To DNF or not DNF

[+larryc43230]

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,,,.

I'm more on Mudfrog's side on this one. I use GSAK to plan my caching, and I look at recent DNFs when I plan for which caches I want to put on my list to look for. However, I also always read the logs behind the DNFs. If there's a strong indication, from experienced cachers, that a cache might be missing, or a warning about problems like closed roads or bridges out, I take that cache off my list. On the other hand, if the DNFs are simply of the "came, looked, didn't find it" type, I might consider that cache a challenge and go for it.

 

I guess it depends to a large extent on how much advance planning, including reading, you're willing to dedicate to the hunt. In my case, I do quite a bit of it, and it's made my caching experience a whole lot more enjoyable.

 

--Larry

[+Glenn]

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,,,.

 

I think it is also a laziness thing. People want a computer program to weed out "problem" caches for them. I say that you get what you pay for. If you want a computer program to do the thinking for you then don't complain about the results. If you use the suggestion from the computer program but then invest a little time in investigating (reading the log entries) and thinking for yourself it will pay off.

[+Harry Dolphin]

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,,,.

 

I think it is also a laziness thing. People want a computer program to weed out "problem" caches for them. I say that you get what you pay for. If you want a computer program to do the thinking for you then don't complain about the results. If you use the suggestion from the computer program but then invest a little time in investigating (reading the log entries) and thinking for yourself it will pay off.

 

Let's see... I've got 4000 caches within 35 miles loaded into my GPS. I may find ten or fifteen this weekend. Why would I want to include those that may have problems? (Last two logs DNF.) Sure, I may miss out of some great caches where the last two cachers didn't want to walk on the wet grass. (Or for whatever reason they logged the DNFs.) So what? What am I missing? Lots of other caches nearby that don't have that problem. (Okay. Maybe there is not a problem. So what? Lots of other caches out there nearby to be found.) Any cache with the last two logs DNF are excluded from my GPS. Guess what? Lots of other caches for me to find! I don't see that I'm missing anything!

Hmm... Someone posted a DNF on one of my mystery caches "Can't figure out what the puzzle is the salt". I have no idea what that means. But if you wish to ignore the cache this weekend because of that DNF, go for it. Hundreds of other caches within a few miles. Go for them!

Most DNFs are meaningless. But I won't bother wasting my time on caches that may have a problem. Lots of other caches to find.

Not being lazy. Not letting a computer think for me. It may pay off with a find, sure. But why bother, when there are so many others that don't have those DNFs. Why bother even reading the cache page, when there are thousands of others out there with no listed problem?

Not understanding this argument.

[+Glenn]

Let's see... I've got 4000 caches within 35 miles loaded into my GPS. I may find ten or fifteen this weekend. Why would I want to include those that may have problems? (Last two logs DNF.) Sure, I may miss out of some great caches where the last two cachers didn't want to walk on the wet grass. (Or for whatever reason they logged the DNFs.) So what? What am I missing? Lots of other caches nearby that don't have that problem. (Okay. Maybe there is not a problem. So what? Lots of other caches out there nearby to be found.) Any cache with the last two logs DNF are excluded from my GPS. Guess what? Lots of other caches for me to find! I don't see that I'm missing anything!

 

Sorry, I tend to get wordy and my main idea tends to gets lost in the tumult of words. I should try being more succinct but since I am a habitual procrastinator, I'll leave that enterprise for another day.

 

I think that you have a healthy take on this whole thing. What grinds my gears are the people that don't want me to log a DNF unless I know that the cache is missing because they use a program that sorts out caches with multiple DNFs and it causes undesirable results for them. My main comment is that if you are going use a program to sort caches for you then don't complain about the results and defiantly don't expect me to change my well established logging practices to conform to your program.

[+redsox_mark]

My main comment is that if you are going use a program to sort caches for you then don't complain about the results and defiantly don't expect me to change my well established logging practices to conform to your program.

 

That is fair enough.

 

My only suggestion (and I'm not saying you would do this anyway) is: possibly consider how others will see a DNF. Many will be put off by it one way or another. For me, if the DNF is relevant, that is fine, I don't hesitate. But I won't log a DNF because I had to go home and feed the cat (and never got a chance to look).

 

Those who insist if they pressed "go" on the GPS it must end in a find or DNF of course can log it that way if they wish.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

One thing that hasn't been discussed is that the CO can simply delete logs that are incorrect or inappropriate.

In over 70,000 logs posted to my caches I don't recall ever deleting a " Found It " log. Regarding NA, NM, and DNF there have been probably a dozen or so deletions. The deleted NA and NM logs were posted mostly by new cachers who simply didn't find the cache ( the cache was always there and usually found before I could even get there to check it ). The DNF deletions where when the cache wasn't even looked for.....I remember once there were three in the same car, they chose to pass on one but all three logged a DNF....this would have inaccurately depicted the cache and many would have left it off PQ's, etc.

[+MKFmly]

SOT

 

It may pay off with a find, sure. But why bother, when there are so many others that don't have those DNFs.

 

The understanding is in appreciating that other cachers may have different motivations (among the broad spectrum) for caching. For some the find is the adventure/reward and they choose caches to support that motivation. For others the hunt is the adventure/reward, and they choose caches to support that motivation. They may view finding a cache that has DNF's, adds an additional challenge/motivation to the adventure.

[+Mudfrog]

The DNF deletions where when the cache wasn't even looked for.....I remember once there were three in the same car, they chose to pass on one but all three logged a DNF....this would have inaccurately depicted the cache and many would have left it off PQ's, etc.

 

Their DNFs did accurately depict what happened when they went for the cache. For what ever reason, they chose not to stop, and therefore did not find the cache.

 

People need to get past the notion that dnf means something horrible and look at the words themselves. DNF = Did Not Find. It by itself doesn't mean that the cache is missing or anything else. It simply means that the cache was not found. DNFs can be very informative when they're posted along with a log stating what occurred.

 

To be honest, i'm not concerned if a person skips a cache simply because they choose to look at the little red squares in GSAK but nothing else.

[Clan Riffster]

this would have inaccurately depicted the cache...

Uh... What? Sorry I don't grok.

A DNF doesn't depict anything about the cache itself.

The only depicting involved is from the perspective of the person who posted the DNF.

A DNF log depicts that a particular individual did not find a cache.

Nothing more, nothing less, unless conveyed by context.

[+NeverSummer]

One thing that hasn't been discussed is that the CO can simply delete logs that are incorrect or inappropriate.

In over 70,000 logs posted to my caches I don't recall ever deleting a " Found It " log. Regarding NA, NM, and DNF there have been probably a dozen or so deletions. The deleted NA and NM logs were posted mostly by new cachers who simply didn't find the cache ( the cache was always there and usually found before I could even get there to check it ). The DNF deletions where when the cache wasn't even looked for.....I remember once there were three in the same car, they chose to pass on one but all three logged a DNF....this would have inaccurately depicted the cache and many would have left it off PQ's, etc.

Deleting logs that might actually provide context to the hunt? Not having the intestinal fortitude to let a wayward NM or NA log slide? Not having the patience to shoot a kind email to the new cachers to outline what is going on, and what they might have missed?

 

That's a good ol' TFTC on 400 LA caches. (HaDD)

 

DNFs, NM and NA logs help lend some insight into any cache. Even a wayward NA or NM log is easy enough to ignore when one takes the time to read the logs and see what is going on. But reading is bad because freedom.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

this would have inaccurately depicted the cache...

Uh... What? Sorry I don't grok.

A DNF doesn't depict anything about the cache itself.

The only depicting involved is from the perspective of the person who posted the DNF.

A DNF log depicts that a particular individual did not find a cache.

Nothing more, nothing less, unless conveyed by context.

 

Again, some of us feel that a DNF means a person actually looked at GZ for the cache and didn't find it while others think if you set out to find a cache and get interrupted before you're in the same county its a DNF....I'm not re-opening that discussion as both sides seem intractable.What I'm saying is a CO can simply delete a DNF if , according to the post, the cacher never looked for the cache. On our outings I do the driving ( even if its 8000 miles ) and my wife checks caches....she'll say, don't stop for that one its got 3 DNF's......it clouds the water for cachers.....I'm speaking primarily of traveling/caching, around home I'll look for anything.

I know this forum hates absolutes but I don't think one CO in the U.S. would dream of deleting 3 DNF's made by a group that went to GZ and spent considerable time looking for their cache.That can't be said of the same group posting 3 DNF's on a cache they admittedly never came close to. On local outings I load a PQ of 500. Before leaving the house I check the map and route / target about 50 caches. Say of those I find 15....I don't think its right to DNF the other 35 just because I got too tired to find them.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

One thing that hasn't been discussed is that the CO can simply delete logs that are incorrect or inappropriate.

In over 70,000 logs posted to my caches I don't recall ever deleting a " Found It " log. Regarding NA, NM, and DNF there have been probably a dozen or so deletions. The deleted NA and NM logs were posted mostly by new cachers who simply didn't find the cache ( the cache was always there and usually found before I could even get there to check it ). The DNF deletions where when the cache wasn't even looked for.....I remember once there were three in the same car, they chose to pass on one but all three logged a DNF....this would have inaccurately depicted the cache and many would have left it off PQ's, etc.

Deleting logs that might actually provide context to the hunt? Not having the intestinal fortitude to let a wayward NM or NA log slide? Not having the patience to shoot a kind email to the new cachers to outline what is going on, and what they might have missed?

 

That's a good ol' TFTC on 400 LA caches. (HaDD)

 

DNFs, NM and NA logs help lend some insight into any cache. Even a wayward NA or NM log is easy enough to ignore when one takes the time to read the logs and see what is going on. But reading is bad because freedom.

 

The logs I deleted provided no context or insight into anything.

 

Let a bogus NA slide ? Not a chance.

 

Kind emails were sent explaining the game to some.....to others, who in addition to a bogus NA posted rude comments, I felt no mail was best.

 

But of course you just knew I hadn't sent kind mails....I think your crystal ball needs calibration, its leaning a bit to the negative.

[+Mudfrog]

One thing that hasn't been discussed is that the CO can simply delete logs that are incorrect or inappropriate.

In over 70,000 logs posted to my caches I don't recall ever deleting a " Found It " log. Regarding NA, NM, and DNF there have been probably a dozen or so deletions. The deleted NA and NM logs were posted mostly by new cachers who simply didn't find the cache ( the cache was always there and usually found before I could even get there to check it ). The DNF deletions where when the cache wasn't even looked for.....I remember once there were three in the same car, they chose to pass on one but all three logged a DNF....this would have inaccurately depicted the cache and many would have left it off PQ's, etc.

Deleting logs that might actually provide context to the hunt? Not having the intestinal fortitude to let a wayward NM or NA log slide? Not having the patience to shoot a kind email to the new cachers to outline what is going on, and what they might have missed?

 

That's a good ol' TFTC on 400 LA caches. (HaDD)

 

DNFs, NM and NA logs help lend some insight into any cache. Even a wayward NA or NM log is easy enough to ignore when one takes the time to read the logs and see what is going on. But reading is bad because freedom.

 

The logs I deleted provided no context or insight into anything.

 

Let a bogus NA slide ? Not a chance.

 

Kind emails were sent explaining the game to some.....to others, who in addition to a bogus NA posted rude comments, I felt no mail was best.

 

But of course you just knew I hadn't sent kind mails....I think your crystal ball needs calibration, its leaning a bit to the negative.

 

The logs you deleted were part of the history of the cachers who had began searching for it. Sure, these logs may not have been helpful to some cachers but they were important to those who placed them.

 

I know you want people to visit your caches. We all do! But trying to keep a cache page looking pristine by removing factual logs that are not to your liking is not the right way. A few "too busy/lazy to read the logs" cachers may have possibly skipped the cache but overall, the logs were correct in placement and caused no harm.

[Clan Riffster]

Some believe that a DNF means a person actually looked at GZ for the cache and didn't find it...

Yeah, I get that. And I agree there is no need to reopen that can of worms. Besides, I think that thread is scheduled for next Tuesday. However, regardless of a person's belief, (which would effect whether or not they post a DNF based on what occurred, or did not occur, at ground zero), this bit of the discussion is regarding DNFs that are already posted. At that point, the only way to determine what the DNF means is to read the context of the message. Arbitrarily assigning motivations to someone else's written text, without reading that text, is a fail in the making.

 

As an example, assume I post the following DNF to your cache:

 

"Drove by this morning, but my engine light came on. I decided to get my car fixed, rather than grub around a shrub. I'll be back!"

 

In your earlier post, you suggested that such a DNF would inaccuratly depict the cache. My question was, how, exactly, can anyone reading that fail to comprehend that I, as the DNF poster, have no information at all regarding the condition of the cache? Or are you deleting these types of DNFs just to appease those handful of folks who are so clueless as to prejudge a cache based simply on the existence of a frowny face?

[+NeverSummer]

Some believe that a DNF means a person actually looked at GZ for the cache and didn't find it...

Yeah, I get that. And I agree there is no need to reopen that can of worms. Besides, I think that thread is scheduled for next Tuesday. However, regardless of a person's belief, (which would effect whether or not they post a DNF based on what occurred, or did not occur, at ground zero), this bit of the discussion is regarding DNFs that are already posted. At that point, the only way to determine what the DNF means is to read the context of the message. Arbitrarily assigning motivations to someone else's written text, without reading that text, is a fail in the making.

 

As an example, assume I post the following DNF to your cache:

 

"Drove by this morning, but my engine light came on. I decided to get my car fixed, rather than grub around a shrub. I'll be back!"

 

In your earlier post, you suggested that such a DNF would inaccuratly depict the cache. My question was, how, exactly, can anyone reading that fail to comprehend that I, as the DNF poster, have no information at all regarding the condition of the cache? Or are you deleting these types of DNFs just to appease those handful of folks who are so clueless as to prejudge a cache based simply on the existence of a frowny face?

 

 

 

I don't understand how tending your cache's logs like a nervous rose gardener is making anything better for anyone. If there are "bogus NA" or "rude comments", I can see why you might clip a bud. But to remove a DNF that doesn't suit your cache logs is like clipping a white rose in a red rose garden. Just let it go, man! It all helps others. Placing caches shouldn't be for you--it should be for "us", and the logs help "us".

[+FluffyRAM]

I am an avid supporter of the DNF log. I cache with my disabled husband and after the most irritating DNF ever (a tale I shall relate at the end for those interested), I know how important that information can be for those seeking after me.

 

That said, my personal rule is that one must first seek thoroughly to determine it was not found. If I log a DNF it means I gave it an exhaustive search and came up empty. Either the cache is no longer there; it's an awesome cache and I just couldn't find it, or the coords are waaaay off (like a FTF I got recently... two seasoned FTF hunters had been and failed and logged DNFs. I'd spent 45 minutes at DZ and finally gave up. I was writing my DNF log on the way back to my car when I spotted the cache... 180' from the coordinates! I logged a very sarcastic smiley.

 

A DNF also let's the CO know something may be awry.

If it's a simple cache, chances are it's been muggled. A tougher cache and the CO may just smile until there's a string of DNFs...

 

All that said, in the situation asked about above I too would have logged a note. Unless I've reached the GZ and had a good look, how do I know I didn't find it?!

 

I applaud a constructive note which helps the next cacher better understand what they might be approaching.

 

-------------

My tale of a cache not found... and the "found" logs preceding our visit!

 

I was with my husband and we fancied doing a cache. I checked to find a cache nearby, within a very short distance from where we could park, with an enticing description about a rather special custom fit cache container made from a one-off being thrown out of the CO's work.

 

Intrigued I quickly checked the logs to see all the latest were smileys so we set off on our search. We looked and looked. The name was a huge clue but revealed nothing. We sesrched some more and eventually we checked the hint, which really only backed up the name so gave us nothing new. After there really was nowhere else to look anywhere near the GZ I finally decided to read a few logs to see if I could pick up another hint.

 

I did! This is roughly (from memory) what I found...

(oldest logs first here):

 

FOUND IT: Should there be a container?

FOUND IT: No container but I found a shoe.

FOUND IT: Found the shoe!

FOUND IT: Signed the shoe

FOUND IT: But no shoe or container.

 

Then we arrived. And I became livid as I realised the actual cache had been MIA for over a year and these smileys should all have been DNFs. My disabled husband's energy depleted on a wasted search.

 

I contacted the CO who apologised profusely and archived the cache because he couldn't replicate his container.

I also contacted Groundspeak who were not interested. almost. Their reply was actually that Geocaching is not a competitive sport and it's impossible for it to be centrally policed. If people want to cheat they are only cheating themselves. Fair enough.

 

So there's my tale. I have more but that one was classic.

 

Incidentally, as a CO, if someone logs a "found it" on one of my caches and has not signed the log, I delete their log.

[+Glenn]

If I log a DNF it means I gave it an exhaustive search and came up empty. Either the cache is no longer there;

 

How do you that the cache is no longer there? Just because you can't find it doesn't mean that it isn't there. There have been many times I've logged a DNF and someone else has logged a Found later that day.

 

it's an awesome cache and I just couldn't find it,

I'd do the same excerpt I don't limit to only awesome caches. I do it for all caches.

 

or the coords are waaaay off (like a FTF I got recently... two seasoned FTF hunters had been and failed and logged DNFs. I'd spent 45 minutes at DZ and finally gave up. I was writing my DNF log on the way back to my car when I spotted the cache... 180' from the coordinates! I logged a very sarcastic smiley.

 

I hope you included the fact that you found the cache was 180 feet from were your GPS was telling you the cache should be or made a separate Needs Maintenance log entry. Otherwise you're acting similar to the people who signed the shoe.

 

A DNF also let's the CO know something may be awry.

 

A DNF lets the CO know that just you at this particular time was unable to find the cache. A thoughtful cacher also writes a description of the reason for the DNF because DNF doesn't just mean one thing. Otherwize there wouldn't been any need for the option to write a description.

 

All that said, in the situation asked about above I too would have logged a note. Unless I've reached the GZ and had a good look, how do I know I didn't find it?!

 

How do you know when you've found a cache? You've located the container and signed the log. Anything else, by definition, is not finding it. As for having to reach GZ please see my 'bridge is out' example from earlier in this topic.

 

In your example above about finding the caches 180 ft from GZ. You said that you were writing a DNF log entry when you found the cache. Obviously you didn't make it to GZ before logging your DNF. So you, by your rules, you shouldn't have been making that DNF log entry because you weren't actually at GZ. Just sayin'