New Cachers Not Writing In Online Log Portion

[+dcmcveigh]

Within the past two weeks I've been seeing new cachers (0-25 finds) in my area claiming found/not found/needs maintenance but not writing anything in the log portion. I know each player plays their own way and such, but it's starting to get to me. If a cache owner makes an effort to hide a cache then the finder should put effort into describing the cache/hunt in the log. So is this a problem stemming from newbies not knowing the general guidance on how to log or is it a Geocaching.com server issue?

 

I have sent the new cachers and email pointing out the fact that logs should be put in the find but haven't had any responses. And I've started deleting the logs b/c how do I know if they really found the cache or not.

 

Thoughts?

[+bittsen]

And I've started deleting the logs b/c how do I know if they really found the cache or not.

 

Thoughts?

Delete the log ONLY after you have gone out to the cache and verified that they never signed the logsheet.

Deleting logs just because they don't write you a special little online note is a great way to turn a cacher into a cache maggot.

[+narcissa]

I've only received one blank log so far, but it was because there was some sort of error (it was right after the site came back up) and the cacher logged it again later.

 

I won't delete "TFTC" because that at least implies a find, but I've deleted several logs that said nothing but "1" because it just seemed like a bot. I would do the same thing with a blank log. As cache owners, we are charged with deleting logs that appear to be bonus. A log with nothing in it looks pretty bogus to me.

[+t4e]

you have the smartphone technology to thank

[+John in Valley Forge]

you have the smartphone technology to thank

 

That was my first thought too.

[+BB STACKER]

Smartphone’s have nothing to do with blank logs... that’s just a silly statement... I log all my finds (as few as they are right now) with my Droid but I use my GPS to locate them... logging with my phone makes it more real time on the find... I believe that if there is a blank log entry either there was a server error or the person was just lazy!

 

[+LukeTrocity]

you have the smartphone technology to thank

 

That was my first thought too.

 

Thats probably true. If you were to read my first ever log, I think it was just the time and date. I had no clue what geocaching really was, and what the logs really meant. I thought about changing those original logs after I realized I should write more than TFTC, but to be honest I think its nice reminder to leave them there.

 

So yes while smartphone users probably are rookie cachers, EVERYONE started somewhere.

[+John in Valley Forge]

you have the smartphone technology to thank

 

That was my first thought too.

 

Thats probably true. If you were to read my first ever log, I think it was just the time and date. I had no clue what geocaching really was, and what the logs really meant. I thought about changing those original logs after I realized I should write more than TFTC, but to be honest I think its nice reminder to leave them there.

 

So yes while smartphone users probably are rookie cachers, EVERYONE started somewhere.

 

I was thinking that I recalled reading about a bug with some smartphones themselves, not the users. The person thought they posted a real note, but nothing showed up. I could be wrong.

Aren't they a bit buggy when it comes to the Souvies?

[+rjb43nh]

dcmcveigh-"And I've started deleting the logs b/c how do I know if they really found the cache or not."

 

The guidelines state: "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements". The guidelines do not state you can delete logs because the finder didn't write what you think they should write or write enough to satisfy your ego. You're not really deleting the logs because you think they might be bogus but to be vindictive. Unless you actually check your caches and do not find the names there, drop it and move on.

[+Manville Possum]

Please read the guidelines about deleting logs. You are highly likely to create a cache muggler, or discourage a new member by deleting a legitimate find. I know that you took alot of time to develope a nice cache, but you can't expect all users to leave a detailed comment. Sometimes TFTC or DNF is all that some users will post.

 

MAGC Member.

 

P.S.

I just got word from Mother Wolf to Pray for Falcon Loader's family. Their daughter is very sick.

 

Merry Christmas,

Manville.

[+G & C]

I'd delete them too. They do appear to be bogus. They appear to be a bot. Your cache, delete away.

 

Besides, if they care so little as to not write a log, doubtful they're going to care enough about making a big deal out of your deleting their logs if they are legitimate finds.

[+addisonbr]

Smartphone’s have nothing to do with blank logs... that’s just a silly statement...

I totally disagree.

 

When you log on the web site, the UI makes it very clear that a log comment is a critical part of the process. There's a huge box that takes up a large chunk of the screen, and in fact you aren't even *allowed* to leave the space empty. Try to leave a blank "Found It" log and you'll get kicked back with a "* Required" message by the comment field.

 

By way of contrast, in the iPhone app the "Message" field is virtually indistinguishable from a bunch of other choices which are indisputably optional - Attach a Photo, Drop a Trackable... And furthermore, if you try to submit a blank "Found It" log from the iPhone app, you'll find that the system happily accepts it.

 

If I put myself in the shoes of a new cacher whose only interface with the game is through the iPhone app I can *absolutely* see how it ramps up the frequency of blank logs. From a UI perspective it's a very different experience than logging on the website. I believe the likelihood that these are bots is pretty low.

[+JBLouisville]

Even with my Explorist GC, field notes are a pain to put into the device. And on long days, I can see how people will just upload blank field notes to log the smiley and move on with their life.

 

Deleting a log because someone didn't put in a few letters is bad form.

[+FireRef]

Seems this is against the guidelines. If the person found the cache, they aren't even required to log it online. Simply marking it as found, with nothing in the field, is perfectly legitimate, and the logs would likely get restored if they complained to Groundspeak.

 

Can't say I agree with doing it, but I tend to write a story with my logs. But no one is required to do so. ALR's (except ones which are allowed by the site...) are gone.

 

Now, about this bot thing. When has a bot been logging caches? I don't remember hearing anything about that.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Now, about this bot thing. When has a bot been logging caches? I don't remember hearing anything about that.

 

A couple weeks ago a bunch of bots were running rampant logging random caches all over the world. There were a bunch of threads on them but I can't figure out how to search on the word "bot".

[+M 5]

Even with my Explorist GC, field notes are a pain to put into the device. And on long days, I can see how people will just upload blank field notes to log the smiley and move on with their life.

 

Deleting a log because someone didn't put in a few letters is bad form.

 

Not putting a few letters in the first place is bad form. If the CO takes the stance that they think it's bogus, then they have the right to delete it. I would look first, but a case can be made that they think it's bogus and are following guidelines

[Mr.Yuck]

Within the past two weeks I've been seeing new cachers (0-25 finds) in my area claiming found/not found/needs maintenance but not writing anything in the log portion. I know each player plays their own way and such, but it's starting to get to me. If a cache owner makes an effort to hide a cache then the finder should put effort into describing the cache/hunt in the log. So is this a problem stemming from newbies not knowing the general guidance on how to log or is it a Geocaching.com server issue?

 

I have sent the new cachers and email pointing out the fact that logs should be put in the find but haven't had any responses. And I've started deleting the logs b/c how do I know if they really found the cache or not.

 

Thoughts?

 

Smartphone Geocachers = The Apocalypse. But hey, Garmin started a new geocaching website. Probably because of the same. Just my opinion though.

[+Manville Possum]

Now, about this bot thing. When has a bot been logging caches? I don't remember hearing anything about that.

 

A couple weeks ago a bunch of bots were running rampant logging random caches all over the world. There were a bunch of threads on them but I can't figure out how to search on the word "bot".

Don't these bot programs normally log 1000's of caches in one day? A user with only 20 finds would not cause me to suspect it was a bot that logged the caches.

[+BuckeyeClan]

I'm just curious--I have a question for CO's who have gotten blank or TFTC logs. Have you ever gone back and read the logs after a few days to see if the logger edited it at all? I just wonder if people ever log with their smartphone, but don't want to type a full log on it, and so edit it later when they get to a computer. Just curious.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Now, about this bot thing. When has a bot been logging caches? I don't remember hearing anything about that.

 

A couple weeks ago a bunch of bots were running rampant logging random caches all over the world. There were a bunch of threads on them but I can't figure out how to search on the word "bot".

Don't these bot programs normally log 1000's of caches in one day? A user with only 20 finds would not cause me to suspect it was a bot that logged the caches.

I think they did. I don't think the logs referenced by the OP are from a bot. One of the loggers even has a bunch of photos in their gallery, not bot behavior.

[+G & C]

That's what the bots WANT you to think. But the bots are growing stronger, and smarter. This is the second step in their master plan. Much like zombies, they have plans to take over the world... of geocaching.

 

You heard it here first.

[+Charlie Fingers]

Smartphone’s have nothing to do with blank logs... that’s just a silly statement... I log all my finds (as few as they are right now) with my Droid but I use my GPS to locate them... logging with my phone makes it more real time on the find... I believe that if there is a blank log entry either there was a server error or the person was just lazy!

 

 

I think that statement was rather harsh, especially from a VERY new cacher. Unless you are a smart phone tech and have experienced trouble shooting and fixing glitches on all smart phones, you should probably refrain from making snap judgments.

 

Six of my hides just got no-text finds from a small group of new cachers working through the are aon a beautiful day for caching. I am going to do like most responsible cache owners and wait several days for the finders to update their logs. I am almost sure that these were from smart phone users, because I have seen it before. The most important thing I remember when an annoyance like this pops up is the number one rule of Geocaching "It's only a game."

 

Happy caching and hope to see your sig on the logs of some of my hides in the near future.

[+Manville Possum]

That's what the bots WANT you to think. But the bots are growing stronger, and smarter. This is the second step in their master plan. Much like zombies, they have plans to take over the world... of geocaching.

 

You heard it here first.

I have a Zombie Hunter Permit (trackable) and a little black rifle with max ammo. I am expert (level 13) Black Ops Zombie slayer. I will slay the Bone Maggots and play fetch the gernade with Fido the Hell dog.

 

I love my Xbox 360 on cold winter nights.

[JohnX]

... but I've deleted several logs that said nothing but "1" because it just seemed like a bot.

Posting just a 1 hints that people are parroting the "Hit the LIKE button to post a +1" method likely introduced by Facebook. I find such "ratings" a bit insincere and lazy considering the effort required or not required to click on a link, much like the habit of quoting a post with only the addition of "+1" following. Can anyone possibly expend less effort doing that to express their opinion?

 

My rating of the value of such posts is +0.

[+Kryten]

Without cache hiders this game would not exist so why do allow smartphone users to insult them in this way. It wouldn' take too many empty logs before I decided "why bother" and archived everything.

[+LukeTrocity]

Without cache hiders this game would not exist so why do allow smartphone users to insult them in this way. It wouldn' take too many empty logs before I decided "why bother" and archived everything.

if your hiding caches soley to get paragraph logs your not doing it for the right reasons.

 

I met a very tenured cacher at the gz one time and spent an hour searching for a tough cache. I went and checked his log later and he wrote tftc.... Not just smart phone users.

[+L0ne.R]

Without cache hiders this game would not exist so why do allow smartphone users to insult them in this way. It wouldn' take too many empty logs before I decided "why bother" and archived everything.

if your hiding caches solely to get paragraph logs your not doing it for the right reasons.

 

I'd rather visit caches by COs that like feedback and comments in their logs. To me that says the CO cares about the finders experience and wants to know if the cache is still there, that it's in decent shape, that the location is a good one to bring people to, that people enjoyed the overall experience.

 

Personally I don't get why a CO wouldn't want feedback/comments. I have heard that the new site (OCCOM) has a CO option to not receive comments via email when they are posted. Why would someone choose that option? Why do some people think that COs that don't care about the users' experience and don't care to read logs, are somehow a better CO. LukeTrocity is not the first person who has insinuated in the forums, that if a CO wants feedback they are somehow selfish and egotistical.

[+Ecylram]

I think that statement was rather harsh, especially from a VERY new cacher. Unless you are a smart phone tech and have experienced trouble shooting and fixing glitches on all smart phones, you should probably refrain from making snap judgments.

 

Six of my hides just got no-text finds from a small group of new cachers working through the are aon a beautiful day for caching. I am going to do like most responsible cache owners and wait several days for the finders to update their logs. I am almost sure that these were from smart phone users, because I have seen it before. The most important thing I remember when an annoyance like this pops up is the number one rule of Geocaching "It's only a game."

 

Happy caching and hope to see your sig on the logs of some of my hides in the near future.

Well put. This mirrors my thinking as well. I once posted a no-text find from my phone so I wouldnt forget to log I later. Later in the day I went back and edited the log.

 

As for the newbies...two things will happen: they will continue to cache and, noticing they are the only ones not writing comments, will change their behavior. Or, they will drop out.

 

A CO might chose to send a nice email to the finders asking if there was a problem withthe cache as no comment was posted.

[+Castle Mischief]

Leave a paragraph, leave a sentence, leave a "TFTC".

 

Feedback is great. If you write a small novel, then more power to you. If you aren't verbose and not into the long log then that's fine too.

 

Leave a blank log...? Hey if that's all you got, then rock out.

 

I don't place caches to have my ego stroked.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm just curious--I have a question for CO's who have gotten blank or TFTC logs. Have you ever gone back and read the logs after a few days to see if the logger edited it at all? I just wonder if people ever log with their smartphone, but don't want to type a full log on it, and so edit it later when they get to a computer. Just curious.

 

About a month ago, I got about 5 or 6 blank smartphone logs from one user. Most notably on an Earthcache that has 20 watchers and is on 25 or so favorite or "must do" bookmark lists. People, umm, usually have something to say there, you know? I let the log sit (and I guess I had to, as much as I would like to delete blank or "TFTC" smartphone logs, you wouldn't win with The Frog), and eventually the logger's Father posted nice logs to all the caches, most notably fufilling the requirements for the Earthcache. This took about a week though.

 

And yes, the blank logs are all still blank logs.

[+hzoi]

Regarding +1: I know in some areas, that's actually a polite way of indicating disapproval of the cache without actually saying "This cache was terrible." I.e., cache didn't need maintenance, it wasn't bad enough that it should be archived, but it wasn't a good cache. But then other folks just use that (or . or blank logs or TFTC or TNTLSL or whatever) because they just don't want to be bothered signing the log. Either way, not something I care for, but I'm not going to delete the log if I see it.

 

Regarding deleting blank logs: I would submit that you should articulate more of a reasonable suspicion that it's fake than the mere fact that it's a blank log. (Yes, I am advocating the "probable cause" standard for log deletion.) If they're logging dozens of caches a day, all over the place, and leaving blank logs, maybe that's enough. But if they only have 0-25 finds, it would appear they just don't know what they're doing. Dropping them a note, as you indicate you've done, is helpful. Deleting their log because they haven't stopped everything they're doing and gone back and edited their logs based on your note isn't helpful.

[+Kryten]

Without cache hiders this game would not exist so why do allow smartphone users to insult them in this way. It wouldn' take too many empty logs before I decided "why bother" and archived everything.

if your hiding caches soley to get paragraph logs your not doing it for the right reasons.

 

A paragraph would be great, a sentence would be nice, "TFTC" would do, it's the total absence of any log text that bothers me.

[+sbell111]

Without cache hiders this game would not exist so why do allow smartphone users to insult them in this way. It wouldn' take too many empty logs before I decided "why bother" and archived everything.

if your hiding caches solely to get paragraph logs your not doing it for the right reasons.

 

I'd rather visit caches by COs that like feedback and comments in their logs. To me that says the CO cares about the finders experience and wants to know if the cache is still there, that it's in decent shape, that the location is a good one to bring people to, that people enjoyed the overall experience.

 

Personally I don't get why a CO wouldn't want feedback/comments. I have heard that the new site (OCCOM) has a CO option to not receive comments via email when they are posted. Why would someone choose that option? Why do some people think that COs that don't care about the users' experience and don't care to read logs, are somehow a better CO. LukeTrocity is not the first person who has insinuated in the forums, that if a CO wants feedback they are somehow selfish and egotistical.

There is a difference between preferring honest feedback and requiring verbose logs.

If a cache owner is actually going to delete logs from people who's log didn't live up to his/her personal standards, then the presumption is probably a good one that he/she is selfish/egotistical and is hiding caches for the wrong reasons. Further, he is in violation of the guidelines and should be subject to some sort of action, whether it is simply the reinstatement of the deleted logs or having the caches archived and locked.

[+northernpenguin]

 

Personally I don't get why a CO wouldn't want feedback/comments. I have heard that the new site (OCCOM) has a CO option to not receive comments via email when they are posted.

 

I'd love to find that option, to turn it OFF. I've never received a single log that's been posted on my OCCOM caches, and that's one thing that keeps me solidly in the GCCOM camp.

 

I should also point out that people must not assume smartphone cachers are newbs. The group of cachers that I go out with have an average of 5000-8000 finds over 6 years and the majority of the people in the group are logging from their smartphones, unless it's a truly memorable cache that can't be expressed in a paragraph or two.

 

Smartphone logging is the bees knees when it comes to accurate timestamps for cache stats.

 

The fact that the site accepts a blank log from a smartphone is a flaw in my eyes, but that lack of error checking may simply be a compromise to ensure that the log process completes successfully over an unreliable wireless connection.

[+narcissa]

Regarding +1: I know in some areas, that's actually a polite way of indicating disapproval of the cache without actually saying "This cache was terrible." I.e., cache didn't need maintenance, it wasn't bad enough that it should be archived, but it wasn't a good cache. But then other folks just use that (or . or blank logs or TFTC or TNTLSL or whatever) because they just don't want to be bothered signing the log. Either way, not something I care for, but I'm not going to delete the log if I see it.

 

Regarding deleting blank logs: I would submit that you should articulate more of a reasonable suspicion that it's fake than the mere fact that it's a blank log. (Yes, I am advocating the "probable cause" standard for log deletion.) If they're logging dozens of caches a day, all over the place, and leaving blank logs, maybe that's enough. But if they only have 0-25 finds, it would appear they just don't know what they're doing. Dropping them a note, as you indicate you've done, is helpful. Deleting their log because they haven't stopped everything they're doing and gone back and edited their logs based on your note isn't helpful.

 

The person doing the "1" to my caches was doing it all over the place. Eventually someone figured out that it was one half of a husand-wife team who decided to create a separate account. In that case, I don't see why she couldn't have just copied a log explaining the situation. The "1" logs all had old dates on them and were sometimes posted to archived caches. As far as I know, she was deleted by many people and never re-logged.

[+wimseyguy]

dcmcveigh-"And I've started deleting the logs b/c how do I know if they really found the cache or not."

 

The guidelines state: "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements". The guidelines do not state you can delete logs because the finder didn't write what you think they should write or write enough to satisfy your ego. You're not really deleting the logs because you think they might be bogus but to be vindictive. Unless you actually check your caches and do not find the names there, drop it and move on.

+1

 

You would know that they found your cache by verifying the physical log. And until you do this, you shouldn't be deleting their online logs simply because you disapprove of their use/lack of character length, grammar, spelling, or any other reason other than it is a bogus log.

[+narcissa]

dcmcveigh-"And I've started deleting the logs b/c how do I know if they really found the cache or not."

 

The guidelines state: "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements". The guidelines do not state you can delete logs because the finder didn't write what you think they should write or write enough to satisfy your ego. You're not really deleting the logs because you think they might be bogus but to be vindictive. Unless you actually check your caches and do not find the names there, drop it and move on.

+1

 

You would know that they found your cache by verifying the physical log. And until you do this, you shouldn't be deleting their online logs simply because you disapprove of their use/lack of character length, grammar, spelling, or any other reason other than it is a bogus log.

 

The phrase "appear to be bogus" is key. A blank log appears to be bogus.

[+wimseyguy]

Perhaps, but I would be checking the physical logs before hitting that delete button. YMMV

[+rjb43nh]

narcissa-"The phrase "appear to be bogus" is key. A blank log appears to be bogus."

Wrong. A blank log appears to be blank. There is nothing (literally) to indicate that it is bogus.

[+M 5]

I would wait a couple of days to see if they edit the log later, then write a quick email asking if there was some sort of bug or just a logging error and they didn't actually find the cache. No response in a week or so, DELETE. If they can't muster up the effort to write an online log, I'm not going to run out to the cache site and check. I have checked some C&P logs on caches that I bike past several times a week anyway. I've only had a few, but it's been 50/50 on signed/unsigned logs.

[+niraD]

If I got a blank log, I'd be inclined to email the person and ask if they intended to log a find, or if their smartphone pocket-dialed the geocaching app, or if something else like that happened.

[+Team Four Paw]

If he gets no response from the emails then I don't see why there is a problem with deleting the logs.

 

It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived.

 

Deleting the logs in this case sounds like a responsible cache owner to me. Lots of people like me look at the logs for possible hints. A bunch of TFTC logs doesn't help me when I need a little extra info and only have access to the last 5 or so logs.

 

IMHO...

[+addisonbr]

The phrase "appear to be bogus" is key. A blank log appears to be bogus.

My experience has been the opposite. I've been hit by bots and armchair loggers before, and they've always had at least some sort of bogus log in the message field.

 

I've spot-checked a number of blank logs on my own caches and on caches I'm watching and I've never found anything other than what appears to be an honest cacher, usually on the new-ish side, using the iPhone app. To me a blank log doesn't appear to be bogus, but rather an artifact of the iPhone app, and its UI.

[+geodarts]

I place caches because I want to bring people to certain locations or share certain things. Some are only visited once a year, some are visited quite often. But in either case, my caching experience does not depend on people expressing any particular thought about what I have placed. I enjoy a well-written log with an interesting perspective, but a blank log or an acronym does not upset me.

 

Nevertheless, in this case, it appears the logs are being left by a new cacher. A bot would have much bigger find totals, and probably would not be blank. I also know it can be easy to leave a blank log in some smartphone apps -- I have done so once or twice and have had to go back and edit them, when I hit the send button too soon. So I might send them a polite note, thanking them for visiting, and suggesting that submitting a written log would make their experience, and the experience of other cachers, more meaningful.

Edited December 20, 2010 by mulvaney

[+sbell111]

If he gets no response from the emails then I don't see why there is a problem with deleting the logs.

 

It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived.

 

Deleting the logs in this case sounds like a responsible cache owner to me. Lots of people like me look at the logs for possible hints. A bunch of TFTC logs doesn't help me when I need a little extra info and only have access to the last 5 or so logs.

 

IMHO...

If I post a 'found it' log, I am stating quite plainly that I found the cache. If you believe that my log is bogus, go check the physical log.

 

While you are welcome to send me an email, I am under no obligation to respond. You, however, are obligated to allow my online log to stand if I signed the physical logbook.

[+M 5]

If he gets no response from the emails then I don't see why there is a problem with deleting the logs.

 

It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived.

 

Deleting the logs in this case sounds like a responsible cache owner to me. Lots of people like me look at the logs for possible hints. A bunch of TFTC logs doesn't help me when I need a little extra info and only have access to the last 5 or so logs.

 

IMHO...

If I post a 'found it' log, I am stating quite plainly that I found the cache. If you believe that my log is bogus, go check the physical log.

 

While you are welcome to send me an email, I am under no obligation to respond. You, however, are obligated to allow my online log to stand if I signed the physical logbook.

 

As many on these forums are so quick to carve up the guidelines to their own meaning, even if they know the spirit of the rule, the phrase "appears to be bogus" leaves plenty of interpretation. Who are you to tell another cacher what "appears to be bogus" to them. If it turns out that they signed the physical log, then they would have to reinstate the find, but they can delete it in the first place if they have a reason to believe it is bogus. Just like virtuals that you don't have to sign, can be deemed bogus for various reasons. I personally would probably (and have on the only one I ever deleted) check the physical log. The same train of thought with regards to the guidelines leaving room for interpretation applies. I just think a lazy logger shouldn't complain if they get the lazy cache owner treatment.

[vagabond]

Before deleting check the cache logs. I had 2 of my caches logged on line a little over a week ago, blank log and the cachers names was in caps it just didn't look right so I checked and they hadn't signed the cache logs, I emailed the cacher and said if they could tell where the caches were I let the smiley stand, if not I'd delete them. They E mailed me back and said they just drove by the caches,

[+ICHTHYS]

It's so very simple. If you think the log is bogus, go out, check the physical log. If nothing is written the delete the log.

 

You ask how do I know if they really found the cache or not? Go check the log.

[+addisonbr]

They E mailed me back and said they just drove by the caches,

Really? I thought that was something people just made up for slippery-slope, end-of-the-world scenarios. People really said they did that?

[Dinoprophet]

Now, about this bot thing. When has a bot been logging caches? I don't remember hearing anything about that.

 

A couple weeks ago a bunch of bots were running rampant logging random caches all over the world. There were a bunch of threads on them but I can't figure out how to search on the word "bot".

Google:

bot site:forums.Groundspeak.com

 

I still didn't find the threads, though.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Dinoprophet