What are your reasons?

[+cwgrizz]

As a curious person (probably why I like geocaching) and one who always posts my DNF's, I have personally seen people look for a cache, but not find it. Then after numerous days of watching the cache listing, no DNF is logged. It made me wonder:

Why don't they play the game and log a DNF?

 

Too much testosterone?

Not wanting to ruin their stats, even though they are the only one who will see the DNF's (I think, maybe PM can)?

Looks bad for your image?

Etc.

 

If you don't post a DNF after looking for a cache and not finding it, why not?

There probably won't be many replies to this for the same reasons DNF's are not logged.

[+WRASTRO]

I pretty much always log my DNFs so I can keep a good record of my caching activities. On occasion I will log a note rather than a DNF, but with commentary about my experience with the cache. About 10% of my hunts result in a DNF.

[+Chokecherry]

I typically log them. Sometimes I honestly just don't want to take the time especially if it was a quick stop and not really focused searching.

[+Mudfrog]

As a curious person (probably why I like geocaching) and one who always posts my DNF's, I have personally seen people look for a cache, but not find it. Then after numerous days of watching the cache listing, no DNF is logged. It made me wonder:

Why don't they play the game and log a DNF?

 

Too much testosterone?

Not wanting to ruin their stats, even though they are the only one who will see the DNF's (I think, maybe PM can)?

Looks bad for your image?

Etc.

 

If you don't post a DNF after looking for a cache and not finding it, why not?

There probably won't be many replies to this for the same reasons DNF's are not logged.

 

I always log my dnfs. Besides being one of the easiest things in life to do, it helps keep my cache history correct.

 

On your question and reasons,,, I'm kinda guessing here but I figure that some get the feeling that they failed and they just don't like having that feeling. Even though they didn't find the cache, they'll still come up with all kinds of reasons not to log it..

[+lamoracke]

doubt many of the folks who log DNFs will be here saying why not. Some may just think its a waste of time and not even a shame thing. I log them because I like to see a record of what I have done, finding it or not.

 

I used to delete my DNFs once I found the cache later, but I stopped doing that.

 

Logging DNFs can occasionally help you find caches, like the D.N.F. challenges out there.

[+zack_black]

I always log DNFs not simply for my own benefit but also because a string of DNF's might mean the cache may be MIA.

[+popokiiti]

I log my DNFs - and then the cache goes on the watchlist for all the "easy find" logs to come in to make me get out there and find it for myself.

[+dfx]

Someone suggesting "too much testosterone" as a reason makes me want to not log my DNFs just out of spite.

[+Governor Worf]

I don't log a DNF until after at least a couple searches for the cache. If I log a DNF and later find it, I remove the DNF log. This way, I can easily check to see if I have a DNF that need to take another crack at in the future.

[+L0ne.R]

If you don't post a DNF after looking for a cache and not finding it, why not?

 

I post a DNF if I think it will be a service to the caching community and/or the CO.

As a CO I don't mind if someone posts a note instead of a DNF, or even if someone emails me instead of posting a note or a DNF. I'd rather they let me know in whatever way they feel most comfortable.

[+L0ne.R]

You might be interested in this forum topic for other reasons why someone might not log a DNF, especially when they didn't do a serious search of ground zero.

 

Does a 'did not find' affect your decision.....

[+captnemo]

If I look for a cache and don't find it that's a DNF. If I just show up but for whatever reason, muggles etc., then it's a note.

 

I have never understood why one wouldn't log DNFs? As a CO and as a searcher I appreciate when a DNF is logged.

[+Team OPJim]

Generally I do log, but occasionally I don't on the second or third try at a cache when I've confirmed with the CO that the cache is there but I'm too thick to find it.

[+Coldgears]

There is no benefit to doing so. Lets say the cache was found yesterday, and it's a devious cache, it's obvious it is there. Logging my DNF would waste time.

 

Now lets say, it hasn't been found in months. I will log it.

 

Lets say it was found last week, but it is an LPC, than I log my DNF.

 

When I am the 4th person to DNF in a row. I log a Needs Maintenance.

 

When someone else logged a needs maintence over a week ago, and the CO isn't doing anything, I log a NA.

 

Logging DNF's for the sake of logging them is useless.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Like others have said, sometimes a DNF is really a waste of time. Another reason is it can be embarassing.

 

I tend to log DNFs if doing so will give the cache owner or other cachers useful information. Like I logged a DNF the other night on a cache that should be easy, but hasn't been found in months. I suspect others have not been loggin their DNFs and that one is missing.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Why don't they play the game and log a DNF?

 

Is there a rule someplace that says you have to log DNFs? I haven't seen one.

 

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about the online logging part of the game.

 

My guess is that there are quite a few people who not only don't log their DNFs, they don't log their finds. They get a geocaching account (or a Geomate Jr.) and start looking for caches. Whether they find them or not they don't see a need to share online.

 

For over 8 years the FAQ that explained the "rules" of geocaching didn't even mention online logs. Then Groundspeak decided they needed to be update so they added "Log your experience at www.geocaching.com."

 

Personally I found that annoying. There are plenty of people who will never log their experience online. Even among those that religiously log their finds, many simply write "TFTC", if that much. While many people find the online logs an important part of their geocaching experience, for others it is a waste of time. They geocache to find caches and couldn't care less about writing down their experience for others to share.

 

Of course the OP is probably asking about people who always (or usually) log their finds. Why don't these people log DNFs when they don't find a cache. I suspect there are a number of issues. One is that there is no consensus about what a DNF is. Suppose you looked but you plan to come back and look some more. You haven't given up searching yet. So you may take multiple trips before either finding the cache or logging a DNF. Some are concerned that a DNF is interpreted as the cache being missing. Unless they are fairly certain that they couldn't find the cache because it is missing, or they want the cache owner to check on the cache, they might not log a DNF.

 

It's so hard to reach a consensus on when to log DNFs that I have to smile at those who are claiming they always log a DNF. I suppose some may have a personal definition of DNF that they always stick to. But more like, people are finding reasons to justify not logging a DNF or two.

 

I like to log DNFs and use this to compute a geocaching average, like a baseball batting average. I divide my finds by may total attempts (Finds plus DNFs) to compute my geocaching average. But like a batting average, the definition of an "at bat" does not include all your "plate appearances". There are geocaching equivalents of sacrifice hits and base on balls, that I might not record as either a find or a DNF.

[+Lieblweb]

We don't always log DNF's - and its due to a lot of different reasons.

 

Mostly - its because we didn't spend enough time, have enough time, or didn't get a thorough enough search to warrant a DNF. Some Urban easy caches aren't worth logging a DNF if you can't search for it because of too much muggle activity.

 

Logging a DNF is like telling the CO:

1) The cache could be missing

2) The cache must be a really good hide

3) My cache finding skills suck today but I want to come back to this one because ....(variety of reasons)

[cezanne]

For over 8 years the FAQ that explained the "rules" of geocaching didn't even mention online logs. Then Groundspeak decided they needed to be update so they added "Log your experience at www.geocaching.com."

 

Personally I found that annoying. There are plenty of people who will never log their experience online. Even among those that religiously log their finds, many simply write "TFTC", if that much. While many people find the online logs an important part of their geocaching experience, for others it is a waste of time. They geocache to find caches and couldn't care less about writing down their experience for others to share.

 

Actually, if I realized that a considerable number of cachers visited my caches and did not write on-line logs, I would archive these caches. While there is no requirement for on line logs, being provided with them is the most important part for me.

I am not willing to invest work and effort for those who do not even care to provide the minimal feedback on the cache to the hider without whom the cache never woul exist. Without cachers hiding geocaches, there are no caches to be found. So the attitude that logging is a waste of time is missing the right perspective about what makes it possible to be able to search for caches at all.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 26, 2012 by cezanne

[+power69]

Like others have said, sometimes a DNF is really a waste of time. Another reason is it can be embarassing.

 

I tend to log DNFs if doing so will give the cache owner or other cachers useful information. Like I logged a DNF the other night on a cache that should be easy, but hasn't been found in months. I suspect others have not been loggin their DNFs and that one is missing.

a dnf isn't a [F]ailure. if i make effort to go to location and don't find it, it gets a dnf and goes on my ignore list unless i'm denied by muggle or bad coords, in the latter two they'll get a second try if the coords were found to be bad and fixed or muggle. if it was muggled and replaced it'll also get a second try.

[+RobDJr]

Actually, if I realized that a considerable number of cachers visited my caches and did not write on-line logs, I would archive these caches. While there is no requirement for on line logs, being provided with them is the most important part for me.

I am not willing to invest work and effort for those who do not even care to provide the minimal feedback on the cache to the hider without whom the cache never woul exist. Without cachers hiding geocaches, there are no caches to be found. So the attitude that logging is a waste of time is missing the right perspective about what makes it possible to be able to search for caches at all.

 

The funny thing about this reply is that it explains both why I log and don't log dnf's.

 

I do log the vast majority of my dnf's. I do it mostly because I know the cache owners love to hear whats happening with their caches (why else would they hide them?). Depending on the situation and other factors, it might be a dnf post or a note, but either way the owner knows someone is out there having fun.

 

The few that I haven't logged were horrifically bad caches, by experienced cachers. A cache that bad by a new cacher I would log and try to give some (gentle and positive) feedback on the cache, but by someone who should (and likely does) know better... Eh. They don't deserve feedback on that.

[Trinity's Crew]

I only used to log a DNF if I felt fairly certain that the cache was missing, or that I had at least searched thoroughly.I was worried that a DNF might cause undue concern to the CO.

 

It was actually discussions in the forums that changed my mind. I log all of my DNFs now, just making sure to explain the reasons for it.

[+C8W9]

I always log DNF's.

 

For me, it means I can keep track of caches which I've attempted, and also see if anyone finds it after me then I'll go back and try again.

 

For the owner, if there's several DNF then it can make them aware of a possible problem with the cache.

[+Coldgears]

For over 8 years the FAQ that explained the "rules" of geocaching didn't even mention online logs. Then Groundspeak decided they needed to be update so they added "Log your experience at www.geocaching.com."

He was never arguing that people should log their DNF's. He was just more curious as to why they don't.

 

Oh, and just because puritans quote that set of guidelines and call them "rules" doesn't make it true.

[+klipsch49er]

We don't always log DNF's - and its due to a lot of different reasons.

 

Mostly - its because we didn't spend enough time, have enough time, or didn't get a thorough enough search to warrant a DNF. Some Urban easy caches aren't worth logging a DNF if you can't search for it because of too much muggle activity.

 

Logging a DNF is like telling the CO:

1) The cache could be missing

2) The cache must be a really good hide

3) My cache finding skills suck today but I want to come back to this one because ....(variety of reasons)

 

Yes!

 

I don't want to add a DNF for a cache I feel I have not given every attempt at finding. I don't want to discourage any subsequent cachers from "giving it htere all". I find that some of the more rewarding "easy" hides are the DNFs I attempt and can then log as found thus encouraging the next seeker as well as potentially the previous DNF logger to try again.

Edited February 26, 2012 by klipsch49er

[+Mudfrog]

As i stated above,, people come up with all kinds of reasons not to log their dnfs. You can see some of the various excuses right here in this thread.

 

For me, there is not much gray area here. DNF stands for Did Not Find, nothing more, nothing less. It's a DNF if i punch in a goto and head out to perform a search but not find that cache. Doesn't matter if my car broke down on the way and i never got to ground zero, i searched for 1 minute and didn't find it, or there were too many muggles, etc,,, It's a dnf for me if i started a search and did not find the cache.

 

Now, is it a waste of time to log a dnf because my car broke down on the way to ground zero? Probably so because it doesn't give the cache owner or future finders any info about the cache itself. On the otherhand, it does keep my cache history straight and sometimes makes for some entertaining reading to boot! Of course i do explain in my log why it's a dnf to keep from scaring anyone off.

 

I really don't expect others to be as extreme as i am about logging dnfs but it's easy to see that some don't even want to log "legitimate" dnfs (they searched ground zero and came up empty). Like the OP, i'm just not sure if it's pride, a feeling of shame, testosterone, or that they're just too lazy to log...

Edited February 26, 2012 by Mudfrog

[+OZ2CPU]

a DNF log is actually MORE important to other players, and to the CO, compared to a found.

it tell if the cache is too well hidden or previous visitor did a little extra hiding (actually very common)

or if hint dont make sense, or can be misunderstood, or if position was a bit off,

or radio reflections from nearby constructions confusing gps receivers,

if all non finders, no matter if they spend 5 sec or 5 mins or 2 hrs looking !!

they sure should spend 3 sec to write that DNF so we can fix it,

change attributed or change the difficult level or what ever might be needed.

 

PLEASE LOG A DNF if you did not find it, for what ever reason..

if you see really bad cache shape, log a NM !

and if you see several NM and many other logs with complaints about stuff in bad shape,

log a NA !! this is the only way you can help increase the cache quality.

Edited February 26, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+Dancing_Duo]

We do usually log a DNF when we don't find a cache. The only time we don't is if we KNOW that we did not take the time needed (ex. we KNEW we didn't have much time but thought we'd swing past in case it was an easy p&g). Then we'll keep it marked here so that we can do back & properly look better when we have time.

[+Chokecherry]

We do usually log a DNF when we don't find a cache. The only time we don't is if we KNOW that we did not take the time needed (ex. we KNEW we didn't have much time but thought we'd swing past in case it was an easy p&g). Then we'll keep it marked here so that we can do back & properly look better when we have time.

 

That's usually how it goes for me. Sometimes I'll swing it to get a feel of what I'm looking at terrain wise or difficulty wise because it's unclear with the information on the cache page. I may even poke around for a few minutes but then leave to go figure out how I want to attack a cache but I won't log that as a DNF.

 

Typically I'll log my DNF's usually with some degree of detail but if it's just something where I swung in I'm not going to waste my time logging a DNF that is not going to give any good or reliable info to the cache owner or other seekers looking for the cache.

 

Sometimes if I'm on attempt 5 at a cache and just swing in with nothing new to report I won't log a DNF either. Unless something has changed or my searching has some how changed I likely won't log multiple DNF's on a cache either.

[+sholomar]

if they are a micro and I don't feel I spent enough time trying to find them....

[+captnemo]

Another reason I log my DNFs is that those are the caches I review to go and look for again. I like to review my cache history from time to time and relive those great moments.

[+bflentje]

I try to log every one. I don't get embarrassed or feel less of a man no matter how pathetic my attempt was. I know there are others out there with the opposing view.. wimps.

[+StarBrand]

if they are a micro and I don't feel I spent enough time trying to find them....

define: "enough"

 

I figure if I started to look and that attempt ended in failure for whatever reason - that equals a DNF.

[+sholomar]

muggles that kind of make me stop my attempt more than anything.... or if the cache is rated 4-5 stars as I don't expend significant time looking... if it's not found in 5 minutes I'm onto the next one at least in populated areas. I'll look longer in state parks and out of town, but that's slim pickins out here.

[+A & J Tooling]

As a curious person (probably why I like geocaching) and one who always posts my DNF's, I have personally seen people look for a cache, but not find it. Then after numerous days of watching the cache listing, no DNF is logged. It made me wonder:

Why don't they play the game and log a DNF?

 

Too much testosterone?

Not wanting to ruin their stats, even though they are the only one who will see the DNF's (I think, maybe PM can)?

Looks bad for your image?

Etc.

 

If you don't post a DNF after looking for a cache and not finding it, why not?

There probably won't be many replies to this for the same reasons DNF's are not logged.

 

As someone who has to take testosterone replacement therapy, I am highly offended by this comment! However, I have logged six dnf's at my latest challenge when it really should be like 33. The local police now ask me if I've found it yet.

[+brokenoaks]

One of the things that got me interested in geocaching is the lack of ridged rules. Just a few simple guidelines and go out and play the game. I seldom log finds or do not find because I don’t want to. Perhaps the OP’s list of reasons for not logging DNF is the reasons some keep detailed statistics.

[+darklighter]

I'll always DNF a cache unless I've had to cut short my search for some reason and I expect to return. Seems easy to do, and as a CO, it's useful to know when there are DNFs because they frequently indicate a problem with your geocache.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Like others have said, sometimes a DNF is really a waste of time. Another reason is it can be embarassing.

 

I tend to log DNFs if doing so will give the cache owner or other cachers useful information. Like I logged a DNF the other night on a cache that should be easy, but hasn't been found in months. I suspect others have not been loggin their DNFs and that one is missing.

a dnf isn't a [F]ailure. if i make effort to go to location and don't find it, it gets a dnf and goes on my ignore list unless i'm denied by muggle or bad coords, in the latter two they'll get a second try if the coords were found to be bad and fixed or muggle. if it was muggled and replaced it'll also get a second try.

 

IMO, a DNF *is* a failure. You didn't accomplish what you hoped to.

[+Planet]

I will log a DNF if I really searched for the cache, and want to come back, or if I really searched, and had fun.

I will not log a DNF if I show up, and it's a lamp post, sign post,newspaper stand, or some other manmade urban object. If there are any muggles, I'm not going to look for it. If I even stop for a cache like that, I might give it a few minutes, but more than likely, I kept on driving to get away from suburbia.

