Logging finds on previous DNFs

May 14, 2017

Just wondering what the etiquette is for when you find a cache that you had not been able to find on a previous visit. We are on a mission to try and reduce the number of caches on our DNF list and have been trying to find caches that were previous DNFs. We recently found a cache nearly 8 years after our first visit, and logged it as a find but, of course, it still shows as a DNF on our list, under the original date.

Obviously we don't want to change the original log to a 'Found', as this will skew the number of finds, along the find date, but we want to remove it from our list of DNFs so that we can keep track of those we still need to revisit.

So, is it ok to go back to the original log and change it to a note to say it was a DNF, but then found on a subsequent visit?

May 14, 2017

For me DNFs should be kept with pride and part of my history. No matter how hard I try they are normally about 6% of finds. I would track DNFs I wanted to find with a bookmark list.

3.5k · May 14, 2017

My personal preference is to keep my original DNF logs, as they reflect the actual history of my caching history.

The list of DNF logs that you're referring to will indeed show all your DNF logs, even if you find the cache at a later date. Of course, it will also show caches that were archived after you DNF'd them.

One option that I employ is creating a Bookmark List containing all the caches I've DNF'd. When viewing a Bookmark List, the caches that have been found will be highlighted with a smiley. This allows me to see which of my DNF'd caches have been avenged (found), disabled/archived, or remain unfound.

Creating and maintaining the Bookmark List will be a bit of effort, depending on how many you have. It's up to you whether it's worthwhile or not.

If you really want to remove caches from your DNF page, then I'd prefer that you change your DNF to a Write Note, rather than delete your DNF log entirely. You're correct that changing your original DNF log to a Found log is a bad route to take. If you decide remove Found caches from your DNF page, then what will you do with caches that were Archived after you DNF'd them? You'll never be able to 'find' them, since they're archived.

2.8k · May 14, 2017

I don't know if I ever looked at my DNF list before at https://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=3 Does seem silly they don't also allow you to see DNFs that didn't also have a Found log.

Someone else's thoughts on this topic...http://findyourgeocache.com/deleting-a-dnf-log-yes-or-no/

7.3k · May 14, 2017

So, is it ok to go back to the original log and change it to a note to say it was a DNF, but then found on a subsequent visit?

You can, and you can delete the DNFs as well.

Your logs serve you, the cache owner, and the rest of the geocaching community.

Because logs serve others users, my tendency is to leave them as logged, aside from edits for errors, of course.

If I were interested in cleaning up DNFs, I'd bookmark as noncentric has suggested.

The new form of the public profile coming soon is going to display DNF number as well as find number.

I'm hoping this becomes a point of pride, as logging DNFs is a useful thing that cache seekers can offer cache owners and other players.

May 14, 2017

So, is it ok to go back to the original log and change it to a note to say it was a DNF, but then found on a subsequent visit?

You can, and you can delete the DNFs as well.

Your logs serve you, the cache owner, and the rest of the geocaching community.

Because logs serve others users, my tendency is to leave them as logged, aside from edits for errors, of course.

If I were interested in cleaning up DNFs, I'd bookmark as noncentric has suggested.

The new form of the public profile coming soon is going to display DNF number as well as find number.

I'm hoping this becomes a point of pride, as logging DNFs is a useful thing that cache seekers can offer cache owners and other players.

I log DNFs for each visit, and add them to my dnf list.

If it turns out the the cache was actually gone when I looked (based on OM or NA) I'll delete my dnf log. My feeling on that is that it wasn't there when I looked, so I didn't _not_ find it.
It it's subsequently found, then I'll leave the dnf log. It was there and I legitimately didn't find it.
On caches where I've had multiple DNFs/attempts, I've left my log where there are subsequent finds and deleted a log when it was actually gone.

In the future, rather than deleting DNFs where the cache was actually gone, I'm planning to just change from dnf to write note explaining that I looked, it really wasn't there, and thanking the CO / reviewer for rectifying...

2.8k · May 14, 2017

If it turns out the the cache was actually gone when I looked (based on OM or NA) I'll delete my dnf log. My feeling on that is that it wasn't there when I looked, so I didn't _not_ find it.

You Did Not Find it whether it was there or not. In addition, it might have been there when you looked and you Did Not Find it and then it subsequently went missing. Regardless, leave your DNF since you Did Not Find the cache when you searched.

May 14, 2017

If I'm in a string of DNFs and the CO replaces it, I'm confident that it wasn't there. So it wasn't a legitimate dnf.

If in a string of dnfs and the CO posts a "it's there, look harder" I leave the dnf.

2.8k · May 14, 2017

If I'm in a string of DNFs and the CO replaces it, I'm confident that it wasn't there. So it wasn't a legitimate dnf.

Did you search for it? If you searched and Did Not Find it, how is it not "legitimate"? Where in the definition of Did Not Find does it say "only if the cache really is there?" I don't understand why anyone would ever delete a log entry. If you posted a NM and the CO visited the cache and confirmed it was there, do you delete your NM?

What rationale are you considering that when you searched and Did Not Find the cache that you really didn't search? You searched and didn't find it. That's your log entry. I'd say 1/2 of my DNF logs are for cache that were missing - but I searched and DNFed and that is both part of the history of the cache and my caching chronology.

May 14, 2017

If I'm in a string of DNFs and the CO replaces it, I'm confident that it wasn't there. So it wasn't a legitimate dnf.

Did you search for it? If you searched and Did Not Find it, how is it not "legitimate"? Where in the definition of Did Not Find does it say "only if the cache really is there?" I don't understand why anyone would ever delete a log entry. If you posted a NM and the CO visited the cache and confirmed it was there, do you delete your NM?

What rationale are you considering that when you searched and Did Not Find the cache that you really didn't search? You searched and didn't find it. That's your log entry. I'd say 1/2 of my DNF logs are for cache that were missing - but I searched and DNFed and that is both part of the history of the cache and my caching chronology.

Thank you for your input.

7.4k · May 14, 2017

DNFs are an interesting part of a cache's history and my own caching history so I wouldn't want to delete those. I like to look back at them from time to time and chuckle at some of the crazier mishaps. But it's entirely up to you. I am not sure if the site would let you change the log type to a note instead of a DNF - if it does, that is an alternative way you could handle it.

May 14, 2017

DNFs are an interesting part of a cache's history and my own caching history so I wouldn't want to delete those. I like to look back at them from time to time and chuckle at some of the crazier mishaps. But it's entirely up to you. I am not sure if the site would let you change the log type to a note instead of a DNF - if it does, that is an alternative way you could handle it.

True - that's a reason I plan to use notes. I can look back and reminisce. I have to discipline myself to add more detail. Currently I'm semi successful in detail for finds and frequently (but not enough) I give a few details about DNFs.

I'll blame it on using my iPhone / cachly to log.much more convenient in the field, but typing with 2 thumbs doesn't make for novellas. It's a reason but not an excuse.

Also true - I could go back and edit on my laptop. But going back and editing a log is a topic that's been beat to death in another thread! :blink:

4.4k · May 14, 2017

Revisionists!

It's history. It was the reality at the time. Leave it be.

2.7k · May 14, 2017

If I'm in a string of DNFs and the CO replaces it, I'm confident that it wasn't there. So it wasn't a legitimate dnf.

Did you search for it? If you searched and Did Not Find it, how is it not "legitimate"? Where in the definition of Did Not Find does it say "only if the cache really is there?" I don't understand why anyone would ever delete a log entry. If you posted a NM and the CO visited the cache and confirmed it was there, do you delete your NM?

What rationale are you considering that when you searched and Did Not Find the cache that you really didn't search? You searched and didn't find it. That's your log entry. I'd say 1/2 of my DNF logs are for cache that were missing - but I searched and DNFed and that is both part of the history of the cache and my caching chronology.

So, at what point in the string of DNFs did it go missing? Was it there when some looked and went missing after? Was it still there when you looked or not? You have no way of knowing for sure. There really is no benefit to anyone going back and changing DNFs to WNs, its history.

Edited May 14, 2017 by colleda

6.8k · May 14, 2017

If I'm in a string of DNFs and the CO replaces it, I'm confident that it wasn't there. So it wasn't a legitimate dnf.

Did you search for it? If you searched and Did Not Find it, how is it not "legitimate"? Where in the definition of Did Not Find does it say "only if the cache really is there?" I don't understand why anyone would ever delete a log entry. If you posted a NM and the CO visited the cache and confirmed it was there, do you delete your NM?

What rationale are you considering that when you searched and Did Not Find the cache that you really didn't search? You searched and didn't find it. That's your log entry. I'd say 1/2 of my DNF logs are for cache that were missing - but I searched and DNFed and that is both part of the history of the cache and my caching chronology.

The history of DNFs is probably something a reviewer will look at if an NA is subsequently logged on the cache, so from that perspective deleting them or changing them to notes is bad.

May 14, 2017

I am not sure if the site would let you change the log type to a note instead of a DNF - if it does, that is an alternative way you could handle it.

The site does, in fact, allow you to change the log type on a previous log ... which is what I do. I'm part of the minority that does exactly as the OP suggests; I change my previous DNFs to notes when I eventually find the cache later.

I've read the arguments on both sides, and I respect them both. For me, I'd rather have the DNF list automatically generated by the site be caches that I haven't found. But that's just me; others choose differently, and that's fine with me. (Not that anyone needs my approval about how they log ...)

May 14, 2017

If I'm in a string of DNFs and the CO replaces it, I'm confident that it wasn't there. So it wasn't a legitimate dnf.

Did you search for it? If you searched and Did Not Find it, how is it not "legitimate"? Where in the definition of Did Not Find does it say "only if the cache really is there?" I don't understand why anyone would ever delete a log entry. If you posted a NM and the CO visited the cache and confirmed it was there, do you delete your NM?

What rationale are you considering that when you searched and Did Not Find the cache that you really didn't search? You searched and didn't find it. That's your log entry. I'd say 1/2 of my DNF logs are for cache that were missing - but I searched and DNFed and that is both part of the history of the cache and my caching chronology.

The history of DNFs is probably something a reviewer will look at if an NA is subsequently logged on the cache, so from that perspective deleting them or changing them to notes is bad.

I don't remove dnf logs until after it's been replaced or archived. If it's still in play, they stay. They just come off my watch list...

3.8k · May 14, 2017

So, is it ok to go back to the original log and change it to a note to say it was a DNF, but then found on a subsequent visit?

You can, and you can delete the DNFs as well.

As mentioned, yes, on both accounts. But I keep all of my DNF's in tact because that represents my caching history. I am proud of every one of my 1400-ish DNF's. Many I'll make good on and score a find later on and many I never bother returning. Either way, my DNF's stand.

3.5k · May 14, 2017

If it turns out the the cache was actually gone when I looked (based on OM or NA) I'll delete my dnf log. My feeling on that is that it wasn't there when I looked, so I didn't _not_ find it.

It it's subsequently found, then I'll leave the dnf log. It was there and I legitimately didn't find it.

On caches where I've had multiple DNFs/attempts, I've left my log where there are subsequent finds and deleted a log when it was actually gone.

In the future, rather than deleting DNFs where the cache was actually gone, I'm planning to just change from dnf to write note explaining that I looked, it really wasn't there, and thanking the CO / reviewer for rectifying...

About deleting DNF's for caches that were actually missing. I wonder if what you're describing has happened at caches that I've looked at, where I'll see a bunch of Found It logs and then an OM log saying 'cache has been replaced'. When I see those, I wonder "Were the previous Found It logs fake? Because apparently the cache was missing and the CO had to replace it". Maybe there was a DNF after that string of Found It logs, which prompted the CO to go and check/replace the cache - but if the cacher that logged the DNF subsequently deleted their DNF log, then I'm just going to wonder why the CO performed an OM.

TL;DR - I think your plan to change DNF logs to Write Note logs is better than simply deleting your DNF logs entirely.

Edited May 14, 2017 by noncentric

2.7k · May 14, 2017

If it turns out the the cache was actually gone when I looked (based on OM or NA) I'll delete my dnf log. My feeling on that is that it wasn't there when I looked, so I didn't _not_ find it.

It it's subsequently found, then I'll leave the dnf log. It was there and I legitimately didn't find it.

On caches where I've had multiple DNFs/attempts, I've left my log where there are subsequent finds and deleted a log when it was actually gone.

In the future, rather than deleting DNFs where the cache was actually gone, I'm planning to just change from dnf to write note explaining that I looked, it really wasn't there, and thanking the CO / reviewer for rectifying...

About deleting DNF's for caches that were actually missing. I wonder if what you're describing has happened at caches that I've looked at, where I'll see a bunch of Found It logs and then an OM log saying 'cache has been replaced'. When I see those, I wonder "Were the previous Found It logs fake? Because apparently the cache was missing and the CO had to replace it". Maybe there was a DNF after that string of Found It logs, which prompted the CO to go and check/replace the cache - but if the cacher that logged the DNF subsequently deleted their DNF log, then I'm just going to wonder why the CO performed an OM.

TL;DR - I think your plan to change DNF logs to Write Note logs is better than simply deleting your DNF logs entirely.

Or the CO deleted it to 'tidy up' the listing. I too have seen that but also, the NM attribute is still there. Does muddy the waters a bit.

May 15, 2017

If it turns out the the cache was actually gone when I looked (based on OM or NA) I'll delete my dnf log. My feeling on that is that it wasn't there when I looked, so I didn't _not_ find it.

It it's subsequently found, then I'll leave the dnf log. It was there and I legitimately didn't find it.

On caches where I've had multiple DNFs/attempts, I've left my log where there are subsequent finds and deleted a log when it was actually gone.

In the future, rather than deleting DNFs where the cache was actually gone, I'm planning to just change from dnf to write note explaining that I looked, it really wasn't there, and thanking the CO / reviewer for rectifying...

About deleting DNF's for caches that were actually missing. I wonder if what you're describing has happened at caches that I've looked at, where I'll see a bunch of Found It logs and then an OM log saying 'cache has been replaced'. When I see those, I wonder "Were the previous Found It logs fake? Because apparently the cache was missing and the CO had to replace it". Maybe there was a DNF after that string of Found It logs, which prompted the CO to go and check/replace the cache - but if the cacher that logged the DNF subsequently deleted their DNF log, then I'm just going to wonder why the CO performed an OM.

TL;DR - I think your plan to change DNF logs to Write Note logs is better than simply deleting your DNF logs entirely.

Yep - I agree - leaving a note to give a brief explanation is probably a better procedure. I've regretted, after the fact, doing so in several cases...

And to your point. If everyone deleted the DNFs and all you see is a OM log talking about replacing it, would be confusing.

May 15, 2017

If it turns out the the cache was actually gone when I looked (based on OM or NA) I'll delete my dnf log. My feeling on that is that it wasn't there when I looked, so I didn't _not_ find it.

It it's subsequently found, then I'll leave the dnf log. It was there and I legitimately didn't find it.

On caches where I've had multiple DNFs/attempts, I've left my log where there are subsequent finds and deleted a log when it was actually gone.

In the future, rather than deleting DNFs where the cache was actually gone, I'm planning to just change from dnf to write note explaining that I looked, it really wasn't there, and thanking the CO / reviewer for rectifying...

About deleting DNF's for caches that were actually missing. I wonder if what you're describing has happened at caches that I've looked at, where I'll see a bunch of Found It logs and then an OM log saying 'cache has been replaced'. When I see those, I wonder "Were the previous Found It logs fake? Because apparently the cache was missing and the CO had to replace it". Maybe there was a DNF after that string of Found It logs, which prompted the CO to go and check/replace the cache - but if the cacher that logged the DNF subsequently deleted their DNF log, then I'm just going to wonder why the CO performed an OM.

TL;DR - I think your plan to change DNF logs to Write Note logs is better than simply deleting your DNF logs entirely.

Or the CO deleted it to 'tidy up' the listing. I too have seen that but also, the NM attribute is still there. Does muddy the waters a bit.

I've seen a few where the CO writes note that he did something and the Nm flag still flies. I think a lot of our issues would be moot if people (CO and seeker alike) would just follow directions...

But if they did that, what would we all argue about on the forums? We'd have to get 2nd jobs or go out and cache more...

3.5k · May 15, 2017

But if they did that, what would we all argue about on the forums? We'd have to get 2nd jobs or go out and cache more...

Or work on the things we're supposed to be working on, without the forums so readily available to enable our procrastination.

2.6k · May 15, 2017

I've always leave my DNFs alone and log a new find. I've never thought about doing anything else. I see the logs as history of what happened at that time.

Edited May 15, 2017 by redsox_mark

6.1k · May 15, 2017

I've always leave my DNFs alone and log a new find. I've never thought about doing anything else. I see the logs as history of what happened at that time.

Me too.

May 15, 2017

I've always leave my DNFs alone and log a new find. I've never thought about doing anything else. I see the logs as history of what happened at that time.

As do I. I've logged several dnfs followed by the find. I've no shame in dnfing.

The only time I do anything w dnfs is when it's reasonably (some may disagree) determined that the cache was actually was missing at time of search. And moving forward, they'll be notes to document the visit...

Logging finds on previous DNFs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation