Demonising the DNF

[+justintim1999]

If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

 

You get to ground zero, search, and don't find the cache. Sounds like a dnf to me.

 

Is it or isn't it?

 

It can't be both.

 

It isn't both. In the first example I didn't finish searching to my satisfaction. Not a dnf.

 

I do believe your an intelligent person and I have no doubt you get exactly what I'm saying. Yet instead of admitting the obvious you choose to muddy the waters. Why? What ever the reason all your doing is allowing the simple concept of actually searching until your quite sure your not going to find it or it's possibly missing to turn into something more complicated than it is.

 

Lets say you own a park and grab. I log a dnf stating that I pulled up, never got out of the car and couldn't see it. You'd be outraged wouldn't you?

 

I'd like to think most cachers take great care before posting a NM or NA. Dnfs should be no different.

[+justintim1999]

I said, a long time ago in another thread, that I believe that DNF means Did Not Find, not Did Not Search. If I start to look for a cache, there are 7 possible outcomes:

 

(incredibly detailed set of rationalizations and rules deleted)

 

You tell yourself whatever you need to.

 

In reality, there are two possible outcomes. You either found the cache or you did not. If you found it, log a Found. If not, log a DNF. The byzantine rationalizations like yours above, apparently used to make yourself feel better about not logging your DNFs, are exactly what has gotten us into this mess where HQ apparently thinks a DNF means "the cache is missing."

 

I, for one, refuse to change my logging practices based on HQ abusing their own logging system.

 

Wow. Here's an example of a cacher (Gill & Tony) who is actually practicing good judgment before posting a dnf and all you can do is denigrate them. Knowing that GS has placed more emphasis on dnfs I'd of thought you'd be in favor of a more conservative approach?

[+Team Microdot]

If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

 

You get to ground zero, search, and don't find the cache. Sounds like a dnf to me.

 

Is it or isn't it?

 

It can't be both.

 

It isn't both. In the first example I didn't finish searching to my satisfaction. Not a dnf.

 

I do believe your an intelligent person and I have no doubt you get exactly what I'm saying. Yet instead of admitting the obvious you choose to muddy the waters. Why? What ever the reason all your doing is allowing the simple concept of actually searching until your quite sure your not going to find it or it's possibly missing to turn into something more complicated than it is.

 

Lets say you own a park and grab. I log a dnf stating that I pulled up, never got out of the car and couldn't see it. You'd be outraged wouldn't you?

 

I'd like to think most cachers take great care before posting a NM or NA. Dnfs should be no different.

 

There's nothing in the second example to indicate that the reader finished searching to their level of satisfaction either - or that their level of satisfaction has any relevance whatsoever on a DNF being real or otherwise. There's nothing in that example to suggest that anyone's satisfaction had anything to do with your conclusion that arriving at GZ, searching and not finding the cache is a DNF. You wrote it. It's there in black and white.

 

So yeah - any muddy waters here aren't my doing

 

I like to think I'm an intelligent person. I expect most people like to think that about themselves. What I'm not though is a mind reader - so all I, or anyone else for that matter, have to go off when you make two conflicting statements (not quite diametrically opposed) is what you've written. I'm not going to spend time wondering if what you've written is what you meant to write.

 

People find caches or don't find them. There are logging options precisely aligned to those two outcomes and people should feel free to use them accordingly and certainly without having to worry about conflicting with one of your arbitrary standards.

[+justintim1999]

If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

 

You get to ground zero, search, and don't find the cache. Sounds like a dnf to me.

 

Is it or isn't it?

 

It can't be both.

 

It isn't both. In the first example I didn't finish searching to my satisfaction. Not a dnf.

 

I do believe your an intelligent person and I have no doubt you get exactly what I'm saying. Yet instead of admitting the obvious you choose to muddy the waters. Why? What ever the reason all your doing is allowing the simple concept of actually searching until your quite sure your not going to find it or it's possibly missing to turn into something more complicated than it is.

 

Lets say you own a park and grab. I log a dnf stating that I pulled up, never got out of the car and couldn't see it. You'd be outraged wouldn't you?

 

I'd like to think most cachers take great care before posting a NM or NA. Dnfs should be no different.

 

There's nothing in the second example to indicate that the reader finished searching to their level of satisfaction either - or that their level of satisfaction has any relevance whatsoever on a DNF being real or otherwise. There's nothing in that example to suggest that anyone's satisfaction had anything to do with your conclusion that arriving at GZ, searching and not finding the cache is a DNF. You wrote it. It's there in black and white.

 

So yeah - any muddy waters here aren't my doing

 

I like to think I'm an intelligent person. I expect most people like to think that about themselves. What I'm not though is a mind reader - so all I, or anyone else for that matter, have to go off when you make two conflicting statements (not quite diametrically opposed) is what you've written. I'm not going to spend time wondering if what you've written is what you meant to write.

 

People find caches or don't find them. There are logging options precisely aligned to those two outcomes and people should feel free to use them accordingly and certainly without having to worry about conflicting with one of your arbitrary standards.

 

How about responding to the example I posted about the park and grab. What's your thoughts on that?

[+narcissa]

I said, a long time ago in another thread, that I believe that DNF means Did Not Find, not Did Not Search. If I start to look for a cache, there are 7 possible outcomes:

 

1. I don't get close to GZ. In this case I usually log nothing. If the reason might be of interest to others, I will log a note.

 

2. I get close to GZ and choose not to start searching. Usually I log nothing unless the reason might be significant to others. If a local farmers market has just started and is held on the second Sunday of the Month, I'll probably log a note advising that there is a market stall just a few metres from GZ and the second Sunday of the month probably isn't the best time to search for this one. Once I posted an NA.

 

3. I start searching, the cache is found and the log signed. I would log a find

 

4. I start searching, the cache is found, but I cannot sign the log due to maintenance issues. I log a find provided I can supply evidence of my presence and of the issue. I'll also log a NM, or possibly even an NA.

 

5. I start searching, the cache is located but I cannot sign the log due to my failing. If I can't reach the cache, can't solve the field puzzle, have forgotten my pen and can't find any other way to sign the log, I won't log a DNF - I found the darn thing, after all. I'll log a note, if only to thank the CO for the cache.

