Logbook only attribute

[+L0ne.R]

From: Should Groundspeak separate Micros/Nanos

 

... so let's say that Groundspeak creates a new "Log Only" type, since caches that do not contain trade items are "something of a different type".

 

Should they create a single "Log Only" type? Or should they create multiple "Log Only", "Log Only Multi", "Log Only Mystery/Puzzle", and "Log Only Letterbox Hybrid" types?

 

Can someone submit a "Log Only" cache with a size other than micro?

 

If I leave a small trade item in a "Log Only" cache, should the owner change it to a Traditional?

 

If creating a "type" doesn't work then how about a "Log Only" attribute? A new attribute would be easy to implement, not confusing, and filter-able.

 

BTW, I don't consider a Letterbox Hybrid to be log-only, there is an exchange. Although the stamp remains with the box - you leave a stamp image (your signature stamp) and take a stamp image (the box's stamp).

 

A log only attribute makes more sense than a cache type. Bring it up in the website forum.

 

So I've moved this over to the website forum and hope I can get some feedback from TPTB regarding a "logbook-only" attribute.

 

I filter out micros in hopes of removing logbook-only caches. But more and more I'm finding that caches marked small include only a microlog (the kind with a table full of about 200 tiny cells with just enough room for a trailname and date) and the cache description says there's no room for tradables or a pencil. 2 of the 4 caches I found today were like this. I want to filter out these types of caches. I think a "logbook-only" attribute could help.

[+L0ne.R]

Could those in charge delete this dup/triplicate new topic. My computer is acting up.

[GOF and Bacall]

Could those in charge delete this dup/triplicate new topic. My computer is acting up.

 

I suspect that it isn't your computer. The forums have known issues. That is all I'll say on that at this time.

 

On the topic at hand ai suspect that I don't need to add my positive feedback at this time.

[+StarBrand]

Sort of by definition, I expect 90% or more of anything classified as micro to contain nothing more than a logbook - no matter the subsize. So the attribute really doesn't add much (for me).

[+L0ne.R]

Sort of by definition, I expect 90% or more of anything classified as micro to contain nothing more than a logbook - no matter the subsize. So the attribute really doesn't add much (for me).

 

But it's the caches marked as small that are the problems.

 

I found 4 caches today. All marked as small. 2 of the 4 said in the clues... "Cache is a small camoed container with just a log. You will need your own pen or pencil." Which I didn't realize until I was already at the cache site, found the cache and read the clues -- I know what some will say, cachers should read every cache description and a few logs for each cache before heading out on an expedition, those that don't only have themselves to blame.

 

I filter out micros because after 7+ years of caching, the log-only caches are really starting to spoil my caching experience. So to decrease my frustration I filter out micros. It's been my experience in the last couple of months that about 1/3 of the small caches are actually pseudo-micros -- a micro logsheet placed in a container that's bigger than a film canister. Most don't even bother putting a small pencil inside. If I filter out small caches I'm going to miss out on the 2/3 of small caches that are true to the definition - tradable items and they usually contain a logbook that is large enough for signature stamps (micro logsheets only give you enough room to write and date and trailname in tiny print).

 

I want to be able to filter out logbook-only types of caches, whether they are micro or small (I have never seen a logbook-only cache in a regular or large size container - if it ever happens I'd like to filter those out too).

[+gof1]

I can see the use in a log only attribute. I'm casting my vote, as useless as it is, in favor of said attribute. That said I would be surprised to see it. I'm also not sure how long it would take for such an attribute to show a positive effect on your situation. There are a lot of caches out there that do not have that attribute and are not likely to see the owner set the attribute once/if it becomes available. Mind you I still think it is a good idea. It has the potential to be a useful tool in the future.

[+niraD]

I filter out micros because after 7+ years of caching, the log-only caches are really starting to spoil my caching experience. So to decrease my frustration I filter out micros. It's been my experience in the last couple of months that about 1/3 of the small caches are actually pseudo-micros -- a micro logsheet placed in a container that's bigger than a film canister. Most don't even bother putting a small pencil inside. If I filter out small caches I'm going to miss out on the 2/3 of small caches that are true to the definition - tradable items and they usually contain a logbook that is large enough for signature stamps (micro logsheets only give you enough room to write and date and trailname in tiny print).

I'm confused. Do you dislike caches with log sheets that don't have enough room for signature stamps, or do you dislike caches without trade items?

 

To me, "log only" means there are no trade items, and there is no room for trade items. But it sounds like your objection is to log sheets that don't provide room for a signature stamp, which is something different.

 

FWIW, I've found caches with trade items, but with only a log sheet. And I've found caches with log books with plenty of room for signature stamps, short essays, etc., but with no room for trade items.

[+Team Shiney]

---snip---

If creating a "type" doesn't work then how about a "Log Only" attribute? A new attribute would be easy to implement, not confusing, and filter-able.

 

I filter out micros in hopes of removing logbook-only caches. But more and more I'm finding that caches marked small include only a microlog (the kind with a table full of about 200 tiny cells with just enough room for a trailname and date) and the cache description says there's no room for tradables or a pencil. 2 of the 4 caches I found today were like this. I want to filter out these types of caches. I think a "logbook-only" attribute could help.

I have seen several other complaints about smalls becoming the new micro. I wonder how wide spread this is becoming. What I am guessing is hiders want their caches found by those of us that are avoiding micros more. Any reading of these forums will show you the bad rap that micros are getting. Thus smalls that have small logs and no effort at swag. I understand your frustration.

 

When I find a small in this aria likely there is no pen or pencil. Swag may be a army man and an eraser. Room for a coin. The log books are often tiny rather then "small". You mention that it was described in the hint or description that it was a log only. This is a failure in by the reviewers. The cache does not fit the cache type. If not by the letter then by intention. If course anyone can change the cache after it is published.

 

I will vote for the "logbook-only" attribute. Getting people to use it will be another issue.

[+StarBrand]

Sort of by definition, I expect 90% or more of anything classified as micro to contain nothing more than a logbook - no matter the subsize. So the attribute really doesn't add much (for me).

 

But it's the caches marked as small that are the problems.

 

I found 4 caches today. All marked as small. 2 of the 4 said in the clues... "Cache is a small camoed container with just a log. You will need your own pen or pencil." Which I didn't realize until I was already at the cache site, found the cache and read the clues -- I know what some will say, cachers should read every cache description and a few logs for each cache before heading out on an expedition, those that don't only have themselves to blame.

 

I filter out micros because after 7+ years of caching, the log-only caches are really starting to spoil my caching experience. So to decrease my frustration I filter out micros. It's been my experience in the last couple of months that about 1/3 of the small caches are actually pseudo-micros -- a micro logsheet placed in a container that's bigger than a film canister. Most don't even bother putting a small pencil inside. If I filter out small caches I'm going to miss out on the 2/3 of small caches that are true to the definition - tradable items and they usually contain a logbook that is large enough for signature stamps (micro logsheets only give you enough room to write and date and trailname in tiny print).

 

I want to be able to filter out logbook-only types of caches, whether they are micro or small (I have never seen a logbook-only cache in a regular or large size container - if it ever happens I'd like to filter those out too).

Thats another problem entirely.

 

I would agree with your figures - looking back over the past 5 months or so about 1/3 of the smalls I found should have been sized as micro. I said as much in my find logs on them. Lets not add to the problem by tossing in an attribute that sort of excuses picking the wrong size.

 

I spent 4 trips and over 1.5 hours recently searching for a "small" that turned out to be a fake bolt cache on a guardrail. I had searched the guardrail throughly and had tossed it out because there was nowhere a small could have been. I was searching the areas downhill in thick tall grass. My wife spotted the cache when I took her out to help me before she read it was a small. Your attribute would not have helped as there were small polished stones and some teeny forign coin in the bolt that was smaller than a 35mm film can.

[+L0ne.R]

Just wanted to add that it's not my idea but rather andynshe's idea in the previous Micro/Nano topic. I, of course, like the idea.

[+L0ne.R]

I would agree with your figures - looking back over the past 5 months or so about 1/3 of the smalls I found should have been sized as micro. I said as much in my find logs on them. Lets not add to the problem by tossing in an attribute that sort of excuses picking the wrong size.

 

Part of the problem is that micro is not a type, it's a size. So if someone places a logbook-only cache in a small (let's say a small lock n lock) container then technically they are correct, the log is in a small, not micro, container and technically can be listed as a small container. Should a reviewer insist that a logbook-only cache get listed as a micro-size when it actually isn't? Is micro a size or a type? From the previous forum topic most posters said a micro is a size not a type.

 

The attribute could help. Hopefully the reviewer and finder peer-pressure could persuade most planters of these types of caches to use the attribute.

[+palmetto]

Should a reviewer insist that a logbook-only cache get listed as a micro-size when it actually isn't? Is micro a size or a type?

 

Reviewers have no latitude to "insist" on anything relating to the selection of cache size. It's not a guidelines issue.

Micro is a size.

 

I'm much more interested in spending my time convincing cache owners that Terrain 1 really ought to something like wheelchair accessible, and that boat access caches aren't Terrain 2. But neither of those is a guidelines issue, so I comment, and publish. I hope they edit their caches post publication.

 

Because the default on cache size is "not listed" which I believe shows up as Unknown, I'll sometimes point out to cache owners that they haven't selected a size, and that some cachers will filter out their hide, based on the assumption that it is a micro cache. I don't do this often, generally only if something in the description suggests trading sized cache to me. Otherwise I'm mute on the subject of cache size.

[+StarBrand]

I would agree with your figures - looking back over the past 5 months or so about 1/3 of the smalls I found should have been sized as micro. I said as much in my find logs on them. Lets not add to the problem by tossing in an attribute that sort of excuses picking the wrong size.

 

Part of the problem is that micro is not a type, it's a size. So if someone places a logbook-only cache in a small (let's say a small lock n lock) container then technically they are correct, the log is in a small, not micro, container and technically can be listed as a small container. Should a reviewer insist that a logbook-only cache get listed as a micro-size when it actually isn't? Is micro a size or a type? From the previous forum topic most posters said a micro is a size not a type.

 

The attribute could help. Hopefully the reviewer and finder peer-pressure could persuade most planters of these types of caches to use the attribute.

Just because the original cache hider didn't leave any swag doesn't mean I can't leave some later - I have often done so on empty caches with room (micro, small, regular and even 1 large!.)

[+Semper Questio]

I certainly would not be against a 'log only' attribute, but it's benefit would be limited. Limited to those hiders that actually use it properly. When I was confined to a wheelchair I tried using the associated attributes to find caches that I could do and I found it to be an almost completely fruitless exercise. Too many hiders don't use the attributes when they should and there are some out there that use them incorrectly (some, I swear, intentionally) for using attributes as a reliable selection criteria. I've gotten so that I just ignore them.

[+obsidianspider]

Calling something a log only cache would ultimately prove useless, assuming that your beef is with larger containers.

 

While a micro or nano may only be large enough to fit a log book, a larger cache (small, regular, etc.) could be marked as "log only" and then end up with a bunch of stuff in it as people may leave things when they find the cache. You may also have a cache that ends up being a "log only" cache, because people take all of the items out of it. I've seen plenty of cache logs where people note that they took something, but didn't leave anything in it's place. That's another problem unto itself, but would still render the "log only" attribute useless.

 

The attribute would do nothing for me as the fun is in the search, not the crappy Happy Meal toys that are inside the container.

Edited May 15, 2009 by obsidianspider

[Skippermark]

If people can't it right now and are calling micros small (I've noticed this too in places) how can we expect them to properly add an attribute to a cache listing?

[Mushtang]

I filter out micros because after 7+ years of caching, the log-only caches are really starting to spoil my caching experience. So to decrease my frustration I filter out micros. It's been my experience in the last couple of months that about 1/3 of the small caches are actually pseudo-micros

So filter out the small size caches too. You'll still have more caches than you'll ever be able to find, and you'll avoid almost all of the caches that you dislike.

 

If I filter out small caches I'm going to miss out on the 2/3 of small caches that are true to the definition

So? Don't fret about what you're filtering out, concentrate on the HUGE number of caches that you'll still have included in your PQ, and your increased enjoyment of the game.

 

Isn't that better?

[GOF and Bacall]

I filter out micros because after 7+ years of caching, the log-only caches are really starting to spoil my caching experience. So to decrease my frustration I filter out micros. It's been my experience in the last couple of months that about 1/3 of the small caches are actually pseudo-micros

So filter out the small size caches too. You'll still have more caches than you'll ever be able to find, and you'll avoid almost all of the caches that you dislike.

 

If I filter out small caches I'm going to miss out on the 2/3 of small caches that are true to the definition

So? Don't fret about what you're filtering out, concentrate on the HUGE number of caches that you'll still have included in your PQ, and your increased enjoyment of the game.

 

Isn't that better?

 

Yup, better. But still just a work around.

 

I see no harm and no great difficulty to adding an attribute for log only caches. It may help some users to maximize there geocaching experience. Is there something I missed? Some reason that it is a bad idea? A problem with implementing it?

[+L0ne.R]

Yup, better. But still just a work around.

 

I see no harm and no great difficulty to adding an attribute for log only caches. It may help some users to maximize there geocaching experience. Is there something I missed? Some reason that it is a bad idea? A problem with implementing it?

Thank you GOF & Bacall. Exactly.

[+PhxChem]

If people can't it right now and are calling micros small (I've noticed this too in places) how can we expect them to properly add an attribute to a cache listing?

 

Especially a voluntary attribute...

 

I will say that I've also noticed the small/micro shift. I don't think it's intentional, I just think if someone just learning fins a couple of keyholders and the hider listed them small, they'll think that's what small means.

 

Not to make it more complicated, but why aren't there pictures of common cache containers with their associated size somewhere on this site in an conspicuous place? Is it because....well, no one has the temerity to designate "official" sizes?

 

While size is not an exact science, it may help those just starting.

[+palmetto]

why aren't there pictures of common cache containers with their associated size somewhere on this site in an conspicuous place? Is it because....well, no one has the temerity to designate "official" sizes?

 

I can't speak to temerity, but cache sizes are defined directly in the listing guidelines

cache sizes

 

and also in the Knowledgebase, Containers Explained with pictures.

Edited May 18, 2009 by palmetto