Jump to content

when not to log DNFs


Fridge01

Recommended Posts

Not a one size fits all of course, but agree with those that once the hunt begins....you log a find or not found log. Taking the time WRITE why is the key.

 

I've been lucky on my caches, 90% of DNF logs have had a written account of the hunt. In fact, DNF often fill the better logs and more interesting reading (the BIG thing I like to do with geocaching, reading logs). Hell, in a couple of my caches I've had the "my FAVORITE cache" yet it was a DNF log. I LOVE that!

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."

 

I think I'd post DNF for all those. Pretty much the only time I don't bother anymore is when I don't even get close to looking.

 

That reminds me, I forgot to log a DNF for a micro in a mangrove thicket. We only looked a couple of minutes, but we did look.

 

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.

 

I remember your protestations. I still don't see how it was anything close to an Al Jolson routine, but whatever.

 

Of course, your comment begs the question: now that it's back to a blue face 3.png, are you changing the logs back, or are you protesting something else now?

Link to comment

Not a one size fits all of course, but agree with those that once the hunt begins....you log a find or not found log. Taking the time WRITE why is the key.

 

Agree. Taking the time to write why (w-h-y...hmmm, that didn't take long) helps a lot. Now if we can get everyone to agree on "once the hunt begins" means we might get some where.

Link to comment

Another angle with the DNF is that some owners want their caches to be found. They use the DNF to adjust the cache listing and even adjust the hide.

 

Some of my meager caches I don't mind a DNF and others I don't want any. Some caches are their for the enjoyment of a quick big find, a there it is on a plate hide. If those are not being missed then I really would like to know.

 

I feel a pang of embarrassment when I leave a DNF but I still do it.

Link to comment
Why log a DNF if you're not even in the same country the cache is?

 

The 2,000,000th cache now supposedly has at least one DNF from someone who never got within a 1,000 miles of GZ. Is that a legitimate DNF??!

 

:rolleyes::mad::blink::unsure:<_<:o:rolleyes:

Probably not a rule against it...but kinda (well, I should put my comment in my new blog, cause I'll get kicked off here if I say what I really feel). ;-)
Link to comment
Why log a DNF if you're not even in the same country the cache is?

 

The 2,000,000th cache now supposedly has at least one DNF from someone who never got within a 1,000 miles of GZ. Is that a legitimate DNF??!

 

:rolleyes::mad::blink::unsure:<_<:o:rolleyes:

 

Perhaps.. if you purchased a flight to specifically go find the cache and the plane slipped off the runway and exploded on impact, I'd certainly log that as a DNF.

Link to comment
Why log a DNF if you're not even in the same country the cache is?

 

The 2,000,000th cache now supposedly has at least one DNF from someone who never got within a 1,000 miles of GZ. Is that a legitimate DNF??!

 

:rolleyes::mad::blink::unsure:dry.gif:o:rolleyes:

 

Perhaps.. if you purchased a flight to specifically go find the cache and the plane slipped off the runway and exploded on impact, I'd certainly log that as a DNF.

 

But, did they push the "Go To" button on their GPS before the plane exploded? If not, then they hadn't really started their search and shouldn't count it as a DNF.

Link to comment
Why log a DNF if you're not even in the same country the cache is?

 

The 2,000,000th cache now supposedly has at least one DNF from someone who never got within a 1,000 miles of GZ. Is that a legitimate DNF??!

 

:rolleyes::mad::blink::unsure:dry.gif:o:rolleyes:

 

Perhaps.. if you purchased a flight to specifically go find the cache and the plane slipped off the runway and exploded on impact, I'd certainly log that as a DNF.

 

But, did they push the "Go To" button on their GPS before the plane exploded? If not, then they hadn't really started their search and shouldn't count it as a DNF.

Yep! No DNF before hitting the "Go To" button.

 

--Larry

Link to comment
Why log a DNF if you're not even in the same country the cache is?

 

The 2,000,000th cache now supposedly has at least one DNF from someone who never got within a 1,000 miles of GZ. Is that a legitimate DNF??!

 

:rolleyes::mad::blink::unsure:dry.gif:o:rolleyes:

 

Perhaps.. if you purchased a flight to specifically go find the cache and the plane slipped off the runway and exploded on impact, I'd certainly log that as a DNF.

 

But, did they push the "Go To" button on their GPS before the plane exploded? If not, then they hadn't really started their search and shouldn't count it as a DNF.

Yep! No DNF before hitting the "Go To" button.

 

--Larry

 

Nope, for me it has nothing to do with the Goto button. If I head the direction and I fail, it's a DNF (with a story).

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."

 

Of these, I would not log DNFs on #2 and #5. #1 and #3 are NA because I would look in shrubs and most yucky places, and I'd log a DNF if I didn't find the cache there. For an open space, I'd look everywhere nearby which might contain a cache and log a DNF if applicable. If I'm especially frustrated or on a cache which I already have a DNF, I might not log a DNF.

Link to comment

One for the gallery:

 

Was out filming the snow today. I scrap it around 2pm cause the visuals were stinko. Decided to see what caches were in the area. Only used the iPhone app. I pull up on a (what I thought was) a quick roadside cache (simply going by the map, haven't even clicked on the cache page). I quickly walk up to the area where the cache will be, then open the page. Ut oh, its a 4.5 x 4. It is along a sizeable creek. In fact, the cache description directly says "do not attempt when water level is above 2.7 feet). I also see it talks about using those water pants that go up to your waste (or higher). Now, I did debate taking off my shoes/socks/and pants (leaving on my snow pants) and just braving the cold water, but didn't cause I'd only have a couple minutes to grab the cache.

 

So in that scenario, would you say it was a DNF, or deserves a Write Note since I didn't have the right equipment to attempt it?

Link to comment

One for the gallery:

 

Was out filming the snow today. I scrap it around 2pm cause the visuals were stinko. Decided to see what caches were in the area. Only used the iPhone app. I pull up on a (what I thought was) a quick roadside cache (simply going by the map, haven't even clicked on the cache page). I quickly walk up to the area where the cache will be, then open the page. Ut oh, its a 4.5 x 4. It is along a sizeable creek. In fact, the cache description directly says "do not attempt when water level is above 2.7 feet). I also see it talks about using those water pants that go up to your waste (or higher). Now, I did debate taking off my shoes/socks/and pants (leaving on my snow pants) and just braving the cold water, but didn't cause I'd only have a couple minutes to grab the cache.

 

So in that scenario, would you say it was a DNF, or deserves a Write Note since I didn't have the right equipment to attempt it?

I would definitely write a note. Any cache that I had to consider removing my pants has to be recorded for posterity however I guess this is lost in the transatlantic translation.

Link to comment

One for the gallery:

 

Was out filming the snow today. I scrap it around 2pm cause the visuals were stinko. Decided to see what caches were in the area. Only used the iPhone app. I pull up on a (what I thought was) a quick roadside cache (simply going by the map, haven't even clicked on the cache page). I quickly walk up to the area where the cache will be, then open the page. Ut oh, its a 4.5 x 4. It is along a sizeable creek. In fact, the cache description directly says "do not attempt when water level is above 2.7 feet). I also see it talks about using those water pants that go up to your waste (or higher). Now, I did debate taking off my shoes/socks/and pants (leaving on my snow pants) and just braving the cold water, but didn't cause I'd only have a couple minutes to grab the cache.

 

So in that scenario, would you say it was a DNF, or deserves a Write Note since I didn't have the right equipment to attempt it?

 

For me, this would not be a DNF and maybe not even qualifying for a note. You didn't actually do anything, did you? You just stood there and decided to try another day. I had someone log a similar DNF on one of my caches. If you didn't even get to GZ, I really don't need to know about it. :rolleyes:

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

One for the gallery:

 

Was out filming the snow today. I scrap it around 2pm cause the visuals were stinko. Decided to see what caches were in the area. Only used the iPhone app. I pull up on a (what I thought was) a quick roadside cache (simply going by the map, haven't even clicked on the cache page). I quickly walk up to the area where the cache will be, then open the page. Ut oh, its a 4.5 x 4. It is along a sizeable creek. In fact, the cache description directly says "do not attempt when water level is above 2.7 feet). I also see it talks about using those water pants that go up to your waste (or higher). Now, I did debate taking off my shoes/socks/and pants (leaving on my snow pants) and just braving the cold water, but didn't cause I'd only have a couple minutes to grab the cache.

 

So in that scenario, would you say it was a DNF, or deserves a Write Note since I didn't have the right equipment to attempt it?

Note. Thinking about going after a cache and turning back because one didn't read the description isn't unlike me logging every unknown/puzzle cache out there with a DNF because I didn't look for them yet.

Link to comment

If I didn't get out of the car (ie. pulling up to a playground while I am by myself) I will not log a DNF or even note it. Or, if I am on a path getting caches, and decide not to even attempt (ie. like a really high tree cache, or something crazy I didn't prepare for)

 

back to the playground comment. I am a 37 year old male. I will not search a playground cache by myself. I don't want to be that guy. lol

Link to comment

If I didn't get out of the car (ie. pulling up to a playground while I am by myself) I will not log a DNF or even note it.

