Revisiting "didn't Find"

[+CarlGurt]

Having now found a cache I previously logged as "Didn't Find", what is the correct protocol? Is it to delete the old entry, and make a new one (logging the previous didn't find there), or to make the new entry and leave the old one as well?

 

CarlGurt

[+IVxIV]

I'd leave the original "didn't find" entry as is, and add a new "found it!". Usually I even mention how many tries it took to find that cache in my found-it note (my current record is a humble 3-attempts-&-finally-found-it

[+TeamK-9]

Yah,

 

Generally accepted process is to leave the DNF and post your found it log.

 

The DNF logs of the various people who have tried the cache adds character to the cache's story...

[+briansnat]

I'm with the others. Leave the DNF and post a new log. Its part of the caches history and it also provides valuable info to future seekers.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I logged a DNF recently. The cache owner checked and verified that the cache was missing, and decided to archive it. He emailed me that I should change my DNF to a note as I "didn't deserve a DNF" !!!! I explained to him that I hunted it and didn't find it, therefore I logged a DNF and it would stay that way. No revisionist history. Deserve?

 

Logging a DNF isn't GIVING YOURSELF AN "F"

[+Greymane]

I agree. I don't consider a DNF a failure. It is just the first attempt at a success. I posted a DNF recently that (in warm weather) would certainly have been a hide, but the drifted snow made it just impossible to get an idea of where it might be hidden. We will be back in a few days, though, and the DNF will still be there after we post our find.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

He emailed me that I should change my DNF to a note as I "didn't deserve a DNF" !!!!

 

This may be the funniest post I have seen yet!

[+Gas Guys]

I have no problems leaving a DNF on a cache page after I've found it later. The worst part of not finding a cache is if you get frustrated looking for something that you can't find, not posting the DNF log.

[+Merel]

I always change the original DNF to a find and ADD a date to it ( of the old DNF ) AND I add a text ( with the date ) explaining the new find. This has the advantage that everybody sees the two logs together and when querying the real DNF ( this is, those you still have to go for ), I don' t get those I found afterwards.

 

In this way I think i'm honest to everybody. As long as I cahche hasn't been found after I started a search, there will be a DNF, giving the information to te owner and other fellow-cacher why I didn't find it. It is important information. But the information, after finding it and changing the status, is normally outdated then ( cache is still there, there's no fault, conditions changed, ... )

[+Divine]

Its part of the caches history

True, and it's also part of your personal geocaching history. I find it cool to be able to browse back my caching trips two years ago and go back the memory lane. By not keeping my DNF logs I'd miss much of that history.

[+CarlGurt]

I appreciate all the feedback. It makes sense, and is consistent.

 

Thanks,

 

CarlGurt

[+Sagefox]

Its part of the caches history

True, and it's also part of your personal geocaching history. I find it cool to be able to browse back my caching trips two years ago and go back the memory lane. By not keeping my DNF logs I'd miss much of that history.

Mee too! DNF is all part of the adventure. I ran an inquiry on just my no-finds and made a "favorite" link to it. It is interesting and informative to browse through it once in awhile. The link makes it easy to get back DNF's that I intend to go back to or am otherwise interested in.

 

I also have two columns for DNF's in my geocache spread sheet. One for "container was missing" and one for "skunked".

[+CarlGurt]

I do recognize that the DNF is part of past history, but I really don't like having to enter it.

 

When I used to do sports car ralleys in the mid '60's, "DNF" meant Did Not Finish, also a downer!

 

CarlGurt

[+Divine]

I do recognize that the DNF is part of past history, but I really don't like having to enter it.

I do. For example, I've logged DNFs in Thailand at Phuket and Phi Phi islands, that were struck by a tsunami coupla years later. I certainly appreciate my notes from those visits.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I do recognize that the DNF is part of past history, but I really don't like having to enter it.

 

When I used to do sports car ralleys in the mid '60's, "DNF" meant Did Not Finish, also a downer!

Hey, I managed to get a DLBF and a 1st in the same road rally! I started the race with 100,028 on my odometer. So, it read 28 miles. That confused someone so they added the 28 miles to my final odometer reading, and awarded us a DLBF. I complained, and also got the 1st!

 

I have no problems with logging a DNF (on most, but not all caches). The 60's was a long time ago! Okay, so I did road rallying in the late 60's, early 70's.

[+BigHank]

Some of the best log entries I've read have been DNF's....and then it was interesting to go on and read what some folks posted after that, until I got to the post where the person who DNF's finally found it....and wrote a great log entry. It's part of the history of the cache and to me, that is part of what makes this hobby interesting. Of course, that all presumes that the 'cacher makes a decent log entry that tells the story of the hunt and whatever else is pertinent. A plain "DNF, will look again" might as well not be written, just like a "TNLNSL"..... but like I have said in other posts... I like to write a bit in the online logs, and naturally, I like to read good log entries.

[+Team Snoopy]

I like it when people leave their dnf's because when I get one, I don't feel so dumb for not finding it as well.

[+501_Gang]

I too like it when I see other DNF's in the log. No ones perfect and it helps let us new cachers know that even the most experienced cacher has bad days.

Edited April 10, 2005 by 501_Gang