Revisiting A Dnf Cache

[+Lil Moose & Big Bear]

I logged a DNF for my second cache. Since that time, two friendly cachers emailed me to let me know that due to problems with the cache and the fact that the cache owner left town, the cache had been moved to a new location that was listed in the logs. My question is: Once you log a DNF, is it politically correct to look for the cache again? If so, do you edit your first log and change it to Found or create a new log for the find? Thanks for the advice!

[adrianjohn]

Yes you go hunt it again!

 

Leave your DNF log and enter a new Found It log when you find it.

It is important to log DNFs as they can alert the owner to any problems, and they are also an important part of the cache history and your personal history.

[+harold1066]

I`ve posted DNF on the same cache three times; everyone else can find it

 

So when I do find it and BIG found will go up

 

Geo

[+AuntieWeasel]

If so, do you edit your first log and change it to Found or create a new log for the find?

I do a brand new log with a smiley. That's how you keep the cache's history straight.

 

But you better believe I go back after my DNF's

[+fly46]

Of course you go back and find it..

The purpose of this isn't to look for a cache for naught, it's to find the darn thing.

[+NiteCrawler]

I tend to delete my DNFs after finding the cache, unless my moaning and ranting was particularly poetic.

[+Team DEMP]

First, go back and find the cache. I think the most DNFs on a cache before I found it was 3 (or maybe 4). When I get a DNF, it's typically top on my list to go back and look for it again as soon as I can, especially if someone else posts a Found for it.

 

As for how to do it, I agree with most of the others - post a new Found entry for it. I think editing/removing a DNF entry isn't the proper way of doing it. The biggest reason for leaving it, is the cache logs tell a story. If they didn't, all we would do is select Find (or DNF) and not enter anything. The fact that we enter comments is what builds the character of good caches. If all it showed was the happy times and not the tough times, it wouldn't tell the whole story. Imagine reading the story of Goldilocks and the 3 Bears and when she finds the bed that's "just right", the author went back and removed the portion of the story where the bed was too soft or too hard. You get my drift.

[+Team DEMP]

I tend to delete my DNFs after finding the cache, unless my moaning and ranting was particularly poetic.

I recall some discussion with Jeremy that he was looking to lock down log entries to make them uneditable after some time (a day or two). I don't know if it would totally prevent you from deleting a log, but it could, if the change he mentioned does get implemented.

[+Robespierre]

I have an out-standing dnf right now, and I'm waiting for a daughter to commit, 'cause I go back with help.

But just for the record, I did everything right, and I had to be standing on top of it! Honest, I did!

[+briansnat]

I logged a DNF for my second cache.  Since that time, two friendly cachers emailed me to let me know that due to problems with the cache and the fact that the cache owner left town, the cache had been moved to a new location that was listed in the logs.  My question is:  Once you log a DNF, is it politically correct to look for the cache again?  If so, do you edit your first log and change it to Found or create a new log for the find?  Thanks for the advice!

Sure you can hunt it again. No you don't edit the log. First, the owner will not get a notification of the find if you edit it and second, the logs are part of the history of the cache. DNFs are useful for owners and searchers. By scanning the logs and seeing DNF's, someone who is llooking for the cache will know that the cache might not be as easy as the owner rated it and will put in the extra time to look for it.

 

For instance, if the owner rated the cache one star for difficulty, I'll expect to find it in a few minutes and if I don't, I'll assume its missing and give up. If, instead I see a number of DNF's sprinkled among the logs, I'll know that the owner might have misrated the cache a bit and I'll put in extra time searching.

 

Similarly, that owner, seeing a number of DNFs in the logs, will know to raise the difficutly level a star (or more).

 

The DNFs are important information to searchers and owners and by deleting them, or editing them, you are denying them that information. And as I said earlier, they are a part of the history of the cache, so I really don't see why people would want to mess with that....and most important of all, the DNF logs are often the most entertaining.

Edited August 19, 2004 by briansnat

[+wimseyguy]

I logged a DNF for my second cache.  Since that time, two friendly cachers emailed me to let me know that due to problems with the cache and the fact that the cache owner left town, the cache had been moved to a new location that was listed in the logs.  My question is:  Once you log a DNF, is it politically correct to look for the cache again?  If so, do you edit your first log and change it to Found or create a new log for the find?  Thanks for the advice!

Look for it again? In my book it is mandatory!

I view those ugly purple frownies as added incentive to find the %$@# cache. In fact they are at the top of my find next list rather than another new unfound cache.

The general concensus here is to leave the original log; it is part of the cache's history. Post a new FOUND IT log. It will give you much more satisfaction then a mere edit.

[+kone]

As a rule, I will only go back for DNF's after I see that at least one other person finds it after my DNF.

To either confirm that it really is there or that it has gone missing.

[+YuccaPatrol]

A related question:

 

There is a micro that I have logged a DNF for that is hidden by a particularly crafty cacher in my area. It is located near my GF's workplace so I can visit the area when I come to her workplace from time to time. I have been back again but have not logged a second DNF since I only spent a couple of minutes looking for it because it is in a very busy location where I cannot spend much time without possibly drawing unnecessary attention to the specific area.

 

Should I log a DNF every time I visit the cache area, even if just walk by and cannot access the area or spend more than a minute or 2 looking?

 

I feel no shame for logging a DNF, but dont' want to clog the log with a bunch of DNF's from a newbie looking for a craftily hidden micro. . .

[+kone]

Probably no point in logging a quick walk-by... as it provides no real useful information for the next seeker or the cache owner. If I am ever interrupted before I can do a cache search (ie/ get to the parking spot, realize my GPS batteries are dead) and I have to abandon it, I don't log it at all.

[+as77]

I logged a DNF for my second cache. Since that time, two friendly cachers emailed me to let me know that due to problems with the cache and the fact that the cache owner left town, the cache had been moved to a new location that was listed in the logs.

If you didn't find it because in fact it wasn't there and this was already known then maybe it's OK to change the previous DNF to a note. And then of course go for the cache at the new location.

[+briansnat]

I logged a DNF for my second cache.  Since that time, two friendly cachers emailed me to let me know that due to problems with the cache and the fact that the cache owner left town, the cache had been moved to a new location that was listed in the logs.

If you didn't find it because in fact it wasn't there and this was already known then maybe it's OK to change the previous DNF to a note. And then of course go for the cache at the new location.

Why would he change the log for a cache that he didn't find from an DNF to a note? he went to find a cache and didn't. That is the purpose of the DNF log. The reason doesn't matter - it was a DNF.

[+greende]

I have to agree with briansnat, let the previous DNF stand. It is part of the cache history. Whatever the reason for the DNF.

[+as77]

In this case the DNF is actually misleading because people might think that it was the new location where he didn't find it. Someone may not read the log, just see that the last log is a DNF and decide not to go for the cache. Therefore I strongly recommend changing that DNF to a note, saying: "I went to the old location by mistake and of course I couldn't find it there" or something similar.

 

A DNF has a twofold purpose: it either indicates that you had some difficulty or it indicates that the cache might not be there. Now if it is already known and indicated that the cache is not there but it is elsewhere then a DNF is not appropriate in my opinion. You can provide the same information in a note, avoiding the misleading part of information that a DNF icon carries.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

In this case the DNF is actually misleading because people might think that it was the new location where he didn't find it. Someone may not read the log, just see that the last log is a DNF and decide not to go for the cache. Therefore I strongly recommend changing that DNF to a note, saying: "I went to the old location by mistake and of course I couldn't find it there" or something similar.

If they're too lazy to read why the last log was a DNF, they're also too lazy to go hiking for geocaches. Tell them to stay home instead. TV's much more their speed

[+wimseyguy]

Now Saxy don't be so harsh. They could always look for the German Couch Potato Caches . I'd post a link to them, but I'm too lazy to search for it.

[+briansnat]

A DNF has a twofold purpose: it either indicates that you had some difficulty or it indicates that the cache might not be there.

 

Actually a DNF has one purpose. To indicate that you didn't find the cache. When you search for a cache, there are two possiblilties, you found it, or didn't. The found it log covers the former and the DNF the latter. The reason you didn't find it is irrelevant. Its still a DNF. You can note the reasons in the text.

[+as77]

You have a very binary way of thinking. )

OK, then I'll pick a cache in California, start to look for it here in NY and then post a DNF for it. Looked for it, didn't find it, it's a DNF, right?

[+Lil Moose & Big Bear]

Thanks for your help. I'm looking forward to Saturday so I can revisit my DNF and get my smiley!!

[+YuccaPatrol]

You have a very binary way of thinking. )

OK, then I'll pick a cache in California, start to look for it here in NY and then post a DNF for it. Looked for it, didn't find it, it's a DNF, right?

Yes it would be a DNF, but I don't really believe you looked all that hard

[+briansnat]

You have a very binary way of thinking. )

OK, then I'll pick a cache in California, start to look for it here in NY and then post a DNF for it. Looked for it, didn't find it, it's a DNF, right?

You're taking it to ridiculious extremes, but even in that case, I'd say sure. If I picked out a cache in CA and decided to go on a cross country road trip specficially to find it and wound up not finding it because my car broke down in Las Vegas, I would probably log a DNF.

[+as77]

Maybe there is a cache under my desk... let's look... oops, there is no cache there. Now I can go log DNFs for all caches on the website... huh, that's gonna take some time.

[+Jeeters]

I tend to delete my DNFs after finding the cache, unless my moaning and ranting was particularly poetic.

I would leave it. DNFs can help future cachers get a better idea what they'll be up against if they attempt the find. For example, a cache rated 1/1 that has a few DNFs on it is a good clue that the cache's rating is too low.