Jump to content

When Not To Log a DNF


curlingfan11

Recommended Posts

When I don't log DNF it is for a few specific reasons - most of which pertain to me and/or my lack of planning. If I give it a 2 minute quickie look because the park is closing, because I didn't bring something necessary, or when I decide to bail because of muggles or another extenuating factor then I won't DNF.

I DO log a DNF if I give it my all, look high and low, etc. and still can't find it. When I've given it the ol' college try and come up empty, then I DNF.

Link to comment

Two of our DNFs:

We found Poor Drainage nearby, but we were both getting cold with the wintery wind that was blowing today, so while we did look, we didn't give it as much effort as we normally would.

There were a couple skateboarders nearby. We looked nonchalantly at some possible spots, but didn't think a thorough search was wise.

*shrug*

 

We don't have a hard and fast rule, but when in doubt, I DNF.

Link to comment

Two of our DNFs:

We found Poor Drainage nearby, but we were both getting cold with the wintery wind that was blowing today, so while we did look, we didn't give it as much effort as we normally would.

There were a couple skateboarders nearby. We looked nonchalantly at some possible spots, but didn't think a thorough search was wise.

*shrug*

 

We don't have a hard and fast rule, but when in doubt, I DNF.

 

I log a DNF too!

 

Always say in the DNF log as to why. Too many people around, weather turning bad, running out of time etc.

Gives others a clue as to bad times to search if people are around, or at least a reason why I didnt find the cache.

Link to comment

When I don't log DNF it is for a few specific reasons - most of which pertain to me and/or my lack of planning. If I give it a 2 minute quickie look because the park is closing, because I didn't bring something necessary, or when I decide to bail because of muggles or another extenuating factor then I won't DNF.

I DO log a DNF if I give it my all, look high and low, etc. and still can't find it. When I've given it the ol' college try and come up empty, then I DNF.

 

Pretty much like this--extenuating factors would include weather. If I decide it's not really a DNF but a DNS (Did not search) I'd probably log a Note.

Link to comment

Personally if I start searching then break off for one reason or another, like rain or being called away, I'll log a DNF. But the important thing is that if you aren't sure, don't worry about your decision. If you really looked hard for a cache and finally gave up, then, of course, it's a DNF. If you looked at the cache on the map at home and decided not to go look for it, then obviously not a DNF. Everything in between is your choice, so if you think the rain stopped you and you don't want to log that, then don't. Or if you do want to log that, then do. And if you can't decide, feel free to flip a coin. (Some people don't log any DNFs, and I'm OK with that decision, too.)

Link to comment

Would you log a DNF, let's stay if it starts the rain then you decide to quit looking for the cache. Any other tips?

Yes, I would. I evidently think the cache is so fascinating, I didn't even check the weather report. The Cache Owner may like to know that. Especially if other people did find it in the rain. The CO may like to check on it, since the log is soaked.

 

If I tried to approach a cache, and the road has washed out, DNF. Certainly other cachers should know, and somehow no log stated the road was washed out. First to DNF! Yay!

 

I don't obsess over caches, and won't return over and over. I search, and log it in a suitable way, and move on. I'll come back later if I have a new plan, and the "Didn't find it" list is my reference.

 

But I don't over-think it. If I "Did Not Find", I almost always make a "Did Not Find" log. Go figure. Everyone else rationalized it away, so I'm the first DNF in the list. Sure, whatever.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

My thinking is, i've initiated a search when i punch "goto" on my gpsr and take off to find a cache. If a storm moves in, i run out of gas, or i change my mind and never reach ground zero, it's a dnf for me. I do of course, state in my log what happened so that i don't cause concern for the cache owner or future finders. Doing this helps me to keep a record of my own geocaching activity.

Link to comment

With some discussion on here about archiving caches after a low number of DNFs and the stir some of that caused I would think folks would be cautious about DNF. Then there are those that don't bother looking for a cache if there are a long list of DNFs that aren't read for explanations just noted as to number.

 

If I arrive and do a thorough search I DNF. If for whatever reason I get interrupted and don't search until I'm finished I do not log anything. If there is a interesting or useful story to it - like a bear sitting at GZ - I'll make a note but not a DNF

Link to comment

I log a DNF any time we don't find a cache (Duh!) or when we can't find a WP of a multi causing us to end the search for the cache.

If, when approaching a cache or WP we can't or won't search because of reasons beyond our control (muggles sitting on a bench with a tag) I will post a note.

A string of DNF's may cause us to skip a cache unless we think, reading the logs, the cache/tag... is still there.

Link to comment

If I arrive at GZ and search for a while, but cannot find the cache, I will log DNF. But I will only log one DNF per cache. I have 656 DNFs and 5684 finds. (Yes. I can trip over a 1/1 and not find it.) If there are too many muggles, and I don't search, then I do not log anything.

When I do my GPX files through GSAK, I will not download any cache with the last two logs DNF. Nor any cache with three out of last four logs DNF. So, don't overdo those DNFs.

Link to comment

I'm with our finned friend above. I won't log a DNF unless I have actually searched for the cache. I have seen DNF logs from people who didn't get within 100m of GZ because they took a wrong path through the woods or the rain started or whatever. That, IMHO, is just plain wrong. It can give completely the wrong impression to folk who see the DNF, but don't read it in detail.

 

I like to think of the folk who will see my DNF and take action based on the presence of that log. GSAK, among other software, gives the ability to filter caches by the type of log. Unless I am going for a specific cache, I exclude any cache from my download which has at least 2 DNF's since the last find. I believe that if people are logging DNF's based on the presence of Muggles at GZ or the fact that they got lost etc. it defeats the purpose of the log.

