Recording a DNF as "Found"

[+hoges in wa]

I have only noticed this problem in the past three months.

 

In the country I am currently visiting, a large number of Nthn European tourists come to visit for summer. Some are Cachers.

 

I have noticed (and I counted back) 6 occasions in the last 3 months where a visit resulted in a Did Not Find but has been recorded by the cacher as a Found on the basis that they actually went to the Cache Location (according to them), discovered the cache to be missing (or actually were not at the correct location?) but recorded the visit as a Found because they thought they were correct and would not be coming back to the location again.

 

This issue mildly peeved me in the past but today I spent considerable time on a ferry to go to a specific location to get a cache that had been reported missing in the past but in the middle of 4 DNFs was a Found. When you carefully examine the precise language used in the one in the middle, it emerges that the cache was indeed "Missing" on that occasion but recorded as found because they were at "The Hole".

 

My guess would be that the CO would be unlikely to reverse the Found as he/she has no log to use as evidence and probably wouldn't want to start a SF if the "entitled" complain.

 

Finally, many thanks to all the Cache Owners out there. I am not one at present as I am wandering about the planet at the stately speed of 5kn and cannot maintain one (although I do assist with repairs where needed). Cache Owners add an extra dimension to our travels with their selection of sites.

 

Rant over

Hoges

[+CanadianRockies]

You might want to check out the Found It = Didn't Find It thread. Warning: reading the whole thing will take a little while.

[+hoges in wa]

You might want to check out the Found It = Didn't Find It thread. Warning: reading the whole thing will take a little while.

 

Thank you for that. I guessed I wasn't the first to whinge about it but I couldn't get a close enough search term to turn that thread up.

I have no clue whether there is or should be a solution. I was just p****ed off that if the one in the middle of the logs I looked at had been truthful, I wouldn't have gone from Asia to Europe to find a cache that was not there - all 5 previous logs would have indicated it was gone and the CO could have attended to it. The way the "Found" in the middle lights things up is that it looks like #1 & #2 DNF just didn't look hard enough, #3 did then #4 & #5 are dummies also. And me #6.

 

So I was not happy. Nice to know it's a long term issue in one sense but also not nice to know.

Hoges

 

p.s. it should be easy to tell where I am now

[+Bear and Ragged]

You might want to check out the Found It = Didn't Find It thread. Warning: reading the whole thing will take a little while.

 

Thank you for that. I guessed I wasn't the first to whinge about it but I couldn't get a close enough search term to turn that thread up.

I have no clue whether there is or should be a solution. I was just p****ed off that if the one in the middle of the logs I looked at had been truthful, I wouldn't have gone from Asia to Europe to find a cache that was not there - all 5 previous logs would have indicated it was gone and the CO could have attended to it. The way the "Found" in the middle lights things up is that it looks like #1 & #2 DNF just didn't look hard enough, #3 did then #4 & #5 are dummies also. And me #6.

 

So I was not happy. Nice to know it's a long term issue in one sense but also not nice to know.

Hoges

 

p.s. it should be easy to tell where I am now

 

Often a "Vacation Cache" placed by someone on vacation, and no means of maintaining it.

(Vacation caches are no longer allowed)

Cache owner doesn't care about maintenance, probably dropped out of caching many years ago.

 

Those logging as 'Found' just want a smiley in a foreign country. Often no local cachers, or they don't have access to where the cache is to maintain it.

(Some visitors will 'replace' a container for the next cachers to find. It will probably go missing again.)

[+dprovan]

They've come all this way, and it's unlikely they'll ever be back again, so they desperately want to log the find even though they shouldn't. I've been there. Your post does a good job of highlighting just a few reasons such urges must be resisted. It's just not a good idea to log a find on a cache you didn't find, no matter how far away from home you are. And, on the side, your post also shows why vacation hides are forbidden.

 

On the other hand -- not to minimize your complaint, but just to make sure your pain serves as a learning experience -- you really shouldn't have gotten on the ferry unless you were expecting to have enjoy yourself whether the cache was there or not, and you shouldn't have gone to that much effort to look for a cache without reviewing the logs in advance. Those points are valid even when the problem with the cache has nothing to do with goofballs logging DNFs as finds.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

They've come all this way, and it's unlikely they'll ever be back again, so they desperately want to log the find even though they shouldn't. I've been there. Your post does a good job of highlighting just a few reasons such urges must be resisted. It's just not a good idea to log a find on a cache you didn't find, no matter how far away from home you are. And, on the side, your post also shows why vacation hides are forbidden.

 

I'm a admitted country collector and although there are several countries I've only found one cache, when I know that I'll be visiting a new country for me I will do some research before I got to identify a couple of caches that will provide the greatest likelihood of a successful find. Once I find one, then I'll look for others that might be a challenge and cache types that might require more time and effort. That's also when I start looking for caches in places that I'd like to see even if there wasn't a cache at the location.

 

While vacation caches are forbidden there are also places that might be considered vacation destinations where local cache owners are not always quick to replace a missing cache. It would be nice if cache owners that lived in places which had a lot of visitors from other places (whether it be on vacation or business) would try to be a little more responsive (because potential finder may only have one opportunity and limited time to search for a cache), but instead some will allow an alternative form of verification when a cache is temporarily missing. I started a thread about the practice a while back and it got pretty testy. Technically, allowing some other form of verification that one visited a location (typically a photo) is against the guidelines as it effectively turns a traditional/multi/puzzle cache into a virtual, but it still happens. I saw it on a cache 9400 miles from (I had found a couple of caches in that country before I came across it).

[+tozainamboku]

Not finding a cache = bad experience

Options

1. post a find even though you didnt't find

2. blame your bad experience on people doing #1

 

Not finding a cache = good or neutral experience

log your DNF as a DNF. Don't feel the need to blame the person who logged a find

 

There's yet another option for those who think that finding a cache is bad.

Throw down a replacement cache. You get your find and the next person will have a cache to find so they won't have a bad experience.

 

Most geocachers believe that not finding a cache is bad experience. I have chosen to be a contrarian. I view a DNF as a positive experience. I accept that sometimes I will not find the cache. It may be there and I just didn't find it. Maybe it is actually missing. Maybe there are false finds giving the impression the cache is there. Maybe the last find was a DNF from a year and a half ago and I think nobody has looked for it in that time. I may not spend as much time looking if I see a cache with several DNFs. I may spend a little more time looking if someone has logged a possibly false find. But I don't view it as wasting time. When I stop having fun looking or think that it's time to move on, I log the DNF and count it as a geocaching experience.

 

Human evolution had given us a brain chemistry that is altered when we are searching for something. Scientist believe this is a survival mechanism to help animals to keep seeking food or a mate. When we find what we are looking for there is a rush of chemicals that our brains responde to as pleasure. When we fail to find something our brains respond with anger and frustration. So we soon learn that finding a cache is "good" and not finding one is "bad". It takes a lot of concentration to prevent brain chemistry from causing you to lose perspective on geocaching. Keep figthing the dopamine.

[4wheelin_fool]

Not finding a cache = bad experience

Options

1. post a find even though you didnt't find

2. blame your bad experience on people doing #1

 

Not finding a cache = good or neutral experience

log your DNF as a DNF. Don't feel the need to blame the person who logged a find

 

There's yet another option for those who think that finding a cache is bad.

Throw down a replacement cache. You get your find and the next person will have a cache to find so they won't have a bad experience.

 

 

I don't know if advocating throw downs would be considered a troll post, but it is frowned upon by Groundspeak and others. I'd prefer they'd claim their smiley and write that it wasn't there before doing that.

[+wimseyguy]

Could this possibly be another Greetings from Germany cultural misunderstanding?

[+dprovan]

Not finding a cache = bad experience

Options

1. post a find even though you didnt't find

2. blame your bad experience on people doing #1

OK, I'll admit I found this hilarious and literally laughed out loud here at work. The point is excellent, but I do want to point out that it's still perfectly reasonable to complain about people doing #1 even if you had a good experience not finding the cache.

 

Most geocachers believe that not finding a cache is bad experience. I have chosen to be a contrarian. I view a DNF as a positive experience.

Well said, and I'm definitely in your camp: my caching pleasure is not reduced by not finding the cache. But in this case, there are smart things a negative cacher should do -- things even a positive cacher should do -- to avoid having a disappointing day.

 

I don't know if advocating throw downs would be considered a troll post, but it is frowned upon by Groundspeak and others. I'd prefer they'd claim their smiley and write that it wasn't there before doing that.

I read the original comment suggesting a throwdown as a continuation of the joke, not as a troll, but now that you mention it, I can't tell whether it was meant seriously or not.

[+The A-Team]

Could this possibly be another Greetings from Germany cultural misunderstanding?

That's exactly the phrase that popped into my head as I was reading the OP.

 

As for not being able to walk away without the smiley, I've been faced with that situation before. I was trying to get a smiley in Monaco a number of years ago, and just couldn't find either of the two that were nearby. I ran out of time, cellphone charge (for looking up hints in logs, photos, etc.) and patience. It wasn't very enjoyable, but I walked away without finding a cache in Monaco. I didn't log a DNF because my DNF-logging policy was different back then (I rarely did it), but I would if I was in the same situation today. I would never have dreamed of logging a find anyway, because it would always gnaw at my conscience. I guess "northern Europeans" (we know who you're referring to) just do things differently.

[+hoges in wa]

They've come all this way, and it's unlikely they'll ever be back again, so they desperately want to log the find even though they shouldn't. I've been there. Your post does a good job of highlighting just a few reasons such urges must be resisted. It's just not a good idea to log a find on a cache you didn't find, no matter how far away from home you are. And, on the side, your post also shows why vacation hides are forbidden.

 

On the other hand -- not to minimize your complaint, but just to make sure your pain serves as a learning experience -- you really shouldn't have gotten on the ferry unless you were expecting to have enjoy yourself whether the cache was there or not, and you shouldn't have gone to that much effort to look for a cache without reviewing the logs in advance. Those points are valid even when the problem with the cache has nothing to do with goofballs logging DNFs as finds.

Well, it wouldn't have been a total loss if the Kilitbahir Kale hadn't been closed as well, which was another reason for going. But it was .

[4wheelin_fool]

Not finding a cache = bad experience

Options

1. post a find even though you didnt't find

2. blame your bad experience on people doing #1

OK, I'll admit I found this hilarious and literally laughed out loud here at work. The point is excellent, but I do want to point out that it's still perfectly reasonable to complain about people doing #1 even if you had a good experience not finding the cache.

 

Most geocachers believe that not finding a cache is bad experience. I have chosen to be a contrarian. I view a DNF as a positive experience.

Well said, and I'm definitely in your camp: my caching pleasure is not reduced by not finding the cache. But in this case, there are smart things a negative cacher should do -- things even a positive cacher should do -- to avoid having a disappointing day.

 

I don't know if advocating throw downs would be considered a troll post, but it is frowned upon by Groundspeak and others. I'd prefer they'd claim their smiley and write that it wasn't there before doing that.

I read the original comment suggesting a throwdown as a continuation of the joke, not as a troll, but now that you mention it, I can't tell whether it was meant seriously or not.

 

If it was highly unlikely to happen it could be considered as humor, but with all of the threads from people annoyed with it, as well as the FAQ update to address it, perhaps it could be considered dark sarcasm.

[+dprovan]

If it was highly unlikely to happen it could be considered as humor, but with all of the threads from people annoyed with it, as well as the FAQ update to address it, perhaps it could be considered dark sarcasm.

Agreed.

[+CanadianRockies]

Not finding a cache = bad experience

Options

1. post a find even though you didnt't find

2. blame your bad experience on people doing #1

As I've explained to you previously, it's quite possible that people can have a good experience not finding a cache but that they would have had an even better experience if they had found the cache.

 

If I can hike two equally wonderful mountain trails but one will lead me to a cache that I likely will find and the other will take me to what is likely a missing cache, then I'd probably opt to hike the former trail. I'd prefer to wait until the second cache owner performed maintenance on the missing cache before I hiked the second trail. That way, I'd maximize my happiness.

 

If someone posts a false Found It on the second cache, I'd still enjoy the hike, but probably not as much as I would if I had waited.

 

You seem to like ice cream analogies. I really enjoy Brand X. But my local ice cream reviewer explains how wonderful Brand Y is, so I give it a try. It's okay, and I enjoy it, but it's not nearly as good as Brand X. It turns out Brand Y paid the ice cream reviewer to give them a great review. I think I'd blame the reviewer for inducing me to try Brand Y, even though I enjoyed it.

[+hukilaulau]

I have only noticed this problem in the past three months.

 

 

a cache that had been reported missing in the past but in the middle of 4 DNFs was a Found. When you carefully examine the precise language used in the one in the middle, it emerges that the cache was indeed "Missing" on that occasion but recorded as found because they were at "The Hole".

 

Rant over

Hoges

I agree this is very annoying, but it's been happening basically forever. I still get caught sometimes. There is a group nearby that occasionally swoops in like a storm of locusts, dropping throwdowns on missing (or not missing) caches and the entire group posting individual "found it" logs.

 

The FUNNIEST bogus find log I ever saw said this: "Couldn't log a DNF, because it wasn't there to be found!" That was just so ridiculous that I couldn't even find it annoying...

[+kunarion]

"Couldn't log a DNF, because it wasn't there to be found!"

The other night, below the stair

I found a cache that wasn't there.

It wasn't there today again.

I signed both logs without a pen.

[+tozainamboku]

 

As I've explained to you previously, it's quite possible that people can have a good experience not finding a cache but that they would have had an even better experience if they had found the cache.

 

What is really happening is here is that in both cases you had a great hike and probably a great time searching for the cache. Both activities cause your body to release chemicals that enable you to concentrate on what you are doing. If you end your search without finding the cache these chemicals stick around. With nothing for you to concentrate on, these chemicals cause you to feel frustrated and worthless. Had you found the cache, your body would release different chemicals that cause you to feel euphoric.

 

You don't really get enjoyment from scribbling your name in the log book. Nor do you get more enjoyment later on by selecting Found It over DNF when posting an online log. Yet, apparently some people feel better about themselves by posting the Found It log even if they didn't find it.

 

When your brain chemicals make you feel frustrated and worthless, your brain tries to find excuses. It is pretty easy to blame someone else - the cache owner didn't do maintenance, the last person left a false log, animals moved the cache so there was nothing to find. You can't be worthless if there wasn't a cache to find.

 

Now I'll admit that I avoid the ice cream reviews. If I see a new ice cream in the store that looks interesting, I'll buy it. And if it turns out I don't like as much as my regular ice cream then I have no one to blame but myself. Similarly I don't follow the practice of some of automatically avoiding a cache with several DNFs logged. Especially on a hike, there may be several caches on the trail. I'll look for all of them. If I'm having trouble, I'll look at the last few logs. Sure enough sometimes the last log is a find but the text says the cache wasn't there. I'll usually keep looking just in case the cache is there. If the log says they left a throw down, I'll make an effort to find both the throw down and the original cache. I'm not always successful, but when I am, my body rewards my brain with lots of good chemicals so I'm not only feeling euphoric but also superior. And when I fail, I post a DNF and also feel superior.

[+Walts Hunting]

Had one yesterday here in the US. Two logs back was a Found It that went something like this"Got to location and found where the cahce had been but it is gone. This is really annoying to me since i use GSAK to filter out any cache where the last two are not finds. This was log two in group of five DNF.s fo if that #%@%@$ had logged correctly I wouldn't have wasted my time. Just something to reflect on during the evening meal. See below

[+TriciaG]

Walts - I'm not sure where the Found It log ended on your post. Could you edit in an end quote?

[+Walts Hunting]

no

[+lukedrywalker]

Just like arm chair logging

[+edscott]

I'm also seeing a lot of these lately

 

xxxxxx Premium Member 29 Found it 7/10/2014 Not there

[+Immortal ~]

We had this problem at the Berkshire Geobash #3 the other week where a number of cachers went after a cache. There were 3 Founds listed on the same day we all went out searching, but when we finally decided to read them to see if they knew some sort of secret to finding them (we'd been searching quite a while), they were all logs stating that the cache was not there and that they never actually found it. Many grumpy cachers left those woods that day. I can understand people who get confirmation from the CO that they found the right location or hiding spot but the cache is missing logging it as a found, but otherwise it just messes with the heads of those going after it next.

 

Needless to say, we now read at least the first 4 logs for any cache we need to travel to find.

[+jellis]

I find logging a find when you haven't really found it misleading. I have seen many caches with multiple DNFs and then a newbie logs a find but their online log says they didn't find it, and then a bunch of other DNFs when they saw the "Found it " log. I'm sorry but when I see something like that on my caches I check it and then delete the log if I don't see a signature. I had one cacher who posted a note on one of mine with the message " Found the cache but forgot a pen so I will come back later to sign it". The log came in on July 20th, yet they post dated it July 4th. Meaning they weren't going to come back and sign it or maybe they didn't really find it at all. I deleted the log and the cacher never got back to me.

Edited July 25, 2014 by jellis

[+Quarter-Master]

If you look at my profile, it may look as though I have no reason to be posting to this forum, but all of my caches are "owned" by my partner in crime ground-speak seems to have little concern for the fact that I built them. My philosophy for our traditional caches coincides with that of many others, if you find it but it is: soaked, destroyed, disgusting, empty, etc. you can still log a find because you found it, you just didn't sign it. Please log a needs maintenance though so I can go fix it ASAP!! For our mysteries and multi-caches I would have to disagree. I have several very difficult, very time consuming caches that people have looked for and failed to find. I find a great amount of joy in providing something unique and challenging for local cachers to find. If that isn't your thing, feel free to move on, but if you post a find and I check the cache and you didn't find it I will delete your log and then check the rest of the caches you "found". There are hundreds of lpc's grc's and otherwise "numbers" caches around town. My caches are for those who are looking for something a little more adventurous. If I get poison ivy and chigger bites hiding my cache, you don't get to just log a find when you didn't go get it.

[+Team Dredd]

I will admit there were a few times I improperly logged finds when were starting out but we don't anymore; experience is a good teacher. We have a cache we adopted (GCVWZC) that is the farthest we have out in the rural area in one specific direction, you have to drive by numerous other caches that are much easier to find and it is way out there, even after the pavement ends. On July 20th a find it log posted for the cache from a cacher with 7 finds between 2012 and now that simply said "We Found It!!!", which I found a bit odd due to the container and nature of the cache; it has a camera in it, is uniquely camouflaged, good swag etc. This cacher hasn't logged a find since March 2013 and hasn't been on the site since the same month. The same cacher logged a find for another cache in the main urban area (not ours) named "Find your Tree", which actually isn't far from where I work. There is nothing specific about the finds but something nagged at me about them so I actually checked both logs today just to satisfy my curiosity, especially after keeping up with this thread and some others. Guess what? Neither log was signed by this cacher.

I sent them a message today but haven't heard back from them yet. Doesn't make me mad or anything because it is just a game after all, I just don't get it. What, do people just sit around and decide to look at the geocaching map and randomly pick a couple caches to log as found? I mean the logs don't say anything about they found the spot so logged it as a find or anything like that, I really think some people just get on a smart phone and log stuff as found when they don't even look for them.

I guess if I don't hear from them I will just delete the log and chock it up to . . . . well, you know.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Team Dredd