Jump to content

Log your DNF please


Recommended Posts

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 find it and sign the log - found it.

 

You look for a cache and dont find it - DNF

 

Says who? You? I have yet to see anything on GS defining a DNF. It means what the logger intends it to mean. Using it in a way other than your strict definition is not prohibited. If someone wants to use it to track caches they intend to come back to and try to find again, fine. If someone wants to use it to track caches they have no intention of returning to, fine. About the only thing that I would find objectionable would be posting a DNF when you really did find it.

 

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.

 

May I suggest that your position, while seeming obvious to you, is also just semantics.

 

Austin

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?

 

Once for each DNF. That provides an honest history of the cache and of your experience with it. Useful to you, to the cache owner, and to others yet to come.

Link to comment

Hello,

 

...

Still I believe people hide these caches with the intent that they get found and that they don't really need the DNF logs to know people are enjoying the cache. It's true that by logging DNFs when you have trouble with a difficult cache you let other cachers know that this is not just another park and grab. That may encourage a few people to try to find it, and let others who are more interested in park and grabs to know to avoid it.

 

I think that is also an important point. It is a good idea but you don't know what the owner think about it. I insert a hint in the listing of our cache that dnf and nm logs are welcome. (But it doesn't work) Why? I know some owners don't like dnf logs due the above reasons. They think "Oh good, no one will try my cache again" or they are angry because they confuse dnf with nm and they look for a damaged station without any reason. It is also in the hand of the owners to make a dnf more or less attractive.

 

Jens

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.

Nope. Not in the least. There is a big difference. When we find a needle-in-the-haystack hide, we call it a needle-in-the-haystack hide. When we DNF a clever hide, we may or may not realize yet how clever it is, but generally, we know that it is not a needle-in-the-haystack hide by where it is(or is not) hidden or by previous finders logs.
Link to comment

I try to log every DNF no matter how inconsequential it may seem because I KNOW my manhood is not threatened by something as pitiful as not finding a cache. And if people laugh, or snicker, or name call, or think lesser of me cause of a DNF, I don't give a rip. That's more of an indicator of their character and than it is of mine.

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."

If you had four people looking for a 1/1, and you came up empty, I think that you should "clutter" that cache with four DNF logs. That is important information to have! More important, even, than four individuals DNFing it in a row, but separately. There were four of you together, scouring the area, re-checking where others had already checked, sharing ideas and coming up empty. I'd want to know that.

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?

 

I don't see that he is trying to force anybody to do anything. He is saying that he doesn't understand how some people can nuance this concept. I've been around here long enough to see how people can nuance "the sky is blue", so it doesn't surprise me as much.

Link to comment
Once for each DNF. That provides an honest history of the cache and of your experience with it. Useful to you, to the cache owner, and to others yet to come.

Let me give the short story of what happened on a cache that caused me to post this question. On my first search for this cache, it had not been found in 3 months, but no DNFs were posted. We did not find it and posted a DNF, my uncle and myself. I went back one more time and did not find it, so I emailed the cache owner to get a little more help. He told me another hint, so I went back to find it, no luck. I tried again, and no luck so I contacted the last finder, who told me that he has told several people where he hid it. He gave me the exact location, the exact description of where he put it. I went back and it is NOT there. So then I posted a "needs archived" and a person who found the cache a couple of years ago posted after me that the cache does not need to be archived and that it is still there. So I went back out and could not find it again. I even asked the cacher who said not to archive it for a hint and he did not answer me. But luckily, the reviewer saw that the pattern of finds, which was about two months between finds, had become 9 months since it was found, 10 months now, and that the CO needs to check on it.

 

So I agree with "knowschad", a DNF should be posted after every search that comes up empty. But my guess is that that will never happen. With the exception of extenuating circumstances, I think a CO needs to check on any cache that has not been found in six months (I have two caches over 13,000 feet elevation, so going 8 or 9 months between finds is normal). For me, there is nothing more exhilerating than finding a cache that has not been found in the last 3 months and nothing more frustrating than looking for a cache that is not even there.

Link to comment
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?
I add a separate Find log, and leave the DNF log(s) alone.

I also add a found log, but IF there were more than one DNF log, I try to merge them into one (with appropriate dates) using the last date not found as the main DNF log. Doesn't happen very often, but it's easy to do and keeps things neat. Worst one so far was 3 DNFs and 1 find.

 

Doug 7rxc

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.

Nope. Not in the least. There is a big difference. When we find a needle-in-the-haystack hide, we call it a needle-in-the-haystack hide. When we DNF a clever hide, we may or may not realize yet how clever it is, but generally, we know that it is not a needle-in-the-haystack hide by where it is(or is not) hidden or by previous finders logs.

I already took back what I said about needle-in-the-haystack = DNF. Clearly some people are willing to take a guess at a cache they didn't find as to whether it is a needle-in-the-haystack or a clever hide, (though this may be influenced by what others have said in their logs or based on experience with other caches from this hider). Likewise one can decide the issue once they find a cache based on whether they found the hide some thing they find clever or whether it was, in their judgement, difficult solely because there were many places to look. As far as I am concerned, the decision is rarely so black and white. A difficult cache cache is one that generally takes more time to find and requires some kinda systematic search. Sometimes one gets lucky and finds a cache quickly. Sometimes it takes several attempts. In the end the hider has done something that increased the difficulty. How this was done may or may not be something that you find enjoyable. I just don't see where you can define a clear line that everyone would agree on.

Edited by tozainamboku
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.

Nope. Not in the least. There is a big difference. When we find a needle-in-the-haystack hide, we call it a needle-in-the-haystack hide. When we DNF a clever hide, we may or may not realize yet how clever it is, but generally, we know that it is not a needle-in-the-haystack hide by where it is(or is not) hidden or by previous finders logs.

I already took back what I said about needle-in-the-haystack = DNF. Clearly some people are willing to take a guess at a cache they didn't find as to whether it is a needle-in-the-haystack or a clever hide, (though this may be influenced by what others have said in their logs or based on experience with other caches from this hider). Likewise one can decide the issue once they find a cache based on whether they found the hide some thing they find clever or whether it was, in their judgement, difficult solely because there were many places to look. As far as I am concerned, the decision is rarely so black and white. A difficult cache cache is one that generally takes more time to find and requires some kinda systematic search. Sometimes one gets lucky and finds a cache quickly. Sometimes it takes several attempts. In the end the hider has done something that increased the difficulty. How this was done may or may not be something that you find enjoyable. I just don't see where you can define a clear line that everyone would agree on.

 

I'm not concerned with defining a line that everyone can agree on, though. I'm concerned with what *I* consider a needle-in-a-haystack hide. However, I suspect that most of us would define it in terms close enough that we can use the term in a discussion and be talking about pretty much the same sorts of hides.

 

(edit to add: in other words, I think you are over-analyzing the term)

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

I'm not concerned with defining a line that everyone can agree on, though. I'm concerned with what *I* consider a needle-in-a-haystack hide. However, I suspect that most of us would define it in terms close enough that we can use the term in a discussion and be talking about pretty much the same sorts of hides.

 

(edit to add: in other words, I think you are over-analyzing the term)

Maybe. But I still contend there isn't a binary categorization of difficult hides.

 

I used to use the term needle-in-the-haystack. Then I began to realize that I enjoyed these hides sometimes. At first I thought, the problem was not knowing it was a needle-in-the-haystack till I got there and thus had a problem of not having time to find the cache. Then I began to understand that any difficult hide would take more time, and that I was just as likely to find the needle-in-the-haystack quickly as something that had unique or clever camouflage (perhaps more so).

 

I might agree that one can appreciate the special camouflage job someone took the time to make more than a cache that was hard because they hide a micro where there are hundreds of spots you need to check. But in fact a lot of so called needle-in-the-haystack do involve special cammo (which rock or which pine cone); and even when they don't the challenge can still be enjoyable. I just don't see the need to make a distinction.

Link to comment
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.

If the four of you actually looked for the cache, and "did not find" it, then, yes, the four of you should log DNFs. In the scenario you described, you never looked for the cache. Logging a DNF on that one would make about as much sense as logging DNFs on the hundreds of other caches you drove by on your way.

 

Seeking is an inherent aspect to finding.

 

With regards to DNFs, if you don't seek, you didn't DNF.

 

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?

Wow...

 

You offer your opinion, and we should swallow it without question.

 

Lego offers their opinion and they are using 'police state tactics' to 'force' folks...

 

Just wow...

Link to comment
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.

If the four of you actually looked for the cache, and "did not find" it, then, yes, the four of you should log DNFs. In the scenario you described, you never looked for the cache. Logging a DNF on that one would make about as much sense as logging DNFs on the hundreds of other caches you drove by on your way.

 

Seeking is an inherent aspect to finding.

 

 

Ahh, but what is seeking? They headed out for the cache; let's assume they pressed "find" on their GPSr. But they failed to find it as they could not park.

 

The journey to the cache can be as relevant to a DNF as the search at GZ. So I think seeking/looking can start before GZ. Often getting to GZ is a big part of the challenge.

 

In this specific example: I probably would not log a DNF. If I thought others may have issue with parking I may log a note saying that I attempted but could not find a place to park.

 

But if I was heading down a path to a cache on foot and the path was blocked and I could not proceed, I would log a DNF. Or if getting to GZ involved some terrain I could not handle and I had to give up, that is a DNF to me. But if my wife calls me and I have to give up and go home that's not a DNF.

 

So for me it comes down to what I said before - I use my judgement. I don't need a specific "rule" about when seeking/looking starts - or a "rule" saying that once seeking/looking starts the only options are to log a find or DNF.

Link to comment
But if I was heading down a path to a cache on foot and the path was blocked and I could not proceed, I would log a DNF. Or if getting to GZ involved some terrain I could not handle and I had to give up, that is a DNF to me.
FWIW, in situations like that where I don't reach GZ and search for the cache, but where there is still a story to tell, I log a DNS (Did Not Search) as a Note.
Link to comment

Ahh, but what is seeking?

To seek? :unsure::P:lol:

 

Seriously though, I get what you are saying, and I can't disagree with it. Sometimes, getting to ground zero is the challenge. That would be true with just about any night cache. It might even be true with a place that is difficult to find parking for... maybe? I don't think I could stretch hitting the "GoTo" button as seeking, but I reckon there are folks who could.

 

I prefer your final answer: "Use judgement". B)

Link to comment

For anyone else embarassed to log a DNF, here is ours from last night:

 

Elf-ish Has Left Building

 

It's 1:38am and NoisyHikers #2 and #4 have just gotten back from being the first to NOT find this cache.

 

Yes, it is a little embarassing to write this log, but it goes like this...

 

NoisyHiker #2 is just leaving work when she finds out this new cache has been published. She doesn't have her GPS with her so she just writes down the coordinates. She races home and grabs NH #4, who has been sick in bed for the last four days, so she doesn't go hiking in the dark by herself. They drive to the gate on Quarry road and begin the long hike to the Upper Knoll. It is 10:45pm.

 

Hike, hike, hike. The moonlight is incredible and the trails are mostly dry because it was sunny today. The frogs in the marsh were so loud! Hike, hike, hike. We make it to the Upper Knoll trail and turn left. Coordinates go in the GPS and we are on our way. When we get to GZ, it's a giant patch of mud.

 

Now, NH#2 looked at the pictures. She thought she had it in her head exactly what they were looking for. Now that she sees the pic again, she doesn't remember seeing the elf's house. But we did spend a lot of time groping one particular tree - to no avail. And we did see a salamander (pics to be added in the morning!) And we spent eons scrounging around in the dark. Probably almost 45 minutes, which is why we are now in trouble for being late.

 

So. We abandoned the search. There. We admitted it.

 

And then we hiked up to the Upper Knoll and had an incredible view of the city lights and the moon and it was tempting to just wait for the sunrise. I'm sure there will be a troop of eager cachers up at the crack of dawn looking for this one. Yes, those are all our footprints.

 

In spite of logging a DNF, thank you for this wonderful adventure! It was crazy, exhausting and a heck of a memory. Goodnight!

Link to comment

I log every DNF, just in case there's a problem with it. It can build up an accurate picture.

If a 2 star has 10 DNF's, there's most likely a problem with it. If a 5 star has 10 DNF's, it could just be well hidden. Each situation is different.

 

It helps my case if I've visited the cache a few times and logged 4/5 DNF's, when I email and ask for a hint :P

 

I dunno, I haven't been geocaching for long, but everytime I come up with a DNF, it kinda feels like a fail. Maybe some people don't want to acknowledge their failure to find the cache? :unsure:

Link to comment

I'm not concerned with defining a line that everyone can agree on, though. I'm concerned with what *I* consider a needle-in-a-haystack hide. However, I suspect that most of us would define it in terms close enough that we can use the term in a discussion and be talking about pretty much the same sorts of hides.

 

(edit to add: in other words, I think you are over-analyzing the term)

Maybe. But I still contend there isn't a binary categorization of difficult hides.

 

I used to use the term needle-in-the-haystack. Then I began to realize that I enjoyed these hides sometimes. At first I thought, the problem was not knowing it was a needle-in-the-haystack till I got there and thus had a problem of not having time to find the cache. Then I began to understand that any difficult hide would take more time, and that I was just as likely to find the needle-in-the-haystack quickly as something that had unique or clever camouflage (perhaps more so).

 

I might agree that one can appreciate the special camouflage job someone took the time to make more than a cache that was hard because they hide a micro where there are hundreds of spots you need to check. But in fact a lot of so called needle-in-the-haystack do involve special cammo (which rock or which pine cone); and even when they don't the challenge can still be enjoyable. I just don't see the need to make a distinction.

Fine with me if you chose to not make the distinction. However, many of us do, and we do not need a binary categorization to speak about them. We pretty much understand what we are talking about. Kind of like discussing a color... most of us can agree on what "red" is, right (well, those of us that aren't colorblind, anyway), although there are tints and shades of red, and reds with varying amounts of other colors mixed in. I can still tell you "mine is the red car" and you will probably be able to pick it out.

Link to comment
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.

If the four of you actually looked for the cache, and "did not find" it, then, yes, the four of you should log DNFs. In the scenario you described, you never looked for the cache. Logging a DNF on that one would make about as much sense as logging DNFs on the hundreds of other caches you drove by on your way.

 

Seeking is an inherent aspect to finding.

 

With regards to DNFs, if you don't seek, you didn't DNF.

 

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?

Wow...

 

You offer your opinion, and we should swallow it without question.

 

Lego offers their opinion and they are using 'police state tactics' to 'force' folks...

 

Just wow...

I've gotta agree with Riff here, BD. That's a pretty extreme statement you made there. In addition... I can't believe that anybody here believes that you should log a DNF because you couldn't find the parking lot. That is looking for a parking lot, not looking for a cache. Let's leave the strawmen with Dorothy and her friends in Oz.

Link to comment

Seeking is an inherent aspect to finding.

Ahh, but what is seeking? They headed out for the cache; let's assume they pressed "find" on their GPSr. But they failed to find it as they could not park.

Seeking the parking lot is not seeking the cache. If you can't find the parking lot or trailhead and want to let somebody know, leave a note. Nobody is saying that you should claim a DNF for that.
Link to comment

Fine with me if you chose to not make the distinction. However, many of us do, and we do not need a binary categorization to speak about them. We pretty much understand what we are talking about. Kind of like discussing a color... most of us can agree on what "red" is, right (well, those of us that aren't colorblind, anyway), although there are tints and shades of red, and reds with varying amounts of other colors mixed in. I can still tell you "mine is the red car" and you will probably be able to pick it out.

We agree that that some people prefer challenging caches and we may even agree that some people enjoy certain types of challenges more than others. Perhaps you prefer fast red cars to fast blue cars.

 

Unlike colors, what makes a cache is harder to find is the degree of camouflage, concealment, and deception. What I think is meant by a needle-in-the-haystack is just a cache where camouflage, concealment, and deception combine in a way that means finding the cache will require a systematic and thorough search. Generally such a cache requires particularly good camouflage or concealment, or else it would be obvious, along with other things in the vicinity that serve as deception to keep you from looking in the correct place. In a large area it might be easy to find objects that lead to deception, and I might buy the disdain for deception if coordinates were off and you needed to search a larger area. However, a cache owner who is able to select an area where deception works and still have coordinates that are nearly spot on is, IMO, simply exercising good hiding technique.

Link to comment

I'm not concerned with defining a line that everyone can agree on, though. I'm concerned with what *I* consider a needle-in-a-haystack hide. However, I suspect that most of us would define it in terms close enough that we can use the term in a discussion and be talking about pretty much the same sorts of hides.

 

(edit to add: in other words, I think you are over-analyzing the term)

Maybe. But I still contend there isn't a binary categorization of difficult hides.

 

I used to use the term needle-in-the-haystack. Then I began to realize that I enjoyed these hides sometimes. At first I thought, the problem was not knowing it was a needle-in-the-haystack till I got there and thus had a problem of not having time to find the cache. Then I began to understand that any difficult hide would take more time, and that I was just as likely to find the needle-in-the-haystack quickly as something that had unique or clever camouflage (perhaps more so).

 

I might agree that one can appreciate the special camouflage job someone took the time to make more than a cache that was hard because they hide a micro where there are hundreds of spots you need to check. But in fact a lot of so called needle-in-the-haystack do involve special cammo (which rock or which pine cone); and even when they don't the challenge can still be enjoyable. I just don't see the need to make a distinction.

Fine with me if you chose to not make the distinction. However, many of us do, and we do not need a binary categorization to speak about them. We pretty much understand what we are talking about. Kind of like discussing a color... most of us can agree on what "red" is, right (well, those of us that aren't colorblind, anyway), although there are tints and shades of red, and reds with varying amounts of other colors mixed in. I can still tell you "mine is the red car" and you will probably be able to pick it out.

Totally off topic here, but you must not hang out and discuss colors with many women Toz. Around my house I will say red. I am a guy. My wife and daughter will discuss rose, pink, maroon, salmon, coral, candy apple, ruby, cardinal, brick, crimson, barn... :blink:

 

OT, I suppose the same differentiation could be applied to your definition of a NIH.

Link to comment
Totally off topic here, but you must not hang out and discuss colors with many women Toz. Around my house I will say red. I am a guy. My wife and daughter will discuss rose, pink, maroon, salmon, coral, candy apple, ruby, cardinal, brick, crimson, barn... :blink:

 

OT, I suppose the same differentiation could be applied to your definition of a NIH.

What kind of needle? Sewing needle? Darning Needle? Knitting Needle? Is it in a pile of straw, hay, grass, leaves? How big is the haystack? Is it 3 feet (1 meter) in diameter, or an entire barn full? Is the hay stacked or baled? Round bales or rectangular? How many bales? Are they stacked on top of each other, side-by-side, or spread out?

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument...

 

Austin

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...