Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 50
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Ride-along-logs are irritating, usually without meaningful content and generally downvotes FPs, but it is not against the rules so we have to live with it.

 

I chose not to live with it. I don't hide caches anymore.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/25/2019 at 8:56 PM, L0ne.R said:

I chose not to live with it. I don't hide caches anymore.

 

I may quote you on that. You are not the first I heard with that view, and it is IMHO one the most justifyable reasons. Sometimes I feel that my efforts don't count, cachers skip over the fun part. If that is too common in an area, I see no point in placing there. I have three rather distinct areas that I place in, and there is definitely a difference. So I put most efforts where it is appreciated. But all three produce good logs often enough.

 

If you had no such area to work with, I fully understand you. I suppose I am lucky.

Edited by Ragnemalm
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Sometimes I feel that my efforts don't count, cachers skip over the fun part.

 

This is perhaps where we disagree, as I don't think it's the CO's perogative to decide which part of a cache is "the fun part". Cachers all have different tastes - some love puzzle-solving, some love long hikes, kayak paddles or mountain climbs, some love big containers full of swag and some just want a quick P&G so they can dash off to the next one. The best we can do I think is try to combine multiple facets into a cache, like a solve-at-home puzzle that leads to a hike through the forest and finally to a big themed container in a scenic spot. If some cachers want to skip the bits they don't like, that's entirely their choice.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Today while out looking for a couple of caches I thought of something that irked me. Tonight, I can't remember what it was.

That really irks me.

  • Funny 6
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/26/2019 at 6:24 AM, Ragnemalm said:

Ride-along-logs are irritating

In groups usually people go with their strengths. In our small group, although we all solve some puzzles, one person solves many more than the rest, as he loves doing this and is better at it. Another is likely to be the tree climber, I am likely to be the swimmer. Even if we don't contribute in one area, we will in another. I have never worried that the others got to sign the log when I was the only wet person. Sometimes too it's not practicable for all to get the cache. If everyone had to climb the tree it would be a slow caching day, or the canoe might only fit two people and then when the destination is reached, only one might get out to make the actual find, while the other person stays with the canoe to stop it floating away.

Share this post


Link to post

I was out caching in Newcastle today (about 100km north of here but a fairly pleasant train ride) and struck an irk. A nano with the Steath Required attribute and warnings in the description about hordes of muggles frequenting GZ, where there's an extraordinary number of places a nano could lurk, but no hint. Really, if you don't want me standing around for half an hour poking in every nook and cranny and drawing everyone's attention, at least give me something to help narrow down the search! I did eventually find it, and BTW had no trouble getting the scroll back in the lid even without a log roller TOTT :).

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I was out caching in Newcastle today (about 100km north of here but a fairly pleasant train ride) and struck an irk. A nano with the Steath Required attribute and warnings in the description about hordes of muggles frequenting GZ, where there's an extraordinary number of places a nano could lurk, but no hint. Really, if you don't want me standing around for half an hour poking in every nook and cranny and drawing everyone's attention, at least give me something to help narrow down the search! I did eventually find it, and BTW had no trouble getting the scroll back in the lid even without a log roller TOTT :).

I agree that's annoying, not unlike an ivy hide. But not because of the "stealth required" attribute. When I run into a case like that, where stealth is supposed to be required yet is completely impossible, I just assume the CO was joking and do a normal search without worrying about stealth. After all, if it's that hard for me to find knowing what I'm looking for, there's very little reason to think anyone that knows nothing about geocaching that sees me searching will be able to go over after I've left and find it. Besides, as often as not, facing a large number of complex possibilities, I probably won't find it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I was out caching in Newcastle today (about 100km north of here but a fairly pleasant train ride) and struck an irk. A nano with the Steath Required attribute and warnings in the description about hordes of muggles frequenting GZ, where there's an extraordinary number of places a nano could lurk, but no hint. Really, if you don't want me standing around for half an hour poking in every nook and cranny and drawing everyone's attention, at least give me something to help narrow down the search! I did eventually find it, and BTW had no trouble getting the scroll back in the lid even without a log roller TOTT :).

Agreed, if the CO doesn't want their cache discovered by muggles because they watched someone going through different weird antics while they searched, they need to give a very precise hint to assist, so the cacher can make a quick find and draw less attention to themselves. I have one which recently became muggle central because of building work. I added very precise instructions (which weren't there before) and a spoiler photograph, to help keep my cache safer and hopefully not go missing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Auto-generated logs.  "Hi, this is cache number [insert number here] for me!  Thank you for hiding this!  It was fun finding it!"

  • Upvote 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

Auto-generated logs.  "Hi, this is cache number [insert number here] for me!  Thank you for hiding this!  It was fun finding it!"

I "love" them too. Sometimes I get such logs on one a Cache I´ve adopted. As owner I´ve set "Spukies adopted by DerDiedler"

 

The Auto log included the Owner name, so the Log was was something like "Hello Spukis adopted by DerDiedler...."

 

Yea, feels verry individual and comforting :unsure:

Edited by DerDiedler
  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, DerDiedler said:

I "love" them too. Sometimes I get such logs on one a Cache I´ve adopted. As owner I´ve "Spukies adopted by DerDiedler"

 

The Auto log included the Owner name, so the Log was was something like "Hello Spukis adopted by DerDiedler...."

 

Yea, feels verry individual and comforting :unsure:

 

Add me to the list of owners who are very irked by auto-generated logs.

 

Initially I had thought that when people used the owner's name when thanking them in a cut-n-paste log, they at least cared who the owner was and type the name into their message. 

 

When I started using Cachly, I wanted to be able to thank the owner and wanted the owner's name to appear on the page where we write our message, so I could thank the owner more personally. Cachly forumites told me about the "Insert keyword" > "Owner Name" feature. Cool, I thought. Then I realized that people were using this feature not to be more personal, but to fake a personal message (kind of ties in to thebruce0's "lies" irk).

 

I won't use the feature anymore, I'll back track and look at the cache page info then go back to the message page to include the owner's trailname and write a more meaningful thanks. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
On 11/26/2019 at 8:51 AM, Ragnemalm said:

Sometimes I feel that my efforts don't count, cachers skip over the fun part.

 

This is perhaps where we disagree, as I don't think it's the CO's perogative to decide which part of a cache is "the fun part".

 

While this is true - in the aspect of finding geocaches - it's not, in the area of hiding geocaches. "The fun part" isn't just for finders, but also for cache creators. There are two parts required for a healthy geocaching community, and if one basically says "screw the other", then the community will die. They don't have to be completely in sync, but it's the attitude in which one side is able to live with the other or not. Don't forget the COs.  COs love hiding caches for people to find; they also love using their talents to create experiences for others to enjoy. At some point if it doesn't seem people are enjoying all the effort they put in to the whole experience, they may decide it's not worth the effort.  Also, if CO decides so strongly that their way is the only way, then finders have no more fun either, caches can get ignored, and that CO can also effectively hurt the community.

It goes both ways.  Provide great experiences for finders to enjoy, but also be thankful and respect the cache owners who often put a whole lot of thankless effort into creating excellent experiences - more than merely finding a container.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Add me to the list of owners who are very irked by auto-generated logs.

I'm irked by all auto-generated logs, whether I'm the owner or not. And what's worse that auto-generated logs? Long auto-generated logs. I guess some people think it's less irksome if there's a lot of information in the log that has nothing to do with the cache. But they're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm irked by all auto-generated logs, whether I'm the owner or not. And what's worse that auto-generated logs? Long auto-generated logs. I guess some people think it's less irksome if there's a lot of information in the log that has nothing to do with the cache. But they're wrong.

Nope, I gues they doing so to auto achieve diamond on "the Autor" batch.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, DerDiedler said:

Nope, I gues they doing so to auto achieve diamond on "the Autor" batch.

 

Not necessarily. I know people who write their day's report in a long log and auto-post it to all the caches they find. One or two might add a sentence or two about specific caches. They don't care about badges, it's just faster and easier to be fully informative and spend less time writing logs. Speed is more valuable than personable, unique log content.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:
7 minutes ago, DerDiedler said:

Nope, I gues they doing so to auto achieve diamond on "the Autor" batch.

Not necessarily

I agree. But it's pretty likely. I received quite some logs with the automated "hello blabla, today I found your cache blabla, this was my found number blabla. And then a story about how they started caching or any other space text.

Obvious it's just to be over 100 words.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, DerDiedler said:
12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
18 minutes ago, DerDiedler said:

Nope, I gues they doing so to auto achieve diamond on "the Autor" batch.

Not necessarily <snip>

I agree. But it's pretty likely. <snip>

 

It's regional. Obviously more prolific in your area. I haven't seen any logs reference word counts here. In years. So around here, not pretty likely. :P Just sayin'

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm irked by all auto-generated logs, whether I'm the owner or not. And what's worse that auto-generated logs? Long auto-generated logs. I guess some people think it's less irksome if there's a lot of information in the log that has nothing to do with the cache. But they're wrong.

 

Yes ^

 

Although I was vaguely amused by the person who on at least one of their own caches encourages individual logs and generally makes big fuss about logging etiquette. And who uses the same long log, complete with multiple emojis in place of words, in which she explains that she'd much rather be out finding caches than logging finds...

 

To be fair, there are sometimes a line or two added in at the end that are specific about the cache. Above the line of multiple emojis that bookends the log.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, DerDiedler said:

I agree. But it's pretty likely. I received quite some logs with the automated "hello blabla, today I found your cache blabla, this was my found number blabla. And then a story about how they started caching or any other space text.

Obvious it's just to be over 100 words.

 

We need something that combines log length and log similarity :-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Blue Square Thing said:

 

We need something that combines log length and log similarity :-)

 

That might not stop one person in my area who has taken to copying and pasting long passages from random Wikipedia articles into their logs in order to up their length. :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

That might not stop one person in my area who has taken to copying and pasting long passages from random Wikipedia articles into their logs in order to up their length. :rolleyes:

 

Darn - and I guess that that can be done automatically with some macro or other as well.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

That might not stop one person in my area who has taken to copying and pasting long passages from random Wikipedia articles into their logs in order to up their length. :rolleyes:

 

Is it at least educational?!?!

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Blue Square Thing said:

We need something that combines log length and log similarity :-)

Project-gc has something like that. In your stats, you have a "Log similarity" score between 0 and 100%. It says "Lower score equals more variance", so I assume 100% means that you write exactly the same log for each and every find.

 

I just checked it for a typical copy-and-paste logger, who came to mind, and he scores 85% ;) .

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

Auto-generated logs.  "Hi, this is cache number [insert number here] for me!  Thank you for hiding this!  It was fun finding it!"

I somewhat agree if that is the whole log, but there are times I've used an added line for a special run (like when I was aiming to hit 1000 at Mingo, or our 30 anniversary trip) but that is more for my information (when I look back at the logs) than the CO's or other finders.  I always try to add personal info about each cache (there is that one cache on the 180+ cache run across Canada I still have no memory of details...), even when doing a Cache Machine (then I find 17 different ways to say the same thing).

 

Just remember the log isn't just for the CO, or other finders, or themselves - it can be any mix of the three - so if there parts not aimed at you, ignore those. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, The Jester said:

I somewhat agree if that is the whole log, but there are times I've used an added line for a special run (like when I was aiming to hit 1000 at Mingo, or our 30 anniversary trip) but that is more for my information (when I look back at the logs) than the CO's or other finders.  I always try to add personal info about each cache (there is that one cache on the 180+ cache run across Canada I still have no memory of details...), even when doing a Cache Machine (then I find 17 different ways to say the same thing).

 

Just remember the log isn't just for the CO, or other finders, or themselves - it can be any mix of the three - so if there parts not aimed at you, ignore those. 

I doubt anyone ever gets to that "added line". I know I never do. So I don't think you can count that as making it somehow not just another auto-log.

 

2 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

Nope, I gues they doing so to auto achieve diamond on "the Autor" batch.

I'm incapable of imagining that just because I can't let myself think of anyone being that dumb. But that doesn't mean I doubt you.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Project-gc has something like that. In your stats, you have a "Log similarity" score between 0 and 100%. It says "Lower score equals more variance", so I assume 100% means that you write exactly the same log for each and every find.

Yeah I remember seeing that. But as with any generic stat, there are possible issues to keep in mind. If you've done a 1000 cache powertrail, and copy/paste logs are expected, then logging that will kill your rating.  It would be a crazy AI they'd have to develop to determine which logs are "okay" to be copy/paste =P  That, or, we can't place a value on that rating, assuming that someone who's 85% similarity is objectively a worse logger than someone at 50% similarity. :)

 

Those kinds of caching days kill other stats too. Another reason ratio-style challenge caches aren't allowed. Finding 2000 traditionals in a week will kill your cache type averages, and most likely your D/T stats too.

 

 

There's too much variety and subjectivity in this game to truly be able to compare anyone's stats with someone else.  If you want to compete, find someone who wants to compete with you and decide on the rules and requirements to provide a level playing field. General geocaching statistics are nothing close to a level playing field :)

 

10 minutes ago, The Jester said:

I somewhat agree if that is the whole log, but there are times I've used an added line for a special run (like when I was aiming to hit 1000 at Mingo, or our 30 anniversary trip) but that is more for my information (when I look back at the logs) than the CO's or other finders.  I always try to add personal info about each cache

 

Likewise, though I tend to start with the sentence or two about 'the outing/day', and then include content (usually distinct) that's about the cache specifically.  (and then any trailing 'uninteresting' extra stuff =P that could be anything from signature to links to challenge qualifiers which are effectively more a technicality now with the checkers)

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I doubt anyone ever gets to that "added line". I know I never do. So I don't think you can count that as making it somehow not just another auto-log.

I'm sorry, but I've read this a few times and don't understand what you saying.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Likewise, though I tend to start with the sentence or two about 'the outing/day', and then include content (usually distinct) that's about the cache specifically.  (and then any trailing 'uninteresting' extra stuff =P that could be anything from signature to links to challenge qualifiers which are effectively more a technicality now with the checkers)

I vary on whether the line is at the start or end of the log - based somewhat on what/why I'm say something.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

That might not stop one person in my area who has taken to copying and pasting long passages from random Wikipedia articles into their logs in order to up their length. :rolleyes:

We've had a few the same, posting paragraphs out of random books it seems, one even with a blurb apologising for the spam, as we was going for the badge.....

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, lee737 said:

We've had a few the same, posting paragraphs out of random books it seems, one even with a blurb apologising for the spam, as we was going for the badge.....

 

Here's one:
 

Quote

 

Friday, 01 November 2019

I will apologize right now, because everything from here on is here solely for the purpose of padding the word count. It seems that there are caching statistical challenges that look at the word count in your logs.

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:
4 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

Nope, I gues they doing so to auto achieve diamond on "the Autor" batch.

I'm incapable of imagining that just because I can't let myself think of anyone being that dumb. But that doesn't mean I doubt you.

I know at least three cachers in my home zone, who pad all their (usually extremely short) logs with a lengthy standard text, in which they explicitly state that it's for the purpose of getting that "Author badge".

I agree that this is totally stupid. In fact, I once said so to one of these cachers ... he was not amused ;) .

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Here's one:
 

Quote

 

Friday, 01 November 2019

I will apologize right now, because everything from here on is here solely for the purpose of padding the word count. It seems that there are caching statistical challenges that look at the word count in your logs.

 

Wow - that, to me, totally negates the spirit of the challenge!  The motivation is to write interesting logs, not "pad the word count" with nonsense unrelated to the cache experience.  Sheesh!

Just out of curiosity, I checked my own info, and I have not done anything other than my normal logging - a few series where I did some copy/paste but I typically write each log individually.

Log Length, words: Total words: 117,369, Average: 66, (Total characters: 599,077)
Longest: GC4FF33 256, Shortest: GC4ME00 3
Log similarity: 36% (Lower score equals more variance)

 

I haven't seen a challenge involving the word count - but I don't think I could, in good conscience, "pad" my logs!!

 

(ETA: I just looked at my shortest and longest - the shortest was just a couple of weeks into my geocaching career, before I started adding the Find# and timestamp and who I was with to each log.  And those are not added for "padding; it's info I find interesting and useful, just for me.  And the longest log?  Just a list of caches that qualified me to log a find on a challenge...)

Edited by CAVinoGal
Additional info

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

I haven't seen a challenge involving the word count - but I don't think I could, in good conscience, "pad" my logs!!

 

I hope such a challenge doesn't happen anywhere near here! Here's my stats for what it's worth:

 

image.png.b296297821ada2b0b2e18590d1550a36.png

 

My shortest log was on my very first find when I just wrote "My first cache", the longest was on a full-day multi through the Blue Mountains with a couple of friends and on that cache there was a lot to write about - I also added 18 photos to that log. The only time I've ever come close to cut-and-paste logs was for the geoart caches at last year's mega (my "best" day according to my stats) but even then I tried to say something slightly different and pertinent to each cache.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

I know at least three cachers in my home zone, who pad all their (usually extremely short) logs with a lengthy standard text, in which they explicitly state that it's for the purpose of getting that "Author badge".

I agree that this is totally stupid. In fact, I once said so to one of these cachers ... he was not amused ;) .

 

And disrespectful in my opinion, to COs, challenge owners, future finders. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Just out of curiosity, I checked my own info, and I have not done anything other than my normal logging - a few series where I did some copy/paste but I typically write each log individually.

Log Length, words: Total words: 117,369, Average: 66, (Total characters: 599,077)
Longest: GC4FF33 256, Shortest: GC4ME00 3
Log similarity: 36% (Lower score equals more variance)

My logging style is essentially the same as yours - individual logs, except for cache series (I make a point of writing c&p logs for series where the listings are also c&p). And, funny coincidence, my "logging stats" on p-gc are also very similar: Log length, Average 66; Log similarity 35%

 

2019-11-27_22h25_43.png

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Jester said:

I'm sorry, but I've read this a few times and don't understand what you saying.

If you start with a generic cut&paste opening, no one reads to the end where that one cache specific line is.

 

And it's not much better if you start with the cache specific part, since it's still obviously a cut&paste log even if the unique part is easier to find.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

I agree that this is totally stupid. In fact, I once said so to one of these cachers ... he was not amused ;) .

It's too bad he wasn't amused. I think the only way to get through to someone like that is to get them to see how much the rest of us laugh at them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I hope such a challenge doesn't happen anywhere near here! Here's my stats for what it's worth:

 

image.png.b296297821ada2b0b2e18590d1550a36.png

 

My shortest log was on my very first find when I just wrote "My first cache", the longest was on a full-day multi through the Blue Mountains with a couple of friends and on that cache there was a lot to write about - I also added 18 photos to that log. The only time I've ever come close to cut-and-paste logs was for the geoart caches at last year's mega (my "best" day according to my stats) but even then I tried to say something slightly different and pertinent to each cache.

Where do you find this information?

Share this post


Link to post

One more irksome word-count example, because I laughed at how ridiculous it can get:

 

Quote


 4.gif Old Town Hall Masquerade

Monday, 26 November 2018Bratislavský kraj, Slovakia NE NE 7024.4 km from your home location

Once again
Found it
Answers sand it
The rest dots are only for statistics, so do not care about it
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . geo KACZOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Another thought, word-count length isn't as important as meaningful logs. A lot can be said in few words:

 

"Sneaky."

"Nice final in a place that was not too difficult to get to."

 

"Nasty bushwhack with a big reward. Then a Muggle passed by on a nearby trail. It appears we used the wrong trail and suffered the lengthy bushwhack."

 

"This one was straightforward and showed us a couple of really interesting headstones. Nicely done."

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, dprovan said:

If you start with a generic cut&paste opening, no one reads to the end where that one cache specific line is.

 

And it's not much better if you start with the cache specific part, since it's still obviously a cut&paste log even if the unique part is easier to find.

Who said anything about "one cache specific line" - I said I added one line for special runs (i.e.. "The run for 1000 at Mingo #xxx") followed by a normal length log about that cache.

 

If there is a whole paragraph about the cache & find, with one line at the end ("What a cool way to celebrate our 30th anniversary - cruise north and drive south on the Alaska Highway.") that makes it an "obviously a cut&paste log"?  How is someone to know that without reading the whole log?  Very rarely were any two caches close to each other, so you would have to do a fair amount of searching to find another log with the same line.

 

From you dismissive attitude it sounds like you would ignore the whole log for one common line.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

One more irksome word-count example, because I laughed at how ridiculous it can get:

 

Another thought, word-count length isn't as important as meaningful logs. A lot can be said in few words:

 

"Sneaky."

"Nice final in a place that was not too difficult to get to."

 

"Nasty bushwhack with a big reward. Then a Muggle passed by on a nearby trail. It appears we used the wrong trail and suffered the lengthy bushwhack."

 

"This one was straightforward and showed us a couple of really interesting headstones. Nicely done."

Actually those dots are quite funny because it makes a mockery of this word count thing, showing how silly it is. It could even be done to demonstrate that.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/26/2019 at 10:53 PM, barefootjeff said:

This is perhaps where we disagree, as I don't think it's the CO's perogative to decide which part of a cache is "the fun part". Cachers all have different tastes - some love puzzle-solving, some love long hikes, kayak paddles or mountain climbs, some love big containers full of swag and some just want a quick P&G so they can dash off to the next one. The best we can do I think is try to combine multiple facets into a cache, like a solve-at-home puzzle that leads to a hike through the forest and finally to a big themed container in a scenic spot. If some cachers want to skip the bits they don't like, that's entirely their choice.

 

I am not sure we disagree, really, beacuse of course they do have different taste, and I don't mind a log that doesn't appreciate my ideas they way I hoped. That is called feedback, and I totally love every kind of meaningful feedback, they don't have to agree with me. That is how I learn what people like. Constructive criticism, meaningful logs. That and where the FPs go is what I use to learn what to make.

 

What I could live without is when the whole point with the cache is skipped by riding along just for a signature. No puzzle solving, no overcoming physical challenges, just have someone else signing a log with your name while you are doing nothing. And then a pointless copy-paste log on that.

 

But I don't make my caches for those people. What I do doesn't matter to them, so I do my best to ignore them and make fun things for those who want it. So I make more multi-caches, a bit challenging but managable to most people. They are popular, and fun to make, and get blissfully few meaningless logs.

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

A lot can be said in few words:

"Sneaky."

 

This is one of my favorites: A log can be good with a single word (or two), while others are totally meaningsless with 1000 words about irrelevant things.

 

And if you have to cheat yourself a high log length by copy-pasting, put the actual message first so we find it quickly. Then you can paste in your statistics-filler. "About the cache:"... "About the trip:"... That kind of logs are OK.

Edited by Ragnemalm
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

What I could live without is when the whole point with the cache is skipped by riding along just for a signature. No puzzle solving, no overcoming physical challenges, just have someone else signing a log with your name while you are doing nothing. And then a pointless copy-paste log on that.

 

But I don't make my caches for those people. What I do doesn't matter to them, so I do my best to ignore them and make fun things for those who want it. So I make more multi-caches, a bit challenging but managable to most people. They are popular, and fun to make, and get blissfully few meaningless logs.

 

Yep, for the most part I agree, although those people who just want to put a signature in the logbook to get whatever +1 they need for their stats are still enjoying the cache in their own (strange?) way, and my motivation for putting out caches is the hope that people will simply enjoy at least some aspect of them. I have a mystery cache (GC62WZJ) that I created in 2015 and still think of as my flagship hide. It's a D3/T5 with six virtual waypoints spread over 10km (two water access for the T5), with a story from 1850s colonial Australia, riddles to identify the thing of interest at each location, a final location that's a short T2.5 bushwalk to a spot with a stunning coastal outlook and a hide that's just the sort of place a crafty bushranger would stash his stolen diamond. The container itself (a jewelry box) follows the theme with a huge diamond securely attached to the logbook. Some finders have gotten totally into it, loving the paddling, the hiking, the tour of interesting places, the final and the theme, while some have enjoyed parts of it but devised cunning ways to circumvent the water waypoints, and a few have made it clear in their logs that all they were after was the relatively rare D/T rating for their grid. It takes all kinds and, as long as the finders got something beneficial from it, I'm happy. About the only log that would make me unhappy would be one that said, "I hated every bit of being dragged all over the coast and then through nasty bushes and rocks just for a bit of fake jewelry poked in a cramped cave with a horrible salty gale that ruined my hair." Or for it to just sit there with no-one logging it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, lee737 said:

This irks me..... https://coord.info/TB7T7R1

It seems one of our newer TBs hasn't made a successful exit from the cache we started it off in.....

 

Yeah...   By logs, two trackables from different promotions still haven't moved from the first caches I put 'em in. 

Doesn't mean they're still there though...

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/28/2019 at 11:44 AM, barefootjeff said:

those people who just want to put a signature in the logbook to get whatever +1 they need for their stats are still enjoying the cache in their own (strange?) way,

 

But since they do not tell me that/why they enjoyed it, what am I supposed to believe? I know nothing so I can not do anything for making them happy.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 50

×
×
  • Create New...