Logging cache runs or long days of caching

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

True, sorry, me and M5 went off topic a little. C'mon, I like telling the story about dropping my only ever "TFTC" log on a cache.

 

Yes, we're talking about the website factilitating C&P logs, and the OP returned and said he was talking specifically about park-n-grab power cache run type caches.

 

FireRef, who were you adressing with the tired old "don't like them, don't look for them" line? Surely not myself and M5, since we both stated we do that. I was self-ignoring caches on this website even before the ignore list feature came out in February, 2005. I do admit though, there are many "complainers" who always seem to run out and clear their radius (all while complaining about it).

Edited November 26, 2010 by Mr.Yuck

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

True, sorry, me and M5 went off topic a little. C'mon, I like telling the story about dropping my only ever "TFTC" log on a cache.

 

Yes, we're talking about the website factilitating C&P logs, and the OP returned and said he was talking specifically about park-n-grab power cache run type caches.

 

That kind of brings up another related issue. Should the web site provide facilities to accommodate those that want to play the game in a specific manner, if doing so degrades the experience of those that do not with to play the game in that manner?

 

If some sort of mechanism is added to facilitate the enjoyment of a subset of geocachers, that's fine *unless* it negatively influences the enjoyment of other geocachers. There have been several cache owners that have stated they would not have placed as many caches if the number of lame and/or C&P logs increased. That, to me, is reason enough not to provide any sort of facility which makes it easier to cut-n-paste logs.

 

This thread has drifted over to a "lame caches deserve lame logs" argument. Whether or not anyone agrees with that is a separate issue, but the problem that I see with a C&P solution is that those that use it won't always discriminate between "lame" caches on a power run, and other caches that may have been placed in the same area (often prior to the existence of the trail) that often get tagged with the same C&P logs as the rest of them.

[+BlueDeuce]

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.

 

True, sorry, me and M5 went off topic a little. C'mon, I like telling the story about dropping my only ever "TFTC" log on a cache.

 

Yes, we're talking about the website factilitating C&P logs, and the OP returned and said he was talking specifically about park-n-grab power cache run type caches.

 

That kind of brings up another related issue. Should the web site provide facilities to accommodate those that want to play the game in a specific manner, if doing so degrades the experience of those that do not with to play the game in that manner?

 

If some sort of mechanism is added to facilitate the enjoyment of a subset of geocachers, that's fine *unless* it negatively influences the enjoyment of other geocachers. There have been several cache owners that have stated they would not have placed as many caches if the number of lame and/or C&P logs increased. That, to me, is reason enough not to provide any sort of facility which makes it easier to cut-n-paste logs.

 

This thread has drifted over to a "lame caches deserve lame logs" argument. Whether or not anyone agrees with that is a separate issue, but the problem that I see with a C&P solution is that those that use it won't always discriminate between "lame" caches on a power run, and other caches that may have been placed in the same area (often prior to the existence of the trail) that often get tagged with the same C&P logs as the rest of them.

 

Why limit this type of logging to caches? Shouldn't you be able to log anywhere you go?

[+L0ne.R]

That kind of brings up another related issue. Should the web site provide facilities to accommodate those that want to play the game in a specific manner, if doing so degrades the experience of those that do not with to play the game in that manner?

 

If some sort of mechanism is added to facilitate the enjoyment of a subset of geocachers, that's fine *unless* it negatively influences the enjoyment of other geocachers. There have been several cache owners that have stated they would not have placed as many caches if the number of lame and/or C&P logs increased. That, to me, is reason enough not to provide any sort of facility which makes it easier to cut-n-paste logs.

 

This thread has drifted over to a "lame caches deserve lame logs" argument. Whether or not anyone agrees with that is a separate issue, but the problem that I see with a C&P solution is that those that use it won't always discriminate between "lame" caches on a power run, and other caches that may have been placed in the same area (often prior to the existence of the trail) that often get tagged with the same C&P logs as the rest of them.

 

Perhaps if there were a "power trail" attribute and then GS could set it up that any cache with the PT attribute can be automatically TFTC'd. Maybe the PT caches would come up in a list with checkboxes next to them and the finder would just check off the boxes he's found.

 

Of course if GS did provide this feature then the requests/complaints would come in from C&P cachers who want to be able to bulk TFTC all cache finds. That would be a detriment. Best to leave things as they are.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Best to leave things as they are.

 

More often than not this turns out to be the best answer.

[+Gorak]

 

Best to leave things as they are.

 

More often than not this turns out to be the best answer.

No - we need way more rules! We need rules to cover every conceivable geocaching situation and few more for situations that have yet to crop up. We need to license geocachers after an extensive testing and approval process. We need armed geocops to enforce the rules, geolawyers to defend/prosecute offenders, geocourtrooms to try them and geojudges to make rulings.

 

Rules make the world a better, less ambiguous place to live. Rules rule!

 

[+kpanko]

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.

That reason is totally invalid. It would actually take fewer resources than it does today, because the site would no longer have to serve up 100 cache pages, 100 log forms, and process 100 cut and paste logs. In comparison, uploading one file from GSAK with a single log text and a list of 100 caches, would be much easier on the site.

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

Best to leave things as they are.

 

More often than not this turns out to be the best answer.

No - we need way more rules! We need rules to cover every conceivable geocaching situation and few more for situations that have yet to crop up. We need to license geocachers after an extensive testing and approval process. We need armed geocops to enforce the rules, geolawyers to defend/prosecute offenders, geocourtrooms to try them and geojudges to make rulings.

 

Don't forget the GeoExecutioners

[+Gorak]

 

Best to leave things as they are.

 

More often than not this turns out to be the best answer.

No - we need way more rules! We need rules to cover every conceivable geocaching situation and few more for situations that have yet to crop up. We need to license geocachers after an extensive testing and approval process. We need armed geocops to enforce the rules, geolawyers to defend/prosecute offenders, geocourtrooms to try them and geojudges to make rulings.

 

Don't forget the GeoExecutioners

I live in Canada. We don't do that. Criminals just get grounded for a couple of months.

 

[+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

 

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.

 

Hey, my log wasn't lame!

 

Nor was the cache. I never said that. My point is quick png gets a shorter log because there's not too much to say.

 

Which is why I'd like to see a way to bulk log...

Edited November 27, 2010 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+BlueDeuce]

Nor was the cache. I never said that. My point is quick png gets a shorter log because there's not too much to say.

 

Honest question here, if there's not much to say about the cache why bother looking for these types? What are you getting from caching them? A quick fix, sure but to the point that you have to bulk log them? Wouldn't you rather be hunting the ones that leave you with a story to tell?

[+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 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.

 

Hey, my log wasn't lame!

 

Nor was the cache. I never said that. My point is quick png gets a shorter log because there's not too much to say.

 

Which is why I'd like to see a way to bulk log...

 

I'd be much more interested in a bulk needs archived button for the caches you say need bulk log capablity.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

Hey, my log wasn't lame!

 

Nor was the cache. I never said that. My point is quick png gets a shorter log because there's not too much to say.

 

Which is why I'd like to see a way to bulk log...

 

I'd be much more interested in a bulk needs archived button for the caches you say need bulk log capablity.

 

+1

[+GRANPA ALEX]

 

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?

 

I do not use your terminology (power trail or throw down) and am not sure what you mean by the terms, not being a forum activist who utilizes the terminology BUT, I have placed a series or two that I call runs that would challenge your skills at finding caches AND, as I appreciate others doing the same for me - YES, I am gracious enough to express my appreciation.

 

As I have about 35 times more finds as forum logs, I am not as adept with the terms you employ here but they seem derogatory . . . for instance, hiding a cache being called a throw down is unkind and negative, even if you do not like the hide type/placement. Mine runs are camo containers that are hidden well in plain site and challenging but I appreciate ANY hides and happily logs finds on them, having more finds than forum logs.

Edited November 27, 2010 by GRANPA ALEX

[+Frank Broughton]

 

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.

 

If you call that hate, you have no idea what hate is..... you need to have been around awhile to understand what the poster, you are claiming is a hater, was getting at.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

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?

 

I do not use your terminology (power trail or throw down) and am not sure what you mean by the terms, not being a forum activist who utilizes the terminology BUT, I have placed a series or two that I call runs that would challenge your skills at finding caches AND, as I appreciate others doing the same for me - YES, I am gracious enough to express my appreciation.

 

As I have about 35 times more finds as forum logs, I am not as adept with the terms you employ here but they seem derogatory . . . for instance, hiding a cache being called a throw down is unkind and negative, even if you do not like the hide type/placement. Mine runs are camo containers that are hidden well in plain site and challenging but I appreciate ANY hides and happily logs finds on them, having more finds than forum logs.

 

I was under the impression that a 'throw-down' was when a cacher couldn't find the cache, assumed it was missing, placed their own container and claimed a find.

 

I didn't see where you said you did that. Maybe N did.

[+Frank Broughton]

And I also disagree that bulk logging is disrespecting cache owners. Some of us have lives besides Geocaching--are we really hurting them? Nope

 

I disagree with your summation - I do believe it is leading to a down turn in quality in the game/sport/hobby. On geocaching.com it is at least. There is a movement away from GC, that as one of the main reasons.

 

As a proud owner of an average 80 words per log, I can speak some on this, I believe. My longest log is 770 words. I think it a great part of the game to create good logs. I love reading good logs from those who adventured to my caches. On some of my caches I took a great amount of time making them. It is neat to read about the adventure people had at them. I have a cache that I have seen two bald eagles at and this is a short distance from a major city. It is a great area and worthy of a decent log telling about the trip to it. It creates a classic cache page, fun for all to read and enjoy. In the beginning that was part of the excitement - seeing what others felt and experienced while on the hunt.

 

YES IT DOES MATTER - a cheesy log on a great cache, as too many do these days, is just cheap & lazy - but that is the average American today.

[+Frank Broughton]

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.>

 

I love your joke..... it is a great idea! Serious....

[+BlueDeuce]

Could we discuss the issue and not the people? Thanks.

[+Frank Broughton]

Could we discuss the issue and not the people? Thanks.

 

Without people there is no issue to discuss, so no. The issue is all about people, so really the issue is being discussed when mentioning methods of people.

[+BlueDeuce]

ah, yeah.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Everyone is reminded to post within the Forum Guidelines.

 

Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

 

Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

It's okay to disagree with an idea posted. It's not okay to ATTACK the person or the idea posted.

 

Some of you are doing a GREAT job of posting while disagreeing. Others are not.

[+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?

 

I do not use your terminology (power trail or throw down) and am not sure what you mean by the terms, not being a forum activist who utilizes the terminology BUT, I have placed a series or two that I call runs that would challenge your skills at finding caches AND, as I appreciate others doing the same for me - YES, I am gracious enough to express my appreciation.

 

As I have about 35 times more finds as forum logs, I am not as adept with the terms you employ here but they seem derogatory . . . for instance, hiding a cache being called a throw down is unkind and negative, even if you do not like the hide type/placement. Mine runs are camo containers that are hidden well in plain site and challenging but I appreciate ANY hides and happily logs finds on them, having more finds than forum logs.

 

I was under the impression that a 'throw-down' was when a cacher couldn't find the cache, assumed it was missing, placed their own container and claimed a find.

 

I didn't see where you said you did that. Maybe N did.

 

This user has advocated throw-downs in several threads recently.

