A Question Of Rules...

[+Mr Lost]

I am new to Geocaching. I went looking fo a cache close to my home this morning, but did not find it. I intend to go back later and will continue to do so until I find it. What is the etiquette with regard to logging this?

 

Do I mark it as 'Did Not Find' and change it later after I find it? Or do I just wait until I find it and log it then? How is this handled?

[+JohnnyVegas]

Well if yo went looking and did not find it, that would be a DNF. What is the cache rated at. It helps if your first ones are rated at a one. A Micro can be hard for a first cache compared to a regular size cache,

[+WeightMan]

Some people will edit the DNF log and make it a Found It log. Most people will log again as a Found It. One advantage of the second method is that the owner and all watchers will get an email on the new log, but not on the edit. Another is that is preserves the history of the cache.

[+larsl]

Leave the DNF and add a new "Found it" log. There is no reason to remove or edit old logs unless they contain false information or hints that the cache owner doesn't want there.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I am new to Geocaching. I went looking fo a cache close to my home this morning, but did not find it. I intend to go back later and will continue to do so until I find it. What is the etiquette with regard to logging this?

 

Do I mark it as 'Did Not Find' and change it later after I find it? Or do I just wait until I find it and log it then? How is this handled?

IMHO, each "visit" to the cache site should result in its own log. Those log types are pretty self explanitory, although some people don't pay attention very well:

 

Found it: You actually got your hands on the container and signed the logbook

Didn't find it: You didn't actually touch the container and/or sign the logbook

 

Leaving your original log alone and making a new one when you find it (or didn't find it again) keeps the cache's history intact.

[+reveritt]

I am new to Geocaching. I went looking fo a cache close to my home this morning, but did not find it. I intend to go back later and will continue to do so until I find it. What is the etiquette with regard to logging this?

 

Do I mark it as 'Did Not Find' and change it later after I find it? Or do I just wait until I find it and log it then? How is this handled?

Either do not report your first attempt at all, or log it as a DNF. If you find the cache on a later attempt, log a find (new entry; don't edit the previous entry).

 

I have 137 finds, but still fail to find on the first attempt more often than I'd like to admit. I generally do not log a DNF unless:

* I do not expect to make another attempt.

* I think the coordinates are way off and I want to warn others.

* I found something that makes me think that the cache has been plundered.

* I encountered some obtsacle that prevented me from getting to the location.

[CoyoteRed]

A while back I came across a very valid reason to edit logs.

 

There is a cache where folks pretty much have to make multiple trips, but instead of making new logs, they'd:

- Make the first log as normal.

- The second entry they would make the new entry above the previous entry. (Top post)

- put the previous log's date above the previous log.

- change the log's date to present.

- change the log type to the appropriate type.

 

November 7 by WhomEver(56543 found)

Finally, found this sucker. WhooHoo! Thanks for the cache.

 

[11/5/04]

Second trip.  Still couldn't find it.  Will be back.

 

[10/28/04]

Completed all of the stages. At final, but couldn't find it. Am I blind?

 

[10/15/04]

First 15 stages completed. Only 23 more to go...

[view this log on a separate page]

 

The advantages of this I saw right off the bat was the fact that there is a lot more logs stuffed into the 5 log PQ limit.

 

So, while I used to prescribe to the only-log-a-new-log philosophy. I now think it better to do it was described above. Thanks to the Eastern NC guys for this idea!

 

Of course, you will get the crowd that says they don't care if a useless note bumps a useful log off the latest 5 log limit, but what are you going to do?

Edited November 20, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+briansnat]

I'm with those who say log a DNF for the first one and a Found It for the second. I believe each visit should get its own log and that log should reflect the result of the search. As others mentioned, its part of the history of the cache. People can quickly scan the page "smiley" and "frowney" faces and get a good idea of how hard it will be.

Also, when you edit a log, owners and watchers won't get notification. Only new logs do that.

 

I think CR's example of a 38 stage cache is extreme and might be one of the few times I'd combine the logs. For the vast majority of caches out there however, the traditional way is the method to use in my eyes.

Edited November 20, 2004 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

Agreed.

 

The scheme doesn't do much if there are 4 logs since your last one anyway except just keep your logs together.

 

What this would really help is where folks would normally log multiple DNFs and add nothing to the log history. I'd be in the field stumped and looking at my PDA with 5 logs of nothing but the same guy saying, "looked again today for 5 minutes. Couldn't find it." Yeah, I know you can't find it, but sheesh. The point is nearly moot for me as I've been collecting PQs for a broad range for quite a while now so I have more than just the last five logs. It would be completely moot if we had the option of user selectable numbers of logs to receive.

 

Bottom line, leave a history of your visits.

[+SeventhSon]

The advantages of this I saw right off the bat was the fact that there is a lot more logs stuffed into the 5 log PQ limit.

I noticed this a while back. My PQs are giving me 12 logs now. So it will take longer to bump a "useful" log

 

7

[+tirediron]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I gotta agree with TeamGPSaxophone (and the others on this one). Each visit/attempt should be a log, whether found, not found, or note. I've gone back to more than one cache several times (my record is five attempts on one particular 'cache). There's no shame in a DNF!

[+RainbowCache]

Ditto!

 

I recently did not find a 3 step multi-cache. It was newly listed and had a problem with the last step (was off by one minute)! I met the cache owner at a event cache that same afternoon and was able to get a update. I posted a noted letting them know how great an idea the cache is and that I will be back!

 

If there is no problem with a cache, then the owner knows that they have stumped a fellow cacher...isn't that why some folks make their hides so devious?

 

If there is a problem with the cache, then the owner should check on the cache and resolve it.

 

There is no shame in a purple fown!

Edited November 20, 2004 by RainbowCache

[+greende]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I gotta agree with TeamGPSaxophone (and the others on this one).  Each visit/attempt should be a log, whether found, not found, or note.  I've gone back to more than one cache several times (my record is five attempts on one particular 'cache).  There's no shame in a DNF!

Agreed. I didn't post DNF's at first but after reading this topic which has been brought up several times in the forums, I now log all visits. I think that it is an important part of the cache history. The right answer here is play the game the way you want to. You only have to answer to yourself. Since you asked our opinion, this is it. Have fun!

[+Jamie Z]

...it is an important part of the cache history.

This is often mentioned when the topic of logging comes up. I can't disagree, but what about your own history? I like to log all my hunts for myself, not necessarily the cache. Sure, I like to let the owner know that someone was at least trying, but moreso, I like to look back and recall each of my own caching adventures.

 

Jamie

[+Mr Lost]

OK, here is what I intend to do.

 

Log all visits. A DNF is a DNF. When I finally find it, (I am quite persistent about these things) I will log the find separately.

 

Why? I am not in this to collect 'smileys', but for the adventure of the hunt. I want to find new and interesting places that I have never been to before. Also, this is a family activity for me and mine. Part of the experience is eduacational for my daughter. Logging a DNF shows her that honesty with regards to success and failure in all aspects of life are equally important, valid, and useful.

 

In addition to all of that, I feel (after some thougth on the matter) that it is useful for the person who is maintaining the cache to have an idea of the difficulty or ease with which visitors have regarding the cache. Logging a DNF, followed by a Find is a useful tool for the cache owner.

 

There. My $0.02

Edited November 21, 2004 by Martindav

[+briansnat]

OK, here is what I intend to do.

 

Log all visits. A DNF is a DNF. When I finally find it, (I am quite persistent about these things) I will log the find separately.

 

Why? I am not in this to collect 'smileys', but for the adventure of the hunt. I want to find new and interesting places that I have never been to before. Also, this is a family activity for me and mine. Part of the experience is eduacational for my daughter. Logging a DNF shows her that honesty with regards to success and failure in all aspects of life are equally important, valid, and useful.

 

In addition to all of that, I feel (after some thougth on the matter) that it is useful for the person who is maintaining the cache to have an idea of the difficulty or ease with which visitors have regarding the cache. Logging a DNF, followed by a Find is a useful too for the cache owner.

 

There. My $0.02

I think you get it!

[team tisri]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I gotta agree with TeamGPSaxophone (and the others on this one).  Each visit/attempt should be a log, whether found, not found, or note.  I've gone back to more than one cache several times (my record is five attempts on one particular 'cache).  There's no shame in a DNF!

No shame in a DNF at all, although personally I don't log them unless I made a meaningful attempt to find the cache. The example quoted "had another 5-minute look and couldn't see it" wouldn't count as a meaningful attempt for me.

 

Personally I think the DNF is useful partly as an advance warning that the cache may be missing, partly to let other cachers know that they won't trip over it as soon as the GPS reads 0 feet and partly to give the hider the satisfaction of knowing that they hid it well.

 

If I've tried to find a multi and got something wrong along the way (like realising the final co-ordinates lead me to somewhere that doesn't match the description) and then find I got one of the stages wrong I'll log it as a note. The note shows the owner I tried to find their cache but it was my ineptitude that led me to not find it. Had I found the final location but not the cache I'd have logged a DNF.

Edited November 21, 2004 by tisri