Jump to content

DNF Etiquette


itsonlybarney
Followers 10

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

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

 

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I go commando - bunch free ;)

If y'all will, let me know where you'll be caching from now on. I'll make sure to cache in the other direction! :lol:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 2/4/2018 at 4:30 PM, CAVinoGal said:

This.  I usually read logs of recent previous activity (Finds, DNF'd, notes, etc) to help us in deciding to go after that cache or wait till another time.  A string of DNF's won't necessarily deter us, although the content of them might.  Sometimes it's fun to see if we can find one that's been DNF'ed a few times!  There's a sweet satisfaction in finding one like that!  A Write Note may or may not give us relevant information, so I'll read notes too, just in case.

Best feeling when you find it!

I was very surprised to hear from another geocacher (on vacation going thru my area) who said they don't log DNFs since some CO's really don't like those on the cache page. I didn't know that was a thing until then.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:
On 2/5/2018 at 9:30 AM, CAVinoGal said:

This.  I usually read logs of recent previous activity (Finds, DNF'd, notes, etc) to help us in deciding to go after that cache or wait till another time.  A string of DNF's won't necessarily deter us, although the content of them might.  Sometimes it's fun to see if we can find one that's been DNF'ed a few times!  There's a sweet satisfaction in finding one like that!  A Write Note may or may not give us relevant information, so I'll read notes too, just in case.

Best feeling when you find it!

Yes indeed. Early last year I visited an island cache (our friend colleda will know the one I mean) which had three DNFs in the nine months since the last find, with one of those DNFers saying he had no less than eleven friends searching with him! Now the island's not very big, about fifty metres by ten metres, and the cache was a small, not a micro or nano, so it ought to be findable, you'd think. Was it missing? Nup, just very well hidden and it took me over an hour to finally realise the trick I needed to use to locate it.

Another time it was one in a gully with poor GPS reception, so the CO had provided a spoiler photo. The last find had been a year earlier, with a couple of DNFs since, but they mentioned not having the photo with them so I suspected the cache was still fine and indeed it was.

One I found just recently had had ten DNFs prior to my find, including two from me, and almost two years since the last find, but the CO had posted a couple of reassuring OMs and again it was just a tough hide.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
6 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

If y'all will, let me know where you'll be caching from now on. I'll make sure to cache in the other direction! :lol:

You never know what's around that bend in the trail. :D

(Should we tell him we're caching in the direction we actually aren't so that he's bound to run into us? :ph34r:)

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

(Should we tell him we're caching in the direction we actually aren't so that he's bound to run into us? :ph34r:)

Since he used Y'all (and I haven't looked at his profile) My guess is he's from the south somewhere.  Since I rarely ever get out of New England I'd say he's safe.....at least from us that is.;)  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
51 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

(Should we tell him we're caching in the direction we actually aren't so that he's bound to run into us? :ph34r:)

Since he used Y'all (and I haven't looked at his profile) My guess is he's from the south somewhere.  Since I rarely ever get out of New England I'd say he's safe.....at least from us that is.;)  

Naw - he's trying to throw us off the scent - we can find him - I know it ;)

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Best feeling when you find it!

I was very surprised to hear from another geocacher (on vacation going thru my area) who said they don't log DNFs since some CO's really don't like those on the cache page. I didn't know that was a thing until then.

Surely a DNF would show that their cache was a challenge.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Best feeling when you find it!

I was very surprised to hear from another geocacher (on vacation going thru my area) who said they don't log DNFs since some CO's really don't like those on the cache page. I didn't know that was a thing until then.

If you searched for the cache and couldn't find it you post a dnf.   A good cache owner will appreciate the information and will probably keep an eye on the cache to see if the next person finds it or also posts a dnf.    Cache owners that really don't care about the activity don't want you to post a dnf because it could mean they'll have to check up on their cache and they really don't want to have to do that.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, aer72 said:

Surely a DNF would show that their cache was a challenge.

A dnf could show a few different things.   One is the cache is a tough one.  Another is that it could be missing.  A third is your geosenses were just on vacation that day.

It's not important why you didn't find it, it is important that you log your dnf if you didn't.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I don't have any strict rules, but there are some patterns that I've noticed.

  • I tend to look for a cache for about 30 minutes. If I can't find the physical cache, then I consider it a DNF and log it.
  • If I'm looking and get made by a muggle (they come up and ask what I'm doing or one stares at me while I search) then I consider it a DNF, but I don't log it. To me, it's not a "did not find" as much as it was "I was noticed and thus I have to stop looking"
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I'm new to this and did not find the cache at the first site I looked. At first, I didn't even realize DNF was an option - I saw that button when I went to log my first find. I then went back to the first site and still did not find. I was tempted just to walk away - who would know? But then I though I should log it, because I might not have found it for any number of reasons, including it was removed by someone or something (my first thought was a squirrel). The CO double checked and the cache was still there and someone else has found it since. I'll go back and look again someday.

 

I think the polite thing to do is to document DNF's. A string of DNF's could indicate a missing cache - or a really great hiding place.

 

If someone chooses not to log DNF's, I think that's their choice.

 

ETA: I didn't answer the original question! I don't really have a set time. One DNF I logged was because it was a busy area and I had a hard time being stealthy. Someone else looking for the cache may want to go at a less busy time of day.

Edited by Lorien99
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Lorien99 said:

I think the polite thing to do is to document DNF's. A string of DNF's could indicate a missing cache - or a really great hiding place.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Some explanation that demonstrates the nature and amount of effort involved in searching for the cache - without giving spoilers - is invaluable in assisting the CO (and others) in assessing whether the cache is still in place to be found, or needs a maintenance check.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
21 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
21 hours ago, Lorien99 said:

I think the polite thing to do is to document DNF's. A string of DNF's could indicate a missing cache - or a really great hiding place.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Some explanation that demonstrates the nature and amount of effort involved in searching for the cache - without giving spoilers - is invaluable in assisting the CO (and others) in assessing whether the cache is still in place to be found, or needs a maintenance check.

 

Or as Lorien99 implies, that the cache is just hidden really well, and the number of DNF logs might suggest to the CO that the Difficulty rating should be increased.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Or as Lorien99 implies, that the cache is just hidden really well, and the number of DNF logs might suggest to the CO that the Difficulty rating should be increased.  

 

It's nice to see a newer geocacher put a little effort and thought into figuring out geocaching. There aren't that many guidelines but putting an effort to learn some of the ins and outs goes a long way to make our hobby more enjoyable for everyone. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I will always put DNF if I did not find it, for whatever reason, because that's the truth. Then I believe the activity log is for giving more detail so the CO or future geocachers can see whether the cache may be missing, hard to find, or whether it was simply the case that u had to leave because your kid needed the toilet or an ice-cream van had just pulled up (both of which I have indeed logged with a DNF)! ?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, EmzyJanezy said:

I will always put DNF if I did not find it, for whatever reason, because that's the truth. Then I believe the activity log is for giving more detail so the CO or future geocachers can see whether the cache may be missing, hard to find, or whether it was simply the case that u had to leave because your kid needed the toilet or an ice-cream van had just pulled up (both of which I have indeed logged with a DNF)! ?

Now, for me both of those would not be DNFs .  They would be either Write Note or no log at all--maybe depending on how much time I'd spent looking before the interruption occurred.   Only if I was ready to give up anyway would I call it a DNF.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

Now, for me both of those would not be DNFs .  They would be either Write Note or no log at all--maybe depending on how much time I'd spent looking before the interruption occurred.   Only if I was ready to give up anyway would I call it a DNF.

 

I initially thought I would do it this way - but then I was forgetting by looking at the map which ones I had already attempted.  If its a DNF it doesn't mean I won't go back and give it another go, but it helps me to see at a glance which I've already tried and which I haven't even looked for yet.  I don't feel like a failure seeing so many DNFs - in fact it kind of pushes me to go back so I can turn that frown into a smile lol.

Link to comment

 

On 6/23/2018 at 5:17 AM, EmzyJanezy said:

I will always put DNF if I did not find it, for whatever reason, because that's the truth. Then I believe the activity log is for giving more detail so the CO or future geocachers can see whether the cache may be missing, hard to find, or whether it was simply the case that u had to leave because your kid needed the toilet or an ice-cream van had just pulled up (both of which I have indeed logged with a DNF)! ?

 

On 6/23/2018 at 6:14 PM, NanCycle said:

Now, for me both of those would not be DNFs .  They would be either Write Note or no log at all--maybe depending on how much time I'd spent looking before the interruption occurred.   Only if I was ready to give up anyway would I call it a DNF.

