Should I Post DNF?

[+stedmanrecon]

If I can't find a cache for whatever reason, should I go ahead and log that a DNF? Even if I am planning to try another day to find it? Or should I only use the DNF log option to let the CO that something might be up with the cache?

[+jellis]

It's up to you. But if you feel more like the cache maybe missing as opposed to you just couldn't find it then yes. It let's the CO know and if it was a simple cache they may want to go check it. I had someone post a NM just because the cache hadn't been found in almost a year, with no DNFs. It was a multi and they didn't even have the correct coords.

[+WarNinjas]

Yep it is up to you. I only use the DNF for caches I want the CO to know I looked for it or if I feel I did a good search and couldn't find it. If I feel I found the spot and it was not there I post a DNF. Otherwise I just move on.

-WarNinjas

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

This is basically a can-o-worms that runs the full gauntlet and back whenever posted.

It's up to you. Just remember, another day is just that, another day... and another search.

 

Many (most?) post a DNF if they actually searched and didn't find it. What you do later is a different story.

You can either look at it as part of the cache history -- or you can look at it as your personal "batting average".

 

Purists log a DNF every time they don't find the cache, others (in varying degrees) don't, or post a "note" instead, etc., etc., etc... the reasons are seemingly endless.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+niraD]

Whenever I reach ground zero and search for the cache, I log either a Find or a DNF.

 

Others log more DNFs than I do; for example, some log DNFs in situations where they don't reach ground zero, or where they reach ground zero but don't actually search for the cache.

 

Others log fewer DNFs than I do; for example, some log DNFs only the first time they search unsuccessfully, or only after they're convinced the cache "must be missing", or only after they give up ever finding the cache.

[+The_Incredibles_]

A recent thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=303153

[+K13]

The way I understand the game you are encouraged go on-line to tell the story of your 'adventure'. If your 'adventure' didn't end with a find, it's still a story to tell.... so tell it. There is no DNF stat to count against your score.

[+steben6]

The way I understand the game you are encouraged go on-line to tell the story of your 'adventure'. If your 'adventure' didn't end with a find, it's still a story to tell.... so tell it. There is no DNF stat to count against your score.

+1

[+The Blorenges]

The way I understand the game you are encouraged go on-line to tell the story of your 'adventure'. If your 'adventure' didn't end with a find, it's still a story to tell.... so tell it. There is no DNF stat to count against your score.

+1

 

+1

 

Some of the most interesting / amusing logs come from DNF experiences.

 

MrsB

[+OZ2CPU]

use a NOTE if you did not search or could not approch GZ for some reason,

like road closed or road work or whatver

 

use a DNF if you did goto GZ and you did search,

please tell how deep you searched or what ever you experianced

this might help your self, if you plan to go there in the future

and others tomorrow, and maybe even the CO today

 

Always share your adventure,

Newer directly reveal hideouts if they are not supposed to be revealed,

some caches it is not the hide or the container, but more how to get to it

that is the fun part, some of those the CO directly ask for pictures

or more detailed logs, then it is prefectly ok to reveal it all..

Edited October 25, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+stedmanrecon]

Great opinions, thank you everyone.

 

So, GZ is basically Ground Zero, or right there in the immediate area that the cache should, be correct?

 

The situations that brought this question up was kind of touched on by some degree with a few of the responses. I got down to GZ (GPS was saying within 10 feet) and there was nothing else close enough to hide a cache unless it was buried (lol literally, nothing. Not even trees). The whole park area is still pretty new and the satelite image on my phone obviously was a little dated. Anyway, I searched pretty in decent detail all over this thing, and couldn't find it or even signs that someone had been there recently (last log was April). I was pretty sure that I was in the right spot because I found a scorpion which the last log said that they had found a scorpion right there as well. Some people showed up and I left to find another cache.

