Etiquette - How many times visit before DNF - Did Not Find

[7rxc]

Since logs are the History of the cache, DNF's are an important entry. However, I don't think there is any problem with condensing several DNFs (where there are more than two say). Since the date of the DNF can be edited (any log for that matter) I would have no problem updating the DNF history, moving previous ones to lines with the date and comments, with the current DNF under the newest date. The find would be logged accurately though, perhaps mentioning the DNF history (count).

 

I got a email from two I watch locally today... Cacher has looked for a week or more, often. Finally DNF'd. I'm sure that is the only log for each though... I know it doesn't list the other tries. Is it one search or many... Personally I'd like to see a condensed history in the log. Oh... I maintain the caches with consent, but don't get the owner notes... just watch.

In both cases, neither are really hard to locate (not covered up or anything, just not out in the open) frustration is a bit of their attraction... share the suffering... and I keep the status up top by date editing for the long haul travelers... and check it weekly or so... IF nothing has changed, I don't always change the status note, other than to keep it in top 5.

 

That isn't required either... but works in these cases... DNF's are my guide.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+TL&MinBHIL]

What's the general consensus on when a CO should perform a maintenance check after multiple DNF's? We looked for one a couple weekends ago that had 3 consecutive DNF's (one of which was a very prominent cacher with over 11 thousand finds) but I decided to try anyway. We became the 4th DNF and since then, there has been a 5th. So at what point should we expect a CO to come check to see if it's missing? Unfortunately this particular CO is notorious for NOT performing maintenance checks after multiple DNF's and logs notifying his logbooks are wet. He owns over 40 caches in at least counties and I think he has too many, too far away to realistically maintain.

[+dfx]

What "wrong information"? The only way "DNF" would be wrong information is if, in fact, you found it.

 

No, that's not quite correct. Otherwise, you should get busy posting DNF logs on just over 1.4 million caches, because you haven't found them.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I'm wondering whether there's established etiquette discouraging postings of DNFs until you've made more than one visit to a cache location.

 

I'm relatively new to caching (just reached 100 finds) and especially in the beginning I was posting DNFs after every visit, if I couldn't find a cache after a good 15-30 minutes hunting. But since then I've seen other posts where people have obviously visited a location multiple times, sometimes with companions, before they've found the cache yet they haven't posted any DNFs in the meantime.

 

Have I been posting DNFs too quickly? Should I only post a DNF if I'm almost certain the cache is missing - rather than to indicate to others that the cache is a hard bugger to find (at least for me)?

How many times do you have to find a cache before you post that you found it? Wouldn't the same rule apply for DNFs?

[+vincenzosi]

What's the general consensus on when a CO should perform a maintenance check after multiple DNF's?

I would think it's up to the cache owner's judgment based on difficulty, size, the people who DNF'ed it's experience, etc. I'm not sure you can realistically make a black and white rule.

 

One I'm dealing with right now is a real nuisance. It's sitting, supposedly, in a certain spot. The first person to DNF it said he knows where it should be (it is pretty obvious from the hint). The spot has been renovated and both the guy who previously DNF'ed it and myself agree that it should be where the renovation happened and that the cache was probably claimed in the renovation. Two DNFs, an e-mail, and a NM later, I finally e-mailed the area reviewer and asked what should be done because the guy is non-responsive.

 

You'd think that something would've pried him out just to check on the dadgum thing, right?

 

Point being, it's at their discretion, for better or for worse.

 

 

[+Shop99er]

Assuming you actually looked for the thing and didn't find it, then a DNF is called for. If you couldn't even star for some good reason (road closed, Martians took you to Mars) then a note is good, explaining the issue that stopped you before you started.

 

Some people just plain refuse to log a DNF. I get a huge kick out of the ones here that do that. They have developed the notion that if they don't find it, the CO should give them a hint. A couple of them have tried that with me. If you look for my cache and don't find it, fine. If you want a hint, log a DNF.

[+GeoGeeBee]

What's the general consensus on when a CO should perform a maintenance check after multiple DNF's?

It depends.

 

On a 1.5/1.5 ammo box under a suspicious pile of sticks, a single DNF might make me go take a look.

 

On a deviously camo'd micro, with the appropriate difficulty rating, I might expect long strings of DNF's.

[+vincenzosi]

It depends.

 

On a 1.5/1.5 ammo box under a suspicious pile of sticks, a single DNF might make me go take a look.

 

On a deviously camo'd micro, with the appropriate difficulty rating, I might expect long strings of DNF's.

 

+1

 

[Andronicus]

I try to log a DNF every time I seek, but Do Not Find. However, I know that I have missed a few. I am not quite as excited to log a DNF as a find, so occasionaly, they get missed. Also one that I have visited 15(?) times, I think I only have 8 DNF logs for. Logging DNFs was starting to get old, so I only logged them after a prolonged search.

[+ventura_kids]

What's the general consensus on when a CO should perform a maintenance check after multiple DNF's?

It depends.

 

On a 1.5/1.5 ammo box under a suspicious pile of sticks, a single DNF might make me go take a look.

 

On a deviously camo'd micro, with the appropriate difficulty rating, I might expect long strings of DNF's.

 

and if the difficulty is such.... a string of dnf's might be normal.

 

I usually check the number of finds the DNF'er has. If they are quite experienced, then I would expect a quick check.

[+spears67]

This thread has been good to read. I have posted a lot of DNF's recently and cleared up a few too, but I never knew really what the etiquette was so this has been really helpful. I have fairly recently gotten into cache ownership too (I'm still pretty new to this) and upon doing maintenance checks I have seen signs of lots of searching and yet no recent logs, so presumably these are unlogged DNF's, pretty frustrating for me.

Having said that a recent DNF on one of my caches revealed that it had gone astray and so lesson learnt from now on I will always log my DNF's and take pride in doing so!

[Clan Riffster]

What "wrong information"? The only way "DNF" would be wrong information is if, in fact, you found it.

 

No, that's not quite correct. Otherwise, you should get busy posting DNF logs on just over 1.4 million caches, because you haven't found them.

That's my take as well. I see the term DNF, (Did Not Find), and I mentally break it down a bit. To my way of thinking, one must search in order to find. I take that one degree farther, believing that one must search to not find, as well. Just driving by a parking lot doesn't quite equal searching, in my eyes, which is why I feel a note, conveying the fact that I thought about searching for the cache but had to wave off for some reason, seems more appropriate.

 

For the record, I don't see either way as "wrong". I just feel the note is the better option, for me.

[+Doctroid]

What "wrong information"? The only way "DNF" would be wrong information is if, in fact, you found it.

 

No, that's not quite correct. Otherwise, you should get busy posting DNF logs on just over 1.4 million caches, because you haven't found them.

 

That would be silly (and abusive), but it would not be wrong information. There is nothing silly, abusive, or wrong about posting a DNF for a cache you went to look for and did not find.

[+TL&MinBHIL]

It depends.

 

On a 1.5/1.5 ammo box under a suspicious pile of sticks, a single DNF might make me go take a look.

 

On a deviously camo'd micro, with the appropriate difficulty rating, I might expect long strings of DNF's.

 

and if the difficulty is such.... a string of dnf's might be normal.

 

I usually check the number of finds the DNF'er has. If they are quite experienced, then I would expect a quick check.

It's a 1.5/1.5 small in a large evergreen tree, the kind large enough you can basically walk inside & get a good look around. One of the DNF's came from a group of 3 cachers (1 with over 10,000 finds & another with over 11,000). I may only have a couple hundred finds, but I don't consider myself a slouch. I just think 5 consecutive DNF's, regardless of how many finds the people have & the difficulty, is a red flag & warrants a visit from the CO. But like I said, this one doesn't perform maintenance checks often.

[+NeverSummer]

Umm, simple answer to the OP...

Get there and didn't find it? You didn't find it. Post a DNF. Try again later.

[+Don_J]

What "wrong information"? The only way "DNF" would be wrong information is if, in fact, you found it.

 

No, that's not quite correct. Otherwise, you should get busy posting DNF logs on just over 1.4 million caches, because you haven't found them.

 

That would be silly (and abusive), but it would not be wrong information. There is nothing silly, abusive, or wrong about posting a DNF for a cache you went to look for and did not find.

 

That is the crux of the issue. I went to look for it, but in the end I never did look for it. I just kept on driving and looked for another one a 1/4 mile away. Since I never looked for it, I don't feel that a DNF log would be appropriate.

[+Doctroid]

That is the crux of the issue. I went to look for it, but in the end I never did look for it. I just kept on driving and looked for another one a 1/4 mile away. Since I never looked for it, I don't feel that a DNF log would be appropriate.

 

Of course it's a grey area. But I just don't agree a DNF in this case conveys "wrong" information. To my mind "looking for it" is not something that begins only when you walk up to GZ.

[Clan Riffster]

To my mind "looking for it" is not something that begins only when you walk up to GZ.

Yup. Lots of gray around here. Personally, I think gray is a good thing. Absolutes can be really annoying. Like Don J, I consider the "looking" part to start when I am actually searching for a cache. If I head out of a morning to find a cache a couple counties over, I don't think of myself as looking when I pull out of my driveway. The same principle applies if I go looking for one a few miles away. Without the active hunt, it just doesn't feel like I'm looking for something. Different strokes for different folks. Ain't nuthin' wrong with that.

[lisove]

I thought I shouldn't log DNF until I looked a couple of times. I'm glad 2 understand better. I logged my first DNF today now that I read these post. I thought I might worry the CO that their cache was missing when the real reason I can't find it is inexperience.

[Clan Riffster]

I thought I might worry the CO that their cache was missing...

I think the best way to avoid this is to provide the CO with a nice log explaining your experience at the cache. By reading your tale, (as opposed to a single sentence, or even, in some cases, an acronym), the CO will be better able to decide if they need to check on their cache.

[+Stealth Bobber]

I don't have that kind of time to spend typing things on the internet to post ALL my DNF's.

 

Oh, the irony!

 

ROFLMAO!

[+Rckhnd]

I agree with the part about looking for it or not. I have gone for caches that turned out to be in a high density muggle population area. In those situations, I don't go looking for the cache and just move on to the next. I don't post a DNF for that because I never searched for it. Looking over my shoulder because it's in a tree on the edge of a busy Bi-Mart parking lot kinda takes away from the experience for me.

[+dfx]

Of course it's a grey area. But I just don't agree a DNF in this case conveys "wrong" information. To my mind "looking for it" is not something that begins only when you walk up to GZ.

 

But for others it does, and for those people using DNFs in any other way does convey wrong information. And I would assume that for the vast majority of cachers, DNF means looking for it and not finding it, and nothing else. Now of course you're free to use DNFs in any way that you want to, but honestly I don't see the point of deliberately misleading people who use the distinction DNF vs. note for something that is of value to them, especially since you wouldn't lose anything by posting a note instead of a DNF.

[+Doctroid]

Of course it's a grey area. But I just don't agree a DNF in this case conveys "wrong" information. To my mind "looking for it" is not something that begins only when you walk up to GZ.

 

But for others it does, and for those people using DNFs in any other way does convey wrong information.

 

No. "DNF" means "Did not find", which is accurate. Any additional meaning one assigns to that is mere inference, and it's folly to infer when you could read the log and know.

 

And I would assume

 

Yes. You're assuming.

 

that for the vast majority of cachers, DNF means looking for it and not finding it, and nothing else.

 

And that's exactly what it does mean. The question is what does "looking for it" entail, and that will vary from one cacher to another and from one situation to another. Does it start when you arrive at GZ? When you're 100 yards away? When you get out of your car and start hiking? When you start looking for a place to park? When you tell your GPSr to start navigating to the cache site?

 

Now of course you're free to use DNFs in any way that you want to, but honestly I don't see the point of deliberately misleading people

 

"deliberately misleading"? Quite an accusation.

 

who use the distinction DNF vs. note for something that is of value to them, especially since you wouldn't lose anything by posting a note instead of a DNF.

 

And indeed, I do use the distinction for something of value to me, when deciding what to log: DNF means I did not find it (for any of a number of reasons including problems with getting to GZ in the first place for reasons that may be relevant to other cachers, as in the example being discussed here) while note means I'm saying something about the cache without asserting anything about finding or failing to find it. But again, since not everyone uses DNF and note the same way I do, it's best not to make assumptions but to read the logs.

[+dfx]

No. "DNF" means "Did not find", which is accurate. Any additional meaning one assigns to that is mere inference, and it's folly to infer when you could read the log and know.

...

that for the vast majority of cachers, DNF means looking for it and not finding it, and nothing else.

And that's exactly what it does mean.

Ah hm. So what is it now? Just that you didn't find it? Or that you looked and didn't find it? You should really make up your mind.

 

The question is what does "looking for it" entail, and that will vary from one cacher to another and from one situation to another. Does it start when you arrive at GZ? When you're 100 yards away? When you get out of your car and start hiking? When you start looking for a place to park? When you tell your GPSr to start navigating to the cache site?

I don't think there's any disagreement as to what "looking for" or "searching for" means. You're not looking for the cache when you leave the house. You're not looking for the cache when you park the car. You're not looking for the cache when you're 100 meters away. You're looking for the cache when you're looking for the cache. For that you have to be on location. Unless you're using a telescope or something. Or a spy plane. Do you use a spy plane to look for caches from hundreds of meters away?

 

And indeed, I do use the distinction for something of value to me, when deciding what to log: DNF means I did not find it (for any of a number of reasons including problems with getting to GZ in the first place for reasons that may be relevant to other cachers, as in the example being discussed here) while note means I'm saying something about the cache without asserting anything about finding or failing to find it. But again, since not everyone uses DNF and note the same way I do, it's best not to make assumptions but to read the logs.

So by saying that, you're essentially removing any meaning from a DNF log whatsoever. What's the point behind even having that log type if it doesn't convey any meaningful information by itself? We might as well get rid of it and only post notes to say that we couldn't find a cache. Then there would be no argument, you'd have to read the log to find out what it means. But well, we do have a DNF log type, so why not at least try to use it in a consistent manner? Instead of insisting on "I wanna do it my way and everyone ought to read the log text to find out what happened, and those who try to use the log type in a meaningful manner, well sucks to be them"?

[+A & J Tooling]

So, I go to your cache every day for a year and attempt to find it but don't, you want 1 dnf? Or do you want 365 DNF's and the reasoning why I couldn't find it? Communication is a 2 way street.

[+EdrickV]

So, I go to your cache every day for a year and attempt to find it but don't, you want 1 dnf? Or do you want 365 DNF's and the reasoning why I couldn't find it? Communication is a 2 way street.

 

If I was a cache owner, I would rather have multiple DNF logs rather then one entry for multiple searches over several days. And I think after the 3rd DNF by the same person on the same cache, I'd probably be contacting the seeker to see if they want a hint. (Things might be different if I was doing a 4/5 star hide like the one that I think I posted earlier.) And I would really try and help a seeker find the cache before it got to the 365 DNF stage, unless they really didn't want my help.

 

Consecutive DNFs, as previously mentioned, are one signal that a cache might need a visit from the owner. If my cache was muggled and a bunch of people looked for it but did not find it and did not post DNFs, then it might take a while for me to find out that it's gone. (Depending on how many caches I had and how easy it would be to get to that particular cache.) If they did post DNFs then that would be a signal to me to check the cache out and make sure it's still there.

 

For me, if I was going to look for a cache but could not get near GZ to start searching (say due to a flooded swamp) then I would post a note instead of a DNF, since not everyone may read the log entry. The way I see it, searching for a cache starts when you stop staring at the GPS and start trying to figure out where the cache container might be hidden. In some cases that might actually happen before getting out of the car (like when searching for a certain type of urban micro) but in other cases it might not be until after walking through the woods trying to get to ground zero.

[+Gan Dalf]

I find myself seeing both sides of this argument. On the one hand I see DNF's as usefel to both the CO and future searchers and so I log almost all of my DNF's. It is also useful to reviewers that have to decide if a cache should be archived if multiple DNF's ellicit no response from a non-engaged owner.

 

I logged a DNF on a cache just yesterday. I logged a DNF on the same cache a week ago. In between, snother cacher logged a DNF on the same cache while there were no subsequent finds. When I logged my second DNF the CO went to check on it, found it where it should be but then decided to post a note and another hint. I went back and found it today. I should never have missed it in the first place.

 

On the other hand, there are quite a number of hiders in my area that prefer to hide "evil" caches. I am convinced that they prefer DNF logs to Finds. I will usually go and look for these caches once and post a DNF if applicable. On subsequent visits I don't post a DNF because I don't want to give the "evil" hiders the jollys they get by "beating" me.

 

Considering this, I belong to the its a DNF if I looked for it group. I don't ascribe to the practice of posting a note if I never got out of my car or got chased off by muggles or bears before I got to GZ. I can see it as appropriate and have done it on occaision but I don't think a note saying couldn't search due to muggles is useful in regular practice.

Edited June 22, 2011 by FobesMan

[+The Jester]

I don't think there's any disagreement as to what "looking for" or "searching for" means. You're not looking for the cache when you leave the house. You're not looking for the cache when you park the car. You're not looking for the cache when you're 100 meters away. You're looking for the cache when you're looking for the cache. For that you have to be on location. Unless you're using a telescope or something. Or a spy plane. Do you use a spy plane to look for caches from hundreds of meters away?

I guess you're wrong about the disagreement. To me the hunt does start when I hit the "Go To" on the next cache, whether it's 0.1 miles or 100 miles away. Anything that stops me from finding the cache is a DNF. I've posted a DNF when I got T-boned on the way to the cache.

 

So by saying that, you're essentially removing any meaning from a DNF log whatsoever. What's the point behind even having that log type if it doesn't convey any meaningful information by itself? We might as well get rid of it and only post notes to say that we couldn't find a cache. Then there would be no argument, you'd have to read the log to find out what it means. But well, we do have a DNF log type, so why not at least try to use it in a consistent manner? Instead of insisting on "I wanna do it my way and everyone ought to read the log text to find out what happened, and those who try to use the log type in a meaningful manner, well sucks to be them"?

Hmm, you seem to be insisting on "Do things my way so I don't have to read anything, and those who try to use the log to add meaningful info, well it sucks to be them".

[+dfx]

I guess you're wrong about the disagreement. To me the hunt does start when I hit the "Go To" on the next cache, whether it's 0.1 miles or 100 miles away. Anything that stops me from finding the cache is a DNF. I've posted a DNF when I got T-boned on the way to the cache.

"The hunt" doesn't equal "looking for". You're saying you'd post a DNF even when you haven't actually looked for the cache yet. This is exactly what makes a DNF misleading in that case.

 

Hmm, you seem to be insisting on "Do things my way so I don't have to read anything, and those who try to use the log to add meaningful info, well it sucks to be them".

FYI: I don't use DNF logs in any such manner that I described. But I know some people who do, and I have no problem with supporting them by making a useful distinction between DNF and note.

 

But please enlighten me what you would lose by posting a note instead of a DNF if you didn't actually look for the cache yet.

Edited June 24, 2011 by dfx

[+kwcahart]

I know this has been said a dozen times, but for me if I look and can't find it, DNF. If I don't or cant' look as long or as hard as I want to, then a note and I come back. I only compete with myself, this is a game.

[+iamgeek]

Today I finally found a cache that I had DNFed 4 times. Logged each one and saw no problem with it. There were 4 different visits so four different DNFs. It was a hard cache.

[+Team OPJim]

If you don't find it, for whatever reason, log a DNF. We COs appreciate them.

Please don't under any circumstances log a needs maintenance unless you find the container or it's remnants. If you are not sure, then email the CO and describe where you looked. THe CO may even give you a hint.

[+KingdomOfFour]

This thread has been good to read. I have posted a lot of DNF's recently and cleared up a few too, but I never knew really what the etiquette was so this has been really helpful.

 

As a newbie, I also found this thread helpful & feel better knowing that I seem to be doing things correctly. Logging the first couple of DNF's was intimidating, but now I don't let it bother me so much. I'm not a CO yet, but I imagine any noted DNF's would be helpful.

[+starrchilde]

I really enjoyed reading all the opinions on this thread. For me, I log a DNF if I actively look for it but can't find it. If I get to a location and there are too many muggles, I wouldn't log a DNF because I didn't actively get out and search for it, I would just come back at another date/time.

 

In another location I did not log a DNF because I thought I found part of the cache mangled along the trail (since it was a unique item that was hidden), so I sent a note to the CO and told him that it might need maintenance, only to find out that I probably found the piece he couldn't find last time he replaced the cache. He gave me information and I'll attempt the cache again, then if I can't find it I'll list a DNF.

[+NeverSummer]

A DNF log can be just as fun as a Found log. Talk about where you looked, what was going on, and so on. It is very helpful as a cache owner to know if a cache is rated too low for difficulty or terrain, as well as to think about if it might be missing.

 

But that is just me. I read every geocaching email I get from every cache I own or have on a list. Not every owner checks or reads their email associated with gc.com. I personally have 4 emails that I have to check every day. One for work, one for personal, one for geocaching, and one for school. I check them all, but not everyone else does so regularly.

 

So, keep a thick skin, use "good judgement" and be kind with logs. DNFs are a vital part of caching, and many folks have lost sight of that as geocaching enters its angsty "teenage" years. Each log type has a reason for design and inclusion behind it...and I can guarantee that TPTB didn't do so hoping to give people something to use as a weapon or to add animosity to this fun activity.

 

It might be time to stop, learn and lighten up a bit when someone uses the provided tools properly or with good intention.

[+redsox_mark]

To answer the original question, I will log a DNF per visit where I did not find.

 

But there is grey area. I log a DNF when I gave a good effort and I did not find it. Most of them are when I get to GZ and can't find it; but if I can't even get there I'll log a DNF if it is relevant. So, If I couldn't get within half a mile of it as the area was flooded, I would log a DNF. That is relevant info for others. But if my wife calls me and tells me I need to come home right away and I abort my journey, I won't log a DNF. I would log nothing; unless I wanted to record my attempt for my own purposes, in which I'd log a note.

 

I also log DNFs when I have actually seen the cache but could not get it due to muggles.

[+TerraViators]

I log every DNF and apparently I'm not very good at this game. I have 1,602 finds and 471 DNF's, just under 30%.

[+niffir]

If I look for a cache and don't find it, then I post a DNF. If I go back and look some other time and don't find it, then I post another DNF. As a cache owner, I wish more people would post DNFs. I've had caches go missing that I only knew went missing because I'd not heard from them in a while and went to check on them. If people had let me know they couldn't find them, then I would have known months earlier that something was wrong...and other cachers would have known that the cache might be missing and could skip it until the situation was resolved.

[+ARHogFanz]

I'm still a newbie (only 125 finds) but here's my own personal protocol for logging DNF's: If I only gave it 5 minutes or a quick cursory search, or for whatever reason didn't go after it once I got to the general location (muggles, park was closed, realized I wasn't dressed appropriately once I got to the general vicinity, etc...) then I don't log a DNF b/c I don't feel that I gave the co an honest effort at finding their cache. However, if I spent at least 10-15 minutes leaving no stone unturned and feel that I gave it a solid effort, then I definitely log a DNF. If I couldn't sign the log because it was wet or the log was full, I log a note, usually a needs maintenance. After I see that the co has noted they put in a new log, I go back & sign it then log it as a find. CO's, I hope this is ok with you.

 

Melissa

[+The Jester]

I guess you're wrong about the disagreement. To me the hunt does start when I hit the "Go To" on the next cache, whether it's 0.1 miles or 100 miles away. Anything that stops me from finding the cache is a DNF. I've posted a DNF when I got T-boned on the way to the cache.

"The hunt" doesn't equal "looking for". You're saying you'd post a DNF even when you haven't actually looked for the cache yet. This is exactly what makes a DNF misleading in that case.

<snip>

But please enlighten me what you would lose by posting a note instead of a DNF if you didn't actually look for the cache yet.

By YOUR definition there's a difference. To me "the hunt" and "looking for" are the same. There are many aspects to looking for a cache - getting to the parking area, getting to GZ, getting the container in my hands - any of which may fail. So my DNF log will tell you why I didn't find the cache - there's nothing misleading about that. And as I have actually started looking for the cache I see a note as misleading.

[+Buckineers]

Hi all,

 

Although this conversation has become quite heated in parts (which normally makes me shy away, as I dislike intense arguing on the internet), I wanted to add our experience.

First of all, I'd like to say thanks for this thread, it has helped me resolve my opinion on when we should log a DNF.

 

We're complete newbies (5 finds to date, this particular cache was our 4th) and yesterday didn't find a cache for the first time. We had GeoDaughter along for the hunt and dusk crept in quick. Our daughter started getting a bit scared as it was fairly close vegetation and getting darker, so we called off the search for the evening. We had only been in the location for 5 minutes or so and decided to come back the following day and complete the search. We actively decided not to log the DNF as we didn't feel we had a chance to conduct a proper search.

 

I'm sure there are people out there who would suggest we did the wrong thing (and perhaps we did), but I feel justified that to most average people this was a fair course of action. I did however feel guilty for not logging it This thread has helped highlight the importance of DNF's however, and I will be sure to log them when we come up empty, so thanks for the conversation

[+redsox_mark]

I had a situation today where I normally would post a DNF, but I decided to post a note instead.

 

The situation: In Spain, and I don't speak Spanish. I tried but had to give up because I could not find the correct route to the cache. Normally at home (in the UK) I would post this as DNF.. as I failed to find it for a geocaching related reason. But as I am in Spain and logging in English; in case not everyone would read or understand my log.. I didn't want the DNF to worry anyone that there might be a problem. So I thought it safer to post a note.

 

The CO has already sent me a mail telling me there is an easy route to the cache and how to find it.

[Clan Riffster]

By YOUR definition there's a difference. To me "the hunt" and "looking for" are the same. There are many aspects to looking for a cache - getting to the parking area, getting to GZ, getting the container in my hands - any of which may fail. So my DNF log will tell you why I didn't find the cache - there's nothing misleading about that. And as I have actually started looking for the cache I see a note as misleading.

Very true. We all define geocaching, and the many aspects of geocaching, according to our whims. In this, my view is probably more in line with dfx, as I don't consider that I am "looking for" a cache as I am backing out of the driveway. I may be thinking about looking for a particular cache, but that process hasn't officially started whilst my minivan is in reverse.

 

That doesn't make your view wrong. It just makes us different. I'm OK with different, as I think this big blue marble would an incredibly boring place if we were all the same.

[+on4bam]

I log a DNF if I get to GZ and can't find the container, If I can' search the area because there are muggles sitting on top of the suspected cachelocation I don't log a DNF because I wasn't able to look for it.

 

When I'm in doubt if the container is still there I will wait to log a DNF until I hear from the CO, if it's still there I log a DNF, if it's gone I return later to actually find it and log a find.

 

I have a cache in my watchlist that I went to look for a while ago that I logged as DNF because it clearly was gone. There's a spoiler picture of the cache showing a large tree trunk but the trunk is no longer there. Several cachers logged this even as a found stating "the cache is no longer here but logged a found anyway" or one of the latest logs "as this cache will probably be archived soon I'm logging this as a found". The problem is that the CO leaves these fraudulent logs I wonder why these latest cachers won't just be honest and log a DNF (it clearly is a DNF).

[+NeverSummer]

It's also nice, as a new cacher, to log your DNFs as a way to track where you have been. It is helpful to learn how, when and why you might log a DNF in the future.

 

I started by logging each and every time I didn't find a cache. Not enough time, too many muggles, looked for a long time with no joy...and so on. As time went on, I learned when a DNF was a DNF. It changed for me, just as the game changes for all of us based on how we cache, and how we log.

 

As I've said before, this isn't a contest, so don't feel bad about logging a DNF. It is helpful to you and the cache owner, and is a wonderful tool provided by geocaching.com.

[+michaelnel]

I post a DNF log each time I visit a cache and make a serious effort to find it and fail. Then when I do manage to find it I post a FOUND log, but I don't delete the DNF logs.