One other reason for not logging DNFs is that I'm behind on logging DFs, let alone DNFs. It isn't that important to me to log every DNF, especially if there is no chance that I would go back to look again.

I will definitely log a DNF if I know for sure the cache is gone.

[+Mudfrog]

Like others have said, sometimes a DNF is really a waste of time. Another reason is it can be embarassing.

 

I tend to log DNFs if doing so will give the cache owner or other cachers useful information. Like I logged a DNF the other night on a cache that should be easy, but hasn't been found in months. I suspect others have not been loggin their DNFs and that one is missing.

a dnf isn't a [F]ailure. if i make effort to go to location and don't find it, it gets a dnf and goes on my ignore list unless i'm denied by muggle or bad coords, in the latter two they'll get a second try if the coords were found to be bad and fixed or muggle. if it was muggled and replaced it'll also get a second try.

 

IMO, a DNF *is* a failure. You didn't accomplish what you hoped to.

 

Yep, it is a failure to accomplish a goal. But in this case, think about the goal. Sure we want to find every cache we go for but it shouldn't be that big a deal when we don't..

[+CarlGurt]

Rick & I - The Two Reprobates, log our DNF's, but sometimes the durations missing from logs have led us to believe that many people do not. If, for some reason, we arrive at a location and say, steep terrain, or some other factor, prevent us from actually looking, we log a Note.

 

Carl - CarlGurt of "The Two Reprobates"

[+zack_black]

For me, there is not much gray area here. DNF stands for Did Not Find, nothing more, nothing less. It's a DNF if i punch in a goto and head out to perform a search but not find that cache. Doesn't matter if my car broke down on the way and i never got to ground zero, i searched for 1 minute and didn't find it, or there were too many muggles, etc... It's a dnf for me if i started a search and did not find the cache.

 

This

[+DanOCan]

The real reason most people don't log their DNFs is "the number doesn't show up anywhere". If DNFs were added to Finds to create a "Total Caches Attempted" statistic you'd see people fighting to be "first" on that list, probably to the point of logging DNFs on every cache they drive by, even if they didn't look.

 

Not saying it's a good thing, just saying there isn't a competitive reason to log a DNF so many people lack the motivation to do so.

[Clan Riffster]

There is no benefit to doing so.

Of course there are benefits. Myriad, in fact.

Don't let your ego justify your actions.

 

1 ) It lets the owner know someone looked for their cache.

1a ) This equates to common courtesy.

 

2 ) It lets the owner know someone couldn't find it.

2a ) Perhaps the D/T needs adjusting?

2b ) Perhaps it drifted?

2c ) Perhaps it got muggled?

2d ) Perhaps the seeker is a card carrying member of ISAG, like me?

 

3 ) It lets the community know someone could not locate it.

3a ) Might be more challenging than the listing suggests?

3b ) Might be missing?

3c ) The previous seeker might belong to ISAG?

 

4 ) It helps to maintain an accurate account of the cache's history.

 

5 ) It helps maintain an accurate account of the seeker's history.

 

6 ) Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

 

Like others have said, sometimes a DNF is really a waste of time.

As mentioned above, a DNF can be many things, but they are never a waste of time.

 

Another reason is it can be embarassing.

Why would you be embarrassed to display an accurate account of your activities?

Do you want the caching community to view your exploits in a false light?

Eg: "Those Incredibles must be incredible! Very few DNFs!"

 

IMO, a DNF *is* a failure. You didn't accomplish what you hoped to.

Perhaps we just view this from a different perspective?

I'm reminded of my kayak fishing days, and a quote from Thoreau:

"Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after"

That's the approach I take toward geocaching. I am much more focused on the journey than I am the find. Any day spent geocaching is one less day spent wasting away on the couch, and as such, I simply cannot view such a day, or any portion thereof, as a failure. If I were focused on the find itself, I could see your reasoning.

 

At the start of each hunt, my *hope* is to geocache.

At the end of each hunt, I've accomplished my goal.

 

...there isn't a competitive reason to log a DNF...

Unless you hold membership in ISAG.

We embrace our suckage and hold lofty those with high DNF counts.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[4wheelin_fool]

A DNF on a moderately difficult hide could lead to it being archived.

 

One DNF often makes the next cacher think that it could be missing, and they may post a second DNF without really looking too hard, as well as others. Next a reviewer disables it, and if the CO is absent or cannot attend to it in a few weeks it gets archived. It does not happen too often, but often enough.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Prior to posting, others need to understand that I (we) don't live in a city, by and large we don't go to unless something dictates that we do. We don't go to cities to geocache. You cannot find but a couple of micros within 50 miles of us -- and we have no lamp posts in which to place an LPC! So.... what follows may well not have any impact upon those areas that do have a cache placed every 528' or so (property issues permitting). Parks? What is a park? -- kidding, but without a large[r] city, what do we need a park for?

 

There have been so many threads about this subject, that I almost didn't bother drawing up a reply. Then I thought about that (ignoring the thread) for a bit, and decided that it was tantamount to my not posting a DNF!

 

I perused through those already posted and noticed some interesting (?) reasons along with some (I feel) odd ways of going about deciding upon one's decision to post or not post a DNF.

 

"Waste of time" -- good one, wudda never thought of that one, on my own...

"It's embarrassing" -- what can I say to that one?

"Don't want to discourage other cachers..." -- well, I suppose that has some merit. But hey, if they discourage that easily then they probably won't log it anyway!

 

toz's post is probably the most direct best answer to the OP's question. Wading through it, you may ultimately notice that it holds the key -- "sharing" with other cachers.

 

Geocaching was more or less put together as a interaction with others. Sharing the experience is was an integral part of it. Not so now. As more and more learn of and start geocaching, there is less and less sharing occurring. Mostly today, TFTC and the like exist primarily so that one's log isn't deleted (that too, has changed), or that is what the cacher 'learned' what to do, or perhaps it is just 'too much trouble' coupled with a sprinkling of a "me, me, me" concept. Don't get it? Read through the forums, it's there staring at you. Not in every thread, but it's there -- it's in this thread.

 

That said, I feel compelled to answer the OP question -- testosterone remark not withstanding (and I'm not on therapy or supplements).

 

We log our DNF's...

A "found it" log, though it may have a story to tell, usually doesn't. "Hey, I found it... there is little more to say."

 

A DNF on the other hand, most always has a story to tell. It wouldn't be a DNF if there was no story.

 

......[shortened considerably]

 

I took so long to compile this.... I wonder how many other posts I have missed

 

My 2¢

[Clan Riffster]

...and if the CO is absent or cannot attend to it in a few weeks it gets archived.

I suppose that could be possible, but shouldn't that be expected?

 

Assuming a few facts for argument's sake:

1 ) A cache is placed.

 

2 ) The owner either drops out of the game or for some bizarre reason is unable to post a note to a cache page for 30 days.

 

3 ) The cache is such that a Reviewer might disable it based on DNFs.

3a ) Locally, this happens when an easy cache starts piling up DNFs, with no response by the owner

 

I would think such a cache is worthy of archival.

[Mr.Yuck]

We don't always log DNF's - and its due to a lot of different reasons.

 

Mostly - its because we didn't spend enough time, have enough time, or didn't get a thorough enough search to warrant a DNF. Some Urban easy caches aren't worth logging a DNF if you can't search for it because of too much muggle activity.

 

Logging a DNF is like telling the CO:

1) The cache could be missing

2) The cache must be a really good hide

3) My cache finding skills suck today but I want to come back to this one because ....(variety of reasons)

 

Yes!

 

I don't want to add a DNF for a cache I feel I have not given every attempt at finding. I don't want to discourage any subsequent cachers from "giving it htere all". I find that some of the more rewarding "easy" hides are the DNFs I attempt and can then log as found thus encouraging the next seeker as well as potentially the previous DNF logger to try again.

 

It's obvious the overwhelming majority of people don't log their DNF's, but every time there's one of these threads, mostly people who always log their DNF's reply. However, what I'm quoting above (two of the "overwhelming majority" agreeing with each other) is the most common explanation I've heard over the years from closet DNF'ers.

 

The real reason most people don't log their DNFs is "the number doesn't show up anywhere". If DNFs were added to Finds to create a "Total Caches Attempted" statistic you'd see people fighting to be "first" on that list, probably to the point of logging DNFs on every cache they drive by, even if they didn't look.

 

Not saying it's a good thing, just saying there isn't a competitive reason to log a DNF so many people lack the motivation to do so.

 

Well this is just an excellent point I've never thought about! Good one, Dan. I can certainly file that in the "makes sense to me" column.

 

Oh, me? I log 98% of them. When I don't, it's usually because the cache really ticked me off. It's a needle in a haystack hide, a stupid hide in a garbage strewn area, etc.. Then they go on the ignore list when I get home. I'll attribute that one to "if you don't have anything nice to say"...

[+tozainamboku]

Of course there are benefits. Myriad, in fact.

Don't let your ego justify your actions.

 

1 ) It lets the owner know someone looked for their cache.

1a ) This equates to common courtesy.

 

2 ) It lets the owner know someone couldn't find it.

2a ) Perhaps the D/T needs adjusting?

2b ) Perhaps it drifted?

2c ) Perhaps it got muggled?

2d ) Perhaps the seeker is a card carrying member of ISAG, like me?

 

3 ) It lets the community know someone could not locate it.

3a ) Might be more challenging than the listing suggests?

3b ) Might be missing?

3c ) The previous seeker might belong to ISAG?

 

4 ) It helps to maintain an accurate account of the cache's history.

 

5 ) It helps maintain an accurate account of the seeker's history.

 

6 ) Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

 

I don't agree with 6. And I don't fully agree with 4 or 5. But since most people are card carrying members of ISAS, I'll let these pass. Logging DNFs adds to the cache's (and to some degree, the cache seeker's) history. But they do little to guarantee that either is accurate.

 

toz's post is probably the most direct best answer to the OP's question. Wading through it, you may ultimately notice that it holds the key -- "sharing" with other cachers.

 

Geocaching was more or less put together as a interaction with others. Sharing the experience is was an integral part of it. Not so now. As more and more learn of and start geocaching, there is less and less sharing occurring. Mostly today, TFTC and the like exist primarily so that one's log isn't deleted (that too, has changed), or that is what the cacher 'learned' what to do, or perhaps it is just 'too much trouble' coupled with a sprinkling of a "me, me, me" concept. Don't get it? Read through the forums, it's there staring at you. Not in every thread, but it's there -- it's in this thread.

Geocaching depends on sharing, but it shouldn't depend on sharing experiences online. Most people do enjoy some online interaction, other will prefer events, and still other find solitary looking for and finding caches is quite sufficient and have no need to post their finds or DNFs for the world to see.

 

What is important is that a few people are willing to hide caches for the rest to find. If there are no hiders the game would get old pretty fast. I was a bit taken aback when Cezanne replied to my post saying that if he discovered that people were finding his cache but not logging online he would archive them. I thought he hid them for others to find and enjoy. Instead it appears that he hid them because he likes getting some praise (or at least some thanks) for doing so. Thinking about it some more, I've decided that is reasonable for some hiders to ask. Some may place caches for others and forget about it. Others want some feedback either online or through personal communications.

 

As others have stated, posting DNFs provides particularly important feedback. It lets cache owners know that the cache needs to be checked on or that a hint should be added. It lets other cachers know that a cache is difficult or that it may be missing. In some cases though it adds little information. If you started looking for a cache and had to stop for some reason not related to the cache itself or the journey to the cache, your DNF doesn't help much. It might let a cache owner know that someone is attempting his cache but that's about all. Similarly if the cache was frequently found then all of a sudden has a long string of DNFs, another DNF by itself isn't helping much. It may be time to post a Needs Archive as well.

Edited February 28, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+farrtom]

I don't always log a DNF if I didn't spend much time looking or it was after dark or in bad weather. I will also not log one if I plan on looking again soon.

But if i looked a second time or if I really looked hard for the cache and didn't find it I will log a DNF.

[4wheelin_fool]

...and if the CO is absent or cannot attend to it in a few weeks it gets archived.

I suppose that could be possible, but shouldn't that be expected?

 

Assuming a few facts for argument's sake:

1 ) A cache is placed.

 

2 ) The owner either drops out of the game or for some bizarre reason is unable to post a note to a cache page for 30 days.

 

3 ) The cache is such that a Reviewer might disable it based on DNFs.

3a ) Locally, this happens when an easy cache starts piling up DNFs, with no response by the owner

 

I would think such a cache is worthy of archival.

 

Until someone finds it a few years later. I have seen this a few times, but in most cases, I'd agree with you. DNFs tend to have a snowball effect, and will psyche out other cachers. Someone may normally spend 20 minutes looking for a cache, but with a few DNFs that may cause them to spend 5 minutes. The DNFs pile up, but the cache is there.