Totally Blank online log Support

18.9k · January 25, 2011

sbell11 started this on another topic but I thought it deserved a new thread

Jeremy denied a suggestion on the feedback site to disallow blank logs, stating the following:

We now support blank logs instead of forcing the user to type things like "." and "TFTC" to post a log. We decided to do this since "I found it" is enough of an action for those who would prefer not to post a verbose log.

Comments??

January 25, 2011

I think it is fine policy.

A cache owner can not delete my log for the words that I write as long as those words do don't violate any guidelines. So it seems only logical that a cache owner can not delete my log for words that I don't write.

Not everyone plays the game the same way or for the same reasons. Some people like writing logs, some people don't. It is not practical to force one way to enjoy the game over another.

If you enjoy getting longer logs, treasure the long logs you will still receive and don't worry about the empty ones. If your cache is of high quality some people will still write nice logs.

January 25, 2011

sbell11 started this on another topic but I thought it deserved a new thread

Jeremy denied a suggestion on the feedback site to disallow blank logs, stating the following:

We now support blank logs instead of forcing the user to type things like "." and "TFTC" to post a log. We decided to do this since "I found it" is enough of an action for those who would prefer not to post a verbose log.

Comments??

sigh...

Actually, I do have one thought. If I find a cache placed by someone that has posted a blank log I will be sorely tempted to give that cache a blank log (and my logs tend to be pretty long.) For those "blank loggers" that haven't placed any caches I don't see any recourse. :angry:

10.2k · January 25, 2011

sbell11 started this on another topic but I thought it deserved a new thread

Jeremy denied a suggestion on the feedback site to disallow blank logs, stating the following:

We now support blank logs instead of forcing the user to type things like "." and "TFTC" to post a log. We decided to do this since "I found it" is enough of an action for those who would prefer not to post a verbose log.

Comments??

Well, I'm still sort of in shock to see that totally blank logs have not only been sanctioned, but they did it on purpose, and thought about it.

So at this point my only comment is "they'll be sorry". :lol:

2.1k · January 25, 2011

I made my point in the other thread, I won't repeat the whole thing here. I'll just ask: If a geocacher has a stroke, and as a result suffers from aphasia, would you deny that person the pleasure of seeking your caches?

20.7k · January 25, 2011

I think it is fine policy.

A cache owner can not delete my log for the words that I write as long as those words do don't violate any guidelines. So it seems only logical that a cache owner can not delete my log for words that I don't write.

Not everyone plays the game the same way or for the same reasons. Some people like writing logs, some people don't. It is not practical to force one way to enjoy the game over another.

If you enjoy getting longer logs, treasure the long logs you will still receive and don't worry about the empty ones. If your cache is of high quality some people will still write nice logs.

That is one of the best posts that I have read in a long time. I agree with every single word.

18.9k · January 25, 2011

I made my point in the other thread, I won't repeat the whole thing here. I'll just ask: If a geocacher has a stroke, and as a result suffers from aphasia, would you deny that person the pleasure of seeking your caches?

Who said a thing that would lead you to believe some part of this thread is about deleteling ANY log ??!!!??

4.2k · January 25, 2011

sbell11 started this on another topic but I thought it deserved a new thread

Jeremy denied a suggestion on the feedback site to disallow blank logs, stating the following:

We now support blank logs instead of forcing the user to type things like "." and "TFTC" to post a log. We decided to do this since "I found it" is enough of an action for those who would prefer not to post a verbose log.

Comments??

sigh...

Actually, I do have one thought. If I find a cache placed by someone that has posted a blank log I will be sorely tempted to give that cache a blank log (and my logs tend to be pretty long.) For those "blank loggers" that haven't placed any caches I don't see any recourse.

That'll show 'em.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Castle Mischief

1.8k · January 25, 2011

Well, I'm still sort of in shock to see that totally blank logs have not only been sanctioned, but they did it on purpose, and thought about it.

I'll admit I'm surprised as well. Not upset; I think people should be allowed to be as terse as they'd like. But I thought it helped encourage players, especially newer players, when they were prompted by the system that the Comments field was required. Those who choose to log just a '.' could still do that of course.

Anyway, yeah, I just didn't expect totally blank log capability to have been a proactive action by Groundspeak. Interesting.

January 25, 2011

At first I didn't like the blank log and still don't. If thats the way some people log then so be it. As a cache owner you shouldn't expect a nice long log because your cache was cool, just be happy someone went to find it. I just remember who they are and log their caches the same way.

2.1k · January 25, 2011

I made my point in the other thread, I won't repeat the whole thing here. I'll just ask: If a geocacher has a stroke, and as a result suffers from aphasia, would you deny that person the pleasure of seeking your caches?

Who said a thing that would lead you to believe some part of this thread is about deleteling ANY log ??!!!??

Where did I say anything about deleting logs?

This thread is about someone pointing in apparent horror at a new policy that allows blank logs. I'm just saying there could be a lot of good reasons for someone to post blank logs.

11.2k · January 25, 2011

I really enjoy reading visit logs to my caches, and it's frustrating that someone can't take 30 seconds to write something about their visit to my cache.

3.6k · January 25, 2011

Blank log is better than no log at all.

20.7k · January 25, 2011

I really enjoy reading visit logs to my caches, and it's frustrating that someone can't take 30 seconds to write something about their visit to my cache.

My advice to anyone who feels angst because some people post short/non-existent/C&P logs on good caches is to fixate on the satisfying logs, not the dissatisfying ones. Of course, if the cache mostly gets dissatisfying logs, then the cache owner might fixate on the cache a little more.

January 25, 2011

I really enjoy reading visit logs to my caches, and it's frustrating that someone can't take 30 seconds to write something about their visit to my cache.

My advice to anyone who feels angst because some people post short/non-existent/C&P logs on good caches is to fixate on the satisfying logs, not the dissatisfying ones. Of course, if the cache mostly gets dissatisfying logs, then the cache owner might fixate on the cache a little more.

The point is that there will be more and more crappy logs because GC.com allows it and new cachers will monkey see, monkey do, even on good caches.

1.5k · January 25, 2011

I think it's a good idea. To me, it's better than seeing the same "TFTC" by the same person on every cache they find. I don't hide caches to generate comments, but do appreciate those that state "needs maintenance". Plus, when the cache is a pill bottle under a rock next to a telephone pole, what exactly is there to say? Although I have seen some logs for those stating "great cache" :blink:

January 25, 2011

I really enjoy reading visit logs to my caches, and it's frustrating that someone can't take 30 seconds to write something about their visit to my cache.

Why do you allow yourself to be frustrated by something that is outside your control?

Perhaps it could also be frustrating for some people to be forced to spend time to write about an activity that they do for fun.

2.1k · January 25, 2011

I really enjoy reading visit logs to my caches, and it's frustrating that someone can't take 30 seconds to write something about their visit to my cache.

Why do you allow yourself to be frustrated by something that is outside your control?

Perhaps it could also be frustrating for some people to be forced to spend time to write about an activity that they do for fun.

Think of how frustrating it would be for the stroke patient who loved your cache but is unable to express his thoughts verbally.

Maybe the blank log is the work of a lazy mind. Maybe it's the result of a mind that just doesn't work the way it used to. You don't know, so don't judge.

January 25, 2011

I really enjoy reading visit logs to my caches, and it's frustrating that someone can't take 30 seconds to write something about their visit to my cache.

Why do you allow yourself to be frustrated by something that is outside your control?

Perhaps it could also be frustrating for some people to be forced to spend time to write about an activity that they do for fun.

Think of how frustrating it would be for the stroke patient who loved your cache but is unable to express his thoughts verbally.

Maybe the blank log is the work of a lazy mind. Maybe it's the result of a mind that just doesn't work the way it used to. You don't know, so don't judge.

These new smartphones must cause a lot of brain aneurysm's and strokes.

7.5k · January 25, 2011

This thread is about someone pointing in apparent horror at a new policy that allows blank logs.

It's not horror, it's more like apprehension. It feels like "it's about the numbers" is being sanctioned by GS.

3.1k · January 25, 2011

If someone leaves a blank log, I don't imagine they'd have anything to say that would be worth reading anyway.

Can I still write my logs as long as I like? Yeah? Then I'm good.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Dinoprophet

January 25, 2011

So much whining about such a trivial thing! One of the reasons I stopped logging finds online for over two years was because of people whining about the length/quality/thoughtfulness/whatever of people's logs. Not everyone enjoys sitting down and writing a few paragraphs about every cache they found. Personally, I enjoy going out and finding caches. I don't enjoy sitting in front of a computer screen dreaming up new and improved things to say in my log entry about yet-another-average-cache. These days, you're more apt to get a "TNLN, TFTC" log entry from me, if I bother to log online at all. If it is your cache and you are offended by my terse log, then feel free to delete it - I could care less about smiley faces. Just don't whine when I delete your logs from all of my caches!

7.5k · January 25, 2011

The point is that there will be more and more crappy logs because GC.com allows it and new cachers will monkey see, monkey do, even on good caches.

That's definitely happening in the physical cache. Monkey see, monkey do. More and more people (the majority actually) leave just their trailnames and a date. Didn't use to be that way.

7k · January 25, 2011

If someone leaves a blank log, I don't imagine they'd have anything to say that would be worth reading anyway.

The problem is that now the website is telling them that it's perfectly ok not to enter anything. Before, at least they could clearly see that they need to put something. Of course they could still enter just a dot and nothing else if they choose to do that, but at least something told them that "nothing" isn't good enough.

7.5k · January 25, 2011

So much whining about such a trivial thing! One of the reasons I stopped logging finds online for over two years going to Mom's for dinner was because of people whining about the length/quality/thoughtfulness/whatever of people's logs she whined about my silence at the dinner table. Not everyone enjoys sitting down and writing a few paragraphs about every cache they found talking to their mom at the dinner table. Personally, I enjoy going out and finding caches eating Mom's home-cooked meals. I don't enjoy sitting in front of a computer screen dreaming up new and improved things to say in my log entry about yet-another-average-cache talking to her about my drive to her house and what I think about her cooking.

20.7k · January 25, 2011

The point is that there will be more and more crappy logs because GC.com allows it and new cachers will monkey see, monkey do, even on good caches.

That's definitely happening in the physical cache. Monkey see, monkey do. More and more people (the majority actually) leave just their trailnames and a date. Didn't use to be that way.

True, but it has been mostly that way for the last eight or nine years.

3.1k · January 25, 2011

If someone leaves a blank log, I don't imagine they'd have anything to say that would be worth reading anyway.

The problem is that now the website is telling them that it's perfectly ok not to enter anything. Before, at least they could clearly see that they need to put something. Of course they could still enter just a dot and nothing else if they choose to do that, but at least something told them that "nothing" isn't good enough.

Like I said, that dot really isn't worth looking at.

And yeah, it tells them it's okay. Because it is okay.

But I agree it's surprising that they actively made this change. Were dot logs so common that this is going to save server space?

January 25, 2011

So much whining about such a trivial thing! One of the reasons I stopped logging finds online for over two years going to Mom's for dinner was because of people whining about the length/quality/thoughtfulness/whatever of people's logs she whined about my silence at the dinner table. Not everyone enjoys sitting down and writing a few paragraphs about every cache they found talking to their mom at the dinner table. Personally, I enjoy going out and finding caches eating Mom's home-cooked meals. I don't enjoy sitting in front of a computer screen dreaming up new and improved things to say in my log entry about yet-another-average-cache talking to her about my drive to her house and what I think about her cooking.

No, the reason I stopped going to my mom's for dinner is because she died of breast cancer last month.

Nicely disguised personal attack, though. I'm sure your mom would be proud of you.

1.9k · January 25, 2011

I made my point in the other thread, I won't repeat the whole thing here. I'll just ask: If a geocacher has a stroke, and as a result suffers from aphasia, would you deny that person the pleasure of seeking your caches?

Who said a thing that would lead you to believe some part of this thread is about deleteling ANY log ??!!!??

Where did I say anything about deleting logs?

This thread is about someone pointing in apparent horror at a new policy that allows blank logs. I'm just saying there could be a lot of good reasons for someone to post blank logs.

I'm suspicious of strange logs, and "blank" logs fit in that catagory, as it may mean they didn't actually find the cache, but arm chair logged the cache. I will of course verify the signature in the log book before deleting any log.

January 25, 2011

Metaphor comparing writing cache experience logs to dinner table conversations

I think I get what you are implying: that writing a log is polite recognition for the effort that a cache hider has invested in our game.

I agree with that. I usually write as much as I feel I can. But not every cache owner is like "mom." What if the "food" is terrible? Time to start "eating" somewhere else! Rather than writing a long rant about how awful the experience was, I might just write "did not enjoy the location. TFTC."

Cache logs also help me as a cache seeker. Past logs can tell me a lot about a place before I ever leave my home. A string of blank logs would not tell me that much. So even as a cache seeker, I skip over the short logs, because I am usually trying to figure out how difficult the search will be, what kind of place it is, and that kind of thing.

But, if all you can think of to say is "yeah, found it," then just go ahead and leave it blank. We don't need extra words for their own sake. The fact that you logged it online is still telling us that someone FOUND IT! The worst thing is when a cache gets NO logs at all for a long time -- is it missing, or good, or bad?

19k · January 25, 2011

Blank log is better than no log at all.

Not in my book.

January 25, 2011

There are great COs who can make a P&G interesting, there are bad COs who could make a mountaintop boring.

There are great loggers who will turn an LPC into a novel, there are bad loggers who could find a winning lottery ticket on the ground at the GZ and will post "TFTC".

I tend to write nice logs when I can, but some caches simply arn't anything to write about. The 30 seconds I take to write the log seems like twice as much time as the CO took placing it. If you throw out an micro in a bush don't expect anyhing more the "TFTC" or "Thanks for the Smile" unless a funny thing happens to me on the way to the cache.

I'm happy someone took the time to get the smiley, and if I was a small part of a giant cache run that day I don't expect them to write a log specific to my cache, a log that says "part of our 125 cache streak today from X to Y" is cool in it's own way. This weekend I did 79 caches at Cacheapalooza, most were ammo cans along a trail. I posted stories and tidbits though out the logs along with a generic 2 or 3 sentence "Thank You for being part of this fun day" blurb, but lets be honest, the 12the ammo can under a fallen tree looked just like the 57th one. But you can bet the 2 or 3 that took me to cool spots had some pretty great logs because I remembered them over all the others.

Now for the hard honesty, If your caches seem to get a lot of "TFTC" type logs maybe you need to sit back and think about if your cache is really as great as you think it is. Or if it just gets lost in the noise to someone doing a few dozen that day.

19k · January 25, 2011

I think that was a poor decision, in that it validates poor logging, but I also agree that there is no way to enforce good logging. But yeah... this is bound to lead to a trend.

5.3k · January 25, 2011

Blank logs are fine with me as long as they are excluded from the most recent 5 logs included in PQs.

In fact, blank logs would be much better than TFTC logs in that the query that produces PQs can filter them out more easily.

2.3k · January 25, 2011

I probably will never leave a blank log intentionally. But realistically how much difference is there between TFTC and a blank log? I would imagine people would just swap downwards then and gravitate toward using a blank instead of TFTC which has long been discussed on this board to be an insult (apparently).

I think caches that are decent will still get good logs. Probably will get a short log or a blank log here and there but will still illicit some sort of decent log from most people. The mediocre caches will probably get mediocre logs and the caches that just aren't that good will probably get blank logs.

People make all sorts of assumptions that there is something to write about in terms of seeking the cache. I know I'm not the only one out there but I typically am not paying much attention to my cache hunt. I'm out there processing thoughts in my head about what is going on in my life and finding the cache just gives me some purpose to be out and wandering. If something extraordinary happens while seeking the cache I note it but I typically don't have much to say about the journey or search because I'm frankly not paying much attention. I try to post pictures to my logs if I get good ones though. It's nothing bad against the cachers or the caches out there when I don't have much to say. It just means I was too busy doing something else mentally to really put much thought into what I was doing physically.

People really need to quit reading so much into something like a cache log. Some people don't write much (you see that in online critiques of virtually anything). Some people just want a method to keep track of the caches they did but don't want to be a part of a "community." People are shy. People are insecure. People aren't always fluent in the language they are trying to cache in. Some people aren't that literate. Don't take it so personally when someone doesn't write a bunch and stop taking it as a blow to your egos. To reuse an old breakup phrase "it's not you, it's me."

1.8k · January 25, 2011

But realistically how much difference is there between TFTC and a blank log?

For me the only real difference is that when I receive a blank log I often wonder if it was a mistake; a glitch, or someone accidentally logging the cache when she didn't mean to. When I get a TFTC I am a lot more confident that it's an intended log.

January 25, 2011

sbell11 started this on another topic but I thought it deserved a new thread

Jeremy denied a suggestion on the feedback site to disallow blank logs, stating the following:

We now support blank logs instead of forcing the user to type things like "." and "TFTC" to post a log. We decided to do this since "I found it" is enough of an action for those who would prefer not to post a verbose log.

Comments??

sigh...

Actually, I do have one thought. If I find a cache placed by someone that has posted a blank log I will be sorely tempted to give that cache a blank log (and my logs tend to be pretty long.) For those "blank loggers" that haven't placed any caches I don't see any recourse.

I've noticed someone who posts pretty much the same log to every cache they find. I thought about posting something similar when I found one of their hides. In the end, I couldn't bring myself to do it. I guess a blank log may be better than "logged from my mobile device".

38.2k · January 25, 2011

The point is that there will be more and more crappy logs because GC.com allows it and new cachers will monkey see, monkey do, even on good caches.

That's definitely happening in the physical cache. Monkey see, monkey do. More and more people (the majority actually) leave just their trailnames and a date. Didn't use to be that way.

I recently archived a 9 year old cache that still had the original logbook. It is very interesting how much that has changed. The early hand written logs fill up entire pages in some instances and nearly always at least a half page. The logs generally got shorter and shorter, but it wasn't until about 2009 where the single line logs started.

You are right though. There is a lot of monkey see monkey do in geocaching and the blank logs will become more and more common and eventually the entire concept of feedback to the owner may be lost for the most part.

I think cache quality could suffer because of that in the long run. How many people are going to want to put a lot of effort into creating caches if they don't know whether people are enjoying them?

Edited January 25, 2011 by briansnat

1.2k · January 25, 2011

I think it is fine policy.

A cache owner can not delete my log for the words that I write as long as those words do don't violate any guidelines. So it seems only logical that a cache owner can not delete my log for words that I don't write.

Not everyone plays the game the same way or for the same reasons. Some people like writing logs, some people don't. It is not practical to force one way to enjoy the game over another.

If you enjoy getting longer logs, treasure the long logs you will still receive and don't worry about the empty ones. If your cache is of high quality some people will still write nice logs.

+1

6.1k · January 25, 2011

.

18.9k · January 25, 2011

The point is that there will be more and more crappy logs because GC.com allows it and new cachers will monkey see, monkey do, even on good caches.

That's definitely happening in the physical cache. Monkey see, monkey do. More and more people (the majority actually) leave just their trailnames and a date. Didn't use to be that way.

I recently archived a 9 year old cache that still had the original logbook. It is very interesting how much that has changed. The early hand written logs fill up entire pages in some instances and nearly always at least a half page. The logs generally got shorter and shorter, but it wasn't until about 2009 where the single line logs started.

You are right though. There is a lot of monkey see monkey do in geocaching and the blank logs will become more and more common and eventually the entire concept of feedback to the owner may be lost for the most part.

I think cache quality could suffer because of that in the long run. How many people are going to want to put a lot of effort into creating caches if they don't know whether people are enjoying them?

I agree fully. I picked up logs on 3 or 4 of my older caches last summer and up until late 2008 or early 2009, they all had a few sentences to say. Since then 95% or so ar just a sig and a date.

Feedback and the sense of community is much of what attracted me to Geocaching and to seek out interesting places to hide caches. I wanted to hear what others thought of those locations. To have zero feedback officially sancationed is a sad turn of events as far as I am concerned.

7.5k · January 26, 2011

So much whining about such a trivial thing! One of the reasons I stopped logging finds online for over two years going to Mom's for dinner was because of people whining about the length/quality/thoughtfulness/whatever of people's logs she whined about my silence at the dinner table. Not everyone enjoys sitting down and writing a few paragraphs about every cache they found talking to their mom at the dinner table. Personally, I enjoy going out and finding caches eating Mom's home-cooked meals. I don't enjoy sitting in front of a computer screen dreaming up new and improved things to say in my log entry about yet-another-average-cache talking to her about my drive to her house and what I think about her cooking.

No, the reason I stopped going to my mom's for dinner is because she died of breast cancer last month.

Nicely disguised personal attack, though. I'm sure your mom would be proud of you.

I removed your name because your comment is one often tauted as the reason why people don't want to log a comment and feel that it hurts nothing to cache-and-dash with out acknowledging the CO. It's a matter of courtesy. I think the mom example shows a co-relation to how it's impolite to enjoy the spoils of the game but not give back by providing feedback. It can make the CO feel taken for granted. I wasn't talking specifically about your Mom and that's why I removed your name so as not to personally attack you but to argue against your statement that when a CO would like some acknowledgement/feedback they are whining. By the way, my Mom has died too, on her 62nd birthday of colon cancer. I miss her everyday. I know how you feel. My example wasn't directed at your mother. Everyone can relate to Moms, especially Moms who care enough to make us great meals, it's perhaps not exactly the same as a good CO, someone who cares enough to provide a nice caching experience and would like some commentary, but there are some similarities.

January 26, 2011

I would argue that some people give back to cache owners by hiding their own caches for others to find. Everyone plays their own game...

7.9k · January 26, 2011

Just another ellipse in the downward spiral of the quality of this game.

The iPhone app is borked, and allows blank logs. Groundspeak doesn't feel like fixing it, so blank logs are now the norm?

Pitiful.

Can we now start posting blank cache 'write-ups'? :blink:

Should we??

I will continue to take solace in the well-written logs I receive, and be grateful for them.

22k · January 26, 2011

I would argue that some people give back to cache owners by hiding their own caches for others to find. Everyone plays their own game...

As far as I'm concerned this is a community game, I share my cache and I share my log.

7k · January 26, 2011

Can we now start posting blank cache 'write-ups'?

Actually I've already come across several caches with no description whatsoever.

1.5k · January 26, 2011

Blank logs are fine with me as long as they are excluded from the most recent 5 logs included in PQs.

In fact, blank logs would be much better than TFTC logs in that the query that produces PQs can filter them out more easily.

GREAT idea!

Also, as a cache owner, I would just as soon not get an email for a blank log on one of my caches. All that does for me is tell me that so and so found my cache, and if so and so can't write something about their experience, good, or bad, then I couldn't care less if the so and so found it or not. :anitongue:

Leave the email notifications for those that can say "thanks" for giving them a cache to look for.

Edited January 26, 2011 by BC & MsKitty

20.7k · January 26, 2011

Can we now start posting blank cache 'write-ups'?

Actually I've already come across several caches with no description whatsoever.

There was a time when the typical geocache was named 'geocache' and the description was either blank or merely contained a list of the original tradeables. That wasn't a bad thing.

20.7k · January 26, 2011

Blank logs are fine with me as long as they are excluded from the most recent 5 logs included in PQs.

In fact, blank logs would be much better than TFTC logs in that the query that produces PQs can filter them out more easily.

GREAT idea!

Also, as a cache owner, I would just as soon not get an email for a blank log on one of my caches. All that does for me is tell me that so and so found my cache, and if so and so can't write something about their experience, good, or bad, then I couldn't care less if the so and so found it or not.

Leave the email notifications for those that can say "thanks" for giving them a cache to look for.

What if they wrote a log expressing problems with your cache and their dissatisfaction of it? Certainly, you still want those emails.

My point is that even the blank logs are giving you some feedback about your cache. They actually give you the same feedback as C&P logs and those logs where people don't really discuss your specific cache, at all.

1.5k · January 26, 2011

What if they wrote a log expressing problems with your cache and their dissatisfaction of it? Certainly, you still want those emails.

My point is that even the blank logs are giving you some feedback about your cache. They actually give you the same feedback as C&P logs and those logs where people don't really discuss your specific cache, at all.

That wouldn't be a blank log would it?

I would actually rather have TFTC than blank, because TFTC is a short way of saying thanks, just like thanks is a short way of saying thank you.

I see your point. I just hate blank logs. Seriously, if there is no apparent appreciation for my caches, I probably will stop hiding them. Why should I go to the trouble and expense for some nameless person with entitlement issues who doesn't care enough to even say thanks.

This has been debated over and over in the forums, but in response to the OP's question asking for comments on blank logs being supported, I think it's crappy.

Totally Blank online log Support

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment