Is It A Rule?

[newmonster]

Just wondering as a noob if it was a rule to log your cache. I have logged all of my 18 caches (told ya i was a noob). So is it a rule or just good form?

Thanks for the info all.

(Note to admin) If this thead needs to be moved, sorry about the placement.

[WH]

While there is no rule that requires you to log your finds online, it's only polite that you do. Hider's go through the effort to place and maintain caches and we enjoy hearing from those that find them, even if only to be alerted to potential problems that require attention.

[+BlueDeuce]

What WH said, and logging assists you in searching for local caches by defining what you've found and what you haven't. Found caches can be filtered out.

Edited August 2, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+briansnat]

Its not a rule, but its a courtesy. The owner spent the time, effort and money to hide a cache. The least we can do is let him know we found it.

[Black Mage]

Personally I think logging is half the fun. Well, maybe 2/5 the fun anyway.

[newmonster]

Thanks for all the info. i didnt think it was a rule. But i do have to agree with you, i check the site every morning to see if people found my two ive set. and i agree too that logging them is half the fun.

[Dinoprophet]

There's a thread right now in the MiGO forums about an observed increase of physical logs with no online logs. I know that most of the people I have introduced to caching don't log online, and I've recently run into people who were caching (I actually wasn't caching at the moment) and I never saw a log from them.

 

My guess is many people just don't bother with an account. You can find your nearest caches by entering a zip code on the main page, simple enough. To post a log, you need an account, which means you have to take a few steps to register, come up with a name, fret about new spam and giving out personal info (yes, I know these things don't happen here), and so on. If an account were required to even see the cache postings, people would either never bother or they'd be more likely to log, since they'd already have an account.

[+Team Cotati]

I log all finds even though I only credit the act of logging with 10% of the fun obtained from my cache hunting activities. And since I am a premium member, it also allows me to filter out finds when I run a PQ.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Personally I think logging is half the fun. Well, maybe 2/5 the fun anyway.

2 for difficulty, 5 for terrain??

[Yankees Win!]

The owner spent the time, effort and money to hide a cache. The least we can do is let him know  we found  it.

That's why we sign the logbook. Oh, I see; you meant "instant gratification" for the cache owner.

 

Writing online logs is a pleasure when the cache was memorable, fun and/or exciting. But writing something beyond "TFTC" can be a real chore as one struggles to find something positive to say about a cache that proved to be a waste of the seeker's time, effort, and gasoline money.

Edited August 3, 2005 by Yankees Win!

[Yankees Win!]

To post a log, you need an account, which means you have to take a few steps to register, come up with a name, fret about new spam and giving out personal info (yes, I know these things don't happen here), and so on. If an account were required to even see the cache postings, people would either never bother or they'd be more likely to log, since they'd already have an account.

I disagree with your conclusion. I'm aware of several premium members who either don't log online, or only log exceptional caches online.

[+Tharagleb]

To post a log, you need an account, which means you have to take a few steps to register, come up with a name, fret about new spam and giving out personal info (yes, I know these things don't happen here), and so on.  If an account were required to even see the cache postings, people would either never bother or they'd be more likely to log, since they'd already have an account.

I disagree with your conclusion. I'm aware of several premium members who either don't log online, or only log exceptional caches online.

I disagree with your conclusion that Dinoprophet was talking about PM accounts. There are three levels of users using this site:

 

1) Not logged in

2) Free accounts

3) Premium Members

 

I read Dinoprophet's post as talking about 1 and 2.

 

[Edit: Fee = Free]

Edited August 3, 2005 by Tharagleb

[+Tharagleb]

Forget what I just said..

[Black Mage]

Personally I think logging is half the fun.  Well, maybe 2/5 the fun anyway. 

2 for difficulty, 5 for terrain??

Two-fifths of the fun.

[+Renegade Knight]

While there is no rule that requires you to log your finds online, it's only polite that you do. Hider's go through the effort to place and maintain caches and we enjoy hearing from those that find them, even if only to be alerted to potential problems that require attention.

