Logging cache runs or long days of caching

[+John in Valley Forge]

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.

 

Agreed. I chased one cache for 3 attempts. When I finally got it I was inside a dark place, up to my knees in frigid water, with methane gas from the rotting vegetation under my feet. I had every intention of writing a really long log in the notebook, but I couldn't easily hold the ammo can, the log, the pen and the flashlight. I could barely get my name and date written.

 

But I tried to make up for it in the online log.

[+the4dirtydogs]

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 GSAK would be really cool. Nice and quick.

[+sbell111]

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.

1. If you can't believe that a c&p log is a true find, then you can't believe other logs either. That's your problem, not the cache finders.

2. As a cache finder, I am under no obligation to leave hints in my logs for futre searchers. In fact, I strive not to.

[+BlueDeuce]

Why do we need to facilitate mass logging? That's really the deal here.

 

I don't expect everyone will post a shining star of a log, but at least the system didn't allow you to freaking skate over everything I've done to place a cache.

Edited November 24, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+sbell111]

Why do we need to facilitate mass logging? That's really the deal here.

 

I don't expect everyone will post a shining star of a log, but at least the system didn't allow you to freaking skate over everything I've done to place a cache.

So if I enter my logs into GSAK comments and then use the macro to quickly log them to gc.com, I've somehow 'skated' over everything you've done? What does that even mean?

[+BlueDeuce]

Why do we need to facilitate mass logging? That's really the deal here.

 

I don't expect everyone will post a shining star of a log, but at least the system didn't allow you to freaking skate over everything I've done to place a cache.

So if I enter my logs into GSAK comments and then use the macro to quickly log them to gc.com, I've somehow 'skated' over everything you've done? What does that even mean?

 

Geocaching isn't just about the people who seek caches The people who place them have a pretty big part in the game as well. (surprise)

 

Do we have no say in this? I understand that owners can't set an ALR, they can't delete finds without a legitimate reason, they can't set trade restrictions on travel bugs, but do we have to accept whatever the finders want to do?

Edited November 24, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[jholly]

Why do we need to facilitate mass logging? That's really the deal here.

 

I don't expect everyone will post a shining star of a log, but at least the system didn't allow you to freaking skate over everything I've done to place a cache.

Isn't getting to be that time of the year that about all you can do is skate, or at least ski, over the caches?

[+madmomma72]

Isn't getting to be that time of the year that about all you can do is skate, or at least ski, over the caches?

 

Over to the caches, not over them.

[+BlueDeuce]

Why do we need to facilitate mass logging? That's really the deal here.

 

I don't expect everyone will post a shining star of a log, but at least the system didn't allow you to freaking skate over everything I've done to place a cache.

Isn't getting to be that time of the year that about all you can do is skate, or at least ski, over the caches?

 

Do you think the next step in geocaching is logging a find for only a count.

[+M 5]

It is a matter of etiquette. Just like some people say "yes ma'am" and "yes sir" to their elders, and some don't. The people that do, understand, and the people that don't will probably never get it.

[+BlueDeuce]

It is a matter of etiquette. Just like some people say "yes ma'am" and "yes sir" to their elders, and some don't. The people that do, understand, and the people that don't will probably never get it.

 

It is a matter of etiquette, whether we like it or not.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Why do we need to facilitate mass logging? That's really the deal here.

 

I don't expect everyone will post a shining star of a log, but at least the system didn't allow you to freaking skate over everything I've done to place a cache.

Isn't getting to be that time of the year that about all you can do is skate, or at least ski, over the caches?

 

Do you think the next step in geocaching is logging a find for only a count.

 

I think we're there already.

[+Chokecherry]

For those that don't want to write logs but still want to keep track it's unfortunate that there's not just an option to log "found it" with no comment attached to it.

 

I try to write longer logs but sometimes I just don't have a whole lot to say about the cache. Even then I try to piece together a sentence about it.

[+cycleangela]

No thanks. I see enough "found it" and "TFTC" logs on my caches that I spent money on and took the time to place and maintain. Even if it's something short, please take the time to tell me about your experience. Cache owners enjoy reading the logs. In fact, I got a log on one of my caches the other day that I just had to re-read again, because it was that much fun to read!

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

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.

 

Can we get that same panel to review cache listings? At least for grammar and spelling?

[+Chokecherry]

No thanks. I see enough "found it" and "TFTC" logs on my caches that I spent money on and took the time to place and maintain. Even if it's something short, please take the time to tell me about your experience. Cache owners enjoy reading the logs. In fact, I got a log on one of my caches the other day that I just had to re-read again, because it was that much fun to read!

 

I've never hunted one of your caches so I can't say if I would have anything or worth to say or just a sentence saying I found it.

 

I think I have the most difficulty finding anything to say on the caches where the cache owners can't even bother to type a word in the description. I haven't had any complaints about the length of my logs on those ones but if I get a cut and paste or blank description I'm inclined to put as much effort into my log as was put into that description.

[+Castle Mischief]

This thread needs more "I remember when this was all cotton fields" and "get off my lawn".

[+sbell111]

Why do we need to facilitate mass logging? That's really the deal here.

 

I don't expect everyone will post a shining star of a log, but at least the system didn't allow you to freaking skate over everything I've done to place a cache.

So if I enter my logs into GSAK comments and then use the macro to quickly log them to gc.com, I've somehow 'skated' over everything you've done? What does that even mean?

 

Geocaching isn't just about the people who seek caches The people who place them have a pretty big part in the game as well. (surprise)

 

Do we have no say in this? I understand that owners can't set an ALR, they can't delete finds without a legitimate reason, they can't set trade restrictions on travel bugs, but do we have to accept whatever the finders want to do?

If the logs aren't bogus, profane or contain spoilers, you have to accept them.

[+Chokecherry]

If one wants to micomanage the finders of the game and dictate how they log then one is going to face constant disappointment. In that case maybe the game doesn't suit you or at least hiding doesn't suit you. The reality of the world is you can't control what other people do or how they do it.

[+M 5]

If one wants to micomanage the finders of the game and dictate how they log then one is going to face constant disappointment. In that case maybe the game doesn't suit you or at least hiding doesn't suit you. The reality of the world is you can't control what other people do or how they do it.

 

They are already being managed, the question is how much you can manage them. It is very loose, but there are rules to logging. I personaly wish there were a few more rules. Obviously you can't "micromanage" it down to exact logging, but there could be tougher rules in place (and no, I don't have the answer, I wish I did). Like I said in an earlier post, it is a matter a etiquette. I don't expect everyone to be courteous, but it would be nice. Some cachers "monkey see, monkey do" I know when I first started, I used all the TFTCTNLSNL, acromyms, because I thought you were supposed to. When I stared hiding caches and got some nice logs, I quickly changed my thinking and tried to follow that example. So, I think it could be a certain percentage better with stricter rules.

[+Chokecherry]

There are already suggestions for what to log. What exactly would more rules accomplish? Nothing. If cache owners were allowed to delete logs that didn't meet their personal aesthetic how exactly would that move the hobby forward? It wouldn't do a thing other than to turn people off to it. Some people just don't have a lot to say in general. Some people want to keep track of their finds only. Which is why I suggested a function where people don't have to comment at all but rather mark it found. Some people don't type well or have limited literacy. Some use phones to type which are not conducive to logging much. So baiscally the hobby would become elitist and hostile with a bunch arbitrary rules to essentially stroke egos.

[+StarBrand]

If one wants to micomanage the finders of the game and dictate how they log then one is going to face constant disappointment. In that case maybe the game doesn't suit you or at least hiding doesn't suit you. The reality of the world is you can't control what other people do or how they do it.

True enough.

 

But I can ask nicely.

 

I just don't want to make it "easy" to log little or nothing.

 

I gaurantee you, I would not have hidden nearly as many caches if all vistors did was mark them as found. This is a community and logging is some small amount of participation in that community.

