When To Post Dnf

[+fersman4]

I didn't find a cache, but I do eventually plan to try again. Should I:

 

1) Post a DNF now, then post a Found later

2) Post a DNF now, then post a Found later and delete my DNF

3) Don't post a DNF, but wait until I either find it or give up

[+stu_and_sarah]

1.

 

If you couldn't find it, post a DNF.

If you find it later, post a find.

 

You _could_ delete your DNF if you like, but I like to leave all our history on there, so we can say "Haha... remember how badly that cache hunt went?"

 

Posting a DNF is important, because the cache owner discovers there _may_ be a problem.

 

Even if you get no-where near the cache site, a DNF can be useful if something _prevented_ you from finding it. "DNF - Could not negotiate flooded river". Future finders will often check recent logs to see if there are any issues they need to know about before setting off on the hunt.

 

If you ran out of light, got tired, decided to give up for your own reasons, then a DNF is not so important.

 

That's my take on the matter.

 

Stu

[+briansnat]

1) Post a DNF and a "found it " later. A DNF is part of your history and also part of the history of the cache.

 

If you delete them others will come along, see nothing but smiley faces, assume its an easy find and might give up before they should. If they see a few DNFs sprinkled among the log they will assume that the cache is not a "gimme" and look a little harder and longer for it.

 

Since many cache owners mis-rate their caches, the logs are an important source of info for geocachers and the DNFs (or the lack of them) might encourage an owner to adjust his difficulty rating.

[ju66l3r]

If I don't go back out on the same day, I post a DNF. In a few early and rare occasions I have edited the DNF to a Find later (mainly before I found out cache owners don't get new e-mails on log edits). Since then I leave the DNF and just post a new Find log when I do finally find the cache.

 

It's worked so far and seems to be in agreement with what others also posted here.

[+Divine]

I have recorded my geocaching history from late 2002 carefully by logging also the DNFs, naturally not deleting them after I've found the cache. I tell you, it's really cool to go back through my logs and read what I was doing in Thailand as a novice geocacher, not finding the dadgum thing. I certainly wouldn't remember all my caching trips if I hadn't logged my DNFs too.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I tell you, it's really cool to go back through my logs and read what I was doing in Thailand as a novice geocacher, not finding the dadgum thing. I certainly wouldn't remember all my caching trips if I hadn't logged my DNFs too.

Excellent point, Divine.

 

I, too, like reading back on both my finds and DNFs so I can remember all the experiences. On one cache, I logged two DNFs about a week apart before I finally went back a few months later and found the cache. Its funny now to go back and read the logs.

 

It never would have occurred to me to change a DNF into a find later. There's nothing wrong with logging a DNF.

[+robert]

#1

[+sTeamTraen]

Everyone has their style; here's mine:

 

I always log my DNFs, as long as I got to where I thought the cache was. I wouldn't log a DNF if I was beaten back 20 metres away by weeds, say.

 

For me the main reasons for a DNF are:

- to alert the owner to a possible problem (although, if I ever put "I'm sure it's been muggled", I'm always wrong!!)

- to have my DNF list as a list of caches to which I need to return.

 

As a result, if I do log a find later, I go back and turn the DNF into a note. But I always add "DNF changed to note" in the text.

[+medic208]

I agree with the others... #1, I like looking back at some of my screw ups w/ a DNF... some are quite humorous.

[+sbell111]

1.