Link to comment

I'm with our finned friend above. I won't log a DNF unless I have actually searched for the cache. I have seen DNF logs from people who didn't get within 100m of GZ because they took a wrong path through the woods or the rain started or whatever. That, IMHO, is just plain wrong. It can give completely the wrong impression to folk who see the DNF, but don't read it in detail.

 

I like to think of the folk who will see my DNF and take action based on the presence of that log. GSAK, among other software, gives the ability to filter caches by the type of log. Unless I am going for a specific cache, I exclude any cache from my download which has at least 2 DNF's since the last find. I believe that if people are logging DNF's based on the presence of Muggles at GZ or the fact that they got lost etc. it defeats the purpose of the log.

+1

If I don't actually search, then I don't log a DNF. Depending on the reason I didn't actually search, I will log a Write Note instead.

Link to comment

My thinking is, i've initiated a search when i punch "goto" on my gpsr and take off to find a cache. If a storm moves in, i run out of gas, or i change my mind and never reach ground zero, it's a dnf for me. I do of course, state in my log what happened so that i don't cause concern for the cache owner or future finders. Doing this helps me to keep a record of my own geocaching activity.

 

That's exactly how I do it. The hunt has started the moment I hit go to on my device. If I come up empty for any reason it's a DNF in my book.

Link to comment

If I get to GZ and actually search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF. If there's a story to tell but I didn't get to GZ or I didn't actually search for the cache, then I log a Note.

 

Pretty much this. I never count the "intent to look for the cache" as enough basis for logging a DNF. For me, I actually have to be at GZ looking for the container before I count it as an attempt.

Link to comment

My thinking is, i've initiated a search when i punch "goto" on my gpsr and take off to find a cache. If a storm moves in, i run out of gas, or i change my mind and never reach ground zero, it's a dnf for me. I do of course, state in my log what happened so that i don't cause concern for the cache owner or future finders. Doing this helps me to keep a record of my own geocaching activity.

 

That's exactly how I do it. The hunt has started the moment I hit go to on my device. If I come up empty for any reason it's a DNF in my book.

 

I'm unable to see any advantage to this approach, but can see one disadvantage. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

If you hit "Go" on your device, but don't actually reach GZ and start an active search, there doesn't seem to be any difference, to you personally, between writing a DNF or a "Write Log". You have, presumably, explained the circumstances and have an adequate record of your journey. So, from your viewpoint the two options are equal - neither is advantageous over the other.

 

I suspect that the vast majority of CO's would either be neutral or would prefer a "Write Note" over a DNF. I don't think that many CO's would prefer a DNF saying "Started hiking towards the cache but never reached GZ", to a write note saying the same thing.

 

The group who are disadvantaged by this approach are future seekers, particularly those who use some sort of automated algorithm to weed out caches based on recent DNF's. Yes, in theory, it would be preferable to read all logs before setting off, but if there are several hundred caches and some of them have 3 DNF's since the last find, then those will be dropped, even though they may be popular and worthwhile caches.

 

I really believe that a DNf should record the fact that the searcher was unable to find the cache and that the cache may, possibly, be missing. Of course it may just be too well hidden but a genuine search needs to have been made before a DNF is recorded.

Link to comment

 

I really believe that a DNf should record the fact that the searcher was unable to find the cache and that the cache may, possibly, be missing. Of course it may just be too well hidden but a genuine search needs to have been made before a DNF is recorded.

 

I do not agree with the second part. I'm rarely motivated to search for more than 10 minutes, in some situations less. I log DNF when I searched for the amount of time I want to dedicate and did not find the cache. For example at some typical urban location I'm not willing to inspect every possible and impossible spot for hiding a nano.

Link to comment

The hunt has started the moment I hit go to on my device. If I come up empty for any reason it's a DNF in my book.

 

I'm unable to see any advantage to this approach, but can see one disadvantage. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

If you hit "Go" on your device, but don't actually reach GZ and start an active search, there doesn't seem to be any difference, to you personally, between writing a DNF or a "Write Log". You have, presumably, explained the circumstances and have an adequate record of your journey. So, from your viewpoint the two options are equal - neither is advantageous over the other.

 

I suspect that the vast majority of CO's would either be neutral or would prefer a "Write Note" over a DNF. I don't think that many CO's would prefer a DNF saying "Started hiking towards the cache but never reached GZ", to a write note saying the same thing.

 

The group who are disadvantaged by this approach are future seekers, particularly those who use some sort of automated algorithm to weed out caches based on recent DNF's. Yes, in theory, it would be preferable to read all logs before setting off, but if there are several hundred caches and some of them have 3 DNF's since the last find, then those will be dropped, even though they may be popular and worthwhile caches.

 

I really believe that a DNf should record the fact that the searcher was unable to find the cache and that the cache may, possibly, be missing. Of course it may just be too well hidden but a genuine search needs to have been made before a DNF is recorded.

All this. I was just about to say the same :)

To me, the DNF means more than just the literal "I didn't find it". It has a symbol, a colour, a meaning within the log history, and people make use of DNF logs in different ways (otherwise why have symbols and names at all, just describe everything in the block of text). DNF means Did Not Find, but in the context of the summary, as mentioned above, the log identifier serves additional benefits - quick skimming primarily. So, if I log a DNF, it means I feel that I gave the search a good try, and while I may well have missed something, i can't definitively say it's missing, or I failed to find it successfully - but according my own skill, I couldn't actively find it (that is, get to the log and sign it).

 

In all other cases, I'll write a note. If it's just about explaining what happened, that can exist with either a note or DNF, so the log type I choose really is solely about that extra visible log type benefit. The implication in the log history of a "Note" vs a "DNF" symbol.

