This topic contains 31 replies, has 18 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
@RJ McKenzie wrote:
And if my memory is right there are challenge geocaches for having a certain number of DNF’s logged. So there is another plus to logging them.
Personally I’ve logged 559 DNF’s since I started caching.
All I have to do is armchair log DNF’s and then go after the challenge cache, right? 😛
Not like anyone can prove I didn’t actually visit a cache to log the DNF the way a signature on the log proves I was there on a “Found it” log.
So not much of a challenge cache there.
@todd300 wrote:
@RJ McKenzie wrote:
And if my memory is right there are challenge geocaches for having a certain number of DNF’s logged. So there is another plus to logging them.
Personally I’ve logged 559 DNF’s since I started caching.
All I have to do is armchair log DNF’s and then go after the challenge cache, right? 😛
Not like anyone can prove I didn’t actually visit a cache to log the DNF the way a signature on the log proves I was there on a “Found it” log.
So not much of a challenge cache there.
Well if you want to waste your time and energy to log that cache that way… Then go for it I guess. This game is what you make of it.
I was just joking, Ryan. I probably would qualify anyways with my 232 DNF’s thus far. And that does not include the deleted logs of DNF’s of caches I went back and later found. I do delete DNF logs at times.
I think they got rid of that challenge.
Yeah I knew your were joking Todd.
And Sandlanders I see that now. With all of the challenges we have in Wisconsin I’m surprised there isn’t one. I was actually gonna make one last year, but then I enlisted.. I wasn’t gonna leave a cache in Appleton without being able to do maintence for a few years.
RJ, I recommend you place that challenge in Korea. Be sure to put it on a railroad bridge next to a school, and put in lots of text promoting local businesses. Also, be sure to put some knives and firearms in the cache for good measure. Erik will be glad to help you with this one.
@Team Deejay wrote:
RJ, I recommend you place that challenge in Korea. Be sure to put it on a railroad bridge next to a school, and put in lots of text promoting local businesses. Also, be sure to put some knives and firearms in the cache for good measure. Erik will be glad to help you with this one.
You forgot about making the finder take a picture of them wearing a pink boa and playing the bagpipes before they can log the find!
@Team Deejay wrote:
RJ, I recommend you place that challenge in Korea. Be sure to put it on a railroad bridge next to a school, and put in lots of text promoting local businesses. Also, be sure to put some knives and firearms in the cache for good measure. Erik will be glad to help you with this one.
WTF?
We always log our DNFs. We’ll take one of three different approaches when doing so:
1. Write an entertaining log, possibly with pictures, of our DNF experience :gna:
2. State very little (for us that’s two full sentences 8)) because we’re frustrated 😡
3. Write a log that is helpful to the CO and future cachers about our failure to find the cache. :):)Like some others have said, when logging a DNF we’ll usually state how long we searched, and if there was some reason we prematurely aborted. If we only spent 5 minutes searching instead of 45 minutes, we’ll state that, so that others will know that our DNF was based on only a quick search and not necessarily a thorough one.
We wanted to create a challenge cache based on 50 DNFs, but were told you can no longer create a challenge cache with those “requirements.” Maybe next April 1st we could get a reviewer from Europe to let it slip through…
I generally also log DNF’s, if I have given the search a honest effort. On some days out, when I am going for numbers, I have a short time limit and may not log a DNF. I do not think it is fair to the CO if I have not spent enough time searching and just only spent 5 minutes or so.
Got two DNFs on separate dates from two different cachers on a cache of ours recently. That means we’ll be checking on this one soon. Now, they were two newer cachers, so maybe they just weren’t searching thoroughly, but we’re still checking, and we’ll post if we find it or if we replaced it. Would have left it alone with out the DNFs.
I have several caches that I do not check on when new cachers log DNF’s, as they are harder than most for even seasoned cachers. A classic example of that is my Tanks for Visiting. I had several DNF’s and then is was disabled. I confirmed it was ok and then after 4 more DNF’s disabled again. The cache is right where it should be, but hunting on a tank is not easy.
Than I have many others that I know are PNG’s and there should not be any DNF’s. I think being concerned about DNF’s is a mixture of the number of caches found and the “D” rating of the cache.
@wstemple wrote:
I had several DNF’s and then it was disabled. I confirmed it was ok and then after 4 more DNF’s disabled again. The cache is right where it should be, but hunting on a tank is not easy.
That’s an understatement!
It may just be the caches I look at but does it appear that there is a higher incidence of “archive” it when people can’t find it easily?
Easy or hard, caches don’t get archived if COs take good care of them.
@northwoods Tom wrote:
@wstemple wrote:
I had several DNF’s and then it was disabled. I confirmed it was ok and then after 4 more DNF’s disabled again. The cache is right where it should be, but hunting on a tank is not easy.
That’s an understatement!
It may just be the caches I look at but does it appear that there is a higher incidence of “archive” it when people can’t find it easily?
I take it to understand that you are referring to logs requesting it to be archived? I have never let a cache get to that point. With well over 130 active caches, and 10 more to be release on 5/12, I am hoping that people will help with keeping my BQ series in good shape. I do think that some people out there are quick to request a cache be archived.
I am not worried about the containers, as they are mostly preforms. I did have to replace one because of a tree rat chewing the top off. What I am looking for is that people place them back exactly where they found it. I just relocated 3 this past week that were moved. If people will do that and add a new sheet, should it be needed, that will keep them around for a very long time.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.