Logging cache runs or long days of caching

[+GRANPA ALEX]

It seems that, over time, the process has become even more tedious and slow when one is logging a larger number of finds . . . for instance, having to scroll to the bottom of an ever lengthening logging page to key the "Submit Log" window.

 

Is this by design to discourage logging/doing runs or is it an oversight that can be addressed OR, is this cacher in need of an education to become more efficient?

 

It seems to simply be unfriendly for it to be so unresponsive to logging larger numbers of finds . . . the runs are out there begging to be sought and the game has evolved to encourage this caching activity - can it be made easier to log finds?

 

It would be grand to be able to bulk upload, say by gc#, a large number of finds from a run using a nice C&P log, directly from GSAK after the GPSr finds are downloaded into GSAK.

[+The Leprechauns]

To the contrary, logging has become too fast and too easy.

 

"TFTC" is way more verbose than needed in order to meet the minimum standards. Until recently, it was possible to accrete one's number of smilies by "1" simply by typing "+1" or even a simple "." That apparently demanded too much effort, so nowadays even an entirely blank log will go through and score the coveted yellow visage. So will the absence of text input by human hands, but instead the machine-generated "logged from my mobile device" messages.

 

Logs such as these do not motivate me to hide more caches. Logs written by humans, and describing human activity, motivate this human to hide more caches. Therefore, as a counterproposal, I posit that Groundspeak should make it harder to log cache runs or long days of caching. All logs should be submitted for review by a panel of retired grammar and spelling teachers. Logs would only be allowed on the site after passing a rigorous screening test covering grammar, spelling, and compelling plot and character development. No two logs on the same day could contain the exact same text.

 

Let's post both ideas on UserVoice, shall we?

[+JesandTodd]

Oh geez-- now it's too hard to log?? If it's so darn hard to log a find why bother even geocaching???

[+FunnyNose]

I did a cache run last year and it took me 2 days to write a unique log for each cache. My suggestion only find as many caches in a day as you are comfortable writing logs for.

[+narcissa]

Yes, please make it easier for bulk cachers to disrespect and disregard the thought, time, and effort it takes cache owners to place and maintain geocaches for the benefit of others. Please make it even more quick and easy for bulk cachers to spew "TFTC" onto hundreds of caches at a time. This will certainly make the game better.

[+LizzyHoops]

Yes, please make it easier for bulk cachers to disrespect and disregard the thought, time, and effort it takes cache owners to place and maintain geocaches for the benefit of others. Please make it even more quick and easy for bulk cachers to spew "TFTC" onto hundreds of caches at a time. This will certainly make the game better.

 

I think yall are being way to hard on the OP. I don't see what's wrong with a nice C&P log. If tell you all about the geocaching road trip we took and include a funny story, and thank you kindly for the cache. Does it really matter if the other Cache Owners get the same log? Sure it would be nice to include something specific about the cache, but if you found 100 caches, but just because you copy and pasted a log doesn't mean it cant be nice! I don't think the OP was taking about some TFTC logs.

[+BlueDeuce]

Heck, sometimes I feel bad that I don't share more about the experience just because I want to log the find and move on to other things.

[the3gmen]

.... My suggestion only find as many caches in a day as you are comfortable writing logs for.

 

My thought exactly.

[+JesandTodd]

Cut and past logs are tacky and lazy.

[+briansnat]

It seems that, over time, the process has become even more tedious and slow when one is logging a larger number of finds . . . for instance, having to scroll to the bottom of an ever lengthening logging page to key the "Submit Log" window.

 

Is this by design to discourage logging/doing runs or is it an oversight that can be addressed OR, is this cacher in need of an education to become more efficient?

 

It seems to simply be unfriendly for it to be so unresponsive to logging larger numbers of finds . . . the runs are out there begging to be sought and the game has evolved to encourage this caching activity - can it be made easier to log finds?

 

It would be grand to be able to bulk upload, say by gc#, a large number of finds from a run using a nice C&P log, directly from GSAK after the GPSr finds are downloaded into GSAK.

 

Sad that we've come to that point.

[+zoltig]

To the contrary, logging has become too fast and too easy.

 

"TFTC" is way more verbose than needed in order to meet the minimum standards. Until recently, it was possible to accrete one's number of smilies by "1" simply by typing "+1" or even a simple "." That apparently demanded too much effort, so nowadays even an entirely blank log will go through and score the coveted yellow visage. So will the absence of text input by human hands, but instead the machine-generated "logged from my mobile device" messages.

 

Logs such as these do not motivate me to hide more caches. Logs written by humans, and describing human activity, motivate this human to hide more caches. Therefore, as a counterproposal, I posit that Groundspeak should make it harder to log cache runs or long days of caching. All logs should be submitted for review by a panel of retired grammar and spelling teachers. Logs would only be allowed on the site after passing a rigorous screening test covering grammar, spelling, and compelling plot and character development. No two logs on the same day could contain the exact same text.

 

 

There is nothing I can add to this. Well put.

 

briansnat Posted Today, 09:10 PM

QUOTE(GRANPA ALEX @ Nov 22 2010, 10:00 PM)

 

It seems that, over time, the process has become even more tedious and slow when one is logging a larger number of finds . . . for instance, having to scroll to the bottom of an ever lengthening logging page to key the "Submit Log" window.

 

Is this by design to discourage logging/doing runs or is it an oversight that can be addressed OR, is this cacher in need of an education to become more efficient?

 

It seems to simply be unfriendly for it to be so unresponsive to logging larger numbers of finds . . . the runs are out there begging to be sought and the game has evolved to encourage this caching activity - can it be made easier to log finds?

 

It would be grand to be able to bulk upload, say by gc#, a large number of finds from a run using a nice C&P log, directly from GSAK after the GPSr finds are downloaded into GSAK.

 

 

Sad that we've come to that point.

 

It is sad.

I feel the true heart and soul of geocaching, the way it was meant to be, does not exist these days.

[+ventura_kids]

Ha! I agree with the OP.

 

The site was created to keep your finds organized into 2 piles. Found and Not Found yet.

Once you find the cache and want it off your searching queries..... you click on the smiley.

 

The average cache hider does NOT feel a need for a group hug, nor a 3 paragraph story regarding how tough it was to find your 1/1 hide.

 

A "found it" will suffice.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2010 by ventura_kids

[+narcissa]

 

A "found it" will suffice.

 

 

Sure, if you're a horrible person who throws down caches and then claims to have "found" them. It's not like you have anything insightful to say in a log anyway.

[jholly]

I have writers block when it comes to composing a limit busting log for the LPC at Wally World or the super clever magnetic key case stuck to a guardrail. Yes, I know, stop doing them. But some times I just don't have the time for a two day over night slog through the unsullied hinterlands to find that precious ammo box with a logbook and two broken mctoys. Besides, after logging the local six what do I do now? I seems a TFTC is just fine.

[+narcissa]

I have writers block when it comes to composing a limit busting log for the LPC at Wally World or the super clever magnetic key case stuck to a guardrail. Yes, I know, stop doing them. But some times I just don't have the time for a two day over night slog through the unsullied hinterlands to find that precious ammo box with a logbook and two broken mctoys. Besides, after logging the local six what do I do now? I seems a TFTC is just fine.

 

In particular cases such as these, a "TFTC" is forgivable. Logging two hundred of them in bulk is hideous.

[+BaylorGrad]

 

A "found it" will suffice.

 

 

Sure, if you're a horrible person who throws down caches and then claims to have "found" them. It's not like you have anything insightful to say in a log anyway.

 

I'm not sure "horrible person" is the correct language to use here at all. And frankly, I strongly dislike your sarcasm as well. I think the OP and all subsequent posters both have very good arguments. Your sarcasm, on the other hand, contributes nothing but hate.

[+narcissa]

 

A "found it" will suffice.

 

 

Sure, if you're a horrible person who throws down caches and then claims to have "found" them. It's not like you have anything insightful to say in a log anyway.

 

I'm not sure "horrible person" is the correct language to use here at all. And frankly, I strongly dislike your sarcasm as well. I think the OP and all subsequent posters both have very good arguments. Your sarcasm, on the other hand, contributes nothing but hate.

 

I disagree. There's an argument to be made in favour of bulk logging, but it's not a good argument.

 

And disrespecting cache owners in bulk is undoubtedly horrible.

[+BaylorGrad]

 

A "found it" will suffice.

 

 

Sure, if you're a horrible person who throws down caches and then claims to have "found" them. It's not like you have anything insightful to say in a log anyway.

 

I'm not sure "horrible person" is the correct language to use here at all. And frankly, I strongly dislike your sarcasm as well. I think the OP and all subsequent posters both have very good arguments. Your sarcasm, on the other hand, contributes nothing but hate.

 

I disagree. There's an argument to be made in favour of bulk logging, but it's not a good argument.

 

And disrespecting cache owners in bulk is undoubtedly horrible.

 

Ok, well as someone who is neutral on the concept of bulk logging, let me suspend my neutrality and reply to you as if I cared. If I supported bulk logging, I would argue that the experience of Geocaching for me is the find itself. I could care less about logging the find on-line. I have no interest in the on-line Geocaching community, and I simply enjoy finding as many caches as I can. Besides, do my bulk logs actually hurt anyone? Nope. They certainly don't help anyone, sure, but as long as they aren't causing harm to the caches themselves, then what's the problem? And I also disagree that bulk logging is disrespecting cache owners. Some of us have lives besides Geocaching--are we really hurting them? Nope.

 

Again, I'm neutral, but that's how I would respond if I actually cared. And I stand firm on what I said about your sarcasm.

Edited November 23, 2010 by BaylorGrad

[+JesandTodd]

 

A "found it" will suffice.

 

 

Sure, if you're a horrible person who throws down caches and then claims to have "found" them. It's not like you have anything insightful to say in a log anyway.

[+narcissa]

 

Ok, well as someone who is neutral on the concept of bulk logging, let me suspend my neutrality and reply to you as if I cared. If I supported bulk logging, I would argue that the experience of Geocaching for me is the find itself. I could care less about logging the find on-line. I have no interest in the on-line Geocaching community, and I simply enjoy finding as many caches as I can. Besides, do my bulk logs actually hurt anyone? Nope. They certainly don't help anyone, sure, but as long as they aren't causing harm to the caches themselves, then what's the problem? And I also disagree that bulk logging is disrespecting cache owners. Some of us have lives besides Geocaching--are we really hurting them? Nope.

 

Again, I'm neutral, but that's how I would respond if I actually cared. And I stand firm on what I said about your sarcasm.

 

Many cache owners have expressed dismay at bulk logs, and an unwillingness to continue hiding caches because of the disrespect they perceive in this action. Bulk logs, paired with careless acts in the field (i.e. throw-downs, leap-frogging, cache shuffling) do hurt the game.

 

Condoning such behaviour is, at the least, negligent and disrespectful. And horrible.

 

As for my tone, forum posters who prance in here to brag about the terrible way they've handled geocaches and the horrible way they've treated other geocachers should expect to be received with some bitterness and disgust.

[+BaylorGrad]

 

Ok, well as someone who is neutral on the concept of bulk logging, let me suspend my neutrality and reply to you as if I cared. If I supported bulk logging, I would argue that the experience of Geocaching for me is the find itself. I could care less about logging the find on-line. I have no interest in the on-line Geocaching community, and I simply enjoy finding as many caches as I can. Besides, do my bulk logs actually hurt anyone? Nope. They certainly don't help anyone, sure, but as long as they aren't causing harm to the caches themselves, then what's the problem? And I also disagree that bulk logging is disrespecting cache owners. Some of us have lives besides Geocaching--are we really hurting them? Nope.

 

Again, I'm neutral, but that's how I would respond if I actually cared. And I stand firm on what I said about your sarcasm.

 

Many cache owners have expressed dismay at bulk logs, and an unwillingness to continue hiding caches because of the disrespect they perceive in this action. Bulk logs, paired with careless acts in the field (i.e. throw-downs, leap-frogging, cache shuffling) do hurt the game.

 

Condoning such behaviour is, at the least, negligent and disrespectful. And horrible.

 

As for my tone, forum posters who prance in here to brag about the terrible way they've handled geocaches and the horrible way they've treated other geocachers should expect to be received with some bitterness and disgust.

 

And again, if I were arguing the contrary, I would reply that many COs aren't all COs. If they have some strange need for detailed, elaborate posts (which I, by the way, always provide), then all they have to do is say so, right? Wrong. Because that's an ALR, and we both know it.

 

I do agree with you about disrupting the physical caches however. While I disagree with your language that you use to describe this, I do agree that doing so is disruptive to the game.

 

I have nothing further to say about your tone, though I still strongly disagree with your choice of language.

[+BlueDeuce]

I find geocaching to be made up of two things - The hunt and being part of a community. The logging is being part of the community. We share our find with the cache owner and other hunters.

 

I'm not really interested in setting up a process that we don't have to share our logs. If you are really set on not being part of the community, you can certainly do that now as it is.

[+narcissa]

 

And again, if I were arguing the contrary, I would reply that many COs aren't all COs. If they have some strange need for detailed, elaborate posts (which I, by the way, always provide), then all they have to do is say so, right? Wrong. Because that's an ALR, and we both know it.

 

I do agree with you about disrupting the physical caches however. While I disagree with your language that you use to describe this, I do agree that doing so is disruptive to the game.

 

I have nothing further to say about your tone, though I still strongly disagree with your choice of language.

 

Who said anything about bad logs being grounds for cache LOG (fixed my typo) deletion? I wouldn't condone that.

 

This kind of behaviour is, however, grounds for public ridicule and disgust.

Edited November 23, 2010 by narcissa

[+Crow-T-Robot]

If logging caches you have found is that taxing on your time, why not just skip that part of it and not log them at all? Are you logging your caches so you can thank the CO and capture your memory of the find or is it just a necessary evil in order to get another uptick in the smiley column?

[+BaylorGrad]

 

And again, if I were arguing the contrary, I would reply that many COs aren't all COs. If they have some strange need for detailed, elaborate posts (which I, by the way, always provide), then all they have to do is say so, right? Wrong. Because that's an ALR, and we both know it.

 

I do agree with you about disrupting the physical caches however. While I disagree with your language that you use to describe this, I do agree that doing so is disruptive to the game.

 

I have nothing further to say about your tone, though I still strongly disagree with your choice of language.

 

Who said anything about bad logs being grounds for cache deletion? I wouldn't condone that.

 

This kind of behaviour is, however, grounds for public ridicule and disgust.

 

I'm confused--not sure where you got that from...

[+JesandTodd]

 

Ok, well as someone who is neutral on the concept of bulk logging, let me suspend my neutrality and reply to you as if I cared. If I supported bulk logging, I would argue that the experience of Geocaching for me is the find itself. I could care less about logging the find on-line. I have no interest in the on-line Geocaching community, and I simply enjoy finding as many caches as I can. Besides, do my bulk logs actually hurt anyone? Nope. They certainly don't help anyone, sure, but as long as they aren't causing harm to the caches themselves, then what's the problem? And I also disagree that bulk logging is disrespecting cache owners. Some of us have lives besides Geocaching--are we really hurting them? Nope.

 

Again, I'm neutral, but that's how I would respond if I actually cared. And I stand firm on what I said about your sarcasm.

 

There are certainly plenty of people in this world who only care about themselves and have no concept of one their actions affect others. Whether it be in geocaching, retail, medicine, etc...

 

If people are so freaking lazy that they can't even muster up WORDS in a geocaching log, I shudder to think of how deep their laziness goes in all other aspects of their lives.

 

Because one can write a good log does not mean the opposite. That's not what we are talking about here.

 

The cheating, laziness, and shady techniques that go on in this game are truly sad. Does it affect me personally? Eh, yea, it does. Because crappy people who represent my sport also represent me.

[+narcissa]

 

And again, if I were arguing the contrary, I would reply that many COs aren't all COs. If they have some strange need for detailed, elaborate posts (which I, by the way, always provide), then all they have to do is say so, right? Wrong. Because that's an ALR, and we both know it.

 

I do agree with you about disrupting the physical caches however. While I disagree with your language that you use to describe this, I do agree that doing so is disruptive to the game.

 

I have nothing further to say about your tone, though I still strongly disagree with your choice of language.

 

Who said anything about bad logs being grounds for cache deletion? I wouldn't condone that.

 

This kind of behaviour is, however, grounds for public ridicule and disgust.

 

I'm confused--not sure where you got that from...

 

You brought up the ALR issue...

[+BaylorGrad]

 

Ok, well as someone who is neutral on the concept of bulk logging, let me suspend my neutrality and reply to you as if I cared. If I supported bulk logging, I would argue that the experience of Geocaching for me is the find itself. I could care less about logging the find on-line. I have no interest in the on-line Geocaching community, and I simply enjoy finding as many caches as I can. Besides, do my bulk logs actually hurt anyone? Nope. They certainly don't help anyone, sure, but as long as they aren't causing harm to the caches themselves, then what's the problem? And I also disagree that bulk logging is disrespecting cache owners. Some of us have lives besides Geocaching--are we really hurting them? Nope.

 

Again, I'm neutral, but that's how I would respond if I actually cared. And I stand firm on what I said about your sarcasm.

 

There are certainly plenty of people in this world who only care about themselves and have no concept of one their actions affect others. Whether it be in geocaching, retail, medicine, etc...

 

If people are so freaking lazy that they can't even muster up WORDS in a geocaching log, I shudder to think of how deep their laziness goes in all other aspects of their lives.

 

Because one can write a good log does not mean the opposite. That's not what we are talking about here.

 

The cheating, laziness, and shady techniques that go on in this game are truly sad. Does it affect me personally? Eh, yea, it does. Because crappy people who represent my sport also represent me.

 

Hm, interesting. I see your side of the argument as well. As I said in the post you quoted, I am neutral on the subject, and was responding as if I had an opinion. Personally, I always write extensive logs (and you can check on that! ) and I greatly appreciate well-written logs as well. But some people just don't care. And really--that's not a big deal. You all have to understand that we, as users of this message board, are probably some of the most intense cachers out there--for many of us, Geocaching is a lifestyle. Well--newsflash--for many people, it's just a hobby at best. Like any other sport or hobby. The users of this forum are the NFL or NBA of Geocaching. Most cachers just like a little flag football or shoot hoops on the weekend.

[+BaylorGrad]

 

And again, if I were arguing the contrary, I would reply that many COs aren't all COs. If they have some strange need for detailed, elaborate posts (which I, by the way, always provide), then all they have to do is say so, right? Wrong. Because that's an ALR, and we both know it.

 

I do agree with you about disrupting the physical caches however. While I disagree with your language that you use to describe this, I do agree that doing so is disruptive to the game.

 

I have nothing further to say about your tone, though I still strongly disagree with your choice of language.

 

Who said anything about bad logs being grounds for cache deletion? I wouldn't condone that.

 

This kind of behaviour is, however, grounds for public ridicule and disgust.

 

I'm confused--not sure where you got that from...

 

You brought up the ALR issue...

 

Still confused, but let me try and clarify what I was saying... I'm saying that we cannot require bulk cachers to write anything of worth in their logs because this would be an additional logging requirement. Am I using "ALR" incorrectly? This has nothing to do with cache deletion...

[+BlueDeuce]

Still confused, but let me try and clarify what I was saying... I'm saying that we cannot require bulk cachers to write anything of worth in their logs because this would be an additional logging requirement. Am I using "ALR" incorrectly? This has nothing to do with cache deletion...

 

Why give the option at all?

[+narcissa]

 

And again, if I were arguing the contrary, I would reply that many COs aren't all COs. If they have some strange need for detailed, elaborate posts (which I, by the way, always provide), then all they have to do is say so, right? Wrong. Because that's an ALR, and we both know it.

 

I do agree with you about disrupting the physical caches however. While I disagree with your language that you use to describe this, I do agree that doing so is disruptive to the game.

 

I have nothing further to say about your tone, though I still strongly disagree with your choice of language.

 

Who said anything about bad logs being grounds for cache deletion? I wouldn't condone that.

 

This kind of behaviour is, however, grounds for public ridicule and disgust.

 

I'm confused--not sure where you got that from...

 

You brought up the ALR issue...

 

Still confused, but let me try and clarify what I was saying... I'm saying that we cannot require bulk cachers to write anything of worth in their logs because this would be an additional logging requirement. Am I using "ALR" incorrectly? This has nothing to do with cache deletion...

 

I meant to say "log" deletion - corrected it in my original post.

 

No, we can't *require* good logs, but we can certainly react with disgust when someone chooses to bulk log. Most people who play this game will strive to correct behaviour that offends other geocachers. I've met hundreds of other geocachers in the time I've been playing this game, and most of them are good people.

 

Unfortunately, there are a handful out there who are determined to be complete and utter trolls with no regard for other geocachers. Groundspeak should not be catering to these sorts of people.

[+Scubasonic]

To the contrary, logging has become too fast and too easy.

 

"TFTC" is way more verbose than needed in order to meet the minimum standards. Until recently, it was possible to accrete one's number of smilies by "1" simply by typing "+1" or even a simple "." That apparently demanded too much effort, so nowadays even an entirely blank log will go through and score the coveted yellow visage. So will the absence of text input by human hands, but instead the machine-generated "logged from my mobile device" messages.

 

Logs such as these do not motivate me to hide more caches. Logs written by humans, and describing human activity, motivate this human to hide more caches. Therefore, as a counterproposal, I posit that Groundspeak should make it harder to log cache runs or long days of caching. All logs should be submitted for review by a panel of retired grammar and spelling teachers. Logs would only be allowed on the site after passing a rigorous screening test covering grammar, spelling, and compelling plot and character development. No two logs on the same day could contain the exact same text.

 

 

There is nothing I can add to this. Well put.

 

briansnat Posted Today, 09:10 PM

QUOTE(GRANPA ALEX @ Nov 22 2010, 10:00 PM)

 

It seems that, over time, the process has become even more tedious and slow when one is logging a larger number of finds . . . for instance, having to scroll to the bottom of an ever lengthening logging page to key the "Submit Log" window.

 

Is this by design to discourage logging/doing runs or is it an oversight that can be addressed OR, is this cacher in need of an education to become more efficient?

 

It seems to simply be unfriendly for it to be so unresponsive to logging larger numbers of finds . . . the runs are out there begging to be sought and the game has evolved to encourage this caching activity - can it be made easier to log finds?

 

It would be grand to be able to bulk upload, say by gc#, a large number of finds from a run using a nice C&P log, directly from GSAK after the GPSr finds are downloaded into GSAK.

 

 

Sad that we've come to that point.

 

It is sad.

I feel the true heart and soul of geocaching, the way it was meant to be, does not exist these days.

 

well maybe you should find a differant hobbie if you feel that way.

 

SS

[+narcissa]

 

well maybe you should find a differant hobbie if you feel that way.

 

SS

 

[+BlueDeuce]

 

well maybe you should find a differant hobbie if you feel that way.

 

SS

 

 

I've thought about it and decided, Nah, I'd rather fight for it.

Edited November 23, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+ventura_kids]

I find geocaching to be made up of two things - The hunt and being part of a community. The logging is being part of the community. We share our find with the cache owner and other hunters.

 

I'm not really interested in setting up a process that we don't have to share our logs. If you are really set on not being part of the community, you can certainly do that now as it is.

 

.... and I find Also..... that geocaching is made up of two things - The hunt and the forums. While the forums are but a microcosm of the entire geo-society, it certainly messes up the majority when changes are made in a bubble.

 

Now back to the subject.

 

I cut and paste on regular micros. If a cache is outstanding in either the Positive way or the Negative way, they get a special one-of-a-kind log. I bet those negative ones were hoping for a cut and paste log.

 

[+BlueDeuce]

I find geocaching to be made up of two things - The hunt and being part of a community. The logging is being part of the community. We share our find with the cache owner and other hunters.

 

I'm not really interested in setting up a process that we don't have to share our logs. If you are really set on not being part of the community, you can certainly do that now as it is.

 

.... and I find Also..... that geocaching is made up of two things - The hunt and the forums. While the forums are but a microcosm of the entire geo-society, it certainly messes up the majority when changes are made in a bubble.

 

Now back to the subject.

 

I cut and paste on regular micros. If a cache is outstanding in either the Positive way or the Negative way, they get a special one-of-a-kind log. I bet those negative ones were hoping for a cut and paste log.

 

 

I'm pretty sure I'm involved with my community, forums and all.

[+niraD]

I don't know what logging finds online was like before 2006, and I'm certainly not into numbers runs. But my experience has been that logging my finds has gotten easier over the last few years. With field notes, it's very easy for me to log accurately several finds from a week-long vacation.

[+fizzymagic]

Maybe we need a new kind of log, the "I want the smiley but can't be bothered to write anything" log. Your smiley count would go up, but your log would not appear on the cache page. That way the numbers hounds could get their numbers and the logs wouldn't be filled with useless cut-n-paste entries.

 

Of course, the cache owners will still have to suffer getting notified of these logs, since they are supposed to validate them.

 

<Yes, I am joking. Mostly.>

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

We are in an area where there are not all that many caches except for the ones that we have hidden. When we get our e-mails of nothing but cut & paste logs (And I find it rather odd that even that term has been shortened to C&P), we have considered just deleting all of those logs as a whole.

 

So, I request a 'bulk deleting of all Cut & Paste Logs' for all of our hidden caches.

 

Makes as much sense and seems as 'fair' to me, as those who think they are being 'fair' to those of us who hide anything more than micros, (as in, throwing them out the truck windows as we drive down the road).

 

By being insensitive enough to log by the "C&P Method", people are showing their true nature. I would like to see a new section of this site just for these "C&P Method" types of hiding and logging practices. Would that be possible? They could even have their own "C&P Method ICON" also.

 

Maybe instead of the original smiley - a ?

 

Just my 4 cents worth.

 

Shirley~

[+fantasticspeller]

Still confused, but let me try and clarify what I was saying... I'm saying that we cannot require bulk cachers to write anything of worth in their logs because this would be an additional logging requirement. Am I using "ALR" incorrectly? This has nothing to do with cache deletion...

 

Why give the option at all?

 

My first time replying to a forum post..........just got a smartphone which I plan to use for geocaching. Will I post logs from the field? Yes - to further the idea of paperless caching. Will I go back and edit my posts to include comments on the experience, weather, condition of the cache, cameraderie enjoyed while hunting, muggles surrounding the LPC or GR or micro hidden in a bush or really great camo job or wonderful view or clever hiding technique? YES! As a cache owner I appreciate unique info in the logs of those finding my caches, especially when there is a run through town that involves several of my caches.

[+usyoopers]

Ha! I agree with the OP.

 

The site was created to keep your finds organized into 2 piles. Found and Not Found yet.

Once you find the cache and want it off your searching queries..... you click on the smiley.

 

The average cache hider does NOT feel a need for a group hug, nor a 3 paragraph story regarding how tough it was to find your 1/1 hide.

 

A "found it" will suffice.

 

 

 

So perhaps a simple solution if you don't like "TFTC" logs.....stop hiding 1/1 hides?? We don't hide many of those types, we make ya get out and hike!

[+buttaskotch]

I have writers block when it comes to composing a limit busting log for the LPC at Wally World or the super clever magnetic key case stuck to a guardrail. Yes, I know, stop doing them. But some times I just don't have the time for a two day over night slog through the unsullied hinterlands to find that precious ammo box with a logbook and two broken mctoys. Besides, after logging the local six what do I do now? I seems a TFTC is just fine.

+1

 

Unless the p & g takes me somewhere worth logging abt it's a TFTC

I have micros hidden and I honestly don't mind if I get the TFTCs in the logs.

I just hate the "." posts. Now, that's lazy!

 

BTW I don't log anything in GSAk after I make finds, just head directly to GC.com, that seems a bit redundant

[+sbell111]

There sure are alot of babies in this thread. They aren't really addressing the OPs issue, but they sure are getting thier favorite rants in. As usual, they forget that it's not the job of other cachers to stroke their huge egos. They should be satisfied that c&p'd logs send them the message that the cache is in place and likely has no glaring maintenance issues, but they are too busy concentrating on the fact that the log wasn't affirming their glory.

 

To the OP's actual issue, I agree that the 'log' page would be better if it had a submit button near the top. Perhaps one of the firefox geniuses can write a whatchamacallit to fix that.

 

It should also be noted that GSAK does allow for semi-automatic cache logging that apparently greatly speeds up the process. A search on this form or the GSAK forum will bring up more info.

Edited November 23, 2010 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

There sure are alot of babies in this thread. They aren't really addressing the OPs issue, but they sure are getting thier favorite rants in. As usual, they forget that it's not the job of other cachers to stroke their huge egos.

 

Did the forum guidelines change while I was asleep?

[+DeepButi]

...

 

To the OP's actual issue, I agree that the 'log' page would be better if it had a submit button near the top. Perhaps one of the firefox geniuses can write a whatchamacallit to fix that.

 

...

Log maximizer does it. And a couple of other usefull tricks on the logging page.

[Mr.Yuck]

It seems that, over time, the process has become even more tedious and slow when one is logging a larger number of finds . . . for instance, having to scroll to the bottom of an ever lengthening logging page to key the "Submit Log" window.

 

Is this by design to discourage logging/doing runs or is it an oversight that can be addressed OR, is this cacher in need of an education to become more efficient?

 

It seems to simply be unfriendly for it to be so unresponsive to logging larger numbers of finds . . . the runs are out there begging to be sought and the game has evolved to encourage this caching activity - can it be made easier to log finds?

 

It would be grand to be able to bulk upload, say by gc#, a large number of finds from a run using a nice C&P log, directly from GSAK after the GPSr finds are downloaded into GSAK.

 

You can't contact Ashnikes through the website, because he's banned. But if you look at his involuntarilly archived cache pages, he gives an email address via posted notes. I think he might be able to hook you up with an auto cache logging bot.

 

Seriously though, as noted by hostile bot attacks on the website, it's rather easy to write a program to bulk log caches. DeepButi mentions something in the post above mine, but I have no clue what that is. A Greasemonkey script maybe?

 

I believe you would have to get some sort of third party logging technique, and TPTB are never going to provide something like this. GSAK is nice and all, and I'm sure TPTB have no problem with it, but I don't see any kind of official interface. Because at the end of the day, those of you that run out and find 100 caches a weekend are really a miniscule portion of the overall Geocaching populace. On the other hand, you're alll Premium members (and probably will be for life). So money talks. That journalist and his camera man ain't free you know.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Mr.Yuck

[+DeepButi]

Hi Mr. Yuck

yes, it's a Greasemonkey script. It doesn't help at all doing bulk logging, but it helps a lot writing nice logs, editing the text, a couple of usefull buttons, hidding the TB list until you need it ... and so on. It's fully GS TOU compliant of course.

I'm one of those CO that loves getting nice logs on my caches and trying to put something interesting on my logs also.

 

As my max in a day is 12 (I got really tired! ... and drove more than 200miles) I don't have major problems logging them. I doubt I will make more than that, I tried once a power trail (70 caches on a beautifull area), got bored after the fourth one and abandoned it. The area is too beautifull to lose my time doing identical micros every 0.1 of a mile!!

[+BCandMsKitty]

I think yall are being way to hard on the OP. I don't see what's wrong with a nice C&P log. If tell you all about the geocaching road trip we took and include a funny story, and thank you kindly for the cache. Does it really matter if the other Cache Owners get the same log? Sure it would be nice to include something specific about the cache, but if you found 100 caches, but just because you copy and pasted a log doesn't mean it cant be nice! I don't think the OP was taking about some TFTC logs.

 

I see your point, but the problem is when you find 20 or so of my caches and I get 20 or so of the same Road trip/funny story from you. Isn't so funny after the first two or three.... just a poster not showing appreciation of the hider's effort to put the cache out there for you.

I certainly don't write the longest logs in the world, but I try to remember a bit about each cache and tell the owner about my experiences. If the cache isn't memorable, they get something generic, but never "TFTC" or cut and paste. (I don't want the same cache owner getting the same generic message )

[+Isonzo Karst]

ever lengthening logging page to key the "Submit Log" window.

 

There's a Greasemonkey script that will get the "submit" button back up above the scroll line by allowing you to alter the size of the text entry box. ( http://gmscripts.locusprime.net/Log_Maximizer.html )

Though I'm not sure if you can deform the log entry box enough to get it above the scroll line IF you have much TB inventory. (I'm not opposed to folks being forced to notice their TB inventory when logging).

 

 

Yeah, the new totally blank log entry is a trip.

Haven't seen any totally blank logs on my hides - yet.

 

just before the last update a bunch of " . " logs on my caches. yowza, can't wait to run out and get permits for more ($$ ) ammo can only caches in that preserve -> logs like that are INSPIRING!!! yes o boy, hot diggity!

 

 

(I'm not much for log deletions, but I gotta tell you, the temptation to check for sigs against the " . " loggers, definitely there...... )

Edited November 23, 2010 by Isonzo Karst

[+Kit Fox]

To the contrary, logging has become too fast and too easy.

 

"TFTC" is way more verbose than needed in order to meet the minimum standards. Until recently, it was possible to accrete one's number of smilies by "1" simply by typing "+1" or even a simple "." That apparently demanded too much effort, so nowadays even an entirely blank log will go through and score the coveted yellow visage. So will the absence of text input by human hands, but instead the machine-generated "logged from my mobile device" messages.

 

Logs such as these do not motivate me to hide more caches. Logs written by humans, and describing human activity, motivate this human to hide more caches. Therefore, as a counterproposal, I posit that Groundspeak should make it harder to log cache runs or long days of caching. All logs should be submitted for review by a panel of retired grammar and spelling teachers. Logs would only be allowed on the site after passing a rigorous screening test covering grammar, spelling, and compelling plot and character development. No two logs on the same day could contain the exact same text.

 

Let's post both ideas on UserVoice, shall we?

 

My thoughts exactly. I stopped hiding easy access caches because I grew tired of lousy "cut & paste" logs, spewed by "power cachers."

 

Yes, please make it easier for bulk cachers to disrespect and disregard the thought, time, and effort it takes cache owners to place and maintain geocaches for the benefit of others. Please make it even more quick and easy for bulk cachers to spew "TFTC" onto hundreds of caches at a time. This will certainly make the game better.

 

+100

 

This thread reminds me of my all-time favorite thread on this forum.

 

The lost art of logging, Laziness or "monkey see, monkey do"?