[+DeathCrow]

People need to realize, you can't please everybody. If you are hiding caches just to get people to write a paragraph telling you how great the cache was just to elevate your self-esteem, then you are hiding caches for the wrong reasons. I'm new to geocaching, so I'm sure some won't take my post seriously, but I love this sport for many reasons. Most of which is that I get to spend time with my family finding the caches. I truly do appreciate all the caches people have, even the quick park and grabs and lamp posts. We may find 20 or so caches in one day and get home late. I may wait till the next morning to log them all in. I don't think it is necessary for me to write a paragraph for the many lamp post finds and such. A simple TFTC should be enough. I do write more if something interesting happens or if the cache is really special. I have a few caches myself, and I don't mind TFTC or such at all. I am just happy they found it and that's enough for me. So in closing, just remember, for some people, geocaching is there life, and they will be offended by a TFTC. Others (like me) enjoy it as a hobby and simply don't have the time or don't feel the need to write a thesis on every cache. Let the rude comments begin!

[+zoltig]

People need to realize, you can't please everybody. If you are hiding caches just to get people to write a paragraph telling you how great the cache was just to elevate your self-esteem, then you are hiding caches for the wrong reasons. I'm new to geocaching, so I'm sure some won't take my post seriously, but I love this sport for many reasons. Most of which is that I get to spend time with my family finding the caches. I truly do appreciate all the caches people have, even the quick park and grabs and lamp posts. We may find 20 or so caches in one day and get home late. I may wait till the next morning to log them all in. I don't think it is necessary for me to write a paragraph for the many lamp post finds and such. A simple TFTC should be enough. I do write more if something interesting happens or if the cache is really special. I have a few caches myself, and I don't mind TFTC or such at all. I am just happy they found it and that's enough for me. So in closing, just remember, for some people, geocaching is there life, and they will be offended by a TFTC. Others (like me) enjoy it as a hobby and simply don't have the time or don't feel the need to write a thesis on every cache. Let the rude comments begin!

Well the thread isn't really about "TFTC" as a log but about bulk logging.

[+t4e]

 

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?

 

 

use fieldnotes and upload them to your profile

[+BlueDeuce]

This user has advocated throw-downs in several threads recently.

 

Ah. I understand.

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

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?

 

I do not use your terminology (power trail or throw down) and am not sure what you mean by the terms, not being a forum activist who utilizes the terminology BUT, I have placed a series or two that I call runs that would challenge your skills at finding caches AND, as I appreciate others doing the same for me - YES, I am gracious enough to express my appreciation.

 

As I have about 35 times more finds as forum logs, I am not as adept with the terms you employ here but they seem derogatory . . . for instance, hiding a cache being called a throw down is unkind and negative, even if you do not like the hide type/placement. Mine runs are camo containers that are hidden well in plain site and challenging but I appreciate ANY hides and happily logs finds on them, having more finds than forum logs.

 

I was under the impression that a 'throw-down' was when a cacher couldn't find the cache, assumed it was missing, placed their own container and claimed a find.

 

I didn't see where you said you did that. Maybe N did.

 

This user has advocated throw-downs in several threads recently.

 

Really?

I looked through his forum posts and found only this post and you trounced on him pretty hard for it. Can you show us some other examples?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

This thread is not about "throw down caches". If you wish to discuss that subject, please do so elsewhere. Thanks.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

Nor was the cache. I never said that. My point is quick png gets a shorter log because there's not too much to say.

 

Honest question here, if there's not much to say about the cache why bother looking for these types? What are you getting from caching them? A quick fix, sure but to the point that you have to bulk log them? Wouldn't you rather be hunting the ones that leave you with a story to tell?

 

I would rather but I can't always. I was hunting with another team. It was a nice way to get out of town and see an area I've never been to. But for the caches I didn't have much to say. I'd like to bulk log those.

[+sbell111]

Nor was the cache. I never said that. My point is quick png gets a shorter log because there's not too much to say.

 

Honest question here, if there's not much to say about the cache why bother looking for these types? What are you getting from caching them? A quick fix, sure but to the point that you have to bulk log them? Wouldn't you rather be hunting the ones that leave you with a story to tell?

Maybe it's about the journey, not the destination. For many, the game is about geocaching, not about any particular geocache.

[+sbell111]

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.

 

Hey, my log wasn't lame!

 

Nor was the cache. I never said that. My point is quick png gets a shorter log because there's not too much to say.

 

Which is why I'd like to see a way to bulk log...

 

I'd be much more interested in a bulk needs archived button for the caches you say need bulk log capablity.

Exactly. Because any cache that M5 doesn't like shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[+sbell111]

 

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.

 

If you call that hate, you have no idea what hate is..... you need to have been around awhile to understand what the poster, you are claiming is a hater, was getting at.

Either way, suggestiong that another poster is a horrible person is a huge violation of the guiidelines.

[+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 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.

 

Hey, my log wasn't lame!

 

Nor was the cache. I never said that. My point is quick png gets a shorter log because there's not too much to say.

 

Which is why I'd like to see a way to bulk log...

 

I'd be much more interested in a bulk needs archived button for the caches you say need bulk log capablity.

Exactly. Because any cache that M5 doesn't like shouldn't be allowed to exist.

 

You, like many, just don't get it. Take a look at the cache density in many many many areas, and tell me it isn't going to cause problems and possibly result in restrictions/regulations that will hinder geocaching in the future. There is a direct correlation to the caches that people have the tendency to want to bulk log and this future(and begining to be current) problem.

[+hukilaulau]

you are hiding caches for the wrong reasons.

 

Let the rude comments begin!

Well, I'm not allowed to make rude comments. So let me just thank you for setting me straight after 6 years of finding and hiding caches. I'll just repeat: if the cachers around here had your attitude when I started, I wouldn't have hidden more than 2 or 3 caches. But then that wouldn't have affected you because in your 3 week geocaching career it appears that you don't hunt the type of caches I hide anyway...

[+JesandTodd]

you are hiding caches for the wrong reasons.

 

Let the rude comments begin!

Well, I'm not allowed to make rude comments. So let me just thank you for setting me straight after 6 years of finding and hiding caches. I'll just repeat: if the cachers around here had your attitude when I started, I wouldn't have hidden more than 2 or 3 caches. But then that wouldn't have affected you because in your 3 week geocaching career it appears that you don't hunt the type of caches I hide anyway...

 

Well said.

[+TerraViators]

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.

 

I don't personally CnP logs, but I can understand why some do it, especially if the cache series is a CnP series.

[+TerraViators]

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.

Valid point

[+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.

Valid point

 

If you're seeking out the easy caches because they fulfill a need or meet your abilities at the time, why not say something like "This was the perfect cache to find on a day when I could only spare a few minutes to go geocaching."

 

I do think that there are cases when a TFTC is more than enough, but I reserve that curtness for situations when the cache is genuinely disappointing. If I choose to look for an LPC, I'm not going to turn around and "TFTC" it just because it's an LPC.

[+sbell111]

you are hiding caches for the wrong reasons.

 

Let the rude comments begin!

Well, I'm not allowed to make rude comments. So let me just thank you for setting me straight after 6 years of finding and hiding caches. I'll just repeat: if the cachers around here had your attitude when I started, I wouldn't have hidden more than 2 or 3 caches. But then that wouldn't have affected you because in your 3 week geocaching career it appears that you don't hunt the type of caches I hide anyway...

Of course, the stuff that you cut out of his post made a lot of sense. I guess that's why you cut it out, huh? It's much easier to just insult somebody than to actually address the issues.

Edited November 28, 2010 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

 

I'd be much more interested in a bulk needs archived button for the caches you say need bulk log capablity.

Exactly. Because any cache that M5 doesn't like shouldn't be allowed to exist.

 

You, like many, just don't get it. Take a look at the cache density in many many many areas, and tell me it isn't going to cause problems and possibly result in restrictions/regulations that will hinder geocaching in the future. There is a direct correlation to the caches that people have the tendency to want to bulk log and this future(and begining to be current) problem.

I get it just fine. I just think that you are wrong.

[+M 5]

 

I'd be much more interested in a bulk needs archived button for the caches you say need bulk log capablity.

Exactly. Because any cache that M5 doesn't like shouldn't be allowed to exist.

 

You, like many, just don't get it. Take a look at the cache density in many many many areas, and tell me it isn't going to cause problems and possibly result in restrictions/regulations that will hinder geocaching in the future. There is a direct correlation to the caches that people have the tendency to want to bulk log and this future(and begining to be current) problem.

I get it just fine. I just think that you are wrong.

 

There have already been regulations/restrictions aimed at geocaching. The caches that most would utilize the bulk logging feature on, amplify known geocacing problems greatly and will eventually put a lot of the geocaching freedoms we've enjoyed in jeopardy

[+sbell111]

There have already been regulations/restrictions aimed at geocaching. The caches that most would utilize the bulk logging feature on, amplify known geocacing problems greatly and will eventually put a lot of the geocaching freedoms we've enjoyed in jeopardy

Your post is built upon multiple levels of supposition.

[+BlueDeuce]

Nor was the cache. I never said that. My point is quick png gets a shorter log because there's not too much to say.

 

Honest question here, if there's not much to say about the cache why bother looking for these types? What are you getting from caching them? A quick fix, sure but to the point that you have to bulk log them? Wouldn't you rather be hunting the ones that leave you with a story to tell?

 

I would rather but I can't always. I was hunting with another team. It was a nice way to get out of town and see an area I've never been to. But for the caches I didn't have much to say. I'd like to bulk log those.

 

Ah. Thank you for responding to me.

[+M 5]

There have already been regulations/restrictions aimed at geocaching. The caches that most would utilize the bulk logging feature on, amplify known geocacing problems greatly and will eventually put a lot of the geocaching freedoms we've enjoyed in jeopardy

Your post is built upon multiple levels of supposition.

 

Of course it is, but more like educated guesses. I contend that you have to look ahead to avoid pitfalls. I stated in my earlier post "possibly" and "tendancy". I am aware that it is not an absolute, but past history and tendancies support the statement. I also personally know two land managers that have already expressed their concerns over too many caches. They have a pro-geocaching policy as we speak, but they are ready to create a policy if they need to. Admitteldy, it is not just numbers, but any issues. Land managers don't care what the percentage of caches/incident are, just the total number of incidents. Are you going to tell me that this explosion of cache numbers isn't going to increase incidents. I personally think that the PNG type hides will actually cause more issues, but if you don't, just the increased numbers will increase incidents. Now as to how this ties into the OP, is that, I think the types of hides that will generate the most bulk logging capabilites, will cause the most problems. Plus they are the easy to hide ones that are popping up in alarming numbers.

Edited November 29, 2010 by M 5

[+DeathCrow]

you are hiding caches for the wrong reasons.

 

Let the rude comments begin!

Well, I'm not allowed to make rude comments. So let me just thank you for setting me straight after 6 years of finding and hiding caches. I'll just repeat: if the cachers around here had your attitude when I started, I wouldn't have hidden more than 2 or 3 caches. But then that wouldn't have affected you because in your 3 week geocaching career it appears that you don't hunt the type of caches I hide anyway...

 

my attitude? i'm just stating my OPINION. You know what? I love geocaching and have met alot of nice people doing so. You assume because I am a newbie that I don't get to voice my opinion. People like you who try to insult people instead of just voicing your opinion are bad for this sport. By the way, I will find whatever caches I want to with my kids. I will be sure to avoid caches such as yours since yours are so divinely overwhelming for a not-worthy newbie such as myself. Thanks again for attacking me for voicing my opinion on what I thought was a nice discussion where people were free to voice their opinions without being attacked or insulted. I have nothing more to say to you. Have a great day!

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Take it easy, everyone.

 

If you cannot post without posting personal attacks, then please do not post. Thanks.

[+sbell111]

Your post is built upon multiple levels of supposition.

Of course it is, but more like educated guesses. I contend that you have to look ahead to avoid pitfalls. I stated in my earlier post "possibly" and "tendancy". I am aware that it is not an absolute, but past history and tendancies support the statement. I also personally know two land managers that have already expressed their concerns over too many caches. They have a pro-geocaching policy as we speak, but they are ready to create a policy if they need to. Admitteldy, it is not just numbers, but any issues. Land managers don't care what the percentage of caches/incident are, just the total number of incidents. Are you going to tell me that this explosion of cache numbers isn't going to increase incidents. I personally think that the PNG type hides will actually cause more issues, but if you don't, just the increased numbers will increase incidents. Now as to how this ties into the OP, is that, I think the types of hides that will generate the most bulk logging capabilites, will cause the most problems. Plus they are the easy to hide ones that are popping up in alarming numbers.

1. When someone supports their position with something like "mystery people that you don't know agree with me", my bs detector pings.
   
2. You continue to base your theory on supposition that is unproved. In fact your theory seems to be that all cache growth is bad, but you will ignore the badness that is related to caches that you like while at the same time amplifying the problems associated with caches that you dislike.
   

Edited November 29, 2010 by sbell111

[+M 5]

Your post is built upon multiple levels of supposition.

Of course it is, but more like educated guesses. I contend that you have to look ahead to avoid pitfalls. I stated in my earlier post "possibly" and "tendancy". I am aware that it is not an absolute, but past history and tendancies support the statement. I also personally know two land managers that have already expressed their concerns over too many caches. They have a pro-geocaching policy as we speak, but they are ready to create a policy if they need to. Admitteldy, it is not just numbers, but any issues. Land managers don't care what the percentage of caches/incident are, just the total number of incidents. Are you going to tell me that this explosion of cache numbers isn't going to increase incidents. I personally think that the PNG type hides will actually cause more issues, but if you don't, just the increased numbers will increase incidents. Now as to how this ties into the OP, is that, I think the types of hides that will generate the most bulk logging capabilites, will cause the most problems. Plus they are the easy to hide ones that are popping up in alarming numbers.

1. When someone supports their position with something like "mystery people that you don't know agree with me", my bs detector pings.
   
2. You continue to base your theory on supposition that is unproved. In fact your theory seems to be that all cache growth is bad, but you will ignore the badness that is related to caches that you like while at the same time amplifying the problems associated with caches that you dislike.
   

 

You must be self pinging a lot. I said I personally know them. You need to grasp posts better before responding. I never said all growth is bad either. I don't have a problem with PNG's, just the massive influx of them saturating area's. I've noticed before that you like to make up things when it suits you. I've responded to the OP, with reasons I think are valid and gave examples. There is always projections when creating policies and rules for the future of anything. You have to look at scenarios to protect the future. For example: Geotrails are a known geocaching issue. Multiply it by powertrail numbers and add to it by the amount of cachers visiting said caches. Then add the hurrying to post a record day (and hurrying cachers will be less careful). Just look at the logs on the different caches to see the frequency of finds. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that it will create more of an issue. Do you disagree that more geocaches and more geocachers will naturally increase the number of incidences, even if you don't think it will increase the percentages? The most growth is in PNG's, so they are the area of most concern. I know there are plenty of other issues. They are just the elephant in the room. WIth the growth and popularity of geocaching at its highest. Now is the time to be very careful. I have stated in other threads, that I don't have an issue with powertrails in principle, just that not many areas are conducive to them. The areas that are, are fine.

[+sbell111]

There you go again. Insulting rather than fostering discussion.

 

Have it your way. All caches that you don't like are the debbil and should be purged. Do you feel better?

Edited November 29, 2010 by sbell111