Jump to content

Logging cache runs or long days of caching


GRANPA ALEX

Recommended Posts

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

To avoid a gut wrenching remark to your statement, I decided to wait awhile to respond.

 

I feel the way I do because I so love this hobby and I do not want to see it deteriorate. For some reason, PowerTrails and smilies en masse seem to have gotten the frogs attention. Now it we have to have speed post "found it" log options for some people?

 

BD's response fills the bill here. I too, would "rather fight for it."

 

So for your callous remark, ...

Link to comment

Personally I like to try to write something unique about each cache that I find. I may not be the most verbose about my experiences but I try to make my log reflect the enjoyment of the cache I found. My creative writing skills may be lacking but at least I try.

 

If I find a particularly lame cache I will post a TFTC. If no thought went into the cache then why should I put thought into the log.

 

Anyway I see the benefit of C&P. For me it would encourage a longer post that told of my overall experience cacheing that day. It may even draw out more details from me. I understand it would be uncool for the cache owner of lots of caches that got 20 of the same log but at least it would be worth reading once.

 

So I propose a C&P option that requires a minimum of 500 characters. This way you would have to at least think about your experience some and try to include details of your trip but you could then log a bunch of caches at once.

 

If there were some minimum limit it would potentially inspire people to write more. I for one have only done 10 caches in a single day so its not too hard. But I do find that I do not write as much trying to be unique on each one. Once I tried to write a generic log and then ad a little line to each cache that made it unique so that I could cut and paste without being too lame.

Link to comment

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?

I was wondering that very thing. In fact, it was those very attacks and rudeness that prompted my post.

Link to comment

<snip> That journalist and his camera man ain't free you know. <_<

PSSST

The "camera man" is a woman.

 

I enjoyed visiting with Reid and Eric as we made the video and talked about how geocaching and 4 wheeling work well together.

It was fun to watch how Reid would set up the shots and take different angles from within the Jeep even as we got jostled along the trail.

That was a fun day. :rolleyes:

“4×4 Geocaching” A Geocaching.com Lost & Found Video

Link to comment

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. <_<

Are you a Apple user? Most modern computers have a wheel in the centre of the mouse to aid is scrolling.

Link to comment

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. <_<

Are you a Apple user? Most modern computers have a wheel in the centre of the mouse to aid is scrolling.

So what? It's still irritating or he wouldn't have started the thread.
Link to comment

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. <_<

Are you a Apple user? Most modern computers have a wheel in the centre of the mouse to aid is scrolling.

Mine even has page up/down buttons on it (faster sometimes than scrolling), and the wheel tilts to aid scrolling left and right.

Link to comment

I'm kinda confused. You say your looking for a quicker/better way to do multiple logs but if I read right you're doing everything through GSAK. That seems to add some difficulty right there.

 

My wife and I went out yesterday and looked for about 65 caches, we found 55. When we got home I used the map on geocaching.com to log all of out finds and DNF's. I simply opened a map on the site at our starting point, clicked on the first cache we logged and clicked "Log Visit". It opened a new tab so I could log it. Once done I went back to the other tab and selected the next cache. Move the map around as needed.

 

It didn't take very long to log all of them. Though after finding your tenth micro/nano in a pine tree you run out of nice things to say. <_<

Edited by The Caching Coulters
Link to comment

I find this thread fascinating because I've noticed a huge difference between how physical (non micro or nano) caches are logged in the US and Canada versus how they are logged in Europe.

 

We started out caching in Germany, and all over Europe, any cache bigger than a micro had to have fat log books and/or regular log maintenance, because finders would take the time to leave a note in the log like they would online. Even in micro logs, a good number of cachers had small custom stickers or stamps.

 

Now that we're back on this side of the pond, it doesn't matter how big the cache is, I almost never see anything other than cacher name, date found, and TFTC. One recent exception was up at VIEW CARRE' in New Orleans, but I suspect that most folks feel obligated to go the extra mile with the cache owner standing there watching them log. Another was up at the A.P.E. cache in Seattle. Apart from those, the overwhelming majority of caches we've found since coming back have read like a sign-in roster.

 

I'm not pointing any fingers, I'm not asking for any responses. Lately I've been increasingly guilty of it, too, as it just feels odd to write anything else when no one else has done so. As widespread as this practice is getting, I have to wonder how many of the folks who are railing about the importance of individual logs, did the same at the actual cache...

 

Just some food for thought.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

Much like the Coulters, I find the logging of finds to have become even easier over time. After about a year off from caching and then starting again recently, the integration of google earth and now opening the webpage direct from there it seems much quicker. Basically just load my track for the day and the PQ I had planned my trip off and follow the track placing my logs on caches found or did not find. As far as having to scroll a bit further on the page, didn't even notice the difference compared to past logging.

 

If this feature of google earth is old news, like I said been out of it for a while, but in comparision it does make logging quicker.

Link to comment

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.

 

pulease. HUGE <_<

Link to comment

Cut and past logs are tacky and lazy.

 

So are cut and past caches. But sometimes I find one.

 

Sometimes "TFTC" is the nicest thing you can say about a particular hide.

 

It's true. Even so, if I choose to find a 1/1 micro, I know what to expect so I try to say something in the log anyway. I reserve the "TFTC" log for those special cases when the cache is poorly maintained on top of being a lame hide. I save my ire for the NM log.

Link to comment

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. <_<

 

I read this post and started to read the thread until it too k a turn for the worst. While I do not like the cut and paste idea, I do like being able to upload logs through field notes and can see a further improvement to cut down kestorkes on one screen so I created this in the feedback area. http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com

Link to comment

We started out caching in Germany, and all over Europe, any cache bigger than a micro had to have fat log books and/or regular log maintenance, because finders would take the time to leave a note in the log like they would online. Even in micro logs, a good number of cachers had small custom stickers or stamps.

 

Now that we're back on this side of the pond, it doesn't matter how big the cache is, I almost never see anything other than cacher name, date found, and TFTC. One recent exception was up at VIEW CARRE' in New Orleans, but I suspect that most folks feel obligated to go the extra mile with the cache owner standing there watching them log. Another was up at the A.P.E. cache in Seattle. Apart from those, the overwhelming majority of caches we've found since coming back have read like a sign-in roster.

 

We used to enjoy leaving logs and reading the physical logs when we started in '03. Since then we saw the decline as well.

 

One reason may be that it is redundant. Most (read:not all) prefer to read the logs online rather than in the field. Few CO's ever even see the logs unless they are doing maintenance.

 

Things just evolve.

Link to comment

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. <_<

It already is somewhat possible, you'd just have to take 1 step on your computer, upload something, then click 2 things on the website to actually publish each log.
Link to comment

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. <_<

 

This is the most depressing and discouraging post I've seen in a long time. If everyone had this attitude I probably would have stopped hiding caches after the first two or three.

I'll go you a compromise, though. I would support instantaneous cut-and-paste autologging on any cache that's part of a power trail where the cache discriptions are also identical cut-and-pastes.

Link to comment

Ha! I agree with the OP. <_<

 

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

 

:rolleyes:

Apparently you have some special inside knowledge of what this site was created for. My bad. I had this naive idea that there was more to it than that.

Just curious, was it Jeremy himself who told you why he created the site? Or was it one of the others from the inner circle?

Link to comment

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."

 

 

The habit is starting to creep into the better caches too. One guy in this area logs "Found it, logged it" for every cache. Could be a challenging 6 mile hike to a beautiful overlook and it gets "Found it, logged it".

I'm starting to see more and more "TFTC" logs on what most people consider to be outstanding caches.

Link to comment
We used to enjoy leaving logs and reading the physical logs when we started in '03. Since then we saw the decline as well.

 

One reason may be that it is redundant. Most (read:not all) prefer to read the logs online rather than in the field. Few CO's ever even see the logs unless they are doing maintenance.

 

Things just evolve.

You don't want to attempt to read my handwriting. Especially if I'm attempting to write in 10 degree weather with a 20 MPH wind. If anything, I write longer logs online than I would in the physical logbooks because I can type them.

Link to comment

Cut and past logs are tacky and lazy.

 

So are cut and past caches. But sometimes I find one.

 

Sometimes "TFTC" is the nicest thing you can say about a particular hide.

 

There are probably many that agree with this but that's not the point. If anything, some sort of cut-n-paste mechanism which allowed one to type in some text then apply it to a group of caches, might even reduce the number of TFTC logs. The issue isn't the content, it's the duplication of content. As someone else mentioned, if you've got a dozen caches in an area and a power cacher comes through an logs every one of them with the same 3-4 sentences, it gets pretty old. Frankly, if someone is going to cut-n-paste the same text on all their logs I would *prefer* that it was just a TFTC rather then the same sentences describing how you went caching with ACacher and BCacher and found 37 caches that day, especially when ACacher and BCacher post cut-n-paste logs as well.

 

Cut-n-paste logs make no distinction between cut-n-paste caches and unique, creative, or imaginative caches.

Link to comment
We used to enjoy leaving logs and reading the physical logs when we started in '03. Since then we saw the decline as well.

 

One reason may be that it is redundant. Most (read:not all) prefer to read the logs online rather than in the field. Few CO's ever even see the logs unless they are doing maintenance.

 

Things just evolve.

You don't want to attempt to read my handwriting. Especially if I'm attempting to write in 10 degree weather with a 20 MPH wind. If anything, I write longer logs online than I would in the physical logbooks because I can type them.

 

When I find a cache with a big logbook, I try to write something nice because I always enjoy seeing other people's logs. Unfortunately, weather and mosquitoes often interfere with my good intentions.

Link to comment

<snip> That journalist and his camera man ain't free you know. :rolleyes:

PSSST

The "camera man" is a woman.

 

I enjoyed visiting with Reid and Eric as we made the video and talked about how geocaching and 4 wheeling work well together.

It was fun to watch how Reid would set up the shots and take different angles from within the Jeep even as we got jostled along the trail.

That was a fun day. :)

“4×4 Geocaching” A Geocaching.com Lost & Found Video

 

My bad. C'mon, you can see the name throwing me off, can't you? <_< Nice video, congratulations. I did not see that blog post back in August.

Link to comment

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.

 

+1! <_<

Link to comment

Say something about my cache in your log - something please.

 

Tell me about the weather, who was with you, the contents of my cache, the condition of the cache, who tripped on what going for the cache, what you traded, what road you took, how accurate the coords are, something. Anything.

 

I didn't place any of my caches for "power" runs. Each is in a uniquely selected spot that I hope finders take a moment to appreciate and respect. It IS why I placed them.

 

Call me a whining, crying baby if you will but my reasons for caching and placing caches are as valid as any of the reasons folks go looking for them.

Link to comment

Say something about my cache in your log - something please.

 

Tell me about the weather, who was with you, the contents of my cache, the condition of the cache, who tripped on what going for the cache, what you traded, what road you took, how accurate the coords are, something. Anything.

 

I didn't place any of my caches for "power" runs. Each is in a uniquely selected spot that I hope finders take a moment to appreciate and respect. It IS why I placed them.

 

Call me a whining, crying baby if you will but my reasons for caching and placing caches are as valid as any of the reasons folks go looking for them.

 

As long as your cache isn't the umpteenth bison tube in a pine tree or blinky on a guardrail I've found today I'm sure I will find something to say.

Edited by The Caching Coulters
Link to comment

Say something about my cache in your log - something please.

 

Tell me about the weather, who was with you, the contents of my cache, the condition of the cache, who tripped on what going for the cache, what you traded, what road you took, how accurate the coords are, something. Anything.

 

I didn't place any of my caches for "power" runs. Each is in a uniquely selected spot that I hope finders take a moment to appreciate and respect. It IS why I placed them.

 

Call me a whining, crying baby if you will but my reasons for caching and placing caches are as valid as any of the reasons folks go looking for them.

 

As long as your cache isn't the umpteenth bison tube in a pine tree or blinky on a guardrail I've found today I'm sure I will find something to say.

 

Zero blinkies, zero bison tubes. Very few Micros.

Link to comment

We started out caching in Germany, and all over Europe, any cache bigger than a micro had to have fat log books and/or regular log maintenance, because finders would take the time to leave a note in the log like they would online. Even in micro logs, a good number of cachers had small custom stickers or stamps.

 

Now that we're back on this side of the pond, it doesn't matter how big the cache is, I almost never see anything other than cacher name, date found, and TFTC. One recent exception was up at VIEW CARRE' in New Orleans, but I suspect that most folks feel obligated to go the extra mile with the cache owner standing there watching them log. Another was up at the A.P.E. cache in Seattle. Apart from those, the overwhelming majority of caches we've found since coming back have read like a sign-in roster.

 

We used to enjoy leaving logs and reading the physical logs when we started in '03. Since then we saw the decline as well.

 

One reason may be that it is redundant. Most (read:not all) prefer to read the logs online rather than in the field. Few CO's ever even see the logs unless they are doing maintenance.

 

Things just evolve.

The bolded bit is part of the reason that I stopped writing a physical logs.

  1. I'm going to log online anyway.
  2. I can't think of anything to write at that moment.
  3. I prefer to limit my time with the physical log because it is too hot, too buggy, or there are too many people about.

Link to comment

Say something about my cache in your log - something please.

 

Tell me about the weather, who was with you, the contents of my cache, the condition of the cache, who tripped on what going for the cache, what you traded, what road you took, how accurate the coords are, something. Anything.

 

I didn't place any of my caches for "power" runs. Each is in a uniquely selected spot that I hope finders take a moment to appreciate and respect. It IS why I placed them.

 

Call me a whining, crying baby if you will but my reasons for caching and placing caches are as valid as any of the reasons folks go looking for them.

 

As long as your cache isn't the umpteenth bison tube in a pine tree or blinky on a guardrail I've found today I'm sure I will find something to say.

Not StarBrand's caches. At least the ones that I have found thus far.

Example:

ChRock

 

zoltig found ChRock

I finally got the phone out for a picture of the chimney in the clouds and drizzle.

Nice cache location. I looked right at it and didn't realize that was the cache. The cache is in good shape and the location to view the Chimney was cool.

Thanks for the cache.

And the photo op:

668959f2-0405-4d77-b8ec-cb1fda2b0ffa.jpg

Link to comment
Say something about my cache in your log - something please.

 

Tell me about the weather, who was with you, the contents of my cache, the condition of the cache, who tripped on what going for the cache, what you traded, what road you took, how accurate the coords are, something. Anything.

I almost never write much about the actual cache. Generally, I'll say a bit about my day or how long it took me to find the cache, but I rarely discuss the actual cache unless a problem was discovered.
I didn't place any of my caches for "power" runs. Each is in a uniquely selected spot that I hope finders take a moment to appreciate and respect. It IS why I placed them.
You can't control how many other caches someone else finds in a day or whether or not they appreciate the scenery as much as you expect them to.
Call me a whining, crying baby if you will but my reasons for caching and placing caches are as valid as any of the reasons folks go looking for them.
Sure, your reasons for placing caches are valid. However, when you attempt to control how other people experience caches, you've wandered beyond the pale.
Link to comment

Any cache can get C&P logs. Truly good caches will get fewer such logs than lame caches will. If you want to limit the number of lame logs that you get, place a good cache.

 

Also, don't place caches to boost your ego. that way you won't get your feelings hurt when you get an occasional 'lame' log.

Link to comment

sbell111 - I think we have all come to expect that there is absolutely no end in sight for what you will tolerate and accept as a part of Geocaching.

 

I simply wish to raise the bar of expectations.

I can only assume that you failed to read the 'world record' thread, et al. Of course, another option is that you are simply trying to shrug off my posts rather than confront the fact that your position is unreasonable. It's always easier to attack the individual rather than the substance of the argument, huh?

 

BTW, the problem with this thread is that many of you are trying to force your 'expectations' onto others. This is where your positions become unreasonable and selfish.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Say something about my cache in your log - something please.

 

Tell me about the weather, who was with you, the contents of my cache, the condition of the cache, who tripped on what going for the cache, what you traded, what road you took, how accurate the coords are, something. Anything.

 

I didn't place any of my caches for "power" runs. Each is in a uniquely selected spot that I hope finders take a moment to appreciate and respect. It IS why I placed them.

 

Call me a whining, crying baby if you will but my reasons for caching and placing caches are as valid as any of the reasons folks go looking for them.

 

As long as your cache isn't the umpteenth bison tube in a pine tree or blinky on a guardrail I've found today I'm sure I will find something to say.

 

Zero blinkies, zero bison tubes. Very few Micros.

 

I kinda figured as much. I hope to run across some of your one day. It would be a nice change from what we have around here.

Link to comment

 

The habit is starting to creep into the better caches too. One guy in this area logs "Found it, logged it" for every cache. Could be a challenging 6 mile hike to a beautiful overlook and it gets "Found it, logged it".

I'm starting to see more and more "TFTC" logs on what most people consider to be outstanding caches.

 

I used to email cachers whom logged lousy logs on my nice caches, and share the "lost art of logging" thread with them.. I was amazed how nasty the replies were. <_<

 

During Geowoodstock 8, I noticed the same thing on the Mission 9, Project Ape Cache. It was a beautiful hike, with outstanding scenery, and people were spewing it with "park & grab" logs. :rolleyes:

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

for instance, having to scroll to the bottom of an ever lengthening logging page to key the "Submit Log" window.

 

I don't do that much bulk logging so I hadn't noticed that issue but I see what you're saying now. That submit button is a long way down. If you click outside of the comments field and hit the enter button on your keyboard you'll find that the form behaves as though you've clicked the submit button. That might save you some time.

Link to comment

I find this thread fascinating because I've noticed a huge difference between how physical (non micro or nano) caches are logged in the US and Canada versus how they are logged in Europe.

 

We started out caching in Germany, and all over Europe, any cache bigger than a micro had to have fat log books and/or regular log maintenance, because finders would take the time to leave a note in the log like they would online. Even in micro logs, a good number of cachers had small custom stickers or stamps.

 

Now that we're back on this side of the pond, it doesn't matter how big the cache is, I almost never see anything other than cacher name, date found, and TFTC. One recent exception was up at VIEW CARRE' in New Orleans, but I suspect that most folks feel obligated to go the extra mile with the cache owner standing there watching them log. Another was up at the A.P.E. cache in Seattle. Apart from those, the overwhelming majority of caches we've found since coming back have read like a sign-in roster.

 

I'm not pointing any fingers, I'm not asking for any responses. Lately I've been increasingly guilty of it, too, as it just feels odd to write anything else when no one else has done so. As widespread as this practice is getting, I have to wonder how many of the folks who are railing about the importance of individual logs, did the same at the actual cache...

 

Just some food for thought.

 

That's how it used to be in North America, back in the early days. Nice to hear that Europe is still into sharing experiences both in the physical logbook as well as the online logbook. As a CO I keep all my filled logbooks and I enjoy reading through them. About 35% of finders write more then just their trailname and date. Used to be 95% of finders wrote something.

 

But I think recent COs are partly to blame.

 

So often I find caches where you know the CO is only putting a log"book" in the cache because the rules say they must. Lately many COs don't want to spend the 25cents at the dollar store for a spiral bound memo pad. I'm seeing stapled bits of scrap paper, post-it note pads, and cheap thin newsprint notepads that come off the glue-edged spine when you flip to the next empty page. Last week the yogurt cache container I found had about 30 bits of cut-up-with-scissors scrap loose paper.

 

I'm also finding many regular size caches that have a 8.5x11 folded sheet as a logbook. When you unfold the sheet you find a table printed on it with a couple of hundred tiny little cells where finders can squeeze in their trailname and date. I can just hear the CO being royally p-o'd with me when he sees my honking big 1/2" stamp on his micro log (in a regular size container). A micro log spoils the experience of finding a larger cache. Part of the reason I started filtering out micros was because I don't get the whole traditional experience - trading swag and a good size logbook where I can write a note. Now even swag size caches are joining the less-is-best, it's-about-the-numbers new wave caching mentality that geocaching is becoming.

 

But as some have said, such is the evolution of the game. I'm glad to see some folks voicing their opinion that this is not progressive change, but rather that this less-is-best/numbers mentality is a detriment to the game. It's the COs who take pride in their hides and the finders that share their experience with the community that make this game enjoyable. The numbers people are riding the coattails of those who fully participate and put some effort into this pastime.

Link to comment

If there's a larger log book I'll take the time to write in it. Better yet if the CO put a prompt question to be answered in the log book. A cache I did this summer had a huge log book and a great question to address. Actually made me take a little time there. Another one I like is the generally creative log book. I found another cache that had a vacation diary thing as the log book. Lots of pages, lots of room and interesting spots to fill out in it. Another one I took time at.

Link to comment

 

I'm also finding many regular size caches that have a 8.5x11 folded sheet as a logbook. When you unfold the sheet you find a table printed on it with a couple of hundred tiny little cells where finders can squeeze in their trailname and date. I can just hear the CO being royally p-o'd with me when he sees my honking big 1/2" stamp on his micro log (in a regular size container).

 

Ooof :| I sincerely hope that habit doesn't spread across the pond

 

I love a proper sized logbook and, although I write more one the online log, I always try to write a little about the experience in the physical log too

Link to comment

I used to email cachers whom logged lousy logs on my nice caches, and share the "lost art of logging" thread with them.. I was amazed how nasty the replies were. :unsure:

 

I don't blame them. Its their log, not yours. Nobody wants a lecture on logging.

 

The few people I have introduced to geocaching wanted to know how to log their caches. I showed them mine, but made it clear you can post whatever you want, as long as you dont spoil the find. One of them writes long logs about the find. One of them writes a really short logs. They are both fine with me.

Link to comment

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.

 

You just have to learn to not take things like that personally, I guess.

 

There are douche-bags in every game (because geocaching to me isn't a "sport"... it's a friendly game). Why dwell on the crappy people and the bad logs? You'll end up getting resentful of your hobby, and that's not a very good way to be.

Link to comment

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,

 

Nope, the same log over and over again tells the cache owners nothing about the individual caches that were allegedly found on that particular cache run.

 

"XXX and YYY out on a cache tour today. Lovely weather. Had much fun. TFTC" x 20 or 50 or 1,000 times tells the cache owner absolutely nothing about the condition the cache was in, or whether the cache was actually found at all, and wasn't just another GC number in a long list of caches.

Link to comment

Unfortunatley, C&P logs and no info logs are allowed. It is a black mark for them in my book and will not give me any respect for them. You normally get to know people by circumstance or a shared activity. I will probably not reach out to a fellow cacher who has habits I don't like. However, it is possible they may warrant my respect in other ways, but they make a bad first impression on me. If I somehow get to know them, I will probably goad them mecilessly about it and try to get them to change.

Link to comment

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.

 

Good point here made.

 

THe other is that many people don't log their finds at all.

 

If you find it so tedious to log, that you can't be polite enough to log a decent log, then one more option is not not log at all. Many geocachers choose to do this. (It's really not about the numbers anyway)

Link to comment

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,

 

Nope, the same log over and over again tells the cache owners nothing about the individual caches that were allegedly found on that particular cache run.

 

"XXX and YYY out on a cache tour today. Lovely weather. Had much fun. TFTC" x 20 or 50 or 1,000 times tells the cache owner absolutely nothing about the condition the cache was in, or whether the cache was actually found at all, and wasn't just another GC number in a long list of caches.

Of course these logs give feedback. The very fact that they used the find log tells you that they say that the cache is in place. The fact that they didn't also tell you that there was a problem suggests that there might not be one.
Link to comment

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.

 

Good point here made.

 

THe other is that many people don't log their finds at all.

 

If you find it so tedious to log, that you can't be polite enough to log a decent log, then one more option is not not log at all. Many geocachers choose to do this. (It's really not about the numbers anyway)

Right. If a person cannot live up to Sol Seeker's logging standard, he should not be able to log his finds.

 

Whatever.

Link to comment

So I propose a C&P option that requires a minimum of 500 characters. This way you would have to at least think about your experience some and try to include details of your trip but you could then log a bunch of caches at once.

 

If there were some minimum limit it would potentially inspire people to write more.

If there were some minimum limit imposed, I'll guarantee you that it wouldn't be one hour after the site update before someone gets the bright idea of pasting "TFTC" 125 times in order to get to 500 characters.

 

The problem with a character counter is that character counts.

 

Thus, my proposal in post #2 for the panel of retired schoolteachers to judge each and every log submission for originality, spelling, grammar, plot and character development.

Link to comment

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,

 

Nope, the same log over and over again tells the cache owners nothing about the individual caches that were allegedly found on that particular cache run.

 

"XXX and YYY out on a cache tour today. Lovely weather. Had much fun. TFTC" x 20 or 50 or 1,000 times tells the cache owner absolutely nothing about the condition the cache was in, or whether the cache was actually found at all, and wasn't just another GC number in a long list of caches.

Of course these logs give feedback. The very fact that they used the find log tells you that they say that the cache is in place. The fact that they didn't also tell you that there was a problem suggests that there might not be one.

 

Nope, doesn't tell me that they ACTUALLY found my cache at all, let alone that it was in good shape, or wasn't, if it needed a new logbook, if the cache location was muddy, etc.

 

How can a generic cut-and-paste log like that give any useful feedback if it's exactly the same for each of the caches in their Pocket Query for that day? Perhaps you are able to read more into these types of logs than I am able or willing to do.

 

I'm not looking at this as a cache owner, but as someone who reads logs of caches I may be interested in searching. Reading the same generic cut-and-paste logs from the most recent finders doesn't tell me anything of value.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...