Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
SuperKrypto

if you can see a cache but can't reach it, is it a DNF?

Recommended Posts

Interesting discusssion - thanks to all....

 

So if J Grouchy and others see a container but cannot sign the log, then we'll have the following dialogue:

 

"Did you find the cache?" "No, I did not find the cache. :-(" (as I did not reach the container)

"Oh, you didn't find the cache?" "No, no, I did not didn't find the cache. In fact I found it quite easy...."

 

Seems a little broke to me. (But doesn't matter, I am broke, too, and would possibly write a note, too.)

 

The dialogue could continue:

"So you found the cache but you did not find it? What did you do?" "I wrote a note to tell my story."

 

Seems to be a little philosophical...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, frostengel said:

Interesting discusssion - thanks to all....

 

So if J Grouchy and others see a container but cannot sign the log, then we'll have the following dialogue:

 

"Did you find the cache?" "No, I did not find the cache. :-(" (as I did not reach the container)

"Oh, you didn't find the cache?" "No, no, I did not didn't find the cache. In fact I found it quite easy...."

 

Seems a little broke to me. (But doesn't matter, I am broke, too, and would possibly write a note, too.)

 

The dialogue could continue:

"So you found the cache but you did not find it? What did you do?" "I wrote a note to tell my story."

 

Seems to be a little philosophical...

I think you just need to make sure you capitalize certain words when speaking to others.

"I found the cache, but I didn't Find it."

:grin:

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, K13 said:

 

So, all of us who use the GS definition of Find as it applies to the hobby are weird? 

 

The dictionary definition of find is different from this hobby's definition.  I really can't understand why people expect to use other definitions for the jargon in this hobby. 

Maybe they are the weird ones.

 

Just proves you didn't actually read what I wrote, because that's not at all what I said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

I think you just need to make sure you capitalize certain words when speaking to others.

"I found the cache, but I didn't Find it."

:grin:

Thinking about it, I would treat an elevated cache pretty much the same way that I would treat a multi-stage cache.

 

If I plan not to complete a cache (doing only some of the stages of a multi, or checking an elevated cache to see what TOTT I should bring), then I don't consider that a DNF. I would post a Note explaining that I accomplished what I planned to do, and that I hadn't planned on completing the cache.

 

If I plan to complete a cache (retrieving the final of a multi, or retrieving an elevated cache), but I don't complete the cache, then that's usually a DNF. One exception would be for a Did Not Search (DNS) situation, which I would post as a Note. Another might be coming to a construction zone, with GZ clearly inside the construction zone. I've posted NM logs in such cases, with no other log besides the NM.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Just proves you didn't actually read what I wrote, because that's not at all what I said.

 

 

In reading the thread, it appears I'm not the only one who has reading comprehension issues with your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The A-Team said:

I think you just need to make sure you capitalize certain words when speaking to others.

"I found the cache, but I didn't Find it."

:grin:

*snicker*

Ya, I'd either say "I found the cache, but I didn't Find it/log it found", or "I located/spotted the cache, but didn't post the Find...etc"

The mere word 'find/found' has different meanings in different contexts once Geocaching is among them... *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

So your actually SEEING the cache would mean you didn't FIND it?

That is correct. As is often said on the forums, finding a cache requires signing the log.

7 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

If I was in a crowd looking for my friend and spotted him across the room but was unable to attract his attention, then I didn't find him.  I see.  Makes perfect sense...  ?

So first, as someone else already pointed out, a find in geocaching has specific requirements that make finding a cache have a slightly different meaning than in normal English. I do not think it makes sense to use "find" two different ways if that leads to the nonsensical situation of having to say that I cannot say I found the cache in a geocaching log, but I nevertheless did find the cache.

 

But, in fact, I can respond to this example more easily without worrying about geocaching. If I decided to find my friend because I wanted to tell him I was leaving, spotting him across the room for not be sufficient. I would, in fact, say that I saw my friend, but I did not find him because I never got close enough to convey the message. One might quibble with me, but I don't think you could claim my use of the English language was flat out wrong.

5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The effect they have on the CHS makes the case for avoiding those other uses for me.

The effect they have on the CHS tells me the CHS is broken.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, dprovan said:

That is correct. As is often said on the forums, finding a cache requires signing the log.

So first, as someone else already pointed out, a find in geocaching has specific requirements that make finding a cache have a slightly different meaning than in normal English. I do not think it makes sense to use "find" two different ways if that leads to the nonsensical situation of having to say that I cannot say I found the cache in a geocaching log, but I nevertheless did find the cache.

 

But, in fact, I can respond to this example more easily without worrying about geocaching. If I decided to find my friend because I wanted to tell him I was leaving, spotting him across the room for not be sufficient. I would, in fact, say that I saw my friend, but I did not find him because I never got close enough to convey the message. One might quibble with me, but I don't think you could claim my use of the English language was flat out wrong.

The effect they have on the CHS tells me the CHS is broken.

Another side of the argument is regional differences in the meanings of different words. We have enough Americanisms over here in Australia to almost qualify us as another state. Some things we say, leave you guys completely bewildered and dumbfounded. Some thing you say, leave us equally bemused. Let's not start talking about, rooting for your team. 

Share this post


Link to post

Nah, it's just because "find" in normal english is not the exact definition of "Find" in Geocaching terms (as it pertains to logging the cache as Found online). So yes, you can find a cache without finding a cache. You can find it by holding it in your hands without logging it as found online. Or any amount of variation inbetween.  Thus, spotting the cache from afar, in typical english means you did indeed find the container. But you did not do the requirements in order to log it as found online.

Again, this is why I avoid using the 'find' term when referring to my real-world actions, and stick to locating or spotting, or else explicitly saying 'log as found online', to make sure the distinction is clear.

Share this post


Link to post

... And that is why there's so much debate over what "Did Not Find" means - what is "find"?.

To some, it means "Did not sign the log - Cannot log as found online (even though cache has been spotted)".

To some, it means "Did not locate or visually identify the cache at all (and cannot log as found online)".

For the latter, those people are more likely to log a Note if they spot the cache but couldn't sign it for whatever reason, because that situation isn't covered by their usage of the DNF definition - they did spot (find) the container, they just didn't sign it properly to claim the Find online.

Share this post


Link to post

Look at my recent log for GC707PJ. Write note, as I located the container, but could not access it to sign the log scroll. (It's a bison tube hanging in the open, about 5 metres up a coconut tree. It's in plain sight.) So, it's not a find, as I didn't put scribble stick to parchment, but it's not a DNF as I did locate the container. Also a Write Note does not alter the symbol on the map from a green box for a regular cache, to either a smiley or a frowny. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Bundyrumandcoke said:

Look at my recent log for GC707PJ.

 

In fact that does not look like terrain 3.5 but higher. If there were enough branches the rating would be sufficient but without any it looks more difficult. It is not only the height but the technique you need which makes the rating.

So whatever log type you choose: It is important to log and "couldn't reach" (as you did!) to show the owner if his rating is okay or not. And therefore a DNF or a note don't too much of a difference.

 

(Of course that is judged from the distance.)

Share this post


Link to post

Coconut trees are bare trunks at that height. Branches only in the Crown. This particular tree, and a number of others in the immediate area, have had notches cut into the trunk to facilitate coconut harvesting. I barely made about 2 metres up before giving up. I don't need a Smiley that much. Of course, it would be a piece of cake with a ladder, you are only about 50 metres from a road. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bundyrumandcoke said:

Coconut trees are bare trunks at that height. Branches only in the Crown. This particular tree, and a number of others in the immediate area, have had notches cut into the trunk to facilitate coconut harvesting. I barely made about 2 metres up before giving up. I don't need a Smiley that much. Of course, it would be a piece of cake with a ladder, you are only about 50 metres from a road. 

 

Sounds fun to me and I would like to try it. But at the same time it strengthens my opinion: for me that sounds like terrain 4 or perhaps even 4.5.

If you needed a ladder (which you do not need here) it would be terrain 5 as you need a special tool. I can't understand why some owners refuse to make their ladder cache terrain 5. But that's a complete different story. :-)

 

--------------------------- 8< ---------------------------

 

12 hours ago, The A-Team said:

I think you just need to make sure you capitalize certain words when speaking to others.

"I found the cache, but I didn't Find it."

 

Ah, I see. Just the pronounciation of the capital letter is so hard.

"Did you find the cache?" "Do you mean find or Find? I found it but I didn't Found it." Cool!

 

What about the situation when you're caching in a team and someone else finds (no capital f) the box. You don't find it then but you Find it? Is this Found it and DNF at the same time? :-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ahh, but you guys don't have 99 out of 100 animals trying to kill you all the time, over there. That has to increase the difficulty rating by at least one. Seeing as it can only go to five, we have to drop it back by one for caches where animal attack isn't imminent. 

 

There is a couple of pics of the challenge in a couple of the logs. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, The A-Team said:

I think you'll find that most of the people in this discussion agree that a note is probably the best log to use in a case like that. It's just that there are some who don't agree that a DNF would be "wrong" if used.

I hope that's true. 

 

I would think that all the people in this discussion would understand why a dnf would be wrong in this case.    There are many other arguments regarding the pros and cons of the  CHS and DNFs here on both sides that have merit.    IMO this isn't one of them.     

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, niraD said:

Thinking about it, I would treat an elevated cache pretty much the same way that I would treat a multi-stage cache.

 

If I plan not to complete a cache (doing only some of the stages of a multi, or checking an elevated cache to see what TOTT I should bring), then I don't consider that a DNF. I would post a Note explaining that I accomplished what I planned to do, and that I hadn't planned on completing the cache.

 

If I plan to complete a cache (retrieving the final of a multi, or retrieving an elevated cache), but I don't complete the cache, then that's usually a DNF. One exception would be for a Did Not Search (DNS) situation, which I would post as a Note. Another might be coming to a construction zone, with GZ clearly inside the construction zone. I've posted NM logs in such cases, with no other log besides the NM.

We're so close to actually agreeing on something.  Kind of exciting.     The only sticking point is in the planning to complete the cache.     IMO regardless of intent if you haven't reached the point of actually searching for the final I don't think you should post a dnf unless one of the stages or the final couldn't be found.

 

What if the multi was 10 stages and you intended to do it in one day only to find you had return three times to complete it.  dose that mean since you intended to complete the cache each of the previous two days you should post 2 dnfs?       

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Bundyrumandcoke said:

Look at my recent log for GC707PJ. Write note, as I located the container, but could not access it to sign the log scroll. (It's a bison tube hanging in the open, about 5 metres up a coconut tree. It's in plain sight.) So, it's not a find, as I didn't put scribble stick to parchment, but it's not a DNF as I did locate the container. Also a Write Note does not alter the symbol on the map from a green box for a regular cache, to either a smiley or a frowny. 

I think your last sentence is part of the opposition here.   Some people use dnfs as a record keeping tool so they can keep track of caches they've attempted.   
There should be another, easy way of doing this without having to use a dnf.   

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

So my question to you is,  if you know that a dnf can be  seen as a negative in some instances,  why post one when a note will convey the intended information without effecting anything?    It's a simple change in philosophy that could make a difference. 

 

I'll give you what I think the answer is.   Because this is the way some have played the game for ever and no matter what,  they're not going to change.   If that's the case that's fine.  Just come out and say it and stop trying to avoid the obvious.    People are reading what's being written here some will take it to heart.  Are we going to continue to push practices we know at not sound just because we're to stubborn to change?   

 

Myself, I don't think a DNF means anything negative.  It means exactly what the initials DNF stand for, Did Not Find. But, I do know people personally that all but refuse to a log DNF because it somehow makes them feel bad or that they think it makes them look bad. I don't understand this but it is what it is.

 

You're right, I have been geocaching for a long time and am somewhat set in my ways. There were basically 3 geocaching . com guidelines in place when I started back in 2002. One of them was to sign the physical logbook/logsheet on a traditional cache. That guideline made perfect sense to me then and it makes perfect sense today. Therefore, one of my criteria for logging a find on a physical cache is to get my signature in the book. If I don't, then I did not find the cache,,, simple as that! 

 

I don't really care if you use a write note to relay information that you didn't get the cache. That works for you and doesn't usually affect other cachers too much. I think we're covered if you do your thing and I do mine. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bundyrumandcoke said:

Look at my recent log for GC707PJ. Write note, as I located the container, but could not access it to sign the log scroll. (It's a bison tube hanging in the open, about 5 metres up a coconut tree. It's in plain sight.) So, it's not a find, as I didn't put scribble stick to parchment, but it's not a DNF as I did locate the container. Also a Write Note does not alter the symbol on the map from a green box for a regular cache, to either a smiley or a frowny. 

 

But, wouldn't it be funny if the bison tube you spotted was a decoy? That the real cache was another bison tube hidden at eye level? True, not all that likely but still, I've come across this very similar situation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Myself, I don't think a DNF means anything negative.  It means exactly what the initials DNF stand for, Did Not Find. But, I do know people personally that all but refuse to a log DNF because it somehow makes them feel bad or that they think it makes them look bad. I don't understand this but it is what it is.

 

You're right, I have been geocaching for a long time and am somewhat set in my ways. There were basically 3 geocaching . com guidelines in place when I started back in 2002. One of them was to sign the physical logbook/logsheet on a traditional cache. That guideline made perfect sense to me then and it makes perfect sense today. Therefore, one of my criteria for logging a find on a physical cache is to get my signature in the book. If I don't, then I did not find the cache,,, simple as that! 

 

I don't really care if you use a write note to relay information that you didn't get the cache. That works for you and doesn't usually affect other cachers too much. I think we're covered if you do your thing and I do mine. ;)

You want to just say it  " I understand why a note is a better choice than a dnf in this situation but I'm not going to change the way I do things"    You're almost there,  but not quite. 

 

I agree with the negative perception some cachers have of posting dnf's and I don't agree with it at all.   It's a log that should be used freely,  in the proper context.    All you can do is encourage people to use it and hope the perception changes.    

 

Problem is I do care and would like to see the game become better and stronger.   I was taught when you see something that you believe is not right you don't just walk on by and expect it to fix itself. ;)

Edited by justintim1999

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

What if the multi was 10 stages and you intended to do it in one day only to find you had return three times to complete it.  dose that mean since you intended to complete the cache each of the previous two days you should post 2 dnfs?       

I suppose it depends on why I stopped each time. If the stages were just taking longer than I expected, so I decided to call it a day after finding 3 stages, then I'd log a Note. If I found 3 stages, but I couldn't find the 4th, then I'd log a DNF. But I generally have some idea of how long a multi will take before I start it. Maybe multi-cache owners around here are just good about letting seekers know how long a multi is, whether it's a simple offset cache or a multi-stage adventure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You want to just say it  " I understand why a note is a better choice than a dnf in this situation but I'm not going to change the way I do things"    You're almost there,  but not quite. 

You want to just say it: "I understand that different people choose to post online logs differently in some situations, and I'm going to accept that." You're almost there,  but not quite.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

 

But, wouldn't it be funny if the bison tube you spotted was a decoy? That the real cache was another bison tube hidden at eye level? True, not all that likely but still, I've come across this very similar situation.

I have done a multi like that. First leg coordinates took you to the top of an isolated Rocky outcrop called Mt Jim Crow, about 150 metres straight up. At the very top was a container with stage 2 coordinates, which took you to the final container, about 5 metres from the entrance gate. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, dprovan said:

That is correct. As is often said on the forums, finding a cache requires signing the log.

So first, as someone else already pointed out, a find in geocaching has specific requirements that make finding a cache have a slightly different meaning than in normal English. I do not think it makes sense to use "find" two different ways if that leads to the nonsensical situation of having to say that I cannot say I found the cache in a geocaching log, but I nevertheless did find the cache.

 

No,  Geocaching hasn't changed the meaning of the word "found".  People who choose to log a DNF on a cache they see but cannot access are changing the meaning of "found".  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

You want to just say it: "I understand that different people choose to post online logs differently in some situations, and I'm going to accept that." You're almost there,  but not quite.

I've said exactly what I wanted to say and why.   I do understand that different people choose to post online logs differently.  I just don't agree with some of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, dprovan said:

That is correct. As is often said on the forums, finding a cache requires signing the log.

So first, as someone else already pointed out, a find in geocaching has specific requirements that make finding a cache have a slightly different meaning than in normal English. I do not think it makes sense to use "find" two different ways if that leads to the nonsensical situation of having to say that I cannot say I found the cache in a geocaching log, but I nevertheless did find the cache.

 

But, in fact, I can respond to this example more easily without worrying about geocaching. If I decided to find my friend because I wanted to tell him I was leaving, spotting him across the room for not be sufficient. I would, in fact, say that I saw my friend, but I did not find him because I never got close enough to convey the message. One might quibble with me, but I don't think you could claim my use of the English language was flat out wrong.

The effect they have on the CHS tells me the CHS is broken.

Then doesn't it make sense to log a note and explain "I found your cache but I couldn't retrieve it to sign the log" and let the owner figure out what to do?   

Even if the cacher explains the situation in a dnf log it still a conflict.  The log itself says "I didn't find it"  but the note inside the log says I did.   That in itself is a reason for choosing a note.  

 

Is it so hard to understand that as the activity grew,  so did the need for oversight and management?    The only real issue I see with the whole thing is poor owner maintenance.  Everything that's been implemented points to managing that one particular aspect of the game.        

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Some people use dnfs as a record keeping tool so they can keep track of caches they've attempted. 

 

Sure, I could start a Bookmark List of caches I find but did not find, while logging them as a Note rather than Did Not Find because I find them while not finding them. Makes sense. B)

 

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Sure, I could start a Bookmark List of caches I find but did not find, while logging them as a Note rather than Did Not Find because I find them while not finding them. Makes sense. B)

 

Man that sounds like a whole lot of work.    I was thinking of something GS could do to make that process easier.     I like your willingness to play ball though. :D

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:
15 hours ago, dprovan said:

That is correct. As is often said on the forums, finding a cache requires signing the log.

So first, as someone else already pointed out, a find in geocaching has specific requirements that make finding a cache have a slightly different meaning than in normal English. I do not think it makes sense to use "find" two different ways if that leads to the nonsensical situation of having to say that I cannot say I found the cache in a geocaching log, but I nevertheless did find the cache.

 

No,  Geocaching hasn't changed the meaning of the word "found".  People who choose to log a DNF on a cache they see but cannot access are changing the meaning of "found".  

 

When participating in this hobby, there is a certain jargon that is used. Some words have a specialized meaning. Among these are muggle and find. You seem to be unwilling to accept the words as they are used in this hobby,  The words Find or Found, as they are applied in the hobby of Geocaching, do not mean the same thing as saw, located, spotted or other synonyms of discovered, just a muggle has a different meaning than the way it was used in the Harry Potter books.

 

It seems to me that your grouchiness over this issue is a detriment to new cachers who are already confused about what to do in the OP situation.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, K13 said:

When participating in this hobby, there is a certain jargon that is used. Some words have a specialized meaning. Among these are muggle and find. You seem to be unwilling to accept the words as they are used in this hobby,  The words Find or Found, as they are applied in the hobby of Geocaching, do not mean the same thing as saw, located, spotted or other synonyms of discovered, just a muggle has a different meaning than the way it was used in the Harry Potter books.

 

+1

 

There are plenty of Geocaching words that actually need help, such as "Collectible".  I've been working forever to point out that it actually is all about a way for honest people to organize menu options, say to log "loaned Geocoins" in a way that there's no misunderstanding.  Then people arrive to insist it means "Pocket The Item, It's Yours Now".  Not within the game, it doesn't.  I'd bet that one day in the distant past, TPTB had a very particular definition in mind for any given Geocaching word.  It would be great if they'd get together and agree and attempt to communicate it.  Even here in these forums, that would be super. :ph34r:

 

I won't log a find upon only seeing a container (to later often find out that wasn't the cache anyway). That's a whole other thread, where “I could not access the container” as “Found It” becomes justified just as much as “I probably saw it” or “I didn't wanna bother even going there” is a “Found It”.  I never see "I saw and didn't sign" for whatever reason is "Note" instead, I more often see that logged as Smilie.

 

Keep “DNF” simple, don't project any wackiness into it. Equivocation is complicated, and that's not for me. Folks may go ahead and do that, but they're playing a whole other game.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
I had to chase my cows back into the field.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I've said exactly what I wanted to say and why.   I do understand that different people choose to post online logs differently.  I just don't agree with some of them. 

I don't agree with the way everyone posts online logs either. But I do accept that they post differently from the way I would, that they have their own reasons for doing it that way, and that they aren't going to change just because I do it differently.

Share this post


Link to post

The key to this whole thing is not the definition of "Find", it lies in the definition of the word "Cache"!

 

To me, a "Cache" is a concept, not an object. For a 'traditional' cache, it encompasses (get it?) a container, a logbook, AND the experience of searching for it, signing the log and anything else you have to do to get to that point. (Ethically, I hope you think that means putting it back appropriately, as well.)

 

For any other Cache Type, convert that sentence to that Type's equivalencies.  AND, if you can do THAT, then you actually think as I do:

  • You 'find' a trad by signing it
  • You 'find' a virt by sending a message
  • You 'find' an Earth Cache by answering questions
  • You 'find' a Puzzle Cache by solving the puzzle (or having someone solve it for you) and nailing the 'trad' (or whatever) at the end
  • You 'find' a Wherigo by, whatever the hell you do to claim it - Frankly, that whole thing's a mystery to me

 

So, a "Find", in my mind is the completion of all the necessary tasks and experiences wrapped up in the conceptual box the CO creates, not just spotting or putting your hands on something.

 

To argue, as argued above, about "I found it but I didn't FIND it" is silly because (again, in my mind) the verb "To Find" and the noun "Find" DO INDEED have special meanings in the hobby.

 

SO, if you walked up and saw a Bison Tube up in that Coconut Tree mentioned up above by Bundyrumandcoke, in my eyes you didn't FIND the CACHE; you simply found the cache's container.

 

You still have some work to do.

 

 

 

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

SO, if you walked up and saw a Bison Tube up in that Coconut Tree mentioned up above by Bundyrumandcoke, in my eyes you didn't FIND the CACHE; you simply found the cache's container.

Maybe you found the cache's container. Or maybe you found a decoy. Or maybe you found a random Bison tube stuck in a coconut tree.

 

Okay, maybe that last option is a bit less likely in this case, but I've seen cases where a "muggled geocache container" was just trash that happened to have originally been a container of some sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, niraD said:

Maybe you found the cache's container. Or maybe you found a decoy. Or maybe you found a random Bison tube stuck in a coconut tree.

 

Okay, maybe that last option is a bit less likely in this case, but I've seen cases where a "muggled geocache container" was just trash that happened to have originally been a container of some sort.

 

Yes, ALL those things!  Arrgghhh!

 

If you don't know why I said that, look up "International Talk Like a Pirate Day", matey!

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, niraD said:

I don't agree with the way everyone posts online logs either. But I do accept that they post differently from the way I would, that they have their own reasons for doing it that way, and that they aren't going to change just because I do it differently.

How about changing because it just makes sense?  Why not promote the common sense approach rather than defend a practice that antiquated? 

There's no need for us to continue going back and forth.  I understand where your coming from and I've said all I can say to make you see the light.     I'm not naive enough to think  anything I say could make you do a 180.  I'm just hoping that some new cachers will think about all this and choose to follow what makes sense to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Then doesn't it make sense to log a note and explain "I found your cache but I couldn't retrieve it to sign the log" and let the owner figure out what to do? 

It makes sense, but only as much sense as logging a note and explaining, "I found your cache and signed the log, but I'm going to post this as a note anyway." There's a found log I use when I found the cache according the the rules. There's a did not find log I use when I did not find the cache according to the rules. I don't mind that you want the find log to mean "found according to the rules" but the did not find log to mean "I cannot use the English word 'find' to describe what happened", but I don't think it makes as much sense as using "find" consistently for both types of logs.

Share this post


Link to post

First you say...

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I do understand that different people choose to post online logs differently.  I just don't agree with some of them. 

 

But then you betray your "I just don't agree" with...

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Then doesn't it make sense to log a note and explain "I found your cache but I couldn't retrieve it to sign the log" and let the owner figure out what to do?

 

45 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

How about changing because it just makes sense?  Why not promote the common sense approach rather than defend a practice that antiquated? 

 

45 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I understand where your coming from and I've said all I can say to make you see the light. 

 

This is why the debate rages on - you say you understand, but you try to change people's ways. Why do you care so much? To others it's YOUR way that makes less sense. Who's right? You? Say who? You? That's what you are absolutely implying by telling people their methods don't make sense, and you want them to "see the light" and stop an "antiquated" practice. They've seen the light - it's not yours.

 

If you truly do "understand that different people choose to post online logs differently", especially if their habits are irrelevant to your finding, then let it go. You're not debating an objective truth, you're trying to make your opinion about Notes vs DNFs the truth.

 

People have a different qualification for a DNF log vs a Note. And that is absolutely fine.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

First you say...

 

But then you betray your "I just don't agree" with...

 

 

 

 

This is why the debate rages on - you say you understand, but you try to change people's ways. Why do you care so much? To others it's YOUR way that makes less sense. Who's right? You? Say who? You? That's what you are absolutely implying by telling people their methods don't make sense, and you want them to "see the light" and stop an "antiquated" practice. They've seen the light - it's not yours.

 

If you truly do "understand that different people choose to post online logs differently", especially if their habits are irrelevant to your finding, then let it go. You're not debating an objective truth, you're trying to make your opinion about Notes vs DNFs the truth.

 

People have a different qualification for a DNF log vs a Note. And that is absolutely fine.

I understand that people continue to log this way because it's the way they've always done it.   I understand that some people are unwilling to change.   That doesn't mean I agree with the practice.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

It makes sense, but only as much sense as logging a note and explaining, "I found your cache and signed the log, but I'm going to post this as a note anyway." There's a found log I use when I found the cache according the the rules. There's a did not find log I use when I did not find the cache according to the rules. I don't mind that you want the find log to mean "found according to the rules" but the did not find log to mean "I cannot use the English word 'find' to describe what happened", but I don't think it makes as much sense as using "find" consistently for both types of logs.

Now we're going to dissect the word find?   When the debate disintegrates to this level of minutia,  it's time to move on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Now we're going to dissect the word find?   When the debate disintegrates to this level of minutia,  it's time to move on.

Me? I'm just using "find" in the one officially defined way.

41 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I understand that people continue to log this way because it's the way they've always done it.

But you don't understand that people log this way because they've carefully considered all the points raised in this thread and still think it makes more sense to log a DNF instead of a note.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I think your last sentence is part of the opposition here.   Some people use dnfs as a record keeping tool so they can keep track of caches they've attempted.   
There should be another, easy way of doing this without having to use a dnf.   

 

Apart from its CHS implications, which I firmly believe is a problem in the CHS algorithm, not DNF usage, what precisely is wrong with using DNFs to record unsuccessful caching attempts? Why does a DNF have to imply some likelihood of a problem with the cache, when we have another log (NM) designed to do just that?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

You want to just say it  " I understand why a note is a better choice than a dnf in this situation but I'm not going to change the way I do things"    You're almost there,  but not quite. 

 

I agree with the negative perception some cachers have of posting dnf's and I don't agree with it at all.   It's a log that should be used freely,  in the proper context.    All you can do is encourage people to use it and hope the perception changes.    

 

Problem is I do care and would like to see the game become better and stronger.   I was taught when you see something that you believe is not right you don't just walk on by and expect it to fix itself. ;)

 

I stated it the way I wanted and stand by exactly what I stated. I really didn't have to but I also explained why I would log a DNF in a situation like this.

 

Like you, i'm not the type person that looks the other way when I see something troubling to me. At the same time, I try to realize that just because I believe one way doesn't necessarily mean it's the right or only way. You, on the other hand, seem to believe your way is the only way. There are some things geocaching that we all need to be on the same page for,,, This is not one of them! ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

How about changing because it just makes sense?  Why not promote the common sense approach rather than defend a practice that antiquated? 

There's no need for us to continue going back and forth.  I understand where your coming from and I've said all I can say to make you see the light.     I'm not naive enough to think  anything I say could make you do a 180.  I'm just hoping that some new cachers will think about all this and choose to follow what makes sense to them. 

 

My approach is not antiquated by any means and as far as i'm concerned, I am using common sense.

 

Your last sentence had me chuckling a bit. You said that new cachers should think about this and do what makes sense to them. I guess that's all fine and dandy,,, until they do something you disagree with. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

How about changing because it just makes sense?  Why not promote the common sense approach rather than defend a practice that antiquated?

Okay, now I'm lost. Can you remind us what the proposed "common sense approach" is, and which practice is "antiquated"? I thought we were just debating whether a DNF would be "wrong" if someone saw the container but wasn't able to retrieve it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×