Jump to content

Does a 'did not find' affect your decision about whether or not to go for a certain cache?


canine.matt

Recommended Posts

I was talking to my brother about this yesterday. He said that when the most recent log entry is a 'did not find', he won't look for that particular cache. I, on the other hand, would only avoid a certain cache if the last 4-5 in a row were DNF. So, both of us being relatively new to this, I thought I would ask some of the more veteran cachers here.

 

How many recent DNF entries in the online log would there have to be before you skipped a nearby cache? And would the time since the most recent entry have any effect?

 

This is assuming the cache in question is something nearby but not exactly where you're at. Like if you're deciding whether to drive two blocks down the road to find one or something.

Link to comment

I have a cache which is a relatively easy one and it was DNFed by 2 cachers with over 10k finds each. Those 2 DNFs scared away cachers for a while, but it was still there and they just missed it, happens. So, yes, DNFs may scare away cachers.

 

However, unless it was a super obvious 1 difficulty cache that is a regular, I would probably go for it. If its a tough cache, unless someone said something like...was with a past finder and we think its gone, I would look for it.

 

Would I drive 10 miles for one cache with recent DNFs on it that would make me think its gone? No. Would I look for a cache that could still be there with a few DNFs and am in the area anyway? Yes, but I might look for it a little less time wise.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

I factor in d/t and the context of the DNF before deciding. Usually it has to be a few. Though there is a cache near me with a DNF or two on it which I would have searched for. But I heard from a friend of the owner that one of hte steps in the multi has been missing going on 2 years now. So it's just one of those caches none of us look for.

Link to comment

Depends on how you want to play the game.

If you want to be assured (as much as possible) of a find each and every time you look, then don't go if there is even one DNF.

Then again I have DNFed when the previous ten logs were finds...and then the following ten logs were also finds. :lol:

I usually look for a cache regardless of the DNFs, if I'm in the area, but if I am pressed for time I do filter out the ones with several DNFs.

Link to comment
How many recent DNF entries in the online log would there have to be before you skipped a nearby cache? And would the time since the most recent entry have any effect?

 

If the last three logs on a cache are DNFs I filter it out of GSAK and it won't even hit my GPSr for me to skip. The timing doesn't matter to me, it's part of my automated process.

Link to comment
How many recent DNF entries in the online log would there have to be before you skipped a nearby cache? And would the time since the most recent entry have any effect?

 

If the last three logs on a cache are DNFs I filter it out of GSAK and it won't even hit my GPSr for me to skip. The timing doesn't matter to me, it's part of my automated process.

 

Multiple DNFs in a row might mean the cache is missing but it may also mean that it's just really hard to find. Using a filter which excludes caches which have recent DNF logs, means you may be skipping caches only because they're hard to find. For some, that might exactly the kind of cache they want to *include* in their list of caches to attempt.

Link to comment

It all really depends. If the cache has a high difficulty rating then I would expect it to have a few DNFs, a find, then a few more DNFs, a find, a few more DNFs, etc. If the cache has a high terrain rating or requires a long hike and it isn't near any other caches then I'll usually wait until someone else finds it or the CO checks on it. If there is another cache that I am going to nearby the cache with a series of DNFs then I'll stop by and check it out the one with the DNFs. I've been lucky and found a couple of caches that others couldn't. I've found caches that were DNFed 5 or even 8 times in a row and I go there and find it safe and sound but very well hidden and/or camoed. And of course on the flip side I've been the first DNFer on a cache that had tens of finds and no DNFs then someone comes behind me a day or two later and finds it and the finding streak continues.

Link to comment
How many recent DNF entries in the online log would there have to be before you skipped a nearby cache? And would the time since the most recent entry have any effect?

 

If the last three logs on a cache are DNFs I filter it out of GSAK and it won't even hit my GPSr for me to skip. The timing doesn't matter to me, it's part of my automated process.

 

Multiple DNFs in a row might mean the cache is missing but it may also mean that it's just really hard to find. Using a filter which excludes caches which have recent DNF logs, means you may be skipping caches only because they're hard to find. For some, that might exactly the kind of cache they want to *include* in their list of caches to attempt.

 

3 DNFs in a row does not even imply that either the cache is missing or is hard to find. If the 3 DNFs are to due to a single group of 3 cachers it is sufficient that these cachers made some mistake, overlook the cache, lost the motivation or whatever which can happen very easily.

 

For me not the number of DNF logs, but their contents is important and also try to take into account how many of the DNF-logs have happened independently and how the DNF-rate of the cache looks like.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

For caches in my home area: Not so much if there is a DNF log or how many there are, but who is posting the DNF and the content of their log. I look for things like "called in a PAF from the guy that found it last week and it's not where he found it".

 

For caches outside my home area: I look for a string of DNFs and NA logs. If I don't know who is who then I generally look at the time stamps on the DNF logs and, if I can, the last date the CO logged on.

Link to comment

There are DNF logs and then there are DNF logs. "Took a quick look but it was getting dark and we needed to get back home" is different from "Searched for 45 minutes, no luck". Even the latter, if it were the only DNF, probably wouldn't deter me, though if I were trying to choose between that cache and another one with no recent DNF it might be the deal breaker.

 

Then there's "Started looking but a guy came out of the nearby house with a shotgun and told us to leave" which would probably lead me to stay away.

Link to comment

I consider the experience level of those that didn't find it, their logs, the difficulty of the cache...then probably go for it anyway. Hey I've got over 500 DNFs what's a few more?

I'm having trouble finding where the experience level of geocachers is listed.

Edited by Glenn
Link to comment

I consider the experience level of those that didn't find it, their logs, the difficulty of the cache...then probably go for it anyway. Hey I've got over 500 DNFs what's a few more?

I'm having trouble finding where the experience level of geocachers is listed.

The experience level isn't listed, but the find count is. Some people will use the find count of the DNF log to estimate the experience level.

 

On local caches, you might recognize some names on the loggers. After you've been caching for a while you get to know the people who have been around for awhile and what kind of experience they have in finding caches. If it's a name you don't recognized you can assume its a newbie - though it's just as likely that it's someone from out of town.

 

Finally you can read the DNF log. It may give some indication of the experience level and even if it doesn't it might indicate whether they really searched for the cache or gave up their search early for some reason.

 

 

I generally load all active caches into my GPS. So I search for cache with DNFs all the time. At some point in my search I'll check the the logs on my GPSr. If the cache is found recently I'll keep searching for awhile longer. If there are DNFs or no recent find, I'll read the logs and evaluate if I think the cache may still be there or not . If I think that it's likely missing, I'll end my search. On caches I've DNF'd, I'll generally not look again until someone finds the cache. But if I think I didn't really search everywhere or may have missed the cache for some reason, I'll search even if there were no interim finds.

Link to comment

 

I'm having trouble finding where the experience level of geocachers is listed.

Well lets see you have an established local cacher with 1k+ finds, several hides actively maintained and has been a member of the site for several years.

On the other hand you have a cacher with 35 finds, zero hides and has been a member for two months.

While it is not 100% proof positive I would be comfortable assigning a higher experience level to the first cacher when judging their DNF logs for consideration of my own attempt at finding the cache.

Sure it is not an absolute perfect system. There are probably some rare folks who might have a great deal of experience that is not reflected in their account statistics. But in general a person with more then a few finds and more then a few months of activity is going to be more experienced then a person whos stats make it appear that they have just started playing the game.

I know personally I became a great deal better at finding caches after I found a few hundred and was exposed to a variety of hiding techniques then I was when trying to find my first 50 caches.

 

As to the OP...

For local caches I am not generally picky about DNF logs. There are too many factors to list to determine if I will attempt to find it. Currently within 5 miles of my home there are 97 caches available that I have not yet found.

I tend to cache in trip events. That is I will travel to an area specifically to find caches in that area (and maybe try a local place to eat that I have heard good things about). 65% of my finds are greater then 30 miles distant from my home.

When planning these trips I pay close attention to the number of DNF logs. So if a cache has a certain ratio of recent DNFs (this varies with cache density of an area, a cache rich area will allow me to be more picky) then I will not include them in my trip plans. Sure I may miss a good cache here and there, but I always have the option to returning to an area on a future trip and perhaps then the ratio will be different and the cache will then be included in the plans. This is why I wish people would only log a DNF on a cache if they actually attempted to search at the coordinates for the cache. But since I can't influence those who feel a DNF is ok if they only thought about looking for the cache I accept the fact that I may miss a few good caches on my trips. Which in the end is not a huge deal since I'm never going to find all the caches anyway.

Link to comment

I consider the experience level of those that didn't find it, their logs, the difficulty of the cache...then probably go for it anyway. Hey I've got over 500 DNFs what's a few more?

I'm having trouble finding where the experience level of geocachers is listed.

Look at their profile, the number of finds, the length of time they've cached, and the type of caches they've found all are indicators of experience level.

Link to comment

I was talking to my brother about this yesterday. He said that when the most recent log entry is a 'did not find', he won't look for that particular cache. I, on the other hand, would only avoid a certain cache if the last 4-5 in a row were DNF. So, both of us being relatively new to this, I thought I would ask some of the more veteran cachers here.

 

How many recent DNF entries in the online log would there have to be before you skipped a nearby cache? And would the time since the most recent entry have any effect?

 

This is assuming the cache in question is something nearby but not exactly where you're at. Like if you're deciding whether to drive two blocks down the road to find one or something.

 

Your brother may well be missing out on some of the best, cleverest, most challenging caches out there. Maybe he doesn't care, but at least he should be made aware of that fact.

Link to comment

When caching I'm often in the field looking for the next nearest cache to go find.

 

3 DNFs in a row - skip it, won't read the entries. I'm not keen on challenges or wasting time hunting for something that may not be there.

2 DNFs in a row - likely skip it too and not read entries - there are plenty of caches around without DNFs to choose from.

1 DNF - I'll likely read the note. If it says they couldn't find it, skip it. I'll come back some other time when a Find is recorded.

 

COs that worry that folks won't go looking for their cache if there's a DNF can check on the cache, or contact the person who posted a DNF to verify they checked in the correct spot then post an OM or note.

Link to comment

I was talking to my brother about this yesterday. He said that when the most recent log entry is a 'did not find', he won't look for that particular cache. I, on the other hand, would only avoid a certain cache if the last 4-5 in a row were DNF. So, both of us being relatively new to this, I thought I would ask some of the more veteran cachers here.

 

How many recent DNF entries in the online log would there have to be before you skipped a nearby cache? And would the time since the most recent entry have any effect?

 

This is assuming the cache in question is something nearby but not exactly where you're at. Like if you're deciding whether to drive two blocks down the road to find one or something.

 

Your brother may well be missing out on some of the best, cleverest, most challenging caches out there. Maybe he doesn't care, but at least he should be made aware of that fact.

 

That's where the Favorite votes come in. If it's indeed a clever cache it'll have a few Fav ribbons plus a few great comments in between the DNFs. Often, before setting out on a cache run I'll pull up the local caches in the area, click the blue ribbon and read through the logs of the most favored caches to see if it's something I could do. In that case a few DNFs might not deter.

Link to comment

If the last three logs on a cache are DNFs I filter it out of GSAK and it won't even hit my GPSr for me to skip. The timing doesn't matter to me, it's part of my automated process.

 

Multiple DNFs in a row might mean the cache is missing but it may also mean that it's just really hard to find. Using a filter which excludes caches which have recent DNF logs, means you may be skipping caches only because they're hard to find. For some, that might exactly the kind of cache they want to *include* in their list of caches to attempt.

Yep, I realize that.

 

I'm into caching to see cool locations, not to spend an hour hunting for a difficult cache. I realize my method might not work for others for actually enjoy the hunting part of the caching game.

Link to comment

I only use DNFs and even Disables strategically: if it's the only cache in the area or it takes a lot of effort to get to it, I'll typically find somewhere else to go. But if I'm nearby and it's just a little more effort to go there, I'll have a look. Finding a cache that several others have missed gives me a nice sense of accomplishment, but, on the other hand, it doesn't happen very often, so you should have a better reason to be there.

Link to comment
Finding a cache that several others have missed gives me a nice sense of accomplishment, but, on the other hand, it doesn't happen very often, so you should have a better reason to be there.

If it’s DNF’d by a bunch of cachers I know are experienced, it’s unlikely that I’ll find it. So I’ve got to be interested in the place before I’ll bother. And sometimes it’s never been found, and the Cache Owner insists it’s still there just fine… so I may visit just to check out the mystery.

Link to comment

 

I'm having trouble finding where the experience level of geocachers is listed.

Well lets see you have an established local cacher with 1k+ finds, several hides actively maintained and has been a member of the site for several years.

On the other hand you have a cacher with 35 finds, zero hides and has been a member for two months.

While it is not 100% proof positive I would be comfortable assigning a higher experience level to the first cacher when judging their DNF logs for consideration of my own attempt at finding the cache.

Sure it is not an absolute perfect system. There are probably some rare folks who might have a great deal of experience that is not reflected in their account statistics. But in general a person with more then a few finds and more then a few months of activity is going to be more experienced then a person whos stats make it appear that they have just started playing the game.

I know personally I became a great deal better at finding caches after I found a few hundred and was exposed to a variety of hiding techniques then I was when trying to find my first 50 caches.

Ah, okay. It isn't anything supported on the website. I'm getting back in to the game after taking a few years off and was wondering if this was a change that I hadn't discovered yet.

Link to comment

I load up my GPX files. Delete Disabled caches. Delete caches that have not been found in a while that have two or more DNFs. Load up my Gupy. Look for an intersting area, and off we go. Get to the cache site using Gupy and the hint. If no luck, then I look at the cache page on Paw (the Palm Pilot). Yup. Sometimes I'll be lookig for caches with DNFs and/or NM. Oh, well.

So, no. It does not affect my hunt.

On the other fin, I recently had two DNFs on three of my relatively easy caches. With a note: Something must be going on in this park. So I had to go check on them (and lost geocaching time.) Nope. Sorry. You two just did not look very hard. Oh, well. And, mo. They were not caching together...

Link to comment

To add my opinion:

 

If I am "power caching" I will not bother with any hide that has even one DNF.

If I am just out for a causal day I will only avoid looking for a cahe it has more than 3 DNFs.

Occasionally I will really search for one with multiple DNFs and if I can satisfy myself that it is truly not there I will send a "needs maint" note.

 

If an owner receives multiple DNFs or the find ratte drops it is probably a good idea to check on the hide.

 

Happy caches!

Edited by klipsch49er
Link to comment

I was talking to my brother about this yesterday. He said that when the most recent log entry is a 'did not find', he won't look for that particular cache. I, on the other hand, would only avoid a certain cache if the last 4-5 in a row were DNF. So, both of us being relatively new to this, I thought I would ask some of the more veteran cachers here.

 

How many recent DNF entries in the online log would there have to be before you skipped a nearby cache? And would the time since the most recent entry have any effect?

 

This is assuming the cache in question is something nearby but not exactly where you're at. Like if you're deciding whether to drive two blocks down the road to find one or something.

 

Your brother may well be missing out on some of the best, cleverest, most challenging caches out there. Maybe he doesn't care, but at least he should be made aware of that fact.

 

If they stick with the game, they'll come around to seeking out the clever and challenging hides...I think. Many new cachers view DNFs and difficult caches as lost opportunities. Meaning, if they spend 30 minutes looking for this ONE cache, that's 30 minutes they won't have to find 5-10 other caches. After they've hit their threshold for nanos hidden on signs, those 4 star caches become alot more appealing. Or not. Some cachers are as happy as clams to hit every mega power trail that arises.

 

Personally, as far as DNF's go, from my start in geocaching, I've always enjoyed the challenge of finding a cache that had a string of DNF's. Unless it is obviously gone, I don't shy away from caches that rack up the DNF's.

 

When caching I'm often in the field looking for the next nearest cache to go find.

 

3 DNFs in a row - skip it, won't read the entries. I'm not keen on challenges or wasting time hunting for something that may not be there.

2 DNFs in a row - likely skip it too and not read entries - there are plenty of caches around without DNFs to choose from.

1 DNF - I'll likely read the note. If it says they couldn't find it, skip it. I'll come back some other time when a Find is recorded.

I wonder if running a PQ and selecting the "Found in the last 7 days" option would filter out alot of those caches with strings of DNF's.

Link to comment

I was talking to my brother about this yesterday. He said that when the most recent log entry is a 'did not find', he won't look for that particular cache. I, on the other hand, would only avoid a certain cache if the last 4-5 in a row were DNF. So, both of us being relatively new to this, I thought I would ask some of the more veteran cachers here.

 

How many recent DNF entries in the online log would there have to be before you skipped a nearby cache? And would the time since the most recent entry have any effect?

 

This is assuming the cache in question is something nearby but not exactly where you're at. Like if you're deciding whether to drive two blocks down the road to find one or something.

Link to comment

>1 DNF will not dissuade me, but if the last 3-5* logs are DNFs then I will almost always skip it.

 

me too..

but some times I did actually look for caches with 2-3 DNF as last logs,

and FOUND IT !!! HAHA the reward is outstanding.. the feeling of : HAHA I am the best and coolest,

I can find stuff others cant, the smile is hard to take away :-)

 

Caches with Needs Maintenence flag sat, are normally NOT transfered to my GPS,

simply since they are most of the times supposed to need service..

I did this for many years, but found out, alot of the caches with needs maintenencs

are still in an ok state, can be found, can be logged, and can lead you to a very cool and special location.

some I found had no reason at all the be "needs maintenence" was in perfect shape !!!

so I wrote to the CO and requested him to remove this flag.

Link to comment

 

When caching I'm often in the field looking for the next nearest cache to go find.

 

3 DNFs in a row - skip it, won't read the entries. I'm not keen on challenges or wasting time hunting for something that may not be there.

2 DNFs in a row - likely skip it too and not read entries - there are plenty of caches around without DNFs to choose from.

1 DNF - I'll likely read the note. If it says they couldn't find it, skip it. I'll come back some other time when a Find is recorded.

I wonder if running a PQ and selecting the "Found in the last 7 days" option would filter out alot of those caches with strings of DNF's.

Occassionally I will go out of my way to look for a cache with a string of DNFs if everyone is posting that they couldn't find the cache, the cache has a low D rating, and someone needs to post an NM to nudge the CO (around here it also alerts the reviewers).

Link to comment

Most of us know cachers that have a certain hide style - someone who usually places in one of (pick a number) spots.

Sometimes I'll head out (if it's a decent walk) and look, but not really expecting to find it. I went for the walk.

If I'm already in the area looking for another and have the time (not for the numbers, but daylight), I might stop by if I've done any of the CO's hides.

But if I can't find the one I'm originally looking for, forget it.

 

Just a few weeks ago I looked for a hide that (found later by others) had coords pretty-far off. Two hours and couldn't spot the critter.

Only a half mile away was another with multiple DNFs. I know the CO well, but after the disappointing showing earlier, would I really want to frustrate myself more? Headed home instead.

Sometimes it's better to just enjoy the view and walk away...

Link to comment

I agree with most.

1) I read the logs to see what issues they have. Too dark, It's raining, not at GZ but didn't include updated coords from previous finder, didn't attempt, missing log etc.

2) How many finds do they have and how long have they been caching. Sometimes even with a 1 diffculty with a newbie is hard.

3) Yes of course D/T rating with anyone.

I definitely don't try with ones that the previous caches says "the cache was damaged so I took it home" Hmm so why didn't they post NM? That is a whole different thread.

Link to comment

I seen one in the area I was working. It was kind of a long hike and the last few that looked for it posted DNF. I decided to go look for it because it was a high difficultly and terrain. It had not been found in over a year. I seen what the others did and couldn't find it. As I was leaving something caught my eye and I found it. It was really cool to bring that cache back to life.

-WarNinjas

Link to comment
I did this for many years, but found out, alot of the caches with needs maintenencs are still in an ok state, can be found, can be logged, and can lead you to a very cool and special location.

some I found had no reason at all the be "needs maintenence" was in perfect shape !!!

so I wrote to the CO and requested him to remove this flag.

Although a recent NM log can be important, I ignore the NM flag. I've run into several caches that needed maintenance a few years ago, the maintenance was done right away, but the NM flag wasn't cleared and has been on for no reason ever since. If I notice and remember, I put something in the log, but I suspect I frequently don't notice.
Link to comment

Lots of factors to consider before I decide whether to give it a try, but often I have gone a little farther out of my way for a cache with a single DNF. I'm not sure why, really, but I guess it's because I think maybe I can find it when the other guy couldn't. It might also be the feeling of saving its little geolife.

I actually tried this again today, on a cache while traveling outside my state. No, I didn't find it. But you never know.

Link to comment

I was talking to my brother about this yesterday. He said that when the most recent log entry is a 'did not find', he won't look for that particular cache. I, on the other hand, would only avoid a certain cache if the last 4-5 in a row were DNF. So, both of us being relatively new to this, I thought I would ask some of the more veteran cachers here.

 

How many recent DNF entries in the online log would there have to be before you skipped a nearby cache? And would the time since the most recent entry have any effect?

 

This is assuming the cache in question is something nearby but not exactly where you're at. Like if you're deciding whether to drive two blocks down the road to find one or something.

no because it could just be a hound wanting to stave off competition

Link to comment

I consider the experience level of those that didn't find it, their logs, the difficulty of the cache...then probably go for it anyway. Hey I've got over 500 DNFs what's a few more?

I'm having trouble finding where the experience level of geocachers is listed.

 

As you become familiar with the caches and cachers in your area it becomes relatively obvious.

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...