Fair way to log.... Found or Not

[+Gunnerbob&Kiwijan]

How do Fellow Cachers feel about a trend I've noticed involving New Caches published, where a person looks for the cache but because they did not find it puts a note on the cache page instead of login a DNF ?

I ask this because if you log a DNF this is added to the cache page but if you log a note you can delete it so it looks as if you have not looked for it in the first place ! is this a fair way of doing things ? your opinions please.

[+cerberus1]

If I didn't give a cache a thorough search (maybe just not too happy with a mediocre location...), I'll leave a note instead of a dnf.

[+niraD]

How do Fellow Cachers feel about a trend I've noticed involving New Caches published, where a person looks for the cache but because they did not find it puts a note on the cache page instead of login a DNF ?

I ask this because if you log a DNF this is added to the cache page but if you log a note you can delete it so it looks as if you have not looked for it in the first place ! is this a fair way of doing things ? your opinions please.

I haven't noticed this trend myself.

 

But I don't understand what makes you think that a Note or a DNF are different in any way, as far as being able to delete it later goes.

 

But as far as the different log types go, if I get to GZ and search for the cache, then I log a Find or a DNF. I use Notes for other situations, like a DNS (Did Not Search), or for reconnaissance visits where I didn't plan to retrieve the cache in the first place, or for visits to non-final stages of a multi-cache when I planned to complete the multi-cache over multiple visits.

[+cerberus1]

Curious what a "fair way to log" is.

There's nothing to win in this hobby...

[+MKFmly]

If I didn't give a cache a thorough search (maybe just not too happy with a mediocre location...), I'll leave a note instead of a dnf.

^^

 

(ran out of time, weather, access issue, did not get to ground zero, didn't get answers, stage of multi, many others...)

[+T.D.M.22]

How do Fellow Cachers feel about a trend I've noticed involving New Caches published, where a person looks for the cache but because they did not find it puts a note on the cache page instead of login a DNF ?

I ask this because if you log a DNF this is added to the cache page but if you log a note you can delete it so it looks as if you have not looked for it in the first place ! is this a fair way of doing things ? your opinions please.

 

 

You can delete any type of log. And any type of log will appear on the cache page. (with the exception of reviewer notes)

 

Maybe the person didn't give a good search and doesn't want others not to look for it because it has a DNF.

 

And what about peoplen who don't log it right away, or at all.

 

I think you're making too much of an issue on this.

[+wmpastor]

If I didn't give a cache a thorough search (maybe just not too happy with a mediocre location...), I'll leave a note instead of a dnf.

 

Agreed. Purists say once you get out of the car, you must post find or DNF. However, DNF without a complete search is misleading to others - it suggests that the hide is either difficult or missing.

[+dprovan]

I haven't noticed any such trend, but I don't see that it really matters. Although I recognize the inaccuracy, I don't really care if someone posts a note to explain that they didn't find it. If I noticed someone doing it regularly, I might ask them about it. All I can imagine is that there's some invalid concern about whether one can really say they didn't find it when no one has yet confirmed it's there to begin with.

[+Gunnerbob&Kiwijan]

Thanks for all the replies

My thoughts where simply that if you failed to find something, that does not been that it was not there, so no shame in login a DNF, but why bother leaving a note and then deleting it, when you could just put it on your watch list.

[+Mudfrog]

Thanks for all the replies

My thoughts where simply that if you failed to find something, that does not been that it was not there, so no shame in login a DNF, but why bother leaving a note and then deleting it, when you could just put it on your watch list.

Not sure why, but many people see DNF logs as pure evil that indicates a dramatic failure on their part. Sure, it's a failure to find the cache but it doesn't indicate anything negative about you or the adventure. I don't understand the note thing either.

 

I am more of a purist and therefore log DNF on every cache i don't find. For me, a search begins when i punch goto on the gpsr and take off to find the cache. That's a big difference from most people's approach but it works fine for me.

[+AVexedBardHiker]

I'm fairly new and I'm guilty of a few notes on caches that I only made a cursory search for with the thought that a DNF might discourage somebody else from looking. Such instances come up if I didn't really go to the cache with the intention of looking for it (was already standing nearby, glanced around a bit... too many people to make a thorough search so I left with the intention of coming back later, etc). Just today I put a note on one saying that I saw the cache, but didn't sign because there were too many people around, planning to come back later. I didn't want to log that one as found, nor not found, but I thought that the information that the cache was still there was potentially helpful to others. Yesterday I went to a cache but didn't log anything because the site has recently been demolitioned, so I sent a private note with a picture of the area to the cache owner asking if it was in need of archiving instead.

 

If I made a real effort to find it and didn't, I log a DNF... have logged a few.

[+J Grouchy]

I'm fairly new and I'm guilty of a few notes on caches that I only made a cursory search for with the thought that a DNF might discourage somebody else from looking. Such instances come up if I didn't really go to the cache with the intention of looking for it (was already standing nearby, glanced around a bit... too many people to make a thorough search so I left with the intention of coming back later, etc). Just today I put a note on one saying that I saw the cache, but didn't sign because there were too many people around, planning to come back later. I didn't want to log that one as found, nor not found, but I thought that the information that the cache was still there was potentially helpful to others. Yesterday I went to a cache but didn't log anything because the site has recently been demolitioned, so I sent a private note with a picture of the area to the cache owner asking if it was in need of archiving instead.

 

If I made a real effort to find it and didn't, I log a DNF... have logged a few.

 

I think you have the right idea. I disagree with posting a DNF on a cache if a real search at GZ was not performed. Doing so, in my opinion, is not a completely honest explanation. It's not about being ashamed or embarrassed by a DNF...it's about providing an accurate account of being unable to reach GZ, or being unable to actually search for a cache due to weather, muggles, timing, whatever...

 

What I DO agree with is the need to log SOMETHING if some action was made. Maybe not every instance, though. If I try a cache five times, once a day for five days running...what I would do is log a DNF on day one...then after the second, third and fourth attempt I'd probably log a second DNF and say I'd been out there a few times. I don't see a real point in logging five DNFs as that information is provided in the second log. Logging five times is probably more annoying for the CO and the people reading through the logs than it is helpful.

[+The A-Team]

...if you log a note you can delete it so it looks as if you have not looked for it in the first place !

...why bother leaving a note and then deleting it...

I'm thoroughly confused why anyone would log a DNF as a note and then immediately delete it. That makes no sense to me. For that matter, why bother submitting any type of log and then immediately deleting it? What's the point? If the intention is to communicate something to the CO, then they should just be contacting them by email or Message Center.

[+niraD]

For that matter, why bother submitting any type of log and then immediately deleting it? What's the point? If the intention is to communicate something to the CO, then they should just be contacting them by email or Message Center.

I've seen such things done to accommodate the fact that the site does not notify the CO or watchers when a log is updated. So the CO/watchers might get an email notice for a Find log that says merely "more later", and then later, when the Find is edited, the person might also post a Note saying "I just edited my previous Find log, adding the following: [copy paste of edited Find log]". Then the Note is deleted, since its only purpose was to trigger the email notice.

[+on4bam]

I haven't noticed this either. I log a DNF when I DNF, a note when I didn't begin to search (muggles around).

I do notice however not many people log a DNF, after not finding they just don't log anything.

[+The A-Team]

For that matter, why bother submitting any type of log and then immediately deleting it? What's the point? If the intention is to communicate something to the CO, then they should just be contacting them by email or Message Center.

I've seen such things done to accommodate the fact that the site does not notify the CO or watchers when a log is updated. So the CO/watchers might get an email notice for a Find log that says merely "more later", and then later, when the Find is edited, the person might also post a Note saying "I just edited my previous Find log, adding the following: [copy paste of edited Find log]". Then the Note is deleted, since its only purpose was to trigger the email notice.

I haven't seen that before, but it does make sense. However, the OP seems to imply that no later DNF log is posted. Do you see people using the "more later" method when logging DNFs too? "More later" never gets used around here, so I'm unaware of the customs surrounding it.

[+dprovan]

I'm fairly new and I'm guilty of a few notes on caches that I only made a cursory search for with the thought that a DNF might discourage somebody else from looking.

Perfectly reasonable. I tend towards the opposite side: I post a DNF unless there's a really good reason to post a note, where I'd characterize your attitude as posting a note unless there's a good reason -- i.e., a significant effort -- to post a DNF. But there's no clear line, so where one falls on the scale is just a matter of taste.

 

Yesterday I went to a cache but didn't log anything because the site has recently been demolitioned, so I sent a private note with a picture of the area to the cache owner asking if it was in need of archiving instead.

But this is a good example of why I like my taste better: here, I disagree with your actions. (I'm not critical of your actions, mind you, I just think you made the wrong choice.) My thinking here is that the most important person to tell about a problem at GZ is the next seeker, so a log entry is the right method of announcing such a problem. In this case is sounds like an NA or at least an NM are appropriate. Keeping that a secret by only sending private mail to the CO seems exactly wrong. Yeah, the CO needs to do something about it, too, but you want to make sure anyone seeking the cache knows about the problem until the CO can react.

[+dprovan]

For that matter, why bother submitting any type of log and then immediately deleting it? What's the point?

I assume the point is to send a message to anyone watching the cache (including the CO) without leaving the message permanently in the log.

[+WarNinjas]

For that matter, why bother submitting any type of log and then immediately deleting it? What's the point?

I assume the point is to send a message to anyone watching the cache (including the CO) without leaving the message permanently in the log.

I actually do this all the time. I will often log a find with "More later" then later when I update the log I will add a note with Log updated so the CO knows to read the updated log. Then I will delete it so it doesn't show on the cache page.