More DNFs than in the past?

[+Nos402]

Hey everyone! I've just recently picked geocaching back up after doing quite a bit back on 2002 and the following years. Interestingly, I've had a LOT more DNFs than I am used to getting and I was just wondering if this was simply me being rusty, a bad run of luck, or if, in general, with the expanding popularity of Geocaching there were just more people who place caches but don't really maintain or check on them. So many dang Micros these days!

[+dprovan]

I don't suppose it's as simple as the fact that there are a lot more caches for you to look for, hence a lot more to not find even though proportionally DNFs are no more frequent? In 2002, I can imagine many places would have 10 caches, one of which was missing, and you'd remember "hardly any DNFs", but today, 1000 caches in the same area, 100 DNFs, and, wow, that's a lot!

 

With that much time difference, another possibility is changing standards. A lot more micros nowadays, for example. And had they invented lamp post caches or fence cap caches yet in 2002? Maybe you're not use to caches hanging in trees?

 

Just thinking out loud. I could also come up with a few reasons that missing caches are tolerated more now than they were back then, so you're just seeing one way the sport has changed over the years. I wouldn't chalk it up to modern COs feeling less responsible, although others might.

[+Nos402]

Sounds totally reasonable. I've always done a little caching over the years but only recently picked it back up with a fervor so it was just a shock when like out my first 5 attempts around my new neighborhood, there were 4 DNFs. And it's not uncommon for the last log to be a month or two old, so I'm still getting a feel for the current Geocaching "norm."

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, Nos402 said:

Sounds totally reasonable. I've always done a little caching over the years but only recently picked it back up with a fervor so it was just a shock when like out my first 5 attempts around my new neighborhood, there were 4 DNFs. And it's not uncommon for the last log to be a month or two old, so I'm still getting a feel for the current Geocaching "norm."

The fact that the caches are around your neighborhood makes me think that they are likely smaller containers (micros, nanos), or that they are gone. The pattern that I've seen repeatedly around my neighborhood is for city parks and other locations to host a series of short-lived non-micro caches, until someone hides a micro/nano cache (and possibly a puzzle micro/nano cache). That's what survives, so that's what's available to be found.

[+hukilaulau]

I think my DNF rate is about the same as ever. I miss some easy ones, look for some missing ones, and give up more quickly if I get bored looking for something. OTOH, my finding skills have improved from the early years.

[+coachstahly]

My DNF rate is still about the same, these past 8 years.  With more caches comes more opportunities for DNF, more opportunities for caches being picked up by non-cachers, and more opportunities for lapsed maintenance.

 

With regard to DNF logs, those caches have a tendency to repel seekers who might otherwise go look for them, if the last log was a smiley face instead of a DNF face.  They'll certainly have me taking a look at caches in the area I'm going to.  I won't automatically remove the caches with DNFs from my list, but I'll look at the D/T rating to see if the probability is high it might be MIA or is just a difficult hide and I'll look at the experience level of those who have logged a DNF.  Sometimes they'll get cut and other times they'll make the list.

 

I will say that 4 out of 5 is a pretty high DNF ratio.

[+Viajero Perdido]

With sooo many caches to choose from nowadays, maybe our DNF thresholds have gotten lower?  Search a bit, shrug, move on the next one.

[+hzoi]

This topic made me curious, and I didn't have anything else going on over lunch.  So: chart time.

 

I have 996 DNFs stacked up since 2007, compared to 8913 finds.  Some caches we've DNF'd more than once, and some we've eventually found, but overall it seems for any 10 given caches we hunt for, we're not going to find one.

 

The breakdown is far from even, though.

 

 

 

In our first year, our DNF rate was over 15%.  Understandable, we were learning. 

 

For the next three years, it dropped to 5-7% range.  OK, maybe we were better at it.  Or maybe we thought we should be better at it, so we weren't logging them all.

 

(For a year during 2009 to 2010, we were also living in a cache-poor area, so I will admit we were propping up some poorly maintained and/or missing local caches with replacements, really, throwdowns.)

 

Since 2011, it's been between 10-17%, with two high points close to 17%, 2013 and 2018.  I think these two spikes probably correlate to us leaving areas where we'd been settled for a while.  From 2010 to 2013 we lived in Alabama, and from 2016-2018 we were in Virginia.  Toward the end of both assignments, I was trying to clear the map and attempting more caches that I had previously avoided, since I knew based on logs that they might not be there.

Edited September 25, 2018 by hzoi

[+hzoi]

17 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

With sooo many caches to choose from nowadays, maybe our DNF thresholds have gotten lower?  Search a bit, shrug, move on the next one.

 

I think this is part of it as well.  Additionally, since becoming a parent (see downward trend above from 2013 to 2015, when she was too young to take her with me), I have less time to go geocaching if she's not with me, and I have to account for a young child's short patience span when she DOES go geocaching with me.  Either way, I am more likely these days to pop smoke and move on to another one than I am to spend an extended period looking for a cache that doesn't want to be found.

[+MNTA]

8 hours ago, hzoi said:

This topic made me curious, and I didn't have anything else going on over lunch.  So: chart time.

 

I have 996 DNFs stacked up since 2007, compared to 8913 finds.  Some caches we've DNF'd more than once, and some we've eventually found, but overall it seems for any 10 given caches we hunt for, we're not going to find one.

 

 

Thanks for the great chart. I was curious myself. Your 10 to 1 ratio is probably pretty close to my experience. I remember getting irked during the hidden creatures hunt finally decided to go for the 100 which I made and had 11 DNFs, 10 of which eventually were archived as I filed NM/NA where appropriate. So anyone looking at finding a specific number expect a 10% failure rate. Though you can improve your odds by finding only caches found within the last 6 months.

[+hzoi]

13 hours ago, MNTA said:

So anyone looking at finding a specific number expect a 10% failure rate. Though you can improve your odds by finding only caches found within the last 6 months.

 

I normally work to improve my odds by filtering caches in GSAK - it has a stoplight feature that color codes based off the last four logs, green for OM or found it, red for NA, or DNF (I think disabled is also red and NM is at least yellow if not red).  If I see a bunch of red, I'll normally at least dip into the description and logs to see what's going on with it, and often I'll skip that one.

 

I've yet to do that for the pool of caches near us, though as there are a TON - ten times the number of caches in our local area compared to tidewater Virginia.  My PQs max out much closer to home, and I have close to 5,000 caches sitting in my GPSr even after filtering out (compared to 1400 or so that took me out to 50 miles in Virginia)

[+MNTA]

6 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

I normally work to improve my odds by filtering caches in GSAK - it has a stoplight feature that color codes based off the last four logs, green for OM or found it, red for NA, or DNF (I think disabled is also red and NM is at least yellow if not red).  If I see a bunch of red, I'll normally at least dip into the description and logs to see what's going on with it, and often I'll skip that one.

 

I've yet to do that for the pool of caches near us, though as there are a TON - ten times the number of caches in our local area compared to tidewater Virginia.  My PQs max out much closer to home, and I have close to 5,000 caches sitting in my GPSr even after filtering out (compared to 1400 or so that took me out to 50 miles in Virginia)

 

If only GSAK worked on a mac.

 

Though what it tells me is very simple database tools can be developed to improve the management (reviewer) side of things and the finder side of things.

 

My method is less elegant and takes a lot more time. Don't get me wrong I don't mind looking for a tough cache but sometimes it is pretty obvious that a problem exists and when you have limited time it would be nice to know ahead of time.

[+The Jester]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

If only GSAK worked on a mac.

 

Maybe you need to get a real computer! 

 

There are some emulators/work arounds to use GSAK on a mac.  Check out the mac sub-forum on the GSAK forums.

 

[+Viajero Perdido]

I like that stoplight feature in GSAK (shows status of last four logs), but if that's all you want GSAK for...  Phone apps (some anyway) can do the same thing.  Here, two finds and a note, in Locus Map.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

39 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Maybe you need to get a real computer! 

 

There are some emulators/work arounds to use GSAK on a mac.  Check out the mac sub-forum on the GSAK forums.

 

 

I've tried several of the options and they all have their flaws.  Two of the options would require one to have a license to run windows and the least intrusive still requires access to a PC (with an installed copy of GSAK) in order to get the authorization set up.  

 

As a software developer I attend a fair number of technical conferences and it's pretty obvious that those that bring laptops (pretty much everyone) that Macs outnumber PCs by quite a bit.   I find it interesting that an advertisement for a certain brand of laptop that it appears to be targeted towards a specific demographic.  Okay, it's nice that one can draw on the screen with a pen or stylus, but I've had a PC with a touch screen for several years and frequently forget that it even has one, and don't think I've every found a use case for which being able to draw on a screen with my finger or a stylus was a benefit.  

 

Real computer users work from the command line. 

[+niraD]

23 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Okay, it's nice that one can draw on the screen with a pen or stylus, but I've had a PC with a touch screen for several years and frequently forget that it even has one, and don't think I've every found a use case for which being able to draw on a screen with my finger or a stylus was a benefit.

The main use I've seen for being able to draw on a screen with a finger/stylus is for credit card processing. But the point-of-sale systems I've used have used tablets anyway, not touch-screen PCs.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

54 minutes ago, niraD said:

The main use I've seen for being able to draw on a screen with a finger/stylus is for credit card processing. But the point-of-sale systems I've used have used tablets anyway, not touch-screen PCs.

I'm not saying the being able to draw on a screen doesn't have it's uses but as you say, the use of tablets has for far more common for application which benefit from a touch screen.  For my primary personal and work use of a computer,  a touch screen just isn't a benefit, and as a device for software development I find a Mac far more useful.  I used a PC laptop for quite a long time before I switched so I have a lot experience with both platforms.

 

It's been a long time since I flew from Laguardia airport but in both JFK and Newark airports you'll find tablets in pretty much every restaurant and throughout the concourses so that one can order food/drinks.  

[+briansnat]

The fact that there are waaaay more micros now then there were in 2002 could be a factor.  Micros are generally harder to find than the regular sized caches that were the predominant type back then.

[+hzoi]

19 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

I like that stoplight feature in GSAK (shows status of last four logs), but if that's all you want GSAK for...

 

Oh, far from it.  But it is a handy benchmark when scrolling down a list of caches.