Jump to content

Write a story or you're being disrespectful?


dougsmiley
Followers 8

Recommended Posts

This could go on forever.

Especially if folks keep posting cartoons depicting deceased equine violence. :rolleyes:

 

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? :unsure:

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 by sbell111
Link to comment
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 :unsure: )

 

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.

Perfectively acceptable log under the guidelines. You are saying that you will violate the guidelines and delete posts that don't suit your taste? And now not only is TFTC not acceptable but wittiness isn't appropriate? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
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 :rolleyes: )

 

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.

 

What if they log wrote "I didn't enjoy this cache find."

Link to comment

I've received rubberstamp log entries and, while they leave me nonplussed I won't raise a stink with the cacher or come here to vent about it. Caching means different things to different people. If Alamogul comes through your area you can likely expect he's not going to go into detail unless he felt there was something worth mentioning (your cache is falling appart, your logsheet is full, he rather was impressed with it, etc.)

 

I don't find enough in one day (max for a day was 22 in May, 2008) to feel the urge to copy and paste, though I may succumb to brevity if I'm totally knackered. Though a good cup of cocoa can usually reinvigorate me long enough to get through the day's logs, as it did when I had a laundry list of logs to make after my Thanksgiving trip (some of which required photo selection and editting from the 361 photos taken on the trip :) ) I still try to put something meaninful in each entry, which is why I always take along a scrap of paper to write notes on (wet log, very clever hide, this should be called THEM for all the ants in it, I think this is on private property, etc.)

 

Days when I don't have a lot of finds usually reward the COs with better quality logs. I found one this morning (GC1Y0GN - Tracer Bullet) and I happen to listen to a lot of Richard Diamond radio shows lately and felt a little inspired, so made an entry in the general theme of things. :rolleyes:

 

COs need to grow a thick skin if they don't like brevity or rubberstamp logs. They're a fact of life for caching. Some people are power cachers and in it for the numbers, while others, like myself are more casual.

Link to comment
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 :P )

 

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.
Perfectively acceptable log under the guidelines. You are saying that you will violate the guidelines and delete posts that don't suit your taste? And now not only is TFTC not acceptable but wittiness isn't appropriate? :rolleyes:
In my opinion, your read of the guidelines is in error.

 

You take the 'ALR' verbiage to mean that a cache owner cannot delete a log. This is not correct. In fact, the guidelines make it the cache owner's responsibility to maintain 'quality control of posts to the cache page'. Deleting an excessively snarky post falls within this mandate, in my opinion. Further, by allowing the finder to relog his find without the snark, the cache owner is not in violation of the 'ALR' verbiage (Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.) because the find is not being denied.

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

 

Implied was, Your cache sucks.

:unsure:

 

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 :P )

 

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.
What if they log wrote "I didn't enjoy this cache find."
That would be a perfectly acceptable log, even if it was a CnP. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

In fact, the guidelines make it the cache owner's responsibility to maintain 'quality control of posts to the cache page'. Deleting an excessively snarky post falls within this mandate, in my opinion.

 

I think the straw comment is some pretty high-quality snark.

 

Wouldn't leaving the comment as-is probably reflect badly on the poster and not the cache?

Link to comment

In fact, the guidelines make it the cache owner's responsibility to maintain 'quality control of posts to the cache page'. Deleting an excessively snarky post falls within this mandate, in my opinion.

 

I think the straw comment is some pretty high-quality snark.

 

Wouldn't leaving the comment as-is probably reflect badly on the poster and not the cache?

Perhaps, but not on my cache.

 

EDITed to add that all the chest bumping and high-fiving that went along with 'DPM' some time ago suggests that the snarkers would never actually see their own 'bad reflection'.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
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.

 

It depends on the cacher. Here is an example of a rather wordy and descriptive log for a cache that was nothing more than an urban park and grab in a back alley.

 

Every cache has a story, it all depends on whether or not you are the sort of person who wants to take the time to type it all in.

Link to comment

IMHO: The degradation of the language itself, reduced to text-talk and emoticons, leads to many misunderstandings; for instance, if someone posted in my cache "left a straw," I would presume s/he meant one of those silly straws that kids love so much (and which are impossible to clean properly). I feel compelled to write a unique log entry for each cache I find. If I have the time to hike through the woods, grope a guardrail, or lift a skirt, then I can find time to say something nice about the experience, which I wouldn't have had except for the time and energy expended by the CO. If I didn't particularly enjoy the experience, I lie.

While I'm always a bit disappointed when the half-dozen log entries below mine indicate simply "TFTC," I respect the cachers' right to be as economical with their gratitude as I attempt to be profuse with mine.

Link to comment

More on-topic: I used the acronymical log entries when I started because that's what I saw everyone else doing. I didn't do it every time - if something happened worth mentioning, it got mentioned.

 

I don't think its disrespectful unless you intend it to be.

 

Now that I have placed caches of my own, and have read this thread, I have cranked the verbosity up a level.

Link to comment
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.

 

You saw this once and figured that out, did you? You didn't even need a hint? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
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.

 

You saw this once and figured that out, did you? You didn't even need a hint? :rolleyes:

The thing is, the cacher had to believe that the cache sucked before ever going after it, else he wouldn't have had a straw to leave!

 

If you know going in that you will think a cache sux, why would you go after it?

Link to comment
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.

 

You saw this once and figured that out, did you? You didn't even need a hint? :rolleyes:

The thing is, the cacher had to believe that the cache sucked before ever going after it, else he wouldn't have had a straw to leave!

 

If you know going in that you will think a cache sux, why would you go after it?

 

Or perhaps the cacher did not actually leave a straw.

Link to comment
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." :rolleyes:

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

 

Implied was, Your cache sucks.

 

You saw this once and figured that out, did you? You didn't even need a hint? :unsure:

The thing is, the cacher had to believe that the cache sucked before ever going after it, else he wouldn't have had a straw to leave!

 

If you know going in that you will think a cache sux, why would you go after it?

 

Or perhaps the cacher did not actually leave a straw.

You're suggesting that a cacher would LIE? :)

Link to comment
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.

 

It depends on the cacher. Here is an example of a rather wordy and descriptive log for a cache that was nothing more than an urban park and grab in a back alley.

 

Every cache has a story, it all depends on whether or not you are the sort of person who wants to take the time to type it all in.

 

Sometimes the cache doesn't so much have a story as what happens on the way there.

Link to comment

*whispers*

 

Apart from the straw thing, I don't know what DPM means either... never seen that mentioned in these parts.

 

MrsB :)

 

From Prime Suspect's "GeoLex-The Lexicon of Geocaching":

 

DPM – Including the letters “DPM” in a cache log was a once-secret way to indicate the cache was of low quality. DPM is an abbreviation for “des palourdes mortes", which is French for “the dead clams”. The entire French phrase is “Les longs sanglots des palourdes mortes blessent mon coeur avec un languor monotone pendant qu'ils dansent à minuit", which translates to “The long sobs of the dead clams wound my heart with a monotonous languor as they dance at midnight”. The idea was to include this phrase in a cache log to clue in others that the cache was of low quality. Rarely actually used, as the meaning of DPM quickly spread throughout the geocaching community, and its secrecy was lost.

Link to comment

 

...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? :)

 

Someone with more time on his hands can analyze word counts of the logs on This Cache.

 

While I can't verify that some of the later logs are CnP logs without researching the logger's other finds on that day, it is obvious that the logs are trending toward much shorter in the past few years.

 

Not that short logs are the issue, because they aren't. There are some excellent examples of short, unique logs among the later logs.

 

Still the trend is interesting and I'm sure it's not peculiar to this cache. Any theories out there as to why? I have a few but I'd like to see if anybody else arrives at the same conclusions I have.

Link to comment

 

...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? :)

 

Someone with more time on his hands can analyze word counts of the logs on This Cache.

 

While I can't verify that some of the later logs are CnP logs without researching the logger's other finds on that day, it is obvious that the logs are trending toward much shorter in the past few years.

 

Not that short logs are the issue, because they aren't. There are some excellent examples of short, unique logs among the later logs.

 

Still the trend is interesting and I'm sure it's not peculiar to this cache. Any theories out there as to why? I have a few but I'd like to see if anybody else arrives at the same conclusions I have.

 

I'm not sure if this is a therory or just natural as the technology becomes cheaper...but I've been wanting

to ask the oldtimers how expensive it was relatively speaking to get into geocaching when it first started.

I'm comparing this VCR"s for instance,I remember when they (first) hit the market,they were more then I

could afford. I can't help wondering as the technology got cheaper and therefore available to more people

that the trends your seeing are just a larger cross section of the population....in other words the good ole

days were numbered anyway because the mob would show up sooner or later as they could afford it...

just a thought....

Link to comment
Any theories out there as to why?

Tragedy of the commons? As this game falls farther into the mainstream, more folks of the P&G mentality are playing? ;)

If they're too lazy to walk more than 50' for a smiley, perhaps they're too lazy to type more than 6 keystrokes? :)

Just a guess... not quite a theory.

 

Well the cache in question is not a park and grab. It is about a mile round trip walk, so that rules out the lazy folk.

Link to comment

Perhaps this whole story is a pile of it.

All I have to say... is hey, I'm a newbie, I guess a luker, even though I've made one post! I've been watchin' all of your posts...all of that about the DARPA internet experiment..and all that FTF stuff........all I know, is that I, as a human being, chose to investigate this sport and; now, here I am, in my lovely home county, here in my home town, here where I live in Cherokee County, Oklahoma, on a daily basis, Geocaching.com helps me to discover and appreciate....... what I might have missed. The Senior, more experienced geocacher, may say this, or say that........but, in regard to telling a story on the logs...I have to give a hand to Fluffy & Friedrick of northwestern Arkansas & northeastern Oklahoma.......they are geocaches with integrity!!!! They rock.......read em' and love em' and just try to find em' !! Each time I read them, it's a story............it feels good........it's really why I came!!!!!!!!!!!!!That's all for now.. sunshine :}

Link to comment

Perhaps this whole story is a pile of it.

All I have to say... is hey, I'm a newbie, I guess a luker, even though I've made one post! I've been watchin' all of your posts...all of that about the DARPA internet experiment..and all that FTF stuff........all I know, is that I, as a human being, chose to investigate this sport and; now, here I am, in my lovely home county, here in my home town, here where I live in Cherokee County, Oklahoma, on a daily basis, Geocaching.com helps me to discover and appreciate....... what I might have missed. The Senior, more experienced geocacher, may say this, or say that........but, in regard to telling a story on the logs...I have to give a hand to Fluffy & Friedrick of northwestern Arkansas & northeastern Oklahoma.......they are geocaches with integrity!!!! They rock.......read em' and love em' and just try to find em' !! Each time I read them, it's a story............it feels good........it's really why I came!!!!!!!!!!!!!That's all for now.. sunshine :}

 

I am pretty sure I was the first to read this topic... (kidding) but this is my 100th post! yay me!

 

On topic: I tend to write as much as the cache deserves. I think that is right. I would never put down a cache on a log but I would also never say anything great about it if it was crappy.

 

It's kinda like when your friends have a baby and insist he/she is beautiful... some babies are just ugly or look like Winston Churchill. You don't say the baby is ugly but you don't gush how cute it is... same thing...

 

Just be polite and move on...

 

Bruce.

Link to comment

Perhaps this whole story is a pile of it.

All I have to say... is hey, I'm a newbie, I guess a luker, even though I've made one post! I've been watchin' all of your posts...all of that about the DARPA internet experiment..and all that FTF stuff........all I know, is that I, as a human being, chose to investigate this sport and; now, here I am, in my lovely home county, here in my home town, here where I live in Cherokee County, Oklahoma, on a daily basis, Geocaching.com helps me to discover and appreciate....... what I might have missed. The Senior, more experienced geocacher, may say this, or say that........but, in regard to telling a story on the logs...I have to give a hand to Fluffy & Friedrick of northwestern Arkansas & northeastern Oklahoma.......they are geocaches with integrity!!!! They rock.......read em' and love em' and just try to find em' !! Each time I read them, it's a story............it feels good........it's really why I came!!!!!!!!!!!!!That's all for now.. sunshine :}

But to stay on subject...the truth is...mostly my geocache days are very impromtu! I may only have time for a very short log! Give it a rest...! Be glad someone came at all! The CO should chill!! A short , to the point..no long story log is better than NO log at all!

Link to comment
Any theories out there as to why?

Tragedy of the commons? As this game falls farther into the mainstream, more folks of the P&G mentality are playing? ;)

If they're too lazy to walk more than 50' for a smiley, perhaps they're too lazy to type more than 6 keystrokes? :)

Just a guess... not quite a theory.

 

Thats just wrong. Im too "lazy" to walk more than 50 feet (my body just aches so much) but I write rather wordy logs.

 

Ive seen hikers who demand more mountain top caches write short logs too.

Link to comment

Someone with more time on his hands can analyze word counts of the logs on This Cache.

 

While I can't verify that some of the later logs are CnP logs without researching the logger's other finds on that day, it is obvious that the logs are trending toward much shorter in the past few years.

 

Not that short logs are the issue, because they aren't. There are some excellent examples of short, unique logs among the later logs.

 

Still the trend is interesting and I'm sure it's not peculiar to this cache. Any theories out there as to why? I have a few but I'd like to see if anybody else arrives at the same conclusions I have.

It's obvious! You took the candy out of the cache and log length dwindled. Who can get excited about a cache with no candy?

 

September 11, 2005 by briansnat (781 found)

Maint visit. Removed the candy that was the probable reason that an animal got at the cache and scattered the contents.

 

What part of "no food in caches" don't people understand?

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

 

...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? ;)

 

Someone with more time on his hands can analyze word counts of the logs on This Cache.

 

While I can't verify that some of the later logs are CnP logs without researching the logger's other finds on that day, it is obvious that the logs are trending toward much shorter in the past few years.

 

Not that short logs are the issue, because they aren't. There are some excellent examples of short, unique logs among the later logs.

 

Still the trend is interesting and I'm sure it's not peculiar to this cache. Any theories out there as to why? I have a few but I'd like to see if anybody else arrives at the same conclusions I have.

Like so many questions on these forums, the answer is 'Pocket Queries".
Link to comment

Still the trend is interesting and I'm sure it's not peculiar to this cache. Any theories out there as to why? I have a few but I'd like to see if anybody else arrives at the same conclusions I have.

Like so many questions on these forums, the answer is 'Pocket Queries".

 

I'm not grasping the correlation between PQs and shorter logs. Throw me a bone.

Link to comment

 

Someone with more time on his hands can analyze word counts of the logs on This Cache.

 

While I can't verify that some of the later logs are CnP logs without researching the logger's other finds on that day, it is obvious that the logs are trending toward much shorter in the past few years.

 

Not that short logs are the issue, because they aren't. There are some excellent examples of short, unique logs among the later logs.

 

Still the trend is interesting and I'm sure it's not peculiar to this cache. Any theories out there as to why? I have a few but I'd like to see if anybody else arrives at the same conclusions I have.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that many of the old timers are dying off, or leaving the game, and the main body of cachers are part of what has been termed the "Me Generation". For good, or bad, the younger generation has been taught from birth that they are entitled to all good things, and that they shouldn't have to put forth much effort to get it.

 

An interesting article

 

This is not in any way criticizing anyone of the current generation. Just an observation. Each generation in their turn have their own unique problems and good points.

 

Having said that, I'm happy with any kind of log at all! I'll take whatever the finder wants to give me, and enjoy the occasional plums of a longer log.

Link to comment

Still the trend is interesting and I'm sure it's not peculiar to this cache. Any theories out there as to why? I have a few but I'd like to see if anybody else arrives at the same conclusions I have.

Like so many questions on these forums, the answer is 'Pocket Queries".

 

I'm not grasping the correlation between PQs and shorter logs. Throw me a bone.

In the before time, there were very few caches to find. You found the three or four caches in your area and then were excited when a new one popped up so you would have another to look for. You happily researched the cache (including reading all of the logs) so you were totally ready to go look for it. When Saturday came around, you would print off the cache page and perhaps a terraserver map of the area and then head out to look for that one cache.

 

When you found that one cache, it was a real accomplishment. You would write a short note in the logbook, even if you were getting chewed by bugs. You'd go home a draft a found log. There was no need for copying and pasting, because there was only the one cache to log online.

 

Time went by and more and more people joined the game and hid more and more caches. You happily found these caches. Sometimes, you would find four, five, even six of them in a single day as you kept your area clean of unfound caches.

 

Time continued it's march and life was improved with pocket queries. You could now download all of the caches in your entire state, if you wanted to and dump them into your GPSr and PDA. With this information, you no longer had to research caches before you left the house. You just go after the nearest one and there will be a nearest one because tons of caches are being hidden in your area every single week.

 

You now go out and find dozens of caches in a single Saturday. You sign your name in the logbooks and move on to the next. When you get home, you get them all logged, making sure to let the owner know if there is a problem and to thanking him for placing the cache, copying and pasting as appropriate. People come to the forums and share their cool acronyms for communicating in their logs. One of them is TFTC. It means "Thanks for the cache". What a useful little acronym, perhaps you will start using it, also.

 

Pocket queries are the devil. Their also the answer to nearly any question that is asked in the forums.

Link to comment
From Prime Suspect's "GeoLex-The Lexicon of Geocaching":

DPM – Including the letters "DPM" in a cache log was a once-secret way to indicate the cache was of low quality. DPM is an abbreviation for "des palourdes mortes", which is French for "the dead clams". The entire French phrase is "Les longs sanglots des palourdes mortes blessent mon coeur avec un languor monotone pendant qu'ils dansent à minuit", which translates to "The long sobs of the dead clams wound my heart with a monotonous languor as they dance at midnight". The idea was to include this phrase in a cache log to clue in others that the cache was of low quality. Rarely actually used, as the meaning of DPM quickly spread throughout the geocaching community, and its secrecy was lost.

Sigh... yet another example of a wordy log becoming an acronym. ;)
Link to comment

Still the trend is interesting and I'm sure it's not peculiar to this cache. Any theories out there as to why? I have a few but I'd like to see if anybody else arrives at the same conclusions I have.

In the before time, there were very few caches to find. You found the three or four caches in your area and then were excited when a new one popped up so you would have another to look for. You happily researched the cache (including reading all of the logs) so you were totally ready to go look for it. When Saturday came around, you would print off the cache page and perhaps a terraserver map of the area and then head out to look for that one cache.

 

When you found that one cache, it was a real accomplishment. You would write a short note in the logbook, even if you were getting chewed by bugs. You'd go home a draft a found log. There was no need for copying and pasting, because there was only the one cache to log online.

 

Time went by and more and more people joined the game and hid more and more caches. You happily found these caches. Sometimes, you would find four, five, even six of them in a single day as you kept your area clean of unfound caches.

 

Time continued it's march and life was improved with pocket queries. You could now download all of the caches in your entire state, if you wanted to and dump them into your GPSr and PDA. With this information, you no longer had to research caches before you left the house. You just go after the nearest one and there will be a nearest one because tons of caches are being hidden in your area every single week.

 

You now go out and find dozens of caches in a single Saturday. You sign your name in the logbooks and move on to the next. When you get home, you get them all logged, making sure to let the owner know if there is a problem and to thanking him for placing the cache, copying and pasting as appropriate. People come to the forums and share their cool acronyms for communicating in their logs. One of them is TFTC. It means "Thanks for the cache". What a useful little acronym, perhaps you will start using it, also.

 

Pocket queries are the devil. Their also the answer to nearly any question that is asked in the forums.

I think your answer to the question is dead on. Not just the pocket query aspect (I don't use them, so I can't speak to that), but the quantity of caches available then vs. now. People were likely more grateful back then because caches were relatively scarce. Nowadays it's easy to take caches for granted in part because of the sheer quantity available to find.

 

Briansnat, I did some comparisons on the cache you linked to above and found this (which I thought was interesting): In the first year following the cache's publication the logs frequently mention swag - quite a bit of detail about exactly what was traded. Only two logs in the last year discuss swag at all, and only briefly. I don't think I've ever mentioned swag in any log I've ever done (I've only been caching for a year), and I thought that was kind of odd to read lengthy descriptions of swag trades (I guess I don't see swag as being important enough to mention, but that's just me). Just in case you're interested, the average log length in the first year following publication was 157. In the last year (11/08 - 11/09), the average log length was 30. I'm thinking sbell's post above hits the nail on the head with respect to at least one solid reason why the logs have gotten shorter over the years.

Link to comment
Thats just wrong.

You may be right. Got a counter theory?

 

Sbell may have nailed it in part. The mass quantity of caches (which I appreciate having) I think detracts from online logging. We typically only do a few caches a day, maybe even 10 caches at a time. The experience stays with us, and it shows in our logs. Quite a few folks log their finds without even seeing the cache page. There seems to be less emphasis on the cache page and logs. Just a different mindset in caching as the sport/ hobby/game grows.

Link to comment

In the first year following the cache's publication the logs frequently mention swag - quite a bit of detail about exactly what was traded. Only two logs in the last year discuss swag at all, and only briefly.

 

Is the interest in trading swag correlated to the change in writing lengthy or unique logs? Along with writing logs, have folks lost interest in trading because of the quantity of caches?

Link to comment

i don't allow the quantity of caches i find give me the excuse to write acronym c'n'p logs; it takes me some time, but if i can be bothered to find a cache, i can be bothered to write a log for it.

 

as for trades, i used to like to paw through the cache contents just because i found it interesting. these days there's not much to paw through, so it becomes less practical for me to carry the bag of trade items, so when there IS something to trade for, i'm often unprepared.

 

it's kind of a downward slide.

 

if it's an especially fine cache large enough to accomodate my sig items, i will often leave on as a gift, or if i'm traveling out of my home range i will be more likely to leave items as gifts as well.

Link to comment

I treat a cache as a FRIEND. If you meet a friend and just 'snap' your fingers as your rush by, then by all means, cut and past your "TFTC" and move on. If you are in it for 'the numbers', that is your life, a life that lacks meaning if you ask me. In 2009, I have met MORE rude cachers than my previous 8 years, COMBINED. I even emailed on person who claimed to have found my cache but his signature was no where on the log, and he told me off like I was an idiot. To me, people who log finds and do NOT really find the cache are in the same category as those who copy and paste, "TFTC".

 

The Geocaching community used to be a classy, wonderful group of folks. But it is turning into an arrogant, condescending, competitive bunch of riff raff, who cut and past logs because, "I did a one day, 111 power cache run." You know what, I DON'T CARE. I hide fun caches, in fun places, with unique views and places you would not see otherwise. If you are in it for the numbers, then you are missing the entire point!

Link to comment
I treat a cache as a FRIEND. If you meet a friend and just 'snap' your fingers as your rush by, then by all means, cut and past your "TFTC" and move on. If you are in it for 'the numbers', that is your life, a life that lacks meaning if you ask me. In 2009, I have met MORE rude cachers than my previous 8 years, COMBINED. I even emailed on person who claimed to have found my cache but his signature was no where on the log, and he told me off like I was an idiot. To me, people who log finds and do NOT really find the cache are in the same category as those who copy and paste, "TFTC".

 

The Geocaching community used to be a classy, wonderful group of folks. But it is turning into an arrogant, condescending, competitive bunch of riff raff, who cut and past logs because, "I did a one day, 111 power cache run." You know what, I DON'T CARE. I hide fun caches, in fun places, with unique views and places you would not see otherwise. If you are in it for the numbers, then you are missing the entire point!

Thanks for putting in the bolded bit.

 

I think that you have a great attitude. We should all learn not to be affected by other people's logs.

 

Whether we are any more or less rude, arrogant, or condescending can be debated in another thread. I will happily use your post as an example should such a thread be started.

Link to comment

Let me expand a little. After you are dead, would you rather have "He found 15,000 caches" or "He was a great friend" on your gravestone?

 

I have been caching since 2002 and have found around 550 caches. Obviously, numbers don't mean that much to me. But last Saturday, my wife and I threw a very nice Christmas Party. We had a Geocaching couple drive 60 miles to come to our party, and we had a GREAT time. Finding 100,000 caches wouldn't even hold a candle to the friendship we created with Don and Debbie, cachers from Farmington, New Mexico. At the party, we didn't talk about "how many", we talked about the FUN caches, the UNIQUE caches and the INTERESTING caches. In this area, we have a virtual cache where the Train Robbery scene from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" was filmed. It is a bronze plaque right in the middle of a residential neighborhood, that you would NEVER find except for the cache. There is also a cache at the "Bradford Bridge" where the cliff jump into the river scene was filmed. There is also a cache here in a cemetary that the nearest road is over a mile away. Over 100 gravestones, some with DIED dates in the 1820's. It looks just like something out of a western since there is no upkeep on the gravestone. FUN CACHES.

Link to comment

Let me expand a little. After you are dead, would you rather have "He found 15,000 caches" or "He was a great friend" on your gravestone?

 

I have been caching since 2002 and have found around 550 caches. Obviously, numbers don't mean that much to me. But last Saturday, my wife and I threw a very nice Christmas Party. We had a Geocaching couple drive 60 miles to come to our party, and we had a GREAT time. Finding 100,000 caches wouldn't even hold a candle to the friendship we created with Don and Debbie, cachers from Farmington, New Mexico. At the party, we didn't talk about "how many", we talked about the FUN caches, the UNIQUE caches and the INTERESTING caches. In this area, we have a virtual cache where the Train Robbery scene from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" was filmed. It is a bronze plaque right in the middle of a residential neighborhood, that you would NEVER find except for the cache. There is also a cache at the "Bradford Bridge" where the cliff jump into the river scene was filmed. There is also a cache here in a cemetary that the nearest road is over a mile away. Over 100 gravestones, some with DIED dates in the 1820's. It looks just like something out of a western since there is no upkeep on the gravestone. FUN CACHES.

Two things:

 

First, I would prefer "Loving Husband and Father".

 

Second, I can't figure out what your post has to do with this thread. Nothing that you typed has anything to do with other people's logs. Did you accidently post to the wrong thread?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

So, is geocaching an unsustainable hobby? (As in a box somewhere with stuff for folks to trade.)

 

If the concept is sound, has Groundspeak done a good job as stewards, or has business gotten in the way of the hobby? Did Groundspeak fail when it said a geocache can be only a log in a container? Had Groundspeak failed the hobby by not encouraging quality caches over sheer numbers? Have they made it too easy simply to make it attractive to new revenue sources?

Link to comment

Perhaps the "cut and paste" loggers are just taking the lead from the reviewers who usually post such a log to poorly maintained/disabled/archival-in-progress caches. I suppose the motive that the reviewers have is much different, as duplicate logs leave no room for the cache owner to read into the log somehow that the reviewer is personally picking on them. But I suppose it also could be the motive for some 'cut and pasters', who are aware of a few hypersensitive cache owners who may get upset at spoilers, or other cachers who laugh at pore spelling, and so forth. It would be nice to see personalized reviewer notes every now and then, but they would take up a lot of time and possibly create more issues..

Hello, I noticed your cache has been disabled for 7 weeks now. You have found 187 caches since then, but have not been able to check on your cache which is off of a main highway a mile from your house. Can you please try to make a visit over there soon, or I will be forced to archive it. Thanks.
Hello, you have not visited the site in over 5 months, and area cachers are getting angsty over a few DNFs posted and maintenence issues on your other caches. Can I just archive them all, and expect no nasty letters in return? If you are you on an extended vacation or hositalizised, perhaps you can let us know. Hope you feel better. Signal is worried.
Your cache is soaked after 2 weeks because you used a chinese food container. I'm just going to archive it. Mmm 'k?

 

I also noticed that some of the same topics come up for discussion over and over. Perhaps a few cut and paste responses are in order.. :D

Link to comment

My 2 Cents..

IMHO: It is clear by reading the content of these many forum posts that some people are so desparate as to constantly need their egos stroked in: demanding long detailed 'log' messages, incessantly crowing about their high 'found' GC numbers, forum pontificating 'must do' posts content, constructing & placing 'unfindable'' GCs or siding with irresponsible COers for being AWOL.

It's all quite interesting.

Edited by calgriz
Link to comment

I enjoy writing long logs if there's something interesting to write about. As a cache owner I enjoy getting something more than TFTC, but I am appalled that a cache owner would stoop so low as to e-mail a log writer taking them to task for a short/crummy log.

 

For some reason I'm drawn uncontrollably into these types of threads. As I read along I rarely feel the need to interject, however.......

 

Since I agree that it would be appalling to ask someone to write a better log, or scold them for writing a TFTC only log (even though I love logs with some substance and thought), I must also wonder...

 

Would this practice change if every CO that was offended by those single acronym logs simply e-mailed each of those finders with a quick note:

 

<Start of Message>

 

To: Cache Finder

From: Cache Owner

 

Subject: Contacting Cache Finder <blah blah automatic GC subject line junk>

 

TFTL

 

<End of Message>

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...
Followers 8
×
×
  • Create New...