Jump to content

DNF when not arriving at GZ?


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

 

anything...    I'm leaving the house, press goto and oops, the cache is on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, well, not good, I log a DNF.  Oh there is another one on the ISS, well again I won't make it, another DNF.

At the end of the day I have collected 150 new DNfs, a brand new game.  Thanks Jester

So glad I could add to you mental illness.  With that idiotic mindset why are you bothering to log fake DNF's?  Why not jump straight to fake Found It, it so much more satisfying.  Oh, let me add one more layer, I suspect every cache is missing, so until I find it any level of "searching" means I couldn't find it and think it's missing thereby it's a valid DNF.

 

Just to be clear I only load the GPSr with caches I can hunt for (unsolved puzzles, Challenge Caches I don't qualify for, caches I can't reach (such as Vashon Island in Puget Sound - needs a ferry ride), your ridiculous examples and such are left off).  

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Mausebiber said:

 

And what does it mean to you?

 

From the Official Blog, maybe it will be clear to you what DNF stands for:

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2013/02/why-to-log-a-dnf/

 

 

That blog article is written from the persepective of someone searching for a cache in a suburban park. For those sorts of caches, yes the search does begin when you reach GZ because getting there is pretty trivial and the main obstacle to finding the cache is the cleverness of its concealment (or in my case, the ineptitude of my observational skills).

 

But for higher terrain caches, particularly T4 and above, it's often the other way around. Spotting the cache once at GZ is usually pretty trivial as its not going to be a place where it has to be concealed from hordes of muggles, but the real challenge of the cache is getting yourself to it. For those, the search for the cache begins when you leave the trappings of civilisation and start to encounter the obstacles the CO has put in your way, and if your attempt at getting your signature in the logbook is foiled by those obstacles, why is that any different from being foiled by the clever camo on the cache in the park?

 

I see that those who have posted insisting that terrain-related failed-to-finds shouldn't be DNFs have found very few caches of terrain rating 4 or higher, with almost all of their D/T grid concentrated to the left of T3.5. That's fine, those higher terrain caches aren't for everyone, but perhaps you haven't experienced one of those higher terrain caches that got the better of you, one you were really trying your hardest to find but didn't quite get there, and felt your heroic failure-to-find needed more than just a WN to properly express it and show others that it really is a difficult cache to log a find on.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Oh there is another one on the ISS, well again I won't make it, another DNF.

I'm impressed that you got to the point of actually planning a trip to the ISS. I'm sorry your plans fell through.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3
Link to comment
11 hours ago, SwineFlew said:

If you delete my DNF logs, I will report you to GS! Some people like to see DNF so they understand other people journey so they can make it easier for themselves of not making the same mistakes. They are almost the only thing I read on the cache page. 

 

If you are a CO that hate DNF, you are playing the wrong hobby.  DNF is very much part of our hobby.   The good CO are the one that don't complain about how other people play the hobby.  

I find the content of your last two paragraphs most offensive.  Threats and unfounded accusations should not be part of this forum.

 

If you bother to look at my profile you will see that I proudly display my DNF statistics there.   Check my hides, lots of DNF logs to be seen.  If you can bother doing any research before throwing accusations about.

 

 

Either find any evidence that I have ever deleted a DNF log because I disagreed with the content of that log or that I am the sort of CO who complains about the way others play the game, or apologise.

 

Sure, I disagree with others where the boundary between found and not found is drawn, but I challenge you to find anything which constitutes a complaint about the others' point of view.

Edited by Gill & Tony
Spelling
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

That blog article is written from the persepective of someone searching for a cache in a suburban park. For those sorts of caches, yes the search does begin when you reach GZ because getting there is pretty trivial and the main obstacle to finding the cache is the cleverness of its concealment (or in my case, the ineptitude of my observational skills).

 

But for higher terrain caches, particularly T4 and above, it's often the other way around. Spotting the cache once at GZ is usually pretty trivial as its not going to be a place where it has to be concealed from hordes of muggles, but the real challenge of the cache is getting yourself to it. For those, the search for the cache begins when you leave the trappings of civilisation and start to encounter the obstacles the CO has put in your way, and if your attempt at getting your signature in the logbook is foiled by those obstacles, why is that any different from being foiled by the clever camo on the cache in the park?

 

I see that those who have posted insisting that terrain-related failed-to-finds shouldn't be DNFs have found very few caches of terrain rating 4 or higher, with almost all of their D/T grid concentrated to the left of T3.5. That's fine, those higher terrain caches aren't for everyone, but perhaps you haven't experienced one of those higher terrain caches that got the better of you, one you were really trying your hardest to find but didn't quite get there, and felt your heroic failure-to-find needed more than just a WN to properly express it and show others that it really is a difficult cache to log a find on.

 

Again, I disagree.  The blog post is quite clear.  You searched and did not find.

 

I went out with son-in-law in his serious 4WD ute, but the track was so wet and boggy that we couldn't get up the hill to GZ and I wasn't dressed to hike the last few hundred metres..  That, in my opinion, is not a DNF.  

 

I honestly find it strange that people would log a DNF when something completely outside the game causes them to abandon the journey.  But that's me and that's others.

 

Your example of getting within a few metres of GZ is, to me, borderline.  You draw the line a bit further away that I would.  No problems with that.  I had a similar experience searching for a solved puzzle that I didn't realise was a tree climb.  Not dressed, equipped or fit enough for the climb I abandoned the cache at the foot of the tree.  Not a DNF for me, but if others treat it as one, that's cool.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I honestly find it strange that people would log a DNF when something completely outside the game causes them to abandon the journey.  But that's me and that's others.

 

I consider being defeated by the terrain on a T4+ cache, especially when overcoming that terrain is the primary purpose of the cache, to be very much a part of the game. It's why the CO put it way out there there rather than concealing it well at the parking coordinates and making it a D4+ instead.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 4
Link to comment
On 7/30/2021 at 4:43 AM, terratin said:

I went on a hike yesterday specifically to find one certain cache. I got sick along the way and didn't manage to hike the last 2km with another 300m of elevation over just 1km. I have to make up my own mind of this, but what would you log? 

 

I would write a Note. It records my experience, including letting the CO and others know there was recent interest in the cache. Having not gotten close to GZ and your reason for that having no bearing on other seekers it is not a DNF.

 

In contrast, if the trail was closed or blocked then I might post a DNF because the cache may be unreachable, at least temporarily.

 

Usually I limit my DNFs to failed searches.

 

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I consider being defeated by the terrain on a T4+ cache, especially when overcoming that terrain is the primary purpose of the cache, to be very much a part of the game. It's why the CO put it way out there there rather than concealing it well at the parking coordinates and making it a D4+ instead.

 

 

Yes, I tend to see it like that as well. Where do you draw the line? If you arrive at gz and see the cache is in a tree or underneath a bridge and you don't feel confident to climb it: is that a dnf? What about the last 100m to the cache require walking over a 30cm wide 'path' with a 50m drop to one side? (on that note, I nearly gave up on a cache on a plateau with a 650m drop, but then found a kind of safe route to it. Would have been a dnf for me if I'd given up). If 100m is still a dnf, then is 200m of high terrain? 500m? etc?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
10 hours ago, terratin said:

Where do you draw the line? ....  If 100m is still a dnf, then is 200m of high terrain? 500m? etc?

 

Interesting discussion!  And as is typically the case in geocaching, every time a geocacher is seeking a particular geocache, the situation is unique.  Elements may be similar, but every combination of seeker, hider, and location is unique.  And we each have our own take on the guidelines and how to apply them.  There is NO "one size fits all" in geocaching!!

 

You (speaking to the OP, terratin) log what is appropriate for YOU, and explain why in the log itself.  That's it.

Edited by CAVinoGal
typo correction
Link to comment
1 hour ago, terratin said:

Yes, I tend to see it like that as well. Where do you draw the line? If you arrive at gz and see the cache is in a tree or underneath a bridge and you don't feel confident to climb it: is that a dnf? What about the last 100m to the cache require walking over a 30cm wide 'path' with a 50m drop to one side? (on that note, I nearly gave up on a cache on a plateau with a 650m drop, but then found a kind of safe route to it. Would have been a dnf for me if I'd given up). If 100m is still a dnf, then is 200m of high terrain? 500m? etc?

I consider both of those examples matters of personal taste or perhaps local standards, but for me, when I'm blocked by a known terrain issues such as a tree climb, I normally post a note, but if I'm blocked by an issue that the CO didn't tell me about such as dense brush above the terrain rating, I'll tend to file a DNF. When I encounter unexpected dense brush, I consider two possibilities: either the brush is something that's grown up since the CO planted the cache in which case my DNF is somewhat akin to not finding a cache because it's buried under a ton of fallen leaves, or there's a route to the cache appropriate to the terrain rating that I Did Not Find.

 

How close I got to the cache has very little to do with it. I could be standing at GZ and still be facing either of those issues.

 

I don't really think it makes that much difference since, after all, I'm going to explain in the text of the log, anyway. If my DNF is misinterpreted by something or someone that doesn't take my explanation into account, then that something is broken or that someone is making a mistake. When a cache is disabled and then archived because of my "couldn't get to GZ" DNF, then it's both: the CHS flagged it and then the reviewer did not properly provide the human oversight that proponents of the CHS assure us make CHS failures not a problem.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Again, I disagree.  The blog post is quite clear.  You searched and did not find.

 

I went out with son-in-law in his serious 4WD ute, but the track was so wet and boggy that we couldn't get up the hill to GZ and I wasn't dressed to hike the last few hundred metres..  That, in my opinion, is not a DNF.  

 

I honestly find it strange that people would log a DNF when something completely outside the game causes them to abandon the journey.  But that's me and that's others.

 

Your example of getting within a few metres of GZ is, to me, borderline.  You draw the line a bit further away that I would.  No problems with that.  I had a similar experience searching for a solved puzzle that I didn't realise was a tree climb.  Not dressed, equipped or fit enough for the climb I abandoned the cache at the foot of the tree.  Not a DNF for me, but if others treat it as one, that's cool.

My take away from that blog wasn't that you searched but that you "gave up".  A few examples of why you might give up, but I don't see that as a definite list of the only reasons.  I also don't take blogs as final answers to any question/practice, just one writers opinion.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I think the important thing to do is to detail what happened - this way the CO knows whether a visit is needed (ie found a small cave, it was empty) or not (couldn't get up that last hill to the cave). Also a reviewer can use the circumstances in deciding whether a cache needs to be disabled/archived.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, dprovan said:

I consider both of those examples matters of personal taste or perhaps local standards, but for me, when I'm blocked by a known terrain issues such as a tree climb, I normally post a note, but if I'm blocked by an issue that the CO didn't tell me about such as dense brush above the terrain rating, I'll tend to file a DNF.

 

I'm just curious, if the description says that the container is well-camouflaged, or even if that's inferred by its D rating, would you log a WN if you can't see through its disguise? What's the difference between being defeated by the known camo and being defeated by the known terrain? Either way, you were trying to find the cache but didn't succeed.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm just curious, if the description says that the container is well-camouflaged, or even if that's inferred by its D rating, would you log a WN if you can't see through its disguise? What's the difference between being defeated by the known camo and being defeated by the known terrain? Either way, you were trying to find the cache but didn't succeed.

No, because I arrived at GZ, searched and didn't find it. Terrain is about getting to GZ, difficulty is about finding it when you get there (certain challenge caches excepted)

 

If I didn't get to GZ, I would not log anything unless the reason for my failure would be useful/interesting/amusing for the CO or other cachers.  I might write a personal cache note if I needed to remind myself about it for whatever reason.

Edited by Gill & Tony
Spelling
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

No, because I arrived at GZ, searched and didn't find it. Terrain is about getting to GZ, difficulty is about finding it when you get there (certain challenge caches excepted)

 

If I didn't get to GZ, I would not log anything unless the reason for my failure would be useful/interesting/amusing for the CO or other cachers.  I might write a personal cache note if I needed to remind myself about it for whatever reason.

 

But both terrain and difficulty are elements of a cache's design, intended to make it more challenging to the seeker than if it was just sitting out in the open at the parking coordinates. I just don't get why being thwarted by one is okay for DNFing it but being thwarted by the other isn't. After all, even the CHS takes terrain into account in its machinations:

 

Quote

This algorithm is based on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

  • Did Not Find (DNF)
  • Needs Maintenance (NM)
  • Needs Archived (NA)
  • Caches that have not been found in a long time
  • Difficulty and terrain rating

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

But both terrain and difficulty are elements of a cache's design, intended to make it more challenging to the seeker than if it was just sitting out in the open at the parking coordinates. I just don't get why being thwarted by one is okay for DNFing it but being thwarted by the other isn't. After all, even the CHS takes terrain into account in its machinations:

 

 

But Difficulty and terrain are just a few of the elements of a cache's design and, if they meant the same thing, it would be silly to have both.  They are different things and have different impacts on the cacher's experience.

 

Stairs and rooms are elements in the design of a house.  If your house, doesn't have stairs, pretend it does, for a minute.

 

If someone said "Jeff, please pop upstairs and fetch the small wooden box from the spare bedroom", you would pop upstairs, go the the spare bedroom and either find the small wooden box or not.  If not, you would report back that you couldn't find it.

 

If, half-way up the stairs you slipped, fell down and broke your leg, once you had finished saying all sorts of other things, you would report back that you couldn't get it because your leg is broken.  You wouldn't say you couldn't find it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

If, half-way up the stairs you slipped, fell down and broke your leg, once you had finished saying all sorts of other things, you would report back that you couldn't get it because your leg is broken.  You wouldn't say you couldn't find it.

 

Your argument here would hold a lot more water if DNF stood for "couldn't find it" instead of "didn't find it."

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gill & Tony said:

But Difficulty and terrain are just a few of the elements of a cache's design and, if they meant the same thing, it would be silly to have both.  They are different things and have different impacts on the cacher's experience.

 

Stairs and rooms are elements in the design of a house.  If your house, doesn't have stairs, pretend it does, for a minute.

 

If someone said "Jeff, please pop upstairs and fetch the small wooden box from the spare bedroom", you would pop upstairs, go the the spare bedroom and either find the small wooden box or not.  If not, you would report back that you couldn't find it.

 

If, half-way up the stairs you slipped, fell down and broke your leg, once you had finished saying all sorts of other things, you would report back that you couldn't get it because your leg is broken.  You wouldn't say you couldn't find it.

In either case (not found or broke leg) I 'report' I didn't get it.  It had nothing to do with searching/looking, only if I got it or didn't get it.  If I come back with the box "Got it.  Here" or maybe "Got it!  I almost couldn't find it, the dog/cat/kid knocked under the bed".  If I didn't see it "Sorry, didn't get it, I don't see it, maybe the dog/cat/kid moved it".  If I broke leg "Sorry, didn't get.  I broke a leg, you'll have to get yourself".  The content of the report let's you know the details, not the type of report.

 

Of course, "Found it" in caching is more than just finding a container.  A Find involves getting to GZ, locating the container, accessing the log and signing it.  Not doing one of those means no "Find".  So either you report you made a "Find" or you report you Did Not make a Find.  I think the common meaning of find something is confusing people with the caching meaning of Find something.  Maybe it would be better if a different term was used - such as:  "Access Log" or "Did Not Access Log" - but back when this game started, it was about if I hid something with a GPSr, would someone else be able to find it using theirs, so I guess we're stuck with the terminology.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Gill & Tony said:

But Difficulty and terrain are just a few of the elements of a cache's design and, if they meant the same thing, it would be silly to have both.  They are different things and have different impacts on the cacher's experience.

 

I'm not saying they're the same thing, but they're both aspects of the cache's design that have to be overcome in order to get your signature in the logbook. To claim a find you must overcome both those hurdles and if you don't, well, you didn't find it.

 

Yes, most caches are all about the search at GZ, but some of my most memorable are the ones that are all about the journey, where there's no searching at all needed once at GZ. Caches like GC8X5T9, a T4.5 traditional at the top of Bong Bong pass on the Illawarra escarpment. It's all about the climb, with the actual container's location described unambiguously in the hint. Or GC6MT5R, a T4 which is a long hike out along a ridge, a tricky descent to a lower ledge and finally a traverse of the rock neck with a drop-of-death on either side and step down over a bottomless gap onto the pillar at its end.

 

5d1e3220-28c4-4cee-b8e5-912de70c9f3f.jpe

 

Once on the pillar, the cache's placement is obvious, again no searching is needed, the hint says it all. If you read the logs on that cache, they're not about the search at GZ, they're about the trials and tribulations of getting there.

 

On caches like these, the caching experience doesn't start when you arrive at GZ, it ends there. It's all about the journey, not the destination, and retrieving the cache and signing the logbook is the story's denouement, not its climax. If it's a successful story it goes in a find log, and if not it goes in a DNF. Simple.

 

A WN, as the Help Centre says, is for adding information to a cache, like a visit with a friend to a previously found cache, a TB drop or an incomplete Challenge Cache log. There's nothing in there saying to use a WN if you didn't find the cache because the terrain got the better of you. Sure, there's nothing in its description of the DNF log that specifically says to use it in that scenario either, but I'm guessing the writers of said Help Centre page considered such caches as these to be so rare and so rarely attempted as to be not worth considering.

 

I'm not saying everyone has to use a DNF log if they're defeated by the terrain, but I don't think it's wrong either and, on caches like these two, to me (and to the cacher who DNFed Broken Silence after baulking at the climb down onto the lower ledge) it seems to be the most appropriate log to use when describing an unsuccessful caching experience. I really don't understand the animosity towards doing that.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm just curious, if the description says that the container is well-camouflaged, or even if that's inferred by its D rating, would you log a WN if you can't see through its disguise? What's the difference between being defeated by the known camo and being defeated by the known terrain? Either way, you were trying to find the cache but didn't succeed.

I have a hard time understanding why you'd think they're at all similar. The camo is intended to thwart my attempts to find it, so if it succeeds, I Did Not Find it. The terrain is an obstacle that might prevent me from looking for it. If I cannot deal with the terrain, I did not even look for it.

 

I see that before I saw this, the discussion has proceeded onto a discussion of terrain vs. difficulty, but I think that's a red herring. A field puzzle might have a high difficulty, and if I cannot solve it, I'll often log a note instead of a DNF. That example's more fuzzy than terrain, but I don't the there's a conceptual difference.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I have a hard time understanding why you'd think they're at all similar. The camo is intended to thwart my attempts to find it, so if it succeeds, I Did Not Find it. The terrain is an obstacle that might prevent me from looking for it. If I cannot deal with the terrain, I did not even look for it.

 

In the example I posted above (GC6MT5R), I'd consider I'm looking for the cache from the moment I leave my car, turn on my GPSr and start walking, searching for the trail at times when it disappears around rocky outcrops, until I reach the reference point for the scramble down. That in itself requires some searching, as I firstly end up at the wrong level and I have to back-track, but I eventually find where I have to go. My search continues along the ledge, noting the cave along the way that other finders had mentioned and hoping that meant I was on the right track, then once I find the neck, it's a nervous crawl across it and onto the pillar. No searching needed once there as the hint says it's under the big rock and, sure enough, there's a cache tucked under the big rock.

 

Assuming your definition of a search, at what point is there any opportunity for a DNF on this cache? If the cache is missing it's an out-and-out NM and if it's not, it's a find. Yet it's not a trivial cache, a guaranteed smiley for anyone who attempts it, as there's a lot of effort and a good deal of courage needed to complete that find. The notion that searching for a cache only starts when you reach GZ really doesn't apply to caches like these that are all about the journey, where the make-or-break point isn't at GZ, it's along the way.

 

Edit to add: If I slipped and broke my leg at the reference point scramble and the helicopter rescue team asked me what I was doing way out there, I'd tell them I was searching for a geocache. Is that a lie?

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, SwineFlew said:

No. It's you taking things too literally. Do you have other things in life that's more important to do? 

 

Please read my postings above, I did not ask or try to convince anyone to see this my way.  Not sure what you are after.

This is what I have said: "But quite honestly, does it really matter?  If anyone wants to log a DNF that's fine also, with a couple of words to the CO why you logged a DNF. "

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 7/30/2021 at 3:42 PM, kunarion said:

 

There are tons of threads about what log is best for a cache you were hiking to but were prevented from getting there.  If there's, for example, a chemical leak making cachers sick, and probably many cachers then couldn't make it to the cache site, yet they post no particular log about that, I might make a DNF log.  Same if the ground has washed away and I couldn't get to the cache to even look for it.  Cachers were intent to get there, but never warned anyone because "they didn't search".  Future cachers will also go expecting to find it and never reach the point of starting a search.  That situation would be rare, but I'd be logging a DNF.  Sue me.  B)

 

If it was simply a much more strenuous hike than you expected, that's more of a gray area.  Use our own judgement, make logs as consistent as you can.  You will be the person who gets the most value from your logs, make them useful to you. At least a note about the reality vs. the expectation would be good.

 

But I have a Bookmark "List" named "Go Find".  If I decide to make a Note log or none at all, I may add it to the List, for ease of findng the cache page later.

 

This is the approach I take.   My logic behind this is cachers generally take more notice of DNFs than WNs.  If, for example I can't get to the cache because the footbridge (which the CO intended to be used) is closed, I would write a DNF, to make that more visible.   Unless they want to or come prepared to swim, other caches will have the same issue.  

 

If I abort my journey for my own reasons, I would tend to log a WN or nothing.

 

I can see a grey area; e.g if the cache was rated Terrain 2 and in my view it really was more like 4, and that increased terrain is why I gave up, I might log a DNF and explain that I found the terrain much harder than I expected.  

 

But I don't feel others need to do the same.   Either DNF, WN, or nothing is fine.

Edited by redsox_mark
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

With the creation of the "cache score" a DNF could negatively effect a cache that's perfectly fine.

If the CHS system can't deal with the way people actually post logs, then the CHS system needs to be fixed. Most people will not change the way they post logs to suit the CHS system's limitations.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

If the CHS system can't deal with the way people actually post logs, then the CHS system needs to be fixed. Most people will not change the way they post logs to suit the CHS system's limitations.

That's your opinion and I respect it.   My opinion still stands.  I don't expect the CHS to be going any where soon.  In that case I choose to change how I log to support what GS is trying to do. 

 

I'm sure the OP can view both sides of the issue and decide what the best course of action will be. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3
Link to comment
10 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't expect the CHS to be going any where soon.

I expect the CHS to be around for a while myself. But supposedly the algorithms have been updated, and will continue to be updated.

 

10 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

In that case I choose to change how I log to support what GS is trying to do.

Most geocachers are completely unaware of the CHS and its interpretation of what logs may or may not mean. They aren't going to change the way they log to suit the CHS. If the CHS is going to become more aligned with the way geocachers actually post logs, then the change must come from the CHS algorithms because the majority of geocachers are not going to change.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
12 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

In that case I choose to change how I log to support what GS is trying to do. 

 

If what GS is trying to do is convert DNF into a de-facto NM then I guess I'll have to remain an outlaw and use an actual NM if I think there's enough grounds to warrant a check by the CO, or use an NA if I think it needs reviewer attention, and if not, my DNF just means I didn't succeed in my quest to find the cache that day. And I'll use WN to convey information that's unrelated to an attempt to find the cache.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 3
  • Love 2
Link to comment

I could see doing any of the four options

if claiming a find I would justify it with one of these rationalizations that I have actually seen on various caches over the years:

     I'm a long way from home and won't be coming back this way so I'm claiming a find.

     The cache was too hard to get to so I left a replacement in an easier spot.

     Couldn 't  log a dnf cuz it wasn't there to be found (my favorite)

     

Just kidding! In this exact circumstance I would not have logged anything. But, then, I'm getting old and lazy...

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

I would probably log a WN if I got sick before I got the chance to properly look for the cache.

 

Heck, I've WN'd a cache not so long ago because I didn't feel I had the time to look for it 'properly'. I was on the fence with DNF (because after all I didn't find it), but the way I see it, a DNF log is supposed to help the CO and other cachers. If the CO sees a run of DNFs, they think that perhaps the cache has got moved or damaged. And ditto for cachers coming afterwards. It might discourage people from looking, or get the CO to come out and check. I don't feel it's really fair to do that based on my (possible) incompetence ... so if I've looked really thoroughly and not found it, sure, I'll log a DNF. If I got there and only had 5 minutes and didn't spot it, I'll just leave a note so that other cachers can think, well, perhaps it's not a super easy spot but that doesn't mean it's not there.

 

Also for my own reference, I can decide whether to return to my WNs to search again ... if I've logged a DNF, I'll check other people's logs after mine, and if people have found it, I'll be like, okay, it was just me being stupid then; I'll go for another try! If there are a lot of other DNFs, I'm like, nah it's probably gone.

 

Obviously not everyone uses the logs like I do, but I try and keep in mind when writing mine (and choosing which one) what would be useful to cachers coming along after me. :-)

 

IMO if you don't make it to GZ because of the terrain, it's a bit misleading to put DNF because that would imply the container is hard to find when you get there (as well as implying that I completed the challenging journey all the way to GZ). I'd just leave a WN in that case, with more details in the log about why I didn't make it.

 

If I found the cache to the extent that it was within my actual sight but couldn't get to it (e.g. up a tree and didn't make the climb), I'd log a WN, because I did 'find' it but it doesn't seem fair to log it as 'found' when I didn't have the logbook in hand. That might also be helpful to future cachers coming that way (i.e. it's not hard to spot but you might need a bit of athleticism to reach).

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

For me a DNF is an indicator that you searched for the cache at GZ and did not find it - for a CO this could, along with other DNFs, be an indicator that the cache may be missing. You can not say how your search went as you didn't do one. Many COs do not read the actual logs but do watch how many DNFs appear so you doing a DNF may be a false indicator

On this occasion you did not search for the cache - unfortunate circumstances resulted in not reaching GZ - so not a DNF - but a write note if you are going to document it at all.
I had a similar situation on a trip to NZ - having solved a puzzle that took me to one of the islands, a trip (fall) :wacko: :blink: while on my way to GZ (and I was far nearer than 450m - probably only 50m :o) resulted in an injury that resulted in an overnight stay in hospital when I got back onto the mainland - I didn't get to GZ, I didn't search for the cache but I did do a write note log. :)

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 7/30/2021 at 2:07 PM, Hynz said:

Do you only have Traditionals in mind or is this equaly valid for you when you fail finding a stage along a Multi? In that case I definitely will write a DNF

Multis have several GZs as all are often found by using a set of co-ords and on reaching those co-ords you have a task gather info or find the cache so YES if you fail to find a stage of a multi - the reason maybe that it is missing so a DNF would be suitable - but a multi just the same as a trad - not reaching GZ (whether a stage or final) and then not looking for the info at that stage or at the cache at the final means you have searched at that point so you can't give a false indicator that something may be amiss

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

For me a DNF is an indicator that you searched for the cache at GZ and did not find it - for a CO this could, along with other DNFs, be an indicator that the cache may be missing. You can not say how your search went as you didn't do one. Many COs do not read the actual logs but do watch how many DNFs appear so you doing a DNF may be a false indicator

While I can see your point -- I don't agree with it, but I understand it -- do COs really get the "false indicator" and then run out to fix the cache? Or do they use the false indicator to read the logs more carefully and discover what, if anything, needs to be fixed?

 

Just by the way, it's a little disconcerting that "many COs" don't bother to read the logs people post to their caches. That implies I should stop wasting my time writing decent logs, whether I found the cache or not.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, dprovan said:
9 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Many COs do not read the actual logs but do watch how many DNFs appear so you doing a DNF may be a false indicator

 

 

Any chance you could back up that global statement with some documentation?  I realize SOME don't, but I know a lot that read every word except from that one Texas cacher that writes a meaningless book on every cache or WN log. I'll admit I just ignore their logs.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
Link to comment

Maybe if a CO gets a lot of logs per day (either having placed a load of caches or some getting a lot of finds - or both!), they might not read each one? I would assume they look at DNFs more closely than regular logs to try and suss out if there's a problem, but if they're getting hundreds of notifications a day, perhaps if there's a string of DNFs they assume there's a problem without reading all of them in detail?

Link to comment
13 hours ago, CatandVinnie said:

Maybe if a CO gets a lot of logs per day (either having placed a load of caches or some getting a lot of finds - or both!), they might not read each one? I would assume they look at DNFs more closely than regular logs to try and suss out if there's a problem, but if they're getting hundreds of notifications a day, perhaps if there's a string of DNFs they assume there's a problem without reading all of them in detail?

It's fine with me if they want to run out and fix a cache that isn't broken.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, CatandVinnie said:

Maybe if a CO gets a lot of logs per day (either having placed a load of caches or some getting a lot of finds - or both!), they might not read each one? I would assume they look at DNFs more closely than regular logs to try and suss out if there's a problem, but if they're getting hundreds of notifications a day, perhaps if there's a string of DNFs they assume there's a problem without reading all of them in detail?

 

This thread started off in the context of a terrain 4.5 cache and whether being defeated by its terrain before reaching GZ ought to be valid DNF. Such a cache is unlikely to be getting hundreds of logs a day, if it's typical of the T4.5s around here it'd be doing well to get one log a year. If the CO can't be bothered reading that one log if it happens to be a DNF before deciding to spend the day venturing out there with a replacement cache, well...

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
On 9/17/2021 at 1:29 AM, JustFindingOurWay said:

 

Any chance you could back up that global statement with some documentation?  I realize SOME don't, but I know a lot that read every word except from that one Texas cacher that writes a meaningless book on every cache or WN log. I'll admit I just ignore their logs.

of course not - but I am going by my knowledge of the many cachers in my area - if all the cachers in your area read all their own logs then that is great - but it doesnt happen round my way ;-) 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

of course not - but I am going by my knowledge of the many cachers in my area - if all the cachers in your area read all their own logs then that is great - but it doesnt happen round my way ;-) 

I'm guessing that's because the caches in your area aren't that interesting, so the COs aren't expecting anyone to say anything interesting about them. I'd be really puzzled by a CO that placed a cache to encourage people to take a nice hike up a mountain to a beautiful view and then didn't read the reactions. That's the kind of cache we're talking about here.

 

But to react to your comment, if a CO placed mundane caches and didn't even scan the DNFs for longer than usual logs that might indicate a problem, I'd say they weren't planning on maintaining their caches. I'd talk to them about that; I wouldn't accept it as a given that COs don't even glance at logs. But beyond that -- to go back to the original point about DNFs that don't reflect the cache's health -- I'd be kinda tickled if they got a CHS alarm and then ran out to fix a cache that wasn't broken because they didn't even bother to read the DNF logs that caused the CHS. Serves them right.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
On 10/7/2021 at 5:50 PM, dprovan said:

I'm guessing that's because the caches in your area aren't that interesting, so the COs aren't expecting anyone to say anything interesting about them. I'd be really puzzled by a CO that placed a cache to encourage people to take a nice hike up a mountain to a beautiful view and then didn't read the reactions. That's the kind of cache we're talking about here.

 

But to react to your comment, if a CO placed mundane caches and didn't even scan the DNFs for longer than usual logs that might indicate a problem, I'd say they weren't planning on maintaining their caches. I'd talk to them about that; I wouldn't accept it as a given that COs don't even glance at logs. But beyond that -- to go back to the original point about DNFs that don't reflect the cache's health -- I'd be kinda tickled if they got a CHS alarm and then ran out to fix a cache that wasn't broken because they didn't even bother to read the DNF logs that caused the CHS. Serves them right.

Yup - you probably hit the nail on the head there - many caches in our area are uninteresting - many are put out by COs who are happy to put out trail after trail of filmpots at base of trees. 
As far as CO's not scanning their DNF logs  -  your point again is probably correct about their intention to maintain, but as well as that many have the attitude that if a cache is sodden then it should be the job for the finder to replace that logsheet for the CO - I have always said that if a cache sheet is sodden then the container needs looking at and that is a job for the CO not the finder. 
I may have mentioned it before but we do have a couple of trails out, but we have opted to put out handcrafted / homemade containers to make the hunt / find more interesting - and it goes without saying we do read all logs as they come in. 

  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 9/16/2021 at 8:16 PM, dprovan said:

Just by the way, it's a little disconcerting that "many COs" don't bother to read the logs people post to their caches. That implies I should stop wasting my time writing decent logs, whether I found the cache or not

A valid point - and yes we are of the same opinion - however around our way we know who does read and who doesn't and we find ourselves writing logs accordingly - a sad thing as we used to write individual logs for all caches found.
We even find it frustrating to get bland auto-generated logs on our own caches that we have hand made and are all very different to the norm - but we have come to accept that many are also not bothered to write decent logs nowadays either 

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 7/30/2021 at 8:08 AM, niraD said:

For me, DNF means I reached GZ and searched, but did not find the cache. If I don't reach GZ, or if I reach GZ but don't search for some reason, then it's a DNS (Did Not Search), logged as a Note.

 

But for others, the search starts when they're still on their way to GZ, so there you go...

I could not possibly agree more. This is exactly how I categorize DNF vs Write Note. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, tumbleweed42 said:
On 7/30/2021 at 10:08 PM, niraD said:

For me, DNF means I reached GZ and searched, but did not find the cache. If I don't reach GZ, or if I reach GZ but don't search for some reason, then it's a DNS (Did Not Search), logged as a Note.

 

But for others, the search starts when they're still on their way to GZ, so there you go...

I could not possibly agree more. This is exactly how I categorize DNF vs Write Note. 

 

Yesterday I logged a DNF on a cache (along with an NM). I was trying to find the cache but when I arrived I found GZ is now a construction zone, with my GPSr pointing directly at the excavator. The satellite image also confirmed that that's where the cache was meant to be.

 

20211124_144459.jpg.759cd9d32d31b0b0ff35dffa7e478d2e.jpg

 

I really don't understand why a situation like this can't be a DNF and has to be relegated to a WN, just because I couldn't reach GZ to do a thorough search. I was trying to find the cache but couldn't so to me that's a DNF.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yesterday I logged a DNF on a cache (along with an NM). I was trying to find the cache but when I arrived I found GZ is now a construction zone, with my GPSr pointing directly at the excavator. The satellite image also confirmed that that's where the cache was meant to be.

 

20211124_144459.jpg.759cd9d32d31b0b0ff35dffa7e478d2e.jpg

 

I really don't understand why a situation like this can't be a DNF and has to be relegated to a WN, just because I couldn't reach GZ to do a thorough search. I was trying to find the cache but couldn't so to me that's a DNF.

You were at GZ so it's clearly a DNF

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yesterday I logged a DNF on a cache (along with an NM). I was trying to find the cache but when I arrived I found GZ is now a construction zone, with my GPSr pointing directly at the excavator. The satellite image also confirmed that that's where the cache was meant to be.

 

20211124_144459.jpg.759cd9d32d31b0b0ff35dffa7e478d2e.jpg

 

I really don't understand why a situation like this can't be a DNF and has to be relegated to a WN, just because I couldn't reach GZ to do a thorough search. I was trying to find the cache but couldn't so to me that's a DNF.

I’m not saying you CAN’T call it a DNF, just that I wouldn’t personally. Play your game the way you want. In your situation, I would have written a NM but skipped the DNF, but it’s not wrong if you do it your way. That being said, I am also not one of these people who is ashamed of a DNF. I log my DNFs with pride. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yesterday I logged a DNF on a cache (along with an NM). I was trying to find the cache but when I arrived I found GZ is now a construction zone, with my GPSr pointing directly at the excavator. The satellite image also confirmed that that's where the cache was meant to be.

 

20211124_144459.jpg.759cd9d32d31b0b0ff35dffa7e478d2e.jpg

 

I really don't understand why a situation like this can't be a DNF and has to be relegated to a WN, just because I couldn't reach GZ to do a thorough search. I was trying to find the cache but couldn't so to me that's a DNF.

That situation could be either a DNF or a note. It might depend on my mood at the time :unsure:. Today, looking at the picture, and if I had got that close, I would likely log a DNF.

I generally log DNFs if I have got to the area, and almost certainly if I have searched, but say if I got as far as the car park and the heavens opened up and I didn't have rain gear, it would be a note. Search: DNF; didn't search: Note.

An exception, if for some reason something about this cache really annoyed me (example, marked 1/1.5T and it's up a tree) I would log a DNF, even if I hadn't searched.

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

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...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...