 

As an example, I recently logged a note instead of a DNF on a cache that I was within 40m of, but separated by dense bushwack and marshland. Without time to retreat and approach from another angle, I merely posted the note and explained. I couldn't find the cache - but only because I wasn't close enough to actively search for it. A DNF log, IMO, would imply the wrong thing in the log history, but the text expounds on the visit regardless of log type.

Link to comment

My thinking is, i've initiated a search when i punch "goto" on my gpsr and take off to find a cache. If a storm moves in, i run out of gas, or i change my mind and never reach ground zero, it's a dnf for me. I do of course, state in my log what happened so that i don't cause concern for the cache owner or future finders. Doing this helps me to keep a record of my own geocaching activity.

 

That's exactly how I do it. The hunt has started the moment I hit go to on my device. If I come up empty for any reason it's a DNF in my book.

Thank you! It's extremely rare that I don't even make it to an intended cache site, but if I tried to get there one day, I may want to try some other time. So I review my DNF list to decide which one I will try again. If there is a DNF log from someone else, I read it before heading out. Of course I won't automatically avoid a cache due to a bunch DNF icons. Often, I may plan to hunt those specifically because they present a special challenge. Or in the cases where the previous cacher's hunt was cut short due to a huge snake, the DNF log is how I decide to go look for a cool snake. :anicute:

 

Whatever prevented you from finding the cache may also affect me. The DNF log helps me understand what I'm up against. When I try to get to a cache site where there's something preventing access, not only did previous cachers not log a DNF due to “Not being able to do a thorough search”, they rationalized away any log at all. What happened to the note that everybody says they make in such cases? I won't even find that log. :yikes:

 

I won't log a DNF due to it being in a general list of all caches I haven't found, nor if I merely thought about it, because that would be silly. Yet if I pull into a Walmart parking lot and the nearest cache seems to be ever more lampward, I may avoid it and not make a log. Go figure.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

 

To me, the DNF means more than just the literal "I didn't find it". It has a symbol, a colour, a meaning within the log history, and people make use of DNF logs in different ways (otherwise why have symbols and names at all, just describe everything in the block of text). DNF means Did Not Find, but in the context of the summary, as mentioned above, the log identifier serves additional benefits - quick skimming primarily. So, if I log a DNF, it means I feel that I gave the search a good try, and while I may well have missed something, i can't definitively say it's missing, or I failed to find it successfully - but according my own skill, I couldn't actively find it (that is, get to the log and sign it).

 

It's pretty absurd to forbid cachers who are hardly ever give the search what you call a good try because they do not enjoy searching for more than a few minutes to log a DNF.

I find it natural also to log a DNF if I found the container, but cannot reach it or cannot open it (in case of a tricky container).

I often log a DNF without having inspected all locations that come to my mind, but might omit others because I do not want to search there, cannot reach them or simply want to leave. At many urban places or places with bad reception one could spend more than an hour and still not having inspected all locations - I'm definitely not prepared to do that.

Link to comment

I find it natural also to log a DNF if I found the container, but cannot reach it or cannot open it (in case of a tricky container).

 

I generally handle that situation with a Note. I don't think "Did not find" is an accurate description if I FOUND the container but could not reach it or could not access due to terrain, muggles or some other factor.

Link to comment

I don't worry about the difference between a cursory search or an exhaustive search or a "good try" or any other level of search. But to me, "Did Not Find" implies that there was some sort of a search. So if I get to GZ and search and don't find it, then I log a DNF. If I don't get to GZ, or if I get to GZ and don't search for some reason, then I log a Note, possibly calling it a DNS (Did Not Search).

 

Perhaps part of the reason why it doesn't make sense to me to "start the search" when I hit the GOTO button of my device is that I found hundreds of caches before I had a GOTO button (or a device other than my Palm PDA, which was basically an electronic notepad).

Link to comment

To me, the DNF means more than just the literal "I didn't find it". It has a symbol, a colour, a meaning within the log history, and people make use of DNF logs in different ways (otherwise why have symbols and names at all, just describe everything in the block of text). DNF means Did Not Find, but in the context of the summary, as mentioned above, the log identifier serves additional benefits - quick skimming primarily. So, if I log a DNF, it means I feel that I gave the search a good try, and while I may well have missed something, i can't definitively say it's missing, or I failed to find it successfully - but according my own skill, I couldn't actively find it (that is, get to the log and sign it).

It's pretty absurd to forbid cachers who are hardly ever give the search what you call a good try because they do not enjoy searching for more than a few minutes to log a DNF.

:unsure: I don't understand. What am I forbidding if I only post a DNF that I feel accurately implies that I was not able to find the cache with an actual search (when my experience is explained whether it's a note or dnf log)?

 

I find it natural also to log a DNF if I found the container, but cannot reach it or cannot open it (in case of a tricky container).

Ditto.

 

I often log a DNF without having inspected all locations that come to my mind, but might omit others because I do not want to search there, cannot reach them or simply want to leave. At many urban places or places with bad reception one could spend more than an hour and still not having inspected all locations - I'm definitely not prepared to do that.

Ditto.

Those weren't situations I was referring to though.

If I feel I had "arrived" at the cache location, or had at least begun the required and intended process of locating the cache, then I qualify that as actively searching. If it's a multi, and I get stuck at one stage, that'll go as a DNF. But if I take a wrong route to the first waypoint or the posted coords and don't even arrive, knowing that that was my mistake, then I won't log a DNF unless I go to the correct route and arrive at GZ to search. (a CO may or may not then make it clearer in the listing based on my log content).

That's just the way I judge it; other people draw the line between note and DNF in different places.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I find it natural also to log a DNF if I found the container, but cannot reach it or cannot open it (in case of a tricky container).

 

I generally handle that situation with a Note. I don't think "Did not find" is an accurate description if I FOUND the container but could not reach it or could not access due to terrain, muggles or some other factor.

 

Right, I supposed it's the difference between, say, being unable to solve the puzzle/task/lock in order to open the container, vs being hindered by a factor that wasn't intended to be a hindrance.

 

Along those lines - what if you arrive at GZ and spot the container in a tree 10m ahead, but you're blocked by an unexpected water trap and can't make it there, being unprepared. DNF? Or note? :)

Link to comment
Along those lines - what if you arrive at GZ and spot the container in a tree 10m ahead, but you're blocked by an unexpected water trap and can't make it there, being unprepared. DNF? Or note? :)
I've been in a situation like that, where I was on the wrong levee. As the crow flies, I was very close, but walking back down the levee and walking up the correct levee would have taken about an hour. If there's a story to tell, then I'd tell it with a Note (Did Not Search, DNS) rather than with a DNF.
Link to comment

Along those lines - what if you arrive at GZ and spot the container in a tree 10m ahead, but you're blocked by an unexpected water trap and can't make it there, being unprepared. DNF? Or note? :)

 

Hmm... I just searched for one that was in a narrow hole drilled in a rock. My fins are too big to get it out, and I didn't have the right tools. But I tried to access it. That was a DNF.

Link to comment

Hmm... I just searched for one that was in a narrow hole drilled in a rock. My fins are too big to get it out, and I didn't have the right tools. But I tried to access it. That was a DNF.

 

I DNF'd one like that 3 times before I could log a found. Nano in a dead tree. 1st time a real DNF, second time I saw it but couldn't reach, third time I could reach it but it was replaced backwards with the non-magnetic site inwards. Fourth time I came prepared and ahd all the right tools and got it out wit a screwdriver + sticky stuff. It took some tries to get it but at least it worked.

Link to comment

It's pretty absurd to forbid cachers who are hardly ever give the search what you call a good try because they do not enjoy searching for more than a few minutes to log a DNF.

:unsure: I don't understand. What am I forbidding if I only post a DNF that I feel accurately implies that I was not able to find the cache with an actual search (when my experience is explained whether it's a note or dnf log)?

 

You posted full agreement with a previous poster who argued that one should post a DNF only when one has done a thorough search as he wants to somehow deduce a "cache might be missing" message from a DNF log.

This caused my reply. I do not have an issue with your personal policy when to log a DNF. I have an issue with someone requiring others not to post DNFs when they searched but not extensively just because some cachers do not read logs.

Link to comment

I find it natural also to log a DNF if I found the container, but cannot reach it or cannot open it (in case of a tricky container).

 

I generally handle that situation with a Note. I don't think "Did not find" is an accurate description if I FOUND the container but could not reach it or could not access due to terrain, muggles or some other factor.

 

I think a note does not express the failure - I write many notes that are not related to cache visits and I'd like to separate real attempts to log a cache and was unsuccessful.

I log a DNF also if there is no way to leave a signature (e.g. if there were a nano without log sheet).

I do not log a find if I cannot sign the log sheet even though I found the container. So using DNF in such situations makes sense and it alerts others that finding the container need not be enough and that

some finders are not able to complete the cache successfully. It also helps to see if the D-rating might be appropriate.

For a cache where many fail, one is alerted that one might need time and special skill.

Link to comment
I find it natural also to log a DNF if I found the container, but cannot reach it or cannot open it (in case of a tricky container).

 

I generally handle that situation with a Note. I don't think "Did not find" is an accurate description if I FOUND the container but could not reach it or could not access due to terrain, muggles or some other factor.

I think a note does not express the failure - I write many notes that are not related to cache visits and I'd like to separate real attempts to log a cache and was unsuccessful.

I log a DNF also if there is no way to leave a signature (e.g. if there were a nano without log sheet).

I do not log a find if I cannot sign the log sheet even though I found the container. So using DNF in such situations makes sense and it alerts others that finding the container need not be enough and that

some finders are not able to complete the cache successfully. It also helps to see if the D-rating might be appropriate.

For a cache where many fail, one is alerted that one might need time and special skill.

I've gone both ways, depending on the situation. In one case, I tried to open the container but didn't figure out the on-site puzzle, so I logged a DNF. In another case, I knew the cache was a "Special Tool Required" cache, so I dropped by to verify that the tool I was planning to use would be appropriate, with no intention of actually retrieving it that day; I logged that visit as a Note.
Link to comment

Maybe it comes down to whether or not one believes "found" in the context of the cache container itself is equal to "signed". One might argue that finding the cache is different from signing and logging it. If I have my eyes on the container but, for one reason or another, am unable to access the log to sign it...I consider it 'found', but would not take the smilie at that time since I didn't actually sign the log sheet. I would never advocate for a greater variety of logs to cover all scenarios, but "notes", in my opinion, are sort of a catch-all for these types of situations...where a "found but couldn't sign the log so I don't get a +1 yet" log - as ridiculous as it sounds - might be more informative.

Link to comment

]I've gone both ways, depending on the situation. In one case, I tried to open the container but didn't figure out the on-site puzzle, so I logged a DNF. In another case, I knew the cache was a "Special Tool Required" cache, so I dropped by to verify that the tool I was planning to use would be appropriate, with no intention of actually retrieving it that day; I logged that visit as a Note.

 

I also would log a note for the second type of visit.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

You posted full agreement with a previous poster who argued that one should post a DNF only when one has done a thorough search as he wants to somehow deduce a "cache might be missing" message from a DNF log.

Actually, what I said was: "it means I feel that I gave the search a good try, and while I may well have missed something, I can't definitively say it's missing, or I failed to find it successfully."

You must have misinterpreted my words.

What I italicized is also what I infer from seeing a DNF log in a cache's history. Not that the cache [only] might be missing, but that it 1] might be missing, or 2] was not sufficiently found even though 3] the person actually made an active attempt to locate it as the CO intended, whatever type of cache it is. But I don't follow that expectation hard and fast, since clearly people have different practices and understandings of what a DNF log means. If I see multiple DNFs, my inference leans towards it being difficult to locate and many cachers have failed - either because it might be missing, or it's really hard; and usually that's dependent on the difficulty and/or terrain rating.

 

This is why, for example, I don't expect to see DNFs on an Earthcache (those are rare) unless the requirements could not be completed because perhaps the person could not locate a very significant object from which to glean answers to questions. To contrast, if I were to go for an EC but could not arrive at the posted location to even begin any field research required because there was construction around the block, I would log a Note with an explanation, not a DNF; and perhaps even contact the CO to let them know the EC is not accessible.

Link to comment

Maybe it comes down to whether or not one believes "found" in the context of the cache container itself is equal to "signed". One might argue that finding the cache is different from signing and logging it.

About to say the same thing :)

Did you "find" the cache? Or did you "find" the logsheet?

When it comes to the Find log online, the latter is the requirement.

When it comes to a DNF log online, there is no rule, at least to the degree of the Find Log requirement. I consdier the DNF more relevant if only the latter fails. Find the container, but can't get the logsheet? DNF or explanatory note (I might use the note if there's a history of the cache missing, so that one might not look at the recent history and think that my dnf means it's missing, when it just means I couldn't solve the field task to sign the logsheet [yet]).

 

If I have my eyes on the container but, for one reason or another, am unable to access the log to sign it...I consider it 'found', but would not take the smilie at that time since I didn't actually sign the log sheet. I would never advocate for a greater variety of logs to cover all scenarios, but "notes", in my opinion, are sort of a catch-all for these types of situations...where a "found but couldn't sign the log so I don't get a +1 yet" log - as ridiculous as it sounds - might be more informative.

Yes, exactly :) So that grey area to me I think is more a case by case decision - DNF, or Note? Dunno, depends on the cache, I'd say, and its ratings and recent history.

Link to comment

You posted full agreement with a previous poster who argued that one should post a DNF only when one has done a thorough search as he wants to somehow deduce a "cache might be missing" message from a DNF log.

Actually, what I said was: "it means I feel that I gave the search a good try, and while I may well have missed something, I can't definitively say it's missing, or I failed to find it successfully."

You must have misinterpreted my words.

 

I commented on your

"All this. I was just about to say the same" as reply to Gill&Tony and not on what you then wrote in the subsequent paragraph.

 

This is why, for example, I don't expect to see DNFs on an Earthcache (those are rare) unless the requirements could not be completed because perhaps the person could not locate a very significant object from which to glean answers to questions. To contrast, if I were to go for an EC but could not arrive at the posted location to even begin any field research required because there was construction around the block, I would log a Note with an explanation, not a DNF; and perhaps even contact the CO to let them know the EC is not accessible.

 

I would also log a DNF if the questions turn out to be too hard for me.

Link to comment

You posted full agreement with a previous poster who argued that one should post a DNF only when one has done a thorough search as he wants to somehow deduce a "cache might be missing" message from a DNF log.

Actually, what I said was: "it means I feel that I gave the search a good try, and while I may well have missed something, I can't definitively say it's missing, or I failed to find it successfully."

You must have misinterpreted my words.

I commented on your

"All this. I was just about to say the same" as reply to Gill&Tony and not on what you then wrote in the subsequent paragraph.

Ok, in post #22 you didn't quote that but rather a paragraph I wrote which elaborated, inferring from it that I was "forbidding" cachers from doing something, which is why I was confused.

 

So, rather, the context then is (not my words, but the only bit relevant to this of Gill & Tony to which I replied "all this"): "I really believe that a DNf should record the fact that the searcher was unable to find the cache and that the cache may, possibly, be missing. Of course it may just be too well hidden but a genuine search needs to have been made before a DNF is recorded."

 

And yes, still, I agree with that, but I don't see how that means we "forbid cachers who are hardly ever give the search what you call a good try because they do not enjoy searching for more than a few minutes to log a DNF". I didn't hold the logger's judgement of "a good try" to my own standard (which you reduce to 'more than a few minutes' - there are certainly cases where I would log a DNF even if I only searched a 'few minutes').

 

What I infer from seeing a DNF log (before reading the details) is that the poster of said DNF has made an active effort to search for the cache, but was unsuccessful, for whatever reason. If I know the cacher, that may inform the degree to which I believe they searched, or were outwitted, or failed because the cache might be missing. If I don't know them, I presume a more general but sufficient search was attempted (which may be different than what others presume in such a case).

 

It's really quite subjective. But there has to be a 'general understanding' of what is meant by a note or dnf log, otherwise we wouldn't have or need different log types; they'd be meaningless. I wouldn't say there is strict right or wrong for the DNF (there is only for the Find log requirement), but discussions like this thread help us understand what standards others hold to when they log their DNFs.

 

If I post a DNF, it means I've given what I believe to be a good active search/attempt as the CO intended.

If someone else posts a DNF, I start from the assumption that that user made a good active search/attempt as the CO intended.

Then if I'm not just briefly skimming caches, I read the details to learn more of the person's experience.

 

I would also log a DNF if the questions turn out to be too hard for me.

Generally, ditto. I might just contact the CO first though, make an attempt at the answers, and if they feel I "passed" then I'll log the Find. An EC find is much more reliant on the CO's approval, since there's no strict name-in-logbook requirement. :)

 

On that note, how about these:

* Would you log a Find or DNF on an Earthcache for which you sent in answers but don't hear back from the CO? (I think most people log the find then contact, meaning no response = valid find)

* Would you log a Find or DNF if you sent in most answers but were uncertain on one or two, or didn't answer one or two, and you don't hear back from the CO? :)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Ok, in post #22 you didn't quote that but rather a paragraph I wrote which elaborated, inferring from it that I was "forbidding" cachers from doing something, which is why I was confused.

