Demonising the DNF

[+dprovan]

Why can't a note convay those exact same experiences?

Because a note doesn't say "Did Not Find".

[+The Jester]

The way some use dnfs boggles my mind but what's even more disheartening is the refusal to even admit the simple logic behind what I'm saying. Weather or not they agree with me isn't important. I understand the reasoning behind why I do things even if I am to stupid to convey my ideas clearly to others.

It's disheartening that you can't admit the logic behind someone else's method/thinking. I don't disagree with your logic (altough I think it's limited), I disagree with your conclusions and your rigid "this is the only way" arguing. I'm not saying your way is wrong - it's right for you - but can't you allow others the same right?

[+The Jester]

I'm not worried about how the automated system will interpret my DNF at all. I'm only worried about how other humans will interpret it.

 

Exactly, so why should reviewers, cachers and cache owners have to interpret a dnf as anything other than reached gz and searched?

 

Why should they sacrifice the exquisite gifts that evolution bestowed upon them by refusing to appreciate that in the real world a DNF can include a wide spectrum of complex and fascinating experiences?

 

Why can't a note convay those exact same experiences?

Because notes are tracked differently on the system. You don't see caches with notes on the GC map, third party apps don't mark caches with notes.

[+barefootjeff]

Why can't a note convay those exact same experiences?

Because a note doesn't say "Did Not Find".

And from a practical perspective, a DNF puts a big blue face at the top of the cache page along with the date I DNFed it, so I can easily scroll down and find my log to see what story I'd told back then - often good for a laugh.

 

My WNs are mostly about TB drops whereas DNFs give me a concise list of those caches or locations that have defeated me and now, even better, they're shown on the map so planning my redemptions is even easier.

 

Also when I see a WN on a watchlisted cache I usually gloss over it as it's probably just a TB drop, but a DNF often means an interesting story. We have some challenging caches around here and the DNFs are an important part of their history.

[+justintim1999]

Why can't a note convay those exact same experiences?

Because a note doesn't say "Did Not Find".

 

And I guess a dnf doesn't say you actually searched.

[+justintim1999]

The way some use dnfs boggles my mind but what's even more disheartening is the refusal to even admit the simple logic behind what I'm saying. Weather or not they agree with me isn't important. I understand the reasoning behind why I do things even if I am to stupid to convey my ideas clearly to others.

It's disheartening that you can't admit the logic behind someone else's method/thinking. I don't disagree with your logic (altough I think it's limited), I disagree with your conclusions and your rigid "this is the only way" arguing. I'm not saying your way is wrong - it's right for you - but can't you allow others the same right?

 

 

Play the game any way you like. Just understand that the way you choose log can effect other cachers and not always in a positive way.

 

If any type of log has the potential to negitivly effect a cache we all should be careful how and when we use it.

[+Team Hugs]

If any type of log has the potential to negitivly effect a cache we all should be careful how and when we use it.

 

That could apply to any log of any type, of course ... which doesn't help matters.

[+Gill & Tony]

And from a practical perspective, a DNF puts a big blue face at the top of the cache page along with the date I DNFed it, so I can easily scroll down and find my log to see what story I'd told back then - often good for a laugh.

I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather.

[+barefootjeff]

And from a practical perspective, a DNF puts a big blue face at the top of the cache page along with the date I DNFed it, so I can easily scroll down and find my log to see what story I'd told back then - often good for a laugh.

I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather.

Perhaps if it's something that might be of use to future seekers or the CO, such as the seas being too big to reach GZ (a couple of my hides could have that problem), a creek crossing on the way to GZ being too difficult due to earlier rain, or one I saw recently where someone tried taking a shortcut that looked good on the map and satellite image but ended in impenetrable scrub. There's a few I've DNFed where I've gotten very close to GZ but chickened out of the final climb or leap of faith - such a log might be helpful to others similarly afflicted with a wonky sense of balance.

 

Edit to add: another common one is making a mistake solving a mystery cache or multi field puzzle and ending up at the wrong GZ.

Edited July 9, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+Gill & Tony]

And from a practical perspective, a DNF puts a big blue face at the top of the cache page along with the date I DNFed it, so I can easily scroll down and find my log to see what story I'd told back then - often good for a laugh.

I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather.

Perhaps if it's something that might be of use to future seekers or the CO, such as the seas being too big to reach GZ (a couple of my hides could have that problem), a creek crossing on the way to GZ being too difficult due to earlier rain, or one I saw recently where someone tried taking a shortcut that looked good on the map and satellite image but ended in impenetrable scrub. There's a few I've DNFed where I've gotten very close to GZ but chickened out of the final climb or leap of faith - such a log might be helpful to others similarly afflicted with a wonky sense of balance.

 

Edit to add: another common one is making a mistake solving a mystery cache or multi field puzzle and ending up at the wrong GZ.

But I specifically said that the reason had nothing to do with the cache.

 

Obviously, the only approach to GZ being impassable or new "Private Property" signs warrant some sort of log - maybe even a NM, but the fact that you got a phone call or you decided not to go there due to rain?

[+Harry Dolphin]

And from a practical perspective, a DNF puts a big blue face at the top of the cache page along with the date I DNFed it, so I can easily scroll down and find my log to see what story I'd told back then - often good for a laugh.

I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather.

 

I went looking for a cache today. About a mile away, the road was closed "Road Closed. Hazard." I guess I could have driven a few miles to approach from the other side. That was a note, not a DNF.

[+barefootjeff]

And from a practical perspective, a DNF puts a big blue face at the top of the cache page along with the date I DNFed it, so I can easily scroll down and find my log to see what story I'd told back then - often good for a laugh.

I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather.

Perhaps if it's something that might be of use to future seekers or the CO, such as the seas being too big to reach GZ (a couple of my hides could have that problem), a creek crossing on the way to GZ being too difficult due to earlier rain, or one I saw recently where someone tried taking a shortcut that looked good on the map and satellite image but ended in impenetrable scrub. There's a few I've DNFed where I've gotten very close to GZ but chickened out of the final climb or leap of faith - such a log might be helpful to others similarly afflicted with a wonky sense of balance.

 

Edit to add: another common one is making a mistake solving a mystery cache or multi field puzzle and ending up at the wrong GZ.

But I specifically said that the reason had nothing to do with the cache.

 

Obviously, the only approach to GZ being impassable or new "Private Property" signs warrant some sort of log - maybe even a NM, but the fact that you got a phone call or you decided not to go there due to rain?

It depends on what you mean by unrelated to the cache I suppose. I had a DNF yesterday on one of my 3-stage multis by a very experienced and highly respected cacher. He found the first waypoint but was stumped by the second, as he has upcoming surgery and didn't want to risk scratching his legs on the thick scrub between him and the waypoint. To me that's a perfectly valid DNF, even though the "problem" had nothing directly to do with the cache and he didn't get to GZ. On the day the cache (or in this case the waypoint) defeated him, that's all.

Edited July 10, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+narcissa]

And from a practical perspective, a DNF puts a big blue face at the top of the cache page along with the date I DNFed it, so I can easily scroll down and find my log to see what story I'd told back then - often good for a laugh.

I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather.

 

Because it's relevant to them.

 

I expect that the vast majority of the time, I am going to be the main beneficiary of any information I write in any kind of log. The information I used to write in DNFs was for my own benefit as much as anybody else's. I would be descriptive in case it was helpful, but in the long run the person most likely to return to read those logs was me.

 

If I have to abort an attempt for any reason, I would like to record that so I can track it and attempt it again.

 

The bit I don't get is why it is so difficult to comprehend that the relevance of a DNF log is totally subjective and dependant on the person reading / using the log.

 

I mean, I hear the message loud and clear that DNF logs with any sort of information or context are not wanted on the voyage, but it is a bit of a loss for me to not be able to track my unsuccessful attempts in the same place I track my finds. It would have been nice to be able to do this now that the blue frowns appear on the map.

Edited July 10, 2017 by narcissa

[+Team Microdot]

...it is a bit of a loss for me to not be able to track my unsuccessful attempts in the same place I track my finds. It would have been nice to be able to do this now that the blue frowns appear on the map.

 

There's nothing stopping you.

[+thebruce0]

It depends on what you mean by unrelated to the cache I suppose. I had a DNF yesterday on one of my 3-stage multis by a very experienced and highly respected cacher. He found the first waypoint but was stumped by the second, as he has upcoming surgery and didn't want to risk scratching his legs on the thick scrub between him and the waypoint. To me that's a perfectly valid DNF, even though the "problem" had nothing directly to do with the cache and he didn't get to GZ. On the day the cache (or in this case the waypoint) defeated him, that's all.

That's interesting, but to me the problem was related to a cache-specific task. He was unable or unwilling to do what was required to continue in the progress ot the cache. To me that's related enough to log a DNF.

As opposed to something like "it started raining and I didn't want to get my shoes muddy on the trail, so I didn't exit my car at parking - DNF" =P

 

Now if they'd gone down the trail, came to an intersection, noticed the trail was thick mud, and farther down it was heavily washed out with a nice big pond - I'd say that would warrant a DNF, though some may still leave it as a note depending on how close GZ was. If I felt that the washout would hinder anyone from reaching the, say, 1.5T cache, then I'd DNF it (and if it seemed a more permanent hindrance, I might contact the CO to let them know - in that case I wouldn't post a NM).

 

There is so much subjective judgement calling based on numerous factors in these situations. And that's why it's not, and cannot be, strictly defined.

 

I expect that the vast majority of the time, I am going to be the main beneficiary of any information I write in any kind of log. The information I used to write in DNFs was for my own benefit as much as anybody else's. I would be descriptive in case it was helpful, but in the long run the person most likely to return to read those logs was me.

Returning to read, sure, that's likely true. But for more immediate followup cachers, those logs, even once-off, express highly valuable information which they'll either have to read or ignore and skip, if they choose to check recent logs.

 

[+narcissa]

It depends on what you mean by unrelated to the cache I suppose. I had a DNF yesterday on one of my 3-stage multis by a very experienced and highly respected cacher. He found the first waypoint but was stumped by the second, as he has upcoming surgery and didn't want to risk scratching his legs on the thick scrub between him and the waypoint. To me that's a perfectly valid DNF, even though the "problem" had nothing directly to do with the cache and he didn't get to GZ. On the day the cache (or in this case the waypoint) defeated him, that's all.

That's interesting, but to me the problem was related to a cache-specific task. He was unable or unwilling to do what was required to continue in the progress ot the cache. To me that's related enough to log a DNF.

As opposed to something like "it started raining and I didn't want to get my shoes muddy on the trail, so I didn't exit my car at parking - DNF" =P

 

Now if they'd gone down the trail, came to an intersection, noticed the trail was thick mud, and farther down it was heavily washed out with a nice big pond - I'd say that would warrant a DNF, though some may still leave it as a note depending on how close GZ was. If I felt that the washout would hinder anyone from reaching the, say, 1.5T cache, then I'd DNF it (and if it seemed a more permanent hindrance, I might contact the CO to let them know - in that case I wouldn't post a NM).

 

There is so much subjective judgement calling based on numerous factors in these situations. And that's why it's not, and cannot be, strictly defined.

 

I expect that the vast majority of the time, I am going to be the main beneficiary of any information I write in any kind of log. The information I used to write in DNFs was for my own benefit as much as anybody else's. I would be descriptive in case it was helpful, but in the long run the person most likely to return to read those logs was me.

Returning to read, sure, that's likely true. But for more immediate followup cachers, those logs, even once-off, express highly valuable information which they'll either have to read or ignore and skip, if they choose to check recent logs.

 

What is your point? Should we also demonize find logs with detail?

[+thebruce0]

eh? Was I demonizing anything?

[+coachstahly]

IMO, the biggest annoyance with regard to the nag emails isn't about receiving them, for those who consider themselves conscientious maintainers of our caches. I would venture to guess that it's because there are so many other caches that are in need of some nagging, either via the algorithm or via TPTB, yet, the ones that the COs Mark mentioned are the ones that got the nag email. Nothing is going to work perfectly, regardless of the situation and a nag email isn't the end of the world. I just find it interesting that COs who maintain their caches are apparently receiving nag emails (not a plethora but enough to take notice) in the hopes of improving cache quality, while caches with noted problems and NM logs are still active and being found, despite the problems. Obviously no one can provide an example of a non-responsive CO receiving the nag email but I wonder how many caches have actually been cleaned up or archived via this initiative. If this focus on cache quality has improved caching, then I'm apparently not seeing it. The caches I've found appear to be just like the ones I've found these past 7 years. A few are in pristine shape, most are in decent shape, some are in bad shape that just a little TLC could improve them to decent, and a few are in deplorable shape.

[+thebruce0]

IMO, the biggest annoyance with regard to the nag emails isn't about receiving them, for those who consider themselves conscientious maintainers of our caches. I would venture to guess that it's because there are so many other caches that are in need of some nagging, either via the algorithm or via TPTB, yet, the ones that the COs Mark mentioned are the ones that got the nag email. Nothing is going to work perfectly, regardless of the situation and a nag email isn't the end of the world. I just find it interesting that COs who maintain their caches are apparently receiving nag emails (not a plethora but enough to take notice) in the hopes of improving cache quality, while caches with noted problems and NM logs are still active and being found, despite the problems. Obviously no one can provide an example of a non-responsive CO receiving the nag email but I wonder how many caches have actually been cleaned up or archived via this initiative. If this focus on cache quality has improved caching, then I'm apparently not seeing it. The caches I've found appear to be just like the ones I've found these past 7 years. A few are in pristine shape, most are in decent shape, some are in bad shape that just a little TLC could improve them to decent, and a few are in deplorable shape.

So a couple of points.

1. "that COs who maintain their caches are apparently receiving nag emails (not a plethora but enough to take notice)" - as reported in the forum? We have no idea the ratio of false positives out in the 'real world'. All we know are the vocals who speak up in the forum, and we all know the negative is much easier to be vocal about. Only GS has the best access to real stats, if that's even possible, since false negatives have to actively be reported. And if they're not, then are they even false negatives?

 

2. "caches with noted problems and NM logs are still active and being found, despite the problems" - to my understanding, the CHS is specifically to deal with issues that aren't already addressed by existing methods, like NM's and whatnot. If caches with reported problems are still being found, that's not a problem with the health score - it's already in the hands of the COs and/or reviewers, which means that process needs better addressing.

 

3. "I wonder how many caches have actually been cleaned up or archived via this initiative" - we have reports from reviewers that the CHS has been beneficial to them. We can't compare criticisms of false positives with confirmed specific instances of successful nags, since the latter has no real metric. There's no way to statistically report whether the overall worldwide state of cache "health" or "quality" is increasing. The only tangible result can be reported by reviewers as they essentially have the first-hand exposure to cache problems via their 'hovering' over their regional landscape. And thus we have to trust their reports and opinions.

 

CHS was never intended as a universal perfect solution to cache health. Just as a tool to nudge owners to keep better attention on their caches, given that there's no way to perfectly identify "potential problems", and to help reviewers in their task of monitoring such potential issues. That's really all there is to it.

Edited July 10, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Gill & Tony]

And from a practical perspective, a DNF puts a big blue face at the top of the cache page along with the date I DNFed it, so I can easily scroll down and find my log to see what story I'd told back then - often good for a laugh.

I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather.

 

Because it's relevant to them.

 

I expect that the vast majority of the time, I am going to be the main beneficiary of any information I write in any kind of log. The information I used to write in DNFs was for my own benefit as much as anybody else's. I would be descriptive in case it was helpful, but in the long run the person most likely to return to read those logs was me.

 

If I have to abort an attempt for any reason, I would like to record that so I can track it and attempt it again.

Thanks for taking the time to try and explain. I still don't get why it is important to record something as mundane as "I gave up because the weather turned bad", but I guess to some folk it is.

 

One of the reasons I don't understand the "I've hit GO and therefore I must log something." approach is because I own an Etrex-30x. After it has woken up, I click the "Geocaches" button and get a list of caches near my current location. I get the first 16 characters of the name, the D/T, size, type and distance, but to see the description, hints, logs etc. I have to select the cache and hit GO. I frequently hit GO and decide that I'm not interested in the cache and select a different one from the list. Surely no one would log anything then?

 

One thing I've taken away from this thread is that there are people out there with the attitude "I've always done it this way. I know that circumstances have changed and that if I continue in my approach it may have some negative impact on Cache Owners, but I'm not going to change and if the Cache Owners don't like it then maybe Cache ownership isn't for them".

 

That is all well and good until the CO agrees with them and walks away, taking their caches with them. Cache owners are the lifeblood of this game. They spend time, money and energy putting out caches. Without cache owners, this game would not exist.

 

I don't know how serious the problem is. Maybe a reviewer can comment on how many health score e-mails they become aware of and what proportion of them look like false positives. Maybe it is all a false alarm, I know I've not received one, but until it is shown to be a non-event, I believe we should treat it seriously and adapt accordingly.

[+narcissa]

And from a practical perspective, a DNF puts a big blue face at the top of the cache page along with the date I DNFed it, so I can easily scroll down and find my log to see what story I'd told back then - often good for a laugh.

I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather.

 

Because it's relevant to them.

