DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
MtnLioness
2800 or more caches found
2800 or more caches found
Posts: 875
Joined: 12 May 09 5:50 pm
Location: Seaton, Adelaide
Contact:

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by MtnLioness » 24 October 11 5:00 pm

The Empire wrote:
caughtatwork wrote:I use option b.
If I see a bunch of DNF's I don't attempt it.
+1

If the cache page indicates that it's a relatively simple hide (ie mint tin under a bench or sistema under a tree) and there are 3 or 4 DNFs within the last few weeks, I won't bother searching. On the other hand, if the cache page indicates it's great camo and there are a few DNFs then I'll give it a crack.
Exactly as I would have said it.

User avatar
Hoojar
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 487
Joined: 26 May 08 6:04 pm
Location: The Gong

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by Hoojar » 25 October 11 8:55 am

I had a PM over these forums on the weekend from someone who did not find one of my caches and wanted to confirm if something else that they had found was a relic of the cache (it was not). Alas no DNF logged! Contacting me without a DNF logged is my biggest gripe, and never likely to elicit any clue whatsoever!

Philipp
1350 or more caches found
1350 or more caches found
Posts: 591
Joined: 24 January 10 3:08 pm
Twitter: derfuzzel
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Contact:

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by Philipp » 25 October 11 2:05 pm

Teirae wrote:
pjmpjm wrote:My own opinion -- for what it's worth -- is that something should be written in the cache's online log every time a geocacher sets his/her sights on it.

A DNF if there is any kind of search at GZ . . .

A note if some misadventure prevents an actual search at GZ . . .
I agree
I disagree:

Found it: I signed the logbook

DNF: I went out of the house and had every intention of signing the log at one point but something happened. It doesn't matter if it's "I just couldn't find the container", "The Log got frozen into the container", "there were too many muggles", "the location was so trashed I didn't want to go for it" or something else. I log a DNF

Note: I want to tell something else

User avatar
Big Matt and Shell
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 1905
Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
Twitter: BigMattandShell
Contact:

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by Big Matt and Shell » 25 October 11 2:37 pm

Philipp wrote:Found it: I signed the logbook
I agree. Not that you were holding the cache, No photos accepted. Stickers or signed log.
Philipp wrote:DNF: I went out of the house and had every intention of signing the log at one point but something happened. It doesn't matter if it's "I just couldn't find the container", "The Log got frozen into the container", "there were too many muggles", "the location was so trashed I didn't want to go for it" or something else. I log a DNF
I disagree. DNF=Did Not Find. How can you claim a did not find if you didn't start searching. Otherwise my DNF logs would be "Didn't find it becasue my pager went off and I went to a house fire rather than going to the cache" or "Miss 1 needed a nappy change so I had to go home rather than geting to this cache" or "I didn't even start looking as there were muggles sitting on the cache."

To me a DNF is a flag to the CO and other cachers that I started a search (no matter how short) for the cache and it was unsucessful. The only stretch I have for this is long bushwalks where I have been physically unable to get to the GZ because of flood waters or terrain. Because I felt the CO needed to know that we had a fairly good attempt.

I also watch all caches that I DNF until they have been found, the owner replaces the cache or it is archived.
Philipp wrote:Note: I want to tell something else
Muggled out, thinking about doing the cache, etc.

EDIT: Clarify statement for Found it.

Philipp
1350 or more caches found
1350 or more caches found
Posts: 591
Joined: 24 January 10 3:08 pm
Twitter: derfuzzel
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Contact:

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by Philipp » 25 October 11 3:48 pm

Big Matt and Shell wrote:"I didn't even start looking as there were muggles sitting on the cache."
There I'd log a DNF because I actually started to look and saw the muggles.
Big Matt and Shell wrote:To me a DNF is a flag to the CO and other cachers that I started a search (no matter how short) for the cache and it was unsucessful.
If a cache get's a high DNF rate it is an indication that your hunt might not be successful. If that's due to a sneaky hide or muggles doesn't matter. A DNF is not an indication that something is wrong with the cache - you just didn't find it.
Big Matt and Shell wrote:
Philipp wrote:Note: I want to tell something else
Muggled out, thinking about doing the cache, etc.
If I am sure the cache got muggled, I do log a DNF and a NM.

ollave
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 11
Joined: 08 May 04 6:05 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by ollave » 26 October 11 10:31 am

There are obviously at least three schools of thought, and I don't think they're ever going to agree.

1. The purist

"I went to GZ. I didn't find the cache. Logged DNF."

2. The pragmatist

"I went to GZ. I had a half hearted or interrupted look; it's probably here but I didn't find it. No DNF logged."
"I went to GZ. It's a tricky cache. I didn't find it, but I'm coming back. No DNF logged."

3. The shy

"I went to GZ. I didn't find the cache. I'm too shy/too inexperienced/too lazy to log a DNF."

I'm mostly #2, unless there's an interesting story to tell. I [i]will[/i] log a DNF if I'm reasonably sure the cache isn't there. Examples: a cache that had been found every few days (typically) and then not for a month; mine was the first DNF and the owner had the cache replaced within a few days.

Second example: I logged a DNF from my phone. Ten minutes later with a break in muggle traffic I try one more time ... and find the cache. So logged a find. I left the DNF there; I don't like changing my logs. Someone else suggested I could have deleted it, but what's the point? Worst is someone thinks I'm an idiot; best case is someone things "hmm, could be a little tricky, and how amusing that he found it just [i]ten minutes later[/i]!

It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. If you're mortified about logging DNFs, well, don't. If you're happier logging a DNF any time you didn't sign the log after being on the ground at GZ, do that. If you waver from day to day and sometimes do log DNFs and sometimes don't, that's OK too. It's a game!

On the sole practical note in this post (the topic has been and probably will be a perennial for as long as geocaching lasts) I'd suggest that it's good for more experienced cachers to not be shy and log your DNFs, as they're more useful to the cache owners. But the bottom line is each to their own; I think I am seeing a trend toward #2 above (the pragmatist, e.g. "found on my third visit" without two prior DNFs), but I might be wrong.

User avatar
Richary
8000 or more caches found
8000 or more caches found
Posts: 4189
Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
Location: Waitara, Sydney

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by Richary » 27 October 11 9:12 pm

Philipp wrote:
Big Matt and Shell wrote:To me a DNF is a flag to the CO and other cachers that I started a search (no matter how short) for the cache and it was unsucessful.
If a cache get's a high DNF rate it is an indication that your hunt might not be successful. If that's due to a sneaky hide or muggles doesn't matter. A DNF is not an indication that something is wrong with the cache - you just didn't find it.
There is the other aspect of DNFs that after 3-4 of them the CO is expected to check on the cache. If I drive up to a playground cache, and don't bother getting out of the car because the playground is covered in kids - by your logic I should log a DNF. The next 5 people who rock up also do the same. The CO is then expected to check the cache even though nobody has actually searched for it. Then some sock puppet comes along and places a NM or NA log on it.

My theory is that if I actually looked for the cache as opposed to just walking towards it then aborting, then yes I should log a DNF. If I didn't have a search at GZ then it should be a note to warn others of the muggle problem. That way it's not flagged to the CO and other finders as being missing.

User avatar
Yurt
4500 or more caches found
4500 or more caches found
Posts: 1509
Joined: 01 May 09 10:08 pm
Location: Northern Suburbs, Sydney

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by Yurt » 27 October 11 10:52 pm

Richary wrote:
Philipp wrote:
Big Matt and Shell wrote:To me a DNF is a flag to the CO and other cachers that I started a search (no matter how short) for the cache and it was unsucessful.
If a cache get's a high DNF rate it is an indication that your hunt might not be successful. If that's due to a sneaky hide or muggles doesn't matter. A DNF is not an indication that something is wrong with the cache - you just didn't find it.
There is the other aspect of DNFs that after 3-4 of them the CO is expected to check on the cache. If I drive up to a playground cache, and don't bother getting out of the car because the playground is covered in kids - by your logic I should log a DNF. The next 5 people who rock up also do the same. The CO is then expected to check the cache even though nobody has actually searched for it. Then some sock puppet comes along and places a NM or NA log on it.

My theory is that if I actually looked for the cache as opposed to just walking towards it then aborting, then yes I should log a DNF. If I didn't have a search at GZ then it should be a note to warn others of the muggle problem. That way it's not flagged to the CO and other finders as being missing.
Yep that's my philosophy for the same reasons.

Philipp
1350 or more caches found
1350 or more caches found
Posts: 591
Joined: 24 January 10 3:08 pm
Twitter: derfuzzel
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Contact:

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by Philipp » 28 October 11 8:11 am

Richary wrote:There is the other aspect of DNFs that after 3-4 of them the CO is expected to check on the cache. If I drive up to a playground cache, and don't bother getting out of the car because the playground is covered in kids - by your logic I should log a DNF. The next 5 people who rock up also do the same. The CO is then expected to check the cache even though nobody has actually searched for it.
Is he? I mean if 5 people in a row abort the cache due to muggles, log a DNF and tell about the muggles in the log, I wouldn't bother checking it as a cache owner.

And a Needs Maintenance doesn't hurt: It's just that someone thinks that you as a owner should have a look. It's not an insult.

I have three tree-climbing caches out there and I do know that people rocked up trying to find them and went "oh to high, too hard" but never logged anything. I think that is a bit sad since it would be nice for the next cacher to have that information as a DNF, so you know it might be a bit harder to get to it and can come prepared.

Normally a DNF has a story. I've barely seen DNF logs which just stated "Nope - didn't find it". Most of the times they read "Nope - didn't find it because ..." and this is where you get some information as the next cacher in the line.

User avatar
Hoojar
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 487
Joined: 26 May 08 6:04 pm
Location: The Gong

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by Hoojar » 28 October 11 8:48 am

Philipp wrote:
Richary wrote:There is the other aspect of DNFs that after 3-4 of them the CO is expected to check on the cache. If I drive up to a playground cache, and don't bother getting out of the car because the playground is covered in kids - by your logic I should log a DNF. The next 5 people who rock up also do the same. The CO is then expected to check the cache even though nobody has actually searched for it.
Is he? I mean if 5 people in a row abort the cache due to muggles, log a DNF and tell about the muggles in the log, I wouldn't bother checking it as a cache owner.
+1

User avatar
noikmeister
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1200
Joined: 10 July 09 12:29 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

Post by noikmeister » 28 October 11 8:57 am

Philipp wrote: And a Needs Maintenance doesn't hurt: It's just that someone thinks that you as a owner should have a look. It's not an insult.

Normally a DNF has a story. I've barely seen DNF logs which just stated "Nope - didn't find it". Most of the times they read "Nope - didn't find it because ..." and this is where you get some information as the next cacher in the line.
BIG TICK!

Post Reply