Ragnemalm

Like others said, can be a lot of things: Online jigsaw puzzle as mystery Jigsaw puzzle in a box as part of a multi-cache Any kind of mystery Any kind of field puzzle (multi, gadget cache...) On my area, there are so many online jigsaw puzzles (usually JiGiDi), even a big geo-art saying PUZZLE, that I would never put the word puzzle in the title on anything else that the jigsaw kinds. Two of the caches are missing since I have solved them but not logged.

If you had many DNFs, maybe they were under-rated or something like that, so the visitors searched in the wrong place? If it is D1.5, I won't search for very long and only in the reasonably obvious places. If it is a T1, I won't try reaching high up. If it doesn't have attributes like wading or tree climbing, I won't search in those places. So, ratings, attributes and descriptions can affect the DNFs quite a bit. Does any of that apply to you? Also, I have seen that interest goes up with quantity. Maybe not by going from 10 to 20, but from 1 to 3 or 5 makes a big difference. Then it is worth the trip, because if you make a DNF on the toughest one, you will still go home with a few finds. A single cache far away is a bit scary, the risk of going home without a find may be disturbing. I wish quantity wasn't an issue, but that's the way it is. Many hunt cache-of-the-day, fill the calendar, or just want their count to go up.

Very true, we can express ourselves in an upset way which makes it more offensive to the reader. I think I made some other not so elegant logs when I was a beginner. Or maybe it was just before I learned who the sensitive CO is. But that is one side of the coin: Expect beginners to have rough edges. They will not have found all the etiqette expected in the hobby. Your example of a bad case, which I hope not to ever see, is one where we could be tempted to reply impolitely. I would do my best to be gentle when replying, but not accept it is a found.

I always use my own. I print them on my laser printer. (Do not use inkjet!) In containers where some water problems are expected, I use water safe paper (like Rite-in-the-rain that Jimrky mentioned, which works very well). At one time, I even cut them into small pages, but since nobody cared about that, I have resorted to rolling or folding it (depending on size). My logs are clearly marked with a geocaching logo, brief instructions and space for GC code and name. However, I have seen caches with just a piece of blank paper, cut from some standrd notebook. No GC code, no name, nothing that says that it is a geocache. I understand if a CO want to keep the GC code and name secret for a mystery final, but not even saying "this is a geocache"... that is taking it a bit too far in my eyes. So, like most things in this hobby, there is great variation. Choose what feels right to you (and change if many complains about it).

Thanks for your extensive comments! I appreciate it even though we don't agree on everything. Yes, I do like that "complaint", but no, I don't often immediately change for one single opinion. I don't have to agree, but I can listen, and if a lot of people see a problem, then I might change. Most other people are happy, so it is fine, but I still don't mind that he disagrees. Some see complaints an whining, I see reflections and feedback. Same things with difficuly and containers. I don't have to change, it is just an opinion, not a command. One voice out of several. If that parrot is a good idea, that is something I will judge, it was a reflection, a possibility. So many good ideas will be lost if people don't dare to share their ideas. But, too many COs can't handle them, as the thread shows.

I just thought about what I think about "potentially offensive logs". What can I expect, what have I seen? I think the T is a bit high/low. Strongly considered, often reacted upon. I am very happy to get these. I think the D is a bit high/low. Even better. D is really hard to judge as CO. I love them! You forgot to include the parking available attribute. Oops, thanks very much! Did you see that better hiding spot 10 meter to the left? Oh, I didn't see that. Wonderful! I might move there. Considering this location, how about making the cache a bit more thematic because of the (for example) zoo nearby. Maybe a (for example) little parrot in that tree there? How could this offend me? An idea for a better, more fun cache suitable for the location! I can make a better cache without figuring it all out myself! What could be better? Oh, just a lock&lock clone in a typical place. Not as positive, but good information, whatever point I saw with the place was not noticed, or the place is not interesting enough. Bring them on! I want to know! Bad container, this kind takes in water. Another log I definitely don't want to live without. Too close to a house, the people living there seemed disturbed. What can be more important? Deactivate, check out how to handle it. Did you need to have tree climbing on the final too? This one I did get once, and although I don't quite agree, I fully respect the cachers opinion and would not want to be without the opinion! Your vote counts! Does it have to be so hard? Don't you want many logs? This one I also got, and understand. And I consider the ratio easy/hard in the neighborhood and question my judgement. Again, I don't necessarily change but the vote counts and makes me consider alternatives. Well, actually, I did react to it a bit, but making some caches with lower T but a bit higher D instead. Not super easy because those are amny enough but some with different D/T balance. So you encouraged me/reminded me to be more diverse, thanks! The log is full. NM. (To connect with the thread.) Of course you should post that! So I love them all. Anything that tells me something more than TFTC or copy-paste. However... We logged 200 caches today and this was one of them. OK, this one makes me irritated if it is on a highly original, more or less custom built cache maybe in a very special place. Am I a very odd person who takes these comments (except the last one) as positive things? Someone did tell me about ideas, feelings, problems... Yes, I know that too many people can not take these too well, as seen in this thread. I try to teach them by showing my own attitude to getting such logs by asking for them. Maybe that is all I can do. Is there any other way? Padding opinions with text about my opinions being only my personal reflections and not demands, or something like that?

Some people indeed think you try to give them orders just by voicing an opinion, a reaction to the caching experience. Maybe I need to specify the difference before writing the reflection? Case in point: A cache required some rock climbing, so I suggested that a bit higher T would describe it better than T2. A simple adjustment suggested by what it felt like for me. That was enough to offend him. I often make special note in my cache descriptions that opinions and suggestions are welcome. And I mean all kinds.

Great example of why we need pretty good margins as well as good coordinates for caches. We can't place it 10 meters from someone's garden and hope that nobody distubs the people living there. They need to know why people are searching in their bushes. Consider where someone with bad precision may go. I found one cache, with low ratings, only some 5 meters from a steep cliff. Super dangerous to search for at night, especially since the rating was so low and no other warnings!

Some people are insanely easy to offend. I know at leats one CO, who made good caches, who stopped because people had opinions. Over-reacting on NM is a similar thing. It is sad when you can't point out a problem or even suggest an improvement without these people taking it as a personal insult. I try to remember who these are and tiptoe through my logs. Just write about the weather... Of course I want people to make new caches, but it is so sad when they openly refuse to maintain them, like the people mentioned in this thread. Even worse, they are 99% certain to leave their caches out there when they are archived. Just abandon them. Solution? Be so nice to them that they decide to actually go out and replace the full and wet logbooks? Is it possible? I never wanted to offend anyone but some people can't take a problem report.

Bring back webcams! Bring back locationless caches! And we need more APE caches! Why? Because they are all listed in the list of cache types and the zero in those fields are annoying! Not to mention that there are badges for APE and webcam in project-gc! And I must have that diamond badge! I want a tight trail of super easy APE and webcams! (Note: irony.) Isn't that the "problem"? I am really not that eager to stand before a slow webcam and wait until it takes a really poor photo with me down in the corner, if I didn't do it for the "many types in one day" badge. Is there any other reason for virtuals? What do they do that a multi-cache or a Wherigo can't do? The solution is not to bring back a cache type that didn't turn out well and was removed, the solution is to tidy up the lists and taking out some old history, moving them to some out-of-the-way place.

This is easy to us, but not to a beginner. The beginner needs to understand what "wheelchair accessible" means. Yes, you can get there with a wheelchair. No, you can't reach it, but the location is still accessible. There are many often misunderstood phrases like this in the hobby. "Found" really means "signed the log book", not "I saw it 6 meters up and couldn't reach it". "Needs archived" really means "a reviewer should have a look at this". "Did not find" means "I think it is gone".

For me, FPs are recommendations, not some kind of gift to the CO, not a "thank you", but a "check this out, it is pretty good". Of course I am happy when I get FPs but I want to deserve them, I want the cache to be worth the recommendation. To me as CO, the FP is part of the feedback. Good location, good puzzle, interesting construction: All positive things, they get FPs if I have any left. First, last or random cache in a trail as "Thank you for the trail": never. That is noise in the FP system.

Nothing to climb on, even worse. But I guess that is the confusion between the location and the path there. Grading is tricky.

Bad D/T rating is a nuisance. I have often been tricked to search in the wrong place due to bad ratings. Missing or incorrect attributes can also mess things up. In general, my opinion is that it is better to over-rate (slightly) than under-rate. Over-rating makes us bring a little too much equipment while under-rating makes us go home without finding it. The unreachable T1 is a great example. If it had been a bit over-rated, then I guess it could have been T4! From what you describe, T3 sounds pretty appropriate for it. Rating is hard but T1 on that is so clearly wrong. Should I correct by placing it according to the rating? Only if I notify the CO about it. One correctly placed T1 here got a "corrected placement" without notification some half a meter too high, well out of reach for wheelchairs. The cacher probably just wanted to help by placing it in a safer place, but then the rating was wrong so the cache got hard to find. One thing that may cause similar problems is that the official application doesn't show anything above 2 so COs who want meny visits put a maximum at 2. This gives us a lot of very hard D2s, in my area many hard mystery caches.

But since they do not tell me that/why they enjoyed it, what am I supposed to believe? I know nothing so I can not do anything for making them happy.

This is one of my favorites: A log can be good with a single word (or two), while others are totally meaningsless with 1000 words about irrelevant things. And if you have to cheat yourself a high log length by copy-pasting, put the actual message first so we find it quickly. Then you can paste in your statistics-filler. "About the cache:"... "About the trip:"... That kind of logs are OK.

I am not sure we disagree, really, beacuse of course they do have different taste, and I don't mind a log that doesn't appreciate my ideas they way I hoped. That is called feedback, and I totally love every kind of meaningful feedback, they don't have to agree with me. That is how I learn what people like. Constructive criticism, meaningful logs. That and where the FPs go is what I use to learn what to make. What I could live without is when the whole point with the cache is skipped by riding along just for a signature. No puzzle solving, no overcoming physical challenges, just have someone else signing a log with your name while you are doing nothing. And then a pointless copy-paste log on that. But I don't make my caches for those people. What I do doesn't matter to them, so I do my best to ignore them and make fun things for those who want it. So I make more multi-caches, a bit challenging but managable to most people. They are popular, and fun to make, and get blissfully few meaningless logs.

Wow, no less than six obviously false "found" in a row! What are they thinking? "We consider it a find". How about "can we please log this as a find despite not having been near the cache?" or something like that? A photo log of the log book is OK with me, maybe even the last broken remains of a ruined cache, but "didn't find it so we think we found it"...?

I may quote you on that. You are not the first I heard with that view, and it is IMHO one the most justifyable reasons. Sometimes I feel that my efforts don't count, cachers skip over the fun part. If that is too common in an area, I see no point in placing there. I have three rather distinct areas that I place in, and there is definitely a difference. So I put most efforts where it is appreciated. But all three produce good logs often enough. If you had no such area to work with, I fully understand you. I suppose I am lucky.

I got it from another cacher who just wanted to help, but he helped too far. So, it will have to wait. It is a nice place so I don't mind going back. Concerning 5/5 vs 1.5/1.5, the 5/5 is a major accomplishment so I want to fulfill that accomplishment, I want to deserve it. 1.5/1.5 is very much one in the crowd - so much that I usually skip them because they usually are not interesting. (That us usually, not always. A cache with a decent number of FPs is another thing.) I am a rather unusual breed: 1.5/15 is not my most common combination but the fourth most common in my D/T matrix. Because we all cache the way we like.

Ride-along-logs are irritating, usually without meaningful content and generally downvotes FPs, but it is not against the rules so we have to live with it. With some luck, there are enough serious finds with nice logs to compensate. More generally speaking, long copy-paste logs (which often is a sign of ride-along) are a nuisance. They are not only without any interesting information, they are often also so long that you must waste time and energy browsing them to see if there is anything in there that you need to know! I can take one once in a while, but I was never so close to quit the whole hobby when I got a veritable shower of long copy-paste logs on a number of my favourite caches. But again, just a few of them, or TFTCs, are not much of a problem, I can ignore them and remember the good ones. Wet logs, however, rarely bothers me much. With a good enough pen, I can write on anything.

Fine with me, but I do wish that they understand enough of the puzzle to see the point, and hopefully appriciate it, rather than just see it as one more signature on a piece of paper. Myself, I refuse to log a mystery or field puzzle unless I have solved it myself. I recently visited the final of a really hard D5T5, but decided not to log it because I got too big hints. Now it will wait until I have forgotten enough of the hint to solve it for real so I see the whole solution and the trick to find it. I know, I am putting unnecessary demands on myself, but that is my right to choose.

For this kind of logs, I get one kind more often than anything else: (Found) I saw it but it is too high to climb! Everytime that happens, I write back and ask them politely to change the log to "note", and explain the rules. Yes, they "found" it as in spotted it... a couple of meters up, didn't climb, didn't open (which is sometimes an issue), and never saw the log book. I understand them, though. "Found" is a vague term, when it really means "logged".

Extreme case of my "revisit" suggestion, and I think we all agree that we don't want a "found" log every day from a cacher. But for a child who wants to find it, I would gladly put in a separate log book to write in. Although I want to defend my hobby, Turf is more appropriate for the situation. But it is not at all as fun and no physical container. Pokemon Go, maybe... Speaking of logging on paper only, I recently visited a cache I have in a cave. It was only logged once or twice in a year or more. Several months after the last online log, I wondered, is it still there? It was sad to see a cache in such a nice place being so rarely logged. I got a lovely surprise when I got into the cave! The cache was (almost) in place, just a bit too visible... and the log was *crowded* with signatures! The expected 2 or 3 was more than 30! So what had happened? Well, one way or the other, people are finding the cache, and *everybody* neatly sign and put it back! Have I made a cache that is used as guest book? Fine by me!

That's why I suggested that the "revisit" would only count *once* and at least a year after "found". Or more.