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

[BillyGeeee]

22 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

Wow, the way you clipped my reply, it sure makes it look like I implied that. Super.  Stop that.

 

Do you mean to imply that by condemning vandalism, that I approve of vandalism? Because that is your context.

Given that this is a forum about geocaching and that munzees here are universally given as a bad alternative to geocaching then: yes, I did implied that and I don't think that I was wrong.

[BillyGeeee]

21 hours ago, K13 said:

 

Astounding that you have seen all this geocacher-caused vandalism in you 8 finds over the 1-1/2 years you've been a member.  I've seen and participated in several CITO events where geocachers clean up hundreds of pounds of trash left by others in parks, city streets, etc.

 

Regardless, slapping stickers on unauthorized locations is vandalism, and I have removed them from some places over which I have control.

Hm, how do you know that I (as opposed to the account I use to post here) have only "8 finds over the 1-1/2 years"? You don't.
And besides, my experience has absolutely nothing to do with the ugly truth - geocaching frequently promotes vandalism at levels way above the munzee vandalism.

[Keystone]

The subject of this thread is "if you can see a cache but can't reach it, is it a DNF?"  Let's stick to discussing that.

 

Those interested are free to discuss other geolocational gaming activities in their respective social media outlets.  Thanks.

[+frostengel]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Why would you allow me to log it as a find?

 

Probably because I misunderstood your post. You didn't say why you were unable to do the log and there are several possibilities:

 

- If you can't do my terrain rating (which usually is high enough :-)) you can't log my cache. That's for sure and in that case I would delete a find log.

- I thought you wanted to log the note because of my jamming box - and if it was only that and you logged a note telling me THEN you would be allowed to log the find.

 

So my post only works for the second situation not for the first one. In the first one - perhaps - I would offer some help or advice or I would simply smile. :-) In the second one I would deactivate my cache as said above.

[+hzoi]

On 9/17/2018 at 2:45 PM, frostengel said:

On 9/17/2018 at 2:41 PM, justintim1999 said:

Here goes   In my opinion that's not a dnf.   You found the cache but couldn't, for what ever reason,  retrieve it and sign the log.   I would post a note explaining exactly that.   

 

And as owner I would than allow you to log a found it (if you wanted to). Meanwhile I would disable the cache and only the non-signing logs that come afterwards would be candidates for deletion...

 

16 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Why would you allow me to log it as a find?   It was my choice not to climb the tree and retrieve the cache so I'm not entitled to l the find...

 

I believe frostengel thought you were replying to them, when it appears you were replying to the OP. 

 

Quoting the post you're replying to, especially when you're writing the 48th reply to the topic, might help clear up confusion.

[+J Grouchy]

On 9/14/2018 at 4:52 PM, SuperKrypto said:

we saw a cache in a tree that was higher than we were able to climb so we called it a dnf - when we started geocaching years ago we thought the rule was that you can only consider it a find if you have the cache in your hands and sign (or attempt to sign) the log book - we can't find the answer on the official geocache faq pages

 

Oh lordy...here we go again.

 

If you SEE the cache, you have actually found it...but only claim a find if you are able to hold the cache and open it to sign.  

I personally don't feel DNF is appropriate in that situation, since you did have eyes on the cache.  A Note is most appropriate, in my opinion.  Do what you want, though.  Don't get all caught up in the guidelines and the purists in here who will tell you to do exactly one thing, which is usually DNF.   Heck, you could even not log anything at all until you go back and actually get the cache and open it. 

 

So you honestly have three options that are all equally valid:  DNF, Note or no log at all.  

[+thebruce0]

And the final option which we would not recommend but which is allowable is if the CO grants permission to log the find. Unlikely, but it happens. And in this case, your log is only unimportant to anyone else if the cache actually is findable, otherwise your Find log would be deceptive to followup finders. So if the CO says "go ahead", you can either trust that the CO knows the cache is findable, or you can risk potentially misleading followup finders.

In other words, the best answer is - train your conscience to tell you: "I didn't climb the tree, I didn't do what the CO intended, I won't log it found even if they say I can." (and even though it is allowable, if your find log implies an accurate cache state, then you didn't do anything objectively "wrong", only very very disliked by many people, if you can live with that)

[+justintim1999]

55 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Oh lordy...here we go again.

 

If you SEE the cache, you have actually found it...but only claim a find if you are able to hold the cache and open it to sign.  

I personally don't feel DNF is appropriate in that situation, since you did have eyes on the cache.  A Note is most appropriate, in my opinion.  Do what you want, though.  Don't get all caught up in the guidelines and the purists in here who will tell you to do exactly one thing, which is usually DNF.   Heck, you could even not log anything at all until you go back and actually get the cache and open it. 

 

So you honestly have three options that are all equally valid:  DNF, Note or no log at all.  

If you feel that a dnf isn't appropriate why list it as a valid option?   I think we both agree it shouldn't be.     

[+J Grouchy]

2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If you feel that a dnf isn't appropriate why list it as a valid option?   I think we both agree it shouldn't be.     

 

Just because I personally don't think it's correct doesn't make it invalid.  Is that actually difficult to understand?

[+cerberus1]

43 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

If you SEE the cache, you have actually found it...but only claim a find if you are able to hold the cache and open it to sign.  

I personally don't feel DNF is appropriate in that situation, since you did have eyes on the cache.  A Note is most appropriate, in my opinion.

Do what you want, though.  Don't get all caught up in the guidelines and the purists in here who will tell you to do exactly one thing, which is usually DNF.  Heck, you could even not log anything at all until you go back and actually get the cache and open it.   

 

That's how we see it as well.   We've logged a Write Note on most we've  seen, but simply couldn't access.  "We'll be back with gear" the norm.

The only way we'd log a DNF for that situation is if the CO (for some reason) prefers it.  IIRC, that's only happened twice (if you knew the COs, it would figure why).

 

Many in this area, it's between a DNF, or not writing anything at all.

By mails for hints n stuff,  and the  obvious signs of others searching when we get there, it leans more to no logs until a find.  

 

[+hzoi]

 

8 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

Oh lordy...here we go again.

 

If you SEE the cache, you have actually found it...but only claim a find if you are able to hold the cache and open it to sign.  

I personally don't feel DNF is appropriate in that situation, since you did have eyes on the cache.  A Note is most appropriate, in my opinion.  Do what you want, though.  Don't get all caught up in the guidelines and the purists in here who will tell you to do exactly one thing, which is usually DNF.   Heck, you could even not log anything at all until you go back and actually get the cache and open it. 

 

So you honestly have three options that are all equally valid:  DNF, Note or no log at all.  

If you feel that a dnf isn't appropriate why list it as a valid option?   I think we both agree it shouldn't be.  

 

The word "found" doesn't have the same context that it normally would in geocaching, because "find" or "found" means you get to log it online and get a yellow smiley face and a point.  I suppose we could make up a word, but "found it" is pretty entrenched, so it is what it is.

 

For the purposes of discussion, then, I propose:

 

Seeing a cache up a tree that you can't reach is locating or seeing a cache.  Whatever word you want to use is fine, other than "find."  It is not "finding" it in the context of getting to log it and score a point in geocaching.

 

Actually getting to the cache container and signing the log (and let's not get off the rails with group finds an the like) is "finding" it in the context of geocaching, such that you get to log a find online and get +1 in your running total.

Edited September 18, 2018 by hzoi

[+J Grouchy]

1 minute ago, hzoi said:

 

 

The word "found" doesn't have the same context that it normally would in geocaching, because "find" or "found" means you get to log it online and get a yellow smiley face and a point.  I suppose we could make up a word, but "found it" is pretty entrenched, so it is what it is.

 

For the purposes of discussion, then, I propose:

 

Seeing a cache up a tree that you can't reach is locating or seeing a cache.  It is not "finding" it in the context of getting to log it and score a point in geocaching.

 

Actually getting to the cache container and signing the log (and let's not get off the rails with group finds an the like) is "finding" it in the context of geocaching, such that you get to log a find online and get +1 in your running total.

 

 

Actually, I think it's pretty clear:  If I am unable to locate a cache, that means I did not find it.   It's when folks try to play with the meaning of words that gets us the eleventy billion threads about whether or not to log a DNF.  

 

[+thebruce0]

4 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Seeing a cache up a tree that you can't reach is locating or seeing a cache.

 

That's how I tend to describe it as well, "locating" vs "finding" in the context of geocaching, to reduce confusion (and I'm tending now to also capitalize "Find" as a proper name for the Found It log, rather than the mere act of finding/locating a container).   I could locate a container, but if I didn't sign the log or I'm holding off doing all the requirements for it, then I didn't "Find" it, or log it as Found on the website.

[+justintim1999]

2 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Just because I personally don't think it's correct doesn't make it invalid.  Is that actually difficult to understand?

In this situation I don't see anything valid about it, do you?   If that's so than the only thing I don't understand is why you don't stick to what you believe.   

[+J Grouchy]

Just now, justintim1999 said:

In this situation I don't see anything valid about it, do you?   If that's so than the only thing I don't understand is why you don't stick to what you believe.   

 

I stick to what I believe, but I wouldn't presume to tell others how to log.  Again, is this difficult to understand?

[+justintim1999]

8 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

 

The word "found" doesn't have the same context that it normally would in geocaching, because "find" or "found" means you get to log it online and get a yellow smiley face and a point.  I suppose we could make up a word, but "found it" is pretty entrenched, so it is what it is.

 

For the purposes of discussion, then, I propose:

 

Seeing a cache up a tree that you can't reach is locating or seeing a cache.  Whatever word you want to use is fine, other than "find."  It is not "finding" it in the context of getting to log it and score a point in geocaching.

 

Actually getting to the cache container and signing the log (and let's not get off the rails with group finds an the like) is "finding" it in the context of geocaching, such that you get to log a find online and get +1 in your running total.

Considering what we've been discussing regarding the CHS don't you think that posting a dnf in this case could wind up having a negative effect on the cache?   If that's true than why are we not looking to define the use of the dnf log?  

[+thebruce0]

11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Considering what we've been discussing regarding the CHS don't you think that posting a dnf in this case could wind up having a negative effect on the cache?   If that's true than why are we not looking to define the use of the dnf log?  

 

Fundamentally, on principle, I'm not changing the way I log - note or dnfs - because of the CHS. I want it to be defined by my actions (and the global community), not the other way around - and that was its intent. Even if it's bad at it right now. ie, no, I don't care that a DNF if I post it will cause a negative score. If it's not deserved, it needs to be fixed. If it is deserved, then it's doing its job.

Edited September 18, 2018 by thebruce0

[+kunarion]

15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Fundamentally, on principle, I'm not changing the way I log - note or dnfs - because of the CHS. I want it to be defined by my actions (and the global community), not the other way around - and that was its intent. Even if it's bad at it right now. ie, no, I don't care that a DNF if I post it will cause a negative score. If it's not deserved, it needs to be fixed. If it is deserved, then it's doing its job.

 

+1

 

I may modify my logs per Cache Owner, depending on how irate one is about me "causing all his unmaintained caches to be archived".  Lotta "Don't do a DNF, it gets my caches archived!" messages, and I might even skip that guy's caches.  They are in bad shape.  If he has to go check, they're "just fine".  Huh, go figure.

 

If I Did Not Find, I often log a "Did Not Find" log. For the purpose of this Thread, even if I see something that might be a cache yet can't get access it, I never assume I "Found It", and of course I didn't see nor sign a log.  In many instances, turns out that was not the right container anyway.  So I do a DNF.  I consider what I'm doing, I don't read into it, I don't get weird about it.  It's not a thing.

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by kunarion

[+justintim1999]

10 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

 

Actually, I think it's pretty clear:  If I am unable to locate a cache, that means I did not find it.   It's when folks try to play with the meaning of words that gets us the eleventy billion threads about whether or not to log a DNF.  

 

Most of the time it takes eleventy billion threads to get people to admit to the obvious.   Even then,  sometimes,  it's hopeless.    We both agree a dnf shouldn't be used in this case and I believe we're right in thinking so.   A note is harmless and can convey the appropriate information without any impact on the condition of the cache.   

[+justintim1999]

33 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Fundamentally, on principle, I'm not changing the way I log - note or dnfs - because of the CHS. I want it to be defined by my actions (and the global community), not the other way around - and that was its intent. Even if it's bad at it right now. ie, no, I don't care that a DNF if I post it will cause a negative score. If it's not deserved, it needs to be fixed. If it is deserved, then it's doing its job.

What can you say when people are unwilling to change even if that little change could make a difference.

 

 Maybe the CHS isn't the real problem here.   

[+thebruce0]

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Maybe the CHS isn't the real problem here.  

The CHS isn't the real problem here. I don't believe it ever was. Despite it being imperfect.

[+niraD]

56 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

What can you say when people are unwilling to change even if that little change could make a difference.

 

 Maybe the CHS isn't the real problem here.   

In the grand scheme of things, the handful of people here in the forums don't matter. There are far more people posting logs who have never heard of the CHS or read the forums. They will continue posting logs the way they post logs, and the CHS must deal with that.

[+frostengel]

By the way I know several cachers that are afraid of logging a DNF not because of the CHS but because it is a weakness not to find a cache. Everyone logs "found quickly" and you log a DNF?

When I log the first DNF at a cache often suddenly many DNFs appear - some with a date before my log!

 

And of course - a DNF is work for which you don't get a point or anything.

 

DNF is a helpful tool if used - if used correctly and in any case if used at all.

 

I don't know why it should be problem to be the first not finding a cache. I had it once with a D1 T1 traditional. About 250 found logs, no DNF, mine being the first. And the cache was there and I found it when I returned. Too blind... :-)

I don't know if I really had the first DNF or did I just log the first one as others didn't want to show their blindness?!

[+justintim1999]

8 minutes ago, niraD said:

In the grand scheme of things, the handful of people here in the forums don't matter. There are far more people posting logs who have never heard of the CHS or read the forums. They will continue posting logs the way they post logs, and the CHS must deal with that.

That's true but how dose anyone look at the OP's situation and come to any other conclusion than a note is the correct log?   Especially when the regulars on this forum know the various reasons why a dnf shouldn't be used.  

 

I hate quoting the help center but......   Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing.....  How in any way can you endorse the use of a dnf in this situation when neither criteria in the above guideline fits.    The only answer I can come up with is stubbornness.  

[+K13]

5 minutes ago, frostengel said:

By the way I know several cachers that are afraid of logging a DNF not because of the CHS but because it is a weakness not to find a cache. Everyone logs "found quickly" and you log a DNF?

When I log the first DNF at a cache often suddenly many DNFs appear - some with a date before my log!

 

And of course - a DNF is work for which you don't get a point or anything.

 

DNF is a helpful tool if used - if used correctly and in any case if used at all.

 

I don't know why it should be problem to be the first not finding a cache. I had it once with a D1 T1 traditional. About 250 found logs, no DNF, mine being the first. And the cache was there and I found it when I returned. Too blind... :-)

I don't know if I really had the first DNF or did I just log the first one as others didn't want to show their blindness?!

 

I know many cachers who won't log DNF because of the 'admittance of failure' aspect of it. Many of them don't even know about the CHS, as they don't follow the blog nor the forums.

 

A while back, there was a Groundspeak promotion urging people to log their DNF. 

Now cachers seem to believe that logging DNF will lead to a cache being archived.  Where did this new thought come from?

 

 

[+thebruce0]

I've quite often been the first to log a DNF, proudly, and all it takes is recognizing that yep, maybe I just missed it, hope it's still there. Usually it's found very shortly by someone else. It's only a hit to the pride if you really really care about your reputation for ability to find caches; ie, you have a lot of pride to get hurt.  But knowing that sometimes it's just a bad angle, or a bit of bad lighting, or bad weather, or just a bad day - a DNF does not have to be some kind of personal insult to avoid posting. People need to get over that. It's helpful for other people to know what your experience was.

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, K13 said:

Where did this new thought come from?

A vocal critical crowd who see reviewer activity on caches with recent DNFs. That's about it from what I can tell.

[+justintim1999]

11 minutes ago, frostengel said:

By the way I know several cachers that are afraid of logging a DNF not because of the CHS but because it is a weakness not to find a cache. Everyone logs "found quickly" and you log a DNF?

When I log the first DNF at a cache often suddenly many DNFs appear - some with a date before my log!

 

And of course - a DNF is work for which you don't get a point or anything.

 

DNF is a helpful tool if used - if used correctly and in any case if used at all.

 

I don't know why it should be problem to be the first not finding a cache. I had it once with a D1 T1 traditional. About 250 found logs, no DNF, mine being the first. And the cache was there and I found it when I returned. Too blind... :-)

I don't know if I really had the first DNF or did I just log the first one as others didn't want to show their blindness?!

It's human nature not to want to look week or inferior in front of your peers.   No shame WHAT-SO-EVER in posting a dnf.

 

Hey guess what?   Some movies make me cry.   Some things are so beautiful I can't help but ball my eyes out.   I may be weak or soft..... But I'm happy 

 

They need to add a crying emoji.   We could sure use one in here.           

[+niraD]

12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I hate quoting the help center but......   Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing.....  How in any way can you endorse the use of a dnf in this situation when neither criteria in the above guideline fits.    The only answer I can come up with is stubbornness.  

In geocaching, "find" doesn't mean merely figuring out where a cache is. It generally includes retrieving the cache, signing the log inside, and replacing the cache. So...

• "when you look for a cache" - Yep. They searched for the cache.
• "but do not find it" - Yep again. They were unable to retrieve the cache, sign the log, and replace the cache, so they did not "find" it in geocaching terms.
• "may be extra difficult to find" - Yep again. Retrieving, signing, and replacing presents an extra challenge, so in geocaching terms, it is extra difficult to "find". But even if it weren't, notice the use of the word "may".
• "possibly missing" - Yep again. Until you retrieve, sign, and replace, you aren't sure whether what you see is the cache, or a decoy, or geolitter, or some other litter. But even if it really is the cache, notice the use of the word "possibly".

So, what criteria for logging a DNF were you referring to?

Edited September 18, 2018 by niraD

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Actually, I think it's pretty clear:  If I am unable to locate a cache, that means I did not find it.   It's when folks try to play with the meaning of words that gets us the eleventy billion threads about whether or not to log a DNF.  

I'm glad you think it's clear. Personally, I think I either found it or I didn't find it, so I log a find or a DNF. It's your choice of meaning I find problematic, the meaning that leads you to say there's a third option beyond yes and no.

[+J Grouchy]

14 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm glad you think it's clear. Personally, I think I either found it or I didn't find it, so I log a find or a DNF. It's your choice of meaning I find problematic, the meaning that leads you to say there's a third option beyond yes and no.

 

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

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...  ?

[+Mudfrog]

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 6:03 AM, on4bam said:

 

If it's missing= DNF if the CO allows to log a find, I decline ALWAYS

If I find the cache but can't open it, no matter what the reason is = DNF

In short, log not signed = DNF, CO allows find if log not signed = DNF

 

 

Whether it's a lid, a sheet of paper, a trinket, or a container rusted shut, how can a person be absolutely sure any of these is actually part of the original cache? Same thing goes if you see a container up in a tree. Yeah, it probably is the cache but until you reach it and open it up, how can you be positive?

 

The OP got the right answers in the first couple of replies,,, seeing a container but not reaching it to sign the log makes it a DNF. Just be sure to briefly describe in the log, the circumstances surrounding the DNF.

[+justintim1999]

55 minutes ago, niraD said:

In geocaching, "find" doesn't mean merely figuring out where a cache is. It generally includes retrieving the cache, signing the log inside, and replacing the cache. So...

• "when you look for a cache" - Yep. They searched for the cache.
• "but do not find it" - Yep again. They were unable to retrieve the cache, sign the log, and replace the cache, so they did not "find" it in geocaching terms.
• "may be extra difficult to find" - Yep again. Retrieving, signing, and replacing presents an extra challenge, so in geocaching terms, it is extra difficult to "find". But even if it weren't, notice the use of the word "may".
• "possibly missing" - Yep again. Until you retrieve, sign, and replace, you aren't sure whether what you see is the cache, or a decoy, or geolitter, or some other litter. But even if it really is the cache, notice the use of the word "possibly".

So, what criteria for logging a DNF were you referring to?

The criteria that's clearly written in the Geocaching help center under "Log types/didn't find it.    The one thing your forgetting to mention is logging it online.   To log a find online you have to sign the log.  Lets assume that by doing that they have found the container, retrieved it, signed the log and replaced the container.   In this case the criteria to log a find has clearly not been met.   The question becomes "what do I log".   The answer is clear.   Since your found the cache and you know it's not missing  the only other option is write a note.    I've given you examples of why I don't think a dnf is appropriate in this situation.   Give me your reasons why you think it is.   

[+K13]

53 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

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

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...  ?

In the real estate game, flipping a house doesn't mean you overturn the building.

In American football, sacking the quarterback doesn't involve a bag.

The terms, as used in this hobby, have a more specialized meaning.  As I understand it, 'finding' a container-type-cache happens when you write your name on the log inside, not locating the container. 

[+justintim1999]

14 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Whether it's a lid, a sheet of paper, a trinket, or a container rusted shut, how can a person be absolutely sure any of these is actually part of the original cache? Same thing goes if you see a container up in a tree. Yeah, it probably is the cache but until you reach it and open it up, how can you be positive?

 

The OP got the right answers in the first couple of replies,,, seeing a container but not reaching it to sign the log makes it a DNF. Just be sure to briefly describe in the log, the circumstances surrounding the DNF.

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?   

[+thebruce0]

12 minutes 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. 

 

What do you mean by "without affecting anything?" If you're referring to the CHS, that's the point - the CHS should be affected, by our regular logging habits, not the other way around. Logging a DNF, if it's a DNF, only affects the CO and followup finders understanding of the cache's potential condition. That's all. And that is one of the primary purposes of logging the DNF. Or a note. Whatever you log.

Why would you care whether someone logs a DNF or a note if they didn't "Find" the cache? Honestly, why would anyone care?

I would care if it was a Find log, which implies the cache is findable, if it's not in fact findable.  Not if it's a DNF which could be caused by any number of reasons that wouldn't necessarily apply to me, still giving me the choice of whether to try to find it or not.

[+J Grouchy]

11 minutes ago, K13 said:

In the real estate game, flipping a house doesn't mean you overturn the building.

In American football, sacking the quarterback doesn't involve a bag.

The terms, as used in this hobby, have a more specialized meaning.  As I understand it, 'finding' a container-type-cache happens when you write your name on the log inside, not locating the container. 

 

Sorry, but no.

That terminology is only referring to claiming the find online for the +1.  It's not at all saying the opposite is true...that not signing the log even though you had your eyes on the cache container means you "didn't find it".  I really don't understand why this is even remotely confusing for people.  I'm not going to tell people I didn't find something that I clearly found but could not get a hold of.  People who do are weird.

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

It's helpful for other people to know what your experience was.

 

47 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Just be sure to briefly describe in the log, the circumstances surrounding the DNF.

 

I'll log a DNF, but I'll also state if I think it's just me, not seeing it, or if it's missing, broken, etc, and then it will also get a NM or a PM to the CO if Iknow who it is.  If I can actually SEE the cache but can't get to it for whatever reason, that will be a "Write Note".

[+The A-Team]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I hate quoting the help center but......   Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing.....  How in any way can you endorse the use of a dnf in this situation when neither criteria in the above guideline fits.    The only answer I can come up with is stubbornness.  

Those are not restrictive criteria; they're simply examples of what information a DNF log could potentially convey. It doesn't say anything about avoiding its use for other purposes, like simply indicating that a cacher didn't find a cache.

[+justintim1999]

19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

What do you mean by "without affecting anything?" If you're referring to the CHS, that's the point - the CHS should be affected, by our regular logging habits, not the other way around. Logging a DNF, if it's a DNF, only affects the CO and followup finders understanding of the cache's potential condition. That's all. And that is one of the primary purposes of logging the DNF. Or a note. Whatever you log.

Why would you care whether someone logs a DNF or a note if they didn't "Find" the cache? Honestly, why would anyone care?

I would care if it was a Find log, which implies the cache is findable, if it's not in fact findable.  Not if it's a DNF which could be caused by any number of reasons that wouldn't necessarily apply to me, still giving me the choice of whether to try to find it or not.

We know it effect the CHS but it can also effect the cache owner as well.    My caches are not overly difficult so a dnf means something to me.   I read my logs,  so if the cacher explained the situation in the log I'd know that the dnf had nothing to do with the condition of the cache.  It's doesn't matter if you agree with the CHS or not.  It's here and it's being used so why post a log that you know doesn't accurately reflect the situation and could have a negative effect on the cache to boot?  

[+The A-Team]

40 minutes 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?

Objection, your honour. These allegations against my client have not been proven in court.

 

Honestly, the CHS shouldn't have any bearing on deciding which type of log to use. Even if there's a proven issue with the CHS, then it's the CHS that needs to be changed, not the logging behaviour of every cacher.

[+justintim1999]

8 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Those are not restrictive criteria; they're simply examples of what information a DNF log could potentially convey. It doesn't say anything about avoiding its use for other purposes, like simply indicating that a cacher didn't find a cache.

The effect they have on the CHS makes the case for avoiding those other uses for me.   This is why I've been advocating for a little truth in logging.  

If dnfs are going to be counted against a caches health score doesn't it make sense we define when to use them a little better? 

[+justintim1999]

28 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

 

I'll log a DNF, but I'll also state if I think it's just me, not seeing it, or if it's missing, broken, etc, and then it will also get a NM or a PM to the CO if Iknow who it is.  If I can actually SEE the cache but can't get to it for whatever reason, that will be a "Write Note".

Thank you.  I thought I was the only one who could see that. 

 

It could be your suffering from the same bout of common sense I am. 

[+The A-Team]

4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Thank you.  I thought I was the only one who could see that. 

 

It could be your suffering from the same bout of common sense I am. 

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.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, frostengel said:

By the way I know several cachers that are afraid of logging a DNF not because of the CHS but because it is a weakness not to find a cache.

We have similar, but I feel arrogance has more to do with it.  They'd log a NM (because it couldn't be them...) if so many others didn't find it in-between.

Either way, I feel that's why so many don't log at all until they find it.

One time we went for a cache four times (still a FTF for the other 2/3rds).  We bumped into the same couple twice outta those four.

They never logged anything until they found it after us.   They have over 20,000 finds.

[+thebruce0]

42 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If dnfs are going to be counted against a caches health score doesn't it make sense we define when to use them a little better? 

 

Good luck with that. Ever think that the CHS can help determine what the most common uses of very untameable log types are? The more stringent you make unenforceable rules, the less sense and more frustrating the entire system will be - if only because you will have purists and legalists telling everyone they have to abide by the "rules" even though no one can or will enforce them. No, the log types have a general concept. We can encourage some understand to a degree, but you're wasting effort if you're trying to get everyone to abide by a strict set of situational rules for when to post something like a DNF vs a Note. Not gonna happen.

