Jump to content

Log your DNF please


Recommended Posts

Some cache owners with difficult caches prefer just the opposite. They don't want people to log a DNF every try. They know that lots of DNFs on a cache will often discourage others from looking.

 

There are some high difficulty caches around here that I have logged the last four or five DNF's on. I sometimes wonder if adding another DNF by me is beneficial to anyone. I don't want to scare off any cachers from looking for the cache just because it seems to have my number. But, I searched for it and didn't find it, so DNF it is.

 

Personally, I've never understood the mindset that if you don't find a cache, you've wasted your time. So, a cache with a string of DNF's, many cachers won't go looking for it because they don't want to waste their time. It's all geocaching, right? If I spend an hour (or two) looking for one cache, I've geocached for an hour. Sure, I'm disappointed in not making the find but I have yet to walk away after DNF'ing a difficult cache and felt as though I wasted my time. I LOVE breaking DNF strings...whether my own or ones by other cachers.

Link to comment

As far as I am concern, there isn't a firm rule for whether a DNF should or should not be posted, but as a general guideline if I feel that posting a DNF will benefit the cache owner and/or future seekers of the cache, I'll post a DNF.

 

+1 for me.

 

That means most of the time when I look for a cache the result is a Find or a DNF.

 

But if for example as soon as I press go and start to head to the cache my wife calls and says there is an emergency at home and I abort my search, I don't post a DNF, as I don't see how that would help anyone.

Link to comment

sometimes it is a lot of fun seeking, but ok not finding it dont really ruin the whole day,

I prefer to find it in the end, sure !

it is my own "fault" to choose the harder and more demanding over the faster and more easy rated,

I often think the harder it was, the more satisfying it is to find it.

But if I did actually go there and look for it, I always log it !

some times a location or hide drives me crasy, I can spend 1-2 hrs looking for ONE cache !!

you have no idea how MUCH I just really want to find it ..

and my wife and kids are allready dead angry and want to carry on.

but I just say, help me looking and have fun, dont just sit there it will just take longer.

I am not done before I find it, or I drop dead.

--

Sometimes I really enjoy finding a cache with a few DNF on it..

this tells me I am cooler and smarter than the DNF'ers :-)

Edited by OZ2CPU
Link to comment

As cache owners we appreciate a DNF log. We normally check the "experience" level of the cacher who DNFed it and consider how hard the hide was to begin with. We usually will disable the cache and go check on it.

 

Our disappointment is more with a cache that has several DNF logs on it and the CO hasn't bothered to explain in a note or hasn't gone to check on the hide. To be honest, our team is probably inclined to pass by a cache that has the last few entries as "DNF" without a note from the CO that the cache has been checked on and, in fact, is still there or been replaced.

 

But over all, like the earlier poster: The less we worry about how others play the game, the more fun we have playing it.

Edited by Brooklyn51
Link to comment

On the flip side, there are a few caches I've found with a long string of DNFs to the point the cache was likely to be archived ... and one I actually tripped over the container (duh .. whoops!)

 

Sometimes wish there was a means of indicating the type of DNF -

 

Really Couldn't Find - We scoured the location with a party of 5, turned over every pebble and twig, couldn't find it.

Search Abandoned - We started to look, but it became Muggleville so search was abandoned.

Remains of probable cache found, but not cache - we found some toys, a piece of a container which may have been it. No actual cache found.

Didn't even try - Pulled up, saw swarm of bees - OR - Needle in haystack - OR - chased off by The Vicious Chicken of Bristol - OR - Flooded - OR - too many muggles - OR - construction - OR - security/police giving us the eye - OR - clearly on private property.

Link to comment

On the flip side, there are a few caches I've found with a long string of DNFs to the point the cache was likely to be archived ... and one I actually tripped over the container (duh .. whoops!)

 

Sometimes wish there was a means of indicating the type of DNF -

 

Really Couldn't Find - We scoured the location with a party of 5, turned over every pebble and twig, couldn't find it.

Search Abandoned - We started to look, but it became Muggleville so search was abandoned.

Remains of probable cache found, but not cache - we found some toys, a piece of a container which may have been it. No actual cache found.

Didn't even try - Pulled up, saw swarm of bees - OR - Needle in haystack - OR - chased off by The Vicious Chicken of Bristol - OR - Flooded - OR - too many muggles - OR - construction - OR - security/police giving us the eye - OR - clearly on private property.

 

Yes - too bad they don't let you add any text to those DNF log entries.

 

Oh - wait ........ maybe they do. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

On the flip side, there are a few caches I've found with a long string of DNFs to the point the cache was likely to be archived ... and one I actually tripped over the container (duh .. whoops!)

 

Sometimes wish there was a means of indicating the type of DNF -

 

Really Couldn't Find - We scoured the location with a party of 5, turned over every pebble and twig, couldn't find it.

Search Abandoned - We started to look, but it became Muggleville so search was abandoned.

Remains of probable cache found, but not cache - we found some toys, a piece of a container which may have been it. No actual cache found.

Didn't even try - Pulled up, saw swarm of bees - OR - Needle in haystack - OR - chased off by The Vicious Chicken of Bristol - OR - Flooded - OR - too many muggles - OR - construction - OR - security/police giving us the eye - OR - clearly on private property.

Love it DW

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

To the OP: I wonder if the FTF hounds were scared off by the 4.5 difficulty?

 

I log a DNF whenever I feel I've put in enough effort to make me think I should have found it. If it's a three-star and I look for five minutes, that's not a DNF, that's a DNL (Did Not Look).

 

When I log a DNF, I note approximately how long I looked. The CO can use that information to determine how relevant my DNF is.

 

You just changed my DNF thinking. From now on, I'll DNF with the time I put into looking for it.

 

I have to agree with another poster about logging "Finally found on third attempt" without even a single DNF is an admission of less than genuine logging.

 

Austin

Link to comment

On the flip side, there are a few caches I've found with a long string of DNFs to the point the cache was likely to be archived ... and one I actually tripped over the container (duh .. whoops!)

 

Sometimes wish there was a means of indicating the type of DNF -

 

Really Couldn't Find - We scoured the location with a party of 5, turned over every pebble and twig, couldn't find it.

Search Abandoned - We started to look, but it became Muggleville so search was abandoned.

Remains of probable cache found, but not cache - we found some toys, a piece of a container which may have been it. No actual cache found.

Didn't even try - Pulled up, saw swarm of bees - OR - Needle in haystack - OR - chased off by The Vicious Chicken of Bristol - OR - Flooded - OR - too many muggles - OR - construction - OR - security/police giving us the eye - OR - clearly on private property.

 

I once logged a DNF as "Beginner's Misfortune."

 

Austin

Link to comment

On the flip side, there are a few caches I've found with a long string of DNFs to the point the cache was likely to be archived ... and one I actually tripped over the container (duh .. whoops!)

 

Sometimes wish there was a means of indicating the type of DNF -

 

Really Couldn't Find - We scoured the location with a party of 5, turned over every pebble and twig, couldn't find it.

Search Abandoned - We started to look, but it became Muggleville so search was abandoned.

Remains of probable cache found, but not cache - we found some toys, a piece of a container which may have been it. No actual cache found.

Didn't even try - Pulled up, saw swarm of bees - OR - Needle in haystack - OR - chased off by The Vicious Chicken of Bristol - OR - Flooded - OR - too many muggles - OR - construction - OR - security/police giving us the eye - OR - clearly on private property.

 

I once logged a DNF as "Beginner's Misfortune."

 

Austin

 

Not uncommon. Sometimes the first time we are searching for an artful style of hide we haven't encountered before we don't recognise it. Other times we encounter hides where coordinates are way off. And now and then we have something beyond our control influence our lack of search or find.

 

That's why you have to search for and find it. :)

Link to comment

.

 

Is this supposed to a competition where the object is to make a cache so difficult that no one can find it? It there some prize for hiding caches that get the most DNFs? Do you take some sort of sadistic pleasure seeing people admitting that could not find your cache? .... Once you put out a cache you really can't tell others when to log a DNF or not. There is no widely accepted standard for when you should post one.

 

You might like them easy but there are plenty of people who enjoy a challenge. Your rant is way off base. As for your comment "there is no widely accepted standard," that is a bit of nonsense also. The standard is that you log a record of your visit online. It's pretty clear, it you play honestly, you log the DNF if you did not find it. If, for some reason, you only had a few minutes to check it out, a note would be an acceptable alternative. The cache owner took the time to put the cache out there. He has every right to expect that people play honestly and he has every right to expect even trades and proper placement of the cache after they are done. Too bad so many cachers fail on all counts.

 

.

Link to comment

.

 

Is this supposed to a competition where the object is to make a cache so difficult that no one can find it? It there some prize for hiding caches that get the most DNFs? Do you take some sort of sadistic pleasure seeing people admitting that could not find your cache? .... Once you put out a cache you really can't tell others when to log a DNF or not. There is no widely accepted standard for when you should post one.

 

You might like them easy but there are plenty of people who enjoy a challenge. Your rant is way off base. As for your comment "there is no widely accepted standard," that is a bit of nonsense also. The standard is that you log a record of your visit online. It's pretty clear, it you play honestly, you log the DNF if you did not find it. If, for some reason, you only had a few minutes to check it out, a note would be an acceptable alternative. The cache owner took the time to put the cache out there. He has every right to expect that people play honestly and he has every right to expect even trades and proper placement of the cache after they are done. Too bad so many cachers fail on all counts.

 

.

 

Everybody get out a red pen and mark this date on the calendar! I'm going to agree with toz!

The 'standard' as 'listed' is a recommendation. It is not a requirement. The only requirement is that if you want to have the cache listed as as found, you must log a 'found it'. (toz and I will continue to disagree what that means.) There is no 'standard' that requires logging a DNF, nor even logging having found a cache. Requiring (forcing) people to log a DNF (or even a find) is not listed here. Probably a majority of geocachers would be banned if Groundspeak chose to take that approach. And it would make less money that way. :rolleyes: So, you know that that is not going to happen.

You are trying to force people to play the game the way that you want it played. Not the way that most people play it. What you think of as a 'standard' is only a recommendation. Perhaps even the preferred way to play. But it is not a requirement, so stop trying to force people to do what you want them to do.

Okay. That makes three red marks on today's calendar page...

Link to comment

My favorite part of this thread is that not so far away here in the forum is another thread where an owner is deleting DNF's.

 

Everyone plays different with they're logging preferences. Some log everything. Some log nothing at all. That includes finds and DNFs. Getting worked into a knot because you don't feel that it's up to your standard is going to just create undo stress for you and suck any enjoyment out of this hobby for you.

 

You can't control everyone or what they're going to do. You can only control you and your reaction to it. If it's so distressing then maybe this isn't the hobby for you.

Link to comment

.

 

Is this supposed to a competition where the object is to make a cache so difficult that no one can find it? It there some prize for hiding caches that get the most DNFs? Do you take some sort of sadistic pleasure seeing people admitting that could not find your cache? .... Once you put out a cache you really can't tell others when to log a DNF or not. There is no widely accepted standard for when you should post one.

 

You might like them easy but there are plenty of people who enjoy a challenge. Your rant is way off base. As for your comment "there is no widely accepted standard," that is a bit of nonsense also. The standard is that you log a record of your visit online. It's pretty clear, it you play honestly, you log the DNF if you did not find it. If, for some reason, you only had a few minutes to check it out, a note would be an acceptable alternative. The cache owner took the time to put the cache out there. He has every right to expect that people play honestly and he has every right to expect even trades and proper placement of the cache after they are done. Too bad so many cachers fail on all counts.

 

.

 

Everybody get out a red pen and mark this date on the calendar! I'm going to agree with toz!

<stuff snipped... read above for full post>

 

And I agree with emmett. The guidelines don't set the standards... geocachers do. The standards may be changing, but they have been pretty clear during the time that I've been caching, at least in my geographic area. You log your finds, you log your DNFs. The exceptions have always existed for both of those, but they have been rare, and generally by cachers that aren't terribly involved in the social aspects of geocaching.

Link to comment

I ALWAYS log my DNFs ... mostly because then I have them in MY log and know that I want to go back to them and try again! Of course... with only 31 finds under my belt, I will have a LOT of going BACK to do!!! :lol: That's okay! I have a couple of them that I'm noshing on in my mind....

Link to comment

On the flip side, there are a few caches I've found with a long string of DNFs to the point the cache was likely to be archived ... and one I actually tripped over the container (duh .. whoops!)

 

Sometimes wish there was a means of indicating the type of DNF -

 

Really Couldn't Find - We scoured the location with a party of 5, turned over every pebble and twig, couldn't find it.

Search Abandoned - We started to look, but it became Muggleville so search was abandoned.

Remains of probable cache found, but not cache - we found some toys, a piece of a container which may have been it. No actual cache found.

Didn't even try - Pulled up, saw swarm of bees - OR - Needle in haystack - OR - chased off by The Vicious Chicken of Bristol - OR - Flooded - OR - too many muggles - OR - construction - OR - security/police giving us the eye - OR - clearly on private property.

 

I once logged a DNF as "Beginner's Misfortune."

 

Austin

 

Well... :unsure: ... isn't that what the comment section is for? You post a DNF and then you can EXPLAIN if you just got bored with looking after 45 minutes... or you really think it MIGHT have disappeared... or you're a VERY inexperienced hunter and this one was just TOO HARD! (I said that on one today... "This one was TOO HARD for ME... I'll come back when I have MORE experience!")

Link to comment

.

 

Is this supposed to a competition where the object is to make a cache so difficult that no one can find it? It there some prize for hiding caches that get the most DNFs? Do you take some sort of sadistic pleasure seeing people admitting that could not find your cache? .... Once you put out a cache you really can't tell others when to log a DNF or not. There is no widely accepted standard for when you should post one.

 

You might like them easy but there are plenty of people who enjoy a challenge. Your rant is way off base. As for your comment "there is no widely accepted standard," that is a bit of nonsense also. The standard is that you log a record of your visit online. It's pretty clear, it you play honestly, you log the DNF if you did not find it. If, for some reason, you only had a few minutes to check it out, a note would be an acceptable alternative. The cache owner took the time to put the cache out there. He has every right to expect that people play honestly and he has every right to expect even trades and proper placement of the cache after they are done. Too bad so many cachers fail on all counts.

 

.

See my reply to knowschad in post #49. I never said you shouldn't hide hard caches. It just that I don't think placing caches for the purpose of getting a lot of DNF logs is a very good idea.

 

We can all have expectation that people who participate in the game engage in certain practices we believe make the game better. Even more so when the Getting Started section of Geocaching.com suggests that you do these things. And there is nothing wrong with expressing this in the forums.

 

Where I disagree with you is that I still say there is no widely acceptable standard for when to use the DNF log. Even you seem to agree that there are times a Note is acceptable. The fact is that many people don't log online at all (either finds or DNFs). There are probably a number of good reasons why someone who logs finds doesn't log a DNF every time. I understand why some people will take a literal view that DNF means you looked but did not find the cache. So logging a DNF would be an honest report of one's geocaching experience. I simply don't agree that there is any dishonesty in not posting your experience online. Groundspeak can call it "rule" to log your experience online at Geocaching.com but neither they or the cache owner has any power to enforce such a rule. A cache owner who hides a cache expecting that "people play honestly" (meaning they log DNFs) is just going to be disappointed.

Link to comment

I simply don't agree that there is any dishonesty in not posting your experience online. Groundspeak can call it "rule" to log your experience online at Geocaching.com but neither they or the cache owner has any power to enforce such a rule. A cache owner who hides a cache expecting that "people play honestly" (meaning they log DNFs) is just going to be disappointed.

 

I agree with this. Although I think it is helpful, and I personally post DNF's online, if it is totally acceptable for people to sign the logbook without logging the find online - and I've never heard that called "dishonest", then it only stands to reason that the same principle would apply to DNF logs - there is no obligation to log them online.

 

Of course it is nice if people are consistent - they log FI online, and also log DNF online, or conversely never log online at all - but consistency is not required for honesty.

 

It would be dishonest* to either log a Found It or Did Not Find on a cache you never actually visited. (Or found on a cache you didn't find, or didn't find on a cache you found - that is to knowingly log information you believe to be false.)

 

* for some values of "dishonest". Apparently since we can't agree on what "found" or "did not find" means, you can't actually be dishonest about this, at least according to some. Hopefully we can agree that logging information on a cache you've never visited and have no direct knowledge of is probably not honest, although I have my doubts about that too...

Link to comment

>where an owner is deleting DNF's.

 

you got to be kidding !!

that is just soooo wrong !!

people got the right not to find the cache and to log their experiance..

however I prefer a DNF to also give a bit explain, but no matter what

I newer delete ANY logs, not even if I dont like them.

