Logging a DNF

[+JingleBella]

I've always thought that to put a DNF on a cache that it should be one you've searched for and couldn't get in hand. However, I've seen DNF logs (not on my own caches, but others) that say things along the lines of "was going to try for this one but ran out of time". Personally I wouldn't post a DNF for something like that.

 

Thoughts?...

 

And while on the subject, should you post a DNF in the case of where you went to look for the cache but something stopped you from getting closer to GZ? Example, I went to look for one the other day, the ditch was full of swampy water that I wouldn't have been able to clear if I tried to jump so I discontinued my search. I didn't log a DNF because it wasn't that I couldn't physically find the cache but because I chose not to risk a soaked shoe & pant leg.

Edited June 19, 2013 by JingleBella

[AZcachemeister]

It's simple actually, but many cachers like to clutter the field with qualifications of time spent and other parameters.

 

If you walk away without signing the log, it's a DNF.

What could be more simple?

[Aushiker]

I've always thought that to put a DNF on a cache that it should be one you've searched for and couldn't get in hand.

 

That is the approach I take. I also feel it is important to log a DNF (some seem not to) as it provides information to those that follow as well as the CO.

Thoughts?...

 

And while on the subject, should you post a DNF in the case of where you went to look for the cache but something stopped you from getting closer to GZ? Example, I went to look for one the other day, the ditch was full of swampy water that I wouldn't have been able to clear if I tried to jump so I discontinued my search. I didn't log a DNF because it wasn't that I couldn't physically find the cache but because I chose not to risk a soaked shoe & pant leg.

 

I would have probably written a note about this experience. Again good information for those cachers who may wish to follow.

 

Andrew

[+cerberus1]

If I get to parking and can't access the hide, I log a DNF.

- Whether I can't find it, or can't get to it.

If I didn't have the time to look, I don't write anything. Why would I?

[+cache_test_dummies]

I've always thought that to put a DNF on a cache that it should be one you've searched for and couldn't get in hand.

That's fine. It's really up to you.

 

However, I've seen DNF logs (not on my own caches, but others) that say things along the lines of "was going to try for this one but ran out of time".

Those logs are fine. It's really up to them.

 

Personally I wouldn't post a DNF for something like that.

That's fine. It's really up to you.

 

I went to look for one the other day, the ditch was full of swampy water that I wouldn't have been able to clear if I tried to jump so I discontinued my search. I didn't log a DNF because it wasn't that I couldn't physically find the cache but because I chose not to risk a soaked shoe & pant leg.

That's fine. It's really up to you and your jumping ability and your personal comfort level regarding risking your shoe and your pants to the long or short term effects of exposure to swampy water.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It's been debated whether a note or a DNF is proper if you don't successfully get to the location to even begin looking. Something ought to be posted if you tried at all. Otherwise, a lot of useful information never gets posted, and the owner has no idea how much trouble his cache is really giving people.

[+Mudfrog]

There are many people who actually make it to ground zero, perform a search, not come up with the cache, and then not log anything. For whatever reason, they just can't stand to post a dnf log.

 

But then you have people like me who are at the other end of the gamut. I post a dnf anytime i begin my quest for a cache and end up not finding it. I know i'm one of the few who think this way but, i've initiated a search when i push "goto" on my gpsr and begin heading for a cache. The car might have a flat tire along the way or i might just change my mind. No matter what the reason, i'll log a dnf if i didn't get the cache. I realize it's not neccessary and probably doesn't help future seekers at times, but it does help me to keep up with my caching history. I do of course, make sure to post the circumstances for my dnf log.

 

In the OP's case where they didn't make it to ground zero because of the swampy water,,, posting a dnf with mention of the water would have probably been helpful to future finders.

 

With so many potential scenarios that can play out, there really is no simple, right or wrong answers. For the most part, it doesn't hurt to post dnfs. They can be of help to cache owners and future finders.

[AZcachemeister]

There are many people who actually make it to ground zero, perform a search, not come up with the cache, and then not log anything. For whatever reason, they just can't stand to post a dnf log.

 

But then you have people like me who are at the other end of the gamut. I post a dnf anytime i begin my quest for a cache and end up not finding it. I know i'm one of the few who think this way but, i've initiated a search when i push "goto" on my gpsr and begin heading for a cache. The car might have a flat tire along the way or i might just change my mind. No matter what the reason, i'll log a dnf if i didn't get the cache. I realize it's not neccessary and probably doesn't help future seekers at times, but it does help me to keep up with my caching history. I do of course, make sure to post the circumstances for my dnf log.

 

In the OP's case where they didn't make it to ground zero because of the swampy water,,, posting a dnf with mention of the water would have probably been helpful to future finders.

 

With so many potential scenarios that can play out, there really is no simple, right or wrong answers. For the most part, it doesn't hurt to post dnfs. They can be of help to cache owners and future finders.

 

I won't post a DNF if I get a flat right out of the driveway, or if there is a zombie attack before I get within five miles, or if there is an asteroid strike on the way to the cache...

 

But, if I am actively seeking the cache under NORMAL circumstances, I will USUALLY post a DNF with an explanation of the circumstances.

[+Founden]

I log a DNF if I've had a proper look. Last week I went to go find a cache but someone was parked directly in front of it and they were in the car and didn't move. I waited for like 15 minutes for them to drive away (it wasn't another cacher) but I just decided to come back in a few days. I didn't mark that as a DNF because I didn't even get to look.

[RovingTriker]

I'm still very new, so rather than posting a bunch of DNF's I look a couple of times first. Since I still don't really know what I'm looking for, I don't want to put what would naively be the same log multiple times.

[+Ben0w]

Personally, I log a DNF when I actually searched for the container on GZ or if I gave up pn some puzzle/station, because I'm out of ideas/solutions. Thats what Did Not Found actually means for me.

 

In rare occasions I will log a DNF if I stop searching for some other reason: some caches were so badly placed or disgusting, that I simply dont wanted to search any further. I DNF'd them...

 

If something simply hinders me to get near GZ and I plan to try it again, I mostly just write a note about my experiences so far - or leave it unnoticed.

 

For me a DNF is a note to the CO and following cachers, that I'm too dumb to actually get my hands on it. I have no problems admitting beeing too dumb, but only when I really tried. Sometimes it's rather clear where the cache should have been, then a (series of) DNF may indicate a real problem, not only me beeing dumb...

 

YMMV

[+dprovan]

And while on the subject, should you post a DNF in the case of where you went to look for the cache but something stopped you from getting closer to GZ? Example, I went to look for one the other day, the ditch was full of swampy water that I wouldn't have been able to clear if I tried to jump so I discontinued my search. I didn't log a DNF because it wasn't that I couldn't physically find the cache but because I chose not to risk a soaked shoe & pant leg.

I've been known to skip filing a DNF once in a while because I didn't actually get far enough to do what I'd consider "a search", but this is a case where I typically would because the information about the full ditch would be important to future seekers.

[+Chief301]

My usual practice is to log a DNF only if I've actually reached GZ and searched, even if only briefly. If for some reason I wasn't able, or chose not to, reach GZ (too many muggles, too muddy, whatever), I'll usually post a Note. As mentioned earlier, a note that the area is very muggly around lunchtime or something along those lines might be helpful for future cachers to know.

 

Regarding DNF's, I'll always post a DNF on my first attempt at a particular cache. I don't usually log additional DNF's the same cache on subsequent attempts. But that's just me.

[+ExtremeNorthWales]

My usual practice is to log a DNF only if I've actually reached GZ and searched, even if only briefly. If for some reason I wasn't able, or chose not to, reach GZ (too many muggles, too muddy, whatever), I'll usually post a Note. As mentioned earlier, a note that the area is very muggly around lunchtime or something along those lines might be helpful for future cachers to know.

This is exactly the approach I take.

 

Personally, I wouldn't log a DNF if I hadn't searched for the cache and definitely not if I didn't even get to GZ.

[+redsox_mark]

I log a DNF if I think it makes sense and adds value.

 

For example:

 

I tried but couldn't get to GZ for some relevant reason (e.g. path is closed/blocked, bridge out, etc.

 

If the reasons are irrelevant (e.g. I reach GZ, but before I can look my wife phones and asks me to come home immediately) I don't log a DNF.

[+cheech gang]

Generally, if I get out of the car and am unsuccessful I'll log a DNF. Currently at 480 DNF's recorded.

 

If I arrive at the location and determine I am not interested in getting out of the car it will likely be a note.

[+bflentje]

Generally, if I get out of the car and am unsuccessful I'll log a DNF. Currently at 480 DNF's recorded.

 

If I arrive at the location and determine I am not interested in getting out of the car it will likely be a note.

 

I log a DNF if I get INTO the car and am thwarted by something related to getting to GZ. A call from the wife or laziness wouldn't count. A blocked road or frustration would count.

[+davetherocketguy]

I log a DNF if I think it makes sense and adds value.

 

For example:

 

I tried but couldn't get to GZ for some relevant reason (e.g. path is closed/blocked, bridge out, etc.

 

If the reasons are irrelevant (e.g. I reach GZ, but before I can look my wife phones and asks me to come home immediately) I don't log a DNF.

 

I completely agree with that. I log a DNF if it has to do directly with the cache. If I can't find it for reasons unrelated to the cache hunt - like I ran out of gas I don't post it.

[+Kissyfurs]

I log a DNF if I think it makes sense and adds value.

 

For example:

 

I tried but couldn't get to GZ for some relevant reason (e.g. path is closed/blocked, bridge out, etc.

 

If the reasons are irrelevant (e.g. I reach GZ, but before I can look my wife phones and asks me to come home immediately) I don't log a DNF.

 

I completely agree with that. I log a DNF if it has to do directly with the cache. If I can't find it for reasons unrelated to the cache hunt - like I ran out of gas I don't post it.

 

+1 for this. I often find that I sometimes begin to search and run out of time or the place gets overrun by muggles- that's a DNF for me. Why is everyone so scared of putting a DNF on their log? Do they bite???

[+dprovan]

I completely agree with that. I log a DNF if it has to do directly with the cache. If I can't find it for reasons unrelated to the cache hunt - like I ran out of gas I don't post it.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense, although I'll still post an irrelevant DNF if there's a good story to tell!

[+Roman!]

I have no set rules and post a DNF only if I feel like it.

[+MountainWoods]

I always figure that the DNF should be there to mean something to the CO or folks about to consider going for the cache.

 

If I get to the parking spot and then realize that I have to hit the bathroom and there's none there, so I drive 10 miles and then don't get back to the cache, what good does it do to tell that in a DNF log? It conveys no meaning to the cache owner. It doesn't tell anything useful to other potential seekers.

 

I do always log a DNF if I looked and didn't find it. But I don't see what the point is of logging a DNF because I downloaded it into my GPSr and then didn't go look for it.

[+niraD]

If I reach GZ and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF. But if I don't reach GZ, or I don't search for some reason, then I don't log a DNF. If there's a story to tell, then I might post a Note though.

 

But clearly, others play the game differently. Some log DNFs that I wouldn't. Some don't log DNFs that I would.

[+BCandMsKitty]

My view of the matter

If one searches (actually looks for) the cache, then a DNF log is appropriate to let the CO, and other cachers know that it is hard to find for whatever reason. If something prevents one from looking for the cache, then a note is appropriate to let the CO and other cachers know of circumstances surrounding the cache area .. or your physical abilities preventing you from looking ... or your flat tire, or whatever, if you think it is important to relate.

I scan my selection of caches for the day, and when I see a DNF log on a cache I usually read it to see if I want to search myself. I'm looking for info about the cache, not about whether someone didn't find it because they didn't even look for it!

AS a cache owner I need to know if the cache needs to be checked on. DNF logs do that for me. I don't need to know that you started the search and didn't look for it for whatever reason. If the creek has risen, and you can't get to GZ, a note tells me that just fine and IMO is more appropriate than a DNF.

[+briansnat]

I log a DNF if I begin the hunt and come up empty. I consider the hunt started when I bring up the coordinates and hit 'go to' on the GPS.

[Clan Riffster]

It's simple actually, but many cachers like to clutter the field with qualifications of time spent and other parameters.

 

If you walk away without signing the log, it's a DNF.

What could be more simple?

I like simple.

Since I also like logging, I'll post something, be it a note or a DNF.

[+L0ne.R]

I log a DNF if I think it makes sense and adds value.

 

For example:

 

I tried but couldn't get to GZ for some relevant reason (e.g. path is closed/blocked, bridge out, etc.

 

If the reasons are irrelevant (e.g. I reach GZ, but before I can look my wife phones and asks me to come home immediately) I don't log a DNF.

 

I completely agree with that. I log a DNF if it has to do directly with the cache. If I can't find it for reasons unrelated to the cache hunt - like I ran out of gas I don't post it.

 

+1 for this.

 

I also agree. If it adds value to me, the next finders and/or the owner, I post a DNF.

 

I often find that I sometimes begin to search and run out of time or the place gets overrun by muggles- that's a DNF for me. Why is everyone so scared of putting a DNF on their log? Do they bite???

 

Guess I'm fortunate. In my area no one seems to be scared to use the DNF. Occasionally, but rarely, someone uses a Note instead. As a cache owner I'm totally cool with a Note instead of a DNF. Whatever the finder feels comfortable with in order to let me know (and other finders) that there might be a problem with the cache, the location or the trek on the way to the cache.

 

I have sometimes not logged a DNF when I suspect that the whole point of the cache placement is to rack up DNFs. They plant a needle in a haystack cache with a low D rating, supply little information and provide an encrypted hint that turns out to be an non-hint ('park by the playground'; 'you don't need a hint'; 'email me for a hint').

[+wmpastor]

It's simple actually, but many cachers like to clutter the field with qualifications of time spent and other parameters.

 

If you walk away without signing the log, it's a DNF.

What could be more simple?

Right, except that life isn't that simple. To me, a DNF means I gave it a thorough search. If I had to leave early for whatever reason, I might post a note instead, especially as in the original question, where he decided he needed different clothing to even get close to GZ.

[+Kacher82]

Interesting to read all the personal standards here . My own policy is; if I look for a cache (or a stage) and can't find it, it's DNF. If I feel the reason for not finding was because of running out of time or something, so I couldn't give it an honest effort, I'll explain that in my DNF log. If I can't get to GZ for some reason or other (like a water-filled ditch), I'll post a note. If I see the cache, but can't get to it, I post a note. If I find the cache and sign the log, it's a find . I had to climb a tree twice the other day because the first time, I forgot to bring a pen, and I didn't want to claim a find without signing it .

Edited June 24, 2013 by Kacher82

[+OZ2CPU]

if the one logging a wierd DNF log, clearly state what he did or not did,

I can use the information and maybe learn a thing or two about the area, cache, hide

what to bring or what to expect, if I want to try it, and maybe care a bit more to find it..

 

I prefer if people use:

 

DNF if they got to GZ and started to search, explain usefull details.

 

NOTE if not possible to get near GZ, state why, explain details, if ran out of gas 10km before, no need to post useless info.

 

NM if they found the cache and feel it needs service they can not handle them self, explain what CO (or others) needs to bring.

 

NA if they found the cache, and it is directly against the guidelines in such a way you are sure it will cast bad light to the hobby

or cause other problems, explain details.

 

FOUND IT, if they found the cache and signed its log book or log sheet

[+J Grouchy]

I log a DNF if I've had a proper look. Last week I went to go find a cache but someone was parked directly in front of it and they were in the car and didn't move. I waited for like 15 minutes for them to drive away (it wasn't another cacher) but I just decided to come back in a few days. I didn't mark that as a DNF because I didn't even get to look.

 

That's generally what I do...though in cases like the one you mention, I have posted notes about this. I figure it's at least a notice to others about high muggle activity, perhaps at certain times of day...a "head's up", if you will.

 

There was one I was going to look for that was down a ways off the trail in a park. There was construction going on and my device was just not very helpful in zeroing in on the location. According to it, I was never closer than 40 feet to it and I was getting pretty frustrated. I figured I made the effort and was probably closer than I thought, so in that case I posted a DNF.

 

To me, a DNF means I actually LOOKED for it based on the coordinates given. If I just head in the general direction, but for some reason can't actually get out of my car or track over to the posted coordinates, I didn't ACTUALLY LOOK FOR IT. I'm currently not out looking for a new car, though I've thought about wanting one and have glanced at ads occasionally. I wouldn't, in all honesty, be able to say that I haven't found a new car, though. I really haven't been looking for one yet. If my wife asks me to pick up bread from the store and I go to the store, pick up several items but for some reason don't make it into the bread aisle...I don't tell her I couldn't find the bread. Seems simple enough to me.

[+redsox_mark]

I prefer if people use:

 

DNF if they got to GZ and started to search, explain usefull details.

 

NOTE if not possible to get near GZ, state why, explain details, if ran out of gas 10km before, no need to post useless info.

 

 

This is a reasonable and logical approach, though I'll post DNF in the second case if I think it is relevant. In one way it doesn't matter if it is a note or a DNF, as it still there to read. But I believe a DNF is more likely to be read - future finders see a previous DNF and look to see why.

 

So for example: If the footpath is closed and there is no legal way to reach the cache, I would log DNF. I tried to find it and something relevant (which others may also encounter) stopped me. The journey to the cache is part of the "looking" for me. Same if I am chased away by a bull in the field; others may encounter the same.

 

If I ran out of gas... well I might post nothing, or I might post a note. If I wanted to have a record that I tried and ran out of gas I'd post a note, even if it is useless to others. I'm more likely to post a note if the circumstances make an interesting story.

 

So for me it comes down to what I said before; I don't have a specific set of rules for DNF, I judge if it makes sense case by case.

[team tisri]

It's simple actually, but many cachers like to clutter the field with qualifications of time spent and other parameters.

 

If you walk away without signing the log, it's a DNF.

What could be more simple?

 

I'd say it isn't that simple.

 

I remember one cache where I went to GZ and could clearly see the cache. Trouble was it was about 50 feet up a tree and I decided not to attempt the climb.

 

Logging a Find wasn't appropriate because the cache clearly required the tree to be climbed. Logging a DNF would suggest the cache may not be there when it clearly was, so I logged a Note to say I could see it but decided not to attempt the climb. The Note made it clear the cache was present and I hadn't signed it for reasons unrelated to it's availability.

 

It's pretty simple to say that I'll only log DNF if I've made an attempt to find it and been unsuccessful. I don't need a clearly defined qualification of time spent or other parameters any more than your approach needs a definition of what counts as "walking away" - if you attempt a cache but half a mile away you realise how muddy it is and decide you don't want to ruin your good shoes so you walk away without signing the log, is that a DNF? What if you get to the cache, open the cache, find your pen won't write on the log so you put it back and walk away without signing the log? Is that a DNF?

[4wheelin_fool]

Geocaches in this area get archived after 3 consecutive DNFs which are followed by a reviewer disablement, and with no owner activity. So some people may be a little hesitant to post a DNF, as it may contribute to an archival if the owner does not respond.

 

But then there is always the classic NA which should be a DNF.

Edited June 25, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+J Grouchy]

Geocaches in this area get archived after 3 consecutive DNFs which are followed by a reviewer disablement, and with no owner activity.

 

To me, that just sounds like an overzealous reviewer. I don't think that sort of action is appropriate. I've seen a number of caches that get numerous DNFs, followed by a log that says "easy find, thanks!". In those cases I can't help but wonder what happened here...but 3 DNFs do not automatically mean missing cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

Geocaches in this area get archived after 3 consecutive DNFs which are followed by a reviewer disablement, and with no owner activity.

 

To me, that just sounds like an overzealous reviewer. I don't think that sort of action is appropriate. I've seen a number of caches that get numerous DNFs, followed by a log that says "easy find, thanks!". In those cases I can't help but wonder what happened here...but 3 DNFs do not automatically mean missing cache.

 

I personally believe that the reviewer should post a note at that point, and after another 30 days disable it if there are more DNFs.

 

However, 3 DNFs mean that the cache gets disabled. Sometimes a few of the DNFs may be from the same group of cachers who are new. The CO should be checking on their hides, but most people do this hobby occasionally and are not ready to run out after a few DNFs.

[Clan Riffster]

It's simple actually, but many cachers like to clutter the field with qualifications of time spent and other parameters.

 

If you walk away without signing the log, it's a DNF.

What could be more simple?

 

I'd say it isn't that simple.

It's as simple as you allow it to be.

 

I remember one cache where I went to GZ and could clearly see the cache. Trouble was it was about 50 feet up a tree and I decided not to attempt the climb.

 

Logging a DNF would suggest the cache may not be there when it clearly was, so I logged a Note to say I could see it but decided not to attempt the climb. The Note made it clear the cache was present and I hadn't signed it for reasons unrelated to it's availability.

Either would have conveyed the same data, if the cache owner bothers to read what you wrote in your log.

 

if you attempt a cache but half a mile away you realise how muddy it is and decide you don't want to ruin your good shoes so you walk away without signing the log, is that a DNF?

Yes. For me, that would be a DNF.

 

What if you get to the cache, open the cache, find your pen won't write on the log so you put it back and walk away without signing the log? Is that a DNF?

Yes. For me, if for some bizarre reason I could not use other materials on hand to make my mark, that would be a DNF.

 

I should qualify my responses by pointing out that I am a shameless DNF junkie.

There really is no absolute answer.

[+The Jester]

I remember one cache where I went to GZ and could clearly see the cache. Trouble was it was about 50 feet up a tree and I decided not to attempt the climb.

 

Logging a Find wasn't appropriate because the cache clearly required the tree to be climbed. Logging a DNF would suggest the cache may not be there when it clearly was, so I logged a Note to say I could see it but decided not to attempt the climb. The Note made it clear the cache was present and I hadn't signed it for reasons unrelated to it's availability.

I'm alway curious where this thinking comes from? DNF = missing cache??? With a DNF it is possible the cache is missing, but all it really means is I didn't find it - for whatever reason.

[+redsox_mark]

I remember one cache where I went to GZ and could clearly see the cache. Trouble was it was about 50 feet up a tree and I decided not to attempt the climb.

 

Logging a Find wasn't appropriate because the cache clearly required the tree to be climbed. Logging a DNF would suggest the cache may not be there when it clearly was, so I logged a Note to say I could see it but decided not to attempt the climb. The Note made it clear the cache was present and I hadn't signed it for reasons unrelated to it's availability.

I'm alway curious where this thinking comes from? DNF = missing cache??? With a DNF it is possible the cache is missing, but all it really means is I didn't find it - for whatever reason.

 

Yes, DNF just means I didn't find it. But I think it is natural to see a DNF as a sign of a possible issue. I'm not the greatest finder, so I've logged lots of DNFs on caches I could not find and the next person said "easy find". As a cache owner, while I read all the logs on my hides, I will look closer at a DNF to see if there seems to be an issue (my hides are all fairly easy to find).

 

Team tisri's point I believe is that in this tree case, he knows the cache is there so prefers not to log DNF. And while it is perfectly valid to log a DNF in this case (the log wasn't signed) I also think it is valid to log a note.

 

Let's take this example to an extreme. Team tisri shows up with 9 friends at this cache. None of them are willing to climb the tree so they move on. They could log 10 DNFs, and if they all explain they saw the cache but didn't want to climb that is ok... but a string of 10 DNFs will look like a possible issue if you don't read the details. Some may filter it out and not even look because of it.

 

There is no right or wrong answer; but I don't think it is unreasonable to consider how future finders might react to a DNF on a cache which you know is there.

[+QClan]

Geocaches in this area get archived after 3 consecutive DNFs which are followed by a reviewer disablement, and with no owner activity.

 

To me, that just sounds like an overzealous reviewer. I don't think that sort of action is appropriate. I've seen a number of caches that get numerous DNFs, followed by a log that says "easy find, thanks!". In those cases I can't help but wonder what happened here...but 3 DNFs do not automatically mean missing cache.

 

I personally believe that the reviewer should post a note at that point, and after another 30 days disable it if there are more DNFs.

 

However, 3 DNFs mean that the cache gets disabled. Sometimes a few of the DNFs may be from the same group of cachers who are new. The CO should be checking on their hides, but most people do this hobby occasionally and are not ready to run out after a few DNFs.

 

Archiving after 3 DNFs seems crazy to me. Some caches are not easy to find or access and could easily get three DNFs and still be present. Sometimes the cache is find but you get a string of cachers who can't grab it. Perhaps a newbie who doesn't realize lamppost skirts lift. Then a muggle is parked beside it when a party of two cachers stops by. Cache is fine, but had three DNFs.

[+Mudfrog]

Geocaches in this area get archived after 3 consecutive DNFs which are followed by a reviewer disablement, and with no owner activity.

 

To me, that just sounds like an overzealous reviewer. I don't think that sort of action is appropriate. I've seen a number of caches that get numerous DNFs, followed by a log that says "easy find, thanks!". In those cases I can't help but wonder what happened here...but 3 DNFs do not automatically mean missing cache.

 

I personally believe that the reviewer should post a note at that point, and after another 30 days disable it if there are more DNFs.

 

However, 3 DNFs mean that the cache gets disabled. Sometimes a few of the DNFs may be from the same group of cachers who are new. The CO should be checking on their hides, but most people do this hobby occasionally and are not ready to run out after a few DNFs.

 

Archiving after 3 DNFs seems crazy to me. Some caches are not easy to find or access and could easily get three DNFs and still be present. Sometimes the cache is find but you get a string of cachers who can't grab it. Perhaps a newbie who doesn't realize lamppost skirts lift. Then a muggle is parked beside it when a party of two cachers stops by. Cache is fine, but had three DNFs.

 

I don't care if it's a 1/1 or a 5/5 rated cache, it should not be automatically disabled by a reviewer after 3 dnfs.

[+The Jester]

Let's take this example to an extreme. Team tisri shows up with 9 friends at this cache. None of them are willing to climb the tree so they move on. They could log 10 DNFs, and if they all explain they saw the cache but didn't want to climb that is ok... but a string of 10 DNFs will look like a possible issue if you don't read the details. Some may filter it out and not even look because of it.

But that's the whole reason to post a log - to give the details. If others aren't going to read, that's their problem not mine. Just because somebody else might react in a negitive way to the fact that a DNF exists on the cache is no reason to not post it.

 

People don't list their cache as a micro, because some won't look for them - they get dissed in these forums.

 

People don't quickly post their FTF log, because others won't go for the cache once it's found - they get dissed in these forums.

 

Aren't these ways of thinking the same type of thinking of not posting DNF's because someone might not hunt the cache?

[+Kacher82]

What if you get to the cache, open the cache, find your pen won't write on the log so you put it back and walk away without signing the log? Is that a DNF?

Yes. For me, if for some bizarre reason I could not use other materials on hand to make my mark, that would be a DNF.

I signed a log once with a piece of sidewalk chalk I found in the cache. I seem to recall signing with a dirty stick once. Both of those cases I had forgotten to bring a pen.

I logged a find one time when I hadn't signed the log, in my earlier days. In my log, I mentioned that I hadn't brought a pen, and there wasn't one in the cache, but offered to come back and sign it if that was an issue. No response from the CO, so I assume he didn't mind. Since then, I think I have always figured out some way to sign it, even if it's an illegible mark on a soggy log.

[+redsox_mark]

Let's take this example to an extreme. Team tisri shows up with 9 friends at this cache. None of them are willing to climb the tree so they move on. They could log 10 DNFs, and if they all explain they saw the cache but didn't want to climb that is ok... but a string of 10 DNFs will look like a possible issue if you don't read the details. Some may filter it out and not even look because of it.

But that's the whole reason to post a log - to give the details. If others aren't going to read, that's their problem not mine. Just because somebody else might react in a negitive way to the fact that a DNF exists on the cache is no reason to not post it.

 

People don't list their cache as a micro, because some won't look for them - they get dissed in these forums.

 

People don't quickly post their FTF log, because others won't go for the cache once it's found - they get dissed in these forums.

 

Aren't these ways of thinking the same type of thinking of not posting DNF's because someone might not hunt the cache?

 

To me those points are not similar to the one I was responding to. The point I was responding to was a case where the cache was "found" in a way (it was seen), but the cacher chose not to retrieve it. I respect the view of that cacher not to log a DNF in that case. I also respect the view of those who would log a DNF in that case.

[team tisri]

I remember one cache where I went to GZ and could clearly see the cache. Trouble was it was about 50 feet up a tree and I decided not to attempt the climb.

 

Logging a Find wasn't appropriate because the cache clearly required the tree to be climbed. Logging a DNF would suggest the cache may not be there when it clearly was, so I logged a Note to say I could see it but decided not to attempt the climb. The Note made it clear the cache was present and I hadn't signed it for reasons unrelated to it's availability.

I'm alway curious where this thinking comes from? DNF = missing cache??? With a DNF it is possible the cache is missing, but all it really means is I didn't find it - for whatever reason.

 

But the thing is I did find the cache, I could clearly see it about 50 feet above me and made the decision not to climb the tree to retrieve it.

 

DNF means I couldn't find it, which implies I made an effort to look for it but wasn't able to locate it (the DNF could mean that the cache is missing or that it was hidden in a place I didn't happen to look). In this particular case because I could clearly see it a Note was more appropriate.

[team tisri]

It's simple actually, but many cachers like to clutter the field with qualifications of time spent and other parameters.

 

If you walk away without signing the log, it's a DNF.

What could be more simple?

 

I'd say it isn't that simple.

It's as simple as you allow it to be.

 

I remember one cache where I went to GZ and could clearly see the cache. Trouble was it was about 50 feet up a tree and I decided not to attempt the climb.

 

Logging a DNF would suggest the cache may not be there when it clearly was, so I logged a Note to say I could see it but decided not to attempt the climb. The Note made it clear the cache was present and I hadn't signed it for reasons unrelated to it's availability.

Either would have conveyed the same data, if the cache owner bothers to read what you wrote in your log.

 

And if people don't read every single log but just see the last few logs were DNF they are more likely to not even attempt the cache and probably not even read the logs. It seems pointless to log a DNF when I could clearly see the cache.

 

if you attempt a cache but half a mile away you realise how muddy it is and decide you don't want to ruin your good shoes so you walk away without signing the log, is that a DNF?

Yes. For me, that would be a DNF.

 

So what if you had your caching route planned but went outside and hadn't even made it to the car before the heavens opened and you went back indoors? Would you log DNF on every single cache you had thought you might visit that day?

 

What if you get to the cache, open the cache, find your pen won't write on the log so you put it back and walk away without signing the log? Is that a DNF?

Yes. For me, if for some bizarre reason I could not use other materials on hand to make my mark, that would be a DNF.

 

I wouldn't claim FTF unless I could clearly mark the cache but to my way of thinking to find the cache, retrieve the cache, only to realise you can't mark the log and so regard it as having not found the cache is just silly. To my way of thinking as long as you can prove you were there by whatever means then it's a find.

 

I should qualify my responses by pointing out that I am a shameless DNF junkie.

There really is no absolute answer.

 

I don't have a problem logging DNFs, I'm just not really interested in looking for reasons to log them. I see it as a pretty simple process - if I get to GZ and attempt to find the cache but fail then it's a DNF. If I find the cache but for whatever reason don't retrieve it (or can't open a field puzzle type of cache) then I'll write a note.

[Clan Riffster]

I remember one cache where I went to GZ and could clearly see the cache. Trouble was it was about 50 feet up a tree and I decided not to attempt the climb.

 

Logging a Find wasn't appropriate because the cache clearly required the tree to be climbed. Logging a DNF would suggest the cache may not be there when it clearly was, so I logged a Note to say I could see it but decided not to attempt the climb. The Note made it clear the cache was present and I hadn't signed it for reasons unrelated to it's availability.

I'm alway curious where this thinking comes from? DNF = missing cache??? With a DNF it is possible the cache is missing, but all it really means is I didn't find it - for whatever reason.

 

But the thing is I did find the cache....

Some would argue that you did not.

It's the difference betwixt locating the cache and finding it.

For those with a rather strict interpretation of the guidelines, if you didn't sign the log, you didn't find the cache.

Not that I care one way or another. Just playing Devil's advocate.

[Clan Riffster]

And if people don't read every single log but just see the last few logs were DNF they are more likely to not even attempt the cache and probably not even read the logs.

Not everyone. Many of us find caches with strings of DNFs pretty dern attractive.

 

It seems pointless to log a DNF when I could clearly see the cache.

DNF is just a log type. The point of any log is to convey a message to the owner and others.

 

So what if you had your caching route planned but went outside and hadn't even made it to the car before the heavens opened and you went back indoors? Would you log DNF on every single cache you had thought you might visit that day?

You're still seeing things in black & white. If one is right, the other must be wrong.

Each person should log whatever type they feel best represents their actions and the tale they wish to tell.

In the case of the high rise cache you described earlier, for you, a note would be perfectly appropriate.

For me, a DNF would be perfectly appropriate.

 

as long as you can prove you were there by whatever means then it's a find.

And, for you, there's nothing wrong with that. There is no wrong answer here.

 

I don't have a problem logging DNFs, I'm just not really interested in looking for reasons to log them.

Proof that you are not a DNF junkie, like I am.

And that's okay.

[+The Jester]

I remember one cache where I went to GZ and could clearly see the cache. Trouble was it was about 50 feet up a tree and I decided not to attempt the climb.

 

Logging a Find wasn't appropriate because the cache clearly required the tree to be climbed. Logging a DNF would suggest the cache may not be there when it clearly was, so I logged a Note to say I could see it but decided not to attempt the climb. The Note made it clear the cache was present and I hadn't signed it for reasons unrelated to it's availability.

I'm alway curious where this thinking comes from? DNF = missing cache??? With a DNF it is possible the cache is missing, but all it really means is I didn't find it - for whatever reason.

 

But the thing is I did find the cache....

Some would argue that you did not.

It's the difference betwixt locating the cache and finding it.

For those with a rather strict interpretation of the guidelines, if you didn't sign the log, you didn't find the cache.

Not that I care one way or another. Just playing Devil's advocate.

And what about those caches with red herrings? Maybe the container you saw wasn't the cache - clearly a DNF, but how do you know until you open it. So just seeing a container isn't any more of find than not finding/seeing anything.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

I don't care if it's a 1/1 or a 5/5 rated cache, it should not be automatically disabled by a reviewer after 3 dnfs.

 

Sometimes they are archived because the geocacher is unaware that they have the ability to reenable the listing.

 

This cache was disabled after 2 DNFs and 2 Need Maintenance logs. The cacher then went out and replaced it. Two people found the replacement, but it received another reviewer note because he never reenabled it. He asked the reviewer to reenable it, but got no response from the reviewer and instead received another boilerplate reviewer note a month later. After that, there was no response from the cacher, so it got archived.

 

Did maintenance, but did not know it could be self reenabled, followed by a communication breakdown. Archival.

Edited June 27, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool