Micro Proliferation and Log Verbosity

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

In another thread we were talking about the possible correlation of more micros and less verbose online logs when someone mentioned that micros were the most popular hide today.

 

It was pointed out that it took 7 years to reach 500K active caches and only 3 more years to double that number.

 

I was going to dispute that the "flood" of new caches necessarily meant that they were mostly micros, but then I looked at my PQ in GSAK and they 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.

 

What say you? Have your online logs gotten shorter as caches have gotten smaller?

 

Please narrowly limit this thread to discussing the statistics in your area and whether your logs have been affected by the percentages. Please post your opinions of micros and their other effects on the game somewhere else if you think it important that we hear them (again).

Edited March 19, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Snoogans]

 

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

 

 

Look no further. It was me that started the micro proliferation in early June of 2006.

 

My bad.

 

But you helped Ed.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

 

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

 

 

Look no further. It was me that started the micro proliferation in early June of 2006.

 

My bad.

 

But you helped Ed.

True. I love all kinds of caches and was happy to take part in your micro proliferation campaign. Lots of those caches are still out and I like them all!

 

But...

 

My question here is narrowly limited to asking if logging practices have grown shorter as caches grow smaller.

 

Please narrowly limit this thread to discussing the statistics in your area and whether your logs have been affected by the percentages. Please post your opinions of micros and their other effects on the game somewhere else if you think it important that we hear them (again).

It may be too much to hope that we can keep this discussion limited to my question, but I wish that we would try!

 

Too bad polls don't work here, because my question really only needs one of two possible short answers:

 

"Yes, my online logs have gotten shorter as caches in my area have grown smaller."

 

or

 

"No, the length of my online logs has not been affected by cache size."

 

Thanks!

Edited March 19, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+thedeadpirate]

No. TFTT.

[+Snoogans]

It may be too much to hope that we can keep this discussion limited to my question, but I wish that we would try!

 

Here goes:

 

I hardly ever read log books, but I can tell you my practice has NEVER changed.

 

Name and date only.

 

unless

 

The cache deserves a nice verbose physical log....

 

and then only IF:

 

The temp is cool enough.

There's a convenient place to sit.

The bugs are leaving me alone.

I have the time to burn.

 

 

I think the answer to your question is many/most cachers are lookin to maximize finding (due to wayyyy more cache choices today) at the expense of physical logging.

 

Heck, if I have sumthin' to say, I say it online anyway....

[GOF and Bacall]

It is kind of sad to see the physical logs getting shorter. I like to flip through the pages and see what people had to say before they left the cache site. While the experience was still fresh.

[+sbell111]

Global warming.

[+The Jester]

Are you talking logbook logs or online logs? With smaller caches come smaller logbooks, so those logs tend to be shorter. Larger logbooks also allow me to use my full size stamp, which then gives me more room on the page (next to it) to write/fill.

 

My online logs reflect my experience, if I have/want to say something about the cache/hunt I leave longer logs - whatever the size of the cache. DNF logs seem to be longer...

[+Castle Mischief]

In the three short years of caching I've done, the size of the entries I've left in logs that are big enough to support multiple words hasn't really changed. I'm not a fan of handwriting (it cramps my delicate, yet manly fingers) so any change if the ratio of teeny tiny logs/caches hasn't affected my log entries. However, since my first year of caching I've reduced the ratio of micro caches in my finds and that has resulted in (slightly)larger entries (some times).

 

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Are you talking logbook logs or online logs?

Online logs, there's never been room for long logs in micro paper logs.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Oops.

Edited March 19, 2010 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I think mainly it was caused by folks using hi-tech iphones, ipods, pda's, etc to log.

It's now a texting world full of acronyms.......just the constant use of these things during the day carries over to cache logging.

[+J the Goat]

As I've been at this for less than a year, I don't think I'm the right person to ask about a change over time. I have however noticed that a lot of the newer cachers in my area write very short logs on whichever cache they find, be it a micro or a nice packed ammo can at the top of the valley. I try to keep my logs long enough to reflect my hunt. If it was a park and grab kind of day, it's hard to scribe a paragraph for every LPC I found. It would make sense that the increase in micros would lead to this situation, but I can't say I've seen it first hand. Ask me again in 3 years.

[GOF and Bacall]

Are you talking logbook logs or online logs?

Online logs, there's never been room for long logs in micro paper logs.

 

I thought you were referring to the shorter physical logs being a result of people getting used to only logging with name or initials and date due to the lack of space in micros.

[+baloo&bd]

No, TLOMLHNBABCS. TFA

[hoosier guy]

It can be just as interesting an experience to find a micro as to find an ammo can. So there is still plenty to be said. What would cache owners like to see when we log a find?

[+J the Goat]

It can be just as interesting an experience to find a micro as to find an ammo can. So there is still plenty to be said. What would cache owners like to see when we log a find?

 

Yes, very true. A couple of my favorites have been creative micros. The non creative throwdowns are the ones that its hard to leave a decent log for every one. I always try to log something though, I don't think any of my logs has ever been TFTC and nothing else.

[+Castle Mischief]

Are you talking logbook logs or online logs?

Online logs, there's never been room for long logs in micro paper logs.

 

Oh, I misunderstood then. My on-line log length is determined by the experiance at the cache site. So I guess the answer is "no".

[+Too Tall John]

Are you talking logbook logs or online logs?

Online logs, there's never been room for long logs in micro paper logs.

I thought you were referring to the shorter physical logs being a result of people getting used to only logging with name or initials and date due to the lack of space in micros.

Me too, although I bet the length shortening in the physical logs is effecting the length people will write in their online logs, too.

 

Kinda a domino effect.

[+tzipora]

My longest logs tend to be for DNFs, regardless of size. My next longest logs go to interesting experiences. This can be an especially clever hide, but it can also be for something that happened on my drive there, an animal I saw nearby, an amazing sunset, almost anything.

 

I look at my logs as a kind of journal. I can click through them and see when I was where, and what I noticed. It's cool.

[+rawkhopper]

As someone new to the activity I normally just right TFTC in the logbook and my ID unless I see others that have written in the log more than that. As for online it is strictly based on the experience I had. I don't write a ton but I think I write enough to be pleased to see it if I were the owner.

 

As for micros I think they are fun, though my daughters are in to trading so they think the bigger the better.

[Wallydraigle]

I've been doing this for less than a year, and I don't have many finds, but I've never left anything more than a name/date in any physical logbook. I didn't think any more than that was ever expected, and I never really noticed anyone else leaving more than that in the logbook either. However, I always try to at least leave a couple sentences in the online log. If it's in the woods or something I try to mention any interesting plants or animals I saw in the area because I'm interested in those things and those are the kinds of log entries I like to read.

 

But no, my logging habits haven't changed.

[hoosier guy]

As for micros I think they are fun, though my daughters are in to trading so they think the bigger the better.

 

Could have written that myself. My girls love to find a cache with some trade items too.

[+uxorious]

For on line logs I always try to write at least a couple sentences, and usually try for more. However, there are those caches I really can't seem to think of anything to say. Those often seem to be the micros, but can be bigger ones.

 

It is the quality of the cache more than the size that will dictate how long of a log I leave.

[+PokerLuck]

I'm not going to put more effort into filling out an online log than the cache owner spent placing the log. Hence, with the proliferation of guard rail and light pole micros, most of my logs are very short, nothing more than a TFTC. Is anything more really appropriate or necessary?

 

On the other hand, when I find a well-concealed cache in the middle of the woods, of course I'm going to spend more time telling the cache owner what I went through to find it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Great replies, thanks!

 

I went back and edited my question to reflect that I was asking about online logs, sorry for the confusion!

[Mr.Yuck]

Great replies, thanks!

 

I went back and edited my question to reflect that I was asking about online logs, sorry for the confusion!

 

Yeah, when I first looked at this thread 10 or 15 replies in, I thought you were talking about paper logs as well. There is no doubt in my mind Micro proliferation and log verbosity are related (love the title, by the way). I defy anyone reading this to find me a "quick grab, TFTC" log from 2004 or earlier.

 

Not personally, of course. My logs are as long and boring as they ever were. I generally don't find caches that inspire "quick grab TFTC" logs. I say generally, because there are people who write that for just about anything these days.

 

I see TAR has 60% micros within 19 miles of his house. I'd love to know what my figure is. Problem is I would have to unignore hundreds of caches to do the PQ's to figure this out.

 

EDIT AGAIN: GC1CKPN is the closest cache to my home coordinates. If there were a good samaritan out there who would like to preview two PQ's within a 20 mile radius of that, one for all caches, and one for micros only, and subtract the difference, that would be just super. There's about 5 or 6 nanos incorrectly listed as "other" in there, but that should be negligible.

Edited March 19, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+thedeadpirate]

I defy anyone reading this to find me a "quick grab, TFTC" log from 2004 or earlier.

 

found

 

yep

 

That's just a couple of terse logs. I could probably find more if I were more inclined.

[+thedeadpirate]

Edited March 20, 2010 by GeoBain

[+jgaiser]

Haven't been around long, but went back and looked at my logs. About half of my finds are micros. Most of my online log entries are at least a couple of sentences long.

[Mr.Yuck]

I defy anyone reading this to find me a "quick grab, TFTC" log from 2004 or earlier.

 

found

 

yep

 

That's just a couple of terse logs. I could probably find more if I were more inclined.

 

Oh c'mon. Those were people that were ticked off at the cache owners. The earliest reports of Geo-drama, if you will. I'll bet contact@Geocaching.com wasn't even too busy back then.

[+thedeadpirate]

Ok, how about these?

 

Link to log

December 26, 2003 by green & gold (1964 found)

 

Quick and easy find. Took Golden Pele TB. SL/TFTC.

 

Link to log

September 15, 2003 by mharrigan (450 found)

 

Found it fairly quickly but I needed the hint. TNLNSL

 

Link to log

September 30, 2003 by MartyFouts (339 found)

 

found it. TNLNSL

 

Link to log

June 26, 2004 by TeamIt'sAllGood! (TIAG!) (1771 found)

 

Picked up Geonaps Diary TB. Fairly quick find. Thank you!

 

The funny thing is I was just looking them up because I like a challenge. I was actually expecting it to be fairly difficult to find any logs that matched TWU's parameters.

 

What I found by going through just a few caches is that short logs were really not that uncommon back in the beginning. I know that's shocking. It surprised me.

 

If you also notice the types of caches I have quoted, they are not micros.

 

Want to have find out for yourself, do the search yourself.

 

Search geocaching.com from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2003

Edited March 20, 2010 by GeoBain

[Mr.Yuck]

Well, Geobain is certainly an expert Google advanced search searcher. I admit defeat.

 

However, if I change his search to specifically look for the entire phrase "quick grab" from 2000-2003, I come up with only 2 results! Three actually, but one is whacked, and is actually from a cache placed in 2009.

 

2000-2003 "quick grab" seach I assume that link works, and is correct. C'mon now, no one was writing "quick grab" logs back then. That is strictly a more recent skirt fondling, guardrail kissing, keyholder seeking, term.

Edited March 20, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+brodiebunch]

Micros are easier to hide in less attractive areas.

 

Our logs have gotten more verbose. A couple finds were of caches where the CO has not logged in for a year or more. I figure whats the point, I cannot ad much more than what others log so I ended up just logging "thanks".

[+thedeadpirate]

Micros are easier to hide in less attractive areas.

 

Our logs have gotten more verbose. A couple finds were of caches where the CO has not logged in for a year or more. I figure whats the point, I cannot ad much more than what others log so I ended up just logging "thanks".

 

Do you really mean that your logs have gotten more verbose or did you mean to say they are more terse?

[+Klondike Mike]

Yes, my logs have gotten shorter

[+Triskeles]

I've only been caching a few months, but when I started I left short logs using acronyms, because I saw that a lot of people around these parts were doing that. Then, here in the forums, I read the thread about the importance of longer logs, and I hung my head in shame. Now I make a point to leave a few sentences, and more if we really enjoyed the cache or had a funny story to tell. Given that my caching partner is my goofy 11.5 year old son who loves to find caches before me, and that I have horrible balance and fall down a lot, there's almost always something to tell.

 

So, in my limited experience, I'm thinking that the short logs may also be due to the "monkey see, monkey do" of new cachers who who emulate what they see going on around them.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Triskeles

[+cerberus1]

I think age may have something to do with it also...

 

I'm well into the 50s and retired from a job where notes needed to be able to be read/understood by anyone.

I usually tell of our adventure whether it's a micro in a park or a ammo can over a cliff. Sometimes a bit long-winded, I feel the owner deserves the respect of a log.

My shortest logs are on throwdown micros, but even they get a couple of sentences.

 

CJ on the other hand, much younger than me, is in the IT field. She was brought up with the new gizmos and the wording associated with them and uses them day-to-day at work. Time is important and acronyms are needed to simply save time.

She may put a little effort into a log, but it's short and sees no difference in it's meaning.

Micro on a guard rail or Ammo can in a tree top all get the same.

[+RobDJr]

It would be interesting to see some numbers on the subject, especially the ratio of active cachers to number of micros by year, to see if there really is a correlation.