 

In that post my focus was on your "good try". Many cachers will hardly ever do what others consider to be a good try (namely inspecting all hideouts that come to one's mind at that day).

 

If I post a DNF, it means I've given what I believe to be a good active search/attempt as the CO intended.

 

I do not care the least what the CO intended with respect to a good active search. I describe the circumstances in my log.

For example, I might write I "I inspected a few locations and then left after 5 minutes. I was not willing to search in the wall."

 

* Would you log a Find or DNF on an Earthcache for which you sent in answers but don't hear back from the CO?

 

If I'm confident about my answers, I'd log a found it.

If not, I would wait with my log.

 

* Would you log a Find or DNF if you sent in most answers but were uncertain on one or two, or didn't answer one or two, and you don't hear back from the CO?

 

I would not send in incomplete answers.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Ok, in post #22 you didn't quote that but rather a paragraph I wrote which elaborated, inferring from it that I was "forbidding" cachers from doing something, which is why I was confused.

In that post my focus was on your "good try". Many cachers will hardly ever do what others consider to be a good try (namely inspecting all hideouts that come to one's mind at that day).

:unsure:

I commented on your "All this. I was just about to say the same" as reply to Gill&Tony and not on what you then wrote in the subsequent paragraph.

 

Moving on...

 

I do not care the least what the CO intended with respect to a good active search. I describe the circumstances in my log.

For example, I might write I "I inspected a few locations and then left after 5 minutes. I was not willing to search in the wall."

Yep, but if I saw your DNF in the log history, I would presume you made a good active search according to what I interpret as the CO's intended experience. That is, based on how much or little I know of the cache type, the DT rating, attributes, location, age, other loggers, what I know of the CO, and what I know of you.

 

If I were merely skimming the log history and not reading, then I tend to presume DNF logs to simply mean "a cacher visited the cache and made an attempt at the search but was unsuccessful", weighted by other factors as described earlier. And that's why it's annoying when for example there are a string of DNFs from people who didn't actually search for a cache... or why it can be misleading when a group of 30 all log their individual DNFs when it was one visit. There are things people infer from the log history, within reason of course - it's just as problematic to presume every cacher believes the DNF to mean precisely the same thing.

 

The real question would be (and hopefully something we can learn from this thread) - what's a safe 'basic understanding' of the DNF log as people post them?

Link to comment

If I were merely skimming the log history and not reading, then I tend to presume DNF logs to simply mean "a cacher visited the cache and made an attempt at the search but was unsuccessful", weighted by other factors as described earlier. And that's why it's annoying when for example there are a string of DNFs from people who didn't actually search for a cache... or why it can be misleading when a group of 30 all log their individual DNFs when it was one visit.

 

I think that one should not infer anything only on the basis of log types without reading the logs. Of course the group of 30 should mention that they were together.

 

The real question would be (and hopefully something we can learn from this thread) - what's a safe 'basic understanding' of the DNF log as people post them?

 

For me the basic understanding should be based on the log text and the log type and not only on the type.

Link to comment

I think that one should not infer anything only on the basis of log types without reading the logs. Of course the group of 30 should mention that they were together.

 

For me the basic understanding should be based on the log text and the log type and not only on the type.

 

Note you said "not infer anything".

Hey people, how many of you when looking at caches in a region with a collection of caches read every single log of say the last 10 logs for every single cache when deciding on an area you may wish to cache?

Surely at least some of you; and as apparent not everyone.

 

Yes, as said earlier, of course the log text contains all (or more) detail about a visit, but you just implied that log type is (should be) essentially irrelevant since its only value is when read with the log text - which would describe precisely what the log type indicates.

Log type is not irrelevant. It's quite common to look at the recent log summary and have a general idea of the status of a cache, before taking a look at the details of log text. The cache page even provides a summary of all log types in its history. How can that be relevant at all if one "should not infer anything only on the basis of log types"?

 

So in that case, what does the DNF log type imply? Different people understand it differently and infer different things when seeing a recent log type summary, and not everyone reads every single recent log on every cache they view, right away, ignoring the log type.

 

Ok, log type may be irrelevant to you, however that plays out in practice, and that's fine. But if you "think that one should not infer anything only on the basis of log types" that doesn't really help us understand what, well, people infer from seeing a chronological summary of recent log types, let alone what a DNF means.

Link to comment

(Some people don't log any DNFs, and I'm OK with that decision, too.)

 

I don't think that's "OK". DNF is supposed to help warn people that "hey, maybe this thing is missing" and if there are enough DNFs in a row, "hey, maybe the owner should go check to see if it's actually there". So if you looked for it and didn't find it, log the DNF!

 

Plus, by not logging a DNF you are wasting other people's time. I will not go to a cache if the last 4-5 logs are DNF, so then I won't be looking for something that (probably) isn't there. I imagine there are plenty of others who check for DNFs before going to search. If no one logged a DNF though, how would I know to avoid it?

 

Be considerate of others and log a DNF if you couldn't find it!

Link to comment

If I were merely skimming the log history and not reading, then I tend to presume DNF logs to simply mean "a cacher visited the cache and made an attempt at the search but was unsuccessful", weighted by other factors as described earlier. And that's why it's annoying when for example there are a string of DNFs from people who didn't actually search for a cache... or why it can be misleading when a group of 30 all log their individual DNFs when it was one visit.

 

I think that one should not infer anything only on the basis of log types without reading the logs. Of course the group of 30 should mention that they were together.

 

The real question would be (and hopefully something we can learn from this thread) - what's a safe 'basic understanding' of the DNF log as people post them?

 

For me the basic understanding should be based on the log text and the log type and not only on the type.

Exactly! It would be silly for me to automatically assume that a cache was in trouble or missing because of a blue frowny face alone. I'm definitely gonna read the log(s) before making any decision.

Link to comment

Hey people, how many of you when looking at caches in a region with a collection of caches read every single log of say the last 10 logs for every single cache when deciding on an area you may wish to cache?

Surely at least some of you; and as apparent not everyone.

 

Then they have to live with wrong conclusions.

 

The cache page even provides a summary of all log types in its history. How can that be relevant at all if one "should not infer anything only on the basis of log types"?

 

It can be relevant in the sense that if there is a higher number of DNFs in total or recently, it makes sense to read those logs (you also wrote one might look at the log pattern before reading the logs which means that you do not suggest to infer anything final without looking at the logs). Any rule one might infer just from the number of DNF logs (e.g. 3 last logs are DNFs) will be problematic. If someone does not care about excluding caches that are perfectly fine, ok, that's their beef, but they should not ask others to use DNF logs or other log types in the sense which serves them best.

 

So in that case, what does the DNF log type imply? Different people understand it differently and infer different things when seeing a recent log type summary, and not everyone reads every single recent log on every cache they view, right away, ignoring the log type.

 

Those cachers would end up very unhappy in my country anyway as there are many "found it" logs for active caches which are not there or where the log cannot be signed (log permissions are provided and the caches do not get disabled).

 

But if you "think that one should not infer anything only on the basis of log types" that doesn't really help us understand what, well, people infer from seeing a chronological summary of recent log types, let alone what a DNF means.

 

There are many different things people infer, but many of them are wrong and that's why I wrote "one should not .................". It was not meant in the moral sense, but in the sense if one wants to arrive at valid conclusions, one should not rely only on the log types.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

(Some people don't log any DNFs, and I'm OK with that decision, too.)

 

I don't think that's "OK". DNF is supposed to help warn people that "hey, maybe this thing is missing" and if there are enough DNFs in a row, "hey, maybe the owner should go check to see if it's actually there". So if you looked for it and didn't find it, log the DNF!

 

Plus, by not logging a DNF you are wasting other people's time. I will not go to a cache if the last 4-5 logs are DNF, so then I won't be looking for something that (probably) isn't there. I imagine there are plenty of others who check for DNFs before going to search. If no one logged a DNF though, how would I know to avoid it?

 

Be considerate of others and log a DNF if you couldn't find it!

 

I have to dido this.

Never logging any DNF seems very unhelpful (and silly). You looked for the cache, truly looked, and did not find it; log a DNF. It is just a statement that you were there, looked and did not find.

 

What you (or others) INFER from a caches log history is your(their) choice and should have no barring on if a DNF is logged or not. O_o Some of the comments are drifting...I don't think what other MAY or MAY NOT infer from your DNF should affect you logging it or not.

 

If I was there, gave a good effort to look and did not find then log it as such.

If I run out of time, got interrupted or otherwise feel I did not truly give a good search then thats the situation when I may not log a DNF....if I want a record of my visit I may post a note explaining such.

Edited by Duskywing
Link to comment

Hey people, how many of you when looking at caches in a region with a collection of caches read every single log of say the last 10 logs for every single cache when deciding on an area you may wish to cache?

Surely at least some of you; and as apparent not everyone.

 

Then they have to live with wrong conclusions.

What is the "wrong conclusion"? No one thinks that a DNF means Found. DNF has a meaning. Whether the log text is consistent with the log type is a question. If someone find it but logs a DNF, then that causes problems, because the log type is relevant.

 

The cache page even provides a summary of all log types in its history. How can that be relevant at all if one "should not infer anything only on the basis of log types"?

It can be relevant in the sense that if there is a higher number of DNFs in total or recently, it makes sense to read those logs (you also wrote one might look at the log pattern before reading the logs which means that you do not suggest to infer anything final without looking at the logs).

No. Many people glance over the recent log history and may decide "oh there are 15 DNFs in a row - it's probably not worth my time." That means the DNFs have meaning. Regardless of the text, the summary has a purpose. The icons, the colour, all of it is designed to imply a meaning, before reading the text.

 

Any rule one might infer just from the number of DNF logs (e.g. 3 last logs are DNFs) will be problematic.

Of course. I'm not saying that the text is irrelevant. I'm saying that there are regular, common cases where anyone may view only the log type and draw a conclusion. You're saying that conclusion may be wrong - yes, which proves the point: log types have meaning.

 

So in that case, what does the DNF log type imply? Different people understand it differently and infer different things when seeing a recent log type summary, and not everyone reads every single recent log on every cache they view, right away, ignoring the log type.

Those cachers would end up very unhappy in my country anyway as there are many "found it" logs for active caches which are not there or where the log cannot be signed (log permissions are provided and the caches do not get disabled).

Then your country has some very messed up logging practices. :P

 

A Found It log on a physical cache that was not found is a false, and blatantly misleading log.

 

But if you "think that one should not infer anything only on the basis of log types" that doesn't really help us understand what, well, people infer from seeing a chronological summary of recent log types, let alone what a DNF means.

There are many different things people infer, but many of them are wrong and that's why I wrote "one should not .................". It was not meant in the moral sense, but in the sense if one wants to arrive at valid conclusions, one should not rely only on the log types.

If one wants the best idea of recent activity, then log type and text is the way to go, of course. But you cannot presume that every person wants to read every single log of every single cache they view in every single context of having a desire to go geocaching, where log text "should be" 100% accurate to the experience making the log type completely irrelevant.

 

Log type has meaning. So, as per the OP, "when is a good time to log a DNF?"

Saying it's irrelevant is ludicrous. The question helps us understand why people log DNFs, and therefore what one can reasonably infer from log type alone, before reading the accompanying text.

Link to comment

If I was there, gave a good effort to look and did not find then log it as such.

If I run out of time, got interrupted or otherwise feel I did not truly give a good search then thats the situation when I may not log a DNF....if I want a record of my visit I may post a note explaining such.

This.

And on that last point, I may also post the note if I want to communicate something publicly to followup finders or the CO that didn't constitute a Find or what I consider a good search (and perhaps a msg to the CO if necessary).

Link to comment

You posted full agreement with a previous poster who argued that one should post a DNF only when one has done a thorough search as he wants to somehow deduce a "cache might be missing" message from a DNF log.

Actually, what I said was: "it means I feel that I gave the search a good try, and while I may well have missed something, I can't definitively say it's missing, or I failed to find it successfully."

You must have misinterpreted my words.

What I italicized is also what I infer from seeing a DNF log in a cache's history. Not that the cache [only] might be missing, but that it 1] might be missing, or 2] was not sufficiently found even though 3] the person actually made an active attempt to locate it as the CO intended, whatever type of cache it is. But I don't follow that expectation hard and fast, since clearly people have different practices and understandings of what a DNF log means. If I see multiple DNFs, my inference leans towards it being difficult to locate and many cachers have failed - either because it might be missing, or it's really hard; and usually that's dependent on the difficulty and/or terrain rating.

 

This is why, for example, I don't expect to see DNFs on an Earthcache (those are rare) unless the requirements could not be completed because perhaps the person could not locate a very significant object from which to glean answers to questions. To contrast, if I were to go for an EC but could not arrive at the posted location to even begin any field research required because there was construction around the block, I would log a Note with an explanation, not a DNF; and perhaps even contact the CO to let them know the EC is not accessible.

 

I've DNF'd EC's four times.

 

The first was in a National Park. As we got to the posted coordinates, I read the cache description and realized that they wanted you to find other similar formations to compare in the rest of the park to complete the EC. Well, we were on the way out of the park at that point and it was too late to find other formations. I guess they assumed people were coming in a certain entrance and would find the EC at the beginning of the trip? I was a bit frustrated and posted a DNF in a tiny hope that the EC owner would think a bit about it, but I doubt it mattered to anyone but me.

 

The second was an EC that I got to late in the day and I could barely make out the formation that I was supposed to describe so I had to DNF it and come back and find it another day.

 

The third one was an EC that we came to from a boat. The EC was on an island, and we couldn't find a place to get onto the island because it was so rocky (other people came from the other side of the island by car). We could answer a couple of the questions from the boat, but one of the questions required looking at a plaque that we couldn't see from the water.

 

The fourth was really weird. Another National Park. We got to the coordinates and couldn't see anything like the cache page described, even though we looked everywhere. It's like we had the wrong coordinates, but we didn't because I had downloaded them directly from the site. I'll always be mystified by that one. We must just be unobservant, because no one else seemed to have a problem with that one.

 

It's funny that half of my DNF's were by the same EC owner, in two different National Parks. I'm fairly experienced with EC's, I've found about 150 of them. I'm not sure what that means, it's probably just a coincidence.

Link to comment

Then they have to live with wrong conclusions.

What is the "wrong conclusion"? No one thinks that a DNF means Found.

 

The wrong conclusion could e.g. be to avoid a cache with 6 DNF as last logs coming from a group who decided to give up after 5 minutes and this is mentioned in the logs.

Many of my DNFs are in situations where I'm 99.99% sure that the cache is still there. So if someone infers from a DNF of mine in combination with my find count, that they should avoid a cache, it's not a good decision either.

Etc, etc

 

DNF has a meaning.

 

But not the same to everyone.

 

No. Many people glance over the recent log history and may decide "oh there are 15 DNFs in a row - it's probably not worth my time."

 

They can do that. If they miss a nice cache in perfect order and not even hard, that's their problem.

 

There is no reason why a group who caches together should change their logging behaviour. If they find a cache, they all log a find, if they do not find it, they all log a DNF because that's a personal log and not a signal to other cachers or the cache owner.

 

Of course. I'm not saying that the text is irrelevant. I'm saying that there are regular, common cases where anyone may view only the log type and draw a conclusion. You're saying that conclusion may be wrong - yes, which proves the point: log types have meaning.

 

Of course you can come with an initial judgement, but it's dangerous to take it as your final one if you want to be as fool proof as possible.

 

Then your country has some very messed up logging practices. :P

 

Rather some cachers there, yes. I'm not happy with it.

 

A Found It log on a physical cache that was not found is a false, and blatantly misleading log.

 

Typical the text says that the cache has not been found and that the owner provided permission to log a find. There is nothing one could do about that.

I explained the issue many times to cachers who act like this but typically this ends up in an unfortunate manner and there is nothing to win.

 

 

Log type has meaning. So, as per the OP, "when is a good time to log a DNF?"

Saying it's irrelevant is ludicrous. The question helps us understand why people log DNFs, and therefore what one can reasonably infer from log type alone, before reading the accompanying text.

 

The log type of the logs I'm writing has meaning for myself of course. That's why I never ever would avoid writing a DNF just because someone else was along and neither of us found the cache.

I'm also not willing to limit DNFs only to searches where I gave it a good effort to look for the cache. Many caches are so unattractive or tedious to me that I give up my search earlier. I do not like searching.

I log DNF if I started to search and failed - it does not matter how long I searched or with how many people I was there.

 

Everyone will use their own rules when writing a DNF and there is no right to demand from others to adapt their log type choice to one's personal preferences just because one is too lazy to read the log text.

Edited by cezanne
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...