Jump to content

when not to log DNFs


Fridge01

Recommended Posts

Groundspeak newsletter this week encourages us to log DNFs when we "gave it a good search". This is a good time to discuss when it is appropriate to not log a DNF. What if you looked briefly before deciding you'd rather spend your time somewhere else? Do you log it? Sometimes I'll post a DNF anyway, sometimes a Note explaining why I left early, and sometimes it's not worth writing anything. Here are some examples.

1. "I hate shrub hunts. I gave it a minute and then on to the next one."

2. "walked around once. If I linger here I'll look suspicious."

3. "Yuck. It's nasty in there. I peered in and didn't see anything."

4. "GPS pointed to open space, I suspect the coordinates are off."

5. "Wow, this one looks time consuming. Looked in a couple places then decided maybe some other day."

Link to comment
I'll post a DNF anyway, sometimes a Note explaining why I left early, and sometimes it's not worth writing anything.

That about covers it. If I did not find the cache, I post a DNF ("Did Not Find") log, since in this dimension, it's the appropriate log. If for some bizarre reason, I'm not there to find a cache, I try to decide what kind of log, and what info, will be useful to the next cacher.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

1. "I hate shrub hunts. I gave it a minute and then on to the next one."

2. "walked around once. If I linger here I'll look suspicious."

3. "Yuck. It's nasty in there. I peered in and didn't see anything."

4. "GPS pointed to open space, I suspect the coordinates are off."

5. "Wow, this one looks time consuming. Looked in a couple places then decided maybe some other day."

1. I posted a couple like that early on. Wish I hadn't. I now see it as rude.

2. Posted one like that also...should have just walked away (but I wanted to thank the CO for the puzzle at stage 1).

3. Would not post one like that (at least I hope I never did).

4. Sounds like I never cached before and am too lazy to use some geosense.

5. Good DNF.

Link to comment

Groundspeak newsletter this week encourages us to log DNFs when we "gave it a good search". This is a good time to discuss when it is appropriate to not log a DNF. What if you looked briefly before deciding you'd rather spend your time somewhere else? Do you log it? Sometimes I'll post a DNF anyway, sometimes a Note explaining why I left early, and sometimes it's not worth writing anything. Here are some examples.

1. "I hate shrub hunts. I gave it a minute and then on to the next one."

2. "walked around once. If I linger here I'll look suspicious."

3. "Yuck. It's nasty in there. I peered in and didn't see anything."

4. "GPS pointed to open space, I suspect the coordinates are off."

5. "Wow, this one looks time consuming. Looked in a couple places then decided maybe some other day."

 

1.I would not log. I did not give it a good try.

2.Depends. If I intend to come back or think that there may be more muggles than the CO thought I would log a DNF sating too many muggles. If I;m not going to come back I won't log it-same as number one.

3.Again same as number one-unless I thought it was clean when the cache was placed-then I might leave a note or DNF stating it was yucky.

4.If I suspect the co-ords are off I will log a DNF saying so. If I suspect it's MY machine that's off I probably won't log because I did not look, and may not have been anywhere near the cache.

5.Yes-That shows it may be harder than you'd think, or it may in fact be missing.

 

For myself it's a bit different depending on the hiders. One hider is known for amazing camo. I will check a couple times before I log a DNF. 90% of people who look for his caches (even from out of town)know this as well and I think a DNF would be a bit misleading and not entirely appropriate.

 

But if I gave it my all and looked every place I would log a DNF. Last weekend I did just that-logged 2 DNF's for caches I looked for and couldn't find. Didn't log a bunch of other caches at all because I glanced the area, didn't see the cache and didn't check very close. Logged one NA log on a cache that was not there, I looked where it should have been, and where it could be. Unless it was buried in the parking lot it was gone. The CO was living about an 8hour flight away, and couldn't get anyone to check it until May. The Reviewer Archived it due to not being able to maintain the cache.

Link to comment

1. "I hate shrub hunts. I gave it a minute and then on to the next one."

2. "walked around once. If I linger here I'll look suspicious."

3. "Yuck. It's nasty in there. I peered in and didn't see anything."

