DNFs Logged vs. Actual DNFs

[RebornCyclist]

I probably log 80% of my DNFs.
In fact, there's one on the mountain here in Hobart that I've DNFed 4 times, despite others finding it reasonably easily - I'm almost taking the piss out of myself for being so hopeless.
I noticed the other day that I'm 12th in Tassie for all-time DNFs after only a year (68 DNF, 505 finds), so either I'm more hopeless than most (quite possible), or I log them more than most, or both.

[pjmpjm]

I probably log 80% of my DNFs.
In fact, there's one on the mountain here in Hobart that I've DNFed 4 times, despite others finding it reasonably easily - I'm almost taking the piss out of myself for being so hopeless. I noticed the other day that I'm 12th in Tassie for all-time DNFs after only a year (68 DNF, 505 finds), so either I'm more hopeless than most (quite possible), or I log them more than most, or both.

All these many replies to my original question have been great! Many thanks.

[juc_cacher]

If I get out of the car and search unsuccessfully, I'll always log a DNF, but if I drive up, or past and don't get out of the car, I often don't, unless there was some interesting story behind the failure to search.

[Cached]

I'm all for logging DNF's, but hate it when people log "Did not search" (muggles etc) as a DNF, when it is better suited to a note!

[Richary]

I'm all for logging DNF's, but hate it when people log "Did not search" (muggles etc) as a DNF, when it is better suited to a note!

I agree. A bunch of DNFs will discourage people from looking, when you can quite simply write a note to say you didn't look because of muggles or whatever. Then people will know that perhaps 3pm on a Saturday afternoon next to a footy oval is not the best time to look for it, without discouraging those who glance at a cache and just see 3 DNF icons in a row.

There have also been cases where a DNF is not appropriate because I could see the container, but because of muggles could not retrieve. So I did find it, but can't claim the find as I couldn't sign the book.

[Agent Basil]

Logged my 3rd DNF on the same cache today
(GC2F1KM)

[Toriaz]

I'm all for logging DNF's, but hate it when people log "Did not search" (muggles etc) as a DNF, when it is better suited to a note!

I agree. A bunch of DNFs will discourage people from looking, when you can quite simply write a note to say you didn't look because of muggles or whatever. Then people will know that perhaps 3pm on a Saturday afternoon next to a footy oval is not the best time to look for it, without discouraging those who glance at a cache and just see 3 DNF icons in a row.

There have also been cases where a DNF is not appropriate because I could see the container, but because of muggles could not retrieve. So I did find it, but can't claim the find as I couldn't sign the book.

I was wondering if I should log a DNF for one on Sunday that I couldn't search for due to high muggle numbers. Didn't think of just writing a note .

[pjmpjm]

I was wondering if I should log a DNF for one on Sunday that I couldn't search for due to high muggle numbers. Didn't think of just writing a note .

I think the general consensus in this case is that you just write a note.

[FourW]

Hello, my first post here, interesting discussion on a topic I have thought about, as being relatively new, I'm still "getting my eye in" looking for caches. I don't like admitting defeat, but don't think I'm searching as hard as I could. Sometimes there are factors that don't fit the DNF category like muggles or the geokids are ready to leave etc, which made it a " did not attempt". I like the note concept, but it might need an explanation (rained out, dive bombing magpies) to be beneficial.
To answer the original question, about 25-50% of my DNFs are logged, as I usually intend to return and try again.

[pjmpjm]

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 . . .

[Teirae]

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

[Mr Router]

i dnf't a cache on Tuesday, came back today to see lots more trampled grass ! no dnf on the cache

[Bronnie_1990]

There's a wonderful tricky cache, that i can see out the window from my desk at work.
(GC1KV08, yeah, THAT one..)

I caught two people attempting to find it last week (I saw them looking in the obvious spots, then decided to go outside, on the bridge to nowhere, to yell out a "So, have you found it yet?" )

Did they log it as a DNF?
Nope.

Were they geocachers? Yep. Ran into them at another cache. (Am loving the amount of caches in a 250m radius of my work sometimes.)
I know who you are. I know you dont use these forums, but..Hah.

[Kellyansapansa]

As a new cacher, I have been reading this thread with interest. I am still in the single digits for finds, but there was a cache recently which I couldn't access because of "muggles".

Now, I knew exactly where the cache was located (thanks to previous logs), but couldn't actually see it from where I was standing and didn't want to draw attention to it by looking for it. I did log it as a DNF (my first one) because I didn't technically find the cache, but I'm sure I would have if there weren't people present - and I wrote this in the DNF log notes. Some of you seem to be saying I should have just logged a note instead of a DNF.

Help - I'm so confused!

[Richary]

I wouldn't worry too much. As has been noted many people don't log DNF's at all. Depending on the cache and the search I will or won't. There have been some that I know are tricky, but only have time for a quick look for. If I know I will be back in the next few days for a decent search I don't usually write any sort of log. Then if I find it I mention the previous quick search in the log then. If I won't be back I will log the DNF as long as I actually searched for it.

Personally I won't log a DNF if muggles sitting next to it (or on it) prevent me from looking. I may or may not write a note depending on circumstances. Each to their own though and there is no shame in logging a DNF.

My take is that if a cache is in a high muggle area you can quickly get a load of DNFs in a row when it may well have been a Did Not Search. Someone who is new to the area glances at the cache listing, sees the last few have all been DNFs and just assumes the cache is missing. I tend to do that when travelling interstate and I have time for a few local ones, if GSAK shows 3-4 red dots as the last icons then I don't even bother checking the logs to see why.

Also there is a bit of an (unwritten?) rule that after 3-4 DNFs the owner should check on the cache even if nobody has flagged Needs Maintenace or Should be Archived on it. At least that's an expectation from some of the older crowd around. If the 3-4 DNFs are actually Didn't Search logs then there is no need for a cache check. The owner knows this having seen the logs, but others might look at it and go why aren't they checking it?