Jump to content

What happened in the middle of 2007?


Recommended Posts

It seems like every logbook I come to that's older than the middle of 2007(except micros, of course) has pages filled with little notes and stories, but sometime in the middle of 2007 they migrate to just names and dates. I've just pulled an old archived Cache and am looking through the book. Here's what I found...

 

12/04 through 03/07

51 logs used 20 pages = 2.5 logs per page

 

04/07 through 01/09

27 logs used 03 pages = 9.0 logs per page

 

What the heck happened. I notice it starting as a mixed practice in 2006, but after march of 2007, there's not one single note, just names and dates. Very disappointed. Can anyone else observe these kinds of results in the logbooks? I sure wish more of those pages I had in the book would have been used.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

Well, for myself personally, I noticed that I wanted to write basically the same thing in the logbook as I did online. But that felt stupid to me, so I started trying to write something different in each. That was like trying to write a paper from someone elses work, where you can't copy it, so you say almost the same things with slightly different words or word order. That made me feel weird and started taking the enjoyment out of the caching experience.

 

When we first started caching, there were very few caches out there. We knew very few cachers. Writing in the notebook was like secretly communicating with some unknown person in the future. It was exciting, and it was a treat to read what other cachers had written in the past. We were a part of history. But the more caches that cropped up, and the more cachers I got to know, took that specialness away after a while.

 

I tried to write something other than just my name at first, like, "Thanks!", "Beautiful spot!", but then I just felt that the only technical reason for the logbook was to prove you were there, and the one that most people would actually read (and where you have more room to write stuff) was the online log.

 

I think it kinda parallels the move from handwritten letters to email. Easier, quicker, etc. Kinda sad, but that's progress. :anibad:;)

Link to comment

I started caching sometime around April 2006. Over the past four years or so, the caches I've found and the logbooks inside them have gotten progressively smaller. With the sort of large logbook I'd be likely to find in, say, an ammo box, I didn't think twice about leaving a half-page log describing my experience.

 

As time went on and logbooks shrank and turned into log sheets, my log entries shrank, too. I used less space for my logs to help the logbook/log sheet last longer before the cache owner would need to replace it. These days, my paper logs are usually short and I save my creativity (such as it is) for the on-line log.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

When I first started out I'd write a nice note in the cache log. Somewhere along the way I realized that few if any people actually read the physical logs, so why write in them? I save my writing for the online log, where someone will see it. (And my handwriting is atrocious, so no one could read it in a cache log anyway.)

Link to comment

There are many reasons. I think that the proliferation of smaller caches got me more in the habit of signing my name rather than writing a longer log entry. When I am with my noncaching family, a group of friends, or even hiking across a trail with the dog, there is only so much time I have to spend at any cache. I would rather spend more time writing a log online, particularly if I have something that I want to say about the cache or the location.

 

Still, it's nice to come across a creative note in a log book now and then. Often, though, they are written by outsiders who have stumbled upon the cache.

Link to comment

When I first started out I'd write a nice note in the cache log. Somewhere along the way I realized that few if any people actually read the physical logs, so why write in them? I save my writing for the online log, where someone will see it. (And my handwriting is atrocious, so no one could read it in a cache log anyway.)

 

True. If I personally find the cache deserving of a great log I will put it online where the rest of the community can see it. The folks that have found the cache know how great it is. If it's a general vanilla flavored cache, then I sign my handle date and tftc!

Link to comment

It seems like every logbook I come to that's older than the middle of 2007(except micros, of course) has pages filled with little notes and stories, but sometime in the middle of 2007 they migrate to just names and dates. I've just pulled an old archived Cache and am looking through the book. Here's what I found...

 

12/04 through 03/07

51 logs used 20 pages = 2.5 logs per page

 

04/07 through 01/09

27 logs used 03 pages = 9.0 logs per page

 

What the heck happened. I notice it starting as a mixed practice in 2006, but after march of 2007, there's not one single note, just names and dates. Very disappointed. Can anyone else observe these kinds of results in the logbooks? I sure wish more of those pages I had in the book would have been used.

 

Maybe more families were caching or people started caching together and so didn't have time at GZ to write a long note?

 

I'm drying out a log book here at home right now. I just fetched it to compare. It *only* goes back to 2006 (still longer than I've been caching) but from FTF in April 2006 there's approx 15 full pages of notes for 2006, with a few 'TFTC' and name stamps & stickers towards the end.

From 2007 people started sharing the pages. Shorter notes at first, longer towards the summer, 11 pages for 2007 (Not bad considering the town was badly flooded that summer).

2008 - 14 pages , mainly one longish entry per page again, some sharing and some squeezing in back in 2006 to fill in the gaps. Similar for 2009.

 

So I think with this log book, some people just prefer to write short notes, some just filled a small space available and others might have been influenced by the weather.

 

What did happen in 2007 by your cache? Did other caches nearby get placed, so that seekers were dashing off to the next one, maybe?

Link to comment

It seems like every logbook I come to that's older than the middle of 2007(except micros, of course) has pages filled with little notes and stories, but sometime in the middle of 2007 they migrate to just names and dates. I've just pulled an old archived Cache and am looking through the book. Here's what I found...

 

12/04 through 03/07

51 logs used 20 pages = 2.5 logs per page

 

04/07 through 01/09

27 logs used 03 pages = 9.0 logs per page

 

What the heck happened. I notice it starting as a mixed practice in 2006, but after march of 2007, there's not one single note, just names and dates. Very disappointed. Can anyone else observe these kinds of results in the logbooks? I sure wish more of those pages I had in the book would have been used.

 

Crud. I was just at one of my 2003 placements a few days ago, and didn't check for this. Probably because someone, for some reason, left a 2nd logbook, and people are signing both :anibad:

 

But you're not alone. I've noticed this, and have brought it up here many times. And I do believe 2006 or 2007 seems to be the start point. I live like 3,000 miles from you, by the way, so it's just not you.

 

I'm kind of shocked 3 of the first 7 or 8 posters are people who have been around 5+ years, and say they themselves have been doing this. I haven't seen that in my experience. Always blame the newbs, right? ;) But seriously, I do think there is a lot of monkey-see, monkey-do here.

 

I don't know, the "quick grab mentality"? When caches were few and far between, and you weren't finding that many in a day, you tended to sit and scribble a nice note? I know I still always write more than the name and date. Not much more mind you, but never just the name and date (small size and up, of course).

Link to comment

I rarely do more than sign my name in log books although I am a fairly verbose online logger. The biggest reason is probably because I rarely do any handwriting in my everyday life. I recently tried to write some thank you notes and finally gave up and created them individually on the computer because the handwritten ones were so messy I was ashamed to send them. Another factor is probably the presence of a local dedicated cache thief. Most local caches I found disappeared soon after I found them so writing interesting logs in the book seemed pointless. I feel a bit guilty because I do admit to enjoying looking at old logbooks when i find older caches.

Team Taran

Link to comment

For me, the biggest reason has to do with cache placement. As geocaching became more popular, there are, at least around here, more and more placements that place the cacher under public scrutiny, rather than in remote woods, deserts, or mountain peaks. Rather than take a chance on being caught writing in a logbook, I'll just sign and date. On more remote caches, I typically sit down and spend some time on the log entry.

Link to comment

I’ve been caching for 10 months and for the most part would have to say I have just become very mechanical in signing logs as if for credit.

 

I have written several longer notes, but those have always been in caches where I noticed others had been filling up a page as they go. Then I have taken the time to write about my experience on the cache as well. When that has happened, I’ve thumbed through the pages to see what others have said. It added to the enjoyment of the cache for me.

 

Rare occurrence, though.

Link to comment

I can remember finding my first cache years ago at the summitt of Guadalupe Peak in West Texas. I didn't know that it was a geocache back then but it was an ammo can with trade items and a logbook. I remmeber everyone had a lengthy log about their hike to the summit and where they were from. I ended up writing in it myself because there were pens inside and I traded out some stuff I had. I just thought it was like a logbook for people that climbed the mountain.

 

We just had an event celebrating the 1 millionth published cache. One of the stats mentioned said that geocaching started in 2001 and it took them 7 years to reach 500,000 active caches yet only 3 additional years to reach 1 million. Maybe it was the "flood" of new caches/micros that started people just placing a name and date?

Link to comment

Maybe it was the "flood" of new caches/micros that started people just placing a name and date?

I was going to dispute that the "flood" of new caches necessarily meant that they were micros, but I looked at my PQ and you are right, at least in my area!

 

Of the 500 active caches within 19 miles of my zip (35210) 307 are micros.

 

I found 77 of the current 307 micros prior to 2007, at which time I pretty much had my 20-mile radius cleared out, so the rest have been hidden since that time.

 

The last time I looked, a year or so ago, micros were still only about 35% of the local cache population. For them to now be the majority reflects a huge change in the percentage of micros hidden in the last year.

 

My how times change! It really surprises me that my immediate area now has more micros than all other sizes combined. I usually cache away from home in mostly rural areas so the local change slipped up on me.

 

Of course that's big-city suburb, so I expect that if I ran a PQ on small towns or rural areas I would see a reversal of those percentages.

 

Yes, I suspect that this proliferation of micros is directly related to a reduction in verbose logging practices.

Link to comment

Power Trails

 

I can remember hiking 5 miles to find one cache. I would sit at the cache and read the log book. I would look through the swag in the cache and find something to trade. Then I'd write something in the log abount my experience. I'd even spend time taking pictures - not just at the cache site but all along the trail.

 

A couple of years ago things began to change. Now there were 20 caches on the same five mile hike. Some of them are micros, so there isn't room to write much anyhow. I'd hike from one cache to the next. Sign my name in the log. Never trade. Don't even have time to stop and take pictures any more.

 

Now I suppose I could just pick out one or two caches on the trail and find those. Save the others for another day, and relive the "good old days". But I'm just having too much fun finding all the caches.

Link to comment

It has always seemed silly to me to repeat myself in the book and on-line. I usualy only put a note in the logbook if there is something i want to communicate to other finders, or the CO that would be a spoiler or some other reason that it would not be appropriate for the online log.

 

Also, for FTF or close to FTF, I add time of day. I also add time when doing late night caching. Something like "found at 0245h".

Link to comment

I like to write a paper log where space allows, but one thing I've noticed (as I know others have) is that it is sometimes really tough to write anything on soggy paper... around here Rite in the Rain etc is rarely used.

Of course the real problem is with containers that leak, or are hard to reseal. Perhaps the date of shift in logging habits relates to the shift away from ammocans and other waterproof containers. I should be clear that most of the micros I've found have been dry... but old coffee cans and margarine containers often are not. I was one day behind one group (nameless) and each of the 5 caches I did were left exposed to the elements and not sealed. High count cachers too! Still I can't say whether it was them for sure, just that they were the previous log entry, and it was raining locally on the day they did the caches.

 

Another point... like many, arthritis is more a problem writing than typing... not to mention trying to hold flimsy logs still while writing in the cold wet, or even warm dry conditions... my writing is terrible to begin with... so it's not all attitude at all...

 

Doug

Link to comment

I think several people here have nailed the reasons:

 

- the proliferation of micros and nanos - small log books --> short logs

- the proliferation of urban caches - if you want to minimize muggle involvement, you need to write quickly and succinctly.

- the "stop 'n grab" or "park 'n grab" mentality. If it's an easy cache, there's not much reason to write a book about the find.

- "It's all about the numbers" - the cachers who want to run up their find count are already plotting their way to the next cache, and don't want to waste time writing a lot here. They want to do just enough to show they were here, and then get on their way.

 

And I know I'm guilty of it as well. I've signed more than a few logbooks with "Ralfcoder, MM/DD/YY". I try to put at least a little more in the online posting, but don't always succeed. I know I tend to put more effort into my comments in the log books and online log when it's clear that the hider has put more effort into their cache. If it's a hand-made, well-camo'd container that's 5 miles down a jeep trail, I'll write a LOT more than just another ratty LPC. I've found a few that turn out to be LPCs that I don't even bother logging.

Link to comment

As far as the cache I mentioned, I guess it may be a result of both the shrinking size and increasing number of Caches, and this same kind of thing probably happened in lots of places.

 

Look at this list...

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx

 

That's a series of micros that popped up at exactly the time the logs stopped having any notes. What you don't see is that there are 27 more archived Caches in the same series. I guess there just wasn't time to spend 5 extra minutes at a Cache when there were 50 more to find that day.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

I just don't bother to write more than my name/date, because I figure I can just write the "rest of the story" in my online entry. And also, of course, due to lack of room most of the time.

 

I barely even remember how to write by hand anyway! Signing geocache logs is pretty much the ONLY time I actually hand-write anymore. ;)

Link to comment

In south Louisiana when you're in the swamp sweating with dozens of mosquitos biting you you're not going to write much. Throughout our geocaching travels starting in 2003 we never wrote much in the log book.....we save that for the on-line log ( they last forever....field logs do not)

Link to comment

Power Trails

 

I can remember hiking 5 miles to find one cache. I would sit at the cache and read the log book. I would look through the swag in the cache and find something to trade. Then I'd write something in the log abount my experience. I'd even spend time taking pictures - not just at the cache site but all along the trail.

 

A couple of years ago things began to change. Now there were 20 caches on the same five mile hike. Some of them are micros, so there isn't room to write much anyhow. I'd hike from one cache to the next. Sign my name in the log. Never trade. Don't even have time to stop and take pictures any more.

 

Now I suppose I could just pick out one or two caches on the trail and find those. Save the others for another day, and relive the "good old days". But I'm just having too much fun finding all the caches.

 

Isn't that funny? In the beginning (at least around here), people would post one cache at the end (or towards the end) of a hike, probably at the top of a mountain or at a good lookout point. We didn't even think of putting caches along the way, that seemed redundant and silly. Things are quite different now. I can't 100% say if it's bad or not...just a different mentality I suppose. But it does take away from that specialness and certain kind of enjoyment. I do like finding all the caches, too, so I'm not complaining. Just making an observation. ;):anibad:

Link to comment

Hmmm. Folks write "TFTC SL" as their online contribution to the cache. Hardly surprising that folks aren't writing in a log book. I'd be curious to know how many COs go back to read the in-cache log book even if only to check on whether or not the on-line loggers actually visited. I'd bet the percentage is small because I find that many cache owners won't even go out to replace full or soaked logs. Life just gets in the way.

Link to comment

It said "fatal time out exceeded 45 seconds" and then loaded the comment ... what's up with that?

It seems to do that. I've learned not to hit refresh, or it will double the post. I usually use the back button, and copy what I wrote incase it gets lost, then I can try again.

Yup! Exactly what I do. ;)

Link to comment

Hmmm. Folks write "TFTC SL" as their online contribution to the cache. Hardly surprising that folks aren't writing in a log book. I'd be curious to know how many COs go back to read the in-cache log book even if only to check on whether or not the on-line loggers actually visited. I'd bet the percentage is small because I find that many cache owners won't even go out to replace full or soaked logs. Life just gets in the way.

 

We started planting in early 2002. I keep every one of the logbooks and do read them. I have been pleasantly surprised that about 50% of finders will leave a note. I think that may be because most of my logbooks are handmade, so I put some effort into them.

 

I agree though, I get the feeling that the logbooks don't mean much to a CO. In the past couple of years I've noticed the trend to logsheets - even if it's a regular size container. One time I opened up a regular size cache and couldn't find the logbook, that is, until I unfolded the geocaching stash note. On the back of the stash note the CO had printed out a table with tiny cells - enough for about 100 sigs). I also have noticed in the forums that some COs will admonish finders for taking up too much room on the logsheet. Guess they don't want to have to do maintenance more than once every couple of years (or ever).

Link to comment

Power Trails

 

I can remember hiking 5 miles to find one cache. I would sit at the cache and read the log book. I would look through the swag in the cache and find something to trade. Then I'd write something in the log abount my experience. I'd even spend time taking pictures - not just at the cache site but all along the trail.

 

A couple of years ago things began to change. Now there were 20 caches on the same five mile hike. Some of them are micros, so there isn't room to write much anyhow. I'd hike from one cache to the next. Sign my name in the log. Never trade. Don't even have time to stop and take pictures any more.

 

Now I suppose I could just pick out one or two caches on the trail and find those. Save the others for another day, and relive the "good old days". But I'm just having too much fun finding all the caches.

 

I don't know that its just power trails, but saturation in general. The 'caches per day' or 'caches per trip' has gone up up up. As it does the time spent logging each cache has gone down. There have always been people that cached a lot, and those that find only a few at a time, but I think the "average" has been shifting.

Link to comment

Sounds like what is need are log books that encourage larger logs.

 

Name:______________________________________________________

Date:_______________________________________________________

I Like Notes:__________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Name:______________________________________________________

Date:_______________________________________________________

I Like Notes:__________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

 

No harm in encouraging people by telling them what you like right?

Link to comment

I guess that with micros being the norm in most areas (regular caches are no longer regular) people are just used to writing their initials.

 

I see it in logs in my caches even though micros are still only about 15 percent of the caches here. It;s usually done by cachers from other areas traveling through, though some newer locals do it too.

Link to comment

I rarely leave anything more than name and date on a physical log. It's just a personal preference, because I like to stay 'in the moment' when I'm geocaching, and my style of writing just isn't conducive to staying 'in the moment'. If I'm only doing one cache, I might write more, or if a cache really moves me and all the stars line up (temperature, insects, etc), then I might, but that's rare. I generally save all the good stuff for the online log.

 

What I'd really like to see is some hard numbers on the subject, such as the ratio of active cachers to micro's in '07 compared to now. I wouldn't be overly surprised if that ratio hasn't grown all that much overall.

 

I'd suspect that the number of active cachers is really the root of the change in logs, rather than micro's or some other thing. I know that in my local area, once upon a time most of the cachers knew each other and logs were different. Even now I still see that cachers leave longer notes in caches hidden by those they know well compared to caches hidden by strangers. I wonder if, some time shortly before '07 the number of active cachers passed a 'critical mass' tipping point which started to show up as changes in logging habits shortly thereafter.

 

This is the sort of thing that would probably make a really good subject for a Masters or Doctorate thesis for someone studying sociology or psychology.

Link to comment

 

We started planting in early 2002. I keep every one of the logbooks and do read them. I have been pleasantly surprised that about 50% of finders will leave a note. I think that may be because most of my logbooks are handmade, so I put some effort into them.

 

I have seemed to notice that too, a beter quality book leads to more writing. one of my favorites was an older cache in the desert on the way from L.A. to Las Vegas. It was a great hardbound journal, and filled with notes and stories. One time on a revisit, I took photos of every page. Now the Cache has finally gone missing, and I'll hopefully end up posting all the images to the Cache page eventually.

Link to comment

Sounds like what is need are log books that encourage larger logs.

 

Name:______________________________________________________

Date:_______________________________________________________

I Like Notes:__________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Name:______________________________________________________

Date:_______________________________________________________

I Like Notes:__________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

 

No harm in encouraging people by telling them what you like right?

I like that, and after seeing some recently like that I'll probably make a few. They will be smaller logbooks, so I'll probably set it up for each page to be a seperate log.

Link to comment

I tend to get a little long winded in online logging, but I keep it minimal when signing logbooks/sheets. The reason is simple: NO SPELLCHECK! But seriously, there are a few reasons for this. I feel that the more I write in a cache log, the sooner the cache owner will have to come and replace it. Also, when I'm out hiking, I figure I could either be parked at a cache, penning my autobiography, OR I could be busy hiking to the next cache. Then there's the fact that a log entry left in a cache will likely never be seen by anyone who has already found the cache. I find that when the weather is foul, my online logging becomes more chatty. With logbook logging, the opposite is true. And then there's the muggle issue. I just think that online logging is a much better option. I think this would be a much bigger issue is geocaching were more like letterboxing. Then you'd be more likely to see lengthier logbook entries. Justa hunch.

Link to comment

 

This is the sort of thing that would probably make a really good subject for a Masters or Doctorate thesis for someone studying sociology or psychology.

I wonder how one would go about gathering all the data needed to really study this, especially with so many of the older logbooks missing, and unavailable for the research.

 

OK, I just found one! An old logbook, I mean. It was from a cache placed in 2004.

 

If I'm lying I'm dying, the first "name and date only" log is dated April, 2007. Then there's a few more "wordy" paper entries. Then starting in July, 2007, it's like almost all name and date only. And I know who most of these people are. They were all newbs in 2007!! Blame the newbs!! Off with their heads!!

 

There are two or three more "wordy" entries after that, but the last entry is July, 2008 (when I obviously took the logbook home). Name and date only, appropriately. This is not a scientific analysis, by any means. But I'm just sayin'. :laughing:

Link to comment

 

This is the sort of thing that would probably make a really good subject for a Masters or Doctorate thesis for someone studying sociology or psychology.

I wonder how one would go about gathering all the data needed to really study this, especially with so many of the older logbooks missing, and unavailable for the research.

 

OK, I just found one! An old logbook, I mean. It was from a cache placed in 2004.

 

If I'm lying I'm dying, the first "name and date only" log is dated April, 2007. Then there's a few more "wordy" paper entries. Then starting in July, 2007, it's like almost all name and date only. And I know who most of these people are. They were all newbs in 2007!! Blame the newbs!! Off with their heads!!

 

There are two or three more "wordy" entries after that, but the last entry is July, 2008 (when I obviously took the logbook home). Name and date only, appropriately. This is not a scientific analysis, by any means. But I'm just sayin'. :laughing:

 

That's exactly my findings. Aside from a few select individuals who always have done the Name/Date, almost all the finds before March 2007 have notes on them. March 2007 and beyond has nothing but Name/Date(except for one "TNLN", and one "Took Bug, Dropped Coin"

 

Maybe march 2007 is when the Iphone app came out??

Link to comment

Haha, on mine, even the final log was Name/Date, and that one was AFTER the Cache was archived. My listing was referenced on the Cache page of the very hard one that was hiden nearby(replacing mine), stating that my archived Cache was still in place for those who failed on the hard one. You'd think that last finder would have had more to say.

Link to comment

Maybe it's a cache saturation issue. The more caches that are around in an area the less time spent logging each cache. If originally there was a lone cache on a hiking trail, cachers would find the one cache and write about their visit, etc., etc. Then more caches show up and cachers logs get shorter because it's just another cache on the trail.

Link to comment

It depends for me on whether I think I will be discovered while sighned the log. So I leep the cache log short and the online log more informative since it will be read first. In the field I am dirty and sweating and don't want to soild the log so I keep it short. Also if I don't like the Cache because it is Lame - I might just log it found an say nothing rude or hurtful. If I don't like it I might not log it at all.

Edited by GPS-Hermit
Link to comment

My reasons were that I rarely took the time or had the time to read the physical logs so I felt my logs were unlikely to be read, and only those that found the cache could read my log. In addition cache muggling or damage was increasing so that the log books were more and more often lost or damaged meaning no-one would ever read my log.

 

Thus my logs moved entirely online and my physical signature in the logbook is just a name and date.

Link to comment

i only write or have my wife write journal entry like logs on caches with REALLY BIG log books. i am talking notebook size. we will write a sentence or two in GOOD sized log books. otherwise just name and date. we love to see a huge og book were we can write or draw something. i have drawn in a few.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...