Notes Instead Of Dnf's

[+MariettaGecko]

> So, what exactly is a DNF?

 

It is an indication that I did not find the cache, for whatever reason.

 

> If my car broke down 5 miles before getting to the start of the hunt, is it a DNF?

 

Not in my book. You did not even really search for the cache, and you could have just as easily been going to someplace other than the cache. This is not a DNF, this is more of a DNS(Did Not Start). I probably wouldn't even log this, unless the car broke down as a result of some particular obstruction on the only trail to the cache (FS Roads, anyone).

 

> If I start up the trail, but find myself on the wrong side a the river and don't have time to get to the other side, is it a DNF?

 

Yes. You attempted to search for the cache, and were able to get to the point that you were earnestly searching, but were unable to find the cache due to something precluding you from the same.

 

> If I get to the cache site and there is a family picnicking on top of the cache so I can't hunt it, is that a DNF?

 

Most definitely! OTOH, perhaps you come up to the family, introduce yourself and introduce them to caching, so that they get involved as well. Then both you and they could log the find. I guess that one depends on whether you are pretty open with people or not.

 

> What if the cache is hidden in a fairly exposed area and I am just nervous about being seen and decide to give up before looking thoroughly enough to find it? Is that a DNF?

 

Did you search for the cache? Yes. Did you find it? No. Sounds to me like a DNF. I would be sure to note the detail that you were uneasy searching in the area and therefore did not perform a thorough search.

 

> If I have 5 minutes to stop and and search for a cache near my home with the expectation that I will spend 5 minutes today, five minutes next Wednesday, and then hunt it for real on the weekend if it is not yet found, is the first visit a DNF?

 

Again, did you search? yes. Did you find? no. Technically, this is a DNF. However, I can definitely see a case made here for this cache being not a DNF but an extended search. If you are searching for the cache, and intend to return in the very near future, I would say that it is safe to wait until you have a chance to return in the very near future (2-3 days, tops) to post any find/DNF log. If, however, 2-3 days later you are unable to return, it's a DNF. You searched, you did not find.

 

> What if I am searching for a cache at a favorite park and am loving the search but have to call it off to get the kids home to bed?

 

You searched. You did not find. Still sounds like a DNF to me.

 

> Even if I expect to hunt it again next weekend should I log a DNF?

 

Depends. Is next weekend within the next 2-3 days? if so, and you know you will return to resume the search, then I would say don't worry about it, you're just performing an extended search. OTOH, if next weekend is 5-6 days away, it's a DNF, and should be logged as such. Other cachers may need the information so that they can consider whether to try to do this cache on their way to work or something.

 

That having been said, this is just my $0.02. YMMV.

[+AtlantaGal]

I log DNFs for any cache I have attempted and couldn't find for whatever reason. I have found that 70% of my DNFs are because the cache is missing or was not put back in the correct location.

 

If I am revisiting a cache with someone else or check on a cache for someone or have a comment to a posted log, I post a note.

[+ohgrl]

Just adding the new kids' 2 cents...I post a DNF if I looked for it with the exception of a multi if I am doing it in parts...then it gets a note to let the owner know that I am working on it (in other words don't archive this please!!)...But this would not warrant a DNF since I have found the stages I looked for, just haven't gone to the final stage yet.

 

For example a 4 stage that I do at lunch time once a week would be a note that I am working on it until I get to the final stage...

 

Again just my 2 cents...

[+Yamahammer]

I have an idea! Why don't we close one of these duplicate threads?

I think sbell is right. This was on here last week wasnt' it???

 

I guess my ego isn't so much that I log DNF's. I have logged 5 DNF's on benchmarks before I found the first one. I also had a 'note' on one that I knew was moved 30ft because of construction a few years back. You think NGS will write a thread because I 'noted' the benchmark???

 

When I placed my cache, I guess I read the whole log instead of smilie's, frown's or notes or whatever. I'm interested in what they had to say about the experience. To me, it's more than the numbers or the bounty, it's about the experience of caching and being outdoors.

 

Hang in there!

[+Mudfrog]

Depends. Is next weekend within the next 2-3 days? if so, and you know you will return to resume the search, then I would say don't worry about it, you're just performing an extended search. OTOH, if next weekend is 5-6 days away, it's a DNF, and should be logged as such. Other cachers may need the information so that they can consider whether to try to do this cache on their way to work or something.

 

Im not sure why people are so uptight about logging a DNF. If you punch in the coordinates, hit goto, and head in the direction of the cache, then you have begun your search and therefore either find or not find the cache. If you dont find it, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON, then it is a DNF. Trying for the cache the next day or 5 days later is another search and requires another log. Seems pretty straightforward folks!

[+piper28]

If I make an effort to find a cache and don't find it, I'll post a DNF. If I'm there only briefly for some reason, and feel that the likely reason I didn't find it, I'll post a note saying that I didn't find it, but that it was probably because of my time constraints.

 

A couple weekends ago I went to look for a cache, started down the trails in the general direction, but decided that I didn't want to deal with ankle deep mud. I posted this as a note, because I didn't really feel I made an attempt to find the cache itself. But I did note it, so at least people coming after me could see an indication of the conditions they might find.

[+LeBuckZoo]

To me, the DNF is a note for the hider and future hunters. I read it with the words "Looked for it but" in front of the DNF.

 

If a hunter couldn't even start to find a cache of mine and there's something I could do to help (like posting directions to parking, as happened to me), then I like to get DNFs.

 

If someone drove to the parking area, got out, then realized they didn't have time to go look, I don't really need to know.

 

If someone went, looked, and didn't find (even if they plan on returning and trying again) I'd really like to know (as a DNF).

 

To me, notes are more commentary or TB drops than DNFs. I also use notes if I'm returning to a cache that I already found (even if it's a traveling one -- see this one) because I only want to "find" it once.

[+Sagefox]

Im not sure why people are so uptight about logging a DNF. If you punch in the coordinates, hit goto, and head in the direction of the cache, then you have begun your search and therefore either find or not find the cache. If you dont find it, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON, then it is a DNF.

Is this for real? Sounds like people are going out of their way in order to be perceived as "good" and "honest" cache loggers. (EDIT: I'm not picking on Mudfrog here. This log-everything-as-a-nofind concept is voiced by many and this one just happened to be the closest.)

 

I mean, how often does it happen that people actually log DNF's once they've hit the goto button and don't get to the cache site for some reason unrelated to finding that cache or for a very lame attempt? For our 100 placed caches in over three years I don't recall ever having seen such a log. If I did get one of those I believe I would request that the logger delete it or change it to a Note.

 

NOBODY CARES if you didn't try to find the cache.

 

We should be looking at this from the CACHE'S point of view NOT the cachers. It's been said many times in multiple posts on this subject that lame attempt DNF's discourage future cachers. Why punish the cache for your aborted attempt?

 

If there is a good story that goes along with not being able to get to the cache site (as suggested in this thread and many times before) or if you get there and a mountain lion is trotting along the trail or something else of true interest then why not log that as a Note rather than DNF?

 

The three eyed cat pretty much said it the way it I find most people handle this situation in the real-world: "I log DNF's or notes depending on what I feel is best for that particular cache and that particular situation."

 

Track your DNF's on a spreadsheet if you want but it is not fair to the cache to post false DNF's. Heck, you could even have three DNF column's: "container missing", "I blew it" and "I gave up without a fight".

Edited April 26, 2005 by Team Sagefox

[Trinity's Crew]

Couldn't have said it better, (or even as well) Team Sagefox, so I won't even try. Thanks!

[+Jamie Z]

I mean, how often does it happen that people actually log DNF's once they've hit the goto button and don't get to the cache site for some reason unrelated to finding that cache or for a very lame attempt?  For our 100 placed caches in over three years I don't recall ever having seen such a log.  If I did get one of those I believe I would request that the logger delete it or change it to a Note.

You're right. It's not often, but here is a sample of some of my didn't-even-make-it-to-the-cache DNFs. I post all my DNFs because when I go out geocaching, I want to keep a record of my (mis)adventures, as well as let the hider know that someone was interested enough in their cache to go look for it. Even if that attempt ends prematurely.

 

Drove past it

 

Traffic, ferry, and construction

 

Darn muggles

 

Entire park was flooded

 

No GPS... but I thought I'd look around

 

Not going in the woods with shorts on!

 

Muggles again (with pictures!)

 

Park closed

 

NOBODY CARES if you didn't try to find the cache.

Well, I care enough when I go caching to post my results. And I bet the owner cares that somebody was interested enough to give it a try.

 

We should be looking at this from the CACHE'S point of view NOT the cachers.  It's been said many times in multiple posts on this subject that lame attempt DNF's discourage future cachers.  Why punish the cache for your aborted attempt?

I post and keep track of what I did. If my DNF "scares" another cacher, well they should read what I wrote.

 

If there is a good story that goes along with not being able to get to the cache site (as suggested in this thread and many times before) or if you get there and a mountain lion is trotting along the trail or something else of true interest then why not log that as a Note rather than DNF? 

Because if you go there and don't find the cache, isn't that a DNF? Muggles and mountain lions are part of the difficulty.

 

Jamie

[topsy woe mount]

knock knock- whats a DNF?

[+DrAwKwArD]

I mean, how often does it happen that people actually log DNF's once they've hit the goto button and don't get to the cache site for some reason unrelated to finding that cache or for a very lame attempt?  For our 100 placed caches in over three years I don't recall ever having seen such a log.  If I did get one of those I believe I would request that the logger delete it or change it to a Note. 

 

I have several times and I would expect the cache owners to be quite entertained and pleased that I posted. Team SF.. you may live in a city but out where I live caches go almost all winter without any finds. If I got stuck in the snow within a mile of a cache? That's a good story. At no time has a cache owner deleted this type of DNF.

 

Why punish the cache for your aborted attempt?

 

Punish the cache? Last I checked cache's don't have feelings. But, you better believe that my DNF will explain why I wasn't able to make a search of the cache.

 

***

NOBODY CARES if you didn't try to find the cache.

 

This is where I truly beg to differ. Don't let my cache alias fool you. The reason I joined this sport is for the hiking and rural jaunts in the woods. But judging from your post it's obvious you are only interested in the numbers. Where I live, if I've driven even halfway to a cache, let's say 15 miles away... that's 7 1/2 miles! That's $2.00 of gas for some people. If I embark on a cache hunt 50 miles a way and only get within 5 miles does this mean that it doesn't count as a cache hunt? The $24 I've spent says it does. And I'm going to log a DNF.

Edited April 27, 2005 by cache-n-dash

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Im not sure why people are so uptight about logging a DNF. If you punch in the coordinates, hit goto, and head in the direction of the cache, then you have begun your search and therefore either find or not find the cache. If you dont find it, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON, then it is a DNF.

Is this for real? Sounds like people are going out of their way in order to be perceived as "good" and "honest" cache loggers. (EDIT: I'm not picking on Mudfrog here. This log-everything-as-a-nofind concept is voiced by many and this one just happened to be the closest.)

 

I mean, how often does it happen that people actually log DNF's once they've hit the goto button and don't get to the cache site for some reason unrelated to finding that cache or for a very lame attempt? For our 100 placed caches in over three years I don't recall ever having seen such a log. If I did get one of those I believe I would request that the logger delete it or change it to a Note.

 

NOBODY CARES if you didn't try to find the cache.

 

We should be looking at this from the CACHE'S point of view NOT the cachers. It's been said many times in multiple posts on this subject that lame attempt DNF's discourage future cachers. Why punish the cache for your aborted attempt?

 

If there is a good story that goes along with not being able to get to the cache site (as suggested in this thread and many times before) or if you get there and a mountain lion is trotting along the trail or something else of true interest then why not log that as a Note rather than DNF?

 

The three eyed cat pretty much said it the way it I find most people handle this situation in the real-world: "I log DNF's or notes depending on what I feel is best for that particular cache and that particular situation."

 

Track your DNF's on a spreadsheet if you want but it is not fair to the cache to post false DNF's. Heck, you could even have three DNF column's: "container missing", "I blew it" and "I gave up without a fight".

How does it hurt to post a DNF when you didn't find it? Your log will explain why you didn't find it.

 

"I was 100 yards from the cache when my pager went off summoning me back to work. I'll look for this one another time." Would not turn away the next cacher or make them think the cache is missing. What's the harm in a DNF? He didn't find it, did he? A DNF is perfectly accurate. They were still in the cache area, still got to see the sights, but just didn't get to sign the logbook.

 

"I was 100 yards away when I realized I was on the wrong side of the river. I didn't have time to hike a mile upstream to the bridge." This is also a DNF. Different circumstances, but a DNF nonetheless. This would help alert future seekers that they need to be sure of their route. It might take them longer to get to the cache than they had realized.

 

"I searched under every rock with 100 feet with no luck." Can you believe some people log this as a note? It's a DNF!

 

Maybe the line between note and DNF isn't always clear. The first example could just as easily be a note, but what if he just hadn't gotten to the river yet?

[+G-Squad]

You're right. It's not often, but here is a sample of some of my didn't-even-make-it-to-the-cache DNFs. I post all my DNFs because when I go out geocaching, I want to keep a record of my (mis)adventures, as well as let the hider know that someone was interested enough in their cache to go look for it. Even if that attempt ends prematurely.

 

Drove past it

 

Traffic, ferry, and construction

 

Darn muggles

 

Entire park was flooded

 

No GPS... but I thought I'd look around

 

Not going in the woods with shorts on!

 

Muggles again (with pictures!)

 

Park closed

 

Drove past it

I don't think I would even post a note. This is just a "Oh, passed by the cache". Don't know how many times I am driving down a road and realize, hey, there's a cache over on that hill, or in that city park, or that Wal-Mart parking lot. Just knowing it is there is not the same as hunting for it. I understand you intended to hunt for it but all you did was drive by. If you want to keep track? Then it would have to be a note.

 

Traffic, ferry, and construction

You commented you had to turn around because the terrain slowed you down. I think that is a DNF. It alerts cachers to a possible issue.

 

Darn muggles

I liked the story. Definitely a DNF. But tell me, what's the world coming to when a 'Vette doesn't even rate a headturn?

 

Entire park was flooded

If the trip would have been limited to just the first visit when you didn't even know a cache was there until you got home? I don't think a DNF would be appropriate because you didn't even know the cache was there. But I would have logged a note so hopefully cachers would see the conditions. However, you did visit the site on the return trip with the intention to hunt the cache. DNF.

 

No GPS... but I thought I'd look around

I would not have DNF'd this one. Probably not even a note. Basically a driveby as previously outlined. You knew there was a cache somewhere in the area but you didn't have enough info to put forth a reasonable effort. If you would have had the cache page printout or printed map or anything like that, then I could see the DNF. Again, if you are keeping track, it would be a note.

 

Not going in the woods with shorts on!

DNF.

 

Muggles again (with pictures!)

Definite DNF. You found the first part and were foiled in getting the second part.

 

Park closed

Yep, DNF this one too.

 

Just my two cent take on things.

[+The Jester]

...

 

One was for a cache I'd previously found, and just wasn't there (stopped by to drop off a TB). Very important information for cache owner and fellow hunters.

 

...

For that one I'd of used the SBA (Should Be Archived) log. Having been there before you KNEW it was gone.

 

Hmmm.... I probably shouldn't have brought that up - it has even more angst associated with it then a lowly DNF.

 

 

I log DNFs - even multiple times on the same cache. My feeling is, if I can admit that I found a cache, I can admit I didn't find a cache.

 

Does a series of DNFs cause me to skip a cache? It depends on what's in the logs. Just the other week I saw a series of three DNFs on a new cache, so I made sure I went and tried finding it early the next morning - found it and scored a FTF. Another had a whole line of DNFs, but we tried it just to see if we could find it, we didn't and ended up logging a SBA.

 

I'll also mention that Notes as DNF does mess up programs like GSAK that report the different types of logs. I tend to read the logs in the field (hoping for help) unless I see a bunch of red squares by it, then I'll read them before the hunt.

[+Mudfrog]

If you punch in the coordinates, hit goto, and head in the direction of the cache,

 

That is word for word of what i stated previously. Seems pretty obvious that when you do all of the above, you have began a search.

 

Now, what does DNF stand for? Did Not Find. Doesnt matter what the reason was that you didnt find the cache. It means exactly what it says,,,, Did Not Find

 

That being said, its no big deal if you dont want to post a DNF because you ran out of time, you changed your mind, or the dog barfed on the seat making you have to turn around. You still didnt find the cache but what the heck, do what you want in these situations. Everyone thinks a little differently on this. I personally like to post my little story, if there is one, and let the cache owner know that i was interested in seeking their cache.

[+briansnat]

Here are some of my DNFs. Personally I think most of them are pretty good stories and add something to the cache history even though in most cases I never made it to ground zero. I know at least some of the owners appreciated the logs.

 

Turned around because I was unprepared.

 

Started towards cache but never reached ground zero.

 

Never found a place to park.

 

Route to cache blocked.

 

Turned around due to darkness.

 

Gave up because I was uncomfortable.

 

Gave up prematurely in consideration of non geocachers in the group.

 

Gave up after finding first stage.

 

Turned around due to darkness.

 

Turned around due to weather.

 

Abandoned search after 3rd stage due to darkness.

 

Wrong side of the highway.

 

Too many muggles.

 

Found cache but couldn't extract it.

 

Found the area unappealing.

Edited April 27, 2005 by briansnat

[+Jeep_Dog]

...

 

For that one I'd of used the SBA (Should Be Archived) log. Having been there before you KNEW it was gone.

 

Hmmm.... I probably shouldn't have brought that up - it has even more angst associated with it then a lowly DNF.

 

In this case the cache owner is incredibly responsible and reliable. A DNF did the trick. That way, if he opted to disable the cache and then replace it, why bother the cache reviewer with a should archive?

 

In the case of that cache, the cache owner did request archive, re-made the cache in a different location.

 

I'd never request archival on a cache that has a responsible owner. Same for posting a reviewer note.

[+Sagefox]

While we might never completely see eye-to-eye on this I am not convinced that we are even arguing about the same point. (Venus-Mars syndrome)

 

Most of the examples posted here are good stories and good stories are always appropriate. If they were posted on my cache pages I really wouldn't care if they were DNF or Note. It would be refreshing to read them.

 

The examples here are more about socializing and good story telling then they are about finding or not finding a cache. I am not critical of this practice. What I react to from my perspective (is it Venus or Mars?) is the all-to-common blanket statement: "hit goto, and head in the direction of the cache, then you have begun your search and therefore either find or not find the cache. If you don't find it, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON, then it is a DNF."

 

Taken at face value this blanket statement will always leave room for responses like mine. But blanket position statements are often misleading. If someone were actually to post a DNF on one of my caches saying "I got in my car and hit goto but decided later not to stop and look for this cache" I would copy that log, delete it and then repost it as a note adding a comment that a DNF in that situation is not appropriate. But if they got in their car, hit goto, didn't stop to look for my cache and then told a story of the quality shown in this topic then I would not care if it were DNF or Note. It would be fun for me and future find attempters to read.

 

The real world is not an on-off switch where a simple blanket statement can cover a subject in total. If in doubt about this we should simply refer back to the wisdom of the three-eyed cat on page one.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

I'll agree with SageFox. My thoughts on DNFs is that if I got to the general area of the cache and was indeed looking for it, but for some reason was unable to complete it, than I will log a DNF. Now, if I decide in route for some reason, that probably won't be even a note, unless the decision was somehow based on info I feel the owner (or future hunters) should know.

[+Miragee]

Hmmmm . . . after my cache-hunting day yesterday, I posted two DNFs and one note.

 

Just my personal opinion, but if I didn't get to search for the cache, even though I arrived at the location, I'll post a note.

 

In that case, a car was parked right where my GPSr said the cache was and a person was sleeping in the driver's seat.

 

If I actually put some time into a search and came up empty, then I'll post the DNF.

[+baloo&bd]

Is it cool for people to log a note instead of a DNF? I log notes AS notes and DNFs as DNFs myself, but have seen people who don't.

As a cache owner, i don't care about which you uses. i just want to know there is a potential problem.

 

As a cache hunter, it matters a great deal, especially to those of use who use programs like GSAK and can tell at a glance if it has recent logs that are DNF. If I see three DNFs in a row, if I go out there I will spend considerably less time looking. Depending on the logs and how many there are, i might not even go at all.

 

I don't understand why people shy away from DNF. If you are hunting for the numbers, it's not like they get decuted from your total.

[+Miragee]

I agree. What if, with the looser definitions of a DNF, three people in a row got interrupted after they pushed "Go To" on the GPSr, but before they even go to the parking location for the cache.

 

That would not reflect the actual situation of the cache itself.

[+briansnat]

I agree. What if, with the looser definitions of a DNF, three people in a row got interrupted after they pushed "Go To" on the GPSr, but before they even go to the parking location for the cache.

 

That would not reflect the actual situation of the cache itself.

 

And so? A log is supposed to reflect each individual's experience with the cache. It may, or may not reflect situation of the cache itself. That's why the log is there, for people to read and make inferences based on what they see.

Edited April 27, 2005 by briansnat

[+Miragee]

True . . . but if you are using GSAK with its pictoral evidence of the past four logs, those DNFs make the cache look like it is unavailable or difficult or missing.

 

If I'm quickly setting up a file for a cache hunt, I might not have time to read the individual DNF logs to determine if they relate to the actual cache, or the previous cachers schedule conflict with an attempted visit.

 

But . . . then I'm new here. What do I know? . . .

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I intend to find them all. I haven't yet. Should I start logging those DNF's now?

OK, that may be a tad extreme.

 

How about just the ones I've had a goto designated for- I've done that sitting at my computer, should those get DNF's?

I think not.

 

I guess it comes down to, for me, a question of how much effort I put forth to locate a cache. If I start to search for it at the target coords and don't find it, it gets a DNF. If anything else happens it may or may not depending upon the circumstances.

 

If that don't please you, in the words of this boards owner- tough nuts. :D

[+Sagefox]

If I'm quickly setting up a file for a cache hunt, I might not have time to read the individual DNF logs to determine if they relate to the actual cache, or the previous cachers schedule conflict with an attempted visit.

Exactly! This is how the cache gets "punished" by false DNF's.

 

Most of the DNF examples listed above are not what I would consider false DNF's. It is interesting that no examples of "got in my car, hit goto, changed my mind, logged as a DNF" have been brought forth even though several people have testified strongly that that is what they would do.

 

I've probably put over 100 caches on goto either in big cities or on our 700 mile I-5 trips and then aborted because the roads didn't work out or some other non-cache related reason. I'm sure those cache owners would be a perplexed and perhaps a bit miffed if I posted DNF's.

[+Team HHD1]

I just left my 1st note... My family and I were unable to search for the cache because the road was covered in water about 200 feet from the cache. Since we couldn't actually look for the cache, I didn't mark DNF. It didn't seem fair to mark that since we CNF (could not find) the cache. If I was able to look all around the cords and was unable to find it, I would mark DNF... fair is fair.

 

I did mark DNF on another cache that we were able to go to and look until we decided to stop without luck.

 

I like the note mark... It still allows the Hider to see that folks are interested in the cache and the reason the "search" couldn't happen...

[+briansnat]

rue . . . but if you are using GSAK with its pictoral evidence of the past four logs, those DNFs make the cache look like it is unavailable or difficult or missing.

 

Its one of the limitations of GSAK. You'll get the opposite result if people are logging finds for caches that gone. If you use this software you heave to deal with its shortcommings.

 

I'm not going to start altering my logging practices to accomodate the relatively small number of people who use certain software applications.

[+Sagefox]

rue . . . but if you are using GSAK with its pictoral evidence of the past four logs, those DNFs make the cache look like it is unavailable or difficult or missing.

 

Its one of the limitations of GSAK. You'll get the opposite result if people are logging finds for caches that gone. If you use this software you heave to deal with its shortcommings.

 

I'm not going to start altering my logging practices to accomodate the relatively small number of people who use certain software applications.

But its more than just GSAK and it is a bigger deal than just a few people using certain software. I've been dealing with this problem since December 2001, well before GSAK and Spinner. We we travel between CA and WA a lot and take annual trips to the desert. Almost all our other caching is done in cities distant from our rural home.

 

As a recent example, during our annual spring Mojave desert trip we do free-form travel which means that at the start of the 10 day trip and for up to 2500 miles we don't know what roads we will be taking. This year's trip was quite open and included three separate possible routes home. I downloaded over 400 cache waypoints for 32 cache finds. This included a mix of printed pages and .loc downloads run through Spinner. To do this ahead of time and earn a living and do the extra work needed to keep my job in shape while I am to be gone I don't have time to review each cache thoroughly before starting. This does NOT diminish the caching experience while attempting each find but it does mean the recent DNF's get quick and harsh treatement. One DNF means yellow alert, usually rejection, and two or three is the kiss of death. I just don't have the time to read all the DNF's to try to determine if they were thorough or incomplete attempts.

 

Caching during our frequent long trips is a highlight for me but planning the trip is arduous. Where are you going to be and and at what time of day? Will we be in Grants Pass by 10 pm or will we arrive a 8 in the morning? That's 40 cache downloads for that city alone and we might not be able to attempt even one. And so it goes for the entire trip.

 

So go ahead and write your DNF's for driveby non-attempts as freely as you please. I have plenty of other caches to visit. But perhaps your log just caused that cache to be "punished" for it. No big deal, I guess. Another cacher will be along and maybe they will have time to see that you didn't really try.

[+Team Cotati]

rue . . . but if you are using GSAK with its pictoral evidence of the past four logs, those DNFs make the cache look like it is unavailable or difficult or missing.

 

Its one of the limitations of GSAK. You'll get the opposite result if people are logging finds for caches that gone. If you use this software you heave to deal with its shortcommings.

 

I'm not going to start altering my logging practices to accomodate the relatively small number of people who use certain software applications.

But its more than just GSAK and it is a bigger deal than just a few people using certain software. I've been dealing with this problem since December 2001, well before GSAK and Spinner. We we travel between CA and WA a lot and take annual trips to the desert. Almost all our other caching is done in cities distant from our rural home.

 

As a recent example, during our annual spring Mojave desert trip we do free-form travel which means that at the start of the 10 day trip and for up to 2500 miles we don't know what roads we will be taking. This year's trip was quite open and included three separate possible routes home. I downloaded over 400 cache waypoints for 32 cache finds. This included a mix of printed pages and .loc downloads run through Spinner. To do this ahead of time and earn a living and do the extra work needed to keep my job in shape while I am to be gone I don't have time to review each cache thoroughly before starting. This does NOT diminish the caching experience while attempting each find but it does mean the recent DNF's get quick and harsh treatement. One DNF means yellow alert, usually rejection, and two or three is the kiss of death. I just don't have the time to read all the DNF's to try to determine if they were thorough or incomplete attempts.

 

Caching during our frequent long trips is a highlight for me but planning the trip is arduous. Where are you going to be and and at what time of day? Will we be in Grants Pass by 10 pm or will we arrive a 8 in the morning? That's 40 cache downloads for that city alone and we might not be able to attempt even one. And so it goes for the entire trip.

 

So go ahead and write your DNF's for driveby non-attempts as freely as you please. I have plenty of other caches to visit. But perhaps your log just caused that cache to be "punished" for it. No big deal, I guess. Another cacher will be along and maybe they will have time to see that you didn't really try.

Life can really suck sometimes, huh?

[+Sagefox]

Life can really suck sometimes, huh?

Interesting that you read my reply as whining. I can see after re-reading my post on the moring after that it could be interpreted that way. Sorry about that. I did wake up this morning regretting the last paragraph but by then it was too late.

 

My response was meant to show a specific example of how unnecessary DNF's affect caches and that I believe it is more widespread than the reply I qouted made it appear to be.

[+briansnat]

My response was meant to show a specific example of how unnecessary DNF's affect caches...

 

I still don't see how entering an accurate log of the results of my cache hunt is "unnecessary". I'm using the logs the way they were intended. You find the cache you log a "found it". You don't, you log a "DNF".

 

Its immaterial to me that others have since developed methods of choosing caches to hunt and use software programs that only consider an icon and ignore other pertinent information. They're missing out on a lot of great caches.

[+The Jester]

I find it interesting that the actions of others ("unneeded DNF") will "punish" the cache because YOU don't take the time to read the logs - when it seems YOUR action is equally "punishing" the cache (not being hunted). Who's fault is it really? Everyone has their own way of sorting out the caches to hunt. If I'm in a hurry, I'll skip something with a whole bunch of DNF's, other times I'll read the logs. Sometimes that means I miss a cache that is doable, that's life, there are just a few thousand more caches to look at.

[+Miragee]

I guess I still don't understand why, if a person gets near the location, but doesn't actually look for the cache, they have to log that as a DNF when the "Write Note" feature is available.

 

A "Note" still records your experience of attempting to get near the cache search area.

 

My "Note" from the other day was left because someone was sleeping in the front seat of their car that was parked nose in to the area where my GPSr said the cache was located.

 

I didn't search for the cache, so it wasn't worthy of a DNF.

[+Mudfrog]

I guess I still don't understand why, if a person gets near the location, but doesn't actually look for the cache, they have to log that as a DNF when the "Write Note" feature is available.

 

A "Note" still records your experience of attempting to get near the cache search area.

 

No one is saying that you have to log a DNF. Again, everyone plays differently, its up to you how you play.

 

True . . . but if you are using GSAK with its pictoral evidence of the past four logs, those DNFs make the cache look like it is unavailable or difficult or missing.

 

I never thought of that, but,,, see below

 

QUOTE (idiosyncratic @ Apr 27 2005, 12:42 PM)

If I'm quickly setting up a file for a cache hunt, I might not have time to read the individual DNF logs to determine if they relate to the actual cache, or the previous cachers schedule conflict with an attempted visit. 

 

Exactly! This is how the cache gets "punished" by false DNF's.

 

Cache gets punished? I think a bit differently on that! DNFs dont affect my decision on whether to try for a cache. Only when the cache owner logs in and agrees that it may be missing, does it make a difference for me. To be honest, its just more fun when we sometimes make the find after them!

[JohnX]

I log notes instead of finds if the cache was of no value to me and I have something relevant to say. I have found some caches that I did not log at all and a few times I have stopped at a cache site, looked around and driven away. That's just me. If I find a good cache, I log a find and tell the truth. If I logged a note that I found the cache then you can infer what you will from my message.

[+CoastieGeorge]

If we are going to continue this, we need to get back on topic!

I personally don't have any caches hidden.

 

Guy searches for a cache. DOES NOT find cache. Searches several more times. Logs a note. Searches again, emails for hints. Still can't find.

Is this a DNF? Yes. That is the situation that started this.

No use splitting hairs on how to log things as long as we all get the gist of it. BUT i am sure there is someone who will not see this the same as me....and that is what this post was about.

[+baloo&bd]

If I'm quickly setting up a file for a cache hunt, I might not have time to read the individual DNF logs to determine if they relate to the actual cache, or the previous cachers schedule conflict with an attempted visit.

Exactly! This is how the cache gets "punished" by false DNF's.

 

The reference here is to GSAK and GSAK shows notes differently than DNF''s. I assume the "graphic" representation is the 4 sqaures. Red is a DNF, gray is a Note. Just wanted to clarify.

 

A DNF is you've looked for it and not found it, plain and simple. It DOES NOT mean "I thought about it", I was going to and..." on my way to the cache I decided..." Those are note, although for the life of me I can not understand any meaningful purpose for them.

[+cache_test_dummies]

There's a specific moment in each trip to a cache where I cross an imaginary line which separates the 'approach' from the 'search'. If I turn around after I cross that line without first finding the cache, I log a DNF.

 

For me, the 'approach' doesn't usually start until I get out of the car.

[+briansnat]

A DNF is you've looked for it and not found it, plain and simple. It DOES NOT mean "I thought about it", I was going to and..." on my way to the cache I decided..." Those are note, although for the life of me I can not understand any meaningful purpose for them.

 

 

It all depends on where you believe the search begins. There are many geocachers (me among them) who believe that finding a place to park and choosing the best approach and the right trail are all part of the hunt. Some even consider figuring out driving route to the cache site to be part of the hunt.

 

In my eyes, the hunt begins when I select "go to" on my GPS and once I've done that if I don't find the cache its a DNF.

[+cache_test_dummies]

What about notes/DNFs on return visits?

 

Let's say somebody heads out to visit a cache which they've found and logged before. If they hunt for the cache and don't find it, clearly a DNF is in order (because a DNF on a return visit might warn the owner that the cache is missing or has been moved). But what if they turn around before they get to the point where they are actually poking through the bushes looking for it? Is that a note or a DNF?

[+Mudfrog]

But what if they turn around before they get to the point where they are actually poking through the bushes looking for it? Is that a note or a DNF? 

 

This is where everyone has different opinions. I see where others are coming from in their thinking that if they didnt get to poke through the bushes, then they didnt really get to perform an adequate search. They then post a note saying they never made it to ground zero or something similar. This is ok if it's the way you want to play.

 

But for me a DNF means exactly that, that i "did not find" the cache after i began my search. That search begins when i press "goto" and start walking, driving, boating, or flying towards the cache. Plain and simple and i dont have to come up with any imaginary lines as to when i think my search begins.

[+Kit Fox]

A DNF is you've looked for it and not found it, plain and simple. It DOES NOT mean "I thought about it", I was going to and..." on my way to the cache I decided..." Those are note, although for the life of me I can not understand any meaningful purpose for them.

 

 

It all depends on where you believe the search begins. There are many geocachers (me among them) who believe that finding a place to park and choosing the best approach and the right trail are all part of the hunt. Some even consider figuring out driving route to the cache site to be part of the hunt.

 

In my eyes, the hunt begins when I select "go to" on my GPS and once I've done that if I don't find the cache its a DNF.

While I agree with your premise Brainsnat, I have one issue. I read plenty of DNFs where they were useless. Had the cacher actually read the cache page, they wouldn't have bothered to make an attempt when the area was closed.

 

Examples include, "I got to the park, but the gate was locked, i'll have to come back during normal, open hours." These types of logs, on caches that clearly state the the hours of operation, are a waste of space.

 

IMHO a DNF because you hit the GOTO button, but changed your mind, before getting out of your car, to search, is unnecessary. If you change your mind about actually searching, because your wife asked you to come home, or you got called back to work, I don't need to know about it.

 

If the reasoning is cache related (cache inaccessible, new private property signs, or the area is unsafe for cachers), I want to hear about it.

Edited May 3, 2005 by Kit Fox

[+Bjorn74]

I split hairs last week.

 

On my way home from Fort Wayne, I stopped to do two caches near Lima, Ohio. I had lost track of my Palm, so I was flying blind.

 

The first took me close to a bridge and then across. I saw a parking spot and anticipated the same on the other side. As soon as I got on the narrow bridge, a cadillac chased me at a wrecklewss speed. I evaluated my options, including that the river was over it's banks, and kept on going. When I got home, this turned out to be a multi, with the first stage on the bridge and safe from harm. I logged a note that I meant to stop but that the river was high and I wasn't going to risk it.

 

The second was on the bank of the same river, I think. I tried to find it somewhere around ground zero, but the water was halfway up the bank and I would have been 3 feet deep in the river to get closer. I posted a DNF when I got home when I read the hint that said that it was halfway down the bank. Better to alert the owner to the flooding getting that high than nothing.

 

Both caches are well. I just needed to do my duty to the community with preemptive maintenance notes. Plus, there are LCC points to gain if you're the first to not find an archived or replaced cache in Ohio...

[+SeventhSon]

Here's a different take on the subject you guys can pick apart ...

 

We all choose how we're gonna approach this hobby, and we all choose whether or not we let the actions of others affect how we cache. I use the cache page alone to determine if I'm gonna search a cache. I've even quit reading logs of unfound caches for entertainment because of spoilers. Weeks later, I find I still remember something I read about a particular cache. I don't want help; just the info the owner gave me.

 

When I log a cache, there are two people in mind: myself, for my own personal records, and the owner. Regardless of which icon is at the beginning of my log, the owner will get an email. What he chooses to do with that email is up to him: read it or delete it.

 

As for the rest of you, you're not part of the equation when I'm logging. If you pay close attention to purple frowns and miss my log because it was a note, or count red squares in GSAK and I caused one only because my beeper went off just after I pressed goto while still parked in my driveway, you have decided to let the actions of others affect your hunt. (ftr, I don't have a beeper)

 

I only let the owner's actions affect my hunt. What he put in the cache description, if he disables the cache or archives it. Just because you didn't find it doesn't mean I won't. And if five in a row didn't find it and one decides to put a

yellow square in GSAK with an SBA, it still might be there.

 

Edit to add:

 

All that ramblin' and I never did say when my search begins. I've never seen anyone say they do it the way I do. When I'm driving, parking, walking thru the park or up the trail holding and looking at my GPS, I'm looking for a location that matches the waypoint in my GPS. I'm looking for a coordinate location. I want to be standing at the exact spot that is on my GPS screen. It's then that my search for the cache begins. Before that, I was looking for coordinates.

Edited May 3, 2005 by SeventhSon

[+bigdog999]

well I'm new to the game, but decided from day one to play the game as honestly as I can. If I step out of my car, and go after a cache, I either find it or I don't. It's as easy as that. I've posted a few DNFs since I started. I have one right now thats driving me crazy. The owner is a great hider, and I've contacted him on another of his other caches that I've DNFed, for subtle hints. If I determine not to pursue the cache for various reasons once I get the car near the closest parking, I don't consider it a DNF since I didn't(for whatever reasons) search for it.

 

Everyone entitled to their own opinions, that too is part of the game.

Bigdog999

[+Two Bear Cubs]

I absolutely love logging DNF's. No lie. The tortured confessional.

 

"Came without extension pole",

"Forgot large magnet on string again,"

"Will come back in the fall when Holly Trees loose their leaves; no wait, Holly's don't loose their leaves. *#$% you Mr. P"

 

The slapstick chain of events...It's way more fun than "TNLNSL" which might also be abbreviated ZZZZZ.

 

And it's such a pleasure to receive the most delightful encouragement after a DNF from local cachers--pack 'o deranged weasels--(No offense to Auntie Weasel or any other legit weasels)

 

But why oh why can we not click on someone's stats and read their DNF's?

 

My intentions are purely honorable here. Really. I would not cackle evilly or send taunting PM's. No. Scratch that. I would.

 

Call me crazy, but a couple of DNF's from other cachers makes me want to go in for the smilie. Being FTF often means you have more time at your disposal, but finding a cache after a long line of DNF's means you're gooooood.

 

It's like a little blue signal beacon. *hunt me!* ... *hunt me!* ...*hunt me!* ... *But don't bring your kids b/c they're going to be really peeved off when you don't find it either*

Edited May 10, 2005 by Two Bear Cubs

[+halley-peabody]

I've contributed my opinion on this topic before from the point of view as someone looking for caches. To add to what I've previously said, here's my feeling as a cache owner. I've only had one DNF posted so far on one of my caches. It was a person saying that they searched for the cache, could not find it, and thought my coordinates might be wrong. Because of this message I went back out with my GPS and checked on it. As it turned out they were right and I corrected it.

 

I have not had anyone post a DNF yet saying that they got to the park and then decided not to look, or were walking toward the cache and then had to leave for some reason. If and when I do then I will probably write to them and ask that they change it to a note. That's just my feeling on it.

[+Web-ling]

I log a note if I revisit a cache or have a comment not related to an actual hunt.

 

If I made an attempt to find a cache, but didn't find it, I log a DNF.

 

If there were circumstances that prevented my being able to thoroughly hunt for the cache, like if my son had to use the bathroom, or I'm already 15 minutes late for work, or I had a traffic accident while looking for one of JoGPS's caches, I add that explanation to my log.