I agree with NanCycle on this. I only log a DNF if I have actually looked for the cache and did not find it. I will not DNF a cache if I have not put some effort into searching for it. Instead, I will write a note or not log the cache at all. Just my opinion on how I search for caches, of course.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, 321geocache said:

 

 

I agree with NanCycle on this. I only log a DNF if I have actually looked for the cache and did not find it. I will not DNF a cache if I have not put some effort into searching for it. Instead, I will write a note or not log the cache at all. Just my opinion on how I search for caches, of course.

 

Just to clarify, I will have always LOOKED for the cache. I wouldn't log a DNF if I reached GZ but didn't get the chance to search.  If that was the case, or if we had only just started searching but I didn't think we had given it enough effort, I wouldn't log at all and return another time.

Edited by EmzyJanezy
Additional info
Link to comment

Okay re-reading my initial message I guess it may have appeared that I was saying I would log a DNF because my child wanted the toilet etc without even looking. I wouldn't log a DNF if we hadn't already spent some time looking for the cache - in that case I would not log at all. It's just that sometimes we have searched a while and the thing that finally drags me away is a little voice that says "I need a wee, mum". It's a grey area though because often I'm ready to give up anyway and the kid gives a good excuse. 

Edited by EmzyJanezy
Link to comment

DNFs are necessary for the CO, not only to know that perhaps the cache is missing, but also so that the CO can get an idea of how difficult the cache is and adjust its rating to match. However, many people don't log them. I have seen logs people have written with something like, "Eighth visit and finally found this" (I checked, not one DNF!) Or I have been geocaching with a group and I am the ONLY one who logs a DNF. I now name all those who I was searching with. I came to a cache that had had no logs for six months. I logged a DNF, and received a thank you from the CO, because when they checked it was indeed missing. As an exercise I checked that cache's logging history going back pre the six months without a log and I worked out based on that that about 20 people failed to log DNFs.

Why don't people log DNFs? I speculate embarrassment coming from lack of self confidence. They worry people will think them stupid or something. No we won't (or I won't). I will think better of you for logging DNFs, showing you are 'big girls and boys' :); able to own up to failures, and assist the CO if the cache is missing. I regularly log DNFs; in fact recently I logged my third DNF for a cache that others have found easy. If people think me stupid that I can't find it, so be it.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Because there's no benefit to them in doing so - so why waste the time?

 

 

And there's the issue.  Some geocacher only see the online log for how it benefits them without consideration of the benefits that it can provide to the cache owner and other geocachers.  

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment

I sometimes get the impression people don't log the DNFs because they want to show off all smileys on their maps.  Sort of like its all about their achievements and logging a DNF shows they admitted defeat and their egos don't like it.  They feel like a failure.  So they won't log at all and hope to come back and get that smiley another day.  

 

For me its a personal record and I don't care that I currently have more DNFS than finds.  Its a fun game I enjoy with my daughters.  Don't get me wrong, we are super excited when we make a find, but logging a DNF is just all part of the game.  

 

As somebody else mentioned, often it is the DNFs we remember the most and I actually really enjoy keeping an eye on the activity logs on my DNF caches to see how others have got on since my attempt.

 

I really appreciate DNFs being logged because I enjoy reading about the difficulties others faced and it also gives me an idea, if we are heading for a cache, of how hard it may be to find and what might have hindered previous geocachers (eg. nettles, muggles etc).  In fact, when I'm sitting alone in the evening I really do quite enjoy the reading material the logs provide!

 

Perhaps I need to get a life … :huh:

Edited by EmzyJanezy
spelling errors
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Because there's no benefit to them in doing so - so why waste the time?

 

 

There is a benefit to me.  I like to log DNFs so I can remember which caches I have attempted and why we didn't find it.  Perhaps the area was overgrown with thorns or nettles and so we gave up because we didn't have suitable clothing, perhaps a scary drunk came and hovered beside us, or maybe the cache was too darn difficult to find.  We can then remember why we gave up last time and be aware of these issues on our next attempt.

 

There is also the benefit to others but I am just talking about the benefit to myself here in response to the comment above.

Link to comment

And another thing …

 

… I appear to have a lot to say on this topic! :D

 

But another thought I just had - if NOBODY EVER logged a DNF and just kept on trying until they made a find, how on earth would a CO or any future geochachers have any idea there may be a problem if the cache has gone missing or been muggled?

 

A consecutive stream of DNFs gives me a hint that there is a substantial chance I won't find the cache and that it may be gone, and therefore I won't spend an excessive amount of time hunting for it.  It also lets the CO know they might need to pop down and check on it.

Edited by EmzyJanezy
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

DNFs are necessary for the CO, not only to know that perhaps the cache is missing, but also so that the CO can get an idea of how difficult the cache is and adjust its rating to match. However, many people don't log them. I have seen logs people have written with something like, "Eighth visit and finally found this" (I checked, not one DNF!) Or I have been geocaching with a group and I am the ONLY one who logs a DNF. I now name all those who I was searching with. I came to a cache that had had no logs for six months. I logged a DNF, and received a thank you from the CO, because when they checked it was indeed missing. As an exercise I checked that cache's logging history going back pre the six months without a log and I worked out based on that that about 20 people failed to log DNFs.

Why don't people log DNFs? I speculate embarrassment coming from lack of self confidence. They worry people will think them stupid or something. No we won't (or I won't). I will think better of you for logging DNFs, showing you are 'big girls and boys' :); able to own up to failures, and assist the CO if the cache is missing. I regularly log DNFs; in fact recently I logged my third DNF for a cache that others have found easy. If people think me stupid that I can't find it, so be it.

 

Most of the cachers around here are pretty forthcoming with their DNFs, but maybe that's because we're a small community and all know each other. Across all my hides I've had fifty-something DNFs at last count, only two of which were due to a cache problem (and they were on the same cache that was firstly buried by a rock fall and then had its replacement muggled soon after - I've since conceded defeat and archived it). The others were all just people not finding them on their first attempt, or being put off by things like swarms of mosquitoes, approaching storms, failing light, no mobile data to view the cache page or a host of other reasons. A DNF doesn't have to be due to a missing cache or a D rating that needs adjusting; if I rate a tricky cache as D2.5 or D3, I expect it to get a fair number of DNFs. A D5 should rarely get anything but DNFs. Terrain also contributes to DNFs as there are many more ways to not find a cache when Mother Nature is working against you too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I'm not a CO yet but I bet if you have given your cache a high rating of difficulty you would feel far more pleased to see a long string of DNFs than a long string of nothing.  Nothing would imply nobody is even looking for your cache.  At least the DNFs show that people are looking for it and your cunning method of hiding or disguising your cache is keeping them busy on their toes :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Because there's no benefit to them in doing so - so why waste the time?

 

There is a benefit. It means the CO might get to know if the cache is missing, etc. So you've moved on and can't give a hoot, but what about the next cache you visit thinking it was there, but other people with your same attitude have been there before you and they couldn't give a hoot either and thought it a waste of time to log a DNF too, because...gees, it takes... like forever...to write DNF! I gave the example of a cache where probably about 20 people couldn't be bothered to log DNFs, and only when I logged a DNF after the cache was likely missing for 6 months was the CO notified to check, and then found it missing. Don't depend on others to log the DNF; they might be just like you.

Link to comment
Just now, Goldenwattle said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Because there's no benefit to them in doing so - so why waste the time?

 

There is a benefit. It means the CO might get to know if the cache is missing, etc. So you've moved on and can't give a hoot, but what about the next cache you visit thinking it was there, but other people with your same attitude have been there before you and they couldn't give a hoot either and thought it a waste of time to log a DNF too, because...gees, it takes... like forever...to write DNF! I gave the example of a cache where probably about 20 people couldn't be bothered to log DNFs, and only when I logged a DNF after the cache was likely missing for 6 months was the CO notified to check, and then found it missing. Don't depend on others to log the DNF; they might be just like you.

 

You seem to have responded to something other than what I actually wrote and, on that basis, jumped to a whole number of mistaken conclusions.

 

While those things are your prerogative, it does seem to be a considerable waste of time which could be used more productively.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

You seem to have responded to something other than what I actually wrote and, on that basis, jumped to a whole number of mistaken conclusions.

 

While those things are your prerogative, it does seem to be a considerable waste of time which could be used more productively.

I answered " Because there's no benefit to them in doing so - so why waste the time?"

What did you actually write?

Edited by Goldenwattle
Removing comment made in haste.
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

You seem to have responded to something other than what I actually wrote and, on that basis, jumped to a whole number of mistaken conclusions.

 

While those things are your prerogative, it does seem to be a considerable waste of time which could be used more productively.

I answered " Because there's no benefit to them in doing so - so why waste the time?"

What did you actually write?

 

I did see the comment you subsequently removed - just for the record.

 

I'll try to clarify.

 

The emphasis is on the word them and by them I mean those choosing not to log DNF.

 

I personally log all my DNF's - including such detail as might be useful to anyone who chooses to read them.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I did see the comment you subsequently removed - just for the record.

 

I'll try to clarify.

 

The emphasis is on the word them and by them I mean those choosing not to log DNF.

 

I personally log all my DNF's - including such detail as might be useful to anyone who chooses to read them.

Then I misunderstood and apologise. I thought that was your attitude. I was wrong.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Then I misunderstood and apologise. I thought that was your attitude. I was wrong.

 

Thank you :)

 

The view I take is that even when a lot of people who manage to find a cache can only manage a log of two or three words at best - or the same, repetitive, qually useless cr@ppy and paste log on everything they find - they probably consider even that miniscule amount of effort more than they are willing to invest for something they didn't actually find.

 

I consider that both rude and selfish - at least where a CO has invested effort in their offering which isn't reciprocated.

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
missing word
Link to comment
6 hours ago, EmzyJanezy said:

Okay re-reading my initial message I guess it may have appeared that I was saying I would log a DNF because my child wanted the toilet etc without even looking.

Welcome to the forums, where you have be 120% clear in everything you say. :laughing:

 

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Why don't people log DNFs? I speculate embarrassment coming from lack of self confidence. They worry people will think them stupid or something. No we won't (or I won't). I will think better of you for logging DNFs, showing you are 'big girls and boys' :); able to own up to failures, and assist the CO if the cache is missing. I regularly log DNFs; in fact recently I logged my third DNF for a cache that others have found easy. If people think me stupid that I can't find it, so be it.

I just logged a DNF on a cache I was trying to FTF in a culvert. Passed through it three times, thighs were burning afterwards. Found out I would have been 2tf; ftfer left 5 minutes before I arrived. I let the CO know who checked it the next time confirming it was there. FTFer sent me pics and I swear I didn't see it.

Next time I attempt, I'm sure I'll find it, and eat my words. :P  Sometimes the DNF is fun. If you're humble enough to admit failure. Sometimes you just don't see things there are super obvious to other people.

 

I still swear I scanned every inch of that tunnel, lol

 

 

2 hours ago, EmzyJanezy said:

I'm not a CO yet but I bet if you have given your cache a high rating of difficulty you would feel far more pleased to see a long string of DNFs than a long string of nothing.  Nothing would imply nobody is even looking for your cache.  At least the DNFs show that people are looking for it and your cunning method of hiding or disguising your cache is keeping them busy on their toes :)

 

Except that then you get finders who rant against you saying you "don't really want people to find your cache". Those are the people more likely to not want to log DNFs, because they're "bad".  I'd recommend steering clear from implying that as a CO you get pleasure from seeing other people's DNFs :laughing:

 

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

DNFs are necessary for the CO, not only to know that perhaps the cache is missing, but also so that the CO can get an idea of how difficult the cache is and adjust its rating to match.

Allow me to note that this is only an issue in an area where no one logs DNFs. In my area, most people log DNFs, and they often give a little information about the search to give the CO and others an idea about what they might have missed. So any individual newbie not logging a DNF, perhaps because they feel a little shy or a little incompetent, is not a big deal. I don't discourage anyone from filing DNFs, but I also don't want them to feel like there's a problem if they don't. Someone else will come along soon enough and provide the CO with the information that might lead them to worry that the cache is missing or not rated high enough. The newbie's input can confuse as often as it helps, anyway. How often have you seen a newbie post "It's definitely missing" because they hadn't found out about lamp skirts yet?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Allow me to note that this is only an issue in an area where no one logs DNFs. In my area, most people log DNFs, and they often give a little information about the search to give the CO and others an idea about what they might have missed. So any individual newbie not logging a DNF, perhaps because they feel a little shy or a little incompetent, is not a big deal. I don't discourage anyone from filing DNFs, but I also don't want them to feel like there's a problem if they don't. Someone else will come along soon enough and provide the CO with the information that might lead them to worry that the cache is missing or not rated high enough. The newbie's input can confuse as often as it helps, anyway. How often have you seen a newbie post "It's definitely missing" because they hadn't found out about lamp skirts yet?

Yes, this can vary from area to area and possibly country to country. From memory I think parts of NZ had a low rate of logging DNFs. It was there I found a cache that hadn't been logged for 6 months and I logged a DNF. The CO checked and the cache was missing. They thanked me for logging the DNF and wished more people would. I worked out from the previous logging pattern, that maybe 20 people in that 6 months had not logged a DNF.

I had one relatively new cacher (about 300 finds only) log a DNF just yesterday because they couldn't find it. I checked and the cache was still there, but I was pleased I checked, as the log was damp and something needed to be done about this.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, EmzyJanezy said:

I'm not a CO yet but I bet if you have given your cache a high rating of difficulty you would feel far more pleased to see a long string of DNFs than a long string of nothing.  Nothing would imply nobody is even looking for your cache.  At least the DNFs show that people are looking for it and your cunning method of hiding or disguising your cache is keeping them busy on their toes :)

 

Take a look at the logs for a couple of caches in Indiana (Shelter II and Shelter III)  Shelter II has over 300 DNF logs and over 400 Notes (that are mostly subsequent instances of a DNF).   The caches are intended to be very difficult, those in the area know that they are very difficult, and those that have posted DNF logs wear them as a badge of honor.  There have been organized events to bring large groups together in an attempt to find them.  Videos have been made with cachers making their feelings know to the CO.  It's all in good fun and the DNFs are all part of the history of these caches and they wouldn't be nearly as famous (or infamous) without those DNF logs.  

 

Not every cache is supposed to be easy to find.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Take a look at the logs for a couple of caches in Indiana (Shelter II and Shelter III)  Shelter II has over 300 DNF logs and over 400 Notes (that are mostly subsequent instances of a DNF).   The caches are intended to be very difficult, those in the area know that they are very difficult, and those that have posted DNF logs wear them as a badge of honor.  There have been organized events to bring large groups together in an attempt to find them.  Videos have been made with cachers making their feelings know to the CO.  It's all in good fun and the DNFs are all part of the history of these caches and they wouldn't be nearly as famous (or infamous) without those DNF logs.  

 

Not every cache is supposed to be easy to find.  

 

Yes. I live not too far from both of these caches. (Visited the park years ago before knowing there were geocaches there) I have had these caches on my future "find list" of difficult caches I want to find.

 

Being a CO myself, I want people to log DNFs if they don't find my caches. That lets me know if there's an issue with them. Even if the cache isn't there, I don't mind. As long as the cacher actually puts some effort into attempting to find the cache and doesn't find it, in my opinion the cacher should log a DNF.

Link to comment

From a newbie point of view. If I went to the place, reached ground zero and searched for it and for whatever reason can't find the actual cache I will log a DNF.

I don't see why a CO would not like a DNF log. The DNF log will actually remind the CO to check if the cache was missing if there were a string of DNF from many cachers.

 

For the very first cache that I tried to find, I logged a DNF because I simply can't find it. After finding some other caches, I went back for it and found the cache.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I find that many people don't have the confidence to log the first DNF. No logs for ages and I log a DNF, then suddenly a string of DNFs will follow mine. This has happened several times. Be brave, be the first to log that DNF;)!

 

Frequently, when I am the first to not find, I will post a log similar to an FTF: "FTNF -- First to not Find!"

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

Frequently, when I am the first to not find, I will post a log similar to an FTF: "FTNF -- First to not Find!"

 

I recently got to a relatively remote GZ at least a day before anyone else but didn't find the cache, so I claimed "First To Fail".

Link to comment
On 6/23/2018 at 6:24 PM, EmzyJanezy said:

 

I initially thought I would do it this way - but then I was forgetting by looking at the map which ones I had already attempted.  If its a DNF it doesn't mean I won't go back and give it another go, but it helps me to see at a glance which I've already tried and which I haven't even looked for yet.  I don't feel like a failure seeing so many DNFs - in fact it kind of pushes me to go back so I can turn that frown into a smile lol.

I find this helps me, as well. Logging a DNF marks it for future reference. I have checked the map on my DNFs and see that someone has since found them, so I know they do exist. Someday, I'll go back and try to find again.

 

I've never used the note feature. Does that also leave a mark on the map? There was one a few days ago where I did not put in a serious effort, because it involved walking through trees and I was wearing sandals (Geocaching that day was an afterthought). On one hand, I wanted to mark is as something that might require appropriate footwear, but on the other hand, I didn't want it to be a glaring spoiler for those who go after me.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, JSCYYJ said:

'm wondering what the opinion is on a situation I found myself in recently.

Personally, if I search (not just walk or drive by due to muggles or other problems, if I don't find a cache (litter doesn't count) and I don't sign a log, then it's a DNF. I had the problem yesterday as a matter of fact.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 10
×
×
  • Create New...