Found previous DNF

[+DsrtMtnRox]

What is the correct way to log a cache that you have previously logged as a DNF but then finally found it at a later date?

 

Do you make a new log showing your find or do you go back to the previous DNF you logged and update it as found?

 

I recently noticed that someone went back to their DNF and changed it but also had in their notes that it was a DNF but they finally found it.

 

When I saw this it made me wonder......Which way is the right way?

[+WRASTRO]

Post a new "found it" log and leave your prior DNF as is. Please do not practice revisionist history.

[+Gan Dalf]

Some people play that way. Personally, I think you should log every visit. If you DNF it the first or second or third or whatever, just because you found it on a subsequent visit doesn't erase that DNF. Logs have dates for a reason. One day you couldn't find it, the next you did. Both logs stand on their own merits. I'm sure there will be some that disagree, no, actually I know there will be...

[+WRASTRO]

Some people play that way. Personally, I think you should log every visit. If you DNF it the first or second or third or whatever, just because you found it on a subsequent visit doesn't erase that DNF. Logs have dates for a reason. One day you couldn't find it, the next you did. Both logs stand on their own merits. I'm sure there will be some that disagree, no, actually I know there will be...

I won't.

[+Chrysalides]

Like the others so far I'd log a new "Found It". Not only does it make more sense to me, it's easier to do so as well.

[+mullyman]

As I'm still a green GeoCacher I find this topic very useful. The few suggestions here answered it the way I was hoping they would.

MULLY

[+Don_J]

One of the biggest reasons for posting a new log is that it sends a notification to the owner and anyone watching. When you go and change a prior DNF log to a find, no on gets notified. A responsible cache owner uses these notifications to keep track of what is happening with their cache.

[+PeakFault]

Absolutely create a new log.

 

A log for each and every visit in my opinion.

[Narcosynthesis]

I see a log as a record for a trip out searching - If I DNF then that counts as a log, if I later on head out again and find it, that is a new log for a new trip out to the cache.

[AZcachemeister]

I'm in the 'separate log for each visit' crowd.

Heck, I have even posted a DNF in the morning, and a find in the afternoon (on the same cache) on a few occasions.

 

If you 'remove' the DNF logs, you won't be able to qualify for a 'DNF challenge cache', if there are any around.

[+DeepSkyDan]

What if you DNF because it was muggled? Then when you do find it, it is exactly where you did not find it the first time. If it had been there, I would have found it the first time.

 

I'm thinking new log.

[+DsrtMtnRox]

Yep. That's what I thought. I have only found one of my DNF's on a later date....and I posted a new log for it. I just wanted to make sure I was doing it the way most do. When I saw that other log where they just changed it, it made me question which way was correct. Thank you all for the input!

 

Happy Caching!

[+DsrtMtnRox]

Some people play that way. Personally, I think you should log every visit. If you DNF it the first or second or third or whatever, just because you found it on a subsequent visit doesn't erase that DNF. Logs have dates for a reason. One day you couldn't find it, the next you did. Both logs stand on their own merits. I'm sure there will be some that disagree, no, actually I know there will be...

I won't.

Me either. I agree with posting a new log. Just glad I was on the right side of the fence.

[+Chrysalides]

What if you DNF because it was muggled? Then when you do find it, it is exactly where you did not find it the first time. If it had been there, I would have found it the first time.

 

I'm thinking new log.

I don't think the reason for the DNF matters. You did not look at the correct spot, or if it is not there, you did not find it, so it's a DNF log. Finding it later doesn't mean you did not DNF it the last time.

 

So far no one has suggested that editing / deleting the DNF log is the way to go. This is a highly unnatural state of being for the forums. Can someone disagree with the majority opinion before the forums implode?

[+Legochugglers]

What if you DNF because it was muggled? Then when you do find it, it is exactly where you did not find it the first time. If it had been there, I would have found it the first time.

 

I'm thinking new log.

I don't think the reason for the DNF matters. You did not look at the correct spot, or if it is not there, you did not find it, so it's a DNF log. Finding it later doesn't mean you did not DNF it the last time.

 

So far no one has suggested that editing / deleting the DNF log is the way to go. This is a highly unnatural state of being for the forums. Can someone disagree with the majority opinion before the forums implode?

 

I think you should be able to delete your DNF entry completely as you have now found it.

[+captnemo]

What if you DNF because it was muggled? Then when you do find it, it is exactly where you did not find it the first time. If it had been there, I would have found it the first time.

 

I'm thinking new log.

I don't think the reason for the DNF matters. You did not look at the correct spot, or if it is not there, you did not find it, so it's a DNF log. Finding it later doesn't mean you did not DNF it the last time.

 

So far no one has suggested that editing / deleting the DNF log is the way to go. This is a highly unnatural state of being for the forums. Can someone disagree with the majority opinion before the forums implode?

 

I think you should be able to delete your DNF entry completely as you have now found it.

When I first started out caching, and when back and found a cache I had DNF'ed, I changed my log to a find. Then someone, don't remember who, pointed out that I had changed the true history of the cache and that a DNF was not the scarlet letter but simpy a record of having looked without finding.

 

I now leave my logs alone DNF's remain DNF's. I also enjoy reviewing my DNF's and ploting on going back and logging a find after another hunt. :

[+Chrysalides]

So far no one has suggested that editing / deleting the DNF log is the way to go. This is a highly unnatural state of being for the forums. Can someone disagree with the majority opinion before the forums implode?

 

I think you should be able to delete your DNF entry completely as you have now found it.

Thank you for saving the forums

[+Team Hugs]

Admittedly, I'm relatively new to this sport ... but I think I can make an argument for deleting DNF logs after a subsequent find.

 

I've been using my automatically-generated DNF list as a sort of "to-do" list: a reminder of the caches I tried to find and failed, but might subsequently turn into finds. I'll go back and look at old items and see if there were subsequent successful finds, new hints, maintentance reports, etc.. If I didn't deleted the old DNF reports after subsequently finding it, this technique doesn't work as well. (Admittedly, I could probably do the same thing with a private bookmark list.)

 

The other reason I delete old DNF reports ... I look at the found-versus-not-found statistics on a given cache as another indicator confirming/contradicting the difficulty rating supplied by the CO. In that case, it seems more reasonable that I should delete a DNF if I find it later.

 

I can certainly understand the "one-visit, one-log" theory in terms of preserving history, but I don't think we hold to that principle universally. If I revisit a found cache several times (say, for travel bug movement), existing protocol seems to indicate that you shouldn't log multiple "finds" (i.e. only one "find" per cache). Also ... for me as a newbie, I've had several caches I've had to visit several times until I found them (especially when trying to hit urban caches while heading to/from work). Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

[+hukilaulau]

I agree with the majority with this addition:

 

I think it's fine to edit your original DNF note to ADD something like (eventually found this one on _____ )

at the bottom of your note.

That way if you go back and look at your DNF logs, you can quickly see which ones you subsequently found.

[+captnemo]

Admittedly, I'm relatively new to this sport ... but I think I can make an argument for deleting DNF logs after a subsequent find.

 

I've been using my automatically-generated DNF list as a sort of "to-do" list: a reminder of the caches I tried to find and failed, but might subsequently turn into finds. I'll go back and look at old items and see if there were subsequent successful finds, new hints, maintentance reports, etc.. If I didn't deleted the old DNF reports after subsequently finding it, this technique doesn't work as well. (Admittedly, I could probably do the same thing with a private bookmark list.)

 

The other reason I delete old DNF reports ... I look at the found-versus-not-found statistics on a given cache as another indicator confirming/contradicting the difficulty rating supplied by the CO. In that case, it seems more reasonable that I should delete a DNF if I find it later.

 

I can certainly understand the "one-visit, one-log" theory in terms of preserving history, but I don't think we hold to that principle universally. If I revisit a found cache several times (say, for travel bug movement), existing protocol seems to indicate that you shouldn't log multiple "finds" (i.e. only one "find" per cache). Also ... for me as a newbie, I've had several caches I've had to visit several times until I found them (especially when trying to hit urban caches while heading to/from work). Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

One of the great things about Geocaching is you can play the game the way you want in most cases. How I play is: if I search for a cache and find it that's a Find (only one find per cache), if I don't find it that's a DNF (as many times as it happens), if I revisit a cache to move a TB that's a Note.

 

It also to me seems to reflect on more accurate statistics, if all DNF's are recorded. Many DNF's with a existing cache would to me seem to say that this isn't just a P&G but it's something really worth looking for.

 

I also like to edit DNF's to reflect changes, just don't change them to finds or delete them.

 

edited to expand answer

Edited October 2, 2011 by captnemo

[+Chrysalides]

I've been using my automatically-generated DNF list as a sort of "to-do" list: a reminder of the caches I tried to find and failed, but might subsequently turn into finds. I'll go back and look at old items and see if there were subsequent successful finds, new hints, maintentance reports, etc.. If I didn't deleted the old DNF reports after subsequently finding it, this technique doesn't work as well. (Admittedly, I could probably do the same thing with a private bookmark list.)

You could exclude all found caches from this list. But you're right, a bookmark would be much easier.

 

The other reason I delete old DNF reports ... I look at the found-versus-not-found statistics on a given cache as another indicator confirming/contradicting the difficulty rating supplied by the CO. In that case, it seems more reasonable that I should delete a DNF if I find it later.

But look at it another way. If a cache takes multiple visits to find, isn't it more difficult than one that takes only 1 visit to find? If everyone revisits until they find the cache, and delete their DNF log, according to your metric, it's an easy cache.

 

I tend to disregard DNF logs as estimation of difficulty, since many people don't bother logging them. The only time I pay attention to a DNF log is when it is the last entry before I attempt the cache.

 

Edit to add : however, if what you're doing makes sense to you, go ahead and do it.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Chrysalides

[+EdrickV]

Admittedly, I'm relatively new to this sport ... but I think I can make an argument for deleting DNF logs after a subsequent find.

 

I've been using my automatically-generated DNF list as a sort of "to-do" list: a reminder of the caches I tried to find and failed, but might subsequently turn into finds. I'll go back and look at old items and see if there were subsequent successful finds, new hints, maintentance reports, etc.. If I didn't deleted the old DNF reports after subsequently finding it, this technique doesn't work as well. (Admittedly, I could probably do the same thing with a private bookmark list.)

 

The other reason I delete old DNF reports ... I look at the found-versus-not-found statistics on a given cache as another indicator confirming/contradicting the difficulty rating supplied by the CO. In that case, it seems more reasonable that I should delete a DNF if I find it later.

 

I can certainly understand the "one-visit, one-log" theory in terms of preserving history, but I don't think we hold to that principle universally. If I revisit a found cache several times (say, for travel bug movement), existing protocol seems to indicate that you shouldn't log multiple "finds" (i.e. only one "find" per cache). Also ... for me as a newbie, I've had several caches I've had to visit several times until I found them (especially when trying to hit urban caches while heading to/from work). Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

 

Deleting DNF logs from a cache that you later found might make the cache seem easier to find for people who are looking later and who look at the find count vs dnf count. That would be especially true for a cache that required multiple DNFs. On occasions where you are revisiting a found cache (say to pick-up/drop-off a trackable item) it would be appropriate to log a Note rather then a find.

 

As far as the idea of using the DNF list as a list of caches to try again, if you were to use GSAK to store your cache database then you could set a filter for DNF caches and caches you have also found will not be in that list.

 

If I owned a cache and someone tried multiple times on multiple days to find it, and didn't, I would appreciate a log for each day they tried to find it. (And if they had that much trouble finding it, I would probably ask them if they want an additional hint. Unless it was an "Evil" cache, in which case multiple DNFs would be expected. )

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

 

I understand your thought process on this one. We usually have one DNF log posted and we will edit it to add another date if we return. We think the CO gets a notice on a log edit, but we have never had one of our finders edit (we think).

[+Gan Dalf]

Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

 

Edits do not get sent to a CO

 

I understand your thought process on this one. We usually have one DNF log posted and we will edit it to add another date if we return. We think the CO gets a notice on a log edit, but we have never had one of our finders edit (we think).

[+The A-Team]

Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

 

I understand your thought process on this one. We usually have one DNF log posted and we will edit it to add another date if we return. We think the CO gets a notice on a log edit, but we have never had one of our finders edit (we think).

 

Just to make sure others notice, because FobesMan's response got buried in a quote, COs DO NOT get notified of a log edit. Only new logs (whether a find, DNF, note, etc.) generate an email.

 

As for DNFs, personally, I normally only post DNFs for caches I'm fairly certain are not there.

If I'm unable to search or limited by muggles, I won't post a DNF, though there are some around here that do.

If I'm looking for a cache, and I'm just not understanding a hint, or just otherwise getting stumped, I won't post a DNF, and just come back another time to try again.

If I actually find what I'm pretty sure is the hiding spot (matching description or hint, obvious hiding materials, etc.), but can't find the cache, I'll post a DNF.

If I do find a cache after multiple failures, I'll usually mention in my log how many times I visited before making the find. I think my worst was 4 (so far)...

[+Gan Dalf]

Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

 

I understand your thought process on this one. We usually have one DNF log posted and we will edit it to add another date if we return. We think the CO gets a notice on a log edit, but we have never had one of our finders edit (we think).

 

Just to make sure others notice, because FobesMan's response got buried in a quote, COs DO NOT get notified of a log edit. Only new logs (whether a find, DNF, note, etc.) generate an email.

 

 

Thanks, that's what I get for trying to post a quote on the forums using my phone...

[+BlueDeuce]

Do people honestly think that a DNF is just only a flag for an owner or that it can just be tossed aside you make a find?

 

I think it's part of caching. Silly me.

[+Chrysalides]

Do people honestly think that a DNF is just only a flag for an owner or that it can just be tossed aside you make a find?

 

I think it's part of caching. Silly me.

Does BlueDeuce honestly think that this is a nice friendly reply for relatively newcomers to the hobby asking for and sharing opinions in the forums?

 

I think it's a snarky reply. Silly me.

[+the hermit crabs]

The other reason I delete old DNF reports ... I look at the found-versus-not-found statistics on a given cache as another indicator confirming/contradicting the difficulty rating supplied by the CO. In that case, it seems more reasonable that I should delete a DNF if I find it later.

Your first sentence makes perfect sense to me, but the next one seems to contradict it.

 

For example, take this cache (where I recently had a DNF). It has a 2-star difficulty rating. There are currently 102 found-it logs and 20 DNF logs.

 

Some of the finders say that this was their second or third try, but there are no previous DNF logs by them, so the count of 20 DNFs for this cache is actually too low. (I don't know if they logged DNFs originally, or if they follow the practice of deleting DNF logs.)

 

Which leads me to the conclusion that this cache is under-rated for difficulty: a 2-star should not have this high a level of DNFs or take so many people more than one attempt to find. But if everyone used your reasoning, many of those DNF logs would eventually disappear, making a 2-star rating look reasonable.

[+Team Hugs]

The other reason I delete old DNF reports ... I look at the found-versus-not-found statistics on a given cache as another indicator confirming/contradicting the difficulty rating supplied by the CO. In that case, it seems more reasonable that I should delete a DNF if I find it later.

Your first sentence makes perfect sense to me, but the next one seems to contradict it.

 

I'm a professor; I contradict myself all the time.

 

Perhaps what I didn't say is that, as a novice geocacher, I'm not sure that my DNFs ought to be weighted as highly as those of veterans. (For example, I'm still struggling with micro-in-a-tree caches ... slowly getting better, but they're still much tougher for me than they ought to be.) If I log a DNF after a reasonable search, then go back and find it in one of those "doh!" moments, I feel like the previous DNF is more a reflection on me than the cache hide. I don't want to skip logging the DNF initially (in case the cache is really gone, for example) ... but I also don't want to mislead someone if the DNF is more due to my novice skills than the cache's inherent difficulty.

 

I can see the point, though, in leaving the DNF alone and logging a later find, if that turns out to be a better description of the cache overall.

 

I do appreciate the overall geocaching ethic that's being espoused here ("DNF" just means you didn't find it, play the game the way you want to play it, etc.); it certainly makes for a very friendly overall environment for newbies like me. Even within those heuristics, though, there's some subtlety to the rules that belies the obvious simplicity. (Which is somewhat stimulating, actually ... learning a new set of cultural conventions is fascinating ...)

[+briansnat]

I think DNFs should stay. They are a part of the history of the cache and also useful info for other cachers. If I'm having a hard time with a cache and see nothing but Found Its in the logs, I'm going to chalk it up as probably missing and give up prematurely. If on the other hand I see a bunch of DNFs sprinkled among the logs I'm going to know that it's not a slam dunk easy find and search a bit longer and harder.

 

Since so many people rate cache difficulty improperly the absence or presence of DNFs can provide cachers with an idea of the true difficulty.

[+Gan Dalf]

The other reason I delete old DNF reports ... I look at the found-versus-not-found statistics on a given cache as another indicator confirming/contradicting the difficulty rating supplied by the CO. In that case, it seems more reasonable that I should delete a DNF if I find it later.

Your first sentence makes perfect sense to me, but the next one seems to contradict it.

 

I'm a professor; I contradict myself all the time.

 

(Which is somewhat stimulating, actually ... learning a new set of cultural conventions is fascinating ...)

 

So are you a Sociology Professor?

[+John in Valley Forge]

Post a new Found It log and then bask in the glory of finding that which eluded you before.

[+Lil Devil]

Perhaps what I didn't say is that, as a novice geocacher, I'm not sure that my DNFs ought to be weighted as highly as those of veterans.

Logs are read by humans. Not computers. They will weight them appropriately.

 

For example, if I get a DNF on one of my caches from someone with 4 finds who says "I looked everywhere I could think of" but I know the cache is pretty tricky, then I'll probably ignore the log. But if the next day I get a DNF from someone with a thousand finds and says "I found an empty hole where I think the cache was" then I'll go out and check on the cache.

[+xPINKYx]

If I look for a cache and don't find it it's a DNF.

If I look for it later and find it, it's a new Found log.

If I DNF (without any one finding it after my DNF) and CO confirms cache is not there I alter my DNF to a note and say why I've changed from DNF to note.

 

For me, a DNF means I couldn't find what was there and it's a challenge for me to go back and find it. If it wasn't there when I went to look for it...well...that's a bit more of a challenge than I want I like to know my find to DNF ratio.

[+Student Camper]

What if you DNF because it was muggled? Then when you do find it, it is exactly where you did not find it the first time. If it had been there, I would have found it the first time.

 

I'm thinking new log.

I don't think the reason for the DNF matters. You did not look at the correct spot, or if it is not there, you did not find it, so it's a DNF log. Finding it later doesn't mean you did not DNF it the last time.

 

So far no one has suggested that editing / deleting the DNF log is the way to go. This is a highly unnatural state of being for the forums. Can someone disagree with the majority opinion before the forums implode?

 

I think you should be able to delete your DNF entry completely as you have now found it.

Deleted

Edited October 5, 2011 by Student Camper

[+the hermit crabs]

Even within those heuristics, though, there's some subtlety to the rules that belies the obvious simplicity.

Not just "subtlety" -- I'd say it's more of a complete lack of agreement of what the rules are, or whether there are any rules at all. There are plenty opinions, though.

 

And it's not just a case of opinions differing in degree; there are some polar opposites. I've heard some people say that they will only log a DNF if they are sure that the cache is missing, because otherwise they consider it a "haven't found it yet" rather than a "did not find." And others are just the opposite: they will only log a DNF if they are sure that the cache really is there, because they don't want to take the (imaginary) blame/shame for a DNF that wasn't their fault.

 

And even for those that generally agree on what a DNF is, there is no real consensus on when to log it. Here are just a few examples:

• Some just never log DNFs, ever.
  
• Some will start the searching-for-it "clock" as soon as they press the "Go" button on the GPS, even if they are still miles away. If anything prevents a find -- including such non-caching related events as heavy traffic or a sudden downpour before even parking the car -- it's a DNF.
  
• Some will log a DNF only if they at least reached the cache site and started searching.
  
• Some will only log a DNF if they got to the cache site and they feel they gave as thorough a search as they can. If they just did a quick look but came up empty, they might log it as a note instead and plan to come back later when they have more time.
  
• Some will only log a DNF if they think it will be useful for other cachers. If they're in the middle of the search and, say, get an emergency phone call from their spouse, making them drop everything -- they won't log a DNF on that because it had nothing to do with the cache.
  
• Any other variation you can think of probably belongs here too.
  

 

Perhaps what I didn't say is that, as a novice geocacher, I'm not sure that my DNFs ought to be weighted as highly as those of veterans. (For example, I'm still struggling with micro-in-a-tree caches ... slowly getting better, but they're still much tougher for me than they ought to be.) If I log a DNF after a reasonable search, then go back and find it in one of those "doh!" moments, I feel like the previous DNF is more a reflection on me than the cache hide.

Your DNF is no less valid than anyone else's. Your guess at the reason for a DNF could be very useful to others, though -- if it's because you're still struggling with micros in trees, and note it in your log (if it's not a spolier), then it could be really helpful to someone else in the same boat.

 

And even if a subsequent find makes you feel like the previous DNF is more a reflection on yourself than on the cache hide -- even that can be helpful. There are a couple of cachers in my area that I seem to have the same "searching style" as -- very often, each of us will DNF a first attempt on certain tricky hides, and then find it on the second try. When I read their logs on a cache I haven't tried yet, and see that they had an initial DNF, it actually makes me feel much better going into it, knowing that if I DNF it's not too surprising or disappointing, and if I happen to find it, it's an unexpected bonus. So even if their DNFs are "a reflection on them," it still helps me.

[+Team Hugs]

I'm a professor; I contradict myself all the time.

 

(Which is somewhat stimulating, actually ... learning a new set of cultural conventions is fascinating ...)

 

So are you a Sociology Professor?

 

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Express last night.

 

Seriously ... I'm a computer scientist, with a heavy mathematical bent. What I think I find fascinating is how an exceedingly simple set of "rules" (essentially, "log your finds", "trade equal or better", and "play the game the way you like") ends up creating fascinating variations --- as this discussion illustrates for me. It's somewhat reminiscent of fractals. (It's also probably why I loved watching Survivor on CBS for many years ... extremely simple set of rules, leading to all sorts of interesting variations depending on who plays the game.)

 

Logs are read by humans. Not computers. They will weight them appropriately.

 

And that's a fair point, which I'm considering.

 

Even within those heuristics, though, there's some subtlety to the rules that belies the obvious simplicity.

Not just "subtlety" -- I'd say it's more of a complete lack of agreement of what the rules are, or whether there are any rules at all. There are plenty opinions, though.

 

Agreed. That's part of the fun, I suspect.

 

Your DNF is no less valid than anyone else's. Your guess at the reason for a DNF could be very useful to others, though -- if it's because you're still struggling with micros in trees, and note it in your log (if it's not a spolier), then it could be really helpful to someone else in the same boat.

 

And that's a fair point as well.

 

After this discussion ... I'm thinking of adopting a slightly different practice. If I find a cache that I logged as a DNF, I might edit the old DNF into a note and log the find. It still preserves history, especially for those reading the log ... but it fits my intuitions as to what "found" and "did not find" mean. I'll try it for awhile and see what I think ...

[+Bear and Ragged]

Admittedly, I'm relatively new to this sport ... but I think I can make an argument for deleting DNF logs after a subsequent find.

 

I've been using my automatically-generated DNF list as a sort of "to-do" list: a reminder of the caches I tried to find and failed, but might subsequently turn into finds. I'll go back and look at old items and see if there were subsequent successful finds, new hints, maintentance reports, etc.. If I didn't deleted the old DNF reports after subsequently finding it, this technique doesn't work as well. (Admittedly, I could probably do the same thing with a private bookmark list.)

 

The other reason I delete old DNF reports ... I look at the found-versus-not-found statistics on a given cache as another indicator confirming/contradicting the difficulty rating supplied by the CO. In that case, it seems more reasonable that I should delete a DNF if I find it later.

 

I can certainly understand the "one-visit, one-log" theory in terms of preserving history, but I don't think we hold to that principle universally. If I revisit a found cache several times (say, for travel bug movement), existing protocol seems to indicate that you shouldn't log multiple "finds" (i.e. only one "find" per cache). Also ... for me as a newbie, I've had several caches I've had to visit several times until I found them (especially when trying to hit urban caches while heading to/from work). Should I really log five DNFs on a cache before I log the one find? I think that'd clutter up the log unnecessarily.

 

If you really want statistics, try GSAK.

It can count DNF's, and DNF's which you have since Found.

[+Chrysalides]

What I think I find fascinating is how an exceedingly simple set of "rules" (essentially, "log your finds", "trade equal or better", and "play the game the way you like") ends up creating fascinating variations --- as this discussion illustrates for me.

That's because human languages, unlike mathematics (and to a certain extent computer languages) is terribly imprecise, as a computer scientist with a strong mathematical bent should know better than most

 

I'm a strong advocate of "just do whatever makes sense to you" when it comes to DNF logs, and "if it's OK with you and the CO, go for it" when it comes to Found It logs.

[+popokiiti]

Each cache with a non-find gets a DNF and goes on my watchlist. If I return and don't find it after searching again, another DNF, and so on until I can log a Found It.

I use a note if I/we don't search due to muggles/rain etc.

That's the way we do it - each to their own.

[+dfx]

After this discussion ... I'm thinking of adopting a slightly different practice. If I find a cache that I logged as a DNF, I might edit the old DNF into a note and log the find. It still preserves history, especially for those reading the log ... but it fits my intuitions as to what "found" and "did not find" mean. I'll try it for awhile and see what I think ...

 

I think your intuitions about what "found it" and "didn't find it" mean are wrong. You seem to see the logs as a personal status indicator for each cache, where the status can be one of "never looked", "looked and didn't find" and "found". But that's not what the logs are there for. The logs (well, at least the "found it" and the DNF logs) are supposed to document events. "I've found it on this and that date" is one such event, another is "I've looked for it on this and that date and didn't find it". That's what the logs are supposed to be used for, and not as a toggle for any potential status indicators.

 

There is a personal status indicator for each cache, that's "found" vs "not found (yet)" and it's directly influenced through the presence of a "found it" log. But that status indicator is simply a side effect and not the main purpose of posting a log.