Jump to content

logged vs unlogged DNFs


va griz
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

What goes on in the minds of other players is secondary to what the rules state - and again, i'm new so i may be offbase, but i read the rules to say that a trip to GZ, a reasonable search and no cache = DNF. i'm all for consideration, but i'm more about following the spirit of the rules of the game. My intentions are always going to have to yield to what the rules state.

 

Wagonmaker, i totally agree about the "NM" logs, which is why i lean more towards a note stating that you made it to GZ and muggle activity thwarted your efforts - it lets the next cachers know what to expect and is VERY considerate.

 

i hope your thanks for cheery, respectful replies wasn't sarcasm, and if i came across as crotchety and/or disrespectful, i offer my sincerest apologies.

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."

 

Depressing or not, i play by the RULES ... and again, i may stand corrected on what the RULES state on DNFs. To heck with those whippesnappers! :blink:

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.

 

I don't believe there is a definition of "Did not Find" in the Guidelines/Knowledge book. Nor is there a definition of "Found it". So it has different interpretations. As I said before, I take a fairly literal view - I tried to find it and did not. To others, DNF is reserved for "I am reasonably sure that the cache may be compromised".

 

Personally - I am interested (which is why I'm posting) in this topic, but it doesn't bother me that different people play it differently. To have more consistency of approach we would need clearer guidelines - e.g. ones that say "You should always log DNF if you tried to find but did not find it", or "You should only log DNF if you are reasonably sure that the cache may be compromised". (or something in-between).

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.

Again, their problem. You can't decide how people are going to react, and try to fit everything to fit the least common denominator. Logging a DNF let's people know that YOU didn't find it -- not that it's not there, or needs to be checked by the CO. Again, this is a slippery slope.

 

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.

If you go around tearing up the countryside looking for caches, leaving litter behind, or stealing caches -- then I agree, you would be negatively impacting the game. However, simply acknowledging that you were unable to find a cache certainly isn't going to taint that cache, or put all future cachers off from looking for it. This game is played (for the most part) by adults. Let them make their own decisions, based on all the evidence.

 

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.

That note is only useful in your mind, though.

 

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.

Well, that IS why the note is there....I'm not sure why else one would use it. That was my point earlier -- you post a DNF when you can't find a log, not because the cache is gone. You post an NM when the cache needs help.

 

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.

You speak for all of Manitoba? That's a lot of ground to cover.

 

Thanks for all the cheery, respectful replies.

This is the internet -- you are welcome to hear everyone's opinions, whether you like them, agree with them, or maybe had just never thought of it that way. :blink:

Link to comment

What goes on in the minds of other players is secondary to what the rules state - and again, i'm new so i may be offbase, but i read the rules to say that a trip to GZ, a reasonable search and no cache = DNF. i'm all for consideration, but i'm more about following the spirit of the rules of the game. My intentions are always going to have to yield to what the rules state.

 

Wagonmaker, i totally agree about the "NM" logs, which is why i lean more towards a note stating that you made it to GZ and muggle activity thwarted your efforts - it lets the next cachers know what to expect and is VERY considerate.

 

i hope your thanks for cheery, respectful replies wasn't sarcasm, and if i came across as crotchety and/or disrespectful, i offer my sincerest apologies.

 

I don't think you have to worry about sounding "crotchety" - don't besides Wagonmaker started by saying "I am always shocked at how many DNFs there are on caches when I go travelling. And most of them are ludicrous!" which is not exactly cheery and respectful.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

 

That is interesting that there is a regional aspect. Here (Southern England), it isn't like that - though there may be some cachers who use that method.

 

I see the issue with my definition of DNF if others assume this means it's not there. On the other hand; if I was to use the criteria "reasonably sure that the cache may be compromised", it would mean I would virtually never log a DNF. Think about a very difficult cache - one designed to be very hard to find. These caches tend to have a lot of DNF logs. By "Manitoba rules", nobody would log a DNF, as how could they be reasonably sure it wasn't there if is a difficulty 5 cache? Ironically, you would see DNFs only on easy caches, as those are the ones where it is easier to be "reasonably sure" it isn't there.

Link to comment

My point is that we usually don't DNF frivolously. I was referring more to our general penchant towards DNFs in southern Manitoba, which has fewer DNFs in general than I have seen in other regions. Specific examples like "HUH?" which is notorious here in Winnipeg, get talked about alot, and the DNFs reflect the (intended) difficulty of the cache.

I just wanted to provide a different perspective on DNFs. It is very much open to interpretation and could be different in different areas.

Link to comment

I log DNFs if I spend a good amount of time looking and don't come up with anything. If I don't search, I write a note saying I didn't search and I say why. Folks coming later may want to know if there are a lot of muggles or some other reason I didn't search, like there's construction or something like that.

 

If I have a good suspicion that the cache is gone I might say so, but usually I just chalk it up to my own geosenses not working... as with this cache: GC1B7ZP

 

I logged two DNFs because I gave a fairly good search on both, and I asked for a hint in the last one, which the owner, who is a nice guy, gave me :blink:

 

And the cache ended up being a type of find I'm usually pretty good at... go me. :blink:

Link to comment

My point is that we usually don't DNF frivolously. I was referring more to our general penchant towards DNFs in southern Manitoba, which has fewer DNFs in general than I have seen in other regions. Specific examples like "HUH?" which is notorious here in Winnipeg, get talked about alot, and the DNFs reflect the (intended) difficulty of the cache.

I just wanted to provide a different perspective on DNFs. It is very much open to interpretation and could be different in different areas.

 

Ok - fair enough! "Huh" does sound interesting!

Link to comment

I'm following the main definition of DNF. Using the Cacheberry app, I always put add a fieldnote to any cache I've tried. Uploading them to GC is very easy.

 

It's very disappointing to log a DNF when all others found the cache "easily". Some would state their number of attempts but just looking at the cache page makes a cache look like it's quick and easy whereas in reality it might not be so.

 

A cache page with several DNFs hints to me that the container might be unusual so I start thinking outside the box instead of looking for the standard container for that given location.

 

Another problem are cache pages for difficult caches which have no DNFs because the CO deleted them.

 

Overall I would prefer more people to log either a DNF after a serious effort to find a cache or at least to post a note why they abandoned. Like this it's much easier to decide if I want to go for this specific cache or not.

 

abra

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...