Quick to post Easy Find - Never post DNF

[+Castle Mischief]

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.

 

And can we agree that's the kind of information that should be included in the cache description or that the correct attribute for non-24/7 availability should be used? It's discourteous to not include these facts.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

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!

 

I never said that. I never said "always". In fact I did not even say that a DNF was more helpful than a Found It log. I said that they can both be 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)!

 

Or is it a case of a missing cache that was replaced by the CO? Or did cacher #6 throw down a replacement pill bottle with a scrap of paper and claim a log? Or did somebody in Europe claim the find from their living room?

 

There's no way to tell. All six of these are not helpful or informative logs. They are all equal in terms of data.

 

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....

 

No. Found It logs have just as much potential to be helpful or not helpful as a DNF log. To use your verbiage, a Found It log only confirms that an individual cacher AT THAT TIME could find it.

 

The only log that is not helpful is the one that is never submitted to the cache page.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+runawaybunny]

 

With a DNF, it's not as cut and dry. When is it a DNF?

 

Whenever you look and "Do Not Find" you should log a DNF. Simple. So, your logs should appear thusly:

 

"I looked under the suspicious pile of rocks, but it wasn't there." DNF

 

"Then I checked in the hollow log. Wasn't there either." DNF

 

"I realized it HAD to be under the suspicious pile of sticks. It wasn't." DNF

 

"Stepped in dog poop, which turned out to be the cleverly disguised cache." Smiley!

 

Just kidding, of course.

Edited September 16, 2009 by runawaybunny

[+GRANPA ALEX]

This is JUST ME, and the folks with whom I cache . . . we post a DNF on caches that others seem to have found but, on which, we had no success . . . as a gift to the owner that a problem may exist. On most of our/my DNF's, following cachers also DNF the same ones.

 

However, when I/we do a pocket query, the first ones that we eliminate from a PQ are the ones having multiple DNF logs . . . the thinking is that if locals who know the hider and his hide techniques, have his & other local PAF numbers and have a lot of time to hunt (being locals) can not find it . . . I/we will not waste my time trying to find it.

 

THAT being said, we are very careful to DNF only after we have exhausted all ideas of hides that our collective minds can determine . . . it may just be a great hide that we can not find.

Edited September 16, 2009 by GRANPA ALEX

[+Unkle Fester]

 

With a DNF, it's not as cut and dry. When is it a DNF?

 

Whenever you look and "Do Not Find" you should log a DNF. Simple. So, your logs should appear thusly:

 

"I looked under the suspicious pile of rocks, but it wasn't there." DNF

 

"Then I checked in the hollow log. Wasn't there either." DNF

 

"I realized it HAD to be under the suspicious pile of sticks. It wasn't." DNF

 

"Stepped in dog poop, which turned out to be the cleverly disguised cache." Smiley!

 

Just kidding, of course.

Nice.

 

If I don't get out of the car, I log a note as a DNA (Did Not Attempt) ie:

 

Pulled up to the coordinates and saw a homeless camp, DNA

 

Driving up the road, I came to a locked forest service gate 1.3 miles from GZ, DNA

 

Park was closed, DNA

 

River flooded the road, even though I could see the likely hide spot, I couldn't get to it to search, DNA

 

Grabbed the pile of dog poop, thinking it was fake dog poop, DNF

 

Came back once the water receided, found the cache high and dry. SMILEY!

 

(Edit to add)

 

Logging a note is part of the history of the cache, I didn't search, but the CO deserves to know I tried and why I didn't.

 

Maybe he didn't know there was a homeless camp there now.

 

Maybe the gate is new.

 

Maybe he forgot to list the park hours.

 

Maybe he didn't know rivers flood every year (darn near)

 

Maybe he will find the dog poop funny. (I would)

Edited September 16, 2009 by Unkle Fester

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

 

With a DNF, it's not as cut and dry. When is it a DNF?

 

Whenever you look and "Do Not Find" you should log a DNF. Simple. So, your logs should appear thusly:

 

"I looked under the suspicious pile of rocks, but it wasn't there." DNF

 

"Then I checked in the hollow log. Wasn't there either." DNF

 

"I realized it HAD to be under the suspicious pile of sticks. It wasn't." DNF

 

"Stepped in dog poop, which turned out to be the cleverly disguised cache." Smiley!

 

Just kidding, of course.

Nice.

 

If I don't get out of the car, I log a note as a DNA (Did Not Attempt) ie:

 

Pulled up to the coordinates and saw a homeless camp, DNA

 

Driving up the road, I came to a locked forest service gate 1.3 miles from GZ, DNA

 

Park was closed, DNA

 

River flooded the road, even though I could see the likely hide spot, I couldn't get to it to search, DNA

 

Grabbed the pile of dog poop, thinking it was fake dog poop, DNF

 

Came back once the water receided, found the cache high and dry. SMILEY!

 

+1

 

I would like to add:

 

Popped coords into my GPSr on the way to the sandwich shop but didn't stop due to too many mugges - DNA

 

Checked out Google Streetview, spent 20 mins looking from different angles, later walked past GZ but didn't stop to search - DNA

 

Walked to cache location, did get within 20m, GZ was accessible, did stop, did sniff around, did search bushes and/or street furntiture - DNF

 

Walked to cache location after work when less muggles, found the cache without drawing too much attention - SMILEY!

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

No. Found It logs have just as much potential to be helpful or not helpful as a DNF log. To use your verbiage, a Found It log only confirms that an individual cacher AT THAT TIME could find it.

 

The only log that is not helpful is the one that is never submitted to the cache page.

 

So you don't lunchtime cache... and you don't use a tool like CacheBerry or something similar that limits the number of logs - displays only smileys.

 

Anything else that you don't do that I should take into consideration when I look for caches?

 

I'm kind of tiring of your reasoning here and I have so far not read any good reason I should change my logging habits. For the record, most of the logs I write I spend a decent amount of time adding interesting information or stories both for DNF and Found.

 

There's no way I'm about to get into the habit of logging DNFs where I didn't get out the car or didn't commit to search.

 

Scout, scout, scout..... the area first.

 

But it's pointless because you don't cache in London and you obviously spend lots of time at home prepping for each individual cache, whereas I prefer to do some on the fly... so there is no point to continuing debate with you.

[+simpler1773]

In an effort to make everyone happy, I logged 3 DNF's tonight

 

Okay, actually I did it just because I HAD 3 DNF's tonight.

[+simpjkee]

 

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

 

 

If you're not sure how to get your total, here is an easy way, no need to run a PQ.

 

1. From your Quickview

2. Click 'Show all logs for:' 'Caches'

3. Click 'Show:' 'Didn't Find it'

 

You will have a total at the top.

 

 

I have 403 DNF's!!!!!!!!

[+texasgrillchef]

I have no problem with logging a DNF.

 

However this my rationale about when I do & when I don't.

 

I won't log a DNF unless I truly made a sincere effort in finding the cache. If I haven't made a sincere effort in searching for the cache, then I don't think it's fair to the CO as well as to myself.

 

I will almost always log a DNF after my first try.

 

This is where my definition of "First Try" begins & ends. Alot depends on circumstances. To me a "First Try" can & does sometimes mean more than one trip to GZ. Maybe I need to run back to my truck and get something, or check the cache page on netbook with wireless internet for hints, more information &/or read previous logs. Determine when the last sucessful find was. If I am out camping, a "First Try" for me might be a few days. If I am not camping, then my "First Try" ends when I have given up all effort (Physical & mental) in trying to find the hide. & will continue this effort at a MUCH later time.

 

Once I log a DNF, I also put it in my watch list, because I usually won't go for a "Second Try" until someone logs a find for it.

 

I also won't ever ask for hint until I do log a DNF. Sometimes, depending on circumstances, when I log a DNF, I might also include a request that the CO verify that his cache is still there & hasn't gone missing. I will only make this request if their is evidence that might suggest that the cache has gone missing. Exmaples of this include several previous DNF's being recently logged (within the last 90 days), including the last found log being over 120 days old, & other evidence as well. This of course being the location of the container & the hint/description.

 

Logged DNF's don't scare me off from attempting to find a cache. In fact it just makes it even more a challenge. Especially if it hasn't been found in a while, & there are a few DNF's as well. I will hunt for it & if come up empty handed then I log another DNF & ask the CO to verify his hide.

 

But for me... the main reason & ONLY reason I won't & don't log a DNF for a cache. Is when I don't believe & feel like that I put an honest sincere effort into searching for the cache.

 

Suffice it to say though... There will always be those who won't log their DNF's. Just a fact of life. Like speeding on our highways, there will always be people who do it know matter how many law enforcement officers you have on the streets! LOL

 

TGC

[+Castle Mischief]

So you don't lunchtime cache... and you don't use a tool like CacheBerry or something similar that limits the number of logs - displays only smileys.

 

Again, I never said that. Actually I have done lunchtime caches. Looking back, I didn't log a DNF on a particular one due to a parked muggle eating lunch in the area, but I posted a note. I thought this to be helpful information to anybody that hunting during lunch that they may encounter the same muggle in his truck. It was the experience that I had hunting for the cache.

 

I do use gpxspinner and plucker to load my PQs into my Palm. They also limit the number of previous logs. I understand that simple non-descriptive logs of any type do not aid you in hunting a cache. Sometimes you just have to go with the description, the hint, and your own geosense.

 

Anything else that you don't do that I should take into consideration when I look for caches?

 

I don't understand why you feel you need to consider what I do or don't do when you hunt for caches. I am only relating my practices and habits just as you are.

 

I'm kind of tiring of your reasoning here and I have so far not read any good reason I should change my logging habits. For the record, most of the logs I write I spend a decent amount of time adding interesting information or stories both for DNF and Found.

 

Great! I have full confidence that your DNF logs would be helpful and useful. I'm sure future seekers will appreciate that.

 

There's no way I'm about to get into the habit of logging DNFs where I didn't get out the car or didn't commit to search.

 

Scout, scout, scout..... the area first.

 

But it's pointless because you don't cache in London and you obviously spend lots of time at home prepping for each individual cache, whereas I prefer to do some on the fly... so there is no point to continuing debate with you.

 

Again, you're playing the jump to conclusions game. I often load up a PQ and jump in the car. Sometimes the first time I read the cache page is when I'm at ground zero and I check my Palm.

 

You are correct that I don't cache in London. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

 

My understanding is that you see an intrinsic higher value to Found It logs than DNF logs. My point has simply been that both types of logs (and even notes) have the potential to go either way in regard to helpfulness.

 

I would like to add:

 

Popped coords into my GPSr on the way to the sandwich shop but didn't stop due to too many mugges - DNA

 

Checked out Google Streetview, spent 20 mins looking from different angles, later walked past GZ but didn't stop to search - DNA

 

Walked to cache location, did get within 20m, GZ was accessible, did stop, did sniff around, did search bushes and/or street furntiture - DNF

 

Walked to cache location after work when less muggles, found the cache without drawing too much attention - SMILEY!

 

Nice. An exagerated made-up example that supports your opinion. Show me actual logs where somebody has done this or where anybody in this thread has suggested this is a good idea.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Nice. An exagerated made-up example that supports your opinion. Show me actual logs where somebody has done this or where anybody in this thread has suggested this is a good idea.

 

Hmm... since I was responding to the poster who made the original exaggerated parody list - show me an example of someone logging that they picked up a pile of poo by mistake?

 

Clutching. At. Straws.

 

The rest of your comments don't warrant attention - cyclical arguments.

 

---

 

So do you suppose this person actually tried looking for the cache at all?

 

Wow just too many muggles. The lawn opposite was strew with hot people and no one was moving on. Another time!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...53-69c1aa564b4e

 

These logs I do not find helpful - as plenty of logs previously mention muggles and - surprise, surprise - the cache description warns as much!

 

There's no need to log like this. Who cares? I don't and I don't wear smileys or frowneys as a badge of honour.

 

Honestly I don't care about your 1-sentence log that amounts to nothing! But like I said before - boasting about DNF count is false humility of those that do care about the numbers!

Edited September 17, 2009 by fitzwesley

[+Castle Mischief]

Hmm... since I was responding to the poster who made the original exaggerated parody list - show me an example of someone logging that they picked up a pile of poo by mistake?

 

Clutching. At. Straws.

 

The rest of your comments don't warrant attention - cyclical arguments.

 

 

Dismissal as rebuttal. Sweet.

 

---

So do you suppose this person actually tried looking for the cache at all?

 

Wow just too many muggles. The lawn opposite was strew with hot people and no one was moving on. Another time!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...53-69c1aa564b4e

 

These logs I do not find helpful - as plenty of logs previously mention muggles and - surprise, surprise - the cache description warns as much!

 

There's no need to log like this. Who cares? I don't and I don't wear smileys or frowneys as a badge of honour.

 

Honestly I don't care about your 1-sentence log that amounts to nothing! But like I said before - boasting about DNF count is false humility of those that do care about the numbers!

 

I don't see anybody boasting about DNF logs. I do see you being pretty judgemental about how somebody else choses to log a cache.

[Clan Riffster]

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

Me too! I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the computer screen when I first started playing this game, (mostly 'cuz I'm dumber than a bag of hammers), and I didn't realize there was a drop down arrow next to the "Found It" log type. I used that log type to drop a bug in a cache, and a kind fellow cacher sent me an e-mail explaining proper logging etiquette. That's when I noticed "DNF", "Write Note", etc.

 

After a while, I became a cache owner, and I realized the importance of all the log types.

I love getting feedback on my hides, regardless of what type of log it is.

Those notifications, ("Found It", "DNF", Needs Maintenance", etc), let me know the status of my hide.

 

By all means, post all your DNFs, all the time.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I don't see anybody boasting about DNF logs. I do see you being pretty judgemental about how somebody else choses to log a cache.

 

Try going back over the thread and looking a bit longer instead of just glancing for my next post.

 

I had to laugh when you describe me as "being pretty judgement about how somebody else choses to log a cache".

 

I mean, you truly don't get the irony of that statement do you? On a this particular thread no less....

 

No, what happened was I posted an opinion and over the course of this thread you've made it your mission to disagree with whatever I post.

[+Castle Mischief]

I don't see anybody boasting about DNF logs. I do see you being pretty judgemental about how somebody else choses to log a cache.

 

Try going back over the thread and looking a bit longer instead of just glancing for my next post.

 

I had to laugh when you describe me as "being pretty judgement about how somebody else choses to log a cache".

 

I mean, you truly don't get the irony of that statement do you? On a this particular thread no less....

 

No, what happened was I posted an opinion and over the course of this thread you've made it your mission to disagree with whatever I post.

 

Okay, I'll bite. I guess you're trying to say that at some point in this thread I've been judgemental. Feel free to show me where this happened. I'm not seeing it. I've had an opinion about several things, but nothing as judgemental as this post:

 

These logs I do not find helpful - as plenty of logs previously mention muggles and - surprise, surprise - the cache description warns as much!

 

There's no need to log like this. Who cares? I don't and I don't wear smileys or frowneys as a badge of honour.

 

Honestly I don't care about your 1-sentence log that amounts to nothing! But like I said before - boasting about DNF count is false humility of those that do care about the numbers!

 

I'm only disagreeing with you because I don't agree with the words you are saying. You've atributed to me things I've never said, misrepresented my opinion, made assumptions about how I hunt caches. I've had no choice but to disagree with you on these points.

 

We have agreed that non-helpful logs are, well... non-helpful. You seem to put a broader spectrum of logs into this catagory than I do.

 

EDIT:

 

I also agree that I've never cached in London.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+The Jester]

So do you suppose this person actually tried looking for the cache at all?

 

Wow just too many muggles. The lawn opposite was strew with hot people and no one was moving on. Another time!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...53-69c1aa564b4e

 

These logs I do not find helpful - as plenty of logs previously mention muggles and - surprise, surprise - the cache description warns as much!

 

There's no need to log like this. Who cares? I don't and I don't wear smileys or frowneys as a badge of honour.

 

Honestly I don't care about your 1-sentence log that amounts to nothing! But like I said before - boasting about DNF count is false humility of those that do care about the numbers!

I'm sorry, I don't write logs to be helpful to you, I write logs to document my experiences while caching. If that means saying I couldn't hunt for the cache because somebody was sitting on the rock pile it's hidden in that was what happened (just last month) and so I logged it. And if it happens the next time I try that cache, I'll write a similar log. My logs (of all types) aren't just for the CO or future hunters, they are part of my caching history and I will be as complete as I can (or want) to be. So I really don't care how you feel about my logs - one sentence or longer - if there is helpful info in there, great for you; if there isn't, too bad for you, they are mine and for me.

 

You should try and look up Oregone's logs from years ago. Nice long Found It logs that often said nothing about the hunt/find/cache. Often nothing helpful, but still entertaining. But, then, you'd probably would not like them as they aren't helpful, so forget it.

[+CluelessTwo]

This happened the other day. Not on one of my caches but I was speaking to a guy at an event who said he couldnt find a particular cache and searched for ages. I said that he needed to touch everything and never assume his environment was real as anything could be planted.

 

So the other day he posted a found it log saying. "This one was easy, I walked straight to it". I checked and he never ever posted the DNF for the previous attempt.

 

I think people just wanna save face. I have no problem posting a DNF as its supposed to be fun and its not like we get a prize for being the best cacher or anything. lol

 

Claire xx

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I'm sorry, I don't write logs to be helpful to you, I write logs to document my experiences while caching. If that means saying I couldn't hunt for the cache because somebody was sitting on the rock pile it's hidden in that was what happened (just last month) and so I logged it. And if it happens the next time I try that cache, I'll write a similar log. My logs (of all types) aren't just for the CO or future hunters, they are part of my caching history and I will be as complete as I can (or want) to be. So I really don't care how you feel about my logs - one sentence or longer - if there is helpful info in there, great for you; if there isn't, too bad for you, they are mine and for me.

 

You should try and look up Oregone's logs from years ago. Nice long Found It logs that often said nothing about the hunt/find/cache. Often nothing helpful, but still entertaining. But, then, you'd probably would not like them as they aren't helpful, so forget it.

 

I wasn't debating the right to post your own logs. I was debating the usefulness of posting DNFs for the benefit of others.

 

Lot's of logs don't contain any useful information - so what? The argument was that DNFs are ALWAYS helpful and I was refuting that. I find it useful to read the discussion contextually before wading in with your red cape and righteous indignation.

 

You are entitled to log whatever you want on a cache page.. I believe I implied as much earlier in the thread. But some people are intent on fanning the flame wars..

[+Jeep_Dog]

But like I said before - boasting about DNF count is false humility of those that do care about the numbers!

 

I cannot fathom why you would make an unqualified and generalized statement like that, other than to be inflammatory and desiring to foster argument.

[+Castle Mischief]

The argument was that DNFs are ALWAYS helpful and I was refuting that.

 

This was not MY arguement. As long as we are clear on that.

[+The Jester]

I'm sorry, I don't write logs to be helpful to you, I write logs to document my experiences while caching. If that means saying I couldn't hunt for the cache because somebody was sitting on the rock pile it's hidden in that was what happened (just last month) and so I logged it. And if it happens the next time I try that cache, I'll write a similar log. My logs (of all types) aren't just for the CO or future hunters, they are part of my caching history and I will be as complete as I can (or want) to be. So I really don't care how you feel about my logs - one sentence or longer - if there is helpful info in there, great for you; if there isn't, too bad for you, they are mine and for me.

 

You should try and look up Oregone's logs from years ago. Nice long Found It logs that often said nothing about the hunt/find/cache. Often nothing helpful, but still entertaining. But, then, you'd probably would not like them as they aren't helpful, so forget it.

 

I wasn't debating the right to post your own logs. I was debating the usefulness of posting DNFs for the benefit of others.

 

Lot's of logs don't contain any useful information - so what? The argument was that DNFs are ALWAYS helpful and I was refuting that. I find it useful to read the discussion contextually before wading in with your red cape and righteous indignation.

 

You are entitled to log whatever you want on a cache page.. I believe I implied as much earlier in the thread. But some people are intent on fanning the flame wars..

Oh, really? This is your reply I was commenting on (and it's not my first time "wading in" to this thread - talk about fanning flames...):

So do you suppose this person actually tried looking for the cache at all?

 

Wow just too many muggles. The lawn opposite was strew with hot people and no one was moving on. Another time!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...53-69c1aa564b4e

 

These logs I do not find helpful - as plenty of logs previously mention muggles and - surprise, surprise - the cache description warns as much!

 

There's no need to log like this. Who cares? I don't and I don't wear smileys or frowneys as a badge of honour.

 

Honestly I don't care about your 1-sentence log that amounts to nothing! But like I said before - boasting about DNF count is false humility of those that do care about the numbers!

That doesn't sound like an implied "entitled to log whatever you want on a cache page", is sounds more like a statement to NOT write this kind of log.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

But like I said before - boasting about DNF count is false humility of those that do care about the numbers!

 

I cannot fathom why you would make an unqualified and generalized statement like that, other than to be inflammatory and desiring to foster argument.

 

And where did you get your Geocaching university degree from?

[Clan Riffster]

And where did you get your Geocaching university degree from?

From Geocacher University, of course!

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

And where did you get your Geocaching university degree from?

From Geocacher University, of course!

 

[+Vater_Araignee]

GC1CBJ4 Baby Boy Zukey by D.A.D.D.

 

I have only posted 3 DNFs on this cache out of about 30. I have nether the desire nor inclination to muddle up the logs with my inept fixation. Now considering it can take me days even weeks to post a found it, what purpose would it serve D.A.D.D. for me to post all those DNFs?

His ego is the only reason.

D.A.D.D. is an attentive CO (as all CO's should be) and will likely know that there is an issue before I could point it out. Considering he also offered me an additional hint (I'm glad he didn't just give it to me) his ego doesn't need to feed on DNFs.

Should I be posting:

I look at that. DNF

I looked here. DNF

I looked there. DNF

For the sake everyone else? FRELL NO!

If D.A.D.D. does not want you to look around for it he will either:

A ) say don't look here, here or here.

B ) make it simpler to find

C ) just say it is under/in/on ya da da.

Should I post all those DNF's just to scare off other cachers?

My father who will be the first to admit I'm better at seeking called me up one day and offered to tell me exactly where it is just to prove he found something I can't. Like I said "my inept fixation".

 

If I call off a hunt on any cache because of muggles, no DNF gets logged.

If I call off a hunt on any cache because it is taking longer to get to GZ then I wish to spend, no DNF gets logged.

If I call off a hunt on any cache because GZ keeps jumping around, no DNF gets logged.

If somebody finds it before I get around to logging, no DNF gets logged until I miss at least 10 times.

 

Now if there is a shload of DNF's in a row, I'll log one and privately give the CO details of my hunt so they can determine a possible course of action.

If I know that I wont be able to come back to an area for several months or more, then I will log every attempt during the time I was there if and when I get around to it.

 

On my own active cache I do not rely on DNFs to determine if my cache needs to be checked, I just check it.

If somebody irresponsibly leaves the impression that my cache need maintenance when they leave a DNF, I contact then to find the details of their hunt and 10 to 1 sez I have already checked my cache before they reply.

 

All a DNF should be for is "Ego venit , haud animadverto vel victum." basically "I came, didn't see so couldn't conquer."

Edited September 18, 2009 by Vater_Araignee

[glorkar]

As a newbie cacher, I find DNF logs can be helpful. They help me decide if I'm going to tackle a cache on my own or bring along reinforcements. I've also posted DNFs that ended up being helpful to the CO. Here is one of my logs:

 

"I tried looking for this one for the second time this morning. Didn't log the first one because I didn't get a chance to really search. No luck this time either, though. Checked all the usual places, but still turned up zip. My co-ords seemed to be a little off. They would have taken me out of the cemetery. I may have to bring reinforcements next time. I won't let this cache win!"

 

Another cacher attempted it the next day:

 

"Not able to find this one after searching for about 10 minutes. I guess I will wait until someone else finds it and give it a second try."

 

The day after that, the CO checked on it and it was missing. They archived it. If not for the two of us posting DNF logs, the CO might just think that nobody was attempting it.

[+SixDogTeam]

Research has shown that pe ople who don't post DNF's generally fall into many other catergories of conduct that prevent them from getting into heaven. Failing to post DNF's comes under the general heading of LYING.

[+simpler1773]

Research has shown that pe ople who don't post DNF's generally fall into many other catergories of conduct that prevent them from getting into heaven. Failing to post DNF's comes under the general heading of LYING.

 

Oh good, we can add "not logging a DNF" to the list of reasons I'm going to hell

[+runawaybunny]

Research has shown that pe ople who don't post DNF's generally fall into many other catergories of conduct that prevent them from getting into heaven. Failing to post DNF's comes under the general heading of LYING.

 

Oh good, we can add "not logging a DNF" to the list of reasons I'm going to hell

 

It might be helpful for this appear on the on the Getting Started with Geocaching page, right between STEP 3- THE HUNT and STEP 4- THE FIND.

 

“When you discover that you are unable to locate the cache be sure to log your DNF experience online using the links provided or risk eternal damnation.”

[+Unkle Fester]

Research has shown that pe ople who don't post DNF's generally fall into many other catergories of conduct that prevent them from getting into heaven. Failing to post DNF's comes under the general heading of LYING.

 

Oh good, we can add "not logging a DNF" to the list of reasons I'm going to hell

 

It might be helpful for this appear on the on the Getting Started with Geocaching page, right between STEP 3- THE HUNT and STEP 4- THE FIND.

 

“When you discover that you are unable to locate the cache be sure to log your DNF experience online using the links provided or risk eternal damnation.”

I think damning someone to hell for eternity is a bit harsh...

 

Can't we just darn them to heck for about 15 minutes?

Edited September 24, 2009 by Unkle Fester

[+SixDogTeam]

Research has shown that pe ople who don't post DNF's generally fall into many other catergories of conduct that prevent them from getting into heaven. Failing to post DNF's comes under the general heading of LYING.

 

Oh good, we can add "not logging a DNF" to the list of reasons I'm going to hell

 

uh...YUP!

[+MrsShock]

When I first started caching, I didn't log DNFs. I was new and I thought that someone might think the cache was gone or something. Then, after reading some more books and articles, I realized that it would be helpful to other people (who might be new too) to know about my not finding it. Also, at first, I didn't want to be the only person to have had a DNF. But, I now see it like golf. At first you count all of the swings that you miss the ball, so that after practicing and getting better, you can actually see that you are improving. I still have DNFs for sure (I have only found 201 caches so far), but I have less than I did when I started. If I had posted all the DNFs at the beginning, then I could see my improvement better. For people that might not want others to know how many DNFs they have, I don't think that number is anywhere that other people can see it. (If that's wrong, I'm sure someone will tell me. ) I like that now I can look through my DNFs and see that as I have learned more, I have been able to go back to a lot of them and actually log a smiley. I really like being able to see what things tripped me up before and what things I have learned from. I do think it is important for people to log DNFs or a note if there was something that stopped them from getting to the cache. If you think it is not worthy of a DNF, then post a note. I am not going to get mad at people if they post a note, rather than a DNF. But it is nice to share any info with future cachers. I am so glad that I found out about such a great hobby.

[Hennessey's]

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.

 

I'm still a new to geocaching but very addicted. I have been using my own philosphy on DNF's. I usually never look at hints, logs, cache names or cache pages before searching. I use a geomate jr, turn it on, reach GZ and the search is on. So if I come to a micro and GZ is a bush at a busy intersection, I'll look for maybe a minute get bored and move on; no DNF. But if I search and search until I just give up I'd post a DNF. After reading these posts, I'm going to adopt the "If I'm in the area and DNF it, I'll log it." In fact I'm going back the past week and logging all the DNF's I can remember.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I'm still a new to geocaching but very addicted. I have been using my own philosphy on DNF's. I usually never look at hints, logs, cache names or cache pages before searching. I use a geomate jr, turn it on, reach GZ and the search is on. So if I come to a micro and GZ is a bush at a busy intersection, I'll look for maybe a minute get bored and move on; no DNF. But if I search and search until I just give up I'd post a DNF. After reading these posts, I'm going to adopt the "If I'm in the area and DNF it, I'll log it." In fact I'm going back the past week and logging all the DNF's I can remember.

 

That is perfectly rational IMO. It's a game for crying out loud, not a competition. There's no judge or medical examiner testing you for drugs before you go out to find a cache - just to make sure you found it without help and there is no need to log a DNF when you didn't commit to searching or make a valid effort - it's just clutter on the log page.

 

There is one word to describe this pretentious philosophy behind logging every single DNF, even multiple DNFs on the same cache... ANAL. Plenty of people don't log finds either, especially if they are spouses - does it matter?

 

Takes all the fun out of the game. The same people who say a smiley is not important are putting uber-importance on frowneys - it's like affirmative action for frowneys - same fundamentalism, but in reverse.

[Clan Riffster]

Takes all the fun out of the game.

For you, perhaps. I see my logs as a record of my geocaching activity, nothing more.

If I make 3 attempts to find a cache, and fail twice, my history will reflect two DNFs and one find.

If your history shows something different for a similar situation, that's your choice.

As a cache owner, I like to hear about the adventures of folks hunting my caches.

Many other cache owners have offered concurring opinions.

What you choose to do with this information is up to you.

You can rail against those who like accuracy, hurtling insults, if you wish.

Personally, I don't see your anti-accuracy argument as very compelling.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Takes all the fun out of the game.

For you, perhaps. I see my logs as a record of my geocaching activity, nothing more.

If I make 3 attempts to find a cache, and fail twice, my history will reflect two DNFs and one find.

If your history shows something different for a similar situation, that's your choice.

As a cache owner, I like to hear about the adventures of folks hunting my caches.

Many other cache owners have offered concurring opinions.

What you choose to do with this information is up to you.

You can rail against those who like accuracy, hurtling insults, if you wish.

Personally, I don't see your anti-accuracy argument as very compelling.

 

"anti-accuracy" that's a new one I'll have to remember!

 

It's not "anti-accuracy" to not log a DNF if you didn't actually search for it (and I don't class casually glancing at the area a "search"). I mean, a half-arsed 2 minute look around is not a very accurate search is it?

 

I simply can't adhere to most of the arguments I've heard here on the "accuracy" of DNF logging, because if I was to follow through then I'd be logging multiple DNFs everyday on the same caches with the same log notes.

 

I've made reasonable effort to explain my stance - scouting an area first to determine if it's worth doing a search, glancing at GZ whilst walking/driving past*. No-one has yet countered these examples with a rational argument and simply parroted the line that all DNFs should be logged.

 

As a cache owner, I don't want to see multiple DNFs with the same info. One DNF is all I need - unless something different happened.

 

I guess there are some people who just don't feel comfortable unless they're following a specific set of rules and regulations, and there are others who like to think outside the box and use common sense.

 

 

*I don't know why I bother but here's another example: A cache I haven't found I walk/bus past every day and glance over to see if I can spot it... 5 days a week would mean 5 DNFs a week, all with the same log and yet no attempt at searching.

[Clan Riffster]

I guess there are some people who just don't feel comfortable unless they're following a specific set of rules and regulations, and there are others who like to think outside the box and use common sense.

And there are folks who just don't feel comfortable unless they are berating the practices of others, simply because they can't grasp them.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I guess there are some people who just don't feel comfortable unless they're following a specific set of rules and regulations, and there are others who like to think outside the box and use common sense.

And there are folks who just don't feel comfortable unless they are berating the practices of others, simply because they can't grasp them.

 

Do I need to point out the irony of that statement on an internet forum, and on this thread no less?

[+Vater_Araignee]

I guess there are some people who just don't feel comfortable unless they're following a specific set of rules and regulations, and there are others who like to think outside the box and use common sense.

And there are folks who just don't feel comfortable unless they are berating the practices of others, simply because they can't grasp them.

 

Do I need to point out the irony of that statement on an internet forum, and on this thread no less?

[+Unkle Fester]

I guess there are some people who just don't feel comfortable unless they're following a specific set of rules and regulations, and there are others who like to think outside the box and use common sense.

And there are folks who just don't feel comfortable unless they are berating the practices of others, simply because they can't grasp them.

 

Do I need to point out the irony of that statement on an internet forum, and on this thread no less?

No, nor do you have to point out the sarcasm either.

Irony, isn't that a vitamin, like B-complex? Or maybe its an action: "Hey honey, could you do that irony thing to my shirt again?"

 

Back on topic, the logs are not always going to be helpful. As a CO, should you delete a DNF just because a person couldn't find it and you know it's still there? How many times have we discused logs in general?

 

I don't write the logs for others, I write the for me. If you don't find mine funny or cute, I do. It's my record, reminder of what I did.

 

I don't know how many DNF logs I've written that will say something like "Searched for about 15 minutes looked in every concevable place I could figure, this does not mean the cache is missing. Must be a pretty good hid, has me stumped. Might return to tray again when back in the area."

 

Although, if I have a good idea the cache is missing (indent in ground under fern or something) I'll mention it.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Back on topic...

 

Good idea... here is the topic:

 

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?

 

OK I've never had someone call me 2 or 3 times for one of my caches, but I've had DNF logs... However, if I did find myself getting frustrated with people not logging DNFs after calling me 2 or 3 times - I'd stop helping them or I would mention that I haven't seen their DNF in the logs.

 

What is the big deal about postin a DNF?

 

Don't know, what's the big deal about posting a find? Maybe some people are only casual 'cachers, maybe some people didn't think they really searched hard enough. I log DNFs where I did search, and try to make it informative enough for the CO that they could guess from my log whether the cache is missing or I just didn't look hard enough.

 

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

 

What is more wrong is helping out someone through PAF then complaining about it. If you want people to genuinely log finds/DNFs then explain this to them when they call you.

[+The Jester]

I've made reasonable effort to explain my stance - scouting an area first to determine if it's worth doing a search, glancing at GZ whilst walking/driving past*. No-one has yet countered these examples with a rational argument and simply parroted the line that all DNFs should be logged.

I haven't heard anyone here saying you need to post a DNF everytime you pass a cache - whether you "glance" at GZ or not. Most (myself included) have given their own stance on when to post DNF's. My stance is governed by intent - did I intend to find the cache? If yes, then success=find; no success=DNF. A "scouting" trip with no intent to search/find the cache would not warrant a DNF.

[+The Bakkers]

Bottom line is the stigma associated with a DNF. People do not want to post in their opinion a failure. Whereas actually the DNF posting is not that. A DNF should be viewed as a help to those coming, a note for the cache owner that maybe its gone, or a feather in the cache owners cap as they successfully hidden this particular cache. It is helpfull seeing DNF posted before going to a cach, as that helps me get a understanding that this may be a harder cache to find and then I decide whether to pursue or not.

 

I always place a DNF and then put a watch on the cache, to see if any after me find it, if they do then I return

[+Castle Mischief]

I haven't heard anyone here saying you need to post a DNF everytime you pass a cache - whether you "glance" at GZ or not. Most (myself included) have given their own stance on when to post DNF's. My stance is governed by intent - did I intend to find the cache? If yes, then success=find; no success=DNF. A "scouting" trip with no intent to search/find the cache would not warrant a DNF.

 

I haven't seen anybody suggest that you post a DNF every time you pass a cache or logging multiple DNFs for a single search either, yet this seems to be the basis for the argument against logging more than a single DNF on a single cache.

[+Dogfort]

Just seen this thread. I am on of the opinion that DNFs should eb posted. BUT I ALWAYS give it 2 attempts then i post a DNF. Because sometimes the first search can be quick, or not thorough enluogh. If I search 2 seperate times and cannot find it I DNF and ask for a clue. Ive only broken this rule once but thats coz I was in comms with the cache owner.

[knowschad]

Bottom line is the stigma associated with a DNF. People do not want to post in their opinion a failure. Whereas actually the DNF posting is not that. A DNF should be viewed as a help to those coming, a note for the cache owner that maybe its gone, or a feather in the cache owners cap as they successfully hidden this particular cache. It is helpfull seeing DNF posted before going to a cach, as that helps me get a understanding that this may be a harder cache to find and then I decide whether to pursue or not.

 

I always place a DNF and then put a watch on the cache, to see if any after me find it, if they do then I return

 

 

Applause!!! Well said.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Going back to the topic again, I think the issue the OP had was with those who got help finding the cache after 2 or 3 attempts and then logged "easy find" without logging a DNF.

 

If you have to PAF, I don't think you should be logging "easy find", regardless of whether you previously logged a DNF.

 

But as I stated, I wouldn't help someone if that kept happening and if I was the CO maybe I'd consider upping the difficulty.

[+Parknet]

Just my 2 cents worth:

 

I log every visit to a cache site. DNF if I looked, maybe a note if that seems more appropriate like if there were muggles or something. Like most cachers I know, I'm addicted and enjoy posting and reading log entries of any kind as well as the hunt.

 

I hid a cache that I think is very hard. Only 2 people found it after a month and there are no dnf entries. I'm left wondering if anyone else tried or if they are 2 for 2.

 

ok.. maybe that wasn't worth 2 cents.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Parknet