Copy-paste stories in logs

[+-CJ-]

I'm in Budapest now on vacations. Already managed to find some caches and continue this business. Each time I open my Android application to see logs of previous visitors I run into postings like that: "Out family spent four days in Budapest. The weather was fine and we found many geocaches here. I would like to thank all cache owners in the city for giving us such a great opportunity..." and so on. A template. One for 10, 20, 50, 100 logs. Sometimes such copy-paste logs are of two paragraphs size.

 

I'd like to address to all people who practice this. Please don't. If you're too tired, or too busy, or your language is poor, or you feel that this cache doesn't deserve a short review, anything - please leave "TFTC" only. Your log will take less space on our screens. If you didn't find the cache you should not use the same template adding "though this cache was among those we failed to find". Just write "DNF".

 

Thank you.

[+thomfre]

As a cache owner, I would much rather have a copy-paste log, than TFTC!

 

If you don't want to read it, just skip it.

[+lamoracke]

At least they are trying. If one does that many caches, its probably hard to say something unique each and every log. Personally I might do a copy and paste in the first part and then try to say something unique every cache. Personally, I think its silly when folks say great puzzles, great caches when they copy and paste that 100 times as it makes me not feel they meant that on my personal cache, but hey, they are trying to say something and I try to not read too much into things.

 

Would you write something unique if you were on a long trip and did say 150 caches and did not log each one til you got home, would you honestly remember something unique each time? Sure it would be nice, but I doubt many folks could. Sure some folks will do pocket notes or something as they found it, but many do not. I do not which makes it hard to remember each cache when I get home, but I do try.

[+Flintstone5611]

Hmmm, that is an interesting vantage point. Is it because it took up space on the listing and that left other logs off your GPS? The way I see it, I really appreciate that people gave a thought to their log rather than giving us nothing (ie. TFTC). I just don't see why it is such a sore point, specifically.

[+niraD]

As a cache owner, I would much rather have a copy-paste log, than TFTC!

+1

 

My first choice would be for every log to be unique and detailed. Second choice would be hybrid logs, with a copy-paste overview of the trip and some content that is unique to that specific log. Third choice would be identical copy-paste logs describing the trip as a whole. And a distant fourth choice would be terse, nearly content-free logs like "TFTC" or "Found" or "DNF" or "".

[+Wegge]

As a cache owner, I would much rather have a copy-paste log, than TFTC!

+1

 

My first choice would be for every log to be unique and detailed. Second choice would be hybrid logs, with a copy-paste overview of the trip and some content that is unique to that specific log. Third choice would be identical copy-paste logs describing the trip as a whole. And a distant fourth choice would be terse, nearly content-free logs like "TFTC" or "Found" or "DNF" or "".

 

I would prefer TFTC over a copy-paste log. With the abbreviation, I at least can see that the logger is aware that the log is without information. The copy-paste log is something you'd have to read through, before finding out that it has null content.

 

(Spoken as a CO)

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

I'm not a fan of cut and paste logs, especially when you have 3 cachers out together and they all cut and paste "found this's with X, Y and Z"

That said, many times a comment is added at the end which is nice.

As much as I don't like cut and paste logs, I like them way better than TFTC.

 

On a DNF, I want to know more. Dd you lack time? Did you look all over and not find it, did you find a piece of it? Those comments are important.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Any log is fine for me. I'm just glad they found the cache and hope they had fun doing it.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I find both cut & paste and TFTC worthless. That type of logs makes me wonder why I am wasting my time making a cache hide fun and/or interesting. Same as for those folks who don't have time to read the cache page and then complain about missing out on some detail of the cache. Perhaps people should slow down and spend a little more time enjoying the finds and add a decent comment to the log.

 

Are these the same people who can't do a decent cache hide and only know how to do a micro in a lamp post skirt?

 

Just my views,

 

John

[+The Leprechauns]

As a cache owner, I would much rather have a copy-paste log, than TFTC!

+1

 

My first choice would be for every log to be unique and detailed. Second choice would be hybrid logs, with a copy-paste overview of the trip and some content that is unique to that specific log. Third choice would be identical copy-paste logs describing the trip as a whole. And a distant fourth choice would be terse, nearly content-free logs like "TFTC" or "Found" or "DNF" or "".

I agree completely with these choices and their rankings. I'm writing to suggest one other option, in between one and two, that I use when logging a busy trip. I take care to note who are the owners of the caches I found. For the first cache owned by niraD, you would receive my copy-paste summary of the entire day/roadtrip, plus a sentence or two specific to the hide. For each subsequent niraD cache, I skip the copy-paste summary and only write the sentence(s) unique to that cache. I figure you would appreciate reading the long story once, but that it would become annoying if pasted over and over again into ten of your caches that I logged on the same day.

 

And to the OP, don't you dare tell me how to write my DNF logs. They tend to be my most interesting and entertaining logs, often poking fun at myself, speculating about why I failed, describing the muggle problem, etc. See the link in my signature line, below, to access all the caches where I have unresolved DNF's. Even the bookmark summaries tell stories that are way more entertaining than "didn't find it."

[+NeverSummer]

I find both cut & paste and TFTC worthless. That type of logs makes me wonder why I am wasting my time making a cache hide fun and/or interesting. Same as for those folks who don't have time to read the cache page and then complain about missing out on some detail of the cache. Perhaps people should slow down and spend a little more time enjoying the finds and add a decent comment to the log.

 

Are these the same people who can't do a decent cache hide and only know how to do a micro in a lamp post skirt?

 

Just my views,

 

John

+1

 

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil, right?

 

I have some caches that fall along a now oft-visited "power trail" of sorts. My smattering of caches fall along the routes some folks take to get the trail's caches. Out of all of the logs, I'd rather see someone take the time to write a log about the cache, the day, or the whole experience over a TFTC or template log. Both are annoyin to read, and present issues of their own.

 

I mean, honestly, without an actual log, how are we as owners to know if there is a simple issue like the cache being out of its hiding spot, container cracked, or similar issues. If these cut-and-pasters put pen to paper, they aren't concerned about sharing specifics of each cache...or so it seems.

 

Of the logs I see nowadays, there are a handful which are specific to my caches along that route. One thing I was very grateful for was seeing that a cacher had addressed caches not of the "power trail" with specific logs. The caches of the specific trail series were cut-and-paste. That was pretty cool, IMO. Power trail owners might expect cut-and-paste, or simple TFTC logs generated from a GSAK output or ctrl-v. I don't like them, and unfortunately have had to start expecting them.

[+SwineFlew]

As a cache owner, I do prefer copy and paste story logs over some lines that doesnt mean anything. I do like to hear your day caching story. Like where you start and where you ended and etc. Any problems you ran into. Funny things you saw. Spice it up and copy and paste it.

 

To any cache owners, I often forget about your caches within a few days(no offended here), but I dont forget my long caching trips, the mistakes I made, the things I see while driving. Rarely I dont remember every caches out there unless something else happen during my trip getting to GZ.

[Clan Riffster]

As a cache owner, I would much rather have a copy-paste log, than TFTC!

 

If you don't want to read it, just skip it.

This.

[+fbingha]

Cut & Paste Logs > TFTC but both are really not appreciated by me. I could assume you didn't care for my cache if you leave either. I know that probably isn't true so I'm left to think that caching as a whole is a selfish activity for such finders. Cache how you want but you don't inspire COs to leave more caches for you to find.

 

Our problem is that you probably don't care as there are no shortage of roadside caches that you can find and enjoy finding. I tire of reading logs on other caches that say "Glad this one was quick and easy, just what I wanted".

[+dprovan]

Hmmm, that is an interesting vantage point. Is it because it took up space on the listing and that left other logs off your GPS? The way I see it, I really appreciate that people gave a thought to their log rather than giving us nothing (ie. TFTC). I just don't see why it is such a sore point, specifically.

I'm looking for information about the cache I'm looking for. I have to scroll through 5 pages on my GPSr screen telling about their day to get to any logs that actually tell me about someone looking for the cache. Since they were caching in the same area I am, it happens over and over, all day, with the same story about their trip that I didn't really care about the first time I saw it.

 

While I understand that there are two sides to the question, I tend to side with the OP. The log is for comments about the cache, not for a travelogue, although since gc.com provides no place for the travelogue, I understand the people that can't help themselves.

[+JesandTodd]

So...skip those logs.

 

If you are looking for help, and you scroll over unique log after unique log....what's the difference? You are still having to read logs that "take up space"

 

I loathe cut and paste logs too. And 'tftc' is just so dang lame-especially when it's an awesome cache.

 

But my unique log (and I like to leave good logs) will not have any spoilers. So, either you skip the C&P log, skip the 'tftc' or waste your timer reading my unique log, which contains no spoilers.

[+hukilaulau]

I hate cut and paste logs, although I suspect this is becoming an obsolete term. (Like "I'm going to tape that show.")

Isn't "Mass logging" or something more accurate now?

Anyway... The MOST annoying ones are the pointless paragraph logs that have 3 or 4 DNF's on either side of it. They tell a story alright. A story of someone who can't even be bothered to remember which caches he actually visited in an area, much less write something unique about each one.

 

My most prolific caching day was only 25 finds, so it was fairly easy to maintain my practice of ALWAYS writing a unique log for each one.

Over 3,700 times. It ain't J.K. Rowling or nothin', but it is something about the experience.

[+WarNinjas]

As a CO of over 100 when someone comes threw and leaves 10 or more of the same log it does get boring. Also on the interesting ones that they didn't have something extra to say but what ever. I can kind of understand after doing 20+ caches with a group and not logging them all at the time. When we got home I seen I didn't have much to say and they all were great with about 10 ammo cans. I can see how it happens but still tried to make each one different at least.

[+T.D.M.22]

I hate both. At least TFTC let's you know nothing right away. But I also don't like the "found with so and so"

It gives no one any info. I know the cache is there, but is it in perfect conditions, or is it just a logbook and the lid to an LnL? Doesn't give finders any help either. No hints where it might be, doesn't tell if its a good cache to go visit,'doesn't even tell others of the condition of the cache. Even saying that it was a easy or hard find gives me into. If some says the needed three sets of eyes and the hint didn't make sense, that tells me the cache may have migrated. If people keep saying its easy and it's a D3 or 4 it tells me the same thing.

[+SwineFlew]

I hate both. At least TFTC let's you know nothing right away. But I also don't like the "found with so and so"

It gives no one any info. I know the cache is there, but is it in perfect conditions, or is it just a logbook and the lid to an LnL? Doesn't give finders any help either. No hints where it might be, doesn't tell if its a good cache to go visit,'doesn't even tell others of the condition of the cache. Even saying that it was a easy or hard find gives me into. If some says the needed three sets of eyes and the hint didn't make sense, that tells me the cache may have migrated. If people keep saying its easy and it's a D3 or 4 it tells me the same thing.

 

 

Some CO are so nick picky about their caches and can't take anything. So I stop and pretend that the cache is in perfect shape and awesome. It works better for me and I am not in hot water. I will let someone else do that. Sorry.

[cezanne]

 

I'd like to address to all people who practice this. Please don't. If you're too tired, or too busy, or your language is poor, or you feel that this cache doesn't deserve a short review, anything - please leave "TFTC" only. Your log will take less space on our screens. If you didn't find the cache you should not use the same template adding "though this cache was among those we failed to find". Just write "DNF".

 

 

I do not write copy and paste logs, but I prefer them to TFTC or DNF by far.

My own logs are typically ver long and for nice caches I often need more than one log.

No one is forced to read logs on a mobile phone. That's your personal choice.

 

I read logs at home as a sort of entertainment since I enjoy reading logs that tell a story. I often read logs for caches where I have been before or for caches which I never will get to visiti.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Don_J]

As a cache owner, I would much rather have a copy-paste log, than TFTC!

+1

 

My first choice would be for every log to be unique and detailed. Second choice would be hybrid logs, with a copy-paste overview of the trip and some content that is unique to that specific log. Third choice would be identical copy-paste logs describing the trip as a whole. And a distant fourth choice would be terse, nearly content-free logs like "TFTC" or "Found" or "DNF" or "".

 

As a cache owner, I agree.

 

As someone standing on top of a mountain in 103° sun who can't find the cache and is browsing through the logs on my device trying to find any bit of helpful info, the order changes somewhat.

 

Using GSAK, I purge logs for certain area cachers before I export, because I know that they are all identical and really don't say much. How many times do I need to read that they had to carry the dog for the last half mile of the hike, or what restaurant they ate at later?

 

It's usually a good story and that's fine, I just don't need 20 copies on my device, multiplied by 5 or 10, depending on how big the group was that did the hike last.

 

And, if you are cut and pasting but putting in a unique part about each cache, put it at the top.

[+Don_J]

So...skip those logs.

 

If you are looking for help, and you scroll over unique log after unique log....what's the difference? You are still having to read logs that "take up space"

 

I loathe cut and paste logs too. And 'tftc' is just so dang lame-especially when it's an awesome cache.

 

But my unique log (and I like to leave good logs) will not have any spoilers. So, either you skip the C&P log, skip the 'tftc' or waste your timer reading my unique log, which contains no spoilers.

 

Generally, I'm not looking for out and out spoilers, but if the hint says, "Hanging", and two logs say, "Found it on the ground, put it back where I though it belongs", this helps me out much more than knowing that the last finder woke up at 5AM and had a sausage biscuit before hitting the trail.

 

Although this can be frustrating as a cache seeker in the field, I still think that the log should be written for the cache owner first and foremost, anything else is just a bonus.

[+-CJ-]

Isn't it nice that so many people say "I don't leave cut-and-paste logs but as a CO I prefer them to simple TFTC"? I would love to listen to someone who will say "I used to leave cut-and-paste logs but as a CO I believe they are not good". This would add some volume to the discussion

 

Let me add some explanation - yesterday I was too tired after so much walking I would drive your attention that I wrote "please" so it was a polite request, not a proposal to change the world

 

You see, the first issue is actually that long copy-pastes take time to read. English is not my first language. Sometimes I cannot understand at a first glance that this is another copy-paste log. I have to read it to understand this fact. It's not so nice. It's even less nice when it's raining or your device has sucked almost every per cent of your batteries. However I still hope that this log may mean something, there could be some useful information in it. Please take into account that some copy-pasters and cunning enough to change their text sometimes according to the situation, e.g. "...the container was found at the other side of the fence and we left it as it was...". It's rare but it happens. This is why I don't "just skip them" as some of you suggested.

 

Second, as people said, logs should be about geocaches. Sadly, in some copy-pasted messages I saw not so much about geocaches (and nothing about this or that particular geocache) but long stories about how people decided to go to this city, their business, their plans, etc. It's great as an addon to something about the cache. But if there's nothing about the cache, only those general words about how they liked the country and their trip...

 

As a CO I see no difference between a "TFTC" and a long story with the same amount of information (let's say, nothing) about the cache. They both have no relation to my hide. With a long copy-pasted story the author shows he/she has not enough time or willingness to say anything about the cache I made. However he's glad to multiple texts about himself I clearly see that this is a copy-pasted text quickly used for a number of geocaches. Just because someone believes that 50 words about nothing are more valuable then 1 TFTC.

Edited November 1, 2013 by -CJ-

[+redsox_mark]

As a CO - mostly I don't mind too much, finders can log what they want.

 

But in general I prefer logs that tell me SOMETHING about my cache. So I prefer a short log like:

 

"Found it quickly, in good condition"

 

To either TFTC or a long generic cut and paste.

 

It is similar when I am in the field as finder. I'm not expecting a spoiler. I'm looking for general information. If I have been looking for half an hour and all the logs say "easy find", that tells me something. (Most likely I'm missing something obvious). If the logs say it took a long time, the coordinates seemed out, etc that tells me something else. So yes I prefer relevent info about the cache, but I take what I can get.

 

One I remember well was when I had a trip to New Zealand. I traveled a few hundred miles finding caches in different areas, but my route must have been the same as a newlywed couple. Almost every cache I found the previous log was from them and contained an identical and very long generic cut and paste log about their wedding and honeymoon, with nothing about the cache. I would skip over it after the first time, but I have to admit I found it a bit annoying.

[+wmpastor]

As a cache owner, I would much rather have a copy-paste log, than TFTC!

 

If you don't want to read it, just skip it.

I totally agree.

 

Of course along with the story it's nice to have specific comments about the cache. Anything, even if it's short.

[+thomfre]

You see, the first issue is actually that long copy-pastes take time to read. English is not my first language. Sometimes I cannot understand at a first glance that this is another copy-paste log. I have to read it to understand this fact. It's not so nice. It's even less nice when it's raining or your device has sucked almost every per cent of your batteries. However I still hope that this log may mean something, there could be some useful information in it. Please take into account that some copy-pasters and cunning enough to change their text sometimes according to the situation, e.g. "...the container was found at the other side of the fence and we left it as it was...". It's rare but it happens. This is why I don't "just skip them" as some of you suggested.

I use templates myself, with about 1-2 lines telling about the trip (typically where we're headed from and where we're going, and who we are traveling with), and between 1 and as many lines as there are room for in the log to describe each particular cache. I write logs for the cache owner, myself, my friends and other cachers - in that order. When I read my old logs, a year or so after I found the cache, I'm able to remember almost everything about that cache - if I've written a good enough log. It might mean that someone reading my logs on a mobile device will have to read a bit more than they want, but that's a part of the game. If you want to find hints in the logs, you have to be prepared to read a lot that won't give you any hints.

 

Second, as people said, logs should be about geocaches. Sadly, in some copy-pasted messages I saw not so much about geocaches (and nothing about this or that particular geocache) but long stories about how people decided to go to this city, their business, their plans, etc. It's great as an addon to something about the cache. But if there's nothing about the cache, only those general words about how they liked the country and their trip...

When I'm out caching, a lot can happen (and have happened) on the way to or from a cache, and that's something I'm definitely putting in my log! Also, when I'm planning a trip to a place I've never heard of before, more than 8000km (almost 5000 miles) away from home, just because of one cache - I have to tell about it in my log. Very often there's more to say about the surroundings, muggles and things that happen along the road, than there is to say about the cache. It's all a part of the experience.

 

As a CO I see no difference between a "TFTC" and a long story with the same amount (let's say, nothing) about the cache. They both have no relation to my hide. With both these texts the author shows he/she has not enough time or willingness to say anything about the cache I made. However he's glad to multiple texts about himself I clearly see that this is a copy-pasted text quickly used for a number of geocaches. Just because someone believes that 50 words about nothing are more valuable then 1 TFTC.

When someone visits our area, and write a lengthy log explaining how much they enjoyed caching here, that's much better than a simple "TFTC"! Even though it's the same log all over, maybe with one line about each cache, it's so much better to know they enjoyed it, than to know nothing. To me, 50 words about nothing is much more valuable than "TFTC".

Edited November 1, 2013 by thomfre

[+MartyBartfast]

As a cache finder I like to leave a little info about my trip, although I keep it to 5-6 lines at most, and will often copy & paste that to all my finds on the day plus a little about each cache if there's anything interesting to add. The reason I do that is that sometimes I look back at logs from years ago and it helps me to remember the whole experience.

 

As a cache owner I have one in London, which as you would expect gets lots of overseas visitors. I prefer to see a bit of a story rather than just TFTC, and I neither know nor care whether that cacher put the same log on all the other caches they did in London on that day.

 

As a cache searcher it doesn't really bother me that others have written a little story as I can usually skip through it to the detail of the find if I need to, if there's no detail about the find then that's no different to a TFTC anyway so it really doesn't bother me.

 

Bottom line: I prefer copy & paste logs over a TFTC

[+stijnhommes]

As a geocacher, I know it's impractical to write a log for every find without copy-pasting anything at all. Many logs would be boring if I don't tell anything about the overall trip in any of the logs after the first one. Also, if you do a run of 50 finds or more in one particular day, you might not have something unique to say about each and every cache.

 

As an owner, I prefer detailed logs over short ones with only a couple of abbreviations. TFTC could just be said out of politeness. When someone actually tells me what they enjoyed (and what not) I can use that info on my next hide.

[+-CJ-]

When someone actually tells me what they enjoyed (and what not) I can use that info on my next hide.

 

I enjoyed staying in your country. The weather was great and we had very nice time here. We've done many geocachers, thanks to their owners. Some of these caches we didn't find. Actually, it was a sudden idea to come to your country for vacations and we didn't have enough time to prepare for geocaching around here. We think that we should come again once and find more caches!

 

Imagine this text being pasted to 10 of your caches (of different age, d/t, in different places, standard-small-micro-nano, all). Please give an idea how you use this text in your next hide.

[+thomfre]

I enjoyed staying in your country. The weather was great and we had very nice time here. We've done many geocachers, thanks to their owners. Some of these caches we didn't find. Actually, it was a sudden idea to come to your country for vacations and we didn't have enough time to prepare for geocaching around here. We think that we should come again once and find more caches!

 

Imagine this text being pasted to 10 of your caches (of different age, d/t, in different places, standard-small-micro-nano, all). Please give an idea how you use this text in your next hide.

I can give you an example. This means that those caches are found by tourists, and I should probably include description and hints in English.

 

...still better than TFTC...

[+-CJ-]

it's so much better to know they enjoyed it, than to know nothing. To me, 50 words about nothing is much more valuable than "TFTC"

 

Is this an idioma or what? Seriously, I cannot understand this.

 

"TFTC" stands for "thanks for the cache", this is what a visitor says when he/she enjoyed it. Copy-pastes I'm talking about are TFTCs plus 50 words that does not relate to your caches. Why do you call one instance "I know he enjoyed it" and another one "I know nothing"?

[+-CJ-]

I can give you an example. This means that those caches are found by tourists, and I should probably include description and hints in English.

 

Oh, good example. Thank you. I didn't notice you're from Europe - Norway, right? So, we both are from countries where English-speaking cachers are mostly tourists coming from abroad.

 

In your example a cacher who writes his log in English gives you motivation to translate your cache description from Norwegian into English (if I understood you correctly). So, it looks like that the cache was in Norwegian only (initially) and that the English-speaking tourist was skilled enough to translate it from Norwegian into English or find it without neither description nor hints, just with his GPSr. Are such situations common in your country?

[+thomfre]

it's so much better to know they enjoyed it, than to know nothing. To me, 50 words about nothing is much more valuable than "TFTC"

 

Is this an idioma or what? Seriously, I cannot understand this.

 

"TFTC" stands for "thanks for the cache", this is what a visitor says when he/she enjoyed it. Copy-pastes I'm talking about are TFTCs plus 50 words that does not relate to your caches. Why do you call one instance "I know he enjoyed it" and another one "I know nothing"?

 

I'll give you another example.

This year we spent our summer holidays in Norway. We had a nice holiday home at the south end of Karmøy in Syre and enjoyed the time here in Norway very much.

Naturally we searched many caches in the three weeks and we found most of them. This cache was one of them.

Because we had no internet access in Norway, we log the caches now from Germany.

 

On our way back from Haugesund we made a little detour and stopped at some caches. This was one of them.

This log tells me that they enjoyed staying in our area, and that they had a good time finding several caches.

It's also written in English. Usually it's just "TFTC, Greetings form <country>" or something similar in a language I don't understand.

 

TFTC doesn't mean they enjoyed it, it simply means they've seen everyone else writing TFTC, and think that's how it should be done...

If someone says they enjoyed it, I know they did. If someone says TFTC, I know nothing.

[+larryc43230]

"TFTC" stands for "thanks for the cache", this is what a visitor says when he/she enjoyed it.

I hate to disappoint you, but at least in my experience, a "TFTC" log doesn't mean anyone enjoyed anything. It's a lazy way of logging the cache as found (can't get a smiley without a log of some sort) without having to think about it. It's as mindless as leaving nothing but a period (".") or providing no text at all.