 

My gut feel is that it has more to do with the number of people playing the game than it does the number of micros.

 

For me, I always sign physical logs with name/date only, regardless of cache size (with a few exceptions). The length of the online log is usually directly proportional to the quality of the cache itself. A throw-down micro in a crappy spot gets a short log of a few words to a few sentences; an unusually placed micro in an amazing place will get a longer log, from time to time a log long enough to need to be split due to maxing out the length limit.

[+Ambrosia]

Micros are easier to hide in less attractive areas.

 

Our logs have gotten more verbose. A couple finds were of caches where the CO has not logged in for a year or more. I figure whats the point, I cannot ad much more than what others log so I ended up just logging "thanks".

I'm not sure I understand this. Why do people log? Is it for the owner, for themselves, or for other cachers? Or maybe a mixture of all three. I don't care when the last time an owner logged on, I'm not writing my log just for them.

 

The whole sum of my caching experience is made up of my memories. If I just write, "thanks for the cache" on a log, two years from now I will have no idea what that cache was about. I might as well erase the log, it's no more important to me as a memory. No matter how boring the cache was while finding it, I had some sort of experience there. It was a moment of my life. Was I alone? Was I with my husband, kids, mother in law, or friends? Did I take a picture of a butterfly, or a cloud? The list can be endless. If I don't share, then it ceases to be anything else to me than just another smilie.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Micros are easier to hide in less attractive areas.

 

Our logs have gotten more verbose. A couple finds were of caches where the CO has not logged in for a year or more. I figure whats the point, I cannot ad much more than what others log so I ended up just logging "thanks".

I'm not sure I understand this. Why do people log? Is it for the owner, for themselves, or for other cachers? Or maybe a mixture of all three. I don't care when the last time an owner logged on, I'm not writing my log just for them.

 

The whole sum of my caching experience is made up of my memories. If I just write, "thanks for the cache" on a log, two years from now I will have no idea what that cache was about. I might as well erase the log, it's no more important to me as a memory. No matter how boring the cache was while finding it, I had some sort of experience there. It was a moment of my life. Was I alone? Was I with my husband, kids, mother in law, or friends? Did I take a picture of a butterfly, or a cloud? The list can be endless. If I don't share, then it ceases to be anything else to me than just another smilie.

 

 

+1

 

I especially log lengthy DNF's (online). Being fairly new I read the logs of previous finders for any hints, warnings, ect. I might need. I like to leave any of the same for future hunters. Not enough to spoil it, but pertinent info. i.e. high muggle area, poison ivy, sharp stickery things.

[+zoltig]

The proliferation of caches in my area from my home coordinates to 20 mile radius are:

 

Micros (371) 68%

Small (118) 22%

Large (58) 10%

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

Total (547) 100%

 

I only used these three cache sizes that are traditional types.

 

Regarding the online log verbosity for myself, I don't chase after the cache just for the smiley. Evidence of that comes from my being a cachers since '02 with under 1k finds. When I find a cache, I like to relay something of the find. (I used to sit down and look at the cache logbooks back in the day. The entries usually said something from other cachers.)

I have, admittedly on rare occasions, used TFTC and such when I have logged online. I try not to do that.

I agree with Ambrosia, the log is indeed part of my caching experience. I would hope the online log would be of some information or enjoyment for other cachers. Especially when it comes to pictures.

[+brodiebunch]

Micros are easier to hide in less attractive areas.

 

Our logs have gotten more verbose. A couple finds were of caches where the CO has not logged in for a year or more. I figure whats the point, I cannot ad much more than what others log so I ended up just logging "thanks".

 

Do you really mean that your logs have gotten more verbose or did you mean to say they are more terse?

 

Most have become more verbose. Its only in the cases where the CO has not logged in for a long time do I just post "Thanks". There have been two of those of late

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Some of my longest logs have been on micros. Most recently I even completed a multi that was a micro at the end and I think it's my longest log yet - had to go onto a note to finish it due to the character limit.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC14CPG

 

I don't really get all et up by size, I do quite a few in London and micros are pretty much all that can be hidden.

 

Occasionally I think to myself a larger one could have been hidden here, but I get more frustrated with caches that are reported as regular size, that turn out to be small (because I tend to then find I can't fit the TB in I was planning to leave). I've seen a lot of those. Some of the caches I've listed technically as small have been larger than some I've found listed as regular.

 

Size only matters for me when I got TBs, otherwise I do it for the experience - swag depletes anyway. So many containers I've found with nothing but a few elastic bands, tiny plastic beads and chock full of damp business cards - in these cases a micro would be sufficient that I don't have dip my hand in to all of that to retrieve the log!

 

I await the rabid Coyote to come along and compain that I'm ruining his game again. I put out a special puzzle cache with people like that in mind.

 

[+simpjkee]

No, I don't think logs get shorter because of cache size. I do think though that logs get shorter due to cache saturation regardless of what size those caches are.

[+happypete]

On the whole, yes definitely...

 

But I think it also depends on the hide. If your cache is 4 miles up a hill all on its own, the people who head up there after it are far more likely to leave longer log entries IME.

 

I certainly doesn't help that in my area many recently published caches (not just the micros) ask for finders to leave only thier names and a date, to extend the life of the log. Reasonable for micros, but kinda silly for anything larger, it seems to me.

 

Anyway, interesting thread.

[+simpjkee]

Micros are easier to hide in less attractive areas.

 

Our logs have gotten more verbose. A couple finds were of caches where the CO has not logged in for a year or more. I figure whats the point, I cannot ad much more than what others log so I ended up just logging "thanks".

I'm not sure I understand this. Why do people log? Is it for the owner, for themselves, or for other cachers? Or maybe a mixture of all three. I don't care when the last time an owner logged on, I'm not writing my log just for them.

 

The whole sum of my caching experience is made up of my memories. If I just write, "thanks for the cache" on a log, two years from now I will have no idea what that cache was about. I might as well erase the log, it's no more important to me as a memory. No matter how boring the cache was while finding it, I had some sort of experience there. It was a moment of my life. Was I alone? Was I with my husband, kids, mother in law, or friends? Did I take a picture of a butterfly, or a cloud? The list can be endless. If I don't share, then it ceases to be anything else to me than just another smilie.

 

Yeah. excellent post. I've been to some caches and will use up all the characters available to write my find log. Some people have jabbed me for it and referred to these logs as "simpjkee books", but the reason I write so much about a cache, even if it is only stuff that may only be interesting to me, is because I've always been in to trying to keep a journal of my life and seeing as though I've spent so much time caching in the last couple years, my logs have doubled as my journal. This is also why I've posted so many pictures on cache pages. I love that I can look back at Sept 2, 2007 and see what caches I found and pictures I posted, etc, etc.

[AZcachemeister]

Yes.

Thoughtless micro caches = thoughtless micro logs.

 

This does not necessarily mean that someone couldn't (and yes, they have) hide a micro cache at a location I felt was worthy of a verbose log.

Conversely I have certainly found plenty of full-size caches at less-than-inspiring locations.

[+dfx]

from personal experience, i believe there might be a relationship. my first finds were regulars and smalls, and i took the time to write something meaningful/interesting in the logbooks. but then i found my first micros. they only provided space for date and name, so i figured: i guess the cache owners don't care about extensive log entries, but only care about date and name? from there it progressed on its own.......

[Clan Riffster]

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

Hopefully my posting this without reading the rest of the thread won't hurt too badly.

 

Ed, I agree that there is, quite likely, a direct relationship, and I'll go one step farther and suggest that the common link is laziness. Laziness in body, laziness in spirit and laziness in mind. The general population of any geographic region is going to contain a percentage of motivated, dedicated people, and a percentage of lazy people. As this game goes more mainstream, more of the lazy end of the spectrum are discovering it, finding that they can get gratification by driving their SUVs from parking lot to parking lot.

 

Hiding micros in an urban environment appeals to the lazy cacher, because they require much less effort to conceal. There's no need to burn up brain cells trying to find a good spot for an ammo can, when you can simply spew out a film can under a hedge. Urban P&G micros are also easier to maintain, in that it only takes a few seconds to swap out the log. Another appealing aspect of urban P&G caching, for the lazy hider, is you can acquire so many more caches per calories burned. A minimum wage employee might have to work for several hours to earn enough money to purchase and stock an ammo can. For an urban P&G micro, all you need is a free film can and a scrap of paper. Sounds like a win-win scenario... at least for the lazy folk.

 

Laziness can also rear its ugly head in cache logging practices. If a person is too lazy to walk more than 10' from their SUV to hide a film can, surely they don't want to be bothered with having to actually engage their brain cells to come up with more than "Find # 36 of 129 today. TFTC".

 

Lazy hiding

 

Lazy finding

 

Lazy logging.

 

Definitely related.