Jump to content

TNLN, TFTC.


thehoomer

Recommended Posts

Are you talking people who only ever write that regardless of the cache, or who write that for 37 of a 38-cache loop and then write a full log on the 38th?

To be honest, both. PT's require a huge amount of planning, walking, research and maintenance, we feel that every cache deserves a separate log, even if its only 1 sentence.

Link to comment

If I like your cache I will give it a good write up. I deliberately write lots on a really good cache.

If it was pants you will get a 2 word respose from me. If it's really bad, I simply write 'found it' - I'm not going to thank anyone for hiding a really bad cache!

Simple. And I'm not going to apologise for it! :blink::D:D

Link to comment

I usually put both at the end of my logs, unless the cache is a nano. I also usually write a little bit about my experience, or sometimes lots, depending on the type of cache and whether anything of note occurred at the time. Whether this is of interest to the cache-setter or merely a similar comment to that of previously-visiting cachers I don't know, but at least I try.

 

I've only set one cache so far, but I've had different comments I think from everyone, which is encouraging. I intend to set others anyway, but interesting comments still add to the enthusiasm.

 

:blink:

Link to comment

Are you talking people who only ever write that regardless of the cache, or who write that for 37 of a 38-cache loop and then write a full log on the 38th?

To be honest, both. PT's require a huge amount of planning, walking, research and maintenance, we feel that every cache deserves a separate log, even if its only 1 sentence.

 

we own a 34 cache loop, and I'm happy with quick cut and paste logs for almost all of the caches. I like to see an individual log on the end (or the beginning, if you prefer!) and also on one or two of the caches which are VERY different. One of them is so unusual that a 'quick easy find' type log prompts us to go and check if it was really found!

 

Obviously - individual logs are nice, and we love reading them (especially Doc Solly's!) but we don't expect them!

 

Dave

Link to comment

A quick question......

Would those cachers who can only stretch to, 'TNLN, TFTC' as a cut & paste log, ever bother setting caches themselves if these 8 letters were all they ever got to read from fellow cachers?

Just wondering.

 

Consider the cache finder maybe Dyslexic and not comfortable typing logs - a short log isn't great, but is better than no log at all. TFTC does indicate they appreciate your efforts in setting a cache. I know some folks consider a simple "Found it" to be a protest log, but again for similiar reasons, this is something that is not always safe to assume.

 

Jon

Link to comment

When doing a PT (Power Trail/large loop of caches) it's sometimes impossible to recall one micro in an ivy covered tree from another. When lots of caches in a series are virtually identical, and virtually forgettable, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable that the logs which get left for them suffer the same problem. I try to avoid it myself, but when you've 70+ logs to do, and limited time to do them... :blink:

Link to comment

I've never written a TNLN TFTC type log, in fact just had a look and the shorted I have written in six words, I haven't placed a cache of my own yet either :blink: ... plans are afoot though to do so!

 

In my opinion cache setters take time and trouble and spend money in setting caches, and I am appreciative of every single cache, and I feel they deserve something back. On a long route, I will often copy and paste an opening paragraph, and then add a different sentence or two afterwards, even if it is just something like 'this was an easy find, co-ordinates spot on'.

Link to comment

Are you talking people who only ever write that regardless of the cache, or who write that for 37 of a 38-cache loop and then write a full log on the 38th?

To be honest, both. PT's require a huge amount of planning, walking, research and maintenance, we feel that every cache deserves a separate log, even if its only 1 sentence.

 

I agree with what Simply Paul says, so many are so similar that while it's great to find them all it often just isn't practical to write a full appraisal of each and every one.

 

I recently did a 34-cache loop - most of the logs I wrote were little more than "found it" with the exception of five. One was in need of some TLC, another was particularly memorable, and then I wrote a much more detailed log detailing what I'd thought of the entire loop on the last log I wrote. The other two were different because I didn't find them...

 

What's the difference between a copy-and-pasted sentence and a copy-and-paste "TNLN, TFTC"?

Link to comment

Hi

Some and some!

i dont think i have only written TNLN SL TFTC in any but have got close a few times!

i have however done the cut and paste and added a line or 2 different for each while on a trail and then a better log at the end.

From experience of having a series myself, i have tried to make the logs as interesting as possible, however it does sometimes come down to how much time i have to log the finds.

However there are a lot of cachers who seem to be only able to write short initialed logs.

this can be frustrating for the setter, but at least you know the cache has been visited, but it is always nice to get a decent log where some one has appreciated the work that went into the cache.

:blink:

Link to comment

Trails can be fun to do, but in my experience, quite often it's the trail itself that's the fun thing, not the individual cache, which may not stand up on it's own were it not for being part of the loop. Thus the logs I write often get confusing as to which cache it was I am writing about. I always try and write a decent log, but on a few of the trails I've done (and enjoyed), the actual individual hides have been difficult to differentiate between so often having Memory Map open and visualising which one is which as you log them helps, or even the odd word added from the Cachemate found log may jog a memory.

 

J

Link to comment

QUite often do a simple

<Quick easy find, (note any swaps or TB in/out)TFTC>

when we are doing a series walk unless the cache is something really clever or imaganative.

I then spend a while composing a good or mediocre (quality dependant) write up on the page for the final/bonus cache so as I can show my appreciation (or otherwise) for the effort that the cache setter has gone to in giving us a good walk.

If it is a single cache that is really pointless then yes I might just do a TNLNSL which would show my dissapointment.

Link to comment

I wonder how many cache owners read all 34 logs in detail when they come through in one go by email, especially if there are 2/3 people caching together?

 

:D

I do

After a good weekend, i have received 120 or so logs from my series of 30 which could have come from 6 or so caching teams.

Sometimes i even send an email to the cachers who have expressed an interest in the series and have gleaned some enjoyment from them.

Its always nice to get possative feedback :blink:

Link to comment

I wonder how many cache owners read all 34 logs in detail when they come through in one go by email, especially if there are 2/3 people caching together?

 

:D

I do too, even although I don't own any power trails. For my first few years of caching I watched every cache in Edinburgh and read every single log that got made, once it got to watching over 200 caches I realised I never had the time to read so many emails, so I now only watch a very select few and read all of them including those for my own caches. I also open each and every log up to see if pictures have been posted. :blink:

Link to comment

I do power Trails and try and save a complete log forhte last one, the others if and when. I have also gone wrong one Cache Trail of 35mm's in woods and complained on each cache it couldof been bigger except the one good hide for a 35mm Canister.

 

As for TFTC must admit I am guilty on caches that are not to my taste. My worst insult is "A cache for the numbers not for the location".

 

Gerrit

Link to comment

QUite often do a simple

<Quick easy find, (note any swaps or TB in/out)TFTC>

when we are doing a series walk unless the cache is something really clever or imaganative.

I then spend a while composing a good or mediocre (quality dependant) write up on the page for the final/bonus cache so as I can show my appreciation (or otherwise) for the effort that the cache setter has gone to in giving us a good walk.

If it is a single cache that is really pointless then yes I might just do a TNLNSL which would show my dissapointment.

I agree with quite a lot of what has been said but I’m still of the opinion that we should all try a bit harder with logs. It may not be the case but I believe that quality breeds quality. If we make our logs a little more interesting than 8 letters, it may well encourage caches to be hidden with a bit more thought/ingenuity too.

Just to refresh, my original question was, 'Do you think that people would carry on setting caches if all they ever got to read was, TNLN, TFTC’ on thier own hides? I’m pretty certain that the answer would be, 'no'.

We found a cache recently and we didn’t agree with its location, in our opinion, it was (potentially) putting lives at risk. So, we posted a note on the page instead of logging it as a find. It seems hypocritical to me to openly slate a cache and then still have the brass neck to claim it as a find. I’m certain that the caches which have room for improvement would be addressed by the setter more speedily, if there were notes posted on the page (a mini protest nudge) rather than people simply logging the find and then complaining or merely ‘negatively’ mentioning the size/location/co ords of their cache. Lets face it, the future of the game is in our own hands (to a degree) and I just feel that we are heading in the wrong direction if we want to see improvements.

Link to comment

Being a single dad with infrequent breaks I often have my 2½ year old son with me who demands a lot of my attention. I either log finds on route via my mobile or risk mixing up or forgetting to log the cache entirely by the time he's gone to bed. Of course, detailed extensive logs aren't always practical on a mobile so mine tend to be fairly short.

 

I've thought about editing the logs when junior's asleep but often I'm too tired. Not having transport means we have a tiring day and try to find as many as we can when we go out. It's no reflection on the cache itself or the cache owner, it's just a matter of time and energy.

 

I've given serious thought to placing a few caches about but the hard part is finding the right location. Sure I could place caches for the numbers rather than the location but it doesn't exactly fit with the nature of the sport.

Link to comment

Being a single dad with infrequent breaks I often have my 2½ year old son with me who demands a lot of my attention. I either log finds on route via my mobile or risk mixing up or forgetting to log the cache entirely by the time he's gone to bed. Of course, detailed extensive logs aren't always practical on a mobile so mine tend to be fairly short.

 

I've thought about editing the logs when junior's asleep but often I'm too tired. Not having transport means we have a tiring day and try to find as many as we can when we go out. It's no reflection on the cache itself or the cache owner, it's just a matter of time and energy.

 

I've given serious thought to placing a few caches about but the hard part is finding the right location. Sure I could place caches for the numbers rather than the location but it doesn't exactly fit with the nature of the sport.

I fully understand that not everyone has time to write lengthy logs and that also, some cachers may be limited in ability in some way but surely, the majority of us have enough time to write more than 8 letters? Im not saying that Thehoomer's logs are perfect, far from it. In many instances, it has been no more than a sentence, we have only ever used C&P once and I’ve regretted it ever since. We make a simple note for every cache we find (usually just a word to jog my memory) and then the log is easy to write. Thehoomer are used for PAF very frequently and if all I ever wrote was TNLN, TFTC, I would never be able to help anyone because I would never remember which cache it was.

 

I guess a good or poor log is a matter of opinion.

Link to comment

A quick question......

Would those cachers who can only stretch to, 'TNLN, TFTC' as a cut & paste log, ever bother setting caches themselves if these 8 letters were all they ever got to read from fellow cachers?

Just wondering.

 

We're not the busisest cahers with less than 100 finds and one cache placed. however we are planning anothe cache when we get to 100 finds and for me it has nothing to do with online logs. It will be placed for others to visit and enjoy, whether they log online or not is of little consequence. Life is too short and too busy to waste it waitingh for a pat on the back from others.

Link to comment

A quick question......

Would those cachers who can only stretch to, 'TNLN, TFTC' as a cut & paste log, ever bother setting caches themselves if these 8 letters were all they ever got to read from fellow cachers?

Just wondering.

 

We're not the busisest cahers with less than 100 finds and one cache placed. however we are planning anothe cache when we get to 100 finds and for me it has nothing to do with online logs. It will be placed for others to visit and enjoy, whether they log online or not is of little consequence. Life is too short and too busy to waste it waitingh for a pat on the back from others.

Not sure I quite understand that. If you arent concerned with people logging it as a find, how would you ever know it was being found? :blink: Moreover, logging your find is all part of the game, why else would we have the facility to enable this?

Oh and we arent after a 'pat on the back' we just feel that ALL (not just ours) caches deserve more than 8 letters as a log. :D

Link to comment

A quick question......

Would those cachers who can only stretch to, 'TNLN, TFTC' as a cut & paste log, ever bother setting caches themselves if these 8 letters were all they ever got to read from fellow cachers?

Just wondering.

 

We're not the busisest cahers with less than 100 finds and one cache placed. however we are planning anothe cache when we get to 100 finds and for me it has nothing to do with online logs. It will be placed for others to visit and enjoy, whether they log online or not is of little consequence. Life is too short and too busy to waste it waitingh for a pat on the back from others.

Not sure I quite understand that. If you arent concerned with people logging it as a find, how would you ever know it was being found? :blink: Moreover, logging your find is all part of the game, why else would we have the facility to enable this?

Oh and we arent after a 'pat on the back' we just feel that ALL (not just ours) caches deserve more than 8 letters as a log. :D

 

Surely it's easy enough to understand. We hunt for ourselves and hide for others, a hide should be as good as possible but it's up to the other cachers out there to make up their mind whether they visit or not. We're not going to be upset if they don't. The online log is of little importance to us. Some log, some don't log and some leave shorter logs than others. If we ever get to worrying that there is a problem with a cache we'll quite simply go and check for ourselves.

 

Why post 8 letters or more, if it's not as a pat on the back or thank you to the cache placer?

 

Why did you ask the question if you weren't willing to think a bit in order understand the view of anyone who holds a view that differs from your own?

Link to comment

A quick question......

Would those cachers who can only stretch to, 'TNLN, TFTC' as a cut & paste log, ever bother setting caches themselves if these 8 letters were all they ever got to read from fellow cachers?

Just wondering.

 

We're not the busisest cahers with less than 100 finds and one cache placed. however we are planning anothe cache when we get to 100 finds and for me it has nothing to do with online logs. It will be placed for others to visit and enjoy, whether they log online or not is of little consequence. Life is too short and too busy to waste it waitingh for a pat on the back from others.

Not sure I quite understand that. If you arent concerned with people logging it as a find, how would you ever know it was being found? :D Moreover, logging your find is all part of the game, why else would we have the facility to enable this?

Oh and we arent after a 'pat on the back' we just feel that ALL (not just ours) caches deserve more than 8 letters as a log. :D

 

Surely it's easy enough to understand. We hunt for ourselves and hide for others, a hide should be as good as possible but it's up to the other cachers out there to make up their mind whether they visit or not. We're not going to be upset if they don't. The online log is of little importance to us. Some log, some don't log and some leave shorter logs than others. If we ever get to worrying that there is a problem with a cache we'll quite simply go and check for ourselves.

 

Why post 8 letters or more, if it's not as a pat on the back or thank you to the cache placer?

 

Why did you ask the question if you weren't willing to think a bit in order understand the view of anyone who holds a view that differs from your own?

:blink: Everyone, including you, has made some very valid points which we have taken on board. You originally said that ' to log online or not is of little consequence' to you. THAT was the part I didn’t understand. The cache Logging facility is there for many reasons, feedback, container status and indeed, whether the cache is present or not! I do understand your views and 'think a bit' about them, if you want to set caches and not be concerned if they ever get logged, I fear you are in a minority but then, we are all different aren’t we? Thanks for your valuable input :D .

Link to comment

QUite often do a simple

<Quick easy find, (note any swaps or TB in/out)TFTC>

when we are doing a series walk unless the cache is something really clever or imaganative.

I then spend a while composing a good or mediocre (quality dependant) write up on the page for the final/bonus cache so as I can show my appreciation (or otherwise) for the effort that the cache setter has gone to in giving us a good walk.

If it is a single cache that is really pointless then yes I might just do a TNLNSL which would show my dissapointment.

I agree with quite a lot of what has been said but I’m still of the opinion that we should all try a bit harder with logs. It may not be the case but I believe that quality breeds quality. If we make our logs a little more interesting than 8 letters, it may well encourage caches to be hidden with a bit more thought/ingenuity too.

Just to refresh, my original question was, 'Do you think that people would carry on setting caches if all they ever got to read was, TNLN, TFTC’ on thier own hides? I’m pretty certain that the answer would be, 'no'.

We found a cache recently and we didn’t agree with its location, in our opinion, it was (potentially) putting lives at risk. So, we posted a note on the page instead of logging it as a find. It seems hypocritical to me to openly slate a cache and then still have the brass neck to claim it as a find. I’m certain that the caches which have room for improvement would be addressed by the setter more speedily, if there were notes posted on the page (a mini protest nudge) rather than people simply logging the find and then complaining or merely ‘negatively’ mentioning the size/location/co ords of their cache. Lets face it, the future of the game is in our own hands (to a degree) and I just feel that we are heading in the wrong direction if we want to see improvements.

 

Not sure why you refer to the "brass neck" of claiming a find when you found the cache. It seems to me to make more sense to say that you DID find the cache but considered it hazardous than to suggest you didn't get it but thought it was hazardous. The fact you did find the cache shows that you did what was necessary to get to it so can comment from experience.

 

It's the difference between "that climb looks dangerous" and "climbed up, wow, what a hairy ascent, don't do this if you're afraid of heights"

Link to comment

QUite often do a simple

<Quick easy find, (note any swaps or TB in/out)TFTC>

when we are doing a series walk unless the cache is something really clever or imaganative.

I then spend a while composing a good or mediocre (quality dependant) write up on the page for the final/bonus cache so as I can show my appreciation (or otherwise) for the effort that the cache setter has gone to in giving us a good walk.

If it is a single cache that is really pointless then yes I might just do a TNLNSL which would show my dissapointment.

I agree with quite a lot of what has been said but I’m still of the opinion that we should all try a bit harder with logs. It may not be the case but I believe that quality breeds quality. If we make our logs a little more interesting than 8 letters, it may well encourage caches to be hidden with a bit more thought/ingenuity too.

Just to refresh, my original question was, 'Do you think that people would carry on setting caches if all they ever got to read was, TNLN, TFTC’ on thier own hides? I’m pretty certain that the answer would be, 'no'.

We found a cache recently and we didn’t agree with its location, in our opinion, it was (potentially) putting lives at risk. So, we posted a note on the page instead of logging it as a find. It seems hypocritical to me to openly slate a cache and then still have the brass neck to claim it as a find. I’m certain that the caches which have room for improvement would be addressed by the setter more speedily, if there were notes posted on the page (a mini protest nudge) rather than people simply logging the find and then complaining or merely ‘negatively’ mentioning the size/location/co ords of their cache. Lets face it, the future of the game is in our own hands (to a degree) and I just feel that we are heading in the wrong direction if we want to see improvements.

 

Not sure why you refer to the "brass neck" of claiming a find when you found the cache. It seems to me to make more sense to say that you DID find the cache but considered it hazardous than to suggest you didn't get it but thought it was hazardous. The fact you did find the cache shows that you did what was necessary to get to it so can comment from experience.

 

It's the difference between "that climb looks dangerous" and "climbed up, wow, what a hairy ascent, don't do this if you're afraid of heights"

Yes, I can see where you are coming from with that. The problem (in our eyes) with this particular cache was that it wasn’t hazardous to us or (hopefully) future cachers but hazardous to the person drowning in the lake, the same person who cannot be thrown the lifebelt because it has become stuck in its housing due to tampering! Apart from anything else, we are certain the cache in question contravened the guidelines (sent the setter an e mail to this end). We wanted it known that we didn’t agree with the hide and logging it as a find would be condoning its existence. As I said before....’WE’ (that means, personally…..us, Thehoomer), feel it is hypocritical to criticize a cache and then log it as a find. You must do what you feel is right in your own case.

Link to comment

’WE’ (that means, personally…..us, Thehoomer), feel it is hypocritical to criticize a cache and then log it as a find. You must do what you feel is right in your own case.

If you find it you can log it. If you feel that it's encouraging others, then write a note instead. Neither is hypocritical.

 

On the original question;

Would those cachers who can only stretch to, 'TNLN, TFTC' as a cut & paste log, ever bother setting caches themselves if these 8 letters were all they ever got to read from fellow cachers?

...yes, I would continue setting caches. Even though I go to more trouble than most (any?) when writing online logs, and even ensure individual logs for power-trail type series (just check), and even though I appreciate more wordy logs for my caches.

 

But if you want to do TFTC logs on my caches, then please feel free. It's entirely up to you. Don't even log them online, if you feel so inclined. They're your logs, and who am I to tell you what style to use? All I have the right to do is delete any that are likely to offend others.

 

If I don't enjoy hiding caches, I don't do it. It's not some sort of public service for which I deserve special praise, it's just a hobby.

 

Anyway, we all have better things to do than worry about the brevity of caching logs.

Link to comment

Well, as someone with a few hides I'm quite sure that if all we ever got were 8 letter logs, we'd have given up hiding them a long time ago.

Yes, hiding caches is not a 'public service' as such, we do it because we enjoy doing so. What do we enjoy about it? The logs people write of course!

"Thanks for showing us this great spot"

"Would never have found it without caching"

"Lived here all my life but never knew this great thing was here"

"Nice view"

etc, etc

We enjoy sharing our local knowledge of the area with others and hearing/reading their reactions Putting out caches and getting feedback from cachers who visit is a fun way of connecting with other people. Visitors come and go but give useful feedback; with the locals you have a longer term 'relationship'. Sometimes it exists only in cyberspace, other times you actually get to meet real people at an event and put faces to logs and celebrate the joys of the hobby.

The logs give us great feedback as to whether we are hiding caches well or not. If everyone wrote 8 letters we'd have no idea what worked or what didn't. You want good caches to hunt? - better let cache hiders know what you like or dislike!

Do I care if someone logs with TFTC or doesn't log at all? Not really, bit disappointed with the TFTC that they have nothing more to share about their visit, feels a little one sided, but hey ho. But if everyone did it, or didn't log on line, well where's the fun return for putting the cache out? Where's the feedback loop to let us know if the cache is any good?

Why is geocaching more popular than letterboxing? Is it because of the online, public sharing of experiences?

Go on, try at least 8 words instead of 8 letters - your local cache hiders will reward you with better, more enjoyable caches.

 

(Of course the other reason we like hiding caches, is that at least we can find some!!) :blink:

Link to comment

Well, as someone with a few hides I'm quite sure that if all we ever got were 8 letter logs, we'd have given up hiding them a long time ago.

Yes, hiding caches is not a 'public service' as such, we do it because we enjoy doing so. What do we enjoy about it? The logs people write of course!

"Thanks for showing us this great spot"

"Would never have found it without caching"

"Lived here all my life but never knew this great thing was here"

"Nice view"

etc, etc

We enjoy sharing our local knowledge of the area with others and hearing/reading their reactions Putting out caches and getting feedback from cachers who visit is a fun way of connecting with other people. Visitors come and go but give useful feedback; with the locals you have a longer term 'relationship'. Sometimes it exists only in cyberspace, other times you actually get to meet real people at an event and put faces to logs and celebrate the joys of the hobby.

The logs give us great feedback as to whether we are hiding caches well or not. If everyone wrote 8 letters we'd have no idea what worked or what didn't. You want good caches to hunt? - better let cache hiders know what you like or dislike!

Do I care if someone logs with TFTC or doesn't log at all? Not really, bit disappointed with the TFTC that they have nothing more to share about their visit, feels a little one sided, but hey ho. But if everyone did it, or didn't log on line, well where's the fun return for putting the cache out? Where's the feedback loop to let us know if the cache is any good?

Why is geocaching more popular than letterboxing? Is it because of the online, public sharing of experiences?

Go on, try at least 8 words instead of 8 letters - your local cache hiders will reward you with better, more enjoyable caches.

 

(Of course the other reason we like hiding caches, is that at least we can find some!!) :)

Three cheers for Martlakes! It goes without saying that I completely agree. :blink:

Link to comment

OK, I didn't realise you meant it potentially endangered people who weren't looking for the cache. If it involves tampering with life-saving equipment I'd have let the owner know and entered a Needs Archived log to make sure a reviewer also knew.

 

And on that basis not filing a Found log makes sense.

Thanks team tisri. The jury is still out with us on whether we enter a Needs Archived log. This cache has been found by lots of experienced cachers and no one else has mentioned anything, we werent sure if it was up to the cache owners consience. We made them aware in our log why we hadnt logged it as a find, is it not then upto them or would that make us more hypocritical!! :blink: What do you think?

Link to comment

OK, I didn't realise you meant it potentially endangered people who weren't looking for the cache. If it involves tampering with life-saving equipment I'd have let the owner know and entered a Needs Archived log to make sure a reviewer also knew.

 

And on that basis not filing a Found log makes sense.

Thanks team tisri. The jury is still out with us on whether we enter a Needs Archived log. This cache has been found by lots of experienced cachers and no one else has mentioned anything, we werent sure if it was up to the cache owners consience. We made them aware in our log why we hadnt logged it as a find, is it not then upto them or would that make us more hypocritical!! :blink: What do you think?

 

If the cache itself interferes with the use of life-saving equipment I'd have thought it would make it illegal in and of itself. Last time I saw the life rings there were warnings on them of fines for anyone tampering with them.

 

But having not seen the location I can't say whether the cache itself interferes with the use of the rings, or there was a defect in the housing the cache exploited, or whatever else might be happening there. If there was an emergency and someone tried to retrieve the ring might the cache just fall out onto the ground and let the ring be used as intended?

 

If your assessment is correct it's definitely worth letting the reviewers know, and to be honest if it looks like the cache might interfere with the equipment I'd let them know as a precaution. First off if someone did perish because the equipment had been compromised there's the obvious tragedy of loss of life, and given the issues with placing caches in some areas I can only imagine the fallout on every level if someone died because of an inappropriately placed geocache.

 

It's one thing if someone dies having made a free choice to attempt a retrieval from a difficult spot, it's another thing entirely if someone unrelated dies because of our hobby.

Link to comment

I think we have to accept the fact that some people are more articulate than others. Some people simply don't have anything interesting to say.

 

Something similar is true of the text in cachepages. Some cache creators will just say something like: It's under a gorse bush. Others go to great lengths to do some detailed research into the history of a place or its geology or fauna. Some even set out an historical narrative in the form of a multi and produce a result which is better than any guidebook

 

Sometimes a cache's location can have more significance to a cachefinder than to the cache creator. This can result in some fascinating found logs being written. On other occasions a cache finder may discover something about the cache's location which was not known to the creator of the cache at the time of its placement.

 

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I recently looked at my own found log history and discovered that my last two logs ran to 80 lines of text combined! My log in the now archived Orchard Ruins cachepage turned into a piece of text which practically amounted to an essay on the history and future of the oil industry. In view of the fact that so few people know that the location of that cache is the birthplace of the oil industry a simple log of TFTC wasn't good enough. Actually, to my shame, I forgot to thank the cache creator for his creation. :blink:

Link to comment

i try and keep it short and sweet and if something of note i will add it on once i get home or via the iphone. However in the log book i try and keep space used to a minimuim even through i have seen some cachers write a whole page and a half essay which i think isnt necessary in the log book as it fills them up too quick, surely they could just sign the log book and do a full write up once they get on the net??

 

Some might read me and criticise me for saying that but i will say i dont have a problem with someone writing how good it is etc in the log book, just dont take a page or so up.

Link to comment

Why post 8 letters or more, if it's not as a pat on the back or thank you to the cache placer?

 

So that we can look back at our own old logs at a later date and remember, and reminisce about, the good times we had.

 

Mike

'Here here' Von Horst. Also, as others have said, to keep us informed of the status of the container and to enable us to be a useful PAF if the need arises. Even if it were for a 'Pat On The Back', whats wrong with that exactly? When you have taken time & effort with setting a cache, it is pleasing to know it has had the desired effect and has given pleasure to the finder. WHAT is so wrong about THAT? When we all go on holiday and return a week later, is it not enjoyable to read through the logs that have come in? If all anyone ever wrote was TNLN, TFTC, we would automatically delete all e mail notifications because we already knew what they said......Where on earth is the fun in that?

Link to comment

People who are prepared to write posts to a forum like this are probably more likely to be prepared to write fairly wordy comments in their on-line logs. But if you're one of those (as I am), please don't make it out to be a problem that others prefer to be brief, for whatever reason.

 

Remember that your on-line log is primarily your diary entry for the cache, so that you can remember the find (as Von Horst points out above). If it also acts as a "thank-you" to the cache placer then so much the better, but why should we feel obliged to write our cache logs in a particular style? The main reason that the logs aren't private is that they tend to contain information useful to other cachers, otherwise we'd probably have the facility to hide our cache logs; and then the question would be even more academic.

 

Anyway, the question is academic, and we'll continue to get a mix of brief and lengthy logs for every cache. So why worry about it?

 

A tip for the "power trail amnesia" sufferers. Use GSAK to print a list of caches, including deciphered hints. Take the list with you, and each time you've finished a cache, write a short key phrase at the side of it in the list ("horse", "thorns", "muggle with red coat" etc.). With the hint, that's usually enough to remind you about the cache so you can write a unique log for each one.

Link to comment

OK, I didn't realise you meant it potentially endangered people who weren't looking for the cache. If it involves tampering with life-saving equipment I'd have let the owner know and entered a Needs Archived log to make sure a reviewer also knew.

 

And on that basis not filing a Found log makes sense.

Thanks team tisri. The jury is still out with us on whether we enter a Needs Archived log. This cache has been found by lots of experienced cachers and no one else has mentioned anything, we werent sure if it was up to the cache owners consience. We made them aware in our log why we hadnt logged it as a find, is it not then upto them or would that make us more hypocritical!! :blink: What do you think?

 

If the cache itself interferes with the use of life-saving equipment I'd have thought it would make it illegal in and of itself. Last time I saw the life rings there were warnings on them of fines for anyone tampering with them.

 

But having not seen the location I can't say whether the cache itself interferes with the use of the rings, or there was a defect in the housing the cache exploited, or whatever else might be happening there. If there was an emergency and someone tried to retrieve the ring might the cache just fall out onto the ground and let the ring be used as intended?

 

If your assessment is correct it's definitely worth letting the reviewers know, and to be honest if it looks like the cache might interfere with the equipment I'd let them know as a precaution. First off if someone did perish because the equipment had been compromised there's the obvious tragedy of loss of life, and given the issues with placing caches in some areas I can only imagine the fallout on every level if someone died because of an inappropriately placed geocache.

 

It's one thing if someone dies having made a free choice to attempt a retrieval from a difficult spot, it's another thing entirely if someone unrelated dies because of our hobby.

You're absolutely right of course. We have only ever posted about half a dozen Needs Archived and this was because of lackmaint issues, this is a bit trickier though. The cache is a magnan and is attached to the post where the lifesaver joins on. This may not sound dodgy but our worry is less experienced cachers turning the device inside-out and back-to-front (thus, potentially damaging the release mechanism) trying to find it. We will try and send the setters an e mail again, to give them chance to re-locate before we take action. Sincere thanks for your level headed & sensible advice.

Link to comment

People who are prepared to write posts to a forum like this are probably more likely to be prepared to write fairly wordy comments in their on-line logs. But if you're one of those (as I am), please don't make it out to be a problem that others prefer to be brief, for whatever reason.

 

Remember that your on-line log is primarily your diary entry for the cache, so that you can remember the find (as Von Horst points out above). If it also acts as a "thank-you" to the cache placer then so much the better, but why should we feel obliged to write our cache logs in a particular style? The main reason that the logs aren't private is that they tend to contain information useful to other cachers, otherwise we'd probably have the facility to hide our cache logs; and then the question would be even more academic.

 

Anyway, the question is academic, and we'll continue to get a mix of brief and lengthy logs for every cache. So why worry about it?

 

A tip for the "power trail amnesia" sufferers. Use GSAK to print a list of caches, including deciphered hints. Take the list with you, and each time you've finished a cache, write a short key phrase at the side of it in the list ("horse", "thorns", "muggle with red coat" etc.). With the hint, that's usually enough to remind you about the cache so you can write a unique log for each one.

Fair enough HH, I guess it takes all sorts. Hopefully though, the above may have given a gentle nudge and made a few people think at least. :blink:

Link to comment

A tip for the "power trail amnesia" sufferers. Use GSAK to print a list of caches, including deciphered hints. Take the list with you, and each time you've finished a cache, write a short key phrase at the side of it in the list ("horse", "thorns", "muggle with red coat" etc.). With the hint, that's usually enough to remind you about the cache so you can write a unique log for each one.

 

To be blunt, if a cache is so bland that it doesn't stand out in my mind by the end of the day when I write up my log, then I don't think it deserves any extra effort my my part to remember it. It's not asking much for a cache to be memorable after 6/7 hours afterall! A good cache gets a good write up, if I have forgotten it only a few hours after I found it then I figure it gets what it deserves if it gets a cut and paste comment :blink::)

Link to comment

A tip for the "power trail amnesia" sufferers. Use GSAK to print a list of caches, including deciphered hints. Take the list with you, and each time you've finished a cache, write a short key phrase at the side of it in the list ("horse", "thorns", "muggle with red coat" etc.). With the hint, that's usually enough to remind you about the cache so you can write a unique log for each one.

 

The trouble with this approach is the amount of paper it can use. When caching in area with several to choose from it means either printing cache details for everything within several miles or restricting the choice of which caches you can do. I got tired of printing pages of cache details months back and now put everything in electronic format on my GPS and smartphone, and carry a single sheet of paper for calculating multis.

 

It's not just an academic objection - a while back I had a cycling route planned that took in a number of local caches. But I'd badly miscalculated the final coordinates of one of the multis, which took me in completely the opposite direction. So I replanned a new route on the fly.

 

I find if a cache is memorable I'll write a log about it. If it's not memorable then it doesn't get a memorable log.

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment

If your Smartphone is a Windows one (PDA) try loading MultiCalc and also use the notes section and it's recording facility. No paper needed then.

 

Errr... does it? Maybe you're thinking of Geocache log and it's telepathy function (without macros) :-P

 

:rolleyes::ph34r::):) oh dear my sides hurt from laughing at you, you are soooooooo funny :):D:D:D You really should be on TV, maybe on Britain's got talent??

Link to comment

If your Smartphone is a Windows one (PDA) try loading MultiCalc and also use the notes section of the PDA/Smart Phone and it's recording facility. No paper needed then.

 

edited to make it slightly clearer for those who have a problem understanding!!!

 

I use my own software to do the job, and if a cache isn't memorable enough to last a few hours in my mind why would I want to take more and more steps to note that it wasn't memorable?

Link to comment

If your Smartphone is a Windows one (PDA) try loading MultiCalc and also use the notes section and it's recording facility. No paper needed then.

 

Errr... does it? Maybe you're thinking of Geocache log and it's telepathy function (without macros) :-P

 

:rolleyes::ph34r::):) oh dear my sides hurt from laughing at you, you are soooooooo funny :):D:D:D You really should be on TV, maybe on Britain's got talent??

 

Why thank you! I'm here until Friday, try the liver, don't forget to tip your waitress :-P

Link to comment

If your Smartphone is a Windows one (PDA) try loading MultiCalc and also use the notes section and it's recording facility. No paper needed then.

 

Errr... does it? Maybe you're thinking of Geocache log and it's telepathy function (without macros) :-P

 

I only post comments about Geocache Log so as other can see that there is more than one programe available and whilst I have tried GSAK, and do still use it from time to time, I can see the virtues of for those that use it. Saying that though I am quite happy as I am and just feel that people should be made aware of any alternatives that are available.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...