Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
RocTheCacheBox

DNF's Not being logged

Recommended Posts

Today I watched someone search for my cache for about five minutes, (using an phone and app) not find it and drive off. No DNF logged yet as of 2 hours later. I'm well aware there are many reasons for a delay in logging. I'm primarily a GPS user so I totally understand a log may be delayed for days or even weeks but this one incident is not what's buggin me.

 

I'm in a position where I can see people search for my cache several hours a day. The last time my cache had a DNF logged on it was 1/24/20. 23 people have found it in that time but I have watched at least 6 and probably closer to 10 people spend 5,10 or even more minutes searching with no luck who have never logged a DNF.

 

Do others that have a hide they can monitor notice the same thing? Is this just the new normal or has it been this way and I just didn't pay attention?

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

Some people choose to not log a DNF and others have been frightened off by CO's who ask for the DNFs to be removed. 

 

I subscribe to the "DNF Pride" principle and have a count on my profile of how many caches I've DNF'd.  If I give it a good try (as it sounds like people have with your cache) I'll log a DNF, but if I walk up to a GZ and feel reluctant to search (for example if it's in the middle of a field of tall grasses and I'm wearing sandals) I won't log a DNF because I really DNT (did not try).

 

I've actually written on some of my cache pages asking for people to log a DNF if they tried and didn't find it so that I know that people are actually trying.  It could alert me to a problem.  I don't worry about cache health scores or thing like that.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

We've discussed this at events since 2004, so nothing new.  :)    There's one heck of a lotta threads on this subject as well.

Years ago, we noticed folks with "numbers" weren't logging DNFs, and found that they believed "if we couldn't find it, it's not there".

 - So apparently a lot has to do with arrogance.    :laughing:   

When asked why they didn't post a NM if it wasn't there, they'd get their wittle feelings hurt, and now I'm the bad guy. 

We now take those high numbers folks with a grain a salt. 

 

Others it seems aren't aware, or haven't considered how important those "other" logs are, or don't wanta get involved.

 The other 2/3rds feels now that if we were in the "don't want to get involved" group when we started, we wouldn't have gone through the heck we did.

Edited by cerberus1
dyslexic moment...
  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Today I watched someone search for my cache for about five minutes, (using an phone and app) not find it and drive off. No DNF logged yet as of 2 hours later.

 

Wow, 2 hours later and no DNF yet? What has the world become to. :ph34r:

Phone or not, it may be a while before logs are written/posted. Typing a decent log is something I wouldn't want to do on a phone anyway.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

Wow, 2 hours later and no DNF yet? What has the world become to. :ph34r:

Phone or not, it may be a while before logs are written/posted. Typing a decent log is something I wouldn't want to do on a phone anyway.

 

 

As I said in the original post........

 

"I'm well aware there are many reasons for a delay in logging. I'm primarily a GPS user so I totally understand a log may be delayed for days or even weeks but this one incident is not what's buggin me."

 

Perhaps you missed that part?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Around me there is a running joke about a few cachers that take months, if not a year to log finds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, RocTheCacheBox said:

 

As I said in the original post........

 

"I'm well aware there are many reasons for a delay in logging. I'm primarily a GPS user so I totally understand a log may be delayed for days or even weeks but this one incident is not what's buggin me."

 

Perhaps you missed that part?

No, I didn't. I just thought it was funny to write that post already and not waiting until you're sure no DNF was logged. Since you're in the US it's not even evening yet.

I only use a GPS but my logs are posted after 22:00 on most occasions (get home, eat dinner, watch some TV, write logs, check newssites, go to sleep ;))

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, on4bam said:

No, I didn't. I just thought it was funny to write that post already and not waiting until you're sure no DNF was logged. Since you're in the US it's not even evening yet.

I only use a GPS but my logs are posted after 22:00 on most occasions (get home, eat dinner, watch some TV, write logs, check newssites, go to sleep ;))

 

His complaint takes place over the course of this calendar year where he has personally witnessed between 5 and 10 people search for the cache, not find it, and not log a DNF.  It's not a new cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think a lot more DNF's would get posted to caches if DNF logs could be made anonymously.  The DNF log would show up, but the username and icon would just be Anonymous.  Gut feeling tells me that for a lot of people, DNF-ing a cache is a matter of pride.  

Share this post


Link to post

I've had several people message me about a cache they couldn't find. I don't mean a PAF to the CO. I tell them to log a DNF and I will check on it. They never log the DNF.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/22/2020 at 12:42 PM, GeoElmo6000 said:

Some people choose to not log a DNF and others have been frightened off by CO's who ask for the DNFs to be removed. 

 

Such COs should be named and shamed for bad CO behavior. 

 

On 9/22/2020 at 1:56 PM, HoochDog said:

I think a lot more DNF's would get posted to caches if DNF logs could be made anonymously.  The DNF log would show up, but the username and icon would just be Anonymous.  Gut feeling tells me that for a lot of people, DNF-ing a cache is a matter of pride.  

 

Reminds me of old time notions of honor. Almost as foolish, except I haven't heard of any caching duels.

 

If you're too proud to log a DNF then you're being disingenuous to yourself and others. Being unwilling to ever log a DNF should be more shameful than any DNF, no matter how easy the cache. 

Edited by JL_HSTRE
Typo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Meh. People should feel free to log DNFs, but I don't particularly care if they don't. From the numbers you've presented, it sounds most people find your cache, so there's some statistical justification for the people that don't find it thinking they didn't find it because they're not good enough, so there's no particular reason for them to want to announce that. I agree that it's too bad they feel that's the way they should look at it, but I still understand if they do.

 

I don't have an ironclad example like you do, but my impression is that DNFs are filed more regularly in my area, so I think it's just depends on your local culture. Do you have text in the cache description encouraging DNFs? Perhaps explaining that you like to hear all the stories, successes and failures, and celebrating all logs might encourage more people to post DNFs, both on that cache and more generally.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I cache with a GPSr as my primarily device, and only use a smartphone for checking photos/logs/messaging. I never log in the field (apart from FTFs or souvenir promos where its needed), and although I log each and every DNF we do, it won't be until later that night when I sit down and do logs with the PC.....

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

From my point of view, cachers may not log a DNF because they don't want to appear as unexperienced. I personally always log DNFs. I have monitered a few of my caches and I have noticed the same thing. You aren't the only one!

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

I log most of my DNF's, especially if we've given it a good search.  Often the CO will contact me, and go out and check it.  I've gotten apologies when it truly has been missing, and helpful hints if I simply missed it.  The exception ito my logging a DNF is if I am with someone else, or a few others, and one of them logs the DNF. I think it's redundant to have 2 or more DNF's from the same group from the same search.  One DNF log is sufficient, and if someone else is already logging it as a DNF, that's fine with me.  And sometimes it's me that logs it for the group; I typically mention how many of us were searching and how long we spent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I seldom log more than one DNF on a cache, because of the CHS.  I don't want a cache archived because I could not find it.

Share this post


Link to post

If I can't find a cache -> I log a DNF.

 

But I haven't always done so. When i had <500 caches, I was thinking that my DNF log may not be representative and relevant. Why? I thought that I could have easily missed the cache because of my lack of knowledge, and with my DNF I could scare off other people from this geocache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I almost always log my DNFs. I have some strong expectations of COs since I'm a CO myself so I don't let CHS dissuade me. In fact, sometimes I'll add the cache to my watch list. I'm rather surprised at how slowly some reviewers react to poor cache health or NM/NA logs. I've yet to see a cache that I've DNF'd  get disabled with any reference to CHS. On the other hand, I've seen several that the reviewer has posted a warning note and up to a year later there's still no action. It seems more likely that a visitor will "help" by replacing the missing ammo can with a pill bottle. :bad:

Share this post


Link to post

This is one of the reasons I rarely look for a cache in someone's yard or within sight of office windows. If I do happen to be near one of these and don't find it immediately I will just walk away with no log of any kind. How I play the game is none of your business and I really don't like you passing judgment on people for how they respond to your cache.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

I don't have an ironclad example like you do, but my impression is that DNFs are filed more regularly in my area, so I think it's just depends on your local culture. Do you have text in the cache description encouraging DNFs? Perhaps explaining that you like to hear all the stories, successes and failures, and celebrating all logs might encourage more people to post DNFs, both on that cache and more generally.

 

Yes, it probably depends on the local caching culture. In my area cachers are quite liberal with their DNFs, such as this one I received a few days ago on one of my multis:

 

Quote

Didn't find itDidn't find it

14/09/2020

This was to be a quick find. I found the words & did the X-word. However, found I was running out of time to catch the next train. Will save finding this cache for another day. TFTC

 

If it was me and I'd only progressed part way through a multi due to time constraints, I'd have just logged a note (or nothing), but to each their own. What's important to me as a CO is that they made it clear in their log the reason for their DNF and didn't just say "Shucks" or some such. In this case there's not much I do about it as a CO as I doubt the railways will alter their timetable to allow people more time to do my cache. So far it's the only DNF that cache has had so hopefully it hasn't put too much of a dent in its health score.

 

My rule of thumb is I'll log a DNF if I was trying to find the cache but was defeated either by the cache itself (its difficulty) or on my trek to it (its terrain). Both of those are obstacles the CO has placed between me and a smiley so both deserve a DNF if they get the better of me. About 90% of my DNFs have been due to my own ineptitude or inadequate preparation rather than any problem with the cache and I always try to make that clear in my log. If I really want the CO to check on it, I'll add an NM.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

On a similar but opposite note ( if similar and opposite work together) I know there are cachers-- probably seasoned ones-  who will  go caching and find caches but do not long them in Geocaching.com all the time. Why? Maybe they simply enjoy finding them, and now numbers are irrelevant.

 

But as fora  DNF, what not log it as such ? Either you found it or you didn't. If there is something involved that precluded looking once at GZ then maybe a just write a note , it may help the CO and another cacher. And may help you when you go back.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Unless you have a cache you can watch, with any regularity, it's pretty hard to get an idea of how common not logging DNFs is. I recall one time I arrived at a GZ where another cacher was searching. I joined in the search but neither of us could find it. I logged the DNF, the other guy didn't. I noticed later that when this guy did one of my series he logged finds but a couple had no logs. Did he DNF them or skip them?

I have a cache on my fence and can observe seekers looking. The actual hide is somewhat screened from my view but I can make out what they are doing and the seekers can't see me from GZ. Rarely has anyone not logged a DNF. If I see a seeker about to leave without finding I will go out and say g'day and assist them with a hint or two - it is a D1 T1.

From last finder who came after a DNF.

"Second day of caching in Newcastle and surround before making my way home south via the Entrance in the late afternoon. Again perfect weather today and a light breeze. A quick find here on my way south, awkwardly close to the houses, but just enough shelter from a bush on the corner."

Edited by colleda
grammar and typo

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

Some people choose to not log a DNF and others have been frightened off by CO's who ask for the DNFs to be removed.

I have never been asked to remove a DNF, and I log my DNFs.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, HoochDog said:

I think a lot more DNF's would get posted to caches if DNF logs could be made anonymously.  The DNF log would show up, but the username and icon would just be Anonymous.  Gut feeling tells me that for a lot of people, DNF-ing a cache is a matter of pride.  

Yes basically there are too many out there who lack confidence, scared of what others might thing. That is my thinking why some people don't log DNFs. They have spines like jellyfish :laughing:. Didn't have time to log the DNF, is likely just cover, for being too embarrassed to log a DNF.

Personally, I respect those people who log DNFs. When I have a DNF, even if I am embarrassed, I tell myself I am adult, log that DNF. Make a joke of it; first to log a DNF for instance. I have written that.

If people log DNFs on my caches, I have been known to contact them and offer assistance. Most are pleased to accept it. I had someone contact me once and ask for advice, saying they couldn't find the cache. I checked and they hadn't logged a DNF, so I asked them where was their DNF, and that I don't offer help to those who don't log a DNF. I think I likely also said if they had logged their DNF, I might have contacted them with an offer of help already. They replied, "Whatever rocks your boat." I replied to them, "Well what rocks my boat is now not giving you assistance." They never logged that DNF.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Yes basically there are too many out there who lack confidence, scared of what others might thing. That is my thinking why some people don't log DNFs. They have spines like jellyfish.

Personally, I respect those people who log DNFs. When I log a DNF, even if I am embarrassed, I tell myself I am adult, log that DNF.

 

I have a long-time friend who does very occasional geocaching (52 finds in 7 years). The last time he visited, we went to try a cache that I'd previously DNFed twice but that attempt turned into my third DNF. He didn't log a DNF though, saying he didn't want it to blemish his caching record. To each his own, I guess.

 

Edit to add: For the record, I found that cache on my fourth attempt after getting a nudge from a previous finder. Nothing wrong with the cache, just defeated by a clever hide and my preconceptions of what I was expecting to find.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I seldom log more than one DNF on a cache, because of the CHS.  I don't want a cache archived because I could not find it.

I log multiple DNFs on a cache. Only one per visit attempt though :laughing:. I find it annoying to read logs such as; 'found on my sixth attempt', and I look though the logs and not one DNF from this person. I don't think highly of these people. I would have thought more highly of them if they had logged all their DNFs.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, sernikk said:

If I can't find a cache -> I log a DNF.

 

But I haven't always done so. When i had <500 caches, I was thinking that my DNF log may not be representative and relevant. Why? I thought that I could have easily missed the cache because of my lack of knowledge, and with my DNF I could scare off other people from this geocache.

Fully understandable. You were learning. We all change our habits with experience.

 

1 hour ago, colleda said:

Unless you have a cache you can watch, with any regularity, it's pretty hard to get an idea of how common not logging DNFs is. I recall one time I arrived at a GZ where another cacher was searching. I joined in the search but neither of us could find it. I logged the DNF, the other guy didn't. I noticed later that when this guy did one of my series he logged finds but a couple had no logs. Did he DNF them or skip them?

I logged a DNF on a cache I couldn't find in NZ. It hadn't had a log for six months. The CO went and checked and found it was missing. They thanked me for logging that DNF to let them know the cache was gone. I worked out, based on past finds for that cache, that about twenty people had likely not logged their DNFs over that six months. Twenty chickens :rolleyes:.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Today I watched someone search for my cache for about five minutes, (using an phone and app) not find it and drive off. No DNF logged yet as of 2 hours later. I'm well aware there are many reasons for a delay in logging. I'm primarily a GPS user so I totally understand a log may be delayed for days or even weeks but this one incident is not what's buggin me.

 

I'm in a position where I can see people search for my cache several hours a day. The last time my cache had a DNF logged on it was 1/24/20. 23 people have found it in that time but I have watched at least 6 and probably closer to 10 people spend 5,10 or even more minutes searching with no luck who have never logged a DNF.

 

Do others that have a hide they can monitor notice the same thing? Is this just the new normal or has it been this way and I just didn't pay attention?

 

In other DNF threads, people mention things like "it's not a DNF unless I've searched for 30 at least minutes".  Or whatever their personally defined time is, but I've never timed anyone to be sure they're consistent.  And some say it's not a DNF if they searched for 30 minutes but weren't seriously searching for it.  I've never interrogated people to find out if they were serious this time.  Because then it would of course be a DNF, right?

 

Sometimes I arrive and decide I've pretty much lost interest.  Especially when it's likely to be that lamp post skirt in the busiest part of the parking lot.  I may have gotten out, prepared to lift the lamp skirt, touched it and all.  All the while having second thoughts about this, and even more people start coming into view.  I'll probably just skip it.  Maybe I'll leave a note.  But what is the CO thinking!  Let's just say, you really don't want my note.  B)

 

Very rarely, caches are so terrible that I wash my hands of them, and then wash my hands, after touching a gross broken container full of garbage and stinky fluid in an unappealing spot, where there were a bunch of previous unaddressed "It's soaking wet" NM logs.  In those cases, I might pretend that the thing never existed and post nothing at all.  Sue me.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, HoochDog said:

I think a lot more DNF's would get posted to caches if DNF logs could be made anonymously.  The DNF log would show up, but the username and icon would just be Anonymous.  Gut feeling tells me that for a lot of people, DNF-ing a cache is a matter of pride.  

 

I feel that's a terrible idea.     :)

If you're gonna put an action log on someone's cache, maybe causing it to have a temp disable from a Reviewer or HQ, own it.

We'd have a lot of weasels playing games...

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, HoochDog said:

I think a lot more DNF's would get posted to caches if DNF logs could be made anonymously.  The DNF log would show up, but the username and icon would just be Anonymous.  Gut feeling tells me that for a lot of people, DNF-ing a cache is a matter of pride.  

 

That feature kinda-sorta exists.  I get MC Messages when someone can't find my cache, and they didn't make a DNF log.  The message is the secret DNF log.  You know, sort of.

 

And, as you say, one reason I've seen mentioned why DNFs don't get posted is that they are 110% proof of one's utter failure in Geocaching, overall failure as a person, someone to be shunned for the rest of their miserable lives.  So if they can't find a cache, not posting that DNF is the perfect crime.  Then one can still go out in public, because nobody is the wiser.

  • Funny 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

That feature kinda-sorta exists.  I get MC Messages when someone can't find my cache, and they didn't make a DNF log.  The message is the secret DNF log.  You know, sort of.

 

And, as you say, one reason I've seen mentioned why DNFs don't get posted is that they are 110% proof of one's utter failure in Geocaching, overall failure as a person, someone to be shunned for the rest of their miserable lives.  So if they can't find a cache, not posting that DNF is the perfect crime.  Then one can still go out in public, because nobody is the wiser.

:laughing: I could only post one reaction, even though I really wanted to post both a heart and the laughing frog.

  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:
8 hours ago, HoochDog said:

I think a lot more DNF's would get posted to caches if DNF logs could be made anonymously.  The DNF log would show up, but the username and icon would just be Anonymous.  Gut feeling tells me that for a lot of people, DNF-ing a cache is a matter of pride.  

 

I feel that's a terrible idea.     :)

If you're gonna put an action log on someone's cache, maybe causing it to have a temp disable from a Reviewer or HQ, own it.

We'd have a lot of weasels playing games...

 

While I don't like the idea of anonymous DNF logs (or any other type of log for that matter), I also don't consider a DNF to be an action log. NM and NA are action logs, but my DNFs are just informational logs describing my unsuccessful attempt at finding the cache, usually for the amusement of the CO and anyone else watching. No action is needed except perhaps by me to try again.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

We cannot monitor our cache. But I often read the logs of other caches, too. And many, many times I read something like "I'm here for the 4th time. Today, finally I found the cache!" But there was no DNF by that person before. Why?!

 

 

11 hours ago, HoochDog said:

 Gut feeling tells me that for a lot of people, DNF-ing a cache is a matter of pride.  

I think the main reason is that a DNF only helps the owner and other cachers, but you don't have an advantage for yourself. Maybe it would change if all type of logs would be add up to "experience points".

 

 

7 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I seldom log more than one DNF on a cache, because of the CHS.  I don't want a cache archived because I could not find it.

I logged a DNF twice (not sure about a third time) on at least two caches. If I didn't find it, I log that I didn't find it. If that leads to an archived cache and the owner cannot do anything against it, there is something wrong with the CHS system.

 

10 hours ago, dprovan said:

From the numbers you've presented, it sounds most people find your cache, so there's some statistical justification for the people that don't find it thinking they didn't find it because they're not good enough, so there's no particular reason for them to want to announce that. I agree that it's too bad they feel that's the way they should look at it, but I still understand if they do.

But that is only because almost no one logs DNF.

If there are 23 finds only, you might think it is easy to find as it has a success rate of 100 %. But if you add 9 silent DNFs, the succes rate drops to 72 %.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly get super annoyed about people not logging DNFs. It might give an indication that the cache is a lot more difficult to find. More importantly, it gives an indication that the cache might actually be gone. When I planned my summer vacation I ran a big pocket query and reduced the cache number by caches that had recent DNFs. Of course one of them was missing and people were logging finds on the hole in the wall or providing photo logs of the general area, or only logging the boring cache nearby but not this instead of simply logging a DNF. Not having read the found logs before I did a substantial detour for this. I was rather pissed to be honest.

Edited by terratin
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, terratin said:

I honestly get super annoyed about people not logging DNFs. It might give an indication that the cache is a lot more difficult to find. More importantly, it gives an indication that the cache might actually be gone. When I planned my summer vacation I ran a big pocket query and reduced the cache number by caches that had recent DNFs.

 

Um, just a thought, but maybe the reason people don't log DNFs anymore is because of people excluding caches with a recent DNF from their searches. Perhaps they don't want to condemn the cache to the shadowy half-life of a recently-DNFed cache that will never be searched for again.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Um, just a thought, but maybe the reason people don't log DNFs anymore is because of people excluding caches with a recent DNF from their searches. Perhaps they don't want to condemn the cache to the shadowy half-life of a recently-DNFed cache that will never be searched for again.

 

Each their own. I generally only do that when a cache has more than 1 DNF as last log and a database of 1500 caches for example for a summer vacation. That's too much and needs thinning out. For a Sunday caching trip I do look at caches beforehand. But I also don't read all logs to see if there's a hint of people skipping caches or logging finds on missing caches.

Edited by terratin

Share this post


Link to post

Worse than not logging a DNF is logging a fake found it.

No matter what, if we look for a cache and can't find it, we log a DNF. It helps the ones that come behind us and alerts the CO there might be a problem with the cache. If there's no problem, the next one will find it, no harm done,  otherwise there will be more DNFs and hopefully a NM.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Um, just a thought, but maybe the reason people don't log DNFs anymore is because of people excluding caches with a recent DNF from their searches. Perhaps they don't want to condemn the cache to the shadowy half-life of a recently-DNFed cache that will never be searched for again.

When there is a string of DNFs I often avoid that cache. The CO should be checking it, so string of DNFs and not checked; that's the CO's fault. I have written a note saying that I chose not to attempt this cache because of all the DNFs. CO needs to check. It is also frustrating, and annoying even, when the DNFs are being logged, but still no one is brave enough to log a NM.

 

Has anyone else noted, that there will be a gap before the first DNF is logged, but following the first DNF, suddenly there are a flood of DNFs? It needs someone who isn't spineless to come along and log that first DNF. Until then, others are worried that other cachers, their neighbours, their fifth cousin removed will think them a failure as a human being; stupid, incapable. But then when that person finally arrives, who is willing to log a DNF, the gates are opened, and then other DNFs follow shortly after. I mentioned earlier about a cache I logged the first DNF on after a gap of six months with no logs. I told someone about this and mentioned that I bet the second DNF will follow soon. Yep, two days later another DNF.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Has anyone else noted, that there will be a gap before the first DNF is logged, but following the first DNF, suddenly there are a flood of DNFs? It needs someone who isn't spineless to come along and log that first DNF. Until then, others are worried that other cachers, their neighbours, their fifth cousin removed will think them a failure as a human being; stupid, incapable. But then when that person finally arrives, who is willing to log a DNF, the gates are opened, and then other DNFs follow shortly after. I mentioned earlier about a cache I logged the first DNF on after a gap of six months with no logs. I told someone about this and mentioned that I bet the second DNF will follow soon. Yep, two days later another DNF.

 

 

I've seen that, though I wonder sometimes whether a DNF will cause others to try less hard.  "It's probably not there, the last log was a DNF."  They don't see it, so they log a DNF on it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

When there is a string of DNFs I often avoid that cache. The CO should be checking it, so string of DNFs and not checked; that's the CO's fault. I have written a note saying that I chose not to attempt this cache because of all the DNFs. CO needs to check. It is also frustrating, and annoying even, when the DNFs are being logged, but still no one is brave enough to log a NM.

 

Sometimes caches are just difficult, like this one I DNFed three times before eventually finding it:

 

image.png.7d15005482c7dd26a3f03e3e24c7c6aa.png

 

Nothing wrong with it, no need for the CO to check, no need for an NM. You just had to think a bit outside the square, look more carefully in a place you might have glossed over and, well, maybe get a bit of a nudge from a previous finder.

 

There was a cache I found a few years back that had 10 straight DNFs beforehand including two from me, and another that gets a lot of DNFs because it's in a gorge with poor GPS reception so it has a helper photo on the cache page but people don't read the description beforehand and are unprepared.

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Sometimes caches are just difficult, like this one I DNFed three times before eventually finding it:

 

image.png.7d15005482c7dd26a3f03e3e24c7c6aa.png

 

Nothing wrong with it, no need for the CO to check, no need for an NM. You just had to think a bit outside the square, look more carefully in a place you might have glossed over and, well, maybe get a bit of a nudge from a previous finder.

 

There was a cache I found a few years back that had 10 straight DNFs beforehand including two from me, and another that gets a lot of DNFs because it's in a gorge with poor GPS reception so it has a helper photo on the cache page but people don't read the description beforehand and are unprepared.

 

I accept that some caches are difficult, but I was thinking of not difficult caches here. I should have said. I react differently to a string of DNFs depending on the D rating.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

I've seen that, though I wonder sometimes whether a DNF will cause others to try less hard.  "It's probably not there, the last log was a DNF."  They don't see it, so they log a DNF on it.

That would (or should) depend on the D rating of the cache. Or it does for me. One DNF might not deter me, but several on a 1.5D cache will probably, unless it's the only cache around and then I might try finding it. I can't think of any low D cache, where after several DNFs the cache had a (genuine) find. A low D cache with several DNFs is almost certainly missing. Especially if there have been no DNFs before.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I accept that some caches are difficult, but I was thinking of not difficult caches here. I should have said. I react differently to a string of DNFs depending on the D rating.

 

There's one of mine which I've rated D2 that's had 11 DNFs in its five and a half years. It's really not that difficult as its hiding place should be pretty obvious, especially after reading the hint, but it's close to the ground and out of people's line of sight with a big distractor (a honeycombed cave with cache hiding place figuratively written all over it) close by. Typically the DNFers have searched the cave, maybe even glanced at the real hiding place without properly looking at what might be lurking in its dark corner (the cache is even called Lurking in a Dark Corner) and then spread out, searching further and further afield before finally logging their DNF. Those that have returned for a second attempt inevitably slap their foreheads when they finally spot it, not knowing how they could have missed it the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

There's one of mine which I've rated D2 that's had 11 DNFs in its five and a half years. It's really not that difficult as its hiding place should be pretty obvious, especially after reading the hint, but it's close to the ground and out of people's line of sight with a big distractor (a honeycombed cave with cache hiding place figuratively written all over it) close by. Typically the DNFers have searched the cave, maybe even glanced at the real hiding place without properly looking at what might be lurking in its dark corner (the cache is even called Lurking in a Dark Corner) and then spread out, searching further and further afield before finally logging their DNF. Those that have returned for a second attempt inevitably slap their foreheads when they finally spot it, not knowing how they could have missed it the first time.

:D I have a cache hidden under a boulder. 3D. There have been 14 (who bothered to log) DNFs to 81finds. (31 favourites too.) My hint is not that obvious, but the opening does have an X painted above it (not put there by me, as it existed before I hid my cache).

You know, 'X marks the spot'.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

My hint is not that obvious, but the opening does have an X painted above it (not put there by me, as it existed before I hid my cache).

You know, 'X marks the spot'.

 

Exactly the same thing on that one that had the 10 straight DNFs, except a branch had grown across where the X was so it couldn't be seen until you pushed it aside. It was only after I used a photo from a previous finder to line up the foreground and background buildings that I finally spotted the X and then, straight away, the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

When there is a string of DNFs I often avoid that cache.

 

I'll only avoid them when I'm traveling with the family and have limited time to cache.  Otherwise, I'll give them a try.  Also, what number do you consider a "string"?  I usually start at 5.  A string, however long anyone considers it to be, doesn't always mean the cache is missing.  Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.  I can point to both types of examples from my experiences and I'm guessing many others can as well.  

 

11 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have never been asked to remove a DNF, and I log my DNFs.

 

I have twice and also had two DNF logs deleted. A small drop in the bucket when compared to all my DNFs though.

 

2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I can't think of any low D cache, where after several DNFs the cache had a (genuine) find. A low D cache with several DNFs is almost certainly missing. Especially if there have been no DNFs before.

 

I've found more than a few with long strings of DNFs where the cache had been moved about 10-20 feet from where it was probably originally placed.  I can think of one immediately that had close to 15 DNFs in a row over a year in a cemetery and was buried under fallen leaves about 15-20 feet away from the corner of the fence where it was originally placed (matchstick container wrapped in camo tape).  However, I can be determined when I search, as evidenced by some finds that have been a few hundred feet off from the posted coordinates as well as two that were almost .25 miles from the posted coordinates (FTF on those two).

 

I've also DNFed a fair share of low D/T caches only to find that the next finder, who had far less finds and experience than me, said it was an easy find.  To be fair, I've also DNFed many of those caches and they've been missing.  I do find missing caches to be more likely than the "it's there but everyone up until me didn't find it" scenario, but not to the point that it's "almost certainly missing".

 

17 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

spineless, no one is brave enough, failure as a human being; stupid, incapable, chickens, I don't think highly of these people.

 

Do you really think so little of your fellow geocachers who choose not to log their DNFs? They're not cheating, armchair logging everything, or smashing or stealing other people's caches.  They're just not logging a DNF. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Also, what number do you consider a "string"?

Depends on the D rating and how many DNFs in the cache's history. A low rated D cache with no previous DNFs and lots of quick/easy type logs, and a couple of DNFs from experienced geocachers I would consider enough to consider not bothering to stop to search. Some different rated caches I would likely need more DNFs before I didn't bother to at least have a quick search for the cache. High rated D caches, I would probably attempt to find.

 

42 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I have twice and also had two DNF logs deleted.

If someone deleted my DNF, I would probably ask the CO first about this, and then log a NA to get the reviewers attention. It's a record of my experience with that cache, and the CO shouldn't be deleting logs just because they don't want DNF logs. That's just rude.

 

42 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I've found more than a few with long strings of DNFs where the cache had been moved about 10-20 feet from where it was probably originally placed.  I can think of one immediately that had close to 15 DNFs in a row over a year in a cemetery and was buried under fallen leaves about 15-20 feet away from the corner of the fence where it was originally placed (matchstick container wrapped in camo tape).  However, I can be determined when I search, as evidenced by some finds that have been a few hundred feet off from the posted coordinates as well as two that were almost .25 miles from the posted coordinates (FTF on those two).

 

I've also DNFed a fair share of low D/T caches only to find that the next finder, who had far less finds and experience than me, said it was an easy find.  To be fair, I've also DNFed many of those caches and they've been missing.  I do find missing caches to be more likely than the "it's there but everyone up until me didn't find it" scenario, but not to the point that it's "almost certainly missing".

My comment was, "I can't think of any low D cache, where after several DNFs the cache had a (genuine) find. A low D cache with several DNFs is almost certainly missing. Especially if there have been no DNFs before. "

That has been my experience. A cache with previously no DNFs (I'm not thinking of new caches, but those that have been there a long time and got many finds), but suddenly has got a strings of DNFs for the first time. They have been found to be missing. Those are the sort of caches that are often abandoned, as any conscientious CO should have checked it before that, or at least written a note saying they will check it soon. Not ignored it.

If the problem is the cache has been moved, on such a cache, after the second DNF the CO should have checked and fixed the problem. After all, the cache in all its years, has never had a single DNF before. Likely if there is a long string of DNFs the CO is not intending to check it, or at least not until the reviewer comes in and gives them a month or it will be archived.

I would certainly mark a NM if I couldn't find a cache like this after several DNFs. Probably not though on a high D rated cache.

42 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Do you really think so little of your fellow geocachers who choose not to log their DNFs? They're not cheating, armchair logging everything, or smashing or stealing other people's caches.  They're just not logging a DNF.

They are not being helpful to either the CO or other geocachers by not logging the DNF to let others know there might be a problem with the cache. Do you not log many of your DNFs? Is this where your comment comes from?

Also, did you have fun taking those words all out of the original context, putting them all together and changing the weight of them? And you make accusations at me!

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Aprilscherzen said:

I logged a DNF twice (not sure about a third time) on at least two caches. If I didn't find it, I log that I didn't find it.

My record so far is 6 DNF logs before finding it on my 7th attempt. It was one of my Favorites, a D4 "hidden in plain sight" cache, the kind that gets DNF logs routinely, and occasional gets NA logs from people who think that it must be missing (because they couldn't find it).

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday I was looking back on my DNFs (yes I do log them) from 2020.

Pretty equal 3-way split between:

It was missing and has been replaced;

It was missing and has been archived;

It has since been found by others.

Of that 3rd category, 4 were on a walk with my muggle niece, big brother and big sister, the 3rd of whom finds caching boring. So (I'm sure many of you know how scary big sisters are, even when they're 5'0") we didn't stay long at any one cache of the 20 or so on the walk. Another "since found" was a noob finding a cache with I think 5 DNFs over the last year. They just prodded further in the undergrowth than us and others.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Aprilscherzen said:

I think the main reason is that a DNF only helps the owner and other cachers, but you don't have an advantage for yourself.

The way I'd put it is most people don't realize that DNFs help the owner and other cachers. The way you put it makes it sound like the silent seeker is being selfish.

 

8 hours ago, Aprilscherzen said:

But that is only because almost no one logs DNF.

If there are 23 finds only, you might think it is easy to find as it has a success rate of 100 %. But if you add 9 silent DNFs, the succes rate drops to 72 %.

But since no one logs DNFs, the seeker sees 100% success rate. From their point of view, I can see why they might be embarrassed about not finding it. That's why I focus more on saying that a DNF isn't a failure to be ashamed of, it's a story the seeker should be itching to tell.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...