DNF on muggled caches

[pprass]

We have logged quite a few DNF's on caches that have been subsequently reported by the owner as being muggled. So my question is would you then go back and change the "DNF" log to a "Write a note" log? After all the cache wasn't actually there when we were searching so it isn't really a DNF. To me a DNF relates to an unsuccessful search for a cache that is actually there.

I know some cachers don't post DNF's as it ruins their stats (amongst other things!) so I'm thinking if it was acceptable or common to go back and change the status of your log, maybe more would be willing to post DNF's.

And with due respect, please don't say - "You play the game as you like to" I would like to know what you would do.

[caughtatwork]

I let my DNF stand.
I didn't find it ... regardless of the reason.

[Team Wibble]

I agree. I'd leave it as a DNF, to me a DNF is a DNF, regardless of the reason for not finding it. I'll even post a DNF log if I'm absolutely certain a cache is not there (confirmed by previous finders, etc).
But then again, I don't see DNFs as "ruining my stats".

[Yurt]

I think you can feel justified when a DNF turns out to be a muggled cache and if you like your count to reflect your 'true' DNFs then change it by all means. You are really only playing against yourself anyway.

[Geodes]

We have logged quite a few DNF's on caches that have been subsequently reported by the owner as being muggled. So my question is would you then go back and change the "DNF" log to a "Write a note" log? After all the cache wasn't actually there when we were searching so it isn't really a DNF. To me a DNF relates to an unsuccessful search for a cache that is actually there.

In some respects, I think this idea has merit - when I'm checking out caches to go for, I'll always check the log counters and, if I see there has been an appreciable number of dnfs in relation to finds, I'll go and check them out to see whether they were as a result of a tricky hide, or for some other reason - e.g. if the cache had been muggled or if they were as a result of muggles preventing a search. If the dnfs due to missing caches and because of an inability to search weren't there, a truer picture of the real difficulty would be easier to ascertain.

On the other hand, the dnf is part of the cache history and, really, I don't think I could be bothered going through and changing them, personally.

I know some cachers don't post DNF's as it ruins their stats (amongst other things!) so I'm thinking if it was acceptable or common to go back and change the status of your log, maybe more would be willing to post DNF's.

Cachers who don't post dnfs (and there are a few pretty prominent teams who don't) are a blight on the community. There have been several instances where I've posted a dnf for a cache, waited and watched for a while until the owner visited it, found it to be missing and replaced it - and then seen logs come in from cachers who reported that they'd visited it while it was missing and were happy to be able to find it now that it was back. If they'd been courteous enough to log a dnf, then there would have been a good chance that I'd have been able to find the replaced cache instead of simply being the first to report it missing

I really can't understand why some people have such an aversion to posting a dnf

And with due respect, please don't say - "You play the game as you like to" I would like to know what you would do.

It's certainly becoming a common cliche around here lately and, while I agree with the sentiment, I also think that weight of numbers in encouraging desirable behaviour and disapproving of less desirable practices can build up a community sense of what is "right" and encourage good habits in newer community members.

[caughtatwork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocaching#Terminology
DNF – (Did Not Find) Did not find the cache container being searched for.
The reason (as an action) is not necessary. The cache container being searched for was not found.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx
DNF
Did Not Find. An acronym used by geocachers to state that they did not find a cache. This is also a type of online log on Geocaching.com and is useful for alerting cache owners of potential issues. Cache owners who repeatedly receive "Did Not Find" logs should check to see that there cache has not been removed.
Again, the reason is not necessary. You didn't find the cache.

For those who seek caches based on the latest number of DNF's, 4 "notes" saying the cache is missing don't convey the same message as 4 "DNF's".

I would leave the DNF as a record of your not finding the cache.

[Bewilderbeest]

I post a DNF if I search and dont find the cache, whatever the reason (if the presence of muggles prevent me from searching, I dont usually log that as a DNF).

DNFs serve to alert the owner of issues with the cache. I dont see any point in changing the log type retrospectively. I dont think it helps the situation in any way, and I dont think it is significant for either my stats or the caches.

[squalid]

I'd leave it as a DNF. I like look at an offline cache to see the history that led to its status... E.g. DNF, DNF, DNF, Offline, Archived, or DNF, DNF, Offline, Online.

It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat... While you were searching for it the cache was in a superposition of muggled and not muggled. At the date of logging you didn't know that it was muggled ergo you log a DNF.

[Lucy]

I'd leave it as a DNF. I like look at an offline cache to see the history that led to its status... E.g. DNF, DNF, DNF, Offline, Archived, or DNF, DNF, Offline, Online.

It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat... While you were searching for it the cache was in a superposition of muggled and not muggled. At the date of logging you didn't know that it was muggled ergo you log a DNF.

And you don't really know if it was muggled before or after you didn't find it either, i.e. the fact that it was subsequently discovered to have been muggled doesn't mean it wasn't there when you were searching. I log DNFs, they are half the fun - though they do account for more of my caching time

[Zalgariath]

It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat... While you were searching for it the cache was in a superposition of muggled and not muggled. At the date of logging you didn't know that it was muggled ergo you log a DNF.

Haha Geeky Gold I agree the only time I dont log a DNF is if I dont actually look (Ie - drive/walk/ride up, see muggle picnic... drive/walk/ride away.

Sometimes I even log a DNF if I dont look for another reason (as in recently where the use of GZ as a human toilet put me off... ironically the cache was called "Diarrhoia!" LOL!). Its a courtasy not only to the cache owner but also the finders which come after you. Sometimes I end up logging a DNF on a cache which hasnt been found for months and is probably gone but I am the 1st one to log a DNF.... funny as the cache on the highway to the south has been found 5 times recently... and the cache just to north... I wonder why no one looked for this driveby too?!?!

[CraigRat]

I'd log a DNF without hesitation if I ever Did Not Find it.

[Damo.]

So my question is would you then go back and change the "DNF" log to a "Write a note" log? After all the cache wasn't actually there when we were searching so it isn't really a DNF.

Absolutely not! That's almost as bad as those people who log a "find" with the excuse "I would have found it if it hadn't been missing".

[grahamf72]

I agree with others that if you didn't find it, it's a DNF. And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE log your DNF's. As a cache owner the DNF's are almost as useful as the finds. It gives an indication if there is a problem with the cache (eg cache missing, possibly off coords, a better hint etc), and also gives an indication as to the popularity of the cache. A recent cache I DNF'd hadn't been found since it was placed, and mine was the 3rd DNF. There is a nearby cache that you had to walk past the 1st cache to get to, and it has had half a dozen finds in the same time. Pretty sure most of those finders would have looked for the 1st cache, since they had to walk past it, but haven't logged a DNF. The owner thanked me for my DNF, because my description of where I looked indicated that the cache was gone.
My general rule is that if for some reason I don't search for the cache - eg drive past and see a heap of muggles at GZ, then I won't log a DNF, but if I actually have a look for the cache then I will log the DNF. If I have multiple visits, and I'm reasonably sure the cache is there but I'm blind, then I won't log the additional DNF's.

[ruzzelz]

A DNF is always a DNF.

A did not look or actually being able to see the cache but not able to extract it due to muggles or other reasons may constitute a note.

What is the fear of a DNF - look at this list with many top finders who as one might expect also our top DNF cachers.

http://geocaching.com.au/stats/cachers/ ... _not_finds

[Echo]

Just a little off topic.

Cachers who don't post dnfs (and there are a few pretty prominent teams who don't) are a blight on the community. There have been several instances where I've posted a dnf for a cache, waited and watched for a while until the owner visited it, found it to be missing and replaced it - and then seen logs come in from cachers who reported that they'd visited it while it was missing and were happy to be able to find it now that it was back. If they'd been courteous enough to log a dnf, then there would have been a good chance that I'd have been able to find the replaced cache instead of simply being the first to report it missing

I really can't understand why some people have such an aversion to posting a dnf

Couldn't agree more, the DNF log is there for a reason.
Back to the topic though, I find no shame in a DNF it just gives me something to aim for next time I am nearby.