Dnf's: Do You Admit To Them By Posting Them?

[+Mopar]

How many of your DNF's would have been served just as well, if not better, with a note?

 

Why would someone use a note instead of a DNF if they don't find a cache? I really don't get the point of doing that.

When the reason you did not find the cache is not really related to the cache or the cache hunt?

 

Example:

I've really been looking forward to doing this cache, and today seemed like the perfect day, so I loaded up my gear and headed out. As I was pulling into the parking lot, my wife called on the cell to tell me Jr accidently got hit in the head with a bat playing ball down the street. It's probably nothing (that kid has thick skull, just like his dad!), but we had better get it checked out to be safe. Oh well, guess I'll try again next week.

 

UPDATE: The kid is fine, just gonna have one heck of a headache for a few days. Thanks for all the emails of concern. I'll be back for this cache next weekend!

 

That's an interesting story, and part of the cache hunter's history. Technically he didn't find the cache, yet since he didnt' actually try to find the cache, this log should be a note, not a DNF.

[+CYBret]

[CoyoteRed]

I post all of my DNFs, but if it's determined that the cache was indeed missing, then I change that DNF to a note, once the owner has verified it is missing. Can't find what isn't there!

I never understood this circular logic.

 

This is another prime example of folks making up the rules as they go. No one can get in the same play-book, much less the same page, if there is no set standards.

 

I mean, come on, this isn't even a grey area.

[+briansnat]

Can't find what isn't there!

 

Which makes it a DNF.

[+CYBret]

I hate to contribute to the dead-horse beating. But it seems to me that there are at least two points of view for what this website does:

 

1. It records your finds

 

2. It records your experiences.

 

Personally, I like to record my experiences. I'll post finds when I find a cache and I'll post DNF's when I don't find the cache. I'll post notes when I have some comment to contribute to the cache page that is neither a find nor a DNF (such as a maintenance visit, or--as I recently did--a return to a cache I previously found because other people had posted a few DNF's).

 

My experience has also been that if I DON'T post a DNF I get emails from cache owners asking why I didn't search for their caches when I was in the area. Maybe that's just a local thing, though.

 

Again...not wanting to flog the expired equestrian here, but it's how I play my game and it's how I contribute to my community.

 

And there's the angel thing, too.

 

Bret

 

Bret

[+Otter and Lemur]

Yes I do and wish others would ALWAYS.

Don't understand why you wouldn't.

The only time I don't is when I didn't really manage to properly hunt for the cache. If I drove to a site, eyed the terrain, realized that it was a yard deep in snow, and drove off, that's not a DNF in my book. In my book, a DNF is a valuable tool for a cache owner to know that there MIGHT, repeat MIGHT, be a problem with his or her cache. If people who KNOW they didn't get close enough to a cache to find it post DNFs, it's not really providing any useful information.

 

-- Lemur

[+briansnat]

In my book, a DNF is a valuable tool for a cache owner to know that there MIGHT, repeat MIGHT, be a problem with his or her cache

 

And it also lets the owner and other geocachers know that it MIGHT be a bit harder than the rating.

[+Otter and Lemur]

That may be true but that doesn't say that emailing the owner will result in the owner checking on the cache in a timely manner (or at all).  A DNF (or a series of DNF's) can alert potential hunters of problems with a cache.  This can be valueable info (especially for people who have travelled a great distance to hunt for a cache).

Here in Vermont, we have a few very youthful cache-hiders who, well, DON'T do cache maintenance on their caches. In some cases, the caches are never found at all, and in others, are only found after painstaking searches in a very wide radius around the coordinates, followed by found notes with updated coordinates and so forth.

 

Notes mailed to these cache owners go absolutely ignored, so mailing notes wouldn't do a lot of good. If one didn't have previous visitors DNFs to go on, you'd think the cache was in fine shape, just hard to find.

 

-- Lemur

[+Otter and Lemur]

As for the "cache history", a note would work just as well.

Well, no, it wouldn't.

 

In some of the third-party programs (like GSAK) you can eyeball a list of caches and see which ones have a lot of DNFs and make your decisions about which caches to focus on based on that. DNFs show up as red, founds show up green, notes show up as gray. If I'm visiting an area and trying to triage which of the hundreds of caches I might want to go after, a cache speckled with red DNFs will be a lot less likely to get my attention than one that has mixed green and gray, all other things being considered equal.

[+SeventhSon]

If I'm visiting an area and trying to triage which of the hundreds of caches I might want to go after, a cache speckled with red DNFs will be a lot less likely to get my attention than one that has mixed green and gray, all other things being considered equal.

Which makes another point. If the guy whose kid was hit by a bat logs a DNF, you see it in GSAK as red which makes you think there may be a problem, when the cache was not even searched.

 

7

[+vree]

And there's the angel thing, too.

 

If I can't find a cache, I log it as a DNF. I have started not logging DNF's if I am with other cachers and they log that there were, say, three pairs of eyes looking for it. It should be sufficient for the placer and other cachers to know that three cachers couldn't find it on 1 visit. I, for one, appreciate logged DNFs even though they can have negative effects. Sometimes I give up easier if I see a DNF as the last log.

 

And everything Otter and Lemur said is right on, IMHO.

[+sept1c_tank]

How many of your DNF's would have been served just as well, if not better, with a note?... 

As for the "cache history", a note would work just as well.

A note will serve the cache history just fine; how does it serve you?

 

I can think of only one reason to avoid writing a DNF: the seeker simply does not want to face the facts.

 

Be that as it may. If logging a frownie face embarrasses you, or you perceive it as a blemish on your record, don't do it. It's your call.

 

And I don't understand why anyone would change a DNF to a find at a later date. There is no shame in a DNF.

[+RichardMoore]

As for the "cache history", a note would work just as well.

Well, no, it wouldn't.

 

In some of the third-party programs (like GSAK) you can eyeball a list of caches and see which ones have a lot of DNFs and make your decisions about which caches to focus on based on that. DNFs show up as red, founds show up green, notes show up as gray. If I'm visiting an area and trying to triage which of the hundreds of caches I might want to go after, a cache speckled with red DNFs will be a lot less likely to get my attention than one that has mixed green and gray, all other things being considered equal.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. The line that you quoted was in reference to logging a DNF because the searcher "forgot their shoes" and didn't actually get to the area of the cache and search for it, not because they couldn't find the cache. In that case a note would be better than a DNF.

[+RichardMoore]

I can think of only one reason to avoid writing a DNF: the seeker simply does not want to face the facts.

 

I find that somewhat insulting.

If as you say, I don't want to face facts, why is it that in my log when I find the cache I will mention that I'd searched for it unsuccessfully before?

Embarrasses me? Same thing.

A blemish on my record? You mean that record that no one but me can see?

It's my call? You're right. And I chose not to do it.

[+Markwell]

Doesn't anyone READ the logs? If I'm going to be searching for a cache and I see a few DNFs - the FIRST thing I'm going to do is read those logs. What did they say? How long ago?

 

While my experience (or lack thereof) may indeed carry more weight than someone who has never found a cache, if my log says that I tried but gave up for other reasons, I would think no one would balk at searching for the cache.

[+sept1c_tank]

The line that you quoted was in reference to logging a DNF because the searcher "forgot their shoes" and didn't actually get to the area of the cache and search for it, not because they couldn't find the cache.  In that case a note would be better than a DNF.

In what way would it be better? If the DNF states that the seeker forgot his shoes, it is not misleading in a way that might indicate that there is a problem with the cache...rather, it would indicate that there is a problem with the cacher.

 

If I notice several DNFs on a cache log, I read them. Sometimes, a string of DNFs actually encourages me to hunt a particular cache. Sometimes, it reminds me to take my shoes.

 

If as you say, I don't want to face facts, why is it that in my log when I find the cache I will mention that I'd searched for it unsuccessfully before?

Embarrasses me? Same thing.

A blemish on my record? You mean that record that no one but me can see?

It's my call? You're right. And I chose not to do it.

 

My point, exactly.

[+WascoZooKeeper]

If I feel that I have made an honest effort to locate the cache and I simply can not find it, I will log a DNF.  If I made a half hearted attempt and then gave up to look for another cache, no, I most likely won't post.  I've looked for caches and planned to log a no find only to get home and find others had found it the same day.  This tells me I just didn't look hard enough.

I agree, that's pretty much what I do, though it's obviously subjective.

 

Sometimes I've gone out looking for several caches when I don't have a lot of time to spend searching. So if it's not a quick find, I move on to another site, planning to return another day when I can do a proper search.

 

But if I feel I've put a decent amount of effort into it, and still couldn't find it, then I will post a DNF. How much is a "decent amount". It depends, and it probably even varies from day to day. Whatever I felt when I walked away.

[+fly46]

I will log a DNF once on a cache.

 

If I go back and still can't find it, but nothing has changed (ie, I'm still just a dork), I won't log another DNF or a note.

 

If I go back and something has changed (ie, I went with a cacher who had found it before) and I still can't find it, then I'll log again.

 

DNFs serve a lot of purpose.

I know that some approvers will step in every time a cache gets three DNFs in a row to make sure the owners are doing their job.

 

As for not 'looking hard enough' How do you know that you haven't? Maybe someone else found it because they had a hint. Besides. Any DNF when the cache hasn't been muggled is because you didn't look hard enough.

[+2qwerqE]

I do log my DNFs. After reading why others do and don't, I went back to analyze my DNFs. Note that I write a note instead of a DNF if I didn't actually get to look for the cache. For example, last weekend, one cache was in a cemetery with a padlocked gate. Another had new No Trespassing signs at the trailhead. I don't feel those are true DNFs, but I did think the cache owner needed to know about the problems, so I sent the notes.

 

Of my 42 DNFs, 8 were found at a later date.

 

6 were actually gone missing, 3 of which were archived and 3 of which were repaired and reactivated, but I've not yet searched for them again.

 

The remaining 28 were real DNFs, for a 9.7% 'failure' rate.

 

Don't know if that's interesting to anyone but me. Don't know if 9.7% is good or bad. But I do know that it's clear that logging DNFs makes a difference to the owners and seekers of the missing caches. And it makes a difference to me, so that I can keep track of the ones I missed and try them again.

 

In performing this little axcercise, I see that another seek-my-DNFs day is in order.

Sounds like fun!

[+Jamie Z]

How many of your DNF's would have been served just as well, if not better, with a note?

Most of the reasons given for posting DNF's are to inform other searchers or the owner of a problem, or to add to the "cache history". Don't some of your DNF's indicate a problem that means little or nothing to other searchers? To use your example, how does you forgetting your shoes affect my finding the cache? As for the "cache history", a note would work just as well.

Richard,

 

I agree--for the sake of giving information to the cache owner and/or future seekers, a note works just as well as a DNF. The text in either log would be identical.

 

But if I'm going to type "blah blah blah, and I dind't find it" then I naturally select the did not find it option in the list.

 

Perhaps it's just my enthusiasm, but I really like to tell stories (if you've met me, you've probably had to sit through a couple) so I like to tell what happened on my hunt, whether I found it or not. But the point is that if it is a hunt, then it should end with a find or a no find. A hunt can't end with a note.

 

Jamie

[+Team GPSaxophone]

A hunt can't end with a note.

Unless you're Oregone who needs to post a note in addition to a find or DNF just to have enough room for the story

[+Jamie Z]

Unless you're Oregone who needs to post a note in addition to a find or DNF just to have enough room for the story

Good point. I've done that too a few times.

 

Jamie

[+Monkeybrad]

I log my dnf's, it lets the owner know that there might be a problem and if the cache is there then they get the pleasure of knowing that the stumped me. I am not ashamed of no finds, they happen to everyone, they are just another part of the game. I am frustrated though, when I get no finds on caches that I have hidden, which are essentially "no hunts". If you never got out of the car, or just drove by the cache site, it is not a dnf.

[+nfa]

I log my DNF if I had the time to look for the cache for a while, and couldn't find it, or can see obvious evidence that it has been destroyed/muggled/etc.

 

I don't log it as a DNF if I couldn't really devote enough time for a complete search of the area, and had to leave to pick up my son or because it got dark or because my GPS died.

 

nfa-jamie

[+SeventhSon]

This thread got me to look at my DNF list to see how many "Cold Caches" I have yet to do. One was missing. A cache I searched and was definately a DNF. I remember writing about visiting the site but scrapped it because of muggles, and came back later that day and still didn't find it after a search, but the DNF is not on the page.

 

Is there a way to find out if my DNF was deleted?

 

7

[+Team GPSaxophone]

if the cache is there then they get the pleasure of knowing that they stumped me.

ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

Part of hiding a cache higher than a difficulty "1" is to stump the finders. It's fun to read DNF logs on a 3/1 cache and see the next person post a find.

[+MarcB]

I always post my DNF's, they're almost always pretty funny

MarcB

[+Stunod]

This thread got me to look at my DNF list to see how many "Cold Caches" I have yet to do. One was missing. A cache I searched and was definately a DNF. I remember writing about visiting the site but scrapped it because of muggles, and came back later that day and still didn't find it after a search, but the DNF is not on the page.

 

Is there a way to find out if my DNF was deleted?

 

7

You get a notice if your log is deleted, but it hasn't always been that way. Anybody remember when that change was made?

[+AuntieWeasel]

I didn't when I was very new, because I assumed I was just, you know, very new.

 

After that, I obey the "I got out of the car" rule mentioned previously. If I can't find the right area or I drive past and don't like the look of it, I skip it and don't DNF. I sometimes consider DNFing the ones I don't like the look of to pass along why, but then I think...other people have done that one and enjoyed it, so why be a downer?

 

The one exception would be, I recently did a multi where most of the logs said they had to do a bit of research online after stage one. So I did that one with no intention of doing the whole thing in one outing. No DNF. On the other hand, the next one I did was a multi where I just got stuck at stage two and I did DNF that. (Boy, was that an irritating weekend).

[+Monkeybrad]

After that, I obey the "I got out of the car" rule mentioned previously. If I can't find the right area or I drive past and don't like the look of it, I skip it and don't DNF. I sometimes consider DNFing the ones I don't like the look of to pass along why, but then I think...other people have done that one and enjoyed it, so why be a downer?

That is the kind of dnf or note that always gets to me. We have a cacher who seems to delight in leaving notes or dnf's on people's pages when the cache does not meet his expectations. He most recently logged on one of mine that all of the hunter's have claimed to enjoy immensely calling it "either the most dangerous or dumbest cache placement he has ever seen". The cache page states that there is more than meets the eye at this location and that it is not a dangerous cache. The biggest kick is that according to his other logs for the day, he was not within 60 miles of the cache. He just read the page and had to say something negative.

 

When logs become a place to take potshots at fellow cachers there is a problem. After all, isn't that what the forums are for.

[+joefrog]

You bet I do. each and every one I fail to find! After all, it may be missing and the owner needs to know about it. Early on I was afraid to admit I had "failed," but you get over that sort of thing... RIGHT?

[+wimseyguy]

Almost always log my DNF's. 104 and counting so far. When don't I? If I already have logged one the day or two before, I might be too lazy to bother logging in just to say"well done hider X you stumped me yesterday and again today!"

There have been some caches that have required 4-5 visits, but are probably right there, I just can't seem to see them under my nose.

There is nothing wrong with the cache, other seekers are even finding it, just not poor ol' pitiful me. I'l probably mention that fact in my 'finally found this sucker' log though.

So, it's sloth , not pride, shame, or potential embarrasment that keeps me from logging repetative DNF's. Yup sloth, and maybe not wanting to give certain hiders any more gratification then they deserve.

 

Also as some have pointed out-if I did make 3-4 consecutive DNF's on a cache page it will skew the info for someone using GSAK to look at the cache page, but that's not why I don't post them, just too dadgum lazy.

[+Muirwoody]

One thing I don't like after posting a dnf is when the next one to find seems to want to make a point of it by logging something like, "Don't understand why Muirwoody couldn't find it..my 2 year old found it in 3 minutes..." Thanks for pointing that. out to everyone..

[+RichardMoore]

if the cache is there then they get the pleasure of knowing that they stumped me.

ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

Part of hiding a cache higher than a difficulty "1" is to stump the finders. It's fun to read DNF logs on a 3/1 cache and see the next person post a find.

ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

I have been asked why I don't log DNF's.

This is one of the reasons. I geocache for my enjoyment, not for the amusement of someone else.

When I hide a cache, I want anyone who looks for it to be able to find it. Can't find it? Send me an e-mail and I'll give you as much information as you want. I don't believe in telling seekers that they have to log a DNF before giving them another clue.

You want to hide a cache that is difficult to find? Go ahead. But you won't know if I've been looking for it until I find it or become convinced that it is gone. You chose to make the cache difficult to find so that you can read the DNF's on it? That is not the way that I play the game.

[+southdeltan]

ding ding ding!  We have a winner!

 

I have been asked why I don't log DNF's.

This is one of the reasons.  I geocache for my enjoyment, not for the amusement of someone else. 

When I hide a cache, I want anyone who looks for it to be able to find it.  Can't find it?  Send me an e-mail and I'll give you as much information as you want.  I don't believe in telling seekers that they have to log a DNF before giving them another clue. 

You want to hide a cache that is difficult to find?  Go ahead.  But you won't know if I've been looking for it until I find it or become convinced that it is gone.  You chose to make the cache difficult to find so that you can read the DNF's on it?  That is not the way that I play the game.

I'm sorry - I know some people do that but I'd wager the majority do not. I honestly don't know anybody that does that in my area. People rate caches accurately. If a cache is hard to find, you can bet it's 3 star or higher (depending on the difficulty).

 

Logging DNFs is just common courtesy. I guess some people aren't courteous.

 

I personally like knowing somebody looked for my cache - it lets me know that I didn't hide it for no reason. It's helpful to potential hunters. It's helpful to me to know something may be wrong (Just because you don't think something is wrong doesn't mean something's not wrong. You have know way of knowing that if you haven't found it).

 

I will always be courteous to my fellow cachers and thank them for hiding a cache for me to look for, regardless if I find it or not.

 

Of course enjoyment is the name of the game, but I'm not going to leave the hider (who's enjoyment is just as important as mine) out.

 

southdeltan

Edited November 9, 2004 by southdeltan

[+SerenityNow]

Hi Richard!

Hey, fess up... have you searched for our library cache and not found it???? Come on... between friends... give us a giggle and post one!

 

Happy caching, Richard!

[+Renegade Knight]

69 and there are at least 3 or 5 DNF's not in the stack so I'm over 10%.

[+RichardMoore]

Hi Richard!

Hey, fess up... have you searched for our library cache and not found it???? Come on... between friends... give us a giggle and post one!

 

Happy caching, Richard!

Nope, I haven't. Nor have I looked for Tinsel. I'm planning on doing Worden's on Saturday, since I'll be down there on a nature hike anyway.

I have searched for Hollywood Park and Journey to the Center of the Mind.

[+RichardMoore]

Okay, this is going to be my last post in this thread.

(Waits for cheering and applause to die down.)

 

Let's see what we've accomplished:

Have I changed my mind about logging DNF's? No, but then no one actually thought that I would, now did they?

However, if you read back through the thread, you will see that there was quite a bit of discussion going on about when it is appropriate to log a DNF. Most of the disagreement on that was based on the level of effort in performing the search, with the difference between posting a note and a DNF coming in second.

Perhaps someone should start a thread to discuss the differences between a DNF and a note, and when to use them. I don't think I should be that person, however.

 

I do believe that this has been the best DNF thread yet.

Thank you.

Goodbye.

[+aprilbapryll]

i post a note if i haven't made a concerted effort to look for a cache -- i.e. we made a trip to asheville, nc and there was a multi that we did all the steps for but didn't attempt the final cache because it started getting dark. so i made a note that we did all the steps but would have to wait on the final until our next trip up. another cache (same trip) we didn't attempt the cache because we forgot to write the coordinates down, but it alerted me to a cemetary that i would be interested in because thomas wolfe and o henry were buried there. i left a note to say thanks, and that next time we were in the area we would actually look for the cache. i wouldn't have known about the cemetary if it weren't for the cache, but i didn't have time to even think about the cache.

 

i log dnf's if i've looked and couldn't find it. sometimes people attempt to help my idiocy then.

[Pipanella]

I post all of my DNFs, but if it's determined that the cache was indeed missing, then I change that DNF to a note, once the owner has verified it is missing.  Can't find what isn't there!

I never understood this circular logic.

 

This is another prime example of folks making up the rules as they go. No one can get in the same play-book, much less the same page, if there is no set standards.

 

I mean, come on, this isn't even a grey area.

Seems quite logical to me. If something isn't there, then of course you can't find it! I post a DNF if I looked for it, and couldn't find it, and leave it that way until the owner posts that it's missing. THEN I change it. It isn't possible to find something that isn't there, so for me, that's like looking for nothing. I might as well go out in my back yard and look for a UFO. I post the DNF for the benefit of the cache owner. If it's missing, I change it to a note, for my own records. My DNFs that I post that are truly DNFs are an indication to me that I've not been able to find a cache that was there, which is what a true DNF is, to me. (My humble opinion, of course.)

[Pipanella]

Can't find what isn't there!

 

Which makes it a DNF.

I DO log it as a DNF, until the cache owner posts that it's missing. If the cache is there, a cacher can find it. If it's not, they can't. Sure formula for not finding. If I knew it wasn't there, then I wouldn't even attempt it. DUH.

 

Any true DNFs remain DNFs for me, even if I find them at a later date. I'm not ashamed of not being able to find a cache. I have quite a few DNFs and they don't bother me a bit. Some of my favorite cache hunts were DNFs.

[The Foster Clan]

We log our do not finds too. It's good information for the next cache hunter. If too many people can't find a cache the logs will tell their own story and somebody can go out to check that it's still there or in the right place...

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Can't find what isn't there!

 

Which makes it a DNF.

I DO log it as a DNF, until the cache owner posts that it's missing. If the cache is there, a cacher can find it. If it's not, they can't. Sure formula for not finding. If I knew it wasn't there, then I wouldn't even attempt it. DUH.

 

Any true DNFs remain DNFs for me, even if I find them at a later date. I'm not ashamed of not being able to find a cache. I have quite a few DNFs and they don't bother me a bit. Some of my favorite cache hunts were DNFs.

But if the cache isn't there, you still didn't find it

[Pipanella]

Can't find what isn't there!

 

Which makes it a DNF.

I DO log it as a DNF, until the cache owner posts that it's missing. If the cache is there, a cacher can find it. If it's not, they can't. Sure formula for not finding. If I knew it wasn't there, then I wouldn't even attempt it. DUH.

 

Any true DNFs remain DNFs for me, even if I find them at a later date. I'm not ashamed of not being able to find a cache. I have quite a few DNFs and they don't bother me a bit. Some of my favorite cache hunts were DNFs.

But if the cache isn't there, you still didn't find it

BUT YOU CAN'T FIND WHAT ISN'T THERE!! You're defeated before you even begin!

 

Let's just agree to disagree on this technicality, okay?

[+Jamie Z]

BUT YOU CAN'T FIND WHAT ISN'T THERE!!

Exactly. DNF.

 

Jamie

[Pipanella]

BUT YOU CAN'T FIND WHAT ISN'T THERE!!

Exactly. DNF.

 

Jamie

Sorry.........that just seems silly. It's my opinion, and you don't have to agree.

[+southdeltan]

BUT YOU CAN'T FIND WHAT ISN'T THERE!!

Exactly. DNF.

 

Jamie

Sorry.........that just seems silly. It's my opinion, and you don't have to agree.

I'm not very concerned with how it seems, just the facts.

 

It's obvious you can't find what isn't there, so it is logical to log a "dnf".

 

It wasn't there, so you didn't find it.

 

However, logging a find on what's not there is lying.

 

sd

[+Jamie Z]

Sorry.........that just seems silly.

That's it. I'm removing your picture from my wallpaper.

 

Jamie

[+sept1c_tank]

Did not find.

Did not find.

Did not find.

Did not find.