Are DNFs becoming obsolete?

[+c1nn4m0n]

I've noticed more and more recently that logs reference how hard the finders looked the last time(s) they looked for the cache...but no DNF was ever logged. I'm wondering if this is becoming the new normal, and if so, why? I know that for my hides I love seeing logs come through, whether finds or DNFs, because I know people are out there looking (and the DNFs make me feel good on things I've worked to make tricky!). Any thoughts?

[+Dogmeat*]

I always log my DNFs. Actually, I'm going to edit all my hides to say "Please log DNFs."

 

Hopefully they'll follow my request. I hate when people don't log them.

[+Mudfrog]

I tried for a cache yesterday with a couple of friends. On the way in, we met two others coming out who said they couldn't find it. We weren't able to locate the cache either. You would think 5 DNFs were in order but nope, mine was the only one. Not sure why people are afraid to log them.

[+Dogmeat*]

Don't wanna hurt their statistics.. or that's what some people have told me. It sucks.

[+tozainamboku]

Don't wanna hurt their statistics.. or that's what some people have told me. It sucks.

What statistics? There are no published statistic for percentage finds, longest streak without a DNF, etc. If there were, then perhaps people would not log DNFs because they would hurt these statistics. Of course if you are keeping such statistics then you would want to log all you DNFs just so the statistics would actually mean something.

 

I think people don't log DNFs because they view a DNF as failure. In fact many people say they don't log a DNF because they haven't given up looking yet. For them a DNF is stating they are giving up. They probably believe that you either log a cache as Found or DNF. I suspect that if they later find the cache, they would delete the DNF because of this.

[+lamoracke]

I like to keep track of my DNFs as I do finds, its where I was, shows a record. Just part of the story.

[+Ben0w]

I'm wondering if this is becoming the new normal, and if so, why?

Hope not. However, if I'm caching in a team, usually only one team member logs a DNF instead of filling the list up with essentially the same DNF.

 

I know that for my hides I love seeing logs come through, whether finds or DNFs, because I know people are out there looking (and the DNFs make me feel good on things I've worked to make tricky!). Any thoughts?

I want to see DNFs as well, if there are such. Then the owner and following geocachers would know if there is a potential problem, especially when they sum up. Not only missing caches but maybe a moved box or a "better hide".

 

Regarding "tricky" hides (the evil ones, where a cache seems to be NOT intended for a find): As a searcher I don't like those, intentionally preventing ME from getting the box instead the random muggle. As a hider I would be concerned about brute-force attempts and serious collateral damage. If the geocacher was able to access the real spot, then he/she should get the box itself rather easy, in the usual out-of-sight hides or with a releaving hint.

 

Then a (row of) DNF indicates a real problem and isn't just for the entertainment of some devilish lurking cache owner - maybe this last scenario is what gives DNF logs a bad taste.

[+suchanana]

i came, i tried, the excuses are all plausible, the reasons are subjective - and then i post the dnf for that trip...

hopefully the next trip will yield a cache find, but at least i conveyed my attempt to the cache owner with my explanations...

i prefer to know about my caches' viability and figure i practice what i desire...

[+kunarion]

I think people don't log DNFs because they view a DNF as failure. In fact many people say they don't log a DNF because they haven't given up looking yet. For them a DNF is stating they are giving up. They probably believe that you either log a cache as Found or DNF. I suspect that if they later find the cache, they would delete the DNF because of this.

+1

 

I get emails from people who can't find a cache, asking for info on where to find it (not just on my caches, either ). People who did not log a DNF, but who by definition did not find the cache. Maybe the email counts as a DNF log . Maybe it's simply that it's half the work of making both the log and the email.

[UpCon3Boy]

I don't mind logging a DNF. I'm pretty secure as a person to say "I tried, but didn't find it". Gives me more impetus to return to the site and go over what I missed the first time.

 

Remember, Indiana Jones didn't find everything he looked for the first time. That's why his log book was so blasted FAT!

[+sasqwatches]

We log any and all DNF's if we cant find the target it used to bother us almost like a failure but now we accept it as a challenge to come back and try again

[+Meandering WA]

If I gave it an honest effort, I log a DNF

 

a string of DNF may be the first hint a CO has of a missing cache

 

When selecting a cache to visit, if I see a string of DNF on anything below a "3" rating, I consider it missing and don't bother.

[+Yorkshire Yellow]

We log any and all DNF's if we cant find the target it used to bother us almost like a failure but now we accept it as a challenge to come back and try again

 

I'm with you on all of that.

 

It's important to log DNs so that folk know what's going on with a cache.

[+briansnat]

It's not the new normal, it's been a norm of sorts since geocaching began. There have always been a segment of geocachers who don't log DNFs for one reason or another. The complaint goes back to at least since I started and probably before.

[+Dame Deco]

I only log dnfs if I feel like I really gave it my best shot in finding it. If I was in a hurry, or if it was in a muggle-heavy area, or if I didn't want to spend too much time in one place because I'm caching alone--I won't log a dnf. But if I really looked an it's a tough hide, or if I think it might be missing, I log a dnf.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Dame Deco

[+kunarion]

I only log dnfs if I feel like I really gave it my best shot in finding it. If I was in a hurry, or if it was in a muggle-heavy area, or if I didn't want to spend too much time in one place because I'm caching alone--I won't log a dnf. But if I really looked an it's a tough hide, or if I think it might be missing, I log a dnf.

Where do you keep the info that a cache was in a muggle-heavy area, or that you didn't want to spend too much time in one place because you were caching alone, or that you were in a hurry? Nevermind that it's valuable information for the next cacher (without the heads-up from a log, now they, too, have to try again due to too many muggles, or not realizing how long it would take to find or whatever) and the Cache Owner. Don't you keep info about caches somewhere, so you may try to find them again? For me, it's convenient to group caches I did not find in the Did Not Find list. Go figure.

Edited August 19, 2013 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

Sorry, double post.

Edited August 19, 2013 by kunarion

[+tealeaf]

We've become more selective about doing DNFs. If a site is crappy and there's nothing special about the hide, we don't care about trying again and won't bother with a DNF. We always log a DNF when we intend to ask the CO for an assist.When we travel, we filter out caches where the last log was a DNF so if we don't find then, the odds are good that the cache is fine and the problem is us. From the other side, we check our own hides after DNFs from seasoned cachers and tend to ignore the 3 find newbie who "knows" it's gone. If a detailed DNF log clearly tells us that the cacher was off-base, we send them another hint.

[+whh0]

If I can't search for some reason eg muggles at GZ I will usually leave a note on the cache page. However, on one occasion we searched for a long time for a cache and logged a dnf, as did 3 or 4 other people. The CO's response was "Your not looking hard enough, you know the GPS signal is poor at GZ" Nothing to say that they had been to check on it......

[+kunarion]

If a site is crappy and there's nothing special about the hide, we don't care about trying again and won't bother with a DNF.

I did one like that, when I started Geocaching. I logged a Needs Maintenance, no DNF. The tupperware container was full of gross fluids, log books soaking wet, actual garbage (including a used acne cream tube), in a stinky, nasty place. So yeah, no DNF, and I didn't log it as a Find, either. I just left and washed for a while.

 

But if I don't find it, now I log a DNF. For no other reason than that I didn't find it. I'm strange like that.

 

No passive-aggressive multiple DNFs due to ["OK just for that, I'll make excessive DNFs for nutty reasons to prove a point"]. It's OK to use common sense. But I do log DNF.

Edited August 19, 2013 by kunarion

[+J Grouchy]

I only log dnfs if I feel like I really gave it my best shot in finding it. If I was in a hurry, or if it was in a muggle-heavy area, or if I didn't want to spend too much time in one place because I'm caching alone--I won't log a dnf. But if I really looked an it's a tough hide, or if I think it might be missing, I log a dnf.

Where do you keep the info that a cache was in a muggle-heavy area, or that you didn't want to spend too much time in one place because you were caching alone, or that you were in a hurry? Nevermind that it's valuable information for the next cacher (without the heads-up from a log, now they, too, have to try again due to too many muggles, or not realizing how long it would take to find or whatever) and the Cache Owner. Don't you keep info about caches somewhere, so you may try to find them again? For me, it's convenient to group caches I did not find in the Did Not Find list. Go figure.

 

Same here. I keep a running list and generally log every DNF...though occasionally if I have to return more than two times to find it, I'll group two or more DNFs into one, especially if my return trips are close together (i.e., same day or within a day or two of each other). I don't see a value in logging two DNFs on the same day if nothing new is to be shared. In those cases I'll certainly own up to having searched multiple times.

[+dprovan]

I don't think anything's changed. Some people don't log DNFs, but I haven't noticed more now than last year or the year before. I can't say why they don't log DNFs. In my area, enough people log DNFs that there's rarely any problem with a lost cache not being noticeable, so I just smile when I notice a log admitting they didn't file one.

 

When I'm traveling, one problem I've noticed in some areas is that if there's one DNF, people don't file additional DNFs even though it seems likely there have been additional attempts. I guess they think another DNF would be redundant, but it presents a problem because it's impossible to tell a single miss from a missing cache.

[+kunarion]

if I have to return more than two times to find it, I'll group two or more DNFs into one, especially if my return trips are close together (i.e., same day or within a day or two of each other). I don't see a value in logging two DNFs on the same day if nothing new is to be shared. In those cases I'll certainly own up to having searched multiple times.

Me, too, it may be one "DNF", and I'll be rather vague about the fact that I've obsessed about the cache, tried searching 50 different times today, and haven't slept nor eaten in 28 hours.

[+tweetiepy]

I log DNFs if I have actually spent some time looking - if I don't get a chance to look for it cuz muggles are there, I won't log a DNF - If you look for it and don't find it and don't log a DNF it might have vanished and the next person will go looking for it and not find it either. After a few DNFs, I guess the CO will go out to look to see if it's gone.

 

I returned to a cache 3 times before finding it and logged each DNF.

 

There is also a very tricky one near work that has many DNFs and a few "found its" after - it is extremely tricky to find and it's kind of satisfying to see the DNFs, makes me feel special for finding it when so many can't find it.

 

I DNF'd a cache once, it had been quite a while since it was found. the CO posted on the log that he checked and it was still there - we were 12" from it (but I thought it was on the golf course and didn't want to go there, but it wasn't and we returned)

Edited August 19, 2013 by tweetiepy

[+K13]

Too many people see a DNF log as an admission of personal FAILURE. Not many want to publicly announce these failures.

Personally, the DNF logs can be some of the better adventures with great stories.

[+Chief301]

Don't wanna hurt their statistics.. or that's what some people have told me. It sucks.

 

I don't get it.....they don't want to hurt their statistics, but their statistics are a complete fabrication, so what's there to preserve? They're not maintaining their statistics, they're maintaining a fallacy. Statistics by their very definition take ALL data and variables into consideration. SMH

[+dprovan]

Too many people see a DNF log as an admission of personal FAILURE. Not many want to publicly announce these failures.

While I'm sure that's a factor, I think the bigger factor is simply that people don't want to take the time to log DNFs, not that they're embarrassed about them.

[+L0ne.R]

I only log dnfs if I feel like I really gave it my best shot in finding it. If I was in a hurry, or if it was in a muggle-heavy area, or if I didn't want to spend too much time in one place because I'm caching alone--I won't log a dnf. But if I really looked an it's a tough hide, or if I think it might be missing, I log a dnf.

 

That's generally what I do too. I ignore difficult caches (D rating 3.5 or over) because I don't enjoy not finding a cache. When I look for D3 or under caches, I expect that the CO wants the cache to be found. I log a DNF to help future finders and the CO. I do not log a DNF if the CO plays unfairly:

• creates a needle-in-a-haystack cache and gives it a low difficulty rating (3 or under)
• hides a cache where there are a ton of possible hiding spots then doesn't provide a hint
• the hint is "email me for a hint" or "log a DNF and email me for a hint".

With regards to people who only log that they found a tricky cache but say in the log that it was their x-number attempt (and there have been several recent finds i.e. the cache isn't missing), what does it matter? The CO knows that cache is tricky, they know it will likely take multiple attempts (especially if people don't PAF or phone the CO for a hint). They've publicly stated that the cache is tricky, which should satisfy the CO that their cache is indeed a tough find.

[+Mudfrog]

Too many people see a DNF log as an admission of personal FAILURE. Not many want to publicly announce these failures.

While I'm sure that's a factor, I think the bigger factor is simply that people don't want to take the time to log DNFs, not that they're embarrassed about them.

 

I have to agree with K13 on this. No doubt there is laziness about but i believe the main reason is because people think it's a failure which makes them look bad.

 

Of course it's a failure,, a failure to find the cache. But it's certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Well, except when you log one and the next person comes along and states in their found it log that it was one of the easiest they ever found. Thankfully that's never happened to me!

[+sir dumil]

This might just come down to incentives.

 

When I log a find, various good statistical things happen. My total find count increases as does the find count for that day/week/month/year and for that particular cache type in that particular geographical region.

 

When I log a DNF... there really aren't many incentives. There doesn't seem to be anything out there that counts DNFs, and there don't seem to be many constructive positive results. Now that Groundspeak cache maps don't indicate where your DNFs are, DNFs don't even help you keep track of what caches you've visited unsuccessfully so that, perhaps with a little more experience, you might go back and try them again. One incentive might be to establish contact with the CO prior to asking for help or hints, I suppose.

 

When I was starting out last year, I felt reluctant to post DNFs because I was simply learning about the game and I was accumulating experience and I didn't feel that my input would have provided any positive or meaningful benefits. Also, I did not know how to diplomatically log a negative caching experience without insulting or discouraging the CO.

 

As I gained experience with the game, I gained confidence so that I will usually post my DNFs. Also, I've learned how to use my GPSr with GSAK so that my DNFs don't go unrecorded. Still, although I see that DNFs can have positive benefits, they're still kinda lacking in incentives.

[Pawistik]

I'm making my personal effort to keep DNFs alive! If I make an actual effort I log the DNF. Sometimes, I move on for whatever reason - someone is waiting for the bus & I don't have the time to wait them out. I log multiple DNFs on some caches that I keep coming back to and not finding. It's all part of the game. Great to log a find when I've got DNF logs further down on the list - it's like some sort of personal victory.

Cheers,

Bryan

[+cheech gang]

There doesn't seem to be anything out there that counts DNFs,

 

Geocaching.com counts DNF logs for you, but only you can see it.

 

[+tweetiepy]

There doesn't seem to be anything out there that counts DNFs,

 

Geocaching.com counts DNF logs for you, but only you can see it.

 

I actually like seeing this on my page, then I know that I tried this one and that I can go back and find it at a later date - or see something that will jog my memory. I like seeing my numbers go up but I'm not really about those, but it's nice to know that I actually got out and about when I see where I've been

[+Dame Deco]

I don't fail to log them because I see it as a personal failure--I don't want the CO to worry about the cache if I didn't really look for it hard enough. Could be there are a lot of folks like that--probably more than folks who don't log because they see it as a personal failure, anyway.

[+Redfist]

If I actually spend time looking, I'll log a DNF. If I'm in a huge rush and only give a 10 second glance I won't bother since it doesn't have the same implication. If there was a "barely glanced and didn't find it - go figure", I'd do that a lot.

 

When I see a DNF, I assume it meant "I spent a reasonable amount of time and came up empty". To me, that means I should be prepared to do a more extensive search. My barely glanced doesn't warrant the same amount of concern.

[+Dame Deco]

exactly--

[+dprovan]

That's generally what I do too. I ignore difficult caches (D rating 3.5 or over) because I don't enjoy not finding a cache. When I look for D3 or under caches, I expect that the CO wants the cache to be found. I log a DNF to help future finders and the CO. I do not log a DNF if the CO plays unfairly:

• creates a needle-in-a-haystack cache and gives it a low difficulty rating (3 or under)
• hides a cache where there are a ton of possible hiding spots then doesn't provide a hint
• the hint is "email me for a hint" or "log a DNF and email me for a hint".

Those are the times I make sure to log a DNF explaining why I think I failed so other seekers don't waste their time, or at least know what they're in for.

[+Bear and Ragged]

I don't fail to log them because I see it as a personal failure--I don't want the CO to worry about the cache if I didn't really look for it hard enough. Could be there are a lot of folks like that--probably more than folks who don't log because they see it as a personal failure, anyway.

 

Log the DNF, but put a reason in, eg Didn't have a lot of time to look, Gave up as it was starting to get busy, etc.

 

If I got a DNF like that on my cache, I wouldn't be too concerned, if I read it on a cache I might be going to look for it wouldn't concern me too much.

 

If no one finds the cache, but refuse to log DNF's, how is a cache owner to know the cache IS being searched for, but there might be a problem?

[Clan Riffster]

If a site is crappy and there's nothing special about the hide, we don't care about trying again and won't bother with a DNF.

As a notorious DNF hound, and despiser of all things lame, I take a slightly different approach. If I find a cache which sucks so bad that there is nothing good I can say about it, I just walk away without logging a find. But if I fail to find a cache, no matter how sucky it is, I log it every time. Love my DNFs!

[+geocat_]

Although I despise DNFs, I always log them. Helps attentive COs. What I really enjoy is AVENGING DNFs!!! And according to GSAK, I have done this 272 times So join in the fun! But in order to do so you must first LOG YOUR DNFs PEOPLE!

[+c1nn4m0n]

Just getting back to this thread and I'm SO HAPPY to see that there are others who feel the way I do. The way I see it ALL logs show a full picture of a cache's life. There's nothing wrong with not being able to find every cache the first time!

[+edscott]

I like to keep track of my DNFs as I do finds, its where I was, shows a record. Just part of the story.

 

I'm at 722... maybe by the time I get to 1000 someone will have made a commemorative coin. .. or at least a souvenir. []