 DNF's. He explained that it is very useful and often important to know about the cache, especially if the weather or animals/plants have played a part in the area where it is in recently.

 

Think about it this way. Would you like it if you didn't get any notification from anybody except for the occasional call about your cache? What if you forgot when the last time someone found it or did maintenence on it? When was the last time anything was posted on it? That could have been 2+ months ago. Are you seeing what my and everybody else's point is now? I hope you are. Hopefully this will help people more.

 

What is the problem? You want people to think that you are some sort of macho cacher who rarely if ever makes a mistake or gets a DNF? Hah! I laugh at you! I LAUGH AT YOU! You should be the one saying I have made a lot of mistakes with caching, and yes I get DNF's all the time. Remember, us younger and less experienced cachcers look up to for an example of how to act and what to do when doing this. I hope that this helps. Thank you for helping us with caching, and I hope that this helps you realize that you can make mistakes and we really won't think that much less of you. At any rate, we will at least know that you are being honest. Thanks, and I hope that this helps to solve a couple problems. Have a great day, and remember, this isn't a sport to see who has the least amount of DNF's. We're not interested in the He/She-Person of caching in such-and-such an area. What we are interested in, is that everybody has fun and learns some different things and helps each other as much as possible and above all learn about being selfless and helping where we can so EVERYBODY can have the most amount of that they can and not regret it. If someone hides something up in the mountains, try to check up on it at least every couple months if at all possible. Thank you and have a great time caching with hopefully a little bit more determination to be reasonable(but still challenging sometimes) and honest when cachiing. THank you and have a great day. gwf

[+niraD]

Why would you lead a person to a cache knowing that there are times that you can't even access it? Heaven forbid you "clutter the page" with useful accurate information.

Most of the caches around here are not available 24/7, simply because they are in parks that are closed at night.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

 

Those are two pretty lop-sided examples. Allow me to return the favor - how is a found log of "found it, thanks for the cache" somehow more helpful than "area was closed at noon unable to search for cache" if this information is not in the cache description?

 

A helpful log is a helpful log be it a DNF or a Found It.

 

Provided to counter-balance the lop-sided examples that a DNF is always helpful!

 

But a Find will always be intrinsically more helpful than a DNF for this simple reason:

 

Pretend we have the following with no log message whatsoever - just smileys:

 

1 - DNF

2 - DNF

3 - DNF

4 - DNF

5 - DNF

6 - Found

 

The 1x Find, though it stands alone, depending on where it is, tells me whether a cache likely is or isn't actually there.

 

Whereas alone:

 

5x DNFs

 

Tell me it may be a waste of time going, (but perhaps this was a team of 5 useless cachers who couldn't find it)!

 

Finds will always be intrinsically more helpful because they confirm that a cache can potentially be found - whereas DNFs only confirm the individual cacher AT THAT TIME couldn't find it.

 

Regardless I stated the reasons why I don't think you should log a DNF on every cache, but you persist in your stubborn, righteous attitude - as though each DNF represents a scar or a small sacrifice as an example to others....

 

Google Earth is a valid argument because it may be possible to spend more time looking for an urban cache on GE than it is being there physically - and yes I have actually done this!

[+simpler1773]

Sanity check here. I get irritated at times when people post 'Easy Find, walked right up and grabbed it.' Which I expect when it is rated a 1 or 2. However, when you make a hide a bit more difficult and they call you 2 or 3 times after they have made several trips, a DNF is rarely if ever posted.

 

What is the big deal about posting a DNF? I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?

 

 

Thanks for all the input. No, I guess I wouldn't delete anyone's smiley on them for not posting a DNF. And I wouldn't post one myself without at least 2 hard unsuccessful tries (just my own personal rule). I guess it's just another one of those things you have to put up with being a CO.

 

The reason I needed the DNFs posted for my last cache is because I rated it a 2.5 and 6 people tried it and couldn't find it but only 1 posted a DNF. After I got a latenight call from another cacher (who looked my phone number up because he knew where I lived from a cache I placed on my own property - big mistake) who said he had been there several times and needed a hint, I knew the difficulty rating should be raised and coordinates checked.

 

Oh, and in case you were wondering just how many DNFs I have? zip, zero, nada. There hasn't been a cache placed out there yet that I cannot find (sooner or later or after I PAF)

 

So, let me get this straight, because maybe you were kidding and I missed it. You are upset because someone didn't log a DNF on your cache and called you without logging a DNF. You are so upset you are considering deleting the smiley. However you yourself never log a DNF? Or was the laughing supposed to indicate you were joking? Just trying to clairify.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

<snip>

<snip>

 

So, let me get this straight, because maybe you were kidding and I missed it. You are upset because someone didn't log a DNF on your cache and called you without logging a DNF. You are so upset you are considering deleting the smiley. However you yourself never log a DNF? Or was the laughing supposed to indicate you were joking? Just trying to clairify.

 

Well spotted...!

 

Don't forget:

 

"And I wouldn't post one myself without at least 2 hard unsuccessful tries (just my own personal rule)."

 

Which - I've been arguing is when you should post a DNF (on the 1st try)!

[+bflentje]

Sanity check here. I get irritated at times when people post 'Easy Find, walked right up and grabbed it.' Which I expect when it is rated a 1 or 2. However, when you make a hide a bit more difficult and they call you 2 or 3 times after they have made several trips, a DNF is rarely if ever posted.

 

What is the big deal about posting a DNF? I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?

 

I always posts DNFs. But if you ever deleted one of my finds because I didn't posta DNF, for whatever reason, I'd consider going maggot on your cache. Ok, not really, but I'd think about it.

[+bittsen]

Sanity check here. I get irritated at times when people post 'Easy Find, walked right up and grabbed it.' Which I expect when it is rated a 1 or 2. However, when you make a hide a bit more difficult and they call you 2 or 3 times after they have made several trips, a DNF is rarely if ever posted.

 

What is the big deal about posting a DNF? I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?

 

I always posts DNFs. But if you ever deleted one of my finds because I didn't posta DNF, for whatever reason, I'd consider going maggot on your cache. Ok, not really, but I'd think about it.

 

I'd consider it on any legitimate log that was deleted. OK, not really, but I'd think about it.

 

My friend and I have developed a litmus test for DNF logs. It goes as follows.

We arrive at the cache location (as close as you can park) and decide to not look for it... No DNF

We arrive and get out of the vehicle and walk towards the cache and then back to the vehicle... No DNF

We get out, look for GZ but can't get the GPS to settle down and never feel we were close enough to actually look... No DNF

We look for the cache and can't find it (AKA, are skunked).... DNF

 

The basis of our DNF's are that if we spend at least 5 minutes looking for the cache, and not just chasing coords, it's a DNF. If we are not sure we are close, no DNF.

[+bflentje]

Sanity check here. I get irritated at times when people post 'Easy Find, walked right up and grabbed it.' Which I expect when it is rated a 1 or 2. However, when you make a hide a bit more difficult and they call you 2 or 3 times after they have made several trips, a DNF is rarely if ever posted.

 

What is the big deal about posting a DNF? I have thought about deleting a found posting from someone I know should have posted a DNF, but didn't. Is this right / wrong?

 

I always posts DNFs. But if you ever deleted one of my finds because I didn't posta DNF, for whatever reason, I'd consider going maggot on your cache. Ok, not really, but I'd think about it.

 

I'd consider it on any legitimate log that was deleted. OK, not really, but I'd think about it.

 

My friend and I have developed a litmus test for DNF logs. It goes as follows.

We arrive at the cache location (as close as you can park) and decide to not look for it... No DNF

We arrive and get out of the vehicle and walk towards the cache and then back to the vehicle... No DNF

We get out, look for GZ but can't get the GPS to settle down and never feel we were close enough to actually look... No DNF

We look for the cache and can't find it (AKA, are skunked).... DNF

 

The basis of our DNF's are that if we spend at least 5 minutes looking for the cache, and not just chasing coords, it's a DNF. If we are not sure we are close, no DNF.

 

If I put ANY effort into getting to a cache and can't score the find, it gets a DNF. I have the opinion that even if I drive around erratically through a neighborhood not being able to find a legit path into GZ, someone else may find that useful. If nothing else, to help the next guy plan better than I did(n't).