Why so severe log length limitation (max. 4000 characters)?

[+Toniczech]

I'm used to write quite long logs. Several hundreds of characters at least, even more... And that 4000-limit sometimes badly affects this so that I have to split my log in one Found it and one (or several) Note(s) following it. Why the need for such workarounds, why so much inconvenience? Couldn't you guys from Groundspeak lift the length limitation at least up to 10000 or 15000?

 

And one more feature I propose: One can freely and unnoticed work on a listing before it is published. OK. But once listing goes published, every change I make is imminently displayed to public, because there is no "sandbox" option for already published (and possibly long time working) caches where one could test and change text and graphics of the listing live on GC.com, without hesitation and fear of possible disturbing readers with such experiments.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Toniczech

[+Parabola]

<snip>

 

And one more feature I propose: One can freely and unnoticed work on a listing before it is published. OK. But once listing goes published, every change I make is imminently displayed to public, because there is no "sandbox" option for already published (and possibly long time working) caches where one could test and change text and graphics of the listing live on GC.com, without hesitation and fear of possible disturbing readers with such experiments.

 

If you want a sandbox, then make a cache, but don't publish it. I've got one called My sandbox to play around with html. I just wrote a note on it Don't ever publish this. Which I'm glad I did, cause somehow I once did submit it for review by accident. But it's been helpful for me to experiment around cause I'm not too good with html.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I hadn't thought about the inability to play with the listing once published. I do think that the odds of anyone looking at it just as you are editing are low.

but you can always use an unpublished listing, copy and paste the entire html into it and play with there.

 

I agree, the log limitation seems unnecessary. Few logs run to 4000 characters. Like you, on rare occasion, I need to compose the log in a text editor, then log it in pieces - Note, note, find.

 

I do seem to recall when it was started, but not why. The why might explain its purpose.

[+dakboy]

One thing to keep in mind with the log lengths. The GPSrs that support paperless caching have a limit to how many characters they can have stored with cache descriptions. DeLorme, for example, has a limit of 15000 characters for cache description & associated information plus up to five (PQ limit) logs (Garmin's limit is 8000 characters last I heard).

 

If one of your mega-logs shows up as one of the first 5 logs on a cache, your log may be cut off, not shown at all, or push other logs out of the way.

[+Markwell]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

[+Tequila]

Log limits might be a database thing.

 

I applaud anyone who bumps into the limit. When so many logs are nothing more than "Nice hide. TFTC", it is nice to see stories.

[cezanne]

I'm used to write quite long logs. Several hundreds of characters at least, even more... And that 4000-limit sometimes badly affects this so that I have to split my log in one Found it and one (or several) Note(s) following it.

 

I also enjoy writing long logs and even more I enjoy reading long logs of other cachers (quite often also for caches that I never will be going to visit). I do not have any hope that Groundspeak will change the 4000 characters limit and so I learnt to live with this restriction (which is a database issue as far as I understand it).

 

One thing to keep in mind with the log lengths. The GPSrs that support paperless caching have a limit to how many characters they can have stored with cache descriptions.

...............

If one of your mega-logs shows up as one of the first 5 logs on a cache, your log may be cut off, not shown at all, or push other logs out of the way.

 

It would be quite easy to set up an option to include only short logs (logs shorter than some limit). Typically the long logs tell stories which are not to be meant as help to find a cache and are to be meant to be read at home in a leisurely atmosphere and not somewhere on the field.

 

Moreover, note that the problem you mention remains the same if someone writes one log of 12000 characters or three with 4000 each. (Actually, one log instead of three is easier to handle).

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 24, 2009 by cezanne

[+dakboy]

It would be quite easy to set up an option to include only short logs (logs shorter than some limit).

Unless you have knowledge of the geocaching.com code, please don't make statements like this. It really pisses off programmers when you tell them that you know how their code/database works better than they do, without even seeing it. You don't have enough information to make that statement. Edited November 24, 2009 by dakboy

[cezanne]

It would be quite easy to set up an option to include only short logs (logs shorter than some limit).

Unless you have knowledge of the geocaching.com code, please don't make statements like this. It really pisses off programmers when you tell them that you know how their code/database works better than they do, without even seeing it. You don't have enough information to make that statement.

 

Please read more carefully. My comment did not concern the site of Groundspeak. Selecting only a subset of logs for paperless caching is not a job of Groundspeak and not an issue of Groundspeak's database.

As I enjoy writing long logs, it would make no sense if I'd ask that Groundspeak introduces an option to include only logs shorter than some limit (I was not talking about increasing the upper limit of 4000 characters per log in the database of Groundspeak). It makes much more sense that this sort of selection process is handled at the level of the individual cachers who do not want to take all logs with them. The functionality I suggest in the can be seen as post-processing step and is something trivial which even every beginner in programming could implement by himself - it does not depend on the form the data is represented (so it is of course a piece of cake to add such an option to helper programs which are can be used to upload cache data to tools for paperless caching).

 

Cezanne

Edited November 24, 2009 by cezanne

[+Mredria]

Maybe they just needed an arbitrary number.

[+sTeamTraen]

For the occasional time when you have a great story to tell, you can write a note with the next 4,000 characters. If arbitrary-sized logs were allowed then someone would have developed code to allow you to post images as ASCII art, and there'd be a competition for the world's longest log. When commodity X is available free of charge and in unlimited quantities, someone will find a way to abuse it, for absolutely any value of X.

[cezanne]

For the occasional time when you have a great story to tell, you can write a note with the next 4,000 characters.

 

Having read what the OP wrote, I rather would guess that for him the case does not occur just occasionally.

He is also already aware of the approach of splitting logs and mentioned it himself.

 

In my opinion, 4000 characters is not much and I personally do not regard logs of that size as long. Actually it happens to me quite often for caches that I have liked that I need more than 4000 characters for my logs. In particular, I notice the tendency that I need more characters for logs for nice multi caches with many stages and longer hikes, but that's not so surprising and often these caches offer the same as 10 or even more single traditionals caches. The proportion number of found traditionals/multi-caches/mystery caches will thus also play a role and these numbers look very different for a typical US cacher than they do look for example in my case.

 

If arbitrary-sized logs were allowed then someone would have developed code to allow you to post images as ASCII art, and there'd be a competition for the world

 

I am not convinced that this indeed would work out that way. In any case, logs with unrestricted lengths work well at other geoaching sites that I know of. It is, however, the decision of each site whether they want to have a limit of that type or not.

 

The approach of splitting up logs has in any case, a serious disadvantage. If someone needs for example 3 logs for the split-up, then already 3 of 5 entries (of the last 5 logs) migh tbe used up by what in reality is a single log. 3 part logs might occur only occasionally, that's true, but two parts logs are not that rare.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 24, 2009 by cezanne

[+Markwell]

I'm all for great logs that contain great descriptions for great caches. However they are logs on Geocaching.com. The Gettysburg Address only had 1,188 characters. Lou Gehrig's farewell to baseball speech was only 1,504 characters. Winston Churchill's Blood, Toil, Sweat and Tears was 3,441 characters. A single page document in 12 point Times New Roman with 1 inch margins on all sides is approximately 4400-4500 characters.

 

Is it possible to be eloquent and brief?

[+Tequila]

I'm all for great logs that contain great descriptions for great caches. However they are logs on Geocaching.com. The Gettysburg Address only had 1,188 characters. Lou Gehrig's farewell to baseball speech was only 1,504 characters. Winston Churchill's Blood, Toil, Sweat and Tears was 3,441 characters. A single page document in 12 point Times New Roman with 1 inch margins on all sides is approximately 4400-4500 characters.

 

Is it possible to be eloquent and brief?

 

That sure puts things into context.

 

Nice post.

[cezanne]

The Gettysburg Address only had 1,188 characters. Lou Gehrig's farewell to baseball speech was only 1,504 characters. Winston Churchill's Blood, Toil, Sweat and Tears was 3,441 characters. A single page document in 12 point Times New Roman with 1 inch margins on all sides is approximately 4400-4500 characters.

 

All these character counts are lower than what I obtain (e.g. with wc) and also lower than the numbers mentioned in various internet sources. Maybe you did not count blanks, periods etc.

 

Is it possible to be eloquent and brief?

 

Yes, of course this is possible, but it's not requirement. Every cacher is free to decide what is important for him/herself. Neither eloquency nor briefness are goals for me when I write my logs. In contrast to public speeches I am not writing my logs to convince others of something (e.g. how nice/recommendable/..... the cache under consideration is). Actually, I primarily write my logs for myself and some friends (as a kind of remembering my caching activities at a later time), and only secondary for other cachers. So the situation is very different from the situation when one has to give a speech for a certain audience where one important criterion is to adapt the speech (its length, the type of language used etc) to the audience.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

The Gettysburg Address only had 1,188 characters. Lou Gehrig's farewell to baseball speech was only 1,504 characters. Winston Churchill's Blood, Toil, Sweat and Tears was 3,441 characters. A single page document in 12 point Times New Roman with 1 inch margins on all sides is approximately 4400-4500 characters.

 

All these character counts are lower than what I obtain (e.g. with wc) and also lower than the numbers mentioned in various internet sources. Maybe you did not count blanks, periods, carriage returns etc.

 

Is it possible to be eloquent and brief?

 

Yes, of course this is possible, but it's not requirement. Every cacher is free to decide what is important for him/herself. Neither eloquency nor briefness are goals for me when I write my logs. In contrast to public speeches I am not writing my logs to convince others of something (e.g. how nice/recommendable/..... the cache under consideration is). Actually, I primarily write my logs for myself and some friends (as a kind of remembering my caching activities at a later time), and only secondary for other cachers. So the situation is very different from the situation when one has to give a speech for a certain audience where one important criterion is to adapt the speech (its length, the type of language used etc) to the audience.

 

Consider for example a multi cache with 10 stages. If my goal is to convince someone that this is a nice cache, there is no need to mention which of the stages were easy to find for me and which caused me some problems or to report in which parts of the hike the terrain caused me troubles. This type of information is, however, an important contents of my logs and I do appreciate such logs coming from other caches as they are the ones that are helpful for me when preparing for a cache. Other cachers prefer different styles of logs and everyone can choose his own preferred style. Like the statement that everyone plays the game (geocaching) in his own way, this is also true for the aspect of logging.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 24, 2009 by cezanne

[+Renegade Knight]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

BITSOW you say?

[+Markwell]

All these character counts are lower than what I obtain (e.g. with wc) and also lower than the numbers mentioned in various internet sources. Maybe you did not count blanks, periods, carriage returns etc.

OK - but they're still less than 4000, except maybe the Churchill speech. I put them into Microsoft Word and used the character count. The point is...

Is it possible to be eloquent and brief?

My point is that MOST OF THE TIME, people say way they do using too many words (characters). For example, if you link to a cache in a log you can use:

[url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=3742d609-db96-49c2-82c3-72f54d67f18a]Village Green[/url]

or

[url=http://coord.info/GC14PHH]GC14PHH[/url]

Same result, less characters. Likewise, people can write with fewer characters and say the same thing.

Like the statement that everyone plays the game (geocaching) in his own way, this is also true for the aspect of logging.

Your first half is missing a caveat: "everyone plays the game (geocaching) in his own way on Geocaching.com within the guidelines set on this site". If you add that to "true for the aspect of logging" - then we agree.

[+Harry Dolphin]

But, why would anyone ever feel the need to write a cache log with more than 4000 characters??? Blather is nice in creative writing class. Sell the story to a publisher. Yes. The sun rose this morning. I knew that. I ignore any long logs. They're not going to tell me anything interesting that couldn't be said in a far shorter log. But to post several notes to continue the blather? KISS.

[cezanne]

My point is that MOST OF THE TIME, people say way they do using too many words (characters). For example, if you link to a cache in a log you can use:

[url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=3742d609-db96-49c2-82c3-72f54d67f18a]Village Green[/url]

or

[url=http://coord.info/GC14PHH]GC14PHH[/url]

Same result, less characters. Likewise, people can write with fewer characters and say the same thing.

 

I agree in the aspect that in most cases it is possible to convey the same general message by using less characters. I often end up with logs that are only a bit longer than 4000 characters and my reformulating it would pose no problem to arrive at a log with less 4000 characters, but that requires time and effort on my side and it is then not any longer the result of spontaneously writing up the thoughts that come to one's mind concerning the cache. Splitting up the log in two parts is much faster and more convenient for me.

If I prepare an oral speech, or a text for publication in a book or something of that type, I work seriously on my texts and try to optimize them - I am not applying this approach to my logs and do not expect anyone else to do it. That's the major reason why I on the one hand agree to your statements that the same can in most cases be said in a shorter way, but on the other hand see no necessity to set this as a goal.

If someone writes a novel, he or she wants to reach a suitably large number of readers (to sell the book and/or to deliver a message to the people) - if I am writing logs I do not care how many are reading the logs and I do not mind if no one reads them (ignoring logs is very simple). It is not even my intention to write logs that are interesting for a large group of cachers - it suffices for me if they contain what is important from my point of view.

 

Like the statement that everyone plays the game (geocaching) in his own way, this is also true for the aspect of logging.

Your first half is missing a caveat: "everyone plays the game (geocaching) in his own way on Geocaching.com within the guidelines set on this site". If you add that to "true for the aspect of logging" - then we agree.

 

I agree, but I took that for granted. I wonder, however, about the guidelines provided for logging as you insist on that condition for logging. There is no guideline against writing long logs (there is also none against writing very short logs) and the 4000 characters limit per log is only a data base issue (the discussion about that topic is not new and I vaguely recall a reply by Jeremy on that issue where he did not object against splitting up a log into two).

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

But, why would anyone ever feel the need to write a cache log with more than 4000 characters??? Blather is nice in creative writing class. Sell the story to a publisher. Yes. The sun rose this morning. I knew that. I ignore any long logs. They're not going to tell me anything interesting that couldn't be said in a far shorter log. But to post several notes to continue the blather? KISS.

 

It is up to you to ignore whichever logs you want to ignore. I know one cache where the longest log is even split up into eight parts - of course this will not happen in many cases, but only for exceptional caches

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

 

In any case I enjoy very much reading such logs (much more than going out and finding boring urban caches myself). In particular for caches that I never will be able to visit (like the cache referred to above) reading long and detailed logs that allow me to share the experiences of others are something that I really appreciate.

 

Cezanne

[+Markwell]

my reformulating it would pose no problem to arrive at a log with less 4000 characters, but that requires time and effort on my side

...and writing more than 4000 characters doesn't require time and effort?

 

There is no guideline against writing long logs (there is also none against writing very short logs) and the 4000 characters limit per log is only a data base issue.

There are items in the code that make it so that you have to conform to certain guidelines instead of "everybody caches however they want to." A perfect example is that you can't have two accounts own a cache (they can both be named owners, but only one account can actually own a cache). No where in the guidelines of caching does it say that, but it's a database issue. Can it be designed in such a way? Sure. I write databases for a living, and I know what would have to be done to get it to happen. But Groundspeak has enforced a non-written guideline by database design. The same thing is true here: there's a non-written guideline that logs are limited to 4K characters.

 

Out of the gazillion logs on the site, I would say that an extremely small percentage would hit the 4000 limit. There's an issue with database size if you have fields that have character limits larger than necessary. If I store a field with 20 characters for a zip code, that's 10 wasted characters (60544-1234 is 10 characters). This size problem also becomes a big problem if the fields with wasted characters are on records that are going to have numerous records. If field with the extra characters in the zip code is on a table that only has 40 records, it's not a big deal. If the table has 4,000,000 records, it's a big deal. Cache logs have a tremendous amount of records in that table - I would guess the largest on the database. Increasing the length of the longest field on the largest table on the database would greatly increase the size of the database, and would most likely cause issues with performance.

 

Since the 4000 limit seems to work in a vast majority of the time it seems that they have found a good balance between a large number of characters and database performance.

[cezanne]

my reformulating it would pose no problem to arrive at a log with less 4000 characters, but that requires time and effort on my side

...and writing more than 4000 characters doesn't require time and effort?

 

No extra effort on my side. I write the logs in the way I enjoy it. The thoughts and words just flow out of my head in a spontaneous way. If I need to streamline them and to work on the formulations, it's going to be like work for me and is not any longer relaxing for me.

 

Moreover, there are certainly situations where 4000 characters do not suffice to report about one's caching experience - this holds in particular for very long caches (some of them requiring multiple days). If such caches receive only a log of at most 4000 characters, many drive-in 1/1 caches do not even deserve a log of one character.

 

To set things into perspective, think about how many caches powercachers find on a caching week-end. Add up all the log lengths of all their finds, then you might well exceed the 4000 characters limit even if all logs are of just standardized logs that are not popular among cache hiders. Many multi caches I know of require a whole day, or even several days and caches like Munich-Venice take even at least 2 weeks (for a single cache!).

 

Since the 4000 limit seems to work in a vast majority of the time it seems that they have found a good balance between a large number of characters and database performance.

 

I fully agree with you. Note that I am not asking Groundspeak to increase the limit of 4000 characters.

My argument in my previous post was just that there is no guideline (and also no sort of unwritten morality codex for geocachers) that forbids to split up longer logs. As there exists no limit for the number of uploaded pictures (not even per log), it is certainly not an issue of server load if a certain not that huge fraction of logs are longer and are split up into several logs.

 

To sum up: For me it is ok (even if not the most convenient way for myself) that the 4000 character limit per log exists. It is also ok for me if certain cachers decide to ignore long logs. That's up to them. It's up to me, however, to prefer in general long logs regardless of whether they are my own logs or logs of other cachers.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 25, 2009 by cezanne

[+Toniczech]

 

If you want a sandbox, then make a cache, but don't publish it. I've got one called My sandbox to play around with html. I just wrote a note on it Don't ever publish this. Which I'm glad I did, cause somehow I once did submit it for review by accident. But it's been helpful for me to experiment around cause I'm not too good with html.

 

Wouldn't it consume/waste too many waypoint designations if everyone does so?

[+fegan]

But, why would anyone ever feel the need to write a cache log with more than 4000 characters??? Blather is nice in creative writing class. Sell the story to a publisher. Yes. The sun rose this morning. I knew that. I ignore any long logs. They're not going to tell me anything interesting that couldn't be said in a far shorter log. But to post several notes to continue the blather? KISS.

Unfortunately, we have a handful of local cachers who feel they need to document their entire day of caching in a single log, at great length I might add, we're not talking about a handful of one-liners, then copy & paste that into every log for the day.

 

Yup, there must be a competition for the longest log and longest average log length!

 

When caching with my friends I write a short paragraph summarizing my day (who I was caching with, how many Finds/DNFs we had, and any milestones/goal we attempted/achived) followed by a few lines about the particular cache (perhaps a little more if it was one of those milestones/goals...or if something particularly interesting happened while searching for the cache) and finally a brief "TFTC!!" to thank the owner for their efforts. My solo caching logs tend to be a little shorter...unless something interesting happened (saw some wildlife, had a LEO encounter, scored an FTF, etc.).

 

Some folks like to run on and on and on and on with their logs...it's very annoying when I'm trying to review them on my GPS (Garmin Colorado) looking for some insight/spoiler to find a difficult hide.

 

My vote...4,000 characters is way too long.

 

I guess that should be expected since my longest log, for my 3,000+ finds, is only 598 characters.

[+Isonzo Karst]

The cacher's online log serves 3 purposes, to thank or notify the cache owner of a hunt, to inform the caching community on the cache, and as a record of the cacher's experience. Those three purposes may be somewhat at odds. To me, because the cacher is creating the log, serving their own purpose comes first, then speaking to the cache owner's concerns, and finally considering the caching community. In reference to issues mentioned on this thread, I don't concern myself with whether a long log + note(s) "clutters" the last 5 logs with stuff that other cachers aren't seeking. If they want info about the cache, they can read the description.

[+baloo&bd]

My vote...4,000 characters is way too long.

 

I guess that should be expected since my longest log, for my 3,000+ finds, is only 598 characters.

 

My vote is to limit it to around 700.

 

No offense to the OP, however we have a cacher around here who rights long, long logs that tend to have nothing to do with the cache. Even as we cache other areas, we've noted this as common for the long logs we run across.

 

Guess I would rather see links to a blog in the log if the cacher has that much to say.

[+dakboy]

My vote...4,000 characters is way too long.

 

I guess that should be expected since my longest log, for my 3,000+ finds, is only 598 characters.

 

My vote is to limit it to around 700.

 

No offense to the OP, however we have a cacher around here who rights long, long logs that tend to have nothing to do with the cache. Even as we cache other areas, we've noted this as common for the long logs we run across.

 

Guess I would rather see links to a blog in the log if the cacher has that much to say.

Setting up a blog is unacceptable for cachers who'll post 2 or 3 ultra-long logs a year. 700 characters is way too short. With a restriction like that, you're going to end up with people writing high-quality logs but having to split them into 5 installments (unreasonable) or just giving up altogether (do we really want to encourage people to do nothing but TNLNSLTFTC on every log?).

 

I don't write long (by your definition) logs very often but when I do, they're relevant to my experience in finding the cache (note that step 8 is "Share your geocaching stories and photos online.") I get a positive reaction from the cache owners and other local cachers. If I'm enjoying writing the log, and everyone is enjoying reading the logs, where's the harm? If I was restricted to 700 characters, I would have had to split one log into about 6 on one cache earlier this year, and another log into 3.

 

Or maybe I wouldn't have bothered writing a quality log in the first place.

 

If someone is posting very long logs that are not relevant to the cache, that's a people problem, not a technical one, and it needs to be resolved by non-technical means. The COs should be asking that individual to keep to the topic at hand.

[+baloo&bd]

Setting up a blog is unacceptable for cachers who'll post 2 or 3 ultra-long logs a year.

 

Why? They're free and you would only post the URL on the logs you would normally go long on. Besides, in my experience, you are an exception, not the rule. Verbal diarrhea is usually a chronic ailment.

 

If someone is posting very long logs that are not relevant to the cache, that's a people problem, not a technical one, and it needs to be resolved by non-technical means. The COs should be asking that individual to keep to the topic at hand.

 

Then it becomes an ALR, besides, to the CO it is only one log and not worth the hassle.

 

To stay on topic, 4K is more than enough. No need for splitting logs, etc. Long logs will rarely get read anyway.

[+dakboy]

Setting up a blog is unacceptable for cachers who'll post 2 or 3 ultra-long logs a year.

 

Why? They're free and you would only post the URL on the logs you would normally go long on. Besides, in my experience, you are an exception, not the rule. Verbal diarrhea is usually a chronic ailment.

Logs should be part of the history of the cache, kept with the cache.

 

If someone is posting very long logs that are not relevant to the cache, that's a people problem, not a technical one, and it needs to be resolved by non-technical means. The COs should be asking that individual to keep to the topic at hand.

 

Then it becomes an ALR, besides, to the CO it is only one log and not worth the hassle.

How is "please keep your logs for this cache relevant to this cache" an ALR? It sounds like good business to me.

[+DanOCan]

Since the 4000 limit seems to work in a vast majority of the time it seems that they have found a good balance between a large number of characters and database performance.

 

I agree with this.

 

I have bumped into the log length limit on two or three occasions myself. However, with the workaround being so quick and easy to implement and the fact that a vast majority of logs come in well under 4000 characters increasing the maximum size seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

[+sbell111]

If someone is posting very long logs that are not relevant to the cache, that's a people problem, not a technical one, and it needs to be resolved by non-technical means. The COs should be asking that individual to keep to the topic at hand.

 

Then it becomes an ALR, besides, to the CO it is only one log and not worth the hassle.

How is "please keep your logs for this cache relevant to this cache" an ALR? It sounds like good business to me.

Whether it is an ALR depends on what the cache owner intends to do if someone does post an off-topic log.

[knowschad]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Brevity is the soul of lingerie. ~Dorothy Parker

[cezanne]

My vote...4,000 characters is way too long.

 

I guess that should be expected since my longest log, for my 3,000+ finds, is only 598 characters.

 

My vote is to limit it to around 700.

 

700 characters is quite short for caches with a lot of stages were each stage could serve as a cache of its own. A log which gives credit for all the work the hider has put into such a cache, is hardly possible within this limit. For caches like the multi cache from Munich to Venice, a <700 characters log would even feel like an insult to me.

 

Long caches might not be common in your area, but the situation is different in other areas.

Most of the caches you found are traditionals and among the multi caches those with 2-3 stages seem to be the majority. That appears to the be the case for the US in general.

 

No offense to the OP, however we have a cacher around here who rights long, long logs that tend to have nothing to do with the cache. Even as we cache other areas, we've noted this as common for the long logs we run across.

 

I do not know the logs you refer to. It will certainly depend, however, on how one defnes the term "cache". If the cache only refers to searching and finding the box and does not include the way to the cache location (hike etc), then certainly most lines of most logs will deal with something not related to the cache. For me the important part of a cache hunt is the way to the cache location. The rest is not of real interest to me any longer and this is also reflected in the way my logs are set up.

 

Consider for example a traditional cache hidden at the summit area of a mountain in the Alps. I appreciate if finders of the cache report in their log where they started from, which route they took, how long it took them approximately to arrive at the location, how difficult/exhausting their approach was, how the condition of the trails is at the moment etc. All this helps me in preparing my own tour and I regard this type of information as one of the big advantages of hikes planned with the help of gc.com to ones planned by only hiking guide books. Of course I am not expecting every cacher to write such logs, but whenever such a log shows up, I am very happy. For me it is, however, completely unimportant with which other cacher someone found the cache, how many caches the team found on this day, how many caches overall etc. Some of the logs of the cachers mainly interested into statistics only contain information of the latter type.

 

To sum up, different cachers have different preferences not only as the choice of the caches is regarded, but also with regard what's important for them in logs and what is irrelevant. I think that only tolerance for different opinions can help in this situation. 4000 characters per log with the possibility to write more than one log if necessary (=the current situation) seems a reasonable compromise solution to me taking into account the needs of many different groups of cachers. 700 characters seems to low to me for a limit and 25000 (just arbitrarily selected) too high for a general limit.

 

Guess I would rather see links to a blog in the log if the cacher has that much to say.

 

I prefer to have the logs on gc.com as in that way the logs are guaranteed to be available also if their writers lose the interest into geocaching and/or geocaching blogs.

 

Cezanne

Edited December 1, 2009 by cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

If someone is posting very long logs that are not relevant to the cache, that's a people problem, not a technical one, and it needs to be resolved by non-technical means. The COs should be asking that individual to keep to the topic at hand.

 

Then it becomes an ALR, besides, to the CO it is only one log and not worth the hassle.

How is "please keep your logs for this cache relevant to this cache" an ALR? It sounds like good business to me.

Whether it is an ALR depends on what the cache owner intends to do if someone does post an off-topic log.

It's not an ALR. In fact it's in the guidelines

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

[+Markwell]

IT would only be an ALR if they delete the FOUND log. If some starts putting NOTES on a cache page that talk about their recent medical problems and their best friend in the third grade and how he had a dog name Steven that knew how to roll over - if it's in a NOTE - I (as the cache owner) can delete it.

[+dakboy]

IT would only be an ALR if they delete the FOUND log. If some starts putting NOTES on a cache page that talk about their recent medical problems and their best friend in the third grade and how he had a dog name Steven that knew how to roll over - if it's in a NOTE - I (as the cache owner) can delete it.

As I read the quoted guideline, if the FOUND log is off-topic, the CO is encouraged to (or is supposed to) delete it. A note should be sent to the finder to explain why & ask that an on-topic log be written instead.

[+eagsc7]

My vote...4,000 characters is way too long.

 

I guess that should be expected since my longest log, for my 3,000+ finds, is only 598 characters.

 

My vote is to limit it to around 700.

 

No offense to the OP, however we have a cacher around here who rights long, long logs that tend to have nothing to do with the cache. Even as we cache other areas, we've noted this as common for the long logs we run across.

 

Guess I would rather see links to a blog in the log if the cacher has that much to say.

 

My vote is to Lower the character count to 700 characters as well. This would include Spaces as well. Unless I am proven wrong, I feel that most cachers would not even notice a change in log max length. Even then, I am willing to say that Most cachers Longest cache log is Well Under the 1,000 word mark. Thus, 700 would be a great number.

 

The Steaks

[+TotemLake]

My vote...4,000 characters is way too long.

 

I guess that should be expected since my longest log, for my 3,000+ finds, is only 598 characters.

 

My vote is to limit it to around 700.

 

No offense to the OP, however we have a cacher around here who rights long, long logs that tend to have nothing to do with the cache. Even as we cache other areas, we've noted this as common for the long logs we run across.

 

Guess I would rather see links to a blog in the log if the cacher has that much to say.

 

My vote is to Lower the character count to 700 characters as well. This would include Spaces as well. Unless I am proven wrong, I feel that most cachers would not even notice a change in log max length. Even then, I am willing to say that Most cachers Longest cache log is Well Under the 1,000 word mark. Thus, 700 would be a great number.

 

The Steaks

If you're going to squeeze your fist tighter, expect more stuff to squeeze out between the fingers. All this severe limitation would do is to encourage continuing on with Notes This would increase the inability to see any of the previous 4 unique logs on more caches than the ones you have problems with now with your paperless device.

Edited December 8, 2009 by TotemLake

[+CachingCarl]

I just noticed that some of my longer old logs (before the limitation of 4000 characters came out) have been automatically shortened.

I have no problem with todays 4000 characters limit, but seeing my old logs crippled makes me very sad.

 

Ciao

CachingCarl