Agreed.

[+Gecko1]

Its not a rule, but its a courtesy. The owner spent the time, effort and money to hide a cache. The least we can do is let him know we found it.

Yes. You should be polite.

[+The Jester]

The owner spent the time, effort and money to hide a cache. The least we can do is let him know  we found  it.

That's why we sign the logbook. Oh, I see; you meant "instant gratification" for the cache owner.

 

Writing online logs is a pleasure when the cache was memorable, fun and/or exciting. But writing something beyond "TFTC" can be a real chore as one struggles to find something positive to say about a cache that proved to be a waste of the seeker's time, effort, and gasoline money.

Who said you had to say something positive about a pile of ...

 

This is fairly new cache in our area, read the first few logs...

[+briansnat]

That's why we sign the logbook. Oh, I see; you meant "instant gratification" for the cache owner.

 

Yes, it is instant gratification in a manner of speaking. As a cache owner I don't want to have to hike out to each cache every few weeks to read the logs and see if someone is finding it.

 

Besides logbooks go missing. Caches are stolen, lost in forest fires, logbooks get wet and become unreadable, etc... So in some instances the owner many never get to see the paper logs.

 

Also the online logs tend to be more interesting, as people tend to go into more detail when they are logging from the comfort of their home, instead of swatting mosquitos.

[Dinoprophet]

To post a log, you need an account, which means you have to take a few steps to register, come up with a name, fret about new spam and giving out personal info (yes, I know these things don't happen here), and so on.  If an account were required to even see the cache postings, people would either never bother or they'd be more likely to log, since they'd already have an account.

I disagree with your conclusion. I'm aware of several premium members who either don't log online, or only log exceptional caches online.

I'm aware of a handful, too, and some of them have publicly stated why they don't log online. But I personally know at least a dozen semi-regular cachers who don't have an account. Surely there is more than one reason why people do it, but if I were a bettin' man, I'd guess most of them are people who saw a report on the local news, tried their zip code once or twice, and lost interest or continued without an account.

[+Kai Team]

I know a few cachers who log online as "notes" instead of "found it" because they object to comparing the number of caches people have found (their issue, not mine). This is a nice compromise, because it gives the cache owner feedback but doesn't require the cache finder to engage in the "numbers game" if they find it objectionable.

 

Looking at this from the other side, there is an implied rule that if you want to log online, you must sign the paper log, in that the cache maintenance guidelines state:

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

How would you know that an otherwise normal looking log is "bogus or counterfeit" (I'm not sure what the difference is) unless you check the paper logs? The implication is that if you log online and don't sign the paper log, the owner is supposed to delete your online log.

 

Of course, if you don't log in either place (paper or online), then no one knows you were there!

[+Ed & Julie]

Just wondering as a noob if it was a rule to log your cache. I have logged all of my 18 caches (told ya i was a noob). So is it a rule or just good form?

Thanks for the info all.

(Note to admin) If this thead needs to be moved, sorry about the placement.

I found a signature item in a cache (a small pack of trivia questions).

 

When I checked the profile of the cachers who placed the sig item, I was suprised to find they neither log their finds nor sign the cache's log book...

 

Here is what their profile says

 

The Trivial Pursuers

Member Since: Monday, November 01, 2004

Status: Member

Last Visit: Saturday, February 26, 2005

Email Address: Send message

 

Location: SF Bay Area

Forum Title:

See the forum posts for this user

 

Latest News:

We play this game just for ourselves to enjoy, and feel no need to log our visits either online or in logbooks, so the only evidence you'll find is one of our "Cache In Trivia Out" trade items.

[nobby.nobbs]

seems fine to me, they get what they want out of the hobby, no need to log unless you want to record your finds online. ease of memory or kudos of numbers.

 

we all do it in our own way!

[+caderoux]

These people who never log online are welcome to play this game their way, but I wouldn't call them geocachers, because they are not fully participating.

 

They're just getting listings and giving nothing back, not a status on the cache, not a find and DNF or a note. I think they are bad geocaching citizens, on the scale from good geocaching citizen to cache maggot, these are the anti-social "geocachers" in the middle. While caching is not an online game, the listing service does facilitate the game. It's a courtesy not only to the owner but to other cachers to log online. Writing the logs online is an important part of what makes geocaching what it is.

 

In a world without travel bugs, trade items, muggling, cache maggots, animals, weather, event caches etc. it might be fine for an owner and other cachers to have no idea of the history of a cache or each others attempts. They just go to the cache, do what they want to it, and never have anything available but the cache description and never give anything back or share any information. This kind of game would be sterile, vacuous and meaningless, not to mention difficult, since there would be no such thing as a note, SBA, or enable/disable - you just hope the caches you've got listing for are still around and the owner is checking on it all the time for all the people who may or may not exist and who aren't giving them any feedback.

 

If everyone was simply to come here, get listings and never enter any data, and never interact with other cachers through logs, what you would have would be nothing like what we call geocaching, and it would not be popular at all. Oddly enough, most people do log online, thereby creating the game/sport/activity/hobby/pastime as we know it and love it.

[+briansnat]

These people who never log online are welcome to play this game their way, but I wouldn't call them geocachers, because they are not fully participating.

 

They're just getting listings and giving nothing back, not a status on the cache, not a find and DNF or a note. I think they are bad geocaching citizens, on the scale from good geocaching citizen to cache maggot, these are the anti-social "geocachers" in the middle. While caching is not an online game, the listing service does facilitate the game. It's a courtesy not only to the owner but to other cachers to log online. Writing the logs online is an important part of what makes geocaching what it is.

 

In a world without travel bugs, trade items, muggling, cache maggots, animals, weather, event caches etc. it might be fine for an owner and other cachers to have no idea of the history of a cache or each others attempts. They just go to the cache, do what they want to it, and never have anything available but the cache description and never give anything back or share any information. This kind of game would be sterile, vacuous and meaningless, not to mention difficult, since there would be no such thing as a note, SBA, or enable/disable - you just hope the caches you've got listing for are still around and the owner is checking on it all the time for all the people who may or may not exist and who aren't giving them any feedback.

 

If everyone was simply to come here, get listings and never enter any data, and never interact with other cachers through logs, what you would have would be nothing like what we call geocaching, and it would not be popular at all. Oddly enough, most people do log online, thereby creating the game/sport/activity/hobby/pastime as we know it and love it.

I agree with much of what you are saying (though I wouldn't say non loggers aren't geocachers). I think the online logs are a big part of what made geocaching so successful. The sharing of experiences are a big part of this sport.

 

I think its the reason why Letterboxing hasn't caught on in the same way.

The two sports are similar and Letterboxing had a bit of a head start (about 120 years of a head start), but Letterboxing hasn't grown nearly as quickly as geocaching and the lack of online logs has a lot to do with that.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Latest News:

We play this game just for ourselves to enjoy, and feel no need to log our visits either online or in logbooks, so the only evidence you'll find is one of our "Cache In Trivia Out" trade items.

If they didn't have the sig item I'd call them parasites. Some people like that think of themselves as ghosts. The only reason those people can cache at all is because enough other people log for cache owners to place caches. Without the logs I have no reason to place a cache. It's the online logs too. Too many caches get stolen for me to think I'll ever get a chance to read the log book. Though when I can I do.

[+caderoux]

I agree with much of what you are saying (though I wouldn't say non loggers aren't geocachers).

I may have been a bit harsh, but let me give an example of the effect it does have on our community and friendships.

 

We have a group of teachers that seems to have a "tech-day" about twice a year. They get together at the school board or administration place and then go out and find local caches. They don't log online and they stuff the caches (including micros) with calling cards. Some caches get ruined as they can no longer close because they are filled with calling cards.

 

These are teachers who have no idea that they have really messed up the game for the rest of the participants because they are not part of the community. They should know better, but what can you do - they don't log online. (Some people have managed to retrieve some of the cards, but I don't have any)

 

But it gets worse.

 

Seeing all this happen now twice in the past year, a few of us decided that making PMO caches might help cut down on the problems of less-dedicated cachers ruining the game. So about 20 PMO caches appeared last week. Now the cachers who placed the PMO caches start to get flack from a prominent local cacher who let her PM lapse because she wasn't using any of the PM features and now "we're stopping her from hiding caches since she can't see where the PMO caches are". Bad blood is created between the camp who wants to try PMOs (turns out that not all the prominent locals are PMs) and those who think they are elitist and have more downsides (this includes some PMs).

 

Funny thing: that cacher who is most vocally against PMOs is the one most affected by the teachers and most vocal about the calling card problem because she likes to place caches in the area near the school board - the hot zone. She collected over 70 of the calling cards from her caches. And the Non-PMO camp is saying that the PMO'ers are forcing them to play the game differently, that the PMO'ers are distorting the game and dividing the community.

 

So now we've got cachers fighting against cachers and friendships being potentially busted up - all because someone started playing our game the way they wanted to and not participating in the community. Now the problem is not simply the fact that they don't log, but the non-logging is part and parcel of their complete isolation and ignorance about the community consensus about how caching is to be done.

[+sept1c_tank]

I always log online, even though there's no rule; it's not only courteous, it's fun and it provides an easy record of my caching activities. I also always log my DNFs.

 

I think I agree with Dinoprophet. Probably, there are many unregistered geocachers who have located some convenient caches and for whatever reason haven't, are planning to, or don't plan to join this site.

Edited August 4, 2005 by sept1c_tank

[+Slammer180]

I always log my finds and DNF. I put in the log the condition of the cache to save the owner a maintenance check. I read prior logs to give me an idea of what the terrain is or what would be the best area to go to get to the cache easier.

[+Sue Gremlin]

Logging online is a courtesy to the cache owner, true, but it's also a courtesy to other cachers. We read logs before we go out, and are often surprised that the cache has been moved to new coordinates is buried in someone's log, or that it needs maintenance, (we will then put some baggies in our pack), or there are 12 DNF's in a row, so we will assume it's gone missing, etc. If we get in the car and drive two hours to a cache that's been muggled and someone discovered it but neglected to log it online, it's a true bummer and a waste of everyone's time, bug spray and gas!

[Yankees Win!]

If they didn't have the sig item I'd call them parasites. Some people like that think of themselves as ghosts. The only reason those people can cache at all is because enough other people log for cache owners to place caches. Without the logs I have no reason to place a cache.

I'm curious ... what do you call people who insist on labeling other people?

 

Without the logs I have no reason to place a cache.

I was under the impression that placing a cache was a self-less, rather than a selfish, proposition. But if you believe so many unaccounted-for people visit your caches, your solution is absolutely clear and staring you in the face..

[+AuntieWeasel]

I'm curious ... what do you call people who insist on labeling other people?

People.

[Yankees Win!]

I'm curious ... what do you call people who insist on labeling other people?

People.

But not all people. Just like not all people log caches online. Which would you consider to be worse: Failing to log caches online, or dehumanizing other people by refering to them as parasites, maggots, muggles, etc.? I vote for the latter.

[+teamjack&birdie]

I (we) am one of those that post notes rather than founds. At first I didn't log online, but (with help from these forums) realized it was a disservice to the cache placer and the cache hunters that followed us. We recently placed our first cache and what a thrill it was to read the FTFs log, we check back daily for more logs to read, I will never miss logging a cache hunt again. Sometimes people just have to find their way. Of course it can't be a 'rule', this site is not GeoCaching in its entirety, just currently the most popular site.

[Yankees Win!]

... but Letterboxing hasn't grown nearly as quickly as geocaching and the lack of online logs has a lot to do with that.

... Or people can't/don't want to create their own stamp, or are too lazy/cheap to go out and purchase a nice one, or they don't want to be bothered carrying a stamp, inkpad and personal logbook around with them. Or perhaps they just don't like the "feel" of the letterboxing website.

 

But I'm curious; how did you determine the lack of online logs is a major reason for Letterboxing's slower growth rate?

[+AuntieWeasel]

I'm curious ... what do you call people who insist on labeling other people?

People.

But not all people. Just like not all people log caches online. Which would you consider to be worse: Failing to log caches online, or dehumanizing other people by refering to them as parasites, maggots, muggles, etc.? I vote for the latter.

All people use labels. One couldn't function without. You just don't like the label he used for the group he applied it to.

 

Logging caches online is a way of thanking the hider and communicating with other cachers. I frequently check new logs of caches I've already done. It's a way of reliving my own experience. I always check logs for caches I haven't done yet. It's a way of anticipating whether a cache will be one I enjoy.

 

If someone doesn't want to be part of that, well...okay. But, on the whole, I'd consider not logging a more meaninful bit of rudeness than calling someone who doesn't log a mildly rude name in the forums.

[+caderoux]

... but Letterboxing  hasn't grown nearly as quickly as geocaching and the lack of online logs has a lot  to  do  with that.

... Or people can't/don't want to create their own stamp, or are too lazy/cheap to go out and purchase a nice one, or they don't want to be bothered carrying a stamp, inkpad and personal logbook around with them. Or perhaps they just don't like the "feel" of the letterboxing website.

 

But I'm curious; how did you determine the lack of online logs is a major reason for Letterboxing's slower growth rate?

Online logging has created interaction and communication. It is delayed, and asynchronous, but it is still communication. It is the trail left by other people, a continuity.

 

Humans are (in general) social animals, that is why they like it. Letterboxing IS LESS social and more introspective, therefore it has LESS uptake.

[+caderoux]

I'm curious ... what do you call people who insist on labeling other people?

People.

But not all people. Just like not all people log caches online. Which would you consider to be worse: Failing to log caches online, or dehumanizing other people by refering to them as parasites, maggots, muggles, etc.? I vote for the latter.

The cache maggots already dehumanized themselves already before we applied the labels - is vandals or pirates a less insulting term for people who leave feces in caches or steal caches and leave behind their notes.

[+briansnat]

... but Letterboxing  hasn't grown nearly as quickly as geocaching and the lack of online logs has a lot  to  do  with that.

... Or people can't/don't want to create their own stamp, or are too lazy/cheap to go out and purchase a nice one, or they don't want to be bothered carrying a stamp, inkpad and personal logbook around with them. Or perhaps they just don't like the "feel" of the letterboxing website.

 

But I'm curious; how did you determine the lack of online logs is a major reason for Letterboxing's slower growth rate?

I took a poll. I asked myself why I don't place letterboxes and my answer was that there are no online logs.

 

I was under the impression that placing a cache was a self-less, rather than a selfish, proposition.

 

Is it selfish to want to know if people are finding and enjoying your caches?

Edited August 4, 2005 by briansnat

[Yankees Win!]

But, on the whole, I'd consider not logging a more meaninful bit of rudeness than calling someone who doesn't log a mildly rude name in the forums.

I wasn't commenting on an individual ... I asked his opinion. I see those (and other) derogatory and offensive labels/terms used in these forums every day.

 

We strongly disagree. I consider dehumanizing labels to be egregiously rude, not merely "mildly rude," and I consider not posting online logs not to be rude in the least. C'est la vie.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Yankees Win!

[Yankees Win!]

I took a poll.  I asked myself why I don't place letterboxes and my answer was  that there are no online logs.

 

Is it selfish to want to know if people are finding and enjoying your caches?

You know, you really shouldn't be visiting letterboxes unless you place one.

 

Is it selfish to want to know if people are finding and enjoying your caches?

Nope. I think I made it clear I was referring to online logs. I am not arguing against online logs; if people want to write them, great!

 

But the rule states "sign the logbook." Interested cache owners are free to revisit their cache in order to read the logbook and enjoy the stories and poor penmanship therein at any time. I agree that not signing the logbook is discourteous, rude, and ungrateful.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Yankees Win!

[+caderoux]

If nobody logged, there would be no such thing as geocaching as we know it.

 

And thus, by definition, people who refuse to log any caches are not participating in geocaching as required to make geocaching what it is. It is the community consensus that people should log online - it is that act that CREATES the community.

 

Rude is when you do a cannonball into a swimming pool filled with infants and elderlies. Rude is when you talk loudly on your cell phone in a restaurant or elevator.

 

So I think rude IS precisely what it is. They can do it, and they have a right to do it, and I would defend their right to do it, but it is STILL rude.

[+Ladybug Kids]

This is fairly new cache in our area, read the first few logs...

Well, I came across new acronyms today in that cache's logs. What is LTNRV? Obviously, not a positive comment!

[Yankees Win!]

It is the community consensus that people should log online - it is that act that CREATES the community.

If that is truly the case, then TPTB should make online logging a rule. When that has transpired, I will agree with you.

 

The cache maggots already dehumanized themselves already before we applied the labels - is vandals or pirates a less insulting term

 

Depending on the situation, words like prankster, vandal, or thief might be appropriate (and accurate.) I do realize that some people are more interested in venom than accuracy, but unfortunately, those people frequently discover that they have only exacerbated their situation.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Yankees Win!

[+Salvelinus]

If nobody logged, there would be no such thing as geocaching as we know it.

True...but that dosn't mean there wouldn't be geocaching.

 

If someone who dosn't log online is still having fun then we are not allowed to be critical because having fun is all that matters...right?

 

Salvelinus

[+AuntieWeasel]

It is the community consensus that people should log online - it is that act that CREATES the community.

If that is truly the case, then TPTB should make online logging a rule. When that has transpired, I will agree with you.

So...it's your position that a rule imposed from on high carries more validity than community consensus? How very odd. I would've sworn someone who believed being called a name is dehumanizing would be big time into ideas like community.

[WH]

Lets say that TPTB create such a rule, how in the world would you enforce it?

[+briansnat]

Lets say that TPTB create such a rule, how in the world would you enforce  it?

Edited August 4, 2005 by briansnat

[+tozainamboku]

Lets say that TPTB create such a rule, how in the world would you enforce it?

I'm still working on this.

[Yankees Win!]

It is the community consensus that people should log online - it is that act that CREATES the community.

If that is truly the case, then TPTB should make online logging a rule. When that has transpired, I will agree with you.

So...it's your position that a rule imposed from on high carries more validity than community consensus? How very odd.

No. I am saying there is no community consensus on the matter, and that the "forum community" has no right to establish unwritten rules that the general community is expected to know and follow. The intent of my post was that I expect that there will be no such rule, and Caderoux should expect that I won't be agreeing with him.

 

RE: Who would enforce such a rule, if it existed?

 

It would be fully automatic ... Cache information would only be available to logged-in account holders, only X number of caches could be downloaded at a time, and no further cache information could be downloaded until a log had been posted for each cache downloaded. Naturally, Premium Members would be exempt from the number of caches they could download.

 

Mind you, I am in no way a proponent of such a rule or procedure. I like things fine the way they are.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Yankees Win!

[+AuntieWeasel]

No.  I am saying there is no community consensus on the matter, and that the "forum community" has no right to establish unwritten rules that the general community is expected to know and follow.  The intent of my post was that I expect that there will be no such rule, and Caderoux should expect that I won't be agreeing with him.

Oh, but there's a pretty broad consensus, judging from the log books. If I have sufficient privacy at the cache site, I always read through the physical logs. The vast majority of the entries correspond to names I recognize from online.

 

Now, I wouldn't be keen on trying to enforce online logging. Though, come to think of it, I wouldn't be keen on trying to enforce log-book logging, either. I don't see much difference between the two propositions.