Link to comment

Just goes to show everyone caches differently with different goals and methods. Like Knowschad noted up thread those not involved in the social aspect of the hobby don't necessarily log everything. I have friends who intermittently log finds and DNF. If we're out as a group and there's something to say only one of us will log a DNF as we find it redundant and silly for all of us to put the exact same thing typically.

 

I'm not really engaged in the social aspect of the hobby. Some one highly engaged in the social aspect would not like how we cache.

Link to comment

On the flip side, there are a few caches I've found with a long string of DNFs to the point the cache was likely to be archived ... and one I actually tripped over the container (duh .. whoops!)

 

Sometimes wish there was a means of indicating the type of DNF -

 

Really Couldn't Find - We scoured the location with a party of 5, turned over every pebble and twig, couldn't find it.

Search Abandoned - We started to look, but it became Muggleville so search was abandoned.

Remains of probable cache found, but not cache - we found some toys, a piece of a container which may have been it. No actual cache found.

Didn't even try - Pulled up, saw swarm of bees - OR - Needle in haystack - OR - chased off by The Vicious Chicken of Bristol - OR - Flooded - OR - too many muggles - OR - construction - OR - security/police giving us the eye - OR - clearly on private property.

 

I guess if you really want to come up with a list providing all sorts of reasons, it would get as long as this thread.

Why not just use the text field of the logs (as has been suggested also by others before me) and read what is written there?

 

I have quite some DNFs where I stopped my search after some time due to increasing pains or the inability to look at some further candidate locations due to unmanageable terrain. When such a case arises, I am of course mentioning this in my log. I am writing a note only if I did not start to search and left immediately or if I am quite sure where the cache is located, but could not get there.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

commenting on something posted on page one:

 

I've done a sort of unscientific study of a couple of our caches that are a bit tricky. I've put a watch on other CO's caches around ours, and find that the other caches (all in the same woodlot for example) are being found, but mine aren't being logged, and in a couple of cases you have to walk right past mine to do the caches either side of it.

 

It is "unscientific" - I checked your profile, and came up with some higher difficulty hides in near proximity to some lower difficulty hides. Your hides wouldn't be in my gps at all. I filter out size = micro/other and terrain at 1.5 or below before I load my gps.

 

I'm aware that more and more people do this, or some filtering like it. So no log on your cache doesn't necessarily = DNF but didn't log it.

It may, sometimes, but this is a theme I'm hearing more and more at events. There are a lot of caches in the world, and not as many people seem to be interested in finding D 3.5 size micro, as there are people interested in hiding them.

 

I'm not against this cache type/size at all, but I'm not hunting them and a lot of other cachers aren't either. Just as very few people hunt my hides 8 miles out from the parking.

Link to comment

To the OP: I wonder if the FTF hounds were scared off by the 4.5 difficulty?

 

I log a DNF whenever I feel I've put in enough effort to make me think I should have found it. If it's a three-star and I look for five minutes, that's not a DNF, that's a DNL (Did Not Look).

 

When I log a DNF, I note approximately how long I looked. The CO can use that information to determine how relevant my DNF is.

 

You just changed my DNF thinking. From now on, I'll DNF with the time I put into looking for it.

 

I have to agree with another poster about logging "Finally found on third attempt" without even a single DNF is an admission of less than genuine logging.

 

Austin

 

Some people like to remove their own DNFs after finally finding a cache, so just because you see a "Finally found on third attempt" without any DNFs doesn't mean those DNFs weren't there. Of course, if you're the CO and know that's not the case, that's different.

Link to comment

There is no requirement to log a DNF. There is a requirement to log a Found It, if you want the smiley. And DNFs clutter up the cache page.

In this case, it sounds like OP wants to gloat over those who did not find it.

 

Your full of crap! Don't assume, you don't know me well enough.You don't even know me. Just stick with the facts.

Many DNFs are to let the owner know there maybe an issue with the cache. If you believed the cache was there then yes I agree with Harry Dolphin. And that is a fact. What other reason would you want DNFs on a difficult rated cache.

I'll have to disagree with the bolded part of the furry fish's statement.

I don't view anything that has relevance to the history of a cache as 'clutter'.

DNFs are useful data for so many reasons.

Link to comment

I simply don't agree that there is any dishonesty in not posting your experience online. Groundspeak can call it "rule" to log your experience online at Geocaching.com but neither they or the cache owner has any power to enforce such a rule. A cache owner who hides a cache expecting that "people play honestly" (meaning they log DNFs) is just going to be disappointed.

 

I agree with this. Although I think it is helpful, and I personally post DNF's online, if it is totally acceptable for people to sign the logbook without logging the find online - and I've never heard that called "dishonest", then it only stands to reason that the same principle would apply to DNF logs - there is no obligation to log them online.

 

Of course it is nice if people are consistent - they log FI online, and also log DNF online, or conversely never log online at all - but consistency is not required for honesty.

 

It would be dishonest* to either log a Found It or Did Not Find on a cache you never actually visited. (Or found on a cache you didn't find, or didn't find on a cache you found - that is to knowingly log information you believe to be false.)

 

* for some values of "dishonest". Apparently since we can't agree on what "found" or "did not find" means, you can't actually be dishonest about this, at least according to some. Hopefully we can agree that logging information on a cache you've never visited and have no direct knowledge of is probably not honest, although I have my doubts about that too...

+1

 

I would prefer if everyone logged all their activities but it is not 'dishonest' if they don't.

Link to comment

I log my DNFs on a case-by-case basis. If I bummed around an area and got bored, I usually just ignore the listing that day (and come back to it another one). But if I put effort into my search, I always log the DNF ... because I might as well get some kind of recognition for that hour of time, right? =P

Link to comment

You might like them easy but there are plenty of people who enjoy a challenge.

I think many, if not most, cachers, enjoy a good challenge.

But a needle in a haystack hide is not representative of that type of hide.

They are simply annoying, not challenging.

 

I agree with that statement. Obviously, a difficult cache isn't necessarily a "needle-in-a-haystack" hide, though.

Link to comment

You might like them easy but there are plenty of people who enjoy a challenge.

I think many, if not most, cachers, enjoy a good challenge.

But a needle in a haystack hide is not representative of that type of hide.

They are simply annoying, not challenging.

 

I agree with that statement. Obviously, a difficult cache isn't necessarily a "needle-in-a-haystack" hide, though.

I find it difficult to put difficult caches into just two categories like this. What may appear to be at first a needle-in-the-haystack may in fact turn out to be just an exceptionally well camouflaged cache, or even just some misdirection that had you looking for the wrong thing. Similarly, placing a cache where there are lots of potential hiding spots is not always a needle-in-the-haystack but an opportunity to put on your thinking cap and realize that most of these spots are not where the cache is hidden, or to come up with a good strategy for searching.

 

My guess is that when we find such a cache we call it a clever or "evil" hide and when we DNF it, we call it a needle-in-the-haystack.

Link to comment
Here is a question for you cachers. I looked for a cache and logged a DNF. I have been back four more times now, and still can't find it. Should I log a DNF for each trip or just let my one DNF post be enough?
Every time I reach GZ and search for a cache, I post either a Find or a DNF. My record so far is 6 DNFs before finally finding the cache.
Link to comment
My guess is that when we find such a cache we call it a clever or "evil" hide and when we DNF it, we call it a needle-in-the-haystack.

My guess is that you are the only person on the planet who stretches logic to the breaking point in situations like this. Whilst I've only been participating in this hobby for about 7 years, (still a noob compared to some), I have yet to meet anyone who didn't immediately grasp the fundamental difference betwixt a challenging hide and a needle in a haystack hide. I can assure you that when I apply such labels it has nothing to do with whether or not I've located the container.

Link to comment
My guess is that when we find such a cache we call it a clever or "evil" hide and when we DNF it, we call it a needle-in-the-haystack.

My guess is that you are the only person on the planet who stretches logic to the breaking point in situations like this. Whilst I've only been participating in this hobby for about 7 years, (still a noob compared to some), I have yet to meet anyone who didn't immediately grasp the fundamental difference betwixt a challenging hide and a needle in a haystack hide. I can assure you that when I apply such labels it has nothing to do with whether or not I've located the container.

+1

 

Even after finding it, if I bother, needle in a haystack is still a needle in a haystack. <_<

Link to comment

You might like them easy but there are plenty of people who enjoy a challenge.

I think many, if not most, cachers, enjoy a good challenge.

But a needle in a haystack hide is not representative of that type of hide.

They are simply annoying, not challenging.

 

I also think there is a distinction between a cache which appears to have been published for the sole purpose of acquiring a high number of DNFs and one placed as a challenge for those that enjoy finding difficult hides. The first seems to be only for the cache owners benefit while the latter is intended to provide enjoyment for others. Sometimes is *does* feel like a cache (especially when it comes to puzzle or challenge caches) doesn't serve any other purpose that for a CO to claim they have the most difficult, biggest, longest trail, etc.

Link to comment

Here is a question for you cachers. I looked for a cache and logged a DNF. I have been back four more times now, and still can't find it. Should I log a DNF for each trip or just let my one DNF post be enough?

 

IMO, log each one with a text description of what you did. Usually you can get a good idea as to weather it is just gone, or if you are just not wired to be finding this cache.

 

I have had a string of DNF on a cache that NO ONE else had a problem with. It is fun to go back and read those, even if it's just to shake my head. :)

 

Shaun

Link to comment
My guess is that when we find such a cache we call it a clever or "evil" hide and when we DNF it, we call it a needle-in-the-haystack.

My guess is that you are the only person on the planet who stretches logic to the breaking point in situations like this. Whilst I've only been participating in this hobby for about 7 years, (still a noob compared to some), I have yet to meet anyone who didn't immediately grasp the fundamental difference betwixt a challenging hide and a needle in a haystack hide. I can assure you that when I apply such labels it has nothing to do with whether or not I've located the container.

 

There have been several hides I walked away from considering them to be a needle-in-the-haystack hide and then have come back to later after others had posted a find not only found the cache but gave it a favorite point. There have been caches where I have seen lots of DNFs saying they gave up because there were too many places to look; and when I went I found the cache easily. I happen to find the challenge of searching for the proverbial needle-in-the-haystack just as enjoyable as searching for the cleverly camouflaged container or the hard to reach hiding place. I have used the needle-in-the-haystack as a excuse for calling off a search - that just means there is time limit and I may come back to search some more - particularly if the are other finds in the meantime.

 

It's true some caches take longer because the search is more involved. But I for one am unable to to detect a fundamental difference between the so called needle-in-the-haystack and other challenging hides. Great for those of you who claim you can. If that is the case, it may not be because you found or didn't find the cache, so I will retract that statement. At least for me there is no difference between a needle-in-the-haystack and any other difficult hide; it is simply a term adopted for those "difficult" caches we either have searched for but haven't found yet or (for some of you) you found but didn't enjoy.

Link to comment

I have yet to meet anyone who didn't immediately grasp the fundamental difference betwixt a challenging hide and a needle in a haystack hide.

But I for one am unable to to detect a fundamental difference between the so called needle-in-the-haystack and other challenging hides.

If we ever meet, I'll have to retract the bolded part. B)

Link to comment

There is no requirement to log a DNF. There is a requirement to log a Found It, if you want the smiley. And DNFs clutter up the cache page.

In this case, it sounds like OP wants to gloat over those who did not find it.

 

Your full of crap! Don't assume, you don't know me well enough.You don't even know me. Just stick with the facts.

Many DNFs are to let the owner know there maybe an issue with the cache. If you believed the cache was there then yes I agree with Harry Dolphin. And that is a fact. What other reason would you want DNFs on a difficult rated cache.

I'll have to disagree with the bolded part of the furry fish's statement.

I don't view anything that has relevance to the history of a cache as 'clutter'.

DNFs are useful data for so many reasons.

 

So, on our upcoing trip, the four of us decide not to seek the cache we started driving towards, because we didn't find the parking. All four of us should DNF. Last four logs DNF on a 1/1? That'll scare a lot of people away. That's clutter. Especially when so many people only download five logs.

Same person, with a defective i-phone, logs five DNFs the same day. That's clutter. One DNF might be useful. Four or five is just clutter.

"Hey! Four DNFS on this cache. I won't bother looking."

Link to comment

I'm not sure how difficult this concept can be;

 

You look for a cache and find it - Found

You look for a cache and dont find it - DNF

 

All the other variances are purely semantics that you add to notes or elaborate within your listing. As the initial OP said log your DNF please.

 

Still don't understand why you are trying to force people to do something that is not required? Police state tactics?

Link to comment

My two cents:

 

When I log DNF - 1) It is a brand new cache, especially one with high difficulty or a confusing multi or letterbox. This alerts the owner where I erred and they can either update coordinates, re-write instructions, or maybe add a hint. 2) I looked for a while but could not find the cache and the previous cachers could not find it either. This can alert the owner to check on the cache in case it went missing. 3) I put in a good effort, but just plain couldn't find it. This allows me to reference the cache and return to it later.

 

When I do not log DNF - 1) Not putting effort into finding the cache, late in the day, abandon search do to muggles, etc.

 

Just curious, if you log a DNF and eventually find the cache, do you edit the DNF to Found (with found date) or add another log?

Link to comment

I'm not sure how difficult this concept can be;

 

You look for a cache and find it - Found

You look for a cache and dont find it - DNF

 

All the other variances are purely semantics that you add to notes or elaborate within your listing. As the initial OP said log your DNF please.

 

Still don't understand why you are trying to force people to do something that is not required? Police state tactics?

There is no requirement to say 'please' and 'thankyou' but good manners suggests that we do. I would never force anybody to follow any concept that they really were uncomfortable with but IMHO this should be very simple to follow. No Police need be involved.

Link to comment

I wish people would log more DNFs around here. I'm waiting for the day where I cycle 15km to that one interesting cache, specifically rent a car or buy a train ticket only to find out it's gone and nobody felt like logging a DNF, really. :( Of course there are indications, and we're getting better in guessing that a cache might be gone, like quite a few people watching a cache, people doing a round and skipping That One Cache along the only road between two caches they've found and such.

 

Mind you, two new caches were published in the neighborhood yesterday. We were FTF for one of them and decided to keep the other for another day. Only this morning the second cache was logged for the first time. We've been mentioning all day yesterday that it must be gone already as non of the 10 or so FTF hounds had logged it yet :lol:

 

Mrs. terratin

 

btw: we always log a DNF when we searched (even short searches) and could not find the cache. We don't log the cache if we did not get to GZ in the first place, unless getting there is part of the challenge. We have quite a few DNF logs that are longer than many found logs as the experience was so great. Shame you cannot give favourites to unfound caches :)

Edited by terratin
Link to comment

I'm not sure how difficult this concept can be;

 

You look for a cache and find it - Found

You look for a cache and dont find it - DNF

 

All the other variances are purely semantics that you add to notes or elaborate within your listing. As the initial OP said log your DNF please.

 

That is an easy concept. But as I said earlier I prefer to use judgement. For example, if something non-geocaching related stops my search before I even reach GZ. (e.g. I get a phone call telling me I need to come home immediately) I won't log a DNF. I looked for it (I consider the walk to the cache part of the looking), but I see no value in posting a DNF. Sure, I could explain in my log about my needing to go home, but of what value is it to others? Now if there was some reason I wanted to record that for my own purpose then I would log a note.

 

If I can't reach GZ because the footpath is closed off/flooded/bridge out etc, then I would log a DNF, as that is of value. Others may have the same issue.

 

So my personal rule is to always log a DNF if I didn't find it AND the log makes sense/adds value (in my judgement).

 

I'm not hesitant to log a DNF when it makes sense; I've logged over 300 of them (ratio of DNF to Found is approx 13%).

Link to comment

That is an easy concept. But as I said earlier I prefer to use judgement. For example, if something non-geocaching related stops my search before I even reach GZ. (e.g. I get a phone call telling me I need to come home immediately) I won't log a DNF. I looked for it (I consider the walk to the cache part of the looking), but I see no value in posting a DNF. Sure, I could explain in my log about my needing to go home, but of what value is it to others? Now if there was some reason I wanted to record that for my own purpose then I would log a note.

 

If I can't reach GZ because the footpath is closed off/flooded/bridge out etc, then I would log a DNF, as that is of value. Others may have the same issue.

 

So my personal rule is to always log a DNF if I didn't find it AND the log makes sense/adds value (in my judgement).

 

I'm not hesitant to log a DNF when it makes sense; I've logged over 300 of them (ratio of DNF to Found is approx 13%).

Well stated! This is pretty much exactly the strategy I use.

 

--Larry

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...