 

To me, I thought that the cache could have been removed because it was placed in a city park and the GZ was like a small flower/tree bed with a bulletin board. Figured that the city workers could have found it during cleanup and removed it. My plan was to log the DNF and come back today or tomorrow and look a little more deeper with some fresh eyes, and if I still couldn't find it, log a note or NM or whatever to let the CO know that it may or may not be gone.

 

But, I do get both sides of the fence of logging DNFs. Thank you everyone.

[+niraD]

So, GZ is basically Ground Zero, or right there in the immediate area that the cache should, be correct?

Yep. Think about the blast pattern of a bomb (which is where geocaching borrowed the term from). There's a lot of damage at the blast point (ground zero), and then less damage as you move further away.

 

Finding a geocache is similar. Your GPSr will indicate a specific location, but under ideal conditions, a consumer GPSr will be accurate only to about 3m (10ft). So you can't look just where the device points; you have to expand your search beyond the immediate area where the GPSr indicates.

 

And the 3m (10ft) accuracy applies both to your device, and to the cache owner’s device, so you may find the container 15-20ft from ground zero under ideal conditions. Under less than ideal conditions, both GPSr readings can be much less accurate. Your search radius should grow accordingly.

[+dprovan]

My plan was to log the DNF and come back today or tomorrow and look a little more deeper with some fresh eyes, and if I still couldn't find it, log a note or NM or whatever to let the CO know that it may or may not be gone.

The DNF already informed the owner of everything you know, which is nothing more than that you can't find the cache. No other logs are necessary or appropriate. You need additional evidence before you could suggest that the problem is with the cache. At a minimum, other seekers being unable to find it might start to suggest a pattern.

 

You've done what you should. You don't need to worry about it any further.

[+redsox_mark]

The way I understand the game you are encouraged go on-line to tell the story of your 'adventure'. If your 'adventure' didn't end with a find, it's still a story to tell.... so tell it. There is no DNF stat to count against your score.

 

I make a judgement call if I feel the story is worth telling. Certainly any case were I got to GZ and actually looked I'll log the DNF, that is relevant.

If I never got to GZ because I was chased by cattle I'll log that; it is both relevant to others who may want to be aware, and it could also be an amusing story.

 

If my wife called me and asked me to come home just as I reach GZ, I probably would not log anything - unless I wanted to record this for my own history. I can't see that log being interesting or relevant to anyone else.

[+Kermitcar]

A Geocaching email that I received not long ago was about this very topic. It was encouraging people to definitely log DNFs. It alerts the hider that there might be a problem if there are several in a row. Also from a personal view, I usually decide whether to go looking for caches depending on how many people have/haven't found it recently. I think it's definitely a good idea.

[+rosebud55112]

Great opinions, thank you everyone.

 

So, GZ is basically Ground Zero, or right there in the immediate area that the cache should, be correct?

 

The situations that brought this question up was kind of touched on by some degree with a few of the responses. I got down to GZ (GPS was saying within 10 feet) and there was nothing else close enough to hide a cache unless it was buried (lol literally, nothing. Not even trees). The whole park area is still pretty new and the satelite image on my phone obviously was a little dated. Anyway, I searched pretty in decent detail all over this thing, and couldn't find it or even signs that someone had been there recently (last log was April). I was pretty sure that I was in the right spot because I found a scorpion which the last log said that they had found a scorpion right there as well. Some people showed up and I left to find another cache.

 

To me, I thought that the cache could have been removed because it was placed in a city park and the GZ was like a small flower/tree bed with a bulletin board. Figured that the city workers could have found it during cleanup and removed it. My plan was to log the DNF and come back today or tomorrow and look a little more deeper with some fresh eyes, and if I still couldn't find it, log a note or NM or whatever to let the CO know that it may or may not be gone.

 

But, I do get both sides of the fence of logging DNFs. Thank you everyone.

 

So was GZ "literally nothing. Not even trees" or "a small flower/tree bed with a bulletin board"? A completely bare spot probably means a missing cache, but a flower bed with a bulletin board may have quite a few very sneaky hiding spots--depending upon cache size, etc, of course.