When to log DNF

[+tisourway]

I went after a cache this morning and did not find it beacuse there was a muggle eyeballing me. I latter read the logs for it and found several DNFs with a note from the CO saying that he would maintanence after memorial day. Memorial day was two months ago, should I log DNF or just leave it and go on to the next one?

[+FrogMastr]

Did you find it?

no?

Then this is a DNF

There is no shame on that you know

[+CanadianRockies]

I'm not sure what the owner's maintenance has to do with whether or not you DNF a cache. If I look for a cache and fail to find it, then I DNF it regardless of whether the cache is missing or I just couldn't find a cache that was there.

 

If I don't search for a cache because a muggle is too close, then I log a note rather than a DNF.

[+StarBrand]

If I looked and Did Not Find the cache. Then I log a DNF.

 

Just a fact. Don't think of DNF logs as some sort of demerit system. Just a fact of what happened.

 

Log your experience.

[+kunarion]

I went after a cache this morning and did not find it beacuse there was a muggle eyeballing me. I latter read the logs for it and found several DNFs with a note from the CO saying that he would maintanence after memorial day. Memorial day was two months ago, should I log DNF or just leave it and go on to the next one?

The reason you didn't find it is valuable information, even the fact that there was a muggle. A "DNF" makes the most sense if you "Did Not Find", but any log is better than nothing.

 

COs get annoyed, perhaps justifiably, if your DNF says "the container's gone because I couldn't find it". So it's best to stick with what happened, how long or thoroughly you looked, and why you stopped the search. If the last couple of logs were DNFs that said "there are a lot of people watching, we searched for an hour using the hint and all, and could not find anything", that might have saved you a trip.

[+L0ne.R]

If I don't search for a cache because a muggle is too close, then I log a note rather than a DNF.

 

As a cache owner, this makes the most sense to me. But I realize that it's a personal thing and some people feel that they need to log a DNF if they step out of the car, hear thunder in the distance, get back in the car and drive home.

 

As a finder if the last log is a DNF I will might skip it without reading the log (especially when travelling). There are plenty of other caches to hunt. I post a DNF if I actually looked for the cache and could not find it. Otherwise it's a note for things like muggles, ground to muddy to get to the cache, unable to open the cache (e.g. pvc pipes), creepy guy at the trailhead so I left, etc.

[+kunarion]

Otherwise it's a note for things like muggles, ground to muddy to get to the cache, unable to open the cache (e.g. pvc pipes), creepy guy at the trailhead so I left, etc.

Sometimes as part of my research I look at the number of DNFs. If people make only "notes" when they arrive at a cache location, I may miss the part about muggles, the inability to open the container, mud, or creeps. Notes could be good or bad, DNFs tell me there's a reason it's not found. If I'm deciding which caches to do on a quick trip, "notes" about problems that prevent finds are not as obvious as DNFs.

 

It really, really helps me when I see accurate, appropriate logs. If I go there, it's because I've weighed the risks and assume I will find it. So did the previous searchers who would not have needed to go if they knew in advance that there'd be mud or creep.

 

Notes are appropriate in certain situations. But help a guy out, make some log regardless, and if you made the trip, imagine that I'm considering that same trip, and I always have the luck of encountering the same issues you did. So if it's more like a "DNF" than a "Note" please do the "DNF". Just a suggestion.

Edited July 31, 2012 by kunarion

[+tisourway]

OK, I posted a DNF. I did get out of the car, and had started to poke around but had not triangulated with the compass yet. Then I noticed that the guy unloading a semi had stopped and was watching me, so I left. I will try again tomorrow.

[+kunarion]

OK, I posted a DNF. I did get out of the car, and had started to poke around but had not triangulated with the compass yet. Then I noticed that the guy unloading a semi had stopped and was watching me, so I left. I will try again tomorrow.

In many cases, you can hunt, retrieve, sign, and put the cache back, if you act confident like this is what you always do. People don't notice, even staring at you. But if you feel uncomfortable, you may begin to attract attention. So it's fine to stop, then try when there's less of an audience.

 

One thing I don't like is when someone turns up just as I'm about to put a camo'd tube back under a light post skirt. I always wish I'd done that cache faster.

[+tisourway]

In many cases, you can hunt, retrieve, sign, and put the cache back, if you act confident like this is what you always do. People don't notice, even staring at you. But if you feel uncomfortable, you may begin to attract attention. So it's fine to stop, then try when there's less of an audience.

 

One thing I don't like is when someone turns up just as I'm about to put a camo'd tube back under a light post skirt. I always wish I'd done that cache faster.

 

He was giving me the creeps, and I'm a guy.

[+Don_J]

I went after a cache this morning and did not find it beacuse there was a muggle eyeballing me. I latter read the logs for it and found several DNFs with a note from the CO saying that he would maintanence after memorial day. Memorial day was two months ago, should I log DNF or just leave it and go on to the next one?

The reason you didn't find it is valuable information, even the fact that there was a muggle. A "DNF" makes the most sense if you "Did Not Find", but any log is better than nothing.

 

COs get annoyed, perhaps justifiably, if your DNF says "the container's gone because I couldn't find it". So it's best to stick with what happened, how long or thoroughly you looked, and why you stopped the search. If the last couple of logs were DNFs that said "there are a lot of people watching, we searched for an hour using the hint and all, and could not find anything", that might have saved you a trip.

 

I've found that CO's get annoyed when you write, "My GPSr led me to the most disgusting grease container I have ever seen. I only looked for a moment because I was afraid I would lose my dinner because of the smell". In fact, he deleted my log. I re-logged it with a simple ... The DNF is also for my records.

[+GrateBear]

This is sort of a mild dilemma, I guess. If I look at all then give up because someone is nearing, it's a DNF. If I don't even try because someone is around, I just keep going to the next one and post nothing. To me, posting a DNF if you don't try sends the wrong message, both to the CO and future seekers.

[+kunarion]

I've found that CO's get annoyed when you write, "My GPSr led me to the most disgusting grease container I have ever seen. I only looked for a moment because I was afraid I would lose my dinner because of the smell". In fact, he deleted my log. I re-logged it with a simple ... The DNF is also for my records.

I went to a similar cache recently. It was an ammo can inside a black garbage bag. The bag was muddy inside and out, the can itself was pretty rusty, wet and muddy. The first pass was a DNF -- I just didn't feel like getting filthy on an otherwise park-n-grab cache. I stated the facts about the garbage bag and the mud. 2nd pass, I was with my parents who said "Let's see what's inside!" Mom got a few paper towels, I got the garbage-bag covered container. The bag had a garden slug on it. The inside was dry (and I signed and logged the Found It). Some caches are super hard to log tactfully.

Edited July 31, 2012 by kunarion

[+Walts Hunting]

You need to do a Needs Archived log. That will force him to fix it or have it archived.

[+CanadianRockies]

You need to do a Needs Archived log. That will force him to fix it or have it archived.

Or the reviewer might decide a muddy ammo can isn't sufficient reason to archive a cache.

[+BCandMsKitty]

real simple.

If you look for it and don't find it, log a DNF!

[+kunarion]

You need to do a Needs Archived log. That will force him to fix it or have it archived.

Or the reviewer might decide a muddy ammo can isn't sufficient reason to archive a cache.

I probably should have removed and discarded the garbage bag. But then I supposed a nasty, rusty, muddy container with slugs on it was the intended hide style. It's hidden there just fine, and dry inside. Maybe the CO thought that would make the find memorable. And so it was.

[AZcachemeister]

 

He was giving me the creeps, and I'm a guy.

 

This is the point when I turn around and just stare back.

 

'You lookin' at me?

Well, I'm lookin' at you!'

 

(I might even walk over and ask if he wants to dance!)

 

Eventually they will get back to whatever job they are supposed to be doing.

[+Mudfrog]

This is sort of a mild dilemma, I guess. If I look at all then give up because someone is nearing, it's a DNF. If I don't even try because someone is around, I just keep going to the next one and post nothing. To me, posting a DNF if you don't try sends the wrong message, both to the CO and future seekers.

 

In my opinion, there's no dilemma and no wrong message. I simply log the dnf with a brief description of why it occurred. Too many muggles, raining too hard, ran out of gas, or just that i just simply wasn't able to find the darn thing. No matter what the reason was, the end result was that i "did not find" the cache.

[+Walts Hunting]

You need to do a Needs Archived log. That will force him to fix it or have it archived.

Or the reviewer might decide a muddy ammo can isn't sufficient reason to archive a cache.

My comment about a NA was not directed to the post above mine but to the OP. I. Assumed you would know that since I didn't quote the muddy ammo can in my response.

[+WRASTRO]

You need to do a Needs Archived log. That will force him to fix it or have it archived.

Or the reviewer might decide a muddy ammo can isn't sufficient reason to archive a cache.

I probably should have removed and discarded the garbage bag. But then I supposed a nasty, rusty, muddy container with slugs on it was the intended hide style. It's hidden there just fine, and dry inside. Maybe the CO thought that would make the find memorable. And so it was.

Garbage bags to hold containers is so 10 years ago. They only collect and contain moisture. I can't remember the last garbage bag I encountered. Back in 2004 they were common in my area. I think garbage bags should be banned from geocaching. Really. They only cause problems with caches.

[cezanne]

Otherwise it's a note for things like muggles, ground to muddy to get to the cache, unable to open the cache (e.g. pvc pipes), creepy guy at the trailhead so I left, etc.

Sometimes as part of my research I look at the number of DNFs. If people make only "notes" when they arrive at a cache location, I may miss the part about muggles, the inability to open the container, mud, or creeps. Notes could be good or bad, DNFs tell me there's a reason it's not found. If I'm deciding which caches to do on a quick trip, "notes" about problems that prevent finds are not as obvious as DNFs.

 

It really, really helps me when I see accurate, appropriate logs. If I go there, it's because I've weighed the risks and assume I will find it. So did the previous searchers who would not have needed to go if they knew in advance that there'd be mud or creep.

 

Notes are appropriate in certain situations. But help a guy out, make some log regardless, and if you made the trip, imagine that I'm considering that same trip, and I always have the luck of encountering the same issues you did. So if it's more like a "DNF" than a "Note" please do the "DNF". Just a suggestion.

 

Like you I like to see how many cachers had trouble with a cache. I'd like to have a log type for failure. It happens often to me that I find a cache, but cannot reach it or cannot open it. I do not want to use DNF for this purpose, but note is also not an optimal choice even less for me who needs notes very often for extending my find logs due to the length limit. Personally, I would have introduced a failure log instead of did not find right from the beginning.

 

I would not want to post a DNF for a cache like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bf2cc78c-4273-4007-a577-bc40e24b3392

where the hideout is visible from 25m away. Of course I found the container and had it in my hands for almost 30 minutes, but failed with opening it.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 1, 2012 by cezanne

[+OZ2CPU]

ALWAYS log a DNF if you searched, and did not find it..

if you could not search for it, log a NOTE.

if you found it, but could not open or sign it, use a note.

you MUST sign the log book, only then you can log it as find online !!

 

a DNF is MORE important over a find it log

you help more people with a DNF over a find it.

 

oh and always remember to make an extra Neem Maintanence log,

if you feel something could need a CO attention

for service or for a check.

 

a cache with no red flag = a perfect cache in all details

and a CO should not go and fix-check anything at all.

Edited August 1, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[cezanne]

ALWAYS log a DNF if you searched, and did not find it..

if you could not search for it, log a NOTE.

if you found it, but could not open or sign it, use a note.

you MUST sign the log book, only then you can log it as find online !!

 

I do not even log a found it if I have signed the log book, but did not reach the cache on my own.

I am not happy however with just logging a note when I cannot reach or cannot open the container.

 

For me a did not find log is not mainly a message to the cache hider, but a statement that I searched and did not find the cache.

I'd like to have a similar option for other failures as I like to check how many people have issues with a cache and it is not so entertaining to

browse through tons of notes. I'd like to be warned if a high proportion of cachers had troubles with a cache.

 

No maintenance flag and a properly maintained cache does not help me to identify caches where I very likely will end much more frustrated than with a did not find.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 1, 2012 by cezanne

[+OZ2CPU]

>I do not even log a found it if I have signed the log book, but did not reach the cache on my own.

 

why did you sign the paper then ?

save the space for others :-)

if you dont want claim the find online, is what I do in such rare ocations.

[cezanne]

>I do not even log a found it if I have signed the log book, but did not reach the cache on my own.

 

why did you sign the paper then ?

 

Because I was there and in several cases it was indeed actually me who found the cache. I also signed the log book of a challenge cache where I will hardly ever fulfill the conditions for a found it log. This resulted in two bicycle trips (the first time I did not find the cache) for me when I otherwise would have stayed on my sofa. So definitely worth the endeavour.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 1, 2012 by cezanne

[+Don_J]

ALWAYS log a DNF if you searched, and did not find it..

if you could not search for it, log a NOTE.

if you found it, but could not open or sign it, use a note.

you MUST sign the log book, only then you can log it as find online !!

 

a DNF is MORE important over a find it log

you help more people with a DNF over a find it.

 

oh and always remember to make an extra Neem Maintanence log,

if you feel something could need a CO attention

for service or for a check.

 

a cache with no red flag = a perfect cache in all details

and a CO should not go and fix-check anything at all.

 

It's okay that you make up such stringent rules for yourself, but please don't go and tell people what they MUST and ALWAYS must not do based on your own personal opinions. New people could be reading and get the idea that these are actually the guidelines.

[+FrogMastr]

Personally as a Hider, i really am ok whit those sugesstions... this is almost what i do. As a hider we like to know when not foud, and most important why.... this tells us if there is a chance that it is still there. Or just that there were to many muggles. And YES NM is a good log to do enven if onother as already been posted. We need to be reminded, if a hider does not maintain or at least post a note that he is aware of the need maintenance after more that 30 day that just mean that he do not care for his cache then NA should be the next call

 

I do place cache and i do care about my cache, will never complain about logs that tells me if any of mine, is not found, need maintenance etc... and if i have no time to check right away at least i post a note to tell i am aware of the problem.

 

If i see more than one DNF, when possible i go check on it to make sure still there, if so i poste a Note comfirming that still there this helps the next Finders, because as a finder if i see a lots of DNF i might not be encouraged to go get that one. Depending of the reason of a DNF.

 

I was in a case where i had to go 6 Times for a Total of 6h 5min to find a cache... not because was not there, just well hidden!!! that was one of my favorite now

After the 2nd DNF CO did go verify and confirmed the cache was there, then after 3 DNF contact me for so hints, but i refused to have the exact location only hints to keep the fun.... then when i got it i was happy.

 

So communication is very important as a Hider and As a Finder. This only make the game more fun and create connection between Hiders/Finders and we need both for that game

[+cosninocanines]

If I don't search for a cache because a muggle is too close, then I log a note rather than a DNF.

 

As a cache owner, this makes the most sense to me. But I realize that it's a personal thing and some people feel that they need to log a DNF if they step out of the car, hear thunder in the distance, get back in the car and drive home.

 

As a finder if the last log is a DNF I will might skip it without reading the log (especially when travelling). There are plenty of other caches to hunt. I post a DNF if I actually looked for the cache and could not find it. Otherwise it's a note for things like muggles, ground to muddy to get to the cache, unable to open the cache (e.g. pvc pipes), creepy guy at the trailhead so I left, etc.

 

X2

[+Walts Hunting]

Presenting the other side I rarely log a DNF. Don't see any reason to particularly for micros in bushes where I probably spend less than five minutes before moving on. There is no requirement that I do. The choice is up to the individual cacher.

 

One of the great things about this hobby that seems to bother some people is the lack of rules. Some people want to push their rules on all of us which ain't going to happen.

 

I am actually amazed that this conversation has gotten this far without Godwin's Law coming into play. That is a reflection on the civility of our group and since this topic is always heated (and occurs fairly often)we should congratulate ourselves.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Walts Hunting

[+briansnat]

OK, I posted a DNF. I did get out of the car, and had started to poke around but had not triangulated with the compass yet. Then I noticed that the guy unloading a semi had stopped and was watching me, so I left. I will try again tomorrow.

 

That's what I would do in that case. Log a DNF and mention that while searching I got spooked by someone who was watching me

[+gooftroop4]

We have a a cache called DNF 50 (GC1GBB2) that rewards cachers for logging their dnf's. We feel that it is a vital tool for the co to see whether or not attributes need to be changed, maint. needed, muggled, etc. It also was a way for me personally to start logging more dnf's, as I had a BAD habit of not doing so. I think it helps for what its worth.

[+Harry Dolphin]

ALWAYS log a DNF if you searched, and did not find it..

if you could not search for it, log a NOTE.

if you found it, but could not open or sign it, use a note.

you MUST sign the log book, only then you can log it as find online !!

 

a DNF is MORE important over a find it log

you help more people with a DNF over a find it.

 

oh and always remember to make an extra Neem Maintanence log,

if you feel something could need a CO attention

for service or for a check.

 

a cache with no red flag = a perfect cache in all details

and a CO should not go and fix-check anything at all.

 

It's okay that you make up such stringent rules for yourself, but please don't go and tell people what they MUST and ALWAYS must not do based on your own personal opinions. New people could be reading and get the idea that these are actually the guidelines.

 

Agree wholeheartedly. There is no requiement to log a DNF (exept to enlarge your numbers.) Likewise there is no requirement to log a Found It, unless you want the numbers. Trying to force anyone to play the game the way that someone insists is tacky and annoying and presumptuous.

It is up to the individual cacher to determine what constitutes a DNF. Trash compactor? No. Ignore list. Too many muggles? Nope. I didn't look. There are no rules.

I will admit that I am more liberal with my DNFs than most. I'm up to 441 out of 3899 finds.

No. I do not ind the info more useful than a find. Too many people get out of the car, see too many muggles and post a DNF. Nothing wrong with the cache. Too few people search diligently, but never log their DNF, But, there are no rules, or even guidelines. So each is left to what s/he decides constitutes a DNF.

[Pup Patrol]

 

a cache with no red flag = a perfect cache in all details

 

 

Oh, my gosh, that is so misleading!

 

People don't always post "NM" logs, but they will detail problems in their "found it" logs.

 

no red flag = a perfect cache in all details people not using the NM log even if the cache is cracked, the log is mush, etc.

 

 

B.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+jukis&prusak]

We personally always log a DNF if we have really searched for a cache and did not find it and we always advise other cachers to do so.

But we do it more like a „note to self – I have attempted the cache and did not find it”. If after a week or a month we come back and then find this cache we post a „fount it” long a delete the previous DNF.

Just wanted to know other opinions on this issue, is it OK to eventually delete the DNF log after a while?

[+redsox_mark]

I think it is best not to delete the DNF - as it is part of the cache history. And can be useful information to others. E.g. a cache which has a lot of DNFs (followed by finds which confirm the cache is there), it indicates it may be tricky to find. My DNFs are also part of my history, so I don't want to delete them.

[+niraD]

I don't delete my DNFs either. They are part of my history. They are part of the cache's history. Just because you eventually found a cache doesn't mean that you didn't experience a DNF (or several DNFs) beforehand.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I think it is best not to delete the DNF - as it is part of the cache history. And can be useful information to others. E.g. a cache which has a lot of DNFs (followed by finds which confirm the cache is there), it indicates it may be tricky to find. My DNFs are also part of my history, so I don't want to delete them.

 

I don't delete my DNFs either. They are part of my history. They are part of the cache's history. Just because you eventually found a cache doesn't mean that you didn't experience a DNF (or several DNFs) beforehand.

 

Yup and yup.

 

Think of it this way: You looked for a cache last week and couldn't find it. You log the DNF. Today, you came back and found the cache. Finding it today doesn't magically evaporate your DNF from last week. Unless you can travel back in time to last week and find the cache before your DNF, the DNF really happened. But, if you traveled back in time and found the cache, you wouldn't DNF it later, because you'd tell your future self where it was hidden. Your future self (after recovering from the shock of seeing your future self telling you where to look) would then find the cache and negate a reason for you to travel back in time in the first place...now you've created a paradox and it has the potential to unravel the universe as we know it. Please, log your DNF's and don't delete them or the universe might blow up!

 

The other aspect is the caches history. If everyone deleted their DNF's after a found log, a difficulty 5 cache would have zero DNF's on it. A new cacher might look at the listing and wonder how it could be considered a difficult cache if noone has ever not found it.

[+ly2kw]

The other aspect is the caches history. If everyone deleted their DNF's after a found log, a difficulty 5 cache would have zero DNF's on it.

I second Crow-T-Robot here and I don't delete my own DNF logs. I always log DNF if attempted unsuccessfully.

 

Is there an easy way to generate the list of caches that you DNF'd years ago? It is sometimes fun to go back and see how well others did. I wouldn't mind if the profile cache section hosted DNF cache list for the user somewhere below "Geocaches Found".

[+redsox_mark]

Is there an easy way to generate the list of caches that you DNF'd years ago? It is sometimes fun to go back and see how well others did. I wouldn't mind if the profile cache section hosted DNF cache list for the user somewhere below "Geocaches Found".

 

Yes, go to your profile, Geocaches, filter by log type. link

[+ly2kw]

Cool. Thanks a bunch. I don't think I can view someone else's DNF list though.

[+redsox_mark]

Cool. Thanks a bunch. I don't think I can view someone else's DNF list though.

 

I don't know a way to look the DNF list of others either.

[+RoadRoach58]

For those that filter off caches with 4 DNF's in a row, this is probably bad practice if you don't qualify that filter with a Dif/Ter input as well. Some caches were not intended to be easy finds, and some are EXTREMELY difficult (10.0 on a 5.0 point system) out in the wide open with plenty time to search. I've stepped on caches that I DNF'd (glad they were ammo cans), got a good giggle from the CO about it, and then found it later.

 

As for not logging a find without signing the log.... SOMETIMES, that is not the best practice, especially if you work a themed series in a remote area that is meant to show you the wonders around you. I would NEVER EVER log one as NM if I don't put my hands on it, or at least a piece of the container. If I suspect it's missing, I use the Write Note log. That can also be filtered for. Sometimes due to lack of maintenance and sometimes because the CO assumes that it is someone else's responsibility to maintain them, the logs turn to mush because the container is inappropriate for the hide, or on older/more popular caches, the logs fill up. Pill bottles work great if you're hiding under cover that will keep them dry. They're worthless in open areas after about the 3rd time they've been opened. I worked a string recently that was all pill bottles except a few L&L containers. The L&L's would have been great containers, except for one small problem. The National Forest did a control burn. Ooops. Yup, 30 odd caches all melted and the log fused into the blob of plastic that used to be the containers, if not in ashes because the entire cache burned. Couldn't sign several of them, but I DID find ALL of them, or at least the remnants, exactly where the descriptions or hints said I would. In some cases, they were very disapointing throw-downs. I will claim a find on a destroyed cache, and send a photo of it to the CO if I find one in that condition. In this case, me putting a "throw down" in their place was not an option because this was a themed series that I actually liked because of the theme and the remote location. Nothing hard about it, but a good numbers run and educational as well. A throw-down would only detract from that intent and purpose. If I find a cache that is in good condition, but the area around it has deteriorated, or the hiding spot has been destroyed, I will flag it with NM, despite the cache itself being OK. The hiding spot is part of the cache. Needs Maintenance should ONLY be available on a FIND, and never on a DNF. But, there are those that will log a find even when they didn't. There is no accounting for principle or ethics in this game. It's just a contest of egos and wills when something gets debated.

 

Whatever you do, don't become such a numbers hound that you feel the need to leave a throw-down because you don't want the DNF, or feel you have to perfeclty clean an area. You cannot flunk Geocaching. It's just meaningless numbers. If you have one DNF on a string that's 850 miles out in the wilderness and don't want to go back, well, there's always the ignore flag. It ain't like you're going to find every cache on the planet anyway. The purpose is the adventure, if you believe everything that you read on GC.Com. I HATE finding throw-downs and having my Find taken away when the CO realizes it was a throw-down instead of the original cache. Doesn't matter the throw-down was "justified" because the original really wasn't there. That purist rule about not logging a find because you can't sign the long is bunk. I've been given finds on a few caches that because I proved they weren't there, they were urban caches which drew attention, and the CO verified they were no longer viable and decided to archive them. IF you find it, but can't sign it, ask the CO for a find before logging it. You'll get a go more often than you think.

 

If you want fancier filtering, I recommend using an off-line waypoint manager that is capable of storing the logs and has full featured database capabilities. I use GSAK, and if I can't make a filter that finds what I want, I'm not trying hard enough, or GSAK is gonna stick it's head in the dirt. (Which Clyde will GLADLY appreciate knowing about and will fix practically overnight).