Do cache owners have the right to delete logs if they don't like the log comment

[knowschad]

As a new cacher, I would not have been offended if a veteran cacher informed me that CO's enjoy descriptive logs.

 

Except that not all CO's enjoy descriptive logs. Some CO's don't care. Some CO's actually want short logs. Pretending that a personal preference is a community norm is misleading.

I disagree. I believe that longer descriptive logs are preferred. Therefore, they are the norm. I enjoy them, but I also do not have an issue with blanks or acronyms.

 

And some probably prefer medium logs.

[+narcissa]

We have two groups of people who cannot seem to talk with each other.

 

While some have stated that they understand and sympathise with the opinion of the other side, the other side strongly refuses to acknowledge that any opposing view may be in the least bit valid. The constant name calling doesn't help either.

 

It's difficult to understand or sympathize with someone who insists that intentionally misleading new cachers is "courteous" or "friendly." It isn't. And compared to a blank log, it's downright appalling.

[mresoteric]

This isn't really about lending a helping hand. In LT's case, this is about emailing someone and telling them the way they logged a cache is wrong, which is what I believe set Narcissa off.

 

Blank or short logs are not wrong. To say otherwise is to perpetuate an untruth. They are simply frowned upon by some while entirely within the accepted practices endorsed by the listing service.

 

Um, I can read, thanks.

 

I sent a courteous messages to a new cacher, and they can either ignore me and take some advice. That's their choice.

 

I am taking LT at his word. If you wish to read more into it, that is your prerogative.

 

Did you read his original post?

 

If I get a blank log or TFTC, I usually write the person a nice email explaining that this is typically taboo. None of the people have ever fixed their logs or changed their behavior. A man can dream though!

[+TerraViators]

As a new cacher, I would not have been offended if a veteran cacher informed me that CO's enjoy descriptive logs.

 

Except that not all CO's enjoy descriptive logs. Some CO's don't care. Some CO's actually want short logs. Pretending that a personal preference is a community norm is misleading.

I disagree. I believe that longer descriptive logs are preferred. Therefore, they are the norm. I enjoy them, but I also do not have an issue with blanks or acronyms.

 

You are only one data point. Concluding that your personal preference is the norm because you "believe" that people have the same preferences as you is simply illogical.

 

I don't really care how people log my caches. Again, I'm just one data point.

 

In the absence of established norms, the logical thing to do is look to what the site allows. The site allows short/blank logs. Additionally, the site's staff will stand behind the cacher when one of these logs gets deleted. How can you rationally conclude that longer logs are the accepted norm?

You're correct. I have no empirical research on the theory that descriptive logs are the preference and the norm. Based on opinions I've heard and read by many cachers, I believe that a descriptive log is preferred, but not so exclusively that blanks and acronyms are not acceptable.

[+narcissa]

Narcissa, if you wish to argue with someone, find someone else.

 

Your belief that I am arguing with you, personally, is unfortunate, but I pay very little attention to the names next to comments. I assure you that I am not arguing with you, specifically. I am arguing against anybody who would behave in such an egregious manner toward a new cacher who hasn't broken any rules.

[+narcissa]

As a new cacher, I would not have been offended if a veteran cacher informed me that CO's enjoy descriptive logs.

 

Except that not all CO's enjoy descriptive logs. Some CO's don't care. Some CO's actually want short logs. Pretending that a personal preference is a community norm is misleading.

I disagree. I believe that longer descriptive logs are preferred. Therefore, they are the norm. I enjoy them, but I also do not have an issue with blanks or acronyms.

 

You are only one data point. Concluding that your personal preference is the norm because you "believe" that people have the same preferences as you is simply illogical.

 

I don't really care how people log my caches. Again, I'm just one data point.

 

In the absence of established norms, the logical thing to do is look to what the site allows. The site allows short/blank logs. Additionally, the site's staff will stand behind the cacher when one of these logs gets deleted. How can you rationally conclude that longer logs are the accepted norm?

You're correct. I have no empirical research on the theory that descriptive logs are the preference and the norm. Based on opinions I've heard and read by many cachers, I believe that a descriptive log is preferred, but not so exclusively that blanks and acronyms are not acceptable.

 

So you would agree that writing to a new cacher to say that those logs aren't acceptable would be misleading.

[mresoteric]

Using deceitful private messages to strong-arm new cachers into abiding by your personal preferences is just beyond the pale. An empty log is harmless (getting your knickers in a bunch doesn't constitute harm). Bully tactics, not so much.

 

I still fail to see how a polite email is "bully tactics".

 

 

You don't think lying to a brand new geocacher is bullying?

 

No. It's deceitful, but not bullying. You can bully with the truth.

[+ThePetersTrio]

Did you read his original post?

 

Yes

[+TerraViators]

So you would agree that writing to a new cacher to say that those logs aren't acceptable would be misleading.

 

Yes, I would agree that any discourse with a new cacher advising them that blanks logs aren't acceptable is misleading. However, advising new cachers that blank logs are not preferred by some cachers is not misleading.

Edited May 23, 2011 by TerraViators

[+narcissa]

Using deceitful private messages to strong-arm new cachers into abiding by your personal preferences is just beyond the pale. An empty log is harmless (getting your knickers in a bunch doesn't constitute harm). Bully tactics, not so much.

 

I still fail to see how a polite email is "bully tactics".

 

 

You don't think lying to a brand new geocacher is bullying?

 

No. It's deceitful, but not bullying. You can bully with the truth.

 

Someone who uses their position as a veteran cacher to lend false authority to their words and impose their personal preferences on a new cacher is a bully, especially when it's done through private messages where it can't be contradicted with facts.

[mresoteric]

As a new cacher, I would not have been offended if a veteran cacher informed me that CO's enjoy descriptive logs.

 

Except that not all CO's enjoy descriptive logs. Some CO's don't care. Some CO's actually want short logs. Pretending that a personal preference is a community norm is misleading.

I disagree. I believe that longer descriptive logs are preferred. Therefore, they are the norm. I enjoy them, but I also do not have an issue with blanks or acronyms.

 

If a preferred type of log happens to be the standard pattern, then it is a norm. It doesn't become a norm simply because it is preferred.

 

A lot of people would prefer to be wealthy. But that is far from being the norm.

[+narcissa]

So you would agree that writing to a new cacher to say that those logs aren't acceptable would be misleading.

 

Yes, I would agree that any discourse with a new cacher advising them that blanks logs aren't acceptable is misleading. However, advising new cachers that blank logs are not preferred by some cachers is not misleading.

 

But that's not what this is about. This is about a veteran cacher lying to new cachers, telling them that these sorts of logs are explicitly "taboo."

[+ThePetersTrio]

Narcissa, if you wish to argue with someone, find someone else.

 

Your belief that I am arguing with you, personally, is unfortunate, but I pay very little attention to the names next to comments. I assure you that I am not arguing with you, specifically. I am arguing against anybody who would behave in such an egregious manner toward a new cacher who hasn't broken any rules.

 

We have a different definition of "egregious manner" obviously.

 

And yet again, it really isn't our business to judge the situation that neither of us are actually a part of.

[+narcissa]

Narcissa, if you wish to argue with someone, find someone else.

 

Your belief that I am arguing with you, personally, is unfortunate, but I pay very little attention to the names next to comments. I assure you that I am not arguing with you, specifically. I am arguing against anybody who would behave in such an egregious manner toward a new cacher who hasn't broken any rules.

 

We have a different definition of "egregious manner" obviously.

 

And yet again, it really isn't our business to judge the situation that neither of us are actually a part of.

 

When somebody openly brags about their behaviour in a public internet forum, it's open for discussion.

[mresoteric]

 

In the absence of established norms, the logical thing to do is look to what the site allows. The site allows short/blank logs. Additionally, the site's staff will stand behind the cacher when one of these logs gets deleted. How can you rationally conclude that longer logs are the accepted norm?

 

Again, the norm is not conditioned upon what the listing service does or does not allow.

 

The norm is established by what the standard pattern actually is. That may very well be longer logs. It could be blank logs. Groundspeak could do a database query and let us know.

[+TerraViators]

So you would agree that writing to a new cacher to say that those logs aren't acceptable would be misleading.

 

Yes, I would agree that any discourse with a new cacher advising them that blanks logs aren't acceptable is misleading. However, advising new cachers that blank logs are not preferred by some cachers is not misleading.

 

But that's not what this is about. This is about a veteran cacher lying to new cachers, telling them that these sorts of logs are explicitly "taboo."

Yes, taboo is not the correct word because blank logs are not forbidden. A more accurate phrasing would be that those logs are not considered the most desirable way, yet acceptable, to record your find on the website.

[+narcissa]

 

In the absence of established norms, the logical thing to do is look to what the site allows. The site allows short/blank logs. Additionally, the site's staff will stand behind the cacher when one of these logs gets deleted. How can you rationally conclude that longer logs are the accepted norm?

 

Again, the norm is not conditioned upon what the listing service does or does not allow.

 

The norm is established by what the standard pattern actually is. That may very well be longer logs. It could be blank logs. Groundspeak could do a database query and let us know.

 

I didn't say that what the site allows is the norm. I said it's irrational to conclude that something else is the norm.

[+ThePetersTrio]

Narcissa, if you wish to argue with someone, find someone else.

 

Your belief that I am arguing with you, personally, is unfortunate, but I pay very little attention to the names next to comments. I assure you that I am not arguing with you, specifically. I am arguing against anybody who would behave in such an egregious manner toward a new cacher who hasn't broken any rules.

 

We have a different definition of "egregious manner" obviously.

 

And yet again, it really isn't our business to judge the situation that neither of us are actually a part of.

 

When somebody openly brags about their behaviour in a public internet forum, it's open for discussion.

 

I feel sorry for you. Have a nice day.

[+narcissa]

So you would agree that writing to a new cacher to say that those logs aren't acceptable would be misleading.

 

Yes, I would agree that any discourse with a new cacher advising them that blanks logs aren't acceptable is misleading. However, advising new cachers that blank logs are not preferred by some cachers is not misleading.

 

But that's not what this is about. This is about a veteran cacher lying to new cachers, telling them that these sorts of logs are explicitly "taboo."

Yes, taboo is not the correct word because blank logs are not forbidden. A more accurate phrasing would be that those logs are not considered the most desirable way, yet acceptable, to record your find on the website.

 

That is not accurate, because you can only speak for your own preferences.

 

The best option is to leave these new cachers alone and let them figure out their own preferences, and save private messages for instances where a new cacher has done something that is actually harmful or in violation of the guidelines.

[+narcissa]

Narcissa, if you wish to argue with someone, find someone else.

 

Your belief that I am arguing with you, personally, is unfortunate, but I pay very little attention to the names next to comments. I assure you that I am not arguing with you, specifically. I am arguing against anybody who would behave in such an egregious manner toward a new cacher who hasn't broken any rules.

 

We have a different definition of "egregious manner" obviously.

 

And yet again, it really isn't our business to judge the situation that neither of us are actually a part of.

 

When somebody openly brags about their behaviour in a public internet forum, it's open for discussion.

 

I feel sorry for you. Have a nice day.

 

I have no opinion about you or how your day goes. How is this relevant to the thread?

[+LukeTrocity]

So you would agree that writing to a new cacher to say that those logs aren't acceptable would be misleading.

 

Yes, I would agree that any discourse with a new cacher advising them that blanks logs aren't acceptable is misleading. However, advising new cachers that blank logs are not preferred by some cachers is not misleading.

 

But that's not what this is about. This is about a veteran cacher lying to new cachers, telling them that these sorts of logs are explicitly "taboo."

Yes, taboo is not the correct word because blank logs are not forbidden. A more accurate phrasing would be that those logs are not considered the most desirable way, yet acceptable, to record your find on the website.

 

That is not accurate, because you can only speak for your own preferences.

 

The best option is to leave these new cachers alone and let them figure out their own preferences, and save private messages for instances where a new cacher has done something that is actually harmful or in violation of the guidelines.

I appreciate your opinion, but I respectfully think that is not the best option. I guess we can agree to disagree, but I'm not going to argue with you on the internet about it any further.

[+TerraViators]

So you would agree that writing to a new cacher to say that those logs aren't acceptable would be misleading.

 

Yes, I would agree that any discourse with a new cacher advising them that blanks logs aren't acceptable is misleading. However, advising new cachers that blank logs are not preferred by some cachers is not misleading.

 

But that's not what this is about. This is about a veteran cacher lying to new cachers, telling them that these sorts of logs are explicitly "taboo."

Yes, taboo is not the correct word because blank logs are not forbidden. A more accurate phrasing would be that those logs are not considered the most desirable way, yet acceptable, to record your find on the website.

 

That is not accurate, because you can only speak for your own preferences.

 

The best option is to leave these new cachers alone and let them figure out their own preferences, and save private messages for instances where a new cacher has done something that is actually harmful or in violation of the guidelines.

Not true. I can speak for others preferences as I've been told their preference. Read some previous logs and you will see that descriptive logs are not just my preference. I personally believe (not scientifically supported) they are preferred by many cachers. Therefore, I support advising new cachers of the same. I do not support misleading or chiding new cachers that blank e-logs are not accepted by GS. I would also support your right to advise new cachers to record blank or acronym e-logs. It's just my advice. That's the beauty about advice...it can be embraced, ignored or thrown by the wayside.

[+narcissa]

 

I appreciate your opinion, but I respectfully think that is not the best option. I guess we can agree to disagree, but I'm not going to argue with you on the internet about it any further.

 

It's unfortunate that you are intent on deceiving new cachers.

[+narcissa]

So you would agree that writing to a new cacher to say that those logs aren't acceptable would be misleading.

 

Yes, I would agree that any discourse with a new cacher advising them that blanks logs aren't acceptable is misleading. However, advising new cachers that blank logs are not preferred by some cachers is not misleading.

 

But that's not what this is about. This is about a veteran cacher lying to new cachers, telling them that these sorts of logs are explicitly "taboo."

Yes, taboo is not the correct word because blank logs are not forbidden. A more accurate phrasing would be that those logs are not considered the most desirable way, yet acceptable, to record your find on the website.

 

That is not accurate, because you can only speak for your own preferences.

 

The best option is to leave these new cachers alone and let them figure out their own preferences, and save private messages for instances where a new cacher has done something that is actually harmful or in violation of the guidelines.

Not true. I can speak for others preferences as I've been told their preference. Read some previous logs and you will see that descriptive logs are not just my preference. I personally believe (not scientifically supported) they are preferred by many cachers. Therefore, I support advising new cachers of the same. I do not support misleading or chiding new cachers that blank e-logs are not accepted by GS. I would also support your right to advise new cachers to record blank or acronym e-logs. It's just my advice. That's the beauty about advice...it can be embraced, ignored or thrown by the wayside.

 

I wouldn't advise any new cacher how to log. This is a personal decision that a new cacher will come to after learning how the game works and deciding what they want their logs to be.

[+TerraViators]

So you would agree that writing to a new cacher to say that those logs aren't acceptable would be misleading.

 

Yes, I would agree that any discourse with a new cacher advising them that blanks logs aren't acceptable is misleading. However, advising new cachers that blank logs are not preferred by some cachers is not misleading.

 

But that's not what this is about. This is about a veteran cacher lying to new cachers, telling them that these sorts of logs are explicitly "taboo."

Yes, taboo is not the correct word because blank logs are not forbidden. A more accurate phrasing would be that those logs are not considered the most desirable way, yet acceptable, to record your find on the website.

 

That is not accurate, because you can only speak for your own preferences.

 

The best option is to leave these new cachers alone and let them figure out their own preferences, and save private messages for instances where a new cacher has done something that is actually harmful or in violation of the guidelines.

Not true. I can speak for others preferences as I've been told their preference. Read some previous logs and you will see that descriptive logs are not just my preference. I personally believe (not scientifically supported) they are preferred by many cachers. Therefore, I support advising new cachers of the same. I do not support misleading or chiding new cachers that blank e-logs are not accepted by GS. I would also support your right to advise new cachers to record blank or acronym e-logs. It's just my advice. That's the beauty about advice...it can be embraced, ignored or thrown by the wayside.

 

I wouldn't advise any new cacher how to log. This is a personal decision that a new cacher will come to after learning how the game works and deciding what they want their logs to be.

Fair enough...then I support your decision not to advise. Peace out!

[+ChileHead]

I've always believed that, in general, you can determine the quality of a cache hide by the average length of the logs. Really great caches seldom get "TFTC" logs. Throw down caches, parking log caches, or power trail caches often have nothing unique to remember them by so they get the short logs.

 

Want a longer cache log? Hide a really great cache.

[+narcissa]

I've always believed that, in general, you can determine the quality of a cache hide by the average length of the logs. Really great caches seldom get "TFTC" logs. Throw down caches, parking log caches, or power trail caches often have nothing unique to remember them by so they get the short logs.

 

Want a longer cache log? Hide a really great cache.

 

+1

[Clan Riffster]

I can speak for others preferences as I've been told their preference.

Agreed. While a bit off topic, if I found a cache from a new guy that was a Chinese take out container, I might very well send a PM to the hider, letting them know that water resistant containers were prefered, even though I can not cite any numbers to support my claim. Just because the guidelines allow cache containers made out of cardboard doesn't mean someone who hides one would not appreciate a kind word of advice. I see a polite note to a new guy, suggesting that many, if not most cache owners would prefer a log that is not blank, over one that is blank, even though I can't prove it. I have formed this belief from talking to gobs of cache owners about logs, and I've read countless comments in these forums on this topic. To date, I haven't seen/heard a single comment hinting that cache owners prefer the shortest possible logs. True, there are a handful that claims they have no preference, but those appear to be the exception, not the rule. For those who do have a preference, it sure seems like it is for non-blank logs. At least it looks that way from the cheap seats.

 

Thank you for taking the time to teach the new folks!

[+Keelmann And Cici]

Narcissa, you seem to be ignoring everything aside from the language of the original post. Let me see if I can clarify:

 

Emailing a new cacher, making a claim that some behavior (in this case, short logs) that is allowed by the site is in fact restricted, I would agree is not a good thing to do. Judging by the word "taboo", the original poster made have made his case too strongly.

 

On the other hand, what I and several others have said about friendly welcomes, with the info that some cachers prefer longer log messages, as it helps them make better caches, I think is perfectly acceptable, and I would have welcomed that kind of message.

 

So to your point, lying to a new cacher? I agree, bad stuff. Offering a friendly welcome and an opinion? Perfectly ok in my book.

 

As always, just my opinion.

[knowschad]

 

Donut break, anybody? I think this thread could use one.

[+TerraViators]

Do you have a bear claw in your bag of donuts?

[+sbell111]

If what you want is people to give you great feedback on your caches, then I suggest placing caches that will get you great feedback.

 

That used to be the rule. I have a cache that I think is a good quality cache. It used to garner longer logs and it's been favorited a number of times.

 

The last three logs? "TFTC" " " (totally blank) and ".". The last one has me totally confused. He took the time to actually type a period.

Perhaps you are wrong. Perhaps it once was a good cache and no longer is. Perhaps those people didn't think it was awesome. Perhaps you are paying too close attention to these logs.

[jd-mitchell]

Not unlike others, I'll give a longer post, if it's deserved. Wether it's a bit of the story about the find that others may find interesting (or funny), or a play on words on the find. If nothing seems appropriate or wanted, than a TFTC is it.

[+team.evanczik]

well, this thread got interesting. as expected.

 

in my opinion, if you're going to insist that people write descriptive logs vs. a TFTC, you are NOT placing caches for the benefit of the game or the cachers in the area. you are placing a cache for you. you want to be told how unique/wonderful/exciting your cache was. people all cache differently, and people all communicate differently. somebody came out and found your cache, and they probably enjoyed doing so. isn't that the whole point? why would you go so far as to make that a bad experience for them, especially if they are a new cacher? I know that if somebody deleted my log just for saying "TFTC", I wouldn't be too keen on finding any more of their hides.

 

i think the thing that i take away most often from these forums is that people get way too hung up on this. sometimes you have a good caching experience, sometimes you have a bad one. let it go.

[mresoteric]

 

In the absence of established norms, the logical thing to do is look to what the site allows. The site allows short/blank logs. Additionally, the site's staff will stand behind the cacher when one of these logs gets deleted. How can you rationally conclude that longer logs are the accepted norm?

 

Again, the norm is not conditioned upon what the listing service does or does not allow.

 

The norm is established by what the standard pattern actually is. That may very well be longer logs. It could be blank logs. Groundspeak could do a database query and let us know.

 

I didn't say that what the site allows is the norm. I said it's irrational to conclude that something else is the norm.

 

You were stating that it is irrational to conclude that longer logs are the accepted norm since Groundspeak would reinstate short/blank logs. This is illogical. Norms are not determined by what may or may not be acceptable behavior.

 

A wide range of behaviors may be acceptable but only one may be the norm. Or a small set of behaviors may be acceptable and all be the norm.

 

In the case of caching logs, it would appear that both short and long logs are the norm. In any case, neither appears to be taboo.

Edited May 23, 2011 by mresoteric

[+Don_J]

As a new cacher, I would not have been offended if a veteran cacher informed me that CO's enjoy descriptive logs.

 

Except that not all CO's enjoy descriptive logs. Some CO's don't care. Some CO's actually want short logs. Pretending that a personal preference is a community norm is misleading.

I disagree. I believe that longer descriptive logs are preferred. Therefore, they are the norm. I enjoy them, but I also do not have an issue with blanks or acronyms.

 

And some probably prefer medium logs.

 

I prefer short logs. Long logs don't fit in my fireplace.

[+kpanko]

I don't really understand, since these same users no doubt read the logs others have left when they are searching for a cache. Don't they understand that if everyone were to leave blank logs, this information would not be available?

I used to submit online logs from my phone, although they were not blank. As a newbie to the game, I would often not see the cache and I would have no idea where to start looking. Yes, I would go and read the online logs from other people, and try to get clues so I would know if it's in a tree or on the ground, or whatever.

 

Once I found the darn thing, I would then want to write a spoiler -- it's in the big tree hanging from a branch. But I knew that would not be allowed, so better to write a short log and not give it away like that. I understood that if the cache had a problem, it would be good to say that in the log, but if the cache is just fine, then what is there to say?

 

It takes time to learn what is appropriate to share in a log.

[+M 5]

You seem to be using a non-standard definition of "hypocritical."

 

Writing to a new cacher to scold him/her for playing the game differently, but well within the scope of the guidelines, is an appalling thing to do. Pretending that you need to "educate" people about your personal preferences is ridiculous. Blank logs and short logs are allowed - no need to "educate" these cachers on this issue.

 

Trying to force every new cacher to adopt your personal geocaching method is bound to be an exercise in futility. And I can only speak from my perspective, but the cachers who have sent me asinine personal messages are the ones I remember and talk about to others - not the harmless blank loggers.

 

 

For someone that throws around the idea that others make things appear to be more of a travesty than they are, you sure make opposing your ideals seem like a travesty. It is very obvious that crappy logs (tftc only, short cnp and blank logs) are increasing, and not just on lamish hides. Some are expressing opposition to that. Not much you can do other than try to educate new cachers. Those that take offense to a simple email have more issues than the person reaching out in my opinion.

 

Why do new cachers need to be educated? The rules permit short/empty logs. There is absolutely no reason to write to a cacher who does this. It's not against the rules, and it's not taboo. Using the mail system to harass other geocachers is, however, absolutely frowned upon by Groundspeak. Writing to a new cacher to feed them lies about the game is far worse than getting blank logs once in a while.

 

Talk about supposed travesty. Very hypocrytical. New people in anything need to be educated. I never even considered lying to them. I'm sure some can, but I bet that is less common than crappy logs.

 

No it is just that you insinuated that people on here are overreacting and usuing the word travesty. You posts, as usual, are much more strongly worded and refer to things as appalling or bullying or harrassing. That is oh so very dramatic and hypocrytical.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Donut break, anybody? I think this thread could use one.

 

Hey, me and you are doing a pretty good job staying out of this thread, eh?

 

I thought Mr. T's post, post #139 was awesome. Of course it might be slightly long-winded.

[knowschad]

 

Donut break, anybody? I think this thread could use one.

 

Hey, me and you are doing a pretty good job staying out of this thread, eh?

 

I thought Mr. T's post, post #139 was awesome. Of course it might be slightly long-winded.

 

When Ms N gets on a roll, I step aside. I do the same thing when a trail rolls by. I do, however, roll my eyes a lot, start posts and then delete them, and grit and grind my teeth. I huff and I puff. I go out on my deck and scream at the stars. I start more posts and then delete them, too. Today, after reading some of this thread, I went and read the news stories of the Joplin tornado for relaxation.

[+mizdirection]

I agree with the TFTC or TFTH is more than appropriate enough. With new cachers coming in on a daily basis the last thing you want is someone telling exactly where the cache is or gosh forbid spoilers on the harder caches. A good example, is that today (while it wasn't meant to be) was a day in 1 town that I logged 18 caches. With only about 3 cache owners that I grabbed, a cut and paste or more detailed information would be too much. I always say on at least one cache per owner something like "Out for the day and decided to grab a few, etc." I've found that the more I say the more apt I am to give a hint or spoiler. I myself just prefer logs like, "Beautiful area, never been here before" but TFTC is always welcome!!

[knowschad]

I agree with the TFTC or TFTH is more than appropriate enough. With new cachers coming in on a daily basis the last thing you want is someone telling exactly where the cache is or gosh forbid spoilers on the harder caches. A good example, is that today (while it wasn't meant to be) was a day in 1 town that I logged 18 caches. With only about 3 cache owners that I grabbed, a cut and paste or more detailed information would be too much. I always say on at least one cache per owner something like "Out for the day and decided to grab a few, etc." I've found that the more I say the more apt I am to give a hint or spoiler. I myself just prefer logs like, "Beautiful area, never been here before" but TFTC is always welcome!!

 

I frequently end a log with "TFTC", but I believe only once in roughly 5K finds have I used that and only that as my log. There is no need to have to post only TFTC or TFTH to avoid spoilers, if that is what you are implying. There are plenty of things to say about any cache without resorting to only "TFTC" or posting a spoiler.

 

By the way, my personal, most recent log for those skirt lifters has been "Thanks for the practice. I'm getting better with these all the time". I don't know if anybody else enjoys it, but I do.

[+netleyhunter]

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.

 

Here is a little blurb our provinical caching group came up to be included in the description of the caches that get a lot of "TFTC" or

[+WRASTRO]

I agree with the TFTC or TFTH is more than appropriate enough. With new cachers coming in on a daily basis the last thing you want is someone telling exactly where the cache is or gosh forbid spoilers on the harder caches. A good example, is that today (while it wasn't meant to be) was a day in 1 town that I logged 18 caches. With only about 3 cache owners that I grabbed, a cut and paste or more detailed information would be too much. I always say on at least one cache per owner something like "Out for the day and decided to grab a few, etc." I've found that the more I say the more apt I am to give a hint or spoiler. I myself just prefer logs like, "Beautiful area, never been here before" but TFTC is always welcome!!

 

I frequently end a log with "TFTC", but I believe only once in roughly 5K finds have I used that and only that as my log. There is no need to have to post only TFTC or TFTH to avoid spoilers, if that is what you are implying. There are plenty of things to say about any cache without resorting to only "TFTC" or posting a spoiler.

 

By the way, my personal, most recent log for those skirt lifters has been "Thanks for the practice. I'm getting better with these all the time". I don't know if anybody else enjoys it, but I do.

Once I moved beyond using letter speak in my caching education I have been loath to use abbreviations in my logs. When we started we emulated logs from local active cachers. After a while we decided that TFTCTNLNSL really didn't work for us, so we have always written a "real" log for every find since then.

 

I have only done 30+ caches once or twice in a day but I had no difficulty in remembering each one and writing a unique log.

 

Lame logs simply equal a lame excuse in my opinion.

 

And as I have posted before. I do not delete lame logs even though I believe they are lame.

[+bflentje]

Narcissa, if you wish to argue with someone, find someone else.

 

Your belief that I am arguing with you, personally, is unfortunate, but I pay very little attention to the names next to comments. I assure you that I am not arguing with you, specifically. I am arguing against anybody who would behave in such an egregious manner toward a new cacher who hasn't broken any rules.

 

We have a different definition of "egregious manner" obviously.

 

And yet again, it really isn't our business to judge the situation that neither of us are actually a part of.

 

When somebody openly brags about their behaviour in a public internet forum, it's open for discussion.

 

I feel sorry for you. Have a nice day.

 

I have no opinion about you or how your day goes. How is this relevant to the thread?

 

I am no longer sure if I should hate you or love you. What I do know is, the better response above would have been no response at all. You would have had more credibility with me had you ignored the comment. Not that "me" is important to you or anything..

[+bflentje]

By the way, my personal, most recent log for those skirt lifters has been "Thanks for the practice. I'm getting better with these all the time". I don't know if anybody else enjoys it, but I do.

 

I do find that interesting. Hate em enough to make the fun comment but don't hate em enough to not go looking for them.

[+Ecylram]

I do, however, roll my eyes a lot, start posts and then delete them, and grit and grind my teeth. I huff and I puff. I go out on my deck and scream at the stars. I start more posts and then delete them, too. Today, after reading some of this thread, I went and read the news stories of the Joplin tornado for relaxation.

 

That pretty much describes my process with certain threads as well. I've posted enough messages that I regret, that I've found that the delete key is sometimes the best key on the keyboard.

 

To keep on topic...

 

I'll delete my writing but it takes rare circumstances to delete someone else's log.

[sdarken]

Someone once asked whether people would bother hiding caches if there was no online logging. My guess is that a people would still place caches but there would be vastly less caches in existence. I doubt that many people would bother placing more than a 2 or 3 caches without some kind of feedback. If everybody just logged with a "TFTC" it's hard to believe that too many people would continue to go to much trouble to hide lots of interesting caches. While there's no rule about requiring longer logs, I think it's pretty clear that cache owners prefer them.

 

For new cachers I think a little education can go a long way. I put some of my own preferences for how I play the game on my profile page because I know that some newbies will read it. When I was new I enjoyed reading other people's profiles and I learned from what I read.

 

Most of my caches take some effort to reach so the percentage of short logs that I receive is probably lower than many people but the total number of logs I receive is also lower. Short logs used to annoy me but I've learned to ignore ways that others play the game that don't agree with my preferences.

Edited May 24, 2011 by sdarken

[+Kit Fox]

I've always believed that, in general, you can determine the quality of a cache hide by the average length of the logs. Really great caches seldom get "TFTC" logs. Throw down caches, parking log caches, or power trail caches often have nothing unique to remember them by so they get the short logs.

 

Want a longer cache log? Hide a really great cache.

 

Sadly, many of the nice caches are being found by "copy & paste" cachers also. Once you weed through their lame logs, you can tell if the cache is worthwhile to find.

 

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.

 

Here is a little blurb our provinical caching group came up to be included in the description of the caches that get a lot of "TFTC" or

 

I like it a whole bunch.

 

Thanks to the spew of lame cut & paste logs, and "blank" logs, I stopped hiding any easy caches. All my future caches will be 3 1/2 terrain or higher. I've actually pondered archiving all of my 1 to 2 star terrain hides, so I don't receive any more park & grab logs.

[Clan Riffster]

in my opinion, if you're going to insist that people write descriptive logs vs. a TFTC.....

Fortunately, in the 4 pages of posts, including the original, no one has "insisted" on anything.

 

I agree with the TFTC or TFTH is more than appropriate enough.

Sorry MizDirection. I have to disagree with you on this one.

I don't necessarily equate what is allowed by Groundspeak with what is appropriate.

I interpret "appropriate" to mean "commonly acceptable".

In my opinion, just because lame logging is allowed, doesn't mean it is appropriate.

Farting loudly in Church is allowed, but I wouldn't think most would find it appropriate.

Giggling at funerals is allowed. Appropriate? I don't think so.

Making a digital remix combining Justin Bieber and Led Zeppelin for personal use is allowed...

Just sayin'.

 

According to my highly biased Riffster log translator, "TFTC" = "This cache sucks".

Naturally, the obvious other side to that coin is this:

If "TFTC" = "Thanx For The Cache" in your book, then it would be a polite, appropriate response.

 

I've actually pondered archiving all of my 1 to 2 star terrain hides, so I don't receive any more park & grab logs.

I've already begun that process.