Same here. If I determine in advance that a cache is in a playground, it will go on my Ignore List and never get visited.

 

Or, if I am on a path getting caches, and decide not to even attempt (ie. like a really high tree cache, or something crazy I didn't prepare for)

This is a tricky one for me. One cache in particular gave me a bit of a dilemma. It was rated a 1.5 for Difficulty and a 3.5 for Terrain, and involved a fairly long hike into the woods. There were no clues as to why the 3.5 Terrain, and the cache owner asked that finders not give the secret away. Additional important note: I no longer climb trees, at least no serious climbing. I don't bounce like I used to.

 

When I got to GZ, I discovered that the cache was hidden about 40 feet "up" a huge tree that had fallen so that it now leaned at a 30 degree angle from the ground. I could see the cache clearly from where I was standing. Getting to the cache involved shimmying up the trunk of the tree, then reaching rather precariously to where the cache was hanging off a limb. I looked at that scenario once, twice, then a third time before deciding not to try it. Yep, wimped out, but lived to cache another day. After some more thought, I decided to log a DNF for it. I'd given it a decent effort, I just didn't complete the quest, grab the cache and sign the log.

 

back to the playground comment. I am a 37 year old male. I will not search a playground cache by myself. I don't want to be that guy. lol

I am a 63 year old male, and counting. The only time I've ever even tried for a playground cache was in the middle of the winter or in the middle of a rainstorm, when I could be fairly sure there wouldn't be anyone else around. I don't want to be that guy, either.

 

--Larry

Link to comment
One for the gallery:

 

Was out filming the snow today. I scrap it around 2pm cause the visuals were stinko. Decided to see what caches were in the area. Only used the iPhone app. I pull up on a (what I thought was) a quick roadside cache (simply going by the map, haven't even clicked on the cache page). I quickly walk up to the area where the cache will be, then open the page. Ut oh, its a 4.5 x 4. It is along a sizeable creek. In fact, the cache description directly says "do not attempt when water level is above 2.7 feet). I also see it talks about using those water pants that go up to your waste (or higher). Now, I did debate taking off my shoes/socks/and pants (leaving on my snow pants) and just braving the cold water, but didn't cause I'd only have a couple minutes to grab the cache.

 

So in that scenario, would you say it was a DNF, or deserves a Write Note since I didn't have the right equipment to attempt it?

You've already written the log! :D Just copy that long paragraph above and paste it into either a Note or a DNF. A Note is probably more appropriate, but a DNF isn't wrong either.

Link to comment

I try and apply the following logic to dictate how I proceed:

 

Found the cache = found it log

 

Hunted in any shape or form but didn't find it = DNF log

 

Set off for a cache (did not hunt) = write note - as long as the info is relevant to me, the CO or other cachers.

 

Set off for the cache (did not hunt) = nothing - where absolutely nothing of relevance was worth recording

Link to comment
If you didn't even get to GZ, I really don't need to know about it. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I agree.

Similar to the person who didn't log a "will attend" for an event earlier, but for some reason felt the need to post a note saying why they're not going to able to show up.

 

In the case of logging an event, I think it's more about being friendly. Logging a "not able to attend" note and stating why shows the event host that you appreciate their effort and wish you could be there. I notice in our area that the cachers who regularly get together will log these type of notes on their friends' events and even new caches that are getting rave reviews. Builds the community spirit! :D

Link to comment

If I pull up a cache and go looking for it and I don't find it, it's a DNF. The circumstances don't really matter. The fact is that I searched for the cache and came up empty. It doesn't make me look like a bad cacher, it makes it look like a good hide. If I don't log it as a DNF, I'm only fooling myself.

Link to comment

I'm not writing a DNF unless I absolutely suspect its missing. If there is a slight chance it may be there, no log. This is because caches with 3 DNFs get disabled for 30 days. If the owner is unable to check on it, then they get archived. I've noticed a few caches that this happened to which later turned up. The DNF logs were from a single visit of 3 inexperienced cachers. Another time it was a visit from a pair of inexperienced cachers and one person who did not really look too long because of the previous DNFs.

Link to comment

I'm not writing a DNF unless I absolutely suspect its missing. If there is a slight chance it may be there, no log. This is because caches with 3 DNFs get disabled for 30 days. If the owner is unable to check on it, then they get archived. I've noticed a few caches that this happened to which later turned up. The DNF logs were from a single visit of 3 inexperienced cachers. Another time it was a visit from a pair of inexperienced cachers and one person who did not really look too long because of the previous DNFs.

