Blank Logs (again)

[+Happy Humphrey]

I agree with uktim. Well said.

 

But to explain, the problem with people not liking abbreviated logs (I won't say blank because I maintain that I've never seen a blank log on the geocaching.com site and I challenge anyone to link to one), is not that they shouldn't have this opinion. It's that they seem to want to take action against those who post such logs. Completely out of order in my opinion.

[+thehoomer]

I agree with uktim. Well said.

 

But to explain, the problem with people not liking abbreviated logs (I won't say blank because I maintain that I've never seen a blank log on the geocaching.com site and I challenge anyone to link to one), is not that they shouldn't have this opinion. It's that they seem to want to take action against those who post such logs. Completely out of order in my opinion.

Mmmm, it would appear that way and I agree, to take action would spoil the fun & freedom the game currently allows. As far as I am concerned, folks can log as they like and unless a log contravenes the guidelines, gives anything away or is rude (never had one of them), It will remain on the page. This doesn't of course mean, that if all it consists of is a (.) I have to like it!

 

We have a difference of opinion then HH. To me, a log is a written 'account' of an occurrence. I do not concur that a username and date is a log, more of a 'statistic'. This is purely a matter of personal interpretation of course and neither party are right or wrong.

[+drdick&vick]

? )

[jadenrich2101]

(blank log)

[+Happy Humphrey]

We have a difference of opinion then HH. To me, a log is a written 'account' of an occurrence. I do not concur that a username and date is a log, more of a 'statistic'. This is purely a matter of personal interpretation of course and neither party are right or wrong.

I agree that people are likely to have different views on what constitutes a "log". My evidence is this. If you sign a log sheet in a cache and all you put is a user name and a date, you've "logged" the cache. Then, you record this fact on the web site. Optionally, you can write some observations about your visit. Without the observations, you've still "logged" it on the site, just like you logged it in the field.

 

According to my profile stats I average 54 words per online log ("Gold Award: Author"!), and sometimes it's over 500 words, so I can't deny that I like adding my observations...but some clearly find it unnecessary and/or tedious.

[+thehoomer]

We have a difference of opinion then HH. To me, a log is a written 'account' of an occurrence. I do not concur that a username and date is a log, more of a 'statistic'. This is purely a matter of personal interpretation of course and neither party are right or wrong.

I agree that people are likely to have different views on what constitutes a "log". My evidence is this. If you sign a log sheet in a cache and all you put is a user name and a date, you've "logged" the cache. Then, you record this fact on the web site. Optionally, you can write some observations about your visit. Without the observations, you've still "logged" it on the site, just like you logged it in the field.

 

According to my profile stats I average 54 words per online log ("Gold Award: Author"!), and sometimes it's over 500 words, so I can't deny that I like adding my observations...but some clearly find it unnecessary and/or tedious.

Ok, we will agree to differ then.

On another note, very impressive wordy stats - watch out all Man Booker Prize hopefuls

I wouldn't be surprised if that beats ours

[+Amberel]

On another note, very impressive wordy stats - watch out all Man Booker Prize hopefuls

I wouldn't be surprised if that beats ours

My last stats before INATN shut down, I was on average 79.8 words per log. And I've had two or three where I had to split the log into two because of Groundspeak limits - without that, maybe it would have topped the 80 . Where do you get that information now, it's not in the Groundspeak stats is it?

 

Oh, none of that is cut and paste logs either .

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited June 21, 2011 by Amberel

[+Bear and Ragged]

According to my profile stats I average 54 words per online log ("Gold Award: Author"!), and sometimes it's over 500 words, so I can't deny that I like adding my observations...but some clearly find it unnecessary and/or tedious.

 

Log Length, words:

Total Words: 57164,

Average: 82, (Total Characters: 304377)

Longest: GCWA8M 346, Shortest: GC1X2XG 7

 

Maybe I appreciate the better cache, so am inspired to write more in the log...

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

I agree with uktim. Well said.

 

But to explain, the problem with people not liking abbreviated logs (I won't say blank because I maintain that I've never seen a blank log on the geocaching.com site and I challenge anyone to link to one), is not that they shouldn't have this opinion. It's that they seem to want to take action against those who post such logs. Completely out of order in my opinion.

 

Here's a totally blank log.. Blank Log

[+Happy Humphrey]

Here's a totally blank log.. Blank Log

That says "stdennis01 found Cornwall's First Hamster Cache - Relocated. Sunday, 19 June 2011". Not blank at all, and quite a useful log!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Where do you get that information now, it's not in the Groundspeak stats is it?

Check my profile; the relevant bit is

Stats generated by FindStatGen3 V4.1.15 by rutson and lignumaqua, running on GSAK v7.7.3.53

...it's a GSAK macro.

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

Here's a totally blank log.. Blank Log

That says "stdennis01 found Cornwall's First Hamster Cache - Relocated. Sunday, 19 June 2011". Not blank at all, and quite a useful log!

 

Says to me "Cache was so memorable that it doesn't deserve a moment of my time to write a word or two".. Guess I'll collect it in.

[+perth pathfinders]

OK lets turn the tables then .............

 

Why are ONLY iphone users allowed to log a BLANK log?

 

I am not able to, I tried, the site doesn't let me!

 

(at least I assume it is iphone users? - or is it any smartphone, any app?)

[+dfx]

OK lets turn the tables then .............

 

Why are ONLY iphone users allowed to log a BLANK log?

 

I am not able to, I tried, the site doesn't let me!

 

(at least I assume it is iphone users? - or is it any smartphone, any app?)

 

Any of the official smartphone "apps" I would think. The non-official ones have to go through the regular website interface.

[+Amberel]

Stats generated by FindStatGen3 V4.1.15 by rutson and lignumaqua, running on GSAK v7.7.3.53

Thanks HH, when I looked it was already installed in GSAK, but I'd never used it, nor seen it because I don't often run any macros.

 

Anyway, having run it, it reports 74 words per log, so either it calculates it differently to INATN, or I'm getting lazy and my recent logs are shorter .

 

It does have one major problem for me, though it's not really the fault of the macro. I use all the listing sites, not just GC. If a cache is cross listed, I log it on both sites but count it only once. But the macro counts it twice. It would be difficult for it to be completely certain that logs on different sites were the same cache or not. Maybe if the name and the co-ords were the same it would be a reasonable assumption, but whatever, it doesn't do it, so it greatly over-estimates the number of caches I've found.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Middleleaze Moles]

I agree with what others have said - I love reading the logs when our caches are found. It would take one to beat this one although I wouldn't usually expect such a full log!!

[+NattyBooshka]

I agree with what others have said - I love reading the logs when our caches are found. It would take one to beat this one although I wouldn't usually expect such a full log!!

Wow... I've seen shorter chapters in books! Fantastic effort put in.

 

Of course, if every log was like that, none of us would get any work done... There'd probably be an "excessively long logs" thread

 

Right... Kinda got things to do... Big assignment due tomorrow and so far I've written 400 words

[+Happy Humphrey]

Stats generated by FindStatGen3 V4.1.15 by rutson and lignumaqua, running on GSAK v7.7.3.53

Thanks HH, when I looked it was already installed in GSAK, but I'd never used it, nor seen it because I don't often run any macros.

 

Anyway, having run it, it reports 74 words per log, so either it calculates it differently to INATN, or I'm getting lazy and my recent logs are shorter .

 

It does have one major problem for me, though it's not really the fault of the macro. I use all the listing sites, not just GC. If a cache is cross listed, I log it on both sites but count it only once. But the macro counts it twice. It would be difficult for it to be completely certain that logs on different sites were the same cache or not. Maybe if the name and the co-ords were the same it would be a reasonable assumption, but whatever, it doesn't do it, so it greatly over-estimates the number of caches I've found.

 

Rgds, Andy

I'm not sure that I follow. Are you loading your GSAK database just from the My Finds pocket query? Obviously, that won't include anything from Opencaching, so I don't see how the macro could be aware of any Opencaching logs (is Opencaching a bad example now there are two of them?).

[+Bear and Ragged]

Right... Kinda got things to do... Big assignment due tomorrow and so far I've written 400 words

 

Have you learn't nothing from this thread?

Submit:

 

[+NattyBooshka]

Right... Kinda got things to do... Big assignment due tomorrow and so far I've written 400 words

 

Have you learn't nothing from this thread?

Submit:

 

 

 

Do you have the references for that? 550 words now!

Edited June 23, 2011 by NattyBooshka

[+Amberel]

It does have one major problem for me, though it's not really the fault of the macro. I use all the listing sites, not just GC. If a cache is cross listed, I log it on both sites but count it only once. But the macro counts it twice. It would be difficult for it to be completely certain that logs on different sites were the same cache or not. Maybe if the name and the co-ords were the same it would be a reasonable assumption, but whatever, it doesn't do it, so it greatly over-estimates the number of caches I've found.

I'm not sure that I follow. Are you loading your GSAK database just from the My Finds pocket query? Obviously, that won't include anything from Opencaching, so I don't see how the macro could be aware of any Opencaching logs (is Opencaching a bad example now there are two of them?).

I guess I didn't make it clear. I load GSAK with PQs from all the sites. If a found cache is, for example, listed on both OpenCaching.org.uk and Groundspeak, GSAK doesn't recognise it as being the same cache, so it counts it as 2 finds. When I do my own counts (outside of GSAK) I would only count that as 1 find. Thus the stats produced by GSAK are higher than I would like them to be.

 

It's not easy for the macro to recognise cross-listed caches, but I would have thought if it had the same name, the same co-ordinates and the same date on the found it log, that it might be a reasonable assumption. But probably the macro authors consider that sufficiently few people use the other sites to make it not worth their trouble.

 

I do have my own program that imports the same PQs as GSAK, and that does the very basic "found it" statistics. That knows about cross-listed caches and so counts "correctly".

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Happy Humphrey]

I load GSAK with PQs from all the sites. If a found cache is, for example, listed on both OpenCaching.org.uk and Groundspeak, GSAK doesn't recognise it as being the same cache, so it counts it as 2 finds. When I do my own counts (outside of GSAK) I would only count that as 1 find. Thus the stats produced by GSAK are higher than I would like them to be.

I see. I suspect that very few people do that; and if GSAK loaded both logs into the same cache the macro would also have to recognise that the two finds are only to be counted as one.

Have you tried the GSAK forum for suggestions?

[+Amberel]

... if GSAK loaded both logs into the same cache the macro would also have to recognise that the two finds are only to be counted as one.

I don't really want GSAK to put both logs against the same database row - I want it keep the 2 entries quite separate in the database. But when compiling the stats it would be nice if it recognised that the cache name, location and find date were the same (all columns in the database cache table, so actually quite straightforward to do) and count it as only one find.

Have you tried the GSAK forum for suggestions?

I haven't, but maybe I will thanks - up until now I didn't run the stats macro, so it hasn't been an issue.

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited June 25, 2011 by Amberel

[+NickandAliandEliza]

... if GSAK loaded both logs into the same cache the macro would also have to recognise that the two finds are only to be counted as one.

I don't really want GSAK to put both logs against the same database row - I want it keep the 2 entries quite separate in the database. But when compiling the stats it would be nice if it recognised that the cache name, location and find date were the same (all columns in the database cache table, so actually quite straightforward to do) and count it as only one find.

Have you tried the GSAK forum for suggestions?

I haven't, but maybe I will thanks - up until now I didn't run the stats macro, so it hasn't been an issue.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Couldn't you just have two different found databases - one for Opencaching.com and the other for Geocaching.com?

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Here's a totally blank log.. Blank Log

That says "stdennis01 found Cornwall's First Hamster Cache - Relocated. Sunday, 19 June 2011". Not blank at all, and quite a useful log!

 

Actually what I see, is that a Member was

 

signed In, which was probably done automatically by the smartphone app

Who selected the cache

Selected the log typye

 

And hit the submit button

 

The system then produced the smiley, the account user name, and the cache details.

 

So in fact the member did not actually make a log, they pressed the button that caused the system to display the above information on the site. If they had written any sort of text for that log. Even if it was just a . they would have made a log to the cache, as they would have physically been responsible for that . being displayed on the website. And not the text that the system is solely responsible for. Plus the cache owner and possibly the log owner, will not even be aware if the person has selected the wrong log type as they have not selected any text, meaning the CO, will not query to ask if the person intended to make a DNF or Needs Maintenance log instead of a Find log. So please explain how it can be a quite useful log, when there is no clear indication of what log type the person was in fact making.

 

 

Dave

[+Happy Humphrey]

So please explain how it can be a quite useful log, when there is no clear indication of what log type the person was in fact making.

It's useful because it says "stdennis01 found Cornwall's First Hamster Cache - Relocated. Sunday, 19 June 2011". If I was stdennis01 I'd find that quite useful, or at least as useful as the same thing with a ".". I'd know that I found the cache and on which date. I'd be unlikely to seek out the same cache again by mistake, and it's added to my stats as a "found".

 

As you said, the person selected the log type, so the indication of the log type is in the word "found" (and the smiley). All done by actions taken by stdennis01. Whether that's via making a couple of selections and pressing a button, or making a couple of selections, adding a comment and pressing a button seems academic to me. It's still "logging the cache", and the log appears to be fine. I'm afraid I don't understand your point about that not being a log.

[Deceangi]

As a Reviewer I have seen more than one Needs Archived log, which on reading it. Was clear that the person making the log intended to make a Fond/DNF log. If there is no text, it is impossible to tell if the person is making a genuine NA log.

 

So sorry blank logs do not indicate anything other than that the person pushed a button! If those NA logs had been blank, I would have then had triple the workload, to assess the genuine status of those logs.

 

Of course I could just presume that the log is genuine, and on coming to action it, as the CO has not actioned it, Archive the cache! There would be a major uproar if I did that! So sorry a blank log is totally uses, as it does not indicate anything! It does not even to the Log owner that they have made the wrong log type in the future.

 

Also what happens when a Log owner submits the wrong cache type, the CO deletes it, as it's not clear whether its a find/DNF/Needs Maintenance/ Needs Archived/Note type log because it's a blank log. The Log owner then complains to Groundspeak. That would mean a Lackey having to work with 2 members to resolve the issue, at the same time confirming the correct log type. And at the end of the day it turns out, the Log Owner did in fact make the wrong log type.

 

So that means a lackey has had to waste time, better spent dealing with a genuine complaint, when with a few words in the log it would have been clear to the CO that it was the wrong log type, that person could then have deleted the log, contacted the Log owner to re-log using the correct log type.

 

Deci

[+redsox_mark]

I recently had my first blank log that I remember - a DNF log.

 

Now as I only own 7 caches and they are all close to home, so I look at DNFs quite closely. If it says they had a good look, I'll likely check it. If it says they only had a quick look, then I'll leave it.

 

The log does tell me something - that they didn't find it. But a few words would tell me much more.

[+Happy Humphrey]

As a Reviewer I have seen more than one Needs Archived log, which on reading it. Was clear that the person making the log intended to make a Fond/DNF log. If there is no text, it is impossible to tell if the person is making a genuine NA log.

1. We weren't discussing Needs Archiving logs; I suggest that if there's no comment associated and no apparent ongoing problem then it's fair to assume that it was a mistake. A reviewer would no doubt contact the cache owner, and keep an eye on proceedings. But how many of these "blank" NA logs do we get compared to "Found" logs (which is what we were talking about)? I'd be surprised if it's more than 0.001% of the total.

2. I still don't see how "stdennis01 found Cornwall's First Hamster Cache - Relocated. Sunday, 19 June 2011" is blank and useless. This is blank; " ". I admit that the latter is useless but the former gives useful information. Quite often the only details I have of cache logs in the field is something like "FNFFF" and that first "F" is useful.

3. I've never argued that a log with a comment is less useful than without; the point is though, that people are being tempted to delete logs because there is no comment associated. And yet the so-called "blank" log has all the basic information necessary and to my mind is as useful as "TFTC". OK, the occasional one might be a mistake; but in my view the insistence on some sort of meaningful comment is disproportionate to the very occasional inconvenience caused.

 

It's easy to make a cache logging mistake; logging the wrong cache is a common one and I suspect it is rarely discovered by cache owners (as often the comment is along the lines of "Easy find, nice cache thanks"). But should the CO therefore delete such a log on the basis that it could be a wrong cache situation (due to the text being too generic?). I think many finders would get mightily miffed if this was common practice.

 

The log does tell me something - that they didn't find it. But a few words would tell me much more.

Indeed, and I'm strongly in favour of writing at least a few words. But if people want to just log a find, then let them.

[+redsox_mark]

I do not think owners should delete blank logs. But I prefer the way the website works (where you need to put in some comment), then the smartphone apps where you don't need to put in any comment.

[+perth pathfinders]

I do not think owners should delete blank logs. But I prefer the way the website works (where you need to put in some comment), then the smartphone apps where you don't need to put in any comment.

 

and why should the two be different? If you have a smartphone with a purchased app you can leave a blank log.

 

if you use the internet, you can't leave a blank log? ............. ???

[+redsox_mark]

1. We weren't discussing Needs Archiving logs; I suggest that if there's no comment associated and no apparent ongoing problem then it's fair to assume that it was a mistake.

 

You are right we were mainly talking about Found logs.. but this brings up a good point - I think blank logs are more of an issue for the other log types. DNF, NM, NA logs - all indicate some type of problem; surely the application should require a comment explaining what the problem is?

 

I accept with a Found log, the log itself tells you something very important - that it was found. Still is better with a comment though!

[+NattyBooshka]

I do not think owners should delete blank logs. But I prefer the way the website works (where you need to put in some comment), then the smartphone apps where you don't need to put in any comment.

 

and why should the two be different? If you have a smartphone with a purchased app you can leave a blank log.

 

if you use the internet, you can't leave a blank log? ............. ???

Spot on... but that's GS's error... not the (i)Phone users'.