4. "GPS pointed to open space, I suspect the coordinates are off."

5. "Wow, this one looks time consuming. Looked in a couple places then decided maybe some other day."

1. I posted a couple like that early on. Wish I hadn't. I now see it as rude.

2. Posted one like that also...should have just walked away (but I wanted to thank the CO for the puzzle at stage 1).

3. Would not post one like that (at least I hope I never did).

4. Sounds like I never cached before and am too lazy to use some geosense.

5. Good DNF.

 

I have sometimes posted dnfs similar to most of these. As an example, I got to the search location and discovered I would have to look through landscaping right in front of a business in the middle of a busy shopping center -- so I looked in passing but decided that it was not the type of search that I enjoy. I don't think it is rude to point out that a particular hide is problematic for me.

 

And I probably have written that I decided not to look through piles of trash; that the coordinates did not take me close to any place matching the hint; that I decided not to search a location that is infected with sudden oak death (or covered with poison oak); or that I did not feel like looking for a bison tube in the equivalent of a haystack. So I would say that all of these are examples of a "good dnf." I may or may not log this kind of dnf every time, but they convey information that could be useful and document what I experienced.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

It doesn't matter why I don't find it, if I begin the hunt and come up empty I log a DNF.

This.

 

I don't care if I walked away because the fresh bread at the bakery down the street smelled so good. I looked and it ended and I Didn't Not Find the cache.

 

I'd log a DNF in every circumstance cited by the OP. Why not.

Link to comment
There is NO REASON to not log a DNF.

Well, there is one reason not to log a DNF... when you found the cache! :laughing:

 

I log all my DNFs, no matter how minor. I just explain the situation. Often times it's more for my own benefit. I might be back in that area next year and when I arrive at a cache location that "looks familiar" I can then look back at my past logs to remind myself what happened last time I was here.

Link to comment

There's certainly no reason unless you are going to bore people with the mundane on a mundane cache. "There was a guy eating a burger next to lamp post so I decide to move on". Granted a skilled writer could have made the whole thing a story but how many bother? Spare me the details. If the cache needed a commentary you might get some input but even then.

 

Are you really expecting every cacher to have the DNF details just in case that there might be something people need to know? First of all you ain't gonna get it. Second of all asking for it ain't gonna get it.

 

I say forget this every DNF idea.

Link to comment

Once per geocache. No one needs to know that I failed more than once. Unless it's obvious that the CO is lying about the location to 'make it harder'. Then I don't bother. Nope. Not inflating your ego.

I used to have about 500 DNFs, but I changed them all to 'notes' when that hideous Black Face icon came out. I refused to relate to that offensive icon.

In most cases, two DNFs will get a cache off my 'to find' list. Lots more caches to find. I don't need to waste my time. Several thousand caches within 30 miles. No need to waste my time.

Link to comment

It doesn't matter why I don't find it, if I begin the hunt and come up empty I log a DNF.

This.

 

I don't care if I walked away because the fresh bread at the bakery down the street smelled so good. I looked and it ended and I Didn't Not Find the cache.

 

I'd log a DNF in every circumstance cited by the OP. Why not.

+1

 

And that's been my policy since Day 1.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Once per geocache. No one needs to know that I failed more than once.

I disagree. If I decide to look for a cache a second, or third, or, rarely, fourth time, I'll log my DNF each time I don't find it. I don't care whether or not it inflates the ego of the cache owner, that's not my responsibility or my problem. As evidenced by a couple of currently running threads, DNFs can also irritate the heck out of some people. Which is also not my problem until they try to delete my log just because it's a DNF. :rolleyes:

 

One of the reasons I've stuck to this policy is that I consider my cache logs, finds, DNFs, and notes, to be a sort of diary of my travels and my caching misadventures. Not writing some sort of log for each attempt would make for an incomplete record of my experience. And if I look for a cache and don't find it, it's a DNF log.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

If I get out of the car and don't sign it I log a DNF, but I usually will give the reason. I've had plenty of practice with 466 DNFs!

 

So you've never, not logged a DNF.

 

Sometimes I log a find.