Seriously? Never heard of that. Must be regional.

Link to comment

DNF logs serve two purposes: 1) to notify the cache owner and potential hunters that there might be a problem, and 2) to serve as a record of my experience.

 

I always log a DNF if I made any attempt whatsoever to hunt the cache. If I didn't even get out of the car because a muggle was sitting next to the lamppost, I note it in my log. This notifies other cachers that muggles could be a problem, and reminds me that I already made an attempt, and why I didn't find it. A DNF log does NOT mean the cache is probably not there; it merely means I didn't find it, for whatever reason.

 

I'm up to 627 DNFs vs. 5044 finds.

Link to comment

Thanks all. Yeah, I went ahead and wrote it as a note, and will keep it as such. There was a gray area for me as I did plan on, and did stop, get out of the car, and began the effort, but once in area felt there wasn't really a "hunt".

 

In a completely ridiculous scenario, it would be like going for a cache on the moon. You drive up to NASA to go get on the shuttle but then read the description that you need a space suit and you forgot yours back at the house, so you called it off.

Link to comment

I'm not writing a DNF unless I absolutely suspect its missing. If there is a slight chance it may be there, no log. This is because caches with 3 DNFs get disabled for 30 days. If the owner is unable to check on it, then they get archived. I've noticed a few caches that this happened to which later turned up. The DNF logs were from a single visit of 3 inexperienced cachers. Another time it was a visit from a pair of inexperienced cachers and one person who did not really look too long because of the previous DNFs.

Seriously? Never heard of that. Must be regional.

:blink: Yeah. Woah. What? :huh:

 

I just heard my brain do that "ploink" thing again...

Link to comment

I try and apply the following logic to dictate how I proceed:

 

Found the cache = found it log

 

Hunted in any shape or form but didn't find it = DNF log

 

Set off for a cache (did not hunt) = write note - as long as the info is relevant to me, the CO or other cachers.

 

Set off for the cache (did not hunt) = nothing - where absolutely nothing of relevance was worth recording

 

I agree with your logic. If you could add in scenarios for when to post a NM or NA log this would be a good start for a help center page.

Link to comment

I'm not writing a DNF unless I absolutely suspect its missing. If there is a slight chance it may be there, no log. This is because caches with 3 DNFs get disabled for 30 days. If the owner is unable to check on it, then they get archived. I've noticed a few caches that this happened to which later turned up. The DNF logs were from a single visit of 3 inexperienced cachers. Another time it was a visit from a pair of inexperienced cachers and one person who did not really look too long because of the previous DNFs.

Seriously? Never heard of that. Must be regional.

:blink: Yeah. Woah. What? :huh:

 

I just heard my brain do that "ploink" thing again...

 

In my area, it's 3 NMs with no response from the owner.

Link to comment

I'm not writing a DNF unless I absolutely suspect its missing. If there is a slight chance it may be there, no log. This is because caches with 3 DNFs get disabled for 30 days. If the owner is unable to check on it, then they get archived. I've noticed a few caches that this happened to which later turned up. The DNF logs were from a single visit of 3 inexperienced cachers. Another time it was a visit from a pair of inexperienced cachers and one person who did not really look too long because of the previous DNFs.

Seriously? Never heard of that. Must be regional.

 

Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

 

I'd prefer it after 5 independent visits, or 3 NMs. The problem is that most cachers do this hobby on the side, and rarely log in every day. Many visit a few times a month, and may not be able to climb a mountain every time a bunch of new cachers log a cluster of DNFs from a singular visit. Some get annoyed and then archive their own cache without even checking if its there. I noticed one the other day which was archived with a "." because someone posted a NM due to it not being found in nine months, although there were no DNFs.

Link to comment

I'm not writing a DNF unless I absolutely suspect its missing. If there is a slight chance it may be there, no log. This is because caches with 3 DNFs get disabled for 30 days. If the owner is unable to check on it, then they get archived. I've noticed a few caches that this happened to which later turned up. The DNF logs were from a single visit of 3 inexperienced cachers. Another time it was a visit from a pair of inexperienced cachers and one person who did not really look too long because of the previous DNFs.

Seriously? Never heard of that. Must be regional.

 

Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

 

I'd prefer it after 5 independent visits, or 3 NMs.

 

The problem there is that unless the logs specifically mention it, you won't always know if those five logs or 3 NMs are independent. If five people go search for a cache together and they can't find it, they may all log DNFs and one or more might log a NM. The next person to come along might find the cache that was there all along.

Link to comment

I'm not writing a DNF unless I absolutely suspect its missing. If there is a slight chance it may be there, no log. This is because caches with 3 DNFs get disabled for 30 days. If the owner is unable to check on it, then they get archived. I've noticed a few caches that this happened to which later turned up. The DNF logs were from a single visit of 3 inexperienced cachers. Another time it was a visit from a pair of inexperienced cachers and one person who did not really look too long because of the previous DNFs.

Seriously? Never heard of that. Must be regional.

 

Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

 

I'd prefer it after 5 independent visits, or 3 NMs.

 

The problem there is that unless the logs specifically mention it, you won't always know if those five logs or 3 NMs are independent. If five people go search for a cache together and they can't find it, they may all log DNFs and one or more might log a NM. The next person to come along might find the cache that was there all along.

Link to comment
Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

 

I'd prefer it after 5 independent visits, or 3 NMs. The problem is that most cachers do this hobby on the side, and rarely log in every day. Many visit a few times a month, and may not be able to climb a mountain every time a bunch of new cachers log a cluster of DNFs from a singular visit. Some get annoyed and then archive their own cache without even checking if its there. I noticed one the other day which was archived with a "." because someone posted a NM due to it not being found in nine months, although there were no DNFs.

Well, that must stop at the Mason Dixon Line, cause I never see that issue or folks only logging DNFs if missing only down in Maryland or Virginia (dominate area I cache in or discuss with locals)! Besides...how do you know for sure it is missing, or you just couldn't find it.

Link to comment
Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

 

I'd prefer it after 5 independent visits, or 3 NMs. The problem is that most cachers do this hobby on the side, and rarely log in every day. Many visit a few times a month, and may not be able to climb a mountain every time a bunch of new cachers log a cluster of DNFs from a singular visit. Some get annoyed and then archive their own cache without even checking if its there. I noticed one the other day which was archived with a "." because someone posted a NM due to it not being found in nine months, although there were no DNFs.

Well, that must stop at the Mason Dixon Line, cause I never see that issue or folks only logging DNFs if missing only down in Maryland or Virginia (dominate area I cache in or discuss with locals)! Besides...how do you know for sure it is missing, or you just couldn't find it.

 

A string of finds followed by a string of DNFs on an easy hide is most likely missing, but other scenarios fall into a grey area. Sometimes one DNF will make someone else look less harder and trigger a second one more easily. Two DNFs, and that may discourage someone after they look for only a few minutes.

Link to comment

Thanks all. Yeah, I went ahead and wrote it as a note, and will keep it as such. There was a gray area for me as I did plan on, and did stop, get out of the car, and began the effort, but once in area felt there wasn't really a "hunt".

 

In a completely ridiculous scenario, it would be like going for a cache on the moon. You drive up to NASA to go get on the shuttle but then read the description that you need a space suit and you forgot yours back at the house, so you called it off.

So first of all, I have no problem with you deciding that, as I agree it's logical.

 

Personally, though, those are both cases where I'd file a DNF because it's a good story that plays better starting with "I went to look for..." even in the face of the fact that I didn't actually get far enough to call what I did "a search". It makes a better morality lesson for others seeking the cache: "Don't forget your spacesuit or you'll fail just like I did." Of course, you say the same thing in a note, but it doesn't convey the abject failure of the non-effort.

 

On the other hand, it's all judgement calls. I'm prone to not filing anything if too much muggle activity at GZ makes me pass on looking for a well known muggle magnet. If everyone's already aware of the muggle issue, then it's boring to log a bypass unless there's something noteworthy about it.

Link to comment

A string of finds followed by a string of DNFs on an easy hide is most likely missing, but other scenarios fall into a grey area. Sometimes one DNF will make someone else look less harder and trigger a second one more easily. Two DNFs, and that may discourage someone after they look for only a few minutes.

While we can discuss such subtleties all day, and it doesn't sound like you and I would disagree about much, what stuns me is the idea of reviewers taking it upon themselves to proactively make that kind of decision. Around here, the reviewers leave it up to mere mortals to consider such evidence and post a Needs Archived if the evidence seems overwhelming and the CO hasn't reacted to calls for maintenance.

 

From reading about these things in the forums, I seems like people in other areas are much more worried about missing caches than the cachers in my area. Around here, it normally takes at least 5 DNFs and half a year before someone posts an NM asking for a health check. I guess people aren't that worried about "accidentally" looking for a cache that appears to be missing. The idea of 3 DNFs automatically triggering an archival three months later is hard for me to imagine.

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...