+GeoElmo6000 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 Auto-generated logs. "Hi, this is cache number [insert number here] for me! Thank you for hiding this! It was fun finding it!" 5 1 Link to comment
+DerDiedler Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 (edited) 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 Edited November 27, 2019 by DerDiedler 2 1 Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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 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. 2 2 Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. 2 3 Link to comment
+dprovan Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment
+DerDiedler Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. Link to comment
+DerDiedler Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 (edited) 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. Just sayin' Edited November 27, 2019 by thebruce0 Link to comment
Blue Square Thing Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. 1 1 Link to comment
Blue Square Thing Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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 :-) 1 Link to comment
Moun10Bike Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. 1 3 Link to comment
Blue Square Thing Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. Darn - and I guess that that can be done automatically with some macro or other as well. Link to comment
+igator210 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. Is it at least educational?!?! 2 Link to comment
+baer2006 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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% . 1 Link to comment
+The Jester Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. Link to comment
+dprovan Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. Link to comment
+Popcorn* Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 When Basic members complain about Premium services. 1 Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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) Link to comment
+The Jester Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment
+The Jester Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. Link to comment
+lee737 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. 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..... Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment
+baer2006 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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 . 1 Link to comment
+CAVinoGal Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 (edited) 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 November 27, 2019 by CAVinoGal Additional info Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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: 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. Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. 2 1 Link to comment
+baer2006 Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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% Link to comment
+dprovan Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. Link to comment
+dprovan Posted November 27, 2019 Share Posted November 27, 2019 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. 1 1 Link to comment
+Goldenwattle Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 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: 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? Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said: Where do you find this information? Project-GC on the "My Profile Stats" page. Link to comment
+Goldenwattle Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 I don't write as much as some others here it seems. Most are individual logs though. Total words: 332,955, Average: 31, (Total characters: 1,769,797) Longest: GC57Z2N 767, Shortest: GC3F1NZ 1 Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 One more irksome word-count example, because I laughed at how ridiculous it can get: Quote Old Town Hall Masquerade Monday, 26 November 2018Bratislavský kraj, Slovakia 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." 3 1 1 1 Link to comment
+The Jester Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 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. Link to comment
+lee737 Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 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..... 1 Link to comment
+Goldenwattle Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 (edited) 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 November 28, 2019 by Goldenwattle 1 Link to comment
+Ragnemalm Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 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. 1 1 Link to comment
+Ragnemalm Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 (edited) 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 November 28, 2019 by Ragnemalm 2 Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 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... Link to comment
+Ragnemalm Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 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. 3 Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 On 11/28/2019 at 5:44 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, and my motivation for putting out caches is the hope that people will simply enjoy at least some aspect of them. Agreed. We've guessed they might be simply lacking basic social skills, in this age of "social" sites that has no one actually talking to another human, and no longer give them much thought. Kinda like the many who don't say please/thank you anymore, or give the old lady standing your seat. It's all about them, and that's all they're looking for. We figure we'll "make that up" on the next couple that stop by. On a related note... we're surprised how many are now asking others to move out of "their way" at vistas lately. - That selfie has to be perfect you know... 3 1 Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said: 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. We put out caches we liked to find. Making everyone happy was never a consideration. 2 Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 ...when someone posts in their log on a long-standing cache with no issue, their coordinates, claiming the posted coordinates are off. Especially when by more than 10 meters. Link to comment
+colleda Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 (edited) 57 minutes ago, thebruce0 said: ...when someone posts in their log on a long-standing cache with no issue, their coordinates, claiming the posted coordinates are off. Especially when by more than 10 meters. That is irksome. I had that happen recently in Barbados although the cache did have issues. I went to the given coordinates and could find nothing there. A previous finder had given alternative coords where I found nothing so I went back to the original coords and finally found it in a spot nothing like the hint or the T1 rating. GC24PD2 Forgot to mention the discrepancy was about 20m. Edited November 30, 2019 by colleda clarity Link to comment
+Goldenwattle Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 47 minutes ago, colleda said: GC24PD2 As the CO lives in Canada, has only 40 finds and hasn't visited since April, I don't think this is going to be visited any time soon. Although they are a Premium Member though, so that gives a little hope. They could up-rate the terrain. One marked T1 cache I found was up in the rafters of a building. No cache creep there, as the hint was 'Up in the rafters'. The path was T1 to get there, and the wheelchair occupant might have been lucky to find a long stick and knock the cache down, but there is no way they could have returned it. Likewise I, an able bodied person, couldn't return it up high to the rafters, as the cache being only marked 1T I had not come with a step ladder and there was nothing there to stand on. I left it down low at 1T level. The next finder wrote it took a bit of searching to find it, but they agreed with where I had left it. Good on you for doing a NM. I used to ignore these wrongly rated 1T caches, but I don't any more. I either do a NM log like you, or I move the cache to a 1T. It's nasty and lacks empathy to not consider those less physically able and make a cache 1T, when it isn't. 1 1 Link to comment
+Goldenwattle Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, thebruce0 said: ...when someone posts in their log on a long-standing cache with no issue, their coordinates, claiming the posted coordinates are off. Especially when by more than 10 meters. Agreed. If there has never been mention on a long standing cache that there is a problem with the coordinates, if they want to write something they should have written that their GPS was off by ten metres; not that the cache was. But on the other hand, it's also irksome with some caches, when many logs do mention that the coordinates are out and the CO ignores them all; even going to the cache and saying they checked the coordinates and found they are correct, when many other people aren't finding this. Edited November 30, 2019 by Goldenwattle typo Link to comment
+colleda Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 9 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said: Agreed. If there has never been mention on a long standing cache that there is a problem with the coordinates, if they want to write something they should have written that their GPS was off by ten metres; not that the cache was. But on the other hand, it's also irksome with some caches, when many logs do mention that the coordinates are out and the CO ignores them all; even going to the cache and saying they checked the coordinates and found they are correct, when many other people aren't finding this. Wow, I also have a recent example for that scenario too. GC83ZHD Link to comment
+Goldenwattle Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, colleda said: Wow, I also have a recent example for that scenario too. GC83ZHD I had an example on an Earthcache I attempted to find very recently in Sydney. I even included photographs to show where the coordinates take you and where they should be. I logged a NM, but I doubt this will get the reviewer's attention, and the CO has made no corrections yet. The finder after me wrote, " The area of interest is about 30m south of the listed co-ords.". I had a DNF of that, as using a GPS, not a phone, I couldn't see the spoiler photograph. Then you get some COs that make wrong coordinates on purpose. My NA log below. Needs Archived 12/Sep/2018 Sad it has come to this. Cache is 154 metres from published coordinates. Now I discover the reason the CO has not updated the coordinates, despite their protestations. It is because it would break the 161 metre rule; at only about 104 metres from another cache, GC----. I will leave this up to the reviewer to deduce the truth here. Published coordinates: S 33° 45.530 E 150° 55.400 Actual coordinates of cache as stated by CO: S 33° 45.612 E 150° 55.421 Coordinates of conflicting cache GC----: S 33° 45.630 E 150° 55.485 The CO is deleting logs that depute their claims. I expect this and another log, at least, to be deleted, but fortunately this will still get to the reviewer first. Edited December 1, 2019 by Goldenwattle Removing cache number 1 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts