Dnf Question

[+CompuCash]

Hey - I'm new here - only 5 finds and 3 DNF's 2 of them were really not there.

 

I think a find should only be a find if you can sign the cache log. Missing or not -in the exact right place or not - if you didn't find the little sucker - you didn't sign the log - how can it be a find?

 

so that's my $27.50 (inflation)

[CoyoteRed]

The discussion is about should you log a DNF on a cache that isn't really there.

 

How would you know it's not really there if you can't find it? That's a Catch-22. Some people think they should be logging notes instead of DNFs until they are sure it's not there, then it stays a note because it wasn't there to be hunted to begin with.

 

Pretty darn ridiculous if you ask me.

 

The whole reason the DNF log type is there is so you can let people know you looked for it, but didn't find it. It doesn't mean the cache is missing, it only means that you didn't find it--for whatever reason.

 

Logging a note instead of the proper DNF is on the same level as not trading kindly or not returning the cache to its proper hiding spot. Some people just can't play well with others it seems even when they've been shown, in detail, the error of their ways.

[+Pobre Rico]

I think the real problem here is the extremely confusing wording that TPTB have given us to choose from. Why do they insist on being so vague? "Found It", "Did Not Find?" How are we supposed to figure out a puzzle like that!?

 

Cacher #1: "Did you find the "XYZ cache?"

 

Cacher #2: "Yeah."

 

Cacher #1: "I couldn't find it. Where was it?"

 

Cacher #2: "I don't know. I couldn't find it?"

 

Cacher #1: "I thought you said you found it."

 

Cacher #2: "I DID find it!"

 

Cacher #1: "Where?"

 

Cacher #2: "I don't know..."

 

And on and on and on...

[+briansnat]

I think the real problem here is the extremely confusing wording that TPTB have given us to choose from. Why do they insist on being so vague? "Found It", "Did Not Find?" How are we supposed to figure out a puzzle like that!?

 

I've never seen the issue put so succinctly. Thanks for saying in one paragaph what it takes me ten to say.

[+Gizmo & Brazin]

Since we all have opinions, here's mine: Under the DNF, there are no degrees. DNF= Did NOT FIND. There are no "DNF Because...." If you found the cache and SIGNED the log: Smiley Face. If you look and don't find: DNF. If you look and find where you think it was: DNF. If you look and it's missing: It's still a DNF. Again, there is not a DNF = found, because it was muggled. No matter what the reason, all a DNF means is you didn't find it. It doesn't ask for the reason.

 

And there's my 2cents worth........

[+harleycache]

I'll see that and raise you $0.02.

[+GentleWhisper]

I'll carefully re-enter this discussion:

 

1. I'd probably never log a find if I didn't sign the log book. If the owner e-mailed me and said, "It's ok, the cache was muggled. You were in the right spot, change that dnf to a find." I'd have to decline since I Did Not Find it. [ok if it was a 5 difficulty multi that took a 2 day hike and an overnight stay in the woods... well I'd have to reconsider my position. I'm not saying for sure that I'd change my mind, but I would be tempted.]

 

2. I only have one DNF logged, because there's only one cache which I've searched for and not found. I know the cache is there and I will look for it again soon.

 

I have a question, what do you think is appropriate?

 

A person searches for a cache today, can't find it, and logs a DNF. If that person goes back tomorrow and finds the cache should they leave their DNF and post a Find to follow it? Or is it ok to edit the first log entry, turning the DNF into a Found?

[Right edited posts don't send out notices. So if that's the issue, is it ok to edit the DNF to a note after they post their find the following day?]

[CoyoteRed]

A person searches for a cache today, can't find it,  and logs a DNF.  If that person goes back tomorrow and finds the cache should they leave their DNF and post a Find to follow it?  Or is it ok to edit the first log entry, turning the DNF into a Found?

[Right edited posts don't send out notices.  So if that's the issue, is it ok to edit the DNF to a note after they post their find the following day?]

Even if you find the cache the very next day leave the DNF. This is helpful to later hunters because it lets them know at least somebody had a problem with it.

 

Cache logs with DNFs scattered in with Found Its lets people know it a bit harder cache than some. Might even make folks look harder because they figure it is still there, they just need to find it.

 

[EDIT: clarity]

Edited June 26, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+Harrald]

Since we all have opinions, here's mine: Under the DNF, there are no degrees. DNF= Did NOT FIND. There are no "DNF Because...." If you found the cache and SIGNED the log: Smiley Face. If you look and don't find: DNF. If you look and find where you think it was: DNF. If you look and it's missing: It's still a DNF. Again, there is not a DNF = found, because it was muggled. No matter what the reason, all a DNF means is you didn't find it. It doesn't ask for the reason.

 

<<SNIP (because it was worth a lot more than 2 cents)>>

Clearly stated, Concise and to the point. The other thing it is

 

100% correct!!!!!

[+Cache Viking]

You found it, you found it.

You didn't find it, you didn't find it.

Missing is the tough one since if it is missing then it is hard to know it is missing or you simply did not find so I would say DNF.

[CoyoteRed]

Missing is the tough one since if it is missing then it is hard to know it is missing or you simply did not find so I would say DNF.

This is some people's arguement for only posting a note on caches you don't know is missing. How do you know it's missing if you can't find it? But you can't find it if it's missing! DOH! Circular logic.

 

"Can't post a DNF on a cache that is not there to hunt!"

 

"I did not not find it because it wasn't there for me to not find! ...and, and... Oh, yeah, that means I can't post a note on hunting it because it's not there for me to hunt. ...or not hunt. Oh, wait... I'm so confused!!! LOLOLOL"

 

Why make it so complicated?

 

You are absolutely right. You hunted it and didn't find it, then if you're going to post a log, make it a DNF. If you later find it, post another log as a FI.

 

Simple.

[+Pobre Rico]

I have a question, what do you think is appropriate?

 

A person searches for a cache today, can't find it,  and logs a DNF.  If that person goes back tomorrow and finds the cache should they leave their DNF and post a Find to follow it?  Or is it ok to edit the first log entry, turning the DNF into a Found?

Heck, I logged a DNF and a find on this cache on the same day. I left the DNF log because I made a trip to look for the cache in the morning and didn't find it. I came back later and found it. Two hunts, two logs.

 

And, by the way, the cache wasn't there when I looked for it the first time.