Jump to content

Make DNF's visible at the Public Profile


prodrive

Recommended Posts

DNF's also an important part of the game!

 

I created a suggestion at the Feedback's forum, asking Groundspeak to make it visible at everybody's Public Profile in the same way everybody has their Founds visible.

 

If you agree with this suggestion, please support the idea, voting it:

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1330879-make-dnf-s-visible-at-the-public-profile?ref=title

Link to comment

DNFs are important at the cache level. As a Cache Owner I am completely opposed to showing them on individual's profiles as I fear this would cause some (maybe many) people to stop logging them (see chokecerry's post above) and the owners would lose valuable input.

 

How do you vote against something?

Edited by NicknPapa
Link to comment

DNF's at a cacher level signify very little. I put the relevant information in the text of the DNF on the cache page which is where the data is relevant. That way other finders and the owner can see what difficulties I had and adjust accordingly. I can go to a cache page and see all the DNF's for that particular cache. that information at that level is relevant to me. I don't need to see that so and so had however many DNF's. That information is not relevant to me at all.

 

I would completely stop logging them if it became another number that other users could judge me by. Since the context of the DNF's is not included with that number (as all the context is on the cache pages).

Link to comment

Beyond the stated cache level importance, the only value my DNF stats have is to me, not anybody else. I can already access my own DNF information, and can share that with those I choose to, so making it public is redundant at best and would very likely be counterproductive. In truth, I couldn't care less about other people's DNF counts.

 

What I wouldn't mind is the option to see my own DNF's plotted on the geocaching google map along with my own finds, little blue frowns along with little yellow smilies.

Link to comment

Beyond the stated cache level importance, the only value my DNF stats have is to me, not anybody else.

 

The same can really be said for our find counts so why not make those only visible to each individual cacher as well. There is really no reason for anyone else to know how many or how few caches I have found

Edited by roundnround we go
Link to comment
The same can really be said for our find counts so why not make those only visible to each individual cacher as well. There is really no reason for anyone else to know how many or how few caches I have found

I wouldn't be in favor of a system-wide lockdown, but it would be nice to have the option to either keep them open to the world or to a friends list.

Link to comment

The only time it's very valuable info to me, is when a new cacher says they couldn't find a cache. Now I have all the fun of prying the info out of them (minor details such as "which cache?"). In most cases, that's searchable in google. Having such a stat could save me a few steps. But many new cachers won't log a DNF anyway. That's no doubt solely due to the possibility of it being listed in one's profile. <_<

 

I have quite a few DNFs and am not ashamed of them, so I wouldn't mind it at all. However I fear that it would make many people even less likely to log DNFs.

That's more of a logging issue than a data issue: "I didn't [DNF because it's a secret, put the container back the way I found it because I like my new spot better, sign the log because I don't own a pencil, search but logged the find anyway, etc.]". Bunch of excuses, none valid.

 

It could be made optional, let cachers decide if they want that stat visible. But if it seems to encourage slackers to become even lazier, I'm agin it.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

so many folks do not even bother listing DNFs, I do not see the value of it. I think they are just fine at the cache level itself...or in your own profile.

 

And there is already a lot of competition as it is, with people challenging my title as the Area's Worst Cacher and rushing out to claim the first to dnf log. This would just encourage people to log multiple dnfs. So while I would see no harm in including dnfs on the stats page (since I have mine turned off), I agree that it serves little value and if someone wants to make this information for public, it can be put in the profile.

Link to comment
If I DNF a cache and think it is still there than I do not log. If I think it could be missing then I log a dnf.
That would be a reason to not display such a stat: People use DNF in obscure ways, rendering the stat meaningless out of context (not to single you out, to each his own).

 

Well, it's the same thing with "Found Its", which are available on people's profiles (if logged online), in full view of everynosy. Things like "Saw a bottle cap, we think that's probably the cache... so... Found It".

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I think this would discourage people even further from logging DNFs. If anything, we need to find ways to encourage more people to log DNFs.

 

As far as the difference in relevance between DNF and Find stats, there are at least a couple reasons I can think of:

1) Relevant for many Challenge caches.

2) More finds generally means a more experienced cacher which is relevant at least for when determining if a DNF is likely to mean a cache may be gone and when a cache may deserve a higher Difficulty rating.

Link to comment
How do you vote against something?
You can't vote against anything on the feedback site. All you can do is add a comment expressing your disagreement, explaining your concerns with the proposal.

 

If you feel strongly enough about it, then you could post a counter-suggestion. For example, a counter-suggestion to this one would be "Keep DNFs hidden on the public profile". But you'll use up your 10 votes pretty quickly if you do that for all the misguided suggestions that people post.

Link to comment

-1 for making DNF counts visible to others, for reasons which have been stated quite well already.

 

+1 for making DNFs visible on the Google cache map!

 

On the subject of different methodologies in logging DNFs, I will not go back and delete a DNF log (or change it to a note) after logging a find on the same cache later, because it is a part of my history involving that cache. I know that a lot of other people do those things, however.

 

For what it's worth, I sometimes don't log a DNF if I didn't spend long enough looking to warrant it in my mind, but I virtually always do if I made a serious search. If I make multiple unsuccessful attempts, I will only log a DNF for the first try, as the others seem redundant at that point. I then mention the additional attempts in the eventual find log.

 

With finds, at least there is (or should be!) a signed log book which can be checked to validate a found log. With DNFs, there is no such mechanism...it's totally arbitrary, so publicizing the count of such would be of little value (and an incentive never to log a DNF to some, and a badge of honor/incentive to over-DNF to others).

Link to comment

Thank you all you are supporting the idea!

 

For the guys who are against the idea, do you feel shame of your DNFs? Do you really think you loose a part of your masculinity everytime you log a DNF?

Personally I am so comfortable with my DNF's that I have a bookmark list describing each one. It's linked in my signature line on every one of my thousands of forum posts.

 

Yet, I am still opposed to your idea, for the reasons already stated.

 

So, have you stopped beating your wife, prodrive? :P

Link to comment

Did it really need to degrade to personal insults?

Sorry, I didn't want to insult anybody :anicute:

 

I'm trying to understand why people feel ashamed of its DNF's.

 

Do they see it as a personal faillure?

DNFs are important at the cache level. As a Cache Owner I am completely opposed to showing them on individual's profiles as I fear this would cause some (maybe many) people to stop logging them and the owners would lose valuable input.

 

Do you see anything in that to indicate shame? I'm opposed to it because cache owners would lose valuable information. But I will say that there are people that would feel that failure to find a cache is just that, failure. That's just human nature and no one wants to announce to the whole world that they have failed.

Edited by NicknPapa
Link to comment

I'm trying to understand why people feel ashamed of its DNF's.

Like I said If I DNF a cache and think it is still there then I do not log.

Reason: A lot of people will not attempt a cache if they see a dnf in the last log and just pass it by.

There have been many and I mean many times I know the cache was there and swear I

could hear it laughing at me but as far as being ashamed not in the least Mrs. Waldo

finds enough things for me to be ashamed of so a dnf on a cache is nothing.

Also there have been times when I enjoyed logging a dnf like this one comes to mind

Impressionism GC1PAFG

 

Now also if I think that the cache may have gone missing I will post a dnf and have done so

quite a few times no shame in that either.

Edited by The Waldo's
Link to comment

Did it really need to degrade to personal insults?

Sorry, I didn't want to insult anybody :anicute:

 

I'm trying to understand why people feel ashamed of its DNF's.

 

Do they see it as a personal faillure?

Why do you think people who don't log DNFs are ashamed of something. Do you go around thinking that people who don't log all their finds online are ashamed? Is CoyoteRed so ashamed of finding what he calls "trache" that he doesn't log these finds online? And what about the people who never log online? Are they ashamed of going geocaching?

 

The problem with DNF is that there is no one definition of when to log a DNF. Generally, people know when they found a cache (although there are some people who aren't sure unless they have signed the physical log book :ph34r: ) But it's much harder to decide when to post a DNF. Some will post a DNF if they pressed 'go to' on their GPS and it didn't result in a find. Some have to get to GZ and search for at least seven minutes. Still other people won't log the DNF until they have come back several times and are now giving up on searching again. Some will log a DNF if they couldn't search because there were muggles. Some will log a DNF if they got a flat tire driving to the cache. Some will only log a DNF if they are totally convinced the cache is missing. With no agreed upon definition of DNF it is no wonder that not everyone logs them everytime.

 

Logging your experience online is part of what makes geocaching enjoyable, especially for cache owners; and it is one of the "rules" listed in the FAQ. However, there is no way to force anyone to log online if they don't want to. It can be debated whether showing a list of DNFs or showing the DNF count would encourage more use of the DNF or less. I always thought that instead of a find count, geocaching.com should display a log count, and just report how many logs of any kind a person has entered. Let's just encourage people to share their experiences in general and not cast aspersions on the reasons they don't log their DNFs.

Link to comment

Thank you all you are supporting the idea!

 

For the guys who are against the idea, do you feel shame of your DNFs? Do you really think you loose a part of your masculinity everytime you log a DNF?

 

Ahem....what leads you to believe that only MALES are involved in this sport/game/hobby/pastime?

 

<_<

 

I'm all for having my DNF's on the cache maps, but I don't see any reason why it should be listed on my profile.

Link to comment

Thank you all you are supporting the idea!

 

For the guys who are against the idea, do you feel shame of your DNFs? Do you really think you loose a part of your masculinity everytime you log a DNF?

 

Ahem....what leads you to believe that only MALES are involved in this sport/game/hobby/pastime?

<_<

It's that little symbol next to all our names. :ph34r:

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment

It's that little symbol next to all our names. :ph34r:

 

But that's not the symbol for "male".

 

This is:

 

male-symbol-17611.jpg?1173314149

 

What is beside each username is just a very small symbol for the link to "view profile".

 

 

Of course, the "lsoing part of your masculinity" bit about posting DNF's is still insulting...to the male caching population.

Link to comment
Ahem....what leads you to believe that only MALES are involved in this sport/game/hobby/pastime?
It's that little symbol next to all our names.
FWIW, to me, the symbol looks like a little square with an arrow pointing out of it (up and to the right). Symbols like that are often used to indicate external links. To see it better, just open the image in a browser window by itself and magnify it (command-+ or ctrl-+ or whatever your system uses to magnify the current document).

 

Anyway, back on topic, I think stats on DNFs are going to be rather meaningless, given the different ways people log DNFs. Some log a DNF if they hit the "go" button on their GPSr and don't find the cache. Others, if they get close to ground zero and don't find the cache. Others, if they reach ground zero and search for the cache. Others, if they are convinced the cache is missing. Others, if they give up ever finding the cache. Some log only a single DNF no matter how many times they search. Others, a separate DNF for each search. Others never log DNFs at all. Some edit their DNF, changing it to a Find when they later find the cache. Others delete the DNF when they log a Find. Others leave their DNF when they log a find. Some log their DNFs one way now, and another way later. And I'm sure there are other variations that I haven't mentioned.

 

Given all this, comparing (or even viewing) DNFs seems pointless, unless you know someone well enough to know how they logged their DNFs, and what their DNFs mean.

Link to comment

.

 

DNF discussions are always interesting as they reveal the casual disregard so many cachers have for playing the game honestly. Let's not kid ourselves, people who do not log DNFs do so out of laziness or shame, with shame the likely higher reason. Imagine sports statisticians refusing to document fumbles and interceptions in football or strike outs in baseball, or fouls in basketball. On and on we can go.

 

Most people in this thread who oppose the premise stated by the OP do so out of fear it will lead to less people posting their DNFs. In other words, we expect there will be less people who honestly document what happened when they searched for a cache if their failures are more easily seen by others. I guess you won't be playing baseball if your strikeouts are reported to the newspaper.

 

Yes, there may be gray areas - a brief visit, GPS died, etc, but most who refuse to log a DNF do not fall into these categories. This is evidenced by the person who noted he does not log DNFs unless he thinks the cache is missing. How does he know? Basically, this cacher is only willing to document a failure if he thinks it was not his fault.

 

Someone else says there is no clear definition for a DNF. No, not at all. If you looked and did not find it, that is a DNF, period. It only gets complicated for those who do not wish to report the truth about what happened.

 

As for me, I have logged two DNFs on my own caches. Why? That is what happened! Turns out on my return trip to "fix" them, I discovered no fixing was needed. If the CO logs a DNF, you can assume it's a tough hide.

 

Many cachers discriminate to some degree when choosing what caches to look for. The find/DNF profile of a cache is useful. Some don't want to take a chance on a hard cache or one that may be missing. Others, like me, prefer more challenging caches, so a higher number of DNFs is actually an attraction. You, who do not log DNFs, deprive us of valuable information and deprive the cache owner as well.

 

We are all part of a larger community that is affected, good or bad, by what we do. It is disappointing to see so many who show little regard for the greater good by replacing caches with care, trading equal or better, handling travel bugs with care, and yes, recording DNFs, or more specifically, documenting the real truth about what happened when you looked for a cache.

 

.

Link to comment

Since I don't waste my time logging DNF's I wouldn't either way.

 

That's not much help to the cache owners.

 

If there's a string of DNF's posted, it's an alarm bell going off for the cache owner to get out there and check on things.

 

People who don't post DNF's are withholding important information from the cache owner.

Link to comment
If there's a string of DNF's posted, it's an alarm bell going off for the cache owner to get out there and check on things.

 

People who don't post DNF's are withholding important information from the cache owner.

I have a cache with a somewhat predictable find rate. There have been a couple of times when the cache has simply gone 'silent' in the time that it would normally pick up 10 or so finds. Sure enough, when I visited, it was missing both times. I definitely would have appreciated the DNF logs for what I suspect(?) were unsuccessful searches during that time.

Link to comment

FWIW, to me, the symbol looks like a little square with an arrow pointing out of it (up and to the right). Symbols like that are often used to indicate external links. To see it better, just open the image in a browser window by itself and magnify it (command-+ or ctrl-+ or whatever your system uses to magnify the current document).

 

Or, more simply...hover your mouse over the symbol beside the usernames and see what happens.

 

Heck, go ahead and click on it, too.

 

;)

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment
FWIW, to me, the symbol looks like a little square with an arrow pointing out of it (up and to the right). Symbols like that are often used to indicate external links. To see it better, just open the image in a browser window by itself and magnify it (command-+ or ctrl-+ or whatever your system uses to magnify the current document).
Or, more simply...hover your mouse over the symbol beside the usernames and see what happens.

 

Heck, go ahead and click on it, too.

Interesting. I would not have expected that.
Link to comment

DNF discussions are always interesting as they reveal the casual disregard so many cachers have for playing the game honestly. Let's not kid ourselves, people who do not log DNFs do so out of laziness or shame, with shame the likely higher reason.

I don't know how to respond to this. I tend to agree that part of what makes geocaching what it is, is the sense of community that develops because many of us share our experiences online. And the game relies to a degree on people honestly reporting if they found a cache or if they didn't find it, and reporting whether a cache they found needs maintenance. Cache owners use these reports to decide when to do maintenance on their caches and other cachers may use them to decide which caches to search for.

 

However, if someone decides not to log a find or a DNF online, implying that they are not playing honestly or that they are lazy or ashamed about sharing they didn't find something just grates me the wrong way. Beware of not sharing because then for sure someone will question your manhood (or womanhood). You will be called a cheater. You will be called lazy. And people will say you must be ashamed to admit you couldn't find their cache.

 

I'm just not seeing how righteous indignation over someone not logging all their DNFs is going to encourage any one to log more DNFs. It's all well and good to argue that more people should report DNFs, but calling them names is not likely to help any.

Link to comment
FWIW, to me, the symbol looks like a little square with an arrow pointing out of it (up and to the right). Symbols like that are often used to indicate external links. To see it better, just open the image in a browser window by itself and magnify it (command-+ or ctrl-+ or whatever your system uses to magnify the current document).
Or, more simply...hover your mouse over the symbol beside the usernames and see what happens.

 

Heck, go ahead and click on it, too.

Interesting. I would not have expected that.

Yeah, I knew all those things, but I was just running with the funny. :ph34r::P

Link to comment

If it was similar to the "cache found nearest to home" stat, and it was only visible to me it might be interesting, but even then I think people would log them even less. People are weird and wouldn't want to look at that number in some cases. We need MORE people logging DNFs not less. I'd vote a big NO. Sorry :)

 

EDIT: It's also not a very interesting number because it includes times that caches weren't even there, there were too many muggles around or thart I forgot a pen.

I would be somewhat interested to know how many times I've looked for a cache and didn't find it due to clever hides, but that's not the only thing DNF means to me.

Edited by d+n.s
Link to comment

If it was similar to the "cache found nearest to home" stat, and it was only visible to me it might be interesting, but even then I think people would log them even less. People are weird and wouldn't want to look at that number in some cases. We need MORE people logging DNFs not less. I'd vote a big NO. Sorry :)

 

EDIT: It's also not a very interesting number because it includes times that caches weren't even there, there were too many muggles around or thart I forgot a pen.

I would be somewhat interested to know how many times I've looked for a cache and didn't find it due to clever hides, but that's not the only thing DNF means to me.

 

You can already get this "stat" by viewing the DNF logs in your private profile.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...