Jump to content

Logging etiqutte - long logs


BaSHful
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

I don't like those kind of logs on my caches. Give me a synopsis of your fun trip in a few sentences, then say something about my cache. 3-4 paragraph logs about trips are kind of a drag, especially if you're going to log more than one of my caches!

 

To echo some points made above--it's kind of spam, and it just makes for clutter when others want to look through logs for info about the actual cache.

Link to comment

When I write a log several paragraphs long I try to keep each paragraph a different part. First paragraph a usual cut-n-paste summary of the day. Second paragraph the hike to thecache. Third paragraph the search and condition of container. Fourth why I'm giving the cache a Favorite, or why I otherwise particularly liked it (if applicable). Something like that. Easier for skim readers.

 

If I find several caches In one area I will usually make a multipart story spread over the logs which form one big log/story if read on order rather than one massive cut-n-paste log.

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

I like reading long logs, and therefore I also generally write long logs myself , maybe about the journey, the weather, the wildlife, the falling on my nose in the mud en route, or the fun I had doing the puzzle or whatever. As a cache setter I've sent thank you e-mails to finders who put interesting logs on my hides . I feel that taking the time to write a decent log is a small thank you to the CO for all the effort of placing and maintaining the cache, we all like a bit of positive feedback for our efforts, it is only polite.

 

As a cache finder (and a fairly inept one at that) I will read previous logs if I'm stuck , sometimes a word of phrase helps focus my attention, and, for instance, if the last cacher mentions they had a long hunt but found the cache I will be more motivated to keep on looking than if they said it was a quick obvious find (and may therefore have been muggled).

 

From both sides , CO and searcher, I detest the copy/paste identical screed logs: I've found myself following a group of several cachers who all copy/paste vast swathes of pointless identical verbiage to every cache, with possibly a brief, cache specific line at the end ( Bob found this one ! ) if you are lucky and if you don't lose the will to live while scrolling down the irrelevancies . On a walk of 30 caches , by the last find you hate them ! Even worse when you are CO and receive all those pointless duplicate e-mails. The CO is going to read the first couple of logs, then delete the rest unread, so any minor issues with the cache which could be mentioned in the log will go unnoticed.

 

I have no idea why anyone would think that logs like have any merit: what's the point ? Quite a few folk round my area compromise by putting a long log with general information about the walk in the cache they started at, then each subsequent log has any detail specific to that individual cache , and a brief copy/paste saying 'Please see cache number 1 for more detail', which seems like a decent middle path to take.

 

Caching personalities come through in the logs folk write , from the mean spirited few words by someone with a grudge against a CO on a cache other people log and express their pleasure with, to the delight of the newbie who is enchanted at logging their first ever film pot, the rushing brevity of the numbers cacher, the whine of the FTFer confounded, the sycophancy of the favourite given to a merit free film pot by a roadsign just because the finder is a friend of the CO, the epic tales of tough puzzle caches achieved after great time and effort ...

 

Yep , our logs tell tales , not just of our caching adventures , but also of our attitudes and values . I've found that folk who write good logs make good friends : 'By their logs ye shall know them' to misquote ... :D

Link to comment
Question: if you're planning to C&P the 'overall day experience' then why not just put that in cache #1 and refer to that in each subsequent log?

 

Because I don't want to? If I am finding a gaggle of caches during the day, I'm not going to take a job that'll take a few minutes (create a long log template, detailing my day and adding extra info when a cache warrants it) to one that will take hours writing something new for everything. Sorry, but most caches do not deserve unique logs. I suppose that if you wish to waste time writing unique everything, then fine, but I'd rather use that time actually caching. That is why I love GSAK 8...

Link to comment

I don't like those kind of logs on my caches. Give me a synopsis of your fun trip in a few sentences, then say something about my cache. 3-4 paragraph logs about trips are kind of a drag, especially if you're going to log more than one of my caches!

 

To echo some points made above--it's kind of spam, and it just makes for clutter when others want to look through logs for info about the actual cache.

 

Boy, first we (the aggregate "we") tell folks their logs are too short, and now "we" are telling them that they are too long? This logging thing is starting to feel like The Three Bears, and it can be a real bear trying to figure out just how to please everybody. Too short? Too long? Or, "just right"?

 

Actually though, I think that the vast majority of logs really are "just right"... a few words about the experience. No need for an acronym, no need for a dissertation.

Link to comment

I like reading long logs, and therefore I also generally write long logs myself , maybe about the journey, the weather, the wildlife, the falling on my nose in the mud en route, or the fun I had doing the puzzle or whatever. As a cache setter I've sent thank you e-mails to finders who put interesting logs on my hides . I feel that taking the time to write a decent log is a small thank you to the CO for all the effort of placing and maintaining the cache, we all like a bit of positive feedback for our efforts, it is only polite.

 

As a cache finder (and a fairly inept one at that) I will read previous logs if I'm stuck , sometimes a word of phrase helps focus my attention, and, for instance, if the last cacher mentions they had a long hunt but found the cache I will be more motivated to keep on looking than if they said it was a quick obvious find (and may therefore have been muggled).

 

From both sides , CO and searcher, I detest the copy/paste identical screed logs: I've found myself following a group of several cachers who all copy/paste vast swathes of pointless identical verbiage to every cache, with possibly a brief, cache specific line at the end ( Bob found this one ! ) if you are lucky and if you don't lose the will to live while scrolling down the irrelevancies . On a walk of 30 caches , by the last find you hate them ! Even worse when you are CO and receive all those pointless duplicate e-mails. The CO is going to read the first couple of logs, then delete the rest unread, so any minor issues with the cache which could be mentioned in the log will go unnoticed.

 

I have no idea why anyone would think that logs like have any merit: what's the point ? Quite a few folk round my area compromise by putting a long log with general information about the walk in the cache they started at, then each subsequent log has any detail specific to that individual cache , and a brief copy/paste saying 'Please see cache number 1 for more detail', which seems like a decent middle path to take.

 

Caching personalities come through in the logs folk write , from the mean spirited few words by someone with a grudge against a CO on a cache other people log and express their pleasure with, to the delight of the newbie who is enchanted at logging their first ever film pot, the rushing brevity of the numbers cacher, the whine of the FTFer confounded, the sycophancy of the favourite given to a merit free film pot by a roadsign just because the finder is a friend of the CO, the epic tales of tough puzzle caches achieved after great time and effort ...

 

Yep , our logs tell tales , not just of our caching adventures , but also of our attitudes and values . I've found that folk who write good logs make good friends : 'By their logs ye shall know them' to misquote ... :D

 

I am in complete agreement with you when it comes to the duplicated copy/paste paragraph(s) thing with maybe a cache-specific sentence. Why bother with the duplicated portion? Don't waste my time with that.

Link to comment
Question: if you're planning to C&P the 'overall day experience' then why not just put that in cache #1 and refer to that in each subsequent log?

 

Because I don't want to? If I am finding a gaggle of caches during the day, I'm not going to take a job that'll take a few minutes (create a long log template, detailing my day and adding extra info when a cache warrants it) to one that will take hours writing something new for everything. Sorry, but most caches do not deserve unique logs. I suppose that if you wish to waste time writing unique everything, then fine, but I'd rather use that time actually caching. That is why I love GSAK 8...

 

Lame.

Link to comment
Question: if you're planning to C&P the 'overall day experience' then why not just put that in cache #1 and refer to that in each subsequent log?

 

Because I don't want to? If I am finding a gaggle of caches during the day, I'm not going to take a job that'll take a few minutes (create a long log template, detailing my day and adding extra info when a cache warrants it) to one that will take hours writing something new for everything. Sorry, but most caches do not deserve unique logs. I suppose that if you wish to waste time writing unique everything, then fine, but I'd rather use that time actually caching. That is why I love GSAK 8...

 

Lame.

 

Such an eloquent and well thought-out reply. Care to try again and, you know, actually put an ounce of thought into it?

Link to comment
Question: if you're planning to C&P the 'overall day experience' then why not just put that in cache #1 and refer to that in each subsequent log?

 

Because I don't want to? If I am finding a gaggle of caches during the day, I'm not going to take a job that'll take a few minutes (create a long log template, detailing my day and adding extra info when a cache warrants it) to one that will take hours writing something new for everything. Sorry, but most caches do not deserve unique logs. I suppose that if you wish to waste time writing unique everything, then fine, but I'd rather use that time actually caching. That is why I love GSAK 8...

 

You can of course log how you like. But what I think TheOldfields are suggesting would not require much if any more time. What they are saying is: Say you have found a series of 30 caches. Rather than paste the same long log in all 30, put the long summary log in #1, then paste a line saying "see log at #1 for summary" in the others. The advantage of such technique is that for other cachers who may be looking for information about a specific cache don't have to keep scrolling over the same long log.

 

It's not a major issue for me, though I do prefer the approach TheOldfields suggest. One memorable example of a very long cut and paste log was when I was in New Zealand once. There was a couple who were there on their honeymoon and did a lot of caching all over the country. EVERY cache had the same long log, describing their wedding, the honeymoon, etc. And they seemed to take the same route as me, as wherever I went - when I was having trouble finding a cache and looked at the recent logs to see if it had been found recently etc... I would see their log. I admit I did get fed up seeing it.

Link to comment
Question: if you're planning to C&P the 'overall day experience' then why not just put that in cache #1 and refer to that in each subsequent log?

 

Because I don't want to? If I am finding a gaggle of caches during the day, I'm not going to take a job that'll take a few minutes (create a long log template, detailing my day and adding extra info when a cache warrants it) to one that will take hours writing something new for everything. Sorry, but most caches do not deserve unique logs. I suppose that if you wish to waste time writing unique everything, then fine, but I'd rather use that time actually caching. That is why I love GSAK 8...

 

You could probably waste less time if you didn't search for caches that you deem not worthy of a unique log.

 

 

Link to comment
Question: if you're planning to C&P the 'overall day experience' then why not just put that in cache #1 and refer to that in each subsequent log?

 

Because I don't want to? If I am finding a gaggle of caches during the day, I'm not going to take a job that'll take a few minutes (create a long log template, detailing my day and adding extra info when a cache warrants it) to one that will take hours writing something new for everything. Sorry, but most caches do not deserve unique logs. I suppose that if you wish to waste time writing unique everything, then fine, but I'd rather use that time actually caching. That is why I love GSAK 8...

 

Lame.

 

Such an eloquent and well thought-out reply. Care to try again and, you know, actually put an ounce of thought into it?

 

But why should knowschad take a job that will take a few seconds - a quick expression of how he feels about your viewpoint - to one that will take minutes writing something specific about why he feels that way?

 

Sorry but some forum posts do not deserve unique replies. I suppose if people wish to waste time writing unique replies, then fine, but they'd probably rather use that time caching - hopefully finding caches that merit more than their disdain.

 

:D

Link to comment

It really doesn't matter what you do with your logs. They will always be wrong. They'll be...

 

1. Too short.

 

2. Too long.

 

3. Not unique.

 

4. Too spoiler-ish.

 

5. Too positive, and not helpful to cachers who might want to know that there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

6. Too negative, keeping other cachers away because there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

7. Not thankful enough. Remember, cache owners need to be thanked ten times a day or they'll archive their caches.

 

8. Overly thankful, so it seems like sarcasm and the owner will archive the cache in disgust.

 

In order to solve this, I have designed a system whereby each cache is logged with a unique acronym that is neither too long nor too short, and can't be deciphered so the cache owner can't take it as positive or negative and any spoilers are obscured.

 

NHLTCWOFTBDATPIAGZTFTC

Link to comment
Question: if you're planning to C&P the 'overall day experience' then why not just put that in cache #1 and refer to that in each subsequent log?

 

Because I don't want to? If I am finding a gaggle of caches during the day, I'm not going to take a job that'll take a few minutes (create a long log template, detailing my day and adding extra info when a cache warrants it) to one that will take hours writing something new for everything. Sorry, but most caches do not deserve unique logs. I suppose that if you wish to waste time writing unique everything, then fine, but I'd rather use that time actually caching. That is why I love GSAK 8...

 

Lame.

 

Such an eloquent and well thought-out reply. Care to try again and, you know, actually put an ounce of thought into it?

Nope. Sometimes "Lame" is all that needs to be said.

Link to comment

It really doesn't matter what you do with your logs. They will always be wrong. They'll be...

 

1. Too short.

 

2. Too long.

 

3. Not unique.

 

4. Too spoiler-ish.

 

5. Too positive, and not helpful to cachers who might want to know that there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

6. Too negative, keeping other cachers away because there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

7. Not thankful enough. Remember, cache owners need to be thanked ten times a day or they'll archive their caches.

 

8. Overly thankful, so it seems like sarcasm and the owner will archive the cache in disgust.

 

In order to solve this, I have designed a system whereby each cache is logged with a unique acronym that is neither too long nor too short, and can't be deciphered so the cache owner can't take it as positive or negative and any spoilers are obscured.

 

NHLTCWOFTBDATPIAGZTFTC

 

That is certainly untrue, as I'm sure you know, although it might appear that way if you spend too much time in the forums. The vast majority of logs are awesome to the vast majority of cache owners.

Link to comment
You can of course log how you like. But what I think TheOldfields are suggesting would not require much if any more time. What they are saying is: Say you have found a series of 30 caches. Rather than paste the same long log in all 30, put the long summary log in #1, then paste a line saying "see log at #1 for summary" in the others. The advantage of such technique is that for other cachers who may be looking for information about a specific cache don't have to keep scrolling over the same long log.

 

It's not a major issue for me, though I do prefer the approach TheOldfields suggest. One memorable example of a very long cut and paste log was when I was in New Zealand once. There was a couple who were there on their honeymoon and did a lot of caching all over the country. EVERY cache had the same long log, describing their wedding, the honeymoon, etc. And they seemed to take the same route as me, as wherever I went - when I was having trouble finding a cache and looked at the recent logs to see if it had been found recently etc... I would see their log. I admit I did get fed up seeing it.

 

Fair enough, but look at it this way...if you know that there's going to be CnP logs like you mention and you know that they put the relevant cache information at the end, all you'd have to do is scroll to the end. Problem solved.

 

You could probably waste less time if you didn't search for caches that you deem not worthy of a unique log.

 

Eh, if I did that, I'd rarely cache. Sure, there's good ones out there, and if I am only finding a few, then go for it...write something good. If I'm on a big caching run (which is often the case), then I have far more caches to pack in there. Some are awesome, some are so-so. The awesome ones get an extra line or two. I think that's good enough, don't you?

 

But why should knowschad take a job that will take a few seconds - a quick expression of how he feels about your viewpoint - to one that will take minutes writing something specific about why he feels that way?

 

Sorry but some forum posts do not deserve unique replies. I suppose if people wish to waste time writing unique replies, then fine, but they'd probably rather use that time caching - hopefully finding caches that merit more than their disdain.

 

:D

 

Well played...well played, LOL...

 

Nope. Sometimes "Lame" is all that needs to be said.

 

Yeah, okay. I'm going to file this under the "I really don't have a valid argument, so I will reply in an immature and simplistic manner" style of post and treat it as such.

 

It really doesn't matter what you do with your logs. They will always be wrong. They'll be...

 

1. Too short.

 

2. Too long.

 

3. Not unique.

 

4. Too spoiler-ish.

 

5. Too positive, and not helpful to cachers who might want to know that there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

6. Too negative, keeping other cachers away because there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

7. Not thankful enough. Remember, cache owners need to be thanked ten times a day or they'll archive their caches.

 

8. Overly thankful, so it seems like sarcasm and the owner will archive the cache in disgust.

 

In order to solve this, I have designed a system whereby each cache is logged with a unique acronym that is neither too long nor too short, and can't be deciphered so the cache owner can't take it as positive or negative and any spoilers are obscured.

 

NHLTCWOFTBDATPIAGZTFTC

 

As it is quote often, narcissa nails it. Seems you can't please cachers (especially certain forum regulars) when it comes to something as simple as logging. It's pretty much danged if you do, danged if you don't and other cachers will be sure to be quick to point out when you do things wrong. Instead of focusing on their game, they feel the need to dictate to others how things should be done.

 

In other words, same old, same old...

Link to comment

We should have a /. style meta-review system where we rate logs.

 

And forum posters.

 

I reckon there's a few who would get weeded out very quickly indeed.

 

Indeed. Knowing how much many forum regulars completely dislike rocking the boat or opposing positions, this place would be dead.

Link to comment

Lame.

Such an eloquent and well thought-out reply. Care to try again and, you know, actually put an ounce of thought into it?

I woke up this morning intent on continuing my post-a-day streak with more forum posts. I started with a thread about muggles. Along the way, I looked at 16 threads, read 35 posts, and responded 4 times. I ended at a thread about micros being lame. That makes 22 days straight with a post a day. No computer glitches, and the coffee was warm and delicious.

 

Lame.

Link to comment

Lame.

Such an eloquent and well thought-out reply. Care to try again and, you know, actually put an ounce of thought into it?

I woke up this morning intent on continuing my post-a-day streak with more forum posts. I started with a thread about muggles. Along the way, I looked at 16 threads, read 35 posts, and responded 4 times. I ended at a thread about micros being lame. That makes 22 days straight with a post a day. No computer glitches, and the coffee was warm and delicious.

 

Lame.

 

Yet another person who, suffering from the inability to actually form a coherent rebuttal, resorts to stupid statements. Par for the course, I suppose...agree and we're cool, but disagree and we're going to mock.

Link to comment

We should have a /. style meta-review system where we rate logs.

 

And forum posters.

 

I reckon there's a few who would get weeded out very quickly indeed.

 

Indeed. Knowing how much many forum regulars completely dislike rocking the boat or opposing positions, this place would be dead.

 

We're supposed to sit in a boat while we post?

 

We don't have to 'talk' like pirates do we? That would put me right off :D

Link to comment

I write a mini poem about each find. sometimes even mentioning vague hints, but usually just a summary of the visit. (sunny, had fun, swatted a bug, etc).

 

I just looked at a couple. That's really cool! I would love to get a log like that. :)

Link to comment

We should have a /. style meta-review system where we rate logs.

 

And forum posters.

 

I reckon there's a few who would get weeded out very quickly indeed.

 

Indeed. Knowing how much many forum regulars completely dislike rocking the boat or opposing positions, this place would be dead.

 

We're supposed to sit in a boat while we post?

 

We don't have to 'talk' like pirates do we? That would put me right off :D

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

 

Nope. Sometimes "Lame" is all that needs to be said.

 

Yeah, okay. I'm going to file this under the "I really don't have a valid argument, so I will reply in an immature and simplistic manner" style of post and treat it as such.

 

 

File it wherever you want to. I'm not trying to argue with you, or to convince you of anything. I was stating my opinion of the attitude you expressed in your post. Take it, or leave it.

Link to comment

It really doesn't matter what you do with your logs. They will always be wrong. They'll be...

 

1. Too short.

 

2. Too long.

 

3. Not unique.

 

4. Too spoiler-ish.

 

5. Too positive, and not helpful to cachers who might want to know that there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

6. Too negative, keeping other cachers away because there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

7. Not thankful enough. Remember, cache owners need to be thanked ten times a day or they'll archive their caches.

 

8. Overly thankful, so it seems like sarcasm and the owner will archive the cache in disgust.

 

In order to solve this, I have designed a system whereby each cache is logged with a unique acronym that is neither too long nor too short, and can't be deciphered so the cache owner can't take it as positive or negative and any spoilers are obscured.

 

NHLTCWOFTBDATPIAGZTFTC

I have to agree with this list. Some CO are very mess up in the head and need to be in a hospital or be taking thier meds. Like I always said, being a CO isnt for everybody. I am pretty flexible as a CO and I am just happy when someone found my cache. I dont need nice log to make mw feel all good inside.

Link to comment
You can of course log how you like. But what I think TheOldfields are suggesting would not require much if any more time. What they are saying is: Say you have found a series of 30 caches. Rather than paste the same long log in all 30, put the long summary log in #1, then paste a line saying "see log at #1 for summary" in the others. The advantage of such technique is that for other cachers who may be looking for information about a specific cache don't have to keep scrolling over the same long log.

 

It's not a major issue for me, though I do prefer the approach TheOldfields suggest. One memorable example of a very long cut and paste log was when I was in New Zealand once. There was a couple who were there on their honeymoon and did a lot of caching all over the country. EVERY cache had the same long log, describing their wedding, the honeymoon, etc. And they seemed to take the same route as me, as wherever I went - when I was having trouble finding a cache and looked at the recent logs to see if it had been found recently etc... I would see their log. I admit I did get fed up seeing it.

 

Fair enough, but look at it this way...if you know that there's going to be CnP logs like you mention and you know that they put the relevant cache information at the end, all you'd have to do is scroll to the end. Problem solved.

 

Nope. As I said on my original post it's a major pain on some devices to scroll past a long swathe of text. Try borrowing an Oregon 450 from someone and give it a try.

Link to comment

I mostly write short logs. Wondering how others write long ones? My system simply doesn't allow me to put more than 4000 characters in! So I'm restricted to short logs just below that 4000 character limit. I don't want to take the effort to split my log entries up in more parts every time. Sorry folks...

.

.

.

:D

 

 

:D

Link to comment
You can of course log how you like. But what I think TheOldfields are suggesting would not require much if any more time. What they are saying is: Say you have found a series of 30 caches. Rather than paste the same long log in all 30, put the long summary log in #1, then paste a line saying "see log at #1 for summary" in the others. The advantage of such technique is that for other cachers who may be looking for information about a specific cache don't have to keep scrolling over the same long log.

 

It's not a major issue for me, though I do prefer the approach TheOldfields suggest. One memorable example of a very long cut and paste log was when I was in New Zealand once. There was a couple who were there on their honeymoon and did a lot of caching all over the country. EVERY cache had the same long log, describing their wedding, the honeymoon, etc. And they seemed to take the same route as me, as wherever I went - when I was having trouble finding a cache and looked at the recent logs to see if it had been found recently etc... I would see their log. I admit I did get fed up seeing it.

 

Fair enough, but look at it this way...if you know that there's going to be CnP logs like you mention and you know that they put the relevant cache information at the end, all you'd have to do is scroll to the end. Problem solved.

 

Nope. As I said on my original post it's a major pain on some devices to scroll past a long swathe of text. Try borrowing an Oregon 450 from someone and give it a try.

 

I used to own an Oregon 450, so I know how it is. Well, if that is unacceptable to you, then I don't know what to say. I guess you could add the info at the beginning, but the log would be rather clumsy...

Link to comment

In recent weeks I have changed the nature of the logs I write which has prompted one cache owner to take me to task and ask me to change (shorten) the log I wrote. I have also had feedback from another cache owner who enjoyed reading about my experiences.

 

I tend (mostly) to cache one day a week and typically find 30 to 50 caches in that day. The practice I have recently adopted is to write a comprehensive account for the whole day (400 to 600 words) and then copy and paste it into every log. If there is a major issue with any particular cache I will raise a separate "Needs Maintenance" log for it. I see this as a compromise between having something (hopefully) interesting to say and actually getting the logging completed. And, yes, it might eventually improve my GSAK badge for average length of log.

 

I welcome some honest feedback on this subject. I suspect there might be a range of views.....

 

If it helps, these are some of my recent logs:-

http://coord.info/GLB7R3Z4 The one that got the adverse comment.

http://coord.info/GLB053QT For which I received some good feedback.

http://coord.info/GLB1ZBAW Five days later.

http://coord.info/GLB61E05 Another recent one.

 

I usually write a long log about my trip, which I copy and paste to every cache I found that day, then I add a little "About this cache" at the bottom with something extra about that specific cache. That way those who only want to read about the cache can skip to that part.

Link to comment

I usually write a long log about my trip, which I copy and paste to every cache I found that day, then I add a little "About this cache" at the bottom with something extra about that specific cache. That way those who only want to read about the cache can skip to that part.

 

I'd rather have a TFTC than have to read even the first log that contains a load of waffle and then just a handful of words that actually relate to the cache that I placed for you to find.

Link to comment

In recent weeks I have changed the nature of the logs I write which has prompted one cache owner to take me to task and ask me to change (shorten) the log I wrote. I have also had feedback from another cache owner who enjoyed reading about my experiences.

 

I tend (mostly) to cache one day a week and typically find 30 to 50 caches in that day. The practice I have recently adopted is to write a comprehensive account for the whole day (400 to 600 words) and then copy and paste it into every log. If there is a major issue with any particular cache I will raise a separate "Needs Maintenance" log for it. I see this as a compromise between having something (hopefully) interesting to say and actually getting the logging completed. And, yes, it might eventually improve my GSAK badge for average length of log.

 

I welcome some honest feedback on this subject. I suspect there might be a range of views.....

 

If it helps, these are some of my recent logs:-

http://coord.info/GLB7R3Z4 The one that got the adverse comment.

http://coord.info/GLB053QT For which I received some good feedback.

http://coord.info/GLB1ZBAW Five days later.

http://coord.info/GLB61E05 Another recent one.

 

I usually write a long log about my trip, which I copy and paste to every cache I found that day, then I add a little "About this cache" at the bottom with something extra about that specific cache. That way those who only want to read about the cache can skip to that part.

 

If you feel that your trip is worthy of adding to your log of my cache, please add that After you put the specific part about the cache. I personally don't want to to skip to the end to read about my cache.

Link to comment

It's not the length of a log, it's the content.

 

As a CO I'm very interested how you've got there (not the full days story, maybe just from the parking coordinates), how your search experience was at ground zero, how you like my listing/hide/container and the location plus any happy/dangerous/interesting situation happened there or on the way to/from.

 

As a finder/logger I like to write like the story for my own diary, with exact the same things as mentioned above. How I get out of bed and what I had for breakfast usually isn't much interesting, not for me nor for others...(exceptions exist and will be included in the first log of that day).

 

The full story about every cache found that day in each log of that day just is boring lame.

Edited by Ben0w
Link to comment
I usually write a long log about my trip, which I copy and paste to every cache I found that day, then I add a little "About this cache" at the bottom with something extra about that specific cache. That way those who only want to read about the cache can skip to that part.

 

Same here. I find it works best for me when it comes to logging...I get to speak of the day and add any pertinent cache information at the end when such things are warranted.

 

I know of a couple of cachers that have taken to writing copy/paste boilerplate logs that always end in words to the effect of "I really appreciate your efforts!" in big colored letters. Why do I find that insincere?

 

I don't know...why do you? Do you honestly think they are being insincere just because they choose to log like that? Perhaps you shouldn't judge their intentions...

Link to comment
I usually write a long log about my trip, which I copy and paste to every cache I found that day, then I add a little "About this cache" at the bottom with something extra about that specific cache. That way those who only want to read about the cache can skip to that part.

 

Same here. I find it works best for me when it comes to logging...I get to speak of the day and add any pertinent cache information at the end when such things are warranted.

 

I know of a couple of cachers that have taken to writing copy/paste boilerplate logs that always end in words to the effect of "I really appreciate your efforts!" in big colored letters. Why do I find that insincere?

 

I don't know...why do you? Do you honestly think they are being insincere just because they choose to log like that? Perhaps you shouldn't judge their intentions...

 

If I saw the same cut-n-paste phrase on every log, it would suggest to me that that logger was going for expediency rather than sincerity.

 

 

Link to comment
1431867412[/url]' post='5505718']
1431808329[/url]' post='5505540']I usually write a long log about my trip, which I copy and paste to every cache I found that day, then I add a little "About this cache" at the bottom with something extra about that specific cache. That way those who only want to read about the cache can skip to that part.

 

Same here. I find it works best for me when it comes to logging...I get to speak of the day and add any pertinent cache information at the end when such things are warranted.

 

1431866943[/url]' post='5505714']I know of a couple of cachers that have taken to writing copy/paste boilerplate logs that always end in words to the effect of "I really appreciate your efforts!" in big colored letters. Why do I find that insincere?

 

I don't know...why do you? Do you honestly think they are being insincere just because they choose to log like that? Perhaps you shouldn't judge their intentions...

 

It happens quite a lot. I get an email with glowing generic remark, "Great cache. Lot's of fun." I'd be all proud of my cache, then another email comes in for a couple of nearby caches that I have watches on....same remark and I know that one of them is a carpy abandoned leaky cache. dry.gif

Link to comment

I just looked at his other logs, and he has several more like that: "blah blah blah", "sjjs". I guess he didn't want to spend the energy on something meaningful.

 

Yeah, but his word-count-per-log is probably pretty high. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
I usually write a long log about my trip, which I copy and paste to every cache I found that day, then I add a little "About this cache" at the bottom with something extra about that specific cache. That way those who only want to read about the cache can skip to that part.

 

Same here. I find it works best for me when it comes to logging...I get to speak of the day and add any pertinent cache information at the end when such things are warranted.

 

I know of a couple of cachers that have taken to writing copy/paste boilerplate logs that always end in words to the effect of "I really appreciate your efforts!" in big colored letters. Why do I find that insincere?

 

I don't know...why do you? Do you honestly think they are being insincere just because they choose to log like that? Perhaps you shouldn't judge their intentions...

 

You don't see how impersonal that is? To post exactly the same thing to every cache they find?

 

OK, I will grant you that yes, they may well appreciate the cache owner's efforts. What they say may be true. But that is a very sucky way of showing their thanks. My caches are not generic, I don't expect the logs to be either.

Link to comment

It really doesn't matter what you do with your logs. They will always be wrong. They'll be...

 

1. Too short.

 

2. Too long.

 

3. Not unique.

 

4. Too spoiler-ish.

 

5. Too positive, and not helpful to cachers who might want to know that there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

6. Too negative, keeping other cachers away because there was poison ivy or a barking dog nearby.

 

7. Not thankful enough. Remember, cache owners need to be thanked ten times a day or they'll archive their caches.

 

8. Overly thankful, so it seems like sarcasm and the owner will archive the cache in disgust.

 

In order to solve this, I have designed a system whereby each cache is logged with a unique acronym that is neither too long nor too short, and can't be deciphered so the cache owner can't take it as positive or negative and any spoilers are obscured.

 

NHLTCWOFTBDATPIAGZTFTC

 

What an odd take, but I wholeheartedly agree with your list. You can't please everyone.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...