DNF Etiquette

[+Team Microdot]

 

18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm going to assume that you understand the difference between a purpose and the purpose.

Sure. 

 

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I wasn't aware that "possibly missing" was listed by GS as a primary reason why DNF's are logged.

Encouragement?

I can't say if it's the primary reason but it's one of two reasons listed in the guidelines.   So I guess it would be a purpose.

Looks like we've reached a level of understanding / basis of agreement then

Glad I've managed to do it with at least one person today

I wouldn't necessarily argue with a claim that I've been nit-picking but I feel this distinction is important.

If we define X as the primary reason for doing something, then anybody not X'ing might end up subjected to undeserved scrutiny etc.

If we define X as one possible or common reason for doing something that gives people more freedom to X or not - presents them with soft options rather than hard expectations or requirements.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Thanks for that!

*sigh* Dude, I'm done. Fascinating how tables turn from thread to thread. But not surprised.

 

 

Ditto.

I'd say, "When should I post a DNF?" When you're reasonably sure you made a search but couldn't find it. Or, "Should I check on my cache because of a DNF?" If the DNF log implies there's something wrong with it, or taking other recent logs into consideration you feel there might be something wrong with it.

It's really pretty simple I'd say.  The DNF log is vague enough that it can cover a variety of reasons; so as long as you choose the log type you think is most relevant to your experience, and elaborate in the text for the CO and other finders, then you should be good.  Just remember that some COs can be very very stringent about logs posted to their listing . The only one you have an enforcible right to post is the Found It log, if your signature is the logsheet (that wording is important).  The rest - enh, don't get too uptight about it, just do your best.

Considering that a dnf could mean the cache is missing the guideline for using one shouldn't be so vague.    I guess it never occurred to me that people would use it without actually searching,  especially when a note would serve the same propose without the chance of negatively effecting anything.  

[+justintim1999]

18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Looks like we've reached a level of understanding / basis of agreement then

Glad I've managed to do it with at least one person today

I wouldn't necessarily argue with a claim that I've been nit-picking but I feel this distinction is important.

If we define X as the primary reason for doing something, then anybody not X'ing might end up subjected to undeserved scrutiny etc.

If we define X as one possible or common reason for doing something that gives people more freedom to X or not - presents them with soft options rather than hard expectations or requirements.

I don't think we've ever disagreed that a dnf can mean something other than the cache is missing.   My only point is it can mean just that and using that log without ever even searching doesn't compute. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by justintim1999
more to other

[+Team Microdot]

15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Considering that a dnf could mean the cache is missing the guideline for using one shouldn't be so vague.    I guess it never occurred to me that people would use it without actually searching,  especially when a note would serve the same propose without the chance of negatively effecting anything.  

One logical reason for doing so might be that they want to see a blue smiley on the map to remind them to go back there some time.

That reminder would be less obviously visible if buried in a PCN.

I still wouldn't log a DNF on a cache I never looked for though.

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't think we've ever disagreed that a dnf can mean something other than the cache is missing.   My only point is it can mean just that and using that log without ever even searching doesn't compute. 

Yep - I generally agree.

 

[+Team Microdot]

12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Why does it have to be only "might be missing" or "haven't actually searched"? You seem to latch on to one or the other, where no one here from what I recall is actually advocating for logging a DNF without having actually searched.  A DNF may mean, according to its poster, that they think the cache is missing, or not. If it doesn't, it's sitll a DNF, they just know they were unable to find it for whatever reason, which is not the same as "without actually searching"

If I set of on a multi-cache and completed some of the stages but still failed to locate the final cache - even if I hadn't searched for that final cache for some reason - I might well post a DNF.

I think I've said as much in a previous thread related to this subject.

[+thebruce0]

15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Considering that a dnf could mean the cache is missing the guideline for using one shouldn't be so vague.

It has to be sufficiently vague to allow for the situations where the finder may not believe the cache to be missing but was simply unable to find it.

16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I guess it never occurred to me that people would use it without actually searching,  especially when a note would serve the same propose without the chance of negatively effecting anything.

Why does it have to be only "might be missing" or "haven't actually searched"? You seem to latch on to one or the other, where no one here from what I recall is actually advocating for logging a DNF without having actually searched.  A DNF may mean, according to its poster, that they think the cache is missing, or not. If it doesn't, it's sitll a DNF, they just know they were unable to find it for whatever reason, which is not the same as "without actually searching"

[+justintim1999]

13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

One logical reason for doing so might be that they want to see a blue smiley on the map to remind them to go back there some time.

That reminder would be less obviously visible if buried in a PCN.

I still wouldn't log a DNF on a cache I never looked for though.

I can buy that and understand why that's helpful but there are other ways to do that.  Ways that don't misrepresent what a dnf is suppose to mean.   When you throw in the absolute refusal to even consider changing logging habits well......  I think the latter is more frustrating than the phantom search dnf.            

[+thebruce0]

16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If I set of on a multi-cache and completed some of the stages but still failed to locate the final cache - even if I hadn't searched for that final cache for some reason - I might well post a DNF.

Yes, not exclusively the final cache, but all related to the intended search experience of the cache listing.

[+justintim1999]

19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If I set of on a multi-cache and completed some of the stages but still failed to locate the final cache - even if I hadn't searched for that final cache for some reason - I might well post a DNF.

I think I've said as much in a previous thread related to this subject.

I wouldn't post a dnf until I was unable to find a part of the multi.  If time stopped me I'd post nothing or a note explaining everything I did find was ok and I'd be back to finish it later.  

[+Team Microdot]

17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

23 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If I set of on a multi-cache and completed some of the stages but still failed to locate the final cache - even if I hadn't searched for that final cache for some reason - I might well post a DNF.

Yes, not exclusively the final cache, but all related to the intended search experience of the cache listing.

Sure

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

24 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If I set of on a multi-cache and completed some of the stages but still failed to locate the final cache - even if I hadn't searched for that final cache for some reason - I might well post a DNF.

I think I've said as much in a previous thread related to this subject.

I wouldn't post a dnf until I was unable to find a part of the multi.  If time stopped me I'd post nothing or a note explaining everything I did find was ok and I'd be back to finish it later.  

Sounds reasonable.

Unless of course the first stage of the multi were, say, a sign board featuring information essential to completing the multi and that sign board was very clearly missing when I got there.

I still didn't find anything but for me it's still very much a DNF because I did actually search.

[+justintim1999]

25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

It has to be sufficiently vague to allow for the situations where the finder may not believe the cache to be missing but was simply unable to find it.

Why does it have to be only "might be missing" or "haven't actually searched"? You seem to latch on to one or the other, where no one here from what I recall is actually advocating for logging a DNF without having actually searched.  A DNF may mean, according to its poster, that they think the cache is missing, or not. If it doesn't, it's sitll a DNF, they just know they were unable to find it for whatever reason, which is not the same as "without actually searching"

You haven't been paying attention then.   It's been advocated for a couple of time in this thread and many times in these forums.   

[+justintim1999]

15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Sounds reasonable.

Unless of course the first stage of the multi were, say, a sign board featuring information essential to completing the multi and that sign board was very clearly missing when I got there.

I still didn't find anything but for me it's still very much a DNF because I did actually search.

If that was the stage I couldn't find and I was sure it was clearly missing I'd post a NM.   If I wasn't 100% sure I was on my game that day I'd post a dnf.    

[+thebruce0]

15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You haven't been paying attention then.   It's been advocated for a couple of time in this thread and many times in these forums.  

Where?

17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Unless of course the first stage of the multi were, say, a sign board featuring information essential to completing the multi and that sign board was very clearly missing when I got there.

I still didn't find anything but for me it's still very much a DNF because I did actually search.

Me, DNF + possible NM.  The CO might need to disable or archive, and later finders would hopefully pay more attention to the NM than a DNF. Either way, the cache can't be completed because an essential component is blatantly missing, so to me a DNF isn't sufficient.

[+justintim1999]

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Where?

Me, DNF + possible NM.  The CO might need to disable or archive, and later finders would hopefully pay more attention to the NM than a DNF. Either way, the cache can't be completed because an essential component is blatantly missing, so to me a DNF isn't sufficient.

I think it's quite clear that after 16 years of caching Mudfrog is going to post a dnf whether they searched or not.    

[+thebruce0]

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I think it's quite clear that after 16 years of caching Mudfrog is going to post a dnf whether they searched or not.

Can you please reference a post where he has said he'll post a public DNF on a cache he did not search for? (honestly, I don't recall him ever saying or implying that, but I might be wrong or have missed it)

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't think we really need a universally accepted definition.[...] In most cases the location of a cache is known so I'd think that reaching gz would be a must.

So which is it? Do we really need a universally accepted definition or not? On the one hand, you say we don't need one, but on the other hand, you seem to be advocating one a few sentences later in the same paragraph.

And for the record, I wouldn't log a DNF without reaching GZ (or what I thought was GZ, or what I thought was one of multiple GZs for a multi-stage cache). But not everyone has the same interpretation of when their attempt to find a cache begins.

I'm sure it would be easier to adjust the system than our own habits.   Without some sort of logging perimeters the system will always be flawed.   All the tweaking in the world will never satisfy everyone.     Junk in junk out.

I'm glad we're finally on the same page about that.

 

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If a new cacher asked you "when should I post a dnf"   what would you tell them?   

"When you try to find the geocache, but don't find it, post a DNF."

But I'm not going to argue with them over whether or not they actually tried to find the geocache. If they think they tried to find it (or didn't try to find it), then that's good enough.

 

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Then why is "possibly missing" still listed by GS as a primary reason why dnfs are logged?

It isn't.

Let's look at what the Help Center article Log types says about Didn't Find It logs:

Quote

Didn't Find It

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 reason why DNFs are logged is "when you look for a cache but do not find it".

One of the reasons why DNF logs are an important log type is that they inform others, so they can consider possible reasons for the DNF (e.g., difficult hides or missing caches). But the primary reason why you log one is "when you look for a cache but do not find it".

[+justintim1999]

15 minutes ago, niraD said:

So which is it? Do we really need a universally accepted definition or not? On the one hand, you say we don't need one, but on the other hand, you seem to be advocating one a few sentences later in the same paragraph.

And for the record, I wouldn't log a DNF without reaching GZ (or what I thought was GZ, or what I thought was one of multiple GZs for a multi-stage cache). But not everyone has the same interpretation of when their attempt to find a cache begins.

I'm glad we're finally on the same page about that.

 

"When you try to find the geocache, but don't find it, post a DNF."

But I'm not going to argue with them over whether or not they actually tried to find the geocache. If they think they tried to find it (or didn't try to find it), then that's good enough.

 

It isn't.

Let's look at what the Help Center article Log types says about Didn't Find It logs:

The reason why DNFs are logged is "when you look for a cache but do not find it".

One of the reasons why DNF logs are an important log type is that they inform others, so they can consider possible reasons for the DNF (e.g., difficult hides or missing caches). But the primary reason why you log one is "when you look for a cache but do not find it".

I know you've showed me the way to use the multi quote but for the life of me I can't seem to use it correctly. 

I think all we need to do it ask that cachers reach gz and search..   That's it.   As long as they're in the area their gps tells them they should be, it's doesn't really matter how long they search as long as they did search. 

Here is the definition word for word in black and white.

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”.

As you can plainly see "possibly missing" is in the definition.  

This is all predicated on how we define "looking" or searching".    You could conceivably start looking for a cache without ever leaving your car but a dnf (per the definition above)  is suppose to relay important information to the cache owner and other finders.  There is no important information being relayed by sitting in your car other than a personal record of your failed attempt.  If the definition of a dnf included personal record keeping I wouldn't be here.    If your reasons are purely personal than what can I say?   Your probably going to continue doing it not matter what anyone says.   I'm more concerned with how new cachers handle the use of dnfs.

Now you can argue you put the fact that you didn't actually reach gz in your dnf log but I think that's a bogus argument.   Some future finders may simply look at the dnf and not bother to read the log.   The CHS is going to count that as a dnf regardless of what's in the log and a reviewer is going to have to take time to determine what that dnf means as it relates to the health of the cache.   

 

 

     

[+niraD]

25 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

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”.

As you can plainly see "possibly missing" is in the definition.  

Technically, no. The phrase "possibly missing" is in the explanation for why DNF logs are an important log type. And even then, "extra difficult to find" is offered as an alternative root cause for why someone might "look for a cache but not find it".

27 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The CHS is going to count that as a dnf regardless of what's in the log and[...]

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,...

[+dprovan]

28 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I think all we need to do it ask that cachers reach gz and search..   That's it.   As long as they're in the area their gps tells them they should be, it's doesn't really matter how long they search as long as they did search. 

You keep saying things like this without realizing what a narrow definition of "search" that is. To you, "search" means just the specific end where you're standing at GZ looking around. But finding a way to GZ is just as much a part of the search. Heck, even tracking down the cache description could be considered part of the search.

And giving you that much credit requires accepting a second mistake you're making, which is assuming "did not find" always implies a search to begin with. But it's a perfectly valid and understandable English to say, "No, I did not find my keys. I haven't even looked for them yet."

And that requires ignoring the fact that "find" has a very specific definition in geocaching, so "did not find" logically includes every result other than that one end.

The odd thing is that I basically agree with you in that I don't often post a DNF unless I'm at GZ and really look for the cache. But I make exceptions, so I resent the implication that there's something inherently illogical about DNFs that do not imply anything about the status of the cache itself.

[+justintim1999]

30 minutes ago, dprovan said:

You keep saying things like this without realizing what a narrow definition of "search" that is. To you, "search" means just the specific end where you're standing at GZ looking around. But finding a way to GZ is just as much a part of the search. Heck, even tracking down the cache description could be considered part of the search.

And giving you that much credit requires accepting a second mistake you're making, which is assuming "did not find" always implies a search to begin with. But it's a perfectly valid and understandable English to say, "No, I did not find my keys. I haven't even looked for them yet."

And that requires ignoring the fact that "find" has a very specific definition in geocaching, so "did not find" logically includes every result other than that one end.

The odd thing is that I basically agree with you in that I don't often post a DNF unless I'm at GZ and really look for the cache. But I make exceptions, so I resent the implication that there's something inherently illogical about DNFs that do not imply anything about the status of the cache itself.

I could see posting a dnf if the way to gz is abnormally difficult.  That to me relays public information.  Although you could also do that in a note.

Everything that's not a find doesn't have to be a dnf.   Many of those logs could be notes. 

I'm not implying anything.  I'm saying it.   You can disagree with the dnf being an informative log.  To me the definition says otherwise. 

Look,  we've gone around and around on this.   I'll continue to use dnfs the way I think they should be used and you can continue using them the way you see fit.  With everything that's been discussed here I think others following along with this have enough information to decide for themselves how dnfs should be used.

[+Team Microdot]

43 minutes ago, dprovan said:

You keep saying things like this without realizing what a narrow definition of "search" that is. To you, "search" means just the specific end where you're standing at GZ looking around. But finding a way to GZ is just as much a part of the search. Heck, even tracking down the cache description could be considered part of the search.

You could extend the definition even further if you really, really tried. Had the idea to go out caching - that's the start of the search. Had the idea to begin caching for the first time - that's the start of the search. One might even argue that as every moment since birth had led up to that point that the search started then

[+justintim1999]

16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You could extend the definition even further if you really, really tried. Had the idea to go out caching - that's the start of the search. Had the idea to begin caching for the first time - that's the start of the search. One might even argue that as every moment since birth had led up to that point that the search started then

I think we both get it.   People have a very different interpretations of what a search is and I can't blame them for defending there point of view.  If this discussion dose nothing else I hope it makes people take a minute to think about the logs they're using and why there using them.  If we all do that I think we'll  get it right in the end.

[+Team Microdot]

16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

23 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You could extend the definition even further if you really, really tried. Had the idea to go out caching - that's the start of the search. Had the idea to begin caching for the first time - that's the start of the search. One might even argue that as every moment since birth had led up to that point that the search started then

I think we both get it.   People have a very different interpretations of what a search is and I can't blame them for defending there point of view.  If this discussion dose nothing else I hope it makes people take a minute to think about the logs they're using and why there using them.  If we all do that I think we'll  get it right in the end.

I sincerely hope you realise that I wasn't even slightly serious - quite the opposite in fact.

[+justintim1999]

12 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I sincerely hope you realise that I wasn't even slightly serious - quite the opposite in fact.

I do.  I was just trying to give everyone involved a way out. 

[+justintim1999]

12 minutes ago, niraD said:

The funny thing is, the way I use DNF logs doesn't seem to be very different from the way you think they should be used. And yet...

I'll repeat a point I made earlier: The vast majority of geocachers are blissfully unaware of the CHS and the debates here in the forums, and will post what they post no matter how much the CHS or DNF etiquette or anything else might be debated here.

Nope.   Not going to bite.   You get the last word sir.     On to the next topic.  

[+niraD]

21 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

People have a very different interpretations of what a search is and I can't blame them for defending there point of view.

The funny thing is, the way I use DNF logs doesn't seem to be very different from the way you think they should be used. And yet...

23 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If this discussion dose nothing else I hope it makes people take a minute to think about the logs they're using and why there using them. 

I'll repeat a point I made earlier: The vast majority of geocachers are blissfully unaware of the CHS and the debates here in the forums, and will post what they post no matter how much the CHS or DNF etiquette or anything else might be debated here.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

You obviously don't believe that dnfs can be an indication of a missing cache.

They can be but most of the time they don't. As I said before, I've had 52 DNFs logged on my hides, none were due to the cache being missing and only one was due to any sort of problem with the cache (that one had been buried by a rock fall). How do I stop people logging DNFs on my hides unless they're sure the cache is missing? The answer is I can't, I just have to accept those DNFs and the CHS pings that come from it treating all DNFs as meaning the cache is probably missing.

About 3 percent of the world's caches are D4 or higher. That's about 130,000 caches that you want to just dismiss as fringe. Fine, but I think geocaching would be a lot less interesting if everything was reduced to roadside P&Gs where everyone's guaranteed a smiley unless the cache actually is missing.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Then why is "possibly missing" still listed by GS as a primary reason why dnfs are logged?   If a dnfs only propose is as a personal record keeping tool than why even mention the possibility of a missing cache in the guidelines?    

Until recently, the Help Centre said the opposite. There was a whole paragraph in there along the lines of "just because you couldn't find it doesn't mean it's missing. In all likelihood, the cache is sitting there smirking at you as you looked everywhere but there." I don't know why they removed that in the last round of updates, but perhaps it clashed with the way the CHS treats DNFs.

[+justintim1999]

43 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Until recently, the Help Centre said the opposite. There was a whole paragraph in there along the lines of "just because you couldn't find it doesn't mean it's missing. In all likelihood, the cache is sitting there smirking at you as you looked everywhere but there." I don't know why they removed that in the last round of updates, but perhaps it clashed with the way the CHS treats DNFs.

I bet your right.  That would make sense

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I could see posting a dnf if the way to gz is abnormally difficult.  That to me relays public information.

Yet you've repeatedly castigated me for logging a DNF when, after searching for the cache, I've realised it's in a place I couldn't safely reach. Yes, I figured out where the cache was, but to record it as a find I have to do more than that - I have to reach it, open it and sign the logbook. If I don't do all those things it's not a find, and in my book that makes it a DNF even though I know the cache isn't missing. The cache being missing is just one of many possible reasons someone might not end their search with a signature in the log, especially on a high D/T cache where there are many more means of failure.

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I remember when I started hiding caches.   I would run out and check up on every dnf posted because I wanted to make sure the cache was there so the next person could enjoy it.   10 years later nothings changed.    My point is, even if the CHS didn't exist I'd still be pushing to see the use of dnfs more clearly defined. 

Just curious, on how many of those occasions when you dashed out to check after a DNF, was the cache actually missing?

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

11 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I remember when I started hiding caches.   I would run out and check up on every dnf posted because I wanted to make sure the cache was there so the next person could enjoy it.   10 years later nothings changed.    My point is, even if the CHS didn't exist I'd still be pushing to see the use of dnfs more clearly defined. 

Just curious, on how many of those occasions when you dashed out to check after a DNF, was the cache actually missing?

Okay, I can answer that myself: skimming through the logs on your caches, maybe a quarter by the look of it. There were also some DNFs that strongly suggested the cache wasn't missing, such as:

• "The only one out of 10 that I didn't find today. Now that I read the description I realize I wasn't looking for the right sized container. Meant to get to this on the way back from the others but then it got too dark and I had to skip it. Oh well. I'm a bit rusty after a long slump. I'm sure it was still there waiting for the more patient cachers."
• "Got one of the symbols wrong and wound up a half mile off. Looked like a very pretty spot so we thought we were in the right area, but not."
• "FNTF not sure if our interpretation of the symbol at marker 1 is in error or lack of detail in the symbols at the other markers sent us down the wrong path."
• "I went there today after work. And I didn't even realize these beautiful nature trails were here! A Awsome find of its own. I found the first point right away but just couldn't find the second one...my gps signal was bouncing a bit and I searched for a good 20 minutes and would have kept looking but had too meet a friend for dinner. I'm looking forward too coming back for round two!"
• "Could not get to this one Too much water thanks anyway!!!"
• "Had to give up on this one as did not have the right tool to retrieve the container. Will be back another day."

Were these all invalid DNFs?

One thing that did strike me is that your caching environment is very different to mine. Many of your hides have find counts in the hundreds and get very few DNFs, whereas only one of my hides has made it to 100 finds and many of the more recent ones have yet to reach double figures. Hence my DNF to find ratio is at least an order of magnitude higher than yours, yet my incidence of DNFed caches that are actually missing or unfindable is much lower. On one of my hides, about one in five logs is a DNF but there's nothing wrong with the cache, it's just that its hiding place is easily overlooked if you don't look from the right angle and there are plenty of other potential hiding places nearby to lead people astray. This is what comes from hiding caches off-track in bushland - many more ways for people to not find them and much less chance of them going missing since muggles are unlikely to come poking around.

So for your environment, the CHS probably works fine and I suspect that's the sort of environment it's been designed around. But it doesn't work well around here, where finds are few and non-cache-related DNFs are common. I'm guessing that's why we have such opposing views on this.

Edited March 1, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I could see posting a dnf if the way to gz is abnormally difficult.  That to me relays public information.

I guess I'll take this as a victory. I think "relays public information" is a reasonable standard, although still not one I insist on. But I think that's way different than your original position which required being at GZ and looking around for the cache before DNF was valid.

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Until recently, the Help Centre said the opposite. There was a whole paragraph in there along the lines of "just because you couldn't find it doesn't mean it's missing. In all likelihood, the cache is sitting there smirking at you as you looked everywhere but there." I don't know why they removed that in the last round of updates, but perhaps it clashed with the way the CHS treats DNFs.

One of the biggest mistakes I see newbies making is thinking that not finding a cache tells them anything whatsoever about whether the cache is missing. The whole point is to hide the cache, so you should expect for it to be there even if you don't find it. I find it annoying that the CHS makes the same newbie error.

[+Gill & Tony]

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

One logical reason for doing so might be that they want to see a blue smiley on the map to remind them to go back there some time.

That reminder would be less obviously visible if buried in a PCN.

If I look at the map, it shows caches that I've neither found nor DNFed as an icon representing the cache type.  Found caches have a yellow smiley and caches DNFed and not yet found have a blue frowny.  I, personally, find this less useful, since the frowny conceals the cache type.  Having the icon there means that, if I am heading that way, I can decide if I want to go for a multi or a traditional or whatever.

If I display a list of caches I have not yet found I get them all, whether or not I previously DNFed them, all with icons and all awaiting my search.  To me, this is more useful than having a cache telling me I DNFed it once (or twice or several times) without giving me any indication of why.

There is also an implied assumption that a future search is likely, or even possible.  Would it alter people's logging habits if there was no possibility of a future search?  Many of my DNF's are in places I'll never return to, so having that reminder, under those circumstances, is irrelevant.

[+barefootjeff]

25 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

There is also an implied assumption that a future search is likely, or even possible.  Would it alter people's logging habits if there was no possibility of a future search?  Many of my DNF's are in places I'll never return to, so having that reminder, under those circumstances, is irrelevant.

I'm a creature of habit so most of my DNFs are in places I'm likely to revisit. I like having them appear as blue frownies on the map as a niggling reminder that I should go back for another try sometime, expecially if I was the only one to DNF the cache.

[+Mudfrog]

12 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I read every one.   I am more interested in the ones where an unsuccessful search was preformed.    Since most of my caches aren't overly difficult I take notice of those.  

I'd think you wouldn't have to explain to them that getting to the parking lot and then turning around and going home isn't really searching but from what I'm reading that may not be as obvious as I'd thought.   

There were a few replies above talking about logs being public and that they weren't really for use by finders for personal business. Imo, as long as a log pertains to the cache, it should be good to go, even if it contains information that others may not be interested in. Logs that i write are part of my geocaching history so yes, some are more personal at times.

I'm really not sure why you're trying to make a mountain out of mole hill here. Honestly, beginning my search but not making it to ground zero is a rare event.This has happened not even a handful of times in all the years i've cache. To this day, i've never had anyone, CO or otherwise, come back and ask me,,, "whaaaaaaat"?

 

[+Team Microdot]

6 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Many of my DNF's are in places I'll never return to, so having that reminder, under those circumstances, is irrelevant.

To you.

 

[+Gill & Tony]

25 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

To you.

 

If you read the whole of my post, you would have noticed that I said, "for me, personally", so I don't see what point your reply is trying to make, apart from the obvious.

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

30 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

To you.

 

If you read the whole of my post, you would have noticed that I said, "for me, personally", so I don't see what point your reply is trying to make, apart from the obvious.

I couldn't see what point you were trying to make either, apart from the obvious.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

19 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I wouldn't post a dnf until I was unable to find a part of the multi.  If time stopped me I'd post nothing or a note explaining everything I did find was ok and I'd be back to finish it later.  

There have been some that have said that once they've hit "Go To" or whatever button is pushed to start navigating to GZ that they have begun the search and if "something" interrupts the search they will post a DNF.  This is where "a purpose of the log" comes in.   If I ran out of time, or got a phone call from home asking me to come one I would likely post a note or nothing at all.   In that scenario, the reason I didn't find the cache only affected me personally and someone with more time would more likely have a different outcome (finding the cache).  If, however, I started navigating to the cache and due to heavy recent rains a creek one could normally walk across easily became impassable I would more likely post a DNF because conveying that information to other geocachers would let others know that they might encounter the same barrier that would cut the search short and experience that I did:  not finding the cache.  In essense, if my log conveys information that may result in the same experience that I had ( not finding the cache) I'd post a DNF.  If the reason that I didn't complete the mission was something that future seekers might not encountered I'd just post a note.  

[+redsox_mark]

22 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

There have been some that have said that once they've hit "Go To" or whatever button is pushed to start navigating to GZ that they have begun the search and if "something" interrupts the search they will post a DNF.  This is where "a purpose of the log" comes in.   If I ran out of time, or got a phone call from home asking me to come one I would likely post a note or nothing at all.   In that scenario, the reason I didn't find the cache only affected me personally and someone with more time would more likely have a different outcome (finding the cache).  If, however, I started navigating to the cache and due to heavy recent rains a creek one could normally walk across easily became impassable I would more likely post a DNF because conveying that information to other geocachers would let others know that they might encounter the same barrier that would cut the search short and experience that I did:  not finding the cache.  In essense, if my log conveys information that may result in the same experience that I had ( not finding the cache) I'd post a DNF.  If the reason that I didn't complete the mission was something that future seekers might not encountered I'd just post a note.  

My approach is the same as yours.  

This is a topic which there is never agreement on.    

The way I look at it, one either has an "algorithm" they follow without exception (the I pressed "go" to start so I must either find or DNF is one such algorithm), or one makes a judgement of what log type is best for a specific case.    

There are multiple "algorithms" people can use.   And if making a judgement case by case, many factors which can determine the decision.

If a newbie asks me for advice, I won't tell them what they should do, but I will tell them what I do.   I firstly tell them not to be afraid of logging a DNF, as I find they generally tend to be hesitant about logging them as they aren't confident of their caching ability.   But I'll also tell them I like to use my judgement, and to think about how others will see my logs and use them.

[+justintim1999]

28 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

There have been some that have said that once they've hit "Go To" or whatever button is pushed to start navigating to GZ that they have begun the search and if "something" interrupts the search they will post a DNF.  This is where "a purpose of the log" comes in.   If I ran out of time, or got a phone call from home asking me to come one I would likely post a note or nothing at all.   In that scenario, the reason I didn't find the cache only affected me personally and someone with more time would more likely have a different outcome (finding the cache).  If, however, I started navigating to the cache and due to heavy recent rains a creek one could normally walk across easily became impassable I would more likely post a DNF because conveying that information to other geocachers would let others know that they might encounter the same barrier that would cut the search short and experience that I did:  not finding the cache.  In essense, if my log conveys information that may result in the same experience that I had ( not finding the cache) I'd post a DNF.  If the reason that I didn't complete the mission was something that future seekers might not encountered I'd just post a note.  

I agree with your assessment 100% but wouldn't it be better to post a note in regards to the impassable creek?    According to the current definition of the guidelines a dnf would be acceptable in that situation but wouldn't a note relay the same information without the possibility of negatively effecting the perceived condition of the cache?    

[+justintim1999]

12 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

An impassable creek would be a (temporary) barrier that would result in the same outcome for someone attempting the cache if they sought it soon after I did.  A note may relay the same information but I suspect a potential seeker would pay more attention to a DNF than a note, and the outcome they would most likely have if they attempted it would be that the "would not find the cache".  I wouldn't change my logging practices based on it's impact on the CHS.  

Fair enough.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I agree with your assessment 100% but wouldn't it be better to post a note in regards to the impassable creek?    According to the current definition of the guidelines a dnf would be acceptable in that situation but wouldn't a note relay the same information without the possibility of negatively effecting the perceived condition of the cache?    

An impassable creek would be a (temporary) barrier that would result in the same outcome for someone attempting the cache if they sought it soon after I did.  A note may relay the same information but I suspect a potential seeker would pay more attention to a DNF than a note, and the outcome they would most likely have if they attempted it would be that the "would not find the cache".  I wouldn't change my logging practices based on it's impact on the CHS.  

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

The way I look at it, one either has an "algorithm" they follow without exception (the I pressed "go" to start so I must either find or DNF is one such algorithm), or one makes a judgement of what log type is best for a specific case.    

There are multiple "algorithms" people can use.   And if making a judgement case by case, many factors which can determine the decision.

If a newbie asks me for advice, I won't tell them what they should do, but I will tell them what I do.   I firstly tell them not to be afraid of logging a DNF, as I find they generally tend to be hesitant about logging them as they aren't confident of their caching ability.   But I'll also tell them I like to use my judgement, and to think about how others will see my logs and use them.

Exactly this, in my case as well.

I have a general algorithm, but the log type I post I judge on a case by case basis. An impassible creek? if it looks permanent, I may log a DNF because I likely did something wrong (came from the wrong direction? didn't bring a TOTT?).  If it looks temporary, I may log a Note because I don't feel I was technically thwarted by the cache, but rather more like I'm putting my search on pause to return later and continue. Subtle difference between a 'thwart' and a 'pause', but like I said, to me it's know-it-when-I-see-it. How the log is interpreted by others plays a factor.  A thwart would be more relevant to other cachers, imo, and a pause wouldn't be. As you say above, a DNF is more likely to be read by other cachers than a Note (generally speaking - these days I'm more likely to read notes than 10 years ago when notes were far more prolific for uninteresting extra TB actions).

[+Mudfrog]

4 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

My approach is the same as yours.  

This is a topic which there is never agreement on.    

The way I look at it, one either has an "algorithm" they follow without exception (the I pressed "go" to start so I must either find or DNF is one such algorithm), or one makes a judgement of what log type is best for a specific case.    

There are multiple "algorithms" people can use.   And if making a judgement case by case, many factors which can determine the decision.

If a newbie asks me for advice, I won't tell them what they should do, but I will tell them what I do.   I firstly tell them not to be afraid of logging a DNF, as I find they generally tend to be hesitant about logging them as they aren't confident of their caching ability.   But I'll also tell them I like to use my judgement, and to think about how others will see my logs and use them.

Unlike some situations where agreement of the masses is needed to help keep things running smoothly, the lack of it here causes no adverse side effects. This is one of those instances where a person's personal preference (regarding when they believe their search begins) is perfectly fine. No one should get their panties in a bunch worrying about me logging a descriptive DNF when i didn't make it to ground zero.

 

[+redsox_mark]

25 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Unlike some situations where agreement of the masses is needed to help keep things running smoothly, the lack of it here causes no adverse side effects. This is one of those instances where a person's personal preference (regarding when they believe their search begins) is perfectly fine. No one should get their panties in a bunch worrying about me logging a descriptive DNF when i didn't make it to ground zero.

 

I agree.

[+justintim1999]

24 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Unlike some situations where agreement of the masses is needed to help keep things running smoothly, the lack of it here causes no adverse side effects. This is one of those instances where a person's personal preference (regarding when they believe their search begins) is perfectly fine. No one should get their panties in a bunch worrying about me logging a descriptive DNF when i didn't make it to ground zero.

 

You don't worry me at all but my panties are a little concerned.