Jump to content

To DNF or Not To DNF?


SwineFlew

Recommended Posts

I understand that this subject been discussed to death. I understand that Groundspeak wants this topic discussed on FB, but not everybody got a fb account and I never like to post everywhere on FB because I like my privacy. I dont like to share my name everywhere.

 

So the topic of this thread is this: Do you agree or disagree with Groundspeak newsletter topic? Why?

 

One more question, you do feel the newsletter that Groundspeak send out is useful?

 

To DNF or Not To DNF?

 

Geocaching is full of codes and clues to decipher. You can offer other geocachers a clue about a cache before they even begin their search. When you log a DNF (Did Not Find), you’re telling geocachers that the cache may be more difficult to find than anticipated or may even be missing. You’re also letting the cache owner know that they may need to check if their cache container is still at the posted coordinates.

 

If you’re a geocacher who logged any of the 8,530,163 DNF’s posted to Geocaching.com so far, thanks from the geocaching community. It’s a small way to help ensure the quality of geocaching. So maybe DNF means more than “Did Not Find” — maybe it also means “Doing (the) Next (cacher a) Favor.”

 

Go to the official Geocaching.com Facebook page to discuss your thoughts on logging DNF’s.

 

http://blog.geocaching.com/2012/08/why-you-should-log-your-dnfs-geocaching-com-weekly-mailer/

Link to comment

I agree with the newsletter. DNFs are helpful information both for the other finders and the cache owner.

 

The only type of DNFs I don't want to get are: "too many muggles to search" or "didn't have much time to look" etc. I only want to hear about it if they did a good search and came up empty-handed.

 

As for your 2nd question, I do feel the newsletters are useful, however, I usually only take a quick glance at the topic and a brief list at upcoming events before I hit delete. Probably the newsletter is more helpful for those who are new to caching or may not have any another place to find out about events.

Link to comment

I'm glad Groundspeak brought up this topic. DNFs are valuable information to cachers and cache owners alike. It's important that new cachers know that DNF does not mean failure. Also, I have a suspicion that "appies" - the type that log "Tftc" on everything - are even less likely to post a DNF. Anything that Groundspeak can do to get those people involved at a deeper level gets an OK from me.

Link to comment

I have no problem with what they said or how they said it. They didn't get into when you should log a DNF (which is the most contentious point from what I've seen), but did state some reasons why a DNF can be helpful to other cachers and the CO. In this way, they've pointed out some reasons why cachers may want to consider logging a DNF, but have left it up to the cacher to determine when they actually want to do so.

 

As for the newsletter in general, the topics often cover areas I'm already familiar with or I don't really care about. Don't get me wrong, though, it's still useful for many. Some of the topics have discussed matters that a new cacher may not have thought about (ie. smartphones for hiding, this DNF one, adding attributes to your cache), while others have announced new/changed features (ie. the return of Google Maps for PMs, new benefits for Megas).

Link to comment

I'm glad Groundspeak brought up this topic. DNFs are valuable information to cachers and cache owners alike. It's important that new cachers know that DNF does not mean failure. Also, I have a suspicion that "appies" - the type that log "Tftc" on everything - are even less likely to post a DNF. Anything that Groundspeak can do to get those people involved at a deeper level gets an OK from me.

+1

Link to comment

I agree with the newsletter. DNFs are helpful information both for the other finders and the cache owner.

 

The only type of DNFs I don't want to get are: "too many muggles to search" or "didn't have much time to look" etc. I only want to hear about it if they did a good search and came up empty-handed.

 

 

I agree with "too many muggles to search". Posting a note would be more appropriate. However, "didn't have much time to look" is a legitimate reason for a DNF. Whether I invest 30 seconds looking for the cache, or 3 hours...I looked for it and did not find it. There have been caches that I've decided to look for that I knew I didn't have more than a couple of minutes to search. I just held out hope that I might luck out and find it quickly. If I didn't, it's still a DNF.

If it's a tricky cache to find, I can understand that someone saying they only searched for a minute and had to hurry off isn't REALLY a DNF but it's still correct to log the DNF and write why.

Link to comment

One thing I would like to have seen covered is if you DNF a multicache. If it's a two stage multi, it's not terribly hard to figure out but I've seen some local multi's with 4, 5, 6+ stages that someone will log a DNF saying "Looked but couldn't find it". Couldn't find WHAT? Stage 1? 2? The final? How far did you get before you got stumped?

Edited by Crow-T-Robot
Link to comment

One thing I would like to have seen covered is if you DNF a multicache. If it's a two stage multi, it's not terribly hard to figure out but I've seen some local multi's with 4, 5, 6+ stages that someone will log a DNF saying "Looked but couldn't find it". Couldn't find WHAT? Stage 1? 2? The final? How far did you get before you got stumped?

Multicache are high maintenance caches to deal with. Would be nice to know what you found and what you didnt in your DNF log. I feel its a must if you log a DNF on a multicache.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

One thing I would like to have seen covered is if you DNF a multicache. If it's a two stage multi, it's not terribly hard to figure out but I've seen some local multi's with 4, 5, 6+ stages that someone will log a DNF saying "Looked but couldn't find it". Couldn't find WHAT? Stage 1? 2? The final? How far did you get before you got stumped?

 

This is why details in DNF logs are so important. There could be a million reasons why a person can't locate a cache. I want to know what the obstacle was. Inexperience? Muggles? Bears?

 

I do try to be "sensitive" to the CO in my DNF logs. I usually assume that it is me who has missed something unless I discover a broken piece of a container or swag in the bushes. And I always thank them for the adventure anyway and assure them I will be back to try again.

 

We haven't done very many multis so we haven't DNFed any yet. But even in those found it logs, I always mention the condition of each stage so the CO knows how things are faring. It's all about communication! :D

Edited by 6NoisyHikers
Link to comment

I only want to hear about it if they did a good search and came up empty-handed.

 

That's strange for me. In many cases I lose my motivation before having done what you or other might regard as a good search. When I leave after 5 minutes, I write a DNF in most cases, but I do mention how long I searched.

If I do not even start to search, I typically write a note, but if I searched and failed, then for me a DNF is the most appropriate log type. Not everyone has the ambition to put much energy in searching and in particular not under circumstances not appreciated - for example, I hate searching for a longer time in locations that require stealth.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The last DNF I logged was because the cache location - a hole in an old tree - was occupied by a bee swarm.

I went to that cache with my children, and that could have been pretty dangerous for them! I did not want the next seeker to have the same issue, and I wanted the CO to be aware of his cache being beegled (bee-muggled).

 

That kind of situation is one of the best reasons to log a DNF.

Link to comment

it is perfectly OK to give up after 1 sec or 1 min or 1 hr

just tell about it in your DNF log

 

but if you give up before even going to GZ for some reason,

please write a NOTE and again explain why, what happened,

road blown away ? bridge fallen down ? too much poison ivy all over ?

 

a well writen DNF log is more worth to other cachers and CO over a found it log

so PLEASE post more DNF logs people..

-----------------

a cache with 3 DNF, a bit hi ranked..

I go and have a look :-)

http://coord.info/GC28VGW

here is one way to tell others how cool you are :-)

we love to be good..

Link to comment

Whether I invest 30 seconds looking for the cache, or 3 hours...I looked for it and did not find it.

 

30 seconds? Every time you log a DNF, the cache owner gets an email AND your log shows up on other cacher's GPSs. Although it may technically be correct to log a DNF if you only searched for 30 seconds, I would say logging it is a waste of everybody's time.

Link to comment

Whether I invest 30 seconds looking for the cache, or 3 hours...I looked for it and did not find it.

 

30 seconds? Every time you log a DNF, the cache owner gets an email AND your log shows up on other cacher's GPSs. Although it may technically be correct to log a DNF if you only searched for 30 seconds, I would say logging it is a waste of everybody's time.

 

+1

Link to comment

>if you only searched for 30 seconds, I would say logging it is a waste of everybody's time.

 

if it is rated D1 T1

and the cacher got many finds, and the hider too,

then if correctly rated, and correctly hidden, it should not take 30 sec to find it.

and YES a DNF log is much appriciated.

offcourse I newer heard of anyone giving up for real after searching 30 sec :-)

it takes several minutes to look at any area, comeon.

Link to comment

I only want to hear about it if they did a good search and came up empty-handed.

 

That's strange for me. In many cases I lose my motivation before having done what you or other might regard as a good search. When I leave after 5 minutes, I write a DNF in most cases, but I do mention how long I searched.

If I do not even start to search, I typically write a note, but if I searched and failed, then for me a DNF is the most appropriate log type. Not everyone has the ambition to put much energy in searching and in particular not under circumstances not appreciated - for example, I hate searching for a longer time in locations that require stealth.

 

Cezanne

 

I'm with Cezanne on this one. Normally - I will search until I get "fed up" (lose my motivation"). The amount of time I spend will vary greatly depending on the cache. A cache in a nice location (especially if it took me some time to get there) I will spend a long time searching. A cache in a place I don't like very much I will spend far less time. Most likely more than 30 seconds, but it could be that short. In these cases I will log a DNF. I gave it as good of an effort as I was willing to do. I will make it clear in my log how long I spent and why. If I felt the cache location was so bad that I was only willing to spend 5 minutes (or 30 seconds) then others might find that information useful.

 

If I get interrupted for reasons not to do with the cache before I've finished looking then I'm more likely to write a note or maybe nothing at all. E.g. I just started to look when I get a phone call asking me to come home urgently. That information isn't relevant to anyone else.

Link to comment

Whether I invest 30 seconds looking for the cache, or 3 hours...I looked for it and did not find it.

 

30 seconds? Every time you log a DNF, the cache owner gets an email AND your log shows up on other cacher's GPSs. Although it may technically be correct to log a DNF if you only searched for 30 seconds, I would say logging it is a waste of everybody's time.

 

The log is sent to the cache owner and shows up irrespective of the log type.

Apart from the fact that I personally prefer to have a proper account of my geocaching activities, I also appreciate to know if a cache location made others leave quickly.

 

For example, there exists a local cache at a highway resting area which is in the evening is used as a meeting point for homosexual men. It is helpful to be notified of this and so to be able to avoid visits at this time of the day. Of course the cache description could mention it, but it does not and moreover often some circumstances are also not known to the cache owner from the beginning.

 

There are also caches nears schools, on playgrounds, on locations with lots of trash etc where it is definitely not a waste of time to be notified of the fact that a certain group of cachers does not feel comfortable to start a thorough search or search at all. Such caches might not exist in your area, they do exist in my area and many local cachers do not have an issue with whatever and are able to enjoy nearly every sort of cache. There are a few cachers whose preferences are similar than mine and I find it very useful to read their logs and in particular notes and DNFs as reports of failures.

 

Another example: If I encounter a large historic stone wall and there are no signs whatsoever where the cache could be and there is no spoiler available, then nowadays I leave immediately or avoid the cache if having become aware of the situation in advance. There are countries where such caches are not published, mine does not belong to them.

 

So one's attitude on logs might also depend on the environment one is caching in.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Well, I see the No. 1 excuse for not logging a DNF, the ol' "I didn't look hard enough" line, is being debated already. :lol:

 

I was rather shocked to see such a decree arrive in my email inbox, but I agree with it. And I am totally convinced it's aimed at those out there who never log any DNF's There are a lot of them, and you know them. The people you know and have cached with who have personally told you they don't log DNF's. The people whose logs you see on cache pages "Finally! Found after 4 tries", and of course there will be no other log entries from them on the cache page. Those people. B)

Link to comment

Well, I see the No. 1 excuse for not logging a DNF, the ol' "I didn't look hard enough" line, is being debated already. :lol:

 

I was rather shocked to see such a decree arrive in my email inbox, but I agree with it. And I am totally convinced it's aimed at those out there who never log any DNF's There are a lot of them, and you know them. The people you know and have cached with who have personally told you they don't log DNF's. The people whose logs you see on cache pages "Finally! Found after 4 tries", and of course there will be no other log entries from them on the cache page. Those people. B)

 

I agree. And I thought the "decree" did a good job explaining why logging DNFs is useful.

 

New cachers quickly learn why logging finds is useful - they see their find count go up and get a smiley face on their map. Without this sort of "education" it may not be obvious to them why logging a DNF is useful.

 

Inevitably there is debate around the "edges" - must you log a DNF if you arrive at GZ and look for a second? Should you log it even if you don't get to GZ but you hit "find" on the GPS? Etc. But these are minor details. If the DNF log is useful, log it.

Link to comment

Whether I invest 30 seconds looking for the cache, or 3 hours...I looked for it and did not find it.

 

30 seconds? Every time you log a DNF, the cache owner gets an email AND your log shows up on other cacher's GPSs. Although it may technically be correct to log a DNF if you only searched for 30 seconds, I would say logging it is a waste of everybody's time.

 

If I go 'there' with the intent to search, I'm posting a log.

If I can't even get within 100 feet due to heathens, I'm posting a log. If three people mention this, you might consider going at midnight, eh?

So what if my log (DNF or otherwise) shows up on other cacher's GPSr? Feel free to create a GSAK filter to remove them!

A 30 second search? Yeah, I've done that...although it's usually about 5 minutes. There are SO MANY caches around here that are barely worth the effort to open the car door, 30 more seconds may be all it's worth to me.

Consider it my version of an un-favorite point.

Link to comment

I'll log a DNF if I drive by GZ with the intent to search and get dissuaded for some reason. Are people really complaining about DNF logs as a waste of time? Seriously? Don't read them then. You can't complain about people not logging blue frownies, and then complain that blue frownies waste your time :rolleyes:

 

I like to think my DNF logs are informative, at least the first one I put on a cache page. If I return to search again (which is becoming less frequently on crappy urban Walmart parking lot homeless camp hides :angry: ) my logs may not be quite as informative unless there's different information to give.

 

I really like that the newsletter brought this to everyone's attention. It's important.

Link to comment

Whether I invest 30 seconds looking for the cache, or 3 hours...I looked for it and did not find it.

 

30 seconds? Every time you log a DNF, the cache owner gets an email AND your log shows up on other cacher's GPSs. Although it may technically be correct to log a DNF if you only searched for 30 seconds, I would say logging it is a waste of everybody's time.

You log a DNF on one of my caches...after only looking 30 seconds...I will say you have not wasted my time. I appreciate you looking (regardless of how long or short) and taking the time to at least let me and others know you gave it a shot. It at least offers me some info to reflect on and make a decision if the cache needs a check or not.

 

Some can be found in under 30 seconds...and some cannot...but I appreciate all logs that are offered.

Link to comment

Well, I see the No. 1 excuse for not logging a DNF, the ol' "I didn't look hard enough" line, is being debated already. :lol:

 

I was rather shocked to see such a decree arrive in my email inbox, but I agree with it. And I am totally convinced it's aimed at those out there who never log any DNF's There are a lot of them, and you know them. The people you know and have cached with who have personally told you they don't log DNF's. The people whose logs you see on cache pages "Finally! Found after 4 tries", and of course there will be no other log entries from them on the cache page. Those people. B)

 

There are all kinds of excuses thrown out there for not logging dnfs but i figure the underlying reason is that most cachers somehow feel ashamed of their failure to find the cache.

 

It's not a waste of time for me to log any dnf. If i began a search,,, meaning that i pushed "goto" on my gpsr and took off to look for the cache, then it'll get logged as either a found or a dnf. Doesn't matter if there were too many muggles, i didn't make it to ground zero for some reason,,,etc. DNF means Did Not Find which is exactly what happened in the above cases.

 

I do agree that some of my dnfs might not be helpful to cache owners or other finders but they are a part of my geocaching record. Of course i do make sure to post in my log why i didn't find the cache. For instance, if my car broke down while enroute, then i make sure i say that in the log to keep anyone from thinking the cache may be missing.

Link to comment

One more question, you do feel the newsletter that Groundspeak send out is useful?

Useful to me? No, it's stuff I already know. Useful to newcomers? Yes, if they'll read it. And I think people are more apt to read a short, easy-on-the-eye newsletter in their e-mail than click around on the website, so it potentially serves a good purpose.

 

I'd like to see something more in-depth. For example, discussing the merits of all the various reasons why people do and don't log their DNFs - basically discussing years' worth of forum topics on the subject. But even though I like reading detail if it's a subject I'm interested in, I know that kind of detail would turn off many readers.

Link to comment

One more question, you do feel the newsletter that Groundspeak send out is useful?

Useful to me? No, it's stuff I already know. Useful to newcomers? Yes, if they'll read it. And I think people are more apt to read a short, easy-on-the-eye newsletter in their e-mail than click around on the website, so it potentially serves a good purpose.

 

I'd like to see something more in-depth. For example, discussing the merits of all the various reasons why people do and don't log their DNFs - basically discussing years' worth of forum topics on the subject. But even though I like reading detail if it's a subject I'm interested in, I know that kind of detail would turn off many readers.

 

+1

Link to comment

Well, I see the No. 1 excuse for not logging a DNF, the ol' "I didn't look hard enough" line, is being debated already. :lol:

 

I was rather shocked to see such a decree arrive in my email inbox, but I agree with it. And I am totally convinced it's aimed at those out there who never log any DNF's There are a lot of them, and you know them. The people you know and have cached with who have personally told you they don't log DNF's. The people whose logs you see on cache pages "Finally! Found after 4 tries", and of course there will be no other log entries from them on the cache page. Those people. B)

 

I agree. And I thought the "decree" did a good job explaining why logging DNFs is useful.

 

New cachers quickly learn why logging finds is useful - they see their find count go up and get a smiley face on their map. Without this sort of "education" it may not be obvious to them why logging a DNF is useful.

 

Inevitably there is debate around the "edges" - must you log a DNF if you arrive at GZ and look for a second? Should you log it even if you don't get to GZ but you hit "find" on the GPS? Etc. But these are minor details. If the DNF log is useful, log it.

 

I don't even understand why there's a discussion. Did you look for it? Did you find it? I think the Boolean logic to these questions warrants the DNF log, but if you want any qualification at all, the only one should be the first question. There are no shades of gray. It was found, or it wasn't. That's sort of like almost getting pregnant. The reasons why are irrelevant to the ultimate result, albeit someone that actually takes the time to say "I couldn't reach it" might get asked how tall they are. "Not my style" means the person may not be with the right caching partner, and might be a good partner for someone else. NEITHER of these reasons has any bearing on IF the cacher found the cache, but only offer explanations WHY THAT cacher couldn't. This is a GAME. I really don't understand the CO that gets his nose bent about someone saying "I didn't look long enough". Did the CO hide it for people to go look for it, or what? ANY log says someone went looking for it and that makes me happy if I'm the CO, and means I didn't waste my time putting it out, publishing it, and maintaining it. I don't CARE if they can't find it, because A.) I KNOW my caches are there, B.) I KNOW my caches are maintained, and C) putting it there accomplished my goal to give someone a chance to experience a location that I like, and hope they like it too. For one person's techniques, speed, physical prowess, and powers of observation, 5 seconds might be all it takes. For another, perhaps someone that's spending time with a special needs child by getting them outdoors, 5 hours might not be long enough to find the cache, but would be a WONDERFUL investment in the child. I'm using both extremes of the spectrum, but aren't both extremes welcome to play the game? There is no filter that I know of, nor any rating system that I know of, that determines what IQ level you prefer to have hunting your cache. I really thought that's what the dif/ter rating and description was about, to allow the seeker to figure out if they wanted to go try.

 

I find that a lot of people that play this game seem to think the statistics they generate place them up on some pedestal above the rest of the sentient beings that can read a GPSr. Well, that pedestal and $1.83 will get you a cup of coffee at the Kangaroo Express. If you're REALLY smart, though, you bring your own cup, and get a refill for $1.08, and talk the manager into letting you put a geocache behind the counter that requires the seeker to ask for it with a passphrase. Now that's creative. Some people that actually USE the DNF feature are VERY smart people that just have a lot less time to play the game, thus, look like noobies a long time. Some of those super-finders can be dethroned with a very simple tree hanging cache. All it takes is a little creativity. I personally use DNF to mark my next project. Sometimes, I get lucky, sometimes, I don't. Luck often has little to do with finding the cache. Most often, it's not where the coordinates say, and if you REALLY want to piss off a CO, put in corrected coordinates when the loose ones were the only difficulty in the hide.

 

What I find most alarming, and VERY annoying, is when a CO deletes the DNFs and Write Note logs because they consider them spoilers, and then, complains that "Not today" isn't a good enough log. Hmm, Catch22. It hacks me off to have a DNF deleted when I point out in that DNF, that the coordinates would have me standing in the middle of a river, or that indeed, "Too many muggles" is considered a spoiler. If I walk up, and 3000 people are leaning on the hiding spot, I'd say there's too many muggles. Little else to say about it. ONE people leaning on the hiding spot is too many muggles. 'Nuff said. CO's sometimes delete those DNF's to prevent their cache from being filtered off. 4 back to back DNFs can OFTEN indicate the CO should go take care of a 1/1 lamp-skirt hide, but no, we get that debate that the finder should fix it for the CO. I cry foul on that one, but that's just me. As a CO, I'd like to know if someone couldn't find it because of muggles, because if that was the only difficulty I could put on the cache, then I'd like to know it's working. I'd also like to know the seeker had enough integrity to make sure my cache wasn't compromised or destroyed.

Link to comment

I don't even understand why there's a discussion. Did you look for it? Did you find it? I think the Boolean logic to these questions warrants the DNF log, but if you want any qualification at all, the only one should be the first question. There are no shades of gray.

 

Well, in my case I guess I like shades of grey. And people have various definitions of what "looking" means. Some think it is when they press "goto" on their GPS. Some think it is when they reach GZ.

 

I am not ashamed of DNFs, and I would say 95% of the time when I "look" for a cache (whatever one's definition of looking is) I log either a Find or a DNF.

 

But I am also aware that logging a DNF indicates a possible problem with a cache to many people. Some may filter out caches with recent DNFs for example. So I tend not to log DNFs which I don't think are useful. Example: I'm leaving work,I press go on my GPSr intending to find a cache on my way home. Before I can get to GZ, the boss calls, I have to go back to work, caching aborted for the day. I could log a DNF (explaining my situation) but it doesn't really help anyone. If I wanted that log for my own record (or if anyone in a similar position wants to log a DNF) than that's fine.

 

But I don't accept a black and white rule that every time I set out to find a cache I must log either Find or DNF.

Link to comment

You don't have to post a DNF if you haven't actually started searching. Because in that case, the reason you couldn't find it, won't be something the cache owner needs to check up on, and it's also not something other cachers need to know. I log when I made a solid effort to find a cache and couldn't. If I pass by and check under a single rock, I won't log, because I haven't made a true effort to find the cache yet.

 

So when do you need to log?

1) beehives, falling rocks, and other dangers the cache owner isn't yet aware of and that other cachers should know about.

2) Broken or missing containers.

3) Road works or new restrictions that cause you to not be able to reach the cache.

4) Probably a lot of things I missed...

 

If something caused me to abandon the search which won't neccesarily affect other cachers, then is a log really neccesary? Suppose I'm called away because of an emergency after 5 minutes of searching, does that really have to be logged? I don't think it has to be. Neither cache owners or other cachers would learn anything useful from such a log.

Link to comment

I have had people before me log DNF that ended up helping me in the search (too many muggles, something they overturned, a wasp next nearby...etc) that has been crucial to my search. Log your DNF and log details, you never know what information will be important.

 

Shaun

Link to comment

I try my best to NOT DNF, but when I do, I log it.

 

:lol:

 

I tend to log it when I DNF as well. I hate it when I look for a cache that 5 or 6 people have failed to find but they didn't log it so neither I, the cache owner, or other cachers have any idea there may be an issue with the hide.

 

I know far too many people who don't log a DNF. I guess it makes them feel "stupid" or something so they don't want to admit they couldn't find the thing. I've logged a DNF on several 1/1 caches. My wife and I looked diligently but failed to find the things. I figure I really "should" be able to locate a 1/1 with 2 people looking for 10 minutes or more. If we can't find it within that time frame there well may be an issue that needs to be addressed.

Link to comment

There are all kinds of excuses thrown out there for not logging dnfs but i figure the underlying reason is that most cachers somehow feel ashamed of their failure to find the cache.

It doesn't hurt that they'll be revealing a failure, and it doesn't hurt that they hate that cache at the moment, but I suspect that the fundamental reason people don't log DNFs is that they can't be bothered.

 

And, personally, I don't care. Sure, I think DNFs are useful, and I encourage people to log them, but it doesn't bother me if someone decides not to log a DNF any more than it bothers me that some people don't log finds.

Link to comment

I don't even understand why there's a discussion. Did you look for it? Did you find it? I think the Boolean logic to these questions warrants the DNF log, but if you want any qualification at all, the only one should be the first question. There are no shades of gray.

 

Well, in my case I guess I like shades of grey. And people have various definitions of what "looking" means. Some think it is when they press "goto" on their GPS. Some think it is when they reach GZ.

 

I am not ashamed of DNFs, and I would say 95% of the time when I "look" for a cache (whatever one's definition of looking is) I log either a Find or a DNF.

 

But I am also aware that logging a DNF indicates a possible problem with a cache to many people. Some may filter out caches with recent DNFs for example. So I tend not to log DNFs which I don't think are useful. Example: I'm leaving work,I press go on my GPSr intending to find a cache on my way home. Before I can get to GZ, the boss calls, I have to go back to work, caching aborted for the day. I could log a DNF (explaining my situation) but it doesn't really help anyone. If I wanted that log for my own record (or if anyone in a similar position wants to log a DNF) than that's fine.

 

But I don't accept a black and white rule that every time I set out to find a cache I must log either Find or DNF.

 

I AGREE COMPLETELY. It is not black and white. Reporting a DNF depends on the cache and the situation.

 

I do not report DID NOT LOOK but I report DID NOT FIND.

 

DID NOT LOOK means I changed my mind when I got to the area because I didn't like the area, or it seemed like provate property, or too close to a playground, or I would look stupid looking there, etc. I may put a note in some of those situations. I know that many cachers filter out caches with a number of DNFs without reading the logs so I bear that in mind when deciding how or if to log it.

 

PA

Link to comment

There are a few difficult caches that we have searched for several times. We'll log a DNF the first time, and the second, but maybe we will wait a few more before logging another DNF because we aren't providing anything helpful at that point. However, if we do finally find it, we will say that it took us X number of tries to do it.

Link to comment

I have a virtual cache (High on a Windy Hill) in the Olympic National Park that has one DNF. Been a while but as I remember he logged it because he forgot his cache page with the Questions. Don't remember if he ever returned with his printed cache page to log a find.

Link to comment

 

DID NOT LOOK means I changed my mind when I got to the area because I didn't like the area, or it seemed like provate property, or too close to a playground, or I would look stupid looking there, etc. I may put a note in some of those situations.

 

Actually, I think that a log makes sense in all those cases and I appreciate such logs much more than TFTC found it logs. I'm even more interested what experience is waiting for me (including muggle situation etc) than if the cache is still there (of course the latter is of some importance as well, but only at the second priority level).

 

My decision between a note and did not find depends on the situation, but it does not come to my mind to not log at all in such cases. If I happen to inspect two obvious candidates at a location wher I feel uncomfortable and the cache is not there, I log DNF and write exactly this. If I do not start my search at all, I post a note.

 

I know that many cachers filter out caches with a number of DNFs without reading the logs so I bear that in mind when deciding how or if to log it.

 

My logs are for myself and for human beings and not for roboters. I do not care at all about people who decide on the basis of log types and not the contents.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I log DNF's because there is a challenge in our area (or there used to be) to have logged 100 DNF's. :rolleyes:

 

They have those 100 DNF challenges in many places. Little known fact: Illegal under the "new" challenge cache guidelines that came out in April 2012. There's one a little East of Cleveland, but I didn't have time while passing through Ohio in June. I've logged almost 400 since 2003. :lol:

Link to comment

I know that many cachers filter out caches with a number of DNFs without reading the logs so I bear that in mind when deciding how or if to log it.

 

My logs are for myself and for human beings and not for roboters. I do not care at all about people who decide on the basis of log types and not the contents.

 

Cezanne

I agree with Cezanne. If there are people who make an effort to provide useful information. I'm not going to bother helping people who ignore that info and filter based on numbers rather than content.

Link to comment

You don't have to post a DNF if you haven't actually started searching.

True, but the problem I have with your statement is the word, "have". You don't HAVE to ever post a DNF. For that matter, you don't ever have to post a Found It. But DNF's are useful to you, the cache owner, and to geocachers to come. Sometimes it is useful even if you haven't actually started searching. Maybe the bridge is washed out (yes, you could also post that as a Note log) or there were too many people milling about, or whatever. Logging that information is potentially useful, even if you don't see the use for it at the time. It is a record of what you did.

Link to comment

 

For example, there exists a local cache at a highway resting area which is in the evening is used as a meeting point for homosexual men. It is helpful to be notified of this and so to be able to avoid visits at this time of the day. Of course the cache description could mention it, but it does not and moreover often some circumstances are also not known to the cache owner from the beginning.

 

 

I agree 100% that a DNF should be logged if there is USEFUL information contained in it. If the search was 30 seconds because of a reason that is worth noting, then by all means, log it; I would be happy to received the email.

 

Howeer, if you searched for only 30 seconds because you had to go run catch a bus, please spare us all. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

There are all kinds of excuses thrown out there for not logging dnfs but i figure the underlying reason is that most cachers somehow feel ashamed of their failure to find the cache.

It doesn't hurt that they'll be revealing a failure, and it doesn't hurt that they hate that cache at the moment, but <b>I suspect that the fundamental reason people don't log DNFs is that they can't be bothered.</b>

 

And, personally, I don't care. Sure, I think DNFs are useful, and I encourage people to log them, but it doesn't bother me if someone decides not to log a DNF any more than it bothers me that some people don't log finds.

 

There's no doubt that this is the case for many unlogged dnfs. But, i do know a person or two who is hesitant to log them because he/she thinks it tarnishes their record somehow.

 

Certainly they can be helpful when they describe a potential problem with a cache. Otherwise, they are pretty much a personal record and possibly even an entertaining read for some.

Link to comment

I log all DNFs...even have a coin to track them.

 

Wow, that is very interesting. And obviously you don't agree with the "I didn't really look" crowd. :lol:

 

Again, here is what I think Groundspeak is addressing. I just stumbled on this log 5 minutes ago. There are no other logs from this account before this find log. I think I've seen a thousand of these:

 

Team Member #1 was in town to see mom and this was his 3rd time to try this one today! On the 3rd trip I finally called for a phone-a-friend clue to find out I was in the right spot. Walked right back over and had the cache in hand in the matter of seconds!

Link to comment

Well, I see the No. 1 excuse for not logging a DNF, the ol' "I didn't look hard enough" line, is being debated already. :lol:

 

I was rather shocked to see such a decree arrive in my email inbox, but I agree with it. And I am totally convinced it's aimed at those out there who never log any DNF's There are a lot of them, and you know them. The people you know and have cached with who have personally told you they don't log DNF's. The people whose logs you see on cache pages "Finally! Found after 4 tries", and of course there will be no other log entries from them on the cache page. Those people. B)

 

Those people. I have two caches that are in the same park along the same path. They are almost exactly a .1 mile apart and other than a multi, the only caches in the park. Cache A is in a tunnel that is the remains of an historic site. Cache B is right next to a scenic waterfall. Cache A is easy to find, cache B might take a bit of an effort. Cache A is found almost every week and sometimes several times in a week. Cache B can go several weeks or more between finds.

 

I can see cachers ignoring the only other cache in the park which is a multi, but I can't imagine most cachers finding Cache A and ignoring Cache B. These days, with the emphasis on numbers, who is going to pass up on a cache only .1 mile from another on a flat, easy path? Especially when Cache B has a number of favorites.

 

My only explanation is that they are trying for both and not log logging their DNFs on Cache B. Those people

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Well, I see the No. 1 excuse for not logging a DNF, the ol' "I didn't look hard enough" line, is being debated already. :lol:

 

I was rather shocked to see such a decree arrive in my email inbox, but I agree with it. And I am totally convinced it's aimed at those out there who never log any DNF's There are a lot of them, and you know them. The people you know and have cached with who have personally told you they don't log DNF's. The people whose logs you see on cache pages "Finally! Found after 4 tries", and of course there will be no other log entries from them on the cache page. Those people. B)

 

Those people. I have two caches that are in the same park along the same path. They are almost exactly a .1 mile apart and other than a multi, the only caches in the park. Cache A is in a tunnel that is the remains of an historic site. Cache B is right next to a scenic waterfall. Cache A is easy to find, cache B might take a bit of an effort. Cache A is found almost every week and sometimes several times in a week. Cache B can go several weeks or more between finds.

 

I can see cachers ignoring the only other cache in the park which is a multi, but I can't imagine most cachers finding Cache A and ignoring Cache B. These days, with the emphasis on numbers, who is going to pass up on a cache only .1 mile from another on a flat, easy path? Especially when Cache B has a number of favorites.

 

My only explanation is that they are trying for both and not log logging their DNFs on Cache B. Those people

I skip multi because most CO doesnt take care of it. Yes, Multi are high maintenance cache and most of the time, its broken. Not going to waste my time looking for it. Another thing is that multi require to read the cache page for more info that most people dont have with them when they are in the area.

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...