Jump to content

Im tired of TFTC logs.


Recommended Posts

You can't control how others play the game. It's not about the log to me. It's about the journey. The scenery, hike, kayak etc. I write logs for me, and thanks for the CO. Sometimes they're long, sometimesmes short.

 

I have hiking caches and sometimes I get a long log, sometimes short. I don't care at all. I'm glad they hunted it and had a good hike. It's a silly thing to be annoyed over.

 

Nice post.

Link to comment

I wonder how many cache owners write to the person who leaves a great log on their cache and let them know how much you liked it? We probably don't do it as often as we should, but we do every so often. We really try hard to give positive feedback to people who leave great logs, or newbies who move one of our trackables, or people who post a great picture. this thread is inspiring me to do better at that feedback.

 

Sometimes we write seriously positive log entries and we try to post a lot of photos, whether we get feedback or not, because that's part of what we love about caching. But for this cache we had fun and the cache owners loved the log and wrote us an email telling us so! It didn't have to be 500 words to make their day, and it was great to hear from them.

 

I always email someone that left a longer log to thank them. But if I get a TFTC I don't see it as a reflection of my cache. I know my caches are awesome because they're in forests and parks! It doesn't mean anything, except that the finder didn't want, or could not, write more.

 

By the way, not all cachers have computers. Every log I've written has been on a smartphone. Every picture taken from a smartphone, uploaded from phone.

 

I am more thrilled when a finder of my caches posts a pic! Say nothing and leave a pic is great to me.

Edited by SeekerOfTheWay
Link to comment

 

By the way, not all cachers have computers. Every log I've written has been on a smartphone. Every picture taken from a smartphone, uploaded from phone.

 

 

Well yeah, that's why TFTC logs are running wild. People tend to thumb out very short logs on Smartphones, and for some reason, think they have to do it from the field. And just a few short years ago, every Geocacher did log from a computer! :D

 

I would hope you can see where some of us that have been hiding caches for years are "annoyed" (as you said in an earlier post) by this new logging trend, which is at most 2 years old.

Link to comment
I know my caches are awesome because they're in forests and parks!

And collectively, New York City hiders hang their heads in shame.

 

:) (I know that's not what you meant, I'm just having fun. We just have to play a different game here!)

 

LOL! I didn't mean it like that! Micros have their place too, and different challenges and adventures. I've enjoyed quite a few actually. I just actively seek park caches when possible. Hey, I recently found a micro at a Wendy's while I was getting my car serviced! I was so happy there was a cache in walking distance, and it was hidden in a tree that provided shade!

 

There have been some great micros in scenic locations. This is why I'd love viturals back. Replace film canisters in great locations with a virtual.

Link to comment

 

By the way, not all cachers have computers. Every log I've written has been on a smartphone. Every picture taken from a smartphone, uploaded from phone.

 

 

Well yeah, that's why TFTC logs are running wild. People tend to thumb out very short logs on Smartphones, and for some reason, think they have to do it from the field. And just a few short years ago, every Geocacher did log from a computer! :D

 

I would hope you can see where some of us that have been hiding caches for years are "annoyed" (as you said in an earlier post) by this new logging trend, which is at most 2 years old.

 

Take a look at my logs from my smartphone. ;) Don't stereotype all smartphone users.

 

And no, I don't think I will be more upset with short logs the longer I cache. The older I get, the more I let the little annoyances go...

Link to comment

 

By the way, not all cachers have computers. Every log I've written has been on a smartphone. Every picture taken from a smartphone, uploaded from phone.

 

 

Well yeah, that's why TFTC logs are running wild. People tend to thumb out very short logs on Smartphones, and for some reason, think they have to do it from the field. And just a few short years ago, every Geocacher did log from a computer! :D

 

I would hope you can see where some of us that have been hiding caches for years are "annoyed" (as you said in an earlier post) by this new logging trend, which is at most 2 years old.

 

Take a look at my logs from my smartphone. ;) Don't stereotype all smartphone users.

 

And no, I don't think I will be more upset with short logs the longer I cache. The older I get, the more I let the little annoyances go...

 

I think I have actually looked at your smartphone logs, as you have posted to these threads before! OK, sorry if you feel I sterotyped. It is easy however, to sterotype the ones who are dropping TFTC only on every cache they find. They tend to have never hidden a cache, never attended a Geocaching event, and no one in the local Geocaching community knows who they are (i.e. have not personally interacted with any fellow Geocachers).

 

I was not implying or asking if they would bother you the longer you cache. It's already happened, and you do not pre-date it. This is not to say every single Geocacher out there who predates the TFTC logging trend is annoyed by it. But I'll bet most are. :) Heck, I even predate the first parking lot micro ever placed in my area (it was in early 2005), and I still haven't jumped on that bandwagon. :o

Link to comment
I know my caches are awesome because they're in forests and parks!

And collectively, New York City hiders hang their heads in shame.

Because there aren't any forests or parks in NYC? :huh:

 

I've never been to New York City so not sure. Like I said, there are some good micros in appropriate locations. In St Augustine micros took me on a tour of the city! I'd rather virtual but since we can't I usually just don't sign the film can and take a pic of the location as proof instead.

 

Probably NYC parks are all taken, I would think.

Link to comment
I know my caches are awesome because they're in forests and parks!

And collectively, New York City hiders hang their heads in shame.

Because there aren't any forests or parks in NYC? :huh:

It's just a very different game board. Manhattan* caching is fun for those who play the game here, but there are certainly no forests. (Inwood Hill Park actually isn't landscaped like all of the other parks in the city, and theoretically some of the flora in the park is 'old growth', but it's completely laced with paved walking paths, and Highway 9A runs through the heart of it.)

 

There are of course parks, but they are pretty packed, and the density can be a real issue. A friend and I maintain a datafile showing all of the hidden waypoint 528-foot circles in Central Park that prevent new caches from being placed; when a spot opens up it usually fills up pretty fast. I've worked with new cachers who have tried to place caches in Riverside Park only to abandon the attempt after hitting the proximity guideline two or three times (I hunted their cache after reading about it in the logs of one of the listings it had been hidden near). So for those who enjoy the game here, we often have to broaden our thinking and go beyond the forests and parks that helped grow the game in other parts of the country.

 

* I realize of course that Manhattan is only one of five boroughs in NYC. But it's where I do the vast majority of my geocaching. There are probably forests in Staten Island, and the Long Island-y parts of Queens, but those are both pretty far outside of my caching radius.

Link to comment

 

* I realize of course that Manhattan is only one of five boroughs in NYC. But it's where I do the vast majority of my geocaching. There are probably forests in Staten Island, and the Long Island-y parts of Queens, but those are both pretty far outside of my caching radius.

 

Small disclaimer there. Yes, the very cache deficient Bourough of Staten Island has caches in forests. I can't speak for the Long Islandy parts of Queens :D EDIT: I have more than 3 finds there, a bunch of them must be archived. I stay on SI every time I'm in NYC, and take the Ferry to Manhattan. This is because I'm a cheapskate.

 

5958094218_7b06697a58.jpg

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

You can't control how others play the game. It's not about the log to me. It's about the journey. The scenery, hike, kayak etc. I write logs for me, and thanks for the CO. Sometimes they're long, sometimesmes short.

 

I have hiking caches and sometimes I get a long log, sometimes short. I don't care at all. I'm glad they hunted it and had a good hike. It's a silly thing to be annoyed over.

I suspect a lot of us are merely discussing this in a forum, and are not really all that annoyed over how the logs are written. I can safely say that I, for one, have never lost a minute of sleep because of a log, even if I might rant about some here when the subject is raised.

Link to comment

 

Because there aren't any forests or parks in NYC? :huh:

It's just a very different game board. Manhattan* caching is fun for those who play the game here, but there are certainly no forests. (Inwood Hill Park actually isn't landscaped like all of the other parks in the city, and theoretically some of the flora in the park is 'old growth', but it's completely laced with paved walking paths, and Highway 9A runs through the heart of it.)

 

Thanks for the well-thought-out answer to my comment. I didn't deserve such, as I was just yanking your chain a bit. I have cached in Manhattan, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I found one cache that was in Inwood Hill Park, I think... it was on the grounds of The Cloisters.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Wow! I had no idea that folks got so worked up about TFTC. I have been caching for more than three years and thought that TFTC was a nice, courteous way to say I enjoyed finding the cache. I don't particulary enjoy long, wordy logs anyway and I am one of those who likes smilies. Also, I really enjoy finding those tiny micros in strange places, even though I have to write really small to sign my name. Someone took the time and effort to find a good hiding place and I appreciate that effort.

Link to comment

Wow! I had no idea that folks got so worked up about TFTC. I have been caching for more than three years and thought that TFTC was a nice, courteous way to say I enjoyed finding the cache. I don't particulary enjoy long, wordy logs anyway and I am one of those who likes smilies. Also, I really enjoy finding those tiny micros in strange places, even though I have to write really small to sign my name. Someone took the time and effort to find a good hiding place and I appreciate that effort.

 

I have a feeling you don't realize we're talking about TFTC, only TFTC, and nothing but TFTC. :)

Link to comment

Wow! I had no idea that folks got so worked up about TFTC. I have been caching for more than three years and thought that TFTC was a nice, courteous way to say I enjoyed finding the cache.

 

I wouldn't say that I'm worked up about TFTC logs. For me, it merely a mild peeve. Rather than just a TFTC, I'd prefer that someone that enjoyed finding a cache of mine, actually wrote out the words "Thanks for the Cache". To me, it just comes across as more sincere, rather than a obligatory inclusion of the minimal amount of characters to express thanks.

Link to comment
I should point out that in several years of doing this, I have not received a single complaint from a cache owner. Quite the opposite, really. Fizzy's objections to this behavior kinda surprized me. If the Travel Gods ever smile on me, and my moniker gets added to a Fizzy cache, I will avoid such practices, as I don't wish to annoy anyone.

 

Nice log. I would appreciate getting that on one of my caches. In fact, I would not mind getting it on a few in one day, actually, if there were some addition to each that indicated you remembered the exact find in question. But there are a few reasons why your log is OK and the one I quoted is not:

  • Your log makes no mention about find counts, consecutive day counts, FTFs, or anything of that nature.
  • Your log doesn't smack of a form with details added.
  • Your log is interesting.

Link to comment

Wow! I had no idea that folks got so worked up about TFTC. I have been caching for more than three years and thought that TFTC was a nice, courteous way to say I enjoyed finding the cache. I don't particulary enjoy long, wordy logs anyway and I am one of those who likes smilies. Also, I really enjoy finding those tiny micros in strange places, even though I have to write really small to sign my name. Someone took the time and effort to find a good hiding place and I appreciate that effort.

 

I have a feeling you don't realize we're talking about TFTC, only TFTC, and nothing but TFTC. :)

 

I suspect you are right. In addition, we are referring to the online log, not to the paper log.

Link to comment

I have never received any blank logs, but when I had caches hidden, the TFTC only type logs were a bit annoying. Not enough for me to complain, but I have to admit it ruffled my feathers a few times. I would rather not get an email at all than to get just TFTC. (I was known locally for putting out quality caches and most of the time received decent logs)

 

The cut and paste logs would not be that bad except that I was the only one hiding caches in my area for years. So when someone came through town on a cache run I would get 30+ emails with basically the same content. That is almost as bad as getting a blank log to me.

 

I know that some people like to narrate their entire caching day and share it via the find log. But in my opinion, and this is only my opinion, those types of logs are best suited for someone's blog, twitter, or Facebook page. I just want to know what you though of my cache without having to read an essay. Again, just my .02 but not worth complaining about either. It is simple to just delete the duplicate emails.

Link to comment

I know that some people like to narrate their entire caching day and share it via the find log. But in my opinion, and this is only my opinion, those types of logs are best suited for someone's blog, twitter, or Facebook page. I just want to know what you though of my cache without having to read an essay. Again, just my .02 but not worth complaining about either. It is simple to just delete the duplicate emails.

Why is it that, whenever this subject comes up, we end up discussing two extremes... blank.TFTC, or epic novels. There is a happy medium. Oftentimes, a single, short sentence is all that is needed:

 

"Great walk to the cache, spotted a bluebird on the way. TFTC" would make a GREAT log!

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

I know that some people like to narrate their entire caching day and share it via the find log. But in my opinion, and this is only my opinion, those types of logs are best suited for someone's blog, twitter, or Facebook page. I just want to know what you though of my cache without having to read an essay. Again, just my .02 but not worth complaining about either. It is simple to just delete the duplicate emails.

Why is it that, whenever this subject comes up, we end up discussing two extremes... blank.TFTC, or epic novels. There is a happy medium. Oftentimes, a single, short sentence is all that is needed:

 

"Great walk to the cache, spotted a bluebird on the way. TFTC" would make a GREAT log!

My logs perfectly demonstrate this happy medium. Everyone elses are either too short or too long.

 

(In case your sarcasm detector is not working, this is a joke)

Link to comment
I know that some people like to narrate their entire caching day and share it via the find log.
Why is it that, whenever this subject comes up, we end up discussing two extremes... epic novels....

Just out of curiosity, if we take out the cut-and-paste logs that some people find irritating, is there still a decent level of annoyance at long logs in general? If I leave a long log for your cache and it describes both your cache, and what I personally went through that day on my way to the hunt or on my way back or whatever... and it's long but unique to your listing... does that still tick people off?

Link to comment

I know that some people like to narrate their entire caching day and share it via the find log. But in my opinion, and this is only my opinion, those types of logs are best suited for someone's blog, twitter, or Facebook page. I just want to know what you though of my cache without having to read an essay. Again, just my .02 but not worth complaining about either. It is simple to just delete the duplicate emails.

Why is it that, whenever this subject comes up, we end up discussing two extremes... blank.TFTC, or epic novels. There is a happy medium. Oftentimes, a single, short sentence is all that is needed:

 

"Great walk to the cache, spotted a bluebird on the way. TFTC" would make a GREAT log!

 

But noone is complaining about those types of logs. :anibad:

Link to comment

If I leave a long log for your cache and it describes both your cache, and what I personally went through that day on my way to the hunt or on my way back or whatever... and it's long but unique to your listing... does that still tick people off?

Some of them probably. Most likely will irk some cache finders too when they are looking for clues to the cache in the logs on their tiny GPS screen.

 

So it appears there is no solution.

Link to comment
I know that some people like to narrate their entire caching day and share it via the find log.
Why is it that, whenever this subject comes up, we end up discussing two extremes... epic novels....

Just out of curiosity, if we take out the cut-and-paste logs that some people find irritating, is there still a decent level of annoyance at long logs in general? If I leave a long log for your cache and it describes both your cache, and what I personally went through that day on my way to the hunt or on my way back or whatever... and it's long but unique to your listing... does that still tick people off?

 

If it is unique to that cache I love to read it. I have left pretty long narratives on a few caches. Usually it is not so much because the cache itself was that interesting, but maybe the difficulty I had finding it. But the entire story was what I went through to find that cache, not a narrative of my entire day finding a bunch of caches.

 

And some of my longest logs have been DNFs. Those are usually a lot more interesting than the find logs.

Link to comment

I know that some people like to narrate their entire caching day and share it via the find log. But in my opinion, and this is only my opinion, those types of logs are best suited for someone's blog, twitter, or Facebook page. I just want to know what you though of my cache without having to read an essay. Again, just my .02 but not worth complaining about either. It is simple to just delete the duplicate emails.

Why is it that, whenever this subject comes up, we end up discussing two extremes... blank.TFTC, or epic novels. There is a happy medium. Oftentimes, a single, short sentence is all that is needed:

 

"Great walk to the cache, spotted a bluebird on the way. TFTC" would make a GREAT log!

 

Or even just "Wow!". A 3 letter word, even shorter then TFTC but can signify that the cacher actually visited the cache and was impressed, perhaps awed, by the experience.

Link to comment

 

The cut and paste logs would not be that bad except that I was the only one hiding caches in my area for years. So when someone came through town on a cache run I would get 30+ emails with basically the same content. That is almost as bad as getting a blank log to me.

 

That's the main reason I despise them. You get these guys going on caching runs that will cut and paste one line logs. So, it's not uncommon for me to get six notifications on one day with this type of log:

 

"Was driving through the county on a cache run! Hot day! TFTC!"

 

You think cachers would be smart enough to look and see that the same fellow is hiding all the caches. Anyways... **grumble**

Link to comment

I have been caching for more than three years and thought that TFTC was a nice, courteous way to say I enjoyed finding the cache.

 

I consider "TFTC" logs to usually mean that you disliked the cache. If you liked it, you could at least say something else. Interesting trail! Nice hiding spot! Fun hike! Anything!

 

I can usually come up with a few words for even a LPC or guard rail cache. And by all means, if you disliked the location, please tell me. TFTC tells me absolutely nothing. Want better hides? Don't be afraid to criticize.

Link to comment

I know that some people like to narrate their entire caching day and share it via the find log. But in my opinion, and this is only my opinion, those types of logs are best suited for someone's blog, twitter, or Facebook page. I just want to know what you though of my cache without having to read an essay. Again, just my .02 but not worth complaining about either. It is simple to just delete the duplicate emails.

Why is it that, whenever this subject comes up, we end up discussing two extremes... blank.TFTC, or epic novels. There is a happy medium. Oftentimes, a single, short sentence is all that is needed:

 

"Great walk to the cache, spotted a bluebird on the way. TFTC" would make a GREAT log!

 

But noone is complaining about those types of logs. :anibad:

I'm just saying that the opposite of a TFTC log does not need to be a narration of an entire day of caching, a novel, a dissertation, or whatever.

Link to comment

I have been caching for more than three years and thought that TFTC was a nice, courteous way to say I enjoyed finding the cache.

 

I consider "TFTC" logs to usually mean that you disliked the cache. If you liked it, you could at least say something else. Interesting trail! Nice hiding spot! Fun hike! Anything!

 

I can usually come up with a few words for even a LPC or guard rail cache. And by all means, if you disliked the location, please tell me. TFTC tells me absolutely nothing. Want better hides? Don't be afraid to criticize.

 

I would never take TFTC or a blank log as someone disliked my cache. If I dislike a cache so much I just don't log it.

 

I don't hide for the logs. If the finder wants to write something, it is for them, not me. I hide to share the location. If they found my cache, they saw the location. They may have hated both, but that's their business really. All I can do is say, "check this out."

 

Again, we cannot dictate how others play the game. I'm considering not logging online at all anymore. I may just leave notes visible to me.

 

But I bet a CO would rather a TFTC than no log, if not just to say that the cache is still in place.

Edited by SeekerOfTheWay
Link to comment

OK, I'll be the one to take the flames.

 

When we cache, it is to get outside, see new areas, hike trails, a diversion while we're traveling and many other reasons I can't think of right now. Logging the caches is secondary to what we are doing.

 

Logs, contrary to the premise of this thread, are not there solely for the CO (with the exception of NA/NM) and are not intended to say thank you to the CO, or hints to other cachers, or a test of my story telling skills or whatever. While they can and are certainly used for thank you's, and often are, it should not be expected nor required.

 

While as a rule we never use just the acronyms (Android phone user by the way), I have cut and pasted on less than memorable caches after a days run of 70+ caches. I try to leave a note and, if the cache had a story to go with it, post that. Sorry, I just can't get excited about a LPC or a preform hanging in a tree beyond "Quick grab while out caching with XXXX for the day. TFTC". The online logs are there for MY benefit, to record my experiences as well as a means to track totals online. If you're hiding caches to read fabulous logs, a valid reason for you however many may see it another way, than expect disappointment. If someone chooses to log TFT$ or a blank log, it's valid. get over the disappointment and move on.

 

We will occasionally scan logs for a hint, however the ones logged by someone that seems to have "verbal diarrhea" just get a cursory glance. They can be entertaining at times, however often just drone on and on, more often than not having little to do with that particular cache. I won't say that we have never left a TFTC type log (since I know I did one one particular FTF in Chicago to make a point) however they are rare for us. That is our choice.

 

We miss the logs in the physical logs, however with fewer of the all too easy to find regular sized caches being hidden, we realize that is a thing of the past. However sitting on a log, taking a breather, reading through some is a lot more enjoyable than at my desk or on my phone.

 

TFTT

Link to comment

 

We miss the logs in the physical logs, however with fewer of the all too easy to find regular sized caches being hidden, we realize that is a thing of the past. However sitting on a log, taking a breather, reading through some is a lot more enjoyable than at my desk or on my phone.

 

TFTT

 

I've never really thought about this before, and though I generally write more than TFTC when logging via pc or smartphone, I very rarely write much more than " nice view, TFTC " or similar in the actual physical log even when there is room - maybe I should give the same consideration to the physical logs as I do to those on the PC!

Link to comment

Or even just "Wow!". A 3 letter word, even shorter then TFTC but can signify that the cacher actually visited the cache and was impressed, perhaps awed, by the experience.

And it works equally well for the cache that is so awful, you just can't think of anything good to say about it.

Link to comment
I have cut and pasted on less than memorable caches after a days run of 70+ caches. I try to leave a note and, if the cache had a story to go with it, post that.

 

Here's the question I always have about this. If you can't remember the caches you did on a 70-cache run, then why did you do them? I am genuinely curious, and really not trying to be judgmental. Does the sheer number of finds give you that "I accomplished something" feeling? Is signing caches something fun to do with friends, and the quality of the caches themselves secondary?

 

Perhaps this is off topic and I should start a new thread on it, but I really am curious. I haven't done any 70-cache days, but they seem to be popular and it would be interesting to understand why.

Link to comment

Or even just "Wow!". A 3 letter word, even shorter then TFTC but can signify that the cacher actually visited the cache and was impressed, perhaps awed, by the experience.

And it works equally well for the cache that is so awful, you just can't think of anything good to say about it.

That would be "Wow!" vs. "wow..."

Link to comment

Here's one user that copies the same log on about 50% of his finds with this information over and over...

 

Greetings:

 

A. Hooman

B. Scouts

C. Multi-eye-stocked floating orb

D. Android

 

Your

 

A. acetate containment facility

B. bovidae cylinder

C. ex-military ordinance storage unit

D. post-nutritional jar

 

and its:

 

A. "obfuscation marsh"

B. "covering"

C. stick

D. duct tape

 

has been scanned by the mighty Cryptosporidium-623 from planet FURON and his captured Hooman slave:

 

A. "Of-Arid-Corn"

B. "Hewie Pack Turd"

C. "Erik The Tick Handler"

D. "Mr Probed"

 

Thank you for this opportunity to:

 

A. Trek through wetlands and count insect species

B. Overthrow your primitive civilization

C. Obtain our very own dog excrement insulators

D. Discover the secrets of your Egg McMuffins

 

 

If there is an LPC, all you're gonna get from me is a TFTC. As noted from the majority, if the cache is memorable and had a good view, hike, etc then I will write more. If you want to stop seeing TFTC, make the cache worth its while. If the cache was memorable and you put in the effort, money, etc and you're offended by a TFTC log entry - get over it.

Link to comment
I have cut and pasted on less than memorable caches after a days run of 70+ caches. I try to leave a note and, if the cache had a story to go with it, post that.

 

Here's the question I always have about this. If you can't remember the caches you did on a 70-cache run, then why did you do them? I am genuinely curious, and really not trying to be judgmental. Does the sheer number of finds give you that "I accomplished something" feeling? Is signing caches something fun to do with friends, and the quality of the caches themselves secondary?

 

Perhaps this is off topic and I should start a new thread on it, but I really am curious. I haven't done any 70-cache days, but they seem to be popular and it would be interesting to understand why.

 

Fair enough question.

 

I do it with three or four others about once a month. For us, it gets us into new areas while we spend the day visiting, talking,etc. Sometimes we even get sidetracked by other activities we find along the way. On occasion we have done a multi or puzzle that takes the whole day, in which case the count is "1" and the log usually is more detailed (not anywhere near 400 words though) or we have done a challenge like we are trying to arrange now that requires 40 some caches along a bike trail on a state line (twenty in each state) to qualify. Some may be ones I would write a log for, others may end up being an LPC, especially since we need to do it in one day.

 

Another thing is people often think that when people go on runs similar to ours, there is a lot of filtering of caches to get what is wanted. When we plan out a route, one of the very few criteria is that none of us have found it, beyond that, we don't do a lot of pre-qualifying so may end up at the LPC or other less than stellar (our opinion) caches. We pick an area, try to work out a route that covers the most ground in the least amount of time. Often we don't know what we're looking for until we're on the way to it.

 

To directly answer your first question, and without going back to my post, it is not that I can not remember them, it is they are less than memorable. I pretty much can remember them all if I log them soon enough, however what can you write about an LPC, even if it is in a park? Why write a long of any length if you are doing so simply to put words on a screen? As I said, I do not do TFTC or blank logs however do not think others should be chastised or felt to feel they did something wrong if they do. The same, although OT, goes for those that do it for the numbers or any other reason.

Link to comment

wow...geocaching has the oddest community. reading the forums one week, it's all about people not signing the logs and their finds should be deleted. i thought i was being a good lad by telling my 4 year old to endure the bugs because of the meltdown people have if you don't sign the logs. this weeks compliant is hating on the TFTC's they get when the logs are signed. so if i don't sign its bad but if i do sign TFTC its bad...geez people make your minds up.

 

whats next weeks epic discussion on the forum? i guess you don't need an imagination to wonder. i bet it will be negative though. i'm surprised trolls don't bombard this forum. this is a feeding ground.

Are you only talking about the physical logbook? Because this thread is talking about the online logs. :)

Link to comment

Just depends on the cache for me. Im sadden when someone puts something short on a few of my caches that are custom containers like my fire hydrant made out of wood. But i never get mad. Some people don't realize that if you hide caches on signs and fire hydrants those finds are not worthy of a long story because what can you possibly say. If you want a good log hide better caches. If I find a boring cache I going to probably provide you with a generic post. Unless something interesting happens during that find. It's a 2 way street people.

Link to comment

I'm a bit concerned about the comments in this thread that are disparaging towards longer logs. From what I remember years ago, it seemed that a lot of people in the threads encouraged longer logs. Then I started noticing once or twice someone comment about how that was irritating. This thread shows the most negative comments about longer logs that I've ever seen. I guess it's going out of favor. :huh:

 

I don't do as long of logs since I've been sick, but I used to get quite wordy, about everything that went on with my caching trip. I guess it could be seen as verbal diarrhea. I always felt that it was a good thing, and I really appreciate it when I sometimes get these sorts of logs (although I don't think I've ever gotten hugely long logs) on my cache hides.

 

Now I'm concerned that COs and other cache finders have been looking askance at these logs. Really? I should be saving these sorts of logs for my blog? I always thought that logging our finds online were to reflect our caching experience. That's the whole point. I'm quite perturbed to find that's not the case. :anibad:<_<

Link to comment

Or even just "Wow!". A 3 letter word, even shorter then TFTC but can signify that the cacher actually visited the cache and was impressed, perhaps awed, by the experience.

And it works equally well for the cache that is so awful, you just can't think of anything good to say about it.

That would be, "Wow. Just, wow!"

Link to comment

Or even just "Wow!". A 3 letter word, even shorter then TFTC but can signify that the cacher actually visited the cache and was impressed, perhaps awed, by the experience.

And it works equally well for the cache that is so awful, you just can't think of anything good to say about it.

That would be, "Wow. Just, wow!"

 

You will enjoy my short logs and photographic journey through your caches when I get down there.

Link to comment

wow...geocaching has the oddest community. reading the forums one week, it's all about people not signing the logs and their finds should be deleted. i thought i was being a good lad by telling my 4 year old to endure the bugs because of the meltdown people have if you don't sign the logs. this weeks compliant is hating on the TFTC's they get when the logs are signed. so if i don't sign its bad but if i do sign TFTC its bad...geez people make your minds up.

 

whats next weeks epic discussion on the forum? i guess you don't need an imagination to wonder. i bet it will be negative though. i'm surprised trolls don't bombard this forum. this is a feeding ground.

Are you only talking about the physical logbook? Because this thread is talking about the online logs. :)

 

In addition, jonnyblond... you can't simply judge "the forum community" as though it were one person. We are a diverse group with many different opinions. Ask about blank logs, and you will hear from those that don't like blank logs. Ask about signing the paper log, and you will hear from those with opinions about that. As a reader of those threads, it is easy and natural to lump them all together as "the forum", but that isn't the case. In addition, by posting here, you are also a part of that group.

Link to comment

I know that some people like to narrate their entire caching day and share it via the find log. But in my opinion, and this is only my opinion, those types of logs are best suited for someone's blog, twitter, or Facebook page. I just want to know what you though of my cache without having to read an essay. Again, just my .02 but not worth complaining about either. It is simple to just delete the duplicate emails.

Why is it that, whenever this subject comes up, we end up discussing two extremes... blank.TFTC, or epic novels. There is a happy medium. Oftentimes, a single, short sentence is all that is needed:

 

"Great walk to the cache, spotted a bluebird on the way. TFTC" would make a GREAT log!

 

But noone is complaining about those types of logs. :anibad:

I'm just saying that the opposite of a TFTC log does not need to be a narration of an entire day of caching, a novel, a dissertation, or whatever.

 

The opposite of a TFTC log is a TBY pgsg. :anibad:

Link to comment

Now I'm concerned that COs and other cache finders have been looking askance at these logs. Really? I should be saving these sorts of logs for my blog? I always thought that logging our finds online were to reflect our caching experience. That's the whole point. I'm quite perturbed to find that's not the case. :anibad:<_<

 

My issue is not with the really long logs. As I stated earlier, I have written a number of these kinds of logs.

 

My issue is when the log doesn't really pertain to any cache but is more of a narrative of the cacher's day.

 

For contrast, Flask has been known to write really long narratives. But her logs cover all the caches she found that day. She writes one big narrative. Then she splits it up and posts the parts that pertain to each cache as the find log for that cache.

 

That kind of log I would not mind. I would not be receiving 30 duplicate emails. Instead, each email would build on the last as they came in and you would read them all in order to get the entire story. I wouldn't mind that.

 

I wouldn't really mind getting 1 email with a long narrative that had nothing to do with my cache. But I don't like receiving 30 duplicate emails that have nothing to do with my cache. I would rather read that kind of narrative on someone's blog or Facebook page.

Link to comment

wow...geocaching has the oddest community. reading the forums one week, it's all about people not signing the logs and their finds should be deleted. i thought i was being a good lad by telling my 4 year old to endure the bugs because of the meltdown people have if you don't sign the logs. this weeks compliant is hating on the TFTC's they get when the logs are signed. so if i don't sign its bad but if i do sign TFTC its bad...geez people make your minds up.

 

whats next weeks epic discussion on the forum? i guess you don't need an imagination to wonder. i bet it will be negative though. i'm surprised trolls don't bombard this forum. this is a feeding ground.

Are you only talking about the physical logbook? Because this thread is talking about the online logs. :)

 

In addition, jonnyblond... you can't simply judge "the forum community" as though it were one person. We are a diverse group with many different opinions. Ask about blank logs, and you will hear from those that don't like blank logs. Ask about signing the paper log, and you will hear from those with opinions about that. As a reader of those threads, it is easy and natural to lump them all together as "the forum", but that isn't the case. In addition, by posting here, you are also a part of that group.

 

And some of us are not bothered enough about the issue to start a thread about it but we will comment when it is brought up. That's pretty much how I feel about this issue. It doesn't bother me that much one way or the other. But since there is an active thread about the topic I figured I would toss in my 2 cents worth.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...