Are People Reluctant To Log A No-find.

June 26, 2004

(2) I think DNFs make the cache owner nervous that the cache might be gone. If I came and put full effort and know the cache will take some extensive searching, I will post a DNF, just to put the difficulty of the cache in perspective.

I'm one of those cache owners that feels that I should check up on DNFs ASAP. Not so much because I'm nervous but because I want people's caching experience to be a good one so I'll check within a day or 2 of a DNF report (for the caches near my home, a week or 2 for the 2 caches that are a couple of hours away) and make a note on the page. If it's missing I'll replace it within a week or 2, or archive it right away if I think it's in a bad spot and likely to go missing again.

3k · June 26, 2004

One sneeze doesn't mean I'm contagious, not stopping means I may need to let people know they may want to keep away.

So you are saying that, to the cache owner, DNFs only acquire importance as they increase in number.

I'm sure the third or fourth "guinea pig" that sought the cache after the initial DNF will find that thought comforting, and will feel most appreciated.

June 26, 2004

One sneeze doesn't mean I'm contagious, not stopping means I may need to let people know they may want to keep away.

So you are saying that, to the cache owner, DNFs only acquire importance as they increase in number.

Do you go to the doctor after one sneeze?

7.2k · June 26, 2004

Seriously, why do you keep saying this? Doesn't leaving a note send a notification to the cache owner by email just like a find or DNF does?

Apparently you've either not read the other entire thread or this one, you're still screwing with me, or you've got some kind of comprehension problem (which I doubt.)

Here, I'll use pretty pictures to illustrate:

This is an image from watcher.

This is an image from GSAK.

Note in both there is an indication that someone couldn't find the cache. There is only one in each example. What this indicates to a person visiting the area is someone hunted and didn't find the cache. In the Watcher example, it means the last person didn't find the cache. In the GASK example, it means two people have found it since the last person didn't find it.

This functionality of these programs would be broken if people don't log their visits properly.

So, you see, to answer your question directly "Seriously, why do you keep saying this?" Because by posting a note you are not letting the GPX programs do their job.

"Doesn't leaving a note send a notification to the cache owner by email just like a find or DNF does?" Yes, but it doesn't give hunters down the line the proper information.

One last note on this: posting DNF properly isn't just for users of GPX programs. You can easily scan the online cache page for purple faces without reading the logs. This can tell you many things just from the number of purple faces, grey notes, and yellow smilies. But it doesn't work if you don't log properly!

Edited June 26, 2004 by CoyoteRed

June 26, 2004

One sneeze doesn't mean I'm contagious, not stopping means I may need to let people know they may want to keep away.

So you are saying that, to the cache owner, DNFs only acquire importance as they increase in number.

I'm sure the third or fourth "guinea pig" that sought the cache after the initial DNF will find that thought comforting, and will feel most appreciated.

Actually, yes, I am saying that. A DNF means one person hasn't found it. How many caches out there (that have been in place for a while) don't have a DNF on them. Most do. It's the repetitious ones I worry about. A single won't keep me from looking for one. Two consecutives, maybe. Three or more in a row, I'll probably wait awhile, hoping the owner will check up on it.

1.4k · June 26, 2004

I figure I need to spend 30 minutes looking before I'll log a DNF. That way, in my mind, I've given it a good effort and I couldn't find it. I think DNFs are very valuable as they give hiders feedback on their caches. Unfortunately, not all hiders seem to take that feedback and check their caches out after they've gotten DNFs on their logs.
<<SNIP>>

So you only hunt caches that are 2 star difficulty or less?

I don't understand your logic. You looked! period. You didn't find it! period.

There is no "BBL" (Be Back Later) log. This isn't even a gray area. By your logic on a 3 star difficulty cache you should invest 3-5 hours before you log a DNF. That could be 6-10 30 minute trips to the cache area.

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

**Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache

38.2k · June 26, 2004

So you are saying that, to the cache owner, DNFs only acquire importance as they increase in number.

To a point, yes. One DNF doesn't necessarily indicate a problem, particularly if its a novice geocacher, or a more difficult cache. Using the number of DNF's along with the text in the log and also taking into consideration the experience of the hunter and the difficulty of the hide are things I use to decide if the cache needs a visit.

For instance one cache of mine had 3 consecutive DNF's. In the first two logs, the hunters indicated that they didn't look very long and one of them was a novice, so I didn't bother going out there. I knew it was a slightly difficult cache. With the 3rd DNF, the person indicated they searched for close to an hour, so it was apparent to me that the cache needed a visit. I was fairly certain it was there before I went, and sure enough it was.

Now if if the cache is a 1/1 and a BassoonPilot, or Stayfloopy registered an DNF, I'd probably visit it right away.

Edited June 26, 2004 by briansnat

1.4k · June 26, 2004

HA! Seems I'm not the only one that uses DNF's differently.

You're kidding right?

3.8k · June 26, 2004

If the information was so important, I would think the cache owner would be eager to check the condition of his/her cache after a single DNF; not after two or three.

Nah.

By failing to check on a cache after a single DNF, isn't the cache owner "withholding important information about the cache" from those people planning on doing the cache?

Nah.

Ditto.

3k · June 26, 2004

Do you go to the doctor after one sneeze?

According to the points you have made, the question should be: "Are OTHER PEOPLE sent to see the doctor after someone sneezes once?"

I submit the correct answer is: "It depends on who sneezed."

I agree that in most cases, a single DNF would not cause me to decide not to seek a cache. Two consective DNFs probably wouldn't deter me, if I was unfamiliar with (or in some cases, familiar with) the cachers that had logged the DNFs. Three in a row is pushing it. It is my opinion that by then, the cache owner should have visited the site or arranged for a previous finder to visit the site.

Edited June 26, 2004 by BassoonPilot

3k · June 26, 2004

Here, I'll use pretty pictures to illustrate:

Though I do agree that logging DNFs is the proper thing to do, CR's "pretty pictures" are, from my perspective, the best reason I've seen yet for not posting any logs to caches. Every aspect of geocaching seems to becoming far too automated, far too easy. There is precious little challenge or adventure to be found.

Edited June 26, 2004 by BassoonPilot

June 26, 2004

It seems to me this you have contradicted yourself.

I agree that in most cases, a single DNF would not cause me to decide not to seek a cache. Two consective DNFs probably wouldn't deter me, if I was unfamiliar with (or in some cases, familiar with) the cachers that had logged the DNFs. Three in a row is pushing it. It is my opinion that by then, the cache owner should have visited the site or arranged for a previous finder to visit the site.

Isn't that a contradiction?

If the information was so important, I would think the cache owner would be eager to check the condition of his/her cache after a single DNF; not after two or three.

By failing to check on a cache after a single DNF, isn't the cache owner "withholding important information about the cache" from those people planning on doing the cache?

I agree that people should ALWAYS log their DNFs; I am simply disagreeing with Brian's argument.

3k · June 26, 2004

Where is the contradiction?

4.1k · June 26, 2004

Here, I'll use pretty pictures to illustrate:

This is an image from watcher.

!

How about a "pretty picture" from watcher showing the icon for "a note".

I know it takes time to stop and use the PDA to read the note, Oh well.

Slow down and take the time to enjoy some of the great cache pages people have put together.

John

38.2k · June 26, 2004

here is precious little challenge or adventure to be found.

I don't see how putting cache pages on a PDA, rather than using a sheet of paper, or using these programs like Watcher and GSAK to prepare for your hunt and help choose which caches you want to go for remove the adventure. You still have to get out there and find the cache. All the programs in the world won't do that for you, except the one inside your GPS.

June 26, 2004

Where is the contradiction?

I agree that in most cases, a single DNF would not cause me to decide not to seek a cache. Two consective DNFs probably wouldn't deter me

...

If the information was so important, I would think the cache owner would be eager to check the condition of his/her cache after a single DNF; not after two or three.

Why check after one DNF if it one isn't enough to deter you. I don't think most people are deterred by one, often times even two.

June 26, 2004

It may depend on who posts the DNF. If it's from an experienced cacher that "I know he/she should have been able to find this one!" it could mean more than a DNF from a person with only a few finds. Also, the location of the cache and schedule of the hider have to factor in. A 50 mile trip and a 2 hour hike to check up on a cache is not something lightly undertaken and is probably not going to happen after only a single DNF, but should after a few in a row. A walk-up in the park a couple of blocks over is another matter.

6.4k · June 26, 2004

It seems to me this you have contradicted yourself.

I agree that in most cases, a single DNF would not cause me to decide not to seek a cache. Two consective DNFs probably wouldn't deter me, if I was unfamiliar with (or in some cases, familiar with) the cachers that had logged the DNFs. Three in a row is pushing it. It is my opinion that by then, the cache owner should have visited the site or arranged for a previous finder to visit the site.

Isn't that a contradiction?

If the information was so important, I would think the cache owner would be eager to check the condition of his/her cache after a single DNF; not after two or three.

By failing to check on a cache after a single DNF, isn't the cache owner "withholding important information about the cache" from those people planning on doing the cache?

I agree that people should ALWAYS log their DNFs; I am simply disagreeing with Brian's argument.

The contridiction seems to be that as a cache finder you feel 1 DNF probably doesn't mean there is a problem with the cache, but 2 or 3 DNFs in a row does. Yet it seems you feel the cache owner should be eager to run out on check on it after only one DNF.

If anything, it seems that it's the other cache seekers who are the ones withholding important info to you by not logging a DNF, since you just said you decide if you're going to hunt a cache or not based on the DNFs.

7.2k · June 26, 2004

I know it takes time to stop and use the PDA to read the note, Oh well.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Slow down and take the time to enjoy some of the great cache pages people have put together.

Many of those "great cache pages" are just a jumbled mess on a PDA.

Besides, when we're in the field we're not out there to look at pretty webpages--even if they were on the PDA--we're out there to cache.

6.4k · June 26, 2004

I know it takes time to stop and use the PDA to read the note, Oh well.

Slow down and take the time to enjoy some of the great cache pages people have put together.

John

Actually, it's not always about "speed caching"

I don't usually start off reading the logs because I don't want to spoil the hunt. If it's a traditional full-size cache, I often won't even read the discription first. This sure doesn't speed things up, if anything I slow down more, and spend more time ejoying the area. Since I didn't read the part on the cache page that said "park a N12 34.56 W098 76.543 and take the red trail to the broken tree" I explored much of the park looking for a good parking place. I then followed the blue trail and saw an amazing waterfall before it veered off the wrong way, so I went back and tried the red trail.

The only thing watcher helped me with was deciding what caches to hunt in the area without ruining that hunt for me. The only thing the PDA helped me with was the parking info when I couldnt find the way in on my own, or the cache description when I couldn't locate the cache on my own.

6.4k · June 26, 2004

Slow down and take the time to enjoy some of the great cache pages people have put together.
Many of those "great cache pages" are just a jumbled mess on a PDA.

Besides, when we're in the field we're not out there to look at pretty webpages--even if they were on the PDA--we're out there to cache.

Exactly, CR. Which is more important, the pretty cache page on the PC back home, or getting out there and looking for the cache?

4.1k · June 26, 2004

Watcher uses an icon for notes posted to the cache page just as it uses an icon for DNF. A note on the cache page may be from a cacher who had a problem with the cache (as in 'needs maintenance, the contents were ruined by the rain') or it could be from the owner (as in 'I changed the container from a large ammo can to a small tupperware'), etc. The note may have some info needed to help find the cache and could be as important as a "frownie".

Try changing from a PDA to a laptop. They work great and are easier on the eyes of us 2oldfarts.

John

6.4k · June 26, 2004

Watcher uses an icon for notes posted to the cache page just as it uses an icon for DNF. A note on the cache page may be from a cacher who had a problem with the cache (as in 'needs maintenance, the contents were ruined by the rain') or it could be from the owner (as in 'I changed the container from a large ammo can to a small tupperware'), etc. The note may have some info needed to help find the cache and could be as important as a "frownie".

Try changing from a PDA to a laptop. They work great and are easier on the eyes of us 2oldfarts.

John

Actually, I have a laptop just for caching, but it doesn't fit as well as the PDA in the back pocket of this middle-aged fart's pants, and I'd rather not carry the weight on the 6-10 mile cache hikes I favor. :mad: (PS: You can also make the font size on the PDA bigger and bolder so it's easier to read )

To carry this one step further, and hopefully explain the difference in using a note vs a DNF, I use Spinner on my gpx file before loading into my GPS. One of the MANY things I use spinner for is to change the icon of caches that have 3 consecutive DNFs so I know there is a problem. From there I can decide to just not hunt it, or look at a printout, PDA or laptop.

The fact is, if you searched for a cache and Did Not Find it after a resonable search related to the cache difficulty, it should be a DNF. No shame in that. Now if it's a 3.5 star difficulty, and after 15 minutes you realize you're late to meet your wife for dinner, that could be a legit note instead of a DNF. And that's fine, because you're 15 minutes really doesn't mean there is a problem with the hide.

Edited June 26, 2004 by Mopar

7.2k · June 26, 2004

The note may have some info needed to help find the cache and could be as important as a "frownie".

True, BUT a note can also be for things other than someone having a problem with finding the cache. That's why there is the DNF type. When you see a DNF you know that log is about a person failing to find the cache, not dropping off a TB, more swag, saying how cool the cache is, or anything else.

Try changing from a PDA to a laptop. They work great and are easier on the eyes of us 2oldfarts.

What makes you think we don't use a laptop? GPX files don't carry graphics so the pages tend to still be broken. The only advatage a laptop has over a PDA is more room to read the pages--and in our case, color as our PDA is a m105 (monochrome).

7.2k · June 26, 2004

Does anyone else get the idea some of the "solutions" presented aren't used by the people proposing said solution?

June 26, 2004

gee whiz people. On this site, as has been exhaustively pointed out, there are limited choices for logging a cache, and two of them have well defined purposes. Found it, and Did not Find it. Plain English there. You did or you didn't. If you looked that is, and what is with the time limits on looking? does it really matter? It is still did not find, and you can mention you didn't look long in the log.

Until another option of "came and looked, will come back, maybe" is offered on the site, just use what there is in the manner it was intended for.

This is how communities work. People use the same guidelines and then it is clear when others look at the results.

just out of curiosity, do you stop at stop signs, or just roll? for the record, I stop, even in the middle of nowhere.

3k · June 26, 2004

I don't see how ...

It's interesting how broad statements sometimes receive such narrow responses.

June 26, 2004

Another reason I as a cacher like to see the DNF's: If I see several DNF's, sprinkled among the finds I will read the logs a bit closer. The DNF's could indicate a trickier hide and I am going to really have to look hard if I hope to find it. Maybe that one or two rating is a little off and it really is closer to a three or four. The DNF's may indicate that. Yes, I am reluctant to log it, but again, I ALWAYS do.

June 26, 2004

Watcher uses an icon for notes posted to the cache page just as it uses an icon for DNF. A note on the cache page may be from a cacher who had a problem with the cache (as in 'needs maintenance, the contents were ruined by the rain') or it could be from the owner (as in 'I changed the container from a large ammo can to a small tupperware'), etc. The note may have some info needed to help find the cache and could be as important as a "frownie".

Thanks John. Nice to know this information. So it seems like you could log a DNF or a Note and it would still signal the same thing to PQ users and cache owners. That is, assuming they read the logs.

Edited June 26, 2004 by PandyBat

3k · June 26, 2004

The contridiction seems to be that as a cache finder you feel 1 DNF probably doesn't mean there is a problem with the cache, but 2 or 3 DNFs in a row does. Yet it seems you feel the cache owner should be eager to run out on check on it after only one DNF.

No, there is no contradiction. I stated that one DNF probably would not deter me from seeking a cache, but depending on circumstances, two or three might. I neither stated nor implied that I believed such a cache probably did not "have a problem."

Put my words back in context: BrianSnat stated that not logging a DNF denies the cache owner important information about the cache. I suggested that by not personally checking on the cache after a DNF, the cache owner was similarly denying the subsequent seeker(s) important information about the cache. In other words, in my opinion, Brian was looking at only "one side of the coin."

From my personal experience visiting caches after the previous seeker logged a DNF, I have determined that in many cases the previous seeker simply missed the cache. But I have not found it to be a rare event (I remember one day where they numbered 4 out of 5 caches) for the cache to be actually missing, never to be found again. In many of those caches, several additional DNFs accumulated before the owner took any action. (Which, in far too many cases, was for the owner simply to archive the cache without ever revisiting the cache location.)

In my opinion, that's a needless waste of people's time that could have been avoided if the owner had simply checked up on his/her own cache in a timely manner.

Edited June 26, 2004 by BassoonPilot

June 26, 2004

I'm starting to see the logic behind the "I don't log my finds online" or "I log all my finds as notes" crowd. Nobody hollers at them for doing it that way.

7.2k · June 26, 2004

So it seems like you could log a DNF or a Note and it would still signal the same thing to PQ users and cache owners.

No. It was explained in detail above as to why.

It's obvious you're not reading the entire thread.

6.4k · June 27, 2004

I'm starting to see the logic behind the "I don't log my finds online" or "I log all my finds as notes" crowd. Nobody hollers at them for doing it that way.

HA! You got me rolling on the floor, Pandy!

June 27, 2004

Not only do I log all my DNF's, but I'm not shy about DNFing the same cache multiple times.

Examples:

For A NICOL for your thoughts

First DNF

Second DNF

For C(ache) = M.T. Square

First DNF

Second DNF

If I go out and search, and cannot find, it's a DNF.

June 27, 2004

Tiffany has ordered her slaves to always log DNFs. In fact we logged 2 DNFs TODAY (and found one cache). If her majesty Tiffany directs it then it must be the right thing to do.

June 27, 2004

I think DNF's are important. This week we tried a TB hotel where we found an unpleasant character had taken up residence in the vicinity. He had a knife, did not actually threaten us with it but made sure we saw it. With our DNF the owner was able to see there was a problem and disabled that cache so others would not go to that area. What if we had just let it slide and someone tried to night cache there...............

Yes we could have posted a note, but those purple faces get much more attention.

I will not let one DNF stop me from searching out a cache but two or more will make me stop and reconsider unless of course it is a real hard find to begin with.

June 28, 2004

OK, so for all you who wish to log DNFs tell me your opinion on this one.

I go out caching from work with a coworker who has never cached before, but is interested. I pick a 1/1 cache based upon proximity to the office. We navigate to the cache with my street routing GPS to impress coworker and motivate him to get one.

We follow a paved path as the GPS directs once at the park.

We get within 100 feet and the GPS is pointing to a spot outside the park and on private property.

I figure I must be approaching from the wrong direction.

I look at all avenues of approach. 3 sides require crossing private property and 1 side requires a 500 ft trek through a flooded forrest which would be tough travelling even when not flooded and the cache is rated a 1/1.

I reluctantly decide to not pursue the cache and tell my coworker we will try a different one next week.

While approaching from the most obvious side (the paved path in the park) I noticed a very prominent large bush in the middle of an otherwise bare grass field.

When I get back to the office I go to the cache page and read the encrytped hint. It says "Large Bush". Reading through the logs the owner of the cache recently posted that he double checked the coords and they are accurate. Presumably someone emailed him privately that they felt the coords were way off.

I had a WAAS lock while searching for this cache and my home testing shows that I am never less than 15 feet off, usually 7-8 ft off with a WAAS lock so I am confident that the 100 ft innaccuracy wasn't from my GPS.

What do I do? Do I email the cache owner privately? Do I log a DNF (I didn't find it because I hadn't read the hint and was unwilling to trespass on private property or bushwack while in work clothes)?

1.1k · June 28, 2004

dantonac: FWIW, I would first log a DNF since you didn't find the cache on the first attempt stating your concerns about private property and flooded area, etc. I would then take coworker back out on the hunt, search around the large bush area and assuming you find the cache, you and coworker sign the log I would take the following steps:

1 - Log another entry on the page showing the find under your account.

2 - In your log entry post the coordinates that were on your GPS when you found it.

3 - Get your coworker to create an account here and then log their first find :mad:

Zack

7.2k · June 28, 2004

OK, so for all you who wish to log DNFs tell me your opinion on this one.

ZJ nailed it. It's a DNF. The rest is good advise.

38.2k · June 28, 2004

What do I do? Do I email the cache owner privately? Do I log a DNF (I didn't find it because I hadn't read the hint and was unwilling to trespass on private property or bushwack while in work clothes)?

That's a DNF. You went to find the cache and didn't find it.

We had a DNF this weekend. Someone placed a series of caches next to backpacking trail shelters in a state park. We walked a mile up a steep hill to get there and upon approaching the area of the cache, there were dozens of tents pitched in the area and many people milling about (turned out to be a Boy Scout backpacking trip). There was a rocky outcrop near the where the cache seemed to be so we approached it from the south, out of sight of the campers, hoping it would be hidden in the outcrop. We got to the outcrop and the needle said we still had 70 feet to go, which would have put the cache right next to one of the tents.

There was no way we could have entered the site without being seen, so we turned around and logged a DNF. Our reasoning? We went to find the cache and we didn't.

Edited June 28, 2004 by briansnat

June 28, 2004

You convinced me to change a 'note' to a 'DNF.' For some reason, it was hard for me to log it as a DNF. Mainly because I ran out of time, and I knew if I'd had more time, I would have found it. AND, I plan to return and WILL find it. But it most definitely was a DNF. I DIDN'T FIND IT! But it's been the most fun I've ever had trying to find a cache:

U Tell Me!

June 28, 2004

Probably beating a dead horse with this, but my reason for posting a DNF is so that others can see that it is harder to find. When I get three postings of DNF, I assume it has been plundered...I then try to contact the Owner, to let them know other are having trouble finding it. It is my hope that they will revisit the Cache, and confirm that it is active.

I have seen incidents recently, that several Cache's were not there, but it took a few brave souls to post it, and then when more come back and say it is unavailable, we can get a moderator to take the Cache offline.

I have 25 finds, so I know that it takes some searching sometimes. Camo is great, but bad clues often contribute to more frustration that a moved cache.

June 29, 2004

People in Colorado Springs area are, its funny. So what you couldnt find it, log it.

Are People Reluctant To Log A No-find.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation