Stop Dpm'ing Average Caches!

9.5k · January 15, 2006

Certainly if someone had a bad experience or found a cache to be unsafe or inappropriate a log to indicate that would be correct. However, a demeaning, insulting or abusive remark is grounds for a deleted log. If anything else to discourage discontent and a negative representation of this game. I would delete such a log with an email to the finder of why it was deleted and an invitation to re log their find in an adult responsible manner. If that offends the person who feels they are somehow above basic social etiquette then offend I will. No one is too good or too experienced to be courteous. -RB

It's the right step, but I would suggest giving them the opportunity to fix their log BEFORE deleting it. I would also go to the point of encrypting the log rather than deleting it and post a note as to why. I would not go so far as to wreck the history of the cache and delete the log just because I disagreed with the content of the log... no matter how rude.

Folks need to get over the fact there are all kinds of experiences to be had and written about, and not all will be good. But you can bet follow ups will either confirm or deried the previous log writer. Peer pressure is a more mighty weapon towards social ettiquette than the delete key. The delete key just covers up the fact, it doesn't resolve it.

January 15, 2006

even some of the caches i went on seemed pointless, i still had a great time and when it comes down to leaving notes like DPM mabey it is time to take up a new hobby that wont be below some one's high brow standards. sheesh this is about getting out and being a kid again on a treasure hunt not being stuffy. easy or hard i just want to get outside and have some fun.

2.3k · January 15, 2006

Possibly I'm just too simplistic, but I appreciate every cache I've found or hunted. I consider them gifts. Some may be that 'gee whiz' flashy toy I want and some may be new socks, but they are gifts none the less. Maybe in the end its the thought that counts, at least that does it for me.

January 15, 2006

encrypting it for a while to allow them time to change it is a good idea. Didn't think of that. But I would stick to the delete key if they did not do it in a reasonable time, say a few days or so maybe a week. Its not that I disagree with the content, if someone did not like the cache or felt it was inappropriate they could say so but there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. They could send me an email and be as verbally abusive as they wanted there. insulting derogatory remarks on a public forum (cache logs) in a sport that is supposed to be fun is not in my opinion worth saving. Perhaps I would post a note after I deleted it to state what occurred in order to preserve a record of the logs previous existence. Luckily this has never been a problem for me. The criticisms I have read on other cache logs in this area anyway have been educational and helpful.

Edited January 15, 2006 by Roamingbull

January 15, 2006

One thing I don't get here is why go after the average cache to begin with, if it is beneath you. The difficulty rating that the hider gives the cache is an indicator, and gives people a chance to avoid it.

January 15, 2006

EXACTLY Lone Duck. We have a cacher who is an avid hiker that has a history of flaming in the logs of micros. I started putting in my cach descriptions that it is a lame urban micro, if you don't like them..don't hunt them. He would still go off in the logs. After a few (ok, many) choice words in an e-mail to them and deleting their log, it seems to have helped. Caching is supposed to be fun and some people's bitterness in life can spoil it for everyone.

1.4k · January 15, 2006

To be critical of a cache, any cache, would be like criticizing a gift you have received over the holidays or a birthday. Maybe it is not a good gift or something you may already have, but why would you be harsh to the person who gave it to you? The thought was still there that the person put into getting you the gift. Do people feel some immunity to be critical since logging takes place over the internet? Would you speak harshly to the cache hider if you had to make your log of the cache face to face? (Not if he is 6’5” and 240 pounds of muscle :laughing: )

Now some people seem to want to hide “vast amounts” of caches and it maybe about the number of hides for them. By hiding so many I am sure it has taxed their creative juices and being clever is not what they are in it for. Ok, they are playing their game the way they want to play it. You have the right to not find their caches.

There will always be caches out there that you will hold in high esteem in which your log will reflect it. And some caches that in your mind are DPM’s. Does your log need to say that cache “stinks?” No. TFTC will work just fine. You have logged the cache and gave yourself a smiley face. “Click”, your find count just went up another notch.

Don’t forget that you may have made some DPM hides (in another cachers opinion) that at the time you thought were moderately clever.

3.8k · January 15, 2006

...Many years ago as a kid, I loved hiking through the canyons of San Diego. I would go every weekend on the same trail with my dog. Yah it was the same tired trail, but watching my dog treat it as it was something new to discover everytime taught me a valued lesson I've carried onto this current interest.

I have learned to love hiking again. I have learned to go after what the area has to offer me rather than what the cache has to offer me. The cache has become secondary to the hike rather than the other way around. In essence, I'm taking the time to taste the salmon berries, smell the flowers, enjoy the sights.

That's how you get around the DPMs on the average caches. Find something about getting there that interests you other than just the cache and write about that. Return your now narrowed perspective back to the event and not the box.

I didn't realize salmon berries grew that far south, but I agree with your philosophy. It's definitely the experience (and that depends on what you want to make it) that counts. :laughing: <_<

Edited January 15, 2006 by sept1c_tank

January 15, 2006

Hey I have a sucky cache out there. It's a micro that has no ryhme or reason except to pad someone post count (and find count).

Really it's for me. I like to sit at the kitchen table drinking my beer or coffe watching people try to find it.

Other than that it's useless. Really, it is.

+1

January 15, 2006

Now that I think about it, I would let the DPM stay along with a note explaining what DPM means to the other cachers that don't know what it means. I'll let everyone form thier own opinion about the finder that left the log.

This is exactly what I was thinking. :tired:

Scott

January 15, 2006

So trash talking has made it's way from pro sports... to college sports... to high school sports... to geocaching. :tired:

January 15, 2006

If you really don’t care about the feelings of the person who placed the cache, I guess a rude log is ok. But as someone who has placed caches and received rude logs it makes it that much harder to feel good about placing another cache. We give it our best effort to place good caches but our kids have placed caches too, and some of them have been really easy or not well hidden. But they are just kids and are learning about geocaching. We try to think about the person who placed the cache before we post a log for it. Maybe, it was a child and what better way of ruining geocaching for a young cacher then posting a rude log on a cache that they may have hidden. I know it won’t matter to some but I thought I would just express my opinion after all geocaching is just a game and games should be fun for everyone.

Thanks for letting me up on the “soap box” for a moment.

Happy caching y’all!

Edited January 15, 2006 by Willden Wild-Bunch

January 15, 2006

Having said that, if anyone EVER logs DPM on my cache(s) I'll be glad to delete their find. I wouldn't want them to re-live the horrible experience every time they look at their stats.

Hee hee. I'd do that, too. The lowly cache I maintain has not had any, though. Whew.

22k · January 15, 2006

the ones that actually deserve a DPM log,

That was my point. I thought it was DPM, others did not.

Forget the editorials, state the facts without attitude. If the cache is within guidelines let your posting stand on it's own merit.

Then there is no concern about DPM'ing average caches.

Didn't you read the original post in this thread? I inadvertantly posted a DPM on a cache that was actually a clever hide. That's what I want to avoid in the future. My log was honest, but it didn't reflect the true spirit of my experience.

Yes, I read your original post and while you were telling everyone what it was, I was stating that the collective we need to stop posting editorials.

9.4k · January 15, 2006

Can we drop the whole thing about writing rude logs? This thread isn't about that!

This thread is about average caches needing average logs, rather than "TFTC!"

Writing "TFTC" is one way of saying DPM; the shorter the log, usually the worse the cache. I'm saying that we shouldn't write something like that in our log for an average cache. An average cache is neither really good or really bad. Writing such a short log may tell other cachers that the cache is bad, even though it was really average.

7.2k · January 15, 2006

Can we drop the whole thing about writing rude logs? This thread isn't about that!

This thread is about average caches needing average logs, rather than "TFTC!"

Writing "TFTC" is one way of saying DPM; the shorter the log, usually the worse the cache. I'm saying that we shouldn't write something like that in our log for an average cache. An average cache is neither really good or really bad. Writing such a short log may tell other cachers that the cache is bad, even though it was really average.

I agree.

I'm guilting of sometimes writing a terse log when I actually enjoyed myself. I think decent caches should be encouraged.

However, contrary to the "all caches are gifts" crowd there are plenty that really shouldn't see the light of day. Many of those I can now simply ignore. I will refuse to log them even if I do find them.

Also, the chest thumping about deleting logs can turn a person who about to drop the hobby into someone who makes their hobby one of stealing your caches. It would be easy to do. You'd then be back in the forums railing about the problem you helped create.

I also find it distrurbing folks will use the delete button as a censoring tool.

EDIT: taking back something I shouldn't have said. Sorry.

Edited January 15, 2006 by CoyoteRed

January 16, 2006

Bottom line is everyone has different taste, as the original poster said. My feelings wouldn't be hurt if you gave me the ol TFTC. I have never even thought about it until you brought it up. For all I know you were on a lunchtime cache and didn't have much time to write a story. I especially wouldn't be bothered with it if the last few people who signed my log enjoyed it.

Just because one person says it sucks doesn't mean it sucks. No matter who that person is. Our kids need to learn that too.

Shame on you for thinking that people hang on every word you write :tired:

2.4k · January 16, 2006

This thread is about average caches needing average logs, rather than "TFTC!"

Writing "TFTC" is one way of saying DPM; the shorter the log, usually the worse the cache. I'm saying that we shouldn't write something like that in our log for an average cache. An average cache is neither really good or really bad. Writing such a short log may tell other cachers that the cache is bad, even though it was really average.

But does that mean that we shouldn't write "above average" logs if the cache is "only" average? If I'm in a spectacularly good mood, or if the weather was perfect, or if something funny happened sometime that day that has nothing to do with the cache, I will sometimes write a long, glowing, nice log, even if the cache itself was "only" average.

If I write a better log than the cache "deserves," am I misleading people into thinking it will be something wonderful, only to lead them to inevitable disappointment? (Especially if they go on a crummy-weather day, or the day of a root-canal appointment.)

22k · January 16, 2006

Can we drop the whole thing about writing rude logs? This thread isn't about that!

This thread is about average caches needing average logs, rather than "TFTC!"

Writing "TFTC" is one way of saying DPM; the shorter the log, usually the worse the cache. I'm saying that we shouldn't write something like that in our log for an average cache. An average cache is neither really good or really bad. Writing such a short log may tell other cachers that the cache is bad, even though it was really average.

Can we drop the whole thing about writing rude logs? This thread isn't about that!

This thread is about average caches needing average logs, rather than "TFTC!"

Writing "TFTC" is one way of saying DPM

And you see no contradiction in this statement.

22k · January 16, 2006

...stand by

carefully re-reading the whole thread.

Edited January 16, 2006 by BlueDeuce

9.4k · January 16, 2006

This thread is about average caches needing average logs, rather than "TFTC!"

Writing "TFTC" is one way of saying DPM; the shorter the log, usually the worse the cache. I'm saying that we shouldn't write something like that in our log for an average cache. An average cache is neither really good or really bad. Writing such a short log may tell other cachers that the cache is bad, even though it was really average.

But does that mean that we shouldn't write "above average" logs if the cache is "only" average? If I'm in a spectacularly good mood, or if the weather was perfect, or if something funny happened sometime that day that has nothing to do with the cache, I will sometimes write a long, glowing, nice log, even if the cache itself was "only" average.

If I write a better log than the cache "deserves," am I misleading people into thinking it will be something wonderful, only to lead them to inevitable disappointment? (Especially if they go on a crummy-weather day, or the day of a root-canal appointment.)

I don't think it works in reverse like that. The content of your log will tell people why you enjoyed it, and it might not be because of the cache. Maybe you found a $100 bill in the parking lot? Writing about that in your log isn't going to tell others they should expect the same experience.

The point is, a really short log generally means that the cache wasn't memorable enough for you to write more. I mean, when it takes less than 5 minutes from the time you leave your car to the time you get back, how much do you really have to write about?

For the particular cache that I went to the other day, I could have written about the kids playing basketball near where I parked, stepping over the rocks in the creek while the dog went through the water, scaring two muggle kids that were playing nearby (they didn't see me walking there), or the clever hide itself. Instead, I only wrote that I spotted it right away. Do you see what i'm getting at? I had several things I could have said in my log, but I wrote as little as possible. In log terms, such a short log usually means the cache wasn't that good. This particular cache was at least average, and should have gotten a better log from me. I inadvertantly DPM'ed the cache by not writing a good enough log.

9.4k · January 16, 2006

Can we drop the whole thing about writing rude logs? This thread isn't about that!

This thread is about average caches needing average logs, rather than "TFTC!"

Writing "TFTC" is one way of saying DPM; the shorter the log, usually the worse the cache. I'm saying that we shouldn't write something like that in our log for an average cache. An average cache is neither really good or really bad. Writing such a short log may tell other cachers that the cache is bad, even though it was really average.

Can we drop the whole thing about writing rude logs? This thread isn't about that!

This thread is about average caches needing average logs, rather than "TFTC!"

Writing "TFTC" is one way of saying DPM

And you see no contradiction in this statement.

There is no contradiction. Read my last post for why.

January 16, 2006

DPM, hummm i thought we shouldn't leave food in our caches :tired:

I ain't eating no stinking clams.

(added)

PS why not post newbies should get a kick out of this or 1,000's( caches found) don't waste your time unless you just want #'s

Edited January 16, 2006 by Lowsky

January 16, 2006

Ok, I can see where you’re headed with this. Sorry about earlier post. We are guilty of the short log on the good cache but sometimes you just run out of things to say. :tired:

Happy caching y'all

22k · January 16, 2006

OK, I understand now. I was stuck on not doing tftc when you wanted to.

Sorry about that.

I just went back through my latest logs. I think I'm doing okay, two days ago I even posted a note on a cache I hadn't even attempted yet, thanking them for the cache. (It is close to where I live and a nighttime cache)

Here's my last DNF

The FTF and I went back to check in this cache, granted there is snow cover and poor reception but we are 85% sure the cache is missing. The owner may want to check it. Lot's of geese on the river.

Certainly not poetry but I did say something!

Edited January 16, 2006 by BlueDeuce

2.4k · January 16, 2006

Okay. It's kind of like swag-trading: mostly everyone agrees with the "trade even, trade up, or don't trade" mantra; this is just the "log even, log up [or don't log?]" equivalent. The log should be at least as nice as the cache experience; otherwise you've taken more than you're returning.

And just as there will always be some people who really seem to believe that they are trading even when they swap a ten-cent plastic dinosaur for a Sacagawea dollar, there will be people who genuinely feel that a "TFTC!" log is good, or at least average, and there's not much that can be done about it, I guess.

2.7k · January 16, 2006

Possibly I'm just too simplistic, but I appreciate every cache I've found or hunted. I consider them gifts. Some may be that 'gee whiz' flashy toy I want and some may be new socks, but they are gifts none the less. Maybe in the end its the thought that counts, at least that does it for me.

I agree to a point. For me though, its not teh thought that counts, but the place.

Outside. :tired:

9.4k · January 16, 2006

Okay. It's kind of like swag-trading: mostly everyone agrees with the "trade even, trade up, or don't trade" mantra; this is just the "log even, log up [or don't log?]" equivalent. The log should be at least as nice as the cache experience; otherwise you've taken more than you're returning.

And just as there will always be some people who really seem to believe that they are trading even when they swap a ten-cent plastic dinosaur for a Sacagawea dollar, there will be people who genuinely feel that a "TFTC!" log is good, or at least average, and there's not much that can be done about it, I guess.

That's an interesting analogy. In principle, I tend to agree but like you said, there isn't much we can do about it when others leave a log that doesn't reflect the true quality of the cache.

January 16, 2006

I've been watching this thread for a bit, and now I'll weigh in...

The cache log really should be appropriate, no more, no less. The jaded cachers who expect a higher level of cache experience are going to be disappointed in most cases, no matter what. If they DPM a cache, they are being disrespectful to the person who placed the cache, and the cacher who starts out caching looking for extreme hides is foolishly missing the point of geocaching. There are caches out there for everyone, and ways to avoid the ones that don't live up to your standards. That's what filters and cache search preparations are for, as much as arguing whether parking coordinates should be posted-- do your homework. If a 1 terrain/ 5 difficulty cache listing doesn't meet the baseline, reflect that in your log, but don't then turn around and apply that same standard to all caches you find. If you searched for caches at your level of experience, I really doubt you'd be approaching 4 digits.

I like to read the logs from my caches. They are all pretty much are straightforward walk and find caches, with different distances, because these are what I like. Most, if not all of the cachers who have found them have appreciated them. I don't like micros in the woods, count one bolt out of a hundreds, crawl through the little kids' playground to find the hidden micro, or stand one leg while screaming at the policeman as he cuffs you caches, so I tend to avoid those ones.

