Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
RocTheCacheBox

DNF's Not being logged

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

 

That seems odd to me, coming from one who was so against the CHS and the effect of numerous DNFs...

That DNF often leads to a NM when numerous DNFs have been made.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours 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.

Yes, someone should be brave enough to log an NM. Hint, hint. When a cache appears to be missing based on a string of DNFs and therefore you don't go to look for it, that means it needs maintenance. Log the NM! Don't listen to the people that claim there's some requirement that you waste your time physically going to GZ before you're allowed to call an NM an NM.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, niraD said:

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).

 

Wow, nice! I think my record is 3 DNF, on a very simple 1/1 cache. It was just total and utter cache blindness. I'm not sure if the owner was annoyed or amused by my attempts of finding it.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Yes, someone should be brave enough to log an NM. Hint, hint. When a cache appears to be missing based on a string of DNFs and therefore you don't go to look for it, that means it needs maintenance. Log the NM! Don't listen to the people that claim there's some requirement that you waste your time physically going to GZ before you're allowed to call an NM an NM.

It depends on the situation. If I don't visit that cache (maybe because of the DNFs) and am not likely to return any time soon, I don't see it is up to me to log that NM. I have logged the rare NM on a cache with a string of DNFs, because I plan to visit it. But only because I plan to visit it; not random caches I am not planning to visit.

Don't worry, I take no notice of people who say you have to visit a cache before logging a NM. That doesn't come into my reasons for logging a NM or not.

This is my last NM (early this year) on a cache I hadn't visited. Five DNFs before my log and two after. Then the reviewer came in, and a month later archived it.

Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

I was checking caches to find on an upcoming trip and looking at this cache I saw a string of DNFs and no finds since 21/Jul/2018. It's only a 1.5D, so with that many DNFs and that length of time, this should have been checked ages ago. It needs a CO check.
(And why am I the first to log that NM?)

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, dprovan said:

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.

;) Be proud to be brave enough to be the first and make a joke of it to help cover the embarrassment. FTLaDNF 🥇! I have written that.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
19 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 a DNF if I didn't find the cache. I'm not worried at all if there are other DNFs and in fact, figure it helps get the CO motivated to check things out. A cache is not automatically archived when a CHS is triggered and it's easy to get things straightened out if it does happen. If a CO refuses to take any kind of action, then his or her cache needs to be archived.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post

I don't always log DNFs - generally I only log it if I am pretty certain it is not there.  If I feel like it is there and I'm just not laying eyes on it for some reason, I might leave a note, or I might do nothing and just plan to return another time.  It really has nothing to do with numbers, I just reserve them for caches that I think may need a check from the owner.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, RobinsonClan56 said:

caches that I think may need a check from the owner

The appropriate log for this is Needs Maintenance, not Did Not Find.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

DNF's (if more than a sad emoji) can provide important information to future searchers and the CO's. I do not recall a CO's ever removing or requesting that I remove a DNF. I actually take pride in posting the first DNF on a geocache as nobody is perfect.  

 

 

But on the internet everyone is successful, everyone is happy, everyone is attractive and everyone finds every geocache. 

 

 

Edited by brodiebunch

Share this post


Link to post

I log a DNF if I search & don't find a cache.  If I believe it is missing, based on hints or other logs, I may add a NM.  If it has a string of DNF and no action from CO, I will add a NA.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

The appropriate log for this is Needs Maintenance, not Did Not Find.

I don't log a NM without a DNF - I put the details of my search in the DNF and then follow with a NM if I feel it is warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

That seems odd to me, coming from one who was so against the CHS and the effect of numerous DNFs...

That DNF often leads to a NM when numerous DNFs have been made.

 

The only way to convince the CHS's minders to perhaps put less emphasis on DNF logs is if people keep logging DNFs on caches that aren't missing but just a bit tricky to find.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

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. "

 

My Earthcache (difficulty 1.5) has had two DNFs but it wasn't missing. It's only accessible at low tide but some people try to ignore that. Then again, I suppose you could say that cache goes missing twice a day when the tide comes in - someone should log an NM.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/22/2020 at 5:52 PM, dennistubaplayer said:

From my point of view, cachers may not log a DNF because they don't want to appear as unexperienced.

 

ISAG despite doing this for a decade. Being half blind will do that. I'm open and honest about this.

 

20 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

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.

 

I log my first DNF.

 

On the rare occasion of a second DNF it usually depends on the difficulty of the cache, how many other DNFs there are, if the reason for the DNF is different (ex: first time it was a shrub hunt, this time GZ has been bulldozed), and when the last log was.

 

If a cache has 20 Finds, 1 DNF (mine), and the last Find was yesterday then I wouldn't bother with a second DNF as it doesn't really help anyone.

Edited by JL_HSTRE
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

My Earthcache (difficulty 1.5) has had two DNFs but it wasn't missing. It's only accessible at low tide but some people try to ignore that. Then again, I suppose you could say that cache goes missing twice a day when the tide comes in - someone should log an NM.

Then you can log an OM stating you drained the area and the cache is OK again. B)

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

It depends on the situation. If I don't visit that cache (maybe because of the DNFs) and am not likely to return any time soon, I don't see it is up to me to log that NM.

If it's not up to you, who is it up to? I log NMs for the benefit of all seekers, not just myself, so whether I'm likely to return never comes into it.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have logged the rare NM on a cache with a string of DNFs, because I plan to visit it. But only because I plan to visit it; not random caches I am not planning to visit.

Don't worry, I take no notice of people who say you have to visit a cache before logging a NM. That doesn't come into my reasons for logging a NM or not.

I'm happy to log a NM on caches I haven't visited, depending on the circumstances though - depends on the length of the DNF streak, the D:T combo, the experience of the DNFers and the activity of the CO.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Then there are the DNFs that are attributed to factors that have nothing to do with whether the cache is missing or not, like these samples from the many DNFs I've had on my hides when the cache wasn't missing:

 

image.png.c14a0dc39d0a41d93f5eae802c9d8f46.png

  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

If a cache has 20 Finds, 1 DNF (mine), and the last Find was yesterday then I wouldn't bother with a second DNF as it doesn't really help anyone.

There's always a possibility you are looking in the correct spot and the cache is missing (or hard to find). The logged finds may have been on a DNFr's throwdown. This is not hypothetical, I've seen it happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Then there are the DNFs that are attributed to factors that have nothing to do with whether the cache is missing or not, like these samples from the many DNFs I've had on my hides when the cache wasn't missing:

 

image.png.c14a0dc39d0a41d93f5eae802c9d8f46.png

  

Likely no-one on reading them would consider them reasons to log a NM. Not the same as, "'I gave this a good search, but couldn't find it." type logs. They might enjoy reading your logs though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

My goodness I needed this thread today. I looked for 3 caches, walking a total of 2.5 km, and only found 1!! Argh! After reading this thread, I made sure to log both of my dnfs (along with a message for one of them to check I was in the right place) Thanks!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

My Earthcache (difficulty 1.5) has had two DNFs but it wasn't missing. It's only accessible at low tide but some people try to ignore that. Then again, I suppose you could say that cache goes missing twice a day when the tide comes in - someone should log an NM.

 

I did log a DNF on an EarthCache before as well. I could see the feature but not answer the questions because the entrance gate was locked. Similar to seen the container, couldn't reach it for me.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, terratin said:

 

I did log a DNF on an EarthCache before as well. I could see the feature but not answer the questions because the entrance gate was locked. Similar to seen the container, couldn't reach it for me.

That might have been helpful for others, as they now know there's a gate which might be locked.

I have to admit though, that if I drove up to a locked gate and couldn't attempt a cache (recently after bushfires I experienced that in a Nature Reserve - a barricaded road), I would personally likely at the most write a note, as I hadn't attempted a search. But a DNF is fine and it's a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/23/2020 at 9:46 AM, Goldenwattle said:

If someone deleted my DNF, I would probably ask the CO first about this, and then log a NA to get the reviewers attention.

 

I don't know if that would be grounds for a NA log and I'm not sure what the reviewer could do.  I guess they could re-instate the log but I don't think it's worth potentially getting a cache archived over.  

 

On 9/23/2020 at 9:46 AM, Goldenwattle said:

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.

 

And my experience shows that it's not always the case.  I don't think of it as a hard and fast "truth" but I do agree that it is missing more times than it's been moved, covered up by debris, or just missed multiple times by seekers.  I can miss finding easy caches just as easily as the next cacher so I never assume that it's missing unless there's something that tells me otherwise, both in previous logs as well as the condition of the area at GZ.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 9:46 AM, Goldenwattle said:

Do you not log many of your DNFs? Is this where your comment comes from?

 

I log my DNFs.  Did you assume I didn't just because I don't agree with your take on those who don't?

 

On 9/23/2020 at 9:46 AM, Goldenwattle said:

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!

 

I'm not sure how I got them out of context, as they're all words you used to describe what you think about those that don't log their DNFs and why you think they don't.    Of course they should log their DNFs.  I honestly can't think of a really good reason not to but for some reason or another, they choose not to.  However, I'm not the one casting aspersions toward cachers who choose not to log their DNFs.  

 

On 9/22/2020 at 8:51 PM, 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 :laughing:. Didn't have time to log the DNF, is likely just cover, for being too embarrassed to log a DNF.

 

On 9/22/2020 at 9:11 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I don't think highly of these people. I would have thought more highly of them if they had logged all their DNFs.

 

On 9/22/2020 at 9:19 PM, Goldenwattle said:

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:.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 7:54 AM, Goldenwattle said:

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.

 

You appear to think it's some great insult against geocaching when it's only someone not opting to log a DNF.  Although it's certainly not an optimal choice, I don't think it's worthy of the condemnation you ascribe to it.  Do you have the same dislike for someone who chooses not to log their finds?  How about those who choose to toss out throwdowns in order to claim a find instead of filing a DNF and perhaps a NM log?  What about those cachers who log a DNF but never make it to GZ to search for the cache because in their minds, once they hit "go" on their phone or GPS, the search has begun?  What about @Harry Dolphin, who chooses only to log one DNF because multiple DNFs adversely affect the CHS (I've done this a few times as well but usually only for mid-level D caches)? You've lumped them all into a singular category, despite the fact that you don't even know what they're like as individuals.  

Edited by coachstahly
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

sometimes I won't log a DNF if I plan to come back and look again fairly soon. I guess I consider them to be more of a "Could Not Find" rather than a "Did Not Find".  Now there have been a couple that after a couple times looking I went ahead and logged a DNF, but I usually don't on my first search unless I have just completely exhausted every possible avenue of finding it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I don't know if that would be grounds for a NA log and I'm not sure what the reviewer could do.  I guess they could re-instate the log but I don't think it's worth potentially getting a cache archived over.

But it's okay for the CO to be able to delete other people's logs? Actually I wasn't doing it to get the cache archived (although maybe not a bad idea if the CO is deleting DNF logs), but rather to get the reviewers attention, and hopefully the DNF log reinstated and locked, so that the CO can't delete it again.

 

6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I can miss finding easy caches just as easily as the next cacher so I never assume that it's missing unless there's something that tells me otherwise, both in previous logs as well as the condition of the area at GZ.

I wasn't saying only one DNF, but a string of them. Anyone can miss a cache, but several cachers in a row, on a low rated cache with no previous DNFs (or at least very few)? Unlikely if it's still there.

 

8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I'm not sure how I got them out of context, as they're all words you used to describe what you think about those that don't log their DNFs and why you think they don't.

Out of context, means taking the word or words away from the rest of the words they were with originally, which is what you did, take them out of (or if you prefer away from) their context. Some were written for fun too. Words can be manipulated to twist the meaning out of context, or made to appear worse than they were, which is what you did. For instance; "They have spines like jellyfish :laughing:." Joke! The laughing frog should have made that obvious. "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:." Another light hearted comment, boarding on a joke. I took away your emphasis of bolding the text, which wasn't bold. I suspect you just can't get subtleties.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I have found a couple of DNF... if you get my drift.. I tend to log on site where I am.. that ways its not forgotten... 

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I don't know if that would be grounds for a NA log and I'm not sure what the reviewer could do.  I guess they could re-instate the log but I don't think it's worth potentially getting a cache archived over.

But it's okay for the CO to be able to delete other people's logs? Actually I wasn't doing it to get the cache archived (although maybe not a bad idea if the CO is deleting DNF logs), but rather to get the reviewers attention, and hopefully the DNF log reinstated and locked, so that the CO can't delete it again.

Except that Groundspeak won't reinstate DNF logs. They only reinstate Find logs (or Attended logs or other +1 logs). The will not reinstate DNF or Note or other logs if they are deleted.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/22/2020 at 6:42 PM, GeoElmo6000 said:

 frightened off by CO's who ask for the DNFs to be removed.

 

If this happend to anyone: What was the owner's reason to delete a DNF log? :huh:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

But it's okay for the CO to be able to delete other people's logs?

 

No.  Never did say that.  But to me, it's not a reason for possible archival of a cache.

 

23 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I wasn't saying only one DNF, but a string of them. Anyone can miss a cache, but several cachers in a row, on a low rated cache with no previous DNFs (or at least very few)? Unlikely if it's still there.

 

Neither am I.  I've DNFed enough easy D/T caches to know that I can miss them just as easily as everyone else and I've found enough that have been DNFed multiple times in a row that sometimes it's the seekers missing the cache instead of it being gone.  There are more times I've gone looking for a low D/T cache with a string of DNFs where it ends up being gone (based on subsequent logs from the CO) than when I've gone looking for a low D/T cache with a string of DNFs where I actually found it.  You seem to believe the second scenario is extremely unlikely while I believe the second situation occurs, just not regularly.  It's not a 50/50 split that I'm talking about.  It's more like a 1/5 chance that the cache is still there - 80% missing, 20% in place.

 

On 9/24/2020 at 10:51 AM, Goldenwattle said:

Out of context, means taking the word or words away from the rest of the words they were with originally, which is what you did, take them out of (or if you prefer away from) their context. Some were written for fun too. Words can be manipulated to twist the meaning out of context, or made to appear worse than they were, which is what you did. For instance; "They have spines like jellyfish :laughing:." Joke! The laughing frog should have made that obvious. "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:." Another light hearted comment, boarding on a joke. I took away your emphasis of bolding the text, which wasn't bold. I suspect you just can't get subtleties.

 

Subtleties in written form don't come across nearly as well as they do in person.  You can't convey sarcasm nearly as well when you can't hear tone of voice.  You certainly can't convey it subtly across a keyboard. 

 

What about this one?

 

On 9/22/2020 at 9:11 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I don't think highly of these people. I would have thought more highly of them if they had logged all their DNFs.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Aprilscherzen said:

 

If this happend to anyone: What was the owner's reason to delete a DNF log? :huh:

 

They said it was there, not gone.  I guess they assumed that a DNF meant it was missing.  I didn't hear back from the other DNF deletion.  I do remember that one specifically though because I was going for the FTF (it had been published) and couldn't find it and logged my DNF.  Turns out they hadn't placed the cache before publication.  They deleted my log, placed the cache, and it was found shortly after.  It was archived maybe 6 months later by a reviewer as it wasn't a particularly good location for cache permanence. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Aprilscherzen said:

 

If this happend to anyone: What was the owner's reason to delete a DNF log? :huh:

The only time it happened to me was a CO 'cleaning up'  a page by getting rid of past/old DNF's that didn't 'relate' to the current state of the cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Aprilscherzen said:

If this happend to anyone: What was the owner's reason to delete a DNF log? :huh:

 

Similar to The Jester, some COs felt that after they posted OM (whether they really did or not... ;-), those logs "looked like there was something wrong with my cache".

 - Taking helpful logs as an attack on them personally...   weird...

Well, later we found that a couple didn't do anything other than add the OM on the cache page anyway...

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Jester said:

The only time it happened to me was a CO 'cleaning up'  a page by getting rid of past/old DNF's that didn't 'relate' to the current state of the cache.

And the red spanners/wrenches remain. I have sometimes scrolled through logs to see why the red spanner was there but found no relevant log.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, coachstahly said:

What about this one?

 

On 9/25/2020 at 12:30 AM, coachstahly said:
On 9/23/2020 at 11:11 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I don't think highly of these people. I would have thought more highly of them if they had logged all their DNFs.

And what about that? I was being honest how I feel. I wrote that to counteract the idea some people appear to have that if they log a DNF other people will think them inadequate, stupid, etc. That's not true, at least not for everyone. The opposite is the truth. Many of us will think them 'bigger' more confident people if they log those DNFs.

Share this post


Link to post

I never used to log DNFs because I figured I would be judged for them...at that time I had under 300 finds. Now I'm starting to play a different way and I DNF every cache I don't find in a reasonable (to me) amount of time. Like if I look for a cache for about 10 minutes but get muggled and have to leave, I won't log a DNF because I feel I didn't search well enough. But in the cases where I have searched and searched and still DNF, I log it, just to remind myself when I look at the map that I have been to that cache spot and can return later for another try. I always put DNF'd caches on my watchlist too after logging the DNF just so I can keep track of them and revisit if it's found by another cacher.  I'm not scared off searching for a cache that has multiple DNFs...sometimes I end up finding it. DNF logs are extremely helpful and I wish more people would leave them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, P4nD0r4 said:

Like if I look for a cache for about 10 minutes but get muggled and have to leave, I won't log a DNF because I feel I didn't search well enough.

:D Ten minutes is often the most time I am willing to search for most caches, and then I leave and log a DNF. Most caches are low D. If it had a high D I might search longer. Most caches are found within one minute.

Yesterday for example, I was caching in the countryside with a friend (borderline for mobile phone to my friend's woe). I use a GPS. Three caches found under a minute, one under five minutes - likely less, and only two which took longer, as one was a multi, which among other tasks involved measuring the length of a bridge, and the last cache had a higher D rating, and after poking around in rock crevices and thorny plants, we eventually found it, but maybe still in fifteen minutes. There was also another cache, concealed in a drill hole among a pile of boulders. Finding it - cough cough - didn't take long (it was my friend who was logging this; I had already found this before). In that cache's case, it was getting it out of the hole. Dirt had got in and jammed it in tightly. First find in almost a year, but the log was dry and good. My friend had to make a tool and use a lot of force to extract it. The first photograph shows some of the bushes (thorny) we has to search under, and the second is a photograph to show the scenery of where we were. The thorny bushes were feral roses and some native plant. Green grass; I can't get over green grass; after such an awful drought. However much I enjoy it, green grass is so ephemeral. I know it will end and drought will come again, as will bushfires. That knowledge, tinges my enjoyment of the green. The hill behind was burnt out with bushfires. I finally got to check a cache of mine towards that hill also yesterday, as the road had been barricaded until recently. Although that was mainly because of COVID, to keep people out of the National Park. The barricade has now been removed. My cache was okay, as the fire didn't get that far.

Mt Tennant 2.jpg

Mt Tennant 1.jpg

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post

It's kind of funny that we have this thread telling people to log those DNFs and the other thread telling me all the DNFs I've logged are invalid.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 9/25/2020 at 7:23 PM, The Jester said:

The only time it happened to me was a CO 'cleaning up'  a page by getting rid of past/old DNF's that didn't 'relate' to the current state of the cache.

 

I guess those owners will also delete all found logs, if the cache is gone? Since it doesn't relate to the current state of the cache. :laughing:

 

 

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Aprilscherzen said:

 

 

I guess those owners will also delete all found logs, if the cache is gone? Since it doesn't relate to the current state of the cache. :laughing:

 

 

Funny person, suggesting that... :antenna::laughing::ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Aprilscherzen said:

 

 

I guess those owners will also delete all found logs, if the cache is gone? Since it doesn't relate to the current state of the cache. :laughing:

 

 

What do you think happened to the first cache?  It's page was stripped and changed...

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

It's kind of funny that we have this thread telling people to log those DNFs and the other thread telling me all the DNFs I've logged are invalid.

 Shouldn't it be in the 'What Irks you most' thread? ;)

 

As far as I know there is nothing written in guidelines what "constitutes" a valid DNF log ("look for a cache" is a broad term IMO), so even "armchair" kind of DNF - "I read the listing but I DNF it because I DNS at all" - could be treated as a legitimate one while being far from the "spirit" of this type of log :bad:. There is one thing to remember, though: a DNF is not for you only (look here), you have a 'Personal Cache Note' for it. While a DNF truly can be a part of your search history, it is worth to consider if the message it carries will be helpful for another geocachers or a CO. If not, maybe a 'Write Note' would be more relevant, or no log at all. But it all depends on the particular cache and the cause of log entry, I think.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/22/2020 at 11:42 AM, GeoElmo6000 said:

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'm with you on the DNF Pride thing.  It's a part of my history...I looked, I didn't find, I left, I logged.  But I log DNTs as DNFs also, because my intent was to find it, and if I know I cannot get to it (muddy road, for example), I still consider that not finding what I set out to find.  HOWEVER, I make it clear in my log that I assume it is still there, but that I didn't find it because of my own ineptitude (and I give the reason), so that others will know they will likely have a better time than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ageleni said:

I'm with you on the DNF Pride thing.  It's a part of my history...I looked, I didn't find, I left, I logged.  But I log DNTs as DNFs also, because my intent was to find it, and if I know I cannot get to it (muddy road, for example), I still consider that not finding what I set out to find.  HOWEVER, I make it clear in my log that I assume it is still there, but that I didn't find it because of my own ineptitude (and I give the reason), so that others will know they will likely have a better time than I did.

 

I'm trying to log a DNF every time I feel it will be justified, e.g. when I spent enough time searching for a cache and had a chance to sign a logbook in case of finding it or I will probably not be in GZ soon, but I do not consider it a matter of pride or shame, only an information describing my activities, which may be helpful for another geocachers.

When I see a container but I cannot reach it, I either do not write anything (e.g. when there is a chance of being back and reach it another time) or there is a WN from me. The second case is most probably followed by adding a cache to "Ignored" list. Why a WN? Because I learned that people more often see a DNF entry than read its content and when I'm certain the container is there, a DNF would more probably cause unnecessary confusion than provide a helpful information.

When there is an obstacle which I am unable to overcome while I am heading to GZ, I try to read the listing (and attributes) carefully once more to find out if it is covered by it. If so, I do not write anything about it because it was my own risk to try to find a cache so difficult and my complaints won't change anything. If not, I try to clarify this with a CO or, ultimately, write a NM.

That's a "theory" or a general course of action, but when it comes down to it all depends on a particular cache and circumstances.

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...