Logging Etiquette

[+Ecylram]

I agree with all the comments about writing more verbose logs. My concern is that new cachers may be overwhelmed by the thought of writing long, detailed messages.

I tell new cachers that they don't need to write War and Peace or be expected to sit down for hours at a time to write a log (unless they WANT to), but it only takes a few seconds to say something nice about a cache where the cache owner has CLEARLY spent a more substantial multiple of that time in its creation, placement, etc.

Well, you are the King President of log writing.

 

For newbies, I probably fall in the camp of "write what your heart desires" but here are some things you can add to show your appreciation to the CO:

 

I try to always write something uniqe for each cache I find. As a cache owner the things I appreciate most in any log is among the following:

• Condition of the cache
• contents of the cache
• what was traded in/out
• tell me where you are from
• The condition of the hide area
• funny story about the journey to the cache
• why did you choose this cache
• who was with you
• what equipment did you use
• what was special/different about the hide to you
• Did you see any animals/birds nearby?
• Was it easy/hard for you

 

[+dani_carriere]

In 2010 I was becoming increasingly perturbed by the number TFTC caches logs I was seeing. I was trying to research local park caches to get feedback for the park's manager. Most of the caches I saw were either TFTC or SFMMD type logs. Even my personal cache hides were innundated with these logs. I decided to add this snippet (see below) to each of my personal cache pages. I was happily surprised to start seeing quality logs becoming the norm.

 

Logging Etiquette: Geocache hiders sometimes go through a great deal of planning to place their caches. As a result, they'd like to hear your feedback on whether you liked or disliked any aspect of the hide, or if you feel that some cache maintenance is required. Single word, acronym, or emoticon logs may be easier when you have a lot of caches to log, but it doesn't tell the hider or other finders anything about your adventure (or lack thereof) in finding the cache. Please keep this in mind when entering your log.

 

This has been a successful attempt at educating loggers. So much so, that other cachers in my area, as well as a few in the Eastern US, have also started to use it.

 

A sample of how it's used can be seen in my cache GC20YTM.

Edited February 28, 2011 by dani_carriere

[+GeoGeeBee]

I'm just not seeing this increase in rude logs, or even short logs. The three caches that I have hidden (not counting the two I adopted) have a total of 54 logs on them. Only two of those logs are "TFTC."

 

The two I adopted have been out much longer. They have over 200 logs between them, and not a four-letter acronym in the bunch. I haven't notice recent finders being more terse than the older logs, either.

[Mr.Yuck]

In 2010 I was becoming increasingly perturbed by the number TFTC caches logs I was seeing. I was trying to research local park caches to get feedback for the park's manager. Most of the caches I saw were either TFTC or SFMMD type logs. Even my personal cache hides were innundated with these logs. I decided to add this snippet (see below) to each of my personal cache pages. I was happily surprised to start seeing quality logs becoming the norm.

 

Logging Etiquette: Geocache hiders sometimes go through a great deal of planning to place their caches. As a result, they'd like to hear your feedback on whether you liked or disliked any aspect of the hide, or if you feel that some cache maintenance is required. Single word, acronym, or emoticon logs may be easier when you have a lot of caches to log, but it doesn't tell the hider or other finders anything about your adventure (or lack thereof) in finding the cache. Please keep this in mind when entering your log.

 

This has been a successful attempt at educating loggers. So much so, that other cachers in my area, as well as a few in the Eastern US, have also started to use it.

 

A sample of how it's used can be seen in my cache GC20YTM.

 

So you're the orignator of that? I actully saw that on a hider's caches in rural Southern Manitoba, tweeted about it on Twitter, and started a thread at my local forum. And I know there's at least one cache hider on the East Coast of the U.S. who emailed them, and is now using it on his cache pages.

 

I like it, but I'll bet you don't hang around these forums much, and I'll tell you what. There are a lot of "TFTC" log defenders. Many, many of them. Hold on to your hat if you're going to stick around this conversation.

 

You're certainly correct though, these type of logs just came out of nowhere and hit us like a 2 x 4 between the eyes in 2010. I can't believe there are so many people out there that can't understand this, and give us the tired old "Not everyone is a wordsmith" defense over and over.

[+sbell111]

The dichotomy between the last two posts is amazing.

[+briansnat]

I'm just not seeing this increase in rude logs, or even short logs. The three caches that I have hidden (not counting the two I adopted) have a total of 54 logs on them. Only two of those logs are "TFTC."

 

The two I adopted have been out much longer. They have over 200 logs between them, and not a four-letter acronym in the bunch. I haven't notice recent finders being more terse than the older logs, either.

 

You probably haven't noticed the increase in short logs because you haven't been at this for more than a couple of years. There is an obvious trend.

 

Here is my first cache, placed in 2001. The early logs are all multi sentence logs and often multi paragraph. By 2005 the logs start getting consistently shorter but they are still for the most part at least several sentences with some longer ones sprinkled in. By 2007 the logs are largely down to a sentence or two, or maybe three, with the first "TFTC" only making its appearance. The last two logs amount to a smiley face and an "X of X today".

Edited March 1, 2011 by briansnat

[Mr.Yuck]

The dichotomy between the last two posts is amazing.

 

You're right. I'm just imagining Joe Blow and Jane Doe who joined in 2010 with 80 finds dropping TFTC logs on every cache they find. Don't make me post examples.

[+dfx]

Here is my first cache, placed in 2001. The early logs are all multi sentence logs and often multi paragraph. By 2005 the logs start getting consistently shorter but they are still for the most part at least several sentences with some longer ones sprinkled in. By 2007 the logs are largely down to a sentence or two, or maybe three, with the first "TFTC" only making its appearance. The last two logs amount to a smiley face and an "X of X today".

 

This is ignoring and at the same time pointing out an important aspect in the whole matter: Back in the early days, caches (including this one) were few and far between. Getting a single cache was an adventure, something you planned specifically for and that you didn't do every day. It took preparation and you possibly traveled a bit of distance for it. Just for one cache.

 

Today there's a myriad of caches in the same area, as everywhere else. You don't go for those caches because they're a special adventure any more, you go because they're close, there's lots of them and you wanna get out and have fun, or just use them as an incentive to get some exercise. If you aren't from the area, you'd have gone for other caches instead. Each individual cache isn't important any more, they're nothing special. To me it makes sense that the logs get shorter.

 

On the other hand, I accidentally came across this log today. It amazed me: no text at all, not even TFTC, but it does have a picture, which also has no name or description, but at the same time is an outright spoiler.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I'm just not seeing this increase in rude logs, or even short logs. The three caches that I have hidden (not counting the two I adopted) have a total of 54 logs on them. Only two of those logs are "TFTC."

 

The two I adopted have been out much longer. They have over 200 logs between them, and not a four-letter acronym in the bunch. I haven't notice recent finders being more terse than the older logs, either.

 

You probably haven't noticed the increase in short logs because you haven't been at this for more than a couple of years. There is an obvious trend.

 

 

I've been at this since 2001, although there is a long gap in there. And the two caches I've adopted have been in place since 2004, and they have over 200 logs on each of them. The most recent logs are just as verbose as the oldest logs.

 

None of my caches are park and grabs, though. Maybe that has something to do with it. Anyone who is just looking to bump up their find count is never going to find any of my caches. Well, maybe one of them. But even that one has a 2.5 terrain rating.

[+Team Asalpaws]

Never posted on the forum before but just had a log on one of my caches that had no text at all! Looking at the profile it seems this cacher with over 400 finds almost never writes anything.....

 

Must admit that my first logs were quite short, however once I owned a cache (bit of a newbie owner) I soon realised the pleasure of reading about peoples escapades. This is one of my favourite aspects of caching, especially when photos are included.

 

When I have found caches that seemed sub-standard I wrote something I thought would be constructive to the owner or at least inform future cachers, however some really bad caches have made me feel like logging "One for the numbers, at least", however I would never do it! I know most people who write TFTC or SFMMD don't mean offence but as someone else eluded to it feels that way.

 

I Also enjoy comparing my experiences on a cache to other people's, naturally this is only possible if something is written. Another nice aspect is looking back over your find logs to jog your memories. I'm firmly in the write something meaningful camp.

 

......Getting back to the start; the non-text logger had only ever owned 1 cache which was archived through lack of maintainance, so perhaps does not get the "Owner" thrill? Maybe some people are pure finders....

[Pup Patrol]

None of my caches are park and grabs, though. Maybe that has something to do with it. Anyone who is just looking to bump up their find count is never going to find any of my caches. Well, maybe one of them. But even that one has a 2.5 terrain rating.

 

Did you look at Briansnat's cache page?

 

If you follow the recommended route, the walk in is closer to a mile.

 

You probably haven't noticed the increase in short logs because you haven't been at this for more than a couple of years. There is an obvious trend.

 

Here is my first cache, placed in 2001. The early logs are all multi sentence logs and often multi paragraph. By 2005 the logs start getting consistently shorter but they are still for the most part at least several sentences with some longer ones sprinkled in. By 2007 the logs are largely down to a sentence or two, or maybe three, with the first "TFTC" only making its appearance. The last two logs amount to a smiley face and an "X of X today".

[+sbell111]

None of my caches are park and grabs, though. Maybe that has something to do with it. Anyone who is just looking to bump up their find count is never going to find any of my caches. Well, maybe one of them. But even that one has a 2.5 terrain rating.

 

Did you look at Briansnat's cache page?

I did.

 

The cache has 124 finds.

It has one 'TFTC'-only log from four years ago.

It has one recent smiley face log.

It has one recent 'We found three caches that day.' log.

 

Clearly, this cache page does not provide evidence that a problem exists.

[+dakboy]

On the other hand, I accidentally came across this log today. It amazed me: no text at all, not even TFTC, but it does have a picture, which also has no name or description, but at the same time is an outright spoiler.

I'm surprised that log/picture hasn't been deleted by the CO. Blatant spoliers like that should be nigh-unquestionable grounds for deleting a log.

[+Ecylram]

I'll throw out another variable...

 

New cachers tend to write shorter logs. As Geocaching grows with ready availability of GPSr-ready devices, you're going to see more "new" geocachers. Also, established caches tend to draw new cachers as all the old-timers have already logged the cache.

 

So I would expect to see log lengths get shorter, the longer a cache is in place...on average.

[Pup Patrol]

Clearly, this cache page does not provide evidence that a problem exists.

 

My comment was directed to GeoGeeBee's "park and grab" comment, but...

 

One cache page isn't meant to be "evidence", obviously. It is an example of a trend that many of us are seeing.

 

Logs are showing up as either blank, or with the obligatory ".", or as I've seen often in my area, a posting of the cache finder's name.

 

Whether you define it as a "problem" or not is up to you, of course.

[+sbell111]

Clearly, this cache page does not provide evidence that a problem exists.

 

My comment was directed to GeoGeeBee's "park and grab" comment, but...

 

One cache page isn't meant to be "evidence", obviously. It is an example of a trend that many of us are seeing.

BS pretty clearly submitted the cache as evidence that a trend exists. In my opinion, that cache does not support his argument.

[+briansnat]

I'm just not seeing this increase in rude logs, or even short logs. The three caches that I have hidden (not counting the two I adopted) have a total of 54 logs on them. Only two of those logs are "TFTC."

 

The two I adopted have been out much longer. They have over 200 logs between them, and not a four-letter acronym in the bunch. I haven't notice recent finders being more terse than the older logs, either.

 

You probably haven't noticed the increase in short logs because you haven't been at this for more than a couple of years. There is an obvious trend.

 

 

I've been at this since 2001, although there is a long gap in there. And the two caches I've adopted have been in place since 2004, and they have over 200 logs on each of them. The most recent logs are just as verbose as the oldest logs.

 

None of my caches are park and grabs, though. Maybe that has something to do with it. Anyone who is just looking to bump up their find count is never going to find any of my caches. Well, maybe one of them. But even that one has a 2.5 terrain rating.

 

My bad. I saw your 2009 joined date. If you've been at this since 2001 then surely you've noticed a trend toward shorter logs even on caches that aren't park and grabs. I have very few park and grabs among my hides. Most involved hikes of a mile or more each way and all of my older caches show this trend.

 

A year or so ago a forum participant analyzed a cache of mine placed in 2002. Logs up to 2006 averaged somewhere around 500 words and after 2006 they averaged in the neighborhood of 200 words (I forget the exact numbers and can't find that post). The cache in question is far from a park and grab.

[+GeoGeeBee]

If you've been at this since 2001 then surely you've noticed a trend toward shorter logs even on caches that aren't park and grabs.

 

No, I really haven't noticed a big difference in online logging. I think it's one of those things where you see what you expect to see.

 

What I have noticed is that nobody writes in the paper logs any more. I used to enjoy sitting next to a trail reading the logbook after I found a cache. It would be full of stories, and sometimes drawings. Now it's just a signature and a date.

[+Ecylram]

Thanks to all the wonderful input from the forum members, I finished the article on Logging Etiquette. As you can see, I used a lot of the ideas that were suggested in this thread...

 

Cache Logging Etiquette for the New Geocacher

 

By "Ecylram"

 

Logging is one of the most important elements of caching. For the cacher, it's a reminder of that day's adventure. For the cache owner, it's their reward for all their hard work in creating the cache. For other cachers, the log lets them know about the adventure ahead of them.

 

So now that you've found the cache and signed the log book, what are you going to write in your online log?

 

First, here are some things to avoid in your log entries:

• The alphabet soup jumble… Write something besides acronyms. You can include acronyms, just don't make them the entire substance of the log entry.
• Do not use any automated text that is generated by your mobile device. These automated logs are universally despised as they provide no useful information to the cache owner or other cachers.
• Don't post spoiler messages or pictures. They spoil the adventure for those that follow.
• Don't write logs while angry or upset. If you had a bad experience, wait before writing your log.

What you choose to include in the log is up to you. It can be a few words or several paragraphs. Whatever you write, include some information for the cache owner and other cachers. Here are some ideas on what you can put in a log:

• What was the condition of the cache?
• What is the condition of the log? Is it full?
• What did you find in the cache?
• Did you trade anything? What did you trade?
• Did something funny or interesting happen while searching for the cache?
• Did you see anything interesting in the area? (Avoid spoiler information.)
• How was the weather? Did it affect your caching?
• Write anything that is an honest compliment to the cache owner.

DNF's are important too. If you don't find the cache please post a DNF. Many times this information is more useful to the cache owner and other cachers than "Found It" logs. There is no shame in logging DNF's, take pride in them!

 

Caching is supposed to fun. Use the above for ideas but write what is meaningful for you. Your logs don't have to be perfect and they don't require proper punctuation and grammar. They just require your input.

 

Finally, if you're ever stuck on what to write… Pick some piece of information about the search, write about that, and thank the cache owner. If you do that, you've written a successful log.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Ecylram