Jump to content

Cut N Paste Logs


Scubasonic
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

But you are impugning the quality of the caches that get lame logs. I have received blank and TFTC logs for some highly "favorited" caches.

 

Example:

http://www.geocachin...d0-35cd9ffcd03e

 

Read the rest of the logs. 14 favorites.

 

I could provide more examples, but this should prove the point that I'm trying to make. It isn't always lame caches that get lame logs.

 

 

Yes, I guess I was although I wouldn't include a cache that had a few lame logs such as the one you just linked to. I did say that you will never get everyone logging good logs. Some people just don't work that way.

 

Cut and paste logs are generally something you get when the cacher has had a long day, although not so long these days, finding one cache after another. If there is nothing distinguishing about one cache from the previous cache then cut and paste is what you are going to get. I stand by the fact that there needs to be something to write about before people will write about it in the main.

 

At the end of the day, you cannot legislate or make a rule on how much people write in a text box on a page. I know this from work. I design and build systems for companies and every so often someone wants a minimum length of text adding to a text box. It never gets the desired effect. All you can do is make people add something which doesn't solve cut and paste at all. We just have to live with it.

 

If your cache logs are full of cut and paste or one word logs look to your cache for the problem. If you have the odd one or two logs like that shrug your shoulders and await the next log worth reading.

 

I've done as many as 105 caches in one day and I pride myself on not having used C&P logs, so I ain't buying that reason, either. In the old days, people used notes written on paper (generally the (ugh!) cache printout or a notebook). When I think that I may not remember, I carry a small pocket digital recorder. I knew one cacher that would leave messages on his home answering machine. But these days, smartphones have built-in voice recorders of excellent quality.

 

I will say that I would draw the line on doing an intentional power trail. In fact, I did this winter when doing a series this winter, but even then I didn't like it.

Link to comment

Now, for the other folk. If you want something, don't be shy. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you don't want a copy and paste, make it a requirement in the cache info. Now how hard was that? State right in the info that to get credit, no copy and paste's are allowed and will be removed. There. Simple really.

 

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

Can't do that anymore. That's considered an additional logging requirement (ALR).
Link to comment

Who cares what your write as a log. Caching is the act of finding and signing, not digital logs. I enjoy the physical experience of finding the cache as opposed to the work of entering them as finds. That being said, if your cache is truly a great cache, I will reward with an excellent log entry.

Link to comment

Who cares what your write as a log. Caching is the act of finding and signing, not digital logs. I enjoy the physical experience of finding the cache as opposed to the work of entering them as finds. That being said, if your cache is truly a great cache, I will reward with an excellent log entry.

 

The cache owner cares! In many cases, the cache owner may not even ever see the physical log. They get stolen, they get wet, or a good cache may be left in place for years in a remote place without the cache owner having reason to visit it.

Link to comment

 

I've done as many as 105 caches in one day and I pride myself on not having used C&P logs, so I ain't buying that reason, either. In the old days, people used notes written on paper (generally the (ugh!) cache printout or a notebook). When I think that I may not remember, I carry a small pocket digital recorder. I knew one cacher that would leave messages on his home answering machine. But these days, smartphones have built-in voice recorders of excellent quality.

 

I will say that I would draw the line on doing an intentional power trail. In fact, I did this winter when doing a series this winter, but even then I didn't like it.

 

I think you are misunderstanding my point of view. On some caches it really doesn't matter what method you have for recording a find if there is nothing to record. There are plenty of these caches out there. The problem is, if you say anything negative in a log you risk abuse etc so many people keep it simple. Add a few of those together and if you have nothing to say ten times in a row then why not copy and paste nothing ten times?

 

You obviously pick the caches you do with more care so end up with caches that have something to log.

 

But I guess it's time to agree to disagree on quality of logs dependant on quality of cache as we can argue the toss over it until the cows come home, it'll make no difference banging on about it in here :)

Link to comment
then I'm not going to bother sending a present next year, since this year's gift had no impact.

 

Or send her a better gift next time that does get a response.*

 

Insert cache for gift and you may get a better response from the finders. (of course this doesn't work for everyone)

 

One thing though, banging on about it in here will not make one iota of a difference so it really, really isn't worth getting stressed about. I don't mean anyone in particular with that.

 

All that any cache owner can do if they want better logs is to try and place better caches or just accept the logs they are getting.

 

*I'm not impugning the quality of your gifts to your niece

 

But you are impugning the quality of the caches that get lame logs. I have received blank and TFTC logs for some highly "favorited" caches.

 

Example:

http://www.geocachin...d0-35cd9ffcd03e

 

Read the rest of the logs. 14 favorites.

 

I could provide more examples, but this should prove the point that I'm trying to make. It isn't always lame caches that get lame logs.

Threads like this just keep going araound and around, never really getting anywhere.
I'm pretty sure that you just proved the rule. Sure, good caches can still catch the random c&p log, but lame caches will get bunches of them. If your cache gets lots of them, you might want to think about your cache's quality a bit more. If someone's cache only gets the rare c&p log and it still bothers him, perhaps he needs thicker skin.
Link to comment

Who cares what your write as a log. Caching is the act of finding and signing, not digital logs. I enjoy the physical experience of finding the cache as opposed to the work of entering them as finds. That being said, if your cache is truly a great cache, I will reward with an excellent log entry.

 

The cache owner cares! In many cases, the cache owner may not even ever see the physical log. They get stolen, they get wet, or a good cache may be left in place for years in a remote place without the cache owner having reason to visit it.

 

Well, you're both right...

