Jump to content

Im tired of TFTC logs.


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I agree with Hukilaulau too. I hide caches for the enjoyment of others and the logs tell me how much they enjoyed the cache. Without that input I have no incentive to hide more caches. If I don't know that people are enjoying my caches there are other ways I'd rather spend my time and money. I probably would have stopped after my first hide if all I received where "TFTC" and "Found It".

 

TFTC tells me nothing. Now a log such as the one I received over the weekend tells me a lot:

"..now I'm not sure if this was crazy or just stupid, probably a little of both but after carefully negotiating my way down I found myself in one of the coolest locations I've ever been! The view from above does this place no justice, it is just too cool for words and something you really need to see for yourself to truly appreciate...I stopped for a while to enjoy my surroundings and scramble on the awesome rocks before I made the arduous climb back up. I'm so glad I made the decision to climb down for this as this was one of my most enjoyable advendures and now favorite locations...TFTH!"

 

It's logs like the latter that tell me the finder enjoyed my effort.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
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.

At an event quite some time ago, a fairly new cacher asked me what kind of caches I like to find. I hadn't really thought about it up till then, and just blurted out the first thing that came to mind which most accurately answered the question:

 

"I like caches which get long logs"

 

A few others overheard that conversation, and the debate got to be rather lengthy, as many folks agreed with my answer, but had a tough time grasping how to quantify it. We eventually came to a compromise where we decided that those caches that offer the greatest sense of adventure, for whatever reason, are those that will usually get the lengthy logs. Even those guys who typically write very terse logs, average more words on great caches.

 

Because of this extremely personal bias, when I "hide a cache that I'd like to hunt", log quality definitely plays a role. Though I see where your advice would be spot on for someone who didn't care about the content of the find logs on their caches.

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.

Edited by succotash
Link to comment

I wonder how many of you write to the person who leaves a great log on your cache and let them know how much you liked it? We probably don't do it as often as we should, but we do. 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.

Yes, I always try to write a good descriptive log and post photos with merit. I do thank cachers who post great logs and photos.

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 have also, on occasion.

Link to comment

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.

 

Wait, so is this a guideline that is a hard and fast rule, or a guideline that is pretty hard and fast, but ocassionaly gets bent, or is it one of those guidelines that is just really only a suggestion, or one of those guidelines that Toz will say doesn't mean what you think it means, or is it just a good old guideline. I'm so confused!

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 have also, on occasion.

.

 

I've had e-mails back on a couple logs I've wrote some because I put specific stuff down about my personal history of the area and there was a shared history with the cache owner. And once because it was just one of those goofy logs. I don't expect an e-mail from cache owners back though. I post pictures if I can find something to take a picture of that I think is unique from other pictures if there's pictures. If there aren't any and I have a good picture that doesn't give away cache location then I post it.

 

I end up with more discussion with other cache finders than owners actually when it comes to logs.

Link to comment

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.

 

This comment got my interest, so I decided to check log lengths vis-a-vis the difficulty of the cache placement. Here are the average log lengths for selected cache ratings in my state:

 

1.0/1.0 caches average 18.3 words.

Caches up to 1.5/1.5 average 18.8 words.

Caches 2.5/2.5 or more average 41.6 words.

4.0/4.0 or more average 77.2 words

5.0/5.0 caches average 99.8 words.

Link to comment

This is a remarkable coincidence, as I was just thinking that it isn't very creative or respectful of me to just say TFTC when I can't think of anything else. OK, from now on, a personal, interesting note on EVERY cache. After all, you took the time to hide it!

 

The angels are singing!!

Link to comment

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

 

http://support.Groun...=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.

 

Wait, so is this a guideline that is a hard and fast rule, or a guideline that is pretty hard and fast, but ocassionaly gets bent, or is it one of those guidelines that is just really only a suggestion, or one of those guidelines that Toz will say doesn't mean what you think it means, or is it just a good old guideline. I'm so confused!

 

I suspect the word, "must" in "must be optional" makes it a little stronger than a simple guideline. HOWEVER... this guideline is often quoted at reason to think that insufficient (blank/TFTC) logs can never be deleted. I'm not so sure (at least not the ALR text taken by itself). ALRs had gotten ridiculous. That is why they were banned. Ridiculous Logging Requirements is what they should have been called. Few of us would dare claim that insisting the paper log be signed is a Ridiculous Logging Requirement.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

Link to comment

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.

 

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides?

Link to comment

 

I suspect the word, "must" in "must be optional" makes it a little stronger than a simple guideline. HOWEVER... this guideline is often quoted at reason to think that insufficient (blank/TFTC) logs can never be deleted. I'm not so sure (at least not the ALR text taken by itself). ALRs had gotten ridiculous. That is why they were banned. Ridiculous Logging Requirements is what they should have been called. Few of us would dare claim that insisting the paper log be signed is a Ridiculous Logging Requirement.

 

From the "horses mouth", so to speak;

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1365115-disallow-blank-logs?ref=title

Link to comment

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.

 

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides?

 

Where did I say he felt that way?

Link to comment

I suspect the word, "must" in "must be optional" makes it a little stronger than a simple guideline. HOWEVER... this guideline is often quoted at reason to think that insufficient (blank/TFTC) logs can never be deleted. I'm not so sure (at least not the ALR text taken by itself). ALRs had gotten ridiculous. That is why they were banned. Ridiculous Logging Requirements is what they should have been called. Few of us would dare claim that insisting the paper log be signed is a Ridiculous Logging Requirement.

 

From the "horses mouth", so to speak;

 

http://feedback.geoc...-logs?ref=title

 

I am fully aware of what the horse said. Nowhere in there does he say that the ALR guidelines has anything to do with the decision, though, but that is generally what is quoted when someone suggest deleting blank logs.

Link to comment

:laughing:

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.

Like i said in my OP, I wouldnt actually want 500 words (only if they wanted to write that much and it would be greatly appreciated). I wouldnt count to make sure any of them were 500 anyways. And 80 words is 79 more than TFTC. I feel that im pretty descriptive on most of my logs.

 

I notice alot of people go back thru origional posters logs just to try to prove them wrong on a forum. I find that a bit odd. Are you a geodetective or one of those "I know it all and im gonna prove you wrong on a pointless matter because i can kind of people"? In some states "geostalking" is illegal i think. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: lol just kidding. but really, im sure you heard the term "read between the lines." but you should try actually reading the lines. in my OP i even said i wouldnt actually require 500 words. come on man, get it together!

 

Manily i was just venting but the idea of an essay required log does/did sound interesting and fun to me. As long as the hide was worth it, and i would of made it worth it. If you dont want to write a long essay log for the find because you dont think it would be fun, then dont go find it. there is no guidline saying you have to find every geocache in your area. I honestly had no idea about the ALR guideline tho. I rarely ever even think about the guidelines in geocaching when i try to think up new hides. i guess i should start tho. I mean honestly to look at it from a hiders point of view. People dont want ALRs because it might take away from the fun or whatever so they made a guidline or rule aginst them. But there are so many guidlines in hiding geocaches, it takes away from the hiders fun in my opinion. i get the ones for safety but some areas could be lightened up on. but thats another forum post.

 

The "liar log" or story log cache idea is interesting. I havent seen one of those before. The thought of having to make it optional and the likely hood of still getting TFTC only logs still grinds my gears <_< Im a hider that enjoys hiding cause i enjoy reading the logs. I really dont see how that means i should stop hiding then? :blink: Im glad im not the only one that shares my pep peev.

 

Also while i agree that being new and smartphone logging may have a bit to do with it, im not completly forgiving just because you are new. We all were new once. I just started over a year ago and all i was using was C:geo and my android. From day one i didnt just leave TFTC only logs(not that i can remember, im sure someone will go back on my logs to prove me wrong). I actually just started leaving TFTC only logs on bad or boring hides this year.

 

Also, also. like i said in my OP, not every cache is desrving a good log. but i feel my caches that i get them on do deserve good logs. i would say all but 2 of my caches are fun or creative hides in one way or another. 1 of the 2 is a bit boring, it was only my second hide, what you want from me? i expect TFTC only logs. My first hide being the other but now that i think about it, it has a poetic name and a nice message beind it. But the others are pretty crative in my opinon. If you dont believe me, come find them! Even leave a TFTC only log if you want, its still gonna grind my gears. But im sure you may want to leave a bit more because im positive they would put a smile on your face, :grin:

 

Okay, im done venting again.... please dont attack me. B)

Link to comment

I notice alot of people go back thru origional posters logs just to try to prove them wrong on a forum. I find that a bit odd. Are you a geodetective or one of those "I know it all and im gonna prove you wrong on a pointless matter because i can kind of people"?

No, I am one of those people who think it is wrong to ask of other to meet a standard that I don't meet myself. So if I generally don't write essays on caches I would not have the double standard to try to force/guilt/whatever people into writing essays on my own caches.

Your request for people to write essays on logs would be much more legitimate to me and add a good deal more weight to your request if the previous logs you wrote were essays.

 

I rarely ever even think about the guidelines in geocaching when i try to think up new hides. i guess i should start tho.

 

I think that is a very good idea. See, we can agree on something at least. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I notice alot of people go back thru origional posters logs just to try to prove them wrong on a forum. I find that a bit odd. Are you a geodetective or one of those "I know it all and im gonna prove you wrong on a pointless matter because i can kind of people"?

No, I am one of those people who think it is wrong to ask of other to meet a standard that I don't meet myself. So if I generally don't write essays on caches I would not have the double standard to try to force/guilt/whatever people into writing essays on my own caches.

Your request for people to write essays on logs would be much more legitimate to me and add a good deal more weight to your request if the previous logs you wrote were essays.

 

I rarely ever even think about the guidelines in geocaching when i try to think up new hides. i guess i should start tho.

 

I think that is a very good idea. See, we can agree on something at least. :rolleyes:

Like i said man, i didnt actually want 500 words, just better and more descriptive. Im pretty decripitive on caches that are good hides. No, not 500 words or essays, that was just an over exaggerated example. Just be more descriptive, my hides that i was refering to are fun and crative. More deserving than TFTC only logs. Did you even read my last post entirly? i was pretty descriptive there. :rolleyes:

 

and i was being sarcastic about starting to think about the guidlines. IM A REBEL! :cool::laughing:

Edited by bradley0130
Link to comment

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.

 

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides?

 

Where did I say he felt that way?

 

When you said, "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?".

Link to comment

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.

 

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides?

 

Where did I say he felt that way?

I agree, you took what i said way out of context. I think most of my hides are very good. But i am a little bias :P

Link to comment

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.

 

Wait, so is this a guideline that is a hard and fast rule, or a guideline that is pretty hard and fast, but ocassionaly gets bent, or is it one of those guidelines that is just really only a suggestion, or one of those guidelines that Toz will say doesn't mean what you think it means, or is it just a good old guideline. I'm so confused!

It doesn't say what you think it means.

 

It says that cache owners cannot delete log because of an additional logging requirement. Cache owner can still delete logs which are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate (elsewhere in the guidelines).

 

It doesn't say the cache owners must delete logs if the physical log is unsigned. It is worded in a manner that still allows this this.

 

Prior to this change, the general feeling was that the cache owner was king. They could delete logs for nearly any reason. Certainly they could delete log that were "not within the stated requirements" (this has been been replaced by "otherwise inappropriate"). Cache owners could put all sorts of requirements on their cache pages - including that logs consisting only of acronyms would be deleted.

 

In reality, Groundspeak was often called in to settle disputes between cache owners and finders who had there logs deleted. While often they told the finder to forget it (or to log a find on some archived cache so their count would be "correct"), they sometimes told the cache owner to stop deleting logs (and I personally am aware of at least on case where they archived the cache and lock the page to prevent further deletions).

 

The guidelines were changed to give Groundspeak further leverage in dealing with cache owners turning the online log into something other than a simple way for finders to record they found a cache. I suppose they continued allowing cache owners to delete logs where the physical log is not signed because there are some instances where this was the best evidence that the cache was really found.

 

I suspect the word, "must" in "must be optional" makes it a little stronger than a simple guideline. HOWEVER... this guideline is often quoted at reason to think that insufficient (blank/TFTC) logs can never be deleted. I'm not so sure (at least not the ALR text taken by itself). ALRs had gotten ridiculous. That is why they were banned. Ridiculous Logging Requirements is what they should have been called. Few of us would dare claim that insisting the paper log be signed is a Ridiculous Logging Requirement.

I would claim that, in most instances, insisting that the paper log be signed is a ridiculous logging requirement. However, there may be a few caches where other proof of a find may be insufficient (though I would imagine a photo of the finder holding the logbook might work), so the guidelines are currently written to allow cache owners to delete such logs.

Link to comment

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. :P

 

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.

 

You know, in the fiscal year 2003-2004, I did my whole years worth (12) of Army Reserve meetings in Central, NJ. There weren't that many caches around of course, and Melvin's Multiple Madness was definitely staring me in the face every time I looked at the local listings. I did have quite a bit of time for caching before and after the meetings, as well as during our 1.5 hour lunch hours. But not enough time for that!! Additionally, I didn't think it would be smart to try that one alone. I believe extraordinary caches such as that are never going to generate TFTC only logs.

 

However, I'm one of the 110 people watching the 5th oldest active cache in the World, GC39, The Spot There was in fact 3 "TFTC" smartphone logs posted to it in early June. But I just looked, and all three of them were edited. :D

Link to comment

I personally dislike the "Ctrl-V" logs the most. They're not too hard to recognize.

 

I try to write a well written, 4-5 sentence "Ctrl-V" log about my day as a whole, and put that on every cache and then write a couple sentences or a few brief comments about individual caches that stuck out to me. I figure, if the cache didn't stick out to me as memorable on that day, then the Ctrl-V log is all it will get.

Link to comment

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.

 

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides?

 

Where did I say he felt that way?

 

When you said, "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?".

Don't read more into what I write than what I actually write.

 

I didn't say he said he felt one way or the other.

 

But he did say he was going to make this cache a good hide. Why be sure to make this one good? Make them all good then you don't have to worry about this one being good.

Link to comment
I personally dislike the "Ctrl-V" logs the most. They're not too hard to recognize.

 

I agree with you. Every time we get into a discussion of cut-and-paste logs, it turns into a discussion of "TFTC" logs. But a long cut-and-paste log with zero content is a lot more obnoxious than a minimal log

 

We have a local cacher whose logs are almost completely cut-and-paste. Here is an actual log from one of my caches:

 

#4605. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Took a couple of minutes as it wasn’t where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. TFTH.

 

Almost zero information. I find these logs more annoying than TFTC logs.

Link to comment

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.

 

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides?

 

Where did I say he felt that way?

 

When you said, "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?".

Don't read more into what I write than what I actually write.

 

I didn't say he said he felt one way or the other.

 

But he did say he was going to make this cache a good hide. Why be sure to make this one good? Make them all good then you don't have to worry about this one being good.

There isn't much to read into a statement like "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?". Bradley0130 seems to have read it the same way that I did.

Link to comment

We have a local cacher whose logs are almost completely cut-and-paste. Here is an actual log from one of my caches:

 

#4605. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Took a couple of minutes as it wasn't where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. TFTH.

 

Almost zero information. I find these logs more annoying than TFTC logs.

And all about him. Oh, except for the "TFTH" and "Cache is in good shape". Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

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.

 

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides?

 

Where did I say he felt that way?

 

When you said, "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?".

Don't read more into what I write than what I actually write.

 

I didn't say he said he felt one way or the other.

 

But he did say he was going to make this cache a good hide. Why be sure to make this one good? Make them all good then you don't have to worry about this one being good.

There isn't much to read into a statement like "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?". Bradley0130 seems to have read it the same way that I did.

 

No. It just means both of you are wrong.

 

I didn't say he felt anything.

 

But is does seem reasonable that if all your caches are good you would not need to specify that this one would be good.

Link to comment

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.

 

Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?

Where did he say that he felt some of his were not good hides?

 

Where did I say he felt that way?

 

When you said, "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?".

Don't read more into what I write than what I actually write.

 

I didn't say he said he felt one way or the other.

 

But he did say he was going to make this cache a good hide. Why be sure to make this one good? Make them all good then you don't have to worry about this one being good.

There isn't much to read into a statement like "Why not make all of your caches good hides to begin with?". Bradley0130 seems to have read it the same way that I did.

 

No. It just means both of you are wrong.

 

I didn't say he felt anything.

 

But is does seem reasonable that if all your caches are good you would not need to specify that this one would be good.

OK, if you say so.

Link to comment
#4605. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Took a couple of minutes as it wasn’t where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. TFTH.

 

Almost zero information. I find these logs more annoying than TFTC logs.

You might find it annoying but that is hardly zero information. Even looking for "useful" information there is a lot here.

 

#4605. - yeah the find count doesn't add much. I suspect that he just likes to keep track of his finds and the log is a conveinient place to do this.

 

TNLNSL - he basically told you that he made no trade and that he signed the log book. That's got to be useful to the cache owner.

 

Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. - Reporting on his personal goals may be annoying but still helps knowing what motivates this cacher. Many people who aren't FTF hounds or aren't actively pursuing some challenge will often mention if they got an FTF or set some personal milestone. I agree that putting this in every log seems like overkill.

 

Good coordinates and hint. - for both the owner and other finders this confirms the coordinates and usefulness of hint.

 

Took a couple of minutes as it wasn’t where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). - This is good information for another finder. There may be something that leads you make assumptions here. The comment would encourage me to take another tack if I was having trouble find the caches.

 

Cache is in good shape. - What more could a cache owner want in a log?

 

Replaced as found. - It's always good for a cacher owner to hear this.

 

Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. - OK this seem bizarre. I suppose knowing the elevation and the weather is of little use to someone else. It does provide information about this cacher's experience however.

 

TFTH. - I guess it could have been spelled out. But he is thanking you for the cache.

Link to comment

About a year ago I decided to never again put "TFTC" in my log even if it was at the tail end of a 10 paragraph log. I too am sick of the short logs. Almost all of my hides are unique, creative or take a lot of time to finish the cache. I have one cache that requires a 12 mile hike and at the end you find a 4' long ammo can. I personally paid $30 for the container, hiked out there lugging this thing along and placed it. Then I'm thanked with a "Nice hike, TFTC" log. Do the finders think I put out that effort for that kind of validation?

 

In Charlotte, NC there is a cache mocking these loggers that is called "YWFTC" and asks that finders write crappy acronyms and three word logs. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

Almost zero information. I find these logs more annoying than TFTC logs.

Seriously?

What then are people supposed to write about in a log?

If you eliminate information about the weather, why the cacher happened to be there, the condition of the cache, the accuracy of the coords, the quality of the hint and difficulties in making the find what is there really left to log about?

Now you are completely entitled to your opinion on this and I am in no way trying to change your opinion. I am just curious as to what information as the cache owner you are wanting in a log. I ask because other then the personal count, exact temperature and altitude the information given in the log seems pretty much like the information I put in my logs. And if I am actually making cache owners more upset then just putting TFTC maybe I should just do TFTC logs and save myself the effort of typing out something unique about each cache.

Link to comment
I personally dislike the "Ctrl-V" logs the most. They're not too hard to recognize.

 

I agree with you. Every time we get into a discussion of cut-and-paste logs, it turns into a discussion of "TFTC" logs. But a long cut-and-paste log with zero content is a lot more obnoxious than a minimal log

 

We have a local cacher whose logs are almost completely cut-and-paste. Here is an actual log from one of my caches:

 

#4605. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Took a couple of minutes as it wasn’t where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. TFTH.

 

Almost zero information. I find these logs more annoying than TFTC logs.

I think my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. Are you being funny, or do you actualy think that this is 0 information? There seems to be several very specific references that are not cut and past. If it is an automated form, s/he must have a really cool App to add in all those details (elevation, weather, assumption etc.). But I will admit that it is bad form to give tempeture without complete units (43°C is very hot, 43°F is cool)

Link to comment
#4605. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Took a couple of minutes as it wasn't where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. TFTH.

 

Almost zero information. I find these logs more annoying than TFTC logs.

You might find it annoying but that is hardly zero information. Even looking for "useful" information there is a lot here.

 

#4605. - yeah the find count doesn't add much. I suspect that he just likes to keep track of his finds and the log is a conveinient place to do this.

 

TNLNSL - he basically told you that he made no trade and that he signed the log book. That's got to be useful to the cache owner.

 

Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. - Reporting on his personal goals may be annoying but still helps knowing what motivates this cacher. Many people who aren't FTF hounds or aren't actively pursuing some challenge will often mention if they got an FTF or set some personal milestone. I agree that putting this in every log seems like overkill.

 

Good coordinates and hint. - for both the owner and other finders this confirms the coordinates and usefulness of hint.

 

Took a couple of minutes as it wasn't where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). - This is good information for another finder. There may be something that leads you make assumptions here. The comment would encourage me to take another tack if I was having trouble find the caches.

 

Cache is in good shape. - What more could a cache owner want in a log?

 

Replaced as found. - It's always good for a cacher owner to hear this.

 

Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. - OK this seem bizarre. I suppose knowing the elevation and the weather is of little use to someone else. It does provide information about this cacher's experience however.

 

TFTH. - I guess it could have been spelled out. But he is thanking you for the cache.

 

I agree with tozainamboku. Now if the Finder Ctrl-V'd the exact comment into several caches he found that day I would take issue with it. But if the comment is specific to that particular cache, there's a lot of good information in it.

Link to comment

I agree with tozainamboku. Now if the Finder Ctrl-V'd the exact comment into several caches he found that day I would take issue with it. But if the comment is specific to that particular cache, there's a lot of good information in it.

 

He Ctrl-Ved everything but one sentence into every cache he did that day.

Link to comment

I agree with tozainamboku. Now if the Finder Ctrl-V'd the exact comment into several caches he found that day I would take issue with it. But if the comment is specific to that particular cache, there's a lot of good information in it.

 

He Ctrl-Ved everything but one sentence into every cache he did that day.

 

In the Heels of Alamogul #8

FTF!!! #119 @ 7:08 AM. Find #4602. 5 days, 8 hours, 49 minutes from publication to FTF (and this is the SF Bay Area!!!). Saw this one pop-up and realized it was a bit of a drive (Google Earth said 62.4 miles, 1 hour, 37 minutes). However, it was somewhat remote and might last past the weekend since it was rainy Saturday and Sunday. It did last. The next question, would it last into February so as I could get my FTF and keep my monthly FTF streak going. So, left the house about 5:15 AM. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #1 of 4 found today. Good coordinates. Took a couple of minutes as it was well hid. The nearby platform helped. This find ups my “Most consecutive months with a FTF” streak to 20. As I made the drive from Livermore and climbed into the hills, I saw the gauge displaying the outside temperature go from 41 degrees to 36, 31, 25, 23, and go as low as 21. Thought that can’t be right, but looked out the window, saw the frost and heavy ice on the ponds and puddles next to the road. At least it warmed up by the time I got to this one. Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Logged the FTF find at 7:28 AM from my Droid2 after driving to the next cache and getting a cell signal. This may spare the other FTF hounds from wasting a trip and gas on a failed FTF attempt. Elevation 2594 feet. Weather 36 degrees this early morning before dawn, clear, slight breeze, California cold. However, it’s always a nice day when you get an FTF. TFTH.

 

Meeting of the Mines

#4603. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #2 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Took a couple of minutes as I didn’t want to put my hands in places I couldn’t see. Had to anyway, and made the find. Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 2176 feet. Weather 37 degrees this early morning at dawn, clear, breezy, California cold. TFTH.

 

Tucked Away On Mines Road

#4604. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #3 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Quick and easy. Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 1834 feet. Weather 39 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. TFTH.

 

Mine The Gap

#4605. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Took a couple of minutes as it wasn’t where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. TFTH.
Link to comment

Or, to make it easier to discern the changes.

 

In the Heels of Alamogul #8

FTF!!! #119 @ 7:08 AM. Find #4602. 5 days, 8 hours, 49 minutes from publication to FTF (and this is the SF Bay Area!!!). Saw this one pop-up and realized it was a bit of a drive (Google Earth said 62.4 miles, 1 hour, 37 minutes). However, it was somewhat remote and might last past the weekend since it was rainy Saturday and Sunday. It did last. The next question, would it last into February so as I could get my FTF and keep my monthly FTF streak going. So, left the house about 5:15 AM. This was #1 of 4 found today. Good coordinates. Took a couple of minutes as it was well hid. The nearby platform helped. This find ups my “Most consecutive months with a FTF” streak to 20. As I made the drive from Livermore and climbed into the hills, I saw the gauge displaying the outside temperature go from 41 degrees to 36, 31, 25, 23, and go as low as 21. Thought that can’t be right, but looked out the window, saw the frost and heavy ice on the ponds and puddles next to the road. At least it warmed up by the time I got to this one. Logged the FTF find at 7:28 AM from my Droid2 after driving to the next cache and getting a cell signal. This may spare the other FTF hounds from wasting a trip and gas on a failed FTF attempt.

Meeting of the Mines

Took a couple of minutes as I didn’t want to put my hands in places I couldn’t see. Had to anyway, and made the find.

Tucked Away On Mines Road

Quick and easy.

Mine The Gap

# Took a couple of minutes as it wasn’t where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer).
Link to comment
I personally dislike the "Ctrl-V" logs the most. They're not too hard to recognize.

 

I agree with you. Every time we get into a discussion of cut-and-paste logs, it turns into a discussion of "TFTC" logs. But a long cut-and-paste log with zero content is a lot more obnoxious than a minimal log

 

We have a local cacher whose logs are almost completely cut-and-paste. Here is an actual log from one of my caches:

 

#4605. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Took a couple of minutes as it wasn’t where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. TFTH.

 

Almost zero information. I find these logs more annoying than TFTC logs.

 

It's even worse when it's someone that's out caching with two or three other people, they also post cut-n-paste logs and they hit 5-6 of your caches. You end up with 20 or so nearly identical email notifications of their logs.

Link to comment

Here is a log for you OP

 

TFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCT

FTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCT

FTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTC

TFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCT

FTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCT

FTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTCTFTC

 

Does 500 letters really mean anything. A good cache in an interesting location deserves a longer log. A film container tossed at the base of a sign, under a lamp post or under some rotting logs in the woods doesn't inspire people to write thought full logs.

Edited by kklems
Link to comment

Does 500 letters really mean anything. A good cache in an interesting location deserves a longer log. A film container tossed at the base of a sign, under a lamp post or under some rotting logs in the woods doesn't inspire people to write thought full logs.

 

Yeah I agree, thats why i said that in my OP. Really, read everything, then comment. It will make the world a happier place.

Link to comment

Actually the find number, cache of the day number,weather and altitude are all different on each log as well if one wishes to be picky. :ph34r:

 

Individually each log looks pretty good to me (actually they make my logs look pretty lame in comparison).

 

But if one is not gifted with the ability to creatively write a caching story and there was really nothing that set a cache apart from the others that were found that day what is a writer of lame cache logs to do?

 

I freely admit that I write bad logs. I have tried to be better about it. Even so my longest log ever was only 345 words and yeah most of that was ctrl-v with an over-view of a 24 hour endurance cache run the cache was a part of.

 

Maybe it is the cache area I am in and the type of hides we have. But I honestly don't see much to write about.

 

Examples from last trip;

 

Spice jar covered with camo tape and hooked to a tree along a gravel road with no particular view of anything interesting. Nothing funny happened while hunting for it. Nothing bad happened. Saw no special wildlife of note. Found the cache without difficulty.

 

Paintball tube near cemetery. No personal kin in this place. No impressive markers. Some of the names were amusing but would hate to make a note of it and find out it is also the name of the CO. Container was terrible for the location, log was soaked and we added a new one.

 

Now multiply the above examples by 20 and you have my last cache trip.

 

Overall I had a great time but no particular cache was like 'wow' and inspired me to compose a well written log. My fun was in the total cache trip and the good times with friends between the caches and not any one cache (if that makes sense).

 

I am not sure that a 'better' cache would get much of a 'better' log from me either. To the cache owner the site might be wonderful but to me it might be 'meh, its a bunch of trees' so I would I still would not have much to say about it.

 

So what can writers of lame cache logs such as myself do to make you cache hiders happy so you keep hiding caches?

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.

Link to comment
#4605. TNLNSL. Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. Good coordinates and hint. Took a couple of minutes as it wasn't where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). Cache is in good shape. Replaced as found. Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. TFTH.

 

Almost zero information. I find these logs more annoying than TFTC logs.

You might find it annoying but that is hardly zero information. Even looking for "useful" information there is a lot here.

 

#4605. - yeah the find count doesn't add much. I suspect that he just likes to keep track of his finds and the log is a conveinient place to do this.

 

TNLNSL - he basically told you that he made no trade and that he signed the log book. That's got to be useful to the cache owner.

 

Out by myself before work for an FTF attempt (got it as first find today) and get at least one cache to qualify for my Emerald Daily Cacher Badge (visit link) to show on my profile page. I need 150 consecutive days with a cache find to reach that goal. This now makes the current streak 143 days which is a new record for me. This was #4 of 4 found today. - Reporting on his personal goals may be annoying but still helps knowing what motivates this cacher. Many people who aren't FTF hounds or aren't actively pursuing some challenge will often mention if they got an FTF or set some personal milestone. I agree that putting this in every log seems like overkill.

 

Good coordinates and hint. - for both the owner and other finders this confirms the coordinates and usefulness of hint.

 

Took a couple of minutes as it wasn't where I thought it was going to be (bad assumptions always make me take longer). - This is good information for another finder. There may be something that leads you make assumptions here. The comment would encourage me to take another tack if I was having trouble find the caches.

 

Cache is in good shape. - What more could a cache owner want in a log?

 

Replaced as found. - It's always good for a cacher owner to hear this.

 

Elevation 1423 feet. Weather 43 degrees this mid-morning sunny, clear, slight breeze, California cold. - OK this seem bizarre. I suppose knowing the elevation and the weather is of little use to someone else. It does provide information about this cacher's experience however.

 

TFTH. - I guess it could have been spelled out. But he is thanking you for the cache.

 

No he's not. He is thanking him for the increase in his find count. Close, but not the same thing. It is like inviting somebody for dinner and they thank you for giving them their 150th dinner invitation.

 

True, they basically told you that their 150th dinner didn't suck, but that's about it.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

No he's not. He is thanking him for the increase in his find count.

Close, but not the same thing.

I'm not reading that the same way you are. When I see TFTH, what I see is someone thanking another someone for that hide. I'm not seeing any inference that they are only grateful for the single digit increase in their find count. :unsure:

 

Maybe I'm reading it this way because I am a copy/paste logger? :unsure:

 

Here's an example of a copy/paste log I did recently:

 

Another great day spent with good friends!

 

Earlier this week, The Usual Suspects, (AKA: Mark & Peggy of The JailBirds, Vince & Janet of Flatouts, and yours truly, the ole fat balding crippled dude in a smelly hat), were trying to come up with a game plan for today. To P&G, or not to P&G; that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the film cans and Altoids tins of outrageous power trails, or to take arms against a sea of lame hides, and by opposing end them?

 

As you can see from this log, we went with Plan B, breaking out our bicycles to have a go at a pretty amazing group of crafty puzzles hidden along a beautiful trail within Beresford Park, rather than spend that same amount of time nabbing a hundred film cans along a power trail.

 

The plan hit a sudden snag when we got to the park, and I read the cache page for the primary puzzle, "Beresford's Brain Busting Box". For some reason, I thought these were set up in a linear solving fashion, with the coords to the first puzzle being in the traditional, "B = Bumfuzzled Bombast", with each succeeding puzzle giving you the coords to the next. Doh! In my defense, it has been 4 years since I solved all these.

 

We gathered in a nearby pavilion, breaking out iPhones and iPads and commenced solving, getting verified solutions to all but one puzzle, "Beresford's Brain Busting Bench". I did find the data needed to acquire a solution, but for some reason, I couldn't put it all together. I'll look at it later and see if I can determine where I screwed up.

 

We mounted our trusty geosteeds and set out, finding "Beresford's Brain Busting Burrow" right away, which boosted our spirits. We tried our dangdest to locate "Beresford's Brain Busting Branches", but even with me having found it before, it eluded us. We did find the clue we needed, so we accepted the DNF and moved on. We came to the spot where I thought I remembered finding "Bench" many years ago, and I did poke around some, hoping to trigger more memories, but again my hunt 4 years ago was not fresh enough in my memory to put the cache in our hands.

 

Onward! We continued, nabbing "Beresford's Brain Busting Bars", "Beresford's Brain Busting Bottle" and "Beresford's Brain Busting Bowl", then commenced crunching numbers, guessing at the missing digit till we got it right. On our way to the final, we detoured over to "Lake Beresford Trails", which was hidden so well I actually tripped on it, after all of us had literally walked right past it.

 

Janet and Peggy opted to wait on the pavement whilst Vince, Mark and I went after the final, and on the way to the cache, I pointed out a familiar looking spot, mentioning that there used to be a final for a multi called "Trestle" there, but I couldn't remember if it was still active. After Mark & Vince signed the log for "Box", we started back the way we had come, and from my bike, riding down the trail, I saw "Trestle" sitting in plain view. They signed the log, and I returned it to its original hiding spot, using the affixed camo to hide it.

 

On the ride out, I crashed and burned on a tree root, popping my knee out of place, so when I reached the pavement I was disenchanted to find that the rest of our motley crew had headed south to nab my "AFDB" cache. (sigh...) It's only a three mile round trip. Quit whining and get to peddling!

 

The gang was waiting for me at "AFDB", so after they found it, we turned around, heading back to the park, grabbing "Quercus or not Quercus" along the way. It was almost dark by the time we got back to the park, so we loaded up and bid goodbye to another amazing adventure, stopping off at Brian's BBQ for a bite on our way home.

 

We left our individual Pathtags in all the caches they would fit in. While this journey did not result in any digital smileys for me, (I had already found the caches here), it did give me many real smiles!

 

Thanx for the hides!

 

-Sean

 

Out of laziness, I'm going to copy/paste this log.

 

This is fairly typical of my logging style, where I type up one lengthy blog type entry covering my day, (which sometimes take more than one post due to Groundspeak's 4000 character limit), and copy/paste it on all the caches involved in that hunt. You'll note that I actually spelled out "Thanx for the hides!", as opposed to posting an acronym. You'll also note that I didn't increase my find count at all during that day's activities, which may have contributed to my belief that the "Thanx!" is for the cache placement, not the find increase. Maybe? :unsure:

 

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.

Link to comment

There were unique statements about each cache in his cut and paste log. It's interesting to me that the people who complain about TFTC logs or blank logs and say they want a couple sentences about the caching experience are not ok with the cut and paste log with a couple words or sentences unique to the caches that were found. Yup it talked about his day. Nope it didn't give a lot of specific information on the cache. But I look back at my logs and I don't typically give a lot praise for the cache container and since I'm kind in my world on the trip out to caches I don't always write a lot about the walk out there. But I do typically write longer logs where I integrate something (yesterday was the great swag search prior to going).

 

Lots of logs I read don't have a thing to do with the physical container. I would go so far as to say the majority that I read don't.

 

And then there's complaints that logs are negative in other threads. So what I derive from all the threads if they are mooshed together (which they really should be and have one thread called logging preferences)is that really what people want are long logs that expound on the greatness of the cache that they found. They don't want anything negative but they certainly want more than a TFTC.

 

If there's something wrong with the cache I note it plainly. Sometimes I'll do a bunch of caches in the day and the experience turns out to be really similar to each other. I type out each log but in the end they're all generally especially if there is nothing particularly unique about the cache or location. I'd rather type it out than cut and paste it so I can modify quickly as needed.

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.

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...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...