[+M 5]

There are already suggestions for what to log. What exactly would more rules accomplish? Nothing. If cache owners were allowed to delete logs that didn't meet their personal aesthetic how exactly would that move the hobby forward? It wouldn't do a thing other than to turn people off to it. Some people just don't have a lot to say in general. Some people want to keep track of their finds only. Which is why I suggested a function where people don't have to comment at all but rather mark it found. Some people don't type well or have limited literacy. Some use phones to type which are not conducive to logging much. So baiscally the hobby would become elitist and hostile with a bunch arbitrary rules to essentially stroke egos.

 

It would only become elitist to people who want to think of it as elitist. The mentality that because the rules don't fit every little scenario you can come up with breeds those thoughts. It wouldn't be the rules fault, but the people who want to bend the rules. It has nothing to do with stroking egos, but with the continued effort to make this a social hobby and not just a "found it" game. You sound like my wife, when she is cold in the car, she turns on the heat, then she gets hot and turns on the AC. There is a knob on there to adjust the temperature instead of going to extremes on either side. I don't think they should make rules to tell you exactly how to log at all. I don't even know if there even is a viable option, but if someone came up with rules that defined logging requirements somewhere in the middle, I would be in favor of it. I'll repeat an earlier post. It is a matter of etiquette. Just like some people say "yes ma'am" and "yes sir" to their elders, and some don't. The people that do, understand, and the people that don't will probably never get it.

[+narcissa]

I don't think there need to be rules against lame logging habits, but Groundspeak certainly doesn't need to facilitate that behaviour by making it easier for people to spew "thnx" on 500 caches at once.

[+TomToad]

How about adding an optional survey to the found log page? You could have questions like,

 

How far did you walk to the cache? < 1mi 1-2 mi 2-4 mi >4mi

How was the weather? Poor Good Excellent

What was the condition of the cache? Poor Good Excellent

What was the condition of the log? Poor Good Excellent

etc...

 

You would say what you wanted to say in the logging pane, then answer the questions below to add information you might not have typed in your log. If you decided you don't want to do the survey at all, you can just scroll all the way down past the questions to the submit button.

[Skippermark]

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.

 

Can we get that same panel to review cache listings? At least for grammar and spelling?

I thank this is a great idea two. I wOod like to heRe what the review panel?.! says when they find miss-steaks. Are they going to correct them on there own!?! or will the cash owner half to dew it?

[+L0ne.R]

If cache owners were allowed to delete logs that didn't meet their personal aesthetic how exactly would that move the hobby forward?

 

I definitely don't want to see that. I'm glad ALRs have become verbotten.

 

It wouldn't do a thing other than to turn people off to it. Some people just don't have a lot to say in general. Some people want to keep track of their finds only.....So basically the hobby would become elitist and hostile with a bunch arbitrary rules to essentially stroke egos.

 

But if the acronymn/logged from my phone/"." trend continues and becomes the norm, I think we'll be turning off more and more of the creative/responsible COs who put out great caches and maintain them. It'll be a shame to lose their contributions.

 

Which is why I suggested a function where people don't have to comment at all but rather mark it found. Some people don't type well or have limited literacy. Some use phones to type which are not conducive to logging much.

 

However, I do see some merit to allowing finders who just want to play the numbers game, a way to log the finds without cluttering up the online logs with non-useful information. When I check the logs in the field I'd rather read useful info like whether the last few finders enjoyed the find or if they had some caveats to offer (trail closed, mosquitos fierce, couldn't find nearby parking, etc.). My only regret would be if it becomes the trend not to leave an online comment. I think we would see a decrease in the number of good cache hides if it became the norm.

[+zoltig]

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.

 

Can we get that same panel to review cache listings? At least for grammar and spelling?

I thank this is a great idea two. I wOod like to heRe what the review panel?.! says when they find miss-steaks. Are they going to correct them on there own!?! or will the cash owner half to dew it?

It's a great idea to have the logs reviewed for spelling and grammar. I think the forum moderators should be tasked with that assignment.

