Long logs- bad form or a fun read?

[+SirDonB]

I agree, longer logs are great and sometimes you can find clues and hints in them to aid in finding that cache you are looking for. I will go back and read the longer logs when I am out hunting and am having trouble finding the cache. Plus if someone else had trouble, its nice to see I was not the only one.

[+Ladybug Kids]

Please keep telling stories about your caching adventures through your logs. Even when I hit a power trail I'll write something unique for each and every cache (though admittedly, I've never lasted more than fifty or so caches into a power trail before deciding there were better things to do). I'm able to do that by entering just a word or two into my field notes about a unique tree, rock, cattles, horses, moose, or whatever, that differentiated that location from other adjacent locations.

 

Logs of only "TFTC" or "SLTNLN" or "." or even worse "." and other variants are a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned, after I took the time to place an ammo can in a nice location and compiled a cache page that provides local history and other information.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Ladybug Kids

[+Dr.MORO]

Domo!!!

 

Your World's #2 Long-logger here! (according to mygeocachingprofile dot com)

Just saw the post in the forum, and thought I should drop a line or 2, or 3, or...

 

Every single 'Found' log of mine, from my first find, also has at least one picture posted with it.

A picture is a thousand words, so I guess my logs are actually even much longer than the character count!

 

The logs I post are 'My' logs. My memories associated to finding (or not finding ) the cache. Why complain about the length of it?

And they are to 'share' my Geocaching experience to the others who like to seek and to hide in this great game of Geocaching. Wasn't 'sharing the experience' part of the basics of Geocaching?

 

And some say "Too long"? Really?!

Even the lamest cache out there, you first have to look it up on online, then you have go to GZ somehow, and then search for it, also sign the log sheet, and even post your 'Found' log afterwards. That alone is one genuine Geocaching experience no other than you just had. I just try to write it down in my own words for myself, yet associate it with the specific cache to share with the others interested. With just a "." or TFTC, quite a lot is lost there, very unfortunately. How was the inside of the cache? What was the weather today? See anything else out there? How did to get there? You only know.

 

If you don't like long logs, then just don't read it. Done. Go find a cache.

 

I like to read long logs, so also I am partly wishing that other cachers will write & share more with other cachers, by doing so myself.

 

"Do What You Like. Like What You Do." (by Life is good)

 

MORE is definitely BETTER!

 

Good Luck & Cache On!

 

~ Dr.MORO

[+The_Incredibles_]

Domo!!!

 

Your World's #2 Long-logger here! (according to mygeocachingprofile dot com)

Just saw the post in the forum, and thought I should drop a line or 2, or 3, or...

 

I'll pay for your plane ticket if you come cache here.

Edited February 26, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+J Grouchy]

What really stinks is when you hope to inspire others to write longer, better logs with your own...but the very next one is "TFTC". Yeah, mine was borderline rant, but still...

[+Richard E]

I see no problem with that log. Carry on!

[+Nighthawk700]

I managed to catch a good friend of mine when he started caching with only his iPhone, and showed him the value of writing good logs. He may not be writing logs as long as I do, but he still writes good ones. Helps to catch them at the beginning. :-)

[Mr.Yuck]

I managed to catch a good friend of mine when he started caching with only his iPhone, and showed him the value of writing good logs. He may not be writing logs as long as I do, but he still writes good ones. Helps to catch them at the beginning. :-)

 

Yes, you have to catch them early. It is pretty much guaranteed a smartphone Caching newb is going to drop two word or less lame logs these days, most often manifested by the much hated "Tftc". For expample, the guy from JGrouchy's comment in Post #105, who just joined last month. The small number of these people who actually go on to become active Geocachers almost always get a clue that "only the n00bs do that", and cease and desist lame logging eventually. Some faster than others.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mr.Yuck

[+dprovan]

Yes, you have to catch them early. It is pretty much guaranteed a smartphone Caching newb is going to drop two word or less lame logs these days, most often manifested by the much hated "Tftc". For expample, the guy from JGrouchy's comment in Post #105, who just joined last month. The small number of these people who actually go on to become active Geocachers almost always get a clue that "only the n00bs do that", and cease and desist lame logging eventually. Some faster than others.

Despite all the complaints, personally I think it's better that less experienced cachers tend to log "TFTC" (or even "One more for me!") than write real logs with spoilers and other stuff that they or someone else will regret. By the time they learn short logs aren't appreciated, they'll have learned what should and shouldn't be said in a log, and they'll also have learned the value of logs. Unless they quit because people keep yelling at them for posting short logs...

[+HistDrew]

I seem to recall once seeing a cache page that said "write something more than 'TFTC' or I will delete your log." Are such warnings fair? It seems to me that the CO sets the conditions of what constitutes a smiley. So if the CO wants more than just a short "thanks" s/he could make that a condition of the find, no?

[Blue Square Thing]

Despite all the complaints, personally I think it's better that less experienced cachers tend to log "TFTC" (or even "One more for me!") than write real logs with spoilers and other stuff that they or someone else will regret. By the time they learn short logs aren't appreciated, they'll have learned what should and shouldn't be said in a log, and they'll also have learned the value of logs. Unless they quit because people keep yelling at them for posting short logs...

I happened to just be looking through something I logged recently and one I want to find Friday. The same caching "team" have found both - nearly 4000 finds.

 

I guess that I should be happy that they used 4 words on the 4.5 difficulty large cache rather than their usual two acronyms...

[+niraD]

I seem to recall once seeing a cache page that said "write something more than 'TFTC' or I will delete your log." Are such warnings fair? It seems to me that the CO sets the conditions of what constitutes a smiley. So if the CO wants more than just a short "thanks" s/he could make that a condition of the find, no?

Once upon a time, that was true. Cache owners could require logs containing at least a full sentence, or logs in limerick form, or logs with a photo of the finder wearing a funny hat, or anything else. But these "Additional Logging Requirements" are no longer allowed.

 

From the guidelines:

 

"For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache 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."

Edited February 26, 2014 by niraD

[+HistDrew]

I seem to recall once seeing a cache page that said "write something more than 'TFTC' or I will delete your log." Are such warnings fair? It seems to me that the CO sets the conditions of what constitutes a smiley. So if the CO wants more than just a short "thanks" s/he could make that a condition of the find, no?

Once upon a time, that was true. Cache owners could require logs containing at least a full sentence, or logs in limerick form, or logs with a photo of the finder wearing a funny hat, or anything else. But these "Additional Logging Requirements" are no longer allowed.

 

From the guidelines:

 

"For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache 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."

 

True, yes. But that speaks to signing the log, not logging online. No?

[Mr.Yuck]

I seem to recall once seeing a cache page that said "write something more than 'TFTC' or I will delete your log." Are such warnings fair? It seems to me that the CO sets the conditions of what constitutes a smiley. So if the CO wants more than just a short "thanks" s/he could make that a condition of the find, no?

Once upon a time, that was true. Cache owners could require logs containing at least a full sentence, or logs in limerick form, or logs with a photo of the finder wearing a funny hat, or anything else. But these "Additional Logging Requirements" are no longer allowed.

 

From the guidelines:

 

"For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache 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."

 

True, yes. But that speaks to signing the log, not logging online. No?

 

No, saying "write something more than Tftc or I will delete your log" used to be legal. It was considered an Additional Logging Requirement (i.e. and ALR), and people could make you write a limerick in your log, or force you to have your picture taken holding the cache while standing on one leg, or whatever. You joined in 2009, they might have gotten rid of them then, or in 2010, I can't remember.

 

That quote definitely addresses ALR's, including online logging. Even if it doesn't appear to on the surface.

[+HistDrew]

No, saying "write something more than Tftc or I will delete your log" used to be legal. It was considered an Additional Logging Requirement (i.e. and ALR), and people could make you write a limerick in your log, or force you to have your picture taken holding the cache while standing on one leg, or whatever. You joined in 2009, they might have gotten rid of them then, or in 2010, I can't remember.

 

That quote definitely addresses ALR's, including online logging. Even if it doesn't appear to on the surface.

 

I've probably seen one that was grandfathered in, same as older Earthcaches that still claim a photo requirement.

[+Dr.MORO]

Domo!!!

 

Your World's #2 Long-logger here! (according to mygeocachingprofile dot com)

Just saw the post in the forum, and thought I should drop a line or 2, or 3, or...

 

I'll pay for your plane ticket if you come cache here.

 

Hey The_Incredibles_!

 

Oh, Victoria: The Capital of British Columbia, is now near the top of my locations to go Geocaching!

 

I would LOVE to get there!

And a plane ticket for my long logs, DEAL!!!

I'll soon start solving Puzzles there.

 

(Well, I'll maybe get there when I retire, whenever that is... )

[+niraD]

I've probably seen one that was grandfathered in, same as older Earthcaches that still claim a photo requirement.

The ALR ban applies only to physical geocaches. It does not apply to grandfathered virtual caches or webcam caches, and it does not apply to EarthCaches.

[+HistDrew]

I've probably seen one that was grandfathered in, same as older Earthcaches that still claim a photo requirement.

The ALR ban applies only to physical geocaches. It does not apply to grandfathered virtual caches or webcam caches, and it does not apply to EarthCaches.

 

Yes, I know. I was giving an example of something grandfathered in. Plenty of ECs still have a photo requirement listed, even though that's not allowed. Nobody's made them change the wording of the EC. Likely the same thing as the cache I saw. Nobody made the CO change the description.

[+niraD]

Yes, I know. I was giving an example of something grandfathered in. Plenty of ECs still have a photo requirement listed, even though that's not allowed. Nobody's made them change the wording of the EC. Likely the same thing as the cache I saw. Nobody made the CO change the description.

Ah, yes. ALR caches are not grandfathered, in the sense that cache owners are not allowed to enforce an ALR, even if that ALR was in place before April 2009. But Groundspeak merely asked cache owners to update their cache descriptions. They did not force cache owners to update their cache descriptions.

[DannyCaffeine]

I like hearing stories people have finding my caches. I just don't like it when they give away too much info.

[Mr.Yuck]

No, saying "write something more than Tftc or I will delete your log" used to be legal. It was considered an Additional Logging Requirement (i.e. and ALR), and people could make you write a limerick in your log, or force you to have your picture taken holding the cache while standing on one leg, or whatever. You joined in 2009, they might have gotten rid of them then, or in 2010, I can't remember.

 

That quote definitely addresses ALR's, including online logging. Even if it doesn't appear to on the surface.

 

I've probably seen one that was grandfathered in, same as older Earthcaches that still claim a photo requirement.

 

Actually, older Earthcaches that still claim a photo requirement Are Not Grandfathered!! It's just that no one actively "goes after" the owners of those listings.

 

EDIT: But reading a different post of yours, I think you may have known that already? You also mention ALR's other than Earthcaches. I know of 2 old-fashioned ALR caches in my area that were never caught by the reviewer after they were outlawed. One is a difficult multi that rarely gets found, but the other one, requiring a TV show quote, has hundreds of finds, and almost everyone still complies with the ALR. All while probably not even knowing it is one, or that they need to.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mr.Yuck

[Mr.Yuck]

Yes, you have to catch them early. It is pretty much guaranteed a smartphone Caching newb is going to drop two word or less lame logs these days, most often manifested by the much hated "Tftc". For expample, the guy from JGrouchy's comment in Post #105, who just joined last month. The small number of these people who actually go on to become active Geocachers almost always get a clue that "only the n00bs do that", and cease and desist lame logging eventually. Some faster than others.

Despite all the complaints, personally I think it's better that less experienced cachers tend to log "TFTC" (or even "One more for me!") than write real logs with spoilers and other stuff that they or someone else will regret. By the time they learn short logs aren't appreciated, they'll have learned what should and shouldn't be said in a log, and they'll also have learned the value of logs. Unless they quit because people keep yelling at them for posting short logs...

 

I was quoted, but what I quoted was not quoted, namely:

 

I managed to catch a good friend of mine when he started caching with only his iPhone, and showed him the value of writing good logs. He may not be writing logs as long as I do, but he still writes good ones. Helps to catch them at the beginning. :-)

 

In other words, I was responding to Nighthawk700, who talked about explaining established logging etiquette to a GOOD FRIEND. Mr. Yuck does not, nor does he condone, "yelling" at n00bs about lame logging. And I doubt anyone has ever quit because they were told they were breaching the established etiquette of the Geocaching community as a newbie.

[+Nighthawk700]

Just to pick up on what Mr. Yuck said above, the only reason I went ahead and worked on this one user was that he was a friend (former college roommate from 20 years ago). He knew I was a more experienced cacher and was open to comments and suggestions. I would not try to force such opinions on any newbie that I just met. If they asked me why I wrote such long logs, I would give them my reasons, and leave it at that. (and I had been asked a few times by people).

[Mr.Yuck]

Just to pick up on what Mr. Yuck said above, the only reason I went ahead and worked on this one user was that he was a friend (former college roommate from 20 years ago). He knew I was a more experienced cacher and was open to comments and suggestions. I would not try to force such opinions on any newbie that I just met. If they asked me why I wrote such long logs, I would give them my reasons, and leave it at that. (and I had been asked a few times by people).

 

Eh, if they were new, and I met them IN PERSON, I would probably tell them it's sort of bad etiquette, hopefully not mentioning the word lame.

 

Emailing them? I'd say no. I do suppose posting a rather rigid stance against the practice in a forum could tick off an unknowing offender though. Sorry for that.

[+dprovan]

In other words, I was responding to Nighthawk700, who talked about explaining established logging etiquette to a GOOD FRIEND. Mr. Yuck does not, nor does he condone, "yelling" at n00bs about lame logging. And I doubt anyone has ever quit because they were told they were breaching the established etiquette of the Geocaching community as a newbie.

I'm sorry, but you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that helping someone was the same as bashing them. I was just talking about all the general bashing going on here, most of which wouldn't be at all helpful if a newbie saw it.

 

And I think you're wrong if you think people don't quit sometimes because they feel they've been yelled at, regardless of whether the people yelling see themselves as merely enforcing established etiquette.

[+J Grouchy]

Sometimes frustration or spur-of-the-moment decisions lead to memorable searches... GC1EXB3.

My lunch break turned into a great time I can laugh about now, but at the time I was worried I'd have to end up crawling through the woods in my work clothes!

[Mr.Yuck]

In other words, I was responding to Nighthawk700, who talked about explaining established logging etiquette to a GOOD FRIEND. Mr. Yuck does not, nor does he condone, "yelling" at n00bs about lame logging. And I doubt anyone has ever quit because they were told they were breaching the established etiquette of the Geocaching community as a newbie.

I'm sorry, but you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that helping someone was the same as bashing them. I was just talking about all the general bashing going on here, most of which wouldn't be at all helpful if a newbie saw it.

 

And I think you're wrong if you think people don't quit sometimes because they feel they've been yelled at, regardless of whether the people yelling see themselves as merely enforcing established etiquette.

 

I suppose I have seen a few cases of what I would refer to as overly sensitive people quitting or threatening to quit over constructive criticism. One case that comes to mind in my area is a teen girl cache placer who didn't like criticism over her deliberate "soft coords to make it more challenging", including when the local reviewer got involved. She did threaten Geocide, but never actually went through with it. She probably completely dropped out after another year anyways though. I'd like to refer to these people as Drama Queens or Kings, but I'll go with overly sensitive.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Yes, I know. I was giving an example of something grandfathered in. Plenty of ECs still have a photo requirement listed, even though that's not allowed. Nobody's made them change the wording of the EC. Likely the same thing as the cache I saw. Nobody made the CO change the description.

 

Ah, yes. ALR caches are not grandfathered, in the sense that cache owners are not allowed to enforce an ALR, even if that ALR was in place before April 2009. But Groundspeak merely asked cache owners to update their cache descriptions. They did not force cache owners to update their cache descriptions.

To me, having ALR verbiage on the page is fine. It's when CO's still think they can enforce it...not so fine. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that but if a CO is deleting logs because you aren't following the ALR, Groundspeak is usually very prompt to send out a friendly reminder that they can't delete logs because of that.

 

As for long logs...I'd rather have long logs to read, whether it is my cache or not. But, TFTC still trumps cut-n-paste logs...no matter how long those c-n-p's might be.

[+dprovan]

I suppose I have seen a few cases of what I would refer to as overly sensitive people quitting or threatening to quit over constructive criticism.

I wasn't thinking of constructive criticism. I was thinking more along the lines of "Write more the TFTC or I'll delete your log."

[Fivehead5]

I think it's fine. I like reading about other people's adventures and sharing mine.

[+defamily]

Whoever sent you that message was a moron.

 

Your log wasn't even that long.

 

Long logs are great and I am proud to have and 127 word average and it gets me a GSAK stat as well.

 

In the Victorian Caching Awards we even have a best log section and it doesn't go to short ones it goes to brilliant long ones.

 

Keep writing lots.

Defamily

[+Kissyfurs]

Now that I'm no longer a "newbie" and I'll write logs as long as I want, I do have another question- how do I find out what my average log length is?

[+Dr.MORO]

how do I find out what my average log length is?

 

Domo Kissyfurs!

 

You can go to

 

My Geocaching Profile dot com,

 

or

 

Project Geocaching (Project GC)

 

to find out your average Found log lengths, plus other text-related geo-stats.

 

Keep them comin'!!!

 

~ Dr.MORO

[+edexter]

Reading an interesting log about a cache you've placed is one of the fun parts about being a CO. You can generally tell the amount of time it takes for someone to place a cache, write up the cache page, add photos and links and maintain it, and describing your experience is about the only way to acknowledge the effort. For a guardrail hideakey placement, or a P&G bison in a cedar tree, a log consisting of "TFTC" may be appropriate, but for anything else, it's like taking without giving anything back, IMO. Most CO's enjoy reading the thoughts of cachers "who give good log", so "write on!"

edexter

[DannyCaffeine]

I always read them. As long as they don't give away the hide I like them.

[+GeoLog81]

It's nothing bad with 2 or 3 sentences, but writing a paragraph or 2 is just too much. They make my Garmin Etrex hang when loading cache info from map. Yeah, you can always choose not loading logs at all, but than you can miss any valuable informations needed to find a cache.

 

In my opinion, log should be used to share important information with other cachers. For sharing your life story, blog entries are better.

[+T.D.M.22]

It's nothing bad with 2 or 3 sentences, but writing a paragraph or 2 is just too much. They make my Garmin Etrex hang when loading cache info from map. Yeah, you can always choose not loading logs at all, but than you can miss any valuable informations needed to find a cache.

 

In my opinion, log should be used to share important information with other cachers. For sharing your life story, blog entries are better.

 

Not everyone uses their GPSr to write logs-Some people do it on the website. I know, using a website is so old fashioned

[+J Grouchy]

"That's one more find for me! Thanks so much for hiding this geocache."

 

Yep...two sentences.

Edited May 8, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+Brian~!]

Speaking as a cache owner, I'd much rather get a long log than a short one.

[cezanne]

It's nothing bad with 2 or 3 sentences, but writing a paragraph or 2 is just too much. They make my Garmin Etrex hang when loading cache info from map.

 

I've done a lot of caches where a paragraph or 2 would actually too short to account for the cache experience.

Many caches are about the trip and the overall experience and not mainly about finding a plastic container in the end.

 

Yeah, you can always choose not loading logs at all, but than you can miss any valuable informations needed to find a cache.

 

The informations needed to find a cache should be part of the cache description.

 

In my opinion, log should be used to share important information with other cachers. For sharing your life story, blog entries are better.

 

It is quite subjective what is important. Moreover, logs are the best place to collect all stories and experiences associated with a cache. I never ever would want to visit 50 different blogs to learn about a particular cache.

 

Consider e.g. my most recent cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4Z9E0_forget-your-sorrows-lets-walk-around-kumberg?guid=9738a5ba-4f6a-4dea-8c4a-5accb82f2362

 

None of the logs is about sharing a life story - all logs deals with my cache and what people experienced and saw on their hike. The logs and the photographs are the real treasure for me and are my motivation to put my time and effort into hiding caches. Your caching style is apparently quite different from mine.

 

I enjoy reading logs and looking at photos even for caches I will never ever get to visit, and I do know that I'm not the only one with this attitude towards logs. I typically read logs at home at my PC and not in the field.

 

There are macros for removing logs above a certain length - you could use such a macro or easily write one yourself if you want to keep only short logs.

 

 

Cezanne

[+nly1972]

As a cache owner, I love reading the long fun stories. I read one the other day from a FTF. He had gotten notification of my 2 caches being published while out trying to take pics of the storm coming thru. Ran to get the caches and nearly got struck by lightening!! If you have something fun to share, please share!!

[+qtbluemoon]

What really stinks is when you hope to inspire others to write longer, better logs with your own...but the very next one is "TFTC". Yeah, mine was borderline rant, but still...

 

That was an awesome log, J Grouchy! I just don't get anyone who thinks it's okay to throw down a cache. I'm probably on some people's s* list here for posting an NA on a cache whose CO has moved away, and someone threw one down for a quick smilie. Anyway, great log. Thanks.

 

Sorry, I guess this was pretty off-topic.

Edited May 18, 2014 by qtbluemoon

[+FiveEyes]

I love long logs. I wish I could write more of them...I try to, but sometimes the cache doesn't involve an adventure so there isn't much to say. My preferred geocache is one that you have to hike to find, and which is somehow unusual or creative.

I also love reading long logs describing other cacher's adventures.

[+5Powells]

Hi, I'm interested in your opinions about complaining about a poor log. I placed a cache yesterday: worked on it for weeks, I think it's a nice hide and certainly from my perspective, a lot of work went into it.

 

Someone found it today and all I got in the log was "That was a little different. TFTC".

Edited May 19, 2014 by 5Powells

[+GeoLog81]

Hi, I'm interested in your opinions about complaining about a poor log. I placed a cache yesterday: worked on it for weeks, I think it's a nice hide and certainly from my perspective, a lot of work went into it.

 

Someone found it today and all I got in the log was "That was a little different. TFTC".

 

Probably his other logs are simply TFTC

 

You can't force anyone to write long logs or otherwise appreciate your time. Hope others will give you favourites You can write in description that you'd like to have a long logs, but not everyone read descriptions. If someone is writing-shy, you can't do much with it...

 

It's also possible, that someone hasn't noticed log finds on paper, or hasn't made a notes, and after a lot of caches you can still remember that there was this super cool one, but can't say for sure which it was...

[+instep_guy]

After reading through this topic I would just like to say to all the COs whose efforts I failed to appreciate and whose sense of self-worth I did not properly validate in my succinct logs I would just like to say…

 

Sorry

[+kunarion]

After reading through this topic I would just like to say to all the COs whose efforts I failed to appreciate and whose sense of self-worth I did not properly validate in my succinct logs I would just like to say…

 

Sorry

Shame on you!

 

When there's a standard rubber-stamp online log on one of my good caches (one I thought people would enjoy), I wonder what the problem was. Sometimes there will be a "TFTC, I've seen this kind before" (which is the log of DOOM -- a similar cache exists somewhere already. The horror!). Sometimes I wonder if experienced cachers just plain have seen it all, and are no longer all that interested on their way out of The Game.

 

But I also don't want to require some flowery prose for no reason. "State in 500 words why I'm special". If it's done without prompting, maybe it means something.

Edited May 19, 2014 by kunarion

[+LayDBugz]

I would love to see a favorite point addition for logs. I've read some great ones that I would love to give a point to. I love it when I've received an email from the CO thanking me for a great log (or have someone at an event tell me how much they enjoyed reading my log!) Makes the extra effort to tell the story worth it. Actually...it's worth it for me either way. I love to relive some of my best caching experiences through my logs. It's my own geocaching journal. How sad would a journal full of TFTC be?!

[+Nighthawk700]

I would love to see a favorite point addition for logs. I've read some great ones that I would love to give a point to. I love it when I've received an email from the CO thanking me for a great log (or have someone at an event tell me how much they enjoyed reading my log!) Makes the extra effort to tell the story worth it. Actually...it's worth it for me either way. I love to relive some of my best caching experiences through my logs. It's my own geocaching journal. How sad would a journal full of TFTC be?!

 

I have thought of similar. Not so much a favorite for logs, but a "Like" type feature. Sometimes people who leave me logs tell such a good story, I want to give them some recognition for it. Rather than those who just give a TFTC.

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

I detest long copy and paste logs if doing a series.

I'd keep the long log at the 1st or last and make the others nice n short.