Jump to content

To DNF or not DNF


SYOTT

Recommended Posts

I have followed the "Didn't find it = DNF" path for maybe 6 months now. I'm starting to see a pattern though that is not positive. What is happening is that because I look long and hard before I log a DNF those that follow feel comforted by it and also DNF easily. I don't want to see those caches archived - they are probably still there and I just couldn't find it because, let's face it, I am an average seeker. Archiving is not good - the caches wouldn't meet the Guidelines today.

 

So I conclude that DNF'ing is not a universal thing - it depends on the circumstances. And that, in my circumstances, I need to be a bit more circumspect before I log a DNF.

 

Geoff aka Tyreless

I wouldn't stress too much over possible reactions to my DNF/Note/Whatever log. If the cache owner is active, and they are doing the job they agreed to do when they posted the cache for publication, (performing needed maintenance), it will not get archived. They'll see the string of DNFs and respond accordingly. If the owner s absent, or they are a numbers oriented cacher who can't be bothered with pesky things like maintenance, then the cache might be archived, as it should be.

Link to comment

Using that thinking, 95% of DNF's shouldn't have DNF logs. Except in a few cases, you have no idea if the cache is there or not unless you find it. So if you haven't found it, how can you tell if it's missing or you've just missed it? So by not finding it, "in reality you have no idea if its there or not" so (by you statement above)how can you post a DNF?

 

The statement is not "the container is missing" but "with my experience and after reasonable search I can state that the container might be missing".

A DNF log is not to indicate the cache may be missing - it for reporting that the hunter Did Not Find, a simple statement of fact. An assumption/opinion (i.e.. the cache is missing)can be expressed in the content of the log, but not by log type. There have been a number threads about cachers with the "if I can't find it, it must be missing" mentality (and none are positive threads about this attitude).

Link to comment

A DNF log is not to indicate the cache may be missing - it for reporting that the hunter Did Not Find, a simple statement of fact. An assumption/opinion (i.e.. the cache is missing)can be expressed in the content of the log, but not by log type. There have been a number threads about cachers with the "if I can't find it, it must be missing" mentality (and none are positive threads about this attitude).

 

My words were that if I looked for some cache for a reasonable time period and found nothing, taking into account my experience, the difficulty of the cache and other circumstances, I can say that the cache is probably missing. (Sorry if my English was not good enough). I don't say the cache is missing or must be missing. This is my explanation of the blue smiley; other may have their own versions, for instance, as it was said, some people believe that their hunt starts when they leave their homes. As we can see from this thread already it's not that simple. I don't expect everybody following my way of thinking but since the original question was "To DNF or not DNF" and described some very specific situation I would answer that in my opinion it wasn't a DNF case because the cache hunter didn't do any search for the container and even didn't get to the GZ.

Link to comment

The statement is not "the container is missing" but "with my experience and after reasonable search I can state that the container might be missing".

 

Mine isn't as specific as yours is.

"with my experience and after reasonable search or due to <insert extraordinary circumstance here> I can state that I did not find the container"

 

I don't like that DNF has become synonymous with the container is missing. If you think that the container is missing then that is what a NM log is for.

Link to comment

 

I don't start searching for the cache until I reach GZ. If I haven't searched for the cache, then it doesn't make sense to say that I did not find it.

 

Quite right....a very simple concept that seems difficult for some to grasp.

 

I think that is a simple concept which is easy to understand.

 

As is the concept "The hunt starts as soon as I press go on my GPSr".

 

And I don't think it really matters if we play it different ways.***

 

I don't use either of these concepts, instead I log what feels right to me on a case by case basis. But generally, if I was trying to "find it" but getting to GZ was just too difficult for me, I will post a DNF.

 

Take for example a cache hidden the middle of a large outdoor maze. I spend hours going around trying to find my way, and I just can't. After 3 hours I give up. To me, I just spent 3 hours "looking" for that cache...even if I never got to GZ. (I know there aren't many caches in mazes.. but there are many where getting to GZ itself is a big part of the challenge).

 

But if I was walking down an ordinary trail and half way there my wife calls and I have to go home, I won't log an DNF.

 

*** Note: While I say it doesn't matter, one thing to consider is that DNF logs will more likely get looked at. For me (and I think many cachers), if I see a DNF (or several DNFs) that indicates there MIGHT be an issue and I will read them to see what it might be. The fact that the last logs were DNFs will show up on the query I do as well. I am less likely to notice a "Note" log. So, if there is a safety issue and you want to increase the likelyhood of people reading it, I think a DNF log will be more effective than a note.

Link to comment

So I was out caching yesterday and came across a situation... got within 10m of GZ and realized that with the extra rain we had over the past few days, crossing the brook to the cache had become too dangerous. I tried every avenue but had to call it due to safety.

 

Would you log this as a DNF??? Technically I wasn't in the "looking for the container" phase... I was approaching GZ and turned around. Personally, I put this in the "did not attempt" category... I put a note on the cache page, but did not log as a DNF

 

Opinions?

 

Not a DNF, but a note about the rain-swollen brook would hardly go amiss to advise other cachers.

 

Logs are informative as well as mathematical accumulators.

Link to comment

We have 84 DNFs and 733 finds. That's an 11% DNF rate. A few of those caches were actually missing, but most of the time we just did not find them. Most we managed to go back and find another day. For us that means at least one DNF log stating that we're blind and clueless, then (hopefully) a final log that states that we don't know how we could have been so blind and clueless the first (or second or third) time.

 

I don't consider a DNF to mean the cache is likely missing - I don't care how much "experience" a cacher has, we all have wonky caching days. In fact, if a cache has a string of DNFs, we're compelled to take a shot at it. We're not only blind and clueless, we're stubborn, too.

 

Our official hunt starts at ground zero, so if we do a few loops around the tree, we'll post a DNF. If we can't get to ground zero for a critical reason (tree down, flooding, etc) we will post a note because we think it's important for others to know. If we don't get there for other reasons and really wish we had, we'll write a note so the cache owner knows that someone cares about his/her cache. I think online logs are not just informative, but are also a public way to praise great cache owners. :)

Link to comment

I left home today with the intention of getting every geocache listed on gc.com. However, I had to return home sadly short of my goal. Now, logging all these dnf's is driving me crazy.

 

If I head towards a cache and give up before I even get close enough to look for it, I wouldn't log a dnf. Of course I didn't find it. I didn't even LOOK for it.

Link to comment

If I head towards a cache and give up before I even get close enough to look for it, I wouldn't log a dnf. Of course I didn't find it. I didn't even LOOK for it.

 

If are stopped because of a washed out bridge and the cache you are heading for is still 20 more miles up a forest road that you just spent an hour traveling you wouldn't log a DNF because you didn't get close enough to look for it?

 

A DNF in this case will be helpful to alert other cachers to the situation so they won't have to waste their time discovering the washed out bride on their own. It will also be helpful to the cache owner to know that his cache is now much more difficult to get to, hopefully for only a short time but not always.

 

This isn't limited to just back country geocaches either. If I stumble upon a homeless camp in an urban area and it wasn't mentioned in the cache description I'm going to log a DNF even though I didn't actively look for the geocache. It lets me know why I didn't find if I put back on my to find list and it lets others who may not be comfortable looking for a geocache in someones living room of the situation.

 

These are just two of many situations where logging a DNF is appropriate even tho the cacher didn't close enough to look for the cache.

Link to comment

I don't like that DNF has become synonymous with the container is missing

 

As I tried to explain, this was just misunderstanding. Of course I didn't mean they were synonyms.

 

It's a common misunderstanding. Especially when reviewers will disable a cache after only a couple of DNFs, then declare that the cache container isn't there, and that the cache owner needs to replace the cache container or archive the listing. Stuff like that only reenforces the misconception that DNF is synonyms with missing container.

Link to comment

Maybe it's that I found hundreds of geocaches before I had a GOTO button to push. Maybe it's that I rarely go on "geocaching trips", but instead include a bit of geocaching when doing something else. But to me, this doesn't seem like a clear place to draw the line at all.

 

I don't start searching for the cache until I reach GZ. If I haven't searched for the cache, then it doesn't make sense to say that I did not find it.

 

It's probably just a difference in local conditions. I did say there are many opinions as to when a hunt starts, didn't I? Locally, and often elsewhere, I'm only going to even get close to GZ by pushing that GOTO button and following the GPS. Thus I consider that the start of my hunt. If you already know how to get to GZ without glancing at a GPS and/or map then that is a bonus I guess. Or maybe you don't include finding GZ as part of the hunt in your definition of searching. That is a valid opinion of course. My definition works for me equally. Randomly walking into the mountains to GZ first and then seeing what cache might be there escapes me.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

My words were that if I looked for some cache for a reasonable time period and found nothing, taking into account my experience, the difficulty of the cache and other circumstances, I can say that the cache is probably missing.

I try very hard to put only facts in my DNF logs, not conclusions. The fact is I couldn't find it. The fact is the hint says it's hanging 6' in a tree, and the only thing at GZ was a freshly cut stump. Yes, sometimes my experience tells me where it would be, and it wasn't there. I report those things. Does any of that mean it's probably missing? I don't know, that's a conclusion only someone that knows where the cache is could make.

 

At first, I started doing this to avoid looking foolish when I declared it was missing and the next seeker with more experience said it was an easy find. But as time goes on, I've found it keeps my attitudes right and, in particular, it helps me keep my mind open to new possibilities rather than prematurely concluding while I'm searching that it's probably missing. As it happens, it also makes my logs clearer since the reader doesn't have to sort fact from opinion.

Link to comment
I don't like that DNF has become synonymous with the container is missing.
Agreed. I've logged as many as 6 DNFs on a single cache before finally returning yet again and spotting it. It was there the whole time. I just didn't find it during any of my earlier searches.

 

If are stopped because of a washed out bridge and the cache you are heading for is still 20 more miles up a forest road that you just spent an hour traveling you wouldn't log a DNF because you didn't get close enough to look for it?
If the story is relevant to the cache, then I'd log a DNS (Did Not Search) as a Note.
Link to comment

It's a common misunderstanding. Especially when reviewers will disable a cache after only a couple of DNFs, then declare that the cache container isn't there, and that the cache owner needs to replace the cache container or archive the listing. Stuff like that only reenforces the misconception that DNF is synonyms with missing container.

 

Then we're lucky in our region. A couple of DNFs? I'm surprised that there are reviewers that used to hurry so much. The idea that DNF is not a synonym to a missing container is so basic that it seems any reviwer should understand it. Especially if we take into account that some people log DNFs without actually searching for containers.

Link to comment

My words were that if I looked for some cache for a reasonable time period and found nothing, taking into account my experience, the difficulty of the cache and other circumstances, I can say that the cache is probably missing.

I try very hard to put only facts in my DNF logs, not conclusions. The fact is I couldn't find it.

 

And I agree with that. (I wonder why people like this point so much? This must be a painful problem in geocaching) Have you ever thought that there was a chance that container could be stolen? Never? I think that situations may be different.

Link to comment

Have you ever thought that there was a chance that container could be stolen?

I may have thought a container was missing -- I'm not sure how I would know it was specifically stolen, but let's not worry about that -- but I don't feel that my thoughts are relevant to the log. If I present all the facts I have, and my thinking is valid, then anyone else will be able to reach the same conclusion. On the other hand, if I've missed something, yet state my thoughts about it being stolen anyway, then people reading my log might mistakenly think I have addition information that I haven't presented.

 

Never?

I'm speaking generally. There have been some exceptions where I thought the container had to be missing and said so. Normally I back up such statements with the facts, but when the problem is at a puzzle GZ, I sometimes have to be coy to avoid giving away the puzzle solution.

Link to comment

 

I don't start searching for the cache until I reach GZ. If I haven't searched for the cache, then it doesn't make sense to say that I did not find it.

 

Quite right....a very simple concept that seems difficult for some to grasp.

We just beta tested my latest night cache Wherigo Saturday night. The container was located after about 4 hours of hiking & bush whacking. To date, (with the occasional exception of certain numbers oriented cachers), I have yet to meet any cacher who believes they are not geocaching until they get to ground zero. For everyone I know, the "hunt" starts as soon as you start the process, which oft involves more than walking 15' from their air conditioned SUVs.

 

A very simple concept that seems difficult for some to grasp.

Link to comment

For everyone I know, the "hunt" starts as soon as you start the process, which oft involves more than walking 15' from their air conditioned SUVs.

 

A very simple concept that seems difficult for some to grasp.

^ ^ ^

This.

 

I couldn't agree more. And most cachers I know feel the same way.

 

For anything other than a park-and-grab, getting to GZ is a meaningful part of the hunt for the cache. I've found many caches where getting to the location was 99% of the challenge, and finding the cache was by far the easiest part.

 

Thinking about it, those are my favorite kinds of caches.

 

--Larry

 

Edited to add that I'm NOT referring to driving to the closest parking spot as part of the hunt, though that can sometimes be a bit of a challenge in itself. I'm referring to what happens after I get out of the car. Once I leave the car and start the journey on foot, if I don't find the cache it's a DNF. What could be simpler?

Edited by larryc43230
Link to comment

My take: Do what you want. Log it as a DNF or as a Note, but by all means log it.

 

Arguing about whether my cache hunt started when I got on my bike for a 20 km bike ride/cache hunt isn't productive, IMHO. Everyone has their own viewpoint. The thread seems to be about 50/50 DNF vs Note, and that's fine.

Link to comment
I have yet to meet any cacher who believes they are not geocaching until they get to ground zero.
I may or may not be geocaching before I reach GZ. If it's a geocaching-specific trip, then sure, I might be geocaching the whole time. But more often, I'm backpacking, or hiking, or cycling, or driving, or running errands, or visiting relatives, or on my way home, or whatever else, and the geocaching time is just a small part of the overall trip.

 

But that's really beside the point. Geocaching involves a lot of different things to me: solving puzzles, choosing caches to search for, navigating to GZ, picking up trash, attending events, camouflaging containers, searching for caches, planning hides, downloading cache data, taking in locations that caches brought me to, posting online logs, creating PQs, restocking my geocaching kit, making personal sig items, and so on. Just because I'm geocaching doesn't mean I'm searching for a cache. And generally, it's the searching for a cache part that produces a Find. Or a DNF.

 

IMHO, and all that.

Link to comment

For everyone I know, the "hunt" starts as soon as you start the process, which oft involves more than walking 15' from their air conditioned SUVs.

 

DNF = did not find, and find means there was some search for the cache before that. I cannot log DNF if I didn't search.

 

Once I planned to find a series of 7 geocaches along a pathway near Liffey, they were in my 'geocaching schedule' for that afternoon. I could say that my hunt started early that morning. I enjoyed walking in Phoenix Park so much that it was late when I got to the mentioned series of Liffey caches. I managed to find only one of the series. Spent much time desperately looking for another one but failed (so DNF). When I approached the next cache I realized it was too dark to search for a little container. So I abandoned the idea and just enjoyed my stroll along Liffey, passing all cache locations by. I even walked to a couple of GZs (since they were a step from the path). I didn't log the caches of these series as DNF because I didn't search for them except for the first two. Were my actions anything wrong or unusual?

Link to comment

While I am one of those who feels the hunt can start before I get to GZ, reading the "Help Center" it seems the recommended answer is to log a note in this specific case.

 

Geocache Log Types

 

Didn't Find It (aka: DNF)

 

Use if you looked for a geocache and you couldn't find it. Share your story and let others know if you were able to see evidence of a critter making off with or destroying the geocache (half eaten lids), muggle activity (swag all spread out outside the geocache), or if you were just off your "caching game" for the day. It's best to remain humble in a DNF log - because we've learned that the geocache is most likely there...staring at you, mocking you, and waiting for you to come back and try again.

 

Bad example of a DNF: It's not there - I looked and looked...geocache is gone.

Good example of a DNF: Bummer! We looked and looked for this one today. Guess we'll have to come back and try again another day.

It is important to post a DNF. If a cache owner sees a string of DNFs on the geocache page they will usually check to see if it is still there. Also, it will alert other finders of the possibility that the geocache either is missing or super tough to find.

 

 

Write Note

 

There are many reasons to write a note, including:

 

You are a cache owner and just checked on your geocache to make sure it is there. (some cache owners prefer to use a Owner Maintenance log for this, instead)

 

You visited a Challenge Cache that you don't yet qualify for and signed the log, but are not allowed to log a 'Found It' on it yet. You can let others know that you visited the geocache, signed the log, and are excited to log it as 'Found' someday.

 

You are dropping a Trackable into the geocache, but you have already logged a find on it.

 

News or relevant information. (ex: "wildfire in area - you may want to disable this geocache for now", "beehive next to geocache - we left without looking for it", "road closed", etc.)

Link to comment

For everyone I know, the "hunt" starts as soon as you start the process, which oft involves more than walking 15' from their air conditioned SUVs.

 

DNF = did not find

Okay, we're good so far.

 

and find means there was some search for the cache

I think your logic train may have jumped its tracks. Here's why. A few days ago, whilst meandering through a local patch of woods, I saw a prescription medicine bottle covered in camo duct tape laying just off the trail. Sure enough, it was someone's idea of a geocache. Did I find it? I certainly wasn't searching for it. I can provide the coordinates, if you would like to check the log. You'll see my moniker there. I think the general consensus would count that as a find.

 

For the record, I did not log it as a find. For a couple reasons. First, I don't generally log finds on caches which really suck. A camo pill bottle with a damp log certainly qualifies as suckage. Second, I don't generally log finds on caches which violate the guidelines. This pill bottle resides within an area called the Black Bear Wilderness Area, part of the Seminole County Natural Lands. They have an ammo can only rule. I'm not sure how this stinker even got published. Third, I can't find the listing. There were two signatures before mine. I'm not sure if that means it got archived, or if it means it's only listed somewhere else. I did search for the listing, so I could post an NA, but I failed to find it.

 

I cannot log DNF if I didn't search.

Actually, you can log a DNF anytime. Give it a try. Your computer won't stop you.

 

I suspect Tricia has the healthiest viewpoint, when she mentioned that everybody has their own viewpoint on the matter. I can suggest reasons why I feel a DNF is appropriate, for me, in certain circumstances, and I'm sure you can suggest reasons why a note, or no log at all, would be appropriate, for you, in those same circumstances. Does that make either of us wrong? Of course not. This is not a black & white issue, where the standards are rigidly set in stone. Rather, this issue is subjective. Largely a matter of personal preference. So long as you are not condescending about your opinion, treating it as 'the one truth', I think there's room enough in this game for both of us. B)

Link to comment

If you can't get close to GZ you really haven't looked....putting a blue face on the cache page is telling future seekers that the cache might not be there when in reality you have no idea if its there or not. I would post a note so folks would know about the water.

 

I also think like that.

 

I do not agree with Bamboozle. In general, DNF for me just means that I did not find something and not that something might not be there. I have written quite a number of DNF logs where I was for certain reasons sure that the cache is still there and many other DNF logs where I wrote that I have no reason to assume that the cache is not there any longer.

 

Just the other day I had the situation that I came across a T=1.5* rated cache placed on an art sculpture where I could not reach the only places where the cache could be.

Not even when placing two boxes of overall height around 20cm and putting them on the basement of the sculpture and getting up there I could get up high enough to technically search at that location. A hint would be much too harmless for me in case of such a failure. I do want other cachers become aware of the fact that they have a high risk to fail if they have similar physical parameters than I do have. In the case posted by the OP it might also make sense to alert future searchers of this cache. Whether a cache is missing or it cannot be reached by a certain group (or no one at all at the moment) does not make a big difference for me.

 

I also log DNFs for tree caches where I realize at the location that I cannot reach the cache. There is no "did not succeed" log and notes are often too general and too easily overlooked.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

To me a cache hunt has two primary elements, the journey to ground zero and the physical act of looking for the container. Often the actual search is the anticlimax, as the journey was very rewarding or challenging, or both, yet the cache was spotted from 50 feet away. I actually prefer those kinds of caches because geocaching to me is about the adventure, not a box of trinkets, or piece of paper to sign, or a +1 in my profile.

 

It's why I consider the entire hunt, beginning to end, when deciding whether to log a DNF, and I consider the hunt to have started the moment I call up the cache coordinates in the GPS and hit Go To.

 

If I fail to reach ground zero because my route was blocked by a raging river did I hunt for the cache? I most certainly did. Did I physically search? Obviously not. That's a DNF in my book.

 

I bet if you were to poll people you'd find that the numbers hounds and P&G enthusiasts would largely fall into the "Reach ground zero and search" camp, while the people who cache for the same reasons as I do will mostly consider the entire experience when posting their log.

 

What I don't get is why many in the former camp seem to insist that we are wrong. We're not wrong, we simply think differently.

Link to comment

If you can't get close to GZ you really haven't looked....putting a blue face on the cache page is telling future seekers that the cache might not be there when in reality you have no idea if its there or not. I would post a note so folks would know about the water.

 

I also think like that.

 

I do not agree with Bamboozle. In general, DNF for me just means that I did not find something and not that something might not be there. I have written quite a number of DNF logs where I was for certain reasons sure that the cache is still there and many other DNF logs where I wrote that I have no reason to assume that the cache is not there any longer.

 

Just the other day I had the situation that I came across a T=1.5* rated cache placed on an art sculpture where I could not reach the only places where the cache could be.

Not even when placing two boxes of overall height around 20cm and putting them on the basement of the sculpture and getting up there I could get up high enough to technically search at that location. A hint would be much too harmless for me in case of such a failure. I do want other cachers become aware of the fact that they have a high risk to fail if they have similar physical parameters than I do have. In the case posted by the OP it might also make sense to alert future searchers of this cache. Whether a cache is missing or it cannot be reached by a certain group (or no one at all at the moment) does not make a big difference for me.

 

I also log DNFs for tree caches where I realize at the location that I cannot reach the cache. There is no "did not succeed" log and notes are often too general and too easily overlooked.

 

 

Cezanne

 

You make some good points. In your scenarios, I too would post a DNF because they are stronger points then a note, i.e. draws attention to potential issues. And I'd include a comment that the terrain rating is too low, or the tree cache doesn't have a tree attribute.

 

If the tree cache had a tree attribute and I failed to notice it (but I filter those out) I would probably just walk away and not post anything. A DNF for a tree climb cache where the owner is clear it's a tree climb and I made the mistake of not reading or not filtering, doesn't seem to warrant a DNF or a Note.

 

Often if I see that the last log was a DNF I skip the cache - there are too many fish in the sea to potentially waste time on one that might not be there or is difficult to find. I'm not particularly interested in challenges - I'm just looking for a pleasant walk to a pleasant location with a reasonable search at the end. So for me, I see the DNF as information for the next finder and to alert the CO. They can potentially ward off cachers, so I use mine in that context.

Link to comment

To me a cache hunt has two primary elements, the journey to ground zero and the physical act of looking for the container. Often the actual search is the anticlimax, as the journey was very rewarding or challenging, or both, yet the cache was spotted from 50 feet away. I actually prefer those kinds of caches because geocaching to me is about the adventure, not a box of trinkets, or piece of paper to sign, or a +1 in my profile.

 

It's why I consider the entire hunt, beginning to end, when deciding whether to log a DNF, and I consider the hunt to have started the moment I call up the cache coordinates in the GPS and hit Go To.

 

If I fail to reach ground zero because my route was blocked by a raging river did I hunt for the cache? I most certainly did. Did I physically search? Obviously not. That's a DNF in my book.

 

I bet if you were to poll people you'd find that the numbers hounds and P&G enthusiasts would largely fall into the "Reach ground zero and search" camp, while the people who cache for the same reasons as I do will mostly consider the entire experience when posting their log.

 

What I don't get is why many in the former camp seem to insist that we are wrong. We're not wrong, we simply think differently.

 

But to be honest, we on the "hunt starts when goto is hit" side are more right than you on the "hunt only happens at gz" side! :P

That was a joke son,,,

 

I agree with Briansnat. There is no right or wrong with either way of thinking on this. The important thing is that most of us agree that a descriptive note or dnf log can be of service to others.

Link to comment

For everyone I know, the "hunt" starts as soon as you start the process, which oft involves more than walking 15' from their air conditioned SUVs.

 

DNF = did not find, and find means there was some search for the cache before that. I cannot log DNF if I didn't search.

 

 

Exactly....there is a big difference in " searching " for a cache and " hiking " or " driving " to a cache.

Many of us feel to not find you have to search. Others, not so. This topic comes around about every 6 months or so , runs a few pages, and ends deadlocked. It seems like there are a handful of these kinds of posts they could pin for future reference ( buried caches , evils of power trails , evils of micros , etc )...a newcomer could be pointed in the right direction.

Link to comment

And I agree with that. (I wonder why people like this point so much? This must be a painful problem in geocaching) Have you ever thought that there was a chance that container could be stolen? Never? I think that situations may be different.

 

Of course that can happen, but I often leave before having explored every possible hideout and still log did not find. Did not find does not mean that I have to explore all possible hideouts. Sometimes I lose the motivation after two minutes and then I write exactly that into my DNF log. Of course there are cases where even after 2 minutes I get a feeling that a cache could have gone missing, but that does not happen that often within such a short time.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Exactly....there is a big difference in " searching " for a cache and " hiking " or " driving " to a cache.

Many of us feel to not find you have to search. Others, not so.

 

But even those who think that you have to search differ when the search starts and how long it has to take.

 

While I can understand that not everyone regards the point of pressing the goto button as start of the search, I cannot understand

that many cachers seem to believe that DNF logs are due only when one has searched at all places one could think of. I certainly will not

remove the dust from every dirty corner at an urban micro. Either I find it quickly or I write a DNF log.

 

Moreover, for caches where not all hideouts are in terrain reachable to me, how could I ever explore all hideouts?

Sometimes I'm quite sure that the cache is hidden at a place I cannot reach and the only thing I can do is check the hideouts that

are reachable to me and then write a DNF log.

 

I think you will not be able to come up with a definition of when the search really starts. Does the search for a tree cache that cannot be seen

from the ground only start when you climb up high enough to be potentially able to see it? How do you know without seeing the cache

if you have been up high enough? Have you then searched from your personal point of view?

 

How to you define GZ for a high cliff, tree etc?

 

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Exactly....there is a big difference in " searching " for a cache and " hiking " or " driving " to a cache.

Many of us feel to not find you have to search. Others, not so.

 

But even those who think that you have to search differ when the search starts and how long it has to take.

 

While I can understand that not everyone regards the point of pressing the goto button as start of the search, I cannot understand

that many cachers seem to believe that DNF logs are due only when one has searched at all places one could think of. I certainly will not

remove the dust from every dirty corner at an urban micro. Either I find it quickly or I write a DNF log.

 

Moreover, for caches where not all hideouts are in terrain reachable to me, how could I ever explore all hideouts?

Sometimes I'm quite sure that the cache is hidden at a place I cannot reach and the only thing I can do is check the hideouts that

are reachable to me and then write a DNF log.

 

I think you will not be able to come up with a definition of when the search really starts. Does the search for a tree cache that cannot be seen

from the ground only start when you climb up high enough to be potentially able to see it? How do you know without seeing the cache

if you have been up high enough? Have you then searched from your personal point of view?

 

How to you define GZ for a high cliff, tree etc?

 

 

 

Cezanne

 

What we try to do is take in consideration the diff and ter ratings. For instance, if a search for a diff 4 cache is interrupted by homeless persons or wasps after only just beginning the search ( say 2 minutes ) I won't log a DNF as I don't feel 2 minutes is adequate for us to find a diff 4 cache....I will post a note log describing what happened. On the same cache if we searched 45 minutes and couldn't come up with it we proudly log a DNF.

 

When a cache is on a cliff or tree top the terr rating will tell the tale. If I get to GZ and realize I can't physically get it ( in some cases we can even see the cache ) I again write a note to the cache.....actually on high terr ratings we read closely before even attempting.....last week there was a series high in trees where climbing gear was needed so we didn't bother going.

Link to comment

What we try to do is take in consideration the diff and ter ratings. For instance, if a search for a diff 4 cache is interrupted by homeless persons or wasps after only just beginning the search ( say 2 minutes ) I won't log a DNF as I don't feel 2 minutes is adequate for us to find a diff 4 cache....I will post a note log describing what happened. On the same cache if we searched 45 minutes and couldn't come up with it we proudly log a DNF.

 

Actually, I do not understand why you make this distinction. I log a DNF as a statement of a fact - I do not associate pride, anger, shame or whatever with that.

If I stop my search after a short time or if I did not inspect all hideouts, I mention that of course in my DNF log.

 

When a cache is on a cliff or tree top the terr rating will tell the tale.

 

Not necessarily in my area. The tree climbing icon is typically only set for challenging trees and in particular if climbing equipment is needed.

There are many trees where most cachers in my area succeed easily (they could be rated as low as 2* sometimes), but I fail. There might however be 1 out 100 such occasions where I can be successful as well, but it's absolutely impossible to say that before. I already had cases where later on it turned out that the cache was in easier terrain as I had thought and that I overlooked it and in other cases I searched in too easy terrain and did not find a cache because I never got there where it was hidden.

 

If I get to GZ and realize I can't physically get it ( in some cases we can even see the cache ) I again write a note to the cache..

 

In that way it can easily happen that the notes never will attract the attention of those who might experience the same problems than you.

I have no reason whatsoever to refrain from logging a DNF if I was at the cache coordinates and did not find the cache.

 

I'm happy about each DNF log that is logged by someone who is of about the same height than I'm. A single note in 100 found it logs is easily overlooked. (As a cache owner I read all logs, but I cannot read all logs for all caches that I ever might get to visit.)

A DNF log catches my attention and I then will read what the cacher has to report.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

So I was out caching yesterday and came across a situation... got within 10m of GZ and realized that with the extra rain we had over the past few days, crossing the brook to the cache had become too dangerous. I tried every avenue but had to call it due to safety.

 

Would you log this as a DNF??? Technically I wasn't in the "looking for the container" phase... I was approaching GZ and turned around. Personally, I put this in the "did not attempt" category... I put a note on the cache page, but did not log as a DNF

 

Opinions?

My opinion is that it really doesn't matter as much as some people may make it seem. A note and a DNF log both arrive in the inbox of the owner and others who are watching or have notifications set up for their bookmarks.

 

Personally, I don't get too concerned with the whole "I wasn't AT the coordinates, so I won't log a DNF" aspect of the argument. For your example, specifically, I would have logged a DNF. 10m from a cache's GZ on my GPS is a reasonable amount of error to say I was within the GZ circle, easily.

 

The idea of logging something is important in this case. It is very helpful for the owner and other seekers for future maintenance needs or cache hunts. Who knows, the cache may have been within the 10m, and washed away with the stream. 10m is, I think, well within a "searching for the container" range. Some coordinates can be off by that much, and I can think of many, many instances where 10m+ of error were present at a cache site.

Link to comment

 

I don't start searching for the cache until I reach GZ. If I haven't searched for the cache, then it doesn't make sense to say that I did not find it.

 

Quite right....a very simple concept that seems difficult for some to grasp.

Not difficult to grasp, just so very limited - looking for the box is such a small portion of the hunt. I start searching for a cache sometimes long before I leave the house. Consulting maps and sat photo's, reading past logs, planning routes, loading the data - all are part of the search (not every cache has all these elements, and some more than others). So when I finally hit the GOTO that's just the beginning of the active portion of the search. Pretty much anything that stops me from finding the cache from that point on is a DNF - I've logged DNF's for car accidents, weather, snow on the road (you try corssing the Rockies on dirt roads in May!) and other reasons that kept me from reaching GZ.

Link to comment

Regardless of which camp you are in regarding when "looking" starts - one reason why a cacher might prefer to log a DNF is it clearly shows for them on the cache page.

 

A year or 2 later I might be looking at a cache page, and not remember that I tried that one before and failed. (Let's use as an example I failed as I decided I was not physically able enough to get to GZ... be that climbing a tree or a cliff). If I log a note; yes I can see it if I specifically look at my logs. But if I logged a DNF, I see a big blue frowny face saying I didn't find it and the date. That will prompt me to look at the log and see why I didn't find it.

Link to comment

I would rather have a cacher log that situation as a Note. Here is the reasoning. I run a quick PQ and load it to gsak. I run down the list and anything with a couple DNF's I delete before I load to gps. Usually the case where I am going to a new area and only have a limited time to cache. I don't want to waste it going to caches that haven't been found the last few times. Now when I have more time to cache I will not eliminate those caches from the list.

Link to comment

I would rather have a cacher log that situation as a Note. Here is the reasoning. I run a quick PQ and load it to gsak. I run down the list and anything with a couple DNF's I delete before I load to gps. Usually the case where I am going to a new area and only have a limited time to cache. I don't want to waste it going to caches that haven't been found the last few times. Now when I have more time to cache I will not eliminate those caches from the list.

 

But when you visit an area and have a very tight schedule, you might not be happy with ending up at a cache where you cannot even reach GZ due to the same reason the cacher before might have written a DNF log. The same is true if someone has to leave due to a very high muggle activity which made a cacher give up after say 30 minutes.

In your situation you definitely would want to avoid such caches. So that's rather an argument for a DNF as the reason in these caches was not something like a call from a family member that made the person return, but a reason inherent to the cache.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I would rather have a cacher log that situation as a Note. Here is the reasoning. I run a quick PQ and load it to gsak. I run down the list and anything with a couple DNF's I delete before I load to gps. Usually the case where I am going to a new area and only have a limited time to cache. I don't want to waste it going to caches that haven't been found the last few times. Now when I have more time to cache I will not eliminate those caches from the list.

 

But when you visit an area and have a very tight schedule, you might not be happy with ending up at a cache where you cannot even reach GZ due to the same reason the cacher before might have written a DNF log. The same is true if someone has to leave due to a very high muggle activity which made a cacher give up after say 30 minutes.

In your situation you definitely would want to avoid such caches. So that's rather an argument for a DNF as the reason in these caches was not something like a call from a family member that made the person return, but a reason inherent to the cache.

 

Cezanne

 

I see both points here. I know that a DNF log may put off others trying for the cache. That won't stop me doing it in cases which I think are "geocaching relevant". (And that would include "I could not reach GZ as I did not dare cross the ravine on a narrow fallen tree"). That information might be useful for others (and it will get noticed more as a DNF than a note).

 

But it does stop me posting DNFs for things like "It started raining and I got cold", or "my wife called and said I had to come home urgently". For these I would either note or log nothing.

Link to comment

I don't want to waste it going to caches that haven't been found the last few times.

I guess it's because I'm not a numbers oriented cacher.

I can't fathom how participating in a hobby I love could ever be seen as a waste?

 

As baack40's full post explained, it is a matter of time and priority. I think many cachers who are not "numbers cachers" will consider recent DNF logs when deciding which cache to choose to go for. If I only have time for one more cache today, and there is a choice of two which are a similar distance and terrain (and appear to be of similar quality), but one of them the last 10 logs are DNFs, I will likely chose the other one. All things being equal I would rather look for a cache which I am likely to find. I don't think that makes me a numbers cacher.

 

On the other hand, if the one with the DNFs sounds to be in an amazing place, while the other one isn't, I may go for the one with the DNFs anyway. Especially if it is an an area I'm visiting.

 

Edit: It also will depend on the cache. If it has a lot of DNFs because it is challenging, then that might make me want to do it more. If seems an easy cache but suddenly has a string of DNFs (indicating it likely could be missing) then what I said above applies.

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

I would rather have a cacher log that situation as a Note. Here is the reasoning. I run a quick PQ and load it to gsak. I run down the list and anything with a couple DNF's I delete before I load to gps. Usually the case where I am going to a new area and only have a limited time to cache. I don't want to waste it going to caches that haven't been found the last few times. Now when I have more time to cache I will not eliminate those caches from the list.

 

I'm sure it's a numbers thing for most who automatically delete caches with dnfs from gsak but honestly, you are missing out on some good caches. While it's true a few dnfs can be an indication of a problem with a cache, it's definitely not 100%.

 

I've found many times that 2 or 3, or more, dnfs will come from a single group of cachers who just happened to miss finding the cache. Afterwards, we've gone in behind them and made the find. There have also been times when the dnfs had something in their logs to the affect that the person couldn't make it to ground zero for some reason, or that the cache was out of their reach, or that they didn't have the proper tool, or, etc,,,.

Link to comment

I would log it as a DNF. Though I don't think it matters much if a DNF or a note is logged.

 

My personal "guideline" is I log a DNF if I start the hunt and I don't find it because of a geocaching relevant reason. Examples of this include:

 

  1. The route was challenging to follow and I was unable to do it
  2. A bridge was out or a path was closed blocking access to GZ
  3. etc

 

I would post a note (or perhaps nothing) if I gave up because

 

  • I ran out of time
  • There was an emergency at home and I had to abort
  • etc

Great summary! I agree completely - but I might use DNF if I did a fairly thorogh search and had to leave early for personal reasons.

Link to comment

As baack40's full post explained, it is a matter of time and priority.

I think the number of DNFs for this proverbial cache have grown at an alarming rate. :lol:

 

With baack40's first post, they were talking about excluding a cache from their hunt list based on just two DNFs. Then, it grew to a 'few', which, to me, means between 3 and 5. Now we're up to 10 DNFs.

 

(Am I the only one running this through my head using Sesame Street's The Count's voice? "Two!... Two DNFs... Ah Ah Ah... Three!... Three DNFs!... Ah Ah Ah...")

 

Sorry. I'll get back on track now.

 

I think this is relevant to my numbers oriented cacher comment. from my experience, refusing to hunt for a cache simply because it has two DNFs is indicative of a numbers oriented cacher, who is into this hobby primarily for the increase in their find count, not for the experience of getting to ground zero, and the experience of searching for a cache. These folks care so much about the end result, that they won't even consider attempting one which has two DNFs. Undoubtably, there are exceptions. I just haven't noticed enough of them to make a trend. But at some point, I would agree that issues of time and priority come into play for even the most discerning cacher. 10 DNFs in a row would probably qualify. Like you, I'll still hunt these, but I'll save these hunts for when I know I can spend a significant amount of time at GZ.

Link to comment

But it does stop me posting DNFs for things like "It started raining and I got cold", or "my wife called and said I had to come home urgently". For these I would either note or log nothing.

 

I act similarly (apart from the fact that do not have a wife and I'm hardly ever get cold ;)). My reply to the post before mine to which you replied surprised me because the poster argued why he would log a note and not DNF in the case described by the OP and I found his argument surprising and not convincing at all as in his case he should be happy about a DNF log.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I would rather have a cacher log that situation as a Note. Here is the reasoning. I run a quick PQ and load it to gsak. I run down the list and anything with a couple DNF's I delete before I load to gps. Usually the case where I am going to a new area and only have a limited time to cache. I don't want to waste it going to caches that haven't been found the last few times. Now when I have more time to cache I will not eliminate those caches from the list.

 

It sounds like you also have a limited amount of time to prepare to go geocaching too. There is a reason that we are able to write comments when we make our DNF log entries. It is because a DNF does not mean that the container is missing. If you choose to interpret it that way then so be it but then there wouldn't be any reason to be able to write a comment.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...