Changing A Dnf To A Note

[4x4van]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like to see DNFs on my cache page unless the cache is/was there and I failed to find it. I have 2 DNFs, and because of the circumstances surrounding them, I'm considering changing them to notes, instead. Before jumping to any conclusions though, take a look at them and let me know what you think.

 

Almost in Sycamore Kash

As stated in my two logs, I hadn't even realized that I had downloaded this particular cache untill I was in the area for some others, and decided to give it a try. Having not read the logs, description, or anything else about it, we gave up after looking for about 30 minutes. But after going online and reading the description, I went back a week later and did, in fact, find it. What do you think...change my DNF to a note? Or leave as is?

 

A Bridge Not Too Far Cache

This one is a bit different. We were the first to search for this one back in September after a major fire had gone through the area. Subsequent cachers also could not find it and the cache was ultimately archived. So...change my DNF to a note? Or leave as is?

 

Just wondered what other cachers' opinions would be. Thanks.

[+webscouter.]

Most assuredly the first should stay a DNF. You didn't find it and it was there. Your find log will over ride the DNF as far as your count goes.

 

The second one I have mixed fellings on. You didn't find it as it wasn't there so I guess you could change it to a note. I however would leave it as a DNF. no shame in it and you did get out and look for it.

[+SBPhishy]

I think the idea of what a DNF is, is the problem here. They are not bad, negative, and they don't make you a "bad" cacher. All they are is a statement, saying you "did not find" it. I don't really think DNF's should ever be changed to anything else. The fact is you didn't find it, so why wouldnt it be a DNF? Thats my take.

[Moun10Bike]

My recommendation is to leave the DNFs. You looked and didn't find, for whatever reason; to say otherwise is in my opinion fudging the truth. In the end, however, the decision is yours to make.

[+The Cheeseheads]

This can be a test of your will...

 

As I've stated before, there is no special place in heaven set aside for the one with the fewest DNFs.

 

In my opinion, if you go out to look for a cache and don't find it, it's a DNF. By leaving it as a DNF, future finders may take note of your log and might be able to get a tip as to what not to do or things to avoid. If you change it to a note, it might not be as prominent.

 

I'd leave them as they are. There's really almost no reason to change a log type from one to another. It's your caching history and it should be left as is.

 

It's entirely up to you though. I'm certainly not going to judge you either way.

[+travisl]

Leave them as they are. My philosophy is that if I've hit "goto" on the GPS with the intention of going to a cache, it's either gonna be a found or a not found, not a note.

 

I make some exceptions for long multis, but that's about it.

[+seneca]

A DNF is a sign that you are human.

 

DNF's build character.

 

A DNF should be worn as a badge of honor.

 

DNF's are reminders of some of the most memorable cache adventures.

 

WE NEED MORE DNF'S !!

 

(and a DNF means more to me than a note does.)

[+Prime Suspect]

If you looked for it, and didn't find it, that's a DNF in my book ($19.95 at leading bookstores everywhere).

 

This also ties into the "when to archive a disabled cache" thread going on elsewhere. The DNF logs provide a valuable clue as to just a how long a cache may have been missing.

Edited February 24, 2004 by Prime Suspect

[+Snoogans]

A DNF is a sign that you are human.

 

DNF's build character.

 

A DNF should be worn as a badge of honor.

 

DNF's are reminders of some of the most memorable cache adventures.

 

WE NEED MORE DNF'S !!

 

(and a DNF means more to me than a note does.)

Hells YES!!! Way to go! I post every DNF I get. Some of my best cache experiences were DNFs.

 

I might add that if you go back on the same actual day and actually find it, then it would be OK. IMO

 

Sn gans

[+Jamie Z]

You looked and didn't find,

MTB said it best.

 

Jamie

[+res2100]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting a DNF. When I first started I used to look at it as a personal failure, but now it doesn't bother me to post a DNF, as it was just part of the experience and then I just have more motivation to go out the next time and look for that cache again. I wish more people would post DNFs, and they are interesting reads too. Very often I see someone write a find it log that says "finally found it on my 3rd try", but yet they never logged their first 2 DNFs.

[+fizzymagic]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like to see DNFs on my cache page unless the cache is/was there and I failed to find it.

It's just you.

 

You went. You did not find the cache. Thus, the log recording your trip should be a "did not find," because that is what happened.

[+LAM & NAR]

I agree with the others...post them as DNF. I have quite a few DNF's on my page, and they are the ones that were most interesting and worth the challenge.

 

On a similar vein, though...what do you all think about this: I recently took a trip to San Diego with my mother and brother. I was only there for 24 hours, so couldn't go back later. I marked a "note" for two caches, rather than a DNF, for the following reasons:

 

1. My brother and I got to within 15 feet of a cache at about midnight, but my brother (who used to live very nearby) said he would not feel safe travelling that last 15 feet because of known homeless people who could be violent who slept right in that exact spot (under some bushes). Therefore, we left without searching. I logged it as a note that I was in the vicinity, but stopped short of actually searching for the cache.

 

2. We went to Sea World for the day. There was a 20-site multi-cache that I attempted, but the park was only open for 8 hours, and I was with my mother who uses a cane. We found all but a couple of the waypoints, but did not have time to finish the task. I logged it as a note that I had completed most, but not all, of the tasks, and would not be able to return to finish. I didn't see this as a DNF because I would have found them all easily if time had permitted.

 

What do you all think?

[+Natureboy44]

I too am a big proponent (sp?) of the DNF for all the reasons stated. They're good for our character and make the cache logs more interesting. I'm glad to see that the question even came up in your mind. Now a quick jump on my soap box. I also don't like the practice of deleting a DNF for a cahce after a find. It fun to see a historical representation of the challenge that a cache has offered and this is diluted if a DNF is deleted just because it was later found.

[martmann]

 

1.  My brother and I got to within 15 feet of a cache at about midnight, but my brother (who used to live very nearby) said he would not feel safe travelling that last 15 feet because of known homeless people who could be violent who slept right in that exact spot (under some bushes).  Therefore, we left without searching.  I logged it as a note that I was in the vicinity, but stopped short of actually searching for the cache.

 

2.  We went to Sea World for the day.  There was a 20-site multi-cache that I attempted, but the park was only open for 8 hours, and I was with my mother who uses a cane.  We found all but a couple of the waypoints, but did not have time to finish the task.  I logged it as a note that I had completed most, but not all, of the tasks, and would not be able to return to finish.  I didn't see this as a DNF because I would have found them all easily if time had permitted.

 

What do you all think?

 

1: DNF

2: DNF

 

I also agree with the DNF is a DNF, and should stay forever, no big deal.

Edited February 24, 2004 by martmann

[martmann]

I too am a big proponent (sp?) of the DNF for all the reasons stated. They're good for our character and make the cache logs more interesting. I'm glad to see that the question even came up in your mind. Now a quick jump on my soap box. I also don't like the practice of deleting a DNF for a cahce after a find. It fun to see a historical representation of the challenge that a cache has offered and this is diluted if a DNF is deleted just because it was later found.

Agreed. For the same reason, I think the cache owner should post a note whenever the difficulty has been changed (hint added or changed, mistakes corrected, etc.).

[+beejay&esskay]

I am also a firm believer in DNF's when you didn't find it.

 

But how about this?

 

A micro hidden behind a statue. The statue is found and the micro is visible. But it's also solidly frozen in ice. I can touch it, but I can't dislodge it.

 

Clearly it's not a "find", since I didn't sign the log book.

 

But is it a DNF?

[+briansnat]

You attempted to find each cache and didn't. That is a DNF. What's the shame in it? Why change it to a note? You're messing with your own, and the cache's history.

 

If DNF's were something to be ashamed of, I'd be in reeeeal trouble:

 

Edited February 24, 2004 by briansnat

[BassoonPilot]

Aren't those cache owners who allow "finds" from people who have only found the first stage of long, challenging multicaches also "messing with the cache's history?" How about those cache owners who allow "virtual finds" on caches where the cache/part of a multicache is known to be missing but the cache owner fails to, or decides not to, maintain/restore their cache?

 

I do agree that in most circumstances, DNFs should remain. But I did once delete, out of anger and disgust, a DNF on a very difficult multicache I had attempted when the cache owner allowed a "find" to someone who only visited the first stage. Noone ever logged a legitimate find on that cache. Apparently, the second stage had been stolen almost immediately after having been placed.

 

Interestingly, many months later, when that multicache was still "temporarily disabled," I did another multicache by the same owner that recycled the ammo box from the earlier cache.

 

EDIT: Hey Brian, what are those "New York" DNFs on the second page with no names?

 

2nd EDIT: It may appear that the multicache I mentioned had been placed by BrianSnat or another currently active cacher from my area. That is not the case.

Edited February 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+briansnat]

Aren't those cache owners who allow "finds" from people who have only found the first stage of long, challenging multicaches also "messing with the cache's history?" How about those cache owners who allow "virtual finds" on caches where the cache/part of a multicache is known to be missing but the cache owner fails to, or decides not to, maintain/restore their cache?

 

I don't know that they are messing with the caches history, but they are doing a disservice to the people who make the effort to complete the entire hunt.

 

EDIT: Hey Brian, what are those "New York" DNFs on the second page with no names?

 

That cache went missing a few days after it was placed (a bright orange, 5 gallon bucket next to a trail in a popular state park, I'm not sure what the owner expected). For some reason, the owner disabled the cache, then changed the name of the cache to a period, hence the dot where the name should be.

 

2nd EDIT: It may appear that the multicache I mentioned had been placed by BrianSnat or another currently active cacher from my area. That is not the case.

 

Whew, you had me going through my caches to see if it was one of mine.

 

I am also a firm believer in DNF's when you didn't find it.

 

But how about this?

 

A micro hidden behind a statue. The statue is found and the micro is visible. But it's also solidly frozen in ice. I can touch it, but I can't dislodge it.

 

Clearly it's not a "find", since I didn't sign the log book.

 

But is it a DNF?

 

Something like that is a bit of a grey area. I think a note, or DNF would be appropriate. That would be up the individual. I'd probably log it as a DNF, but I certainly wouldn't quarrel with someone who logged it as a note. Log it as a find, and

you could get some argument.

Edited February 24, 2004 by briansnat

[BassoonPilot]

For some reason, the owner disabled the cache, then changed the name of the cache to a period, hence the dot where the name should be.

Either I need new glasses or a new monitor. I wouldn't have seen the "dots" if you hadn't mentioned them.

[+Karma Hunter]

I agree with what everyone here has said, in particular those Cheeseheads. It seems that there is a spectrum of possibilities in logging that ranges from "truth" (factual report of the outcome, regardless of intentions or circumstances) to "false" (the biggest example would be logging false finds without ever leaving your house). I guess it's up to eveyone to decide where on the spectrum they want to be. A topic for a whole separate thread might be why they choose it.

 

And as for that micro stuck in ice, it seems that by seeing and touching it you did "find" it, even though you didn't sign the logbook. Though I'm sure someone will argue otherwise and post a link to a cache that's easy to see and touch, but intentionally tricky to open. To me that seems different, although I know it's a slippery slope. In a similar situation, we found a cache, took pictures, and looked all around inside it but couldn't find the log book so we didn't sign. A few days later someone else found it, and explained that the log was there but on the back of an instruction sheet inside the cache, and thus not very noticeable. We chose to call it a find, as we had clearly "found" the cache, despite missing the log inside. Probably sounds fine to most folks until I mention that it was also a FTF. Not that other cachers hadn't had their chance. The cache had been placed several weeks before (not many cachers out in the boonies), and we weren't looking for an FTF, just somewhere to go. The FTF was unintentional, but because of it the person who logged after us probably wondered whether ours should really be considered a find.

Edited February 24, 2004 by Karma Hunter

[+carleenp]

Nothing wrong with a DNF, and it is good to post them to alert the cache owner that there would be a problem. If I look and I don't find it, I post a DNF. I don't change it later if I go back and find the cache. On a rare occaasion I will post a note. That is usually when I don't actually get anywhere near the cache or really never started to search for it. I posted a note once on a multi where I quit after the first stage and another on a cache where I took the wrong route to begin with and then decided to leave and come back another day. I didn't post DNFs on those because I never really put in a search near the cache and I didn't want the cache owner to get overly concerned when they first saw that email listing a DNF.

[4x4van]

Well, it looks like it's pretty much unanimous, then. The DNFs remain as is. On further reflection, I must concur, they are indeed an important part of the cache's history, as well as my own.

 

I think it all boils down to the fact that each of us is our own worst critic, and that's who we must look at in the mirror each morning. Since I searched, didn't find them, and gave up...they are indeed DNFs for that date/try, even though one was missing and I found the other on a subsequent day. The more time I spend geocaching, the more impressed I am with the character of most of you. Thanks for the nudge.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like to see DNFs on my cache page unless the cache is/was there and I failed to find it. I have 2 DNFs, and because of the circumstances surrounding them, I'm considering changing them to notes, instead. Before jumping to any conclusions though, take a look at them and let me know what you think.

 

Almost in Sycamore Kash

As stated in my two logs, I hadn't even realized that I had downloaded this particular cache untill I was in the area for some others, and decided to give it a try. Having not read the logs, description, or anything else about it, we gave up after looking for about 30 minutes. But after going online and reading the description, I went back a week later and did, in fact, find it. What do you think...change my DNF to a note? Or leave as is?

 

A Bridge Not Too Far Cache

This one is a bit different. We were the first to search for this one back in September after a major fire had gone through the area. Subsequent cachers also could not find it and the cache was ultimately archived. So...change my DNF to a note? Or leave as is?

 

Just wondered what other cachers' opinions would be. Thanks.

I haven't read the replies yet, so I may be repeating what others have said.

 

There is no need to change your DNF to any other type of log. There is also no need to delete DNF logs if you later went back and found the cache.

 

Your logs are part of the cache's history and your history. All logs put together tell a story. Why do you want to change that story? Did your eventual find change the fact that you didn't find it earlier? No! Do you want your record to show that you're a "perfect" cacher? Cheater!

 

If you looked for a cache and couldn't find it, it's a not found. It doesn't matter what other circumstances surround it, you didn't find it. It doesn't matter if it was actually missing, or you ran out of time, or you just gave up. If you didn't find it, it should be recorded as "Did not find". Going back and finding it later doesn't change that you didn't find it the first (or second, or third) time.

[+beejay&esskay]

If you looked for a cache and couldn't find it, it's a not found. It doesn't matter what other circumstances surround it, you didn't find it. It doesn't matter if it was actually missing, or you ran out of time, or you just gave up. If you didn't find it, it should be recorded as "Did not find".

OK, I changed my ice-embedded micro to a DNF.

 

I found a container, but since I couldn't open it to sign a log, I can't claim a find.

 

So DNF it is.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

If you looked for a cache and couldn't find it, it's a not found. It doesn't matter what other circumstances surround it, you didn't find it. It doesn't matter if it was actually missing, or you ran out of time, or you just gave up. If you didn't find it, it should be recorded as "Did not find".

OK, I changed my ice-embedded micro to a DNF.

 

I found a container, but since I couldn't open it to sign a log, I can't claim a find.

 

So DNF it is.

Good job, I'm proud of you

 

Part of caching in the winter includes the challenge of snow and ice. Ideally, the hider will mention that on the cache page, like this. If you live in an area where you have a lot of snow in the winter, you should expect more of a challenge. Hiders in those areas should consider it when placing a cache over the summer "will this get snowed in?" and place it accordingly.

[+4dingdongz]

Well, it looks like it's pretty much unanimous, then. The DNFs remain as is.

It is definitely not unanimous. Whenever I have a no-find I log it as so. If i go back and find that cache, I change it to a find. I keep the no-find info on the log, add my new log to indicate the find, then change the date to reflect the find date.

i have to admit, I never thought of doing it any other way.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Well, it looks like it's pretty much unanimous, then.  The DNFs remain as is.

It is definitely not unanimous. Whenever I have a no-find I log it as so. If i go back and find that cache, I change it to a find. I keep the no-find info on the log, add my new log to indicate the find, then change the date to reflect the find date.

i have to admit, I never thought of doing it any other way.

I do like that you keep the DNF text there, but the way you're doing it the DNF appears on the date that you found the cache. That's why they should be separate logs. I've even posted a DNF for a cache that I found later that day.

[+wimseyguy]

I was just thinking of starting a thread with this topic last night. Went out on an all day hunt about an hour away with another experienced cacher on Sunday. Got off to a good start but then hit 3 DNF's in a row ( all by the same hider). Two were placed very close together and we even found a very likely hole at one site. We concluded that "since we can't find them they must not be here" .

The third was a micro and the hint indicated what the container resembled. We carefully examined every object that met these criteria. (OK enough-a fake rock in a pile of rocks in a landscaped Welcome to Our Town site.)

Sure enough-on Sunday the owner disabled the first two after he got several DNF logs posted on Saturday and went out to verify. I'm not sure about the third.

Too bad for us-we were already on the road There is no shame in a DNF.

The DNF logs stay-we looked we Did Not Find the cache.

[4x4van]

Your logs are part of the cache's history and your history. All logs put together tell a story. Why do you want to change that story? Did your eventual find change the fact that you didn't find it earlier? No! Do you want your record to show that you're a "perfect" cacher? Cheater!

 

If you looked for a cache and couldn't find it, it's a not found. It doesn't matter what other circumstances surround it, you didn't find it. It doesn't matter if it was actually missing, or you ran out of time, or you just gave up. If you didn't find it, it should be recorded as "Did not find". Going back and finding it later doesn't change that you didn't find it the first (or second, or third) time.

No, I'm not a "cheater". I simply was curious as to the general concensus in what I thought to be a somewhat grey area, particularly in the second cache listed. I agree that DNFs are extremely useful to cache owners in maintaining their caches, however in that particular one, the cache was archived, and changing the DNF to a note would have no effect on the owner's need/desire to check on it, nor future cachers' decisions to search for it or not. However, after reading the more friendly replies, I've decided to leave the DNF's as they are.

 

I'm also not trying to "pad" my stats (as if stats are really important, anyway). In fact, I'd kinda like to log a DNF on another cache, but can't seem to find a way to do it. I had downloaded info on about a half dozen caches, then went looking for them about 2 weeks later. Found all but one. When I logged on to log a DNF for it, I found that it had been archived 1 week earlier (and replaced with another "son of..." nearby). So I did nothing, other than make a mental note to double check on the status of caches just before going out to look for them . Now, I'd kinda like to log that DNF, even though it had been archived a week before I went looking for it, but I can't seem to find the cache page to do so. Any ideas? Here is the "replacement" cache, but I can't find the original.

Edited February 24, 2004 by 4x4van

[martmann]

Looks like they used the original cache page to make the second cache. I looked at their profile and they only have 1 cache that's listed as archived, and it's a multi.

[4x4van]

Looks like they used the original cache page to make the second cache. I looked at their profile and they only have 1 cache that's listed as archived, and it's a multi.

Ahhhhhh, that would explain it. Oh well, I tried. At least my "DNF" of the original cache is mentioned in my logged find of the replacement cache.

[+kevmikwa]

Let it be known that I just went back and back-entered two DNFs as the result of reading this thread. Seneca - I hope you don't mind, but I gave a nod to your earlier speech in my DNF logs.

 

What can I say - you all have inspired me to come clean! I'm so glad I did - I feel like a weight has been lifted from my shoulders ...

[+4dingdongz]

That's why they should be separate logs.

I guess I appreciate everyone's opinions, but where I have a problem is when someone tells me how I SHOULD cache.

It's a game and as far as I can tell, I am playing by the rules.

[+dino_hunters]

I only leave a note if its my second visit to a cache, so it doesn;t mess up my count

[+Team GPSaxophone]

That's why they should be separate logs.

I guess I appreciate everyone's opinions, but where I have a problem is when someone tells me how I SHOULD cache.

It's a game and as far as I can tell, I am playing by the rules.

My point is that if you put all your visits over different days in one log, other logs will appear out of order in relation. Play how you want, my opinion is that the history of the cache should appear in the order it was logged.

[+Geo Ho]

I never change DNF's to notes nor do I make them a find. I keep everything as I originally log it so I have an accurate representation of my caching history.

 

Happy caching and stuff!

[+RJFerret]

What hasn't been mentioned here is the log is a communication between you and the owner/placer!

 

As an owner, a DNF tells me I might want to check on my cache.

 

Another tells me I must asap!

 

Notes don't have that much significance.

 

To the cacher/finder, DNF and Notes are identicle with no ramifications whatsoever.

 

On my profile, I list not logging DNF's as my pet peeve. I've seen caches supposedly not visited for months when finally a DNF is posted. Cache maintained/replaced to a flurry of folks subsequently finding it. Hmm... Maybe the watch count correlates to how many haven't logged their DNF's??

 

If you don't like the associate graphic, at least post a note clearly flagging the owner of the situation!

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

[+AmishHacker]

If you looked for a cache and couldn't find it, it's a not found. It doesn't matter what other circumstances surround it, you didn't find it. It doesn't matter if it was actually missing, or you ran out of time, or you just gave up. If you didn't find it, it should be recorded as "Did not find".

OK, I changed my ice-embedded micro to a DNF.

 

I found a container, but since I couldn't open it to sign a log, I can't claim a find.

 

So DNF it is.

I hate it when people put notes instead of DNFs.....Echo...Echo....

 

Here is a dandy then....I went to a winter cache and I dug the cache out of the snow but the lid was frozen shut...some weird screw lid. I almost broke the cache trying to get it open...I took a pic and logged it as a find. I FOUND IT. Is that so bad. I did not find according to Team GPSaxophone.

 

Cache Log

Edited March 2, 2004 by AmishHacker

[+shunra]

OK, I changed my ice-embedded micro to a DNF.

 

I found a container, but since I couldn't open it to sign a log, I can't claim a find.

 

So DNF it is.

That's VERY principled. I would have claimed that one as a Find, and explained my lack of signature in the on-line log.

 

I have twice or three times logged a Find when I wasn't able to sign a log, just for not having a pen. I believe I punched a hole into the logsheet, though, and explained it online...

[MOCKBA]

A DNF should be worn as a badge of honor.

DNF's are reminders of some of the most memorable cache adventures.

ditto. I think that the real treasure of geocaching is its stories. And DNFs make up a pretty good story material. In Jan-Feb., got 5 DNFs in a row and no new finds for a whole month. It was a whole adventure book!

[+beejay&esskay]

OK, I changed my ice-embedded micro to a DNF.

 

I found a container, but since I couldn't open it to sign a log, I can't claim a find.

 

So DNF it is.

That's VERY principled. I would have claimed that one as a Find, and explained my lack of signature in the on-line log.

 

I have twice or three times logged a Find when I wasn't able to sign a log, just for not having a pen. I believe I punched a hole into the logsheet, though, and explained it online...

Well, one of my pet peeves is the "find" that isn't a find, so it really didn't take much for Team GPSaxophone to convince me to change a note to a DNF.

 

If a "find" requires signing the log, then if you can't open the container to get to the log, you haven't found it.

 

So if you didn't find it, but looked for it, isn't it a DNF?

 

I'll admit this might be an extreme position, but doing this will make me feel better when I complain about fictitious finds in the future.

[+shunra]

OK, I changed my ice-embedded micro to a DNF.

 

I found a container, but since I couldn't open it to sign a log, I can't claim a find.

 

So DNF it is.

That's VERY principled. I would have claimed that one as a Find, and explained my lack of signature in the on-line log.

 

I have twice or three times logged a Find when I wasn't able to sign a log, just for not having a pen. I believe I punched a hole into the logsheet, though, and explained it online...

Well, one of my pet peeves is the "find" that isn't a find, so it really didn't take much for Team GPSaxophone to convince me to change a note to a DNF.

 

If a "find" requires signing the log, then if you can't open the container to get to the log, you haven't found it.

A Find is for finding a cache, not for signing a log. Signing the log is just proof. If you found the cache, you found it.

 

I certainly agree with all the other comments against changing DNFs into notes. I have plenty, and am proud of some of them more than I am than of some of my finds. No disagreement there...