|
Post by davemeister on Dec 31, 2009 5:43:27 GMT -9
I'm pretty sure I have quite a few (100+)...50+ yhis November alone!!!
I noticed that Mike AKA LBK has an actual number, I searched on the queries on how to do this but obviously I'm a little dense. Could someone clue me in? It's not a number I'm proud of but...
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Dec 31, 2009 9:09:20 GMT -9
1. Log into your geocaching.com account. 2. Click on "Your Profile" on the lefthand menu. 3. Under "My logs (last 30 days)," click on Show All Logs for "Geocaches." 4. Click on "Didn't Find It." The number of logs will appear under "My Geocaching Logs (Filtered by Log Type)." Of course, the number is only accurate if a cacher actually logs their DNFs, but it's not too late to start . I'll most likely be "celebrating" my 300th DNF before the weekend is over given that I'm currently at 299. C'mon, let's race to 400 DNFs!!! Who's up for the challenge???
|
|
powmia
Silver Cacher
Caches Found/Hidden xxxx/x
Posts: 208
|
Post by powmia on Dec 31, 2009 9:26:59 GMT -9
1. Log into your geocaching.com account. 2. Click on "My Profile" on the lefthand menu. 3. Under "My logs (last 30 days)," click on Show All Logs for "Caches." 4. Click on "Didn't Find It." The number of logs will appear under "My Geocaching Logs (Filtered by Log Type)." Of course, the number is only accurate if a cacher actually logs their DNFs, but it's not too late to start . I'll most likely be "celebrating" my 300th DNF before the weekend is over given that I'm currently at 299. C'mon, let's race to 400 DNFs!!! Who's up for the challenge??? OK. There are about 500 cachi (sic?) in a close proximity of where I am. I have not found them or logged them yet. It is due to the fact I have not searched for them. However, I did not find (DNF) them yet. Hence I am already first to 500, plus those previously logged. A bit of last minute humor for 2009.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 1, 2010 8:01:04 GMT -9
OK. There are about 500 cachi (sic?) in a close proximity of where I am. I have not found them or logged them yet. It is due to the fact I have not searched for them. However, I did not find (DNF) them yet. Hence I am already first to 500, plus those previously logged. A bit of last minute humor for 2009. Oh, yeah??? As of this 0758 this morning, there are 965,061 active geocaches in the world, meaning there are 962,054 geocaches I did not find in 2009. Happy New Year!
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 1, 2010 21:26:29 GMT -9
Hmmm... here's a twist for you - I have 91 DNFs logged on caches to date (with 1619 finds), but 163 DNFs logged on benchmarks (with 930 finds). That's a 15% DNF rate on benchmarks, but only a 5.3% DNF rate on caches. Yes - one more validation for my assertion that it's tougher to reliably find benchmarks (on average) than caches - just one of the reasons I like looking for them! Admittedly, I'm far more likely to look for a benchmark that has previous DNF logs than I am likely to search for a cache with recent DNFs.
|
|
|
Post by li1gray on Jan 1, 2010 22:57:09 GMT -9
1. Log into your geocaching.com account. 2. Click on "My Profile" on the lefthand menu. 3. Under "My logs (last 30 days)," click on Show All Logs for "Caches." 4. Click on "Didn't Find It." The number of logs will appear under "My Geocaching Logs (Filtered by Log Type)." Of course, the number is only accurate if a cacher actually logs their DNFs, but it's not too late to start . I'll most likely be "celebrating" my 300th DNF before the weekend is over given that I'm currently at 299. C'mon, let's race to 400 DNFs!!! Who's up for the challenge??? I don't want to race but i guess I must have be a lousy cache finder as I log all my DNFs too and some caches have more then one and so far my DNF count is 362 as of 1/1/10.
|
|
|
Post by davemeister on Jan 2, 2010 6:12:40 GMT -9
Thanks for the help, I have 126 DNF's so far. Thanks for the humor too.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 2, 2010 7:12:23 GMT -9
Humor? Humor? Caching's all about the numbers, isn't it? Everyone has a number they want to "best" at, don't they? I thought I had a lock on the greatest number of DNFs, and li1gray burst that bubble (at least temporarily). Now I have to alter today's caching plans to include a crazy sixty-three (or more, since he may log a DNF or more today) DNF cache run to catch him. Of course, I could armchair log the DNFs from the comfort of my home office, but what fun would that be? For me to log a DNF, I actually need to tell the GPS to point to a cache, drive to a parking area, get out of the vehicle, and walk several circles around ground zero before moving on to the next DNF.
I've got a special GSAK filter set up that identifies caches where two or more of the last four logs are DNFs. There are currently 88 caches that meet that criteria within 67 miles of Anchorage. To assure DNF success, I can adjust the filter for three or four out fo the last four logs being DNFs, which yields 37 and 8 results respectively. Since I have the whole day ahead of me and really want to catch li1gray, I'll start with the first filter. I may actually find a cache from time to time which will slow down the DNF run, but at least I'll be having fun on a clear, crisp day!
I'd better get going...need to eat some breakfast (a DNF run takes at least as much energy as a regular cache run because of all the futile circling required), load a different gpx file into my Oregon, load the dogs into the georig, buy some gas and snacks, and compose my argument(s) for skifast as to the change of caching plans for the day, etc.
Cachers who do not want their caches included in this DNF run should post here or send me an e-mail by 0830 this morning.
|
|
|
Post by li1gray on Jan 8, 2010 21:59:26 GMT -9
I am not racing, Just listed the number. I actually go to GZ and do a search as well and it usually entails a PAF option and I still may come out with a DNF. equals 16 and equipment like it cars etc are my downfall!
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 8, 2010 22:36:28 GMT -9
Feeling the heat? I got to #302 this afternoon.
|
|
mtboy
Silver Cacher
Posts: 139
|
Post by mtboy on Jan 11, 2010 22:55:57 GMT -9
Nope, I found 2 caches in the last 2 days. My drought is over. Check out the knob in Seward. Ridgeseeker worked some of his weather magic.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 12, 2010 7:29:22 GMT -9
Nope, I found 2 caches in the last 2 days. My drought is over. Check out the knob in Seward. Ridgeseeker worked some of his weather magic. Nice photos from that cache site!
|
|
|
Post by caprahircus on Jan 20, 2010 16:34:50 GMT -9
I'm not in your league. I hadn't eveer checked it before, but I looked. 200 DNFs as of today.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 21, 2010 7:15:01 GMT -9
DNF'd two more, so I'm up to 304. Slowly creeping up on Li1gray. I wonder how many DNFs über cachers BenGeo'en and Tundra Tim have?
|
|
kmags
Copper Cacher
Posts: 7
|
Post by kmags on May 22, 2010 23:31:34 GMT -9
Do I really have 265 DNF's? Of course that counts DNF's that I later found also.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on May 23, 2010 7:57:49 GMT -9
Good on you for logging your DNFs and leaving them on the cache page, even after finding the cache! Doing so leaves the "cache history" complete.
I've got 318 DNFs to date. Of those, 129 of the caches were subsequently archived or disabled because the cache really was missing. DNF logs really are useful for letting the cache owner and other cachers know there may be a problem with the cache.
I wonder if Li1gray has broken 400 DNFs, yet?
|
|
|
Post by li1gray on Jun 3, 2010 0:51:17 GMT -9
386 DNFs as of 2 June Hope not to hit 400 but I am sure I will I logged a few more this past week on peanut82s caches out at Knik.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jun 14, 2010 10:44:24 GMT -9
We added fourteen DNFs on the East Coast tour to drive our count to 332.
Of those fourteen DNFs, three were disabled following the DNF log because the cache was in fact missing and three other caches have already been replaced.
This is further evidence of the public service aspect served by posting one's DNF logs that goes well beyond adding to one's humility.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jun 14, 2010 13:08:49 GMT -9
Humility & public service - I love getting DNF logs when I'm the cache owner, as the 'public service' note humbly reminds me I've got to get out and maintain those placements from time to time (and here's where I say a big public 'Thank You' to Ladybug Kids, Tinman4x, Frostg1ant, Malcore & cavyguy for assisting/taking the lead in doing onsite maintenance on a couple of my caches while I was out of town).
LBK is running about 9.4% DNFs versus finds; I'm at a lowly 5.9%, which reflects my general aversion to certain more difficult cache categories which appeal to LBK more than they do to me. I ran a much higher 16.7% DNF rate on my EuroCruise caching efforts - in part due to the extremely muggle-dense urban caching environment I was in (and usually avoid if at all possible), and in part due to unfamiliar hide methods (there were some artful ones done in high-security zones like Monaco, where every square foot of the place is watched by security camera!).
At the very least, a DNF is a symbol of effort... a sign that you were on the caching trail...
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jun 15, 2010 18:43:44 GMT -9
I've never even paid attention to my DNF count before. Just log 'em and move on is my method. But, this thread prompted me to look it up and I found that I have 348 cache finds (not including event attends) and 56 DNF logs. That gives me a 13.86% DNF rate. Wow, I didn't know I was such a lousy cacher. Thanks for bringing it up guys. ;-)
Really, I don't understand why there is a "humility" attachment to a DNF log. You looked, you didn't find, you logged. It's just part of the game and I don't see where it says anything negative about the cacher at all. Tis just the hand that was dealt on that round. Remember, it's just a game.
As a for instance, I was making a run around Kenai and Nikiski looking for the new Scouting Trail series that was put out. There were FTFs still available on many of them and it was the start of a nice weekend. At one of the locations, the spot just didn't seem right and there were private property signs. You could tell others had been in there rooting around, but there wasn't a single log yet. After making my own quick search of the only object even close to GZ that might have held a cache, I figured there was a problem with the cache or perhaps even the coordinates, so I immediately logged my DNF via my BlackBerry from GZ.
Moved on to the next cache that was published that morning. Similar situation with the GZ in the middle of a street inside a trailer park with private property all the way around. No way a cache could be hidden here. I immediately posted the DNF even though I hadn't even gotten out of the truck to search anything as clearly there was something wrong.
It turns out that there were digit errors in the published coords for both of those caches, which have since been corrected. The CO sent me driving directions to both caches when they saw the DNFs and we were able to deterimine that their directions didn't match with the places I had gone to. Then the coordinate errors were figured out and have since been corrected. So by logging the DNF's with my site concerns right away, I may have stopped other cachers from going to a spot that was clearly the wrong area and conducting searches on private property due to incorrect coordinates. That could have caused some real problems for people had the land owner gotten involved.
Shortly after those first 2 DNFs, I ran into CavyGuy at a third cache that I logged DNF from the site. That one turned out to be accurate coords, but the cache had already been stolen prior to the FTF (very high muggle area with lots of kid traffic, not a very good place to hide a cache IMHO). Again, I was able to confirm with the CO that we were at the right location and the CO went to verify the cache to find out that it was gone.
So, here's one for you. I've seen some folks will log a DNF and then they will come back a short while later, find the cache, and simply edit the log from DNF to a find and change or add to the log entry. Obviously that eliminates a DNF log in the process, which if you were tracking your DNFs, you would be skewing the numbers. I've never done this with a DNF, but I've used it a couple times with puzzle caches where I'll write a Note when I solve the puzzle and talk about my adventure in finding the solution (without spoilers or hints, of course), then I'll edit that log to a find and add the details of the cache hunt when I've actually found the cache. I've done it boths ways, but I think I prefer to leave any old logs in place, be it DNF or a solved it Note, and use a fresh new entry for the Found It log when I get to that point. Curious to hear other opinions on these practices.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jun 15, 2010 20:24:21 GMT -9
Shortly after those first 2 DNFs, I ran into CavyGuy at a third cache that I logged DNF from the site. That one turned out to be accurate coords, but the cache had already been stolen prior to the FTF (very high muggle area with lots of kid traffic, not a very good place to hide a cache IMHO)... Wow - those copycat kids... I'm so irritated when my signature style gets ripped off...
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jun 15, 2010 21:44:10 GMT -9
Wow - those copycat kids... I'm so irritated when my signature style gets ripped off... Well, it's a little different when they steal them maliciously as opposed to simple "inattention to detail". But then, I actually think that this particular cache (a built-for-purpose water sprinkler cache) was probably stolen (or moved, as he has done before) by our local thief, who unfortunately is back out of hibernation again trying to mess up the FTF game for folks. We have a pretty solid behind-the-scenes effort to educate all the local cachers about our geo-maggot and how to identify his logs. And our instructions are to completely ignore them and especially to make no mention of them in their own online logs.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jun 16, 2010 5:19:15 GMT -9
That gives me a 13.86% DNF rate. Wow, I didn't know I was such a lousy cacher. Based on national forum posts, that DNF percentage is still in line with the "norm." It's a function of types of caches, a person's own tenacity toward leaving no stone unturned, etc. I agree with you 100% on this point. I used "humility" in my post because a some cachers have a real problem logging their DNFs for a variety of reasons. Some will post a "needs maintenance" rather than log a DNF, even though it's tough to know if the cache needs maintenance if the cache wasn't actually found. Excellent examples given! I am in the camp that prior logs (DNFs, Notes, etc.) should be left intact to maintain the history of the cache. There are cases where I've logged one or more DNFs on a cache (sometimes even on the same day!) before I earned the smiley. I've subsequently left all search attempts on the cache page.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jun 16, 2010 18:21:07 GMT -9
Needs Maintenance... this just seems so clear cut to me. You have to actually see/touch the cache to know that it needs maintenance. If you don't find the cache, there is no way you can know if it needs maintenance or not. Plus, if they use the same methodology with NM logs on caches that people find (log the Find and then separately log the NM), then shouldn't they be logging DNF and then a NM? As a CO, I have to say that a stand alone NM log by someone who didn't find the cache would most likely be deleted unless it was truly justified.
Kinda like DNF seems oh so crystal clear... you searched and you Did Not Find. Though I'll argue that a DNF means you actually searched for the cache, not just drove by the area and saw too many muggles around so you decided to come back later. Some claim that simply turning on the GPSr and selecting Go To (for those who actually use the computer navigation function as opposed to the orienteering method) is all it takes. If you had to cancel the trip before even reaching the cache site they would log a DNF. I don't agree with that practice since it sends signals to the CO and other cachers that there is potentially a problem with the cache or the cache is difficult to find. But if you Got Out And Looked (GOAL) at all, it would be a DNF.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jun 16, 2010 21:56:35 GMT -9
Those Needs Maintenance logs that were really DNFs also mess with GSAK (Geocaching Swiss Army Knife) filters. One can set up GSAK to exclude geocaches with say two DNFs in the last four logs if one is going to be traveling and doesn't want to mess with potentially missing caches. Needs Maintenance would normally indicate the cache is found, so it doesn't need to be filtered out. However, logging a DNF with a Needs Maintenance log becoming a more common practice, I've edited my GSAK filter to count DNFs and Needs Maintenance logs together if I'm going far afield.
Nothing like being on site, not finding the cache, pulling up past logs for a hint and seeing a "Needs Maintenance" log that reads the equivalent of, "Couldn't find it, would the cache owner please confirm it's there?" Aaarrgghhh!
|
|
|
Post by caprahircus on Jul 21, 2010 15:02:55 GMT -9
I'm better about logging DNFs now than when I first started, although I tread a grey area where I don't log at all if I don't feel I gave it an honest effort. If I get shooed out early either because of schedule, weather, or muggles; then I just don't log it. I'm sitting on 236 right now, or about 10%.
There's a little slop in NM logs as well. I've been to two GZs that USED to be wooded and had rapidly become clear-cut (and even paved over in the case of another). A little tough to decide there, since it could be either NM or NA. Suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jul 21, 2010 20:40:05 GMT -9
My vote is DNF. That's how I logged Cohofive's Hooligan Highway after discovering it looks like the brush hog got the hide location. I looked and I didn't find it. I wouldn't log Needs Maintenance because the cache might be doing just fine at ground zero under all the wood chips. I save Needs Maintenance logs for when I've physically seen the cache and know for a fact that it needs help. Another reason I don't use a Needs Maintenance log for a cache I couldn't find is that GSAK will filter out caches with a user-specified number of DNFs. Needs maintenance infers that that cache was found, so I don't set the filter to exclude caches that need maintenance unless I'm traveling and don't want to mess with caches that have problems. I save Needs Archived for when reviewer intercession is really needed, such as when a cache owner is unresponsive to a series of DNFs and it's apparent the cache is gone or is unresponsive to Needs Maintenance if there is a soggy log or other problem. If the cacher is still active, I like to leave it to him/her to decide if the cache needs archiving or to clear the needs maintenance flag. The Groundspeak Knowledge Books shed more light on the topic at hand. Oh, and since this thread is about DNF counts, I'm up to 342, but I don't think I'm gaining much on li1gray.
|
|
|
Post by caprahircus on Aug 27, 2010 4:34:55 GMT -9
I thought I'd better check after reading through this thread again - 239
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on May 22, 2011 7:03:51 GMT -9
It's been nearly a year since this thread of was updated, so I thought I'd post my update.
I've been working hard on my DNF count and have reached 413 DNFs. I don't know if this has moved me to the front of the DNF pack or not since one can't look at other DNF stats, but I'm hoping I've finally caught up with Li1gray.
I experienced a surge in DNFs while caching in Europe in April. I don't know if the cache hides there are more clever since I didn't find them or if Europeans don't log their DNFs as religiously and the caches weren't actually there.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jun 2, 2011 21:42:57 GMT -9
Hmmm, I'm only at 70 DNFs. But I'll have to plead guilty to skipping some multiple DNFs on the same cache when I visited several times in close succession to expand/continue my search for particularly difficult/tricky hides. That dang Valdez hospital cache was one example... but I recently got to log a Found It! as I'm down to just a couple active caches left on my list for the Valdez area. Had to drive clear up to Keystone Canyon last week and start hitting the high trails to seek out caches as I've exhausted all the in-town possibilities that are down near sea-level. Going to take some climbing boots to finish off the short list now.
|
|