 

I prefer reading log types by what they imply, and then by inferring a state by their content, knowing that no log is 100% trustworthy. That's as far as it gets. And really that's just taking a more relaxing position about people's logging habits, rather than trying to get people to abide by tighter rules.

 

Let someone post a DNF or Note to their own conscience. If they didn't Find it (ie, sign the logsheet) then it really, really doesn't matter in the grand scheme - to finders. To owners, of course - so choose the type that best describes your situation. If you're an owner, take the log type at face value, and then read the detail in the content, and choose your actions accordingly. That's it.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

 

I'll log a DNF, but I'll also state if I think it's just me, not seeing it, or if it's missing, broken, etc, and then it will also get a NM or a PM to the CO if Iknow who it is.  If I can actually SEE the cache but can't get to it for whatever reason, that will be a "Write Note".

 

For me, if I don't get to the point of writing in the logbook, it's a DNF regardless of which aspect of the cache's challenge (difficulty or terrain) defeated me. If the cache is too well camouflaged for me to see it even when I'm looking straight at it, it's a DNF. If the final few metres of terrain I have to cross is beyond my ability, it's a DNF, even if I can see what appears to be the cache out on that narrow ledge or up in the tree.

 

As justintim1999 pointed out, logging a DNF can indicate to the CO and others that the cache is "extra difficult to find", but being "difficult to find" doesn't just mean well-camouflaged, it could be hard to reach (up a tree or out on a narrow ledge) or in a place with lots of muggles or only accessible at low tide with calm seas (see GC7B9MJ as an example of this - the four DNFs on this virtual don't mean the rock pools are missing or difficult to see) or a hike/climb that's too strenuous on a hot day. They are all failed attempts at completing the finding ritual, namely signing the log.

 

Logging a DNF in these circumstances has other benefits, in that it puts a blue frowny on the map and puts that log under the "DNF" header so I can easily see which caches have defeated me and might require another attempt when I'm better prepared for the challenge. Writing a note doesn't do either of those, particularly as I use notes for all sorts of other things like dropping trackables in caches I've previously found (or my own), revisiting caches I've found when out with friends, reporting my progress on a long multi, puzzle or challenge cache or any of the other times I've just wanted to convey a bit of information to the CO and others watching the cache page.

 

This isn't just me either, most of the local community here log DNFs in similar circumstances. On my hides I've had DNFs for all manner of reasons that aren't a missing cache or extra-tricky camo. Muggles, failing light, approaching storms, swarms of mosquitoes, wrong tide, tough climb, no internet access, I've had DNFs citing all those as reasons for not completing the find. Their cache attempt was unsuccessful so in my book that's a perfectly valid DNF regardless of the reason for the failure. A DNF was (in the pre-CHS days) just an informational log, not an action-required log, and I think it's sad that it's being turned into almost a de-facto NM by the likes of the CHS.

[+K13]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Sorry, but no.

That terminology is only referring to claiming the find online for the +1.  It's not at all saying the opposite is true...that not signing the log even though you had your eyes on the cache container means you "didn't find it".  I really don't understand why this is even remotely confusing for people.  I'm not going to tell people I didn't find something that I clearly found but could not get a hold of.  People who do are weird.

 

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.

[+Bundyrumandcoke]

Its a Write Note. The F in DNF stands for Find, not Log. You Find the container, but cant write in the Log book, its a Write Note for me. Perhaps a DNL option is needed on cache pages. 

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The answer is clear.   Since your found the cache

I did? Great! Then I can log a Find.

 

Oh, wait... I haven't met the requirements to log a Find? Then I'd better log a DNF.

 

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

and you know it's not missing 

Do I?  What if it's a decoy? What if it's something else? I've found plenty of decoys and random bits of trash that just happen to have been containers at some point in history. Until I see the log, I'm not certain that what I've found is the cache.

 

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I've given you examples of why I don't think a dnf is appropriate in this situation.   Give me your reasons why you think it is.