 

Generically speaking, as a CO I appreciate when someone takes the time (even if its 60 seconds) to craft a long BEYOND the typical: "found","TFT$ (I hate this one)", ((blank)), etc.

 

My appreciation scale for reading (and/or crafting) a quality log entry increases based on a cache's "quality factor" (and therefore effort) put into its creation (camo, engineering, description/puzzle, etc) and the overall cache "experience" location, deployment, etc. When a cache excels in one or more of these areas, the quality of the log entry should be proportional.

 

Note: at no time did I say that log quality had to equal writing War and Peace.

 

All that said, on the OTHER end of the spectrum, If I were to place a camo duct-taped pill bottle under a lamp skirt (because shrubs often grow under there) or chuck a film can out of my car window next to the side of the road and/or there's no creativity in any aspect in terms of the cache, location, etc. then the quality of the log entries should also be treated accordingly. In this regard, I can't imagine why a cache owner that puts so little effort into a cache would EXPECT something beyond a simple TFTC and the like.

 

So, long story short, quality caches = quality logs.

Edited by daschpeeg
Link to comment

Now, for the other folk. If you want something, don't be shy. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you don't want a copy and paste, make it a requirement in the cache info. Now how hard was that? State right in the info that to get credit, no copy and paste's are allowed and will be removed. There. Simple really.

 

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

Can't do that anymore. That's considered an additional logging requirement (ALR).

 

-'Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.'- There ya' go. Problem fixed.

Link to comment

Now, for the other folk. If you want something, don't be shy. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you don't want a copy and paste, make it a requirement in the cache info. Now how hard was that? State right in the info that to get credit, no copy and paste's are allowed and will be removed. There. Simple really.

 

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

Can't do that anymore. That's considered an additional logging requirement (ALR).

 

-'Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.'- There ya' go. Problem fixed.

So basically you are saying that each cache finder would be free to decide whether to write a unique log or to copy and paste. Isn't that what this thread is complaining about?
Link to comment

Who cares what your write as a log. Caching is the act of finding and signing, not digital logs. I enjoy the physical experience of finding the cache as opposed to the work of entering them as finds. That being said, if your cache is truly a great cache, I will reward with an excellent log entry.

 

The cache owner cares! In many cases, the cache owner may not even ever see the physical log. They get stolen, they get wet, or a good cache may be left in place for years in a remote place without the cache owner having reason to visit it.

 

Well, you're both right...

 

Generically speaking, as a CO I appreciate when someone takes the time (even if its 60 seconds) to craft a long BEYOND the typical: "found","TFT$ (I hate this one)", ((blank)), etc.

 

My appreciation scale for reading (and/or crafting) a quality log entry increases based on a cache's "quality factor" (and therefore effort) put into its creation (camo, engineering, description/puzzle, etc) and the overall cache "experience" location, deployment, etc. When a cache excels in one or more of these areas, the quality of the log entry should be proportional.

 

Note: at no time did I say that log quality had to equal writing War and Peace.

 

All that said, on the OTHER end of the spectrum, If I were to place a camo duct-taped pill bottle under a lamp skirt (because shrubs often grow under there) or chuck a film can out of my car window next to the side of the road and/or there's no creativity in any aspect in terms of the cache, location, etc. then the quality of the log entries should also be treated accordingly. In this regard, I can't imagine why a cache owner that puts so little effort into a cache would EXPECT something beyond a simple TFTC and the like.

 

So, long story short, quality caches = quality logs.

Thanks, but the immediate discussion that you quoted had more to do with detailed logging in the paper logbook vs. detailed logging online.

Link to comment

Now, for the other folk. If you want something, don't be shy. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you don't want a copy and paste, make it a requirement in the cache info. Now how hard was that? State right in the info that to get credit, no copy and paste's are allowed and will be removed. There. Simple really.

 

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

Can't do that anymore. That's considered an additional logging requirement (ALR).

 

-'Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.'- There ya' go. Problem fixed.

 

Yes, "optional task" is quite different from a "requirement".

Link to comment

Now, for the other folk. If you want something, don't be shy. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you don't want a copy and paste, make it a requirement in the cache info. Now how hard was that? State right in the info that to get credit, no copy and paste's are allowed and will be removed. There. Simple really.

 

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

Can't do that anymore. That's considered an additional logging requirement (ALR).

 

-'Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.'- There ya' go. Problem fixed.

So basically you are saying that each cache finder would be free to decide whether to write a unique log or to copy and paste. Isn't that what this thread is complaining about?

 

"Complaining"?

 

And no... that has absolutely nothing to do with what he or I are saying.

Link to comment

I posted my idea on the feedback site on the advice of BuckEyeClan. It got no support, but I can say the responses were much nicer there than here. I think any future ideas I have I will post over there instead of here.

 

FEEDBACK SITE!!!!!! Not surprised you got no support. Many of us no longer go there because it has SEEMED like a dead end road.

Link to comment

Thanks, but the immediate discussion that you quoted had more to do with detailed logging in the paper logbook vs. detailed logging online.

 

Divide by zero error in line 234 :anicute:

 

I can't recall the last time I saw a recent cache with a log book large enough to write anything long-winded. Even the regulars seem to have tiny log books these days. Even if they didn't, when caching with others it's a bit tough to have everyone wait around to write a meaningful log in a physical book. (Plus, I have horrible handwriting)

 

It seems to me that electronic logs have lots of wins:

 

* They don't get wet/moldy/muggled... They should last for quite a while.

* The loggers get the opportunity to keep track and revisit their "caching stories" over time (in one centralized place)

* Others can share and appreciate these log entries without having to keep re-visiting the same cache over and over again

Edited by daschpeeg
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...