Long Log = Deleted Log

[+joranda]

Kind of bold to call me a lazy cacher with over 2400 find when you have 641 cache finds since 2001. Who's calling who? The caches are out there, go get them.

 

wait, so because briansnat doesn't have 1000 caches in one weekend, that means he's lazy??

 

have you ever looked at the caches he's found or placed?

Oh, this is gonna get ugly!

Gotta wonder how many of those 2400 caches require a 10-15 mile hike like many of the 641 caches Briansnat's done?

 

I'm sorry I live in the praire state. Not many mountains to climb. But I do every 5/5 cache that I can get to. But even caching isn't about that. I just think this topic has gone way over board and everyone is going to start pulling this topic this way and that way. Too bad there just can't be one set or rules that we all go by and live with it. I'm not always a fan of over extended logs myself, but my point is that copy and paste on caches isn't a bad thing. And in the long run the final word of the fact is the cache own, they can delete any time they want. So really, where are we taking this topic anyways?

[+usyoopers]

Being semi-local to the area you're talking about and having received a couple emails about the issue I have to wonder, has he singled you out or is he doing this to all cachers?

 

If he's singled you out, is there a reason why? Are the logs he's talking about anything like this one, which was apparently copied and pasted 138 times in that area. Or this one, which I received several copies of when you were in my area at the beginning of the month.

 

I read those logs and while I don't think I would delete them I can tell you I didn't even find it remotely interesting! Seems to be stuff you would want in your own journel or something...I doubt many people would care!

[+mgoose]

I would not have deleted it. I like to see long logs on mine if they are not c/p!

( c/p I hate.) Having a few cache in one area and getting 40 or 50 of the same thing!

OK I read 3 or 4 of them and delete them all . But then a few days later some one comes through and DNF a cache that was in the middle of all the c/p and they DNF it to but I did not read it because it was in the middle of all the c/p. Or some thing might be broken on the cache, so you end up missing the info. The most caches I have done in a day was 43 but every log was a little different. I like to reading the logs when some one comes through caching in the area.

 

Just my 2cents !

Happy Holidays !

[+racer2814]

Finally back to the point of Should the Cache owner be able to delete you just because your log is too long or is C+P when there are no specific ALR's?

[+nittany dave]

Finally back to the point of Should the Cache owner be able to delete you just because your log is too long or is C+P when there are no specific ALR's?

Can they - yes.

Should they - yes or no is a matter of opinion. It's not likely to change anything.

You (the both of you) have probably already spent more time on the topic than you would have just relogging TFTC on the caches in question. Let it go and just think of how quick and easy it will be for you to log their caches in the future!

[+MutherAndSun]

when did this thread change topics to number whoring?

I believe the thread started off with the topic of "number whoring" Ouch! I want a stinkin' smiley for each cache I find. If I do 138, 120, 116, 102 or 1 cache in a day, I want a smiley for each one that I find. If I don't get a smiley I begin to shake and foam at the mouth and my icon daddy whips me.

 

If he's singled you out, is there a reason why? Are the logs he's talking about anything like this one, which was apparently copied and pasted 138 times in that area.

Since CYBret has lovingly chosen to refer to this lame log (thanks, sweetie )

instead of something like this one or even this one I feel the necessity to defend its merit. OK, so it may be stupid, but at the time I thought it would be helpful to see the percentage of hiders and hide types, time spent looking, number of DNFs etc. And if this annoying log shows up in your email 138 times or more on one day during the 1 or 5 years of your caching career, sorry for ruining your day. But I believe we are back to the same issue of length.

 

I doubt anyone would link to a TFTC log C&P 138 times and complain about that showing up in the email. The way I'm interpreting some of these replies is that there is no problem with someone C&P a four letter TFTC 100+ times, but if someone takes the time to summarize the day's events/caches in 4000 characters and C&P that, it is totally wrong. So C&P is not the issue. Length is.

 

Once again, my question remains. Why does a cache owner have the right to delete a find because he doesn't enjoy the log? I don't enjoy the TFTC logs that I receive. If I deleted those finds, would I receive the same support? Or would I be required to change my caches to ALR?

 

Equal rights for Log Whores!

[+mini cacher]

The part I copy+paste usually consists of 3 things.

I've done that a lot before. I'll even do it when I only found 3-4 caches at a time. And I always try to make something in each log unique to that cache. I don't think that having some common text in each log should be a problem. And I don't understand how the cacher owner has the right to dictate that you don't put "#x of Y for the day" in your log. It does not seem to fall into the guidelines for reasons to delete a log.

 

If he's singled you out, is there a reason why? Are the logs he's talking about anything like this one, which was apparently copied and pasted 138 times in that area.

Since CYBret has lovingly chosen to refer to this lame log (thanks, sweetie )

instead of something like this one or even this one I feel the necessity to defend its merit. OK, so it may be stupid, but at the time I thought it would be helpful to see the percentage of hiders and hide types, time spent looking, number of DNFs etc.

I have to say that I think I would find any of those logs a *little* annoying even if they showed up only once in my email. But I would never delete them. Those were your logs. They say something about you (although I'm not sure you'd like what some people think they say about you). But I think I would prefer these type of logs over the "TFTC" logs. (Although I've left those as well... sometimes that is all I'm inspired to write... and it does not always reflect the quality of the cache. We all have days where the mind doesn't work as well as other days)

[+CSpenceFLY]

Those are rediculous logs but if someone has the time to sit and write crap like that who am I to delete them.

[Texican Space Cowboy]

Those are rediculous logs but if someone has the time to sit and write crap like that who am I to delete them.

 

Geez, crap is a little harsh. I laughed so hard when I read Debbie's Rock and the other 3 for that matter.

 

My logs are C+P and in Spanish. I've never been deleted.

 

Everyone should have the right to log they way they want or not. Only exceptions-profanity, derogatory stuff, and when you didnt actually find the cache.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Last month I had an owner delete my finds because he accused me of leaving "verbal diarrhea" on his cache page. Upon returning to the same area this month, it appears this same owner has persuaded another local cacher into the same practice.

 

He claimed that:

As you probably know many cachers, myself included, download cache files to GSAK or Easy GPS for paperless caching, and we refer to the logs for hints when we are onsite. Something as large as this monstrous post of yours will eliminate several logs being downloaded for each cache.

 

Even if I use the 4000 characters allowed for a single log, I am not aware of that interfering with GSAK or Cachemate.

 

He also instructed me to:

Just shorten them up - if you look at all the other posts on any other caches, you'll see what is appropriate length and content

 

Again, I wasn't aware that there was an "appropriate length." As far as content, there is never anything derogatory about any cacher or any other inappropriate content or offensive language.

 

Furthermore, he said my logs are:

huge, overblown, and truthfully not even that humorous" and it "deprives people trying to find my caches from being able to read the logs of others who actually have something to say.

 

And if I wanted to re-log I could, but it had to be short or:

If that's not possible, a simple "SL TFTC!" is just fine

.

 

I decided that for his caches I would simply leave "SL" But as I first mentioned, it appears he has persuaded another rather Newbie cacher into this same practice.

 

When I contacted the local reviewer for advise I was referred to the guidlines: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#maint

The responsibility of your [cache owner] 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.

 

My questions are:

1. How "TNLNSL" can be all that more useful when searching for a cache?

2. Has anyone else ever been deleted by an owner for logs being too long?

3. If the owner hasn't added a logging requirement to limit log length, how can the deletion be justified?

4. How is "bogus, counterfeit, off topic" to be interpreted?

5. Should an owner be able to delete a find because he doesn't enjoy the log?

and finally

6. Am I missing something here?

Just to remind ourselves of the topic of this thread.

[+Cav Scout]

Found it ...

 

Believe it or not people still complain when I only write this, .

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I'm starting to think perhaps a little log oversite should be implemeted, ie: when a cache owner deletes a log a copy of said log is sent automatically to the cacher who wrote it and to a reviewer.

If the log writer says nothing the deletion stands, no action necessary, but if the writer feels the log was deleted unfairly they can appeal, and the reviwer will read the log and make a binding judgement about the validity of the deletion. Logs violating posted requirements of either Groundspeak or the cacher stay deleted, logs deleted frivioulsy are reinstated and locked to prevent owner removal.

Thoughts?

[+nittany dave]

The reviewers are busy enough. I'm sure they don't want to have to become the log police now too. Then we'll have even more 'I submitted a cache yesterday and it hasn't been published yet' threads because their mailboxes are filled with deleted log notices that need to be researched.

Like it or not, the cache owner has the right to delete logs. Most who have responded, including myself, disagree with the deletions but so what? I wonder if any of this would have any affect on that person and his/her actions if they read the feelings of a few in the forums.

 

edit to finish a thought.

Edited December 30, 2007 by nittany dave

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

The reviewers are also volunteers, is it really that tough to add an extra reviewer or two if needed? I seriously doubt there is a major epidemic of deleted logs going on, and even then the reviewers would only read them if the writer appealed the deletion, in most cases cachers will simply relog or drop it. This proposal simply gives the log writers a little protection from power hungry control freaks who insist on having everything exactly as they demand, and still gives those same owners the right to delete such logs as long as they post the requirements on the cache page first.

I don't see where there is that much added labor.

[Neos2]

Once again, my question remains. Why does a cache owner have the right to delete a find because he doesn't enjoy the log?

I've read every post and I've clicked on every link and read those, too. So I'm not just jumping in to add my two cents without having given this some real consideration.

 

MutherAndSun, I would respectfully submit to you the problem is not just that the owner "didn't like" your logs, or even that they didn't like the length of your logs. Stay with me through a couple of other thought, please...

 

I read through some of your other logs, at random, from your list of finds on your account. I have to say I enjoyed some of them very much.

 

I would not have enjoyed them nearly as much if I read the same one several times before realizing that every log of yours from the same day was identical, which you apparently do sometimes. I also wouldn't enjoy them if I were out caching an area and had to scroll through them on my ancient Palm --over and over again at various caches-- to find a hint on how to find some cache in an old log. If you are really honest with us, you'll admit that you might feel the same way yourself if you ran into that phenomena by one person too often.

 

As for cut and paste logs in general:

I once got a log notification about one of my caches from an out of town cacher I had met at a few events and cached with a time or two. I really liked that person when I met them. From what I had learned about them from others and from watching them in action at a couple of dozen caches, I had come to admire that cacher very much. I respected their opinion. So I was thrilled when I read in their log how much they enjoyed my cache and how caches like that make it worth the long drive from where they live to my area etc. I was so pleased they had approved of my cache.

I have several local caches on my watchlist and noticed they had also done some of those caches while they were in town. You can only imagine how crushed I was when I realized the fantastic log about "my" cache was just a cut and paste job they used for the entire trip.

 

I like to write longish logs, too. (Duh, like you couldn't guess that from my forum posts!). I have never done cut and paste logs though, not even on long caching days. Every log is unique. Not every cache is long-note worthy, but that rarely stops me. I can always say something about every cache. I can chat about the weather conditions, or the number of people around, or my feelings as I approached the cache, or the funny thing my husband said on the way, or how surprised I was to find that kind of cache in that type of environment, ect. To help me remember things like that, I make quick notes in the note field of my ancient PDA on the cache page--or in the note field of my Garmin 60CSX for that cache. Either will hold at least a few characters, and if I get completely stumped for something to say, I can look at the field notes.

 

My point is that no one has ever complained to me about my notes no matter how mundane my log -- I honestly think it's because each log is unique to each cache.

 

Now your logs...If I could add my suggestions?

I don't think anyone would complain about your unique logs. They concern seems to be with the almost spam-like redundancy of running into the same mega-logs on multiple caches.

 

To preclude that:

You seem to be ignoring the folks that think those logs would make a great blog. I agree with those people. You really ought to have a blog going.

 

If you really don't want to do that, why not just write those ultra long logs ONCE on the first cache of the day's adventure and add a link to that log in the rest of the caches for that day.

 

Come up with a short, sweet cut and paste log for the rest of the trip if you really must and add something personal to each log. Something like:

Thank you for having this cache out her to find. It was cache # __ for me" and then whatever personalization you can think of.

It can be as simple as "We were hungry by the time we found this, and so we had to put off finding ___ cache until after we fed the stomach monsters"

(with the reference to the next cache on your list being potentially helpful to other cachers trying to plan their caching day)

 

To answer your question: Yes, I think the cache owner has a responsibility to ask that logs that are detrimental to the cache be altered. If the log author refuses to change the log, then the cache owner needs to decide if the log is so problematic that it needs to be deleted. I personally think the caching experience of the community needs to be part of the equation.

 

You surely can't want to make others feel that you are abusing them with your logs. And you certainly might want other people to be glad when they see you have posted a new log to some cache. I would think that ideally you would even hope that at least a few people would click on the log to read it just because they enjoy your logs.

Edited December 30, 2007 by Neos2

[+Ed & Julie]

I also have noticed a trend of cachers leaving increasingly shorter logs...both online and in the physical log books.

 

I think many cachers are being conditioned to just signing their name and date on micro-logs, and as new cachers join the game, think that is all that they are supposed to do.

 

As a cache owner, I really enjoy a long online log. It tells me the finder had a story to tell about the hunt and find (or not find) and took some time to tell me. I hate TNLNTFTC logs on a cache that I took time to find either a unique place to find, or a unique story for the cache. It irks me to do a maintenance visit on one of my caches that has a nice,-100 page, lined notebook, and every cacher has just signed their name and date.

 

To expand the trend, I have noticed that cache page descriptions have gotten shorter and more boring (indicative of the hide, I may add).

I always try to make at least a somewhat interesting or informative cache page...I consider it part of the caching experience.

[Keystone]

I'm starting to think perhaps a little log oversite should be implemeted, ie: when a cache owner deletes a log a copy of said log is sent automatically to the cacher who wrote it and to a reviewer.

If the log writer says nothing the deletion stands, no action necessary, but if the writer feels the log was deleted unfairly they can appeal, and the reviwer will read the log and make a binding judgement about the validity of the deletion. Logs violating posted requirements of either Groundspeak or the cacher stay deleted, logs deleted frivioulsy are reinstated and locked to prevent owner removal.

Thoughts?

No, thanks. With very limited exceptions, reviewers are not the log police. I think I speak for the majority of the group when I say I have no interest in becoming the log police. It's hard enough on the kevlar flak jacket, just making judgement calls on cache listings.

 

The reviewers are also volunteers, is it really that tough to add an extra reviewer or two if needed? I seriously doubt there is a major epidemic of deleted logs going on, and even then the reviewers would only read them if the writer appealed the deletion, in most cases cachers will simply relog or drop it. This proposal simply gives the log writers a little protection from power hungry control freaks who insist on having everything exactly as they demand, and still gives those same owners the right to delete such logs as long as they post the requirements on the cache page first.

I don't see where there is that much added labor.

Every reviewer added to the group means one more person who needs to be trained to act consistent with the rest of the group and Groundspeak's guidelines. It is not simply a matter of throwing more bodies onto the team. We aren't robots. Aren't there enough "consistency" complaints already? What would happen on that front if we started to play referee between finder A and owner B? No thanks. I'd rather see reviewers added when there's a need -- because more caches are being hidden in an area. That is how it works now.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I'm starting to think perhaps a little log oversite should be implemeted, ie: when a cache owner deletes a log a copy of said log is sent automatically to the cacher who wrote it and to a reviewer.

If the log writer says nothing the deletion stands, no action necessary, but if the writer feels the log was deleted unfairly they can appeal, and the reviwer will read the log and make a binding judgement about the validity of the deletion. Logs violating posted requirements of either Groundspeak or the cacher stay deleted, logs deleted frivioulsy are reinstated and locked to prevent owner removal.

Thoughts?

No, thanks. With very limited exceptions, reviewers are not the log police. I think I speak for the majority of the group when I say I have no interest in becoming the log police. It's hard enough on the kevlar flak jacket, just making judgement calls on cache listings.

 

The reviewers are also volunteers, is it really that tough to add an extra reviewer or two if needed? I seriously doubt there is a major epidemic of deleted logs going on, and even then the reviewers would only read them if the writer appealed the deletion, in most cases cachers will simply relog or drop it. This proposal simply gives the log writers a little protection from power hungry control freaks who insist on having everything exactly as they demand, and still gives those same owners the right to delete such logs as long as they post the requirements on the cache page first.

I don't see where there is that much added labor.

Every reviewer added to the group means one more person who needs to be trained to act consistent with the rest of the group and Groundspeak's guidelines. It is not simply a matter of throwing more bodies onto the team. We aren't robots. Aren't there enough "consistency" complaints already? What would happen on that front if we started to play referee between finder A and owner B? No thanks. I'd rather see reviewers added when there's a need -- because more caches are being hidden in an area. That is how it works now.

 

I'm not suggesting you become the log police, more a court of appeals. The cache log is part of the cache history but it's also part of the cache finders history. Cache owners are currently set up as complete Dictators, what they say goes. Every system needs checks and balances to maintain fairness, you currently have none.

[+nittany dave]

Oh the drama!

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Oh the drama!

Yep. What it seems to boil down to is nobody wants to be bothered.

[+mini cacher]

TFTT

[+Michael]

I'm starting to think perhaps a little log oversite should be implemeted, ie: when a cache owner deletes a log a copy of said log is sent automatically to the cacher who wrote it and to a reviewer.

If the log writer says nothing the deletion stands, no action necessary, but if the writer feels the log was deleted unfairly they can appeal, and the reviwer will read the log and make a binding judgement about the validity of the deletion. Logs violating posted requirements of either Groundspeak or the cacher stay deleted, logs deleted frivioulsy are reinstated and locked to prevent owner removal.

Thoughts?

No, thanks. With very limited exceptions, reviewers are not the log police. I think I speak for the majority of the group when I say I have no interest in becoming the log police. It's hard enough on the kevlar flak jacket, just making judgement calls on cache listings.

 

The reviewers are also volunteers, is it really that tough to add an extra reviewer or two if needed? I seriously doubt there is a major epidemic of deleted logs going on, and even then the reviewers would only read them if the writer appealed the deletion, in most cases cachers will simply relog or drop it. This proposal simply gives the log writers a little protection from power hungry control freaks who insist on having everything exactly as they demand, and still gives those same owners the right to delete such logs as long as they post the requirements on the cache page first.

I don't see where there is that much added labor.

Every reviewer added to the group means one more person who needs to be trained to act consistent with the rest of the group and Groundspeak's guidelines. It is not simply a matter of throwing more bodies onto the team. We aren't robots. Aren't there enough "consistency" complaints already? What would happen on that front if we started to play referee between finder A and owner B? No thanks. I'd rather see reviewers added when there's a need -- because more caches are being hidden in an area. That is how it works now.

 

I'm not suggesting you become the log police, more a court of appeals. The cache log is part of the cache history but it's also part of the cache finders history. Cache owners are currently set up as complete Dictators, what they say goes. Every system needs checks and balances to maintain fairness, you currently have none.

 

No, Groundspeak loves our reviewers and we will not put them in the position of having to deal with this. There is no way to win. If someone wants to file a complaint then email me or email contact@geocaching.com and give ALL the details. even the ones that you dont want us to know about .

 

Please remember that yes Groundspeak does allow the cache owners the ability to delete logs for any reason but honestly, we expect everyone to act like an adult. Both the cache owners and the cachers.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Michael

[+Team Black-Cat]

I guess I'm fortunate that most of the local cachers near here like to write somewhat longer cache logs. Even the cachers with two or three thousand finds seem to find the time to write more that a single line for each cache. Out of town number runners seem to do the one line logs on some quality caches.

The most I've found in a single day is 25, but each log was unique. Since almost a quarter of the hides were by the same owner, I tried to continue the story of the day in each log rather than put the whole days adventure in every single log.

Three of my eight hides are guardrails, and I don't expect (and rarely get) more than a single line log on them. I certainly wouldn't waist too much time on them. On my "nicer" hides I hope for (and usually get) five or six nice lines. I won't delete a TFTC, and I certainly won't delete a longer log. Write me a novel... Just make it unique.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Team Black-Cat

[+tozainamboku]

I find it interesting that so many people are worried about the integrity of the logs. As if the logs that people post are sacrosanct and owners who delete logs are messing with the score. Geocaching has no score. Think of it as more like a blog. The cache owner is a blogger. He writes up a description of his cache. People then post comments to that blog. If they actually went and looked for the cache they might post their comments as a Found it note or, if they didn't find the cache, a DNF. If the cache owner doesn't like the comment for any reason, he is free to delete it. It's his cache page and he gets to maintain it.

 

The problem is that people have become more concerned with the numbers. I'm beginning to think that instead of logging our finds, we should each have a bookmark list for caches we found. You could have a bookmark list for cache you DNF as well, if you wanted to keep track. You could make the list public if you wanted other people to see what you found or private so only you could see. You would still be able to make Found It and DNF logs, just that these would not be your find count. Only the caches you added to your bookmark list would be counted (I just realized, this means you could only find a cache one time). The logs would be there to let the owners and others know your experiences if you found a cache but since this would not be where your find count came from you shouldn't care if a cache owner deleted your log. If you found 200 caches in a day and you didn't have anything better than a copy and paste log to post you wouldn't have to log the caches at all. Just add them to your bookmark list to get your correct find count for the day.

[+mini cacher]

5. Should an owner be able to delete a find because he doesn't enjoy the log?

Please remember that yes Groundspeak does allow the cache owners the ability to delete logs for any reason

Well... I'd say that pretty much answers that question.

Edited December 31, 2007 by mini cacher

[+TrailGators]

I find it interesting that so many people are worried about the integrity of the logs. As if the logs that people post are sacrosanct and owners who delete logs are messing with the score. Geocaching has no score. Think of it as more like a blog. The cache owner is a blogger. He writes up a description of his cache. People then post comments to that blog. If they actually went and looked for the cache they might post their comments as a Found it note or, if they didn't find the cache, a DNF. If the cache owner doesn't like the comment for any reason, he is free to delete it. It's his cache page and he gets to maintain it.

 

The problem is that people have become more concerned with the numbers. I'm beginning to think that instead of logging our finds, we should each have a bookmark list for caches we found. You could have a bookmark list for cache you DNF as well, if you wanted to keep track. You could make the list public if you wanted other people to see what you found or private so only you could see. You would still be able to make Found It and DNF logs, just that these would not be your find count. Only the caches you added to your bookmark list would be counted (I just realized, this means you could only find a cache one time). The logs would be there to let the owners and others know your experiences if you found a cache but since this would not be where your find count came from you shouldn't care if a cache owner deleted your log. If you found 200 caches in a day and you didn't have anything better than a copy and paste log to post you wouldn't have to log the caches at all. Just add them to your bookmark list to get your correct find count for the day.

That not a half bad idea Toz. Maybe it might solve the pettiness that seems to plague some of these threads. I myself have my main logbook in my memory. I love making great memories.

[+PhxChem]

So C&P is not the issue. Length is

 

Actually, it's a combination of both. One without the other will probably be fine.

 

But the "stuff" I read at those links......uggggg......I'm not trying to be rude...but....um....it's like spam...but more useless.

 

Initially (obviously with not all the information) I was on your side. Now.....count me out. I would rather someone NOT log a find on my cache. Or at least tell me my cache sucked if that is the problem....something, ANYTHING ORIGINAL about the cache. Heck, if you actually mention the cache, you can throw in all of the stuff about what a wonderful time you had forgetting about all the finds you made.

 

There probably is a very good reason you didn't volunteer a copy of your original log.

 

I think the cache owner was actually trying to give you a huge hint by deleting your log. I would take the hint. Unless you're a glutton for deletion.

Edited December 31, 2007 by PhxChem

[+racer2814]

Last attempt to defend the C+P whether it be long or short.

 

As for the lame C+P's we posted 138x's, one of us long and the other shorter.

 

What part of It Was A RECORD Run, does everybody not get. Or maybe thats the real thorn in their side? I did not have the time to take notes on each cache, nor did I want to. But I felt I should write more than 138 TFTC's.

 

NO ALR=No reason to be unique, or short, or long, or just TFTC.

 

I don't think reviewers should get involved either, its our responsibility to work it out,which we did.

To my knowledge their are no direct relationship issues, we have not met the hiders that gave us grief.

[+Kit Fox]

So C&P is not the issue. Length is

 

Actually, it's a combination of both. One without the other will probably be fine.

 

But the "stuff" I read at those links......uggggg......I'm not trying to be rude...but....um....it's like spam...but more useless.

 

Initially (obviously with not all the information) I was on your side. Now.....count me out. I would rather someone NOT log a find on my cache. Or at least tell me my cache sucked if that is the problem....something, ANYTHING ORIGINAL about the cache. Heck, if you actually mention the cache, you can throw in all of the stuff about what a wonderful time you had forgetting about all the finds you made.

 

There probably is a very good reason you didn't volunteer a copy of your original log.

 

Bingo!

 

What was really said (nobody knows), and the previous example really turned me against supporting their stance.

 

Last attempt to defend the C+P whether it be long or short.

 

As for the lame C+P's we posted 138x's, one of us long and the other shorter.

 

What part of It Was A RECORD Run, does everybody not get. Or maybe thats the real thorn in their side? I did not have the time to take notes on each cache, nor did I want to. But I felt I should write more than 138 TFTC's.

 

Nobody cares that you were on a record run, but many of us felt the "example logs" were more like leftover spam, being passed around the dinner table. The problem was that nobody wanted to eat it.

 

Many of us disagree with the OP's log being deleted, but we also don't care for their logs either.

 

Why can't anyone produce a copy of the offending log that was deleted?

[+geowizerd]

Seems to me that they are just limiting seekers of their cache. Longer logs generally mean a good cache. When you see a bunch of TNLNSL logs, it generally means a ho-hum cache, where nobody really had much to say. When I see that, it makes me thing it's probably not worth the effort to visit.

[+racer2814]

 

Nobody cares that you were on a record run, but many of us felt the "example logs" were more like leftover spam, being passed around the dinner table. The problem was that nobody wanted to eat it.

 

Many of us disagree with the OP's log being deleted, but we also don't care for their logs either.

 

Why can't anyone produce a copy of the offending log that was deleted?

 

I never said you cared about the record run, I was only stating why each log was not unique. It was all part of the grand experience.

 

The logs that were deleted were the same as the one you read in the 1st example.

 

Thanks for everyones input so far.

[+joranda]

So C&P is not the issue. Length is

 

Actually, it's a combination of both. One without the other will probably be fine.

 

But the "stuff" I read at those links......uggggg......I'm not trying to be rude...but....um....it's like spam...but more useless.

 

Initially (obviously with not all the information) I was on your side. Now.....count me out. I would rather someone NOT log a find on my cache. Or at least tell me my cache sucked if that is the problem....something, ANYTHING ORIGINAL about the cache. Heck, if you actually mention the cache, you can throw in all of the stuff about what a wonderful time you had forgetting about all the finds you made.

 

There probably is a very good reason you didn't volunteer a copy of your original log.

 

Bingo!

 

What was really said (nobody knows), and the previous example really turned me against supporting their stance.

 

Last attempt to defend the C+P whether it be long or short.

 

As for the lame C+P's we posted 138x's, one of us long and the other shorter.

 

What part of It Was A RECORD Run, does everybody not get. Or maybe thats the real thorn in their side? I did not have the time to take notes on each cache, nor did I want to. But I felt I should write more than 138 TFTC's.

 

Nobody cares that you were on a record run, but many of us felt the "example logs" were more like leftover spam, being passed around the dinner table. The problem was that nobody wanted to eat it.

 

Many of us disagree with the OP's log being deleted, but we also don't care for their logs either.

 

Why can't anyone produce a copy of the offending log that was deleted?

 

 

Not to start anything, but if someone really posted on a cache of yours that it sucked, you would not delete the log? To this day, and no I haven't gotten this cache sucks reply, I've never deleted anyones log. Freedom of speech.

[+MutherAndSun]

So C&P is not the issue. Length is

 

Actually, it's a combination of both. One without the other will probably be fine.

 

But the "stuff" I read at those links......uggggg......I'm not trying to be rude...but....um....it's like spam...but more useless.

 

Initially (obviously with not all the information) I was on your side. Now.....count me out. I would rather someone NOT log a find on my cache. Or at least tell me my cache sucked if that is the problem....something, ANYTHING ORIGINAL about the cache. Heck, if you actually mention the cache, you can throw in all of the stuff about what a wonderful time you had forgetting about all the finds you made.

 

There probably is a very good reason you didn't volunteer a copy of your original log.

 

I think the cache owner was actually trying to give you a huge hint by deleting your log. I would take the hint. Unless you're a glutton for deletion.

 

Nobody cares that you were on a record run, but many of us felt the "example logs" were more like leftover spam, being passed around the dinner table. The problem was that nobody wanted to eat it.

 

So spam is defined by length. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 138 C&P TFTC showing up in one's mailbox IS NOT spam, but a C&P summary of the caching event, which includes a reference to each cache albeit miniscule and is perhaps not as entertaining as "found your cache" to the log owner, IS spam. Gotcha, thanks.

 

Spam issue addressed, on to record run. Yes, people care about record runs. If not, why are there threads asking how one does it? Back to the "offending log" that was deleted (and has been referenced in this thread). In person, I had cachers ask me how its done. Referencing the record run would be useful for those people which is one of the reasons for recording the sequence.

 

My questions are:

1. How "TNLNSL" can be all that more useful when searching for a cache?

2. Has anyone else ever been deleted by an owner for logs being too long?

3. If the owner hasn't added a logging requirement to limit log length, how can the deletion be justified?

4. How is "bogus, counterfeit, off topic" to be interpreted?

5. Should an owner be able to delete a find because he doesn't enjoy the log?

and finally

6. Am I missing something here?

 

SO...I believe I have a few answers, and I thank everyone for their input.

1. It isn't, but people don't like to scroll and long C&P are absolutely illegal and will result in a smilie fine.

2. Others have been deleted, but vary rarely, and usually for content.

3. Deletion is justified because owner's have COMPLETE control over the logs on their cache page.

4. It is interpreted by the owner.

5. Yes, it is his geoGod given right. But this power is only used by those who need to bolster their sense of control.

6. Heck, yes! people will argue about anything!

[+joranda]

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

So C&P is not the issue. Length is

 

Actually, it's a combination of both. One without the other will probably be fine.

 

But the "stuff" I read at those links......uggggg......I'm not trying to be rude...but....um....it's like spam...but more useless.

 

Initially (obviously with not all the information) I was on your side. Now.....count me out. I would rather someone NOT log a find on my cache. Or at least tell me my cache sucked if that is the problem....something, ANYTHING ORIGINAL about the cache. Heck, if you actually mention the cache, you can throw in all of the stuff about what a wonderful time you had forgetting about all the finds you made.

 

There probably is a very good reason you didn't volunteer a copy of your original log.

 

I think the cache owner was actually trying to give you a huge hint by deleting your log. I would take the hint. Unless you're a glutton for deletion.

 

Nobody cares that you were on a record run, but many of us felt the "example logs" were more like leftover spam, being passed around the dinner table. The problem was that nobody wanted to eat it.

 

So spam is defined by length. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 138 C&P TFTC showing up in one's mailbox IS NOT spam, but a C&P summary of the caching event, which includes a reference to each cache albeit miniscule and is perhaps not as entertaining as "found your cache" to the log owner, IS spam. Gotcha, thanks.

 

Spam issue addressed, on to record run. Yes, people care about record runs. If not, why are there threads asking how one does it? Back to the "offending log" that was deleted (and has been referenced in this thread). In person, I had cachers ask me how its done. Referencing the record run would be useful for those people which is one of the reasons for recording the sequence.

 

My questions are:

1. How "TNLNSL" can be all that more useful when searching for a cache?

2. Has anyone else ever been deleted by an owner for logs being too long?

3. If the owner hasn't added a logging requirement to limit log length, how can the deletion be justified?

4. How is "bogus, counterfeit, off topic" to be interpreted?

5. Should an owner be able to delete a find because he doesn't enjoy the log?

and finally

6. Am I missing something here?

 

SO...I believe I have a few answers, and I thank everyone for their input.

1. It isn't, but people don't like to scroll and long C&P are absolutely illegal and will result in a smilie fine.

2. Others have been deleted, but vary rarely, and usually for content.

3. Deletion is justified because owner's have COMPLETE control over the logs on their cache page.

4. It is interpreted by the owner.

5. Yes, it is his geoGod given right. But this power is only used by those who need to bolster their sense of control.

6. Heck, yes! people will argue about anything!

 

You forgot number7: Everyone knows it's a problem but nobody wants to look for a solution.

When I posted my suggestion and asked for thoughts I really hoped people would take it and offer their own ideas on the best ways to address the problem. Unfortunately though it seems Geocachers are extremly negative people, always looking for reasons something won't work rather than ways to make it work.

Geocacher Magazine is another prime example, the thread started off with people crying because they don't have a Geomag, when someone took the initiative to start one they all moan that it won't work and they can't support it until it's a proven success.

Very sad showing people, very sad.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

I believe and have followed this belief that a log must be deleted only if it brings a negative impact to the cache or the game.

 

I have deleted logs where MY cache page became a whiteboard for contrary diatibe against me, the cache or the game in such a way as to damage the fun for those who follow the finder/writer.

 

Beyond this, write all you want relevant to the cache on which page you are logging. Then, go on tothe next one & make it fun!

[Neos2]

So spam is defined by length.

No, I think people have tried to point out that spam is defined as useless redundancy.

 

I know that you are upset that you aren't getting more support here in the forum, but when you get a chance, would you please take a minute to comment on my post from above? That goes for you, too, racer2814.

 

I tried to be "the voice of reason" and not include anything provocative so you might --perhaps--be able to look at it from another perspective.

 

My questions are:

1. How "TNLNSL" can be all that more useful when searching for a cache?

2. Has anyone else ever been deleted by an owner for logs being too long?

3. If the owner hasn't added a logging requirement to limit log length, how can the deletion be justified?

4. How is "bogus, counterfeit, off topic" to be interpreted?

5. Should an owner be able to delete a find because he doesn't enjoy the log?

and finally

6. Am I missing something here?

1. Probably a moot point. You probably shouldn't resort of TBLNSL-- a short note unique to the cache is the most obvious solution

2. I haven't and I write long logs quite often

3. If the log is detrimental to the enjoyment of other of the cache, it may need revision

4. My take: bogus = lie; counterfeit = false identity? mistaken cache ID?; off topic = any rant serving no purpose to that particular cache

5. As I said in my earlier post, in your case it wasn't done because they "didn't enjoy it" so let's cross that bridge when we get to it.

6. Maybe. It depends: Are you just arguing now for the sake of argument, or do you really think there is nothing problematic about your logs?

[+admo1972]

I think long logs are just fine. I will usually try and write as much as I can in the physical log, but more often than not, that is not possible (micro log, full log, bad weather, being eaten by mosquitoes, etc). So I use the online log as the spot to detail my adventures, if it is warranted. But, the cache owner has authoritarian control in the end.

[+Parabola]

So C&P is not the issue. Length is

 

Actually, it's a combination of both. One without the other will probably be fine.

 

But the "stuff" I read at those links......uggggg......I'm not trying to be rude...but....um....it's like spam...but more useless.

 

Initially (obviously with not all the information) I was on your side. Now.....count me out. I would rather someone NOT log a find on my cache. Or at least tell me my cache sucked if that is the problem....something, ANYTHING ORIGINAL about the cache. Heck, if you actually mention the cache, you can throw in all of the stuff about what a wonderful time you had forgetting about all the finds you made.

 

There probably is a very good reason you didn't volunteer a copy of your original log.

 

I think the cache owner was actually trying to give you a huge hint by deleting your log. I would take the hint. Unless you're a glutton for deletion.

 

Nobody cares that you were on a record run, but many of us felt the "example logs" were more like leftover spam, being passed around the dinner table. The problem was that nobody wanted to eat it.

 

So spam is defined by length. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 138 C&P TFTC showing up in one's mailbox IS NOT spam, but a C&P summary of the caching event, which includes a reference to each cache albeit miniscule and is perhaps not as entertaining as "found your cache" to the log owner, IS spam. Gotcha, thanks.

 

Spam issue addressed, on to record run. Yes, people care about record runs. If not, why are there threads asking how one does it? Back to the "offending log" that was deleted (and has been referenced in this thread). In person, I had cachers ask me how its done. Referencing the record run would be useful for those people which is one of the reasons for recording the sequence.

 

My questions are:

1. How "TNLNSL" can be all that more useful when searching for a cache?

2. Has anyone else ever been deleted by an owner for logs being too long?

3. If the owner hasn't added a logging requirement to limit log length, how can the deletion be justified?

4. How is "bogus, counterfeit, off topic" to be interpreted?

5. Should an owner be able to delete a find because he doesn't enjoy the log?

and finally

6. Am I missing something here?

 

SO...I believe I have a few answers, and I thank everyone for their input.

1. It isn't, but people don't like to scroll and long C&P are absolutely illegal and will result in a smilie fine.

2. Others have been deleted, but vary rarely, and usually for content.

3. Deletion is justified because owner's have COMPLETE control over the logs on their cache page.

4. It is interpreted by the owner.

5. Yes, it is his geoGod given right. But this power is only used by those who need to bolster their sense of control.

6. Heck, yes! people will argue about anything!

 

I have to say no, people don't care about others record runs. Logging a find 8 of 156 today is just an EGO log and nothing more. Do I care how many you found in one day, no. I think it was point out in previous posts the blog idea. That way the people that do care about YOUR record runs can read about them. Your log on the cache page should be some thing relevant to that cache and not your entire day. You want a unique find than make a unique post.

 

Yes, the cache owner has the final say in what goes on THEIR cache page.

 

I just can imagne what people think when they are looking from cache page to cache page looking for caches to hunt and seeing the same post over and over again.

 

I don't mean to be rude here but seriously sit back and look at it from someone else's prospective. Alot of people don't care about how many you found in one day. Alot of people don't care how many times you stopped at a red light or ran that red light. Write something unique about that hide or just TFTC and be done with it.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Being semi-local to the area you're talking about and having received a couple emails about the issue I have to wonder, has he singled you out or is he doing this to all cachers?

 

If he's singled you out, is there a reason why? Are the logs he's talking about anything like this one, which was apparently copied and pasted 138 times in that area. Or this one, which I received several copies of when you were in my area at the beginning of the month.

 

As a cache owner I'm not going to delete a log just for being long, but honestly I can see the frustration. I don't copy and paste my hides. Each cache I have is unique and I really appreciate unique logs on them. On top of that, can you imagine being a cacher in an area where the above log was copied and pasted 138 times? I go back and read local logs. I wouldn't want to have to scroll through all that over and over again and I really would hate to have to scroll through it on my Palm.

 

If you want to tell the day's story why not just start a blog, write your long log there and paste the link in every cache you find that day? After that you could write the information that was relevant to the particular cache in each individual log.

 

I myself have been known for some long winded logs (no really, it's true). I understand the desire to tell the story of your hunt, the story of what happened on the way to your hunt, or even the story of the girlfriend you used to have in the town you found the cache and how she screwed up your life. But every log doesn't have to be a Dickens novel. No one's getting paid by the word.

 

I've tried to read this entire thread and I am not sure if I saw where anyone answered your original question. No, I do not think that Cachemate or GSAK data is effected by a long log. They are set to accept a certain number of logs. I was all set to chime and agree with everyone that the OP is a bit whacked, accept that they do have control over the cache page, and move on.

 

Then, I followed these links above.

 

If I was a cache owner and got something like -that- cut and pasted into 3 or 4 of my caches in one day, I would not feel special at all. With all due respect this is really nothing about the particular cache that you are finding. It is about you, your trip, which would be fine except it is a very long log written in a short hand style that might only be understood completely by you and the people that went with you.

 

That said, I'd never delete your log however unusual it was. But since you put it out there in a thread, I'd encourage you to consider your reasons for leaving a log in the first place. Is it to tell others about your trip, not specific to the particular cache? Or are you attempting to leave something that will be meaningful for the cache owner and future finders?

[+Kit Fox]

 

Not to start anything, but if someone really posted on a cache of yours that it sucked, you would not delete the log? To this day, and no I haven't gotten this cache sucks reply, I've never deleted anyones log. Freedom of speech.

 

It happened once and I promptly archived the cache. See for yourself.

 

 

So spam is defined by length. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 138 C&P TFTC showing up in one's mailbox IS NOT spam, but a C&P summary of the caching event, which includes a reference to each cache albeit miniscule and is perhaps not as entertaining as "found your cache" to the log owner, IS spam. Gotcha, thanks.

 

Your putting words in my mouth. As a cache owner, i'd be impressed if you actually wrote something original for each cache. I fully undestand the justification for writing brief logs for exceptionally lame caches. I've done just that. My shortest logs were nothing more than my find number.

 

Nowadays I work very hard to avoid caches not worthy of a decent log. If the cache is nothing more than "yet another smiley I won't look for it. As or justifying the deletion of our log, the only time i've ever done that was for a bonehead who wrote a total spoiler on one of my puzzle caches. Your log did not warrant a deletion even if it was a bit "spammish."

Edited December 31, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+joranda]

 

Not to start anything, but if someone really posted on a cache of yours that it sucked, you would not delete the log? To this day, and no I haven't gotten this cache sucks reply, I've never deleted anyones log. Freedom of speech.

 

It happened once and I promptly archived the cache. See for yourself.

 

 

So spam is defined by length. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 138 C&P TFTC showing up in one's mailbox IS NOT spam, but a C&P summary of the caching event, which includes a reference to each cache albeit miniscule and is perhaps not as entertaining as "found your cache" to the log owner, IS spam. Gotcha, thanks.

 

Your putting words in my mouth. As a cache owner, i'd be impressed if you actually wrote something original for each cache. I fully undestand the justification for writing brief logs for exceptionally lame caches. I've done just that. My shortest logs were nothing more than my find number.

 

Nowadays I work very hard to avoid caches not worthy of a decent log. If the cache is nothing more than "yet another smiley I won't look for it. As or justifying the deletion of our log, the only time i've ever done that was for a bonehead who wrote a total spoiler on one of my puzzle caches. Your log did not warrant a deletion even if it was a bit "spammish."

 

Why did you archive it, I don't know. You said it wasn't family friendly. Not every cache is for everyone. They said they liked the idea, so it wasn't a bad log, just the contanier needed some help.

[+Jackalgirl]

You forgot number7: Everyone knows it's a problem but nobody wants to look for a solution.

When I posted my suggestion and asked for thoughts I really hoped people would take it and offer their own ideas on the best ways to address the problem. Unfortunately though it seems Geocachers are extremly negative people, always looking for reasons something won't work rather than ways to make it work.

 

Um, what are CYBret, Neos2, and I -- chopped liver? We each mentioned what I thought was a pretty good solution: keep a blog and then post links to the blog in the cache logs. Is that a bad idea? If so, why?

[+racer2814]

I know that you are upset that you aren't getting more support here in the forum, but when you get a chance, would you please take a minute to comment on my post from above? That goes for you, too, racer2814.

 

 

I shall reply or not reply to what I choose. I shall log or not log what I choose.

 

Wasn't really expecting the majority to support because most that post just post opposing viewpoints. There was also no intention to argue or get personal. I have no problem with their hides or them personally just the actions that occurred.

 

If the hide was unique or if something interesting was there or happened I always add a unique portion to the cache log. If you want 200 unique posts than make 200 unique hides, not 200 similar hides strung along a roadside. And with that said I still had fun finding them as a whole days experience and would gladly find another 150 guardrails just like them because it's about the journey. If every cache was a hike in the woods, every cache would have a unique story.

 

So what I came up with is-

Majority doesn't like C+P.

Majority doesn't like long repeated stories.

Majority doesn't want to know how many caches you found.

But the majority still would not delete for those reasons.

 

Excellent, next time I find over 100 caches in a day, looks like TFTC logging should take about an hour, not 2 days. Goody more time to find more caches!

 

Ok, got to go plan this weekends power run. Look out for all those TFTC's coming your way.

 

COPY + PASTER AND PROUD OF IT!

[+ReadyOrNot]

COPY + PASTER AND PROUD OF IT!

 

I'm not sure what you are proud of? Kind of annoying if you ask me. I'd much prefer a TFTC than have to read all about YOU and your accomplishments. Reminds me of year end cards I get from my narcissistic relatives.

 

Please don't

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

You forgot number7: Everyone knows it's a problem but nobody wants to look for a solution.

When I posted my suggestion and asked for thoughts I really hoped people would take it and offer their own ideas on the best ways to address the problem. Unfortunately though it seems Geocachers are extremly negative people, always looking for reasons something won't work rather than ways to make it work.

 

Um, what are CYBret, Neos2, and I -- chopped liver? We each mentioned what I thought was a pretty good solution: keep a blog and then post links to the blog in the cache logs. Is that a bad idea? If so, why?

 

I've met Cybret several times and I'm still not sure what he is.

I'm sorry I seem to have missed your suggestions, I'll go back and look for them.

[+racer2814]

COPY + PASTER AND PROUD OF IT!

 

I'm not sure what you are proud of? Kind of annoying if you ask me. I'd much prefer a TFTC than have to read all about YOU and your accomplishments. Reminds me of year end cards I get from my narcissistic relatives.

 

Ooohh, that didn't take long. HaHa

 

Off the top of my head I'm proud of the fact that this is a free country and if I want to be a C+P'r I can. And proud of the military including family members who fight for that right.

 

Again, if you don't care, then don't read them, that is your right.

 

Seriously, I'm quite relieved that all I need to post is TFTC.

[+MutherAndSun]

You seem to be ignoring the folks that think those logs would make a great blog. I agree with those people. You really ought to have a blog going.

 

If you really don't want to do that, why not just write those ultra long logs ONCE on the first cache of the day's adventure and add a link to that log in the rest of the caches for that day.

 

Come up with a short, sweet cut and paste log for the rest of the trip if you really must and add something personal to each log. Something like:

Thank you for having this cache out her to find. It was cache # __ for me" and then whatever personalization you can think of.

It can be as simple as "We were hungry by the time we found this, and so we had to put off finding ___ cache until after we fed the stomach monsters"

(with the reference to the next cache on your list being potentially helpful to other cachers trying to plan their caching day)

Blog. No. Interesting idea, but Sorry. If you check my profile, this is the first time I have become involved in a forum thread to any extent, and I can only do it this time because I have this week off from life. I simply do not have/do not want to take the time to write a blog. If I had the extra time, I would have written "unique" logs for that cache run! May work for other people though, thanks for the idea.

 

For the other idea, I had thought of that before. But I (obviously mistakingly ) thought that the subsequent owners would feel "short-changed" for only getting a link. And further replies to this thread show that any form of C&P beyond TFTC ticks them off. Again, thanks for the suggestion.

Your putting words in my mouth.

Sorry, was summarizing what the thread was producing about spam, not singling you out.

 

I have to say no, people don't care about others record runs. Logging a find 8 of 156 today is just an EGO log and nothing more. Do I care how many you found in one day, no.

"People"? I am "people" and I know other "people" who do care about other's record runs. You don't and that's find. (BTW, who got 8 out of 156 and where were they? )

I don't mean to be rude here but seriously sit back and look at it from someone else's prospective. Alot of people don't care about how many you found in one day. Alot of people don't care how many times you stopped at a red light or ran that red light. Write something unique about that hide or just TFTC and be done with it.

Here are the "people" again. No, you are not taken as rude. I have been trying to look at this from the your perspective, but I still don't see the justification of deleting a find because a log is short, long, funny, sad, stupid, redundant, boring, etc. Geez, scroll down already if you don't like it. The cache page had no ALR.

 

And it wasn't number of red lights, it was # of Ueys pulled (w or w/out compliance of local traffic laws)

BUT I think there is a lot of useful information about running red lights in that area for future power cachers. For example 1) they are caching where there are a lot of stoplights so plan route that has lots of right turns instead of left. or 2) Do not ride with muther if you have a heart condition.

That said, I'd never delete your log however unusual it was. But since you put it out there in a thread, I'd encourage you to consider your reasons for leaving a log in the first place. Is it to tell others about your trip, not specific to the particular cache? Or are you attempting to leave something that will be meaningful for the cache owner and future finders?

Not that I should have to explain my log, but: yes the reasons for the log include leaving useful information for future finders, esp those on cache runs, and yes to tell about the trip, the event, the day that includes the finding of that particular cache. It wasn't as if I used 4000 characters to describe the debris on the floor of the movie theater during Alvin and the Chipmunks. But it appears that even what one thinks is meaningful can and will be debated.

I know that you are upset that you aren't getting more support here in the forum

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not upset. And I get plenty of support from my playtex bra, I am not looking for support here. To the contrary, I find this behavior all very fascinating. Funny thing is I didn't ask for "support" I wasn't on a "side". I wanted answers.

Are you just arguing now for the sake of argument, or do you really think there is nothing problematic about your logs?

Arguing? My original post asked 6 questions. My previous post summarized the answers I found in this thread. So, although I am not fluent in "thread-ese" I do understand now that if a question is asked, 1 out of 50 replies will attempt to answer the question, the other 49 will turn it into an issue that needs debating. I'm not knocking it, just didn't expect it to turn into an Us vs Them. I wanted to know what the procedure was for deleting a log. I was so amazed at having my finds deleted, receiving an rude email from the owner giving me an ultimatum, and "few" hour time limit to "clean it up". I do appreciate the few answers that I did receive here. Whoops, you tricked me into arguing!

 

COPY + PASTER + 4000 character LOGGER AND PROUD OF IT!

[+The Leprechauns]

I've chosen to use the forums (Groundspeak and locally) to talk about big number runs. A blog is another good choice. In my logs for my single day best, I began by saying "One of 240-something caches found during a record-breaking 24 hour geocaching marathon..." and then the rest of the log was about the cache, and thanking the owner. Mentioning the record briefly is fine, I think.

 

There is a proper balance and a proper place for everything.

 

That being said, deleting logs due to length or copy/paste is still something with which I don't agree.

[+The Herd]

You forgot number7: Everyone knows it's a problem but nobody wants to look for a solution.

When I posted my suggestion and asked for thoughts I really hoped people would take it and offer their own ideas on the best ways to address the problem. Unfortunately though it seems Geocachers are extremly negative people, always looking for reasons something won't work rather than ways to make it work.

 

Um, what are CYBret, Neos2, and I -- chopped liver? We each mentioned what I thought was a pretty good solution: keep a blog and then post links to the blog in the cache logs. Is that a bad idea? If so, why?

 

Well, if one were to make a blog, on another site, and just link to it on the geocaching logs, it would certainly take away the honor of being the wordiest cacher in that cachers state...as well as knock them off the national board for the same honor. INATN.COM

 

As far as "seems nobody likes C&P's" and the "nobody likes long logs either" comments...I don't think it's an issue with those two independantly, I think it's an issue with the two together. I can honestly say that if someone had nothing unique to say about my cache, I would rather read "TFTC!" 138 times, than the log linked previously in this thread.

Edited January 1, 2008 by The Herd