DNF or Note

[+TotoTeam]

Hello everyone,

 

I went geocaching yesterday. There was 1 cache I couldn't find, the description said I had to climb in a tree so I did but after climbing about 2 m high I couldn't see any cache. I didn't trust myself to go higher. So after several minutes I went down and decided it was not worth it to break my neck over a cache I wasn't sure was there.

Turns out I didn't climb high enough, as the cache was found a little later. I logged "Didn't Find It", saying I climbed but didn't find the cache. The owner sent me a message saying that if I did not properly search the way I should have, I shouldn't log DNF but only post a Note saying I didn't go high enough.

 

I don't agree, to me it is a real DNF, seeing how I did climb in the tree !

 

He can delete my log if he wants, that is not the problem to me I just want to know what would be the right log in this case.

 

What do you think ?

 

Thank you,

 

TotoTeam - From France

[+Beach_hut]

There's going to be a little disagreement on this, but I guess our approach is "Does my log tell the cache owner/future finders any information about whether the cache might have problems?" If the answer to that question is no, because we know didn't look in the right place, or didn't look at all because of muggles, then I guess it would be a note. If you'd gone all the way to the top of the tree and still not found it, then I'd log a DNF. so in your case it'd probably be a note.

 

That said, it's really a personal preference, and I wouldn't criticise a logger on one of my caches if they'd taken a different approach.

[+J Grouchy]

I think it's a valid DNF. You actually went to GZ and attempted a search and Did Not Find it. If you'd gone, saw the tree and decided not to even climb, then I'd say post a Note.

 

But honestly, the CO shouldn't really be dictating that. It's one thing to post a Find when you didn't find it, or vise versa...but this scenario is really your call and yours alone.

[+kunarion]

I don't agree, to me it is a real DNF, seeing how I did climb in the tree !

 

He can delete my log if he wants, that is not the problem to me I just want to know what would be the right log in this case.

 

What do you think ?

I think it's best kept as a matter between the you and the Cache Owner.

 

But if you want to consider a distance in meters between "DNF" and "Note", there are endless discussions in this Forum about that.

[+GeoTrekker26]

Unless the cache is missing, a DNF means one didn't search in the correct place. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really make any difference.

[+Mudfrog]

I don't agree, to me it is a real DNF, seeing how I did climb in the tree !

 

He can delete my log if he wants, that is not the problem to me I just want to know what would be the right log in this case.

 

What do you think ?

I think it's best kept as a matter between the you and the Cache Owner.

 

But if you want to consider a distance in meters between "DNF" and "Note", there are endless discussions in this Forum about that.

Sorry, but the cache owner isn't involved in my decision to log a DNF. This one is plain and simple, TotoTeam looked for the cache and did not find it. They could go with a note but why? The DNF correctly describes the the outcome of this situation.

 

Of course it's a good idea to state in your the log, without spoiling the cache, the circumstances involved.

[+TotoTeam]

I don't agree, to me it is a real DNF, seeing how I did climb in the tree !

 

He can delete my log if he wants, that is not the problem to me I just want to know what would be the right log in this case.

 

What do you think ?

I think it's best kept as a matter between the you and the Cache Owner.

 

But if you want to consider a distance in meters between "DNF" and "Note", there are endless discussions in this Forum about that.

 

Hi,

 

I didn't intend to start an endless discussion =) I just found the reaction of the CO a little unkind and thought maybe there was a strict rule about this. Since there doesn't seem to be, I guess it is up to him whether he deletes the log or not.

 

Thank you all for your replies !

[+kunarion]

I don't agree, to me it is a real DNF, seeing how I did climb in the tree !

 

He can delete my log if he wants, that is not the problem to me I just want to know what would be the right log in this case.

 

What do you think ?

I think it's best kept as a matter between the you and the Cache Owner.

 

But if you want to consider a distance in meters between "DNF" and "Note", there are endless discussions in this Forum about that.

Sorry, but the cache owner isn't involved in my decision to log a DNF.

I was specifically referring to the OP about what everyone thinks about one side of the story.

[+kunarion]

I didn't intend to start an endless discussion =) I just found the reaction of the CO a little unkind and thought maybe there was a strict rule about this. Since there doesn't seem to be, I guess it is up to him whether he deletes the log or not.

The log is not necessarily up to the CO. If you usually make a DNF log when you Did Not Find a cache (which strangely, is also what I do), the logs should stand. I'd be disinclined to hunt that CO's caches, and leave it at that.

[+J Grouchy]

Unless the cache is missing, a DNF means one didn't search in the correct place.

 

Not necessarily...I don't really feel like I need to explain this, but there have been MANY instances where I've either seen - even HELD - the cache but did not recognize it as a cache, or was within inches of it without finding it.

[+hzoi]

Unless the cache is missing, a DNF means one didn't search in the correct place.

I either looked for it, or I didn't. Without either confirmation from the cache owner, an explicit hint or photo, or other concrete information, how am I to know if I looked in the right place? So if I looked for it but didn't find it, I log a DNF. If I didn't have the chance to look for it, say, due to someone loitering at the cache location, I might leave a note, or I might not log it at all.

 

Other than that, I use notes for situations when logging "Found it" or "Didn't find it" wouldn't apply, such as noting a subsequent visit to a cache (say, for a TB swap), updating my progress on a challenge cache (not as common these days), or just saying howdy to the CO.

[+cerberus1]

What do you think ?

If I didn't accomplish what I needed to do (as per the cache page description, and/or D/T), I log a note.

If you only went up a bit, not trusting yourself to go higher, you really didn't accomplish what you needed to do, right?

- But you didn't claim a fake "I saw it, so..." found log (what we get often), so we wouldn't really think of your log as "correct" or not.

 

It's rare (for me) to consider a CO's mild but slightly irritating rant, especially when it's only his opinion, and I'd probably just avoid any future caches belonging to him.

[+bflentje]

I think it's best kept as a matter between the you and the Cache Owner.

 

No way. This isn't less important that half the other topics that happen here.

 

If you didn't find it, it's a DNF no matter how much or how little you searched. I would personally challenge whatever authority this cache owner thinks he has over you.

[+niraD]

As you've discovered, there is some disagreement on when a DNF log is appropriate. Personally, if I reach GZ and search for the cache, then I log either a Find or a DNF. But there are people who log DNFs even when they do not reach GZ, and there are people who log DNFs only when they have made a "legitimate" search (for whatever definition of "legitimate" they hold to). And there are many people who never log DNFs.

 

In the situation described in the original post, I'd log a DNF. But there have been times when I went to GZ for an elevated cache (to confirm what tool would be needed, so I could return with that tool later), and logged a Note for that visit.

[+narcissa]

The cache owner was wholly out of line. My recommendation with cache owners like that is to avoid any direct communication with them. Do not engage by responding to the email. If your legitimate DNF log is deleted, have Groundspeak reinstate it.

[+dprovan]

From what you're saying, the owner's being ridiculous. My guess is he's a little touchy because of people doing the opposite: spotting the cache from the ground and claiming a find even though they didn't climb the tree. So give him as much slack as you can, like apologize profusely while explaining that you did look for it and didn't find it, so you can't imagine not logging a DNF.

 

On the other hand, it would be even more ridiculous to argue with the CO about it, so if he's asking you to change you DNF to a Note, then just do it and forget about it. If it were me, I wouldn't be able to help myself from using the words "Did Not Find" a few times in my Note, but feel free to be more diplomatic than that.

[+J Grouchy]

So give him as much slack as you can, like apologize profusely while explaining that you did look for it and didn't find it, so you can't imagine not logging a DNF.

 

That's ludicrous. Why should anyone "apologize profusely" for doing nothing wrong?

 

I agree with narcissa here...do not respond, leave the DNF, re-post it if they get all bent out of shape about an honest log.

[+justintim1999]

It's a DNF.

[+narcissa]

I wonder if cache owners are touchy because the site now sends owners mail if they have DNFs.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Climbed a tree, but apparently didn't go high enough? DNF.

 

Came to GZ, read cache page, realized cache was up a tree you couldn't climb, didn't try to climb? Note, maybe.

[+bflentje]

Climbed a tree, but apparently didn't go high enough? DNF.

 

Came to GZ, read cache page, realized cache was up a tree you couldn't climb, didn't try to climb? Note, maybe.

 

Still a DNF in my book. I'll relog it as many times as it might get deleted.

[+The A-Team]

The owner sent me a message saying that if I did not properly search the way I should have, I shouldn't log DNF but only post a Note saying I didn't go high enough.

The owner is totally out of line in saying this. How is a finder supposed to know how high is "high enough"? Unless the cache description explicitly says "the cache is 4.2 metres off the ground", there's no way for the finder to know.

 

Did you try to find the cache? Yes.

Did you find the cache? No.

Therefore, you did not find the cache. A DNF log is totally appropriate. I would do exactly the same thing.

 

Now, there's one scenario in which I'd log such a cache as a note rather than a DNF: if I could see the container, but couldn't actually retrieve it. In this case, although I haven't "found it" in the geocaching.com sense, I also haven't not found it in the English language sense. That's just the way I'd do it, though, and everyone else is welcome to do it their own way. There's no right or wrong way in such a scenario, which is why I feel the owner that contacted you is wrong for trying to impose their own personal views on other cachers.

[+The A-Team]

If your legitimate DNF log is deleted, have Groundspeak reinstate it.

They don't do that for DNF logs.

 

4.1. Geocacher Disagreement - Log Deletion

Geocaching HQ can only reinstate "Found It" and "Attended" logs on geocache listings.

While it doesn't say so, I'd have to assume they would also reinstate "Webcam photo taken" logs, since they're effectively equivalent to "Found it" and "Attended".

[+dprovan]

So give him as much slack as you can, like apologize profusely while explaining that you did look for it and didn't find it, so you can't imagine not logging a DNF.

That's ludicrous. Why should anyone "apologize profusely" for doing nothing wrong?

You apologize to make him feel better. It costs you nothing, and it opens him up to listening to your explanation and learning from it.

 

But go ahead and put up your fists and snarl if having a pointless fight is how you'd rather spend your time.

[+J Grouchy]

So give him as much slack as you can, like apologize profusely while explaining that you did look for it and didn't find it, so you can't imagine not logging a DNF.

That's ludicrous. Why should anyone "apologize profusely" for doing nothing wrong?

You apologize to make him feel better. It costs you nothing, and it opens him up to listening to your explanation and learning from it.

 

But go ahead and put up your fists and snarl if having a pointless fight is how you'd rather spend your time.

 

Convenient how you edit out the rest of my post that directly contradicts your second statement...

 

So give him as much slack as you can, like apologize profusely while explaining that you did look for it and didn't find it, so you can't imagine not logging a DNF.

 

That's ludicrous. Why should anyone "apologize profusely" for doing nothing wrong?

 

I agree with narcissa here...do not respond, leave the DNF, re-post it if they get all bent out of shape about an honest log.

 

I said nothing about having a fight, pointless or otherwise.

Edited November 2, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+fbingha]

I was in your same situation a couple weeks ago.

 

A tree climb, with the cache about 40ft up, visible from the ground. I climbed within 5ft of the cache and decided I had gone far enough. The tree is dying and branches were breaking off. I no longer felt secure enough to grab two more branches to get the cache.

 

I climbed down and logged a DNF. To me, logging a note for this seemed like a weasel out. Of course, the next cacher posts a found it log along the lines of "That tree is unsafe and I will not climb it".

Edited November 2, 2016 by fbingha

[+colleda]

Hello everyone,

 

I went geocaching yesterday. There was 1 cache I couldn't find, the description said I had to climb in a tree so I did but after climbing about 2 m high I couldn't see any cache. I didn't trust myself to go higher. So after several minutes I went down and decided it was not worth it to break my neck over a cache I wasn't sure was there.

Turns out I didn't climb high enough, as the cache was found a little later. I logged "Didn't Find It", saying I climbed but didn't find the cache. The owner sent me a message saying that if I did not properly search the way I should have, I shouldn't log DNF but only post a Note saying I didn't go high enough.

 

I don't agree, to me it is a real DNF, seeing how I did climb in the tree !

 

He can delete my log if he wants, that is not the problem to me I just want to know what would be the right log in this case.

 

What do you think ?

 

Thank you,

 

TotoTeam - From France

I'd log a DNF. You searched but didn't find. Its a poor call by the CO.

[+dprovan]

I said nothing about having a fight, pointless or otherwise.

At first I was going to admit that of course you didn't say anything about a fight, and that it was merely me that was pointing out that insisting on interacting with the CO from the position that he was wrong, wrong, wrong could not lead anywhere good. But I looked at what you were complaining about and was surprised to see that you do, in fact, describe the fight you're going to get into:

 

I agree with narcissa here...do not respond, leave the DNF, re-post it if they get all bent out of shape about an honest log.

Reposting the DNF if they get all bent out of shape about it is specifically picking a fight with them. (Hint: they're going to delete it again, after which you will...what? Post two DNFs?) Over a DNF log? It's hard to imagine a more pointless fight. All because you think there's some moral outrage in starting out with, "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you'd be upset about it."

[+J Grouchy]

I said nothing about having a fight, pointless or otherwise.

At first I was going to admit that of course you didn't say anything about a fight, and that it was merely me that was pointing out that insisting on interacting with the CO from the position that he was wrong, wrong, wrong could not lead anywhere good. But I looked at what you were complaining about and was surprised to see that you do, in fact, describe the fight you're going to get into:

 

I agree with narcissa here...do not respond, leave the DNF, re-post it if they get all bent out of shape about an honest log.

Reposting the DNF if they get all bent out of shape about it is specifically picking a fight with them. (Hint: they're going to delete it again, after which you will...what? Post two DNFs?) Over a DNF log? It's hard to imagine a more pointless fight. All because you think there's some moral outrage in starting out with, "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you'd be upset about it."

 

You have very loose definition of "fight". If that were considered a "fight", then the only one picking it is the CO. It's a completely one-sided affair.

See, a fight sort of requires a conflict between two or more parties and, given I would have no intention of interacting with such a CO, it amounts to nothing more than a temper tantrum.

 

You do seem willing to pick a fight here, though...which is honestly baffling.

[+Team DEMP]

It's a DNF. You attempted to find but you Did Not Find the cache. The GC.com glossary for DNF agrees with your action.

[+redsox_mark]

My view:

 

1. The CO is out of line here. Logging a DNF is perfectly acceptable.

 

2. I am one of those who, in general, will log either a DNF or a note depending on a number of circumstances, and what I think fits best. I'm NOT one who believes if you press "go" on the GPS, and don't find it, it MUST be a DNF.

 

3. For what it's worth, in this example I would log a DNF. If I decided not to climb at all, or if I didn't even reach the tree because my wife called me and said come home, I'd log a Note.

[+TotoTeam]

The cache owner was wholly out of line. My recommendation with cache owners like that is to avoid any direct communication with them. Do not engage by responding to the email. If your legitimate DNF log is deleted, have Groundspeak reinstate it.

 

I did reply, kindly, explaining my point of view. He didn't answer and the log is still there.

I guess that's that.

 

I see most of you agree it is a proper DNF.

Thank you for your replies!

[+dprovan]

You have very loose definition of "fight". If that were considered a "fight", then the only one picking it is the CO. It's a completely one-sided affair.

See, a fight sort of requires a conflict between two or more parties and, given I would have no intention of interacting with such a CO, it amounts to nothing more than a temper tantrum.

"I'm not fighting, I'm just hitting him in self defense!" Sheesh. "I'm not throwing a tantrum, but I'll be damned if I'll let him delete my DNF!"

 

It's not one-sided. Being entirely in the right does not mean your part in the conflict doesn't count. If he's being such an idiot, why do you care at all whether you've logged a DNF on his cache?

[+thebruce0]

I'll second A-Team's response for how I'd treat the situation.

 

Ultimately, it's enough of a grey area that you can choose to log it either way for yourself. And because it's not really that important, especially if the log text clarifies the experience (so the log history is sufficiently accurate by what you're implying), then if the CO doesn't like it, shrug your shoulders and move on - it's simply not worth the angst.

 

Find logs are a different issue than DNFs.

Edited November 3, 2016 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

Find logs are a different issue than DNFs.

I understand what you're saying and certainly don't mean to argue with you, but for me, there's not a significant difference between DNFs and finds in this context: neither is worth arguing with a CO about.

[+thebruce0]

Well in that context of arguing with the CO, and the grand scheme of things, I certainly also agree

 

...do I dare ask what constitutes "arguing with the CO"?

Taking up a violation of rules (such as those that objectively provide for posting of a valid Find Log) I wouldn't consider 'arguing with the CO', which is what I meant by a 'different issue'. But only insofar as the issue is specifically in regards to that objective definition upheld by TPTB as a valid instance of a "Find log", and not what various conditions individuals personally consider warrant a 'find' or not. The latter I'd lump in with "arguing with the CO", not the former

 

But even then, in the grand scheme of things, yep, "it's just a game".

Edited November 3, 2016 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

Taking up a violation of rules (such as those that objectively provide for posting of a valid Find Log) I wouldn't consider 'arguing with the CO', which is what I meant by a 'different issue'.

As I just said to someone else: just because you're right doesn't mean you're not arguing. There's just nothing else to call an exchange where you post a log, the CO deletes it, and you post it again over his objections, or go to GS to get them to override the CO. That's an argument, so let's not pretend it isn't.

 

With that out of the way, I don't mean to imply it's never important to stand up for yourself and argue. As long as you recognize you are, in fact, arguing and, therefore, are, in fact, upsetting the other person (as well as yourself), I'll leave it up to you to decide whether it's worth it. To me, the value of a find is zero, so, me, I'd always shrug my shoulders no matter how silly I thought the CO was being and no matter how sure I was that GS would back me up if I appealed.

 

But even then, in the grand scheme of things, yep, "it's just a game".

Yes, there's that, but when I think about these things, my thinking is that it's not only just a game, but this specifically is just one point within the game, and, as such, it has no impact on whether I'm enjoying the game. Even in a casual tennis match where a point could actually determine whether I won or lost, it doesn't really matter because I'm enjoying the game for reasons other than whether I win or lose. But in geocaching, with no concept of winning and losing, it doesn't even have that nuance to consider.

 

On the other hand, arguing about the point almost definitely would make me enjoy the game less, whether I won the argument or not.

[+barefootjeff]

There's going to be a little disagreement on this, but I guess our approach is "Does my log tell the cache owner/future finders any information about whether the cache might have problems?" If the answer to that question is no, because we know didn't look in the right place, or didn't look at all because of muggles, then I guess it would be a note. If you'd gone all the way to the top of the tree and still not found it, then I'd log a DNF. so in your case it'd probably be a note.

 

That said, it's really a personal preference, and I wouldn't criticise a logger on one of my caches if they'd taken a different approach.

 

Sorry, but this kind of irks me. A DNF doesn't, or at least shouldn't, imply a problem with the cache. That's what NM logs are for. A DNF should simply mean that, for whatever reason, you were unable to find the cache. "Not looking in the right place" is far and away the cause of most DNFs I log and that are logged by others on my hides.

[+narcissa]

There's going to be a little disagreement on this, but I guess our approach is "Does my log tell the cache owner/future finders any information about whether the cache might have problems?" If the answer to that question is no, because we know didn't look in the right place, or didn't look at all because of muggles, then I guess it would be a note. If you'd gone all the way to the top of the tree and still not found it, then I'd log a DNF. so in your case it'd probably be a note.

 

That said, it's really a personal preference, and I wouldn't criticise a logger on one of my caches if they'd taken a different approach.

 

Sorry, but this kind of irks me. A DNF doesn't, or at least shouldn't, imply a problem with the cache. That's what NM logs are for. A DNF should simply mean that, for whatever reason, you were unable to find the cache. "Not looking in the right place" is far and away the cause of most DNFs I log and that are logged by others on my hides.

 

I am also irked by the attitude that a DNF means the cache has a problem. For me, it means I didn't find it or was otherwise hindered from signing the log. If I DNF a cache, I probably don't have enough information to claim definitively that a cache has a problem... because I didn't find it! As with all other logs, the DNF is primarily for my own records. I write them descriptively in case the information is helpful to others, but chances are that I will be the primary user of those logs. They certainly aren't usually meant to convey something negative about the cache or its owner.

[+PlantAKiss]

Boy, what have I been missing for 10 years? I always thought the rule was if you looked for it and didn't find it, it was a DNF...because...you didn't find it. For that matter if you didn't sign the log, it's a DNF. I've had a cache full of mud in my hand and logged a DNF because I didn't (couldn't) sign the log. I have written a note for a cache I found but could not reach (because I was only allowed to write a note). If I wrote a note for all the caches I've looked for and gotten close to but didn't find, I wouldn't have any DNFs. lol :-D In my opinion the OP's DNF was correct. Lately I've noticed some very experienced cachers writing notes instead of DNFs stating they looked for the cache but didn't find it. I don't really understand that.

[+narcissa]

Boy, what have I been missing for 10 years? I always thought the rule was if you looked for it and didn't find it, it was a DNF...because...you didn't find it. For that matter if you didn't sign the log, it's a DNF. I've had a cache full of mud in my hand and logged a DNF because I didn't (couldn't) sign the log. I have written a note for a cache I found but could not reach (because I was only allowed to write a note). If I wrote a note for all the caches I've looked for and gotten close to but didn't find, I wouldn't have any DNFs. lol :-D In my opinion the OP's DNF was correct. Lately I've noticed some very experienced cachers writing notes instead of DNFs stating they looked for the cache but didn't find it. I don't really understand that.

 

I think the new system that bugs COs about DNFs is causing people to feel weird about posting them.

[+PlantAKiss]

Whaaaatt? What new system?? I have not heard of that. Where is there info on that?

[+niraD]

Whaaaatt? What new system?? I have not heard of that. Where is there info on that?

Here's the Help Center article:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=713

[+Pontiac_CZ]

It's definitely a DNF.

 

BTW if someone ever deletes my DNF log I'll ask Groundspeak to reinstate it. They won't do it since they state in their article they will reinstate only Found it logs, but they will at least know I care. It is a part of a geocacher's history, it takes him time to write it and if the log is correct, without hate language or spoilers, there is no reason to lose it. Many times it contains more interesting story than FI logs.

[+TheVoytekBear]

How I feel common sense tells me the statuses:

1. Found the cache, grabbed it, signed the log and put it back - Found it

2. Found the cache, grabbed it, the log is a mess and irreplaceable - Found it (+photo) + NM stating the problem

3. Spoted the cache but couldn't grab it (too high, too many muggles) - Note or no log

4. Spotted the cache but couldn't grab it because of probable failure (broken line or some other mechanism) - Note or NM depending on how obvious the failure is.

5. Reached GZ bud didn't spot the cache despite looking for it (no matter how hard) - DNF

6. Visited the cache for a second time (whatever reason, e.g. introducing a new person to caching) - Note or no log

 

So for me it was a DNF

 

Am I getting sth wrong with above logic?

Edited November 4, 2016 by TheVoytekBear

[+coachstahly]

 

3. Spoted the cache but couldn't grab it (too high, too many muggles) - Note or no log

4. Spotted the cache but couldn't grab it because of probable failure (broken line or some other mechanism) - Note or NM depending on how obvious the failure is.

 

I think it's mostly personal preference that would dictate what each cacher chooses to log/not log/write note. For the above ones, I would log a DNF. I was there, I searched for the cache, managed to spot it but for a variety of reasons, I couldn't sign the log. For me (because others play differently, which is fine), I'd log a DNF and state in my log that I saw it but couldn't retrieve it to sign it for whatever reason. In the case of the OP, I'd log a DNF.

[+redsox_mark]

How I feel common sense tells me the statuses:

1. Found the cache, grabbed it, signed the log and put it back - Found it

2. Found the cache, grabbed it, the log is a mess and irreplaceable - Found it (+photo) + NM stating the problem

3. Spoted the cache but couldn't grab it (too high, too many muggles) - Note or no log

4. Spotted the cache but couldn't grab it because of probable failure (broken line or some other mechanism) - Note or NM depending on how obvious the failure is.

5. Reached GZ bud didn't spot the cache despite looking for it (no matter how hard) - DNF

6. Visited the cache for a second time (whatever reason, e.g. introducing a new person to caching) - Note or no log

 

So for me it was a DNF

 

Am I getting sth wrong with above logic?

 

Nothing wrong with this logic. Others will have different logic.

 

At the highest level, there are 2 options in this often debated DNF discussion:

 

1. Once the hunt starts (press go on GPS), either the cache must be found, or it is a DNF.

2. Once the hunt starts (press go on GPS), the choice of log (DNF, Note, or nothing) depends on the circumstances.

 

Within option 2, there are infinite variations. I've used DNF for the "Spotted the cache but couldn't grab it" case sometimes, and note other times, depending on what I thought was the most useful log in the specific situation.

[+thebruce0]

Taking up a violation of rules (such as those that objectively provide for posting of a valid Find Log) I wouldn't consider 'arguing with the CO', which is what I meant by a 'different issue'.

As I just said to someone else: just because you're right doesn't mean you're not arguing. There's just nothing else to call an exchange where you post a log, the CO deletes it, and you post it again over his objections, or go to GS to get them to override the CO. That's an argument, so let's not pretend it isn't.

Oh I completely agree. That IW ould call arguing.

If there is a rule that says the log is allowed, then taking it up with TPTB properly and having it instated without the argument would be the better way. In the case of subjectivity and emotion-fueled bickering, it's arguing.

 

With that out of the way, I don't mean to imply it's never important to stand up for yourself and argue. As long as you recognize you are, in fact, arguing and, therefore, are, in fact, upsetting the other person (as well as yourself), I'll leave it up to you to decide whether it's worth it. To me, the value of a find is zero, so, me, I'd always shrug my shoulders no matter how silly I thought the CO was being and no matter how sure I was that GS would back me up if I appealed.

Agreed. Though to me, if it's a matter of enforcing a rule (ie, a right), then it's just not about me, but about mutual understanding of what is and isn't allowed, which can benefit others in the future, if either of us indeed has a wrong understanding. Having that settled, to me, isn't itself arguing. But how you get to that settlement certainly can be

 

How I feel common sense tells me the statuses:

1. Found the cache, grabbed it, signed the log and put it back - Found it

2. Found the cache, grabbed it, the log is a mess and irreplaceable - Found it (+photo) + NM stating the problem

3. Spoted the cache but couldn't grab it (too high, too many muggles) - Note or no log

4. Spotted the cache but couldn't grab it because of probable failure (broken line or some other mechanism) - Note or NM depending on how obvious the failure is.

5. Reached GZ bud didn't spot the cache despite looking for it (no matter how hard) - DNF

6. Visited the cache for a second time (whatever reason, e.g. introducing a new person to caching) - Note or no log

 

So for me it was a DNF

 

Am I getting sth wrong with above logic?

This would be my logic as well. For #3, I'd favour the note over DNF because I'm likely thinking "I know what to do, I didn't do it, I will return to complete my search attempt," thus my 'finding' isn't yet complete. So it's a Note in my books inth at case.

 

And as a followup, if for whatever reason the CO responds telling me I can log it found if I want, then I'll do a personal evaluation of the situation to decide whether I will or not. But that's a whole other discussion with other threads

[+narcissa]

How I feel common sense tells me the statuses:

1. Found the cache, grabbed it, signed the log and put it back - Found it

2. Found the cache, grabbed it, the log is a mess and irreplaceable - Found it (+photo) + NM stating the problem

3. Spoted the cache but couldn't grab it (too high, too many muggles) - Note or no log

4. Spotted the cache but couldn't grab it because of probable failure (broken line or some other mechanism) - Note or NM depending on how obvious the failure is.

5. Reached GZ bud didn't spot the cache despite looking for it (no matter how hard) - DNF

6. Visited the cache for a second time (whatever reason, e.g. introducing a new person to caching) - Note or no log

 

So for me it was a DNF

 

Am I getting sth wrong with above logic?

 

For me, I think #3 would be a DNF because that's more in line with my own record-keeping, but I don't think it's incorrect to make it a note.

 

With my GPS, when I abort an attempt on a cache whether it's because I couldn't find it or couldn't reach it, the field note is automatically set to be a DNF. I log from field notes so it's easier to just leave it.

[+niraD]

At the highest level, there are 2 options in this often debated DNF discussion:

 

1. Once the hunt starts (press go on GPS), either the cache must be found, or it is a DNF.

2. Once the hunt starts (press go on GPS), the choice of log (DNF, Note, or nothing) depends on the circumstances.

 

Within option 2, there are infinite variations. I've used DNF for the "Spotted the cache but couldn't grab it" case sometimes, and note other times, depending on what I thought was the most useful log in the specific situation.

I don't think option 2 really covers the "infinite variations". A number of people seem to get to a point where it's either a Find or a DNF, but it isn't always based on the "press go on GPS" criterion shown above. Something like this might work better:

 

1. Once the hunt starts (press go on GPS), either the cache must be found, or it is a DNF.

2. Once the hunt starts (reach GZ), either the cache must be found, or it is a DNF.

3. Once the hunt occurs (reach GZ and search at all), either the cache must be found, or it is a DNF.

4. Once the hunt occurs (reach GZ and search earnestly), either the cache must be found, or it is a DNF.

5. Once the hunt occurs (reach GZ and search completely thoroughly), either the cache must be found, or it is a DNF.

 

And of course, there are still "depends on the circumstances" situations, too.

 

And FWIW, I'm usually in group #3 above. The "press go on GPS" criterion doesn't work for me at all, because I've found hundreds of caches without pressing go (on a GPS or on any other device).