Jump to content

Using the Logs


StarBrand

Recommended Posts

I'm just interested in if/how much other cachers use the previous logs for a hunt.....

 

***Just to clarify - use them for HINTS to find the cache - not necessarily for "quality control"...***

 

Just so I can kind of keep track Please use the following with your response:

 

A. That is cheating - I do not use the logs

B. Never occured to me to use the logs.

C. Only as a very last resort and a few visits to the cache location.

D. I will only peek at the last 2 or 3 only after a 20 - 30 minute search and after I try using the hint.

E. I regularly look at them if I don't spot the cache immediately.

F. I religiously read the last 5 before starting my hunts. Don't seek to gather any more than that.

G. I need to see EVERY log I can get ahold of to plan my hunt.

H. I wait until there are 20 or more logs to even consider hunting this cache.

 

Personally I am usually around D.

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

I used to keep to a strict "don't read the logs until after I've searched" policy.

 

Sometimes, however, I'll take a look at the logs to verify that I'm interested in finding the cache. Usually I do this on those days that I'm not really into caching. Usually, that's not the case and I just pretty much go after anything.

 

Also, I find that if the cache involves a walk without anything interesting to look at, I'll read the cache page out of boredom.

 

I guess that means that I flip-flop between D and G.

 

(I don't 'collect' logs in GSAK, so I only have the last five top go by.)

Link to comment

I'm definitely option F. Usually, when picking out caches that I want to hunt, I scan the logs for comments about how great the area was, or how much people enjoyed the hunt. If most of the logs are of the copy-and-paste "TFTC" variety, I usually assume that the cache is not very interesting and am more prone to pass it by. Same thing for caches with lots of "finally stumbled upon it after an hour of searching" comments.

Link to comment

I routinesly look at the logs just to determine what condition the cache might be in. If a clue jumps out at me while reading them, so be it! There haven't been many clues given, but sometimes I see subtle hints.

 

I just deleted a log and asked the finder to re-log due to a spoiler hint given, so I can see where it could happen!

 

BTW...I don't do paperless and never print out the page (ok...rarely do), so I'm looking before I go out.

Link to comment

I'm a D. Just recently I was out at a cache and had been looking for about 30 minutes with no luck. I whipped out the Palm and checked the logs and, lo and behold, someone gave a new set of coords and stated that the old ones had him 60 feet away. After inputting the new coordinates I pretty much walked right up to the cache. So it definately helps to read them in some situations.

Link to comment

I should clarify - one again - that I know a lot of us use the logs to help determine the "quality" of the hide.

 

I am a bit more interested in those that use the logs to find un-intentional hints. Things like: "took my wife's small fingers to retrieve this but easier to put back" - can give a wealth of information when you reach GZ.

 

No judgements - just curious.......

Link to comment

I'm right there between E & F. It wouldn't be necessary if all cache owners were actively maintaining their caches though.

 

Just yesterday, we walked a good mile for an active cache but didn't read the logs. Had we read the logs, we would have known that the last find was several months ago with nothing but DNF's to follow. Had we been aware of this before we took to the trail, we wouldn't have attempted it.

 

What's worse, is when there are no DNF's but the cache hasn't been logged in several months but as soon as someone does post a DNF, you see several posts in the next few days saying something like "Yea, I couldn't find it either back in May" and it's almost September now!

 

Anyway, you get the drift. To NOT read the logs IMHO is asking for trouble.

Link to comment

I love reading through some of the old logs, I do not think of it as cheating in the least but most folks do give thigs away in the long run. I don't care, as far as I'm concerned it's not about just finding the cache but the entire experience of finding the cache - the location, the walk, everything.

 

I want you fo find my hides, I'll even post my own spoiler pictures just to tease you - getting there is the fun part :)

 

Another side note for me is that it reduces my maint concerns. Should I get a report that they got to GZ and could not find the cache then I know there could be a problem.

Link to comment

I cache COMPLETELY COLD. Nothing but coordinates. I do screen out PUZZLES, most MULTI's, EVENTS and VIRTUALS when loading up for an adventure trip. (Unless I've solved the PUZZLE, or the MULTI is relatively short).

 

I search like I'm looking for NANOs/MICROs, figuring I'll stumble across anything bigger. Currently, about 20 minutes is my limit for a search, then the NHF rule kicks in, and it's on to the next one!

Link to comment

I use the printer friendly version so don't have a copy of the logs with me. I cache with two small boys and always read atleast the last five logs before choosing a cache to hunt. Always decode hint before printing. Once I have got to gz I want to be able to find the cache before the boys get so bored with it I can't do any more with out problem of revolt in the ranks.

 

Was on the way home from a successful hunt on Sunday when I drove past a spot where I knew there was one and I had the coordinates. Stoped long enough to take some photos and let my gps settle. I had a quick look but because I had read the logs I knew the coordinates were off that plus the lateness in the day the hunger level of the boys decided to leave it to another day.

Link to comment

 

D. I will only peek at the last 2 or 3 only after a 20 - 30 minute search and after I try using the hint.

 

 

D is our answer. We cache with 3 and 5 year olds so we give it a good effort and when the kids start getting impatient then we look at the clue... then give it another good effort... then read the logs if needed.

Link to comment
I'm just interested in if/how much other cachers use the previous logs for a hunt.....

 

***Just to clarify - use them for HINTS to find the cache - not necessarily for "quality control"...***

 

Just so I can kind of keep track Please use the following with your response:

 

A. That is cheating - I do not use the logs

B. Never occured to me to use the logs.

C. Only as a very last resort and a few visits to the cache location.

D. I will only peek at the last 2 or 3 only after a 20 - 30 minute search and after I try using the hint.

E. I regularly look at them if I don't spot the cache immediately.

F. I religiously read the last 5 before starting my hunts. Don't seek to gather any more than that.

G. I need to see EVERY log I can get ahold of to plan my hunt.

H. I wait until there are 20 or more logs to even consider hunting this cache.

 

Personally I am usually around D.

I used to be a D, but now I don't use them much at all anymore. But I don't think it's cheating at all to use them. I just feel I have more fun when I don't use them. So I guess that now I'm a C.
Link to comment

I should clarify - one again - that I know a lot of us use the logs to help determine the "quality" of the hide.

 

I am a bit more interested in those that use the logs to find un-intentional hints. Things like: "took my wife's small fingers to retrieve this but easier to put back" - can give a wealth of information when you reach GZ.

 

No judgements - just curious.......

 

My response would be F.

 

As for the un-intentional hints I've been watching a few caches and I have seen some pop up and they were promptly deleted by the cache owner. Not sure how each owner or, each area of the country operates but, the few time were I have read the entire cache log I have never came across any hints like this.

Link to comment

Oooh, maybe we aren't as pure as some, but we will read the prior logs if we have time. We use hints as well if we feel the need. If the previous logs indicate the cache isn't there it would seem a bit silly to be hunting it in most cases. If a cache is supposed to be evil it won't have hints. If the cache isn't supposed to be evil then hints are...hints to help find it.

Link to comment

I'd say "C"...

 

I've definitely used the logs. In fact I'm watching a number of caches hoping for some new "log clues". I don't resort to this until I've searched at least once or twice, used the clue and still not found it, logged at least one DNF on the cache page (sometimes more), then I'll resort to scouring the logs.

 

It still only improves my chances about 50%

 

Knowing that, I'm very careful what I write in the logs I leave. I wouldn't want to deprive a fellow cacher of the elation at finding a truly evil hide with little or no assistance. As a hider, I wouldn't want tons of extra clues popping up that I didn't intend to give out, but as a finder... on occasion, they've been a godsend! :rolleyes:

 

DCC

Edited by Driver Carries Cache
Link to comment

I'd say "C"...

 

I've definitely used the logs. In fact I'm watching a number of caches hoping for some new "log clues". I don't resort to this until I've searched at least once or twice, used the clue and still not found it, logged at least one DNF on the cache page (sometimes more), then I'll resort to scouring the logs.

 

It still only improves my chances about 50%

 

Knowing that, I'm very careful what I write in the logs I leave. I wouldn't want to deprive a fellow cacher of the elation at finding a truly evil hide with little or no assistance. As a hider, I wouldn't want tons of extra clues popping up that I didn't intend to give out, but as a finder... on occasion, they've been a godsend! :rolleyes:

 

DCC

I'm somewhere between E, F and G depending on the cache. If it's something with a long hike that I wouldn't be keen on repeating, I'll read every single log. Since I do read so many logs for hints, I'm also very careful about what I say in them.

Link to comment

I'm definitely option F. Usually, when picking out caches that I want to hunt, I scan the logs for comments about how great the area was, or how much people enjoyed the hunt. If most of the logs are of the copy-and-paste "TFTC" variety, I usually assume that the cache is not very interesting and am more prone to pass it by. Same thing for caches with lots of "finally stumbled upon it after an hour of searching" comments.

 

Yes I agree with Davidmac, also I check out the other logs to see what the difficalty is, if you look at one of my logs for GCP5ZC You will see that the cache owner listed the difficulty as 2 1/2 and Terrain as 3 1/2 my log is as follows

 "June 6, 2006 by RogerAg (64 found)

Took a rubber fish left Learning TB, two young ladies who came after us took the TB.

 

This was a masochistic one for us we are both over 60 we started at 9:00 am and got out at 3:00pm.

p.s. the hike is not 2 miles! The GPS said 1.86 miles but that is as the crow flies. Though the trail is not swichbacked it does not go directly toward the cache, I would say it is over 3 miles. However that also does not take into consideration a drop of 1,467 feet of elevation, that mean 2,467 feet both ways and that is over 1/2 mile. except after you get to the cache you will not be walking over level ground (start to finish) in some spots the trail is at over 30 degrees also there is almost no shad. Take plenty of water we had 4 bottles each and that was not enough. I would suggest that you take more water and cache them as you go down the trail."

 

Another cache I went for was GCGN30, you might injoy reading my logs and see the photos I went there twice because I did not find the cache the first time the date to look for is:June 13th and 14th, 2006. I also post logs for others to injoy (':rolleyes:

Link to comment

I used to avoid reading the logs prior to searching, and the cache records I carry on my iPod don't include them. However, I'm going to have to start peeking at the last few before I go, because I've been burned too many times already by searching an hour for a cache, then going home to log the DNF only to find that the last five or six logs were also DNFs.

 

Frankly, I wish the system would automatically flag caches with 4 or more current and successive DNFs with some kind of icon. That way I could avoid adding them to my bookmark lists altogether.

Link to comment

I guess F. I routinely scan the old logs to get a feel for the cache, to see if my lame body can handle the cache terrain or to see if there is something with the cache site I would rather avoid (cache was next to the used syringes/homeless camp/ human feces). I dont look specifically at old logs for clues unless weve been there and been stumped.

Link to comment

 

Frankly, I wish the system would automatically flag caches with 4 or more current and successive DNFs with some kind of icon. That way I could avoid adding them to my bookmark lists altogether.

 

That would indeed be a nice feature to have on the site.

 

If you really need it though, t's good to note that this can be easily done with third party programs like GSAK.

Link to comment
D. I will only peek at the last 2 or 3 only after a 20 - 30 minute search and after I try using the hint.

E. I regularly look at them if I don't spot the cache immediately.

We're generally around the D/E area. It pretty is whip out the PDA to read the hint, then start down the logs until we find a useful clue.

Link to comment

I now usually take a quick look at the recent logs as a screening tool (not for a hint); I like to see some recent finds, as it suggests cache might still be present. No recent finds or recent dnfs. suggest that cache might be missing and it might not be worthwhile making the trip to the site.

 

On the same note, if I see recent dnfs. on one of my hides, it prompts me to check on it, and post a note saying all is well (if that is the case).

Link to comment

If I don't see the cache hiding place immediately, I'll often look at the most recent Past Log in my Palm just to see if it was Found, or if there had been a DNF. If after that I have more trouble finding the cache, I'll read the Hint and every last Past Log I've got to glean a hint, so I don't add yet another cache to my ever longer and longer list of DNFs . . . :)

Link to comment

I read the last 5 logs in gsak if I'm on a trip, for sure. I'm usually with my husband, in a time crunch, and want to make sure he is happy with the search. Reading the logs can give invaluable clues.

 

When I'm on a trip or out and about and having issues at the cache site, I've called a phone a friend for a "hint", as in, I may have them read the cache description to me and scan a good portion of the logs if the cache is being a particular bear. That has saved me a lot of frustration in the past.

 

Funnily enough, I think the biggest one like that for me was with a virtual cache that we did while on vacation that's owned by a regular poster here in the forums. We just couldn't figure out exactly what we were looking for, and had a relative look through the logs while we were doing other things and then they called back with some condensed clues in a little while. No way would we have found that cache on our own with the info we had in our memory (and with much more frustration, which I avoid at all costs when I'm caching with my husband).

 

With caches in my home area, not usually. I can afford to go back and try again some other time. If I've tried a few times, then yeah. But a lot of times I'll have read some of the logs anyway, just cause it's local and I like to read those things socially and because it's interesting.

Link to comment

I'm in between E and F. I regualarly look at the logs just to see if the cache is active. If it's been found in the last few days or so then I know it's probably there. I the last 5 logs are DNF's that I may not even hunt it. As far as using the logs as a hint, I usually take whatever the owner will give me. However, I never ask for hints. Never. But if an owner allows a spoiler log or spoiler picture then I will use it for sure, if I havent found the cahe and am looking for clues.

Link to comment

Somewhere around D, E, and F.

I'm totally paperless with a laptop running GSAK and a PDA. Having cleared most caches in a 100 mile radius of my home, I have to travel a distance to find a cache. I head to cache dense areas (25 caches in a 20 mile radius of a city). As I near a cache, I pull out my PDA to determine if I will try for the cache and how long I will spend looking.

I almost always look at the logs, not necessarily for clues to the hide but more for DNFs or for difficulty. Lots of DNFs, or frequent dates of finds followed by a long stretch of nothing or maybe a DNF thrown in there, especially during peak caching seasons, can indicate a missing cache. I myself probably only log 1/4 of my DNFs and only after a good search.

For an indication of difficulty I'm looking for phrases like easy find, walked right up to it, looked for 15 minutes, very tricky, good coords, coords were off, long hike, muggle activity in the area, finally found it after my third time searching, etc. to give me an idea of how hard I'll have to search.

After searching for a while, I will scour the cache page and the last five logs trying to find something to help bring the cache out of hiding.

Also, time being the limiting factor, as I am driving to these cache rich areas, and searching in the areas, I'm limited on how many caches I will be able to do. The logs can be a very good tool to weed out the lame caches and find the jewels to make the most of my caching experience. :)

Link to comment

I'm usually somewhere between D&G. I'm not hunting paperless yet, and I don't print out the logs to take with me, so I generally glance down at the logs to see if there is a long row of DNFs. If it looks like it will be a more difficult cache, I will read a few of the logs to see what people said about it. Only once so far did the logs I read give the cache away to me.

Link to comment

I would be a D.

 

Don't see any reason not to use past logs if you are having trouble finding the cache. It could have been moved slightly from the original location by a recent finder, could have been a bit off in coords originally or it might be a tough spot for the GPS.

 

But then again I rarely carry my Palm anymore after sitting on two on past hikes! When I do carry the Palm, just the past 5 logs are in there.

Link to comment
I would be a D.

 

Don't see any reason not to use past logs if you are having trouble finding the cache. It could have been moved slightly from the original location by a recent finder, could have been a bit off in coords originally or it might be a tough spot for the GPS.

 

But then again I rarely carry my Palm anymore after sitting on two on past hikes! When I do carry the Palm, just the past 5 logs are in there.

I bet Piglet9 is a B.... :D Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I think I'm a "G".. But it's not that I HAVE to see the logs, it's that I read them while on the computer when I can't go caching. I usually just write down the coords, vital information, and the hint, rather than printing out the whole cache page. Sometimes I just go without any info..

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...