Totally Blank online log Support

[+Keith Watson]

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

 

That is one thing I will not put in a log. Around here that is a deliberate insult meaning your cache means nothing to mean except to bump up my find count. I have actually had a finder delete their log and post a new one with that.

 

I don't see a difference between nothing in a log and "7 of 12 finds while out caching today".

 

I have visits on my caches by almost 2,000 unique cachers. For the most part the logs give me feed back that they are enjoying the caches. This is always nice but I do not expect everyone to praise me on my hides. Could be they are following their mother's advice. "If you can;t say anything nice..."

[+Ike 13]

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.

I haven't seen anyone whine, the overall tone is disappointment. That's how I feel when I see a cacher who logs the same phrase on EVERY cache they find. I would never delete their log because it is their right to write whatever they want. But when you see them log a cache that you know is cool the same way they log their 100th LPC it's disappointing.

 

IMHO those who enjoy finding my cache(s) should express it in their logs. For example, "This was a really well thought out hide." That's one sentence and it took 5 seconds. Want something shorter? Cool cache, excellent cache, average cache, etc. two words that let me and other hiders know how you valued a cache.

 

If I was forced to write paragraphs I wouldn't log either. I try to write at least a couple sentences nowadays describing my experience.

 

I know I cannot require logs that describe the experience, but I can hope that cachers will want to share their great expereince with others.

[+redsox_mark]

Hmm....

 

I am all for giving finders the option of writing detailed logs or not. And at a practical level there is no difference between someone writing "found it" or "TFTC" or even "." in a log.

 

The difference however is this: Until now, finders were forced to put something in the box. They could decide if that was a detailed log, or "."; but they were forced to put something. To me, that gives the message that it's expected that finders write something.

 

As soon as you make it valid to say nothing, it is giving the message that the log is now optional; it seems to say it is OK to say nothing at all.

 

I remember my first find, I tried to submit without putting any words in the log. I didn't know what to say. It forced me to say something, so I did. Eventually I learned the value of logs and try to write useful ones. But if it let me log without any comment, I may have done that, and get used to doing that.

 

In short - if all that happens is the "TFTC" logs become blank ones, the change makes no difference. But if new cachers see that logs are optional, they might not leave them. And I think that would not be good for the game. While I would not force any individual to write detailed logs if they do not wish to (or can not), I think logs enhance the game, and an increase in blank logs would not be good for the game.

[+KI4HLW]

Could be they are following their mother's advice. "If you can;t say anything nice..."

 

This was the point I tried to make earlier, I don't like the idea of allowing blank logs... but if you see me post "TFTC" or simply "Thanks" I am being polite, would you rather someone say in the log:

 

"This cache really had no original creativity, or basic thought into it, CO obviously just put it out to increase his hide numbers or somehow thinks filling all the available areas with P&Gs, LPCs, and micro's in a bush is a good thing for the hobby. Hopefully one day they will leave the hobby so we can archive this junk and open it up the area for a cache that someone might actually enjoy doing."

[+Coldgears]

Can you post blank NA or NM logs?

[+edscott]

I guess the blank log option can be used as a way to comment on the quality of a hide. Maybe it's better to say nothing at all than to say what you really think.

[+addisonbr]

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

 

That is one thing I will not put in a log. Around here that is a deliberate insult meaning your cache means nothing to mean except to bump up my find count. I have actually had a finder delete their log and post a new one with that.

 

I don't see a difference between nothing in a log and "7 of 12 finds while out caching today".

 

I have visits on my caches by almost 2,000 unique cachers. For the most part the logs give me feed back that they are enjoying the caches. This is always nice but I do not expect everyone to praise me on my hides. Could be they are following their mother's advice. "If you can;t say anything nice..."

Keith, while I don't disagree with what you're saying I think there may have been a slight miscommunication. I think ArcherDragoon was using '+1' as a way of saying 'ditto' to the previous post, not as a suggestion or comment on using '+1' in a log.

 

(I'm not trying to be snarky or pedantic - so if you already knew that and were making a tangentially related point, my bad.)

[+addisonbr]

I remember my first find, I tried to submit without putting any words in the log. I didn't know what to say. It forced me to say something, so I did. Eventually I learned the value of logs and try to write useful ones. But if it let me log without any comment, I may have done that, and get used to doing that.

This is my experience, and I agree with the expectation moving forward, now that entirely blank logs have been introduced as an intentional feature. I agree with not forcing users to write long logs if they don't want to, and with their freedom to enter '.' as a log. But the system not accepting a literally blank field was a very gentle and harmless nudge for new users towards the norm of writing something.

[+M 5]

I understand all the poster proclaiming their right to leave blank logs. I don't agree, but I get it. I don't understand how sanctioning blank logs help the game in any way. I think it negatively affects geocahing, although most will differ on the actual amount of negativity. How does that policy change improve geocaching? In my opinion any policy change should help, clarify or protect geocaching and its future. This does not help at all, it just endorses more of a impersonal entity.

[+sbell111]

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.

I totally get where you are coming from. I know that I would be bummed if no one ever expressed thanks for my cache, but I hope that I would use that info to help me examine whether my cache is a stinker.

 

Also, I like to believe that my caches aren't actually hidden for the benefit of the individuals who log them, but as a gift to the community as a whole, given in appreciation for all the caches that I've found worldwide. When looked at from this direction, it becomes less important to me that some individual didn't think it was awesome (or express that to me, anyway).

[+Happy Humphrey]

On a very selfish level, it's disappointing to see trivial logs on my caches. But I recognise that I'm just being selfish when I hope for some entertaining or complimentary comments.

 

So that aside, I agree completely with cx1.

 

If you're logging a load of caches and just want to record them as finds, then who says you have to include some carefully thought-out text? If I'd never cached before I'd be amazed that there's (seemingly) an obligation to either log with grandiloquent prolixity or suffer the consequences...

 

Allowing blank logs opens the door further to those interested in the outdoor aspect without being keen on spending more time than necessary in front of the computer. Just by finding a cache you're giving to the game, so insisting on the icing on the cake (i.e. an interesting log entry) is surely cheeky at best. And if "TFTC" or "3rd of 6" is regarded as meaningless then they are no better blank entries anyway.

[+sbell111]

I understand all the poster proclaiming their right to leave blank logs. I don't agree, but I get it. I don't understand how sanctioning blank logs help the game in any way. I think it negatively affects geocahing, although most will differ on the actual amount of negativity. How does that policy change improve geocaching?

Those that previously logged with a period or +1 or 'logged from ipod' or whatever probably find this change to be an improvement.

 

In my opinion any policy change should help, clarify or protect geocaching and its future. This does not help at all, it just endorses more of a impersonal entity.

Again, those that benefit from any change certainly believe that the change is helpful. Regardless of whether you or I agree that this change was a help, no one can deny that TPTB have not clarified their position. We could debate all day long whether this change serves to protect or damage the game, the only way to know for sure is to wait and see. I suspect that this change will have absolutely no real impact on the overall game whatsoever.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I understand all the poster proclaiming their right to leave blank logs. I don't agree, but I get it. I don't understand how sanctioning blank logs help the game in any way. I think it negatively affects geocahing, although most will differ on the actual amount of negativity. How does that policy change improve geocaching? In my opinion any policy change should help, clarify or protect geocaching and its future. This does not help at all, it just endorses more of a impersonal entity.

 

Actually it does help bring more people to Geocaching by dumbing down the system so more people can use it.

 

John

[+Ecylram]

I suspect that this change will have absolutely no real impact on the overall game whatsoever.

 

I suspect you're right. I really don't see the 'period' comments on caches around here. Most will still post longer logs on interesting caches and 'TFTC' on LPC's.

[+BCandMsKitty]

It's all academic anyway. TPTB have stated that they support blank logs, so they're probably here to stay.

[AZcachemeister]

Makes me want to archive any of my caches that are so blessed.

If it's not worthy of SOME SORT of comment, then what's the point?

[+sbell111]

Makes me want to archive any of my caches that are so blessed.

If it's not worthy of SOME SORT of comment, then what's the point?

Would you also archive your caches if any individual cacher didn't enjoy them? Would you archive the cache if a single poster posted a C&P log? What if the poster posted a log that didn't say anything about the cache or his visit to it? Edited January 27, 2011 by sbell111

[+debandrobin]

... I remember my first find, I tried to submit without putting any words in the log. I didn't know what to say. It forced me to say something, so I did. Eventually I learned the value of logs and try to write useful ones. But if it let me log without any comment, I may have done that, and get used to doing that...

 

I'm pretty new to geocaching and writing my first log was so intimidating. I wrote something about it being the first find and thanked the CO for the cache. Thinking back, it seems so lame compared to some of the beautifully written logs I read now. I've never been eloquent, but I can say thank you for taking the time to hide and maintain the cache and absorbing the initial and potential expenses of cache placement. I also try to include a sentence or two about the cache condition like " cache is in good shape" or "needs some TLC".

 

No one should be too lazy to at least say thanks.

 

d

[+Happy Humphrey]

Makes me want to archive any of my caches that are so blessed.

If it's not worthy of SOME SORT of comment, then what's the point?

The point is that you might enjoy going out and finding a few caches. Then noting such events on your geocaching account, so you can avoid looking for the same cache twice, or so that you can return to sort out the DNF.

 

I always write some sort of comment so I can remember the cache better when I look back, but some people prefer to just mark a cache as "Found".

[+mab2010]

Makes me want to archive any of my caches that are so blessed.

If it's not worthy of SOME SORT of comment, then what's the point?

 

So why don't you archive them then?

 

Seriously, if for you personally the fun in hiding caches is reading the resulting log messages, and those log messages aren't living up to your expectations, why *wouldn't* you archive them?

 

If, on the other hand, you hide caches for other reasons (for example, simply because you like the idea of others finding something you've hidden, or because you enjoy finding caches and this is a way of giving back), then I suggest taking the advice of some other posters to enjoy the good logs and simply ignore the rest.

 

Other people aren't responsible for your happiness.

 

** Comments here are directed as much at the general audience as at AZcachemeister; please don't think they are personal.

[+M 5]

Makes me want to archive any of my caches that are so blessed.

If it's not worthy of SOME SORT of comment, then what's the point?

 

So why don't you archive them then?

 

Seriously, if for you personally the fun in hiding caches is reading the resulting log messages, and those log messages aren't living up to your expectations, why *wouldn't* you archive them?

 

If, on the other hand, you hide caches for other reasons (for example, simply because you like the idea of others finding something you've hidden, or because you enjoy finding caches and this is a way of giving back), then I suggest taking the advice of some other posters to enjoy the good logs and simply ignore the rest.

 

Other people aren't responsible for your happiness.

 

** Comments here are directed as much at the general audience as at AZcachemeister; please don't think they are personal.

 

The point of this thread it the Support of blank logs by GC.com and why would they endorse them. COs are going to get more and more blank logs. How is that good? Why would GC.com cater to the cachers who are more likely to not add positively to the game. Yeah, I know I just opened that can of worms.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Other people aren't responsible for your happiness.

 

If the "Other people" didn't hide the caches, you would not be having the fun of finding them. So, in effect, other people are responsible for you having fun.

 

John

[+sbell111]

Makes me want to archive any of my caches that are so blessed.

If it's not worthy of SOME SORT of comment, then what's the point?

 

So why don't you archive them then?

 

Seriously, if for you personally the fun in hiding caches is reading the resulting log messages, and those log messages aren't living up to your expectations, why *wouldn't* you archive them?

 

If, on the other hand, you hide caches for other reasons (for example, simply because you like the idea of others finding something you've hidden, or because you enjoy finding caches and this is a way of giving back), then I suggest taking the advice of some other posters to enjoy the good logs and simply ignore the rest.

 

Other people aren't responsible for your happiness.

 

** Comments here are directed as much at the general audience as at AZcachemeister; please don't think they are personal.

 

The point of this thread it the Support of blank logs by GC.com and why would they endorse them. COs are going to get more and more blank logs. How is that good? Why would GC.com cater to the cachers who are more likely to not add positively to the game. Yeah, I know I just opened that can of worms.

Just because someone enters a blank log doesn't mean that he does not add positively to the game. There's much more to this game than ego stroking the owner of every cache.

[+Keith Watson]

Think of a blank log as a neutral. Better than being forced to write something and putting in "this cache sucks".

[+StarBrand]

....

There's much more to this game than ego stroking the owner of every cache.

 

Since when is a polite thanks and a simple report on the cache's condition considered stroking somebody's ego??? Grow up!!

[+sbell111]

Just because someone enters a blank log doesn't mean that he does not add positively to the game. There's much more to this game than ego stroking the owner of every cache.

 

Since when is a polite thanks and a simple report on the cache's condition considered stroking somebody's ego??? Grow up!!

You might be surprised to find that I am in the 'every cache is a gift' camp. Having swum in this forums waters for a while now, however, I know that many others do not feel the need to express thanks for every cache found. Instead, they only express thanks for those caches that they find to be 'good'. Also, you might note that a cache's condition is not reported in cache logs most of the time. In fact, most people only reference the cache's condition if a problem is found. One could certainly presume, in these cases, that if the cache's condition wasn't mentioned then there likely isn't a maintenance problem to be resolved.

 

Thanks for your suggestion that I grow up. It is something that I struggled with when I was younger. At my current age, it is very, very unlikely that I will become taller, however.

Edited January 27, 2011 by sbell111

[+L0ne.R]

Just because someone enters a blank log doesn't mean that he does not add positively to the game. There's much more to this game than ego stroking the owner of every cache.

 

Since when is a polite thanks and a simple report on the cache's condition considered stroking somebody's ego??? Grow up!!

You might be surprised to find that I am in the 'every cache is a gift' camp. Having swum in this forums waters for a while now, however, I know that many others do not feel the need to express thanks for every cache found. Instead, they only express thanks for those caches that they find to be 'good'. Also, you might note that a cache's condition is not reported in cache logs most of the time. In fact, most people only reference the cache's condition if a problem is found. One could certainly presume, in these cases, that if the cache's condition wasn't mentioned then there likely isn't a maintenance problem to be resolved.

 

Thanks for your suggestion that I grow up. It is something that I struggled with when I was younger. At my current age, however, it is very, very unlikely that I will become taller, however.

 

I like that last comment.

 

However, rather then lauding COs who care, you are insinuating that COs who thrive on feedback are insecure. Whereas some of us feel that COs that appreciate feedback are caring individuals who want to place caches that people enjoy.

 

If their efforts are just another notch on the geocaching belt, just another kernel in the big geocaching popcorn bowl, what's the incentive to make an effort? Are COs that could care less if you like their cache hides, the type of CO that finders would prefer?

[+mab2010]

Other people aren't responsible for your happiness.

 

If the "Other people" didn't hide the caches, you would not be having the fun of finding them. So, in effect, other people are responsible for you having fun.

 

John

 

No. I have made a personal choice to participate in caching. I acknowledge that my participation relies on the contribution of cache owners, and certainly I appreciate that contribution. However, nobody "owes" me anything as a result of MY decision to participate. If all of the cache owners out there decided tomorrow to remove their caches, that would be unfortunate. But I can't control what anyone else does. I can only control my own choices. So in that instance, I would simply find something else fun to do with my time.

 

When a CO makes a personal choice to place a cache, and then has an expectation that in return for finding said cache each finder will then "owe" him a response, he places his happiness at the mercy of others, who may or may not respond in the way he prefers. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but if that CO then finds that he is not getting the responses he'd hoped for, and therefore is not enjoying the activity, why *wouldn't* he then archive his caches and move onto something else?

 

Not everyone hides caches for the same reasons. While it's clear that many COs expect and enjoy long and varied descriptions of the finders' experiences, I suspect to many others it is less important, or even totally unimportant. Perhaps those who do wish to have interesting logs should say so in their cache descriptions. Something along the lines of "Hey, I really love hearing about your experience, so please take the time to provide some details in your log!" might help. Or even "Please don't look for this cache unless you intend to leave a detailed log". Even then you might get blank logs, because again, you can't control what other people do. But at least then the expectation is clear BEFORE the finder chooses to pursue that particular cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't like the blank logs.

 

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way you can force anyone to write anything. Whats the difference between a blank log, "SL", or "."?

 

They should encourage people to write something, but a software change to disallow them will not do that much.

 

If there is a 20 page thread titled "I hate blank logs", it may have much more of an effect. However, the very stong opinions about it will undoubtably generate animosity between those that have a valid reason to post blank logs, and those that like to judge log length, content, and spelling errors. There are enough cachers already that delete valid find logs as punishment for those same reasons. The disputes either cause the cachers to write conforming, but snarky logs, or wind up as a complaint in Seattle for deletion of valid find logs. Some innocent new cachers who are trying to fit in may get turned off, and may end up writing a lengthy newspaper article instead about hostile geocaching, or call in a few LPCs as "suspicious".

 

A log generating app which pulls commonly used words and phrases would work much better.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't like double posts either.

Edited January 27, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+sbell111]

Just because someone enters a blank log doesn't mean that he does not add positively to the game. There's much more to this game than ego stroking the owner of every cache.

 

Since when is a polite thanks and a simple report on the cache's condition considered stroking somebody's ego??? Grow up!!

You might be surprised to find that I am in the 'every cache is a gift' camp. Having swum in this forums waters for a while now, however, I know that many others do not feel the need to express thanks for every cache found. Instead, they only express thanks for those caches that they find to be 'good'. Also, you might note that a cache's condition is not reported in cache logs most of the time. In fact, most people only reference the cache's condition if a problem is found. One could certainly presume, in these cases, that if the cache's condition wasn't mentioned then there likely isn't a maintenance problem to be resolved.

 

Thanks for your suggestion that I grow up. It is something that I struggled with when I was younger. At my current age, however, it is very, very unlikely that I will become taller, however.

 

I like that last comment.

 

However, rather then lauding COs who care, you are insinuating that COs who thrive on feedback are insecure. Whereas some of us feel that COs that appreciate feedback are caring individuals who want to place caches that people enjoy.

 

If their efforts are just another notch on the geocaching belt, just another kernel in the big geocaching popcorn bowl, what's the incentive to make an effort? Are COs that could care less if you like their cache hides, the type of CO that finders would prefer?

Of course not, but there is a mighty big difference between a cache owner who wants people to enjoy his cache and one who insists on everyone logging that they enjoyed the cache.

[knowschad]

Well, I just received my very first blank log*. It is for a cache that takes you for a nice, long walk along the Mississippi River to a little-known handmade memorial set up by friends of a teenager that drowned in the river nearby a number of years ago. The cache has four Favorite points, and others have logged such things as:

 

This was a very special find for us. Not only because it is Find #600 for us, but because it is a very poignant place for Ethan's family and friends. We visited his cross and honored his memory even though we did not know him. The hint helped us find this micro! Thank you and thank you for bringing us here.

 

and

 

Took the really nice walk here from the tribute cache, wanting to score at least one knowschad cache after finding the silver can. It was really a wonderful walk too, and I also spied an eagle just after I parked, so an added bonus. Quite an interesting memorial set up here - if those big trees could only talk. As usual, coord's were spot-on and was able to score the cache in short order. Everything in great shape and worth the hike back here. Another nice cache - thanks much!

 

* In fairness, I must say that the person that left the blank log was accompaning another cacher that has since left a very nice log.

[+StarBrand]

...

Of course not, but there is a mighty big difference between a cache owner who wants people to enjoy his cache and one who insists on everyone logging that they enjoyed the cache.

 

Thats seems to be the issue - you have several times in this thread lumped into a single camp those that would "like to see" a few words about the cache with those that "insist" upon praise for it. You are right - there is a mighty big difference. Just because I would perfer that a few words be encourged over outright acceptance of nothing, don't lump me in with those that will delete logs not full of praise.

[+Castle Mischief]

If given the choice, I'd rather not see a blank log. I'm not going to get too torqued up if I do.

[+sbell111]

...

Of course not, but there is a mighty big difference between a cache owner who wants people to enjoy his cache and one who insists on everyone logging that they enjoyed the cache.

 

Thats seems to be the issue - you have several times in this thread lumped into a single camp those that would "like to see" a few words about the cache with those that "insist" upon praise for it. You are right - there is a mighty big difference. Just because I would perfer that a few words be encourged over outright acceptance of nothing, don't lump me in with those that will delete logs not full of praise.

My posts were to those who would prefer to delete those blank logs or archive their cache if anyone ever posted a blank log to it.

 

Anyone who prefers a written 'thank you' but isn't going to get all angst ridden if a blank/C&P/+1 or similar bit is logged to it is on the right track, in my opinion. The tenor of post #75 suggested to me that perhaps you might be in that 'angst ridden' category.

Edited January 27, 2011 by sbell111

[knowschad]

If given the choice, I'd rather not see a blank log. I'm not going to get too torqued up if I do.

Me, either. Cool as a cucumber here about my first blank log.

 

[+GeoGeeBee]

Well, I just received my very first blank log*.

 

Give it some time. I'd almost be willing to bet that they go back and edit it later to say something nice.

 

It would be a good thing if all of the phone apps would default to uploading field notes instead of logs. I've been caching for years, and have used field notes from several different devices, but when I got an Android phone and loaded that app it took me a while to figure out how to upload field notes instead of logs. And believe me, typing on that virtual keyboard with my big fat fingers -- I don't want that going straight to a log.

[+M 5]

Makes me want to archive any of my caches that are so blessed.

If it's not worthy of SOME SORT of comment, then what's the point?

 

So why don't you archive them then?

 

Seriously, if for you personally the fun in hiding caches is reading the resulting log messages, and those log messages aren't living up to your expectations, why *wouldn't* you archive them?

 

If, on the other hand, you hide caches for other reasons (for example, simply because you like the idea of others finding something you've hidden, or because you enjoy finding caches and this is a way of giving back), then I suggest taking the advice of some other posters to enjoy the good logs and simply ignore the rest.

 

Other people aren't responsible for your happiness.

 

** Comments here are directed as much at the general audience as at AZcachemeister; please don't think they are personal.

 

The point of this thread it the Support of blank logs by GC.com and why would they endorse them. COs are going to get more and more blank logs. How is that good? Why would GC.com cater to the cachers who are more likely to not add positively to the game. Yeah, I know I just opened that can of worms.

Just because someone enters a blank log doesn't mean that he does not add positively to the game. There's much more to this game than ego stroking the owner of every cache.

 

The statement says "more likely". And no one said anything about stroking owners, except you, of every cache.

[+M 5]

Once again, this is about gc.com supporting blank logs! It is a bad move, that will not help the community nature that game has been steadily moving away from. I'd rather there were more restrictive rules. Geocaching is a little unique, in that it is a much better fit as a niche hobby.

Edited January 27, 2011 by M 5

[+tozainamboku]

I doubt that Groundspeak is catering to to cachers who don't want to add to the game, or are too lazy, or any other name you want to use to refer to people who leave blank logs. I belive that the API they developed for various smartphone apps and that they have announce will soon be available to other developers, is simply not capable of handling a null string and differently than any ohter log. They could rely on the app developers to check for a null string before calling the API, but the realized they have no way to enforce this. In addition they probably decided that it was in their interest to change the website code to provide the same functionality as the API. Perhaps they are even using the same underlying routine for logging caches. The result is that there is no longer a check for a blank log.

 

This doesn't mean that Groundspeak has all of a sudden decided that writing something in the log isn't important. They have simply decided that it is more effort than it is worth to enforce this in their backend.

 

To me it's unfortunate as it has a side effect of saying the primary purpose of the Found log is to keep track of the caches you have found (and increment your find count as a result). Previously, I would point to the fact that blank logs weren't allowed as evidence that the primary pupose of the Found log was to share your experience looking for the cache. However I can understand from a technical point of view their inability to control how the Found log is used. This change simply indicates acceptance of that reality.

 

The OP in the thread this was split from raise a good point. That poster suggested that he would delete blank logs because they appear to be bogus. While I agree that if a person has signed the physical log they probably should be required to write anything online, my question is whether I can delete blank log if the physical log wasn't signed, yet continue to do what I do now - accept found logs where the text in the log appears to be from a genuine finder and therefore the log is not IMO bogus even if the physical log was not signed. This is one of those changes that the puritans will no doubt take as evidence that you must sign the physical log in order to log a find online.

[knowschad]

This is one of those changes that the puritans will no doubt take as evidence that you must sign the physical log in order to log a find online.

There's that word again.

[jd-mitchell]

To me even a TFTC is a sign of apperation for the effort put into the hide, along with going for the find. A blank log seems kinda apathetic. At least in that the poster can't/won't/ don't have the time for typing 4 letters.

Edited January 28, 2011 by jd-mitchell

[+addisonbr]

This doesn't mean that Groundspeak has all of a sudden decided that writing something in the log isn't important. They have simply decided that it is more effort than it is worth to enforce this in their backend.

I'm not sure that I can agree with you. This is all the way back in the OP:

 

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.

[+slukster]

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.

I would attribute this to the proliferation of micros. You get so used to just signing your name and dating it that even when you have the space to write something you end up logging the same way.

 

I too feel that being able to leave a blank log is a terrible idea. While I agree it is not much different than a ".", seeing that blank log on one of my exceptional caches makes me wonder what it would take to get a decent log out of the person.

Edited January 28, 2011 by slukster

[+slukster]

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.

 

Too funny.

[ao318]

I experienced one of my first blank logs to a cache early last year. I looked at the profile of the cacher to see what other finds the cacher had and what types of logs they had left on other caches. When his profile came up, it stated that he had not logged into the site for over a year but here he was posting a find on one of my caches. Luckily the cache was close to me and I visited it to verify whether or not they had actually signed the log. When I arrived at the cache and opened the log, I saw his signature on the page with the correct date. I thought to myself, "How in the heck can this happen?"

 

I thought about this for a little while trying to figure out what happened. I then came to the conclusion that this person had logged the cache from their iPhone with the GC.com app. This new aspect of the game created a new logging technique and I started to receive blank logs on some of my caches or I would get a generic, "Logged from my phone using the Geocache Navigator by Trimble." This last post was done as early as April 2009 and I have had many others like it on my caches.

 

When I started playing this game in 2007 I found a few caches locally to my home. In these caches, I rarely saw anything more than just a name and date on the log. In seeing these logs, I thought that's all you needed to do to the cache log, but when I would get home I would write a little more on my find via the cache page at GC.com. In the beginning, I was one of those that wrote a small and brief log on the cache page and include the typical TFTC, TNLN, etc. As I played the game more and began reading some of the logs from other finders on the cache page, I realized that it is a lot better to write longer more memorable logs and this is what I do now. I especially realized this need after I became a cache owner and enjoyed reading about other peoples finds on my caches.

 

IMHO, I believe the ability of smartphones to make a log via many different apps has facilitated this current philosophy of Groundspeak. I believe what has also increased this behavior is the people that use their phones to find caches do not want to spend the time to log a find on the site via an itty bitty screen, using their number pad or small keyboard to write out a long find. These people rarely ever go to the site to update their logs. They may not have learned to post field notes and then transpose those into logs on the site. They just want a smiley and move onto the next game and this is fine.

 

The bottom line is this, if you want to see more logs on cache pages that talk about their experience and outing, then you will have to make logs like that so that others will see those longer logs and try to emulate them. When a new cache owner places a cache, make a nice log to their cache so they can feel the excitement of getting a nice log on their find and then they will realize how cool it was and try to do the same in the future. We can only try to change this behavior through example. If when I had started caching and found long logs on the actual cache log within the cache, I would have done the same. I only do more now because I have seen others write more and I have been the recipient of great logs on my caches.

[knowschad]

I doubt that Groundspeak is catering to to cachers who don't want to add to the game, or are too lazy, or any other name you want to use to refer to people who leave blank logs. I belive that the API they developed for various smartphone apps and that they have announce will soon be available to other developers, is simply not capable of handling a null string and differently than any ohter log.

Huh?!? I've been programming computers for 25 years and have yet to find a language or an application where I was not able to choose how to handle an empty string or a null value or parameter. I can return an error, I can pop up a messagebox, I can substitute a default. But I do not have to simply accept it.

[+fizzymagic]

I doubt that Groundspeak is catering to to cachers who don't want to add to the game, or are too lazy, or any other name you want to use to refer to people who leave blank logs. I belive that the API they developed for various smartphone apps and that they have announce will soon be available to other developers, is simply not capable of handling a null string and differently than any ohter log.

Huh?!? I've been programming computers for 25 years and have yet to find a language or an application where I was not able to choose how to handle an empty string or a null value or parameter. I can return an error, I can pop up a messagebox, I can substitute a default. But I do not have to simply accept it.

Exactly! It would be easy to omit the blank logs from PQs, wouldn't it?

 

Like I said before, I think totally blank logs are great as long as they don't show up in my PQs. Because they impart almost zero information.

[+tozainamboku]

I doubt that Groundspeak is catering to to cachers who don't want to add to the game, or are too lazy, or any other name you want to use to refer to people who leave blank logs. I belive that the API they developed for various smartphone apps and that they have announce will soon be available to other developers, is simply not capable of handling a null string and differently than any ohter log.

Huh?!? I've been programming computers for 25 years and have yet to find a language or an application where I was not able to choose how to handle an empty string or a null value or parameter. I can return an error, I can pop up a messagebox, I can substitute a default. But I do not have to simply accept it.

I've been programming computers for 35 years and some of the applications involved unreliable communications with unpredictable delays. For these a client application may make an asynchronous call to the server. If guaranteed delivery is not critical or if there is an underlying protocol such as TCP that guarantees delivery, it is often desirable for the server to try to process as much of the request as possible without returning an error. The client is likely going to allow the user to continue as if the message was received. Nobody wants a app that keeps them from continuing to the next cache because they don't have a connection to the server. In this case, cachers send request to log a cache. The app just goes on to the next cache once the user has presses send. Eventually when the phone can connect, the message is sent. Any error message is returned asynchronously and might be displayed as a notification pop-up at some later time (perhaps even after the app is turned off). It's clear that the programmers have a choice of what to do when the server gets a log request with no text. They can reject the whole request and send a notification that the text was missing. When that pops-up the user would have to navigate back to the logging page and resend the log. Or they can try to process as much as they can (in this case entering a blank log or replacing the blank log with some default text). They can send a notification here as well, but the log is already made, so the user can ignore this notification. There are certainly ways to require text in the log, but the functionality and usability of the mobile app it effected by this.

[+paleolith]

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

Um, no ... I'm pretty sure you're still limited to 4095 characters (or thereabouts). You'll continue to have to post multiple notes. Unless you do like me and just shift some of the text to the next cache.

 

Edward