Logs other than "found it"

6.1k · June 19, 2013

The site tabulates everyone's "found it" logs, but what about the other log types? I believe DNFs should be counted also, as to encourage more. I have 32 Owner Maintenance logs so far this year, but they don't show anywhere. Let's allow the stats to show these logs also.

8k · June 19, 2013

I agree. The "found count" should be a "log" count.

June 19, 2013

I wish they still showed the DNFs on the map.

June 19, 2013

I wish they still showed the DNFs on the map.

That would be nice. Also show on the cache page if you've logged DNF.

2k · June 19, 2013

I see no value in seeing how many enable cache logs I have done, nor how many owner maintenance logs folks have done on me....I can view all my DNFs just fine in the stats. I think stats just based on found logs is quite quite fine.

Would have no problem if there were more stats to the DNFs though, but on a map? Nah.

Edited June 19, 2013 by lamoracke

2.6k · June 19, 2013

...I believe DNFs should be counted also, as to encourage more...

I would expect just the opposite effect. DNFs are already viewed by many as some sort of failure or negative score instead of just the activity log that it is. I would expect that if DNF counts were displayed, a great many players would log far fewer DNFs to avoid a perceived negative stigma.

June 19, 2013

It would help out a lot if our DNFs would show on the map. I have a nice list but forget locations from time to time. I find finding a DNF is sometimes more enjoyable and exciting than finding some of the easy ones. I am not the best cacher yet but that may be why I have so many DNFs.

6.1k · June 19, 2013

I see no value in seeing how many enable cache logs I have done, nor how many owner maintenance logs folks have done on me....I can view all my DNFs just fine in the stats. I think stats just based on found logs is quite quite fine.

Would have no problem if there were more stats to the DNFs though, but on a map? Nah.

Well, I can see how many duplicate finds you have (zero), as the distinct number matches your find count. You also find the most caches in April and usually on Saturday.

What else?

Your Find Rate with the number of caches per day
Longest Streak
Longest Slump
consecutive days with finds
consecutive days without a find
Best Month
Best Year
Finds Per Month
Cumulative Finds Per Month
Yearly Breakdown
Finds for Each Day of the Year
lamoracke has found caches on 366 of 366 days of the year!
Cache Types lamoracke Has Found
Container Types lamoracke Has Found
Average Difficulty and Terrain of Caches lamoracke Has Found
Find Nearest to Home
Find Farthest from Home
Find Farthest North, South, East, West
and so on

But what about DNFs?

Owner Maintenance?

These stats should be up there.

7.8k · June 19, 2013

Nobody has mentioned it yet, so I will:

You can view all your logs by log type here, and it gives a total at the top of how many logs you have of that type.

As for logging DNFs, I rarely did so early in my caching career. Looking back, in my first two years of caching, I logged 8 DNFs. Somewhere around that time I learned about this challenge cache (note that it wouldn't be allowed under the current guidelines, so it's grandfathered). That spurred me to log my DNFs more regularly, and I've logged 90 DNFs in the two and a bit years since then.

Having a more visible total of how many DNFs I had logged wouldn't have changed my DNF-logging behaviour. It was this challenge cache that changed my behaviour. I should also note that this is a permanent change of behaviour; I'll keep logging DNFs as I am now even after I qualify for that challenge cache.

6.1k · June 19, 2013

...I believe DNFs should be counted also, as to encourage more...

I would expect just the opposite effect. DNFs are already viewed by many as some sort of failure or negative score instead of just the activity log that it is. I would expect that if DNF counts were displayed, a great many players would log far fewer DNFs to avoid a perceived negative stigma.

I think some would, but that info should be allowed to be marked private if they think that.

6.1k · June 19, 2013

I wish they still showed the DNFs on the map.

That would be nice. Also show on the cache page if you've logged DNF.

Yes, in the top right corner where it usually says the day you found it.

7.8k · June 19, 2013

Well, I can see how many duplicate finds you have (zero), as the distinct number matches your find count. You also find the most caches in April and usually on Saturday.

What else?

<snipped list>

But what about DNFs?

Owner Maintenance?

These stats should be up there.

Why? I've never heard of anyone else wanting to see these stats for other users, so I have to assume you're one of very few people that do. I'm certainly not all that interested in those numbers for other users. For that matter, I'm not that interested in even my own numbers for the different log types.

Anyway, for anyone who is interested, here are my log type stats as of this posting:

Announcement: 2

Archive: 2

Attended: 64

Didn't find it: 98

Enable Listing: 22

Found it: 3091

Needs Archived: 48

Needs Maintenance: 25

Owner Maintenance: 11

Temporarily Disable Listing: 15

Update Coordinates: 7

Webcam Photo Taken: 2

Will Attend: 50

Write note: 187

3.8k · June 19, 2013

...I believe DNFs should be counted also, as to encourage more...

I would expect just the opposite effect. DNFs are already viewed by many as some sort of failure or negative score instead of just the activity log that it is. I would expect that if DNF counts were displayed, a great many players would log far fewer DNFs to avoid a perceived negative stigma.

Wouldn't want anybody to feel bad, ehh..

6.1k · June 19, 2013

Well, I can see how many duplicate finds you have (zero), as the distinct number matches your find count. You also find the most caches in April and usually on Saturday.

What else?

<snipped list>

But what about DNFs?

Owner Maintenance?

These stats should be up there.

Why? I've never heard of anyone else wanting to see these stats for other users, so I have to assume you're one of very few people that do. I'm certainly not all that interested in those numbers for other users. For that matter, I'm not that interested in even my own numbers for the different log types.

Anyway, for anyone who is interested, here are my log type stats as of this posting:

Announcement: 2

Archive: 2

Attended: 64

Didn't find it: 98

Enable Listing: 22

Found it: 3091

Needs Archived: 48

Needs Maintenance: 25

Owner Maintenance: 11

Temporarily Disable Listing: 15

Update Coordinates: 7

Webcam Photo Taken: 2

Will Attend: 50

Write note: 187

Why? To encourage more. Personally, I don't care too much about other's stats, but if someone wants to boost their own visible stats, those figures should be included.

Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived stats visible would likely have a negative effect.

Edited June 19, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

2.6k · June 19, 2013

...I believe DNFs should be counted also, as to encourage more...

I would expect just the opposite effect. DNFs are already viewed by many as some sort of failure or negative score instead of just the activity log that it is. I would expect that if DNF counts were displayed, a great many players would log far fewer DNFs to avoid a perceived negative stigma.

Wouldn't want anybody to feel bad, ehh..

I'm not sure who or what your comment was directed to there, bflentje. I could give a flip about making someone feel bad. My point, which you may have missed, is that publicly showing those stats may well do more harm than good in that it would cause even fewer people to log their DNFs because of how they perceive the meaning of DNF.

7.8k · June 19, 2013

Why? To encourage more. Personally, I don't care too much about other's stats, but if someone wants to boost their own visible stats, those figures should be included.

I guess what myself and others in this discussion are having a hard time understanding is why making those numbers more visible would make people want to increase those numbers more. As a personal example, after researching for my last post, I see I've logged 11 Owner Maintenance logs. I currently have no urge to run out, check all of my caches, and post OM logs on all of them simply to "boost" that number. If I happen to be in a situation where I want/need to log an OM, I'll do so, but I'm not going to go out of my way to "boost" that number or any of the other log type numbers.

7.3k · June 19, 2013

I have 32 Owner Maintenance logs so far this year, but they don't show anywhere.

Your owner maintenance logs are here -->>> www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=46

To see your logs of a particular type, use this URL:

www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=<# of log type >

List of log type numbers:

2 Found it

3 DNF

4 Write Note

5 Archive

7 Needs Archived

9 Will Attend

10 Attended

11 Webcam Photo Taken

18 Reviewer Note

22 Disable

23 Enable

45 Needs Maintenance

46 Owner Maintenance

47 Update Coordinates

74 Announcement

76 Submit for Review

You can see this stuff for yourself, site tabulates it for you.

If you want others to see it you can put it on your profile. You can't link to it, so you'll have manually update, or get fancy and write a widget.

edit double http/http thingy

Edited June 19, 2013 by Isonzo Karst

3.7k · June 19, 2013

Anyway, for anyone who is interested, here are my log type stats as of this posting:

Needs Archived: 48

One of those Needs Archived as in error. :anibad:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=b1ee4a97-727e-4604-a2bc-4a68151eeacf

3.1k · June 19, 2013

I would expect just the opposite effect. DNFs are already viewed by many as some sort of failure or negative score instead of just the activity log that it is. I would expect that if DNF counts were displayed, a great many players would log far fewer DNFs to avoid a perceived negative stigma.

I bet even more players would log zero DNFs, if only for bragging rights.

I wonder if this would lead to Challenge Caches based on logging a certain number of DNFs? :laughing:

FWIW, 373 DNFs here vs 2708 Finds (so about 1 DNF for every 13-14 Finds).

10.2k · June 19, 2013

I would expect just the opposite effect. DNFs are already viewed by many as some sort of failure or negative score instead of just the activity log that it is. I would expect that if DNF counts were displayed, a great many players would log far fewer DNFs to avoid a perceived negative stigma.

I bet even more players would log zero DNFs, if only for bragging rights.

I wonder if this would lead to Challenge Caches based on logging a certain number of DNFs?

FWIW, 373 DNFs here vs 2708 Finds (so about 1 DNF for every 13-14 Finds).

I was going to tell you there were already all kinds of DNF challenges, and they were no longer allowed under the "new" challenge cache guidelines. So guess what is the only one that comes up under the new and less improved keyword search of "DNF Challenge"? One published 3 weeks ago near Columbus, Ohio. Which, incidently, I would ignore if it were in my area, as this challenge cache is a parking lot micro in "the typical spot", per the cache page. As a matter of fact, I think I'll ignore it anyways on principle. :laughing:

7.8k · June 19, 2013

I was going to tell you there were already all kinds of DNF challenges, and they were no longer allowed under the "new" challenge cache guidelines. So guess what is the only one that comes up under the new and less improved keyword search of "DNF Challenge"? One published 3 weeks ago near Columbus, Ohio. Which, incidently, I would ignore if it were in my area, as this challenge cache is a parking lot micro in "the typical spot", per the cache page. As a matter of fact, I think I'll ignore it anyways on principle.

So who's going to log the NA?

DNF challenges are explicitly prohibited, a fact both the CO and reviewer must have forgotten.

5. A Challenge cache based on non-accomplishments, such as DNFs, will not be published.

Not much ambiguity, grey area, or leeway there...

2k · June 19, 2013

yeah, I thought DNF challenges were not allowed anymore either.

Course, some of these logs can be deleted, like NM, NA, etc.

Needs archived: 26. 7 of them are on events. All 26 are archived I see.

DNFs: Give or take, about 415

Needs maintenance: 24.

Owner Maintenance: 17

Why I would want to see these stats or anyone else knowing how many I have done is beyond me. We have one person in our area who is logging "needs archived" every time they DNF a cache, perhaps they want those to count as finds for all I know. These #s mean nothing to me.

10.2k · June 19, 2013

I was totally not trying to blow the chick in. :lol: I thought they were no longer allowed, then I said to myself "self, maybe they are still allowed". :huh:

7.9k · June 19, 2013

Speaking of people not logging DNFs so they look better than they are...

While DNF logs are not viewable by anyone but the cacher himself (here on GC.com), back in the day (2001-2003/4) the AZ Geocaching site did compile these stats for all Arizona cachers.

Having a low number of DNFs was VERY IMPORTANT!

Of course, NOT LYING was also very important.

So, many AZ cachers took to copying the text of their DNF log into their Found It log (when and if they eventually did), and deleting the DNF log. Strangely (despite the current lack of stats at AZ Geocaching), some AZ cachers still do this.

Anyway, while I wouldn't mind full disclosure and have anyone see my log stats, I'm not sure what could actually be made of them.

The A-Team has only 11 owner maintenance logs. Does that mean they never do maintenance, or that they use quality containers that never NEED maintenance? :unsure:

Can we get a stat for number of parenthetical phrases used in the forum, I love using them! :lol:

EDIT: to add a close parenthesis so I can get full credit.

Edited June 19, 2013 by AZcachemeister

7.8k · June 20, 2013

The A-Team has only 11 owner maintenance logs. Does that mean they never do maintenance, or that they use quality containers that never NEED maintenance?

I was wondering if someone would comment on any of my "stats". :laughing:

For the record, I make sure to use quality containers and choose my hiding places carefully. My caches rarely need any maintenance, hence the low number of OM logs.

However, that stat could also be interpreted the other way and someone could jump to the conclusion that I simply don't maintain my caches, giving them an incorrect impression of me. That's a good example of how such a stat could be improperly used and lead to potentially negative consequences.

6.1k · June 20, 2013

The Owner Maintenance and DNF log types are both notorious for being underused. Having statistics available for both should increase their usage slightly. If someone wants to mark them as private, then that should be available. DNFs numbers listed prominently alongside of number of finds would be an encouragement to use them. Some people do not log DNFs simply because there isn't a stat for them, and they don't take it seriously.

6.1k · June 20, 2013

The A-Team has only 11 owner maintenance logs. Does that mean they never do maintenance, or that they use quality containers that never NEED maintenance?

I was wondering if someone would comment on any of my "stats".

For the record, I make sure to use quality containers and choose my hiding places carefully. My caches rarely need any maintenance, hence the low number of OM logs.

However, that stat could also be interpreted the other way and someone could jump to the conclusion that I simply don't maintain my caches, giving them an incorrect impression of me. That's a good example of how such a stat could be improperly used and lead to potentially negative consequences.

The same has been said about "Found it" logs, giving people an incorrect impression of experience.

Most of the stats I see seem silly to me. An Owner Maintenance tally encourages people to at least check on their caches whether they need help or not, by making it a visible official record. Believe or not, some may enjoy getting credit for that.

1.7k · June 20, 2013

I'd like my number of DNF smileys to be shown alongside my Found It smileys next to my name on my logs, etc - I'm proud of my DNFs... But I accept that's never likely to happen.

5.6k · June 20, 2013

I'm not that interested in seeing the 'raw' DNF numbers (I have 500, just about 1:10 to finds), but some complex numbers would be of minor interest: How many DNF's have been 'cleared'? How many unfound DNF's are archived (no chance to clear)? But even some of those would be meaningless, the DNF's I got on trips that I'll never (probably) get back to.

So, overall, I'm not really in favor of making these numbers public.

9.3k · June 20, 2013

Anyway, for anyone who is interested, here are my log type stats as of this posting:

Needs Archived: 48

One of those Needs Archived as in error.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=b1ee4a97-727e-4604-a2bc-4a68151eeacf

No, not an error.

The cache page plainly states it's a film can.

That makes it worthy of NA status.

3.7k · June 20, 2013

Anyway, for anyone who is interested, here are my log type stats as of this posting:

Needs Archived: 48

One of those Needs Archived as in error.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=b1ee4a97-727e-4604-a2bc-4a68151eeacf

No, not an error.

The cache page plainly states it's a film can.

That makes it worthy of NA status.

Not just a film canister, but a film canister hidden in a rock wall. :laughing:

Edited June 20, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

3.7k · June 20, 2013

Sorry, I've posted twice and I haven't even answered the OP's question. :rolleyes:

I'm happy with the way things are. My Find count is what's most important to me. I can look up my DNFs if I'm curious, but I definitely don't need to know how many times I've posted a NA or NM or OM log. Actually now that I have looked at them, I think I may need professional help.

My stats. I think I should take them to a shrink. The 150+ NA and NM confirm what everybody around me already knows, that I'm a b(*@#. The 200+ notes confirm that I have OCD. The 10%+ DNFs confirms that either I'm pretty good at finding caches or I'm pretty good at hiding the fact that I'm pretty bad at finding caches. The 34 Temporary Disables indicates that after hiding 52 caches, I still have alot to learn. <_<

8 Announcement

14 Archive

17 Attended

164 DNF

31 Enable

1497 Found

77 Needs Archive

79 Needs Maintenance

56 Owner Maintenance

6 Reviewer Notes

34 Temporary Disable

10 Update Coordinates

16 Will Attend

249 Write Note

Edited June 20, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

7.3k · June 20, 2013

I was going to tell you there were already all kinds of DNF challenges, and they were no longer allowed under the "new" challenge cache guidelines. So guess what is the only one that comes up under the new and less improved keyword search of "DNF Challenge"? One published 3 weeks ago near Columbus, Ohio. Which, incidently, I would ignore if it were in my area, as this challenge cache is a parking lot micro in "the typical spot", per the cache page. As a matter of fact, I think I'll ignore it anyways on principle.

Archived by the reviewer today:

http://coord.info/GC4CMZY

B.

8k · June 20, 2013

..some complex numbers would be of minor interest..

I've always thought of the find count as an imaginary number.

10.2k · June 20, 2013

I was going to tell you there were already all kinds of DNF challenges, and they were no longer allowed under the "new" challenge cache guidelines. So guess what is the only one that comes up under the new and less improved keyword search of "DNF Challenge"? One published 3 weeks ago near Columbus, Ohio. Which, incidently, I would ignore if it were in my area, as this challenge cache is a parking lot micro in "the typical spot", per the cache page. As a matter of fact, I think I'll ignore it anyways on principle.

Archived by the reviewer today:

http://coord.info/GC4CMZY

B.

I swear on a pallet of ammo cans I wasn't trying to do that, and I thought maybe I was wrong you couldn't have a DNF Challenge under the new rules. :huh: No armchair SBA, but the reviewer heard about it somehow. Existing DNF's were Grandfathered, and I have plans to stop at one near Cleveland next month, actually.

10.2k · June 20, 2013

..some complex numbers would be of minor interest..

I've always thought of the find count as an imaginary number.

As an Engineer, I used to do that carp in college. What a pain in the butt. Thanks for trip down memory lane.

June 20, 2013

I've been meaning to create challenge to get around that particular clause about the DNFs. My version will eventually be a "turn that frown upside down" challenge. In which you have to find 32 caches that you previously logged a dnf on(I'm close to qualifying,need to recheck my stats). This is not only to promote logging dnf's, but to also persevere and fix that frown. I am going to crudely carve a light frowning face on a somewhat round rock, and when you turn it over......A bright yellow smiley face will greet you on the underside of the rock or possibly the container. You may be wondering at the seemingly random 32 number.That is the average number of teeth in a humans mouth/smile.

1.3k · June 20, 2013

I've been meaning to create challenge to get around that particular clause about the DNFs. My version will eventually be a "turn that frown upside down" challenge. In which you have to find 32 caches that you previously logged a dnf on(I'm close to qualifying,need to recheck my stats). This is not only to promote logging dnf's, but to also persevere and fix that frown. I am going to crudely carve a light frowning face on a somewhat round rock, and when you turn it over......A bright yellow smiley face will greet you on the underside of the rock or possibly the container. You may be wondering at the seemingly random 32 number.That is the average number of teeth in a humans mouth/smile.

L.L. Frown Challenge

Not everyone reads the instructions and they just list DNFs as if that fulfills the challenge.

The CO does not delete the logs of those who don't properly complete the challenge.

6.1k · June 21, 2013

I was going to tell you there were already all kinds of DNF challenges, and they were no longer allowed under the "new" challenge cache guidelines. So guess what is the only one that comes up under the new and less improved keyword search of "DNF Challenge"? One published 3 weeks ago near Columbus, Ohio. Which, incidently, I would ignore if it were in my area, as this challenge cache is a parking lot micro in "the typical spot", per the cache page. As a matter of fact, I think I'll ignore it anyways on principle.

Archived by the reviewer today:

http://coord.info/GC4CMZY

B.

Well it looks like Mr Yuck blew his big chance to boost his Needs Archived stats.

Edited June 21, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

6.1k · June 21, 2013

Sorry, I've posted twice and I haven't even answered the OP's question.

I'm happy with the way things are. My Find count is what's most important to me. I can look up my DNFs if I'm curious, but I definitely don't need to know how many times I've posted a NA or NM or OM log. Actually now that I have looked at them, I think I may need professional help.

My stats. I think I should take them to a shrink. The 150+ NA and NM confirm what everybody around me already knows, that I'm a b(*@#. The 200+ notes confirm that I have OCD. The 10%+ DNFs confirms that either I'm pretty good at finding caches or I'm pretty good at hiding the fact that I'm pretty bad at finding caches. The 34 Temporary Disables indicates that after hiding 52 caches, I still have alot to learn.

8 Announcement

14 Archive

17 Attended

164 DNF

31 Enable

1497 Found

77 Needs Archive

79 Needs Maintenance

56 Owner Maintenance

6 Reviewer Notes

34 Temporary Disable

10 Update Coordinates

16 Will Attend

249 Write Note

The 164 DNFs and 56 Owner Maintenance logs are only what's interesting and should be shown.

Suppose there was no count to tally up "found it" logs. No numbers at all shown. You know what would happen? Power trails wouldn't exist. Parking lot micros would slowly die off. Part of geocaching is about the numbers for some people. Having DNFs tallied up would encourage it more. Those logs are not taken seriously because there is no official record of them listed anywhere.

Edited June 21, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

3.7k · June 21, 2013

Suppose there was no count to tally up "found it" logs. No numbers at all shown. You know what would happen? Power trails wouldn't exist. Parking lot micros would slowly die off.

I'm not sure that would work, although I can see the benefits. People would find some way to tally up their numbers, perhaps through another site.

June 21, 2013

I would like it if my DNF's disappeared from the list when I finally found the cache and changed it to my At some point I would like to do a DNF day and go after those without having to sort through the list and remove my finds after DNF....

6.1k · June 21, 2013

Suppose there was no count to tally up "found it" logs. No numbers at all shown. You know what would happen? Power trails wouldn't exist. Parking lot micros would slowly die off.

I'm not sure that would work, although I can see the benefits. People would find some way to tally up their numbers, perhaps through another site.

Perhaps they would, and I'm not saying it should happen, but if the number of finds was only shown to each user (like DNFs) then all of the spam would go away. Why do a powertrail, finding identical containers a thousand times, if there is no tally?

For a very short time they did that and a huge outcry ensued, but in the first year all logs were written as notes. That's how the site started. The motivation was swag, and finding something or some place interesting.

All I'm saying is if DNFs were given some visibility on the profile, and Owner Maintenance numbers were included in the stats, then more people would make a conscious effort to use those logs more often.

Edited June 21, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

June 21, 2013

I'm not convinced showing DNF numbers would increase the number of logs. Some of us aren't ashamed to post DNF, but there are quite a few that see DNF as a bad thing, and would be trying to keep that number as low as possible.

7.8k · June 21, 2013

All I'm saying is if DNFs were given some visibility on the profile, and Owner Maintenance numbers were included in the stats, then more people would make a conscious effort to use those logs more often.

I have yet to see any evidence of that. So far, none of the people who have posted in this discussion (other than yourself) sound like they would want to "boost" their numbers for those log types. Do you know of anyone that has said they would?

As has been mentioned previously, most people would likely tend to try to reduce their DNF number, not increase it. Why would someone want a high DNF total alongside their find total?

6.1k · June 21, 2013

All I'm saying is if DNFs were given some visibility on the profile, and Owner Maintenance numbers were included in the stats, then more people would make a conscious effort to use those logs more often.

I have yet to see any evidence of that. So far, none of the people who have posted in this discussion (other than yourself) sound like they would want to "boost" their numbers for those log types. Do you know of anyone that has said they would?

As has been mentioned previously, most people would likely tend to try to reduce their DNF number, not increase it. Why would someone want a high DNF total alongside their find total?

Lots of people are proud of their DNFs, and if they want the number to be hidden, then the site should allow it. Getting some form of credit for writing these logs should be encouraged.

Are you saying you are not proud of your DNFs, and you would want them hidden? I notice a few are guessing what everyone else may think, and avoiding posting their own thoughts. I'm not ashamed of my DNFs. A high DNF count is something to be proud of. It shows activity, and is a record of your visit. It also shows that you are not afraid of saying that you didn't find it. Toz mentioned early on that the number of all log types should be recorded. This shows geocaching activity, whether or not the person is making finds.

7.8k · June 21, 2013

Are you saying you are not proud of your DNFs, and you would want them hidden? I notice a few are guessing what everyone else may think, and avoiding posting their own thoughts. I'm not ashamed of my DNFs. A high DNF count is something to be proud of.

I'm neither proud nor ashamed of my DNFs. They hold no great significance to me and I consider them to be just another fact of geocaching-life. I log DNFs based on whether they're warranted or not, not because I want to increase my DNF count. Making my DNF count visible to everyone wouldn't change my behaviour in the least.

1.3k · June 22, 2013

I believe DNFs should be counted also, as to encourage more.

Wait, I thought we are trying to FIND caches...why would you want more DNF's?? :huh:

The Owner Maintenance and DNF log types are both notorious for being underused. Having statistics available for both should increase their usage slightly. If someone wants to mark them as private, then that should be available. DNFs numbers listed prominently alongside of number of finds would be an encouragement to use them. Some people do not log DNFs simply because there isn't a stat for them, and they don't take it seriously.

I probably overuse the OM log. If I go out and do a walk-through on one of my caches, I log an OM. If I drop off some swag, if I log anything, it's probably an OM. It's unusual for me to have to post an OM log for actual "maintainance". I just never gave it much thought as to whether it was the correct type of log to use. I just figured since I was the owner and I checked on my cache, that counts as maintaining the cache and logged it as such.

June 23, 2013

No point in counting dnf's or anything else for me other than finds for me. I cache to find caches and prefer not to know how many dnf's I have posted, especially if they are on multiple trips to the same cache. I am fine with counting finds only.

Logs other than "found it"

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation