Demonising the DNF

[+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?

 

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.

Several people have said that they will always log either a DNF or a Find once they have hit "GO" on their GPS, even if they abort the hunt before it started. I'm at a loss to see why they find it necessary to log anything at all under those circumstances. This is a made-up example of one such situation. Please feel free to substitute any other "Hit Go on my GPS, but didn't reach the parking spot" sceario you want.

[+Mudfrog]

 

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 boggled? A person in this situation did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on the cache.

[+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.

Several people have said that they will always log either a DNF or a Find once they have hit "GO" on their GPS, even if they abort the hunt before it started. I'm at a loss to see why they find it necessary to log anything at all under those circumstances. This is a made-up example of one such situation. Please feel free to substitute any other "Hit Go on my GPS, but didn't reach the parking spot" sceario you want.

 

It makes sense to me that some geocachers prefer to use a broader definition of a search, and would like to have their efforts easily recorded in one place.

 

This is a game of individuals with their own priorities and perceptions. A log that serves no purpose for you may be useful for someone else. There's no need to demand an explanation or criticize fellow geocachers for benign actions.

 

But the severe objectivists can rest easy. Now that these allegedly useless logs are being counted by the auto-nag system, they will decline in frequency and we'll all just wordlessly find caches or report them as missing with no detail at all.

[+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.

Why boggled? A person in this situation did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on the cache.

Two reasons:

 

First, I don't understand a DNF when they actually held the cache in their hand. Find is not the only alternative and they did "Find" the cache.

 

Second, given that a DNF will be interpreted by the algorithm as "Cache might be missing" and might trigger a nastygram to the CO, It seems wrong (to me, I know maybe not to others) to log a DNF when they know for 100% certainty that the cache isn't missing.

 

I would treat that like not having completed a challenge and would log a note. Nobody (as far as I know) logs DNF when they did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on a challenge cache. This seems, to me, to be an analogous situation.

[+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 boggled? A person in this situation did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on the cache.

Two reasons:

 

First, I don't understand a DNF when they actually held the cache in their hand. Find is not the only alternative and they did "Find" the cache.

 

Second, given that a DNF will be interpreted by the algorithm as "Cache might be missing" and might trigger a nastygram to the CO, It seems wrong (to me, I know maybe not to others) to log a DNF when they know for 100% certainty that the cache isn't missing.

 

I would treat that like not having completed a challenge and would log a note. Nobody (as far as I know) logs DNF when they did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on a challenge cache. This seems, to me, to be an analogous situation.

 

Prior to the new algorithm, there was nothing that made it "wrong" to use DNF for a broader range of experiences.

 

If it wasn't for the new algorithm, the new feature on the map would have led me to believe that they were, in fact, encouraging the use of DNF for a broader range of experiences. I would expect that, with the new feature highlighting DNFs, a geocacher may be more inclined to use DNF to denote any cache that they had attempted in some fashion and hoped to return to.

 

The fact that DNFs are triggering problematic auto-nag messages for unsuspecting cache owners is the only thing in the site design and function that suggests it is wrong to use DNFs. Up until recently, most of the official messaging around DNFs has encouraged their use for a range of scenarios.

Edited June 30, 2017 by narcissa

[+The Jester]

 

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 boggled? A person in this situation did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on the cache.

Two reasons:

 

First, I don't understand a DNF when they actually held the cache in their hand. Find is not the only alternative and they did "Find" the cache.

Not by GC standards. A GC Find means the log was signed, Just finding the container does not qualify as a Find, otherwise if I see the cache up the tree I could claim a Find.

 

Second, given that a DNF will be interpreted by the algorithm as "Cache might be missing" and might trigger a nastygram to the CO, It seems wrong (to me, I know maybe not to others) to log a DNF when they know for 100% certainty that the cache isn't missing.

I'll say again, just because GC HQ is (possible) assigning a different meaning than what I wrote in my log isn't my problem, it is HQ causing the problem - complain to them, don't villify cachers.

 

I would treat that like not having completed a challenge and would log a note. Nobody (as far as I know) logs DNF when they did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on a challenge cache. This seems, to me, to be an analogous situation.

Not the same thing at all. I'm not hunting the Challenge Cache while working at qualifing for it. If you mean when someone "pre-signing", that's defined as a Write Note (personally, I think you shouldn't sign a cache you can't complete, but I'm not telling others they are wrong to do so), still a different case.

[+barefootjeff]

The fact that DNFs are triggering problematic auto-nag messages for unsuspecting cache owners is the only thing in the site design and function that suggests it is wrong to use DNFs. Up until recently, most of the official messaging around DNFs has encouraged their use for a range of scenarios.

Actually it's not the only thing now. This thread started because of the new Help Centre page telling people to log an NA if they can't find a cache and there are several DNFs on the cache page with no owner response.

[+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.

My mind is officially boggled.

Why boggled? A person in this situation did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on the cache.

Two reasons:

 

First, I don't understand a DNF when they actually held the cache in their hand. Find is not the only alternative and they did "Find" the cache.

 

Second, given that a DNF will be interpreted by the algorithm as "Cache might be missing" and might trigger a nastygram to the CO, It seems wrong (to me, I know maybe not to others) to log a DNF when they know for 100% certainty that the cache isn't missing.

 

I would treat that like not having completed a challenge and would log a note. Nobody (as far as I know) logs DNF when they did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on a challenge cache. This seems, to me, to be an analogous situation.

A multi I attempted last year had a combination lock on the container, with the combination located at the first waypoint. I found the cache and had it in my hand, but couldn't open it because I couldn't find the combination at the waypoint coordinates. I logged a DNF.

[+Team Microdot]

 

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.

 

Just for the record, I'd log it as a DNf too, with an explanation that I lacked the tool.

[+Team Microdot]

Nobody (as far as I know) logs DNF when they did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on a challenge cache. This seems, to me, to be an analogous situation.

 

Never thought of that.

 

I might start doing that if I sign the log on a challenge before I qualify

[+redsox_mark]

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.

 

+1. This is what I've been saying, but put much more clearly and concisely.

 

Several of us feel that way. Others do not. I don't think there is much changing of views or position based on this discussion.

 

I have always taken into account the usefulness (or not) of a DNF log. In the case where I pressed go and started to walk, took a few steps, then got a phone call saying I needed to come home now, I would not log a DNF. Because I feel it would not be helpful to anyone, and I didn't see it helpful to myself either. If I wanted to remember I took those few steps I would log a note, otherwise nothing.

 

But there were other cases which were "geocaching related" where previously I would log DNF. One of those is reaching GZ but giving up due to the terrain being too difficult for me to retrieve the cache. Here, previously I would log DNF, as the DNF seemed relevant. Not to indicate "might be missing", but the fact I found the terrain difficult could be useful to others.

 

Now that DNF is being algorithmically used as "might be missing", I want to have at least done some searching at GZ. So, in the "terrain too difficult" case I will now log a note instead.

[+redsox_mark]

Sorry for going on about this, but I find it fascinating when there is such a difference of opinion, and I keep thinking why, and trying to apply some logic to it.

 

And this is what I think is much of the reason.

 

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

 

1 is logical and simple.

2 involves a judgement, and many variations in what factors to include and what decision to make.

 

For me, if one takes the "it depends" approach already, it is logical to at least consider how the tool is using DNFs when making your case by case decision. It is just one more piece of information to use in our "it depends" decision.

 

While if the approach is "press go", it is logical to me that nothing should change. The logic which says I started my search so I either find or don't find is still there. Why should I change it?

[+justintim1999]

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

 

I think that's exactly how it should be.

 

I'm more concerned with the cachers who take it literally and will post a dnf without ever even reaching gz. I could load up a cache and search around my living room for an hour and not "find it". Should I post a dnf?

 

To find something you have to actually look for it. To look for it you have to be in the general area and spend some time searching. I'm not interested in defining how long someone should search, I'll leave that up to the individual. If they're satisfied they gave it an honest try I'm fine with that.

[+justintim1999]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

For me, if one takes the "it depends" approach already, it is logical to at least consider how the tool is using DNFs when making your case by case decision. It is just one more piece of information to use in our "it depends" decision.

 

 

I'm in the "it depends" camp, and I agree that "the tool" is now one of the things to be taken into consideration when making the decision, the problem is that I think the vast majority of cachers don't know of the existence of "the tool" and therefore they won't be modifying their decision making to account for it, while there will be others who are aware of it but will refuse to take it into consideration.

 

I think "the tool" is a poorly thought out idea, it's impossible to have a tool which can account for the wide variations in the way cachers use DNFs and it would be better to turn it off IMO.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

+1

 

I often write something along the lines of "writing a note rather than a DNF because I did see it but couldn't reach it"

[+Team Microdot]

Sorry for going on about this, but I find it fascinating when there is such a difference of opinion, and I keep thinking why, and trying to apply some logic to it.

 

And this is what I think is much of the reason.

 

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

 

1 is logical and simple.

2 involves a judgement, and many variations in what factors to include and what decision to make.

 

For me, if one takes the "it depends" approach already, it is logical to at least consider how the tool is using DNFs when making your case by case decision. It is just one more piece of information to use in our "it depends" decision.

 

While if the approach is "press go", it is logical to me that nothing should change. The logic which says I started my search so I either find or don't find is still there. Why should I change it?

 

I'm in the it depends category.

 

Sometimes that includes times where I've failed to get to GZ or failed to get my signature on the logbook for one reason or another and in those situations having made a reasonable search has zero influence on my decision to log a DNF or not.

 

If I've failed to get to GZ because a safe/logical route escaped me I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've got to GZ but it's too unpleasant to search I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've found what might be a cache but I'm not sure because, for example, there's no logbook I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If a so-called stealth cache is in a location where actual stealth is, in truth, impossible - unless you're prepared to seek that cache only under cover of darkness when everyone's tucked up in bed I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I found the cache but dislodged it while retrieving it and it fell into and was lost in the undergrowth before I managed to get my signature on the log I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because there are previous DNF's I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because it's a needle-in-a-haystack hide and it's the end of a long day I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've not been able to search because the cache is close to a school or some other place where searching is uncomfortable I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

In fact, in all of those situations, I probably would log a DNF and explain why.

[+Team Microdot]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there.

 

By your own very precise definition of a find, being able to see the cache and unable to retrieve it is a DNF.

[+justintim1999]

Sorry for going on about this, but I find it fascinating when there is such a difference of opinion, and I keep thinking why, and trying to apply some logic to it.

 

And this is what I think is much of the reason.

 

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

 

1 is logical and simple.

2 involves a judgement, and many variations in what factors to include and what decision to make.

 

For me, if one takes the "it depends" approach already, it is logical to at least consider how the tool is using DNFs when making your case by case decision. It is just one more piece of information to use in our "it depends" decision.

 

While if the approach is "press go", it is logical to me that nothing should change. The logic which says I started my search so I either find or don't find is still there. Why should I change it?

 

I'm in the it depends category.

 

Sometimes that includes times where I've failed to get to GZ or failed to get my signature on the logbook for one reason or another and in those situations having made a reasonable search has zero influence on my decision to log a DNF or not.

 

If I've failed to get to GZ because a safe/logical route escaped me I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've got to GZ but it's too unpleasant to search I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've found what might be a cache but I'm not sure because, for example, there's no logbook I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If a so-called stealth cache is in a location where actual stealth is, in truth, impossible - unless you're prepared to seek that cache only under cover of darkness when everyone's tucked up in bed I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I found the cache but dislodged it while retrieving it and it fell into and was lost in the undergrowth before I managed to get my signature on the log I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because there are previous DNF's I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because it's a needle-in-a-haystack hide and it's the end of a long day I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've not been able to search because the cache is close to a school or some other place where searching is uncomfortable I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

In fact, in all of those situations, I probably would log a DNF and explain why.

 

These are great examples of what a cacher will encounter in the field.

 

I'd log them differently

 

failed to get to gz: Note

Too unpleasant at gz: Note

Unknown container: Use your own judgement.

Stealth cache: Note

Dropped cache: NM

half-hearted search: Note

close to a school Note

 

In half of these examples you never actually searched for the cache so you don't know if it's missing or not.

Edited June 30, 2017 by justintim1999

[+justintim1999]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there.

 

By your own very precise definition of a find, being able to see the cache and unable to retrieve it is a DNF.

 

How do you figure that?

 

to be precise.

 

Found cache and signed log is a find

Found the cache but can't retrieve it is a note (not a dnf because I found the cache. Not a find because I didn't sign the log)

Searched but couldn't find the cache is a dnf.

[+justintim1999]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there.

 

By your own very precise definition of a find, being able to see the cache and unable to retrieve it is a DNF.

 

I can't take credit for the definition of a find. GS came up with that one.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

I am absolutely not saying you're wrong here, but *to me* the primary user of my online logs is the cache owner, then other caches that might seek the cache, and then for my benefit and I write my logs with that in mind.

 

Earlier in the thread there was a bit incredulity expressed regarding posting a DNF if one doesn't reach GZ. While someone may post a DNF if they hit the "GO TO" button and never reach GZ and others won't post a DNF unless GZ has been reached I'm somewhat in the middle. Whether I post a DNF, a Note, or nothing at all depends on *why* I aborted the search, and whether that reason is something the CO might want to know about or something a future seeker could encounter. If I hit go, set off down a trail and get a phone call from my wife indicating that I need to be somewhere else, or I twist my ankle, or a dangerous lightning storm starts up, those are things that a CO can't do anything about or something that a future seeker might encounter (though, the wife thing seems to be pretty common). In those cases, I'd probably just post a note or nothing at all. If however, I hit "go", start down the trail and encounter a homeless camp, or a bridge that has been recently washed out, or arrive at GZ without the necessary tool to open the container, those are all things that a future seeker might encounter and the CO may want to be aware of (and possibly take action upon). In that case, I'd post a DNF as the "reason" I aborted the search is something that a future seeker might encounter and result in *not finding the cache*.

[+Team Microdot]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there.

 

By your own very precise definition of a find, being able to see the cache and unable to retrieve it is a DNF.

 

I can't take credit for the definition of a find. GS came up with that one.

 

Another useless response

[+redsox_mark]

 

Earlier in the thread there was a bit incredulity expressed regarding posting a DNF if one doesn't reach GZ. While someone may post a DNF if they hit the "GO TO" button and never reach GZ and others won't post a DNF unless GZ has been reached I'm somewhat in the middle. Whether I post a DNF, a Note, or nothing at all depends on *why* I aborted the search, and whether that reason is something the CO might want to know about or something a future seeker could encounter. If I hit go, set off down a trail and get a phone call from my wife indicating that I need to be somewhere else, or I twist my ankle, or a dangerous lightning storm starts up, those are things that a CO can't do anything about or something that a future seeker might encounter (though, the wife thing seems to be pretty common). In those cases, I'd probably just post a note or nothing at all. If however, I hit "go", start down the trail and encounter a homeless camp, or a bridge that has been recently washed out, or arrive at GZ without the necessary tool to open the container, those are all things that a future seeker might encounter and the CO may want to be aware of (and possibly take action upon). In that case, I'd post a DNF as the "reason" I aborted the search is something that a future seeker might encounter and result in *not finding the cache*.

 

I take a similar approach ("it depends"). Do you see any situations where you might now decide on a Note (rather than DNF) knowing that the DNF impacts the health score?

[+justintim1999]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there.

 

By your own very precise definition of a find, being able to see the cache and unable to retrieve it is a DNF.

 

I can't take credit for the definition of a find. GS came up with that one.

 

Another useless response

 

yours or mine?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there.

 

By your own very precise definition of a find, being able to see the cache and unable to retrieve it is a DNF.

 

How do you figure that?

 

to be precise.

 

Found cache and signed log is a find

Found the cache but can't retrieve it is a note (not a dnf because I found the cache. Not a find because I didn't sign the log)

Searched but couldn't find the cache is a dnf.

 

To be precise, to me, "finding a cache" means,

 

Locating the container

Retrieving the container

Signing the log

Replacing the container

 

We're talking about *online* logs here. A found it log can be posted when all four of those criteria have been accomplished. There a huge thread of hundreds of examples of caches only locating the container (or the remnants of a container...or a hiding place where that was used for the container) for which some posted a "Found It" when they should have posted a DNF.

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Earlier in the thread there was a bit incredulity expressed regarding posting a DNF if one doesn't reach GZ. While someone may post a DNF if they hit the "GO TO" button and never reach GZ and others won't post a DNF unless GZ has been reached I'm somewhat in the middle. Whether I post a DNF, a Note, or nothing at all depends on *why* I aborted the search, and whether that reason is something the CO might want to know about or something a future seeker could encounter. If I hit go, set off down a trail and get a phone call from my wife indicating that I need to be somewhere else, or I twist my ankle, or a dangerous lightning storm starts up, those are things that a CO can't do anything about or something that a future seeker might encounter (though, the wife thing seems to be pretty common). In those cases, I'd probably just post a note or nothing at all. If however, I hit "go", start down the trail and encounter a homeless camp, or a bridge that has been recently washed out, or arrive at GZ without the necessary tool to open the container, those are all things that a future seeker might encounter and the CO may want to be aware of (and possibly take action upon). In that case, I'd post a DNF as the "reason" I aborted the search is something that a future seeker might encounter and result in *not finding the cache*.

 

I take a similar approach ("it depends"). Do you see any situations where you might now decide on a Note (rather than DNF) knowing that the DNF impacts the health score?

 

I haven't encountered any, but I don't cache that much.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there.

 

By your own very precise definition of a find, being able to see the cache and unable to retrieve it is a DNF.

 

How do you figure that?

 

to be precise.

 

Found cache and signed log is a find

Found the cache but can't retrieve it is a note (not a dnf because I found the cache. Not a find because I didn't sign the log)

Searched but couldn't find the cache is a dnf.

 

Precision is important.

 

Attention to it might help reduce the incidence of those conflicting statements / claims / positions.

[+Team Microdot]

Sorry for going on about this, but I find it fascinating when there is such a difference of opinion, and I keep thinking why, and trying to apply some logic to it.

 

And this is what I think is much of the reason.

 

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

 

1 is logical and simple.

2 involves a judgement, and many variations in what factors to include and what decision to make.

 

For me, if one takes the "it depends" approach already, it is logical to at least consider how the tool is using DNFs when making your case by case decision. It is just one more piece of information to use in our "it depends" decision.

 

While if the approach is "press go", it is logical to me that nothing should change. The logic which says I started my search so I either find or don't find is still there. Why should I change it?

 

I'm in the it depends category.

 

Sometimes that includes times where I've failed to get to GZ or failed to get my signature on the logbook for one reason or another and in those situations having made a reasonable search has zero influence on my decision to log a DNF or not.

 

If I've failed to get to GZ because a safe/logical route escaped me I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've got to GZ but it's too unpleasant to search I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've found what might be a cache but I'm not sure because, for example, there's no logbook I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If a so-called stealth cache is in a location where actual stealth is, in truth, impossible - unless you're prepared to seek that cache only under cover of darkness when everyone's tucked up in bed I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I found the cache but dislodged it while retrieving it and it fell into and was lost in the undergrowth before I managed to get my signature on the log I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because there are previous DNF's I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because it's a needle-in-a-haystack hide and it's the end of a long day I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've not been able to search because the cache is close to a school or some other place where searching is uncomfortable I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

In fact, in all of those situations, I probably would log a DNF and explain why.

 

These are great examples of what a cacher will encounter in the field.

 

I'd log them differently

 

failed to get to gz: Note

Too unpleasant at gz: Note

Unknown container: Use your own judgement.

Stealth cache: Note

Dropped cache: NM

half-hearted search: Note

close to a school Note

 

In half of these examples you never actually searched for the cache so you don't know if it's missing or not.

 

Who said my DNF's voiced any opinion on the presence or absence of the cache at GZ?

[+justintim1999]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there.

 

By your own very precise definition of a find, being able to see the cache and unable to retrieve it is a DNF.

 

How do you figure that?

 

to be precise.

 

Found cache and signed log is a find

Found the cache but can't retrieve it is a note (not a dnf because I found the cache. Not a find because I didn't sign the log)

Searched but couldn't find the cache is a dnf.

 

Precision is important.

 

Attention to it might help reduce the incidence of those conflicting statements / claims / positions.

 

Well if I'm going to attempt any brain surgery any time soon I'll consult you first.

[+justintim1999]

Sorry for going on about this, but I find it fascinating when there is such a difference of opinion, and I keep thinking why, and trying to apply some logic to it.

 

And this is what I think is much of the reason.

 

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

 

1 is logical and simple.

2 involves a judgement, and many variations in what factors to include and what decision to make.

 

For me, if one takes the "it depends" approach already, it is logical to at least consider how the tool is using DNFs when making your case by case decision. It is just one more piece of information to use in our "it depends" decision.

 

While if the approach is "press go", it is logical to me that nothing should change. The logic which says I started my search so I either find or don't find is still there. Why should I change it?

 

I'm in the it depends category.

 

Sometimes that includes times where I've failed to get to GZ or failed to get my signature on the logbook for one reason or another and in those situations having made a reasonable search has zero influence on my decision to log a DNF or not.

 

If I've failed to get to GZ because a safe/logical route escaped me I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've got to GZ but it's too unpleasant to search I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've found what might be a cache but I'm not sure because, for example, there's no logbook I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If a so-called stealth cache is in a location where actual stealth is, in truth, impossible - unless you're prepared to seek that cache only under cover of darkness when everyone's tucked up in bed I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I found the cache but dislodged it while retrieving it and it fell into and was lost in the undergrowth before I managed to get my signature on the log I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because there are previous DNF's I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because it's a needle-in-a-haystack hide and it's the end of a long day I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've not been able to search because the cache is close to a school or some other place where searching is uncomfortable I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

In fact, in all of those situations, I probably would log a DNF and explain why.

 

These are great examples of what a cacher will encounter in the field.

 

I'd log them differently

 

failed to get to gz: Note

Too unpleasant at gz: Note

Unknown container: Use your own judgement.

Stealth cache: Note

Dropped cache: NM

half-hearted search: Note

close to a school Note

 

In half of these examples you never actually searched for the cache so you don't know if it's missing or not.

 

Who said my DNF's voiced any opinion on the presence or absence of the cache at GZ?

 

With all the talk about dnfs and there effect on the health score your really going to use that as an argument.

[+lee737]

 

Who said my DNF's voiced any opinion on the presence or absence of the cache at GZ?

 

Spot on.

[+Team Microdot]

 

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.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would you post a dnf? You can see the cache you just can't retrieve it.

 

It's not missing.

 

Not a dnf.

 

We all agree on what constitutes a find right? You find the cache and you sign the log. Not much personal interpretation there.

 

By your own very precise definition of a find, being able to see the cache and unable to retrieve it is a DNF.

 

How do you figure that?

 

to be precise.

 

Found cache and signed log is a find

Found the cache but can't retrieve it is a note (not a dnf because I found the cache. Not a find because I didn't sign the log)

Searched but couldn't find the cache is a dnf.

 

Precision is important.

 

Attention to it might help reduce the incidence of those conflicting statements / claims / positions.

 

Well if I'm going to attempt any brain surgery any time soon I'll consult you first.

 

If I were you I'd focus my energy elsewhere

[+Team Microdot]

Sorry for going on about this, but I find it fascinating when there is such a difference of opinion, and I keep thinking why, and trying to apply some logic to it.

 

And this is what I think is much of the reason.

 

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

 

1 is logical and simple.

2 involves a judgement, and many variations in what factors to include and what decision to make.

 

For me, if one takes the "it depends" approach already, it is logical to at least consider how the tool is using DNFs when making your case by case decision. It is just one more piece of information to use in our "it depends" decision.

 

While if the approach is "press go", it is logical to me that nothing should change. The logic which says I started my search so I either find or don't find is still there. Why should I change it?

 

I'm in the it depends category.

 

Sometimes that includes times where I've failed to get to GZ or failed to get my signature on the logbook for one reason or another and in those situations having made a reasonable search has zero influence on my decision to log a DNF or not.

 

If I've failed to get to GZ because a safe/logical route escaped me I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've got to GZ but it's too unpleasant to search I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've found what might be a cache but I'm not sure because, for example, there's no logbook I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If a so-called stealth cache is in a location where actual stealth is, in truth, impossible - unless you're prepared to seek that cache only under cover of darkness when everyone's tucked up in bed I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I found the cache but dislodged it while retrieving it and it fell into and was lost in the undergrowth before I managed to get my signature on the log I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because there are previous DNF's I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because it's a needle-in-a-haystack hide and it's the end of a long day I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've not been able to search because the cache is close to a school or some other place where searching is uncomfortable I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

In fact, in all of those situations, I probably would log a DNF and explain why.

 

These are great examples of what a cacher will encounter in the field.

 

I'd log them differently

 

failed to get to gz: Note

Too unpleasant at gz: Note

Unknown container: Use your own judgement.

Stealth cache: Note

Dropped cache: NM

half-hearted search: Note

close to a school Note

 

In half of these examples you never actually searched for the cache so you don't know if it's missing or not.

 

Who said my DNF's voiced any opinion on the presence or absence of the cache at GZ?

 

With all the talk about dnfs and there effect on the health score your really going to use that as an argument.

 

I make no apology for the fact my position and the words I've used to describe it might not fit with your agenda.

[+justintim1999]

Sorry for going on about this, but I find it fascinating when there is such a difference of opinion, and I keep thinking why, and trying to apply some logic to it.

 

And this is what I think is much of the reason.

 

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

 

1 is logical and simple.

2 involves a judgement, and many variations in what factors to include and what decision to make.

 

For me, if one takes the "it depends" approach already, it is logical to at least consider how the tool is using DNFs when making your case by case decision. It is just one more piece of information to use in our "it depends" decision.

 

While if the approach is "press go", it is logical to me that nothing should change. The logic which says I started my search so I either find or don't find is still there. Why should I change it?

 

I'm in the it depends category.

 

Sometimes that includes times where I've failed to get to GZ or failed to get my signature on the logbook for one reason or another and in those situations having made a reasonable search has zero influence on my decision to log a DNF or not.

 

If I've failed to get to GZ because a safe/logical route escaped me I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've got to GZ but it's too unpleasant to search I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've found what might be a cache but I'm not sure because, for example, there's no logbook I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If a so-called stealth cache is in a location where actual stealth is, in truth, impossible - unless you're prepared to seek that cache only under cover of darkness when everyone's tucked up in bed I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I found the cache but dislodged it while retrieving it and it fell into and was lost in the undergrowth before I managed to get my signature on the log I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because there are previous DNF's I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've only made a half-hearted search because it's a needle-in-a-haystack hide and it's the end of a long day I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

If I've not been able to search because the cache is close to a school or some other place where searching is uncomfortable I might log a DNF and explain why.

 

In fact, in all of those situations, I probably would log a DNF and explain why.

 

These are great examples of what a cacher will encounter in the field.

 

I'd log them differently

 

failed to get to gz: Note

Too unpleasant at gz: Note

Unknown container: Use your own judgement.

Stealth cache: Note

Dropped cache: NM

half-hearted search: Note

close to a school Note

 

In half of these examples you never actually searched for the cache so you don't know if it's missing or not.

 

Who said my DNF's voiced any opinion on the presence or absence of the cache at GZ?

 

With all the talk about dnfs and there effect on the health score your really going to use that as an argument.

 

I make no apology for the fact my position and the words I've used to describe it might not fit with your agenda.

 

That's it, completely gloss over the fact that just about every example you gave of a situation where you'd "probably" post a dnf would negatively impact the health score needlessly.

 

You keep posturing to the masses. I'll keep pushing for common sense.

[+Team Microdot]

That's it, completely gloss over the fact that just about every example you gave of a situation where you'd "probably" post a dnf would negatively impact the health score needlessly.

 

You keep posturing to the masses. I'll keep pushing for common sense.

 

I think common sense in the context of this thread is a distant memory already.

[+Team DEMP]

 

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.

 

From what is described here, I don't see a reason to change your workflow. After your drafts (aka field notes) are uploaded from your GPS, on the website when editing each draft, you can change the log type from DNF to another log type. As an example, change the DNF to a Note as you review our edit the draft prior to logging it.

[+J Grouchy]

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.

 

See...I guess I just don't understand this. Days? Really?

 

It takes you days to write five short sentences?

 

Last cache on our little drive today. Very pleasant church and cemetery. Enjoyed strolling to the cache and looking at some of the stones. Found the cache quickly (I imagine it's a tougher hide in summer). Thanks for the cache!

 

You aren't one of those high-number cachers that runs out and grabs two or three hundred in a day. Personally, I feel guilty if I don't log my finds within hours, so I'm having trouble understanding how you have time to get five caches in a day, but don't have time to jot down 30 or 40 one and two syllable words until the following week. I regularly post logs of that length or longer from my smartphone within minutes of finding a cache.

 

No...it's clear you and others are overstating the effect these changes are having.

[+J Grouchy]

Sorry for going on about this, but I find it fascinating when there is such a difference of opinion, and I keep thinking why, and trying to apply some logic to it.

 

And this is what I think is much of the reason.

 

Putting aside the demon tool for a moment, the when to DNF debate can be split into 2 approaches:

 

1. The "press go" approach.

2. The "it depends" approach.

 

1 is logical and simple.

2 involves a judgement, and many variations in what factors to include and what decision to make.

 

For me, if one takes the "it depends" approach already, it is logical to at least consider how the tool is using DNFs when making your case by case decision. It is just one more piece of information to use in our "it depends" decision.

 

While if the approach is "press go", it is logical to me that nothing should change. The logic which says I started my search so I either find or don't find is still there. Why should I change it?

 

How is #1 the "logical" approach? How does pressing 'GO' on your GPS qualify as a search? Applying strict logic in this case, one needs to go to the log type itself.

 

"Did not find" is pretty definitive. Finding implies searching. If one does not search, then the 'did not find' is not applicable at all. I don't get home after work and tell my family I "did not drown". I only would have potentially drowned if I'd gone into water that day, but pretty much every day at work does not involve me going into water, so telling people I did not drown is useless information. Now, if my job involved frequent underwater excursions, my family would find the statement "I did not drown" to be useful simply because there is always a chance of it happening in the daily course of events.

 

So you can talk about logic all you want, but your application of it is faulty to begin with.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't get home after work and tell my family I "did not drown".

 

They can probably work that out by virtue of you being there, not drowned

 

The fact though remains, whether you tell them or not.

 

telling people I did not drown is useless information..

 

Especially if you're telling them in person

 

So you can talk about logic all you want, but your application of it is faulty to begin with.

 

Like it or not, facts are facts.

[+redsox_mark]

 

How is #1 the "logical" approach? How does pressing 'GO' on your GPS qualify as a search? Applying strict logic in this case, one needs to go to the log type itself.

 

"Did not find" is pretty definitive. Finding implies searching. If one does not search, then the 'did not find' is not applicable at all. I don't get home after work and tell my family I "did not drown". I only would have potentially drowned if I'd gone into water that day, but pretty much every day at work does not involve me going into water, so telling people I did not drown is useless information. Now, if my job involved frequent underwater excursions, my family would find the statement "I did not drown" to be useful simply because there is always a chance of it happening in the daily course of events.

 

So you can talk about logic all you want, but your application of it is faulty to begin with.

 

This is getting tricky as I don't use the "#1" approach myself. Perhaps algorithmic is a better word than logical. It is better for someone who takes that approach to defend it, but I believe the "logic" is that the journey to the cache is part of the search.

[+J Grouchy]

I believe the "logic" is that the journey to the cache is part of the search.

 

How you justify that is beyond me. In a two mile hike to GZ, are you looking for the cache the entire way? Is there not some invisible 'zone' where you actually begin searching? Yes, maybe it can vary from a 30 foot circle up to 200 feet, but the journey to GZ is not in any way part of any search.

[+J Grouchy]

I don't get home after work and tell my family I "did not drown".

 

They can probably work that out by virtue of you being there, not drowned

 

The fact though remains, whether you tell them or not.

 

telling people I did not drown is useless information..

 

Especially if you're telling them in person

 

So you can talk about logic all you want, but your application of it is faulty to begin with.

 

Like it or not, facts are facts.

 

I used an absurd example to point out the absurdity of redsox's claim.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't get home after work and tell my family I "did not drown".

 

They can probably work that out by virtue of you being there, not drowned

 

The fact though remains, whether you tell them or not.

 

telling people I did not drown is useless information..

 

Especially if you're telling them in person

 

So you can talk about logic all you want, but your application of it is faulty to begin with.

 

Like it or not, facts are facts.

 

I used an absurd example to point out the absurdity of redsox's claim.

 

Is it absurd that I've just noticed that the title of the the thread sounds like a title for a song or possibly a dance / dance move - or possible all three?

 

And now I've seen it, I can't unsee it

 

Perhaps I need a lie down...

 

Yes - that's it, a nice lie down with a damp tea towel over my eyes...

 

ETA - Out Demons! Out!

Edited June 30, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+J Grouchy]

I don't get home after work and tell my family I "did not drown".

 

They can probably work that out by virtue of you being there, not drowned

 

The fact though remains, whether you tell them or not.

 

telling people I did not drown is useless information..

 

Especially if you're telling them in person

 

So you can talk about logic all you want, but your application of it is faulty to begin with.

 

Like it or not, facts are facts.

 

I used an absurd example to point out the absurdity of redsox's claim.

 

Is it absurd that I've just noticed that the title of the the thread sounds like a title for a song or possibly a dance / dance move - or possible all three?

 

And now I've seen it, I can't unsee it

 

Perhaps I need a lie down...

 

Yes - that's it, a nice lie down with a damp tea towel over my eyes...

 

ETA - Out Demons! Out!

 

I keep wanting to call it "Demolishing the DNF". Maybe it's because the OP spelled it with an 's' instead of a 'z'.

[+redsox_mark]

I believe the "logic" is that the journey to the cache is part of the search.

 

How you justify that is beyond me. In a two mile hike to GZ, are you looking for the cache the entire way? Is there not some invisible 'zone' where you actually begin searching? Yes, maybe it can vary from a 30 foot circle up to 200 feet, but the journey to GZ is not in any way part of any search.

 

Again, this is not my view. I'm only saying I understand the view of those who think that way.

[+J Grouchy]

I believe the "logic" is that the journey to the cache is part of the search.

 

How you justify that is beyond me. In a two mile hike to GZ, are you looking for the cache the entire way? Is there not some invisible 'zone' where you actually begin searching? Yes, maybe it can vary from a 30 foot circle up to 200 feet, but the journey to GZ is not in any way part of any search.

 

Again, this is not my view. I'm only saying I understand the view of those who think that way.

 

Okay...so by your "logic", I should include my commute time on my weekly time sheet at work. Maybe I should move further away from the office!

[+justintim1999]

 

How is #1 the "logical" approach? How does pressing 'GO' on your GPS qualify as a search? Applying strict logic in this case, one needs to go to the log type itself.

 

"Did not find" is pretty definitive. Finding implies searching. If one does not search, then the 'did not find' is not applicable at all. I don't get home after work and tell my family I "did not drown". I only would have potentially drowned if I'd gone into water that day, but pretty much every day at work does not involve me going into water, so telling people I did not drown is useless information. Now, if my job involved frequent underwater excursions, my family would find the statement "I did not drown" to be useful simply because there is always a chance of it happening in the daily course of events.

 

So you can talk about logic all you want, but your application of it is faulty to begin with.

 

This is getting tricky as I don't use the "#1" approach myself. Perhaps algorithmic is a better word than logical. It is better for someone who takes that approach to defend it, but I believe the "logic" is that the journey to the cache is part of the search.

 

That's the sticking point. The journey is part of the experience but it has nothing to do with actually searching for the cache. The fact is Dnfs have always been a part (albeit a small one) of determining if a cache is missing. Right or wrong they do effect a caches health score. So why is suggesting we simply re-think how we use dnfs such a foreign concept?

 

If your using dnfs to keep some sort of personal list than create a bookmark.

 

If your a long distance cache owner who gets 5 or 6 attempts on your cache every year, you should be all over this. The fewer bogus dnfs logged on your caches the less potential problems for you.

 

Same goes for multi and puzzle cache owners.

 

If someone attempts to find one of my caches and can't I want them to post a dnf. Anything they do between their house and gz to me is not an attempt.

[+J Grouchy]

OK...I'm sorry, but this is just who I am and I can't help myself:

 

your => indicates possession

you're => a contraction of "you are"

[+Mudfrog]

While i think it's a mistake for Groundspeak to use DNF count in the algorithm, i just don't see it as a big deal. People seem to get offended at the littlest things, and in this case, scared silly that they might receive one of these dreaded automated emails. Myself, i'll step up and deal with it if one ever comes my way.

 

My definition of a DNF may differ from most but it has worked fine for the 16 years i've been caching. Have never had one of my DNFs deleted or questioned in all those years. Groundspeak may cause a CO some irritation with this silliness but imo, that CO needs to "man up", get over it, and take care of business.