DNF, DNF, DNF

[+kmartcachier]

After reading the forums quite a bit lately, Ive noticed a lot of animosity towards those who don't log DNF's. I use my find count more to keep me organized in my caching than any bragging rights (maybe because its still around 50) but I am worried that some cachers would accuse me of not logging a DNF.

 

Sometimes I wont log a DNF if I plan to come back the next day. The simple reason is that I did a cache once that was full of DNFs by the same person and it was annoying to read through and I dont want to log 5 DNFs on the same cache in a row. I dont mind logging a DNF if I didnt find it and I know I wont be back within 24 hours, but I dont want to hijack the on line log sheet. So my question is this: Do you log a DNF even if youre coming right back? If so, do you log every time you revisit or just edit your first log? And finally, if caching is REALLY "not about the numbers", why do people care about OTHER PEOPLE'S DNF count?

 

Please dont leave snide remarks, Im new here; and Im trying to learn!

[+The Cache Checkers]

I tried one yesterday I logged a DNF back in the fall. I didn't find it again, but I didn't log another DNF as my previous DNF was only two or three smileys before. I always log at least one DNF to let people know that I couldn't find it, including the CO, so they might swing by and check it out.

[+Viridios]

No worries, no snide marks from me! (I'm pretty new myself)

 

I personally will log every visit that I have spent a reasonable amount of time on. There are times when I get to GZ, start looking, and have to leave 5 minutes later for one reason or another. In those cases, I do not log a DNF. If I have made an honest effort for a reasonable amount of them, then I looked, and did not find. That deserves a DNF.

[+HawkLawless1]

Pretty new also, but I only log one DNF per cache. However, I've really only made it back to one previous DNF, so hardly enough for a precedent.

[+Fianccetto]

Yep, we the same kind of find count as you do. We have searched for caches and logged a DNF after 2 or 3 searches to discover it was there but we just didn't look enough, or were off track somehow, so depending on the terrain, we've played the DNFs down. 2 DNFs gets seekers a bit worried that the cache has been muggled, so I don't see the need to ever post more than 2 (and I'd only post 2 if I'd looked with other members of the team, and been there more than twice). That's not a recommendation, it's just we consider ourselves newcomers and haven't wanted to make the cache listings look bad.

 

Having read a similar thread on DNFs recently on this forum, we might start logging them more often, but giving detailed info about how clear the hint is, how long we searched for, what the light or weather was like, as all this does help other new cachers who look, and it could be that the CO needs to check if the cache has moved over time or change something about the listing.

[hoosier guy]

"I personally will log every visit that I have spent a reasonable amount of time on."

 

Same here, If I have spent enough time at the site to reasonably expect to find the cache and I am not coming back within a couple days I will post a DNF. I think it helps to CO to know that.

[+StarBrand]

If I start the hunt and it ends in me not finding the cache - I log a DNF - each and every time.

 

DNF logs are important. It lets the cache owner know there might potential be a problem with the cache and it lets other cachers know that they better be prepared to spend a little more time. Details in the text of the log help everybody put the DNF in context.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I am pretty much on the same thinking as StarBrand...I log them each time and usually try to "explain" to the extent why I didn't find it...

[oakenwood]

If I start the hunt and it ends in me not finding the cache - I log a DNF - each and every time.

 

DNF logs are important. It lets the cache owner know there might potential be a problem with the cache and it lets other cachers know that they better be prepared to spend a little more time. Details in the text of the log help everybody put the DNF in context.

More time, more stealth, more equipment, etc. Sometimes the terrain and difficulty ratings just don't say enough.

 

So I agree, the details you add to the log help. I DNF'd the day before yesterday because the hillside around the cache was very slippery and I was worried about injury. It's my way of saying "a recent rain will increase the terrain rating".

[Andronicus]

I try to log them everytime. Sometime one may slip through the cracks. There are a few caches that I have DNFed like 4 times. I have logged them all. One I still havn't found and the CO has confirmed it is still there, so you can expect at least a couple more DNFs on it before I am finnished.

[+dfx]

i'm with the first posters. if the effort i've put into locating a cache isn't up to what i think is required to find it, and if i have plans of coming back any time soon, then i don't log a DNF yet. otherwise i do, with the rare exception here and there (such as another LPC with a muggle car sitting right on top of it and when i can't be bothered to wait around).

[+NeecesandNephews]

I log a DNF if I looked and "did not find"! If I looked for two minutes or two hours I still log it. I do note that in the log.

 

Points this approach is based on:

 

Honest with myself. If I looked, I looked. I don't see a DNF making me look bad, or dense, just that I wasn't able to find the cache.

 

Info. to the CO. If a cache has a dozen DNF's, by noobs like me or seasoned veterans, it could be a sign it has gone missing. DNF is simply useful in more than one way.

 

Info. to other cachers. I view my DNF's as a signal to other new cachers that it might not be as easy as you thought it would. So they might be better prepared, if they expected it to be a "quickie".

 

I haven't had a problem with it as I usually keep looking until I find it! (anal/OCD) I do have one cache that I have been to twice, spent half a day total looking, and still can't find it. It is a fairly new placement of a micro in the woods, and the CO has logged a maintenance check on it and assures everyone it is still there. To date there has only been one find on it, by a friend of the hider , who I suspect,(hey it makes me feel better) was given a hint!!

 

The CO noted in his log that "we were all walking right by it". Well... to me, if we all walked right by it, it was because we were headed for the posted coords. So I hesitate to say, I am wondering.

 

It was in a very nice area in a State Park and I enjoyed the time out in the woods on two beautiful days, so it doesn't bother me I didn't find it. (part of a subliminal tie in to other threads about LPC's, this one took me somewhere I didn't mind spending half a day)

 

As I said, if I look, I log. Sooner or later the CO will take pity on me and send me a hint!!

[+kunarion]

Ive noticed a lot of animosity towards those who don't log DNF's.

It’s important to make accurate cache logs. When you do a search and don’t find, log a DNF. I don’t have animosity, but if you later say “looked here lots of times, found it today”, that is annoying -- but only because I finally see that it wasn’t just me who couldn’t find it, and it’s important to me to know in advance if it’s a tough hide. “Difficulty” star ratings don’t tell the whole story.

 

Unless there’s a new log since you’ve previously done one, IMHO you can combine a single day’s multiple searches into one log. Don’t worry about making too many logs. Next time, don’t just type “I couldn’t find it” -- say something else interesting about the trip, anything that might be useful or fun for others to read. Practice your creative writing, and don't take your "DNF" too seriously. If you think you’re searching too often, give yourself a break until you have a new plan of attack.

 

I may edit my old logs if they give away too much. “There’s only one pine cone, but it’s just out of reach”, and it turns out the cache is in the pine cone. That sort of thing. But I leave the DNFs, so a cache owner can decide if the difficulty rating needs to be changed.

Edited March 18, 2010 by kunarion

[+briansnat]

I log a DNF for each failed attempt.

 

The only exceptions would be if there were multiple attempts in the same day, say a try in the morning, then again in the evening. Those I would combine into a single log mentioning both tries.

[knowschad]

After reading the forums quite a bit lately, Ive noticed a lot of animosity towards those who don't log DNF's. I use my find count more to keep me organized in my caching than any bragging rights (maybe because its still around 50) but I am worried that some cachers would accuse me of not logging a DNF.

 

Sometimes I wont log a DNF if I plan to come back the next day. The simple reason is that I did a cache once that was full of DNFs by the same person and it was annoying to read through and I dont want to log 5 DNFs on the same cache in a row. I dont mind logging a DNF if I didnt find it and I know I wont be back within 24 hours, but I dont want to hijack the on line log sheet. So my question is this: Do you log a DNF even if youre coming right back? If so, do you log every time you revisit or just edit your first log? And finally, if caching is REALLY "not about the numbers", why do people care about OTHER PEOPLE'S DNF count?

 

Please dont leave snide remarks, Im new here; and Im trying to learn!

That animosity, as you call it, has nothing at all to do with your stats. It has to do with the cache's history, with feedback to the cache owner, and with feedback to your fellow cachers. There is nothing wrong with posting a DNF that says, "I didn't have enough time to look properly".

 

A cache that has 5 DNFs in a row is either a tough cache (generally indicated by a high difficulty rating), a cache with bad coordinates, (or possibly migrated well away from the posted coordinates), or may be missing. All of those are important pieces of information to have when you head out to look for a cache. I'm guessing that you look for those things, too.

[+PeterVZ1]

As a cache owner, I like to know if someone is looking for my cache or not. I have one cache that I placed back in November that has only been found 8 times and it is just off a main road, and for the most part, a pretty short walk. It is a 2 stage multi and I hope a little tricky. There has not been a single DNF logged, so for a while I was wondering if people just weren't interested in finding it or if they weren't logging DNFs. After almost 2 months of being there, and only having 3 finds, someone posted another find at the end of January, saying they can't believe they missed it last time they were there.

Well, at least I now know that someone was looking.

 

Since then, I have made a point to try to log all my DNFs, no matter how hard or long I look. It lets the cache owner know that at least someone is still interested in the cache. Especially if it hasn't had a find in a while. I'll even posted a note recently saying I didn't even look for a cache because the road to get to the cache was partially flooded. The cache was still accessable, it just would have involved wading and walking a ways.

 

The other nice thing about logging DNFs is that you can then go back and look at which ones you couldn't find easier to see if anyone else has found it since, rather than trying to remember which ones you need to avenge.

[+beejay&esskay]

So my question is this: Do you log a DNF even if youre coming right back? If so, do you log every time you revisit or just edit your first log?

Yes, unless "right back" is the same day. (Which doesn't really apply to me since I only log in the evening after caching.)

 

New day, new search, new DNF. (I can only think of one time I DNF, went to lunch and found some other caches and returned to DNF again. I logged 1 DNF since it was the same day.)

[+tozainamboku]

I like to calculate my geocaching average. To do this I divide my find count by the number of attempts. An attempt is any hunt that resulted in a find or a DNF.

 

Now I certainly could get my average up by not logging all my DNFs. I would just have to say to myself, "This wasn't really an attempt so I don't need to log a DNF." And sometimes this is just what happens.

 

Not that this is bad. The geocaching average is much like baseball's batting average. There one divides the number of hits by the number of at bats. Sounds simple till you look at the definition of an at bat. Is seems there are a multitude of reasons not to count a batter's plate appearance as an at bat for the purpose of computing baseball statistics. Given there are no official rules for geocaching*, it is no wonder that there is no agreed upon definition of a DNF.

 

 

*I know that some puritans will claim that we do have rules for logging a find online. They should re-read the "rules" carefully. The "rules" given in the Geocaching.com FAQ say

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.
   
2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.
   
3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.
   

So while these say to write something in the cache log book they don't indicate thay you may only log your experience at www.geocaching.com if you have done so, nor do they specify which type of log to use if you do log your experience online. In truth one does not have to log anything online, despite what the rules say. (I tried once to enforce the rule to log online by crosssing out the names in my cache logs that had not posted a find online, but it was ineffective; and it was unfair because I had no way to do something similar for all the DNFs that didn't get logged online).

Edited March 18, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+Harry Dolphin]

1 DNF per cache. That's it.

[+Too Tall John]

i'm with the first posters. if the effort i've put into locating a cache isn't up to what i think is required to find it, and if i have plans of coming back any time soon, then i don't log a DNF yet. otherwise i do, with the rare exception here and there (such as another LPC with a muggle car sitting right on top of it and when i can't be bothered to wait around).

Following your logic, it would seem that if you didn't put in enough effort, yet you got lucky and found the cache, you shouldn't log a "Found It" log.

 

No smiley for you!

[+obsidianspider]

I only log a DNF if I feel that I've REALLY looked for it (not just ran into an issue of muggles being there or bad weather). If that happens on multiple occasions, I'd log multiple DNFs.

[+Snoogans]

Do you log a DNF EVERY time you go back and dont find it?

 

Yes.

[+DeepButi]

*I know that some puritans will claim that we do have rules for logging a find online. They should re-read the "rules" carefully. The "rules" given in the Geocaching.com FAQ say

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.
   
2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.
   
3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.
   

So while these say to write something in the cache log book they don't indicate thay you may only log your experience at www.geocaching.com if you have done so, nor do they specify which type of log to use if you do log your experience online. In truth one does not have to log anything online, despite what the rules say. (I tried once to enforce the rule to log online by crosssing out the names in my cache logs that had not posted a find online, but it was ineffective; and it was unfair because I had no way to do something similar for all the DNFs that didn't get logged online).

 

From the guidelines:

Logging of All Physical Caches

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

I would say -although English is not my first language- that this is equivalent to:

 

Geocaches can not be logged online as Found unless the physical log has been signed.

 

Edited March 18, 2010 by DeepButi

[+uxorious]

After reading the forums quite a bit lately, Ive noticed a lot of animosity towards those who don't log DNF's.

 

If you have been reading the forums quite a bit lately, you may have also noticed there are as many views on any subject as there are posters.

 

I think most of us agree, you should log a DNF for a cache you did not find. However, for myself, I will usually only log one DNF for a cache, even if I had to return a couple of times to find it. The exception would be on a cache that is supposed to be hard to find, I would log each search, or if the reason for not finding it on a later search was different than the previous search.

 

I also log the DNF after the first time I've looked, even if I plan to go back and look again very soon.

 

If I had to go back a couple times I will usually mention how many times I had to look in my found it log.

[+bittsen]

I log most of my DNF's. There are two cache owners who don't get the satisfaction of a DNF from me. One designs the caches to be difficult to the point that the want a high DNF ratio. I won't give them the satisfaction of a DNF from me. But I ignore most of their caches anyhow. The other is someone who tosses out micro spew. No thought to any of the caches and many are in high muggle areas. His caches disappear quite frequently but I tend to ignore his caches as well.

 

For me it's more about the experience. If I look for a cache and don't find it, I log a DNF. If I am avoiding caches to begin with, I don't log the DNF.

[+Castle Mischief]

Yes, because I'd like anybody hunting for my caches to do the same.

 

DNF logs do not kill kittens.

[+infiniteMPG]

IMHO log entires for caches are the same as log entries in a ship's logbook, it's a record of what happened. If a similar thing happened three days in a row it doesn't mean you don't log it. You don't log a DNF if you DNL (Did Not Look) and what you interpret as "looking" is up to you. Hopefully if you visit a cache site three times on three different days you don't "look" for it the same way, peek behind the same rocks, the same trees, the same way you did the previous time thinking the cache might magically appear. You look differently and could log those differences...."walked to GZ on stilts to get a better view today", "swam across the river to get a gator's eye view", "parachuted in comparing the spot to Google Earth map during the decent"... something different. Log it.

 

We cache owners get a lot of our satisfaction from our work by reading your adventures in your logs. We might take a little extra satisfaction if you can't find it because it's a primo camo job, but if you're new and DNF several times we'll probably take pity and drop you a hint. And also if you're new, don't feel embarrassed to "contact owner" and say that you tried the cache a couple times and just can't find it. Most folks are hiding caches for people to have fun with and while we like frustrating someone with a 5-5 camo'ed hide, we don't want to make a new cacher mad about not finding a 1.5-1.5. And keep in mind when you use "contact owner" from a cache listing page, include the cache you're writing about in your message. The cache name doesn't get tagged to the message and someone with a lot of hides may not know which cache you're asking about.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm betting D.A.D.D. likes the fact that I didn't log 30+ DNFs on Baby Boy Zukey.

I'm probably never going to have a more mentally painful found it. Yeah, I feel cheated, but I cheated myself by refusing to trudge in the first place.

[+Beebeejaybee]

For me it depends on why I dnf

 

if I can see where the cache might be or is but the place is full of muggles I leave a field note saying so but if I have the chance to look everywhere I'll log DNF

[+GeoTrailGuy]

Yes, because I'd like anybody hunting for my caches to do the same.

 

DNF logs do not kill kittens.

 

I've already been logging nearly 100% of my DNFs but you've now swayed me to make sure I do them all. Thanks

[+popokiiti]

Yup we log 'em - I usually make mine funny, especially when I have that feeling in my gut that the cache is there and I can't see it for looking. Often say I had a double bowl of dense for brekkie.........making it clear I think it is me that is missing something, not the cache is missing.

[+edscott]

I log every cache I do not find but add any additional unsuccessful trips to the original DNF log. I date each one and edit the log date to match my most recent visit. When I find it I log a separate find log leaving the original DNF entry with all it's parts. This way my DNF total represents the number of caches I've DNF'd not the total number of visits. Don't think this is a typical method, but its what I do.

[AZcachemeister]

Nope, not every time I visit.

I typically log the first DNF, and then mention how many more times I had to try once I finally make the find.

Of course, there are always exceptions.

[+bittsen]

Get to GZ

 

I can't brain now. I have the dumb.

[+NOV8TR]

I log every visit to a cache, and here is why:

 

As a cache owner I want to know if my cache needs a visit from me for maintenance, or a terrain/difficulty rating change (fires, rain, land slides, tree falls, vegetation overgrowth, and trail rerouting are all reasons for changing the ratings, or temp archiving a cache). Also, some cache owners (myself included) are more interested in getting people out to a spot than "claiming territory". If I have a cache that has been visited by all the "usual suspects", but hasn't seen any traffic for a while, I'm more likely to pull the cache and give someone else an opportunity to place a hide in that location (nothing like a chance for an FTF to get the local folks out in the woods!). There is no way to get feedback on stuff like that without logs.

 

On the flip side of the coin, I don't like being out in the field and needing to look at "the last 5 logs", only to discover 5 DNF's logged by the same person (or team of people). So out of respect for the other "paperless" cachers, I edit my first DNF log so it includes all the relevant information for each attempt at the cache (including the dates). I find that cache owners who like to place really hard hides are more likely to give helpful hints if they see I have tried several times to work out their challenge, but keep coming up short. This way the paperless crowd is happy, the cache owner is happy, and I feel like I have done my "due diligence" in keeping the game moving along.

 

Remember, ALL of your logs are a big part of the game. Your DNF logs are more important (or at least equally as important) to the other players and the cache owner than they may be to you. The first step in the game is getting to a predetermined location. If you do that, log it!

Edited March 19, 2010 by NOV8TR

[+kmartcachier]

Thanks for all the input! I like the idea of logging a single DNF that is updated every time I return. That way, I can log the DNF's for the owner, but wont fill up the log. Im not at all worried about calculating my "batting average" so hopefully this technique will satisfy not just me, but everyone else involved!

[+AzSunset]

If I start the hunt and it ends in me not finding the cache - I log a DNF - each and every time.

 

DNF logs are important. It lets the cache owner know there might potential be a problem with the cache and it lets other cachers know that they better be prepared to spend a little more time. Details in the text of the log help everybody put the DNF in context.

 

Thank you! In my opinion this is the most correct answer. If you don't want to post a DNF at least post a Note: "not quite ready to call this one a DNF, will try again..."

[+L0ne.R]

After reading the forums quite a bit lately, Ive noticed a lot of animosity towards those who don't log DNF's. I use my find count more to keep me organized in my caching than any bragging rights (maybe because its still around 50) but I am worried that some cachers would accuse me of not logging a DNF.

 

Sometimes I wont log a DNF if I plan to come back the next day. The simple reason is that I did a cache once that was full of DNFs by the same person and it was annoying to read through and I dont want to log 5 DNFs on the same cache in a row. I dont mind logging a DNF if I didnt find it and I know I wont be back within 24 hours, but I dont want to hijack the on line log sheet. So my question is this: Do you log a DNF even if youre coming right back? If so, do you log every time you revisit or just edit your first log? And finally, if caching is REALLY "not about the numbers", why do people care about OTHER PEOPLE'S DNF count?

 

Please dont leave snide remarks, Im new here; and Im trying to learn!

 

I'm totally fine with people who leave a note or email me instead of logging a DNF. Whatever makes them comfortable. I do like to know (in whatever form - DNF, note, email) if the finder suspects that the cache is missing. If they just couldn't find it but suspect that it's there, it's no bother to me if they don't log a DNF. (BTW, my hidden caches are placed under our team account.)

 

But boy oh boy there are some very adamant COs out there that get hot and bothered when people don't log a DNF.

[+L0ne.R]

I log most of my DNF's. There are two cache owners who don't get the satisfaction of a DNF from me. One designs the caches to be difficult to the point that the want a high DNF ratio.

 

I suspect that's why some COs get quite bothered when folks don't log their attempt/DNF. It's a source of pride, a reflection on their skills as a hider of difficult cache hides.

[+Too Tall John]

I log most of my DNF's. There are two cache owners who don't get the satisfaction of a DNF from me. One designs the caches to be difficult to the point that the want a high DNF ratio.

I suspect that's why some COs get quite bothered when folks don't log their attempt/DNF. It's a source of pride, a reflection on their skills as a hider of difficult cache hides.

I don't get overtly mad when people don't log their DNFs on my caches, but it doesn't go unnoticed, either.

 

There's a series of caches along an abandoned rail bed near me. I have a couple caches in close proximity to each other on the trail. The first one is nearest the parking area. GC19P8X. On either side of it are two caches belonging to someone else. GC1A6E9, which is south of parking, and GC19QB7, which is north of my cache nearest parking. After GC19QB7 is another of mine, GC19R71. Beyond that, GC19T06. Now, if you look at them in order, you'll see something interesting:

 

GC##### /Finds+DNFs=Total logs

GC1A6E9 / 105 + 0 = 105

(Parking)

GC19P8X / 57 + 15 = 72

GC19QB7/ 77 + 0 = 77

GC19R71/ 83 + 0 = 83

GC19T06/ 99 + 0 = 99

(These numbers are excluding finds logged before 3/15/08, the publish date of the newest cache.)

 

Now, I can get behind the idea that people did GC1A6E9 and the caches south of it without doing the rest, but shouldn't the logs for the rest be close to the same total? Why do the caches that you have to walk by to get to GC19T06 have fewer logs total? Why does the toughest one (it's a micro on a bridge*) have the fewest logs?

 

Knowing that this bugs me is why I log all my DNFs.

 

*With a hint that should give it away, but . . .

 

Edit: BTW, does anyone else hear the Lone Ranger theme in their heads when they read: DNF, DNF, DNF (F! F!)??

Edited March 19, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+beejay&esskay]

Thanks for all the input! I like the idea of logging a single DNF that is updated every time I return. That way, I can log the DNF's for the owner, but wont fill up the log. Im not at all worried about calculating my "batting average" so hopefully this technique will satisfy not just me, but everyone else involved!

 

Let me tell you why I don't like this idea. Each hunt is part of the history for the cache. You are not giving a true reflection of the number of unsuccessful hunts and on what days these have occurred. I sometimes look at the ratio of finds to DNFs as a quick measure for cache difficulty.

 

But you will never satisfy everyone involved so you should concentrate on satisfying yourself.

[+dfx]

i'm with the first posters. if the effort i've put into locating a cache isn't up to what i think is required to find it, and if i have plans of coming back any time soon, then i don't log a DNF yet. otherwise i do, with the rare exception here and there (such as another LPC with a muggle car sitting right on top of it and when i can't be bothered to wait around).

Following your logic, it would seem that if you didn't put in enough effort, yet you got lucky and found the cache, you shouldn't log a "Found It" log.

 

No smiley for you!

i'm not even gonna start trying to explain how silly of a comment that is!

 

but since you mentioned it: all the DNF purists seem to agree that the right thing to do is to go by what the log type says. in their logic, it's because the DNF log says "didn't find it" that they ought to log a DNF every time they didn't find some cache, for whatever reason. because DNF = didn't find it, and every time when they didn't find it (no matter the circumstances), they should log a DNF, right?

 

so what about the "found it" log then? will they log a find if they found a cache but couldn't/didn't sign the log? what if they couldn't get the container open (frozen stuck or whatever), would they still log a find? heck, even if they've only seen the cache from far away, let's say from the other side of a river, or from the ground when it's up in the tree, then technically they still found it, didn't they? so why shouldn't they log a find? after all, the log type says "found it", and that's what they did!

