Do you log not-founds?

[+Divine]

This has been discussed many times in general and getting started forums, but I'd like to hear if Finnish and the rest of the Nordic cachers post Could not find it! -logs in the cache pages when they were not able to find the container.

 

Also the reasons behind not posting them are interesting. In my opinion, the not-found logs are part of the cache history and they also give important information for the cache owner aboute the state of the cache. And as someone recently pointed out: not-found logs are often the most entertaining ones.

[Mesu]

quote:

---

Also the reasons behind _not_ posting them are interesting.

---

 

If I search for a cache and think that it does exist but I just could not find it this time, I probably do not log the Not-found because it might discourage people from looking for it. Someone might think that the cache has been taken away.

 

On the other hand, if I search thoroughly and think that the cache does not exist or is more difficult than classified, then I tend to log it "not found."

[ossmo]

Before i didn't have a habit of logging the not-founds but later i noticed that in many cases the cache was gone or somehow inaccessible and it would have useful for others if i had logged them.

 

Nowadays i usually log the not-founds. An exception is the case when i have nothing relevant to tell others, i know that i'm going to return to the cache soon and i don't have any reason to suspect that the cache would be gone.

[+epeli]

quote:

---

And as someone recently pointed out: not-found logs are often the most entertaining ones.

---

 

Well... entertaining ? Perhaps.

There are two places I had to visit three times until I found them and now there is one place I have not finished yet even though I have visited it five times - fortunately it is not very far away. When I find a hard cache, I report also the effort - earlier it would feel frustrating to report I faild again.

[+Divine]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mesu:

If I search for a cache and think that it does exist but I just could not find it this time, I probably do not log the Not-found because it might discourage people from looking for it. Someone might think that the cache has been taken away.

---

That someone should be the cache owner, who should check if the cache was still there. If I see not-found logs, I assume that the cache owner has or will soon take some actions to ensure that the cache really is there.

 

'Couldn't find it' logs don't discourage me from searching particular caches. What they do is they give me valuable information that the cache may not be easy to find and could probably take more time to find than I first anticipated. For example, if I decide to go look for a nearby cache during my lunch hour, I'd first check if there was many not-found logs. If there wasn't, I'd assume I could find it quick enough to get back to work in time. OTOH, if there was several not-founds, I'd probably think it could be a tricky one and go searching it later on. That way not-found logs didn't discourage me from it, they just saved my employer's time.

 

Another thing is that I usually don't read logs carefully before I go looking for a cache, because I don't wanna get spoiled. So if someone said in his/her found-log that (s)he found it on his/her third time, I'd probably miss it and could think it was easier because there were no sad faces in the log.

 

One good example of the benefits of logging not-founds is my Jokioinen Estate cache. An American quite inexperienced cacher team was visiting Finland and they didn't find my cache. When I read the not-found log, I emailed them and encouraged them to try again. I didn't even give any extra hint, and look: couple of days later they found it. Without the not-found log I wouldn't have known better to send them email and they would probably have just grumbled and traveled back to the US without a find from Finland.

 

Finally, as a cache owner I naturally like to read any kind of logs (preferably found-its). They often tell me (and other people) about the feelings of cachers, how the weather was that day, the strange incidents along the way, if they liked the scenery or not, etc etc. Of course, not every logs are like that, many times it's just Found it. TNLN. or something, but the more the better.

 

And the feeling of being the first finder after several not-founds is just sweet.

 

- From the shallow end of the gene pool. -

[+epeli]

Originally posted by Divine:

Finally, as a cache owner I naturally like to read any kind of logs (preferably found-its). They often tell me (and other people) about the feelings of cachers, how the weather was that day, the strange incidents along the way, if they liked the scenery or not, etc etc. Of course, not every logs are like that, many times it's just _Found it. TNLN._ or something, but the more the better.QUOTE]

 

That was nice to read. I have tried to tell a story of a few sentences about my visit in the log to tell the cache owner I appreciate his/her effort that gave me an opportunity to seek the cache.

[+Tervas]

Of course I make NF -log if I can't find it. On those occasions when the cache description has changed after I've printed it I have written a note instead. At least the cache owner knows that I tried even if the instructions were outdated.

 

-Errare humanum ets.-

[+apersson850]

Hmm, almost everybody has, like me, voted for "Yes, I log a didn't find". The others have voted "None of your business".

 

I think I have as many didn't find as I have did find in my history. Doesn't matter to me, but it seems to me that there is a probability that people who don't log their failures think they'll be ridiculed?

 

Anders

[+chgus]

I agree You should log Not Found's. I do.

 

If I suspect there is something wrong I try to get the attention of the cache owner. It is really useful to know if You hunt for an impossible cache.

 

I have a cache of my own right now that is offline for the second time. First they changed a sign I relied on a couple of months after I set up the cache. Latest "accident" is that the cache was bulldozed. If I plant a cache I want other seekers to have a fair chance to find it. I really valued the Not Found's, they made it possible for me the check on the kind of trouble seekers had, and to fix/disable the cache.

 

A broken cache has no value. I should be fixed or removed.

 

Someone wrote it would be discouraging others to post Not Found's to a cache. Isn't it more discouraging looking for something nonexistent? It is fair to let others know there _might_ be a problem or just misrated difficulty.

 

By the way, does anyone know the procedure for transfering ownership of caches? I have planted some in the Bergen area in Norway, but am moving back home to Sweden this summer.

[Mesu]

quote:

---

Someone wrote it would be discouraging others to post Not Found's to a cache. Isn't it more discouraging looking for something nonexistent? It is fair to let others know there _might_ be a problem or just misrated difficulty.

---

 

You seem to refer to my opinion, but you probably missed my main point. I did not want to discourage people from trying to find a cache if I still believed it was there, but I just did not have the time or circumstances needed to find it. If I think that the cache has disappeared, then, of course, it should be made known to the cache owner and others potentially searching for the cache.

 

Why did I do so? A couple of times, I logged Not Founds, but still considered going there to continue my search. The cache owners thought that the caches had disappeared and made unnecessary trips to the site. That made me more careful so that I did not log the Not Founds before I had finished my search (become relatively assured that the cache was not there any more or was more difficult than classified).

 

However, in this discussion, people have pointed out good reasons why Not Founds should be logged. Maybe next time I'll log the Not Found and write that I could not find the cache, but I did not have time to search thoroughly (or it was dark, etc.). Then the cache owner would not think that the cache is gone.

[+ArktiS]

If I believe the cache is present - but I didn't find it - I log a NF. If a cache is not found and I believe it has 'perished' I log a Note or a CSBA depending on the actual circumstances around search and the area. The latter would be to deliberately discourage others from searching before the cache has been OK'ed in some way.

 

Virtual Regards from ArktiS

[+Divine]

Another fine example why DNFs are useful to log every time:

 

A cache called Tutka had a typo in it's coordinates. Without knowing that I went to search for it after work thinking that I'd get a quick find before going home. Well, the cache was about 1 km away from the given coordinates, and after 2 hour search I managed to figure what was wrong and I actually found it. Check the whole story in my log, if interested.

 

My point is, there had been another cacher searching also at the wrong coordinates one day earlier. He rummaged the place for an hour without finding it, but didn't log his DNF until after I had talked to him in the phone saying I didn't find either. If he had logged the DNF earlier, I probably wouldn't have gone after an 'after work quickie' knowing that it's going to be difficult. I would have saved it till the weekend or another better point of time, and also with better gear and something to drink.

 

Also, with a prompt DNF log, the owner would have had quick information that there might be something wrong, and possibly managed to fix it before the next hunters.

 

Of course I know that it's nobody else's but my fault I went for a quickie without proper gear and drinks. And no one else but me made me to stay there for 2 hours searching it. It was my choice and I bear the responsibility of my dirty work clothes and dehydration. But the in-time DNF log would still have been useful in many ways for many people.

 

- I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -

[+epeli]

quote:

---

And no one else but me made me to stay there for 2 hours searching it. -

---

 

This episode makes me see the importance of login DNFs - especially if there are no find's yet.

But I need to tell it's a pleasure to see somebody to be as stubborn as I am. I did some 5 or 6 visits to Hirvisimuna and spent totally some 10 hours until I found it.

[+Harjus]

We usually always log our not founds, but this time we just were waiting for the e-mail answer from the hidder of the Tutka cache, but this is not good excuse. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[+Divine]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harjus:

Sorry for the inconvenience.

---

No problem at all! Like I said, it was my choice to stay there. If I had been really busy, I wouldn't have gone there at all.

 

I didn't want to point fingers. This particular case just made a good point on this topic, so no hard feelings, Harjus! Actually I'm the one that should be sorry for bringing you to the topic without asking.

 

- I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -