Uploading Finds In Volume Automatically

[+GRANPA ALEX]

Of couse, we can edit our logs when we find a special cache and want to accomodate the owner for his zeal, effort and expertise . . . but, many caches can be logged as finds with a generic post.

 

When we have, say a hundred finds to post, it would be great to have them downloaded into a file from our GPSr and logged from there in a keystroke, automatically.

 

Is this already being done & I don't know about it (probable). . . please advise, if so. If not, can we develop a macro that does this heavy lifting for us?

[+Lil Devil]

I've never actually used it but it looks like the Express Logger will streamline the process.

[+Jamie Z]

many caches can be logged as finds with a generic post.

I appreciate your efforts to make logging a cache easier or more efficient, but I hope the reason for this is not to make it easier to post cookie-cutter logs.

 

Can't you say something about your hunts?

 

I'm about 50/50 whether or not I'd rather have cookie-cutter logs on my caches or no log at all.

 

Jamie

[+NoLemon]

I have to agree with Jamie on this one. If all you can write in your log is "Found with XYZ on MM/DD/YY TNLN TFTC" (or less) then don't bother looking for my caches.

 

Cookie cutter log entries are insulting to the hider. If someone takes the time to plan and execute a decent hide -- that is a nicely written cache page, accurate coordinates and a good cache container that is well hidden -- the least the finder can do is spend the minute or two it takes to write an individual log for the find. If someone can't be bothered to actually type out the words "Thank you" (or even "Thanks") is the sentiment really there?

 

Not only it is my hope that this site never enables a mass-logging capability, I'd like to see the site block third-party software that does it. If/when mass-logging becomes the standard, logging will become useless for anything other than "adding to the smiley count."

[CoyoteRed]

If/when mass-logging becomes the standard, logging will become useless for anything other than "adding to the smiley count."

That's pretty much what automatic logging would be for.

 

I still stand behind my request that we have the ability to set a switch on our caches so they don't get added to someone's find count. One person asked then why should they bother hunting it? My thought was, "precisely."

 

If anyone wouldn't hunt one of my caches if they didn't get a smilie, then I'd rather they didn't hunt it at all.

[+DavidMac]

I still stand behind my request that we have the ability to set a switch on our caches so they don't get added to someone's find count.  One person asked then why should they bother hunting it?  My thought was, "precisely."

Very good point; I'm with you and Jamie on this one. If you can't remember enough about the cache to say something, why bother visiting the site? I cache so that I can visit new sites and see unique things I may have otherwise missed, not so that I can get a higher number on some webpage.

 

Since Woodstock II (the last time I copied and pasted a log, which I haven't lost sleep over but which still just felt wrong), I've made a point to say something different on every cache I log. If I get back home and can't remember anything about a cache or the site, I don't log it. I'd rather say nothing than post a log which to me says, "I don't care about your cache, I only care about the numbers." My name is probably on dozens of cache logs that I haven't logged online. But to some it's about the numbers, and to each his own, I guess. I'll get off my soapbox now

[+The Leprechauns]

Even at Woodstock II, when I found 240 caches in 24 hours, I took the time to write individual logs for all the caches I found. Some finds were memorable, due to a creative container, an amusing story, a beautiful view, etc., and I wrote very specific logs. Three caches from that trip made my all-time favorites list. Others were less memorable, except that the caches were part of a very fun overall experience. But even on lamp post micro #23 out of a series of 101 lamp post micros, I tried to be creative, logging many of that type of find with a little rhyming verse that I made up to fit the theme of the cache series. I consider the online log to be an integral part of the overall experience. If all we upload are repetitive "TNLN, TFTC" logs, do you think for a minute that geocaching would have evolved into a community of hobbyists instead of a faceless bunch of people who visited spots in the woods at different times?

 

I am in favor of a utility that would allow easy uploads of logs written offline, but I am opposed to something that would facilitate the addition of a smiley face with a few short keystrokes. If there's no way to allow the former while preventing the latter, then I prefer the status quo.

[+tozainamboku]

I still stand behind my request that we have the ability to set a switch on our caches so they don't get added to someone's find count.  One person asked then why should they bother hunting it?  My thought was, "precisely."

 

If anyone wouldn't hunt one of my caches if they didn't get a smilie, then I'd rather they didn't hunt it at all.

If I don't care if I get a smilie for hunting one of your caches, you shouldn't care if I signed the log

 

I heard of a cache where the hider deleted all found it logs. You could still log a note describing your experience, just no smilies.

Edited November 29, 2005 by tozainamboku

[Jeremy]

If I don't care if I get a smilie for hunting one of your caches, you shouldn't care if I signed the log

I don't get it.

 

Personally I don't plan to create features that would encourage someone to post lazy and generic log entries. I'm not opposed to adding an interface to the site to allow people to write good logs and would prefer to use a desktop application or compose it on a PocketPC device, however.

 

We're formally working on a series of web services, one of which being a way for someone to post a log entry from an external application. However the intent is not to encourage lazy people to be lazier. In fact it is to encourage people who don't like web forms to compose better log entries where they feel more comfortable.

[+tozainamboku]

If I don't care if I get a smilie for hunting one of your caches, you shouldn't care if I signed the log 

I don't get it.

My post was a reference to CR's position in another thread that if you don't sign the physical log it doesn't count as a find. I probably should've used instead of .

 

It was slightly off topic. The topic has to do with automating log entries. I use the semi-automatic reporting capability in GSAK. I edit the log section of the user notes in GSAK and then click a button in GSAK that takes me to the cache logging page where I can paste what I wrote in GSAK (its already in the windows clipboard). A web service would make something like this easier to use.

[+Pasha]

I use Cachemate and GSAK - log the finds as I find them in CM, have an automated transfer to GSAK, GSAK opens the logging pages for me, I just choose Found It, paste in my log, and off to the next one. The automation has nothing whatsoever to do with the "quality" of my logs. The one thing that could make this better would be a way to automate the Found It/Paste/Accept clicks.

 

Of course, you can also automate the finding part for me. I'm all about lazy.

[+Ed & Julie]

I hate it when a cacher finds several of my caches, and I get the cut-and-paste logs on every single one if them.

[+ClydeE]

If I don't care if I get a smilie for hunting one of your caches, you shouldn't care if I signed the log 

I don't get it.

 

Personally I don't plan to create features that would encourage someone to post lazy and generic log entries. I'm not opposed to adding an interface to the site to allow people to write good logs and would prefer to use a desktop application or compose it on a PocketPC device, however.

 

We're formally working on a series of web services, one of which being a way for someone to post a log entry from an external application. However the intent is not to encourage lazy people to be lazier. In fact it is to encourage people who don't like web forms to compose better log entries where they feel more comfortable.

WOW. This service would be great.

 

I actually think it would encourage people to write better logs because they could do them at their own leisure in the application of choice and then upload when ready.

 

I am sure many would just love this feature and it would be very well received.

Edited November 30, 2005 by ClydeE

[+DavidMac]

I hate it when a cacher finds several of my caches, and I get the cut-and-paste logs on every single one if them.

They're almost as bad when looking for caches, too. Often, critical information gets buried below generic logs ("watch out for the bees near the cache"). Also, cache logs used to be a good "lameness filter": you could tell how much someone enjoyed a cache by reading their log entry. Now I'm seeing increasing numbers of people paste the same entry on every cache they find, no matter how much (or little) they got out of a cache. It even happens on what many people would agree are some of the best hides out there.

[+blackjack65]

We're formally working on a series of web services, one of which being a way for someone to post a log entry from an external application. However the intent is not to encourage lazy people to be lazier. In fact it is to encourage people who don't like web forms to compose better log entries where they feel more comfortable.

That would be great for people with limited amount of free time on the web,

or people who pay by the minute, period.

[+Jamie Z]

We're formally working on a series of web services, one of which being a way for someone to post a log entry from an external application.

Perfect. It's how I log many of mine already. I type them up in Notepad or somesuch, then copy and paste into the log window.

 

And as some of you know, my logs can get wordy.

 

Jamie

[CoyoteRed]

I still stand behind my request that we have the ability to set a switch on our caches so they don't get added to someone's find count.  One person asked then why should they bother hunting it?  My thought was, "precisely."

 

If anyone wouldn't hunt one of my caches if they didn't get a smilie, then I'd rather they didn't hunt it at all.

If I don't care if I get a smilie for hunting one of your caches, you shouldn't care if I signed the log

I don't care if you sign the log either. Just don't try to claim a find on the site.

 

In fact, if the mechanism I mentioned were implimented I'd be less militant on whether you signed the log and tried to claim a find as it wouldn't count.

 

Come to think of it, in your later past you created a spark on how this could be accomplished. This switch could remove the "Found It" selection from the menu. You would be left with only the rest of the selections.

 

Of course this creates other problems, but that's beside the point.