Forget about "TFTC" logs...

[+SooMukwas]

I've noticed a few logs on some of my caches and others in this area that are logged as a find but are completely blank! Is typing even 4 letters too much of a problem to do now?

 

Maybe I should e-mail the finder and ask if they actually found them or was it logged by mistake as nothing at all was typed.....

[+StarBrand]

I've emailed a few folks asking politely if they accidently logged my cache or accidently left a blank log. I also noted that most cache owners appreciate just a few words about the cache. All of these were newbie cachers with cell phone apps. So far 100% have relogged with a few kind words.

[knowschad]

I've emailed a few folks asking politely if they accidently logged my cache or accidently left a blank log. I also noted that most cache owners appreciate just a few words about the cache. All of these were newbie cachers with cell phone apps. So far 100% have relogged with a few kind words.

Likewise. One cacher said that he posted the blank log in the field, and planned to edit it when he got home. When I reminded him that I would only get an email notice of his blank log and wouldn't see his edited log unless I went looking for it, he was very understanding and has stopped posting blank logs.

 

However... I should say that The King Frog has given his blessing to blank logs, so there is nothing that can be done about it, aside from trying to work with the cacher that is doing it.

[+SooMukwas]

Thanks for the feedback. I have e-mailed the logger and inquired. It's no big deal really, but I like to think that writing logs is part of geocaching and can be good feedback for the cache owner and other future finders.

 

We have a blast writing our logs, especially if anything silly or fun happens. I'm sure all cache owners love to read new logs for their own caches, eh?

[knowschad]

Thanks for the feedback. I have e-mailed the logger and inquired. It's no big deal really, but I like to think that writing logs is part of geocaching and can be good feedback for the cache owner and other future finders.

 

We have a blast writing our logs, especially if anything silly or fun happens. I'm sure all cache owners love to read new logs for their own caches, eh?

 

Yeah, the cacher that I mentioned actually thanked me for pointing that out to him. I guess its all in how you say it.

[+BCandMsKitty]

I've emailed a few folks asking politely if they accidently logged my cache or accidently left a blank log. I also noted that most cache owners appreciate just a few words about the cache. All of these were newbie cachers with cell phone apps. So far 100% have relogged with a few kind words.

Likewise. One cacher said that he posted the blank log in the field, and planned to edit it when he got home. When I reminded him that I would only get an email notice of his blank log and wouldn't see his edited log unless I went looking for it, he was very understanding and has stopped posting blank logs.

 

However... I should say that The King Frog has given his blessing to blank logs, so there is nothing that can be done about it, aside from trying to work with the cacher that is doing it.

 

Y'know .... since when is geocaching the King Frog's game?

 

When you think about it, he should be bowing to the will of the players, not the other way around! I've read a lot of people in here don't like blank logs but most just say "there's nothing we can do about it"!

 

Blank logs suck, and shouldn't be allowed! Right in the "Getting Started with Geocaching" page, (basic geocaching instructions) it mentions several times that we should Share our geocaching stories and photos online. Everyone is so adamant about having to sign the log book to validate a find, when that is only one of the things that is necessary to do. Why pick out one of the steps and then say the others aren't necessary?

 

A cache owner should be able to delete a blank log and get every bit as much support as ones that get deleted because of unsigned log books!

Or at the least, the cacher should not be able to complete the find online without having to enter something in the text area like it used to be! I think the change in TPTB's stand concerning this revolves around the smart phone apps, and it sucks that that should drive things and not the opinions of cachers!

 

I think we need to mount a palace revolt (multiple complaint emails from cachers that don't like blank logs) until the King Frog changes his stand on them!

[+M 5]

Next time Groundspeak wants us to nominate logs for something, everyone should send in all the "blank" and "tftc" logs. If we send enought they may get tired of them as well.

[knowschad]

Next time Groundspeak wants us to nominate logs for something, everyone should send in all the "blank" and "tftc" logs. If we send enought they may get tired of them as well.

I like that idea!!

 

The problem is, as long as Groundspeak is willing to reinstate deleted logs when they were deleted for being blank, we have little recourse. Groundspeak knows how we feel about them.

[mresoteric]

The problem is, as long as Groundspeak is willing to reinstate deleted logs when they were deleted for being blank, we have little recourse. Groundspeak knows how we feel about them.

 

Groundspeak knows how some people feel about them. They are probably aware that a vast majority of cache owners do not come to the forums and complain because they just don't care that much about the issue.

[knowschad]

The problem is, as long as Groundspeak is willing to reinstate deleted logs when they were deleted for being blank, we have little recourse. Groundspeak knows how we feel about them.

 

Groundspeak knows how some people feel about them. They are probably aware that a vast majority of cache owners do not come to the forums and complain because they just don't care that much about the issue.

 

I know at least one hundred other cachers. Of those, I know a very few that read the forums. And of those, I know maybe three that post here. To say that because cache owners have not come here to post about blank logs because they don't care about the blank logs is very inaccurate. I have had conversations with many of them who detest the practice, yet they will not come here to talk about it, or anything else that matters to them. Do not think that means that they don't care about the issue. They do.

[mresoteric]

The problem is, as long as Groundspeak is willing to reinstate deleted logs when they were deleted for being blank, we have little recourse. Groundspeak knows how we feel about them.

 

Groundspeak knows how some people feel about them. They are probably aware that a vast majority of cache owners do not come to the forums and complain because they just don't care that much about the issue.

 

I know at least one hundred other cachers. Of those, I know a very few that read the forums. And of those, I know maybe three that post here. To say that because cache owners have not come here to post about blank logs because they don't care about the blank logs is very inaccurate. I have had conversations with many of them who detest the practice, yet they will not come here to talk about it, or anything else that matters to them. Do not think that means that they don't care about the issue. They do.

 

And yet we also know there are hundreds of cachers who find the practice acceptable (the ones posting the blank or short logs) who will not come here to talk about it, or anything else that matters to them. We also know there are quite of few that have posted in the other thread basically saying they can take it or leave it.

 

So while probably MOST cache owners would PREFER better logs, it doesn't seem to be such a huge problem that Groundspeak needs to take any action on.

[knowschad]

The problem is, as long as Groundspeak is willing to reinstate deleted logs when they were deleted for being blank, we have little recourse. Groundspeak knows how we feel about them.

 

Groundspeak knows how some people feel about them. They are probably aware that a vast majority of cache owners do not come to the forums and complain because they just don't care that much about the issue.

 

I know at least one hundred other cachers. Of those, I know a very few that read the forums. And of those, I know maybe three that post here. To say that because cache owners have not come here to post about blank logs because they don't care about the blank logs is very inaccurate. I have had conversations with many of them who detest the practice, yet they will not come here to talk about it, or anything else that matters to them. Do not think that means that they don't care about the issue. They do.

 

And yet we also know there are hundreds of cachers who find the practice acceptable (the ones posting the blank or short logs) who will not come here to talk about it, or anything else that matters to them. We also know there are quite of few that have posted in the other thread basically saying they can take it or leave it.

 

So while probably MOST cache owners would PREFER better logs, it doesn't seem to be such a huge problem that Groundspeak needs to take any action on.

 

OK. If you say so.

[+M 5]

It's a shame that some cachers think it's OK to leave crappy logs. It's a shame that Groundspeak doesn't try to foster a more community based activity by doing what they can to minimize the practice, instead of endorsing it. It's a shame that some posters defend the practice. It is also a shame that Groundspeak doesn't honor a posters requests about their own account.

Edited May 1, 2011 by M 5

[+BuckeyeClan]

The problem is, as long as Groundspeak is willing to reinstate deleted logs when they were deleted for being blank, we have little recourse. Groundspeak knows how we feel about them.

 

Groundspeak knows how some people feel about them. They are probably aware that a vast majority of cache owners do not come to the forums and complain because they just don't care that much about the issue.

 

I know at least one hundred other cachers. Of those, I know a very few that read the forums. And of those, I know maybe three that post here. To say that because cache owners have not come here to post about blank logs because they don't care about the blank logs is very inaccurate. I have had conversations with many of them who detest the practice, yet they will not come here to talk about it, or anything else that matters to them. Do not think that means that they don't care about the issue. They do.

 

And yet we also know there are hundreds of cachers who find the practice acceptable (the ones posting the blank or short logs) who will not come here to talk about it, or anything else that matters to them. We also know there are quite of few that have posted in the other thread basically saying they can take it or leave it.

 

So while probably MOST cache owners would PREFER better logs, it doesn't seem to be such a huge problem that Groundspeak needs to take any action on.

 

OK. If you say so.

 

I also suspect that Groundspeak has no desire to get stuck in between cachers arguing about what constitutes a "good enough" log. Just as they don't want the reviewers to have to judge what is a "quality" cache, they don't want to have to play referee and decide what is a "quality" log.

[mresoteric]

It's a shame that some posters feel the need to attack other posters ever so slyly just because they don't share the same viewpoint. It's also a shame that Groundspeak allows those posters to continue to make their barely hidden attacks against other posters.

[knowschad]

It's a shame that some posters feel the need to attack other posters ever so slyly just because they don't share the same viewpoint. It's also a shame that Groundspeak allows those posters to continue to make their barely hidden attacks against other posters.

Who are you referring to?

[mresoteric]

It's a shame that some posters feel the need to attack other posters ever so slyly just because they don't share the same viewpoint. It's also a shame that Groundspeak allows those posters to continue to make their barely hidden attacks against other posters.

Who are you referring to?

 

M5

 

Edited to add clarity.

 

It is also a shame that Groundspeak doesn't honor a posters requests about their own account.

Edited May 1, 2011 by mresoteric

[knowschad]

It's a shame that some posters feel the need to attack other posters ever so slyly just because they don't share the same viewpoint. It's also a shame that Groundspeak allows those posters to continue to make their barely hidden attacks against other posters.

Who are you referring to?

 

M5

 

Edited to add clarity.

 

It is also a shame that Groundspeak doesn't honor a posters requests about their own account.

 

That's what I thought. Well, I did not feel that M5's post was attacking anyone (except perhaps Groundspeak) and I generally happen to agree with what he said. I think a cacher needs to have a few hides of their own before they can really understand this issue.

[mresoteric]

That's what I thought. Well, I did not feel that M5's post was attacking anyone (except perhaps Groundspeak) and I generally happen to agree with what he said.

 

It was directed straight at me because after he and another poster continually poked fun, posted laughing smilies, etc. at my posts in the other thread I posted for the mods to close my account. M5 knew when he posted it that I would immediately know what he was referring to.

 

The fact is, had another much nicer, kinder poster emailed me, I would not have returned. So I guess he has that poster to blame for me coming back.

 

I still think that the rules apply to all posters, so M5 needs to stick to the topic and not post attacks towards me.

[knowschad]

That's what I thought. Well, I did not feel that M5's post was attacking anyone (except perhaps Groundspeak) and I generally happen to agree with what he said.

 

It was directed straight at me because after he and another poster continually poked fun, posted laughing smilies, etc. at my posts in the other thread I posted for the mods to close my account. M5 knew when he posted it that I would immediately know what he was referring to.

 

The fact is, had another much nicer, kinder poster emailed me, I would not have returned. So I guess he has that poster to blame for me coming back.

 

I still think that the rules apply to all posters, so M5 needs to stick to the topic and not post attacks towards me.

I guess I didn't, and don't, see any of that. I just reread his post, and I still don't see anything that you should be taking personally. I really don't.

[+BuckeyeClan]

That's what I thought. Well, I did not feel that M5's post was attacking anyone (except perhaps Groundspeak) and I generally happen to agree with what he said.

 

It was directed straight at me because after he and another poster continually poked fun, posted laughing smilies, etc. at my posts in the other thread I posted for the mods to close my account. M5 knew when he posted it that I would immediately know what he was referring to.

 

The fact is, had another much nicer, kinder poster emailed me, I would not have returned. So I guess he has that poster to blame for me coming back.

 

I still think that the rules apply to all posters, so M5 needs to stick to the topic and not post attacks towards me.

I guess I didn't, and don't, see any of that. I just reread his post, and I still don't see anything that you should be taking personally. I really don't.

 

I saw it, and got it immediately. Yes, it was personally aimed at mresoteric.

[+Student Camper]

As have many others, I have put a lot of time and effort into presenting the best cache I can to the Geocaching public.

In return, I would hope to recieve a comment that says my efforts are appreciated to some degree.

 

A TFTC at least says something, even "no comment" would say something, but a blank log?, A blank log says nothing at all.

I would rather a log say "expletive deleted" than say nothing at all.

I have too much time, effort and resources invested in the program to be ignored, or perhaps disrespected would be a better word for it.

 

That said, I am not going to stop geocaching nor am I going to lose any sleep over it, but I don't have to like it upon getting a blank log.

[+StarBrand]

Using real words in logs is just much more polite than blank space or shortcuts to real speech. Not a generational thing either. Just good manners.

[mresoteric]

That's what I thought. Well, I did not feel that M5's post was attacking anyone (except perhaps Groundspeak) and I generally happen to agree with what he said.

 

It was directed straight at me because after he and another poster continually poked fun, posted laughing smilies, etc. at my posts in the other thread I posted for the mods to close my account. M5 knew when he posted it that I would immediately know what he was referring to.

 

The fact is, had another much nicer, kinder poster emailed me, I would not have returned. So I guess he has that poster to blame for me coming back.

 

I still think that the rules apply to all posters, so M5 needs to stick to the topic and not post attacks towards me.

I guess I didn't, and don't, see any of that. I just reread his post, and I still don't see anything that you should be taking personally. I really don't.

 

Don't worry about it. I reported it and I am making a formal request that M5 debate topics with me all he wants but please discontinue the personal insults and slights.

[+StarBrand]

.... but please discontinue the personal insults and slights.

You mean like the comment you made when exiting the other thread?

 

Opinions are expressed with a lot of sincerity and emotions at times. Debate techniques are sometimes difficult to interpret. But rarely is anything intended to be a personal insult.

 

It is but one more reason why communication needs to be fully understood and not clipped short or left blank.

[mresoteric]

.... but please discontinue the personal insults and slights.

You mean like the comment you made when exiting the other thread?

 

First, my post was due to continued slights and was not a personal attack against anyone. It was directed toward the attitude being shown in that thread by a couple of posters.

 

Second, M5 had previously shown in a former thread that he didn't care for my opinion and has simply continued to amplify that feeling in subsequent threads.

 

Third, I went back and edited my post because it was made while I was angry about the continued slights and was inappropriate.

 

Fourth, shouldn't we be able to debate issues civily no matter how opposite our opinions and not stoop to making fun of each other.

 

Finally, aren't personal attacks against the guidelines?

[+BuckeyeClan]

Look, I agree that logs with a sentence or two are better than short or blank logs, and I agree that real words are better than acronyms, but I just think it's a mistake to brand every cacher that logs with "TFTC" as lazy or rude. More P&G caches means more people finding uninspiring caches, and leaving uninspiring logs. More "number hounds" means more cachers that aren't necessarily looking for caches that are "wow!" And more cachers that cache only casually, and don't go to events and don't read the forums, leads to more "monkey-see, monkey-do" logs where they just log how they see others log. As far as a blank log goes--it seems quite reasonable to me for the CO to e-mail the logger with a polite "hey was this intentional, or a mistake?" If the cacher is truly leaving blank logs out of laziness, then maybe enough of these will annoy them into writing something more in the future. And if they honestly didn't realize that logging more is desireable, then you will have gently educated them!

[+kwcahart]

On your "fourth" point. No, that doesn't happen here on this forum. Sorry.

[mresoteric]

Look, I agree that logs with a sentence or two are better than short or blank logs, and I agree that real words are better than acronyms, but I just think it's a mistake to brand every cacher that logs with "TFTC" as lazy or rude.

 

This is my position 100%.

 

So far I have stuck with looking for high terrain caches. And I can say without a doubt that most of them have been awesome. The exceptions would be a couple of caches I found over the Easter weekend closer to home.

 

I have made sure to post a few words about each cache, even the couple I didn't really care for. But that was more because I have tried to educate myself in the forums. I would guess that a very small percentage of cachers ever come to the forums though. I also post my logs from my computer because I am not about to take my rather expensive phone out into a swamp. But I would guess if I were looking for easier caches in an urban area, I would probably be tempted to post short logs. That doesn't mean I like or disliked anyone's cache. It just means I am used to communicating a certain way on my phone and another on my computer.

 

Call me lazy, but I am what I am and so are my peers.

[mresoteric]

On your "fourth" point. No, that doesn't happen here on this forum. Sorry.

 

That is most unfortunate.

[+StarBrand]

.....

 

I would probably be tempted to post short logs. That doesn't mean I like or disliked anyone's cache. It just means I am used to communicating a certain way on my phone and another on my computer.

....

 

...and you don't see the rather obvious problem with that line of thinking???

[+BuckeyeClan]

On your "fourth" point. No, that doesn't happen here on this forum. Sorry.

 

 

Now now, don't be so cynical! Plenty of people debate very well without being insulting. Unfortunately there are often several that do get insulting--and those are the posts that people remember. People don't focus on the 25 nice posts, they focus on the 2 or 3 bad ones. Learn to ignore the rude comments, and not let them affect you, and life gets much easier! (Hmmm.... that's good advice for CO's who get the occasional blank log, too! )

[mresoteric]

.....

 

I would probably be tempted to post short logs. That doesn't mean I like or disliked anyone's cache. It just means I am used to communicating a certain way on my phone and another on my computer.

....

 

...and you don't see the rather obvious problem with that line of thinking???

 

No. TFTC or a blank log both mean I found your cache. Nothing more than that needs to be read into it.

 

If I post "Fun day. TFTC" you can probably assume I enjoyed your cache unless you are a pessimist by nature.

 

I forget who said it in the another thread, but unless otherwise noted, you should always assume the best. If finders truly hate your cache, chances are you will know it.

[+BuckeyeClan]

.....

 

I would probably be tempted to post short logs. That doesn't mean I like or disliked anyone's cache. It just means I am used to communicating a certain way on my phone and another on my computer.

....

 

...and you don't see the rather obvious problem with that line of thinking???

 

This is the point that he's trying to make that nobody else seems to be picking up on. Kids today (and I feel ridiculous using that phrase) are accustomed to communicating in short texts and acronyms. It isn't rude, though some may interpret it that way. As more and more newer and younger cachers join the game, short logs may well be the norm for them. You can try and educate them and convince them to write more, and maybe some will. But surely some won't, so you will have to decide what your reaction will be. If you choose to be offended, whether it was meant that way or not, then that is on you.

[+Azisbest]

In keeping with my "whatever is fun for you" attitude vis a vis geocaching I say log what you will. Even thought it ticks me off when they don't take the time to make a decent log, lol.

[+Ambient_Skater]

...I reminded him that I would only get an email notice of his blank log and wouldn't see his edited log unless I went looking for it...

Then it's your responsibility to check your page for logs. If submitting a blank log from the field and then editing it later works for him, he hasn't done anything wrong. No one should have to change their logging practices just because it would be more convenient for the CO if they did it a certain way.

[+StarBrand]

.....

 

I would probably be tempted to post short logs. That doesn't mean I like or disliked anyone's cache. It just means I am used to communicating a certain way on my phone and another on my computer.

....

 

...and you don't see the rather obvious problem with that line of thinking???

 

No. TFTC or a blank log both mean I found your cache. Nothing more than that needs to be read into it.

 

If I post "Fun day. TFTC" you can probably assume I enjoyed your cache unless you are a pessimist by nature.

 

I forget who said it in the another thread, but unless otherwise noted, you should always assume the best. If finders truly hate your cache, chances are you will know it.

 

The issue I was attempting to point out is that your 'style' of logging differs from phone to computer and therefore from log to log. Like it or not, you will force CO's to notice the difference and read much into it - not knowing that the device being used is the only difference.

Communications must be made clearly and consistently or readers will "read between the lines" for some context (as they do with all things they read). The differences will be obvious (I'll bet) and much can be concluded from that. Whether you intend it or like it or not.

[+StarBrand]

...I reminded him that I would only get an email notice of his blank log and wouldn't see his edited log unless I went looking for it...

Then it's your responsibility to check your page for logs. If submitting a blank log from the field and then editing it later works for him, he hasn't done anything wrong. No one should have to change their logging practices just because it would be more convenient for the CO if they did it a certain way.

Depends on your point of view. As a finder, the online log may be looked at as a logging mechanism for a smilie. As a cache owner - you see the emails as a notice that your cache has been logged and found. With 150+ active caches - I do not peruse them regularly to see if anybody has edited a previous log - and I am not notified of changes anybody makes. Thus, as a courtesy, I should strive to make my first 'find' loga note to the owner and as complete as possible.

[+Ambient_Skater]

As a finder, the online log may be looked at as a logging mechanism for a smilie. As a cache owner - you see the emails as a notice that your cache has been logged and found. With 150+ active caches - I do not peruse them regularly to see if anybody has edited a previous log - and I am not notified of changes anybody makes. Thus, as a courtesy, I should strive to make my first 'find' loga note to the owner and as complete as possible.

That's all nice and all, but it's the finder who has to deal with the logistics of their logging and tracking of their finds. Personally I find logging a blank log from the field and then editing it at home quite a clunky way of managing one's finds but if it works, it works.

[+L0ne.R]

As have many others, I have put a lot of time and effort into presenting the best cache I can to the Geocaching public.

In return, I would hope to recieve a comment that says my efforts are appreciated to some degree.

 

A TFTC at least says something, even "no comment" would say something, but a blank log?, A blank log says nothing at all.

I would rather a log say "expletive deleted" than say nothing at all.

I have too much time, effort and resources invested in the program to be ignored, or perhaps disrespected would be a better word for it.

 

That said, I am not going to stop geocaching nor am I going to lose any sleep over it, but I don't have to like it upon getting a blank log.

 

+1

[+RobDJr]

No one should have to change their logging practices just because it would be more convenient for the CO if they did it a certain way.

 

True. Buuuuuuuuut...

 

The growing number of poor logs are already leading to a degradation of the game. There are some fantastic hiders out there who have stopped hiding because of that trend. For them it got to the point where it wasn't worth the effort to put the effort into a great cache only to get a bunch of tftc or blank logs.

 

Or let me put it another way.

 

Suppose you invite someone over for dinner and put a lot of effort into making a very nice meal.

 

The guest arrives, eats the meal, and then gets up and leaves without a word. That's a blank log.

 

If the guest eats, then gives a burp and leaves, that's a tftc.

 

If the guest thanks you for the meal, compliments your cooking, and offers to help clean up, well, that's a nice log.

 

Are you going to be motivated to put out the effort again for the first two?

 

Unfortunately, it seems that the trend has gotten to where it's considered a very polite thing if you at least burp...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

No one should have to change their logging practices just because it would be more convenient for the CO if they did it a certain way.

 

True. Buuuuuuuuut...

 

The growing number of poor logs are already leading to a degradation of the game. There are some fantastic hiders out there who have stopped hiding because of that trend. For them it got to the point where it wasn't worth the effort to put the effort into a great cache only to get a bunch of tftc or blank logs.

 

Or let me put it another way.

 

Suppose you invite someone over for dinner and put a lot of effort into making a very nice meal.

 

The guest arrives, eats the meal, and then gets up and leaves without a word. That's a blank log.

 

If the guest eats, then gives a burp and leaves, that's a tftc.

 

If the guest thanks you for the meal, compliments your cooking, and offers to help clean up, well, that's a nice log.

 

Are you going to be motivated to put out the effort again for the first two?

 

Unfortunately, it seems that the trend has gotten to where it's considered a very polite thing if you at least burp...

 

+1. Well done.

[knowschad]

...I reminded him that I would only get an email notice of his blank log and wouldn't see his edited log unless I went looking for it...

Then it's your responsibility to check your page for logs. If submitting a blank log from the field and then editing it later works for him, he hasn't done anything wrong. No one should have to change their logging practices just because it would be more convenient for the CO if they did it a certain way.

No, it isn't. Groundspeak set up email notifications for a reason. Please understand that some of us may have a few more hides than you do. It woud take a lot of time to look at each and every cache page just to read the recent logs.

[+Icenians]

It's also not the cache finders problem that you set up and hid loads of caches.

[knowschad]

As a finder, the online log may be looked at as a logging mechanism for a smilie. As a cache owner - you see the emails as a notice that your cache has been logged and found. With 150+ active caches - I do not peruse them regularly to see if anybody has edited a previous log - and I am not notified of changes anybody makes. Thus, as a courtesy, I should strive to make my first 'find' loga note to the owner and as complete as possible.

That's all nice and all, but it's the finder who has to deal with the logistics of their logging and tracking of their finds. Personally I find logging a blank log from the field and then editing it at home quite a clunky way of managing one's finds but if it works, it works.

 

But that is just it... it doesn't work. It breaks the email notification system.

 

One way around it would be to log a blank log in the field, then delete it at home and enter a brand-new log at home. That would notify the cache owner twice, but at least they would see the full log later.

[+M 5]

It's also not the cache finders problem that you set up and hid loads of caches.

 

No, but it IS to their benefit. They should be thankful for it, and show it!

[knowschad]

No one should have to change their logging practices just because it would be more convenient for the CO if they did it a certain way.

 

True. Buuuuuuuuut...

 

The growing number of poor logs are already leading to a degradation of the game. There are some fantastic hiders out there who have stopped hiding because of that trend. For them it got to the point where it wasn't worth the effort to put the effort into a great cache only to get a bunch of tftc or blank logs.

 

Or let me put it another way.

 

Suppose you invite someone over for dinner and put a lot of effort into making a very nice meal.

 

The guest arrives, eats the meal, and then gets up and leaves without a word. That's a blank log.

 

If the guest eats, then gives a burp and leaves, that's a tftc.

 

If the guest thanks you for the meal, compliments your cooking, and offers to help clean up, well, that's a nice log.

 

Are you going to be motivated to put out the effort again for the first two?

 

Unfortunately, it seems that the trend has gotten to where it's considered a very polite thing if you at least burp...

 

That is an awesome analogy!! It should be stuck at the top of the forum. It should be sent out in Groundspeak's next newsletter. Amen!

[+Icenians]

It's also not the cache finders problem that you set up and hid loads of caches.

 

No, but it IS to their benefit. They should be thankful for it, and show it!

 

I'm sorry but I take issue with that. I'm never going to be thankful of yet another micro at the bottom of a dogs P!$$$ post or a cache chucked in a hedge with no thought or a magnetic nano stuck on a sign post. Why on earth should I thank someone for doing something I did not want, didn't enjoy, and didn't ask for? Do you thank people when they stand on you foot in the street?

 

If I've been mislead to a crappy location, or nondescript location for a soggy log book then I really do not see why I should thank the person who put it there. If I'm taken to a great place or have fun doing a cache then the owner deserves some thanks.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Icenians

[knowschad]

It's also not the cache finders problem that you set up and hid loads of caches.

 

No, but it IS to their benefit. They should be thankful for it, and show it!

 

I'm sorry but I take issue with that. I'm never going to be thankful of yet another micro at the bottom of a dogs P!$$ post or a cache chucked in a hedge with no thought or a magnetic nano stuck on a sign post. Why on earth should I thank someone for doing something I did not want, didn't enjoy, and didn't ask for? Do you thank people when they stand on you foot in the street?

 

If I've been mislead to a crappy location, or nondescript location for a soggy log book then I really do not see why I should thank the person who put it there. If I'm taken to a great place or have fun doing a cache then the owner deserves some thanks.

I'm sure that you don't log those "crappy finds" online then.

[+M 5]

Strange, but I rarely get tricked into lame caches. I've got no problem with critiquing a cache that needs maint. If you are consistantly finding those caches, then it sounds like a problem with the way you decide which caches to go for. If its a bad owner, that hides lame caches and doesn't maintain them, then post a log online about it, a NM or NA, but post something. The trend that is disturbing is the frequency of blank or tftc or short cnp logs. They are not just showing up on the crappy caches you are tricked into finding.