Personal DNF Policy

[+Armorsmith]

Very early in my time as a cacher, I realized that posting a DNF has some outside weight in that in can potentially notify the CO to a problem. I have come to consider that DNF's mainly allow you to convey information to others.

 

So here is my question, how do you relate to DNF's? I've seen it range from "post a DNF for every attempt" to "never post a DNF."

 

If you're like me, which I hope most of you have been spared, you consider a lot of things before you post the DNF. I feel a hasty DNF is as bad as a missing one, and I suspect most people have a personal "when not the DNF" policy, so here is my list of my DNF guidelines, what is yours?

 

• I do not post a DNF if I was interrupted, was unable to make a thorough search, or was unable to search at all. Basically, if the DNF's implication that the cache is either difficult or missing is unwarranted do to an external restraint. A DNF stating that the sky opened up and I was unable to complete my search due to torrential downpour is unhelpful. Instead I will return and make a proper search before posting the DNF (usually the same day).
  
• I do not post a DNF if I have already posted a recent DNF. For example, if I searched yesterday, and posted a DNF, then I return for another search today, I don't post a second one because I don't want to pester the CO. The exception to the rule is to post some pertinent piece of information, like a change in hours of availability. I do post a DNF if it has been a while since my last search, especially if there have been other DNF's in the mean time.
  
• I do not post a DNF if I find shattered, broken, or otherwise damaged containers at GZ, I post a NM log instead. If the cache owner confirms the cache is still there and that the pieces were just normal trash, I retract the NM log and post the DNF. (with apologies to the CO)
  
• I do not post a DNF if I found the cache but was unable to sign the log. In situations where I put my hands on the cache and the cache is unopenable, the log is damaged or full, or I am interrupted I post a find *edit* and an NM log if necessary *end edit*. In situations where I can see the container, but can't get to it because it has been, for example, shoved into a crevice or say, my XXL hands can't get into the hole it is hidden in, I don't post a DNF, but return with either the necessary tools or a person with smaller hands to grab the cache.
  
• In all other situations, I post the DNF.
  

 

I mostly search for caches with very recent finds on them so that my ADHD brain won't drive me crazy raking over the memory of the cache site for hours after I leave, so I don't get to put this into practice very often and much of it is theoretical because the situations have not arisen, but I'd love to hear how you all make the.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Armorsmith

[+niraD]

My personal DNF policy is pretty simple: If I reach GZ and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF.

 

If I do not reach GZ, or if I reach GZ but don't search for some reason, then I use some other log type (usually a Note) if there's something to say.

[+stijnhommes]

My DNF policy is similar to yours, but I do treat them on a case by case basis.

[+kunarion]

•I do not post a DNF if I was interrupted, was unable to make a thorough search, or was unable to search at all. Basically, if the DNF's implication that the cache is either difficult or missing is unwarranted do to an external restraint.

Why would even attempt the cache if there's an external restraint? That is, didn't you go due to thinking you could find it before the rain? That's useful info to future cachers as well as COs.

 

•I do not post a DNF if I have already posted a recent DNF. For example, if I searched yesterday, and posted a DNF, then I return for another search today, I don't post a second one because I don't want to pester the CO.

Are you obsessing over one cache? If you're searching constantly, yes, you should probably keep that fact a secret.

Still, if it's one of my caches (and your DNF is something more about caching and less a window into a psychological disorder), pester me! You should have found it by now, so there's something I need to do to make it findable.

 

•I do not post a DNF if I find shattered, broken, or otherwise damaged containers at GZ, I post a NM log instead. If the cache owner confirms the cache is still there and that the pieces were just normal trash, I retract the NM log and post the DNF.

That's OK.

 

•I do not post a DNF if I found the cache but was unable to sign the log. In situations where I put my hands on the cache and the cache is unopenable, the log is damaged or full, or I am interrupted I post a find. In situations where I can see the container, but can't get to it because it has been, for example, shoved into a crevice or say, my XXL hands can't get into the hole it is hidden in, I don't post a DNF, but return with either the necessary tools or a person with smaller hands to grab the cache.

At least consider posting a note. A problem with a cache hide is useful info for the CO and other cachers. When you refuse to make a decent online log, it causes problems for the next cachers. Lots of people are the same as you, though, so you're in good company.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kunarion

[+redsox_mark]

My "rule" is I post a DNF if I think it makes sense and is helpful.

 

Broadly speaking it is in line with what the OP said. But I judge it case by case.

 

With the "I was interrupted" case, it will depend when the interruption came. Certainly if (for example) I get a call telling me to come home urgently before or just as I reach GZ, I won't post a DNF. If I have been looking for 25 minutes, and would have given up after 30 mins anyway, then I would.

 

I also post DNFs if I never reach GZ and they are relevant/useful. E.g. on the way to the cache the footbridge over the river was closed and I could not get to it. (This could also be done as a note, but for an issue like this I think a DNF is more likely to get noticed).

 

If I come back another day and again don't find it, I will log another DNF.

 

I would not log a DNF for caches I found but could not sign the log. Most often I would write a note.

[knowschad]

I am continually amazed at how much thought seems to go into this question for some. It seems like a no-brainer to me. If I looked for a cache and I didn't find it, I didn't find it. If I didn't look for a cache and I didn't find it, I didn't look for a cache. Isn't it really just that easy?

[+Lieblweb]

That's one of the great things about this game..... You can play it however you want to play it.

 

I have my own DNF rules....but its a secret.

 

It amazes me that other people will 'question' your own methods and claim you're doing it wrong.

[+redsox_mark]

I am continually amazed at how much thought seems to go into this question for some. It seems like a no-brainer to me. If I looked for a cache and I didn't find it, I didn't find it. If I didn't look for a cache and I didn't find it, I didn't look for a cache. Isn't it really just that easy?

 

I don't put a lot of thought in (expect when this question comes up), and I also think it's easy, but my question is a different one as I said earlier. My question is: "does logging a DNF make sense to me in this case and is it helpful?"

 

The problem I have with the quoted definition comes down to the definition of "look". Some say "look" starts when they press the find button on their GPSr - even if they are 10 miles away, and then they stop after walking 10 feet. Others say "look" starts when you reach GZ.... but as I said earlier there are cases where I think logging a DNF because you can't reach GZ makes sense.

 

Now, 98% of the time I don't get interrupted, or find the bridge is out... and I log either a Find or a DNF when I look.

[knowschad]

I am continually amazed at how much thought seems to go into this question for some. It seems like a no-brainer to me. If I looked for a cache and I didn't find it, I didn't find it. If I didn't look for a cache and I didn't find it, I didn't look for a cache. Isn't it really just that easy?

The problem I have with the quoted definition comes down to the definition of "look".

Sounds rather Clintonesque.

[+JJnTJ]

FIND:

• Found cache and signed log sheet
  

 

DNF:

• Found container but didn't/couldn't sign log sheet (i.e. trees I couldn't climb, log sheet is pulp)
  
• Didn't find container, but looked*
  

 

* "looked" means whatever I wanted it to mean in the context of the cache, my mood, the phase of the mood, whatever. If it's a 4/4 and I only spent a minute, I probably won't post anything. If it's a 1/1 and I spent 15 minutes, I'm definitely posting a DNF. I reserve the right to be hypocritical, mercurial and inconsistent about DNFs.

[+Great Scott!]

knowschad, it should be that easy.

 

interrupted search = dnf

second dnf = dnf

third dnf = dnf ( I usually won't go back again after 3 tries. cache was not meant for me to find. )

broken glass didn't find cache = dnf

[+Beach_hut]

If we looked, we will most probably DNF. If we got to GZ and, say, there were muggles everywhere nearby and we decide not to search, (as happened last week when we went to look for a cache opposite a church), we'll post a note.

[Clan Riffster]

Put me in the "Post every legitimate attempt" category. For me, if I hunt, even a little, and do not locate the cache in question, I log a DNF describing my experience. Being typically verbose, there is little chance that a cache owner will misinterpret my failure to mean the cache may be missing.

[+redsox_mark]

Sounds rather Clintonesque.

 

:D

[knowschad]

...we decide not to search...

See? As I said... its easy. No need to overthink this.

 

(However, your use of a note as opposed to a DNF for the "too many muggles to look" scenario does seem to imply that you feel some degree of failure by posting a DNF. I'd suggest that you simply look at it as a report, and not a value judgement)

Edited October 19, 2012 by knowschad

[+MartyBartfast]

...we decide not to search...

See? As I said... its easy. No need to overthink this.

 

(However, your use of a note as opposed to a DNF for the "too many muggles to look" scenario does seem to imply that you feel some degree of failure by posting a DNF. I'd suggest that you simply look at it as a report, and not a value judgement)

 

I will also log a DNF if I looked, but if I got there and didn't look (e.g. because of muggles) then I will also write a note, how can you "not find" something you haven't looked for?

 

A DNF can trigger a CO (or subsequent finders) to think a cache may be missing, so it would be wrong to do that if I didn't even look for it.

[+Armorsmith]

Why would even attempt the cache if there's an external restraint? That is, didn't you go due to thinking you could find it before the rain? That's useful info to future cachers as well as COs.

 

Good question worth some clarification. I've lived in places where the weather can go from sunny to downpour walking from your front door to your car. So sudden weather changes are something a lot of cachers have to deal with. The other situation this cropped up in was when I went to grab a cache in Atlanta, I arrived at the park and realized that there was an open air concert and there were 10,000 people facing where the cache was hidden. I moved on, but didn't post a DNF because by the time I got home to post it, the concert was over and gone. A third example came when I was looking for a cache in a park and a pair of muggles rounded the corner and sat down to eat their lunch in the pavilion 20 feet from the cache. I abandoned the search and returned later, but didn't post a DNF. I also wouldn't post a DNF if a place was too crowded to search if the description already states that it is often muggle infested.

 

Are you obsessing over one cache? If you're searching constantly, yes, you should probably keep that fact a secret.

Still, if it's one of my caches (and your DNF is something more about caching and less a window into a psychological disorder), pester me! You should have found it by now, so there's something I need to do to make it findable.

 

LOL, no, but I've had a lot of situations where I've moved on to the next cache on my list and something clicked in my brain and I realized where I forgot to look. I usually haven't posted the DNF yet, so I just log the find. I've never been in this situation, but if I got home and posted my DNF and had that realization the next day, and it was convenient (I drive around town a lot as a photographer) I can see myself stopping again for a very quick check on the theory. In that situation, if I didn't find it, I would consider that "second" search and extension of the first and not deserving of its own log.

 

Oh, and don't make fun of my overclocked, ADHD brain.

 

At least consider posting a note. A problem with a cache hide is useful info for the CO and other cachers. When you refuse to make a decent online log, it causes problems for the next cachers. Lots of people are the same as you, though, so you're in good company.

 

If there was anything that was actually wrong with the cache, I would do so. The kinds of situations I'm talking about is when it is something specific to me that causes me to have trouble. A post stating that I had trouble getting to the cache because I can't get my hands (which are almost a foot in length, 6 inches across, and 2.5 inches thick) into where the cache is is not helpful to anyone of normal proportions. At least in my mind, it would be kind of like complaining at the Men's Warehouse because they don't stock 40-42 double tall dress shirts with a 16 inch neck, it doesn't help anything, it's ridiculous to expect it, and I still have to special order the shirt.

 

If my caching buddy who is normal sized has trouble getting it, it's worth a note.

 

In short, if there is any reason to post a log, or if there is anything that would be helpful to other cachers that hasn't already been stated, I'm all for posting the log, or at least a note in some cases.

[+Armorsmith]

Another thing I think about, is that I use the age/finds/DNF/last find stats of a cache when I'm planning a caching run out of town. If I know I have 3 hours to cache and one of them looks like it might be a tough one due to frequent DNF's, I might overlook the cache completely due to the time constraints, I only want to know how many there are, not why it wasn't found. I prefer to search spoiler free whenever possible. If everybody who is rebuffed on the weekend due to muggles posts a DNF, I will think it's a hard to find cache, even if the place is deserted on the weekday I'm going to be there.

 

Here is another example from my caching experience. There was a cache in a park half a block from where I worked, it was a difficulty 2.5 or 3 I think, and due to its location in the park, GPS bounce meant you could only get about a 50 foot accuracy. One day I decided to go look for it, but when I got to the location, I realized that it would take more than the 10 minutes I had on my lunch break to search 750 square feet the GPS was showing me. So I looked that day, and since I always had a little extra time for lunch, that whole week, I walked to the park, ate my lunch, and then spent a few minutes systematically searching the area which was infinitely superior to twiddling my thumbs while I waited for my break to end. I found it on the 5th day. Was that 1 find, or 4 DNF's and a find? The way I look at it, it was 1 search that happened to stretch over a few days. Each day when I left, it wasn't to give up, it was because of an unrelated time constraint; a suspension of the search not a cessation of the search.

 

I know this doesn't affect many cachers, but it is an interesting point to consider for those who take a hard line view of DNF's. I might make it out for an actual caching run once every other month or so. Most of my caching is crammed into the free minutes I have between other things and as such, my search times and habits are colored by those restraints. I can't count the number of times I've gone to look for a cache because a client was running a bit late, then got the text that they were almost there before I could complete my search. In those situations, I went to my meeting, then finished my search after the meeting. Was the first search a DNF?? I would say no. And I would say the same thing even if there was a week between segments of the search.

 

It that is the case, wouldn't posting a DNF when you know full well you didn't finish looking be misleading to the CO and other cachers?

 

So far, it seems people fall into three camps.

1. The DNF is part of the game. Black and white, find/DNF, no exceptions.
   
2. The DNF is a statistics thing and posting a DNF adversely affects statistics, so people who don't post them are only concerned about their stats.
   
3. The DNF is for the benefit of the CO and other cachers. Therefore we must consider the impact of our DNF before we place it.
   

 

This is all very interesting. I've read a lot of posts stating options on the matter, but hearing the reasoning is great.

[knowschad]

 

So far, it seems people fall into three camps.

1. The DNF is part of the game. Black and white, find/DNF, no exceptions.
2. The DNF is a statistics thing and posting a DNF adversely affects statistics, so people who don't post them are only concerned about their stats.
3. The DNF is for the benefit of the CO and other cachers. Therefore we must consider the impact of our DNF before we place it.

Exactly 2/3 of those camps are dead wrong!

[+Armorsmith]

Exactly 2/3 of those camps are dead wrong!

 

Geez, right after I got done complimenting people on explaining themselves well.

 

But seriously, I clearly fall into the third camp, and I have given you several reasons why. You have stated how you feel about it, but you aren't giving us a reasoned argument, you are appealing to what you feel should be obvious to everybody without actually stating it. Clearly, it is not obvious to us. If you disagree with my arguments, I'd love to hear why you feel that way. I've explained, with examples the reasons I see gray. Don't just keep restating your position, discuss it with us.

 

If you are confident in your position, explain why. Here are some questions that would help us understand your position. Why should a search should be defined as a single visit to the site. Why is it that if my search is interrupted by my "real life," I should post a DNF in spite of the fact that I intend to return to finish what I've started, and if it makes a difference, why the length of that interruption affects the status? If I stop searching to take a phone call and I have to walk back to my car to check something, should I post a DNF? If so, how far from ground zero counts as officially "leaving of the site"? Can you define your terms like looked and found? If you define a find as signing the log, did you find the cache or not when the log is too full to sign?

 

I look forward to reading your reply. Hopefully you can remove some of the gray.

[+SwineFlew]

A DNF is a DNF. It means you didnt find it because you didnt find it. Isnt that clear enough for you guys?

 

If you get lost in the maze of streets on the way to a cache and didnt get close enough to search, thats a DNF because you didnt find it. No need to post a note.

[+The Jester]

The DNF is for the benefit of the CO and other cachers. Therefore we must consider the impact of our DNF before we place it.

This thinking has alway puzzled me, both as a cache owner and seeker. The fact that a DNF exists on a cache is meaningless, only the content of the log has meaning. The content says why the cache wasn't found (I've used it when I got T-boned on the way to a cache and decided that I'd had enough 'adventure' for the day). If you go by just the number of DNF's (on whether you hunt for it or not), then a group, say four, that DNFs for muggles eating lunch at the table they need to search, and writes four seperate DNF logs, will prevent you from looking for a perfectly good cache. While if you read the content of those four logs you'd realize they wouldn't (shouldn't) stop you from attempting that cache.

 

I also view all my logs (of whatever type) as part of my cache history - they are for me as much as for anybody else - they make a journal of my caching trips (which is why sometimes I include 'xx of yy finds for ...' in my logs that some owners complain about, that's for my use/benefit not theirs). So I log my complete history, if I find it, Found log; if I don't find it, DNF log.

[knowschad]

Exactly 2/3 of those camps are dead wrong!

 

Geez, right after I got done complimenting people on explaining themselves well.

 

But seriously, I clearly fall into the third camp, and I have given you several reasons why. You have stated how you feel about it, but you aren't giving us a reasoned argument, you are appealing to what you feel should be obvious to everybody without actually stating it.

I think I was perfectly clear. If I look and do not find, I post a DNF. It is just as simple as that. You can't control how others may interpret your DNF if they chose to not read the contents of your log. In my opinion, you are drastically over-thinking this.

Edited October 20, 2012 by knowschad

[knowschad]

Exactly 2/3 of those camps are dead wrong!

Geez, right after I got done complimenting people on explaining themselves well.

By the way... I didn't say which 2/3, did I? That was intended to be light-hearted, if not actually "humorous".

[AZcachemeister]

It seems (to me) the real problem is determining when you actually start looking for the cache.

If I am heading towards GCXXX123, and get in a freeway pile-up, was I 'searching' for the cache?

If I get within a half mile of the cache, but the police have cordoned off the area due to a serial rapist, was I 'searching' for the cache?

If I manage to get to the park where the cache is hidden, but there some kind of neighborhood festival going on (and I decide not to proceed) was I 'searching' for the cache?

If I get to GZ, and someone wants to help me look for the 'lost jewelry item'...so I call off the search...was I 'searching' for the cache?

If I get to GZ and spend five (or more) minutes 'searching', I know I was searching!

 

My personal criteria?

If I am close enough to switch from 'street' navigation to 'point-to-point' navigation, I am 'searching' for the cache.

It's either a 'Found It' or a 'DNF'. Every time.

 

For any of the other scenarios, I may post a note. Or maybe not. (If I was in the freeway pile-up, the note might be delayed a month or two)

[+NeverSummer]

My personal DNF policy is pretty simple: If I reach GZ and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF.

 

If I do not reach GZ, or if I reach GZ but don't search for some reason, then I use some other log type (usually a Note) if there's something to say.

This.

[Clan Riffster]

I can't answer for the dude who claims to know Chad, but I can offer my own opinions...

 

Why should a search should be defined as a single visit to the site.

Because more than one visit would be defined as 'searches', as in plural?

 

Why is it that if my search is interrupted by my "real life," I should post a DNF in spite of the fact that I intend to return to finish what I've started

Because you 'Did Not Find' what you searched for?

 

and if it makes a difference, why the length of that interruption affects the status?

Because a brief interruption does not necessarily mean you've begun a new search?

Else we'd need to post a DNF every time we blink, till we found the cache?

 

If I stop searching to take a phone call and I have to walk back to my car to check something, should I post a DNF?

You can, if you wish. I would not. See above for details.

 

If so, how far from ground zero counts as officially "leaving of the site"?

Officially, the top secret rules say 187 meters.

 

Can you define your terms like looked and found?

I can try.

Looked = The past tense of look. Also known as searched, or hunted. Seeked? Sought?

Found = Located.

 

If you define a find as signing the log, did you find the cache or not when the log is too full to sign?

Some would call it such.

For caches I hunt, I will not log a "Found It" unless my moniker is on the log.

For caches I own, I accept pretty much any interpretation

 

I look forward to reading your reply. Hopefully you can remove some of the gray.

Has the volume of gray increased or decreased?

 

Seriously though, there is no concrete answer to the question of when to post a DNF. Those who tell you otherwise are simply deluding themselves. I can share with you my personal thoughts as to when to post a DNF, but it is only one opinion amongst many. If I go to a cache, start my hunt, and fail to locate what I was looking for, I tell my tale in the form of a DNF log. Others would post their experience as a note. Others would not post anything, unless they were convinced, after a thorough hunt, the cache is likely missing. None of these methods are wrong, because there are no rules dictating which log type we use, and when we use them.

 

As a cache owner, I like to get logs. All manner of logs. Finds, DNFs, notes, etc. Getting these logs tells me that someone interacted with a cache I own. The content of the log tells me their story. I would prefer to here about your efforts, regardless of your opinion on whether or not my cache was missing.

 

But ultimately, it is your call.

[knowschad]

If so, how far from ground zero counts as officially "leaving of the site"?

Officially, the top secret rules say 187 meters.

 

That would be

 

613.517 feet

204.506 yards

or 0.116196 miles.

 

PS: Its true... I really do know Chad.

[+Armorsmith]

By the way... I didn't say which 2/3, did I? That was intended to be light-hearted, if not actually "humorous".

 

No you didn't and I got your joke, hence the little laughing frog looking guy. But it did provide the opening to ask for clarification from those in your "camp".

[knowschad]

By the way... I didn't say which 2/3, did I? That was intended to be light-hearted, if not actually "humorous".

 

No you didn't and I got your joke, hence the little laughing frog looking guy. But it did provide the opening to ask for clarification from those in your "camp".

 

My "camp"? See what I mean by overthinking this? I really don't know anybody that has a "Personal DNF Policy". You either looked for it, or you didn't, you either found it, or not. Its not complicated. Sure.. I won't deny that there are occasional nuances, but you just deal with them as they come up in whatever manner seems right at the time.

[+kunarion]

Are you obsessing over one cache? If you're searching constantly, yes, you should probably keep that fact a secret.

Still, if it's one of my caches (and your DNF is something more about caching and less a window into a psychological disorder), pester me! You should have found it by now, so there's something I need to do to make it findable.

 

LOL, no, but I've had a lot of situations where I've moved on to the next cache on my list and something clicked in my brain and I realized where I forgot to look. I usually haven't posted the DNF yet, so I just log the find. I've never been in this situation, but if I got home and posted my DNF and had that realization the next day, and it was convenient (I drive around town a lot as a photographer) I can see myself stopping again for a very quick check on the theory. In that situation, if I didn't find it, I would consider that "second" search and extension of the first and not deserving of its own log.

 

Oh, and don't make fun of my overclocked, ADHD brain.

There's a cache I pass within 100 feet of, twice a day on my commute. Never did find that thing (it's probably a thrilling, beat-up old M&Ms tube in the grass, totally worth looking for ). I have thus far resisted the urge to go search again every time I pass, then having two DNFs a day. I'm cache-free on that one, yay! OK, I do frown in that direction as I drive by. But I don't count that as a search.

[+terrkan78]

After playing the game for a few months and one day going back and reading through some of my earlier DNF logs, I decided to impose a personal DNF policy.

 

If, while typing a log, I feel the urge to drop the F bomb, type in all caps, or get pissy in some way, then it's time for me to shut up and get my hands far away from the keyboard. That policy has served me well.

[+Armorsmith]

Seriously though, there is no concrete answer to the question of when to post a DNF.

 

This is precisely my point. And hence why I feel it is an interesting discussion, but we can't expect to come up with a definitive answer that pleases everyone.

 

Because more than one visit would be defined as 'searches', as in plural?

...

Because you 'Did Not Find' what you searched for?

...

Because a brief interruption does not necessarily mean you've begun a new search?

...

You can *post a log if you have to return to your vehicle*, if you wish. I would not. See above for details.

...

For caches I hunt, I will not log a "Found It" unless my moniker is on the log.

 

This drives home the ultimate point I'm trying to make with this thread. There are always mitigating circumstances, and the beauty of the game is that how you play conforms easily to the player and his or her circumstances. I know you are joking when you say 187 yards, but the question is, what if your car is a two hour hike from the cache and you need to head back for the pen. By your definitions if you have to go back to the car, you're fine, you're golden. But by your definitions if you leave the site it was a DNF because you didn't sign the log on your first visit. Besides, when I get called in to work, it's usually only for an hour or two, so I would make it back to my search site sooner than you would make it to yours if it was near my office.

 

What I'm trying to point out is that with the exception of MythicalUberCacher12, every last one of us makes a judgement call any time something interrupts the ideal caching condition, which is an uninterrupted search. When I stated mine was a policy, it wasn't that I've written it down and that I consult my list when it's time to make a log, it was my attempt to solidify my feelings on the matter in my mind so that I won't have to question myself. And I posted it here to encourage this great dialog.

 

As I stated, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on how they post DNF's. My only hope is that those who take a hardline view will realize that following that hardline view in all situations would cause problems rather than solve them, as in these examples of situations from my real caching career. That view is great, and if you are a traditional cacher who goes out just to find caches and makes "caching runs" and all that, it works perfectly for you. I encourage everyone to post DNF's, they are an important part of the game. But I for one have circumstances in my life that require caching to take a back seat, often at a moment's notice, and I'm often lucky to find 20 minutes to cache in a whole week. (As I said, full time job plus business start-up) All I would ask that you understand our position and that you not look down on those of us who do not have the luxury of being able to cache "traditionally" when we attempt to find a way to honor the spirit of the law when the letter of the law is written for someone else's situation.

 

Has the volume of gray increased or decreased?

 

Both?

 

I understand why someone might think I'm "over thinking" this, but it is in my nature to always ask the "why?". It probably comes from my spending years as an editorial photographer for advertizing. There were no casual decisions, and nothing was ever left to chance. I've trained myself not to do anything unless I know why, and so I think about things like this. I know full well this is purely academic, and that it probably isn't important at all in the grand scheme of things, but it interests me none-the-less.

[+Armorsmith]

My "camp"? See what I mean by overthinking this? I really don't know anybody that has a "Personal DNF Policy". You either looked for it, or you didn't, you either found it, or not. Its not complicated. Sure.. I won't deny that there are occasional nuances, but you just deal with them as they come up in whatever manner seems right at the time.

 

boy is it fun to say things at you, you always seem to have such wonderful reactions. I just finished writing this in my previous post, but I know I'm "over thinking" it. To expand on that thought, over thinking is the whole point. Everyone who has been caching for a while has a "Personal DNF Policy" it just isn't written down, it usually isn't even thought about. You've developed a, for lack of a better term, "caching worldview" and that is what affects how you make your decisions in this regard.

 

And that is the whole reason for asking a question like this. You don't ask "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" because you're curious about how many angelic dance halls you can open up in your kitchen drawer, you ask it because the answer to that question gives you a glimpse into the answerer.

 

Allow me to explain. Had I stated "I think it's ok to not post a DNF if you plan to go back for a second visit very soon." This thread would have been twenty pages of argument by the end of the day. All sides would state their opinions over and over and over and over again. It is just the nature of how internet forums work. Instead, I asked a question, and gave my answer. I was interested in the answers to the question, of course, but by approaching the discussion in this way, not only was nearly all of the internet pettiness avoided, it also opened up the discussion to actually dig deeper into the answers than such a simple question should have allowed.

 

We haven't actually been discussing DNF's, we have been discussing the very nature of caching. "Over thinking" one single aspect allows us to discover much more about the whole than if we were trying to look at the whole. In what I suppose is an apt analogy for geocachers, we essentially ventured into the forest looking for a single hollowed out stump, but we got to see more of the forest on the journey than if we had stayed in the car. Essentially, it's a way of not missing the trees for the forest.

[+The Jester]

So far, it seems people fall into three camps.

1. The DNF is part of the game. Black and white, find/DNF, no exceptions.
   
2. The DNF is a statistics thing and posting a DNF adversely affects statistics, so people who don't post them are only concerned about their stats.
   
3. The DNF is for the benefit of the CO and other cachers. Therefore we must consider the impact of our DNF before we place it.
   

You missed a few of camps:

1. I never log a DNF until I know the cache is missing.

2. I never log a DNF until I'm going to quit trying for the cache.

3. I never log a DNF.

[+Beach_hut]

Or the one I saw the other day "I couldn't solve your puzzle cache"

[+Armorsmith]

You missed a few of camps:

1. I never log a DNF until I know the cache is missing.

2. I never log a DNF until I'm going to quit trying for the cache.

3. I never log a DNF.

 

Good point, but I was referring to those represented in this discussion.

[+The_Incredibles_]

1) If I did a thorough search and came up empty handed, I will log a DNF.

2) If I didn't have time or patience for a thorough search or too many muggles, I won't post a DNF.

3) If I looked yesterday and returned today, I probably won't log another DNF (too embarassing!)

4) If I found the cache, but was unable to sign for whatever reason (typically busted pen or coudldn't manage nano log) I will post a Found log with an explanation. If the cache owner wants to delete my log, they are free to, but it hasn't happened yet.

5) If I found a bunch of unidentifiable garbage at GZ and no cache, I would post a DNF with details.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

My "camp"? See what I mean by overthinking this? I really don't know anybody that has a "Personal DNF Policy". You either looked for it, or you didn't, you either found it, or not. Its not complicated. Sure.. I won't deny that there are occasional nuances, but you just deal with them as they come up in whatever manner seems right at the time.

 

boy is it fun to say things at you, you always seem to have such wonderful reactions. I just finished writing this in my previous post, but I know I'm "over thinking" it. To expand on that thought, over thinking is the whole point. Everyone who has been caching for a while has a "Personal DNF Policy" it just isn't written down, it usually isn't even thought about. You've developed a, for lack of a better term, "caching worldview" and that is what affects how you make your decisions in this regard.

 

And that is the whole reason for asking a question like this. You don't ask "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" because you're curious about how many angelic dance halls you can open up in your kitchen drawer, you ask it because the answer to that question gives you a glimpse into the answerer.

 

Allow me to explain. Had I stated "I think it's ok to not post a DNF if you plan to go back for a second visit very soon." This thread would have been twenty pages of argument by the end of the day. All sides would state their opinions over and over and over and over again. It is just the nature of how internet forums work. Instead, I asked a question, and gave my answer. I was interested in the answers to the question, of course, but by approaching the discussion in this way, not only was nearly all of the internet pettiness avoided, it also opened up the discussion to actually dig deeper into the answers than such a simple question should have allowed.

 

We haven't actually been discussing DNF's, we have been discussing the very nature of caching. "Over thinking" one single aspect allows us to discover much more about the whole than if we were trying to look at the whole. In what I suppose is an apt analogy for geocachers, we essentially ventured into the forest looking for a single hollowed out stump, but we got to see more of the forest on the journey than if we had stayed in the car. Essentially, it's a way of not missing the trees for the forest.

 

WOW, now I understand how you get so busy at work. This was a fun read, especially the dancing angels part.

[+kunarion]

Or the one I saw the other day "I couldn't solve your puzzle cache"

I'd prefer some feedback like that for my puzzle cache. Even a note, "the puzzle is too confusing" or whatever the issue is. If people are at all interested in any of my caches, yet avoiding them for any reason, I could sure use the input. My intention is for cachers to enjoy finding the caches.

 

On the other hand, I'm absolutely not going to post "I can't figure it out" on all the puzzle caches I couldn't solve, since that would probably mean thousands of logs. I think some COs make low-quality puzzles and don't really care if anyone can solve them.

 

What if there were an anonymous feedback form? ....a checkbox "I couldn't solve your puzzle cache", or whatever, just for the CO to know that people were intrigued by it, but got frustrated and left.

Edited October 20, 2012 by kunarion

[+stedmanrecon]

I do not post a DNF if I find shattered, broken, or otherwise damaged containers at GZ, I post a NM log instead.

 

What is GZ an abbreviation for??? (Lol new geochacher here)

[+kunarion]

I do not post a DNF if I find shattered, broken, or otherwise damaged containers at GZ, I post a NM log instead.

 

What is GZ an abbreviation for??? (Lol new geochacher here)

"Ground Zero", it's the cache location. http://geolex.locusprime.net/

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I do not post a DNF if I find shattered, broken, or otherwise damaged containers at GZ, I post a NM log instead.

 

What is GZ an abbreviation for??? (Lol new geochacher here)

Welcome! That would be ground zero.

[+dprovan]

In rare cases, I will not post a DNF because I felt so incompetent, I don't feel it's valid to call what I did "searching".

 

If I don't search for a cache, I only post a DNF if the reason I didn't search is relevant, such as discovering a temporary fence blocking access to GZ.

 

Typically I'll log all my DNFs for a cache, although I've been known to suppress them if my subsequent searches don't strike me as significantly different than my first search. In some cases, where no one else has posted anything intervening logs, I'll edit my previous DNF log to make it a list of DNF reports in the same entry instead of posting multiple independent DNFs.

 

On the other side of the fence, I have no problem with newbies not logging DNFs, and actually encourage them not to if they don't feel like it. On the other hand, while I don't condemn experienced cachers that don't log DNFs, I sometimes think a little less of them when I think I've detected one they've left out.

[+The Jester]

While chatting about maps at an event today, I realized why I consider the search to start when I hit the GoTo. When I first started I had a Garmin GPS 12 - no maps so the hunt to find a cache did start when I hit the GoTo as finding my way to the area was part of it. (I can remember discussions if using maps on the 'new' units was cheating back then.) So anything that interupted the hunt would mean a DNF log.

[+Don_J]

 

So far, it seems people fall into three camps.

1. The DNF is part of the game. Black and white, find/DNF, no exceptions.
2. The DNF is a statistics thing and posting a DNF adversely affects statistics, so people who don't post them are only concerned about their stats.
3. The DNF is for the benefit of the CO and other cachers. Therefore we must consider the impact of our DNF before we place it.

Exactly 2/3 of those camps are dead wrong!

 

Interesting. I don't think that the three are mutually exclusive. I usually subscribe to #1, but with rare exceptions. #2, I post my DNFs because I am concerned about having accurate stats and DNFs are a part of them. To not post them to avoid messing up a good find/DNF ratio just gives you a phoney stat. #3, I do post DNFs so that others, including the CO can be advised about the cache.

 

I ran into a situation last night where I was looking after dark, without light and really couldn't be sure if there was a cache there or not. I am not a night cacher and I figured that I would try a proper search at a later time in the daylight. Knowing that the CO is a bit ADHD themselves and a DNF would cause great concern to them, I decided to hold off on posting a DNF. Someone found the cache today, so I'm sure that everything is fine, but I still think that a DNF would freak the CO out and they would simply have to rush out and check it. In this rare case, I'm going to make an exception to #1 because of #3, at the expense of #2.

[+Don_J]

FIND:

• Found cache and signed log sheet
  

 

DNF:

• Found container but didn't/couldn't sign log sheet (i.e. trees I couldn't climb, log sheet is pulp)
  
• Didn't find container, but looked*
  

 

* "looked" means whatever I wanted it to mean in the context of the cache, my mood, the phase of the mood, whatever. If it's a 4/4 and I only spent a minute, I probably won't post anything. If it's a 1/1 and I spent 15 minutes, I'm definitely posting a DNF. I reserve the right to be hypocritical, mercurial and inconsistent about DNFs.

 

How do you know that the log is pulp if you didn't find it?

[+Don_J]

A DNF is a DNF. It means you didnt find it because you didnt find it. Isnt that clear enough for you guys?

 

If you get lost in the maze of streets on the way to a cache and didnt get close enough to search, thats a DNF because you didnt find it. No need to post a note.

 

Swineflew, I didn't find any of your caches tonight. Should I post DNFs?

Edited October 21, 2012 by Don_J

[+SwineFlew]

A DNF is a DNF. It means you didnt find it because you didnt find it. Isnt that clear enough for you guys?

 

If you get lost in the maze of streets on the way to a cache and didnt get close enough to search, thats a DNF because you didnt find it. No need to post a note.

 

Swineflew, I didn't find any of your caches tonight. Should I post DNFs?

If u start heading to my cache, yes.

[+unabowler]

I had one yesterday that I didn't DNF. There was a cache in a city park and it's right at a spot where the park is having a Halloween thing. The cache was behind a set of porta-johns they were using. I took a very quick look using the hint but any more than that I would have felt pretty conspicuous. I moved on. I'm not logging a DNF. It's my account and I don't feel like logging it. I know people who sign the log when they find caches but don't log those, either. It's their prerogative.