 

the only difference is that there's an official guideline regarding the "found" logs. the guideline says (vaguely) that you shall only log it as found online when/if you signed the log. but think about it logically: that goes against what the log type says. the log type doesn't say "signed the log", but it says "found it", which isn't the same thing.

 

so basically there's two choices: either you go by what the log type says, or you go by what the guidelines say. if you go by what the log type says, you ought to log a DNF every time you didn't find a cache, but also you ought to log a find every time you "found" a cache, no matter whether you signed the log or not. or if you don't go by what the log type says, but rather go by what the guidelines say (ignoring what the log type says), you ought to log a find only when you signed the log. but there's a big problem there: there's no guideline regarding DNF logs. however you also chose to ignore what the log type says, so the only option left is: grow some common sense!

[+thedeadpirate]

so the only option left is: grow some common sense!

 

If only it were that common.....

 

Like I said in another thread, in the middle lies a happy medium.

 

I generally log all my DNF's. However, there has been a cache or two which I have made several return trips that I did not log all my DNF's.

 

One in particular was a 1/1.5 cache. The only issue with the cache is the large number of muggles in the area. Everyone already knows this to be an issue. If I recall correctly, it was in the description of the cache.

 

There's not really much need in me posting 7 DNF's just to reiterate that the area is a high traffic, muggle rich area.

 

So yes, use common sense. Log DNF's whenever it makes sense. Don't get legalistic with it. And above all, have fun.

[+Mosaic55]

1 DNF per cache. That's it.

 

Yes, I would agree, no need to clutter up the logs, especially in consideration of those who are downloading just the last 5 logs. Maybe edit your last DNF if all you've got to say is "muggled out again"

[cloudswinger]

I do one DNF per cache, just like I do one Find per cache.

 

I've only had one cache where I have multiple DNFs, and still am working on that one. But other people have found it, so I am assuming it's still there.

 

I did have a DNF recently where I actually met another geocacher. He never logged it.

Edited March 20, 2010 by cloudswinger

[+Too Tall John]

i'm with the first posters. if the effort i've put into locating a cache isn't up to what i think is required to find it, and if i have plans of coming back any time soon, then i don't log a DNF yet. otherwise i do, with the rare exception here and there (such as another LPC with a muggle car sitting right on top of it and when i can't be bothered to wait around).

Following your logic, it would seem that if you didn't put in enough effort, yet you got lucky and found the cache, you shouldn't log a "Found It" log.

 

No smiley for you!

i'm not even gonna start trying to explain how silly of a comment that is!

Try it, I dare ya!

but since you mentioned it: all the DNF purists seem to agree that the right thing to do is to go by what the log type says. in their logic, it's because the DNF log says "didn't find it" that they ought to log a DNF every time they didn't find some cache, for whatever reason. because DNF = didn't find it, and every time when they didn't find it (no matter the circumstances), they should log a DNF, right?

No. Wrong. Actually, the DNF "purists" (Isn't it grand how when people have a weak argument they feel they need to add labels to the people they are arguing against? It doesn't help their argument, it just makes them look petty) agree that the right thing to do is to log a DNF when you've not found a cache you were looking for. If it means that suddenly there are multiple logs of nothing but your DNFs, it would be courteous if you combined them into one. The way you've presented things, it sounds like suddenly there will be strings of DNFs from the same cacher cluttering up cache pages if the pro-DNF lobby gets their way. Your argument is based on fallacies.

so what about the "found it" log then? will they log a find if they found a cache but couldn't/didn't sign the log? what if they couldn't get the container open (frozen stuck or whatever), would they still log a find? heck, even if they've only seen the cache from far away, let's say from the other side of a river, or from the ground when it's up in the tree, then technically they still found it, didn't they? so why shouldn't they log a find? after all, the log type says "found it", and that's what they did!

A true "purist" would not log a find in the examples you bring up. Oh, and if my statement is "silly" then yours is downright outrageous. My point was that if you don't log a DNF because you didn't put a lot of effort in, why should you log a "Found It" when the same amount of effort is put in? Your point is to build a straw man. You are the only one suggesting logging finds on caches spotted from a distance.

the only difference is that there's an official guideline regarding the "found" logs. the guideline says (vaguely) that you shall only log it as found online when/if you signed the log. but think about it logically: that goes against what the log type says. the log type doesn't say "signed the log", but it says "found it", which isn't the same thing.

The difference that you overlooked is that only you have brought up using "Found It" logs in the way you describe.

so basically there's two choices: either you go by what the log type says, or you go by what the guidelines say. if you go by what the log type says, you ought to log a DNF every time you didn't find a cache, but also you ought to log a find every time you "found" a cache, no matter whether you signed the log or not. or if you don't go by what the log type says, but rather go by what the guidelines say (ignoring what the log type says), you ought to log a find only when you signed the log. but there's a big problem there: there's no guideline regarding DNF logs.

That's such a circular argument, it made my head spin. Care to try that again?

however you also chose to ignore what the log type says, so the only option left is: grow some common sense!

Hmm. . . No, the other option is to grow some courtesy. It is courteous to the cache owner to log your DNFs. It is courteous to future cache seekers to log your DNFs.

 

That is common sense.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+dfx]

No. Wrong. Actually, the DNF "purists" (Isn't it grand how when people have a weak argument they feel they need to add labels to the people they are arguing against? It doesn't help their argument, it just makes them look petty)

why do you think "purist" is a negative term? there's plenty of people who call themselves purists (here or here for example, apologies to the involved users, it may be grossly out of context).

agree that the right thing to do is to log a DNF when you've not found a cache you were looking for.

yep, so you should also log a found when you found the cache right? regardless of whether you signed the log or not.

If it means that suddenly there are multiple logs of nothing but your DNFs, it would be courteous if you combined them into one.

says who? there's plenty of people who said they actually will log every single DNF, even if they're all in a row. maybe you won't, but that just means you're not one of the DNF purists.

The way you've presented things, it sounds like suddenly there will be strings of DNFs from the same cacher cluttering up cache pages if the pro-DNF lobby gets their way.

yes indeed.

Your argument is based on fallacies.

fallacies? i'm going by what the users say. some of them say they log every single DNF. if they would also say that everyone else should do the same, then we'd get to what you just described.

A true "purist" would not log a find in the examples you bring up.

yeah, but why not? the log says "found it", and if i spotted the cache from far away, then i did find it.

Oh, and if my statement is "silly" then yours is downright outrageous.

you think logic is outrageous?

My point was that if you don't log a DNF because you didn't put a lot of effort in, why should you log a "Found It" when the same amount of effort is put in? Your point is to build a straw man. You are the only one suggesting logging finds on caches spotted from a distance.

yes i was, and this has nothing to do with straw men. again, it's logic. read again what i wrote and see that it makes sense. either you go by what the log type says, or you go by what the guidelines say. you can't have both.

The difference that you overlooked is that only you have brought up using "Found It" logs in the way you describe.

of course it was me who brought it up, in order to show the illogical argument brought by the DNF purists. but that doesn't make any "difference" in the log types.

That's such a circular argument, it made my head spin. Care to try that again?

i'm sorry if you can't follow my arguments.

[+dfx]

wow, i didn't know there was a limit on quote blocks...

 

Hmm. . . No, the other option is to grow some courtesy. It is courteous to the cache owner to log your DNFs. It is courteous to future cache seekers to log your DNFs.

no, it's courtesy to tell the owner and the other cachers about any significant information that there might be. i can do that with a note too. or with a private message maybe.

[+Ladybug Kids]

It's pretty simple for us...each cache search attempt gets a log.

Found it = found it and signed log

Didn't find it (300+ and counting) = looked, didn't find it, sometimes more than one time on the same day if separate attempts were made

Need Maintenance = Found cache (or part of it) and it needs help in some form or fashion. Sometimes used in conjunction with a found it or DNF, depending on whether a log could be signed

Note = Logged a "found it" previously, or other information and associated with another log type

 

Why over complicate things with a bunch of technicalities? Logging each cache location visit keeps the cache history current.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Ladybug Kids

[+GeoTrailGuy]

Edit: BTW, does anyone else hear the Lone Ranger theme in their heads when they read: DNF, DNF, DNF (F! F!)??

 

I think this was the best way to close this thread.