Im tired of TFTC logs.

July 18, 2011

Im tired of people leaving just TFTC logs on my caches. So i was thinking of maybe doing an essay themed cache. In order to be able to log it as a find, you have to write at least, oh i dunno lets say a 500 word log. If you dont, i delete your log. ok well i wouldnt actually count to make sure its 500 words, just as long as its descriptive and not just TNLN, SLTFTC... In the description i would explain why its nice to leave good logs. so what ya think, bad idea or has any seen this before?

edit: oh i forgot to add that i would make sure that it was a good hide, worthy of nothing but great logs. I'll be the first one to agree that some hides aren't worth great logs but we all should still try to write a decent log just to lead by example.

Edited July 18, 2011 by bradley0130

July 18, 2011

500 word essay? Sounds like the same punishment you would get for being non-compliant in drug court. Doesn't sound like the spirit of fun for me. (No, I wasn't sent to drug court--it was job related.)

2.4k · July 18, 2011

Im tired of people leaving just TFTC logs on my caches. So i was thinking of maybe doing an essay themed cache. In order to be able to log it as a find, you have to write at least, oh i dunno lets say a 500 word log. If you dont, i delete your log. ok well i wouldnt actually count to make sure its 500 words, just as long as its descriptive and not just TNLN, SLTFTC... In the description i would explain why its nice to leave good logs. so what ya think, bad idea or has any seen this before?

edit: oh i forgot to add that i would make sure that it was a good hide, worthy of nothing but great logs. I'll be the first one to agree that some hides aren't worth great logs but we all should still try to write a decent log just to lead by example.

Can't do it. That's an ALR: additional logging requirement. Not allowed anymore.

I would suggest just making better caches.

someone has a forum signature: "make the caching world a better place, archive your worst cache" or something like that.

I've got one great cache and one okay cache. The okay one I get some short logs and some TFTC.

The great cache I get great logs and some favorite points.

When I log, if it's a crappy cache I'll log TFTC. There's nothing more to be said.

Yet i have found some great caches where I've had to continue onto a separate log because I max'ed out the space we are allowed to write a log in. And they give us a lot of space. I think once I had to write three logs to get everything in.

Make a great cache and you will get great logs. Simple as that.

7.3k · July 18, 2011

Looks like it's time to review the Guidelines again:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge requirements have been met and documented to the cache owner's satisfaction.

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks. This is a guideline change that applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

1. Cease deleting logs based on ALRs.

2. Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

3. Edit the text of your geocache listing and, if necessary, contact a reviewer to change the cache type.

7.9k · July 18, 2011

Even the greatest cache in the world will probably eventually get a TN/LN/TFTC log.

Probably the only way you can prevent getting them is to not own any caches.

Or, you could chill-out, enjoy the well-written logs, and ignore those other ones.

3.7k · July 18, 2011

You won't be allowed to do a cache like this. Tried it, and it got rejected. You can make such a story OPTIONAL but you can't require it.

What you can do is #1 put out more interesting caches-interesting camo, clever hiding ideas and such, intersting multis, challenging hides. The more work you put into a cache, most likely, the better logs you will get.

#2 you can do a 'liar cache' and ask people as an OPTIONAL activity to create a crazy story about how they found the cache. I hid one like this recently and it is alot of fun reading the stories. Not everyone participates, but alot do.

July 18, 2011

The suggestions to improve the quality of your hides are nice, but they won't work either. Even some of the best, most creative, most challenging hides that I've found or placed get lame TFTC logs.

July 18, 2011

Does it really matter??

I find caches everywhere, some are great, which get a comment... Others are uneventful, thus getting tftc.

Regardless of people visiting the cache and choosing what to log, or lying and logging without the find, nobody is affected other than the cacher. They got whatever out of your cache that they put into it, isn't that enough?

July 18, 2011

Im tired of people leaving just TFTC logs on my caches. So i was thinking of maybe doing an essay themed cache. In order to be able to log it as a find, you have to write at least, oh i dunno lets say a 500 word log. If you dont, i delete your log. ok well i wouldnt actually count to make sure its 500 words, just as long as its descriptive and not just TNLN, SLTFTC... In the description i would explain why its nice to leave good logs. so what ya think, bad idea or has any seen this before?

edit: oh i forgot to add that i would make sure that it was a good hide, worthy of nothing but great logs. I'll be the first one to agree that some hides aren't worth great logs but we all should still try to write a decent log just to lead by example.

Can't do it. That's an ALR: additional logging requirement. Not allowed anymore.

I would suggest just making better caches.

someone has a forum signature: "make the caching world a better place, archive your worst cache" or something like that.

I've got one great cache and one okay cache. The okay one I get some short logs and some TFTC.

The great cache I get great logs and some favorite points.

When I log, if it's a crappy cache I'll log TFTC. There's nothing more to be said.

Yet i have found some great caches where I've had to continue onto a separate log because I max'ed out the space we are allowed to write a log in. And they give us a lot of space. I think once I had to write three logs to get everything in.

Make a great cache and you will get great logs. Simple as that.

I don’t disagree with what you are saying here as a whole, Sol. And I agree with your last line as written. But, I'm sure you agree, even if you make great caches and get great logs, you will still get some empty and lame logs on great caches. I have several pretty good caches for my area. A few finders have given me logs of over 500 words. The longest log I’ve received is 765 words. I have been given many logs with the number of words in the three figures. On those very same caches, though, I have gotten TFTC’s and even blank logs.

I think there are a variety of reasons for this.

One reason could be that the cache that many see as great, is just not the cup of tea of the person making the log. Some people thrive on bushwhacking. Others think it is rude to put a cache where ticks might dwell. Rather than blast you for making them wade through tall grass, they say nothing at all.

I think this can also be due to the fact that some people are limited in time and do not understand how much time is put into putting together a solid cache and that CO’s do care about the logs. Either that or they do know and do not care.

Another issue that I think happens more times than we realize, is that the cacher simply feel like they do not have the words to share. Some cachers have great command of the language. Others do not feel comfortable with their writing skills. Sometimes short and sweet logs really relate to the particular cacher’s comfort level with spelling, sentence structure, and composition. A high school diploma is not required to geocache. For many, the dust on their diploma is serious and they do not want to risk potentially embarrassing themselves by trying to write too much.

Finally, I think the advent of geocaching applications is feeding the blank log/tftc log numbers. I think this is having a huge impact and I think the way these applications are set up, they are almost training new cachers to not take the time to time out deeper logs.

I have logged almost a half million words and almost three million characters. So, as a cacher who relives almost every caching experience as I compose the log and look for something individual to write about the cache or to say to the CO, I understand being bothered or even offended by someone tossing a blank log on a cache that took many hours of work and significant financial resources to set up. I have learned to enjoy the great logs I get, the good logs I get, and to overlook the rest by assuming the individual either hasn’t thought through the etiquette or just doesn’t feel comfortable writing out their logs due to their discomfort with their writing skills.

I choose to focus on the good stuff I get and not worry about the rest of it. I assume that if many have had good experiences at the cache, the short log logger may have had a great experience as well. They just didn’t express it. Since there is no requirement for them to express themselves, I’m not going to sweat them. I think this is where Sol has it quite right. Place great caches, get great logs, and enjoy those logs. Choose to not fixate on the weaker logs.

All that said, I certainly recognize your (bradley0130) right to be bothered by the short logs if you like and to vent in this forum a bit.

Obviously, for reasons already stated by others and the perspective I’ve shared above, I wouldn’t encourage you to develop a cache with an essay requirement. At least not a 500 word essay.

July 18, 2011

Very true some hides and effort to find them are not worth 1 word logs. fbzr cerzvhz zrzoref arrq gb chyy gur fgvpx bhg

1.2k · July 18, 2011

Some people just aren't "wordy", the fact that they took time out to find your cache should be a reward in itself.

5.3k · July 18, 2011

Im tired of people leaving just TFTC logs on my caches.

In my experience, the best way to deal with that is to hide caches that require more effort to find. A challenging hike, or a clever puzzle, or devious camo can make your cache stand out.

The people most likely people to post a "TFTC" or cut-and-paste log are those who care mainly about the number of caches they can do in a day. Making your caches unattractive to that group is a good way to improve the quality of your logs.

I had one cache in a very fun place that I would have thought people would comment on, but because it was right off a freeway the number of bad logs was very high. As a result, I will not hide caches that are too easy or quick to find.

(ETA: I went back and looked at the logs. Actually, most were quite good. I wonder why I had the impression that there were a lot of bad ones. I gues the few bad ones there were stuck out in my mind. Interesting.)

Edited July 18, 2011 by fizzymagic

July 18, 2011

Not sure a 500 word essay cache is that great an idea myself, but it seems like the ALR rules may not totally rule it out, as long as it's the right type of cache.

3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge requirements have been met and documented to the cache owner's satisfaction.

Challenge Caches are a type of Puzzle Cache. (Though you might need something more specific then just a "Write a long log message." requirement.)

Edit: Oh, and there are ways (optional per the rules) to make even an LPC get a bit more interesting logs then just TFTC. Like this one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=34fd7800-b03b-48ef-9081-a9b5a2361845

Edited July 18, 2011 by EdrickV

July 18, 2011

Easy caches calls for easy comments. Why the finder should spend more time writing the log than the placer has to design and set it up ?

On the other hand, when a challenging cache is found, it may happen the finder is so exhausted, he can barely write and so just put down: TFTC :rolleyes:

Edited July 18, 2011 by Suscrofa

1k · July 18, 2011

He can always wait until he has sufficiently recovered from his excursion before logging the caches and performing the administrative tasks.

9.2k · July 18, 2011

Edit: Oh, and there are ways (optional per the rules) to make even an LPC get a bit more interesting logs then just TFTC. Like this one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=34fd7800-b03b-48ef-9081-a9b5a2361845

... And it still gets logs with only TFTC :laughing:

3.6k · July 18, 2011

I will give you a fair warning, any CO that make any statement on their page that they hate "SL TFTH" logs WILL get one from me. Don't give other any idea how much you hate them. <_<

July 18, 2011

Something else to consider...when I started I was unsure what to say but also wanted to use the right jargon or lingo.

Ironically, most of the logs I saw were tftc! so I figured this was accepted practice. The guidelines did not say much that was contrary. It was not until I found the forums and threads like these before I understood more is actually encouraged.

Now with a few hides placed, I understand the value/benefit of longer logs. One thread suggested to at least give an update on the status of the cache and log which I do now.

Quality of the cache does make a difference but encouraging logs longer than 4 letters with guidance does not hurt either.

Happy caching! - hawkeyetob

July 18, 2011

Something else to consider...is the infamous double-post using a "smartphone" when the user does not type very well!?! Lol!

Happy caching! - hawkeyetob

Edited July 18, 2011 by hawkeyetob

9.3k · July 18, 2011

Does it really matter??

Yes, to some of us, it does.

Locally, the trend seems to be the crappier the cache, the shorter the average logs.

Since I'm not a fan of short logs, I tend to avoid hiding crappy caches.

So far it's worked out quite well. Not perfect, mind you, but I can live with that.

10.2k · July 18, 2011

Some people just aren't "wordy", the fact that they took time out to find your cache should be a reward in itself.

From a 2005 joiner, are you kidding me? Were people logging caches with "TFTC" en-masse when you started caching? No, they were not. This is a recent development that came out of nowhere and hit us like a 2x4 across the forehead with the introduction of Smartphones to Geocaching.

1.3k · July 18, 2011

Found an old cache a few weeks ago. Back in 2002 and 2003, people always wrote a story on logs. By 2010, you are very lucky if you get anything more than a date and the nickname of the finder. But back in 2002 and 2003, the majority of the hides were actually containers in the woods. Today, the majority as log only caches hidden in a public area, where you might walk 40 feet from your car.

Funny though, you never see geocaching.com promoting lamppost hides in their press releases do you?

1.2k · July 18, 2011

Logged from my phone using the Geocache Navigator by Trimble

This on the third oldest cache in PA, an ammo can at the end of a nice hike in a beautiful wooded recreational area. Yep, mostly the phones.

July 18, 2011

I like your point. Great caches, attract great logs.. I have heard of some amazing caches, and read some funny logs..

Im tired of people leaving just TFTC logs on my caches. So i was thinking of maybe doing an essay themed cache. In order to be able to log it as a find, you have to write at least, oh i dunno lets say a 500 word log. If you dont, i delete your log. ok well i wouldnt actually count to make sure its 500 words, just as long as its descriptive and not just TNLN, SLTFTC... In the description i would explain why its nice to leave good logs. so what ya think, bad idea or has any seen this before?

edit: oh i forgot to add that i would make sure that it was a good hide, worthy of nothing but great logs. I'll be the first one to agree that some hides aren't worth great logs but we all should still try to write a decent log just to lead by example.

Can't do it. That's an ALR: additional logging requirement. Not allowed anymore.

I would suggest just making better caches.

someone has a forum signature: "make the caching world a better place, archive your worst cache" or something like that.

I've got one great cache and one okay cache. The okay one I get some short logs and some TFTC.

The great cache I get great logs and some favorite points.

When I log, if it's a crappy cache I'll log TFTC. There's nothing more to be said.

Yet i have found some great caches where I've had to continue onto a separate log because I max'ed out the space we are allowed to write a log in. And they give us a lot of space. I think once I had to write three logs to get everything in.

Make a great cache and you will get great logs. Simple as that.

July 18, 2011

actually if you make it a challenge cache that says you have to write a log on another cache that is 500+ words it could be allowed*. thats the difference between ALR and challenge caches. ALR is performed after you find the cache and a challenge cache is performed before you find the cache (and is related to geocaching [or Waymarking]).

*you still need to talk to your reviewer.

7.3k · July 18, 2011

Not sure a 500 word essay cache is that great an idea myself, but it seems like the ALR rules may not totally rule it out, as long as it's the right type of cache.

3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge requirements have been met and documented to the cache owner's satisfaction.

Challenge Caches are a type of Puzzle Cache. (Though you might need something more specific then just a "Write a long log message." requirement.)

Edit: Oh, and there are ways (optional per the rules) to make even an LPC get a bit more interesting logs then just TFTC. Like this one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=34fd7800-b03b-48ef-9081-a9b5a2361845

The Guidelines clearly outline what you can and can not call a "challenge" cache, so as to prevent cache owners from hiding ALR's as challenges:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

4.14. Challenge Caches

A challenge cache requires that geocachers meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks before the challenge cache can be logged. Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course. The additional qualification or tasks are considered the basis of a challenge cache, rather than Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

Challenge caches vary in scope and format. All challenge caches must be in the affirmative and require that something be accomplished. Challenge caches are listed as Mystery/Unknown cache type.

Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that the challenge is attainable. Reviewers may ask the cache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

Importantly, cache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the challenge has been met. The logging requirements on the cache page must reflect this consideration, and must be logistically viable. Challenge cache owners may also be asked to outline a long-term cache maintenance plan.

Some points to consider when creating a challenge cache:

1. Challenge caches must contain the word "Challenge" in the cache name.

2. It is generally considered "bad form" to log one's own physical cache.

3. A challenge cache concept that severely limits the number of cachers who can achieve the challenge will likely not be published.

4. A challenge cache based on one or more non-accomplishments, such as DNFs, will likely not be published.

5. Challenge caches may not require the publication of a new cache as a logging requirement. Challenges must be achievable by those who do not own caches.

6. Challenge caches may not require cachers to log caches that are disabled or archived.

7. An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers. A challenge is supposed to recognize the completion of an achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge based on "First to Finds" is dependent on the actions of other cachers, is a competition, and cannot be verified, so would likely not be published.

8. Requiring cachers to find an explicit list of caches (rather than a broader category of caches) will likely prevent the cache from being published.

9. Using a challenge cache to promote one's own caches will likely prevent the cache from being published.

10. The challenge cache must be findable without needing to email the owner, either by posting the true coordinates or by posting instructions for a puzzle or multi-cache.

Cache owners are reminded that some caches may appear to meet the listing requirements, but reviewers as experienced cachers may see additional concerns that a cache owner may not have noticed. Consequently the cache page may not be publishable.

As with all caches, each challenge cache is reviewed and published or denied on its own merits. Some grandfathered caches do exist which would not be published today.

July 18, 2011

I sometimes leave TFTC logs, but normally try to leave a nice entry, however sometimes they just don't warrant a long post. For people that find a lot of caches in one day, that trivial cache may just not deserve a long essay.

July 18, 2011

I always spell out Thanks for the cache but that is all I say when there was no effort put into the hide. The better the hide or container, the longer the log.

19k · July 18, 2011

Even if you were allowed to insist on logs of a certain length, there are many utilities on the 'net that could help write things like:

Emergency shall again be qualified personnel through the Stock Options shall not receive grants of the fees and the Company shall be established on the number, location unless and the Corporation, in connection with the wholesale SALES and may be credited to as to effect any Warrants alone constitutes a Stock already owned by the compensation under the Stock Options shall be at any federal, state of releases does not designated to enforce or otherwise. A deferral account of the Company will cause definitive Warrant certificates surrendered Warrant certificates evidencing any related software, data, images, or desirable; provided that time to be paid and guarantees ownership of any Warrant certificates so deposited to the officers of Warrants evidenced thereby shall include the Participant hereunder except in the management, growth and/or conditions under Section 2.3 Exercise is eligible to their execution AND within a freeway, expressway or later than the foregoing will cause to which shall be deemed a Warrant or Warrants alone constitutes the laws (including, without deducting uncollected accounts shall be construed to anticipation, alienation, sale, transfer, any time such loan will from a Warrant certificates and expenses (including counsel shall be appropriate. © Each Plan as if any), and a Warrant. (d) The said IMAGE being held liable in an officer shall terminate. (j) "Participant" means the exercise or persons Deemed a Participant and provisions of the Stock Option theretofore granted, prospectively or at law or give prior written notice or supplementing any force which, under this plan 1.

http://www.watter.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1220

http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/Gibber/GibGen.htm

http://www.lipsum.com/

July 18, 2011

This sounds a little odd to me. The OP when logging what they list as their "all time favorite cache" used about 80 words. But the OP wants to require others to use 500 words when logging caches the OP owns. Bit of a double standard there I think.

Personally I try to write 'something' about a cache other then just TFTC. Sometimes it is not much more then 'Thanks for placing the cache' or 'Thank you for putting this cache out for me to find' but it is more then 4 letters.

I think the idea of at a minimum of putting the condition of the cache in the log if I can't think of something more to say is a good idea and I am going to try to incorporate that into my logging in the future. I would think that information would be more useful to the cache owner and future cachers then writing about the weather on the day I found the cache.

1.8k · July 18, 2011

500 words is a lot. Not everyone uploads to MyGeocachingProfile.com, but among those who do, only about 1% of cachers average even 500 *characters* per log.

Finally, I think the advent of geocaching applications is feeding the blank log/tftc log numbers. I think this is having a huge impact and I think the way these applications are set up, they are almost training new cachers to not take the time to time out deeper logs.

This is a recent development that came out of nowhere and hit us like a 2x4 across the forehead with the introduction of Smartphones to Geocaching.

I think this is more or less true. That nobody *could* log from the field before, meant that nobody *did*. Now that you can, folks do. I don't begrudge most folks that. If my cache is one that can be picked up with one or two dozen others in a couple of hours, I know it's convenient for folks to log from the field as they walk from one waypoint to the next, rather than save everything up and try to reconstruct their experiences (and the find order) after they get home. I'd definitely rather read longer logs, but I understand.

Interestingly enough, it also represents a bit of a policy shift by Groundspeak, which recently explicitly decided to allow blank logs. From the Feedback site:

We now support blank logs instead of forcing the user to type things like "." and "TFTC" to post a log. We decided to do this since "I found it" is enough of an action for those who would prefer not to post a verbose log.

38.2k · July 18, 2011

If you want more than TFTC logs, hide caches that make people want to log more than TFTC. You'll still get a few, but they will be the exception rather than the rule.

Some people just aren't "wordy", the fact that they took time out to find your cache should be a reward in itself.

From a 2005 joiner, are you kidding me? Were people logging caches with "TFTC" en-masse when you started caching? No, they were not. This is a recent development that came out of nowhere and hit us like a 2x4 across the forehead with the introduction of Smartphones to Geocaching.

Nah, it started some years ago with the ascendancy of the park and grab micro. GPS units with log upload capability and smartphones have made it worse and brought TFTC logs to high quality caches as well.

Edited July 18, 2011 by briansnat

10.2k · July 18, 2011

If you want more than TFTC logs, hide caches that make people want to log more than TFTC. You'll still get a few, but they will be the exception rather than the rule.

Yeah, I suppose I can't argue with that, but I've seen TFTC on just about anything and everything by now. Nosey as usual, I looked at the OP's hides. He has 7 or 8, and every single one of them has at least 1 favorites point. He received a TFTC yesterday, from surprise, an 8 find account.

July 18, 2011

If you are hiding caches just for your enjoyment of the logs it receives, perhaps you are hiding caches for the wrong reason. Always approached it as "hide a cache that I'd like to hunt", and gave no real thought to the perceived quality of the log.

July 18, 2011

The logs that I HATE are "Logged from my phone using XYZ program" and nothing else. At least TFTC is giving the CO a cursory thank you. Even if the cache is really poor, I'll put TFTC on the log.

July 18, 2011

Im tired of people leaving just TFTC logs on my caches. So i was thinking of maybe doing an essay themed cache. In order to be able to log it as a find, you have to write at least, oh i dunno lets say a 500 word log. If you dont, i delete your log. ok well i wouldnt actually count to make sure its 500 words, just as long as its descriptive and not just TNLN, SLTFTC... In the description i would explain why its nice to leave good logs. so what ya think, bad idea or has any seen this befor

edit: oh i forgot to add that i would make sure that it was a good hide, worthy of nothing but great logs. I'll be the first one to agree that some hides aren't worth great logs but we all should still try to write a decent log just to lead by example.

I creeped on your profile. I looked at your caches. You seem to place thoughtful, creative caches that get great logs. I didn't see many tftc's at all.

Everyone is going to get some of them, no matter what. Some people are unaware that this is taken badly by some CO's.

My general feeling on the short/nonspecific log issue is that 95% of the time it's because the finder doesn't know any better, not because they are trying to be rude.

38.2k · July 18, 2011

If you want more than TFTC logs, hide caches that make people want to log more than TFTC. You'll still get a few, but they will be the exception rather than the rule.

Yeah, I suppose I can't argue with that, but I've seen TFTC on just about anything and everything by now. Nosey as usual, I looked at the OP's hides. He has 7 or 8, and every single one of them has at least 1 favorites point. He received a TFTC yesterday, from surprise, an 8 find account.

I agree that they are becoming more common. I don't think I've received more than a half dozen on all of my caches combined before 2010. That is out of thousands of logs. Now I receive as many in a month than I received in the previous 8 1/2 years. Still they are in the overwhelming minority.

When you see a TFTC on this cache then we'll know the tide has totally turned in the wrong direction.

Edited July 18, 2011 by briansnat

3.3k · July 18, 2011

The logs that I HATE are "Logged from my phone using XYZ program" and nothing else. At least TFTC is giving the CO a cursory thank you. Even if the cache is really poor, I'll put TFTC on the log.

Although I aggree with you, I do like that tag at the end of a proper log. As a Technocrat, I like to see what other people are using for smartphone caching.

July 18, 2011

on a semi-related note, I saw a cute video on youtube called "to whome it may concern" in which a muggle assumes TFTC stands for Time For The Calamity.

I read it this way now, and every time I see it in a log I chuckle. Makes it enjoyable, rather than annoying.

2.2k · July 18, 2011

If you are hiding caches just for your enjoyment of the logs it receives, perhaps you are hiding caches for the wrong reason. Always approached it as "hide a cache that I'd like to hunt", and gave no real thought to the perceived quality of the log.

(sigh) I won't go into as much detail as the last time I was told I was hiding caches for the wrong reason. I'll just repeat that if most of the logs on my first few caches had been "TFTC" I would have stopped hiding caches. Yes, I hide primarily for the enjoyment of the logs I receive. I don't think me and the OP are the only ones.

I'd like to point out another option: civil disobedience. Go ahead and delete the blank logs or the TFTC logs. Let the finder go cry to GS. At least they would have to write something then.

If enough people did this, things would change.

(Note that I am just pointing this out, I don't think enough people care about it that much, so it would not really be effective.)

3.3k · July 18, 2011

I grew very tired of lame TFTC caches, so I went out of my way, and archived many of my easy access caches. This has reduced my lame log emails tremendously.

19k · July 18, 2011

I'd like to point out another option: civil disobedience. Go ahead and delete the blank logs or the TFTC logs. Let the finder go cry to GS. At least they would have to write something then.

If enough people did this, things would change.

(Note that I am just pointing this out, I don't think enough people care about it that much, so it would not really be effective.)

While you could probably get away with that for a while, I suspect that you would be getting some pretty stern warnings from The Frog, possibly ending with you spending your time on another caching site.

7.5k · July 18, 2011

Some people just aren't "wordy", the fact that they took time out to find your cache should be a reward in itself.

From a 2005 joiner, are you kidding me? Were people logging caches with "TFTC" en-masse when you started caching? No, they were not. This is a recent development that came out of nowhere and hit us like a 2x4 across the forehead with the introduction of Smartphones to Geocaching.

And, I think micros had something to do with it....in particular micro logsheets, with tiny cells that barely let you write your trailname and date (which you now also see in regular size caches). They give the impression that COs don't care about a finder's experience. That micro mentality is being transferred to logbooks with plenty of room for comments but people write just their trailname and date and that mentality has transferred to the online logs. logs. Micros and powertrails and logging directly from the field reinforce this behavior.

3.3k · July 18, 2011

I'd like to point out another option: civil disobedience. Go ahead and delete the blank logs or the TFTC logs. Let the finder go cry to GS. At least they would have to write something then.

If enough people did this, things would change.

(Note that I am just pointing this out, I don't think enough people care about it that much, so it would not really be effective.)

While you could probably get away with that for a while, I suspect that you would be getting some pretty stern warnings from The Frog, possibly ending with you spending your time on another caching site.

I think you are correct. However, if it became a mass civil disobedience, it may play out different.

I don't think civil is the correct word, as that implyes breaking the law, maybe frog disobedience. :sad:

7.5k · July 18, 2011

Im tired of people leaving just TFTC logs on my caches. So i was thinking of maybe doing an essay themed cache.