 

Didn't think so. Some people expect me to log a DNF just for clicking Go on my gps. I'll circle the parking lot and sometimes decide to move on.

Link to comment

A lot (certainly not all) of the responses here seem to use an equation sort of like:

DNF log = probable missing cache

 

Where for others its more like:

DNF log = Did Not Find the cache during my hunt

 

The first leads to a lot of basic reasons to not log the DNF.

The second leads to a log about what happened to end up with no find log.

 

........just an observation - go back to what you were doing....... :)

Link to comment

I can get behind the suggestion that I "gave it a good search" and post a DNF. There were also times that a good search just really wasn't worth it. So I didn't.

 

I certainly wouldn't deny that I wished for and at times logged a cache that flat out jumped into my hands, but there are caches that do not benefit from a DNF.

 

Edited for angst.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

 

1. "I hate shrub hunts. I gave it a minute and then on to the next one."

2. "walked around once. If I linger here I'll look suspicious."

3. "Yuck. It's nasty in there. I peered in and didn't see anything."

4. "GPS pointed to open space, I suspect the coordinates are off."

5. "Wow, this one looks time consuming. Looked in a couple places then decided maybe some other day."

 

Interesting discussions. Here's what I've been doing.

1. if it has an easy rating I'll log a DNF after a minute. It's supposed to be easy. If the rating is higher I don't think it's fair or accurate to log DNF without a good search.

2. I'd post a Note here. good information for the next would-be searcher but not much of a search myself.

3. No log. peering from outside isn't enough to bother with.

4. DNF. shaky coordinates make good info for everyone involved. Yes I know some people offset their coordinates on purpose. If it's more than 15 feet I don't mind calling them on it.

5. no log. a quick DNF on a hard hide is not good information.

Link to comment
If I reached GZ and look even once for a hiding spot, its a DNF. This is on any stage of a multi as well.
For multi-caches, it depends on the situation. For a 10-stage multi-cache where I planned to collect information from only 1 or 2 stages and did so successfully, it seems inappropriate to log a DNF. In that case, I logged a Note. But if I search for a stage and cannot find it, then I'll log a DNF.

 

If I search for something and don't find it, then I log a DNF. If I don't search (for example, because I never reached GZ), then it seems inappropriate to log a DNF. There are hundreds of thousands of caches that I didn't find today, because I didn't search for any of them.

Link to comment

While I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, I use my judgement. 98% of the time when I set out to find a cache it results in either a found or DNF log. But there are exceptions. I consider if the log is useful to others or myself.

 

Example:

 

Case 1: I start walking along the trail. Well before I get to GZ, I get a call requesting me to come home immediately, so abort.

Case 2: I start walking along the trail. The only bridge is closed and I can't get to the cache this way, and I have to abort.

 

In Case 1 - unless I want to remember that experience for my own purpose, I probably log nothing at all. Logging a a DNF to say I had to go home before I even got to GZ would neither be useful or interesting to others.

 

In Case 2 - even though I never reached GZ, I would log a DNF. I tried to find it, and the fact that the bridge is out is useful information.

Link to comment

The "unofficial sanctioning" of logging all your DNF's in both the newsletter, and a recent official blog post seems to have ruffled a few feathers. There are a handful of comments by detractors attached to the blog post as well. I attribute this to the fact that we all know darn well most DNF's are not logged. If I had a nickel for every "Finally, after three tries" find logs I've seen with no other logs on the cache page by the finder, I'd be a rich man. :laughing:

 

As far as the given examples of "stupid DNF's" (my term, not the OP's), who does that? I don't know that I've ever seen one of the five examples in a DNF log.

Link to comment

If I get out of the car and don't sign it I log a DNF, but I usually will give the reason. I've had plenty of practice with 466 DNFs!

 

So you've never, not logged a DNF.

 

Sometimes I log a find.

 

Didn't think so. Some people expect me to log a DNF just for clicking Go on my gps. I'll circle the parking lot and sometimes decide to move on.

 

That's pretty much how I see it as well. Sometimes it's not real obvious whether or not it's a cache I might want to find until I get to an area, and even though I may have clicked "go" on my GPS, if I didn't even get out the car I don't feel that I've even "looked" for the cache. Up to the point when I get out of my car I just call that driving. As a general rule, whether or not I post a DNF is based upon whether I can add some information about *why* I DNFd that could be useful to the cache owner or other geocachers.

Link to comment

 

1. "I hate shrub hunts. I gave it a minute and then on to the next one."

2. "walked around once. If I linger here I'll look suspicious."

3. "Yuck. It's nasty in there. I peered in and didn't see anything."

4. "GPS pointed to open space, I suspect the coordinates are off."

5. "Wow, this one looks time consuming. Looked in a couple places then decided maybe some other day."

 

Interesting discussions. Here's what I've been doing.

1. if it has an easy rating I'll log a DNF after a minute. It's supposed to be easy. If the rating is higher I don't think it's fair or accurate to log DNF without a good search.

2. I'd post a Note here. good information for the next would-be searcher but not much of a search myself.

3. No log. peering from outside isn't enough to bother with.

4. DNF. shaky coordinates make good info for everyone involved. Yes I know some people offset their coordinates on purpose. If it's more than 15 feet I don't mind calling them on it.

5. no log. a quick DNF on a hard hide is not good information.

 

I have a little concern about 3. If you had a peer into somewhere and decided it was 'nasty in there' I would assume you mean it was dirty, rubbish filled,dangerous or unpleasant. In this scenario I would definitely generate some form of log to record my experience to alert fellow cachers and the CO to very relevant issues. Just to be 'in vogue' I would be factual and polite so I didn't get the log deleted.

Link to comment

I am more of a Cacher-Of-Opportunity than a Dedicated Cacher.

 

Usually if I'm in an area with a few minutes to spare, I'll run a quick check with my phone to see if there are any caches nearby. If I simply walk by a listed cache and glance around for a minute or two without seeing the cache, I will not log the DNF because it's really more of a Did Not Really Look situation. I don't think that is helpful to anyone.

 

If I give the search a good try and still come up empty, I'll log that fact with a DNF.

Edited by tomowens
Link to comment

There is NO REASON to not log a DNF.

 

There are many reasons to explain WHY it was a DNF.

 

People who exclude caches with DNFs without reading why there was a DNF are shooting themselves in the foot.

+1

 

I don't know. Early on in my geocaching career I stopped posting DNFs for a spell, unless I thought the cache was missing. Even if I wrote that I only had a few minutes to search and GZ had more hide locations than I had anticipated, the COs would send me spoiler hints. I didn't want hints! But there were never any warnings that that was what the e-mails were about, so it would be too late once I read them. After I found enough caches that the COs didn't feel the urge to be so helpful, I was able to post my DNFs again. Their heart was in the right place, so I didn't want to be rude by shouting DO NOT SEND ME HINTS in my DNF logs.

Link to comment

I don't know. Early on in my geocaching career I stopped posting DNFs for a spell, unless I thought the cache was missing. Even if I wrote that I only had a few minutes to search and GZ had more hide locations than I had anticipated, the COs would send me spoiler hints. I didn't want hints! But there were never any warnings that that was what the e-mails were about, so it would be too late once I read them. After I found enough caches that the COs didn't feel the urge to be so helpful, I was able to post my DNFs again. Their heart was in the right place, so I didn't want to be rude by shouting DO NOT SEND ME HINTS in my DNF logs.

This must be a regional or local thing. Out of the more than 400 DNFs I've logged, I've received maybe three e-mails from cache owners offering to provide hints if I wanted them. I responded to each of them with a polite "thanks but no thanks". I don't remember ever receiving an unsolicited hint.

 

And I've never thought, even for a minute, that a DNF was meant to send a message that a cache was missing. I wish I knew where that idea came from, because it's nowhere in any of the guidelines. If I have solid evidence that a cache is actually missing, as opposed to my simply not being able to find it, I'll post a note or a Needs Maintenance along with my DNF.

 

--Larry

Edited by larryc43230
Link to comment

Once per geocache. No one needs to know that I failed more than once. Unless it's obvious that the CO is lying about the location to 'make it harder'. Then I don't bother. Nope. Not inflating your ego.

I used to have about 500 DNFs, but I changed them all to 'notes' when that hideous Black Face icon came out. I refused to relate to that offensive icon.

In most cases, two DNFs will get a cache off my 'to find' list. Lots more caches to find. I don't need to waste my time. Several thousand caches within 30 miles. No need to waste my time.

First, circumstances for each visit that might end up in a DNF can change.

Second, Who cares about someone else's ego being inflated by a DNF log? Just log it.

Third, you know the blue DNF icon is back by popular demand, right? :blink:

Fourth, you're right. You don't have to search for them all. However, not logging each and every DNF is not going to help others--including cache owners--know what is up with a cache's D or T rating, description, coordinates, muggling, etc.

 

Log them. Every time. Just be constructive and honest.

Link to comment

I only log a DNF if I've given it a good search. Usually this means 20 minutes.

 

I went for a couple prickly bush micros the other day after 2 minutes at each, gave up. Not worth logging a DNF, in my opinion.

Generally, I agree.

 

However, what was the D/T rating for the cache you mention above?

If it were a 1/1 (or a 1.5/1-5, for that matter), I would log a DNF and mention that the D rating might need to be readdressed. But that's just me... :anicute:

Link to comment

I've seen many excuses for not logging a DNF.

 

OK, say my cache goes missing, but I don't know it yet.

 

CacherA hunts it, comes up empty and doesn't log a DNF because he's not certain it is missing.

CacherB then comes long, doesn't find it but won't log a DNF because she only looked for a few minutes.

CacherC makes a failed attempt, but doesn't log it because he's just a newbie and thinks it's him, not the cache.

CacherD can't find it and he logs a DNF.

CacherE then looks and doesn't find it but won't log a DNF because she plans on coming back soon.

CacherD comes back and looks again but won't log a DNF because he logged one on it last week

 

Now as a cache owner I only know about one DNF when there were actually five. Like most cache owners a single DNF (in most instances) will not bring me out to check on a cache. It's the pattern of 2-3 DNFs in a row that will get me out there to check on it. But that pattern hasn't developed because people, for whatever reason they justify, aren't logging their DNFs.

 

So more people will waste their time hunting a missing cache when the issue could have been remedied after Cacher B or C's visit had everyone logged their DNFs.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I've seen many excuses for not logging a DNF.

 

OK, say my cache goes missing, but I don't know it yet.

 

CacherA hunts it, comes up empty and doesn't log a DNF because he's not certain it is missing.

CacherB then comes long, doesn't find it but won't log a DNF because she only looked for a few minutes.

CacherC makes a failed attempt, but doesn't log it because he's just a newbie and thinks it's him, not the cache.

CacherD can't find it and he logs a DNF.

CacherE then looks and doesn't find it but won't log a DNF because she plans on coming back soon.

CacherD comes back and looks again but won't log a DNF because he logged one on it last week

 

Now as a cache owner I only know about one DNF when there were actually five. Like most cache owners a single DNF (in most instances) will not bring me out to check on a cache. It's the pattern of 2-3 DNFs in a row that will get me out there to check on it. But that pattern hasn't developed because people, for whatever reason they justify, aren't logging their DNFs.

 

So more people will waste their time hunting a missing cache when the issue could have been remedied after Cacher B or C's visit had everyone logged their DNFs.

 

Yep!

 

Funny how such a simple concept can be so confusing to many.

 

If you physically hunt for a cache, and don`t find it ... log the DNF. Hopefully with some text as to your experience.

Link to comment

I only log a DNF if I've given it a good search. Usually this means 20 minutes.

 

I went for a couple prickly bush micros the other day after 2 minutes at each, gave up. Not worth logging a DNF, in my opinion.

Would you have still gone to look for it if the previous finder had posted a DNF stating that they could not find it and it seemed to be hidden in a particularly unpleasant prickly bush that was severely hindering any attempt at a search.

In my opinion this definitely required a DNF including some useful info for subsequent searchers and some feedback to the CO. Although we are obviously making an assumption that it was/is hidden in the prickly bush!

Link to comment

I don't know. Early on in my geocaching career I stopped posting DNFs for a spell, unless I thought the cache was missing. Even if I wrote that I only had a few minutes to search and GZ had more hide locations than I had anticipated, the COs would send me spoiler hints. I didn't want hints! But there were never any warnings that that was what the e-mails were about, so it would be too late once I read them. After I found enough caches that the COs didn't feel the urge to be so helpful, I was able to post my DNFs again. Their heart was in the right place, so I didn't want to be rude by shouting DO NOT SEND ME HINTS in my DNF logs.

This must be a regional or local thing. Out of the more than 400 DNFs I've logged, I've received maybe three e-mails from cache owners offering to provide hints if I wanted them. I responded to each of them with a polite "thanks but no thanks". I don't remember ever receiving an unsolicited hint.

 

And I've never thought, even for a minute, that a DNF was meant to send a message that a cache was missing. I wish I knew where that idea came from, because it's nowhere in any of the guidelines. If I have solid evidence that a cache is actually missing, as opposed to my simply not being able to find it, I'll post a note or a Needs Maintenance along with my DNF.

 

--Larry

 

No, I don't mean I would write in my note that the cache was missing because I did not find it! For caches where I thought I had searched in the correct place, but the container seemed to have been muggled, I would go ahead and post a DNF log saying that I did not find it. That way the CO and other searchers would know that there COULD be a problem with the hide.

 

Edit to add: Personally, I never post a Needs Maintenance log if I don't find the cache container. Well, unless it is a revisit to a previously found hide or something along those lines.

Edited by aka Momster
Link to comment

I've seen many excuses for not logging a DNF.

 

OK, say my cache goes missing, but I don't know it yet.

 

CacherA hunts it, comes up empty and doesn't log a DNF because he's not certain it is missing.

CacherB then comes long, doesn't find it but won't log a DNF because she only looked for a few minutes.

CacherC makes a failed attempt, but doesn't log it because he's just a newbie and thinks it's him, not the cache.

CacherD can't find it and he logs a DNF.

CacherE then looks and doesn't find it but won't log a DNF because she plans on coming back soon.

CacherD comes back and looks again but won't log a DNF because he logged one on it last week

 

Now as a cache owner I only know about one DNF when there were actually five. Like most cache owners a single DNF (in most instances) will not bring me out to check on a cache. It's the pattern of 2-3 DNFs in a row that will get me out there to check on it. But that pattern hasn't developed because people, for whatever reason they justify, aren't logging their DNFs.

 

So more people will waste their time hunting a missing cache when the issue could have been remedied after Cacher B or C's visit had everyone logged their DNFs.

 

I have no problem logging a DNF because the trail was too muddy and I was wearing leather dress shoes. But there is a difference between attempt and deciding not to.

Link to comment

...Personally, I never post a Needs Maintenance log if I don't find the cache container. Well, unless it is a revisit to a previously found hide or something along those lines.

I operate along the same lines. That is, until I realized that this is a rather strict interpretation of "maintenance". In some cases, the need for maintenance includes things like a dry logbook, cracked lid, etc. This would include the cases where you actually found the cache.

 

For others, the general need for a maintenance visit to assure that the cache is still where it started, is in place at all, or that the container and contents are in good shape make for a well-deserved NM log. That can also go for a long string of DNFs that are not addressed by the owner. Unless the D rating is high enough to merit a good number of DNFs, a 1.5 D cache really shouldn't have 5 DNFs in a row without an owner saying to themselves, "Gee, I should check on that one. It shouldn't be that hard..."

 

Sometimes a cache owner ignores the emails in their inbox with all of the notes, foundits, and DNFs that come in. When a NM arrives in an inbox, it is like a tap on the shoulder. ("Psst! Hey! You might want to look into things...")

 

Then it might mean the cache is missing. It might mean the D rating is off. It might mean the coords are incorrect. Each of these examples is good enough for a DNF.

 

All of this said, so long as you give honest, clear context with your DNF, they are all good logs. If you then go on to post a NM log, there better be supporting evidence that it merits that log. But sitting here and hashing out all of the reasons why not to post a DNF or NM log is silly. The vast majority of DNF (and NM logs) are good, helpful, and constructive. (So long as you have thick enough skin to receive even the most benign feedback...) <ahem>

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

No, I don't mean I would write in my note that the cache was missing because I did not find it! For caches where I thought I had searched in the correct place, but the container seemed to have been muggled, I would go ahead and post a DNF log saying that I did not find it. That way the CO and other searchers would know that there COULD be a problem with the hide.

I had trouble with the wording of my previous post; I didn't mean to imply that you thought a DNF meant the cache was missing. Sorry if it came across that way. In your previous post, you stated that "Early on in my geocaching career I stopped posting DNFs for a spell, unless I thought the cache was missing." What I meant to write was that I've never restricted my use of the DNF log to times when the cache might be missing, I log a DNF whenever I Did Not Find the cache.

 

Edit to add: Personally, I never post a Needs Maintenance log if I don't find the cache container. Well, unless it is a revisit to a previously found hide or something along those lines.

That's pretty much my policy, with one exception I can think of: If the cache site has been altered so it no longer matches the description, I'll let the cache owner know. I recently went looking for a cache where the description specifically stated it was hidden in a tree in a park. When I got to GZ, the entire area had been cleared of trees. It was obvious that the cache had been fatally compromised.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

I don't know. Early on in my geocaching career I stopped posting DNFs for a spell, unless I thought the cache was missing. Even if I wrote that I only had a few minutes to search and GZ had more hide locations than I had anticipated, the COs would send me spoiler hints. I didn't want hints! But there were never any warnings that that was what the e-mails were about, so it would be too late once I read them. After I found enough caches that the COs didn't feel the urge to be so helpful, I was able to post my DNFs again. Their heart was in the right place, so I didn't want to be rude by shouting DO NOT SEND ME HINTS in my DNF logs.

This must be a regional or local thing. Out of the more than 400 DNFs I've logged, I've received maybe three e-mails from cache owners offering to provide hints if I wanted them. I responded to each of them with a polite "thanks but no thanks". I don't remember ever receiving an unsolicited hint.

 

--Larry

 

It may be a regional thing because I've never been offered an *unsolicited* hint either. However, on the first cache I ever sought I didn't find it and posted a DNF. Later that day I got a "welcome to geocaching" message from the CO and and offer for a hint. When I explained where I had looked he said that I had would have found it but it was most likely missing and told me that if I wanted to log a find, that I could (I waited until he replaced it and I found the container before I did). That friendly welcome and offer to help played a large part in what attracted me to the game.

Link to comment

I only log a DNF if I've given it a good search. Usually this means 20 minutes.

 

I went for a couple prickly bush micros the other day after 2 minutes at each, gave up. Not worth logging a DNF, in my opinion.

Would you have still gone to look for it if the previous finder had posted a DNF stating that they could not find it and it seemed to be hidden in a particularly unpleasant prickly bush that was severely hindering any attempt at a search.

In my opinion this definitely required a DNF including some useful info for subsequent searchers and some feedback to the CO. Although we are obviously making an assumption that it was/is hidden in the prickly bush!

 

No, it wasn't like that at all. The bushes were not particularly unpleasant, nor did they severely hinder my search. I just don't enjoy micros in bushes, that's all. Plenty of people found these caches after I was there. If I had the patience, I'm sure I would have found them too.

Link to comment

One of the ways to make DNFs useful is to explain your DNF. Did the coords put you in an open space? Has the area been bulldozed? Did you search for 1 minute, 10 minutes, or an hour? Is the place trashed? This information can be very useful to the CO to assess the urgency of checking on their cache. If I DNF a micro I will usually point out in my log that I'm bad at finding micros, especially if there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the area.

 

I will write a Note instead of a DNF if I quickly abort my search for some reason or can't make a search and explain why. Muggle activity being the main reason; I will usually note the time and day of the week for my visit which could be useful advice to other cachers.

 

There have been times where I didn't log anything because I basically took one look at GZ and didn't want to deal with the cache once I arrived at GZ (ex: some shrub hunts).

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...