Importance Of DNF Logs

[+LoneStarKayaker]

I know it has been said before but I am saying it again. If you do not find a cache after looking for it, log it as a DNF. It really helps the owner to determine when a cache might be missing as one of mine has been recently.

I know there are probably caches that missing every day but when it is one of yours, it is really aggrivating. I most likely saw the person(s) who took it on my hike last week checking on my others nearby and have left a mesasage for the staff to see if it has been turned in.

It is a very small office with few staff and I have a feeling that three guys will be questioned shortly.

[+narcissa]

I agree with this, and I really wish people would forget this silly idea that there's shame attached to not finding a cache.

 

Also, cache owners who delete DNF logs should DIAF. I use DNF logs to keep track of caches I didn't find so I can return to them later. It is colossally rude to delete those logs. There's a local cacher, mlord, who is notorious for deleting DNF logs and it's obnoxious.

 

On the same token, I wish the reviewers would recognize that there are different reasons for posting DNFs, and not jump on cache owners when there have been two or three - especially on trickier hides. We've had some problems with cache reviewers trying to use DNF logs as an excuse to archive older hides by cachers who don't log on as frequently as they used to. IMHO, a DNF log by a n00b with 6 finds is not a valid reason to archive an isolated multi-cache that is only found 10 times a year at best.

[+Taoiseach]

Also, cache owners who delete DNF logs should DIAF. I use DNF logs to keep track of caches I didn't find so I can return to them later. It is colossally rude to delete those logs. There's a local cacher, mlord, who is notorious for deleting DNF logs and it's obnoxious.

 

Ugh... There's nothing like a cache being MIA and on your closest to home page at the same time... Especially when both you and the ranking cacher in your area have DNFed on it several times...

 

[+bittsen]

I log DNF's. Not because of any particular reason than I would want people to log DNFs on my caches.

 

If a CO wants to delete my DNF, they should change it to a find. Cuz if i didn't "not" find it, I must have found it.

[+briansnat]

A can't agree more. If you don't find the cache log DNFs regardless of experience or reason.

 

Great Cache (GC00GC) has gone missing. Cacher1 looks and doesn't log a DNF because he didn't think he searched hard enough. CacherX comes along and comes up empty and doesn't log a DNF because he plans on returning soon. CacheJunke then hunts and doesn't log a DNF because he is not certain the cache is missing. NewbieCacher then searches and won't log a DNF because he is afraid that he is too inexperienced.

CacheHunter gives it a shot and logs a DNF.

 

The cache owner only knows about 1 DNF, when there have been several. He delays checking on the cache, meanwhile more people waste their time looking for it.

[+L0ne.R]

How do COs feel about cachers who leave a note instead of a DNF?

 

We have hides (on our team account) and have had people leave a note saying they did not find the cache. It's OK with me, since I get the message in my email inbox whether it's a DNF or a note and I can respond to either ASAP.

[+frinklabs]

a note instead of a DNF?

 

I left notes over the last little while on two caches I did not find. They had a not-winter-accessible attribute set, so I didn't think a DNF was appropriate...?

[+narcissa]

I think a note instead of a DNF is fine. Just let the cache owner know what the circumstances were. If you think you didn't look hard enough, say so. If it looked like there was an obvious hiding spot from which the cache was missing, say so.

 

And if you're a cache owner OR a cache reviewer, don't treat DNFs like they're imminent death for a cache!

[+bittsen]

I got a (dnf) note on one of mine recently. Didn't bother me at all. Why would it?

[+charliewhiskey]

DNF logs help cache seekers also.

 

I'd solved a tricky puzzle cache but hadn't gone after it yet because it was almost an hour's drive from home. Late one cold night in October I found myself in the cache's neighborhood and, flashlight in hand, stopped by to look. The last log posted for it was a "found it" in July. I looked around for 30 minutes in the cold and dark, unwilling to give up because it would be a long time until I could return. I couldn't find it and posted a DNF log. The next day the owner archived the cache, saying "It has been missing for a while....and it is time to put this one to rest." It sounded to me like there were unposted DNFs between July and October. If I'd have seen a few DNFs in a row, I wouldn't have wasted my time driving out and searching without assurance the cache was really there.

 

As it was, there were only 4 DNFs posted on the cache, including mine. Reading through past logs, I found SEVEN other finders who admitted to having not-found the cache (two of them not-finding it twice) before returning for their find. Knowing how many cachers truly had trouble finding it, I might have waited until I could search in daylight.

 

There's no shame in logging DNFs. When I'm looking at a cache's "Logged Visits" statistics, knowing the number of posted notes does me no good. Knowing the number of posted DNFs does. Please log yours.

Edited January 13, 2010 by charliewhiskey

[4wheelin_fool]

As a premium member, I've put DNFs logs on my watchlist. I suppose that the most popular is "published", but the DNF logs are interesting. They also could inspire me to look for a cache, or not feel so bad about posting my own DNFs, as there have been plenty more than I expected.

[+Taoiseach]

As a premium member, I've put DNFs logs on my watchlist.

 

Everybody has a watchlist...

[+narcissa]

I got a (dnf) note on one of mine recently. Didn't bother me at all. Why would it?

 

It shouldn't bother you, unless you're an anal retentive dingleberry who thinks a DNF is a personal criticism.

[+atmospherium]

Let's not forget sheer entertainment value

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Since we are on this subject, DNF logs with generic wording that doesnt explain the hunt doesnt help either. Saying things like "I found what looks like an empty container", or "the tree near ground zero appears to have been heavily pruned" etc helps a lot in determining if a cache is likely still there or not. Even posting "I tried to look but got too hungry and gave up quickly", pretty much tells me the cache is probably still there. Posting "nope" as the log entry doesnt give the cache owner or subsequent seekers any idea of whether or not the cache is really gone or not.

[John E Cache]

I know it has been said before but I am saying it again. If you do not find a cache after looking for it, log it as a DNF. It really helps the owner to determine when a cache might be missing as one of mine has been recently.

I think I am seeing some of the logic behind not logging DNFs. Some people think they are saying "the cache is missing" by logging a DNF. I personally don't see how they get that from the the simple sentence: "I visited the cache and did not find it". I don't think it is a stigma thing because they say they didn't thing find it in a note sometimes. Logging a DNF that says "too much snow" does not mean the cache is missing, in my opinion.

[+fizzymagic]

DNFs are important to caching. I always log mine, and they by no means imply that the cache is missing. It's usually just because I can't find the cache.

 

The news that some approvers use a string of DNFs to identify likely missing caches means that, in essence, they punish the cache owner for receiving DNF logs. This news is very disturbing to me. As with many other poorly-thought-out guideline and maintenance policies implemented by Groundspeak, this policy, which may sound good on the surface, will result in people being even less willing to log DNFs than they are now.

 

It's just a head-smackingly stupid idea to use DNF logs that way.

[+bittsen]

DNFs are important to caching. I always log mine, and they by no means imply that the cache is missing. It's usually just because I can't find the cache.

 

The news that some approvers use a string of DNFs to identify likely missing caches means that, in essence, they punish the cache owner for receiving DNF logs. This news is very disturbing to me. As with many other poorly-thought-out guideline and maintenance policies implemented by Groundspeak, this policy, which may sound good on the surface, will result in people being even less willing to log DNFs than they are now.

 

It's just a head-smackingly stupid idea to use DNF logs that way.

 

I disagree.

 

Let's say you step onto a cache search and it's a 2.0 difficulty. You've found 300 caches with a difficulty of 2.0 or more. You look for a half hour knowing your average seek time on a 2.0 is less than 10 minutes. You look at the logs and the last 4 attempts were DNF's.

 

What are the chances the cache is actually missing vs the chance that you have, all of a sudden, become incapable of finding a 2.0?

 

I look at the logs after searching for a while. If the last log was a smilie then I look longer than if the last log was a DNF.

[+fizzymagic]

I disagree.

Huh?

 

You didn't even address my point.

 

If you really do disagree, explain why you think it is a good idea for approvers to punish cache owners for having DNFs on their caches.

 

And then for extra credit, you can explain why that won't discourage people from hiding difficult finds.

 

Geez. The rules guidelines already encourage the placement of lame urban numbers caches enough as it is. This just makes it even worse.

Edited January 13, 2010 by fizzymagic

[4wheelin_fool]

DNFs are important to caching. I always log mine, and they by no means imply that the cache is missing. It's usually just because I can't find the cache.

 

The news that some approvers use a string of DNFs to identify likely missing caches means that, in essence, they punish the cache owner for receiving DNF logs. This news is very disturbing to me. As with many other poorly-thought-out guideline and maintenance policies implemented by Groundspeak, this policy, which may sound good on the surface, will result in people being even less willing to log DNFs than they are now.

 

It's just a head-smackingly stupid idea to use DNF logs that way.

 

I disagree.

 

Let's say you step onto a cache search and it's a 2.0 difficulty. You've found 300 caches with a difficulty of 2.0 or more. You look for a half hour knowing your average seek time on a 2.0 is less than 10 minutes. You look at the logs and the last 4 attempts were DNF's.

 

What are the chances the cache is actually missing vs the chance that you have, all of a sudden, become incapable of finding a 2.0?

 

I look at the logs after searching for a while. If the last log was a smilie then I look longer than if the last log was a DNF.

 

Thats what DNF logs tend to do. Psyche you out. You see a DNF, and already ypu figure it could be gone. You look for a bit and then you start to earnestly believe it is missing. 2 DNFs before your hunt? Ha, give up now! Then you look at the profile and notice that they are n00bs, so you look a bit longer....3 DNFs, means archive!....but wait, you notice that they were all on the same day, from the same group. Fools! Another 5 minutes and you come up with a find.

Edited January 13, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+FreeBird65]

Thanks for the comments.

 

As as new hunter, I often will not log anything if I do not feel I put an honest effort into the find. If I am driving by an area and have an extra 5 minutes, I might stop for a quick check on a cache. That often is not enough effort to find a 3 rated cache. A note in the log might be more appropriate for me in the future.

[+iTreasureHunt]

If you had a Cache like mine (GC22VR9) which is only 12 days old and already had 28 DNF's and 1 Find , you will appreciate the value of DNF's for everyone. I will allways log my DNF;s from now on

[+L0ne.R]

If you had a Cache like mine (GC22VR9) which is only 12 days old and already had 28 DNF's and 1 Find , you will appreciate the value of DNF's for everyone. I will allways log my DNF;s from now on

 

How would you feel if the finder posted a note instead? Would that be OK? Especially if the finder prefers to use DNF only when he/she thinks it's missing, not when they just couldn't find it.

 

Personally, I think more people would log that they didn't find the cache if they could leave a note instead of a blue frowny face. Or if it were acceptable to remove the DNF once they found the cache. I know some people feel strongly that it's part of the cache history and so DNFs shouldn't be removed.

 

Personally as a CO I'd rather people let me know when they think the cache is missing so I can check on it. Whether it's in the form of a 'note' or a 'DNF' or just an email to our team account, I'm good with all of those options.

[+bladesedge]

I don't see why a CO would delete DNFs - A CO down here saw several DNFs on his cache in a row, went out to the cache to check it was still there and post a note on the cache to let everyone know it was still in its hiding place. It was a case of a well hidden cache! I'd consider it a compliment that people didn't necessarily find one of my caches the first time they looked (provided coords and hints etc all were a fair rep of the cache). Would be a sign of a job well done!

[knowschad]

Actually, I have it on very good word that there is a loudspeaker at GC headquarters that blasts loud laughter whenever a DNF log hits the database. The lower the difficulty rating for the DNF'd cache, the louder and longer the laughter plays.

Of course, everybody at HQ can hear it, and they all laugh and make snarkey quips like, "What a bunch of LOOZERS!!" and "Geeze... lame n00bs!!"

[+bladesedge]

Actually, I have it on very good word that there is a loudspeaker at GC headquarters that blasts loud laughter whenever a DNF log hits the database. The lower the difficulty rating for the DNF'd cache, the louder and longer the laughter plays.

Of course, everybody at HQ can hear it, and they all laugh and make snarkey quips like, "What a bunch of LOOZERS!!" and "Geeze... lame n00bs!!"

 

Frogs can laugh?

[knowschad]

Actually, I have it on very good word that there is a loudspeaker at GC headquarters that blasts loud laughter whenever a DNF log hits the database. The lower the difficulty rating for the DNF'd cache, the louder and longer the laughter plays.

Of course, everybody at HQ can hear it, and they all laugh and make snarkey quips like, "What a bunch of LOOZERS!!" and "Geeze... lame n00bs!!"

Frogs can laugh?

Sure they can! See?

It isn't what you or I would call a "pretty" laugh, but to another frog, I'm sure it is fine.

[+bladesedge]

Actually, I have it on very good word that there is a loudspeaker at GC headquarters that blasts loud laughter whenever a DNF log hits the database. The lower the difficulty rating for the DNF'd cache, the louder and longer the laughter plays.

Of course, everybody at HQ can hear it, and they all laugh and make snarkey quips like, "What a bunch of LOOZERS!!" and "Geeze... lame n00bs!!"

Frogs can laugh?

Sure they can! See?

It isn't what you or I would call a "pretty" laugh, but to another frog, I'm sure it is fine.

 

Thats just its evil laugh. Remember the Crazy Frog song..... shudder

[+bittsen]

Actually, I have it on very good word that there is a loudspeaker at GC headquarters that blasts loud laughter whenever a DNF log hits the database. The lower the difficulty rating for the DNF'd cache, the louder and longer the laughter plays.

Of course, everybody at HQ can hear it, and they all laugh and make snarkey quips like, "What a bunch of LOOZERS!!" and "Geeze... lame n00bs!!"

 

Many cache owners get the same sick sense of satisfaction when there is a DNF on their cache.

That's why they rate it at 1.5 but it's a rock in a rock pile or hidden high in a tree, or not really hidden at all. I bet there are even a couple out there who place a cache, let it get found a couple times and then remove it just to see the DNF logs. Probably even log on the cache page that they checked it and it's still there.

 

That's right, I have very little faith in humanity.

[+WRASTRO]

Actually, I have it on very good word that there is a loudspeaker at GC headquarters that blasts loud laughter whenever a DNF log hits the database. The lower the difficulty rating for the DNF'd cache, the louder and longer the laughter plays.

Of course, everybody at HQ can hear it, and they all laugh and make snarkey quips like, "What a bunch of LOOZERS!!" and "Geeze... lame n00bs!!"

 

Many cache owners get the same sick sense of satisfaction when there is a DNF on their cache.

That's why they rate it at 1.5 but it's a rock in a rock pile or hidden high in a tree, or not really hidden at all. I bet there are even a couple out there who place a cache, let it get found a couple times and then remove it just to see the DNF logs. Probably even log on the cache page that they checked it and it's still there.

 

That's right, I have very little faith in humanity.

I enjoy the occasional DNF but I certainly do not hide caches with the hope that they are not found. My more challenging caches involve cammo or they may require just a bit more effort than a PNG. I try to make it very clear what the searcher should expect so there should be little reason for snarky logs. And I certainly would never remove a cache in the hopes that it would be searched for when not there. That would be totally lame.

[+Sky King 36]

We've had this debate a many times. I know that some do not agree with my approach, but here is what I do:

 

I take into account how my DNF will be perceived by the owner, by future cachers, and by reviewers.

 

I am an experienced writer, speaker... A professional communicator. In every part of my life, I take the listener/reader's likely perception of my message into consideration and adjust my communication technique accordingly. Why should caching be any different?

 

If what I want to tell other cachers, and the owner is "wow, an experienced cacher gave this one a go and didn't come up with it, I will factor that into my search strategy or maintenance plan"--then I log a DNF.

 

But there are MANY times I swing by a cache, and I don't really give it the full treatment. Maybe I am short on time. Maybe I am caching at night, which I mostly do, and it's a cache that really requries daylight. Maybe I didn't have the right tools (like a mirror) to check places that I think are likely suspects. Maybe I am bombed out of my mind on jello shots or Jaeg-Bombs.

 

Whatever the reason, if I don't want the reader to infer anything from my log, other than a historical record that I visited, I post a note.

 

It has nothing to do with shame, or score... It has to do with my taking 100.0% responsibility for how I think my message will be interpreted, and adjusting my transmission accordingly.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I find "Importance of DNF Logs" to be the most over-rated malarkey in this game!

Half the cache owners don't pay attention. The others know which of their caches are susceptible to disappering.

I went on a maintenance run last weekend because three of my caches had DNFs, by reputable cachers. All three were right where I left them. Waste of time.

And I saw another cache archived of the basis of one DNF.

Over-rated malarkey!

[+narcissa]

We've had this debate a many times. I know that some do not agree with my approach, but here is what I do:

 

I take into account how my DNF will be perceived by the owner, by future cachers, and by reviewers.

 

I am an experienced writer, speaker... A professional communicator. In every part of my life, I take the listener/reader's likely perception of my message into consideration and adjust my communication technique accordingly. Why should caching be any different?

 

If what I want to tell other cachers, and the owner is "wow, an experienced cacher gave this one a go and didn't come up with it, I will factor that into my search strategy or maintenance plan"--then I log a DNF.

 

But there are MANY times I swing by a cache, and I don't really give it the full treatment. Maybe I am short on time. Maybe I am caching at night, which I mostly do, and it's a cache that really requries daylight. Maybe I didn't have the right tools (like a mirror) to check places that I think are likely suspects. Maybe I am bombed out of my mind on jello shots or Jaeg-Bombs.

 

Whatever the reason, if I don't want the reader to infer anything from my log, other than a historical record that I visited, I post a note.

 

It has nothing to do with shame, or score... It has to do with my taking 100.0% responsibility for how I think my message will be interpreted, and adjusting my transmission accordingly.

 

This seems like a very reasonable way to approach it.

[jholly]

I find "Importance of DNF Logs" to be the most over-rated malarkey in this game!

Half the cache owners don't pay attention. The others know which of their caches are susceptible to disappering.

I went on a maintenance run last weekend because three of my caches had DNFs, by reputable cachers. All three were right where I left them. Waste of time.

And I saw another cache archived of the basis of one DNF.

Over-rated malarkey!

 

Not a problem Harry. Next time I'm out in New Jersey and I can't find one of your caches I'll just file a NA instead of a DNF

[MysticTutor]

I know it has been said before but I am saying it again. If you do not find a cache after looking for it, log it as a DNF. It really helps the owner to determine when a cache might be missing as one of mine has been recently.

I know there are probably caches that missing every day but when it is one of yours, it is really aggrivating. I most likely saw the person(s) who took it on my hike last week checking on my others nearby and have left a mesasage for the staff to see if it has been turned in.

It is a very small office with few staff and I have a feeling that three guys will be questioned shortly.

 

Yes, in fact I posted in the new features section that DNF should also show up when your searching in map view. Best way to get people to log the DNF is make it worth there while. If DNFs show up as a sad face you can now at a glance you can see what caches you looked for and have not looked for.

 

Like the idea comment here:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=238259

[+sea_dragon]

<snip>

 

The news that some approvers use a string of DNFs to identify likely missing caches means that, in essence, they punish the cache owner for receiving DNF logs. This news is very disturbing to me. As with many other poorly-thought-out guideline and maintenance policies implemented by Groundspeak, this policy, which may sound good on the surface, will result in people being even less willing to log DNFs than they are now.

 

It's just a head-smackingly stupid idea to use DNF logs that way.

 

I don't see why this is disturbing. If the approvers are identifying caches that have a long string of DNF's with no communication from the cache owner regarding checking on the cache, the cache should be archived. This method only targets CO's who do not maintain their caches, and clears area for hiders who will maintain their caches.

 

In my area there is one hider who appears to not care what happens to their caches after they are published. It's unfortunate, because many of their hides are in great areas. These "phantom caches" turn out to be a waste of time and space. I'd love for these caches to be archived, but it's out of my hands. I just make sure that it's been found within a reasonable amount of time before I hunt for one of their caches.

[+simpjkee]

THERE IS NO SHAME IN LOGGING A DNF!

 

A DNF LOG IS NOT AN ADMITION OF FAILURE!

 

In fact, the logging of a DNF is quite contrary to that notion. Logging a DNF is a very important and productive tool that benefits cache owners and other cache seekers. Unfortunately, logging a DNF currently carries very negative connotations, such as failure. This is highly unfortunate and the geocaching ommunity pays the price because of it. Here's why:

 

I like to think I am responsible cache owner for I check on my caches regularly. However, when no logs are posted on my cache I am left to assume that the cache has not been saught and I feel no need to check on it. When a DNF is logged, immediately, the possibility that it is gone is apparent and I take my next oppurtunity to check on my cache. Let's say for example that my cache for whatever reason disappears. The next day, a cacher visits the location and does not find the cache, but does not log a DNF. The second day, another cacher visits the location, doesn't find it, and also does not log a DNF. The third day, you visit the cache and can't find the cache as well. You log a DNF. When I recieve that DNF notice, I will take my next oppurtunity to visit the cache site to check on the cache. If it is indeed gone, I will disable, replace, and enable the cache as soon as I possibly can. Now, the point being, that if the cacher on the first day had logged their DNF, I would have checked on the cache that first day thus saving the cacher on the second day and you on the third day from wasting you time and money searching for a cache that was not present. Does that make sense? You will have paid the price for other cachers not logging their DNF's. In truth, the last thing I want is for someone to be looking for one of my caches when it is gone. I think a lot of cache owners will agree with this paragraph and also will assume that no activity suggests that the cache is not being visited, while checking the cache after a DNF.

 

This is not the only reason. There are others. For example, 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.

 

These are just a couple of the reasons why logging a DNF is a very important practice. The next time you are out caching please be courteous to other cachers, including the cache owner, and log your DNF's. Logging DNF's is not a shameful experience. Take pride in the fact that you are informing other cachers that the find could not be made.

 

Check out my geocoin: Please Log You DNF's!

[+GeoGeeBee]

Unfortunately, logging a DNF currently carries very negative connotations, such as failure.

 

But, why does it carry such negative connotations?

 

Is it just because of the blue "frownie" icon? Is it because we don't do a good job of educating new players?

 

Any negative connotation exists only in the minds of some of the players. But that doesn't make it less real. We've even seen comments in this forum from at least one cache owner who is insulted and offended when anyone posts a DNF on his caches.

 

This seems obviously wrong to me, and apparently, to the majority of forum participants. So two questions come to mind:

 

1) What causes some group of cachers to have this negative attitude towards DNF's?

 

and

 

2) What can we do to correct their misperceptions?

 

Maybe something as simple as posting better DNF logs would help? I'm just thinking aloud here, but an entertaining log that details one's hunt and gives some reasons why one didn't find it might show the others that there's no shame in not finding a cache, and also indicate that the cache is probably still there even though it wasn't found this time.

[+L0ne.R]

 

But, why does it carry such negative connotations?

 

Is it just because of the blue "frownie" icon? Is it because we don't do a good job of educating new players?

 

Any negative connotation exists only in the minds of some of the players. But that doesn't make it less real. We've even seen comments in this forum from at least one cache owner who is insulted and offended when anyone posts a DNF on his caches.

 

This seems obviously wrong to me, and apparently, to the majority of forum participants. So two questions come to mind:

 

1) What causes some group of cachers to have this negative attitude towards DNF's?

 

and

 

2) What can we do to correct their misperceptions?

 

Maybe something as simple as posting better DNF logs would help? I'm just thinking aloud here, but an entertaining log that details one's hunt and gives some reasons why one didn't find it might show the others that there's no shame in not finding a cache, and also indicate that the cache is probably still there even though it wasn't found this time.

 

-- Change the blue frown icon to or something more comical and less angry.

-- Encourage finders to use the note field instead if they do not want DNFs in their stats. This might also appease the COs who don't like DNFs in their cache's logs. But could be a problem for those who just look at found/DNF icons rather then read the logs to determine if they will hunt for the cache.