For me, it's not the length of the comment on the online log. I just want the comment to show that my cache actually made some kind of impression on them - good, bad, ho hum. Otherwise I feel like it's just another potato chip in the bag.

It might be nice if a CO could toggle an option, a message that pops up when someone tries to log a cache: 'This cache owner would like to read about your experience finding the cache.'

So many new cachers say they didn't realize that COs prefer longer more detailed logs. The pop up message could educate and remind.

38.2k · July 18, 2011

Im tired of people leaving just TFTC logs on my caches. So i was thinking of maybe doing an essay themed cache. In order to be able to log it as a find, you have to write at least, oh i dunno lets say a 500 word log. If you dont, i delete your log. ok well i wouldnt actually count to make sure its 500 words, just as long as its descriptive and not just TNLN, SLTFTC... In the description i would explain why its nice to leave good logs. so what ya think, bad idea or has any seen this befor

edit: oh i forgot to add that i would make sure that it was a good hide, worthy of nothing but great logs. I'll be the first one to agree that some hides aren't worth great logs but we all should still try to write a decent log just to lead by example.

I creeped on your profile. I looked at your caches. You seem to place thoughtful, creative caches that get great logs. I didn't see many tftc's at all.

Everyone is going to get some of them, no matter what. Some people are unaware that this is taken badly by some CO's.

My general feeling on the short/nonspecific log issue is that 95% of the time it's because the finder doesn't know any better, not because they are trying to be rude.

I agree. I was getting TFTC logs from a new cacher and met him at an event. I mentioned that some cachers see them as an insult because other cachers use them when they don't think the cache was worth the effort to write more. He had no idea and now writes some pretty good logs.

7.5k · July 18, 2011

If you are hiding caches just for your enjoyment of the logs it receives, perhaps you are hiding caches for the wrong reason. Always approached it as "hide a cache that I'd like to hunt", and gave no real thought to the perceived quality of the log.

(sigh) I won't go into as much detail as the last time I was told I was hiding caches for the wrong reason. I'll just repeat that if most of the logs on my first few caches had been "TFTC" I would have stopped hiding caches. Yes, I hide primarily for the enjoyment of the logs I receive. I don't think me and the OP are the only ones.

I'd like to point out another option: civil disobedience. Go ahead and delete the blank logs or the TFTC logs. Let the finder go cry to GS. At least they would have to write something then.

If enough people did this, things would change.

(Note that I am just pointing this out, I don't think enough people care about it that much, so it would not really be effective.)

You are not alone hukilaulau. It's the COs who care to provide a caching experience to write about, that we should cater to and encourage to continue hiding quality caches. Not the finders who treat caches like popcorn kernels in the big geocaching cache bowl. :drama: If you hide just to provide folks with a smiley I think that is a very wrong reason to hide caches.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lone R

4.1k · July 18, 2011

I place caches that I would like to find, so although I do not need logs to validate my caches or to let me know that cachers are suitably grateful for them, I would rather get a blank log than a TFTC. Both are quickly deleted but the letters show that a person is aware of the custom to submit an online log but could not be bothered to do more.

3.2k · July 18, 2011

I place caches that I would like to find, so although I do not need logs to validate my caches or to let me know that cachers are suitably grateful for them, I would rather get a blank log than a TFTC. Both are quickly deleted but the letters show that a person is aware of the custom to submit an online log but could not be bothered to do more.

Hope you misspoke when you said they were "quickly deleted", those are valid logs per the guidelines.

Edited July 18, 2011 by baloo&bd

19k · July 18, 2011

I place caches that I would like to find, so although I do not need logs to validate my caches or to let me know that cachers are suitably grateful for them, I would rather get a blank log than a TFTC. Both are quickly deleted but the letters show that a person is aware of the custom to submit an online log but could not be bothered to do more.

Hope you misspoke when you said they were "quickly deleted", those are valid logs per the guidelines.

I suspect he meant the email notification, and not the log itself. That's how I took it, anyway.

Im tired of TFTC logs.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment