DNF Logging

[+CarlGurt]

When searching geocaching.com, I often look at the past logs to see if a cache is one I wish to search for. For example, if the last three experienced cachers couldn't find a cache, my working assumption is that it's gone missing. But lately, I've seen several log lists, for caches that do seem findable, whose last entry was back in October or November. There are quite a few cachers in the area.

 

Do you think that some cachers, not happy with not finding a cache, simply don't log a DNF? And is this trend increasing.

 

CarlGurt of "The Two Reprobates"

[+jackrock]

Some people log DNFs and some don't. Thre DNFs by experienced cachers might mean it's gone or the next person might find it. I've seen that often enough. Sometimes the last log is a find and those looking afterwards just didn't log DNFs online. You just never know for sure. You just have to decide if it's one you feel like spending the time looking for.

[+beejay&esskay]

Not everybody follows my rules so they are doing it improperly.

[knowschad]

Yeah, we've been seeing an increasing amount of posts here from people that say things like "I only post a DNF when I've spent a significant amount of time looking" (and those are the best of the "Do not post DNF's" crowd. We continually try to educate them as to why logging any and all of your DNFs is important to both the hider and the finders, but sometimes it feels like trying to hold back the tide.

[+hukilaulau]

Yes, a long period of silence on an easy cache when other caches in the vicinity have recent finds sometimes means the cache is gone.

No, I don't think it's a trend. It's always been true in my experience.

[Mr.Yuck]

When searching geocaching.com, I often look at the past logs to see if a cache is one I wish to search for. For example, if the last three experienced cachers couldn't find a cache, my working assumption is that it's gone missing. But lately, I've seen several log lists, for caches that do seem findable, whose last entry was back in October or November. There are quite a few cachers in the area.

 

Do you think that some cachers, not happy with not finding a cache, simply don't log a DNF? And is this trend increasing.

 

CarlGurt of "The Two Reprobates"

 

I don't think it's increasing. Many, many people never log their DNF's. Like for example, there's a multi on my watchlist that I've DNF'd twice. A couple months ago, this log arrives in my inbox. This cacher never once posted a log entry of any sort to that cache page. It's not like their hiding the fact they don't log DNF's:

 

I'm glad that we can finally get a [smiley face icon] on this bugger. After numerous attempts and emails exchanged, it took a phone call to find the first leg... And come to find out it was right in front of our faces the ENTIRE TIME!!! HOW DID WE MISS IT!?!?!? Time and Time again... Well we found it and that's all that matters. Thanks [cache owner] for the help and the cache.

[GOF and Bacall]

Perhaps if there were a couple of sites that tracked the number of DNF logs we each had more DNFs would be logged.

[hoosier guy]

Some folks may intend to go back to the cache and look again so they don't log the DNF. Maybe it is a pride thing.

[+Team_FussyPants]

I usually always log my DNF's and I hope people do the same for my caches. The reason I say "usually" is if I feel I didn't spend adequate time looking for a cache I wont log a dnf. I feel dnfs are nessacary for upkeep on a cache, and to let reviewers know when caches haven't got the required maintenance from owners. So sometimes if I get to a cache and its in a juniper bush, in an area I dont feel comfortable, or I just dont feel like putting a ton of effort into it, I feel its unfair to post a dnf for a cache just because I personally dont like it.

 

I also know alot of people who will filter out caches that have a dnf as the last log, so posting a dnf out of dislike might keep some of those people for looking for a cache they may enjoy.

[knowschad]

I usually always log my DNF's and I hope people do the same for my caches. The reason I say "usually" is if I feel I didn't spend adequate time looking for a cache I wont log a dnf. I feel dnfs are nessacary for upkeep on a cache, and to let reviewers know when caches haven't got the required maintenance from owners. So sometimes if I get to a cache and its in a juniper bush, in an area I dont feel comfortable, or I just dont feel like putting a ton of effort into it, I feel its unfair to post a dnf for a cache just because I personally dont like it.

 

I also know alot of people who will filter out caches that have a dnf as the last log, so posting a dnf out of dislike might keep some of those people for looking for a cache they may enjoy.

Please see post #4.

 

DNFs mean nothing more than that you looked, but didn't find. If you drove up, got out of your car with your GPS, got back in the car, and drove to the next cache, you didn't find the cache. I've hidden over 100 caches, so I think I have the right to ask you to please post that as a DNF and let me worry about the consequences.

 

I would much rather check up on a cache that is still there, than to have others drive to a cache that is missing, so please do not make assumptions for me. If you didn't find it... you did not find it. Let me know that. If you need to add "I didn't look long", that's great. I know how to interpret that. But please don't protect me from your DNFs.

Edited February 26, 2010 by knowschad

[4wheelin_fool]

Some people are afraid to post DNFs because it may imply the cache is not there, when it could be but they just couldn't find it. It may sound silly, but there are a few people who may post a Needs Archived or Needs Maintenence log as a result of a few DNFs on the page (and from not even visiting it). Other cachers may delete DNF logs if the cache is there.

 

I really think that a DNF shows the history of a visit without finding it and nothing more. It should not be used in part to justify a Needs Archived log or to be deleted if the cache is there. Perhaps DNF sensitivity training is needed.

 

Perhaps if there were a couple of sites that tracked the number of DNF logs we each had more DNFs would be logged.

 

Yes, if the site counted DNFs on the profile page there would probably be more posted.

Edited February 26, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+beejay&esskay]

We have a local cache owner who insists "Just to let you know, when you don't find a cache, like you did here, the proper etiquette is to enter a "needs maintenance" log instead of a DNF log."

 

Is it any wonder that some people are confused.

[+simpjkee]

Do you think that some cachers, not happy with not finding a cache, simply don't log a DNF?

 

I don't think that some cachers don't log their DNF's, I KNOW that some cachers don't log their DNF's. However, I think being unhappy about not finding it may be one of many reasons and not the only reason.

[4wheelin_fool]

We have a local cache owner who insists "Just to let you know, when you don't find a cache, like you did here, the proper etiquette is to enter a "needs maintenance" log instead of a DNF log."

 

Is it any wonder that some people are confused.

 

So the owner needs to run out and verify the cache is there to clear the Needs Maintenence log because an angsty person could not find it.

[+simpjkee]

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

[+beejay&esskay]

We have a local cache owner who insists "Just to let you know, when you don't find a cache, like you did here, the proper etiquette is to enter a "needs maintenance" log instead of a DNF log."

 

Is it any wonder that some people are confused.

 

So the owner needs to run out and verify the cache is there to clear the Needs Maintenence log because an angsty person could not find it.

Just to be clear, it is the cache owner asking for a NM log when you DNF.

[4wheelin_fool]

We have a local cache owner who insists "Just to let you know, when you don't find a cache, like you did here, the proper etiquette is to enter a "needs maintenance" log instead of a DNF log."

 

Is it any wonder that some people are confused.

 

So the owner needs to run out and verify the cache is there to clear the Needs Maintenence log because an angsty person could not find it.

Just to be clear, it is the cache owner asking for a NM log when you DNF.

 

Some people like the whips and chains.

[+Team_FussyPants]

Please see post #4.

 

DNFs mean nothing more than that you looked, but didn't find. If you drove up, got out of your car with your GPS, got back in the car, and drove to the next cache, you didn't find the cache. I've hidden over 100 caches, so I think I have the right to ask you to please post that as a DNF and let me worry about the consequences.

 

I would much rather check up on a cache that is still there, than to have others drive to a cache that is missing, so please do not make assumptions for me. If you didn't find it... you did not find it. Let me know that. If you need to add "I didn't look long", that's great. I know how to interpret that. But please don't protect me from your DNFs.

 

Fair enough, I can definitely see your point on that. And I have to admit that I have increased my DNF logging for basically that reason, just to make sure that caches are kept up.

 

I guess my line of reasoning was that "Did Not Find" insinuated that you put out at least a half a** effort to look. Otherwise it would be a "Did Not Look'

[+simpjkee]

Please see post #4.

 

DNFs mean nothing more than that you looked, but didn't find. If you drove up, got out of your car with your GPS, got back in the car, and drove to the next cache, you didn't find the cache. I've hidden over 100 caches, so I think I have the right to ask you to please post that as a DNF and let me worry about the consequences.

 

I would much rather check up on a cache that is still there, than to have others drive to a cache that is missing, so please do not make assumptions for me. If you didn't find it... you did not find it. Let me know that. If you need to add "I didn't look long", that's great. I know how to interpret that. But please don't protect me from your DNFs.

 

Fair enough, I can definitely see your point on that. And I have to admit that I have increased my DNF logging for basically that reason, just to make sure that caches are kept up.

 

I guess my line of reasoning was that "Did Not Find" insinuated that you put out at least a half a** effort to look. Otherwise it would be a "Did Not Look'

 

I have logged "Did Not Look"s as notes. For example we recently got an inordinate amount of rain recently and the cache site was full of water and I forgot my waders at home. So I logged a note saying "I arrived at the park to attempt this cache, but with the recent rains, was unable to get to the cache site to hunt."

[+bittsen]

I added a DNL log once or twice.

 

I pulled up, realized it was a rock in a rock pile, drove away.

[GermanSailor]

Do you think that some cachers, not happy with not finding a cache, simply don't log a DNF?

I don't only think this, I know it.

There are lots of cachers, who don't log DNF for several reasons:

 

- too lazy

- they intend to come back anyway

- bad for their "reputation"

- ...

 

GermanSailor

[+bittsen]

Do you think that some cachers, not happy with not finding a cache, simply don't log a DNF?

I don't only think this, I know it.

There are lots of cachers, who don't log DNF for several reasons:

 

- too lazy

- they intend to come back anyway

- bad for their "reputation"

- ...

 

GermanSailor

Adding, they have a superiority complex and feel that they are just too darned good to log a DNF.

[+cr4zybilly]

I tend not to log DNFs if I didn't have time to really look.

 

Particularly on urban caches where I kind of know where the cache is but don't have my GPS with me. If I stop, lift up one lamp pole skirt or stick my hand under a push and immediately get back in the car, I probably won't log it, just b/c it wasn't really an attempt to find.

 

I like the idea of a DNL. Or maybe a DGL (didn't get lucky)

[+Harry Dolphin]

And many people do not log their finds. If you want a smiley, you have to log your find on Geocaching. If you want your frowny, you have to log your DNF.

But there is NO requirement that you do so! Until there is a requirement that you MUST log finds and DNFs, leave the poor people alone.

I gave myself "FLUNKED" three times last weekend. One was found three days previously, and later the same day. My DNF tells the CO nothing, other than that I FLUNKED. (But I did log them.)

I even logged a DNF for 'Police car parked on shoulder of road. I did not stop.'

I generally (but not always) log them. But there is no requirement to do so.

Oh, well.

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

 

I even logged a DNF for 'Police car parked on shoulder of road. I did not stop.'

 

 

That's NOT a DNF. You should know better. Please stop doing that.

[+briansnat]

When searching geocaching.com, I often look at the past logs to see if a cache is one I wish to search for. For example, if the last three experienced cachers couldn't find a cache, my working assumption is that it's gone missing. But lately, I've seen several log lists, for caches that do seem findable, whose last entry was back in October or November. There are quite a few cachers in the area.

 

Do you think that some cachers, not happy with not finding a cache, simply don't log a DNF? And is this trend increasing.

 

CarlGurt of "The Two Reprobates"

 

Many cachers don't log their DNFs. I'd estimate that the number is close to 1/3. I don't think it's a trend. Though with more geocachers there will be more people who don't log them.

 

Often when caches haven't been found for a while people avoid them. They don't want to take the chance that they will be wasting their time if it is missing. Then you get one intrepid geocacher who finds it and suddenly there is a flurry of finds. I see this constantly on my caches. They may go up to a year without a find, then someone finds it and there are nearly always a bunch more over the next few weeks. I suspect that is what is going on in your area, particularly if they are higher terrain caches.

Edited February 26, 2010 by briansnat

[+Isonzo Karst]

beejay&esskay

Not everybody follows my rules so they are doing it improperly

Yes!! so true

 

We have a local cache owner who insists "Just to let you know, when you don't find a cache, like you did here, the proper etiquette is to enter a "needs maintenance" log instead of a DNF log."

Next time you see this, point that cache owner to the Knowledge Book Article on Needs Maintenance logs. Note that the very first words are "If you find a geocache..." Bold emphasis mine.

 

I guess that article could use another sentence, something like:

If you did not find the cache, use the Did Not Find log, not the Needs Maintenance log.

But all those articles could run on forever, stating the (apparently?) obvious

.

[+bflentje]

I usually always log my DNF's and I hope people do the same for my caches. The reason I say "usually" is if I feel I didn't spend adequate time looking for a cache I wont log a dnf. I feel dnfs are nessacary for upkeep on a cache, and to let reviewers know when caches haven't got the required maintenance from owners. So sometimes if I get to a cache and its in a juniper bush, in an area I dont feel comfortable, or I just dont feel like putting a ton of effort into it, I feel its unfair to post a dnf for a cache just because I personally dont like it.

 

I also know alot of people who will filter out caches that have a dnf as the last log, so posting a dnf out of dislike might keep some of those people for looking for a cache they may enjoy.

Please see post #4.

 

DNFs mean nothing more than that you looked, but didn't find. If you drove up, got out of your car with your GPS, got back in the car, and drove to the next cache, you didn't find the cache. I've hidden over 100 caches, so I think I have the right to ask you to please post that as a DNF and let me worry about the consequences.

 

I would much rather check up on a cache that is still there, than to have others drive to a cache that is missing, so please do not make assumptions for me. If you didn't find it... you did not find it. Let me know that. If you need to add "I didn't look long", that's great. I know how to interpret that. But please don't protect me from your DNFs.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[+bflentje]

Please see post #4.

 

DNFs mean nothing more than that you looked, but didn't find. If you drove up, got out of your car with your GPS, got back in the car, and drove to the next cache, you didn't find the cache. I've hidden over 100 caches, so I think I have the right to ask you to please post that as a DNF and let me worry about the consequences.

 

I would much rather check up on a cache that is still there, than to have others drive to a cache that is missing, so please do not make assumptions for me. If you didn't find it... you did not find it. Let me know that. If you need to add "I didn't look long", that's great. I know how to interpret that. But please don't protect me from your DNFs.

 

Fair enough, I can definitely see your point on that. And I have to admit that I have increased my DNF logging for basically that reason, just to make sure that caches are kept up.

 

I guess my line of reasoning was that "Did Not Find" insinuated that you put out at least a half a** effort to look. Otherwise it would be a "Did Not Look'

 

I have logged "Did Not Look"s as notes. For example we recently got an inordinate amount of rain recently and the cache site was full of water and I forgot my waders at home. So I logged a note saying "I arrived at the park to attempt this cache, but with the recent rains, was unable to get to the cache site to hunt."

 

In a case like that, for me that would have been a DNF. It points out that the cacher behind me had better do some research that I may not have done.

[+bflentje]

I added a DNL log once or twice.

 

I pulled up, realized it was a rock in a rock pile, drove away.

 

Not relevant to the topic.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Please see post #4.

 

DNFs mean nothing more than that you looked, but didn't find. If you drove up, got out of your car with your GPS, got back in the car, and drove to the next cache, you didn't find the cache. I've hidden over 100 caches, so I think I have the right to ask you to please post that as a DNF and let me worry about the consequences.

 

I would much rather check up on a cache that is still there, than to have others drive to a cache that is missing, so please do not make assumptions for me. If you didn't find it... you did not find it. Let me know that. If you need to add "I didn't look long", that's great. I know how to interpret that. But please don't protect me from your DNFs.

 

Fair enough, I can definitely see your point on that. And I have to admit that I have increased my DNF logging for basically that reason, just to make sure that caches are kept up.

 

I guess my line of reasoning was that "Did Not Find" insinuated that you put out at least a half a** effort to look. Otherwise it would be a "Did Not Look'

 

I have logged "Did Not Look"s as notes. For example we recently got an inordinate amount of rain recently and the cache site was full of water and I forgot my waders at home. So I logged a note saying "I arrived at the park to attempt this cache, but with the recent rains, was unable to get to the cache site to hunt."

 

In a case like that, for me that would have been a DNF. It points out that the cacher behind me had better do some research that I may not have done.

 

I agree. That's exactly why I will post a DNF on a cache even if didn't give it a thorough search. There may be a good reason that I wasn't able to make a thorough search that someone else might want to know about. For example, I logged a DNF on a cache when I got out of my vehicle, took one look at how much snow and ice was on the side of a very steep hilll leading to the cache, and got back in my car. Oddly enough the CO on that cache deleted my DNF log without any comments or a log of his own indicating why the log was deleted.

[knowschad]

We have a local cache owner who insists "Just to let you know, when you don't find a cache, like you did here, the proper etiquette is to enter a "needs maintenance" log instead of a DNF log."

 

Is it any wonder that some people are confused.

 

So the owner needs to run out and verify the cache is there to clear the Needs Maintenence log because an angsty person could not find it.

Just to be clear, it is the cache owner asking for a NM log when you DNF.

 

Some people like the whips and chains.

In that case, he'd LOVE Needs Archived logs for DNFs.

[+beejay&esskay]

We have a local cache owner who insists "Just to let you know, when you don't find a cache, like you did here, the proper etiquette is to enter a "needs maintenance" log instead of a DNF log."

Next time you see this, point that cache owner to the Knowledge Book Article on Needs Maintenance logs. Note that the very first words are "If you find a geocache..." Bold emphasis mine.

 

.

Since cache logs aren't the place to debate issues, I have refrained although I have sent e-mails to some new cachers who have been reprimanded telling them the etiquette lesson was incorrect. I'll comment in my next DNF on one of his caches if he "corrects" me. (I have 4 DNFs on his caches, but they are old, evidently before he started giving etiquette lessons.)

[knowschad]

I tend not to log DNFs if I didn't have time to really look.

 

Particularly on urban caches where I kind of know where the cache is but don't have my GPS with me. If I stop, lift up one lamp pole skirt or stick my hand under a push and immediately get back in the car, I probably won't log it, just b/c it wasn't really an attempt to find.

 

I like the idea of a DNL. Or maybe a DGL (didn't get lucky)

Yes, it was. Unless you didn't know that there might be a cache there, and lifting lampskirts for its own sake is some sort strange hobby or fetish of yours. You just did a very good job of describing "looking".

[+Team_FussyPants]

To be honest, after reading all these replies I'll start logging all my efforts to find as a DNF, even if I feel that I didn't put forth a good effort. I only have a few hides, so its good to hear the opinions of more experienced hiders.

 

I think getting a DNF log even if someone only halfheartedly tried to find the cache can be valuable feedback. Even if someone drove up, said they didn't like the hide location and drove off can let you know maybe you have a bad hide.

 

See. A thread that actually made a difference hahaha

[+beejay&esskay]

To be honest, after reading all these replies I'll start logging all my efforts to find as a DNF, even if I feel that I didn't put forth a good effort

 

See. A thread that actually made a difference hahaha

So I guess this would be a case of the trend being MORE cachers logging DNFs rather than fewer.

[+geodarts]

I have accused a particular cacher of artificially inflating his dnf totals just to hold on to the record in our area. I mean, dnfing a cache that he has already found. Dnfing a cache multiple times. Although it has caused me to be more vigilant in my dnfs. I recently posted a dnf and a found it log within hours of each other (thanks to the miracle of modern technology). And I did have to make sure that I had enough dnfs to qualify for a particular challenge cache (no problem there!). And when somebody logs a find within hours of my dnf at least I know for sure that I am hopeless at this game.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Erickson

[+rob3k]

Do you think that some cachers, not happy with not finding a cache, simply don't log a DNF? And is this trend increasing.

 

It's pretty clear that many cachers don't log DNFs. Using the time since the last find to gauge how many DNFs have gone unlogged is a good tip, I do the same thing myself. If you see the cache is found 4 or 5 times a month for a good stretch of time and then has no logs for 3 straight months, maybe some unlogged DNFs there...

 

FWIW, I log a DNF if I try to find the cache and did not find it. I don't want the CO to take my DNF to mean I think the cache isn't there, it simply means I couldn't find it today. I'm also pretty careful to not use verbiage to make it sound like I think the cache is missing, unless I found part of a cache or some other indicator the cache is gone. That is fairly rare in my experience. Even then I try to just state the facts: "Found an empty tupperware at GZ, CO might want to check on this one."

Edited February 26, 2010 by rob3k

[+The VanDucks]

We live in an area with a lot of caches, and a lot of geocachers, so most logs are pretty active. But I've noticed when researching caches in other areas (that we may want to look for when travelling) that some parts of the country either have severe weather, preventing cachers from going out very often, or have fewer cachers; so local caches may not be logged for a while just because all the local cachers have already found them!

 

I will sometimes e-mail a CO, if I really want to seek that cache, to ask if it's still active, if there have been no log entries for a long time. The cache may be perfectly fine in that case. I agree that seeing a string of DNF's in a cache log, over several months, would tell me that particular cache is not worth looking for.

 

As a cache owner, I am very interested in reading any DNF logs on our caches, because that may clue me in to a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

The only log that ever made me mad was when a brand new cacher, with a total of three finds or so, tried to find a rather difficult hide of ours, and posted a "Needs Archived" when he couldn't find it!

(Of course, when I went to check on it, the cache was right where it should be!)

[AZcachemeister]

Yeah, we've been seeing an increasing amount of posts here from people that say things like "I only post a DNF when I've spent a significant amount of time looking" (and those are the best of the "Do not post DNF's" crowd. We continually try to educate them as to why logging any and all of your DNFs is important to both the hider and the finders, but sometimes it feels like trying to hold back the tide.

 

Actually, it's more like planting a seed and waiting for a Sequoia to grow.

 

Log your DNFs...yes, it's important.

[+Lil Devil]

I log ALL my DNFs, even if I only search for a moment. I cache in geographically diverse areas and I will come back to an area months or years later. If I walk up to a cache area that seems familiar I can look at the logs and see if I've been there before.

 

"Only searched for a few seconds before some lady with a kid in a stroller walked up and sat down at the adjacent bench and pulled out a book, so I had to abort the search."

 

With a log like that, I have notes to myself when I return, but others will know they can ignore my DNF.

[+popokiiti]

I have no problem logging a DNF - usually with comments such as "must have had a double bowl of dense this morning as I didn't find it." It seems to be the ones others find easy that stump us, while the tricky ones almost fall into our hands. Maybe the reason DNFs are not logged is that the searchers are pretty sure that the caches are there, they just don't want to put the next seekers off?

[+simpjkee]

Please see post #4.

 

DNFs mean nothing more than that you looked, but didn't find. If you drove up, got out of your car with your GPS, got back in the car, and drove to the next cache, you didn't find the cache. I've hidden over 100 caches, so I think I have the right to ask you to please post that as a DNF and let me worry about the consequences.

 

I would much rather check up on a cache that is still there, than to have others drive to a cache that is missing, so please do not make assumptions for me. If you didn't find it... you did not find it. Let me know that. If you need to add "I didn't look long", that's great. I know how to interpret that. But please don't protect me from your DNFs.

 

Fair enough, I can definitely see your point on that. And I have to admit that I have increased my DNF logging for basically that reason, just to make sure that caches are kept up.

 

I guess my line of reasoning was that "Did Not Find" insinuated that you put out at least a half a** effort to look. Otherwise it would be a "Did Not Look'

 

I have logged "Did Not Look"s as notes. For example we recently got an inordinate amount of rain recently and the cache site was full of water and I forgot my waders at home. So I logged a note saying "I arrived at the park to attempt this cache, but with the recent rains, was unable to get to the cache site to hunt."

 

In a case like that, for me that would have been a DNF. It points out that the cacher behind me had better do some research that I may not have done.

 

In a situation like I presented, I can see logging either a DNF or a note. Either way is fine just as long as its logged.

[+briansnat]

I have accused a particular cacher of artificially inflating his dnf totals just to hold on to the record in our area. I mean, dnfing a cache that he has already found. Dnfing a cache multiple times. Although it has caused me to be more vigilant in my dnfs. I recently posted a dnf and a found it log within hours of each other (thanks to the miracle of modern technology). And I did have to make sure that I had enough dnfs to qualify for a particular challenge cache (no problem there!). And when somebody logs a find within hours of my dnf at least I know for sure that I am hopeless at this game.

 

I don't see logging multiple DNFs as artificially inflating DNF counts. It's simply recording the result of the hunt. There is one cache that I logged 5 DNFs because I hunted it 5 times and didn't find it. Nothing artificial about that.

 

Nor is there anything wrong with logging DNFs on caches you've previously found either. If you happen to go back to a cache you already found and you can't find it on the next visit I'd say that it is important that you log a DNF. A DNF from a previous finder should set off alarm bells with the cache owner.

 

"Only searched for a few seconds before some lady with a kid in a stroller walked up and sat down at the adjacent bench and pulled out a book, so I had to abort the search." With a log like that, I have notes to myself when I return, but others will know they can ignore my DNF.

 

Others can ignore your DNF, or it might tell them that perhaps they should save that cache for midweek, or a not so nice day when the park isn't so full of people.

[+The VanDucks]

I just logged a DNF on a cache we did spend about 20 minutes looking for; but we decided that it was just too risky to continue on to GZ because we had our two young grandchildren along, and the cache was on the other side of a steep, muddy ravine. I logged the DNF so others with young children might have help in deciding whether to attempt the cache. It was listed a a 3 star terrain, but it's hard to know exactly what's involved until you take a look, and earlier logs had not reported any problems getting to GZ.

[+geodarts]

I don't see logging multiple DNFs as artificially inflating DNF counts. It's simply recording the result of the hunt. There is one cache that I logged 5 DNFs because I hunted it 5 times and didn't find it.

 

Perhaps some things don't transfer well into print. But you clearly do not have some upstart who is trying to take away your claim to be the worst cacher in the county. I mean I could have gone up to that particular cache another 7 times myself. It remains unfound so it's prime territory for the easy dnf claim.

 

But to get back to topic, dnfs can be vindicating. After spending 20 minutes looking for the cache everyone said was easy it is nice to dnf it and have the CO report that it's gone. Of course that does not do much to advance my right to the title. But it is a confidence builder.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Erickson

[7rxc]

Many cachers don't log their DNFs. I'd estimate that the number is close to 1/3. I don't think it's a trend. Though with more geocachers there will be more people who don't log them.

 

Often when caches haven't been found for a while people avoid them. They don't want to take the chance that they will be wasting their time if it is missing. Then you get one intrepid geocacher who finds it and suddenly there is a flurry of finds. I see this constantly on my caches. They may go up to a year without a find, then someone finds it and there are nearly always a bunch more over the next few weeks. I suspect that is what is going on in your area, particularly if they are higher terrain caches.

 

Interesting estimate... 1/3 don't log DNF's, lots don't ever log online anything at all. I find myself wondering if some of the DNF logs that DO get posted are quickly deleted by the COs, for the exact reason of keeping people looking. It's clear that some won't 'correct' TB lists that show missing/moved TBs and coins from their caches for similar reasons. I consider myself to be one of those people who will try to resolve whether a cache is missing or not. I do not have many finds in total, but have 'proved' several of those, and now maintain a few of the ones that were missing (with the owners agreement). Watching a few others... mostly local must finds. In that capacity, I use DNF's and notes to guide me... and I'm not the owner, but the caches have been maintained and findable... one even saved from eviction by the site owners. All more or less happy. I'd really like to spend more time caching of course, but one has to pay dues I guess. Certainly I am getting a lot of good experience thru immersion. Glad the whole game is in mostly good hands, ours.

 

Doug

[DannyCaffeine]

I think its pride too.

 

I log mine because if most people can't find it it might have been muggled and the fact that it can help thr owner rate the difficulty.