Does anyone "ignore" their finds instead of logging them as finds?

[+Tequila]

This is not meant to be a flame starter. It is a legitimate question.

 

I have been thinking a lot about how to avoid the constant find comparisons people do ("I found more than you", " I am #3 in the country"......blah blah). I would really like to hide my find count as it serves no useful purpose IMHO.

 

Since that is not possible, the next possible solution is to not bother to log finds.

 

The problem with not logging your finds is it really messes up your PQ's and ability to track the caches you have found.

 

Although somewhat cumbersome, I have come up with a possible solution. Use GSAK to actually record your finds and write your logs. Then simply add the found cache to your Ignore list on gc.com. This takes it off your radar and let's your PQ's give you only unfound caches. And GSAK gives you a personal record of your caching.

 

I am looking for feedback on whether or not anyone else does something similar and if so how do they do it.

 

Not looking for "why are you doing this?" (think I explained that) but recognize this type of thread will bring out the usual silly responses.

 

Thanks in advance to those who post serious responses.

[+3doxies]

Only two things that might be less than ideal with this scenario:

 

1) your "found" caches will still show up as unfound caches on gc google maps of local caches;

 

2) Not sure if there is a size restriction on ignore bookmark lists, but if there is a limit of say 500, you would eventually be looking at managing a series of such lists.

 

Have thought about taking this exact approach before, and frankly it is item #1 in the list above that was most discouraging. Often use the gc google maps to get a quick glance of possible destinations, etc, and the clutter remaining because ignored caches still appear on them can render them less useful. If, however, you don't use the gc embedded maps much (or at all), your scenario likely would work fine for your application.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It truly seems to me that a comparison could only "bother" someone if they allow it to. I don't care how others see my stats, I am comfortable with how we're doing!

 

But to answer your question, I log my finds!

[+roziecakes]

We always log our finds. I think it's fun to have a record of what we have done on the site, and we like reading fun logs from other folks, and we'd like to think there are others out there who like to read ours. We like to make our logs interesting and fun to read.

 

I do know one guy (actually the guy who got us into caching) who doesn't log most of his finds. I'm not sure what his reasoning is behind it, but for whatever reason he just doesn't. I know he caches without paper too, so I don't know how he keeps track of them either. But anyhoo,

 

I think it's fine if people choose not to log their finds. That's just my personal opinion though, but it doesn't bother me.

 

I think the sport is and should be the kind of hobby where you get out of it what you put in, and logging your finds doesn't do it for ya, then that's okay.

 

-Rozie

[+GrnXnham]

I have been thinking a lot about how to avoid the constant find comparisons people do ("I found more than you", " I am #3 in the country"......blah blah).

 

WE'VE FOUND MORE THAN YOU!!!!

[+Tequila]

Only two things that might be less than ideal with this scenario:

 

1) your "found" caches will still show up as unfound caches on gc google maps of local caches;

 

2) Not sure if there is a size restriction on ignore bookmark lists, but if there is a limit of say 500, you would eventually be looking at managing a series of such lists.

 

Have thought about taking this exact approach before, and frankly it is item #1 in the list above that was most discouraging. Often use the gc google maps to get a quick glance of possible destinations, etc, and the clutter remaining because ignored caches still appear on them can render them less useful. If, however, you don't use the gc embedded maps much (or at all), your scenario likely would work fine for your application.

 

I have never used google maps for that purpose. So I am ok with that issue.

 

I wondered about the possible limit on an Ignore list. Multiple lists would not work because the PQ needs the option "That are not on my ignore" list to filter out the "found" caches.

 

Does anyone know if there is a limit to the number of caches you can ignore??

Edited April 20, 2009 by Tequila

[Mr.Yuck]

Only two things that might be less than ideal with this scenario:

 

1) your "found" caches will still show up as unfound caches on gc google maps of local caches;

 

2) Not sure if there is a size restriction on ignore bookmark lists, but if there is a limit of say 500, you would eventually be looking at managing a series of such lists.

 

Have thought about taking this exact approach before, and frankly it is item #1 in the list above that was most discouraging. Often use the gc google maps to get a quick glance of possible destinations, etc, and the clutter remaining because ignored caches still appear on them can render them less useful. If, however, you don't use the gc embedded maps much (or at all), your scenario likely would work fine for your application.

 

I have never used google maps for that purpose. So I am ok with that issue.

 

I wondered about the possible limit on an Ignore list. Multiple lists would not work because the PQ needs the option "That are not on my ignore" list to filter out the "found" caches.

 

Does anyone know if there is a limit to the number of caches you can ignore??

 

I'm at about 400. This came up once before, and (although I can't find the thread), some guy said he was ignoring over 1,000.

 

As far as the original question, I'm aware of a guy who stopped logging finds at about 200 caches, and has posted notes ever since, and is well over 1,000 caches found I'm sure. It was suggested to him in local forums that he ignore the finds. I'm pretty sure he did eventually start doing that, but don't quote me on it.

[+Tequila]

Thanks W.U. Ready for another B.T. Hike???

 

I have a nice PM from a very long term cacher who has been doing the Ignore thing for years. And I thought I was leading edge.

[+J-Way]

There's at least one forum regular (at least she used to be regular) who does this. She had tons of finds, then suddenly she had none after changing them all to "Notes".

 

Speaking of which, even if you don't post a "Found it" log I recommend at least posting a "Note" to the cache page. This verifies that the cache is still there, and you can still pass along the stories of your hunts for the four of us in the world who actually read such things.

[+eigengott]

I have been thinking a lot about how to avoid the constant find comparisons people do ("I found more than you", " I am #3 in the country"......blah blah).

 

I would just ignore those people.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I have logged maybe 60% of my finds. I have somewhere around 2500 logged, and maybe 2000 that I haven't logged.

 

I used to log all of them, up to ~1k, then lost interest in taking the time to log.

 

There was a lot of controversy over copy-and-paste logs and at the time I was doing a lot of team cache runs, and writing a note for each cache was a PITA, so if I pretty much quit logging them.

 

Then I led a world-record team run that was hotly debated, so I didn't log any of the 293 we found, and after that it was just easy not to go back to logging.

 

Pocket queries were popular at events for a while, and I have logged ~200 of them, so obviously my stats have no reflection on reality (just like most everyone else's!).

 

So, there are lots of caches in 28 states that have my signature in them but no online log. I know where I have been, and that's enough for me.

 

I can't say that I remember every cache, but I can usually look at a PQ and know which ones I have found, so I don't do anything to eliminate them, mostly because I usually cache with others who may not have found them.

 

My geocaching community sees me on the trails, at events, sees my name in logs, caches with me, so they pretty much know where I have been, no need for stats.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

I know at least 1 prolific cacher who stopped logging at his #1000 and then started a new account. I can't say if he logs all his finds to the new account.

I have found 2 caches here in Oregon that were logged on paper by Dave Ulmer but never logged online.

Dave the "father of geocaching" only claims 15 online finds.

[Mr.Yuck]

Thanks W.U. Ready for another B.T. Hike???

 

I have a nice PM from a very long term cacher who has been doing the Ignore thing for years. And I thought I was leading edge.

 

No!! I shant be on the next BT hike. Not that I don't think I can make it (I made the first one of course), but Saturdays are really bad for me.

 

I'll still try to find that thread. I'm thinking the ignore list is basically limitless. Oh yeah, I know the forum regular or former forum regular that J-way is talking about in the post below yours. I'm pretty sure they use the ignore method as well.

[+Tequila]

Thanks for the great and constructive feedback. I think I found the information I am seeking.

[+SkellyCA]

I would think just creating a second account would be the easiest and give you the best of both worlds.

[GOF and Bacall]

I would think just creating a second account would be the easiest and give you the best of both worlds.

 

Then you would have to try to figure out a way to reconcile the two accounts or your PQs are going to be wrong. I think that would require a premium membership on both accounts and some third party software.

[+GIDEON-X]

***CHARTER-MEMBER GIDEON-X***

Having Gone All The Way a Round The "POT" And Found The Handle (360 degrees)...

As Of This Posting (October 16 2007) I'll not Log Any More Finds To This Account!

 

Do post notes for most finds.............

[+Tequila]

I would think just creating a second account would be the easiest and give you the best of both worlds.

 

I don't see how that does anything. Just transfers the issue to a new account. And you still have the problem of filtering out the finds from the other account.

 

I have ran a test and the Ignore seems to work fine.

[+Tequila]

***CHARTER-MEMBER GIDEON-X***

Having Gone All The Way a Round The "POT" And Found The Handle (360 degrees)...

As Of This Posting (October 16 2007) I'll not Log Any More Finds To This Account!

 

Do post notes for most finds.............

 

LOL. Thank you Oh Wise One. !!!!!!! And I like you neck of the woods too.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Judging from disclosures in past threads and on some profile pages, a small but significant number of geocachers, including several who post regularly on the forum, seem to sign the paper log but choose to forego logging most or all of their finds online. And, speaking from direct experience, I can tell you with great certainty that from one to two out of ten (that is 10% to 20%) of geoachers who have signed the logbooks on long-lived wilderness caches that require significant hikes in this area of Maryland have never filed those finds online.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

<upfront>I can understand the aversion to find count comparisons.</upfront>

 

<Devil's advocate>Not logging finds is "elitist" & phony, perhaps to the point of being worse than even the worst "numbers chasers". It also deprives cache owners of feedback (ostensibly the best reason to hide caches).</Devil's advocate>

 

<whatever is worse than DA>You just realized that you're never gonna catch up and are looking for a good excuse not to log.</whatever...>

 

[+SkellyCA]

Personally, I like those little smiley guys, so not logging a find would not fill up my map with smiles

 

Isn't there a saying something like...when a smiley is created an angel gets his wings?

Edited April 21, 2009 by SkellyCA

[+CACHE KRAWLER]

deleted

Edited April 21, 2009 by CACHE KRAWLER

[+Lil Devil]

Isn't there a saying something like...when a smiley is created an angel gets his wings?

I thought it was more like... when you don't find a cache and don't log a DNF, an Angel loses a wing!

[+Tequila]

Thanks to everyone who responded with constructive feedback.

 

It seems we are starting to vary off topic.

 

If a Moderator would like to close this topic, that is fine with me. I got the info I was looking for. Thanks again.

[+currykev]

Like TheAlabamaRambler I rarely log my finds, maybe 10%.

My notes show around 2300 logged but another 25000 not logged.

[CoyoteRed]

I take a somewhat different tack. I only log those caches I deem worthy of my feedback. The criteria is fairly easy, if I'm taking more effort to log than the owner did to place the cache, it doesn't get feedback.

 

Before anyone says anything about it, I generally don't sign the log either so I can't log a find online. I can tell I'm don't like the cache early on, but will generally confirm the cache by getting it in my hand and looking at the log. Few tricky caches will get past me.

 

My ignore list is up to 516.

 

I've long been an advocate of optionally not playing the smilie game. I'd like to hide my smilie count and not allow my caches contribute to another person's public count. This way folks can properly log a find with a find log, yet not worry about playing the smilie game.

[knowschad]

I think that it is very selfish to not log your finds online. As a cache owner, those logs are my only reward for my effort. I look forward to gettting them. At the very least, post a note, as it has been suggested.

[+fsafranek]

I log them all. Not so much to run up the numbers but to know when an area has been covered. Then I can turn off my finds on the map and see those that remain. That alone is a great tool but it is only as good as the data it has to work with -- you need to log the finds to get an accurate picture.

 

I might ignore DNF but that's a different subject.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have been thinking a lot about how to avoid the constant find comparisons people do ("I found more than you", " I am #3 in the country"......blah blah). I would really like to hide my find count as it serves no useful purpose IMHO. ...

 

Ignroing stats I do find your find count useful when you have advice or an opinion on my cache. There are other factors along with find count that give useful guidance sometimes.

 

However to answer your question if you logged with a note and then ignored the cache that would seem to give the best of both worlds. The owner gets a log and knows you found the cache, you don't have to see the cache on your list again. Seems like a good compromise for the anti stats crowd who wants the benefits of finds without finds.

 

That said. If I could, I'd quite simply have my caches not be available for non loggers. That's neither simple nor easy, so you they thank those who do log for their ability to enjoy a cache and not log. Loggers carry the dead weight of the non loggers. After all I don't place a cache for the silence.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[sdarken]

To the OP... I think the easiest thing to do would be to stop comparing yourself against others. Find Counts are a bit like bank balances. I accept the fact that there will always be people that have more money than me and there will always be people have less than me.

 

In the case of Find Counts, a higher find count (from somone in your own area) usually just indicates that they have spent more time caching than you - not that they are somehow better than you. (The differences in find counts between someone with excellent finding skills and poor finding skills are pretty insignificant.) Alternatively it may just reflect the fact that you like more challenging hides and they are spending more time in parking lots with easy park-n-grabs. In either case, comparing find counts is not a very worthwhile activity.

 

I view online logs as a way for me to share my experience and thank the cache owner for placing the cache. I would encourage you to continue to log notes even if you choose not to log "Finds".

Edited April 21, 2009 by sdarken

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

This is not meant to be a flame starter. It is a legitimate question.

 

I have been thinking a lot about how to avoid the constant find comparisons people do ("I found more than you", " I am #3 in the country"......blah blah). I would really like to hide my find count as it serves no useful purpose IMHO.

 

Since that is not possible, the next possible solution is to not bother to log finds.

 

The problem with not logging your finds is it really messes up your PQ's and ability to track the caches you have found.

 

Although somewhat cumbersome, I have come up with a possible solution. Use GSAK to actually record your finds and write your logs. Then simply add the found cache to your Ignore list on gc.com. This takes it off your radar and let's your PQ's give you only unfound caches. And GSAK gives you a personal record of your caching.

 

I am looking for feedback on whether or not anyone else does something similar and if so how do they do it.

 

Not looking for "why are you doing this?" (think I explained that) but recognize this type of thread will bring out the usual silly responses.

 

Thanks in advance to those who post serious responses.

 

To answer your question, yes it will probably serve your purposes but be a bit cumbersome. Why go to all that trouble when you can simply ignore those who do the endless comparisons?

We have a small minority here who protest that they "hate" numbers and wish they were not counted but still go on 'numbers runs' and don't opt out from web sites which do all the statistical comparisons. Who is kidding who?

Just learn to live with those awful old numbers but above all celebrate them or not but don't proclaim one thing and do another. How you feel about your own numbers is your business and only your business!

Sorry for the deviation after answering your original question.

P.S. Number comparisons in the first place are stupid. Everyone geocaches differently. Some go at it alone, some go in small to large groups, some don't venture further than 1.5 terrain caches, others look for the tough caches. Bottom line, numbers don't compare because the playing field isn't level!

Edited April 21, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[Clan Riffster]

Nope. I've neer been so numbers obsessive as to worry about folks who say things like "I found more than you", " I am #3 in the country"......blah blah.

I see the find count as naught but an indicator of how many caches and/or events a person has chosen to log, not an indicator of what kind of person they are.

It seems like you're going through a heck of a lot of trouble and effort just to avoid having to deal with a miniscule portion of the caching population.

But, that's your right.

Personally, I think what you're proposing is even sillier than those boastful boors who puff their chests out when the topic of numbers comes up.

[+SD Marc]

Nope. I've neer been so numbers obsessive as to worry about folks who say things like "I found more than you", " I am #3 in the country"......blah blah.

I see the find count as naught but an indicator of how many caches and/or events a person has chosen to log, not an indicator of what kind of person they are.

It seems like you're going through a heck of a lot of trouble and effort just to avoid having to deal with a miniscule portion of the caching population.

But, that's your right.

Personally, I think what you're proposing is even sillier than those boastful boors who puff their chests out when the topic of numbers comes up.

 

I agree. Did it really become so bad you have to devise a whole method of not logging finds?

[+Tequila]

Apparently I didn't devise it. From the responses, here and through private emails, hundreds went before me.

[+Team Birdaholic]

I have been to only three events, but not once did the numbers problem come up. If you dont start the subject then its unlikely anyone else will. The more numbers you have the easier caching becomes. But no matter how many finds you have, the way out is always easier than the way in. I really dont care how many finds someone else has, but its nice to look back on my own numbers. NUMBERS - WHAT NUMBERS?

[+briansnat]

I log my finds foremost to let the owner know I found his cache. He spent the time, money and effort to hide it, so letting him know I found it is the least I can do.

 

As the OP knows, logging finds also makes it easier for me to keep track of things and filter found caches out of my PQs. So I find the easiest way to proceed is to log my finds and simply ignore anybody who would make something of my counts.

Edited April 22, 2009 by briansnat

[+WRASTRO]

I enjoy the numbers. I am proud of my 5+ years in the game and enjoy looking at info of the many cachers I have met during that time. I really don't care who has more or less finds that they may or may not have logged. It is a fun part of the game for me. To each their own. I log all my finds and my DNFs. You can play in whatever way works best for you.

[ABitChubby]

I have logged maybe 60% of my finds. I have somewhere around 2500 logged, and maybe 2000 that I haven't logged.

 

I used to log all of them, up to ~1k, then lost interest in taking the time to log.

 

There was a lot of controversy over copy-and-paste logs and at the time I was doing a lot of team cache runs, and writing a note for each cache was a PITA, so if I pretty much quit logging them.

 

Then I led a world-record team run that was hotly debated, so I didn't log any of the 293 we found, and after that it was just easy not to go back to logging.

 

Pocket queries were popular at events for a while, and I have logged ~200 of them, so obviously my stats have no reflection on reality (just like most everyone else's!).

 

So, there are lots of caches in 28 states that have my signature in them but no online log. I know where I have been, and that's enough for me.

 

I can't say that I remember every cache, but I can usually look at a PQ and know which ones I have found, so I don't do anything to eliminate them, mostly because I usually cache with others who may not have found them.

 

My geocaching community sees me on the trails, at events, sees my name in logs, caches with me, so they pretty much know where I have been, no need for stats.

I thinking loging someones find gives them chance to explain the fun they had while finding that certain cache other wise you'd just be like a robot must find next cache, next cache if you get what I mean.Like im on such a small amount, and others are on like 3k+ doesnt bother me tbh im in it for the walking and exciting finds and then the challange if I cant find the cache.

[+fly46]

I haven't posted in these forums for two or three years (literally since before the forum redesign...) but I feel the need to log in and reply to this post.

 

When I was at GeoWoodstock 2, we still had rules that allowed us to have multiple events at one time. Along with woodstock we had three different cachers have their 1K parties. I couldn't tell you even remotely how many caches those people have now, but it was cool to get to celebrate a milestone with them.

 

Aside from very random (and infrequent) coolness, let's look at this from the perspective of the cache owner.

 

I've hidden 35 caches. I put time, money and effort into each placement - even if it's just a P&G in a guard rail. The fun, for me, in hiding caches is seeing the logs that I get when somebody finds it. Yeah, any cache owner, no matter how good the cache, probably has a generic TFTC or cut and paste log somewhere. Yeah, they're boring. They probably even suck. But even the worst cache will occationally get a really cool log, and it's totally worth it just for that. I had a light pole micro between a hotel and a waffle house and one day my log said "It's been said that Nashville has a cache in every lightpole, so we lifted this one just to check, and couldn't believe we found a cache there." It was funny and it totally made that cache placement.

 

My entertainment value aside, logs tell me whether or not I need to check a cache, do maintenance or just let it be. If it hasn't been found in months, I'll go check it. After three DNFs, I go check it. If every log says "found the cache, everything was dry, nice job" then I know I'm good to go for a while.

 

If people don't log my cache online, I don't know if there are problems. Even if I checked on every cache every day, there are issues that I may never notice but a cacher who isn't that familliar with a certain area/location/spot/whatever could point out to me that I actually need to know.

 

As for your worry about the numbers, most of us don't really care about them. Sure, it's cool to be scrolling through a cache page and realize somebody's about to hit a milestone, but other than that, I'm pretty sure nobody goes up to other cachers and says "OMG, you're only at 59 caches? What a loser!"

 

Remember, we all started at zero and we all had to go up from there.

[Clan Riffster]

I went to an awesome event Sunday, and I heard someone mention words to the effect of, "I'm just a noob. I only have XX finds".

My response was, "As long as you had fun at each one, then it doesn't matter if you have 1 find or 1000".

 

OP, do whatever works for you.

[+Tequila]

I went to an awesome event Sunday, and I heard someone mention words to the effect of, "I'm just a noob. I only have XX finds".

My response was, "As long as you had fun at each one, then it doesn't matter if you have 1 find or 1000".

 

OP, do whatever works for you.

 

Great comment. Thank you.

[knowschad]

I log my finds foremost to let the owner know I found his cache. He spent the time, money and effort to hide it, so letting him know I found it is the least I can do.

 

Thank you!!!

[+Thunderbolt and Lightfoot]

I haven't posted in these forums for two or three years (literally since before the forum redesign...) but I feel the need to log in and reply to this post.

 

When I was at GeoWoodstock 2, we still had rules that allowed us to have multiple events at one time. Along with woodstock we had three different cachers have their 1K parties. I couldn't tell you even remotely how many caches those people have now, but it was cool to get to celebrate a milestone with them.

 

Aside from very random (and infrequent) coolness, let's look at this from the perspective of the cache owner.

 

I've hidden 35 caches. I put time, money and effort into each placement - even if it's just a P&G in a guard rail. The fun, for me, in hiding caches is seeing the logs that I get when somebody finds it. Yeah, any cache owner, no matter how good the cache, probably has a generic TFTC or cut and paste log somewhere. Yeah, they're boring. They probably even suck. But even the worst cache will occationally get a really cool log, and it's totally worth it just for that. I had a light pole micro between a hotel and a waffle house and one day my log said "It's been said that Nashville has a cache in every lightpole, so we lifted this one just to check, and couldn't believe we found a cache there." It was funny and it totally made that cache placement.

 

My entertainment value aside, logs tell me whether or not I need to check a cache, do maintenance or just let it be. If it hasn't been found in months, I'll go check it. After three DNFs, I go check it. If every log says "found the cache, everything was dry, nice job" then I know I'm good to go for a while.

 

If people don't log my cache online, I don't know if there are problems. Even if I checked on every cache every day, there are issues that I may never notice but a cacher who isn't that familliar with a certain area/location/spot/whatever could point out to me that I actually need to know.

 

As for your worry about the numbers, most of us don't really care about them. Sure, it's cool to be scrolling through a cache page and realize somebody's about to hit a milestone, but other than that, I'm pretty sure nobody goes up to other cachers and says "OMG, you're only at 59 caches? What a loser!"

 

Remember, we all started at zero and we all had to go up from there.

 

Best post of the Thread!..This is exactly why I do log all of our finds, not because the numbers matter so much. I just look at it as a courtesy to the cache owner.

[knowschad]

If I ever find a name in one of my logbooks but don't see an online log by the same person, I'm erasing their name from the logbook.!

 

 

I love that some of the earlier posters in this thread brag about how many caches they now have on their ignore list, too. Maybe GSAK can add those to their stats macro?

Edited April 22, 2009 by knowschad

[+currykev]

If I ever find a name in one of my logbooks but don't see an online log by the same person, I'm erasing their name from the logbook.!

 

 

I love that some of the earlier posters in this thread brag about how many caches they now have on their ignore list, too. Maybe GSAK can add those to their stats macro?

 

I too will spend hours checking one against the other.

 

I was also hoping someone would question my "brag" (blatant lie) above.

[Mr.Yuck]

If I ever find a name in one of my logbooks but don't see an online log by the same person, I'm erasing their name from the logbook.!

 

 

I love that some of the earlier posters in this thread brag about how many caches they now have on their ignore list, too. Maybe GSAK can add those to their stats macro?

 

Glad I could amuse you. But speaking for myself, I was just mentioning it because the question was asked if there was a limit on the number of caches you can have on the ignore list. I'd love to have that on my stats macro though.

 

And yes, I've always been a person who logs my finds online, because that's the way the website works. Those caches then disappear from your searches. I've heard many a number ho' make the silly, overly simplistic argument, "if you're not about the numbers, then stop logging online".

[+StaticTank]

I have been thinking a lot about how to avoid the constant find comparisons people do ("I found more than you", " I am #3 in the country"......blah blah).

 

I would just ignore those people.

I AGREE!

 

Sounds like you are doing more work to hide your finds that just going out to find caches and having fun. Numbers are important, but only how they realate to yourself and how you interpret them.

 

StaticTank

[+GroveBird]

I have been thinking a lot about how to avoid the constant find comparisons people do ("I found more than you", " I am #3 in the country"......blah blah).

 

I would just ignore those people.

I AGREE!

 

Sounds like you are doing more work to hide your finds that just going out to find caches and having fun. Numbers are important, but only how they realate to yourself and how you interpret them.

 

StaticTank

 

Exactly. Play how you want, play fair, and dont worry about everyone else.

[CoyoteRed]

If I ever find a name in one of my logbooks but don't see an online log by the same person, I'm erasing their name from the logbook.!

If you see an online log, but not the corresponding signature in the physical log, do you add it?

 

I love that some of the earlier posters in this thread brag about how many caches they now have on their ignore list, too.

I didn't search for any braggarts, but I listed the size of mine to illustrate the ignore list does, in fact, go over 500 caches.