Not logging DNFs

[Goldenwattle]

I notice many people don't log their DNFs. Why is this?

I have been out caching with other people and I have logged a DNF, but then been the only one who did. I was also looking at a series of caches the other day. One of the caches was giving searchers a lot of trouble. It had a lot less finds plus DNFs than other caches in the series had finds, indicating to me that there were a lot of unrecorded DNFs.
In my home area I log almost all my DNFs; sometimes even several for the same cache. Travelling away from home I have been known not to log DNFs, but this is usually due to slooooooow internet, where it can takes hooouuurrrsss to log the finds, and by the time I have managed that I haven't been bothered to log the DNFs. It's bed time. If I have good internet though, I usually log the DNFs.
I have read logs such as one that stated that they finally found the cache on their seventh visit. For interest I checked and they had never logged a DNF - not even one - for that cache.
So , is anyone willing to admit they are a serial not logger of DNFs and why?

[caughtatwork]

Embarrassment at failing to find a cache that isn't there (or is). It's human nature.

[Hoojar]

Those that are high number finders, are often also high DNF loggers. This either means that they are less embarrassed by their DNFs and therefore more likely to log them, or just are out caching more often.

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

I wonder if anyone is able to produce a Find to DNF ratio? I have 6,327 finds and 847 DNFs.

[caughtatwork]

http://geocaching.com.au/stats/cachers/ ... inds_ratio
It may or may not have finished running when you have a look.

[Hoojar]

http://geocaching.com.au/stats/cachers/ ... inds_ratio
It may or may not have finished running when you have a look.

Prompt service as always.

Wow, I thought my ratio was high, I don't even get a look in!

[caughtatwork]

Yeah 50%+ is pretty high considering you need to have 100 finds before getting onto that list.

[Goldenwattle]

Those that are high number finders, are often also high DNF loggers. This either means that they are less embarrassed by their DNFs and therefore more likely to log them, or just are out caching more often.

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

I wonder if anyone is able to produce a Find to DNF ratio? I have 6,327 finds and 847 DNFs.

Hee, hee I made it to the list.

[Happy Chappies]

I've noticed similar things - both on my caches and others. I've seen cachers searching at caches I'm aware of, so go home to look for a find or dnf log later that day, and nothing ever appears. Likewise there are some cachers I cache with occasionally who won't log a DNF. Pride? Laziness? Combination I guess..

I'm pretty happy to log a DNF, but there are some occasions where I might not - Usually because it's more of a DRT (didn't really try) than a DNF. I actually had one today where I turned up, didn't like the exposed spot and potentially haystacky kind of search and thought 'meh, better things to do'. Often I will log those too if there's something noteworthy to say, but days like this get the better of me.

Apart from that, I'm keen to keep my DNF records pretty comprehensive. For me, logging is as much about recording my activities and adventures, and DNFs form part of that as much as finds do.

[Goldenwattle]

who won't log a DNF. Pride? Laziness? Combination I guess..

I would suggest lack of self confidence.

[spatialriq]

I'm a regular DNF-er 3029 finds, 393 dnfs. So that's around 13%.

If you don't dnf, then how are caches going to get replaced! (because I assume any cache I dnf is clearly not there! )

[Yurt]

This one comes up with regularity. Nearly always log them - I absolutely hate logging them which means I spend way too long at some caches but often find them in the end - it's always easier to keep going than plan another trip!

My exceptions would be when I haven't been able to have a proper look - been disturbed or given up due to muggles or weather. Of course I could still log a DNF then but that tends to put other cachers off looking for it. I logged a DNF on one cache and no one logged anything on it for months. It was a reasonably well-visited area. When I finally returned I eventually found it so it wasn't muggled. I'm not sure this is a reason for not logging DNFs though.

As we always say "you play this game how you want to" or words to that effect.

[geo_jas]

I try to log all dnfs. There's the odd occasion when I don't but they're few and far between. I assume that any cache I dnf is still there and it's just that I can't find it.
I've got 316 dnfs and 2377 finds so 13%.

[Richary]

I will log a DNF if I have had a chance to have a look. If I haven't been able to look due to muggles or some other situation (temporary fencing etc) then I may just log it as a note.

[on4bam]

Ever since I had a GPS that allowed "logging" (Colorado, Oregon) I've logged about every DNF. Except for holidays where time is more valuable I try to log DNFs every time I didn't find the cache or got stuck on a WP.

So far I logged 175 DNFs, 74 of them were later found because of an extra hint or because we went back after maintenance by the CO.

I log DNFs because I want the CO (and other cachers) to know there might be a problem or finding a WP or cache might be tricky but mainly to keep track of my activities. I don't see a DNF as "failure" but as a way to "share my experience" just like in any found log.

Just yesterday I got a mail from cachers who didn't find a cache we did a few weeks back, they had 2 values wrong in the cache formula. I saw no DNF from them for that cache...

[Goldenwattle]

There is a benefit to logging DNFs. I have several times then been contacted by the CO with extra assistance, and sometimes by other cachers too. If I didn't log a DNF that would not happen. I have also emailed some geocachers who logged DNFs to offer extra assistance too.
Worth logging DNFs for this alone. However, I see the main reason to log DNFs is that it lets the CO know there is a problem; whether it's because the cache is missing, or perhaps the difficulty is way underrated.