 

6. I start searching can't find the cache and finally decide that I'm giving up on this one today. I'll log a DNF.

 

7. I start searching, can't find the cache in the time available but external factors mean I have to cut short the search. I may or may not log a DNF, depending on whether I feel I have given a good search. When I had just begun my search and a group of muggles started a Tai Chi session 5m from GZ (yes, that really happened) I didn't log anything. Other times I'll log a note or DNF, depending on whether I feel I had made a real search.

 

Bully for you. There is nothing wrong with this, but this doesn't need to be the protocol for everyone.

 

Until the health score started dinging caches for DNFs regardless of context, it didn't matter if people varied in their decision-making. There was no reason to nitpick and criticize the way others use DNF. In fact, for years, many people have bitterly complained that nobody was using it enough!

 

DNF is built into my GPS, which saves a field note when I have to abort an attempt and select another cache to find. That field note becomes a draft DNF log when I import it into the website. Why was it designed that way, presumably in collaboration with Geocaching.com to some extent, if I am not permitted to use it like that? Avoiding DNF field notes in my GPS takes more steps.

 

Due to these changes, I will likely need to abandon field notes and turn to a more manual system for logging, which is inconvenient and time-consuming. I usually try to log within a couple of days of searching for a cache. I thought it was important to give timely information about what I experienced at or on the way to the GZ. Evidently not.

[+barefootjeff]

Lets say you own a park and grab. I log a dnf stating that I pulled up, never got out of the car and couldn't see it. You'd be outraged wouldn't you?

 

I'd like to think most cachers take great care before posting a NM or NA. Dnfs should be no different.

 

Heaven forbid that I ever own a P&G, but this situation isn't much different to the DNFs I get due to rain, mozzies, muggles, no phone reception, etc. and no, I'm not the least bit outraged when I get one of those. Instead I'm pleased that they at least made it as far as they did and hope they'll have a better chance to search and find it under more favourable conditions.

 

A DNF isn't an NM or an NA. It says nothing about the state of the cache, it just says that the searcher was unable to sign the logbook for whatever reason. If the searcher thinks the cache might need attention, they should log an NM, and in that situation I'd much rather receive an NM as it would highlight the need for me to check on the cache as soon as I can.

[+Team Microdot]

If I reach gz, search for 10 minutes and have to leave, for what ever reason, before I'm satisfied I've searched completely, it's not a dnf.

 

You get to ground zero, search, and don't find the cache. Sounds like a dnf to me.

 

Is it or isn't it?

 

It can't be both.

 

It isn't both. In the first example I didn't finish searching to my satisfaction. Not a dnf.

 

I do believe your an intelligent person and I have no doubt you get exactly what I'm saying. Yet instead of admitting the obvious you choose to muddy the waters. Why? What ever the reason all your doing is allowing the simple concept of actually searching until your quite sure your not going to find it or it's possibly missing to turn into something more complicated than it is.

 

Lets say you own a park and grab. I log a dnf stating that I pulled up, never got out of the car and couldn't see it. You'd be outraged wouldn't you?

 

I'd like to think most cachers take great care before posting a NM or NA. Dnfs should be no different.

 

There's nothing in the second example to indicate that the reader finished searching to their level of satisfaction either - or that their level of satisfaction has any relevance whatsoever on a DNF being real or otherwise. There's nothing in that example to suggest that anyone's satisfaction had anything to do with your conclusion that arriving at GZ, searching and not finding the cache is a DNF. You wrote it. It's there in black and white.

 

So yeah - any muddy waters here aren't my doing

 

I like to think I'm an intelligent person. I expect most people like to think that about themselves. What I'm not though is a mind reader - so all I, or anyone else for that matter, have to go off when you make two conflicting statements (not quite diametrically opposed) is what you've written. I'm not going to spend time wondering if what you've written is what you meant to write.

 

People find caches or don't find them. There are logging options precisely aligned to those two outcomes and people should feel free to use them accordingly and certainly without having to worry about conflicting with one of your arbitrary standards.

 

How about responding to the example I posted about the park and grab. What's your thoughts on that?

 

Since you ask, simply that you're wrong.

[+redsox_mark]

Lets say you own a park and grab. I log a dnf stating that I pulled up, never got out of the car and couldn't see it. You'd be outraged wouldn't you?

 

I'd like to think most cachers take great care before posting a NM or NA. Dnfs should be no different.

 

Heaven forbid that I ever own a P&G, but this situation isn't much different to the DNFs I get due to rain, mozzies, muggles, no phone reception, etc. and no, I'm not the least bit outraged when I get one of those. Instead I'm pleased that they at least made it as far as they did and hope they'll have a better chance to search and find it under more favourable conditions.

 

A DNF isn't an NM or an NA. It says nothing about the state of the cache, it just says that the searcher was unable to sign the logbook for whatever reason. If the searcher thinks the cache might need attention, they should log an NM, and in that situation I'd much rather receive an NM as it would highlight the need for me to check on the cache as soon as I can.

 

Good for you. And you have received a DNF "health" email yourself. I wouldn't be outraged either.

 

But the more that cachers are chased because of DNFs, the more likely it is that a CO will complain about such a DNF. Like the DNF thread with the tree I linked to earlier. Everyone agreed the CO was out of line trying to dictate when a DNF was appropriate, but I still see it happening more and more. Especially to a CO who has received a "health" mail. Many may react at "I didn't actually look" DNFs negatively, fearing it may prompt more "health issues".

[+niraD]

What ever the reason all your doing is allowing the simple concept of actually searching until your quite sure your not going to find it or it's possibly missing to turn into something more complicated than it is.

The part I put in bold face is the issue.

 

I don't stop searching when I'm quite sure I'm not going to find it. I don't stop searching when I'm quite sure it's possibly missing. I stop searching when I've found it, or when I'm no longer having fun.

 

I've logged as many as 6 DNFs on a well-camouflaged high-difficulty cache, before finally finding it. At no point in the process was I quite sure I was not going to find it. At no point in the process was I quite sure that it was possibly missing.

 

The DNFs just meant that I hadn't found it on that search attempt.

[+Pond Bird]

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

Reviewer reviews it. Obviously nothing to see here. Move along..... No harm done. No cachers were injured in the sending of this email.....

 

Reviewers get notified about single DNFs now? Since when?

 

I'm really not ringing that bell, ever. Sheesh.

 

The reviewer wouldn't review it until it was being considered for archiving.

 

Thank you for saying that! I agree, if a cache is receiving DNF logs because it is missing and the CO is gone than the reviewer would review it because of an NA!

[+justintim1999]

What ever the reason all your doing is allowing the simple concept of actually searching until your quite sure your not going to find it or it's possibly missing to turn into something more complicated than it is.

The part I put in bold face is the issue.

 

I don't stop searching when I'm quite sure I'm not going to find it. I don't stop searching when I'm quite sure it's possibly missing. I stop searching when I've found it, or when I'm no longer having fun.

 

I've logged as many as 6 DNFs on a well-camouflaged high-difficulty cache, before finally finding it. At no point in the process was I quite sure I was not going to find it. At no point in the process was I quite sure that it was possibly missing.

 

The DNFs just meant that I hadn't found it on that search attempt.

 

Maybe the first 5 times you post a note. On the 6th trip, when you've decided your not having fun anymore, you post the dnf.

 

The idea of a reasonable search before posting a dnf is such a simple one that I'm amazed there's so much angst over it. So much so that people will go out of there way to nit pick every word and phrase to avoid admitting the obvious.

 

In some cases if a reasonable search wasn't able to be done, than it may be better to post a note instead of a dnf.

 

I think based on the op's original question and the health score, this would make sense, no?

[+niraD]

What ever the reason all your doing is allowing the simple concept of actually searching until your quite sure your not going to find it or it's possibly missing to turn into something more complicated than it is.

The part I put in bold face is the issue.

 

I don't stop searching when I'm quite sure I'm not going to find it. I don't stop searching when I'm quite sure it's possibly missing. I stop searching when I've found it, or when I'm no longer having fun.

 

I've logged as many as 6 DNFs on a well-camouflaged high-difficulty cache, before finally finding it. At no point in the process was I quite sure I was not going to find it. At no point in the process was I quite sure that it was possibly missing.

 

The DNFs just meant that I hadn't found it on that search attempt.

Maybe the first 5 times you post a note. On the 6th trip, when you've decided your not having fun anymore, you post the dnf.

 

The idea of a reasonable search before posting a dnf is such a simple one that I'm amazed there's so much angst over it. So much so that people will go out of there way to nit pick every word and phrase to avoid admitting the obvious.

 

In some cases if a reasonable search wasn't able to be done, than it may be better to post a note instead of a dnf.

Which is it? Do I post a DNF when I've performed a "reasonable search"? Or do I post a DNF when I'm "quite sure [i'm] not going to find it or it's possibly missing"?

 

I assure you that I performed a reasonable search for each of those 6 DNFs. But multiple trips are to be expected for many caches rated D4 and above.

 

I think based on the op's original question and the health score, this would make sense, no?

A better approach would be to fix the health score and its automated nag email, to better accommodate false positives. We'll never eliminate false positives, so the automated nag email should suggest reasonable responses when a false positive occurs.

[+justintim1999]

What ever the reason all your doing is allowing the simple concept of actually searching until your quite sure your not going to find it or it's possibly missing to turn into something more complicated than it is.

The part I put in bold face is the issue.

 

I don't stop searching when I'm quite sure I'm not going to find it. I don't stop searching when I'm quite sure it's possibly missing. I stop searching when I've found it, or when I'm no longer having fun.

 

I've logged as many as 6 DNFs on a well-camouflaged high-difficulty cache, before finally finding it. At no point in the process was I quite sure I was not going to find it. At no point in the process was I quite sure that it was possibly missing.

 

The DNFs just meant that I hadn't found it on that search attempt.

Maybe the first 5 times you post a note. On the 6th trip, when you've decided your not having fun anymore, you post the dnf.

 

The idea of a reasonable search before posting a dnf is such a simple one that I'm amazed there's so much angst over it. So much so that people will go out of there way to nit pick every word and phrase to avoid admitting the obvious.

 

In some cases if a reasonable search wasn't able to be done, than it may be better to post a note instead of a dnf.

Which is it? Do I post a DNF when I've performed a "reasonable search"? Or do I post a DNF when I'm "quite sure [i'm] not going to find it or it's possibly missing"?

 

I assure you that I performed a reasonable search for each of those 6 DNFs. But multiple trips are to be expected for many caches rated D4 and above.

 

I think based on the op's original question and the health score, this would make sense, no?

A better approach would be to fix the health score and its automated nag email, to better accommodate false positives. We'll never eliminate false positives, so the automated nag email should suggest reasonable responses when a false positive occurs.

 

Both, lets pretend that not all caches are a D4 and I think GS has already done that.

 

Someone want to take the time to show me how to use the multi quote function?

[+bflentje]

I said, a long time ago in another thread, that I believe that DNF means Did Not Find, not Did Not Search. If I start to look for a cache, there are 7 possible outcomes:

 

(incredibly detailed set of rationalizations and rules deleted)

 

You tell yourself whatever you need to.

 

In reality, there are two possible outcomes. You either found the cache or you did not. If you found it, log a Found. If not, log a DNF. The byzantine rationalizations like yours above, apparently used to make yourself feel better about not logging your DNFs, are exactly what has gotten us into this mess where HQ apparently thinks a DNF means "the cache is missing."

 

I, for one, refuse to change my logging practices based on HQ abusing their own logging system.

 

This right here wins the Post of the Year Award.

 

+1

[+niraD]

Someone want to take the time to show me how to use the multi quote function?

On each post that you wish to include, click the MultiQuote link. It will change color.

 

When you've selected all the posts you wish to quote, scroll down and click the Use Full Editor button below the Fast Reply text field.

 

But the MultiQuote function strips all the newlines, turning the quoted posts into walls of text. Personally, I prefer opening multiple reply tabs, and copying the relevant bits from each reply tab into a single message.

[+justintim1999]

On each post that you wish to include, click the MultiQuote link. It will change color.When you've selected all the posts you wish to quote, scroll down and click the Use Full Editor button below the Fast Reply text field.But the MultiQuote function strips all the newlines, turning the quoted posts into walls of text. Personally, I prefer opening multiple reply tabs, and copying the relevant bits from each reply tab into a single message.

 

Here goes.

[+justintim1999]

On each post that you wish to include, click the MultiQuote link. It will change color.When you've selected all the posts you wish to quote, scroll down and click the Use Full Editor button below the Fast Reply text field.But the MultiQuote function strips all the newlines, turning the quoted posts into walls of text. Personally, I prefer opening multiple reply tabs, and copying the relevant bits from each reply tab into a single message.

 

Here goes.

 

Yessssss! Thanks.

[+Mudfrog]

Groundspeak's decision to base cache health on DNF count has done nothing to sway how i log a cache. DNF equals one thing, Did Not Find. Punching "goto" (this is a button on old timey gpsrs) and heading off to find a cache begins the search for me. Doesn't matter if i run out of fuel on the way to the cache, abandon a search because of bad weather, get run off by an irate land owner, etc, etc,,, it's a DNF if i Did Not Find the cache.

 

You'd think it was an easy concept to grasp. There's no gray area here, a person either finds the cache they took off for, or they don't.

[+justintim1999]

Groundspeak's decision to base cache health on DNF count has done nothing to sway how i log a cache. DNF equals one thing, Did Not Find. Punching "goto" (this is a button on old timey gpsrs) and heading off to find a cache begins the search for me. Doesn't matter if i run out of fuel on the way to the cache, abandon a search because of bad weather, get run off by an irate land owner, etc, etc,,, it's a DNF if i Did Not Find the cache.

 

You'd think it was an easy concept to grasp. There's no gray area here, a person either finds the cache they took off for, or they don't.

 

I just don't understand how you can log a dnf when you never even reached the parking area.

[+Mudfrog]

Groundspeak's decision to base cache health on DNF count has done nothing to sway how i log a cache. DNF equals one thing, Did Not Find. Punching "goto" (this is a button on old timey gpsrs) and heading off to find a cache begins the search for me. Doesn't matter if i run out of fuel on the way to the cache, abandon a search because of bad weather, get run off by an irate land owner, etc, etc,,, it's a DNF if i Did Not Find the cache.

 

You'd think it was an easy concept to grasp. There's no gray area here, a person either finds the cache they took off for, or they don't.

 

I just don't understand how you can log a dnf when you never even reached the parking area.

The search starts when i take off with the full intention of finding a cache. If i don't succeed in finding it, then i log the DNF. I always make sure to add details to my log for why i believed i didn't come up with the cache. I say in my log if i didn't perform a good search or make it to ground zero. A CO will always see my story and know right away whether he or she needs to be concerned that the cache may be missing.

 

Also, DNFs are part of my caching history. I may go back to an area years later, spot a cache that i DNFed, and make it a point to go after it. Clearing up old DNFs is part of the fun for me.

[+narcissa]

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

Reviewer reviews it. Obviously nothing to see here. Move along..... No harm done. No cachers were injured in the sending of this email.....

 

Reviewers get notified about single DNFs now? Since when?

 

I'm really not ringing that bell, ever. Sheesh.

 

The reviewer wouldn't review it until it was being considered for archiving.

 

Thank you for saying that! I agree, if a cache is receiving DNF logs because it is missing and the CO is gone than the reviewer would review it because of an NA!

 

A single DNF that says "gave up because of muggles" should not be taken as a sign that a cache is missing or that the CO is absent.

[+justintim1999]

Groundspeak's decision to base cache health on DNF count has done nothing to sway how i log a cache. DNF equals one thing, Did Not Find. Punching "goto" (this is a button on old timey gpsrs) and heading off to find a cache begins the search for me. Doesn't matter if i run out of fuel on the way to the cache, abandon a search because of bad weather, get run off by an irate land owner, etc, etc,,, it's a DNF if i Did Not Find the cache.

 

You'd think it was an easy concept to grasp. There's no gray area here, a person either finds the cache they took off for, or they don't.

 

I just don't understand how you can log a dnf when you never even reached the parking area.

The search starts when i take off with the full intention of finding a cache. If i don't succeed in finding it, then i log the DNF. I always make sure to add details to my log for why i believed i didn't come up with the cache. I say in my log if i didn't perform a good search or make it to ground zero. A CO will always see my story and know right away whether he or she needs to be concerned that the cache may be missing.

 

Also, DNFs are part of my caching history. I may go back to an area years later, spot a cache that i DNFed, and make it a point to go after it. Clearing up old DNFs is part of the fun for me.

 

Whether or not your agree with it isn't than one more inaccurate dnf that negatively counts toward the cache score? assuming you never even made it to gz.

[+justintim1999]

If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

 

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

 

Reviewer reviews it. Obviously nothing to see here. Move along..... No harm done. No cachers were injured in the sending of this email.....

 

Reviewers get notified about single DNFs now? Since when?

 

I'm really not ringing that bell, ever. Sheesh.

 

The reviewer wouldn't review it until it was being considered for archiving.

 

Thank you for saying that! I agree, if a cache is receiving DNF logs because it is missing and the CO is gone than the reviewer would review it because of an NA!

 

A single DNF that says "gave up because of muggles" should not be taken as a sign that a cache is missing or that the CO is absent.

 

Maybe but it could put another cache on a list that a reviewer will needlessly have to look at.

[+narcissa]

Groundspeak's decision to base cache health on DNF count has done nothing to sway how i log a cache. DNF equals one thing, Did Not Find. Punching "goto" (this is a button on old timey gpsrs) and heading off to find a cache begins the search for me. Doesn't matter if i run out of fuel on the way to the cache, abandon a search because of bad weather, get run off by an irate land owner, etc, etc,,, it's a DNF if i Did Not Find the cache.

 

You'd think it was an easy concept to grasp. There's no gray area here, a person either finds the cache they took off for, or they don't.

 

This has generally been my protocol as well, though I understand that others differ. It wasn't a problem until DNFs became a negative hit on a cache, causing problems for cache owners regardless of the DNF's context.

 

We can see from the other logging changes they've incorporated that actually sharing details about our experience is not a priority anymore. I guess they just want to streamline things. Found good, everything else bad.

[+lee737]

 

A single DNF that says "gave up because of muggles" should not be taken as a sign that a cache is missing or that the CO is absent.

 

That's pretty obvious, isn't it.....

 

 

[+narcissa]

 

A single DNF that says "gave up because of muggles" should not be taken as a sign that a cache is missing or that the CO is absent.

 

That's pretty obvious, isn't it.....

 

I would say so, but the forum user behind that particular thread seems to believe otherwise.

[+niraD]

And that, in a nutshell, is the disagreement over what it means to "log DNFs correctly".

 

For some, the search starts when they decide to navigate to GZ. For others, the search can't start until they reach GZ.

 

For some, any search that does not produce a Find is logged as DNF. For others, only "genuine" searches (for example, searches that convince them that the cache is either missing or beyond their capabilities) can be logged as DNF.

 

And so on. Different people use DNF logs differently, and any solution that relies on everyone logging DNFs the exact same way all the time is doomed to failure.

[+justintim1999]

Groundspeak's decision to base cache health on DNF count has done nothing to sway how i log a cache. DNF equals one thing, Did Not Find. Punching "goto" (this is a button on old timey gpsrs) and heading off to find a cache begins the search for me. Doesn't matter if i run out of fuel on the way to the cache, abandon a search because of bad weather, get run off by an irate land owner, etc, etc,,, it's a DNF if i Did Not Find the cache.

 

You'd think it was an easy concept to grasp. There's no gray area here, a person either finds the cache they took off for, or they don't.

 

This has generally been my protocol as well, though I understand that others differ. It wasn't a problem until DNFs became a negative hit on a cache, causing problems for cache owners regardless of the DNF's context.

 

We can see from the other logging changes they've incorporated that actually sharing details about our experience is not a priority anymore. I guess they just want to streamline things. Found good, everything else bad.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there. What constitutes a reasonable search? It's different for everyone. To me a quick once over doesn't constitute a search nor dose posting a dnf when you never even reached gz.

 

Look I don't even think that dnfs should be considered as highly as a NM when it comes to the health of a cache but how can you deny that three or four of them in a row is a yellow flag? (D4 rated caches or higher excluded). Especially when there's no response by the cache owner?

 

Why not use a little common sense before posting one?

[+justintim1999]

Different people use DNF logs differently, and any solution that relies on everyone logging DNFs the exact same way all the time is doomed to failure.

 

Like it or not I think the cache score is here to stay. That being said don't you think it's time to re-think how and when we use these logs?

 

You've created a multi quote monster.

[+niraD]

Different people use DNF logs differently, and any solution that relies on everyone logging DNFs the exact same way all the time is doomed to failure.

Like it or not I think the cache score is here to stay.

And I would agree. But that doesn't mean that it can't be fixed/improved, or that the way it is used (e.g., to trigger automated nag emails) can't be fixed/improved.

 

That being said don't you think it's time to re-think how and when we use these logs?

What's to rethink? I'm right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

 

But seriously, I could add another entry to my list:

 

For some, the meaning of a DNF is determined by its use in calculating cache health scores. For others, the meaning of a DNF is independent of is use/misuse in calculating cache health scores.

 

According to the Help Center article Log types:

Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing. DNF stands for “Did not find”.

That sounds good to me. What do you think?

[+WearyTraveler]

On each post that you wish to include, click the MultiQuote link. It will change color.When you've selected all the posts you wish to quote, scroll down and click the Use Full Editor button below the Fast Reply text field.But the MultiQuote function strips all the newlines, turning the quoted posts into walls of text. Personally, I prefer opening multiple reply tabs, and copying the relevant bits from each reply tab into a single message.

 

Here goes.

 

Yessssss! Thanks.

There went!

[+barefootjeff]

Groundspeak's decision to base cache health on DNF count has done nothing to sway how i log a cache. DNF equals one thing, Did Not Find. Punching "goto" (this is a button on old timey gpsrs) and heading off to find a cache begins the search for me. Doesn't matter if i run out of fuel on the way to the cache, abandon a search because of bad weather, get run off by an irate land owner, etc, etc,,, it's a DNF if i Did Not Find the cache.

 

You'd think it was an easy concept to grasp. There's no gray area here, a person either finds the cache they took off for, or they don't.

 

This has generally been my protocol as well, though I understand that others differ. It wasn't a problem until DNFs became a negative hit on a cache, causing problems for cache owners regardless of the DNF's context.

 

We can see from the other logging changes they've incorporated that actually sharing details about our experience is not a priority anymore. I guess they just want to streamline things. Found good, everything else bad.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there. What constitutes a reasonable search? It's different for everyone. To me a quick once over doesn't constitute a search nor dose posting a dnf when you never even reached gz.

 

Look I don't even think that dnfs should be considered as highly as a NM when it comes to the health of a cache but how can you deny that three or four of them in a row is a yellow flag? (D4 rated caches or higher excluded). Especially when there's no response by the cache owner?

 

Why not use a little common sense before posting one?

I've found caches that have had three or four DNFs in a row with no CO response, and I've had two or three DNFs in a row on a couple of my hides, I'm sure, but the cache wasn't missing. Around here people log DNFs for all sorts of reasons like no phone reception, rain, failing light, muggles, mozzies or inability to reach a cache they can see, so most don't indicate a problem with the cache. And please tell me where in the guidelines it says that a CO must respond to DNFs.

 

I don't understand why it's been necessary to effectively do away with meaningful NM logs and instead redefine DNF to mean what NM used to mean, without telling the people who are still logging DNFs for all those "wrong" reasons that they shouldn't anymore.

 

Edit to add: I guess that means every single one of the 47 DNFs I've had across my hides were "wrongful" DNFs since none were due to a cache problem. That's a lot of re-education needed.

Edited June 29, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+Gill & Tony]

DNF is built into my GPS, which saves a field note when I have to abort an attempt and select another cache to find. That field note becomes a draft DNF log when I import it into the website. Why was it designed that way, presumably in collaboration with Geocaching.com to some extent, if I am not permitted to use it like that? Avoiding DNF field notes in my GPS takes more steps.

 

Due to these changes, I will likely need to abandon field notes and turn to a more manual system for logging, which is inconvenient and time-consuming. I usually try to log within a couple of days of searching for a cache. I thought it was important to give timely information about what I experienced at or on the way to the GZ. Evidently not.

My GPS also has the very useful "DNF" option built in. It sits directly above the also very useful "Unattempted" option.

 

Could you please explain what useful information is contained in a log which says "On the way to the cache it started raining so I turned round, drove home and didn't get within 5Km of the cache"? Or any other log written about an attempt which didn't even get to the parking area?

 

If I were the CO, I wouldn't care if someone happened to be driving along a road 5Km from my cache.

 

If I were a potential seeker of the cache, I don't really need to know that someone once drove along a road near the cache

 

If I were the person writing the log, it doesn't give me any help in finding the cache next time. If I absolutely had to write something to remind myself that it once rained when I was on the way to the cache, a private cache note would suffice.

 

What is the purpose of recording that information?

[+narcissa]

DNF is built into my GPS, which saves a field note when I have to abort an attempt and select another cache to find. That field note becomes a draft DNF log when I import it into the website. Why was it designed that way, presumably in collaboration with Geocaching.com to some extent, if I am not permitted to use it like that? Avoiding DNF field notes in my GPS takes more steps.

 

Due to these changes, I will likely need to abandon field notes and turn to a more manual system for logging, which is inconvenient and time-consuming. I usually try to log within a couple of days of searching for a cache. I thought it was important to give timely information about what I experienced at or on the way to the GZ. Evidently not.

My GPS also has the very useful "DNF" option built in. It sits directly above the also very useful "Unattempted" option.

 

Could you please explain what useful information is contained in a log which says "On the way to the cache it started raining so I turned round, drove home and didn't get within 5Km of the cache"? Or any other log written about an attempt which didn't even get to the parking area?

 

If I were the CO, I wouldn't care if someone happened to be driving along a road 5Km from my cache.

 

If I were a potential seeker of the cache, I don't really need to know that someone once drove along a road near the cache

 

If I were the person writing the log, it doesn't give me any help in finding the cache next time. If I absolutely had to write something to remind myself that it once rained when I was on the way to the cache, a private cache note would suffice.

 

What is the purpose of recording that information?

 

I can't find the post with the example you're referring to. If I drove home without attempting to find a cache, there wouldn't be a field note.

 

My threshold for what constitutes a search attempt may be different than yours but there's no need to be insulting about it.

 

And, as mentioned, I have acknowledged that I was using DNFs wrong according to the new site parameters and the forum mob, so I won't be using them anymore. You can put the stick down.

[+The Jester]

Groundspeak's decision to base cache health on DNF count has done nothing to sway how i log a cache. DNF equals one thing, Did Not Find. Punching "goto" (this is a button on old timey gpsrs) and heading off to find a cache begins the search for me. Doesn't matter if i run out of fuel on the way to the cache, abandon a search because of bad weather, get run off by an irate land owner, etc, etc,,, it's a DNF if i Did Not Find the cache.

 

You'd think it was an easy concept to grasp. There's no gray area here, a person either finds the cache they took off for, or they don't.

 

This has generally been my protocol as well, though I understand that others differ. It wasn't a problem until DNFs became a negative hit on a cache, causing problems for cache owners regardless of the DNF's context.

 

We can see from the other logging changes they've incorporated that actually sharing details about our experience is not a priority anymore. I guess they just want to streamline things. Found good, everything else bad.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there. What constitutes a reasonable search? It's different for everyone. To me a quick once over doesn't constitute a search nor dose posting a dnf when you never even reached gz.

The bolded words are not obvious in most of your posts. You make flat statements that "this" is the right way. It comes across that only your way is the proper way - if everyone did it your way everything would be rainbow and roses. Take your example from earlier (the PNG stop, look, leave DNF that you would get upset about) - what if that is my "reasonable" search? I saw piles of garbage around GZ, or it's chocked with blackberry vines - I'm satisfied with my look-over search, it seems reasonable to me to not do any more. DNF OK?

 

I'm also one of those who considers the search starting when I hit GOTO. I remember once driving around the circular set of houses trying to find the way into GZ (an open space behind all the houses). If I hadn't found the tiny path, I'd have posted a DNF because I couldn't find access to GZ. Sometimes the search for access is harder/longer then the search at GZ. Another time I got T-boned while on the way - yep, another DNF! With pictures! You see, I'm never satisfied with the search until I find a cache. If I don't find it, whether it's one minute, 5 minutes or 2 hours, I'm not satisfied.

 

Why not use a little common sense before posting one?

I use a lot of common sense, if I don't FIND a cache during the hunt, it's a DNF. And if a CO gets upset about a nag email because if it, I'll redirect their anger/frustration/angst to the right people - GC HQ. It's not my fault/problem that they've started using it in a strange way. Until they give us a new tool to tell our story of not finding a cache, I'll continue to post FOUND for finding a cache, DNF for not finding a cache, and NOTE for other things I might want to say.

 

Oh, BTW, without any DNF's posted, where would the string of several DNF's come from?

 

And, on a multi visit hunt, at what point do I post a DNF? The first time I try? Or the last time? Carefully how you answer, as you don't know it's the last time until after you've found it, or it's archived (I had one cache that I DNF'd 7 times - up to 45 minutes per visit - I'd have tried again but it was then gone). Common sense tells me- each time.

[+Gill & Tony]

It is people who log DNF when they hit go on their GPS but never reach GZ who are causing the problem. It is people who log DNF when they get to GZ and don't start to search who are causing the problem.

 

I completely fail to understand you.

 

The problem is that HQ is abusing the DNF log type to harrass good cache owners in a misguided effort to improve cache quality.

 

Could you explain in small words why people who log DNFs without doing a proper (to your mind) search are forcing HQ to abuse DNFs as an indicator of "cache health?"

I've been thinking about this overnight and I think that we were initially talking about two different problems.

 

The problem you stated is, I agree, a problem, but it isn't one we can do anything about directly. We could send e-mails to HQ, we could write blog posts, we could even hold an event outside HQ where we wave banners and shout slogans, but any change will have to come from HQ.

 

Yes, we should continue to try to persuade HQ to change its algorithm and to soften the tone of the e-mail, but that problem will, I suspect, always be with us.

 

The problem I referred to was the fact that nastygrams are being sent to COs whose caches are in good health. (As an aside, has anyone actually received on within the last couple of months?). This is where I believe we can make a difference by thinking about the way we log DNFs. I don't think I have ever suggested that people should copy my approach. I have offered it as a suggestion. I don't think I have ever suggested what a reasonable search should be. All that subjective stuff is up to the individual.

 

What I do believe, and what I am advocating is that circumstances have changed and our logging habits need to be tempered by the changed circumstances.

 

Imagine that you are setting off on a hike, a bike ride or a kayaking trip and, somewhere along the way is a nice cache whose description includes "You will need a special tool to open the cache". You grab a selection of tools and set off on your trip. You arrive at GZ and there's the cache. It has a nice big geocache sticker on it and the GC Code is clearly marked. The type of tool is obvious, but you don't have one of them and there is no way to improvise. Given that we know that DNF logs are being regarded by the algorithm as "cache might be missing" and given that you know 100% that it isn't missing, do you really think it is a good idea to log a DNF?

[+lee737]

 

Imagine that you are setting off on a hike, a bike ride or a kayaking trip and, somewhere along the way is a nice cache whose description includes "You will need a special tool to open the cache". You grab a selection of tools and set off on your trip. You arrive at GZ and there's the cache. It has a nice big geocache sticker on it and the GC Code is clearly marked. The type of tool is obvious, but you don't have one of them and there is no way to improvise. Given that we know that DNF logs are being regarded by the algorithm as "cache might be missing" and given that you know 100% that it isn't missing, do you really think it is a good idea to log a DNF?

 

Yes, I would log a DNF, with an explanation that I lacked the tool.

[+Gill & Tony]

DNF is built into my GPS, which saves a field note when I have to abort an attempt and select another cache to find. That field note becomes a draft DNF log when I import it into the website. Why was it designed that way, presumably in collaboration with Geocaching.com to some extent, if I am not permitted to use it like that? Avoiding DNF field notes in my GPS takes more steps.

 

Due to these changes, I will likely need to abandon field notes and turn to a more manual system for logging, which is inconvenient and time-consuming. I usually try to log within a couple of days of searching for a cache. I thought it was important to give timely information about what I experienced at or on the way to the GZ. Evidently not.

My GPS also has the very useful "DNF" option built in. It sits directly above the also very useful "Unattempted" option.

 

Could you please explain what useful information is contained in a log which says "On the way to the cache it started raining so I turned round, drove home and didn't get within 5Km of the cache"? Or any other log written about an attempt which didn't even get to the parking area?

 

If I were the CO, I wouldn't care if someone happened to be driving along a road 5Km from my cache.

 

If I were a potential seeker of the cache, I don't really need to know that someone once drove along a road near the cache

 

If I were the person writing the log, it doesn't give me any help in finding the cache next time. If I absolutely had to write something to remind myself that it once rained when I was on the way to the cache, a private cache note would suffice.

 

What is the purpose of recording that information?

 

I can't find the post with the example you're referring to. If I drove home without attempting to find a cache, there wouldn't be a field note.

 

My threshold for what constitutes a search attempt may be different than yours but there's no need to be insulting about it.

 

And, as mentioned, I have acknowledged that I was using DNFs wrong according to the new site parameters and the forum mob, so I won't be using them anymore. You can put the stick down.

I'm sorry, I meant that to be two posts. The first line (about the DNF and unattempted options) was intended as a reply to your post. The other part was intended as a standalone post asking the general question about the usefulness of such logs.

 

I apologise for having made that error. I did not mean to insult you.

[+Gill & Tony]

 

Imagine that you are setting off on a hike, a bike ride or a kayaking trip and, somewhere along the way is a nice cache whose description includes "You will need a special tool to open the cache". You grab a selection of tools and set off on your trip. You arrive at GZ and there's the cache. It has a nice big geocache sticker on it and the GC Code is clearly marked. The type of tool is obvious, but you don't have one of them and there is no way to improvise. Given that we know that DNF logs are being regarded by the algorithm as "cache might be missing" and given that you know 100% that it isn't missing, do you really think it is a good idea to log a DNF?

 

Yes, I would log a DNF, with an explanation that I lacked the tool.

My mind is officially boggled.

[+fizzymagic]

Whether or not your agree with it isn't than one more inaccurate dnf that negatively counts toward the cache score? assuming you never even made it to gz.

 

How can a DNF be "inaccurate?" If you didn't find the cache, then it is completely accurate, no matter the reason.

 

Re-defining DNF to be DNFAISTMCS (did not find after I searched to my complete satisfaction) is nonsensical. If you want a log with that meaning, by all means propose it, but don't pretend that it was ever the intent of the DNF.

[+narcissa]

 

Imagine that you are setting off on a hike, a bike ride or a kayaking trip and, somewhere along the way is a nice cache whose description includes "You will need a special tool to open the cache". You grab a selection of tools and set off on your trip. You arrive at GZ and there's the cache. It has a nice big geocache sticker on it and the GC Code is clearly marked. The type of tool is obvious, but you don't have one of them and there is no way to improvise. Given that we know that DNF logs are being regarded by the algorithm as "cache might be missing" and given that you know 100% that it isn't missing, do you really think it is a good idea to log a DNF?

 

Yes, I would log a DNF, with an explanation that I lacked the tool.

My mind is officially boggled.

 

Why? Maybe the geocacher wants it to be in his/her records as an attempt, and have it appear on his/her map as a distinct blue frown. Why is the blue frown appearing on the map if we're only allowed to log DNFs in extremely specific circumstances?

 

I don't understand this harsh criticism of other people's logging protocols. Who is most likely to even notice any log I write? I am. Logs are, first and foremost, a record of my activity for my own benefit. I try to make them as helpful for other geocachers as I can, where applicable, but I assume I will be the primary user of my logs, regardless of type.

[+barefootjeff]

 

Imagine that you are setting off on a hike, a bike ride or a kayaking trip and, somewhere along the way is a nice cache whose description includes "You will need a special tool to open the cache". You grab a selection of tools and set off on your trip. You arrive at GZ and there's the cache. It has a nice big geocache sticker on it and the GC Code is clearly marked. The type of tool is obvious, but you don't have one of them and there is no way to improvise. Given that we know that DNF logs are being regarded by the algorithm as "cache might be missing" and given that you know 100% that it isn't missing, do you really think it is a good idea to log a DNF?

 

Yes, I would log a DNF, with an explanation that I lacked the tool.

Yep, that happened to me. The cache was up a tall slender tree with no side branches thick enough to support my weight, and the description said a TOTT was needed (big hint, bring a ladder). I did, but my ladder was about a metre too short. DNF with an explanation that might be helpful to future searchers (bring a long ladder) and maybe to the CO to consider when contemplating future tree hides.

Edited June 30, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+fizzymagic]

What I do believe, and what I am advocating is that circumstances have changed and our logging habits need to be tempered by the changed circumstances.

 

A well-reasoned post. In general, taking Narcissa's approach (stop logging DNFs) will address that quite well.

 

There is one small problem, though. I use DNFs for my own records. I like my DNFs; they often tell a good story and bring up fun memories. Giving them up, from my perspective, would reduce the value of geocaching to me.

 

It's sad that HQ has made a series of decisions that have reduced their value added to the game and effectively punished long-time cachers. I probably just need to get over it and deal with the fact that DNFs are now useless.

 

(And no, the other option, which is using them as HQ wants to be a way to punish COs is not, in my book, an option. I'd rather give them up entirely than see my contributions used to punish others.)

[+barefootjeff]

By the way, for those advocating WN instead of DNF whenever it's not clear beyond doubt that the cache is missing, the Help Centre says this about WN:

 

Use a “Write note” log to add information to a cache. Some examples:

•You previously logged and found the cache, but want to add additional information.

“Revisiting this cache with a friend who hasn’t found it yet!”

•You dropped a trackable into a cache previously logged and found.

•This cache is part of a challenge cache, but you haven’t completed all the challenge tasks yet.

 

I don't see anything in there that says "Couldn't find the cache for reasons that don't imply it's missing." Maybe that needs to be changed to bring it into line with the entry under NA logs.

[+niraD]

Imagine that you are setting off on a hike, a bike ride or a kayaking trip and, somewhere along the way is a nice cache whose description includes "You will need a special tool to open the cache". You grab a selection of tools and set off on your trip. You arrive at GZ and there's the cache. It has a nice big geocache sticker on it and the GC Code is clearly marked. The type of tool is obvious, but you don't have one of them and there is no way to improvise. Given that we know that DNF logs are being regarded by the algorithm as "cache might be missing" and given that you know 100% that it isn't missing, do you really think it is a good idea to log a DNF?

As you stated the situation, I might log a DNF. I reached GZ, I attempted to find a cache (per the geocaching meaning of the word "find", which includes signing the log and returning the cache to its original location), but I was unable to do so. Therefore, I Did Not Find the cache.

 

On the other hand, even though I did find the cache (per the dictionary definition "recognize or discover to be present"), I did not find the cache (per the geocaching meaning of the word "find", which includes signing the log and returning the cache to its original location). In the analogous situation where a challenge cache is found, but a Find log is prohibited by the logging requirement, posting a Note log is traditional.

 

In a slightly different situation, I arrived at GZ without the tool, just because I happened to be in the area and wanted to verify that the tool I intended to bring would work. I logged that reconnaissance trip as a Note. DNF didn't seem right because I never intended to attempt a Find.

 

But for the record, DNF means "Did Not Find", not "Might Be Missing".

[+Gill & Tony]

What I do believe, and what I am advocating is that circumstances have changed and our logging habits need to be tempered by the changed circumstances.

 

A well-reasoned post. In general, taking Narcissa's approach (stop logging DNFs) will address that quite well.

 

There is one small problem, though. I use DNFs for my own records. I like my DNFs; they often tell a good story and bring up fun memories. Giving them up, from my perspective, would reduce the value of geocaching to me.

 

It's sad that HQ has made a series of decisions that have reduced their value added to the game and effectively punished long-time cachers. I probably just need to get over it and deal with the fact that DNFs are now useless.

 

(And no, the other option, which is using them as HQ wants to be a way to punish COs is not, in my book, an option. I'd rather give them up entirely than see my contributions used to punish others.)

I (almost) completely agree with what you are saying.

 

I also enjoy my DNFs. I'm not proud of them, I'm not ashamed of them but I am not going to give up logging them, even if they may be perceived by the health score algorithm as a hit. They are far too important a record for me, the CO and future seekers for me to drop them entirely. I will, however, strive to ensure that my logging habits do not impact on the health score any more than necessary. Even before this change, when a DNF had no impact on other people, I wouldn't log a DNF unless I was satisfied in my own mind that I had made a reasonable search. That won't change.

[+Gill & Tony]

I inadvertently posted this in a reply to Narcissa. I'm repeating it in its own post, which is where it should be.

 

Could someone please explain what useful information is contained in a log which says "On the way to the cache it started raining so I turned round, drove home and didn't get within 5Km of the cache"? Or any other log written about an attempt which didn't even get to the parking area?

 

If I were the CO, I wouldn't care if someone happened to be driving along a road 5Km from my cache.

 

If I were a potential seeker of the cache, I don't really need to know that someone once drove along a road near the cache

 

If I were the person writing the log, it doesn't give me any help in finding the cache next time. If I absolutely had to write something to remind myself that it once rained when I was on the way to the cache, a private cache note would suffice.

 

What is the purpose of recording that information in a DNF log?

Edited June 30, 2017 by Gill & Tony

[+Gill & Tony]

Duplicated post deleted

Edited June 30, 2017 by Gill & Tony

[+Gill & Tony]

By the way, for those advocating WN instead of DNF whenever it's not clear beyond doubt that the cache is missing, the Help Centre says this about WN:

 

Use a “Write note” log to add information to a cache. Some examples:

•You previously logged and found the cache, but want to add additional information.

“Revisiting this cache with a friend who hasn’t found it yet!”

•You dropped a trackable into a cache previously logged and found.

•This cache is part of a challenge cache, but you haven’t completed all the challenge tasks yet.

 

I don't see anything in there that says "Couldn't find the cache for reasons that don't imply it's missing." Maybe that needs to be changed to bring it into line with the entry under NA logs.

I've bolded the bit which doesn't say "An exhaustive list of examples"

[+narcissa]

I inadvertently posted this in a reply to Narcissa. I'm repeating it in its own post, which is where it should be.

 

Could someone please explain what useful information is contained in a log which says "On the way to the cache it started raining so I turned round, drove home and didn't get within 5Km of the cache"? Or any other log written about an attempt which didn't even get to the parking area?

 

If I were the CO, I wouldn't care if someone happened to be driving along a road 5Km from my cache.

 

If I were a potential seeker of the cache, I don't really need to know that someone once drove along a road near the cache

 

If I were the person writing the log, it doesn't give me any help in finding the cache next time. If I absolutely had to write something to remind myself that it once rained when I was on the way to the cache, a private cache note would suffice.

 

What is the purpose of recording that information in a DNF log?

 

Where did this example occur?

 

I think we can all imagine examples of DNF logs that apparently serve little to no purpose.

 

Before the health score turned DNFs into a strike against a cache, this log might not be useful, but it wasn't harmful so I see no need be critical of it. I can't read minds and maybe it is useful to the person who wrote it.