Write a story or you're being disrespectful?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

 

Of course there are some cases of people that really have a reason. But not compared to the many many logs that I've been seeing recently. The word count has been going down, markedly, in recent years. On the same caches that got longer logs before!

 

Prior to reading this post, I got curious and checked out a cache of mine that is almost 7 yrs old. It is located in a scenic sculpture park. Up until 2007, the logs were about half long posts and half unique one or two line posts. A lot of photos too. Since then, they are almost all one line posts, some generic copy/paste and some with something unique to say. Based on that cache, the quality of logs has definitely gone down. (The cache is Rx: GPS prn for anyone who is interested.)

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

 

Very well put. You never know who is on the other end and what their story is. There is an LPC near my house in a McDonalds parking lot. I met the owner at the cache, she's 4. She wanted to hide one and picked out the spot.

 

If I know the cache hider is a kid, I make sure I write a great log for them. I can just picture them giggling when they read the log, all excited over their cache hide.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Interesting corollary question... how many of you would quit hiding caches if all that was allowed was a Found It checkbox?

 

I might not hide any more, and I might lose some incentive to find too. I enjoy posting logs that relate our experiences at the cache. Its my blog lol.

[CoyoteRed]

...but I can't agree that any elitist attitude is good. It hurts.

Actually, what some folks are calling "elitist" is actually only maintaining a standard. "Elitism" assumes one can never be part of a group. Not so when trying to maintain standards. Just hide decent caches.

 

Wouldn't it be better to say, "Hi there newbie. I see you like film canisters behind dumpsters. Why don't you come along with me next Saturday as I go on a X-mile hike up Mt. X - there's a ammo can cache up there that will blow you away." Maybe the newbie will become a convert? (I have to say I've been blown away by some hikes I've taken recently for caches--I've lived here since the day I was born but had never set foot in any of these hills before now, and I wouldn't be getting off my hind end and hiking up them now if it weren't for the caches up there.) Then again, maybe the newbie will say something rude and keep hiding/finding film canisters behind dumpsters. You tried.

A couple of things.

 

Folks say hide quality caches and folks will get the idea. Our area had a very high percentage of really decent caches. Then how come so many less than decent caches have been placed recently? It's not hiding from example. They're bringing it in from elsewhere.

 

Why? I don't know. Why would anyone think every Big Box store needs a cache in the parking lot?

 

Second: you mention the hiking caches. It's not an either/or type of thing. We've placed no micros in urban areas. We've proven over and over that you can place decent sized caches in decent places in urban areas. It's not about urban versus hiking caches. Long ago we've placed easy to find regulars in urban locations. Two are specifically beginner caches to introduce cachers to caching. No one is getting the idea of hiding micros in dumps from our caches or any of the well established cachers in our area.

 

Basically, it only looks like elitism from below. Anyone can place decent caches if they so choose.

[CoyoteRed]

Interesting corollary question... how many of you would quit hiding caches if all that was allowed was a Found It checkbox?

What about no feedback at all like the way letterboxing has been for years?

 

Me, I don't need the feedback. A few here and there is fine.

[+fizzymagic]

If I get a series of cut-and-paste logs from a group power-caching once, I will make a mental note. Another set of cut-and-paste logs, and it's archived. I don't put caches out to be notches on a belt.

 

This method has worked quite well; I almost never get cut-and-paste logs any more. Probably because most of my caches left are puzzles and/or hard to get to.

 

I'll probably never hide another easy-to-grab urban cache. Which is a good thing, BTW.

[+briansnat]

Interesting corollary question... how many of you would quit hiding caches if all that was allowed was a Found It checkbox?

What about no feedback at all like the way letterboxing has been for years?

 

Me, I don't need the feedback. A few here and there is fine.

 

Letterboxing has been around over 100 years longer than geocaching, yet geocaching in a very short period of time has become far, far more popular. I think a big part of the reason is the online logs and the instant feedback they offer.

 

I've been letterboxing nearly as long as I've been geocaching, yet I have about 280 geocaching hides and 0 letterbox placements.

 

It's not a conscious thing. In fact for years I've been thinking of hiding letterboxes, but never get around to it. I'm not sure why I don't, but its probably in the back of my mind that I'll have no idea whether people are finding and enjoying my letterboxes unless I make the long hike out there and check the logs. Even then all I will see is a stamp. A stamp doesn't tell me if they had fun, it simply tells me they were there.

 

As I said in my earlier post, I'm not going to spend the substantial time, effort and money it takes to place geocaches unless I know people are enjoying them.

 

By the way I have noticed a surge in letterboxing placements in this area of late and it seems to coincide with the introduction of Atlasquest, which does allow for online logs. Coincidence?

Edited December 3, 2009 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

By the way I have noticed a surge in letterboxing placements in this area of late and it seems to coincide with the introduction of Atlasquest, which does allow for online logs. Coincidence?

Don't know. Could be the ease of publishing a box.

 

I get emails ever so often about our box, so I know some folks are enjoying it.

 

Letterboxing has been around over 100 years longer than geocaching, yet geocaching in a very short period of time has become far, far more popular. I think a big part of the reason is the online logs and the instant feedback they offer.

Could be. But I'm wondering just how much considering so many placements that garner little more than a "TFTC" as a log entry.

[+wimseyguy]

I'm someone who feels a bit insulted when a finder can only bring themselves to write "TFTC", but today I saw an even worse log. While looking through logs of caches I am considering, I saw a log that consisted of " * " today. To me, that is shorthand for, "All that matters is my smilie."

 

Unless the log is posted to a Minimalist Cache. In which case a single punctuation mark would be the appropriate logging format. Except that ALR's are now optional, so the verbose can feel free to write as much as they like on those caches. Oh the irony of it all.

[+L0ne.R]

Interesting corollary question... how many of you would quit hiding caches if all that was allowed was a Found It checkbox?

What about no feedback at all like the way letterboxing has been for years?

 

Me, I don't need the feedback. A few here and there is fine.

 

Letterboxing has been around over 100 years longer than geocaching, yet geocaching in a very short period of time has become far, far more popular. I think a big part of the reason is the online logs and the instant feedback they offer.

 

I've been letterboxing nearly as long as I've been geocaching, yet I have about 280 geocaching hides and 0 letterbox placements.

 

It's not a conscious thing. In fact for years I've been thinking of hiding letterboxes, but never get around to it. I'm not sure why I don't, but its probably in the back of my mind that I'll have no idea whether people are finding and enjoying my letterboxes unless I make the long hike out there and check the logs. Even then all I will see is a stamp. A stamp doesn't tell me if they had fun, it simply tells me they were there.

 

As I said in my earlier post, I'm not going to spend the substantial time, effort and money it takes to place geocaches unless I know people are enjoying them.

 

By the way I have noticed a surge in letterboxing placements in this area of late and it seems to coincide with the introduction of Atlasquest, which does allow for online logs. Coincidence?

 

I think you might be right about a correlation. I don't know if you can see the statistics on AQ, it may be a premium member feature only -- but here's a link:

 

http://www.atlasquest.com/aboutus/stats/pl...eId=traditional

 

April 2007 is when the public comments feature was implemented. In 2006 - 9,490 letterboxes were planted. In 2007 - 16,242 letterboxes were planted. A 58% increase in plants.

 

The rest of the stats for those who are interested:

 

2001 - 403

2002 - 881 (+478)

2003 - 1,719 (+838)

2004 - 3,602 (+1883)

2005 - 5,865 (+2263)

2006 - 9,490 (+3625)

2007 - 16,242 (+6752)

2008 - 18,059 (+1817)

2009 - 19,047 (+988)

[+Renegade Knight]

Interesting corollary question... how many of you would quit hiding caches if all that was allowed was a Found It checkbox?

What about no feedback at all like the way letterboxing has been for years?

 

Me, I don't need the feedback. A few here and there is fine.

 

So, you need the feedback.

 

It's an interesting question. I've placed some of my better caches on Navicache. Those garner virtually no action. But I'm patient. If I never got any feedback ever, it would not be any fun at all. I don't need much, but I do need a little. Part of my fun is knowing if the cache is working as intended (fun) or not (not fun). Unless the cache is designed around the checkbox, never having the feedback or even a means of getting feedback would remove the incentive. Even with my NV caches, there is the potential for logs. It's just been a long time.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Could be. But I'm wondering just how much considering so many placements that garner little more than a "TFTC" as a log entry.

 

TFTC is a checkbox. Your only feedback in checkbox land, is quantity of finds. The cache owner enjoyment would be essentailly the cache owner equivilent of becomign a numbers whore.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+blackjohnson]

Ok, wow, Doug, your question sure has raised alot of interest. Here is how I feel about this issue:

 

IF I have an INTERESTING experience on the cache, the cache hide is UNIQUE, or the cache title/description is CAPTIVATING, or anything at all that is WORTHY of additional prose concerning a cache find, I TYPICALLY write additional verbage. If none of these listed events did not happen, what else would I write besides the "basic", SLTNLN TFTC? I think you cachers know where I am going with this.

 

Perhaps we should not berat the finder but instead ask ourselves as hider, "Does this cache have any of the properties that I've listed above?" If we hiders can not answer "yes", then why should we expect a lengthy prose of the event?

 

I try, and very successfully I might add, to find/create a cache location that has interest to the finder in my cache offerings. I hope that it inspires the finder to write something additional than the "basic". If that's all I get on the logs of one of my caches, then perhaps I didn't fullfill one or any of the above listed items. Or perhaps a given cacher just isn't very wordy. Either way, I find that my caches typically get more than the TFTC, and that includes your logs Doug . I think we, as hiders, should put caches out with varying expectations of finder's log prose. If it's a lampost or other P & G, then one should not necessarily expect much verbage. I believe most finders can tell from the Title, description, the cache container, the hide itself, just how much effort the hider put into his offering. And I believe the response in the log, in general, will reflect that effort too! Not that I am against P & G's. Lord knows I have found a good number of those myself. But the quality of the cache hide will dictate my log entry length.

 

Anyway, I just wanted to say it is a two way street for Geocaching. One way for the hider and the other way for the finder. It is really up to the finder to decide how much or little to write about at the end of the day. As you can tell, I usually write a pretty good log on my finds. But then, again, I enjoy going for the ones that seem deserving of my log effort too.

[+chaosmanor]

As someone who has not once (not once!!) in 3,401 cache-Find logs, over nearly nine years of geocaching, ever repeated myself (although I will admit to using a one- or two-line "opener" for a string of caches on a road trip or long hike, but each cache has then gotten something unique after that opener), and who has *NEVER* used TFTC as a log report, I have only one thing to say: those who believe that TFTC is always appropriate, or that cut-and-paste logs are always enough, if you would put just ten-percent of the effort that you have expended into defending your position here, into your actual logs, those of us who try to make our cache Hides interesting would have no reason to complain.

 

It *isn't* all just about the smileys; if the experience doesn't move you in some way, then something is wrong, either with the cache or with you. You are free to disagree, but I am free to think poorly of your attitude; that's the price we both pay for living in a democracy, and most geocachers do live in a democracy of some form or other.

Edited December 5, 2009 by chaosmanor

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I would absolutely agree that it's not just about the smileys.

 

However, just because the experience "moves me in some way" doesn't mean that I'm compelled, required or should be expected to share that private experience with others.

 

Nothing wrong at all with those who do share their experience but there also shouldn't be anything wrong with not doing so.

[+RadishSpirit]

If someone just wrote "TFTC" on one of my cache logs, I would call my lawyer and sue them.

Completely disgraceful.

I want at least 100 words on all logs.

Also I would petition the police to put that person in prison.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Kinda funny ... and fits in with the discussion here.

Just got the notifications of a cacher finding 11 of our caches. on 9 out of the 11 they simply wrote "thanks". One of the others had "very fun thanks"

One of them was a night cache, and surely they had some kind of adventure with it, but still just "thanks". But then again, perhaps they are people of few words, because one that they found had a unique camo that always got some comment or another. On this one they included an exclamation point!

 

Strangely enough, rather than say something on one of the logs, they sent me an email about the cache! Go figure

 

Maybe they have been reading here and decided to not use TFTC!

[+fizzymagic]

Perhaps we should not berat the finder but instead ask ourselves as hider, "Does this cache have any of the properties that I've listed above?" If we hiders can not answer "yes", then why should we expect a lengthy prose of the event?

 

Perhaps we should ask ourselves, "If we finders cannot answer 'yes' then why are we wasting our time finding the cache in the first place?"

 

Yet I can assure you that many caches you (and I) would deem unworthy of anything but a TFTC log get many more finds than those worthy of long, detailed logs.

 

Wonder why that is?

 

And if the cache is not worth writing about, then why bother to log it online at all? Wouldn't spending another few seconds on it just be a further waste of time?

[+briansnat]

And if the cache is not worth writing about, then why bother to log it online at all? Wouldn't spending another few seconds on it just be a further waste of time?

 

Logging it as found is an easy way to keep it out of future pocket queries.

[+Six Little Spookies]

And if the cache is not worth writing about, then why bother to log it online at all? Wouldn't spending another few seconds on it just be a further waste of time?

While caching is not "all" about the numbers, I'd wager that for 99% of us the numbers matter to some degree or another.

[+Team Cotati]

Since when has it been a requirement to post a story with every single log?!

 

Two instances lately, one directed at me have brought this to my attention. First, someone was harassed for posting a short log on a cache locally on the cache page. Second, I was doing a power cache run, and upon logging all 111 of my days finds with *gasp* the same log, I was contacted by one owner who thought my action was disgraceful, and an insult to cache hiders everywhere.

 

Some of us, myself included just aren't in to typing out essay like logs for every cache we find, EVEN the cool ones! It used to be, "TFTC!" sufficed to tell the owner that you appreciated the find. I find writing, and reading (to be honest) these long winded logs to be about as interesting as watching paint dry. I thought this was about finding the cache, not sitting for hours on end writing ABOUT the cache. I find my time better spent FINDING CACHES! For me, the log is more record keeping than personal, and a simple TFTC! says, hey, I found your cache, thanks for hiding it so I could find it today.

 

I'm not saying theres anything wrong with posting lengthy logs, but don't down people just because they don't do the same as you, and certainly don't expect if from people. Cachers come from all different backgrounds, some may be more capable and/or interested in typing out long logs than others.

 

My question is since when is the LOG more important than the FIND?! Where does this end? Are people going to start deleting legitimate find logs just because the log wasn't interesting enough?

 

My question is: Why does this bother you so much?

[CoyoteRed]

And if the cache is not worth writing about, then why bother to log it online at all? Wouldn't spending another few seconds on it just be a further waste of time?

Logging it as found is an easy way to keep it out of future pocket queries.

Ignoring is faster.

 

Besides, many times when I find I'm not liking a cache I'll quit before I properly sign the log. I don't always write in my journal whether I signed the log or not. Mostly it's just a word or two about the cache and I move on. Why should I even waste my time or even ink on a cache I'm not enjoying and don't plan on logging online?

 

So, ignoring is faster. Of the features that I think should be available to non-paying members, the ignore feature is right at the top. There's no reason that someone should have to have trache continually staring them in the face in their hobby career--or any other cache for that matter.

[Clan Riffster]

And if the cache is not worth writing about, then why bother to log it online at all?

That's kinda been my philosophy of late. My caching aesthetic is highly biased, leading me toward certain types of caches. When I happen across one that is, in my eyes, a true stinker, with no redeeming qualities other than an increase in someone's find count, I just walk away. The degree of effort I put into my logs is typically directly related to the degree of effort put into the hide. No discernible effort = no log. As of this writing, there are about 3 dozen caches I've found which I have not, and probably will not, log online.

 

Again, these are just my preferences, and should not be taken as a call for action.

[+Team Cotati]

And if the cache is not worth writing about, then why bother to log it online at all? Wouldn't spending another few seconds on it just be a further waste of time?

While caching is not "all" about the numbers, I'd wager that for 99% of us the numbers matter to some degree or another.

 

Right on! I find a cache, no matter how large of a POC it might be, it's getting logged, period. I do try and not download them but you know, ever once in a while one can slip thru or my caching bud talks me into doing a POC with him. Ever time I regret it, but ever time I log it.

 

Like I've said before, filtering out micros was the best geocaching decision that The Team ever made.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Team Cotati

[Rocketsteve]

As a cache owner, I've had people write lengthy logs, others have written the standard "TFTH", and the rest are somewhere in between. I don't find anything disrespectful about leaving a short log, especially if the cache is of no special noteworthy value.

 

There are so many different personalities in the geocaching community, and there is no way to please everybody you interact with. I've learned to accept those differences and do what I think is best.

[+Team Cotati]

As a cache owner, I've had people write lengthy logs, others have written the standard "TFTH", and the rest are somewhere in between. I don't find anything disrespectful about leaving a short log, especially if the cache is of no special noteworthy value.

 

There are so many different personalities in the geocaching community, and there is no way to please everybody you interact with. I've learned to accept those differences and do what I think is best.

 

Too rational, it will never work.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

As a cache owner, I've had people write lengthy logs, others have written the standard "TFTH", and the rest are somewhere in between. I don't find anything disrespectful about leaving a short log, especially if the cache is of no special noteworthy value.

 

There are so many different personalities in the geocaching community, and there is no way to please everybody you interact with. I've learned to accept those differences and do what I think is best.

Rambler's Mantra -

The best thing about geocaching is that it is open to everyone.

The worst thing about geocaching is... that it is open to everyone!

Edited December 5, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[4wheelin_fool]

Too many people assume that a sparse log is from someone who just cares about the numbers. Many people cannot type well, or at all. Some hate typing( myself included) Lengthy detailed logs should be encouaged but never expected. Just because someone doesn't choose to type out a log doesn't mean that they didn't enjoy the find. Ever notice the forum views versus posts? Sometime the difference is more that 10 times. Many more people enjoy reading rather than typing.

 

Sent from iPhone, typed out with my thumb...

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

And if the cache is not worth writing about, then why bother to log it online at all? Wouldn't spending another few seconds on it just be a further waste of time?

 

Logging it as found is an easy way to keep it out of future pocket queries.

 

Wont the ignore list also keep it out of pocket queries?

[+briansnat]

And if the cache is not worth writing about, then why bother to log it online at all? Wouldn't spending another few seconds on it just be a further waste of time?

 

Logging it as found is an easy way to keep it out of future pocket queries.

 

Wont the ignore list also keep it out of pocket queries?

 

It will but I don't need to deal with maintaining a list if I log the find.

Edited December 6, 2009 by briansnat

[+flask]

ever notice how the people wishing to excuse c'n'p logs or acronym-only logs keep trying to frame the debate in terms of people who are too impaired/crippled/distracted/busy to write LONG logs?

 

a few words will do, thank you. it needn't be long at all to be a decent log.

[4wheelin_fool]

ever notice how the people wishing to excuse c'n'p logs or acronym-only logs keep trying to frame the debate in terms of people who are too impaired/crippled/distracted/busy to write LONG logs?

 

a few words will do, thank you. it needn't be long at all to be a decent log.

 

I personally do not like cut-n-paste logs, or logs with just TFTC, but the reality is that there are people that hate typing, or cannot do it well. I'm sure that there are 100 word per minute typists that copy and paste, but the reality is that most "pasters" are terrible at typing, and view it as slow and agonizing.

One study of average computer users, the average rate for transcription was 33 words per minute, and only 19 words per minute for composition.

Hunt and peck could be as low as 7 wpm.

A car traveling a mile at 60mph takes a minute. At 25, it is only a bit over 2 minutes. On paper it does not seem like a big difference but it sure feels a lot slower. Drive anywhere only 5mph under the speed limit and in most cases you will be inviting a tailgater who really is not in any hurry, but is just annoyed because you seem to be going really slow.

Encouraging long detailed logs is great, but condeming those that don't post them really is not going to motivate anyone to do any better. If I'm traveling at 5 mph (or more)over the speed limit and someone starts tailgating, I tend to just go a bit slower..

[Clan Riffster]

but the reality is that most "pasters" are terrible at typing, and view it as slow and agonizing.

I'd love to see your source for that, as it directly contradicts my own personal experience. One of the many joys I take from this game is the opportunity to meet all kinds of folks. There's not much that I enjoy more than picking the brains of my fellow cachers, poking around their motivations for various stuff. What I've noticed is that, of those who copy/paste logs, they fall into four main categories:

 

1 ) They thought that's how it's supposed to be done, since they've seen other folks do it.

2 ) They are too dang lazy to type more than a few consonants.

3 ) They are brimming with apathy.

4 ) Typing is agonizing.

 

The percentage of copy/pasters in the 4th category is remarkably small.

 

(Note: There are probably a bazillion other categories, but like the good folks in category # 2, I'm too dang lazy to list them)

[+SixDogTeam]

Me NO LIKKE TYpINQG

[+briansnat]

Hunt and peck could be as low as 7 wpm.

 

Well there you go, it takes 1 minute to write a decent log. So much for the "no time" excuse.

 

 

 

"Nice view. Thanks for bringing me here". (7 words)

 

"Devious hide. Took me a while. Thanks!" (7 words)

 

"A beautiful walk on a lovely day" (7 words)

 

"Cool spot. My kids loved it. Thanks!" (7 words)

 

"Had fun. Really liked the container" (6 words)

 

"Tough one but we persevered. TFTC!" (6 words)

 

"Thanks for the cache and history lesson" (7 words)

 

"What a fun cache. Thank you!" (6 words)

 

"Wow!" (1 word)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2009 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

Since when has it been a requirement to post a story with every single log?!

 

Two instances lately, one directed at me have brought this to my attention. First, someone was harassed for posting a short log on a cache locally on the cache page. Second, I was doing a power cache run, and upon logging all 111 of my days finds with *gasp* the same log, I was contacted by one owner who thought my action was disgraceful, and an insult to cache hiders everywhere.

 

Some of us, myself included just aren't in to typing out essay like logs for every cache we find, EVEN the cool ones! It used to be, "TFTC!" sufficed to tell the owner that you appreciated the find. I find writing, and reading (to be honest) these long winded logs to be about as interesting as watching paint dry. I thought this was about finding the cache, not sitting for hours on end writing ABOUT the cache. I find my time better spent FINDING CACHES! For me, the log is more record keeping than personal, and a simple TFTC! says, hey, I found your cache, thanks for hiding it so I could find it today.

 

I'm not saying theres anything wrong with posting lengthy logs, but don't down people just because they don't do the same as you, and certainly don't expect if from people. Cachers come from all different backgrounds, some may be more capable and/or interested in typing out long logs than others.

 

My question is since when is the LOG more important than the FIND?! Where does this end? Are people going to start deleting legitimate find logs just because the log wasn't interesting enough?

 

My question is: Why does this bother you so much?

The same should be asked of those who are bothered so much by the occasional 'TFTC' on their cache page. Obviously a great cache is going to have many glowing logs. Why do these people get so bunched up if a few people don't pound out a unique log?

[+Ambrosia]

Ok, for people who truly hate typing and only like copying and pasting, I think they should have a bunch of quick pre-made logs that they can copy and paste while logging caches. They they can have different ones to choose from, and it will look unique to observers. We've already seen some example logs in this thread.

 

Here are some off the top of my head:

 

(Any and all of these can have "Thanks!" "Thank you" "TFTC", etc. added for further affect.)

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

What a great view from this spot!

 

Nice area.

 

I've always wanted to visit this place.

 

Saw/Heard some pretty birds.

 

Thanks for bringing us here.

 

Took me a few minutes to find this, nice job!

 

A place that we would never have found without Geocaching!

 

What a clever hide.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mix and match where appropriate.

[+briansnat]

The same should be asked of those who are bothered so much by the occasional 'TFTC' on their cache page. Obviously a great cache is going to have many glowing logs. Why do these people get so bunched up if a few people don't pound out a unique log?

 

Why is it that any time someone comments on a subject, they are "so bunched up"? I know I'm not bunched up at all over this. In fact I give the matter very little thought outside of this thread.

 

I don't think that the occasional C & P log is the issue for most of the people here. C & P logs have been around since the sport started, but in the past they were usually pretty rare. They are far more common now and I think it's that trend that many people here find disappointing.

[+flask]

i, too, am not particularly "bunched up". i spend a lot of time at my desk is all.

 

and i have some opinions.

 

i think it's also interesting that people who attempt to defend alme pasted acronyms invariably think it's because i somehow don't get enough praise for my caches.

 

it's really OTHER people's caches i'm talking about. i don't read the logs from my caches all that often; it's not worth my time to open up an email to read "TFTC".

 

but i read logs on OTHER people's caches all the time, and i really prefer it when someone takes the time to write a few words for each one.

[+Webfoot]

I saw a log that consisted of " * " today. To me, that is shorthand for, "All that matters is my smilie."

I would translate that to read "Clan Riffster, your cache was pathetic. So much so, that I am going to use only a hint of virtual ink in my online log."

I've seen someone post in my neck of the woods once, "Left a straw."

 

Implied was, Your cache sucks.

[djhobby]

 

This could go on forever.

[+Webfoot]

Ok, for people who truly hate typing and only like copying and pasting, I think they should have a bunch of quick pre-made logs that they can copy and paste while logging caches. They they can have different ones to choose from, and it will look unique to observers. We've already seen some example logs in this thread.

 

Here are some off the top of my head:

 

Mix and match where appropriate.

Of all the ones I've seen thus far, this one is my favorite.

[+sbell111]

The same should be asked of those who are bothered so much by the occasional 'TFTC' on their cache page. Obviously a great cache is going to have many glowing logs. Why do these people get so bunched up if a few people don't pound out a unique log?

Why is it that any time someone comments on a subject, they are "so bunched up"?

Not at all. Sometimes, these complainers are angsty or twisted or bent. Mostly, they just have an inate need to try to control the behavior of others, in my opinion. I think that is what I push back against the most.

I know I'm not bunched up at all over this. In fact I give the matter very little thought outside of this thread.

 

I don't think that the occasional C & P log is the issue for most of the people here. C & P logs have been around since the sport started, but in the past they were usually pretty rare. They are far more common now and I think it's that trend that many people here find disappointing.

In that case, one wonders why you felt the need to reply to my post. After all, my post wasn't in reply to yours. Nor did I make any reference at all to you or your posts. If this behavior doesn't bother you (contrary to the tenor of your previous posts), why did you respond?

... it's really OTHER people's caches i'm talking about. i don't read the logs from my caches all that often; it's not worth my time to open up an email to read "TFTC".

 

but i read logs on OTHER people's caches all the time, and i really prefer it when someone takes the time to write a few words for each one.

I guess that you will get over your need to control people when they do things that have nothing at all to do with you. Edited December 8, 2009 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

This could go on forever.

Especially if folks keep posting cartoons depicting deceased equine violence.

[Mr.Yuck]

This could go on forever.

Especially if folks keep posting cartoons depicting deceased equine violence.

 

Yeah, but at least it's from South Park. That's a new dead horse cartoon for me. I don't even remember that episode.

 

I'll beat it some more. Where were all these "non-wordy", "non-techie" type log writers in like 2002 or 2003? Have we had an expoential increase in computer illiteracy since then?

[+sbell111]

This could go on forever.

Especially if folks keep posting cartoons depicting deceased equine violence.

 

Yeah, but at least it's from South Park. That's a new dead horse cartoon for me. I don't even remember that episode.

 

I'll beat it some more. Where were all these "non-wordy", "non-techie" type log writers in like 2002 or 2003? Have we had an expoential increase in computer illiteracy since then?

Your question is based on an assumption that there has been an exponential increase in this type of log. I suspect that there has not.

[+The Blorenges]

 

I've seen someone post in my neck of the woods once, "Left a straw."

 

Implied was, Your cache sucks.

 

 

 

That comment would have gone right over my head... But now that you've explained it, I hope I never see it on one of our caches )

 

MrsB

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This could go on forever.

Especially if folks keep posting cartoons depicting deceased equine violence.

 

Yeah, but at least it's from South Park. That's a new dead horse cartoon for me. I don't even remember that episode.

 

I'll beat it some more. Where were all these "non-wordy", "non-techie" type log writers in like 2002 or 2003? Have we had an expoential increase in computer illiteracy since then?

Your question is based on an assumption that there has been an exponential increase in this type of log. I suspect that there has not.

Speaking personally, there has been. In 2003 I wrote long logs. Some seemed to find them entertaining enough to say so. Then I got into doing numbers runs, hundreds of caches per week sometimes, like when my team competed to win Cache League. I started using TFTC and cut and paste for those, no reflection on the cache, just wasn't willing to write an epistle when I had so many to log. Then I pretty much quit caching alone in 2005 and knew that my companions would log them so I started writing "Found with CacherX on a fun run through Atlantis" or whatever, and would cut and paste that to all the caches we visited on that trip. In, I think, 2007 I pretty much lost interest, for a number of reasons (the increase of this kind of flutter about TFTC and cut-and-paste for one) and pretty much quit logging my finds altogether. The folks who were with me know where I've been and the CO has my signature in the cache log, that should be enough. It is for me.

[+sbell111]

I've seen someone post in my neck of the woods once, "Left a straw."

 

Implied was, Your cache sucks.

 

That comment would have gone right over my head... But now that you've explained it, I hope I never see it on one of our caches )

 

MrsB

I'm not convinced that the post meant what webfoot believed it did. Without someone explaining their snark to me, I would never have gotten it. That being said, I don't believe that the logs are an appropriate venue for this type of 'wittiness'. If someone made this log (or DPM or any number of other oh-so-cool comments) on one of my caches, I would happily delete it and offer them the opportunity to relog if they can do so appropriately.

[+sbell111]

This could go on forever.

Especially if folks keep posting cartoons depicting deceased equine violence.

 

Yeah, but at least it's from South Park. That's a new dead horse cartoon for me. I don't even remember that episode.

 

I'll beat it some more. Where were all these "non-wordy", "non-techie" type log writers in like 2002 or 2003? Have we had an expoential increase in computer illiteracy since then?

Your question is based on an assumption that there has been an exponential increase in this type of log. I suspect that there has not.

Speaking personally, there has been. In 2003 I wrote long logs. Some seemed to find them entertaining enough to say so. Then I got into doing numbers runs, hundreds of caches per week sometimes, like when my team competed to win Cache League. I started using TFTC and cut and paste for those, no reflection on the cache, just wasn't willing to write an epistle when I had so many to log. Then I pretty much quit caching alone in 2005 and knew that my companions would log them so I started writing "Found with CacherX on a fun run through Atlantis" or whatever, and would cut and paste that to all the caches we visited on that trip. In, I think, 2007 I pretty much lost interest, for a number of reasons (the increase of this kind of flutter about TFTC and cut-and-paste for one) and pretty much quit logging my finds altogether. The folks who were with me know where I've been and the CO has my signature in the cache log, that should be enough. It is for me.

Your post doesn't suggest an exponential increase. In fact, your post shows that in the last few years you have personally stopped leaving the type of log that TWU was referring to.

 

(It should also be noted that I am assuming that TWU is referring to an exponential increase in these logs as compared to the total number of logs. Given that the number of players have increased (near) exponentially in the last several years (if I am not mistaken), it would not be a surprise to see an exponential increase in the raw number of logs for any subset. The only thing that this information would prove is that the popularity of the game as a whole has increased.)

Edited December 8, 2009 by sbell111