Old Bugbear Rehashed

[+Jacaru & Wemnog]

Why, when we spend so long setting up caches that are in interesting locations, or take a bit of working out to find do people still just log TFTC, yet if they can't find one in a series go in to a long winded explanation about how they tried to find it.

[+zarbi&zarbibird]

I like to think it's because they haven't set any/many caches themselves and so therefore don't know about the warm fuzzy feeling of getting a nice complimentary write up

[+redsox_mark]

I agree that someone just logging TFTC on a find is annoying, but I can somewhat understand why DNF logs may be longer. If someone finds a cache quickly, there is not as much to say about the searching itself (though of course they could comment on the location, the nice walk to get there, etc). With a DNF, cachers will generally explain where they looked, for how long, etc (and/or have a bit of a moan!).

[+Happy Humphrey]

I can understand the disappointment of a TFTC log, but after all; it's up to the cacher whether they want to write an on-line log at all, so you should be grateful that they've let you know that they found it. Anything more is a bonus. There's no obligation to write anything interesting; they don't owe cache placers anything. As far as I can tell, cache placing tends to be done mostly for selfish motives (as demonstrated in this thread); i.e. the hope that people give some praise and relate some interesting stories about their find. Or at least log the cache on-line!

 

Having said that; if it's a really good cache that clearly took several days work to put together and a few hours to find, it would seem a little rude to not bother writing a sentence or two. But I'm keenly aware that the log entry is mostly for the benefit of the finder (a diary record of the cache experience), which we're also allowed to view.

 

Actually, I'd be quite happy if Groundspeak allowed "private" logs, where part (or all) of the text can be only seen by the finder.

[+MartyBartfast]

Interesting that this should come up again today. Yesterday I logged a webcam cache, which involved having my 'muggle' mate take a picture for me. I only wrote 2 sentences and nothing particularly interesting (see here if you're interested) but he wanted to know why I'd written anything more than "found it". I did explain that it was an etiquet thing. I always try and write a bit, even if it's just describing the weather.

[team tisri]

Why, when we spend so long setting up caches that are in interesting locations, or take a bit of working out to find do people still just log TFTC, yet if they can't find one in a series go in to a long winded explanation about how they tried to find it.

 

For me if a cache is memorable then I'll write a more memorable log. How memorable a cache is depends on how much I enjoyed it, anything noteworthy that happened during the hunt (for good or bad) and how many others I found that day. If it's a film pot stuck to a lamp post I might have enjoyed the ride out there but there's not a whole lot to say about the cache itself; if it's a fiendish puzzle that then takes a long ride or long walk to get to GZ and then requires a detailed search before spotting the clever hide then I'd hope someone would write more than "TFTC" or whatever their generic "found" text is.

 

I remember one cache well several months after finding it, on the basis that I approached from the worst possible direction and ended up trying to cycle through terrain where the top couple of inches was water and the next couple of inches was soft mud. When I finally arrived at GZ and realised it was less than 50 yards from the main road I was a little irritated with myself. But it made the cache and the hunt memorable, especially since I was about to give up and log a DNF when I spotted one last place to look....

[+perth pathfinders]

I can understand the disappointment of a TFTC log, but after all; it's up to the cacher whether they want to write an on-line log at all, so you should be grateful that they've let you know that they found it. Anything more is a bonus. There's no obligation to write anything interesting; they don't owe cache placers anything. As far as I can tell, cache placing tends to be done mostly for selfish motives (as demonstrated in this thread); i.e. the hope that people give some praise and relate some interesting stories about their find. Or at least log the cache on-line!

 

Having said that; if it's a really good cache that clearly took several days work to put together and a few hours to find, it would seem a little rude to not bother writing a sentence or two. But I'm keenly aware that the log entry is mostly for the benefit of the finder (a diary record of the cache experience), which we're also allowed to view.

 

Actually, I'd be quite happy if Groundspeak allowed "private" logs, where part (or all) of the text can be only seen by the finder.

 

I must admit I share the disappointment of TFTC or copy paste logs.

 

Whilst I do not hide caches expecting praise (as I enjoy finding hidden places/nice views and sharing them with yoos) it is still polite/manners to offer some sort of appreciation to the hider - after all, if it was not for us hiders who have taken time to purchase boxes/swaps and go out and hide them - none of you TFTC loggers would have any boxes to find in the first place!

 

Unfortunately mobile phone logging has to take the blame for a lot of these logs, I have even been receiving just a full stop as a log which is really not on!

 

I am not bothered about private logs, but what would be good was if we could be informed by email if a log had been altered - some of these phone logs are adjusted once the finder gets home, but we do not know this has been done unless we regularly check all our cache pages, which of course we don't!

 

If hiders have taken time to purchase/hide/write up a page, surely a half a minute to write a one line log is not asking too much? Also, wether the comment is positive or negative, it helps the next cacher on the hunt.

 

Until recently, I have enjoyed reading cachers logs, enjoying their experiences at the cache, given me a few laughs at their antics, and for these lovely logs from yoos who have I am really grateful - it ihas been a great encouragement to me to continue purchasing and hiding boxes - but now with this latest TFTC trend I just don't have the inclination to hide any boxes any more!

Edited August 19, 2010 by perth pathfinders

[+currykev]

I think copy and paste logs occur more often when a cache series is attempted.

I copy and paste 95% of my logs unless there was something unusual at gz.

I do this hobby to find caches not write essays.

I don''t mind a TFTC log on my own caches, as I really read them anyway.

Now where is that new anti micro thread?

[+Happy Humphrey]

... but now with this latest TFTC trend I just don't have the inclination to hide any boxes any more!

Which, with due respect, amply illustrates my point that cache placing is essentially selfish and there's no obligation on the finder to show "appreciation to the hider". If a "full stop" records that you've found a cache of mine, and all you want to do is to record the find; then I'm not going to complain if you use this technique. For instance if currykev wants to focus on getting out and visiting interesting locations and caches rather than trying to write witty or interesting prose; then that's fine with me.

 

Although, selfishly, I'd rather like it if you wrote something to give me (and others) a bit of entertainment.

 

Personally I've never resorted to cut-and-paste logs, even when logging 50 caches in a day. I simply make a note when finding the cache, to jog my memory later, then write at least one sentence to describe the find. The note is often only one or two words ("dogs", "thorns", "jumped ditch"), and I often find that a single word (plus reading the hint) is usually enough to remember the most ordinary cache when logging on-line.

[+redsox_mark]

Which, with due respect, amply illustrates my point that cache placing is essentially selfish and there's no obligation on the finder to show "appreciation to the hider". If a "full stop" records that you've found a cache of mine, and all you want to do is to record the find; then I'm not going to complain if you use this technique. For instance if currykev wants to focus on getting out and visiting interesting locations and caches rather than trying to write witty or interesting prose; then that's fine with me.

 

Although, selfishly, I'd rather like it if you wrote something to give me (and others) a bit of entertainment.

 

Personally I've never resorted to cut-and-paste logs, even when logging 50 caches in a day. I simply make a note when finding the cache, to jog my memory later, then write at least one sentence to describe the find. The note is often only one or two words ("dogs", "thorns", "jumped ditch"), and I often find that a single word (plus reading the hint) is usually enough to remember the most ordinary cache when logging on-line.

 

Well said... and I agree 100%.

[team tisri]

... but now with this latest TFTC trend I just don't have the inclination to hide any boxes any more!

Although, selfishly, I'd rather like it if you wrote something to give me (and others) a bit of entertainment.

 

Personally I've never resorted to cut-and-paste logs, even when logging 50 caches in a day. I simply make a note when finding the cache, to jog my memory later, then write at least one sentence to describe the find. The note is often only one or two words ("dogs", "thorns", "jumped ditch"), and I often find that a single word (plus reading the hint) is usually enough to remember the most ordinary cache when logging on-line.

 

I've seen a few people write quick copy-n-paste logs on each cache when they do a series, then write a single more detailed log for one of the series to sum up their experiences of the series as a whole. It's the kind of thing I tend to do myself, especially when some of the caches are film pots at the base of a stile or similar, there's only so much you can say about each individual one. Of course if a particular cache was memorable it never hurts to write a little more to say why - if nothing else it might encourage someone who doesn't want to do a full circuit to attempt at least a few of them.

[+Jacaru & Wemnog]

Yes I find that I am a very selfish person, spending money on boxes, logbooks, pens and trinkets just to put a new cache out for others to find and enjoy. Silly me, note to myself, don't bother.

[+Mad H@ter]

I really don’t understand what you are complaining about when you receive lovely long logs such as "TFTC", you should be grateful it's not "."

[+Happy Humphrey]

Yes I find that I am a very selfish person, spending money on boxes, logbooks, pens and trinkets just to put a new cache out for others to find and enjoy. Silly me, note to myself, don't bother.

Don't take it like that!

 

I've set 124 caches and must have spent quite a lot of money on them: hardly any film pots to be seen in the list, and plenty of brand-new commercial swag, geocoins, FTF prizes and the like. Even if it's only £10 per cache, that's still £1240. But I simply meant that I wouldn't do it if I didn't find it a pleasure (therefore, it's basically selfish).

 

That's not a insult, it's just how it is. But if you really don't enjoy setting caches and only do it out of altruism, then fair enough if you're ready to retire.

[+the family bu]

I have been guilty of writing a log or two that just reads TFTC TNLN SL. But that is usually when I have done a trail and got lots of logs to write after a long day. I do usually try to write some things - even if it is just stopped and enjoyed the scenery with a cuppa.

To be honest with you I hadn't thought that my TFTC SL logs may be upsetting to the CO. This is something that I will rectify and always write a few words on the online logs.

[+*mouse*]

I have been gulity of writing short logs on a handful of caches and resorting to cut and paste. I don't apologise for it as I feel that my log is indicative of the cache.

 

If a cache is pants, best it will get from me is a comment such as 'found it'.

They're few and far between, but sometimes you come across a cache and where that is genuinely all you have to say about it.

 

I also cut and paste logs in series. Generally when I get home I can't remember each cache - and I figure that if I can't remember it, then I shouldn't feel gulity about a cut and paste - I mean if I have forgotten it only a matter of hours after finding it can't have been a paticularly memorable hide now can it??!

 

Like HH I do note down a comment at each one - typically a couple of words in the notes section of my oregon. So I might slightly tweak a cut and paste log.

 

On the plus side I feel a good cache warrants a good log. And if I find something good I will take the time to write about it.

 

Personally I am well aware of which of my own caches are good and poor. The poorer ones tend to get poor logs, the good ones don't. I don't get upset if a poor cache gets a poor log or even a full stop - at the end of the day it probably deserves it. A poor log on a good hide is a rare thing and they are annoying when they happen - but do you know what, 9 times out of 10 when I check they haven't signed the log book!!!

Edited August 19, 2010 by *mouse*

[+perth pathfinders]

Ok so most of us are used to TFTC logs by now - yes and even the fullstop logs!

 

Then lets consider the new cacher...................

 

Their first hide

 

They find a suitable spot where they would like to place a box .....

 

They eagerly buy the box, the log book, the wee pencil, print off the stash note - the children of the team spend time picking and filling the box with wee swaps.

 

They carefully choose an FTF prize for the first finder.

 

They all go out and place the box together, write a page with wee snippets of interest from the area.

 

The cache goes live.

 

The children all excited eagerly wait for the first log ..............

[+The Other Stu]

I've got a series of animal caches out.

 

I spent hours gathering information to put on the cache to make what is a very ordinary walk pleasurable for families. I hold no aspirations about winning an award for the quality of the mixture of nanos, micros, smalls, regulars and ammo can.

 

It really is a very ordinary 4 mile stroll.

 

So I have no problems if people want to put "TFTC" on the caches. Usually I get a comment of "Our 3 year old really enjoyed these" or "Little Bessie didn't complain until we reached the last 2" because they achieved what I set out to do: encourage families to get into Geocaching.

 

I don't think I've ever had a nasty or disrespectful log - I even got an email once from a newbie family saying something along the lines of "My young family really enjoyed this - can you set some more like this please?"

Edited August 19, 2010 by The Other Stu

[+Jacaru & Wemnog]

Yes I find that I am a very selfish person, spending money on boxes, logbooks, pens and trinkets just to put a new cache out for others to find and enjoy. Silly me, note to myself, don't bother.

Don't take it like that!

 

I've set 124 caches and must have spent quite a lot of money on them: hardly any film pots to be seen in the list, and plenty of brand-new commercial swag, geocoins, FTF prizes and the like. Even if it's only £10 per cache, that's still £1240. But I simply meant that I wouldn't do it if I didn't find it a pleasure (therefore, it's basically selfish).

 

That's not a insult, it's just how it is. But if you really don't enjoy setting caches and only do it out of altruism, then fair enough if you're ready to retire.

 

Sorry HH, got me on a bad day. Nope I didn't really take it personally. I enjoy setting caches, not just to get a nice log, but because I enjoy taking folk to new places. Cheers.

[+abanazar]

We have quite limited cache-finding time and hundreds (if not thousands) of nearby caches to choose from, so I spend quite a lot of effort researching "good" caches to find. Consequently, I really rely on fellow cachers to write good logs on good caches, so that I'm able to spot them whilst trawling the maps. We do find the odd lame cache, either as a result of poor research or more likely we just can't resist a stray icon whilst we're on the way to the interesting one! I like writing logs and tend to write quite long ones, but I'm only able to do this as a consequence of our approach. Hopefully, our own logs then help others to sift through the morass of caches like we do. We rarely do series so don't have to do too much copy/pasting on the logs.

 

As a cache-hider, I spend ages setting up my caches, and I hide for a whole mixture of reasons. Mainly, I really enjoy all aspects of designing caches, so that's kind of "selfish" I suppose. Also, like any "entertainer", I like getting positive feedback from my "audience" in the form of multi-sentence logs! I guess that if the logs on our own caches dried up to "TFTC" or "Trimble" logs, then I'd ultimately give up hiding, as I'd feel that I was out of touch with the majority of finders. If I'm remembering my O-Level Biology correctly, there's a symbiotic relationship going on here

[+Happy Humphrey]

Also, like any "entertainer", I like getting positive feedback from my "audience" in the form of multi-sentence logs!

Good metaphor! Unless you're REALLY brilliant, you're always going to get some in the audience who just sit there impassive and only bother with a little polite applause from time to time. The equivalent of TFTC. Obviously, they aren't obliged to cheer and shout (or write interesting logs) so you shouldn't really moan if they don't see it as part of their duties.

 

Normally there will be enough of the others who clap wildly, whoop and holler in appreciation, to make it feel worthwhile.

 

If they all just sit there (i.e. TFTC), it's probably your performance (cache) that's at fault. If you've tried your best and that's all you ever get, I can understand you wanting to give up. But hopefully, there will be enough encouraging entries to keep you going...

[+drsolly]

<<Unfortunately mobile phone logging has to take the blame for a lot of these logs, I have even been receiving just a full stop as a log which is really not on! >>

 

The full stop is actually an abbreviation for "This was a really excellent cache which I greatly enjoyed, and I'm very grateful to the cache setter for taking the trouble to set it"

 

It needs to be added to the list of abbreviations like TFTC and PAF.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

Oops

Edited August 19, 2010 by Dorsetgal & GeoDog

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

This is what gets my hackles up

 

"Sent from my mobile device."

 

Frankly, if they can't be bother to say anything, why bother at all?

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

Ooops again!

Edited August 19, 2010 by Dorsetgal & GeoDog

[+agentmancuso]

This is what gets my hackles up

 

"Sent from my mobile device."

 

Frankly, if they can't be bother to say anything, why bother at all?

 

I assumed that particular bit of text was automatically generated.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Some of my logs on poorer caches are actually longer than those I leave on average caches.

 

I like to take inspiration from those that use humour - especially on poorer hides - to make a point. I'm not always successful but I think it helps the hider to think better for their next hide.

 

I try to write long logs - I try to say something individual for every cache in a series. I recognise not everyone is a novelist however, and I've defended short logs in the past only to be affronted by people who can barely manage to log 2 sentences complaining about people who use anacronyms - really quite ironic for someone like me who aims for a paragraph each time (not always successfully).

 

However, I've cached with great people who write little in their online logs. I also wrote 1/2 word logs when I started out because I didn't really know that you could write a lot more. We should be aware of the fact we don't know the individuals circumstances and/or level of experience and education before denigrating their short logs.

 

A tip for series caches - instead of writing a longer log on just one at the beginning or end, why not spread it out into one or two sentences each over the entire series.

 

Ocassionaly when I've done a series of caches I've simply continued rambling on from the last log and forgotten to say anything about the cache itself... I haven't had any complaints yet - I like to think it makes the CO go and look at the other logs I wrote, I know I would as a CO.

[+Lime Candy]

I try to write decent-length logs with individual comments per cache, but I usually cut & paste the first line, e.g. "Caching today with a group of friends x, y & z". I agree it's good manners to write more than a fullstop or TFTC. It cuts both ways too, CO's should email cachers whose logs they have particularly enjoyed reading.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

It cuts both ways too, CO's should email cachers whose logs they have particularly enjoyed reading.

 

Uh? Why should they? Some folks would be there all day writing a standard "Thank you for the lovely log"

 

TBH I think cache owners do enough by setting up the cache in the first place and maintaining it.

Some of my caches have hundreds of finds, many of them complimentary, it would take forever ...

[+abanazar]

... It cuts both ways too, CO's should email cachers whose logs they have particularly enjoyed reading.

Interesting you should say that. I do often acknowledge good logs from Finders on my caches, but since this sort of correspondence is invisible to me on everyone else's caches, I have sometimes wondered if it's common / rare / considered good form / considered OTT. To continue my metaphor from my earlier post, it's a bit like the entertainer thanking the audience member for applauding a certain way

 

Sometimes it has sparked off interesting follow-on emails and I've got to know cachers better from it Plus, finders sometimes respond with further detail, especially on aspects that they might have kept off the public log for fear of spoiling the cache for others.

 

I don't get so many logs that this feedback takes up all my spare time

 

We're really getting into the minutiae of caching etiquette here though!

[team tisri]

We're really getting into the minutiae of caching etiquette here though!

 

I think it's gone into the minutae of how some people prefer to interact rather than anything that might be called general etiquette.

[+FantasyRaider]

It cuts both ways too, CO's should email cachers whose logs they have particularly enjoyed reading.

 

Uh? Why should they? Some folks would be there all day writing a standard "Thank you for the lovely log"

 

TBH I think cache owners do enough by setting up the cache in the first place and maintaining it.

Some of my caches have hundreds of finds, many of them complimentary, it would take forever ...

 

::CUT & PASTE:: Great to read a good log ... enjoyed it thank you!

Oh that hurt!

[+Mark+Karen]

Why, when we spend so long setting up caches that are in interesting locations, or take a bit of working out to find do people still just log TFTC, yet if they can't find one in a series go in to a long winded explanation about how they tried to find it.

 

I've had ones which are worse than just "TFTC" that just say "Sent from my mobile device", and that's it!

If your cache application is only capable of sending that text alone as the log or if you can't be bothered typing a log out there and then, leave the logging until you get home!

[+HazelS]

This is what gets my hackles up

 

"Sent from my mobile device."

 

Frankly, if they can't be bother to say anything, why bother at all?

 

I think we ALL cut and paste on long series etc, that's to be expected, and I really don't even mind the TNLNSL TFTC logs - that person may have done 20 or 30 caches that day... but like others, I HATE the above... BUT I know why it happens now!!

 

On the iphone unless you write a "message" before sending, that's what it comes out with... so perhaps if it said write LOG, rather than message, people would use it more....

[+Mark+Karen]

Ah! Thanks for that. At least I now know what's causing it. I've never seen that behaviour on the iPhone before as I always write something!

[+dogastus]

I've just this minute seen this log submitted:

 

:-)

 

Well, at least it looks like they enjoyed finding it!

[reelcutter]

A lot of my logs are longer than the cache descriptions on some cache pages I've seen and don't think I write that much, these caches probably deserve a . or a short log.