DNF Etiquette

[+thebruce0]

On 2/2/2018 at 8:20 PM, dprovan said:

Interesting. I tend to ignore notes since, in my experience, they're almost always so unimportant I wonder why anyone would bother to post them.

I used to feel that way when they were used mainly for "TB drop" logs. That trend (from my experience) has dropped significantly in recent years though, so the signal to noise ratio is increasing again.

 

On 2/3/2018 at 1:30 PM, -CJ- said:

From my point of view, many logs are poor because they lack any content.

Agreed. Whatever the log type.

[+Cacheism 500]

  As long as you physically reach GZ* and look (even for a second and then get muggled off)  if you don't find it its a DNF.

 

 * Although I still call these DNFs, tree climbs (say)  where you see the tree and sometimes cache but don't attempt don't universally go down as DNFs, I was once caching as part of a Meetup group who 'agreed' not to log such a tree climb as DNF, not wanting to break group consensus I didnt!

 

   Not reaching GZ and logging DNF is lazy and bad etiquette.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Cacheism 500

[+barefootjeff]

53 minutes ago, Cacheism 500 said:

Not reaching GZ and logging DNF is lazy and bad etiquette.

Lazy? What about physically challenging high T-rated caches, like the one I logged a DNF on a few years back that required climbing down onto a narrow ledge atop a four metre cliff to reach it? It was something like a 5km hike from the road out to GZ, then I spent about an hour there searching more accessible spots before finally spying the cache tucked in at the back of that ledge. More time was spent trying to see if I could reach it from the side, then trying to psyche myself up to climb down onto the ledge, but, with my damaged sense of balance, in the end I walked away. Call it lazy if you will, but that in my book qualifies as a DNF - I went to within a metre of GZ and seached for the cache but at the end of the day my signature wasn't in the logbook. The cache defeated me. As a postscript to this, last year I returned to that cache carrying a 10kg telecsopic ladder on my back, which allowed me to reach it from below and redeem my DNF. I don't think that was lazy either.

Another example is one of my multis where an elderly cacher completed the first waypoint and hiked the 3km around to the second, which involved climbing onto a rocky outcrop beside the track (it's rated T3). He saw where he thought the waypoint must be and, having had one knee replaced and about to go into hospital to have the second one done, decided not to risk it so logged a DNF. As it turned out, the waypoint wasn't where he'd thought and was much easier to reach (I'm pretty sure he was standing almost right on top of it when he decided to call it quits) and, once I'd reassured him of that, he went back and successfully completed the cache, but I stand by DNF being the correct log for him to use on his first attempt. The cache defeated him on the day. I would never call him lazy, or call his use of that log in that circumstance bad etiquette.

DNF doesn't mean I think the cache might be missing - there's a perfectly good canned NM to use if that's what you want to say - it just means I didn't find it today, the cache defeated me.

Sure, if the reason you didn't reach GZ had nothing to do with the cache, like a phone call wanting you to be elsewhere or a traffic jam along the way, then I don't think a DNF is appropriate. But if the reason your signature isn't in the logbook is because the cache itself or the terrain leading to it defeated you, then, for me, that's a clear-cut DNF.

Edited February 23, 2018 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+grimpil]

Interesting discussion.  I chickened out of attempting to reach a couple of caches today as they were apparently just below the main path on a cliff edge.  Taking into consideration the frozen ground, patches of icy mud & rock & very slippery frozen grass combined with a high freezing wind that made my eyes water I decided it was unwise to start scrambling around seeking the caches & risk getting blown off the cliff.  As a newbie I was unsure if these qualified as DNFs - I was not exactly at GZ in either case - & on my gps logged them as Not Attempted.  Realised when logging my finds on the website that DNF could be misleading so I simply wrote a note for each one explaining my cowardice & promising the COs I would have another go in better conditions.  As the 2 that I missed were along a route it would look strange not to explain the gaps in my series of finds.

[+Cachez]

I log a DNF if I've been to GZ, searched for an appropriate length of time dictated by whether it's urban or rural that and not found anything. If I've been unable to search for any reason I either log nothing or a write note. 

Another cacher and I recently tried to find a D3.5/T4.5 on the shore of the Thames in London while the tide was out which involved climbing under and up part of the structure of a wharf. We couldn't find it and we were fairly sure we were in the right place so we did a write note until we could confirm with the CO.

[+baer2006]

19 minutes ago, Cachez said:

We couldn't find it and we were fairly sure we were in the right place so we did a write note until we could confirm with the CO

(Emphasis by me)

Huh? You searched the cache, you didn't find it ... then why exactly didn't you log a DNF? Sorry, but I don't get what you want to say here. What does the CO need to "confirm"?

[+Cachez]

11 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

(Emphasis by me)

Huh? You searched the cache, you didn't find it ... then why exactly didn't you log a DNF? Sorry, but I don't get what you want to say here. What does the CO need to "confirm"?

We thought we were in the right place, we weren't sure and as GZ is covered by water a couple of times a day, we wanted to flag up that we'd been there and checked but it might be missing. 

[+baer2006]

12 minutes ago, Cachez said:

We thought we were in the right place, we weren't sure and as GZ is covered by water a couple of times a day, we wanted to flag up that we'd been there and checked but it might be missing. 

Ok. In such a situation, I would log DNF, and say in the log that I'm not entirely sure if I was at the right place.

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

23 minutes ago, Cachez said:

We thought we were in the right place, we weren't sure and as GZ is covered by water a couple of times a day, we wanted to flag up that we'd been there and checked but it might be missing. 

Ok. In such a situation, I would log DNF, and say in the log that I'm not entirely sure if I was at the right place.

To me, it's still a DNF regardless of whether the cache is there or missing, or whether you were searching in the right place or not. A DNF just says I tried to find the cache but couldn't, that's all.

[+Cachez]

OK, horses for course, I suppose. Because of the location and terrain which are unusual in central London, we thought that was the best course of action for that particular cache at the time. 

[+justintim1999]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 5:48 PM, barefootjeff said:

Lazy? What about physically challenging high T-rated caches, like the one I logged a DNF on a few years back that required climbing down onto a narrow ledge atop a four metre cliff to reach it? It was something like a 5km hike from the road out to GZ, then I spent about an hour there searching more accessible spots before finally spying the cache tucked in at the back of that ledge. More time was spent trying to see if I could reach it from the side, then trying to psyche myself up to climb down onto the ledge, but, with my damaged sense of balance, in the end I walked away. Call it lazy if you will, but that in my book qualifies as a DNF - I went to within a metre of GZ and seached for the cache but at the end of the day my signature wasn't in the logbook. The cache defeated me. As a postscript to this, last year I returned to that cache carrying a 10kg telecsopic ladder on my back, which allowed me to reach it from below and redeem my DNF. I don't think that was lazy either.

Another example is one of my multis where an elderly cacher completed the first waypoint and hiked the 3km around to the second, which involved climbing onto a rocky outcrop beside the track (it's rated T3). He saw where he thought the waypoint must be and, having had one knee replaced and about to go into hospital to have the second one done, decided not to risk it so logged a DNF. As it turned out, the waypoint wasn't where he'd thought and was much easier to reach (I'm pretty sure he was standing almost right on top of it when he decided to call it quits) and, once I'd reassured him of that, he went back and successfully completed the cache, but I stand by DNF being the correct log for him to use on his first attempt. The cache defeated him on the day. I would never call him lazy, or call his use of that log in that circumstance bad etiquette.

DNF doesn't mean I think the cache might be missing - there's a perfectly good canned NM to use if that's what you want to say - it just means I didn't find it today, the cache defeated me.

Sure, if the reason you didn't reach GZ had nothing to do with the cache, like a phone call wanting you to be elsewhere or a traffic jam along the way, then I don't think a DNF is appropriate. But if the reason your signature isn't in the logbook is because the cache itself or the terrain leading to it defeated you, then, for me, that's a clear-cut DNF.

I don't understand the logic in finding the cache and logging a dnf because you didn't sign the log.      Why would you post a NM (canned or otherwise) on a cache that's visible but unattainable?  Why would the owner need to visit that cache and preform maintenance on it?  Especially when you knew going in that it was a high terrain or high difficulty cache.

A dnf means I reached ground zero and searched but didn't find it.    If you didn't reach ground zero or you didn't attempt a search than in my book it's a note.

 

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't understand the logic in finding the cache and logging a dnf because you didn't sign the log.

I would use a Note in such situations, but I understand why others would use a DNF. It's based on the definition of a Find in geocaching, which requires retrieving the cache and signing the log. To log a Find, I have to do more than just "recognize or discover the location of the cache". You also need to retrieve and sign the log. So if you haven't done what you need to do to log a Find, then that's a DNF.

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Why would you post a NM (canned or otherwise) on a cache that's visible but unattainable?

That isn't what barefootjeff wrote. Read what he wrote about logging a canned NM again.

[+justintim1999]

42 minutes ago, niraD said:

I would use a Note in such situations, but I understand why others would use a DNF. It's based on the definition of a Find in geocaching, which requires retrieving the cache and signing the log. To log a Find, I have to do more than just "recognize or discover the location of the cache". You also need to retrieve and sign the log. So if you haven't done what you need to do to log a Find, then that's a DNF.

That isn't what barefootjeff wrote. Read what he wrote about logging a canned NM again.

Where dose it say that if you don't retrieve the cache or can't sign the log you have to post a dnf?   You make it sound as if posting a dnf is the only option you have if you haven't signed the log.   I'm saying that in some cases posting a note is better. 

Here's what a dnf is,  defined by GS.  "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”.

There are two pieces of information a dnf is suppose to relay.   The cache may be hard to find & the cache is possibly missing.   I don't see how you could be reasonably sure of either unless you've actually tried searching for it.

We can argue about what constitutes "looking for a cache" all day but I think most will agree that it means reaching ground zero and actually spend some time searching

I think the use of a DNF should mean (and I believe has always meant)  I think the cache is missing.  

My apologies to Barefootjeff.  After reading it again I think I understand what he was trying to convey. 

 

 

[+dprovan]

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Where dose it say that if you don't retrieve the cache or can't sign the log you have to post a dnf?   You make it sound as if posting a dnf is the only option you have if you haven't signed the log. 

Wow, you really have trouble being friendly. niraD specifically said that's not what he'd do, but then he explained why he understands why some people see it differently.

As it happens, I'm on the other side: I'd be more tempted to post a DNF on an unobtainable cache while I understand why other people think it doesn't make sense. Although I'm feeling differently about DNFs now that one of my caches is flagged as being in trouble every time I look at the new profile page simply because the last 3 newbies that couldn't find it posted DNFs. At first I resisted reacting to GS's decision to act as if DNFs are inherently bad, but as time goes on and it looks like they're not going to back down, I'm starting to take seriously people that are starting to argue against posting DNFs anymore.

[+niraD]

30 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I think the use of a DNF should mean (and I believe has always meant)  I think the cache is missing.  

You quoted the rebuttal to this yourself. From the definition of DNF that you quoted (emphasis added): "may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing".

DNF does not mean "I think the cache is missing". At most, it means the cache may be possibly missing. It may also mean that the cache may be extra difficult. It may also mean that the seeker was having an off day. After all, I've been known to trip over a regular size cache that was sitting in the open, with nothing covering it.

[+J Grouchy]

12 minutes ago, niraD said:

You quoted the rebuttal to this yourself. From the definition of DNF that you quoted (emphasis added): "may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing".

DNF does not mean "I think the cache is missing". At most, it means the cache may be possibly missing. It may also mean that the cache may be extra difficult. It may also mean that the seeker was having an off day. After all, I've been known to trip over a regular size cache that was sitting in the open, with nothing covering it.

Yeah...that part lost me.  That's not at all what posting a DNF means.  In fact, I generally resent it when people post DNFs and state "I think it's gone" or something to that effect.  Such assumptions should only be taken in context - difficulty level, number of previous DNFs, on-site conditions, etc.  

No...to me a DNF only means "I did not find it".  Period.

[+justintim1999]

38 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Wow, you really have trouble being friendly. niraD specifically said that's not what he'd do, but then he explained why he understands why some people see it differently.

As it happens, I'm on the other side: I'd be more tempted to post a DNF on an unobtainable cache while I understand why other people think it doesn't make sense. Although I'm feeling differently about DNFs now that one of my caches is flagged as being in trouble every time I look at the new profile page simply because the last 3 newbies that couldn't find it posted DNFs. At first I resisted reacting to GS's decision to act as if DNFs are inherently bad, but as time goes on and it looks like they're not going to back down, I'm starting to take seriously people that are starting to argue against posting DNFs anymore.

Your situation is exactly the thing I'm trying to avoid.   I don't think any good cache owner has a problem with anyone posting a dnf as long as they actually searched.

There isn't a single sole here advocating for never posting a dnf.  I'm looking for a little consistency in using that particular log especially when we all know the ramifications of having multiple dnf's on a cache.    

I was disagreeing with barefootjeff's decision to post a dnf on a cache he knew wasn't missing.   That I have an issue with and from your recent experiences I think you would too.

I also don't agree with the notion that the only option a cacher has if they don't find the cache or can't sign the log is a dnf. 

I admit I could use some work on disagreeing in a more friendly way but nothing I say is intended to be personal.  Some people see a difference of opinion as unfriendly in and of itself. 

  

[+justintim1999]

39 minutes ago, niraD said:

You quoted the rebuttal to this yourself. From the definition of DNF that you quoted (emphasis added): "may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing".

DNF does not mean "I think the cache is missing". At most, it means the cache may be possibly missing. It may also mean that the cache may be extra difficult. It may also mean that the seeker was having an off day. After all, I've been known to trip over a regular size cache that was sitting in the open, with nothing covering it.

So you agree with the use of a dnf when the cache can be seen but the cacher is unwilling or unable to retrieve it?

I've walked away posting a dnf many times.  In all cases I've searched till I was satisfied it was missing or I just wasn't going to find it.  Only to return another day to walk right up to it.     There's no doubt that new or inexperienced cachers can add to the dnf count but that's ok as long as they actually tired.   It's frustrating when experienced cachers use them in ways they weren't intended to be used.  

Using a dnf when you had to turn around in the parking area because you forgot you had a doctors appointment just doesn't make sense.   Something like that doesn't relay any information pertaining to the caches condition or difficulty yet it will be counted as if it dose.        

 

[+niraD]

17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So you agree with the use of a dnf when the cache can be seen but the cacher is unwilling or unable to retrieve it?

I disagree with the idea that a DNF means (or should mean) "I think the cache is missing."

In a situation where I can see and identify what I think is the cache, but I can't retrieve and sign the log, I might post a DNF or a Note or even a NM depending on the situation. But caches where it is even possible to see the container but not sign the log are definitely the exception, so it's okay if different people handle edge-case exceptions like that differently.

25 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Using a dnf when you had to turn around in the parking area because you forgot you had a doctors appointment just doesn't make sense.   Something like that doesn't relay any information pertaining to the caches condition or difficulty yet it will be counted as if it dose.

Yeah, I wouldn't log a DNF in that situation either. But I know people who consider the search to start when they press GO on their device, and once you accept that premise, the idea can make some sense. But when I started, I found hundreds of geocaches before I had a device to press GO on, so I have a rather different perspective than they do.

And no, such a DNF log doesn't convey any information about the cache's condition or difficulty. All it conveys is the seeker's history with the geocache. And that's okay.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

So you agree with the use of a dnf when the cache can be seen but the cacher is unwilling or unable to retrieve it?

I've walked away posting a dnf many times.  In all cases I've searched till I was satisfied it was missing or I just wasn't going to find it.  Only to return another day to walk right up to it.     There's no doubt that new or inexperienced cachers can add to the dnf count but that's ok as long as they actually tired.   It's frustrating when experienced cachers use them in ways they weren't intended to be used.  

Using a dnf when you had to turn around in the parking area because you forgot you had a doctors appointment just doesn't make sense.   Something like that doesn't relay any information pertaining to the caches condition or difficulty yet it will be counted as if it dose.        

 

I'm certainly not arguing in favour of logging DNF if you give up in the car park because you forgot your doctor's appointment, for me a DNF has always meant the cache defeated me. I include in that the terrain that has to be traversed to reach the cache - if I get to the top of a cliff and realise the cache is at the bottom, or vice versa, that's a DNF. Some aspect of the cache or its environment prevented me from finding it, and I use find in the geocaching sense of the word where it means more than just being able to see the container; it encompasses grabbing it, opening it and signing the log. If all of that doesn't happen, it's not a find, and if it's not a find, why isn't it a DNF?

Quote

I think the use of a DNF should mean (and I believe has always meant)  I think the cache is missing.

If that's the case, why is there a separate canned NM log that says exactly the same thing?

There are other times I've logged a DNF when I knew darned well the cache wasn't missing, like the new one a few weeks ago when I was vying for FTF but couldn't find it. In the half an hour it took me to drive home and get in front of the PC to log my DNF, someone else had found it and logged their find. I still logged a DNF even though at the time I submitted that log, I knew with absolute certainty that the cache hadn't been missing at the time I'd been looking for it.

For me, a DNF is a statement about the outcome of my search; if I want to say something about the state of the cache, I'll use an NM, or if it's something minor that doesn't need action by the CO, I'll just mention it in the text of my log. The DNF itself just means I didn't find it - that's it, end of story, and nothing more should be inferred by it. I use WN for other things unrelated to a cache search, like dropping a TB in a cache I've previously found or reporting on my progress through a long multi or challenge cache where I haven't yet reached the point of searching for the cache itself.

And it's not just me either. I've had plenty of DNFs logged on my hides where the DNFer hasn't been saying anything about the likelihood of the cache being missing, like the ones that have abandoned their search because of nightfall, onset of rain, swarms of mosquitoes, encroaching muggles, too tough a climb or they just know the hiding place outwitted them and will come back again with fresh eyes. Out of the 52 DNFs I've had logged on my hides, only one was due to a cache problem and that one still wasn't missing, it just happened to be buried under a fresh rock fall. I've even had two DNFs on my earthcache but the geological feature hadn't gone missing!

There's a new virtual south of Sydney called the Figure Eight Pool, where the logging requirement is to post a photo of the finder in the pool. The catch is, the pool is only accessible right at low tide when the seas are pretty calm, so there've been plenty of DNFs logged on that when people have reached the base of the headland only to find they misread the tide chart or the seas are too big. None of those DNFs mean the cache is missing!

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

There isn't a single sole here advocating for never posting a dnf.

There are people advocating exactly that, although not in this thread, only in the threads discussing the cache health score. While I don't support that view, I definitely understand the logic.

But to me, there's very little difference between what they're advocating, never posting a DNF, and what you're advocating, which is never posting a DNF except in very specific conditions. In either case, the main message is that I should not call a DNF a DNF because GS has inappropriately assigned some absolute negative value to DNF logs regardless of what's actually said in the log.

5 hours ago, niraD said:

DNF does not mean "I think the cache is missing". At most, it means the cache may be possibly missing. It may also mean that the cache may be extra difficult. It may also mean that the seeker was having an off day. After all, I've been known to trip over a regular size cache that was sitting in the open, with nothing covering it.

It may also just mean that I had a good story to tell, and it tickled me to call it a DNF even though it had nothing to do with searching for the cache and not finding it.

[+hzoi]

53 minutes ago, dprovan said:

DNF does not mean "I think the cache is missing".

Concur.  I don't presume myself to be the best or most patient geocacher in the world.  Sometimes I just run out of steam.  Or sometimes I am out with others and don't want to intrude on their time, so I cut the search short.

Even when I think the cache may be missing, I don't presume that it actually is missing unless there is some specific information that confirms I'm not just overlooking it.  Like a specific hint, or an ammo can-shaped dent in the ground, or a fragmented tupperware lid that says "Geocache" on it but doesn't have a log or container.

Sometimes I don't have time to convey all that in a DNF log, but when I do, I try to be as specific as I can without giving things away.

[+CAVinoGal]

:::sigh:::  Let's face it, we are all going to log (or not log) DNF's as we interpret them.  A DNF to me may not mean the same to you, or to the CO, or to the CHS.... there are just too many variables to have one, clear, definitive meaning of a DNF.  

If, and when I log a DNF, I try to make it clear WHY its logged as a DNF, and what I mean to convey by the DNF.  It's also information to me when I look at caches I am trying to find - should I go after this one again?  Has anything changed that would make it more likely I WILL find it if I try again?  One recent DNF of mine with a positive outcome (CO replacedit the same day, allowing a find for us on the day after!) was quite gratifying.  If I am not sure it's missing, I don't log a NM - just say we didn't find it, and we searched for X amount oftime or whatever.  If I am SURE it's missing (broken container, pieces of cache, etc) I'll log the DNF AND a NM.

In cases where I can SEE the container but can't reach it or retrieve it for whatever reason, that will be WN - as the cache is clearly there, but I wasn't able to sign the log. That's NOT a DNF in my thinking.  I FOUND the cache, just couldn't complete the process to sign the log and claim the find. 

We all have our own logic and way of logging things ... and that probably will not ever change.  

[+dprovan]

54 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

We all have our own logic and way of logging things ... and that probably will not ever change.  

You're making plenty of sense, but the reason it's been coming up lately is that recently one thing did change: GS introduced an algorithm that uses DNFs as one factor in calculating a number called "cache health score". We don't know how the algorithm uses DNFs, but it undeniably introduces one way that DNFs have a real logic beyond any of our individual choices. I don't claim that leads to any particular conclusion, I just observe that it means it's no longer just an individual decision we can all agree to disagree about.

The most important thing about what they're doing is that it invalidates your otherwise sound claim that as long as you explain what your DNF means in the DNF log, it's not important what it means in general. Whatever the cache health score is doing with DNFs, one thing it isn't doing is reading the DNF logs for nuance.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

20 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

21 hours ago, niraD said:

I would use a Note in such situations, but I understand why others would use a DNF. It's based on the definition of a Find in geocaching, which requires retrieving the cache and signing the log. To log a Find, I have to do more than just "recognize or discover the location of the cache". You also need to retrieve and sign the log. So if you haven't done what you need to do to log a Find, then that's a DNF.

That isn't what barefootjeff wrote. Read what he wrote about logging a canned NM again.

Where dose it say that if you don't retrieve the cache or can't sign the log you have to post a dnf?   You make it sound as if posting a dnf is the only option you have if you haven't signed the log.   I'm saying that in some cases posting a note is better. 

Here's what a dnf is,  defined by GS.  "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”.

The other thing I notice with what GS includes in their guidelines is the "they inform cache owners and other finders" part.  That suggests to me that the purpose of the online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders, not purely for record keeping for the geocacher posting the log as some have suggested.  

[+justintim1999]

18 hours ago, niraD said:

I disagree with the idea that a DNF means (or should mean) "I think the cache is missing."

In a situation where I can see and identify what I think is the cache, but I can't retrieve and sign the log, I might post a DNF or a Note or even a NM depending on the situation. But caches where it is even possible to see the container but not sign the log are definitely the exception, so it's okay if different people handle edge-case exceptions like that differently.

Yeah, I wouldn't log a DNF in that situation either. But I know people who consider the search to start when they press GO on their device, and once you accept that premise, the idea can make some sense. But when I started, I found hundreds of geocaches before I had a device to press GO on, so I have a rather different perspective than they do.

And no, such a DNF log doesn't convey any information about the cache's condition or difficulty. All it conveys is the seeker's history with the geocache. And that's okay.

A dnf doesn't necessarily mean the cache is missing.   Since the beginning of geocaching,  multiple dnf's have been an indicator that a cache COULD be missing.  

I think we all agree that most caches with three or four dnfs should be checked up on by the owner.   If that's true than posting a dnf for any other reason other than reaching gz and preforming a search has the potential to negatively effect the cache and it's owner. 

I'm sure that many dnfs (that probably should have been notes) have caused cache owners to make unnecessary visits to their caches.   Having to preform unnecessary maintenance because someone posted a dnf in the wrong context seems futile to me.  This becomes more frustrating when people understand this fact but refuse to even attempt to change the practice. 

The fact that GS has included multiple dnfs as part of the cache health score indicates they also believe it's a factor in determining the condition of a cache.   We've already debated how and when dnfs should be counted toward the CHS  but the fact remains that they are and they should be. 

So there it is.   Question is how do we go about handling it?

We can try to change the way we use dnfs so that when one is posted we all understand the significance of it or we can continue in our ways and let GS and the cache owners sort it out.  

[+justintim1999]

14 hours ago, dprovan said:

There are people advocating exactly that, although not in this thread, only in the threads discussing the cache health score. While I don't support that view, I definitely understand the logic.

But to me, there's very little difference between what they're advocating, never posting a DNF, and what you're advocating, which is never posting a DNF except in very specific conditions. In either case, the main message is that I should not call a DNF a DNF because GS has inappropriately assigned some absolute negative value to DNF logs regardless of what's actually said in the log.

It may also just mean that I had a good story to tell, and it tickled me to call it a DNF even though it had nothing to do with searching for the cache and not finding it.

A find has specific conditions.   Why can't a dnf?

I don't expect GS to wade through every log that's posted unless it pertains to a cache being archived.   That's unrealistic and I'm sure part of the reason for the CHS. 

As a cache owner it would be much easier and faster for me to assess my caches condition knowing what that dnf really means.  

[+justintim1999]

There's a common thread to most of the opposition here.   It's clear that many use the dnf as a personal history of their activities.  It's also clear that many can't or won't change the way they've been doing things regardless of how it may effect the game.    To them I say "Continue playing the way you've always played and have fun."   To everyone else,  simply think about the log your going to post before you post it.   Just make sure your log conveys the information you want it to..

[+Team Microdot]

20 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I admit I could use some work on disagreeing in a more friendly way but nothing I say is intended to be personal.  Some people see a difference of opinion as unfriendly in and of itself. 

  

You're fine - there's nothing wrong with speaking plainly.

[+justintim1999]

16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You're fine - there's nothing wrong with speaking plainly.

I appreciate that.   I know I can with you but I hesitate doing so with others.  I'm always preaching about thinking before you act.  I need to keep that in mind BEFORE I hit submit.

[+J Grouchy]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

A find has specific conditions.   Why can't a dnf?

I don't expect GS to wade through every log that's posted unless it pertains to a cache being archived.   That's unrealistic and I'm sure part of the reason for the CHS. 

As a cache owner it would be much easier and faster for me to assess my caches condition knowing what that dnf really means.  

It does.  It means the person "Did Not Find" the cache.  That's it.  Beyond that, it's all opinion or speculation.  You can't MAKE someone post a DNF, just like you cannot MAKE them post a Found It log.  What they actually write in the DNF log - in ANY log - is not the important part.

[+justintim1999]

20 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

It does.  It means the person "Did Not Find" the cache.  That's it.  Beyond that, it's all opinion or speculation.  You can't MAKE someone post a DNF, just like you cannot MAKE them post a Found It log.  What they actually write in the DNF log - in ANY log - is not the important part.

I can express my opinion and give specific reasons why I think it's a better way.   It's up to each individual to weigh both sides and do what they feel is right. 

Your right about one thing.   Too many times information gets lost in what's written in a log or a note.   The log itself is what's important.  

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

The other thing I notice with what GS includes in their guidelines is the "they inform cache owners and other finders" part.  That suggests to me that the purpose of the online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders, not purely for record keeping for the geocacher posting the log as some have suggested.

Yes, I say this over and over - every log posted to the public log history is not merely a personal record, otherwise it wouldn't be a public log listing hosted on the cache listing. Everybosy uses it and everybody knows everybody uses it. To create logs on the premise that its only purpose is for your own personal record is quite ignorant.  That's why the CO is also tasked with a degree of policing the online logs of their listings for accuracy. Essentially, when we read the log history of a cache, we should be confident that the best person to give it a stamp of a approval, the cache owner, is doing just that.

When it comes to DNFs, as above, with no hard line about what is or is not a DNF, like there is for a Find, the CO doesn't cull logs they think might be invalid or don't agree with (when there's no line to say it's invalid) except when it comes to Finds, since that log directly impacts someone's reasoning as to whether the cache is in a sufficiently findable state. A false DNF doesn't waste somebody's time; it may have someone decide not to use time to search for a cache, but unlike a false Find that might convince someone to go and search for a cache, a false DNF may only inconvenience the CO who is potentially drawn out to check on the cache because of it.

Anyway. Yes. Log history is a public aspect to the cache listing that indicates the history and current state of the cache's findability to anyone who visits the cache listing. It's not a personal record of geocaching activities that influences no one but yourself. When posting, also consider how your comments may affect followup finders and the cache owner.

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The other thing I notice with what GS includes in their guidelines is the "they inform cache owners and other finders" part.  That suggests to me that the purpose of the online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders, not purely for record keeping for the geocacher posting the log as some have suggested.

 

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

To create logs on the premise that its only purpose is for your own personal record is quite ignorant.

Just because they inform cache owners and other finders does not mean that that is their purpose.

Purpose is bound to intent.

I don't waste an awful lot of time gazing into a crystal ball in a bid to establish what purposes others might intend for my log so that I might tailor it to their specific needs.

Does that make me ignorant?

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm sure that many dnfs (that probably should have been notes) have caused cache owners to make unnecessary visits to their caches.  

I'm sure that actual human cache owners would read the content of those DNFs and come to a reasonable conclusion about whether a cache visit was necessary.

[+thebruce0]

26 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Just because they inform cache owners and other finders does not mean that that is their purpose.

Purpose is bound to intent.

I don't waste an awful lot of time gazing into a crystal ball in a bid to establish what purposes others might intend for my log so that I might tailor it to their specific needs.

Does that make me ignorant?

Note I did not say the log's sole purpose is to inform others.

I did say to use the log for the sole purpose of one's own caching history is ignorant. Because it's ignoring (aware or not) its other uses. Thus ignorant. That's not an insult, that's just a description of a use state.

Logs on the public listing have multiple purposes. One of them cannot be solely for personal use.

Edited February 27, 2018 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Logs on the public listing have multiple purposes. One of them cannot be solely for personal use.

I can't write logs solely for personal use?

[+justintim1999]

24 minutes ago, niraD said:

I'm sure that actual human cache owners would read the content of those DNFs and come to a reasonable conclusion about whether a cache visit was necessary.

I'm sure "most" good cache owners would but as we know the CHS can't do that,  so a bunch of needless dnf means more caches flagged which means more unnecessary work for reviewers.

 

[+thebruce0]

40 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I can't write logs solely for personal use?

Sure you can. But you'd be wrong that they are only for personal use if you post them to the public cache listing. If you keep them in your prviate journal or notes in a personal app, that's all your own business.  I don't care about your personal notes. I care about what your public notes imply about what I may ro may not decide to find; or what your public notes say about a cache I own and have to manage - based on public notes.

[+K13]

12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Sure you can. But you'd be wrong that they are only for personal use if you post them to the public cache listing. If you keep them in your prviate journal or notes in a personal app, that's all your own business.  I don't care about your personal notes. I care about what your public notes imply about what I may ro may not decide to find; or what your public notes say about a cache I own and have to manage - based on public notes.

My cache logs are for MY purpose. That purpose is to make note of MY experience finding, or not finding, a particular cache.  IF I find it necessary to inform anyone as to the state of the cache, that is the function of a WN, NM, or NA log type.

I may be ignorant in your eyes, but I am using the log types in the way they are intended to be used.

 

To quote your signature line, " It's okay to not like things. It's okay, just don't be a jerk about it. "  Maybe you should heed your own advice and not be a jerk by calling ME, and many others with the same view, ignorant.

[+Team Microdot]

21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

52 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I can't write logs solely for personal use?

Sure you can. But you'd be wrong that they are only for personal use if you post them to the public cache listing.

I'm prepared to accept that the availabilty of my log on a public website might lead to others making use of it for their own purposes.

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

the purpose of the online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders

This still isn't true though - whether or not the guidelines led you to believe it.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, K13 said:

My cache logs are for MY purpose. That purpose is to make note of MY experience finding, or not finding, a particular cache.  IF I find it necessary to inform anyone as to the state of the cache, that is the function of a WN, NM, or NA log type.

I may be ignorant in your eyes, but I am using the log types in the way they are intended to be used.

 

To quote your signature line, " It's okay to not like things. It's okay, just don't be a jerk about it. "  Maybe you should heed your own advice and not be a jerk by calling ME, and many others with the same view, ignorant.

...note I said it's not an insult. It's a descriptor - if you use them for your own purpose and don't care that others read them, then you are ignoring the fact that your logs read by other people. I'd gues that 99% of the time that's not an issue - people's personal notes are interesting and relevant to others. It's when people use logs in manners than confuse, confound, or mislead other people - with disregard for that fact - that the ignorance of the fact that they are public logs able to be read by community by nature is made clear.

I don't know how you log. I'm assuming your logs are positive and relevant to others, even though you only intend your logs for personal use. Okay. But it is ignorant to deny the fact that your logs are read by other people and used to make informed decisions, by their very nature of being listed publicly on geocache listings. That's the point I'm referring to.  You can indeed create logs for personal use and still be aware that they affect other people. But explicitly ignoring that fact is ignorance. And again, that's not intended as an insult.

I make personal notes too. But I have them offline in my personal app. The logs I post publicly I'm well aware are read by more people than just myself, including the CO. Me not caring about that doesn't make it not so. If I didn't care about that, then I would be, by definition, ignorant of that fact.

 

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

the purpose of the online log is to inform cache owners and other potential finders

This still isn't true though - whether or not the guidelines led you to believe it.

*blink*

By their very nature that is what they do. They are not private messages to anyone, including oneself. If they were solely personal notes, then COs wouldn't have the right or ability to delete them, nor would they be publicly visible. They are public records, people's public commentary about a listing. They are not solely personal notes, whether or not you want to believe it.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by thebruce0

[+Mudfrog]

On 2/23/2018 at 4:15 PM, Cacheism 500 said:

  As long as you physically reach GZ* and look (even for a second and then get muggled off)  if you don't find it its a DNF.

 

 * Although I still call these DNFs, tree climbs (say)  where you see the tree and sometimes cache but don't attempt don't universally go down as DNFs, I was once caching as part of a Meetup group who 'agreed' not to log such a tree climb as DNF, not wanting to break group consensus I didnt!

 

   Not reaching GZ and logging DNF is lazy and bad etiquette.

Do what? There have been a few times when i didn't reach ground zero and logged a DNF. I definitely wasn't being lazy and it certainly wasn't bad etiquette on my part. I started my search when i began making my way to, with intentions of finding, the cache. Something happened along the way that caused me to have to call off my search. I logged my DNF accordingly because i

DID
NOT
FIND the cache that i was attempting to find.

I understand that most people wouldn't log a DNF in a situation like this and that's fine by me. But for me, my search begins earlier in the process and i log my DNF if i don't end up finding the cache. I am not worried about the CHS because i'm smart enough to know that a false trigger situation on a cache can be dealt with quite easily. Not sure why people think the CHS or its trigger is the end of the world.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

2 hours ago, niraD said:

I'm sure that actual human cache owners would read the content of those DNFs and come to a reasonable conclusion about whether a cache visit was necessary.

I'm sure "most" good cache owners would but as we know the CHS can't do that,  so a bunch of needless dnf means more caches flagged which means more unnecessary work for reviewers.

If the CHS can't deal with the way real people post logs, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed. [skip] If the CHS can't deal with the way real people post logs, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed. [skip] If the CHS can't deal with the way real people post logs, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed. [skip] If the CHS can't deal with the way real people post logs, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed. [skip] If the CHS can't deal with the way real people post logs, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed. [skip] If the CHS can't deal with the way real people post logs,...

[+K13]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

...note I said it's not an insult. It's a descriptor - if you use them for your own purpose and don't care that others read them, then you are ignoring the fact that your logs read by other people. I'd gues that 99% of the time that's not an issue - people's personal notes are interesting and relevant to others. It's when people use logs in manners than confuse, confound, or mislead other people - with disregard for that fact - that the ignorance of the fact that they are public logs able to be read by community by nature is made clear.

I don't know how you log. I'm assuming your logs are positive and relevant to others, even though you only intend your logs for personal use. Okay. But it is ignorant to deny the fact that your logs are read by other people and used to make informed decisions, by their very nature of being listed publicly on geocache listings. That's the point I'm referring to.  You can indeed create logs for personal use and still be aware that they affect other people. But explicitly ignoring that fact is ignorance. And again, that's not intended as an insult.

I make personal notes too. But I have them offline in my personal app. The logs I post publicly I'm well aware are read by more people than just myself, including the CO. Me not caring about that doesn't make it not so. If I didn't care about that, then I would be, by definition, ignorant of that fact.

 

*blink*

By their very nature that is what they do. They are not private messages to anyone, including oneself. If they were solely personal notes, then COs wouldn't have the right or ability to delete them, nor would they be publicly visible. They are public records, people's public commentary about a listing. They are not solely personal notes, whether or not you want to believe it.

 

 

You can try to justify it however you want, but calling me and others ignorant because you see something in a different light is a jerk move, and I'm not the only one who took offense to your comment.

I will await, but not expect, an apology.

[+thebruce0]

Okay, well it's not an insult, and most likely it's not even in reference to you anyway. If you write logs for other people to read, then you're not ignorant of the fact that other people read them. I'm using a word for what it means, not to insult. Now if you write logs that do confuse or mislead because you believe they only have meaning to yourself and couldn't care less about other people - I would call that a jerk move, and ignorant. I fully trust that isn't you.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

Do what? There have been a few times when i didn't reach ground zero and logged a DNF. I definitely wasn't being lazy and it certainly wasn't bad etiquette on my part. I started my search when i began making my way to, with intentions of finding, the cache. Something happened along the way that caused me to have to call off my search. I logged my DNF accordingly because i

DID
NOT
FIND the cache that i was attempting to find.

I understand that most people wouldn't log a DNF in a situation like this and that's fine by me. But for me, my search begins earlier in the process and i log my DNF if i don't end up finding the cache. I am not worried about the CHS because i'm smart enough to know that a false trigger situation on a cache can be dealt with quite easily. Not sure why people think the CHS or its trigger is the end of the world.

As long as you understand the possible ramifications of that log.   You may include in your log the fact that you never actually searched for the cache and the cache owner may read that and realize there's no reason to go out and take a look.   The CHS isn't going to be able to conclude that.  If enough people log a dnf as you do,  a couple of things are sure to happen.  The better of the two is that a reviewer has taken the time to read through the dnfs and conclude no action is required.  The worst case scenario is the CHS flags that cache and it gets temporarily disabled.   The third possibility is the cache owner goes out and checks up on it and posts an owners maintenance log clearing everything up.   To me all three are a waist of everyone's time and can be easily avoided. 

If you understand that the dnf was created as a way to identify situations where a cache has possibly gone missing than its easy to understand why posting a dnf,  when no actual search occurred,  is a problem.   

It's not the end of the world.  It's just a little tweak in ones logging habits that could help everyone involved.

[+niraD]

50 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

As long as you understand the possible ramifications of that log.   You may include in your log the fact that you never actually searched for the cache and the cache owner may read that and realize there's no reason to go out and take a look.   The CHS isn't going to be able to conclude that.  If enough people log a dnf as you do,  a couple of things are sure to happen.  The better of the two is that a reviewer has taken the time to read through the dnfs and conclude no action is required.  The worst case scenario is the CHS flags that cache and it gets temporarily disabled.   The third possibility is the cache owner goes out and checks up on it and posts an owners maintenance log clearing everything up.   To me all three are a waist of everyone's time and can be easily avoided. 

A fourth possibility is the CHS is fixed so that it can properly handle the way real people post logs.

50 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If you understand that the dnf was created as a way to identify situations where a cache has possibly gone missing than its easy to understand why posting a dnf,  when no actual search occurred,  is a problem.

Silly me. I thought that the DNF was created as a way to log situations where the geocacher DID NOT FIND the geocache.

Edited February 27, 2018 by niraD

[+justintim1999]

56 minutes ago, niraD said:

A fourth possibility is the CHS is fixed so that it can properly handle the way real people post logs.

Silly me. I thought that the DNF was created as a way to log situations where the geocacher DID NOT FIND the geocache.

It's human nature to resist anything that may require a personal change.   It's much easier to expect everyone else to change around us.    

Silly is claiming you "didn't find the cache" when you never really looked for it in the first place. 

[+dprovan]

On 2/26/2018 at 8:56 AM, justintim1999 said:

I admit I could use some work on disagreeing in a more friendly way but nothing I say is intended to be personal.  Some people see a difference of opinion as unfriendly in and of itself.

It wasn't the manner in which you responded, it was that you hadn't really given any serious thought to what niraD said, as if his precise point wasn't important. I felt like you were trying to win an argument with an opponent rather than having a discussion in order to reach some common ground with a friend. I mean, it's OK not to act like niraD's friend, but this case seemed so obvious since you and niraD basically agreed, but you picked apart his point as if he was on the arguing against you.