Checking activity before a hunt a double edged sword?

[+Stakmaster]

Do you find that checking a geocache's activity log before actually beginning to look for it is a helpful or harmful thing? As a general rule I try not to check the activity log until I've been searching for a while, but that has burned me in the past as I've spent 20-30 minutes scouring for a cache that just objectively isn't there and had a long line of DNFs if i had just looked. Then, on the other hand, I've checked the activity before arriving at coordinates and I find myself affording the cache less time and patience before calling it quits because I already have it in the back of my head that it has a few DNFs in the log. A lot of times I will check it later and it actually was there and I might have found it if I had just stuck around a bit longer rather than think "I know the last 3 logs are DNF,  why should I keep searching when the odds are good it's not even here?"

Do you check the activity before you begin searching for a geocache? Why or why not? At what point do you check the activity? Do you stop looking when you see a DNF? 3 DNFs? More?

[+Touchstone]

Depends.  On urban caches, I'll try and do it on my own first.  I generally give it 15 minutes at the most, before checking a Hint or previous logs. 

If it's a long hike in, I'll definitely check the logs first.  I'll often do the hike either way, but I won't waste a lot of time if there are several DNF's already.

[+mimaef]

I always check the logs before I go out. A lot of people in my area don't log maintenance issues properly (if at all) and only leave a little note in their found log about how bad the cache was. DNFs aren't always an indicator that a cache is gone. One cache in the area continuously has a string of DNFs because it's that tricky to find its hiding place. I don't read them all word for word, but skim for words that will indicate the current state of the container and if people ran into poison ivy. I likely wouldn't check as much if I was in an urban area with a really high cache density, but being in the country and having to travel for my caches means I usually plan a day out in advance. I always try to find a cache with a bunch of DNFs anyway and take an extra amount of time at them because I find a bit of satisfaction in being able to find a really hard one! If there's enough DNFs and I can't find it either after some time looking, based on previous logs on if the cache is actually a challenge to find or not, then I know it's time for a NM at least.

[+cerberus1]

Rare for me to do lower D/T hides anymore, and don't use a phone for caching, so I read everything before I decide to enter it in the GPSr and leave the house.

If I have a reason to go caching and there's DNFs, I'll probably skip it.  No sense in walking far to not find anything.  We can "not find anything" anywhere, and close.  If I'm looking for a walk and a hide with DNFs is along the way, maybe I'll stop by, but my goal is the walk. 

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, Stakmaster said:

Do you check the activity before you begin searching for a geocache?

Every time if I remember. Sometimes I forget to check or I have changed my route on the fly to different cache. It is quite normal that half of the caches I check are archived, disabled or repeatedly not found recently because my device do not update the status automatically.

 

5 hours ago, Stakmaster said:

Do you stop looking when you see a DNF? 3 DNFs? More?

I stop looking when it does not feel comfortable. For example lots of carbage or too many holes to poke is a quite fast DNF.

[+MartyBartfast]

I hardly ever check logs before searching. I will sometimes read the hint before I start searching but usually it goes something like:

1. search for 5 minutes
2. read the hint and search for 5 minutes.
3. read the description and check the D/T rating and attributes and search for 5 minutes
4. look at past logs and either give up or continue searching.

A run of DNFs will usually encourage me to give up sooner than a run of recent finds.

[+barefootjeff]

If nothing else you should read the content of the DNF logs rather than just count them. I DNFed two caches today, one because I couldn't get enough traction in bare feet to climb to where the cache was, and the other, part of a geoart series for the recent mega, in the month since I solved the puzzle and loaded the corrected coordinates, the CO had moved the cache and changed the puzzle due to muggle problems at the original location. Neither of those DNFs in any way infers the cache is missing, just me not doing my homework before venturing out.

Another time I drove some 60km to attempt a cache that had several DNFs and no finds for almost a year, as from reading the DNF logs I was pretty sure it was fine. GZ was in a deep gully with poor GPS reception so the CO had provided a spoiler photo on the cache page which the DNFers said they'd neglected to take. Armed with the photo, I had no trouble finding the cache.

[+coachstahly]

For longer, more focused runs (5 caches or more), I'll filter the caches via GSAK first.  Multiple DNFs on lower D/T caches that might have made my list are usually removed, based on the content of the logs and the multiple DNFs, even if the FP count and ratio might be high.  Higher D/T combos will still make the list, particularly if I think the cache might still be there.  As a lover of non-traditional caches, I'll usually keep them on there as well and hope that my DNF log (an assumption on my part) and possible NM log might spur action on the part of the CO to get it fixed.

For impromptu runs, I'll go about 5-10 minutes before referring to the hint and/or previous logs to see if I might be missing something.

[+badlands]

Once you've cached in an area for awhile you get to know the hiders and the searchers.  Knowing who placed the cache and who logged the DNF is very important in deciding weather or not to skip a cache with a DNF or two.

[+StumblinMonk]

12 hours ago, Stakmaster said:

Do you find that checking a geocache's activity log before actually beginning to look for it is a helpful or harmful thing? As a general rule I try not to check the activity log until I've been searching for a while, but that has burned me in the past as I've spent 20-30 minutes scouring for a cache that just objectively isn't there and had a long line of DNFs if i had just looked. Then, on the other hand, I've checked the activity before arriving at coordinates and I find myself affording the cache less time and patience before calling it quits because I already have it in the back of my head that it has a few DNFs in the log. A lot of times I will check it later and it actually was there and I might have found it if I had just stuck around a bit longer rather than think "I know the last 3 logs are DNF,  why should I keep searching when the odds are good it's not even here?"

Do you check the activity before you begin searching for a geocache? Why or why not? At what point do you check the activity? Do you stop looking when you see a DNF? 3 DNFs? More?

I check that there is recent activity.  I go out with my kids so our D/T is not too high and some spots are easily muggled.  I have also been showing this new hobby to friends and so I want to make sure they enjoy in the excitement in finding rather than feel the frustration of a DNF.  I try to just check the dates though, and stay away from reading possible hints.  

[+kunarion]

12 hours ago, Stakmaster said:

I find myself affording the cache less time and patience before calling it quits because I already have it in the back of my head that it has a few DNFs in the log.

 

This is a real effect.  Once a cache develops some DNFs, more DNFs can follow, especially on "easy" caches, since the hunters have a reduced expectation to find it. I have used this to make one or two of my own caches a little more... fun.

I think it's cool on my caches (which tend to be pretty easy to find), and I often go check out a multiple DNF'd cache (mine or others') just to see what the deal is, due to its mild mystery. It's often best to have all the info (read and understand the cache description, and the logs).  But if you don't enjoy a little uncertainty, skip the multiple DNF'd cache until you see a positive result.

Edited April 18, 2018 by kunarion

[+hzoi]

58 minutes ago, kunarion said:

13 hours ago, Stakmaster said:

I find myself affording the cache less time and patience before calling it quits because I already have it in the back of my head that it has a few DNFs in the log.

This is a real effect.  Once a cache develops some DNFs, more DNFs can follow, especially on "easy" caches, since the hunters have a reduced expectation to find it.

Prior DNFs have affected me this way as well.  I try to screen out caches that have an obvious maintenance problem before I load them into my GPSr, so those with 3-4 DNFs in a row aren't going to make the cut.  If it's only one or two, I'll leave it in, because everyone can have an off day.  But for those caches, I am less likely to exhaust all possibilities and spend forever looking.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

This is a real effect.  Once a cache develops some DNFs, more DNFs can follow, especially on "easy" caches, since the hunters have a reduced expectation to find it. I have used this to make one or two of my own caches a little more... fun.  

What makes is really fun is having several DNFs posted, someone telling you that it's probably missing, then you search anyway and find it after a few minutes.  Did that on a cache over 9000 miles from home.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

What makes is really fun is having several DNFs posted, someone telling you that it's probably missing, then you search anyway and find it after a few minutes.  Did that on a cache over 9000 miles from home.

We had an odd one similar once...   Numerous DNFs for an "ammo can in a park".    We went because a friend asked us to (the other 2/3rds was a FTF monster then anyway...), but this old fart found it in a coupla minutes.   Turned out to be one of those micro ammo cans.  

All those people who didn't find it, guess I was the only one who noticed "Not Chosen" for cache size.    She explained to others asking, that  I just read everything on the page before going out.      

[+Harry Dolphin]

7 hours ago, hzoi said:

Prior DNFs have affected me this way as well.  I try to screen out caches that have an obvious maintenance problem before I load them into my GPSr, so those with 3-4 DNFs in a row aren't going to make the cut.  If it's only one or two, I'll leave it in, because everyone can have an off day.  But for those caches, I am less likely to exhaust all possibilities and spend forever looking.

Yup.  Three or four DNFs does not make it into my GPSr.  Or last two DNFs.  

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Yup.  Three or four DNFs does not make it into my GPSr.  Or last two DNFs.  

How do you filter out those caches where the last 2 or more logs are a DNF? Can this only be done with GSAK?

[+Harry Dolphin]

2 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

How do you filter out those caches where the last 2 or more logs are a DNF? Can this only be done with GSAK?

I do it with GSAK,

[+coachstahly]

12 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

How do you filter out those caches where the last 2 or more logs are a DNF? Can this only be done with GSAK?

I use GSAK as well, but you could always just read the logs, although that would take a lot longer.  It's been worth the investment for me.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

14 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

14 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

How do you filter out those caches where the last 2 or more logs are a DNF? Can this only be done with GSAK?

I do it with GSAK,

This is the sort of feature that many would find useful.   We shouldn't have to use a PC (or jump through hoops to get GSAK running on a Mac) or pay for a third part application to have this feature.  If it's a useful feature it should be considered as an addition to the GS web site and apps and every time someone says "I use GSAK for this" it gives GS an excuse not to implement what may be a useful feature for everyone (not just PC users willing to pay extra for a 3rd party application).

[+hzoi]

On 4/18/2018 at 8:48 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

On 4/18/2018 at 8:45 PM, L0ne.R said:

How do you filter out those caches where the last 2 or more logs are a DNF? Can this only be done with GSAK?

I do it with GSAK,

I, too.  There is a column with a "stoplight" indicator for the last four logs - green for found it or owner maintenance logs, yellow for needs maintenance, red for disabled, DNF, or (I think) needs archived.  (It ignores notes.)  I don't use it as gospel, but it's normally a pretty good indicator.

 

21 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

This is the sort of feature that many would find useful.   We shouldn't have to use a PC (or jump through hoops to get GSAK running on a Mac) or pay for a third part application to have this feature.  If it's a useful feature it should be considered as an addition to the GS web site and apps and every time someone says "I use GSAK for this" it gives GS an excuse not to implement what may be a useful feature for everyone (not just PC users willing to pay extra for a 3rd party application).

Good point, and I agree.

[321geocache]

On 4/18/2018 at 10:31 AM, kunarion said:

This is a real effect.  Once a cache develops some DNFs, more DNFs can follow, especially on "easy" caches, since the hunters have a reduced expectation to find it. I have used this to make one or two of my own caches a little more... fun.

I have seen this at a cache not too far from me. It has been found three times since 2015. It's in an urban area near a lot of other caches. There are 12 DNFs. 5 DNFs since the last find, and 7 DNFs between the three other finds. I have a feeling the cache is still there, but it just harder to find.

Edited April 20, 2018 by 321geocache

[+L0ne.R]

12 minutes ago, 321geocache said:

I have seen this at a cache not too far from me. It has been found three times since 2015. It's in an urban area near a lot of other caches. There are 12 DNFs. 5 DNFs since the last find, and 7 DNFs between the three other finds. I have a feeling the cache is still there, but it just harder to find.

Time for the owner to verify that it is still there and that it's where it's supposed to be. What's the D rating? Is the owner active anymore? 

[+CAVinoGal]

18 minutes ago, 321geocache said:

On 4/18/2018 at 7:31 AM, kunarion said:

This is a real effect.  Once a cache develops some DNFs, more DNFs can follow, especially on "easy" caches, since the hunters have a reduced expectation to find it. I have used this to make one or two of my own caches a little more... fun.

I have seen this at a cache not too far from me. It has been found three times since 2015. It's in an urban area near a lot of other caches. There are 12 DNFs. 5 DNFs since the last find, and 7 DNFs between the three other finds. I have a feeling the cache is still there, but it just harder to find.

For us, it depends on the time we have, and how motivated we are on that particular day.  Sometimes we skip the recent DNF caches entirely to grab our COTD quickly and move on to other plans for the day. Sometimes we read a bit more about the cache and it's history, and search, hoping to snag a smilie where others have failed - it's a fun feeling but we don't always have the time to do so.  Sometimes the DNF is our own, and we need to find it, convinced by subsequent logs that we simply missed it!

We haven't done any formal filtering, we read logs at home prior to setting out, or enroute to the cache site, and make a decision if that that cache will be one we will attempt that outing, or one we will pass by for another day.

[+on4bam]

23 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

This is the sort of feature that many would find useful.   We shouldn't have to use a PC (or jump through hoops to get GSAK running on a Mac) or pay for a third part application to have this feature.  If it's a useful feature it should be considered as an addition to the GS web site and apps and every time someone says "I use GSAK for this" it gives GS an excuse not to implement what may be a useful feature for everyone (not just PC users willing to pay extra for a 3rd party application).

Even if all features (including macro's) were to be build in to the website I would still prefer GSAK. Never underestimate the convenience of working offline with cacheinfo, be it reading logs, listings or solving mysteries.

I do check logs before heading out though. Making a selection a few days in advance, refreshing that selection the day/evening before going out, do another quick check and load the GPS and tablet with GDAK (GSAK light for Android).

Because of the kind of caches we go after not a lot changes in a week so even without refreshing we'll still be good with the latest logs most of the time.

 

[321geocache]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

What's the D rating? Is the owner active anymore? 

The owner is active, and owns over 400 caches. D rating is 3.

Here's the log. Ones at the top are the oldest.

Found (???)

Published

DNF

FTF

DNF (a few minutes after FTF)

DNF

DNF

DNF

DNF

DNF

Found it

DNF

DNF

DNF

DNF

DNF

 

I think I might try finding this cache. There are tons of places where it could be hidden, and it's a micro with no hint. I may ask the owner to verify it's still there before going to find it.

[+m0bean]

One feature I particularly like about the official geocaching app is that it adds an exclamation point next to the heading 'Activity' when the last log is a DNF.  The exclamation mark is easily visible at a glance as soon as you open up a cache, even if you don't open up the activity log.  It usually prompts me to take a closer look at the logs right away, as opposed to before when I would be well into a search before I decided to look at the activity only to realize that this was most certainly a futile endeavor. Unfortunately, the exclamation mark does not appear if the last log was a note or NM, which has burned me sometimes.  If I don't see an exclamation mark, I'm probably not going to look at the logs until I'm stuck, likely after the hint, attributes and description.

I also have contemplated how my search is impacted by seeing a couple previous DNFs.  I do try to put forth a solid search at times even when the presence of the cache is questionable.  It has paid off sometimes.  And the satisfaction of pulling out a find on a very lonely cache or one with a few DNFs makes it particularly worth it.  There are other days where I'm really short on time or am trying to hit a certain quantity goal where I might just forgo anything with a DNF.  

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, 321geocache said:

I have seen this at a cache not too far from me. It has been found three times since 2015. It's in an urban area near a lot of other caches. There are 12 DNFs. 5 DNFs since the last find, and 7 DNFs between the three other finds. I have a feeling the cache is still there, but it just harder to find.

Sounds similar to a D3 traditional on Sydney Harbour I found last year (GC13C3B). Prior to my find, there'd been another find then five DNFs before that, with a similar pattern right across the history of the cache (placed in 2007 and still the original container and logbook). It's just a tough hide in a large outcrop of honeycombed rock where there are literally hundreds of places a cache could be hidden and the one it's actually in is well concealed.

[+4heberts]

We always check the logs prior to searching.  Often a log of "It's not there" has been posted by someone with 2 finds--they don't yet have a clue as to the cache container possibilities!  And all their newbie caching friends are with them, and they all post the same thing, so there are 4 DNFs that can easily be ignored.

[+hzoi]

I had this thread in mind when I went hunting for a micro with 2 DNFs just before an event last night.

It was still there, and I logged my find. 

[+colleda]

In less than a week we will be in Budapest and I have been checking out caches close to our hotel. The other half is less mobile than she once was which is why would like to find some close by as we will only be there one night. There are a some within shortish walking distance (about 1klm) but quite a few of them disabled. I decided to check these to see if there was any action happening that would bring them back on line, hopefully, by the time we arrive. To say I was disappointed is an understatement.  Perhaps I should not have checked. Something's not right. It seems there is no hurry among COs and reviewers to keep caches active and findable e.g. lengthy disablements, NMs not acted upon NA's not acted upon, reviewer disablements languishing. As a result there are throwdowns being found and DNF'd. There is a disabled virtual and I went back over a year and could not find the TD log but finds are being logged, for how long, who know's?

Here's a good example, Two years disabled, NMs NAs, DN's etc

GC3RV8M

This would not happen in my area. Is it a regional thing? Are the local reviewers (bless their little cotton socks) overstretched?

We'll be on a river cruise to Amsterdam and this is the first city I've checked. I hope things get better.

 

[+on4bam]

1 hour ago, colleda said:

In less than a week we will be in Budapest and I have been checking out caches close to our hotel. The other half is less mobile than she once was which is why would like to find some close by as we will only be there one night. There are a some within shortish walking distance (about 1klm) but quite a few of them disabled

When we were in Budapest last year we noticed the same. We didn't go for the disabled ones except GC3XFV2 Kerepesi temeto/Kerepes Cemetery that was disabled March 30th 2017, had maintenance May 8th but was enabled only a year later in March 2018. The cache was in perfect order though. It was an interesting one but probably not one you can do.

 

[+colleda]

19 minutes ago, on4bam said:

When we were in Budapest last year we noticed the same. We didn't go for the disabled ones except GC3XFV2 Kerepesi temeto/Kerepes Cemetery that was disabled March 30th 2017, had maintenance May 8th but was enabled only a year later in March 2018. The cache was in perfect order though. It was an interesting one but probably not one you can do.

 

I've since checked the green ones close by and they were all ok except for one. Just finished doing PQs for the other stops and gave up checking status after Budapest.