[+DarkZen]

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. Do my bulk logs actually hurt anyone? Nope.

I love how this entitlement sentiment and others like it in this thread seem to assume that caches magically appear in the field. Lots of luck having quality caches to find in the future if this becomes the prevalent attitude for online logging.

 

If the logs aren't bogus, profane or contain spoilers, you have to accept them.

Way to promote good will.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

I'd like a way to bulk log the skirts or "numbers runs" caches.

 

Otherwise, I write long logs for unique caches.

 

I think both these logs are appropriate to the situation and that the respective CO would agree.

 

Examples:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...88-d450c4a7ecbd

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...a6-a87f61fa02de

 

I think it's all about knowing when to use what logging style. Imo

Edited November 24, 2010 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+M 5]

I'd like a way to bulk log the skirts or "numbers runs" caches.

 

Otherwise, I write long logs for unique caches.

 

I think both these logs are appropriate to the situation and that the respective CO would agree.

 

Examples:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...88-d450c4a7ecbd

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...a6-a87f61fa02de

 

I think it's all about knowing when to use what logging style. Imo

 

That brings the whole lame cache and cachers who hunt them argument. It's been posted many times that lame caches deserve lame logs. I can't totally diagree with that. I try to not do caches I won't like, but I get tricked or am with a group sometimes. I usually don't even sign or log them. I don't want to encourage hides I abhor. Others can do that. I wish everyone would quit logging lame caches and they would slowly go away, but I won't hold my breath.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

Finally got the time to return to the forums and see if there were any constructive responses to my thoughts, and there were - THANKS a lot!

 

Regarding my original OP and to disarm all the comments about being a logger who is lazy, inconsiderate, needs another hobby, disinterested in the hider's hard work and their deserving of a nice log . . . sorry, I SHOULD have been much clearer in the query.

 

I was referring to caches placed for the express purpose of being a cache run . . . stop sign series, lampskirt series, a Jacksonville micro run or the ET series in Nevada . . . the CO's would never expect his very kind gift of the run to generate unique experience logs from those grabbing the caches. A log does tell them it is sound in place (or, I will replace them as I go to help them and in appreciation).

 

I say this with the knowlege that I have personally placed runs for my local and visiting friends and received C&P logs, as expected . . . I got/get a kick out of the crowds that show up and seeing the names of all my friends in the cache logs.

 

THANKS for your replies . . . , was hoping for someone from Groundspeak to consider the ideas.

Edited November 24, 2010 by GRANPA ALEX

[+lil_cav_wings]

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.

 

Can we get that same panel to review cache listings? At least for grammar and spelling?

I thank this is a great idea two. I wOod like to heRe what the review panel?.! says when they find miss-steaks. Are they going to correct them on there own!?! or will the cash owner half to dew it?

It's a great idea to have the logs reviewed for spelling and grammar. I think the forum moderators should be tasked with that assignment.

 

Unless the spelling error is intentional, such as a reference to mad caching skillz (replacing the plural "s" for a "z" to denote how mad your caching skills really are!

 

Joking aside, I select my caches carefully to avoid lameness, and therefore try to say a little something about each cache I find in the online log (unless in A-Stan or Iraq). Logging in the field gets tough when the mosquitos rival the Millenium Falcon in size and it's starting to get dark, which is why the online logbooks are awesome.

 

As far as the people who copy and paste for bulk runs, grabbing every LPC they can on some mad Saturday dash to get eleventy-thousand caches or bust, they probably won't be concerned with the caches that need a 10k approach hike to GZ for an awesome cache... where you'll find all the purist cachers hanging out, taking notes of the amazing scenery for a awesome log when they get home. Awesome caches, placed in great places, with thoughtful efforts by dedicated CO, will always be sought by people willing to take the time to make a serious effort at a good log.

 

Edited for language

Edited November 24, 2010 by Skippermark

[+Kit Fox]

That brings the whole lame cache and cachers who hunt them argument. It's been posted many times that lame caches deserve lame logs. I can't totally diagree with that. I try to not do caches I won't like, but I get tricked or am with a group sometimes. I usually don't even sign or log them. I don't want to encourage hides I abhor. Others can do that. I wish everyone would quit logging lame caches and they would slowly go away, but I won't hold my breath.

 

I'm with you. I no longer hunt for easy "park & grabs" or other caches I deem lousy/lame.

 

As a finder, the best thing you can do for hiders of great caches, is to reward them with nice logs, add their caches to your favorites bookmark list, and email them personally to tell them how much you appreciate their hides.

[+ventura_kids]

I wish everyone would quit logging lame caches and they would slowly go away, but I won't hold my breath.

 

I'm with you. I no longer hunt for easy "park & grabs" or other caches I deem lousy/lame.

 

As a finder, the best thing you can do for hiders of great caches, is to reward them with nice logs, add their caches to your favorites bookmark list, and email them personally to tell them how much you appreciate their hides.

 

Hey..... wait one minute. (Did you wait?)

 

I hate the type of caches you love.

 

Therefore, My "terrible cache" comments in my logs will be on the caches you love.

This is exactly how it should be.

If somehow you think Your "terrible cache" comment on my caches will Make me hide a different type of cache.....think again. I'm more likely to hide more of the same.

 

(omit the I and change it to "a cacher who loves lame micros on lamposts")

 

By the way....did you notice I don't hunt for your "great" hides? lol

[+ventura_kids]

Now...back on subject..........

 

All the newest Garmin GPS units have incorporated a method to log your finds faster.

 

Field notes.

 

Now the cut and paste loggers can zoom thru a hundred finds in less than 30 minutes.

[+M 5]

Therefore, My "terrible cache" comments in my logs will be on the caches you love.

 

 

Might want to reread the posts. I didn't see anyone else saying to write "terrible cache" comments in logs. I just don't activlely hunt for them or normally log them when I do find them. I definately don't encourage with nice logs on caches I don't like. I don't like them, but if others do, then fine, go do them. I just don't like the potentially harmful power trails. You can have the power trails in areas that they are not a problem. There just isn't many.

[+Chokecherry]

If cache owners were allowed to delete logs that didn't meet their personal aesthetic how exactly would that move the hobby forward?

 

I definitely don't want to see that. I'm glad ALRs have become verbotten.

 

It wouldn't do a thing other than to turn people off to it. Some people just don't have a lot to say in general. Some people want to keep track of their finds only.....So basically the hobby would become elitist and hostile with a bunch arbitrary rules to essentially stroke egos.

 

But if the acronymn/logged from my phone/"." trend continues and becomes the norm, I think we'll be turning off more and more of the creative/responsible COs who put out great caches and maintain them. It'll be a shame to lose their contributions.

 

Which is why I suggested a function where people don't have to comment at all but rather mark it found. Some people don't type well or have limited literacy. Some use phones to type which are not conducive to logging much.

 

However, I do see some merit to allowing finders who just want to play the numbers game, a way to log the finds without cluttering up the online logs with non-useful information. When I check the logs in the field I'd rather read useful info like whether the last few finders enjoyed the find or if they had some caveats to offer (trail closed, mosquitos fierce, couldn't find nearby parking, etc.). My only regret would be if it becomes the trend not to leave an online comment. I think we would see a decrease in the number of good cache hides if it became the norm.

 

If the trend is already lacking comments then giving them an option to log it as a find without cluttering up the page won't make a lick of difference to logging trends. I will likely continue to write comments about the caches I find but it would not longer force cache finders and cache owners to go through pages of logs that apparently raise hackles.

 

Honestly I'm yet to see a truly impressive cache have an inordinate number of TFTC logs. Sure they get the occasional one but the ones I've been to that were great caches have always had a majority of comments with some substance to them. Even the newbies write something.

[+Kit Fox]

 

Hey..... wait one minute. (Did you wait?)

 

I hate the type of caches you love.

 

Therefore, My "terrible cache" comments in my logs will be on the caches you love.

This is exactly how it should be.

If somehow you think Your "terrible cache" comment on my caches will Make me hide a different type of cache.....think again. I'm more likely to hide more of the same.

 

(omit the I and change it to "a cacher who loves lame micros on lamposts")

 

By the way....did you notice I don't hunt for your "great" hides? lol

 

You don't find my good caches because............................ you can't drive up to them with your Jeep, and they take more than three minutes to find..

[+hukilaulau]

Finally got the time to return to the forums and see if there were any constructive responses to my thoughts, and there were - THANKS a lot!

 

Regarding my original OP and to disarm all the comments about being a logger who is lazy, inconsiderate, needs another hobby, disinterested in the hider's hard work and their deserving of a nice log . . . sorry, I SHOULD have been much clearer in the query.

 

I was referring to caches placed for the express purpose of being a cache run . . . stop sign series, lampskirt series, a Jacksonville micro run or the ET series in Nevada . . . the CO's would never expect his very kind gift of the run to generate unique experience logs from those grabbing the caches. A log does tell them it is sound in place (or, I will replace them as I go to help them and in appreciation).

 

I say this with the knowlege that I have personally placed runs for my local and visiting friends and received C&P logs, as expected . . . I got/get a kick out of the crowds that show up and seeing the names of all my friends in the cache logs.

 

THANKS for your replies . . . , was hoping for someone from Groundspeak to consider the ideas.

Back in post #67, that's pretty much what I said in my second paragraph, so I actually agree with you!

So does that mean you disagree with the folks who agreed with you, thinking you meant something else?

 

"You meant what *I* said, not what *you* said." -- David Sklansky

[+narcissa]

 

Hey..... wait one minute. (Did you wait?)

 

I hate the type of caches you love.

 

Therefore, My "terrible cache" comments in my logs will be on the caches you love.

This is exactly how it should be.

If somehow you think Your "terrible cache" comment on my caches will Make me hide a different type of cache.....think again. I'm more likely to hide more of the same.

 

(omit the I and change it to "a cacher who loves lame micros on lamposts")

 

By the way....did you notice I don't hunt for your "great" hides? lol

 

You don't find my good caches because............................ you can't drive up to them with your Jeep, and they take more than three minutes to find..

 

I imagine you would also object to having your caches stolen and replaced with throw-downs these trolls brought from home.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

I'd like a way to bulk log the skirts or "numbers runs" caches.

 

I think both these logs are appropriate to the situation and that the respective CO would agree.

 

Examples:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...88-d450c4a7ecbd

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...a6-a87f61fa02de

 

I think it's all about knowing when to use what logging style. Imo

That brings the whole lame cache and cachers who hunt them argument. It's been posted many times that lame caches deserve lame logs. I can't totally diagree with that. I try to not do caches I won't like, but I get tricked or am with a group sometimes. I usually don't even sign or log them. I don't want to encourage hides I abhor. Others can do that. I wish everyone would quit logging lame caches and they would slowly go away, but I won't hold my breath.

 

I never said any cache was lame. I think every cache has its value, whether it's a nice hike or a LPC. I prefer the long hikes and great scenery with ammo cans, yes. But I also appreciate the quickies when I just want a cache fix or I'm out somewhere doing something not fun (shopping etc) and I can get a quick cache to make a chore a little fun!

 

My logs are appropriate to the situation in that I have a lot to write after I've had a long hike and search. There's just not much to say on a PNG. I still make it somewhat unique.

But I'd rather just be able to log all the quickies in bulk.

As a CO I don't really care what finders log. That's their deal. I hide and find for myself, not for others. I don't depend on others to satisfy me. I'm delighted with a longer log or a TFTC. Both are good because it shows I helped the finder have fun.

Edited November 24, 2010 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+JesandTodd]

 

Hey..... wait one minute. (Did you wait?)

 

I hate the type of caches you love.

 

Therefore, My "terrible cache" comments in my logs will be on the caches you love.

This is exactly how it should be.

If somehow you think Your "terrible cache" comment on my caches will Make me hide a different type of cache.....think again. I'm more likely to hide more of the same.

 

(omit the I and change it to "a cacher who loves lame micros on lamposts")

 

By the way....did you notice I don't hunt for your "great" hides? lol

 

You don't find my good caches because............................ you can't drive up to them with your Jeep, and they take more than three minutes to find..

Well said!!

[+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.

 

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.

 

You are correct . . . your SECOND paragraph is my point, exactly - THANKS. On cache runs, I always write a personal email to the CO to express appreciation and share my 'run' experience though the logs are C&P. This usually precipitates a kind & appreciative response form the CO.

 

However, when one has a nice hide with a nice written cache page that is worthy of a nice find log - they deserve such a log and I like to provide it within my meager scripting ability.

[+NicknPapa]

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.

 

You are correct . . . your SECOND paragraph is my point, exactly - THANKS. On cache runs, I always write a personal email to the CO to express appreciation and share my 'run' experience though the logs are C&P. This usually precipitates a kind & appreciative response form the CO.

 

However, when one has a nice hide with a nice written cache page that is worthy of a nice find log - they deserve such a log and I like to provide it within my meager scripting ability.

 

For myself, I don't have any desire to attempt a "Power Trail" or anything that is intended for collecting numbers and nothing else. For me the cache is the excuse, the journey is the reward and I prefer to savor it. However I am sure there are people that are mostly interested in the "bragging rights" that come from numbers and that's OK to, for them anyway. I do object to any type of autologging though for a couple of reasons.

One of the big reasons involves resource usage on the Groundspeak system. I'm sure everyone has noticed that the site runs slow during high usage times, i.e. weekends. Add an autologging feature and more resources are used, slowing it down even more with no real benefit to the community as a whole.

The second objection is knowing that the feature was only used on the "Power trails". I guess Groundspeak could add an "Allow autologging" option to the cache page but frankly I don't think the value would equal the effort and resource usage.

Do I always write a long detailed log? No. After reading this I do intend to put more effort into that part of the game BUT sometimes you go find a cache and after you get there you realize that it simply wasn't all that exciting. Maybe it was another green film canister in a cedar tree with absolutely nothing to recommend the area or something similar. Those will likely get a short sweet "Thank you" of some sort and not much else.

If it's a lamp post cache in a Walmart parking lot I might go so far as to wave as I drive by. Probably not, but I might. If I ever actually stop and look for one of those we'll all know it's time for me to find a new hobby, I've seen enough Walmart parking lots.....

Edited November 26, 2010 by NicknPapa

[+narcissa]

 

You are correct . . . your SECOND paragraph is my point, exactly - THANKS. On cache runs, I always write a personal email to the CO to express appreciation and share my 'run' experience though the logs are C&P. This usually precipitates a kind & appreciative response form the CO.

 

However, when one has a nice hide with a nice written cache page that is worthy of a nice find log - they deserve such a log and I like to provide it within my meager scripting ability.

 

So, you find throw-down several dozen geocaches that have no striking qualities or individual purpose outside of the power trail - and then THANK the cache owner for it? Uh, what?

[Mr.Yuck]

I'd like a way to bulk log the skirts or "numbers runs" caches.

 

Otherwise, I write long logs for unique caches.

 

I think both these logs are appropriate to the situation and that the respective CO would agree.

 

Examples:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...88-d450c4a7ecbd

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...a6-a87f61fa02de

 

I think it's all about knowing when to use what logging style. Imo

 

That brings the whole lame cache and cachers who hunt them argument. It's been posted many times that lame caches deserve lame logs. I can't totally diagree with that. I try to not do caches I won't like, but I get tricked or am with a group sometimes. I usually don't even sign or log them. I don't want to encourage hides I abhor. Others can do that. I wish everyone would quit logging lame caches and they would slowly go away, but I won't hold my breath.

 

I won't disagree with "lame caches deserve lame logs" either. Every time this subject comes up, there are multiple people who chime in with similar responses to Seeker of the Way. Most active cachers will find any and all caches listed on the website, be they great or lame. I, like M5, ignore caches I consider "lame", so you'll never see a 5 word or less park-n-grab log from me. Except for the time a n00b serial "TFTC" logger hid his first cache, and I dropped a "TFTC" log on it. I thought that was pretty funny, If I don't say so myself.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Mr.Yuck

[+M 5]

I'd like a way to bulk log the skirts or "numbers runs" caches.

 

Otherwise, I write long logs for unique caches.

 

I think both these logs are appropriate to the situation and that the respective CO would agree.

 

Examples:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...88-d450c4a7ecbd

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...a6-a87f61fa02de

 

I think it's all about knowing when to use what logging style. Imo

 

That brings the whole lame cache and cachers who hunt them argument. It's been posted many times that lame caches deserve lame logs. I can't totally diagree with that. I try to not do caches I won't like, but I get tricked or am with a group sometimes. I usually don't even sign or log them. I don't want to encourage hides I abhor. Others can do that. I wish everyone would quit logging lame caches and they would slowly go away, but I won't hold my breath.

 

I won't disagree with "lame caches deserve lame logs" either. Every time this subject comes up, there are multiple people who chime in with similar responses to Seeker of the Way. Most active cachers will find any and all caches listed on the website, be they great or lame. I, like M5, ignore caches I consider "lame", so you'll never see a 5 word or less log park-n-grab log from me. Except for the time a n00b serial "TFTC" logger hid his first cache, and I dropped a "TFTC" log on it. I thought that was pretty funny, If I don't say so myself.

 

Reminds me of when a cacher that did the "tftc", "found with-----" logging, hid his first hide. I read the plea on the cache page to leave feedback, because he enjoyed hearing about others experiences. Let me tell you, the devil and angel were battling hard on my shoulders as I drove to the cache site. They almost caused me to wreck several times with their antics. The devil prevailed just as I put the car in park and started hunting for the cache, chucklng evilly about the "." log I was going to leave for FTF. When I finally found the well hidden, nice cache container, the angel flew in from out of nowhere and clobberd the devil off my shoulder. I logged a few sentences thanking him for the nice cache and figured that now that he was a CO, he had reformed. A few days later he logged several nice caches with a "tftc". The angel is strangley absent, when I search for his caches anymore.

[+FireRef]

I think that a lot of people seem to forget that ALR's were removed. Asking people to give a nice log is perfectly fine. Berating or insulting them if they choose not to is not. You're not required to post anything. Originally, the log would have been in the container anyway, and the written paragraph would have been placed there.

 

I put some caches out that took a lot of time and effort, and had large log books - I had hoped for them to write stories in them - even asked them to do so. However, some people did, and some people didn't. Was I disappointed? Maybe a little. Can I delete their logs for having not followed my request? No. That would be wrong.

 

My opinion: If you want to hide a cache, go ahead. But don't expect people to do anything other than the required "finding" of it.

 

And no cache is lame. Some are more interesting than others. But again, we shouldn't be insulting people's placement of caches. I happen to like a LPC or guardrail find or three in between the occasional exciting cache I find. I have placed both kinds. I really hate it when people complain about caches as being lame. If you don't like them, don't look for them. Its really that simple.

Edited November 26, 2010 by FireRef

[+narcissa]

I think that a lot of people seem to forget that ALR's were removed. Asking people to give a nice log is perfectly fine. Berating or insulting them if they choose not to is not. You're not required to post anything. Originally, the log would have been in the container anyway, and the written paragraph would have been placed there.

 

I put some caches out that took a lot of time and effort, and had large log books - I had hoped for them to write stories in them - even asked them to do so. However, some people did, and some people didn't. Was I disappointed? Maybe a little. Can I delete their logs for having not followed my request? No. That would be wrong.

 

My opinion: If you want to hide a cache, go ahead. But don't expect people to do anything other than the required "finding" of it.

 

Irrelevant. What is at discussion here is whether or not the site should facilitate C&P logs, not whether or not people should be allowed to write insipid logs.