Etiquette/Convention: When to log DNF?

[+Ink Spots]

Hi all,

 

I'm relatively new to this so far, and so - understandably - I find myself unable to find many of the more clever hides I look for. (I probably miss a fair number of obvious ones too.)

 

The question is, at what point should one log a "did not find" entry?

 

On one hand, if I'm very pressed for time and have only 3 minutes to look once I find GZ before I have to leave, that's probably not a legitimate "DNF" log. If I have a reasonable amount of time to look though, I'm inclined to go ahead and post an entry, even though I have no reason to think there's any problem with the cache and it's just me missing it. (I don't have any real interest in keeping a found/DNF ratio high for its own sake.)

 

What would cache owners like, and what's the norm (if there is one)? Would you like to know I was there, even if I didn't make much of a search, or would you rather have less clutter in the log?

[+wrtiii]

I think personally I would log a DNF anytime I went to GroundZero and did not find the cache...

 

I know I have logged DNF's when I used to cache without a GPS unit.

 

I don't log them for the sake of the cache owner.. I log them for my own sake and my own records. If a DNF affects the cache posting at all I am not sure but either way I see no reason not to post a DNF whatsoever..

 

Now one exception I can think of is this one cache which I have been to twice now... First time I found it, at least I visually saw it. but there was muggles sitting on a park bench in line of sight. So I logged a note that I visually saw the cache but was not able to physically reach it due to muggles.

 

I went back tonight and yet again same bench a pair of muggles sitting there watching some geese. I stood around, watch some geese hope they would leave. no such luck. I stood nearby the cache waiting to see if I got a moment to snatch it without being noticed.. It was too risky.. I fully intend to log another note saying I was there again same deal.

 

In this case I am not logged a DNF cause I did kinda find it.

 

But all in all I would say log a DNF anytime you :looked: and did not find the cache.

 

So I guess it just depends on your own personal definition of :looking:

 

Just my 2 cents,

 

wrtiii

[+Ink Spots]

Thanks - intuitively I'm inclined to agree; I started wondering when reading logs on some caches where I would see finds with notes like "this took three tries but we finally got it" or something like that, but tries 1 and 2 didn't have logs to match.

 

I'm sure it's an individual thing to some extent, but was just wondering what was considered best practice. Thanks!

[+simpjkee]

Hi all,

 

I'm relatively new to this so far, and so - understandably - I find myself unable to find many of the more clever hides I look for. (I probably miss a fair number of obvious ones too.)

 

The question is, at what point should one log a "did not find" entry?

 

On one hand, if I'm very pressed for time and have only 3 minutes to look once I find GZ before I have to leave, that's probably not a legitimate "DNF" log. If I have a reasonable amount of time to look though, I'm inclined to go ahead and post an entry, even though I have no reason to think there's any problem with the cache and it's just me missing it. (I don't have any real interest in keeping a found/DNF ratio high for its own sake.)

 

What would cache owners like, and what's the norm (if there is one)? Would you like to know I was there, even if I didn't make much of a search, or would you rather have less clutter in the log?

 

If you search for the cache didn't find it, that is a 'did not find'. If you searched for 3 minutes and then had to go to work, that is a 'did not find'.

 

Posting a DNF is not a suggestion that the cache is missing or that there is a problem with it. It is only suggesting that you did not find the cache, which is entirely accurate in this case.

 

The thing that surprises me is that people will neglect to post an appropriate DNF log for fear of how it will 'look', all the while ignoring the fact that there is a huge text box where you are encouraged to write about your visit. For example, you look for 3 minutes and then have to go to work. Log a dnf and in the text box write something like "I was on my way to work so I only looked for 3 minutes, but in the 3 minutes I was there, I was unable to spot it." Thats a perfectly accurate account of your visit to add to the cache's history.

 

I'm a cache owner and absolutely I would like to know about your visit. I would like to know as much about the history of my cache as I can. If you visit it, let me know that you did. If you don't make a log, I can only assume that nothing happened at my cache.

 

As you can probably tell, I'm a little hardcore about DNF logging. You're definately not the first one to say it, but I resent the notion that a DNF log would be "clutter" on a cache page.

[+The Blorenges]

I agree with simpjkee...

 

If we went to the location and searched and did not find the cache then that's a DNF for us.

 

We wouldn't log a DNF if we approached the location then, from a distance, we saw a good reason why we would not be able to search effectively (e.g. a party of muggles having a picnic there). In such a situation we'd probably just leave a note log.

 

MrsB

[+Bear and Ragged]

I agree with simpjkee...

 

If we went to the location and searched and did not find the cache then that's a DNF for us.

 

We wouldn't log a DNF if we approached the location then, from a distance, we saw a good reason why we would not be able to search effectively (e.g. a party of muggles having a picnic there). In such a situation we'd probably just leave a note log.

 

MrsB

 

Agree with the above...

 

There is 'search' and 'search' I'll post a DNF if I searched and Did Not Find, and post why -getting dark, running out of time, group of muggles arrived, just can't see it for looking etc.

 

If I arrive in the area and a group of muggles are already there and I don't search, I may leave a note to say "Arrived, but the area had a lot of muggles so moved on to the next one..."

 

For my own records, it's nice to know why I missed a cache previously, and is it worth another look next time I'm in the area.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

There is an ongoing "debate" about when to log a DNF and when not to.

It all boils down to what each individual defines as a "search". But then too, there are quite a few that do not log a DNF at all, for whatever reason (maybe they think it hurts their stats, or it shows them as a failure).

 

There are three "type" categories of DNF:

1. Extreme or purist -- driving (if that is necessary) to the area, but leaving before exiting the vehicle (for any reason). Also quitting before reaching GZ, any reason.

2. Arriving at GZ and performing any real type of search. Like not crossing a stream 'cuz they didn't want to get their little piggly-wigglies wet, or not willing to climb a tree.

3. Actually spending an amount of time searching, from 5 minutes to a half-hour or longer.

 

Some log all three, quite a few 2 & 3, many only #3, a lot post nothing at all.

 

A good number of people don't want to "clutter" the cache log!?!

 

Some post a note instead of DNF -- to me, that makes little sense, as the reason for the DNF (that is usually their "qualifier") can be mentioned in the DNF log just as easily.

 

So -- them's your choices. It is your game, do what you think is correct.

[+tango501]

I try to log all DNF's

keyword there is TRY

 

not always successful but I do try

[+StarBrand]

If I have started a search and for any reason it ends with me not finding the cache - then I log a DNF.

[+Ink Spots]

You're definately not the first one to say it, but I resent the notion that a DNF log would be "clutter" on a cache page.

 

I didn't mean to imply it was, really; I just wanted to get a sense for what the community feeling was.

 

Personally, I'm inclined to log more rather than less, and I'd started off assuming that was pretty much a given. I started wondering though after seeing logs about finding something on the nth try, but where the previous tries (obviously DNFs) hadn't been logged.

 

When I get around to planting a cache one of these days I will certainly be interested in what happens to it, either way.

 

Thanks!

[+briansnat]

You will see a wide range of opinions on the subject. Some will log a DNF only if they think the cache is missing, some will log a DNF only if they thing they searched hard enough and some don't log DNFs at all.

 

My personal ethic is if I have started the hunt (and for me that is the moment I pull up the cache coords on my unit and hit GOTO) and do not find the cache I log a DNF. The reason is irrelevant.

 

As a cache owner I wish more people would log their DNFs. I want to know if people are searching for my cache and if they are encountering problems finding it.

[+wrtiii]

Should not be a wide range of opinions whatsoveer.

 

Seems the more I think about it it's pretty cut and dry.

 

Found or Did Not Find or a Note, Regardless As you say, Once you Hit GOTO you should log something (within reason)

 

Maybe Once you are within .3km You should be making a log.

 

This is how we find out caches are missing... Not because someone thinks it MAY be missing and logs a note or a needs maintence.

 

I don't think I would even bother checking my cache if a single person said DNF because I think the cache is missing.

 

But I would be concerned if all of a sudden 2 or 3 people in a row cannot find it.

 

But if those people are not logging their DNF's becuse they just feel they may be blind then that is not helping at all.

 

If you associate with a cache somehow make a post and let everyone know what your doing.

[+Chokecherry]

I end up in a quandry about how often to log DNF. I have two area caches that I can't find and have been out numerous times to find. I logged the first time I couldn't find both but have not subsequently logged DNF on them.

 

One of them I likely won't go back to until it is found or the owner verifies it's existence as there are numerous DNF's already logged on that in the last few weeks.

 

So I guess I just don't want to post one DNF after another back to back basically so I'm holding off until like next month on the one I'll keep looking for and log a DNF then.

[hoosier guy]

If I have spent enough time and energy to make myself think I should have found it, I log a DNF. Now if it is a question of light or time and I will return SOON to look again I might hold off logging anything until I feel I have done the best I could.

Edited April 26, 2010 by hoosier guy

[+AuntieWeasel]

If I looked and didn't find it, I log a DNF. But if my search got cut short, or it's the kind of cache I'm not good at or something, I let the owner know in the log not to worry too much.

 

People can get flexed if they run out and check a cache for no good reason.

 

My DNF rate, incidentally, is about ten percent.

[+t4e]

Should not be a wide range of opinions whatsoveer.

 

 

why not?

 

there is nothing that obligates me log a DNF, its a matter of choice, plain and simple

[+roziecakes]

Should not be a wide range of opinions whatsoveer.

 

 

why not?

 

there is nothing that obligates me log a DNF, its a matter of choice, plain and simple

 

Yep, I agree. It's another one of those things. We have the freedom to log a DNF if we want to. As to a range of opinions. There are many different opinions on how to do things. Personally, I prefer it that way. I learn a lot of new things by listening to people who don't agree with my methods.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Should not be a wide range of opinions whatsoveer.

 

 

why not?

 

there is nothing that obligates me log a DNF, its a matter of choice, plain and simple

 

Definitely. There is no requirement to log a DNF, unless you want the frowny! I've got 291 already (including three from yesterday). I don't need any more.

 

DNFs frequently clutter up the cache page. A group of five people logging five DNFs because they got a flat tire serves absolutely no purpose, and hides the useful info/Finds further down the page. This is why my caching partner seldom logs DNFs. One per group is enough.

 

Many cache owners ignore DNFs anway. This one, for instance, GC1587Z, hasn't been found in over a year, and has three DNFs. CO has not done anything about it. It seems to have had muggle problems in the past. Oh, well.

 

I do log most of my DNFS (Thats how I got 291!) I choose which to log. (I've probably got 30 more not logged.) If the DNF provides no useful information (such as: I got in the car, but the tire was flat, so I'm logging 25 DNFs on the caches I would have gone looking for) then there is no reason log them! I seldom log more than one on a cache (the cache owner already knows that I failed.)

I do not inflate the ego of obnoxious cachers. For instance, the one I think was in the awning of an abandoned store. That cache owner tends to push the line too far, and is now on my ignore list.

 

Other than that, I do log most of my DNFs. Though, for the most part, they serve no useful porpoise.

[+t4e]

 

Definitely. There is no requirement to log a DNF, unless you want the frowny! I've got 291 already (including three from yesterday). I don't need any more.

 

DNFs frequently clutter up the cache page. A group of five people logging five DNFs because they got a flat tire serves absolutely no purpose, and hides the useful info/Finds further down the page. This is why my caching partner seldom logs DNFs. One per group is enough.

 

Many cache owners ignore DNFs anway. This one, for instance, GC1587Z, hasn't been found in over a year, and has three DNFs. CO has not done anything about it. It seems to have had muggle problems in the past. Oh, well.

 

I do log most of my DNFS (Thats how I got 291!) I choose which to log. (I've probably got 30 more not logged.) If the DNF provides no useful information (such as: I got in the car, but the tire was flat, so I'm logging 25 DNFs on the caches I would have gone looking for) then there is no reason log them! I seldom log more than one on a cache (the cache owner already knows that I failed.)

I do not inflate the ego of obnoxious cachers. For instance, the one I think was in the awning of an abandoned store. That cache owner tends to push the line too far, and is now on my ignore list.

 

Other than that, I do log most of my DNFs. Though, for the most part, they serve no useful porpoise.

 

i really don't mind the frowny face, my theory is that if i have no reason to believe the cache is missing or i don't have something important to communicate that contributed to me not finding the cache, which in turn may be of significance to others, than i don't log a DNF

 

the other thing is, i cache with my husband, so one of us logging a DNF is enough

[+simpjkee]

You're definately not the first one to say it, but I resent the notion that a DNF log would be "clutter" on a cache page.

 

I didn't mean to imply it was, really; I just wanted to get a sense for what the community feeling was.

 

Personally, I'm inclined to log more rather than less, and I'd started off assuming that was pretty much a given. I started wondering though after seeing logs about finding something on the nth try, but where the previous tries (obviously DNFs) hadn't been logged.

 

When I get around to planting a cache one of these days I will certainly be interested in what happens to it, either way.

 

Thanks!

I get find logs that say 'been here twice before and found it' or 'found it on my third try', etc. and, of course, there are no DNFs logged by these finders. When I get these logs, I can't help but to feel a little slapped in the face. I realize that I'm a bit of a DNF log extremist so I try to not let it bother me. My first reaction though is to e-mail them and say "Where's your DNF's?", but I don't.

[+simpjkee]

Definitely. There is no requirement to log a DNF, unless you want the frowny! I've got 291 already (including three from yesterday). I don't need any more.

 

DNFs frequently clutter up the cache page. A group of five people logging five DNFs because they got a flat tire serves absolutely no purpose, and hides the useful info/Finds further down the page. This is why my caching partner seldom logs DNFs. One per group is enough.

 

Many cache owners ignore DNFs anway. This one, for instance, GC1587Z, hasn't been found in over a year, and has three DNFs. CO has not done anything about it. It seems to have had muggle problems in the past. Oh, well.

 

I do log most of my DNFS (Thats how I got 291!) I choose which to log. (I've probably got 30 more not logged.) If the DNF provides no useful information (such as: I got in the car, but the tire was flat, so I'm logging 25 DNFs on the caches I would have gone looking for) then there is no reason log them! I seldom log more than one on a cache (the cache owner already knows that I failed.)

I do not inflate the ego of obnoxious cachers. For instance, the one I think was in the awning of an abandoned store. That cache owner tends to push the line too far, and is now on my ignore list.

 

Other than that, I do log most of my DNFs. Though, for the most part, they serve no useful porpoise.

I appreciate you logging your DNF's!

 

However, nor requirement to log a DNF? Is there a requirement to log a find? I mean, you've got 2513 smileys. Do you really need anymore?

 

I resent the idea that a DNF is 'clutter'. I find the DNFs after the flat tire to be very useful. Maybe it will warn people to double check road conditions or their tire pressure or something. If it starts to turn out that they are the 3rd group to get a flat tire, maybe there's something about the cache area that leads to flat tires. This is all useful information. One DNF log per group makes sense to me, but only if you all start logging one find per group. Multiple finds from the same group clutter up the cache page. It pushes of the other intersting info down on the cache page. Its useless to see this "found with so and so", "found with so and so", over and over and over again.

 

Many cache owners ignore the logs they get all together. Should we stop logging them? Are DNF logs only for the owner? I think not. Your fellow cachers will read them and use them as well. Either way, if the cache is being DNF'd and the owner is not checking on it, the logical reaction would be to consider logging a NM, not to stop logging DNF's.

 

DNF's absolutely serve a porpoise!!!!

[+simpjkee]

i really don't mind the frowny face, my theory is that if i have no reason to believe the cache is missing or i don't have something important to communicate that contributed to me not finding the cache, which in turn may be of significance to others, than i don't log a DNF

 

the other thing is, i cache with my husband, so one of us logging a DNF is enough

A DNF is not a log for suggesting when you think the cache is missing.

 

I'm not sure how you can determine whether your DNF experience will be of significance to me. I assure you, it will be and is of significance to me.

[+t4e]

i really don't mind the frowny face, my theory is that if i have no reason to believe the cache is missing or i don't have something important to communicate that contributed to me not finding the cache, which in turn may be of significance to others, than i don't log a DNF

 

the other thing is, i cache with my husband, so one of us logging a DNF is enough

A DNF is not a log for suggesting when you think the cache is missing.

 

I'm not sure how you can determine whether your DNF experience will be of significance to me. I assure you, it will be and is of significance to me.

 

i said "may be"

 

and a DNF log is what i decide it is, and i decided that is a good way to communicate my suspicion of the cache being missing

 

there are lots of things that could be useful to the next cacher, like time of day visited and the muggle concentration, weather conditions and so on

 

i don't see the point of posting a DNF on a high difficulty cache just to say that i didn't find it "just because", but as i said one of us posting a DNF is sufficient in my books

a low difficulty that i don't find, not to say that i find everything, but you get the idea

something that i have a reasonable expectation to find and i don't than i will post a DNF, because it could be missing

i had DNF logs on some of my easier caches and after about 2 i will go and check on it

[+CortandTrent]

I agree with simpjkee...

 

If we went to the location and searched and did not find the cache then that's a DNF for us.

 

We wouldn't log a DNF if we approached the location then, from a distance, we saw a good reason why we would not be able to search effectively (e.g. a party of muggles having a picnic there). In such a situation we'd probably just leave a note log.

 

MrsB

 

Exact same feelings for me.