 

I expect that the vast majority of the time, I am going to be the main beneficiary of any information I write in any kind of log. The information I used to write in DNFs was for my own benefit as much as anybody else's. I would be descriptive in case it was helpful, but in the long run the person most likely to return to read those logs was me.

 

If I have to abort an attempt for any reason, I would like to record that so I can track it and attempt it again.

Thanks for taking the time to try and explain. I still don't get why it is important to record something as mundane as "I gave up because the weather turned bad", but I guess to some folk it is.

 

One of the reasons I don't understand the "I've hit GO and therefore I must log something." approach is because I own an Etrex-30x. After it has woken up, I click the "Geocaches" button and get a list of caches near my current location. I get the first 16 characters of the name, the D/T, size, type and distance, but to see the description, hints, logs etc. I have to select the cache and hit GO. I frequently hit GO and decide that I'm not interested in the cache and select a different one from the list. Surely no one would log anything then?

 

One thing I've taken away from this thread is that there are people out there with the attitude "I've always done it this way. I know that circumstances have changed and that if I continue in my approach it may have some negative impact on Cache Owners, but I'm not going to change and if the Cache Owners don't like it then maybe Cache ownership isn't for them".

 

That is all well and good until the CO agrees with them and walks away, taking their caches with them. Cache owners are the lifeblood of this game. They spend time, money and energy putting out caches. Without cache owners, this game would not exist.

 

I don't know how serious the problem is. Maybe a reviewer can comment on how many health score e-mails they become aware of and what proportion of them look like false positives. Maybe it is all a false alarm, I know I've not received one, but until it is shown to be a non-event, I believe we should treat it seriously and adapt accordingly.

 

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

[+Gill & Tony]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

[+narcissa]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

 

You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing.

 

They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process.

 

The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that.

 

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

[+Gill & Tony]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

 

You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing.

 

They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process.

 

The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that.

 

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

We really seem to be talking at cross purposes here. I fully agree with your desire to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and I understand your decision not to log any (although I feel it is a bit extreme, I can't criticise it). I also want to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and will continue to do so. But I never have, and will not, post DNFs when I haven't made what I feel to be a fair search. Other log types will fill that gap for me.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "You people". Groundspeak have made the decision to send the health score e-mails and I am not in any way connected with Groundspeak. I have no influence over them and I have not contributed in any way to their decision. You have made the decision to stop logging DNFs because you seem to believe that the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant that action. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence regarding the number of e-mails being sent and the impact that they are actually having on Cache owners. Until such evidence comes to light, I will continue to log DNFs as I always have.

[+Team Microdot]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

 

You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing.

 

They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process.

 

The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that.

 

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

We really seem to be talking at cross purposes here. I fully agree with your desire to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and I understand your decision not to log any (although I feel it is a bit extreme, I can't criticise it). I also want to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and will continue to do so. But I never have, and will not, post DNFs when I haven't made what I feel to be a fair search. Other log types will fill that gap for me.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "You people". Groundspeak have made the decision to send the health score e-mails and I am not in any way connected with Groundspeak. I have no influence over them and I have not contributed in any way to their decision. You have made the decision to stop logging DNFs because you seem to believe that the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant that action. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence regarding the number of e-mails being sent and the impact that they are actually having on Cache owners. Until such evidence comes to light, I will continue to log DNFs as I always have.

 

I too don't understand what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that or So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. - I think there was only one person here insisting that DNF's should only be used in very specific circumstances

 

In fact, while I'm too lazy to scroll back to check, I'm fairly sure Narcissa had already made her decision to no longer use DNF's before this thread even started.

[+justintim1999]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

 

You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing.

 

They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process.

 

The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that.

 

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

We really seem to be talking at cross purposes here. I fully agree with your desire to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and I understand your decision not to log any (although I feel it is a bit extreme, I can't criticise it). I also want to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and will continue to do so. But I never have, and will not, post DNFs when I haven't made what I feel to be a fair search. Other log types will fill that gap for me.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "You people". Groundspeak have made the decision to send the health score e-mails and I am not in any way connected with Groundspeak. I have no influence over them and I have not contributed in any way to their decision. You have made the decision to stop logging DNFs because you seem to believe that the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant that action. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence regarding the number of e-mails being sent and the impact that they are actually having on Cache owners. Until such evidence comes to light, I will continue to log DNFs as I always have.

 

I too don't understand what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that or So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. - I think there was only one person here insisting that DNF's should only be used in very specific circumstances

 

In fact, while I'm too lazy to scroll back to check, I'm fairly sure Narcissa had already made her decision to no longer use DNF's before this thread even started.

 

That one person wasn't insisting on anything. They were pointing out how and why they use dnfs. The reasons were in no way selfish. In fact the whole purpose in adopting their use of dnfs were out of respect for other cache owners and the integrity of the cache itself. The reasons they gave were, at least in their mind, valid weather or not you agree with them.

 

Their whole point was simply to think before you log.

[+redsox_mark]

 

One thing I've taken away from this thread is that there are people out there with the attitude "I've always done it this way. I know that circumstances have changed and that if I continue in my approach it may have some negative impact on Cache Owners, but I'm not going to change and if the Cache Owners don't like it then maybe Cache ownership isn't for them".

 

 

Yes, it is the large range of different opinions as to why this thread is so long.

 

- Some, indeed do not want to change how they log DNFs at all out of principle. Some of these take the "press go" approach, some take a different approach.

 

- Others are taking the approach that they will not log DNFs any more, even though they would like to for their own benefit. As they don't like the automated mails etc and don't want to be the cause of a CO getting these.

 

- Others are willing to take the current use of the tools into account in their decision making process. For some, this may result in little or no changes to how they log DNFs.

 

Also

 

- Some of us like the idea of the health score and counting DNFs.

 

- Others do not.

[+Team Microdot]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

 

You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing.

 

They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process.

 

The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that.

 

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

We really seem to be talking at cross purposes here. I fully agree with your desire to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and I understand your decision not to log any (although I feel it is a bit extreme, I can't criticise it). I also want to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and will continue to do so. But I never have, and will not, post DNFs when I haven't made what I feel to be a fair search. Other log types will fill that gap for me.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "You people". Groundspeak have made the decision to send the health score e-mails and I am not in any way connected with Groundspeak. I have no influence over them and I have not contributed in any way to their decision. You have made the decision to stop logging DNFs because you seem to believe that the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant that action. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence regarding the number of e-mails being sent and the impact that they are actually having on Cache owners. Until such evidence comes to light, I will continue to log DNFs as I always have.

 

I too don't understand what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that or So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. - I think there was only one person here insisting that DNF's should only be used in very specific circumstances

 

In fact, while I'm too lazy to scroll back to check, I'm fairly sure Narcissa had already made her decision to no longer use DNF's before this thread even started.

 

That one person wasn't insisting on anything. They were pointing out how and why they use dnfs. The reasons were in no way selfish. In fact the whole purpose in adopting their use of dnfs were out of respect for other cache owners and the integrity of the cache itself. The reasons they gave were, at least in their mind, valid weather or not you agree with them.

 

Their whole point was simply to think before you log.

 

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

[+justintim1999]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

 

You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing.

 

They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process.

 

The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that.

 

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

We really seem to be talking at cross purposes here. I fully agree with your desire to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and I understand your decision not to log any (although I feel it is a bit extreme, I can't criticise it). I also want to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and will continue to do so. But I never have, and will not, post DNFs when I haven't made what I feel to be a fair search. Other log types will fill that gap for me.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "You people". Groundspeak have made the decision to send the health score e-mails and I am not in any way connected with Groundspeak. I have no influence over them and I have not contributed in any way to their decision. You have made the decision to stop logging DNFs because you seem to believe that the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant that action. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence regarding the number of e-mails being sent and the impact that they are actually having on Cache owners. Until such evidence comes to light, I will continue to log DNFs as I always have.

 

I too don't understand what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that or So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. - I think there was only one person here insisting that DNF's should only be used in very specific circumstances

 

In fact, while I'm too lazy to scroll back to check, I'm fairly sure Narcissa had already made her decision to no longer use DNF's before this thread even started.

 

That one person wasn't insisting on anything. They were pointing out how and why they use dnfs. The reasons were in no way selfish. In fact the whole purpose in adopting their use of dnfs were out of respect for other cache owners and the integrity of the cache itself. The reasons they gave were, at least in their mind, valid weather or not you agree with them.

 

Their whole point was simply to think before you log.

 

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

 

I think everyone who has been following this thread knows that's exactly what I believe.

 

Agree or not I only hope they can at least understand the reasons behind it.

[+Team Microdot]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

 

You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing.

 

They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process.

 

The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that.

 

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

We really seem to be talking at cross purposes here. I fully agree with your desire to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and I understand your decision not to log any (although I feel it is a bit extreme, I can't criticise it). I also want to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and will continue to do so. But I never have, and will not, post DNFs when I haven't made what I feel to be a fair search. Other log types will fill that gap for me.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "You people". Groundspeak have made the decision to send the health score e-mails and I am not in any way connected with Groundspeak. I have no influence over them and I have not contributed in any way to their decision. You have made the decision to stop logging DNFs because you seem to believe that the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant that action. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence regarding the number of e-mails being sent and the impact that they are actually having on Cache owners. Until such evidence comes to light, I will continue to log DNFs as I always have.

 

I too don't understand what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that or So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. - I think there was only one person here insisting that DNF's should only be used in very specific circumstances

 

In fact, while I'm too lazy to scroll back to check, I'm fairly sure Narcissa had already made her decision to no longer use DNF's before this thread even started.

 

That one person wasn't insisting on anything. They were pointing out how and why they use dnfs. The reasons were in no way selfish. In fact the whole purpose in adopting their use of dnfs were out of respect for other cache owners and the integrity of the cache itself. The reasons they gave were, at least in their mind, valid weather or not you agree with them.

 

Their whole point was simply to think before you log.

 

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

 

I think everyone who has been following this thread knows that's exactly what I believe.

 

Agree or not I only hope they can at least understand the reasons behind it.

 

That's part of the problem. A dnf shouldn't be posted unless your satisfied you gave it a legitimate go. If for any reason you didn't or couldn't you should post a note instead.

[+justintim1999]

Yup. Pretty consistent with the first re-post.

 

If I remember correctly the context of this response was about searching after reaching gz.

[+Team Microdot]

Yup. Pretty consistent with the first re-post.

 

If I remember correctly the context of this response was about searching after reaching gz.

 

Indeed - which seems fairly specific to me in terms of its exlusion of other legitimate potential uses.

 

Glad we got that ironed out.

[+justintim1999]

Yup. Pretty consistent with the first re-post.

 

If I remember correctly the context of this response was about searching after reaching gz.

 

Indeed - which seems fairly specific to me in terms of its exlusion of other legitimate potential uses.

 

Glad we got that ironed out.

 

Most of the other reasons I can think of are more personal in nature. I choose not to use them in those ways because of the potential negative effects I think they could have on the cache and the owner.

 

Weather or not "other" uses for them are legitimate depends on how you define a dnf and if the personal reasons you use them outweigh any negative effects they may or may not have on the cache and it's owner.

 

I define a dnf as reached gz and searched but couldn't find it.

 

For me the potential negative effects of posting a dnf without satisfying my definition above outweighs any personal reasons I have for logging one.

 

I can only think of a few times when I've set out to find a cache and didn't reach gz. 95% of the time it's a find, dnf or NM. On the occasions that I didn't reach gz or didn't have enough time to do a reasonable search I've posted a note instead.

[+dprovan]

I think everyone who has been following this thread knows that's exactly what I believe.

 

Agree or not I only hope they can at least understand the reasons behind it.

In the context of this thread, the impression I get is that the reason you believe in this definition of DNF is that the automated health score depends on it. And, therefore, I see you as calling for everyone to use DNF because otherwise the health score won't work.

 

If, on the other hand, you are just expressing your personal criteria, then obviously that's fine. My criteria is that I post a DNF when I have something interesting to say about my failure to find the cache. I can have something interesting to say even when I never reach GZ, and I can have nothing interesting to say even though I reached GZ and searched for the cache.

[+justintim1999]

I think everyone who has been following this thread knows that's exactly what I believe.

 

Agree or not I only hope they can at least understand the reasons behind it.

In the context of this thread, the impression I get is that the reason you believe in this definition of DNF is that the automated health score depends on it. And, therefore, I see you as calling for everyone to use DNF because otherwise the health score won't work.

 

If, on the other hand, you are just expressing your personal criteria, then obviously that's fine. My criteria is that I post a DNF when I have something interesting to say about my failure to find the cache. I can have something interesting to say even when I never reach GZ, and I can have nothing interesting to say even though I reached GZ and searched for the cache.

 

I've stated earlier in this thread that I would hold the same views regardless of the health score. The existence of the health score is simply another reason why I choose to log the way I do. If I didn't reach gz and I had something interesting to share I would prefer to do so in a note.

[+narcissa]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

 

You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing.

 

They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process.

 

The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that.

 

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

We really seem to be talking at cross purposes here. I fully agree with your desire to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and I understand your decision not to log any (although I feel it is a bit extreme, I can't criticise it). I also want to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and will continue to do so. But I never have, and will not, post DNFs when I haven't made what I feel to be a fair search. Other log types will fill that gap for me.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "You people". Groundspeak have made the decision to send the health score e-mails and I am not in any way connected with Groundspeak. I have no influence over them and I have not contributed in any way to their decision. You have made the decision to stop logging DNFs because you seem to believe that the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant that action. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence regarding the number of e-mails being sent and the impact that they are actually having on Cache owners. Until such evidence comes to light, I will continue to log DNFs as I always have.

 

You have spent a considerable amount of time denigrating other people's DNFs because you don't understand that their assessment of a fair search differs from yours.

[+The Jester]

One of the reasons I don't understand the "I've hit GO and therefore I must log something." approach is because I own an Etrex-30x. After it has woken up, I click the "Geocaches" button and get a list of caches near my current location. I get the first 16 characters of the name, the D/T, size, type and distance, but to see the description, hints, logs etc. I have to select the cache and hit GO. I frequently hit GO and decide that I'm not interested in the cache and select a different one from the list. Surely no one would log anything then?

And I don't understand how you can not differentiate looking at the info and starting the hunt for a cache. On your unit they might both require you to hit GO, but are different actions (you may find there is a menu option to 'review waypoint/cache' before you hit GO - my Garmin 64s has that). In this context "hitting GO" (to me) means starting to hunt the cache. I've hit the GO button at times to see what route the GPSr is going to take - sometimes to see what other caches are along that route I may want to hunt, but that's info gathering and planning not starting the actual hunt.

[+bflentje]

I proudly logged twelve more DNF's this last weekend.

[+thebruce0]

One of the reasons I don't understand the "I've hit GO and therefore I must log something." approach is because I own an Etrex-30x. After it has woken up, I click the "Geocaches" button and get a list of caches near my current location. I get the first 16 characters of the name, the D/T, size, type and distance, but to see the description, hints, logs etc. I have to select the cache and hit GO. I frequently hit GO and decide that I'm not interested in the cache and select a different one from the list. Surely no one would log anything then?

And I don't understand how you can not differentiate looking at the info and starting the hunt for a cache. On your unit they might both require you to hit GO, but are different actions (you may find there is a menu option to 'review waypoint/cache' before you hit GO - my Garmin 64s has that). In this context "hitting GO" (to me) means starting to hunt the cache. I've hit the GO button at times to see what route the GPSr is going to take - sometimes to see what other caches are along that route I may want to hunt, but that's info gathering and planning not starting the actual hunt.

 

I think the issue was that people were trying to define just that - 'when the hunt starts', and some people claimed "When I hit GO", which doesn't clear the air any more than "when I reach gz". You just defined "when I hit GO" not as the implication, but just as another arbitrary beginning point. Not that it's any less valid, but we now know that "when I hit go" isn't any better a metric for the discussion. "When I hit go" could to someone else just as easily mean "when I set foot on the trail", or "when I look at the listing", or "when my car leaves my driveway".

So the point remains - everyone's "search", that is the point at which a DNF log post becomes one of the feasible responses to the effort to find the cache in question, begins at different times, and may be posted for any number of reasons determined by the judgement of the cacher .

 

[+mvhayes1982]

In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.

I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach.

 

You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing.

 

They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process.

 

The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that.

 

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

We really seem to be talking at cross purposes here. I fully agree with your desire to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and I understand your decision not to log any (although I feel it is a bit extreme, I can't criticise it). I also want to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and will continue to do so. But I never have, and will not, post DNFs when I haven't made what I feel to be a fair search. Other log types will fill that gap for me.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "You people". Groundspeak have made the decision to send the health score e-mails and I am not in any way connected with Groundspeak. I have no influence over them and I have not contributed in any way to their decision. You have made the decision to stop logging DNFs because you seem to believe that the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant that action. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence regarding the number of e-mails being sent and the impact that they are actually having on Cache owners. Until such evidence comes to light, I will continue to log DNFs as I always have.

 

I too don't understand what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that or So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. - I think there was only one person here insisting that DNF's should only be used in very specific circumstances

 

In fact, while I'm too lazy to scroll back to check, I'm fairly sure Narcissa had already made her decision to no longer use DNF's before this thread even started.

 

That one person wasn't insisting on anything. They were pointing out how and why they use dnfs. The reasons were in no way selfish. In fact the whole purpose in adopting their use of dnfs were out of respect for other cache owners and the integrity of the cache itself. The reasons they gave were, at least in their mind, valid weather or not you agree with them.

 

Their whole point was simply to think before you log.

 

Then we need clarify what constitutes a dnf. If you reach ground zero, searched to your hearts content and didn't find it than it's a dnf. Anything else is a note or nothing.

 

I think everyone who has been following this thread knows that's exactly what I believe.

 

Agree or not I only hope they can at least understand the reasons behind it.

 

It seems pretty clear that:

 

1) in the first quote, you state you aren't insisting on anything.

 

2) The second quote is a pretty clear demand -- "WE need to clarify what constitutes a DNF" -- and then you go on to assert what, to you, the proper definition of a DNF is.

 

So first you say you aren't insisting on anything, then you offer an insistence on what WE should all clarify a DNF to be.

 

Rather at odds with yourself, it seems.

[+barefootjeff]

I've stated earlier in this thread that I would hold the same views regardless of the health score. The existence of the health score is simply another reason why I choose to log the way I do. If I didn't reach gz and I had something interesting to share I would prefer to do so in a note.

Just to clarify it for me, if you reach GZ, search, draw a blank on all the obvious spots, then peer over the edge of the cliff onto the narrow ledge below and sure enough, there it is but you can't reach it because you're not confident you could safely climb down there, is that a DNF or a WN (or perhaps even a find if the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread is anything to go by)?

 

And in the case of multis or multi-stage mysteries, is reaching a waypoint and unsuccessfully searching the same as "reaching GZ"? Or is it always a note until you get all the way to GZ and luck out there?

[+Mudfrog]

One of the reasons I don't understand the "I've hit GO and therefore I must log something." approach is because I own an Etrex-30x. After it has woken up, I click the "Geocaches" button and get a list of caches near my current location. I get the first 16 characters of the name, the D/T, size, type and distance, but to see the description, hints, logs etc. I have to select the cache and hit GO. I frequently hit GO and decide that I'm not interested in the cache and select a different one from the list. Surely no one would log anything then?

And I don't understand how you can not differentiate looking at the info and starting the hunt for a cache. On your unit they might both require you to hit GO, but are different actions (you may find there is a menu option to 'review waypoint/cache' before you hit GO - my Garmin 64s has that). In this context "hitting GO" (to me) means starting to hunt the cache. I've hit the GO button at times to see what route the GPSr is going to take - sometimes to see what other caches are along that route I may want to hunt, but that's info gathering and planning not starting the actual hunt.

 

I think the issue was that people were trying to define just that - 'when the hunt starts', and some people claimed "When I hit GO", which doesn't clear the air any more than "when I reach gz". You just defined "when I hit GO" not as the implication, but just as another arbitrary beginning point. Not that it's any less valid, but we now know that "when I hit go" isn't any better a metric for the discussion. "When I hit go" could to someone else just as easily mean "when I set foot on the trail", or "when I look at the listing", or "when my car leaves my driveway".

So the point remains - everyone's "search", that is the point at which a DNF log post becomes one of the feasible responses to the effort to find the cache in question, begins at different times, and may be posted for any number of reasons determined by the judgement of the cacher .

I may have slipped up and not have been more specific in previous replies but i don't think so. I'm pretty sure that i've always said something to the effect, "search begins when i hit go to and begin making my way towards a cache with intentions of finding it".

 

I've hit goto plenty of times for other reasons, maybe to see where the cache was on the map in relation to where i was, or something like that. For me, there's no point in publishing any type of log at these times. It wouldn't bother me in the least if someone else did it though since i don't believe it would cause any real harm.

[+TerraViators]

I've stated earlier in this thread that I would hold the same views regardless of the health score. The existence of the health score is simply another reason why I choose to log the way I do. If I didn't reach gz and I had something interesting to share I would prefer to do so in a note.

Just to clarify it for me, if you reach GZ, search, draw a blank on all the obvious spots, then peer over the edge of the cliff onto the narrow ledge below and sure enough, there it is but you can't reach it because you're not confident you could safely climb down there, is that a DNF or a WN (or perhaps even a find if the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread is anything to go by)?

 

 

For how I play, this would be a DNF.

[+Gill & Tony]

One of the reasons I don't understand the "I've hit GO and therefore I must log something." approach is because I own an Etrex-30x. After it has woken up, I click the "Geocaches" button and get a list of caches near my current location. I get the first 16 characters of the name, the D/T, size, type and distance, but to see the description, hints, logs etc. I have to select the cache and hit GO. I frequently hit GO and decide that I'm not interested in the cache and select a different one from the list. Surely no one would log anything then?

And I don't understand how you can not differentiate looking at the info and starting the hunt for a cache. On your unit they might both require you to hit GO, but are different actions (you may find there is a menu option to 'review waypoint/cache' before you hit GO - my Garmin 64s has that). In this context "hitting GO" (to me) means starting to hunt the cache. I've hit the GO button at times to see what route the GPSr is going to take - sometimes to see what other caches are along that route I may want to hunt, but that's info gathering and planning not starting the actual hunt.

 

I think the issue was that people were trying to define just that - 'when the hunt starts', and some people claimed "When I hit GO", which doesn't clear the air any more than "when I reach gz". You just defined "when I hit GO" not as the implication, but just as another arbitrary beginning point. Not that it's any less valid, but we now know that "when I hit go" isn't any better a metric for the discussion. "When I hit go" could to someone else just as easily mean "when I set foot on the trail", or "when I look at the listing", or "when my car leaves my driveway".

So the point remains - everyone's "search", that is the point at which a DNF log post becomes one of the feasible responses to the effort to find the cache in question, begins at different times, and may be posted for any number of reasons determined by the judgement of the cacher .

To me, it isn't about when the search starts; it is about why the search finishes.

 

If the search finishes due to something completely unrelated to the cache I probably don't log anything

 

If the search finishes due to something related to the cache but before I have given up looking for the cache, I might log a note, an NM or an NA depending on circumstances.

 

If the search finishes because I have given up then I log a DNF.

 

The exact point where I felt the search started isn't relevant in my scenario.

[+dprovan]

I've stated earlier in this thread that I would hold the same views regardless of the health score. The existence of the health score is simply another reason why I choose to log the way I do. If I didn't reach gz and I had something interesting to share I would prefer to do so in a note.

Everyone understands how you feel about your own logs. What's not clear is whether you are telling other people when to call their logs DNFs. You seem to be supporting the health score as a useful tool, which implies you think everyone should log their DNFs with the same criteria you use. Is that the case or not?

 

To me, it isn't about when the search starts; it is about why the search finishes.

This is kinda the way I look at it, although I'd say that it depends on why my quest finishes because that might be before anything anyone would call "a search" started.

[+qtbluemoon]

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

Too drastic, narcissa. "no DNFs of any sort" - please! Let me ask you a question about your caches. Do you want us to quit logging DNFs on them? Don't you find them helpful? I want to know if people can't find my cache. And what if you got one of these nag letters? Would it annoy you? Would you trade one for the other? No nag letter for no DNFs? Why stop doing something that benefits you?

[+Harry Dolphin]

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

Too drastic, narcissa. "no DNFs of any sort" - please! Let me ask you a question about your caches. Do you want us to quit logging DNFs on them? Don't you find them helpful? I want to know if people can't find my cache. And what if you got one of these nag letters? Would it annoy you? Would you trade one for the other? No nag letter for no DNFs? Why stop doing something that benefits you?

 

No. Actually, I do not find DNF logs to be of any use to me. I don't see how it would benefit me. Nag letter? If that happens, I would probably archive the cache. I have some tough hides. But if nag letters come because newbies don't know how to find a cache causing a nag letter, then that defeats the porpoise of the game. My DNFs show on the maps. I should probably start ignoring then. I don't see where you are coming from with "something that benefits you." It does not benefit me.

[+narcissa]

So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.

Too drastic, narcissa. "no DNFs of any sort" - please! Let me ask you a question about your caches. Do you want us to quit logging DNFs on them? Don't you find them helpful? I want to know if people can't find my cache. And what if you got one of these nag letters? Would it annoy you? Would you trade one for the other? No nag letter for no DNFs? Why stop doing something that benefits you?

 

Whether or not you log DNFs on my caches is a personal decision. The circumstances under which you choose to log a DNF on one of my caches is also a personal decision. I appreciate all logs on my caches but it's not my place as a cache owner to tell people how they should log.

 

I would be annoyed / insulted by a nag message if it was triggered by a DNF that didn't require action, and I don't wish to cause this issue for fellow geocachers.

 

I can track my own cache activity offline easily enough. The blue frowns on the map would have been a nice feature to make use of (finally), but we're apparently not supposed to use DNFs unless we think the cache is gone, so *shrug*.

[+thebruce0]

To me, it isn't about when the search starts; it is about why the search finishes.

Yes.

Which is after it starts.

If it hasn't started, then it hasn't "finished".

 

It's really just a strange discussion about arbitrary definitions of phases of the process between seeing a listing to signing the log, and at what point, under what circumstances, various people decide posting a DNF is appropriate.

 

I would be annoyed / insulted by a nag message if it was triggered by a DNF that didn't require action

Sorry, but

I have no sympathy for your pain. It's an email. Delete it and move on. Seriously. If you ignore DNFs anyway because they have no value to you on your own caches, then you can even ignore REAL issues where those "nags" are actually legitimate.

Bluntly, get over it.

 

Not logging your DNFs at all is definitely taking something away from the community. They are informative to followup cachers who choose to read them, if you indeed post relevant information, and may be of interest to COs, whether or not there's a legitimate concern in your log.

I'll say it again - sticking it to the man in this case is sticking it to fellow cachers.

[+narcissa]

To me, it isn't about when the search starts; it is about why the search finishes.

Yes.

Which is after it starts.

If it hasn't started, then it hasn't "finished".

 

It's really just a strange discussion about arbitrary definitions of phases of the process between seeing a listing to signing the log, and at what point, under what circumstances, various people decide posting a DNF is appropriate.

 

I would be annoyed / insulted by a nag message if it was triggered by a DNF that didn't require action

Sorry, but

I have no sympathy for your pain. It's an email. Delete it and move on. Seriously. If you ignore DNFs anyway because they have no value to you on your own caches, then you can even ignore REAL issues where those "nags" are actually legitimate.

Bluntly, get over it.

 

Not logging your DNFs at all is definitely taking something away from the community. They are informative to followup cachers who choose to read them, if you indeed post relevant information, and may be of interest to COs, whether or not there's a legitimate concern in your log.

I'll say it again - sticking it to the man in this case is sticking it to fellow cachers.

 

I don't know where I asked for your sympathy or mentioned pain. I have very few active caches and I tend to err on the side of overly communicative when people DNF on them, so this issue likely won't affect me very much as a cache owner.

 

It is quite clear from this thread that depending on which half of the forum mob is complaining, I am sticking it to my fellow cachers whether I log my DNFs or not.

 

Since I am one of those dreaded "once I hit go" kind of DNFers and I write DNFs mainly for my own records and personal enjoyment, it seems quite clear that I am misusing the system if I continue.

 

Categorizing my DNFs according to some arbitrary worthiness of search is an effort I am not willing to make. I would rather have a single record of all caches I have attempted, whether or not those attempts pass muster with others.