Worst find log ever.

[+Team Cotati]

Should there be a character count for posting a log? Say 20 characters for it to be valid.

Would "nananananananananana" be better?

 

No, that would not be better.

[+Coldgears]

Perhaps he was saying "Ni" with a Canadian accent?

 

I looked at about 10 of the 37 find logs dating back to some of the earliest ones, and they were all "na". This and others mentioned in this thread have got to be smartphone GPS users with Geocaching apps. There is no other possible explanation; this is happening everywhere with the lame newb logs.

Actually I find it is the older users with Actual GPS devices that leave the lamer logs. The smartphone users that have logged my caches always are longer and nicer then the GPS users. I guess it's really just that the old users are getting bored of the game and tired of logging caches whereas all the new users with smartphones are new to the game love it, and want to spend time logging it.

[Andronicus]

Perhaps he was saying "Ni" with a Canadian accent?

 

I looked at about 10 of the 37 find logs dating back to some of the earliest ones, and they were all "na". This and others mentioned in this thread have got to be smartphone GPS users with Geocaching apps. There is no other possible explanation; this is happening everywhere with the lame newb logs.

Actually I find it is the older users with Actual GPS devices that leave the lamer logs. The smartphone users that have logged my caches always are longer and nicer then the GPS users. I guess it's really just that the old users are getting bored of the game and tired of logging caches whereas all the new users with smartphones are new to the game love it, and want to spend time logging it.

That is an interesting observation. Everyone assumes that it is all the noobs with their smartphone/twitter/facebook/txt obsesivness that leave the short lame logs. Hmmmm...

[+Coldgears]

Perhaps he was saying "Ni" with a Canadian accent?

 

I looked at about 10 of the 37 find logs dating back to some of the earliest ones, and they were all "na". This and others mentioned in this thread have got to be smartphone GPS users with Geocaching apps. There is no other possible explanation; this is happening everywhere with the lame newb logs.

Actually I find it is the older users with Actual GPS devices that leave the lamer logs. The smartphone users that have logged my caches always are longer and nicer then the GPS users. I guess it's really just that the old users are getting bored of the game and tired of logging caches whereas all the new users with smartphones are new to the game love it, and want to spend time logging it.

That is an interesting observation. Everyone assumes that it is all the noobs with their smartphone/twitter/facebook/txt obsesivness that leave the short lame logs. Hmmmm...

Exactly! I've actually tested my theory... Most of the time a users first 20 - 35 logs are extremely short, I believe it is because they don't really know what to write. Their 35-500 logs are the best, possibly because they are still having fun with the sport and have more experience with what to write. Afterwords the length of logs diminishes, I've saw one user that wrote paragraphs in his 300's, now every log is a TFTC, or I found this as one of 25 today. This being said, quite a bit of smartphone users can be just as bad, but not nearly as much as everyone makes it out to be, not from the 10+ users I checked...

[Mr.Yuck]

Perhaps he was saying "Ni" with a Canadian accent?

 

I looked at about 10 of the 37 find logs dating back to some of the earliest ones, and they were all "na". This and others mentioned in this thread have got to be smartphone GPS users with Geocaching apps. There is no other possible explanation; this is happening everywhere with the lame newb logs.

Actually I find it is the older users with Actual GPS devices that leave the lamer logs. The smartphone users that have logged my caches always are longer and nicer then the GPS users. I guess it's really just that the old users are getting bored of the game and tired of logging caches whereas all the new users with smartphones are new to the game love it, and want to spend time logging it.

That is an interesting observation. Everyone assumes that it is all the noobs with their smartphone/twitter/facebook/txt obsesivness that leave the short lame logs. Hmmmm...

 

Umm, this thread is titled worst find log ever, and the OP is about a two letter nonsensical log to a Geocache. I'm pretty sure people with 500 finds who previously wrote descriptive logs are not going to start writing "na" at find 501 because they're bored.

 

Just kidding though, I can see where you're going with this, and I'll bet I could find some examples of logs getting shorter if I looked around.

[Andronicus]

We need to get some grant money to do a full blown study. Is there some University that may be interested in the physiological implications of this?

[knowschad]

Perhaps he was saying "Ni" with a Canadian accent?

 

I looked at about 10 of the 37 find logs dating back to some of the earliest ones, and they were all "na". This and others mentioned in this thread have got to be smartphone GPS users with Geocaching apps. There is no other possible explanation; this is happening everywhere with the lame newb logs.

Actually I find it is the older users with Actual GPS devices that leave the lamer logs. The smartphone users that have logged my caches always are longer and nicer then the GPS users. I guess it's really just that the old users are getting bored of the game and tired of logging caches whereas all the new users with smartphones are new to the game love it, and want to spend time logging it.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that at all. Not even close.

 

I will say, though, that about a year ago, two cachers that were old-timers when I first started and heroes in my mind logged a bunch of my caches in an awesome park. Two of the caches were long like ammocan hides, one was a very scary cache on a cliff that took a lot of courage to find. Most of the logs on those caches have been extraordinary. But these two guys (and I know that they were burning out on the sport at the time) logged with essentially TFTC on every one. I knew these guys, so I emailed them, and asked, "Why?!?" The answer: We were logging from our new smart phones.

[+HOWsMom]

If a n00b doesn't read the forums - and let's be honest, most don't - how would they know that saying "THANK YOU FOR THE CACHE" is not acceptable ?

 

I don't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere else.

 

I thought the game was the hunt and find, not being expected to write full essays after.

[knowschad]

If a n00b doesn't read the forums - and let's be honest, most don't - how would they know that saying "THANK YOU FOR THE CACHE" is not acceptable ?

 

I don't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere else.

 

I thought the game was the hunt and find, not being expected to write full essays after.

I learned by looking at other logs on the caches. Didn't take long for me to realize that those logs that actually said something were vastly more interesting.

[+Team Cotati]

If a n00b doesn't read the forums - and let's be honest, most don't - how would they know that saying "THANK YOU FOR THE CACHE" is not acceptable ?

 

I don't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere else.

 

I thought the game was the hunt and find, not being expected to write full essays after.

 

It is and you aren't. It is just fodder for the self-impressed.

 

Don't worry about it.

[+HOWsMom]

]I learned by looking at other logs on the caches. Didn't take long for me to realize that those logs that actually said something were vastly more interesting.

 

No doubt that they are more interesting to read. And much more satisfying to the cache owner as well.

 

Does that mean that a "TFTC" is a bad log ? That the cacher doesn't care, is bored, etc ?

I just cannot wrap my head around reading that as a total brush-off.

[+narcissa]

I had a few caches logged with nothing but "1" - it turned out it was one half of a couple re-logging all their finds under her own account, but without any explanation on the logs most of us deleted them as bogus before we learned that.

[+AuntieWeasel]

No doubt that they are more interesting to read. And much more satisfying to the cache owner as well.

 

Does that mean that a "TFTC" is a bad log ? That the cacher doesn't care, is bored, etc ?

I just cannot wrap my head around reading that as a total brush-off.

 

Sometimes a log is communication with other cachers. TFTC all by itself *can* be a way of politely informing people who haven't done it yet that the cache sucks.

[knowschad]

]I learned by looking at other logs on the caches. Didn't take long for me to realize that those logs that actually said something were vastly more interesting.

 

No doubt that they are more interesting to read. And much more satisfying to the cache owner as well.

 

Does that mean that a "TFTC" is a bad log ? That the cacher doesn't care, is bored, etc ?

I just cannot wrap my head around reading that as a total brush-off.

How would you feel if my response to your question was, "whatever..."?

 

A minimal response generally displays a lack of interest, wouldn't you agree?

[+thedeadpirate]

Granted "na" is not much of a long. But wouldn't a log complaining about parking when you gave a waypoint for parking or about the cache not being at the given coords when it's a puzzle cache be worse logs?

[+Indotguy]

]I learned by looking at other logs on the caches. Didn't take long for me to realize that those logs that actually said something were vastly more interesting.

 

No doubt that they are more interesting to read. And much more satisfying to the cache owner as well.

 

Does that mean that a "TFTC" is a bad log ? That the cacher doesn't care, is bored, etc ?

I just cannot wrap my head around reading that as a total brush-off.

How would you feel if my response to your question was, "whatever..."?

 

A minimal response generally displays a lack of interest, wouldn't you agree?

 

My take on this would be "A minimal response generally displays a lack of interest for any part of the game except earning a smiley."

[+fizzymagic]

If a n00b doesn't read the forums - and let's be honest, most don't - how would they know that saying "THANK YOU FOR THE CACHE" is not acceptable ?

Very good point. I think it would be very useful to have this information included in the introductory materials.

 

I thought the game was the hunt and find, not being expected to write full essays after.

The game is about the experience, including the hunt and find, and if that's all you want, then there is no reason to log online. However, the third part of the game is sharing the experience online. If one chooses to participate in that portion of the game, then it seems reasonable to me that one would actually write about the experience.

[+roziecakes]

If a n00b doesn't read the forums - and let's be honest, most don't - how would they know that saying "THANK YOU FOR THE CACHE" is not acceptable ?

 

I don't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere else.

 

I thought the game was the hunt and find, not being expected to write full essays after.

I learned by looking at other logs on the caches. Didn't take long for me to realize that those logs that actually said something were vastly more interesting.

 

There are also some cache hiders who request that people write nice logs on their cache pages.

[+WarDance]

Is a TFTC really that bad? I do use it quite a bit. I don't use it because I am bored or the cache sucked. I use it because I don't have a ton of time to sit at the computer to write an essay for each one (I have a 7 month old that demands most of my time) or sometimes I can't remember which cache was which or any specific details. When I use TFTC I am genuinely thankful to the owners for putting it there. I apologize if I have offended anyone with some of my short logs but I really do appreciate all the hard work some people go through to put the caches out there.

[+SwineFlew]

If a n00b doesn't read the forums - and let's be honest, most don't - how would they know that saying "THANK YOU FOR THE CACHE" is not acceptable ?

 

I don't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere else.

 

I thought the game was the hunt and find, not being expected to write full essays after.

 

Its that some CO got very thin skin and they ASSUME "TFTC" as "Your cache suck" but again, they are reading too much into the line. It doesnt bothered me when someone signed my cache as only TFTC. When I am forced to write more in my log, I use the white lie. So, which is worse, TFTC or the White lie? You pick.

Edited June 22, 2010 by SwineFlew

[+Team Cotati]

If a n00b doesn't read the forums - and let's be honest, most don't - how would they know that saying "THANK YOU FOR THE CACHE" is not acceptable ?

 

I don't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere else.

 

I thought the game was the hunt and find, not being expected to write full essays after.

I learned by looking at other logs on the caches. Didn't take long for me to realize that those logs that actually said something were vastly more interesting.

 

There are also some cache hiders who request that people write nice logs on their cache pages.

 

Really? I'd love to know, are there any of those around the SF bay area or Ashland, Or.?

[+Chrysalides]

Is a TFTC really that bad?

Speaking only for myself, I prefer to read interesting logs, but I don't feel hurt or insulted if someone just logs TFTC.

 

When I log, I write mainly to share with others, for my own amusement, and to help me remember the caches I found (or did not find).

[+Team Cotati]

]I learned by looking at other logs on the caches. Didn't take long for me to realize that those logs that actually said something were vastly more interesting.

 

No doubt that they are more interesting to read. And much more satisfying to the cache owner as well.

 

Does that mean that a "TFTC" is a bad log ? That the cacher doesn't care, is bored, etc ?

I just cannot wrap my head around reading that as a total brush-off.

 

If you want to write some lengthy log, then do that.

If you want to enter TFTC, then do that.

 

Pardon me but you seem to care what others think about what you are doing, Why?

Edited June 22, 2010 by Team Cotati

[+roziecakes]

If a n00b doesn't read the forums - and let's be honest, most don't - how would they know that saying "THANK YOU FOR THE CACHE" is not acceptable ?

 

I don't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere else.

 

I thought the game was the hunt and find, not being expected to write full essays after.

 

Its that some CO got very thin skin and they ASSUME "TFTC" as "Your cache suck" but again, they are reading too much into the line. It doesnt bothered me when someone signed my cache as only TFTC. When I am forced to write more in my log, I use the white lie. So, which is worse, TFTC or the White lie? You pick.

 

Yep I agree. And also, not everyone is a typist. Some people have to hunt and peck and it takes them a long time to type out a log. Writing something like TFTC might be easier for them.

 

I do, however, think that just putting a question mark, or 'na' is a little too flippant.

[+roziecakes]

If a n00b doesn't read the forums - and let's be honest, most don't - how would they know that saying "THANK YOU FOR THE CACHE" is not acceptable ?

 

I don't recall seeing that mentioned anywhere else.

 

I thought the game was the hunt and find, not being expected to write full essays after.

I learned by looking at other logs on the caches. Didn't take long for me to realize that those logs that actually said something were vastly more interesting.

 

There are also some cache hiders who request that people write nice logs on their cache pages.

 

Really? I'd love to know, are there any of those around the SF bay area or Ashland, Or.?

 

Most of the ones I've noticed are around here in the Willamette Valley. They mention that it's nicer to read longer logs on their cache pages.

[+AuntieWeasel]

Pardon me but you seem to care what others think about what you are doing, Why?

 

It's a little thing called "social skills." Some people get a bigger dose than others.

[knowschad]

Is a TFTC really that bad? I do use it quite a bit. I don't use it because I am bored or the cache sucked. I use it because I don't have a ton of time to sit at the computer to write an essay for each one (I have a 7 month old that demands most of my time) or sometimes I can't remember which cache was which or any specific details. When I use TFTC I am genuinely thankful to the owners for putting it there. I apologize if I have offended anyone with some of my short logs but I really do appreciate all the hard work some people go through to put the caches out there.

You had time to cache, didn't you? The cache owner took time to place the cache and maintain it so that you could find it. Nobody is asking for an essay... but it doesn't take that much longer to write "What a great little park. Had fun. TFTC!!"

 

If you have problems remembering, a notebook, smart-phone with recorder, inexpensive digital recorder, or sometimes even a camera can help with that.

[+narcissa]

I put out geocaches for others to find. If they write interesting logs, great. If not, fine by me. Unless someone says something explicitely rude in their log, I choose not to be offended. TFTC is so ubiquitous that it seems a little silly to assume the worst every time it comes up.

 

If I was interested in forcing others to write lengthy compositions, I'd be a schoolteacher.

[+SwineFlew]

 

Really? I'd love to know, are there any of those around the SF bay area or Ashland, Or.?

 

Most of the ones I've noticed are around here in the Willamette Valley. They mention that it's nicer to read longer logs on their cache pages.

 

It does make me feel they are holding a gun to my head.

[Andronicus]

To all the noobs posting here about thinking TFTC is a good log:

 

Place your own cache and then you will learn why we say TFTC is a bad log.

[+rafermadness]

Is there a polite way to e-mail a new cacher to say that CO like somewhat more detailed logs? Anyway I can think of would definatly come off sounding rude.

 

after this thread? nope.

 

you'll have to buy a toy for her cat... or rub her feet or some other act of pennance.

 

ROTFL. You got me with the cat toy, but foot rub put me over the top. Tooooo funny!

[vagabond]

off topic. but then you get logs like this really brightens your day

 

November 30, 2001 by yrium [Click to add yrium to the VIP list.] (169 found)

 

Just a few hundred feet to go and we have a problem. Its gotten dark quick and we have to traverse an area filled with dark green leaves as seen under the fading light. Superfly asks tremulously “Is that Poison Oak?”. He’s remembering Vagabond’s warning in the cache description. No botanist me, my reply is “Does it have 5 points”, I don’t know where that came from. He answered “No, it has three… What does that mean?”. Heck if I know, try not to touch it I say as I push confidently by. I’m wearing long pants, he’s just wearing shorts. I can’t figure out why he was cold earlier. We find a little stream bed and due to the recent rains there is just enough water flowing by that we have to pick our steps carefully to get thru okay. I just recently got some new white tennis shoes and I’m hoping to get back home with their surfaces unblemished. Gromit crosses as he does when ever there is water about, he finds the widest possible place to ford, then tranverses the wet obstacle at a slant, maximizing the time his paws are in the water. Needless to say he returned home in the cargo area of the Pathfinder. I wouldn’t want to face the wrath of Whistlestick if I’d allowed Gromit to track mud on the back seats.

 

We are close now, unfortunately its too dark to see anything. Superfly is moaning about spiderwebs and poison oak so he’s not much help as I search for Vagabond’s cache. My GPS is telling me lies… There’s no cache here, I start to widen my search area poking likely looking piles of leaves with my walking stick. Oh there’s a metallic noise! I’ve found it! I bend over and dig a bit in the mulch… NOPE, I’ve just uncovered an old bottle, I resume my search. I’m walking along side an old tree log that is about 30 feet long peering under it when I just start to crack up. Gromit is shadowing my steps, but instead of walking thru the weedy ground, he’s daintily walking along the top of the log. I’m pretty impressed with his Wallenda like abilities. If I’d only known I could have sold him to a circus when he was young and made a pretty penny. It’s too bad I’m just a bit too attached to the furry critter to part with him now.

 

Okay, this is getting ridiculous, we can’t find the cache anywhere and now its really really dark. A full moon later tonight is no help now as me and the Superfly are quickly wearing out our squint muscles. I have a dinky double A sized Mag flashlight that we are using, but it looks like we are going to have to record a not found. Oh, there it is! Whew that was close. Holding the flashlight with my chin I look thru the log. 10:30am? BeeQue done found it 8 hours before us. And Mr UU was here while I was still planning my lunch. Superfly, Gromit and I take the Bronze. We dropped off a traveling Pumba warthog traveler and a georged dollar bill and take a stuffed Pixel creature that must be COMPUSA’s failed mascot as I don’t recall ever seeing him before. Entering our travails in the log we head back to the car in the dark. As we brush aside foliage I’m again struck by my utter lack of knowledge of what poison oak looks like. We keep our eyes open as we hike back and I can’t truthfully say if we walked thru it or not. I can say that we didn’t cross paths with any carnivorous rutabagas though.

 

Thanks for the Cache Vagabond, We loved it!

 

--- yrium ---

 

View Log

Photo PUMBA the well travelled traveler

[+HOWsMom]

THAT was an awesome narrative.

[+Setan Meyacha]

Perhaps he was saying "Ni" with a Canadian accent?

 

I looked at about 10 of the 37 find logs dating back to some of the earliest ones, and they were all "na". This and others mentioned in this thread have got to be smartphone GPS users with Geocaching apps. There is no other possible explanation; this is happening everywhere with the lame newb logs.

Actually I find it is the older users with Actual GPS devices that leave the lamer logs. The smartphone users that have logged my caches always are longer and nicer then the GPS users. I guess it's really just that the old users are getting bored of the game and tired of logging caches whereas all the new users with smartphones are new to the game love it, and want to spend time logging it.

 

I'm kind of curious as to how you came to the conclusion regarding smartphone loggers and GPSr loggers? You have three caches hidden (GC2914B) with 3 logs, (GC279FG) with 11 logs, and (GC261EP) with 15 logs and not one of them, unless I missed something, said anything about caching with a smartphone. Perhaps you know each one of these cachers and know they only use a smartphone? I don't think I've had any of my caches found by someone who stated in their log that they used a smartphone to find the cache, so I'd be hard pressed to make a claim as to whom leaves the best logs; smartphone users, or GPSr users.

[knowschad]

THAT was an awesome narrative.

Agreed. Certainly the opposite end of the logging spectrum!! Thanks for posting that!

[+needaxeo]

Didn't take long for me to realize that those logs that actually said something were vastly more interesting.

 

Presumably there's no literature where you live then?

 

"I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o'er vales and hills,

I found your cache it wasn't bad

But now I'm off to look for bills"

Edited June 24, 2010 by needaxeo

[DannyCaffeine]

Wow that's not cool.

 

If someone is nice enough to hide a cache you should at least be nice enough to say something positive. Even if it's a simple thanks for the smiley or TFTC that's good enough for me.

[+needaxeo]

I'm kind of curious as to how you came to the conclusion regarding smartphone loggers and GPSr loggers? You have three caches hidden (GC2914B) with 3 logs, (GC279FG) with 11 logs, and (GC261EP) with 15 logs and not one of them, unless I missed something, said anything about caching with a smartphone. Perhaps you know each one of these cachers and know they only use a smartphone? I don't think I've had any of my caches found by someone who stated in their log that they used a smartphone to find the cache, so I'd be hard pressed to make a claim as to whom leaves the best logs; smartphone users, or GPSr users.

 

There's a part of the profile where you can state what GPS you have so you wouldn't expect to see it in a log...(whether any of the folk mentioned have set that or not though I'll leave to whoever's turn it is to be Matthew Hopkins to find out)

Edited June 24, 2010 by needaxeo

[+needaxeo]

If someone is nice enough to hide a cache you should at least be nice enough to say something positive.

 

So "+" would be ok?

[+roziecakes]

If someone is nice enough to hide a cache you should at least be nice enough to say something positive.

 

So "+" would be ok?

 

Ni!

[Mr.Yuck]

If someone is nice enough to hide a cache you should at least be nice enough to say something positive.

 

So "+" would be ok?

 

Pretty funny. But no, because that would be a prototypical smartphone log. Most likely from someone who hasn't visited the website on a computer in months, and may not even realize they're uploading "+" as find logs to the website. And most certainly not a forum thread in their honor.