My point is that one should choose what caches he or she (or they) should seek, If you have chosen well, you have a right to evaluate. If you haven't, well, I'll not delete your log, but I will judge you. (and my opinion of you matters more to me than your opinion of yourself...)

January 16, 2006

I think that all cachers no matter how experianced needs to remember is that

YOU WERE ONCE NEW TOO !!!!!!!!

January 16, 2006

One of those things we're all taught early in life is "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all." That's pretty good advice. So the cache wasn't up to your ultra-high standards? Boo hoo. Cry me a river. At least people are placing them so you can find them. Sheesh.

22k · January 16, 2006

One of those things we're all taught early in life is "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all." That's pretty good advice. So the cache wasn't up to your ultra-high standards? Boo hoo. Cry me a river. At least people are placing them so you can find them. Sheesh.

I disagree, but that's not what Sax is talking about. It took a brick for me to figure that out. (My saving grace is that I wasn't the only one!)

It's not, don't DPM bad caches

It's, don't DPM average caches (aka damning with faint praise)

Hence the title.

(I could just kick myself)

Edited January 16, 2006 by BlueDeuce

1.4k · January 16, 2006

Since I have started I have tried my best to compliment the cache with my online log. If I can't do that then I tell my story of how I found the cache. Think of those who read your logs and those who placed the cache. Your log is out there in the cyber community for everyone to look at. Even here in the forums the notes people type out are sometimes quickly forgotten - sometimes not. Look at it this way what do you remember more a TNLN log, a compliment or an insult. 90% of the time you remember the negative and not the positive. It does take some time and thought to clearly express yourself but I would rather have someone read my comments and think highly of my thoughts than just simply passing them over or seeing the negative in them. Just like a good boss if something needs to be said about your performance it needs to be done behind closed doors, unless you are a complete moron then a good public smack is well deserved.

2.3k · January 16, 2006

One of those things we're all taught early in life is "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all." That's pretty good advice. So the cache wasn't up to your ultra-high standards? Boo hoo. Cry me a river. At least people are placing them so you can find them. Sheesh.

I disagree, but that's not what Sax is talking about. It took a brick for me to figure that out. (My saving grace is that I wasn't the only one!)

It's not, don't DPM bad caches

It's, don't DPM average caches (aka damning with faint praise)

Hence the title.

(I could just kick myself)

Don't sweat it BlueDeuce, you made an assumption and it was wrong. It isn't the only assumption that has been made in this thread, and it isn't the only wrong one either.

22k · January 16, 2006

Thanks, I feel so much better.

January 16, 2006

I got the gist of the OP's point. My point is the still the same as his, with one exception. If you are above the level of the cache (in your opinion), don't dis the cache based on your past experience. My point is, if you're not in it for the numbers, filter your searches so you don't seek caches you feel are unworthy of you assumed status. Otherwise, don't be so pompous as to to leave logs that demean the caches or others seeking it, unless it is not as the cache description and rating leads one to believe...

20.7k · January 16, 2006

... Otherwise, don't be so pompous as to to leave logs that demean the caches or others seeking it, unless it is not as the cache description and rating leads one to believe...

Even then, you can mention the discepency without being rude.

January 16, 2006

IMO, at some point geocaching goes from being about the hide and the container to simply being about the adventure getting to the cache. I try to make my logs reflect the adventure, regardless of the cache. For example, I've gushed on and on about a walmart micro done after hiking five miles and finding three caches in 101 degree heat with typical Houston humidity. It just felt really good to jump out of the A/C car and grab that cache on that particular day. If the cache involved a long hike, it's going to get a long log. If the cache took five minutes, it's usually going to get a short log and I probably should have chosen a different mode of transportation to the cache. Your log, including these DPMs on average caches, just reflects your approach to the cache.

2.7k · January 16, 2006

When you really get down to it the whole game of putting a box somewhere and someone else going and finding it is pretty "DPM".

No two people will ever fully agree what makes a cache cool, and for everyone the definition is subject to change and probably for most subject to variation from day to day.

Therefore posting a "this cache sucks" log really sucks. (can I say "sucks"?)

If there is a problem with a cache it deserves mention, if the only problem is that you didn't have fun finding it, it deserves a simple courtesy log thanking the cacher for placing it there anyway.

You wouldn't dream of telling Aunt Liz the Christmas gift she gave you sucked, would you?

Notwithstanding the above, a cache owner should not necessarily interpret a short log to indicate displeasure or ambivilence of the finder. Some people don't have much to say. Sometimes people might not have time to write a masterpiece of a log.

For those caches where i have forgotten to say Thank You or where I have written terse logs, please to forgive... domo... gracias...merci...gratias ago.........

January 16, 2006

Besides you can always ask WHY your log got deleted. Then I can tell you. In code. Your log...DPM.

Your post. . . LOL!

3.8k · January 16, 2006

...For the particular cache that I went to the other day, I could have written about the kids playing basketball near where I parked, stepping over the rocks in the creek while the dog went through the water, scaring two muggle kids that were playing nearby (they didn't see me walking there), or the clever hide itself. Instead, I only wrote that I spotted it right away. Do you see what i'm getting at? I had several things I could have said in my log, but I wrote as little as possible. In log terms, such a short log usually means the cache wasn't that good. This particular cache was at least average, and should have gotten a better log from me. I inadvertantly DPM'ed the cache by not writing a good enough log.

Sax, I think maybe you have a personal problem...maybe writer's block or something, but you have no problem expressing yourself in the forums; you generally do quite well, in fact. Maybe you should just assume that the whole world is going to read what you write in your logs, and maybe you'll be more generous or respectful.

It's apparent that you still enjoy those average caches, and the ones that are below you, and it seems to me that you just have some sort of problem communicating your true feelings. Maybe you (all of us) should try harder to communicate through our cache logs, but I still think that your own perception that you are not doing a (an average) cache justice when you are curt in your log, is not valid. Brevity can be a sign that a logger is not particularily impressed with a cache, or it could mean a number of other things, but you can't please everybody, so who cares?

Most of us are intelligent enough to appraise a cache by its logs, and I really think most people, even those with reletively high find counts, do in fact, write adequate and accurate logs.

January 16, 2006

I thought the first lamp post micro was ingenious. Newbies still do until we tell them it is politically incorrect to think of them in a positive manner.

Oh my goodness! I just hid my first cache a few days ago and it's a "lamp post micro". D'oh! No negative comments but now I'm not so sure people are telling the truth! I'll think twice before hiding another. I'm glad I came across this thread.

7.2k · January 16, 2006

I thought the first lamp post micro was ingenious. Newbies still do until we tell them it is politically incorrect to think of them in a positive manner.

Oh my goodness! I just hid my first cache a few days ago and it's a "lamp post micro". D'oh! No negative comments but now I'm not so sure people are telling the truth! I'll think twice before hiding another. I'm glad I came across this thread.

Don't let those who don't understand the issues guide your enjoyment of the hobby.

Folks tend to distill the trash caches down to a few common denominators which really aren't the real problem. Lamp post caches aren't what's lame. Neither are micros. Or easy caches.

Let's take a for instance. We DNF'ed on a cache once where we looked under a few lamp post skirts. (We DNF'ed because the cache was off line for repair and our data was stale as it was near the end of our vacation.) Anyway, we had a blast at this place because IIRC it was a small public park owned by a hospital--I get the idea it was the hospital's "smoking lounge." It was a cool spot with a bridge over a pond, wildlife, and one of those fountains that suspends a stone sphere. The sphere was about 3 feet in diameter. The point is though we DNF'ed we still had a blast. Just because the cache might have been a micro or under a lamp post skirt wouldn't have diminished the experience. Of course, a full-sized cache with cool trinkets would have enhanced it, don't get me wrong.

Really, what one means when pooh-poohing a "lamp post micro" is when the hide is in an uninspiring location or hunt, like a traditional in a Wal-mart parking lot. The location could be anywhere uninspiring.

Any good cache can stand on its own without the added benefit of a smilie or the camaraderie of others. A good cache is its own reward.

Sounds to me like folks are enjoying your "crappy lamp post micro" because you gave them a bit of an adventure in a nice park. That's a lot better than some I know.

6.1k · January 16, 2006

I dont see writing a simple log such as "TFTC", as a DPM. Perhaps the person is tired from caching all day, or a poor typist. I personally dont like these logs, as the more detail, the better, but it does not always mean the person didnt like the cache. If someone is writing DPM on average caches, it just means that they are jaded, and need to hide more caches.

Also, sometimes those lame urban micros are a good way to boost a newbie's confidence in a "find", after several DNFs.

Edited January 16, 2006 by 4wheelin_fool

January 16, 2006

I suspect some of those who are compelled to write rude logs when they feel a cache is beneath them are just venting their frustration at their own compulsive behavior that precludes them from ignoring a cache. If you are the type of cacher that has to find every cache within a self-specified radius, then don't be nasty when some of them don't reach the lofty levels of your expectations. A simple TNLNSL pretty much tells the next cacher that, in your opinion, the cache was not stellar. If there is something specific about the cache that you think other cachers should know before they head out, include that in the log. For example, "maybe placing a cache just outside the local Homeland Security office isn't the best location" or "the used condoms were a bit off-putting" is better than a cryptic notation that doesn't allow the next cacher to know what you didn't like.

1.1k · January 16, 2006

There is one local cacher who makes hides that they may think are clever but are just well poor and ususlly in poor locations. But why complain a cachs is a cache and if you hide it they weill come and some one will complain about it.

cheers

9.4k · January 16, 2006

...For the particular cache that I went to the other day, I could have written about the kids playing basketball near where I parked, stepping over the rocks in the creek while the dog went through the water, scaring two muggle kids that were playing nearby (they didn't see me walking there), or the clever hide itself. Instead, I only wrote that I spotted it right away. Do you see what i'm getting at? I had several things I could have said in my log, but I wrote as little as possible. In log terms, such a short log usually means the cache wasn't that good. This particular cache was at least average, and should have gotten a better log from me. I inadvertantly DPM'ed the cache by not writing a good enough log.

Sax, I think maybe you have a personal problem...maybe writer's block or something, but you have no problem expressing yourself in the forums; you generally do quite well, in fact. Maybe you should just assume that the whole world is going to read what you write in your logs, and maybe you'll be more generous or respectful.

It's apparent that you still enjoy those average caches, and the ones that are below you, and it seems to me that you just have some sort of problem communicating your true feelings. Maybe you (all of us) should try harder to communicate through our cache logs, but I still think that your own perception that you are not doing a (an average) cache justice when you are curt in your log, is not valid. Brevity can be a sign that a logger is not particularily impressed with a cache, or it could mean a number of other things, but you can't please everybody, so who cares?

Most of us are intelligent enough to appraise a cache by its logs, and I really think most people, even those with reletively high find counts, do in fact, write adequate and accurate logs.

That's what I'm saying though. Generally if the log is short, the cache wasn't that good.

I've already said that there were a number of things I could have written about from my walk to and from the cache, but I didn't. I ended up leaving a short log. It wasn't rude, but by leaving a short log the impression is that the cache wasn't good.

3.8k · January 16, 2006

...It wasn't rude, but by leaving a short log the impression is that the cache wasn't good.

What I'm saying is that leaving a short log doesn't really leave that impression (at least to me); if anything, it leaves the impression that you might not be excited about it, but unless you have actually stated that the cache has issues, as a cache seeker, I will still form my own impression.

As a cache owner, when I receive short logs from any cacher, it is not insulting, or degrading. Is is simply (and nothing more) a short log. :lol:

January 16, 2006

As a cache owner, when I receive short logs from any cacher, it is not insulting, or degrading. Is is simply (and nothing more) a short log.

I think it depends on the finders other logs. Many people only write short logs even though they enjoyed the cache. If, however, the finder normally writes detailed logs and leaves a TFTH on one I will feel that they didn’t like that cache.

9.4k · January 16, 2006

As a cache owner, when I receive short logs from any cacher, it is not insulting, or degrading. Is is simply (and nothing more) a short log.

I think it depends on the finders other logs. Many people only write short logs even though they enjoyed the cache. If, however, the finder normally writes detailed logs and leaves a TFTH on one I will feel that they didn’t like that cache.

Exactly!

Stop Dpm'ing Average Caches!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment