KBI

Why would it bother a person to see that there is a less-than-honest cacher out there? It takes nothing out of the hobby for me. If it wasn't posted here I would have never known about it. I may not respect the person who does this but my respect for geocaching hasn't changed a single bit Well said. If anyone feels the need to wring your hands or gnash your teeth over this, knock yourself out. I'll be out enjoying my favorite hobby and ignoring this non-storm. I predict the boys over at the Froggie Kremlin will sweep up this odd little mess pretty soon anyway. When you’re TPTB, It’s easy to assist cache owners in their log-management duties when the miscreant delivers all his rotten eggs to you in one basket.

Caveat hunter – Let the cache seeker beware.

The forum is a deadly minefield to the unfamiliar, aint it?

I only use the 'freezer' ziplocks. All ziplocks wear out and leak eventually, but the freezer type is a good bit more durable.

I think that is all anybody is saying here. But if you try to encourage that, the ususal suspects feel a need to stick there heads in here and denounce you as if you were promoting puppycide. Really? I haven’t seen that to be the case. I smell a strawman. Either that, or you are confusing two different concepts: "Long, descriptive and unique logs are enjoyed more by cache owners than blunt, plain or cookiecutter logs." A common sentiment in this thread. As you correctly point out, nobody in this thread has posted any disagreement with this idea. "Long, descriptive and unique logs are the ONLY correct way to show proper respect to a cache owner because a blunt, plain or cookiecutter log is ALWAYS an INSULT." This idea has been expressed as well. Some of us have taken exception to this idea. While we don’t quite see it as puppycide (), we don’t agree with the viewpoint. See the difference?

Clan Riffster's Container Rule # 3: If you must include a ziplock to protect the contents, your cache has failed at a very basic level. KBI’s Container Observation # 8651: No matter how perfectly weatherproof one’s container may be, someone will figure out a way to close it wrong, to damage it, or will forget to close it at all. Hence the need for a ziplock for the logbook. Which is not a bozoproof solution either, but it helps. Sounds like you are already familiar with KBI’s Container Observation # 8651.

There are at least 954,000 caches for which I have left no log at all. I hope you all can forgive me.

It seems to me that there are two components of etiquette as they apply to this subject: Thoughtfulness on the part of the cache logger, and a predisposition to assume the best on the part of the cache owner. Etiquette works best when each party does his part to meet the other in the middle. A "TFTC" log – which ostensibly means 'thank you' – need not be accepted grudgingly when there is no supplementary reason to assume it was written grudgingly. To believe otherwise is to make a groundless assumption. The meaning of any given "TFTC" log, all by itself, can be ambiguous. Is it sincere, or is it an insult? Sometimes you just don’t know. So here’s how I handle it: I’d rather be wrong because I assumed the best when the worst was intended, rather than be wrong the other way around. By adopting that view as a cache owner I have thereby done my part in the etiquette equation.

Then why did you also use the words I bolded when I quoted you? I'm getting a mixed message. If I got you entirely wrong then I'm happy to hear you apparently agree with my points. Sorry if I misconstrued your meaning.

Then the chief argument of my post was against that chief argument. As I explained in that post, I do not agree with the premise that cut and paste logs are disrespectful just because they are cut and paste logs.

It could mean that, or it could be a rote entry. Did he like it? Did he have fun? Was it an easy find or did he have difficulty finding it? Was the container dry? Was his simple "TFTC" meant to convey displeasure because he felt it wasn't worth more than a four letter log? Hard to say for certain. Not really. If you have a positive outlook and assume that unless there is a reason to believe that there is a problem then there is not a problem, why, then, TFTC means Thanks For The Cache!! Life is full of assumptions and interpretations, I just naturally assume the best and interpret everyone else as doing so as well... if someone wants to hurt my feelings they are gonna have to work at it a whole lot harder than by thanking me for a cache! Sign me Pollyanna Pollyanna indeed. I tend to have a positive outlook myself, but I know for a fact that many geocachers use a simple "TFTC" or "Found it" or similar logs to express their displeasure. Some have stated so in this thread. So when I see a "TFTC" or "Found it" on my caches, or like one logger last week who left blank logs on a few of my caches (I didn't even know you could do that), it leaves me wondering. Is he a man of few words, or did he not enjoy the cache? It could be either. At that point you do not have enough information to determine which of the two it is. You can anguish over that ambiguity, or you can choose one or the other as a default. So why not be positive? Why not assume the best unless and until you have further reason to feel snubbed? I have never felt that a "TFTC" log, in the absence of other information, is an automatic reason to feel slighted.

I really don't think you've read much of this thread. I can't recall one person here who said that short logs were disrespectful because they are short. I don't think many (if anybody) here have come out against short logs. Your interpretation my differ, of course, but here are a few examples I found just on the first two pages – and there are ten pages of this stuff: The owner was correct. Your action was perhaps not disgraceful, but it was rude, and the owner had every right to be offended. And the OP itself was written about a cache owner who felt the same – which was precisely the subject of Motorcycle Mama’s post number 68. I stand by my opinion: "TFTC" is not disrespectful. Brevity does not equate to disrespect. If TFTC is all you really have to say, but you make up a bunch of extra babble for your log because forum comments (like the ones above) compel you to pad out your log with insincere fluff, then in my opinion you have posted a misleading log. Which is far more disrespectful that the simple, polite honesty of "TFTC."

You should. Genderlessness is a common side effect of marriage. As a married person I naturally assumed that was the topic when I first saw the title of this thread. As in "Sex? What sex?"

I don’t understand why some cache owners in this thread seem to automatically equate low word count with disrespect – as if word count were all that mattered. A short log is not disrespectful just because it is short. My policy on logging finds is not unique. It is an old idea: say something nice or don’t say anything at all. And by don’t say anything at all I mean write a couple of polite words, such as "Found it" or "Thanks for the hide," and leave it at that. (I don’t use acronyms, but neither do I oppose their use.) That doesn’t mean I withhold negative observations regarding practical matters, of course. If I observe anything I think the owner and/or future seekers might need to know, such as the coords are way off, or the container was full of water due to a design fault, or a muggle challenged my right to be on private land, then I will describe it. But when it comes to purely aesthetic matters regarding the design of the cache and the resulting entertainment value to be found therein, I either say something nice or I don’t say anything at all. There is nothing to be gained, in my opinion, by belittling the originality of a fellow cache owner or by ridiculing the aesthetic preferences of those who might actually enjoy his cache. When describing how any given cache entertained me I keep my comments in the range between zero and positive. Not all cachers share my policy, of course. There are always a few folks out there who don’t mind diving into negative territory when they feel their minimum standard for entertainment has not been adequately satisfied. This amazes me. I couldn’t believe it the first time I saw it: Many years ago a local cacher logged a drive-up retaining wall micro by posting the words "Enough of these. When is someone going to hide something creative?" I was stunned. What makes certain people think they will get what they want by insulting the efforts of others? Reading his words gave me the urge to do things, yes, but putting out a cache that would make him happy was not one of them. What is your point, KBI? My point is this: When logging online, showing respect for a cache owner does not, in my opinion, require a long wordy log. Showing respect for a cache owner requires only (1) honesty, restrained by (2) aesthetic tolerance, resulting in (3) politeness. If I wasn’t crazy about a cache I can always say so without insulting it, which will generally result in a very short log. A short log is not disrespectful just because it is short. A long log is disrespectful if it requires me to lie about my opinion. To be dishonest, in my opinion, is to show disrespect.

I love this story. (And it’s almost on topic): I have always done my best to teach my kids self-confidence. One day back when my daughter was a pre-teen I realized I had succeeded somewhat when I jokingly asked her: Me: Do you know what the prefix "fe" in the word "female" means? Her: No. What? Me: It means "almost as good as" Her: (loudly, and in mock annoyance) No it doesn’t, Daddy! It means "BETTER THAN!"

Yes. A male poster should be referred to as a "he." A female poster is a "she." Unless I am mistaken, that simple differentiation, along with the awkwardness that results when those pronouns are misapplied out of honest ignorance, constitutes the entire reason for this thread.

Exactly. There is no official standard for accuracy. Each cacher has his own unique system for deciding what counts as a find, with no oversight from any standards committee or referee. Which is yet another reason why find count numbers are useless as scorekeeping markers. Which is yet another reason to ignore the bozos who haven't figured that out.

Even if the subject of his ribbing is the fact that you blanked out your number? I'd say he still has the facts in that conversation. I still don't see it.

I know how but its ache of a job and if you do to many it breaks, and then it goes KBI broke the quote thingy KBI broke the quote thingy KBI broke the quote thingy KBI broke the quote thingyKBI broke the quote thingyKBI broke the quote thingy as an ex cheers regular would know ; PLEASE don’t take this the wrong way, but: I really think you could stand to learn to worry less about what other people think of you. And I sincerely mean that in the most friendly, caring and constructive way possible. I used to be very insecure myself, a long time ago, back before I learned how easy it is to fix. I hate to see anyone agonize unnecessarily the way I used to. Hide your find count if you must, but please at least consider the alternatives. Don’t let the goobers get to you.

How is that any different from giving them the same response now? Nosy busybody: Hey, look at your find count. 758! What’s up with that? markandlynn: That’s my own private business. Putting a blank in place of your number doesn’t remove the "battleground." It merely shifts it to another place: Nosy busybody: Hey, look at your find count. You blanked it out! What’s up with that? markandlynn: That’s my own private business. Where is the improvement? I still don’t see it.

It’s easy to make muti-quotes. To box individual chunks of text into separate quotes, just make sure each bit of text you wish to quote has one at the end. Example: No, YOU da man. No, YOU is da man, man! Wow. You da man. That's what it should look like in the raw text. You can always test it before posting by using the Preview Post button. I don’t know what those tags are officially called, but I call them open quotes and end quotes. Note the forward slash in the end quote tag. You have to have exactly one end quote for every open quote, otherwise the entire post falls apart into ugliness. Like this one did. Count up my tags and you'll see why they didn't work in this post.

What makes you think you have to explain anything? That’s what I don’t understand. I like Skippermark's analogy. It leads me to ask you this: How would you respond if another cacher were to tease you about the relative value of your car versus his? I don't know about you, but I would never sell or even conceal my car just to avoid a childish comment from a nitnoid. Even if I had a car-cloaking invisibility switch I could turn on and off, which is what this proposal amounts to, I wouldn’t use it for that. I say screw anyone who is displeased with my find count. I don’t owe anybody ANY explanations as to why my number is whatever it is. Why would you want to dignify such idiocy by allowing it to cause you to change your own behavior? Why let someone shame you into hiding your caching record?

That’s why I asked. I had initially assumed the latter, but something about the wording of your post made me question that assumption. Thanks for clarifying. Good luck with your proposal. It is a good idea. And in the meantime: if it’s really important to you, you might want to consider solving the confusion by doing what many others have done: select an avatar which says unambiguously that you are female. You said you are the only one from your account who posts in the forums; seems like a natural solution. If anyone else from your team wishes to post onder the new avatar, they could always sign it as "Mr. Peters of ThePetersTrio" or similar. Any reason why that wouldn't provide the functionality you want?

Not only do I defend it; I even made it into a theme. Four and a half years. 178 finds. Zero complaints. Sorry to shock you.

Well obviously it is your choice to think of people however you wish. But for the record, I do NOT want to be thought of as "genderless". To quote Dorothy Michaels (Dustin Hoffman) in Tootsie, "I am very proud of being a woman." Being married doesn't change that in any way and having a baby pretty much confirms it in a very big way. Are you requesting this feature as a means to prevent what you see as personally offensive posts? Or are you requesting this feature merely as a solution to eliminate the awkwardness that comes with pronoun confusion? I had assumed it was the latter, but your post tells me there might be more to this. Either way I support your proposal. I’m just curious.