Jump to content

logged vs unlogged DNFs


va griz
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I DNFed a cache lately, an easy one. When I went to log it, I discovered the pattern you've probably seen before: A couple finds a week for a long time, then no entries for over a month. So of course I figured there were some unlogged DNFs.

 

I'm not trying to change anybodies habits, just wondering about the ratio of unlogged to logged DNFs. So this is the place for best guesses, how many actual DNFs does one logged DNF represent?

Link to comment

I DNFed a cache lately, an easy one. When I went to log it, I discovered the pattern you've probably seen before: A couple finds a week for a long time, then no entries for over a month. So of course I figured there were some unlogged DNFs.

 

I'm not trying to change anybodies habits, just wondering about the ratio of unlogged to logged DNFs. So this is the place for best guesses, how many actual DNFs does one logged DNF represent?

 

I will say over 50% of actual DNF's are not logged. People aren't even the least bit shy about it; they'll say "third time here" and stuff like that in their find logs (which are their only log entries on the cache page), or like a few months ago in one of the regional Groundpeak forums, they'll even start threads about being at a difficult cache several times, and asking if anyone wants to team up for it. :D

Link to comment

I DNFed a cache lately, an easy one. When I went to log it, I discovered the pattern you've probably seen before: A couple finds a week for a long time, then no entries for over a month. So of course I figured there were some unlogged DNFs.

 

I'm not trying to change anybodies habits, just wondering about the ratio of unlogged to logged DNFs. So this is the place for best guesses, how many actual DNFs does one logged DNF represent?

 

I will take a stab that the ratio is 10 to 1. It may be higher.

Link to comment

As you've discovered, different people play the game different ways. Any time I reach GZ and actually search for a cache, I will log either a DNF or a Find. Some would also log a DNF even if they couldn't reach GZ for some reason, or if they reached GZ but didn't search for the cache once they got there. Others never log a DNF, or log a DNF only if they've "given up" trying to find the cache, or log a DNF only if they're "certain" that the cache no longer exists, or something like that.

Link to comment

having a look through some of my caches knowing that one that i had to replace early this year it was about 10 cachers did caches either side of it and yet none logged a find or dnf at my missing cache which i didnt know was missing till a DNF turned up a month later. If people logged their dnf's or even emailed the CO to say (if they that proud) then at least if the cache is missing a replacement can be placed quickly thus stopping others suffer the same fate of no smiley.

Link to comment

I typically log my DNF's only because the GPS has them in the field notes when I upload it to gc.com. Since it's there, I figure why not log them.

 

Most of the time though, if I search for a cache the first time and DNF it, I will log it and bookmark it, if I see people finding it, I will go back again and look a 2nd or 3rd time, have one cache I went to 5 times before finding it, but only logged one DNF since others were finding it.

Link to comment

I DNFed a cache lately, an easy one. When I went to log it, I discovered the pattern you've probably seen before: A couple finds a week for a long time, then no entries for over a month. So of course I figured there were some unlogged DNFs.

 

I'm not trying to change anybodies habits, just wondering about the ratio of unlogged to logged DNFs. So this is the place for best guesses, how many actual DNFs does one logged DNF represent?

 

I will say over 50% of actual DNF's are not logged. People aren't even the least bit shy about it; they'll say "third time here" and stuff like that in their find logs (which are their only log entries on the cache page), or like a few months ago in one of the regional Groundpeak forums, they'll even start threads about being at a difficult cache several times, and asking if anyone wants to team up for it. :D

 

I'm sure you are in the ballpark with that number.

Link to comment

a trip to GZ without finding/signing the log is a DNF. Period.

 

Today we couldn't make a find because of high muggle activity. To do so would have jeopardized the cache ... so i logged a DNF. It's just makes sense. I went there, i didn't FIND the cache (no matter the problem) and so i logged a DNF.

 

A month's worth of unlogged DNFs hides the fact of a muggled cache. If five people visit three times each and doesn't log those DNFs, then FIFTEEN DNFs have gone unnoticed and a cache has been out of commission for a month for no good reason.

 

i try not to rationalize ... i log something for every visit.

Link to comment

We were actually wondering about the etiquitte of this.

 

The other day wen't to find a cache that hadn't been found in some time, but there was a van parked next to it with a dude watching us so we hung for a while and never searched.

We never logged this as a DNF because we didn't actually search for it and didn't want to discourage people from searching for a difficult cache.

I guess we were wrong on this.

 

Another time we looked for the same cache 3 times in one day but marked it as a single DNF.

 

Our general rule of thumb thus far has been, "if you actually looked and didn't find it, log it"

 

On the other hand we have had a few early ones that we didn't log because we went again the following day to look and didn't want to spam the listing with a bunch of DNFs. With a cache near our house or on the route we walk our dog we might look casually several times instead of "looking hard" a single time.

 

We're still new enough that we kind of feel that our DNFs shouldn't be weighed as heavily as other people's. If I don't see something, its probably still there... I'm just awful :D

Edited by d+n.shults
Link to comment

I will usually make 3 attempts before I mark it DNF and add it to my watch list.

Ditto

The reason being that I want to be sure it's not just me, as I often do not search for a cache who's last log is a DNF, and I wouldn't want me not finding it to put people off a perfectly good cache.

The main reson I DNF is because I'm caching on the way to an appontment, or before company come over or something, and I don't get it, due to insufficiant time for a propor search.

If I go for a chache, spend a lot of time looking for it, can't find it, read the logs/pictures, and am sure it's gone, I'll log DNF on the first try.

Link to comment

For me, a single trip to the cache merits a log of some kind.

 

This is the purest, logical approach IMHO - to some, however, it seems to be more about numbers and ratios. If i visit a cache, and can't find it because of a nosy muggle ... i state that in the log. Therefore, i am not discouraging anyone else from visiting the cache or making anyone think the cache has been muggled.

 

It just discourages me to go to a cache, not find it (log the DNF) and then return (log THAT DNF) and then talk to a fellow cacher and hear them say "Yeah, i went there 4 times and didn't find it." ... but yet, i see NO log entries from this guy. AAARGGHH! :blink:

Link to comment

I DNFed a cache lately, an easy one. When I went to log it, I discovered the pattern you've probably seen before: A couple finds a week for a long time, then no entries for over a month. So of course I figured there were some unlogged DNFs.

 

I'm not trying to change anybodies habits, just wondering about the ratio of unlogged to logged DNFs. So this is the place for best guesses, how many actual DNFs does one logged DNF represent?

 

1

Link to comment

It seems that a lot of other Geocachers feel uncomfortable logging a DNF. We're never shy of logging a DNF. After planning a caching trip and traveling to GZ, we deserve credit of some sort even if we didn't find the cache.

 

To us, every day that we went out looking for the cache is logged as one DNF. This means if we arrived at GZ, searched for the cache, couldn't find it, took a break and perhaps got something to eat, then came back to search for the first cache, that's one DNF log. If we came back another day, repeated the process and still didn't find the cache, that's another DNF log. We feel this makes sense because we usually have access to a computer at the end of the caching day and if we took three breaks between 4 searches it doesn't make sense to log 4 DNF logs on the same cache at the same time.

 

Another part that's discussed a lot is what constitutes a DNF. To us, a DNF means arriving at GZ and making a reasonable effort to locate the cache. If we arrive and then abort the search due to inclement weather, that's not a DNF. If we are involved in a motor vehicle accident en route to GZ, that's not a DNF. There was one time when we went to search for a cache in a park in a neighboring city. Instead of going into the park and looking for the cache, my dad wanted to drive around the perimeter of the park and stop every once in a while to check which way the arrow on the GPS was pointing and how far the GPS said we were. We never returned to that cache. :blink: That wasn't considered a DNF because we never went into the park to make a reasonable effort to search for the cache.

Link to comment

I usally log my DNFs if I was there and really searching but couldn't find the cache. Of course, if I want do do a cache quickly, for example when my bus goes in 5 minutes, and I can't find it because I hadn'd enough time, then I don't log it.

 

Mezgrman

Link to comment

I DNFed a cache lately, an easy one. When I went to log it, I discovered the pattern you've probably seen before: A couple finds a week for a long time, then no entries for over a month. So of course I figured there were some unlogged DNFs.

 

I'm not trying to change anybodies habits, just wondering about the ratio of unlogged to logged DNFs. So this is the place for best guesses, how many actual DNFs does one logged DNF represent?

If I go out to the location and fail, EACH TIME it gets a dnf log.

I'm not ashamed to admit I failed!

Link to comment

I'm one who uses the "reasonable effort" strategy. and it's not because I am ashamed of DNFs (I've posted lots of them); it is just that if I've not made that "reasonable effort" I feel my log has limited value. My definition of "reasonable effort" is when I would naturally give up. I.e. if there are no specific constraints on my time, I will look until I get fed up. I will always log those as a DNF. Depending on the cache that might mean looking for 5 minutes or for 2 hours. But if I just have 30 seconds waiting for a bus, and know there is a cache nearby, and I look to see if I can get a quick find and fail, I would not log a DNF, as that log would have little value.

 

If the reason I couldn't make a "reasonable effort " is something which could be useful information to others (e.g. too many muggles around), then I will log the DNF, as that has some value to others. But a log which says I simply didn't have time for a proper look because I needed to catch a bus is of little value (in my opinion).

 

I would say 90% of the times I attempt to find a cache and do not, I log a DNF. It is a small minority where I can't make the "reasonable effort" for some reason.

Link to comment

I'm not ashamed of my DNF's either but I usually just do the first attempt unless there is a span of time or unless other people have posted as well. Every weekend I go out looking for a nano. Spend a couple hours doing so and never find it. It's been a month now since I logged my DNF and will likely log another one this coming weekend. I just don't want to clutter up the online log.

Link to comment

I log a DNF if I get to GZ and despite my best efforts, was unable to locate it. I haven't yet had an expereince that prohibited me from getting there and actually being unable to look, but if I did not give it my best effort, I wouldn't log a DNF because I didn't do all I could to look for it. (EX: we hit 50 feet away, a tree branch falls and knocks my kid out. We leave. This is not a DNF because we didn't get to the real effortful looking part. I would post a note, however, warning of random falliong trees :blink: )

 

Occasionally I can't find something. I'm not to proud to admit that!

Link to comment
It's been a month now since I logged my DNF and will likely log another one this coming weekend. I just don't want to clutter up the online log

 

I hear this from a lot of people, but I never understood how a DNF clutters the online log any more than a Find.

 

My personal philosophy on DNFs:

 

If I reach ground zero and make a reasonable attempt at finding a cache I will log a DNF. If I get there and do not really search due to muggle activity, or the area being trashy or whatever, I'll log that experience as a Note. If I return multiple times in the same day I'll log that as a single DNF, but a return visit on a different day gets its own DNF log.

 

The only reason I apply some caveats is because I know many people will filter out caches in GSAK if the last "x" number of logs are DNFs and I don't want to eliminate the cache from too searches. (I know I'll filter out anything where the last three logs are DNFs so they never hit the GPSr.)

Link to comment

In the case of one of mine there would have been like 7 DNF's in a row on one of the caches just because of me going out there so often. I see this week 2 people found it. Since a lot of people, as you said, filter out caches with a long list of DNF's, how many people would have filtered out that nano because of my inability to find it. That's what I mean by clutter. My inability to find the little guy doesn't mean it's hard or gone missing. It just means I had some time to waste for a few days looking for it and that I suck at those micros and nanos. My inability doesn't need to be a black mark on the cache itself by me logging multiple DNF's on it.

Link to comment

People who fail to log DNF's are among the most insecure and frightened people on the planet. They probably have inferiority complexes and They they would benefit from some sort of mental therapy. Maybe they are so pathetic that "winning" at geocaching is the only thing in their lives that has any meaning to them. They are rude and inconsiderate and don't play well with others. They are quick to grow angry and are extremely and aggressively defensive. They are probably litterers, tax cheats, or used car salesmen, and most likely are the personality type that cuts you off in traffic. This is the personality type that allows them to feel entitled to let their dogs poop on your yard, and then hold a violent lifelong grudge against you if you politely object. These are the "me,me,me" folks. They are all around us, in our schools and factories, churches and prisons. We must be forever vigilent about them and pity them and be kind to them and try to help them if we can. Just don't turn your backs on them or loan them money. They make good politicians, tho. There has been some speculation in scientific circles of late that there is some DNA gone horribly wrong mechanism that makes them this way, so we have to be compassionate, and consider them to be sick. And above all NEVER, NEVER, NEVER poke at them with a stick. :blink:

Link to comment

NICE! :blink:

 

All rationalization and talk about cluttered logs, a visit to ground zero, a search and no cache = DNF. The idea of posting a NOTE about not making a find due to high muggle activity (which happened to us yesterday) is great idea.

 

IMHO: Instead of NOT logging a DNF, a NOTE saying "did not find due to Mr. Nosey Muggle sitting on his fence sipping mint juleps" is very helpful, and it keeps the game honest.

 

NOTES seem to be the solution here.

Link to comment

I will log a DNF once I have enough time to actually search long enough to satisfy myself that I can't find it. I have this internal sense of "OK, I'm done." and use it to determine when I post a log. I am usually searching on lunch breaks, so it can take a couple visits to actually reach this point. Now when I am searching on a weekend or during a FTF search on a tough hide I will post a log for every visit to GZ. If I cannot make it to GZ due to muggles, I try to post a note. All this is subject to me remembering to do so, of course.

Link to comment

I think most cachers will search about 3 seperate times before logging a DNF, unless they have some reason to suspect the cache is missing or the coordinates wrong.

 

Personally, I log most of my DNFs on the first time. If I have taken the time to make a reasonable search of the area and not found it I will take the time to also log a DNF.

 

When I go to a cache but do not log a DNF it is because I made a very brief search, no search at all (ex: muggle activity preventing it), or plan to return in a day or two to try it again. In some circumstances I may write a Note, especially for muggle activity to serve as a warning to future cachers that certain times may be bad to look for the cache.

 

Pretty much all my logs are several sentances long, whether it be a Found or DNF. With DNFs, I include my opinion of whether I think the cache is gone or whether I think it was just a tough cache that stumped me.

Link to comment

We are new to the sport, and log each and every try, be it DNF or not. For us, it's not a competition against anyone else but ourselves. We love to discover the cache, even if it's two trips or more to find it. When we do finally find one that is elusive to us, we usually feel that it's cool how they hid the cache.

 

The logs are my gauge on how we are doing and how we can improve our techniques.

 

Kurt and Jan

Combining Ham Radio and Geocaching

Link to comment

I'm diligent about logging DNF's for the caches that I look for and don't find. But...

 

If I get to GZ and find muggles and I don't actually look for the cache, to me, that's not a DNF. To me, that's "I didn't search." I may post a note if it looks like this could be an ongoing problem, or if it appears to be a problem on specific days or times.

 

If I get to a trailhead, or a parking area and decide, "Nah," I don't DNF that either. To me that's "thought twice about this and bailed."

 

If I head out and find that the trail is underwater, or impassable in a way not anticipated by the CO, I don't consider that a DNF, but I will post a note noting the conditions and that I did not get to GZ.

 

In short, for me to post a DNF, I need to have arrived at GZ and made an effort to find the thing.

Link to comment

I tend not to log DNFs as I feel i'm still a newbie to the game and will sometimes miss an obvious hide.

 

More often than not if I don't find it someone else has a day or 2 later - I'm just crap at spotting some hides lol. And in fact I have usually found any I didn't get when I go back a 2nd time with a fresh outlook!

 

I'm getting better now I have a few under my belt so I may well log some , maybe!

Link to comment

I DNFed a cache lately, an easy one. When I went to log it, I discovered the pattern you've probably seen before: A couple finds a week for a long time, then no entries for over a month. So of course I figured there were some unlogged DNFs.

 

I'm not trying to change anybodies habits, just wondering about the ratio of unlogged to logged DNFs. So this is the place for best guesses, how many actual DNFs does one logged DNF represent?

 

I will say over 50% of actual DNF's are not logged. People aren't even the least bit shy about it; they'll say "third time here" and stuff like that in their find logs (which are their only log entries on the cache page), or like a few months ago in one of the regional Groundpeak forums, they'll even start threads about being at a difficult cache several times, and asking if anyone wants to team up for it. :blink:

 

I'm sure you are in the ballpark with that number.

 

After reading the first 31 posts, can I change that to about 80%? :blink:

Link to comment

NICE! :blink:

 

All rationalization and talk about cluttered logs, a visit to ground zero, a search and no cache = DNF. The idea of posting a NOTE about not making a find due to high muggle activity (which happened to us yesterday) is great idea.

 

IMHO: Instead of NOT logging a DNF, a NOTE saying "did not find due to Mr. Nosey Muggle sitting on his fence sipping mint juleps" is very helpful, and it keeps the game honest.

 

NOTES seem to be the solution here.

Well, you have taken the time to log a "note". Do tell me how that differs from a "DNF", please.

Does a DNF hurt you in some way? Perhaps it gives you a +/- rating in your score (ouch!)?

 

Not trying to be sarcastic -- truly, I'm not. I'm just saying that if you bother to spend the time to log anything at all, why not a DNF? It is just as easy to spell out the reason in that log as it is in a "note" log.

 

Granted, as some posters have stated, multiple visits in one day probably should be one DNF log, mentioning that "Hey, I tried this darn thing three times today".

 

NOTES are not the solution to this "problem", as stated.

 

That blue frown sticks out like a sore thumb, making it easily recognizable to the CO (and a reviewer should the need arise) as well as other cachers. A "note" on the other hand should be used to signify a re-visit to the cache -- dropping a TB; introducing somebody else to geocaching; retrieving a dipped personal, etc.

 

Call me a purist, I don't care. :blink:

That is just the way I see efficient use of logging techniques.

Link to comment

a trip to GZ without finding/signing the log is a DNF. Period.

 

Can't say as I see it that way. If I make an attempt at a cache, but don't get a chance to really look for it (time constraints, weather, too many people around) I don't consider it a DNF. If it makes you feel better to log every drive-by as a DNF, that's your privilege, but it's not realistic.

 

If I really try and can't find a cache, then I'm not too proud to log a DNF. I looked for a 5/1 cache in Walla Walla yesterday ("Your problem") and did a thorough search. After coming up empty, I logged a DNF. It strikes me as odd that at first there were a lot of DNF's on this cache, but lately either everybody is finding it, or they're not logging their DNF's. Logs that say "This was our sixth attempt" would lead one to believe they may have missed a DNF or two. :blink:

Link to comment

 

Well, you have taken the time to log a "note". Do tell me how that differs from a "DNF", please.

Does a DNF hurt you in some way? Perhaps it gives you a +/- rating in your score (ouch!)?

 

A DNF denotes you TRIED looking for it, while a note says "i stopped by and due to muggles, couldn't find it" It at least lets the owner know that there is activity happening at his/her cache. i see a huge difference between a DNF and a note.

 

Not trying to be sarcastic -- truly, I'm not. I'm just saying that if you bother to spend the time to log anything at all, why not a DNF? It is just as easy to spell out the reason in that log as it is in a "note" log.

 

i DO log DNFs, but as i am new and a veteran pointed out, not finding the cache due to muggle activity is not really a DNF ... i couldn't perform a reasonable search. Again, IMHO, that is a big difference from looking and not finding.

 

Granted, as some posters have stated, multiple visits in one day probably should be one DNF log, mentioning that "Hey, I tried this darn thing three times today".

 

Agreed.

 

NOTES are not the solution to this "problem", as stated.

 

In your opinion, no. In my opinion, yes.

 

That blue frown sticks out like a sore thumb, making it easily recognizable to the CO (and a reviewer should the need arise) as well as other cachers. A "note" on the other hand should be used to signify a re-visit to the cache -- dropping a TB; introducing somebody else to geocaching; retrieving a dipped personal, etc.

 

Or, "Hey i tried to do this thing but a muggle simply WOULD NOT LEAVE, and i didn't want to jeopardize the cache.

 

Call me a purist, I don't care. :blink:

That is just the way I see efficient use of logging techniques.

 

i don't see where we disagree all that much! :blink:

Link to comment

People near here (in Manitoba) do not log very many DNFs and I am glad for it. I am always shocked at how many DNFs there are on caches when I go travelling. And most of them are ludicrous!

 

The point of a DNF is to signal that there might be something wrong with the cache and it's unfindable. Just because I could not find it doesn't mean there's something wrong. And certainly, logging a DNF because of muggles, or because you only had two seconds to search and had to leave, or because GZ was inaccessible, is NOT the right thing to do. (Those should be a DNT - Did Not Try, or better yet DNTHE - Did Not Try Hard Enough.)

 

As a previous poster said, a DNF discourages other cachers from searching for a cache. One DNF may result in the cache not being found for a month anyways, because everyone is waiting and watching for someone else to find it first.

 

I only log DNFs when I am reasonably sure that the cache may be compromised. Anything else puts a bad stigma on a cache that is probably fine.

Link to comment

People near here (in Manitoba) do not log very many DNFs and I am glad for it. I am always shocked at how many DNFs there are on caches when I go travelling. And most of them are ludicrous!

 

The point of a DNF is to signal that there might be something wrong with the cache and it's unfindable. Just because I could not find it doesn't mean there's something wrong. And certainly, logging a DNF because of muggles, or because you only had two seconds to search and had to leave, or because GZ was inaccessible, is NOT the right thing to do. (Those should be a DNT - Did Not Try, or better yet DNTHE - Did Not Try Hard Enough.)

 

As a previous poster said, a DNF discourages other cachers from searching for a cache. One DNF may result in the cache not being found for a month anyways, because everyone is waiting and watching for someone else to find it first.

 

I only log DNFs when I am reasonably sure that the cache may be compromised. Anything else puts a bad stigma on a cache that is probably fine.

 

This makes sense to me. I like the idea of note when you have been to sight, but were pressed for time, or there were muggles about. and such. It seems many COs have said they like knowing about these things....but what Wagonmaker wrote makes sense for the over-all Geocaching community. If some one is passing through a city and is making a "plan of attack" for geocaches...they may very well leave off ones that have a DNF as the last post.

Link to comment

People near here (in Manitoba) do not log very many DNFs and I am glad for it. I am always shocked at how many DNFs there are on caches when I go travelling. And most of them are ludicrous!

 

The point of a DNF is to signal that there might be something wrong with the cache and it's unfindable. Just because I could not find it doesn't mean there's something wrong. And certainly, logging a DNF because of muggles, or because you only had two seconds to search and had to leave, or because GZ was inaccessible, is NOT the right thing to do. (Those should be a DNT - Did Not Try, or better yet DNTHE - Did Not Try Hard Enough.)

 

As a previous poster said, a DNF discourages other cachers from searching for a cache. One DNF may result in the cache not being found for a month anyways, because everyone is waiting and watching for someone else to find it first.

 

I only log DNFs when I am reasonably sure that the cache may be compromised. Anything else puts a bad stigma on a cache that is probably fine.

 

I don't see it that way. I see DNF as I tried to find it, and could not. If I am "reasonably sure that the cache may be compromised" I would use the NM log.

 

I logged a DNF for a cache the other day that I am sure was there. I saw the cache. But I could not retrieve it, as I was chased off by a muggle who was the land manager, and didn't want me there. I tried my best, but I could not find it (where find includes signing the log).

 

In the case of a difficult to retrieve cache I would also log a DNF. E.g. it is in a tree; I see it, I know it is there, I try to climb the tree but I just can't do it. To me that is a DNF, even though I know the cache is there.

Link to comment

I am not discouraged DNF's. Maybe it's just me, but I think it oftens increases my determination to find it!! We went out last weekend for a cache that had the last 5 or 6 logs as DNF's. We didn't find it. It was still fun. I logged my DNF when inputing all my daily data that night. CO promptly responded that it had removed for maintence and was back. ALL logs help keep information open and exchanged, which makes for better caching, imo.

Link to comment

People near here (in Manitoba) do not log very many DNFs and I am glad for it. I am always shocked at how many DNFs there are on caches when I go travelling. And most of them are ludicrous!

You're shocked way too easily. I find it ludicrous that people who don't find a cache, despite searching carefully, won't acknowledge this fact.

 

The point of a DNF is to signal that there might be something wrong with the cache and it's unfindable. Just because I could not find it doesn't mean there's something wrong. And certainly, logging a DNF because of muggles, or because you only had two seconds to search and had to leave, or because GZ was inaccessible, is NOT the right thing to do. (Those should be a DNT - Did Not Try, or better yet DNTHE - Did Not Try Hard Enough.)

The point of a DNF is to indicate that I "DID NOT FIND" the cache. Pretty simple.

 

As a previous poster said, a DNF discourages other cachers from searching for a cache. One DNF may result in the cache not being found for a month anyways, because everyone is waiting and watching for someone else to find it first.

If someone is frightened away from a cache because of a DNF, that's their problem. I don't worry too much about it -- maybe they're not good at finding this type of cache, but it's a kind I'm familiar with. This logic is a slippery slope, because once you start trying to figure out how someone is going to cache based on what you do, next thing you know you'll be upping difficulty ratings on your caches "Just to be safe", and pretty soon we'll have massive threads on what actually constitutes difficult terrain. :blink:

 

I only log DNFs when I am reasonably sure that the cache may be compromised. Anything else puts a bad stigma on a cache that is probably fine.

 

I'll point out again that there's a specific log for this: "Needs maintenance".

Link to comment

 

The point of a DNF is to signal that there might be something wrong with the cache and it's unfindable.

 

i did not read this in the rules. Where does it state this? i may stand corrected on my stance, here. :blink:

Agreeing with ohmerfam here.

 

A string of DNFs signal a problem, but certainly not a single DNF. Heck, people with 1,000's of caches under their belts still get DNFed, why not a beginner or somebody say somewhere in between?

 

No, a DNF in and of itself signals only that this particular cacher didn't find it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment

OK, what mountainman38 wrote makes even more sense.

 

But I still think there is a grey area for when you get to a sight planning to look, but something keeps you from searching...like muggles or your little kid needing to find a potty all of a sudden...or anything like that. If you, yourself, feel you didn't really get the chance to look well, should that be a DNF or a note OR is that just personal preference? I think it should still be logged though, especially if it is muggle activity...so people reading the log know what to expect.

Link to comment

My only concern is WHAT DO THE RULES STATE and WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS of the game? My personal rationalizations should not usurp the rules of the game. If the point of a DNF is, indeed, to signal that something may be wrong with a cache as Wagonmaker stated is IN THE RULES, then i will follow that rule of thumb.

 

i am relatively new, but my reading of the RULES led me to believe a "Needs Maintenance" log served that purpose. i understood a DNF meant "i went, i searched, and my own search - overtly disruptive muggle activity notwithstanding - left me empty handed.

Link to comment

1. Even one DNF puts up red flags in the minds of alot of cachers. Even if only subconsciously. Yes, it technically means only one person was unsuccessful, but the negative perception will be there.

 

2. Saying "that's their problem" is inconsiderate. If something I do in this game affects how other people play it (especially negatively), then it is my problem too.

 

3. Not logging a DNF doesn't mean that it is unacknowledged; in fact, in my mind, not logging a DNF means I am resolved to come back and try again.

 

4. You definitely shouldn't use the NM log unless you KNOW there is something wrong with the cache. (ex. You find the cache is cracked and filled with water, or the log book is damp, or needs replacing). As a cache owner, nothing is more frustrating than a NM log on a cache that is perfectly fine.

 

5. This is how we handle DNFs in Manitoba, and I am glad for it. And I would hazard a guess that most Manitoban cachers like this modus operandi as well. Other regions may have other systems that work perfectly fine. I wanted to give a different perspective on it.

 

Thanks for all the cheery, respectful replies.

Link to comment

I don't log each and every DNF because it's depressing to see all those blue sad faces. It makes me feel like Charlie Brown when he misspelled beagle.

 

There's enough sadness in the world without the added humiliation of logging 3 DNFs in a row on the same cache, only to have some whippersnapper trot out there the next day and log a find with a flippant, "Easy grab."

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...