 

I end every Find log with "TFTH" (thanks for the hide), but that's at the end of what I hope is a meaningful log. If I ever find one of your caches and the log says nothing but TFTC or TFTH, it means I couldn't find anything at all to say about the cache. It's my way of asking "Why, exactly, did you bring me to this place and waste my time?" For most cachers, I suppose, it simply says "I came, I found, now on to the next smiley." Which tells me nothing as a cache owner.

 

--Larry

Edited November 1, 2013 by larryc43230

[+thomfre]

Oh, good example. Thank you. I didn't notice you're from Europe - Norway, right? So, we both are from countries where English-speaking cachers are mostly tourists coming from abroad.

 

In your example a cacher who writes his log in English gives you motivation to translate your cache description from Norwegian into English (if I understood you correctly). So, it looks like that the cache was in Norwegian only (initially) and that the English-speaking tourist was skilled enough to translate it from Norwegian into English or find it without neither description nor hints, just with his GPSr. Are such situations common in your country?

Yes, I'm from Norway.

 

Most caches in Norway are in Norwegian only.

 

But I try to always include a English hint (and sometimes a German hint) on my caches. I often translate the description, but on some caches it's only in Norwegian. If those caches are found by tourists, that tells me they should be translated. Almost all logs in Norway are in Norwegian, so they are of no use to tourists anyway... The coordinates are international

[+thomfre]

can't get a smiley without a log of some sort

A bit off-topic, but with the iPhone app, it's possible to submit a log with no text at all...

[+-CJ-]

I hate to disappoint you

 

You didn't

 

I start thinking that people around here believe that short and simple TFTCs are poor practice, lazy way of logging, as you just said. So any copy-pastes, any templates seem to be better then "TFTC" - because anything is better.

Edited November 1, 2013 by -CJ-

[+-CJ-]

they are of no use to tourists anyway...

 

Neither are cache descriptions. When I was in Finland this summer I simply ommitted caches with descriptions in Finnish language and no translation. (Once I tried and managed to find one but it was a typical 1/1 magnetic nano and I still think that I found it by luck and with some experience maybe). So, I haven't bothered with translating these Finnish texts into English or Russian to understand them and it was highly unlikely that I would leave any logs at these caches at all. I mean that it's very rare practice when some cache with description in Russian language needs to be translated into English and we know about this need from a log of some cacher who found it. However I understand there can be exceptions when some cacher who speaks no Russian travels with a Russian-speaking friend.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

"TFTC" stands for "thanks for the cache", this is what a visitor says when he/she enjoyed it.

I hate to disappoint you, but at least in my experience, a "TFTC" log doesn't mean anyone enjoyed anything. It's a lazy way of logging the cache as found (can't get a smiley without a log of some sort) without having to think about it. It's as mindless as leaving nothing but a period (".") or providing no text at all.

 

 

As I see it, TFTC can mean one of several things.

 

It can mean that the finder enjoyed the cache and is expressing an honest, though brief thanks.

 

It can mean that the finder posts TFTC on all logs because the practice has become common and they don't know that the CO would actually like to see more than an acronym for a log.

 

It can mean that the finder thinks the cache is lame, and as a general practice, the finder will only a TFTC if there is nothing else to really say about the cache.

 

The problem is, as a cache owner, one can't tell what the finder actually means without looking at the logging history for that finder.

 

I get where CJ is coming from. The boiler plate cut-n-paste log doesn't say anything about the cache itself. It wouldn't matter so much if the finder found 20 caches that day from 20 distinct cache owners, but when one cache owner gets 15 identical logs for 15 distinct caches it's just an annoyance.

 

I also don't buy the "if you don't like to read the logs just skip them" argument. That argument was used when unsolicited commercial email and SPAM started to become rampant in the earlier days of the internet and I think it's fairly obvious how effective that strategy was in managing UCE and SPAM.

 

 

[+larryc43230]

can't get a smiley without a log of some sort

A bit off-topic, but with the iPhone app, it's possible to submit a log with no text at all...

Sadly, a blank log is still a log, and that's precisely why I said "It's as mindless as leaving nothing but a period (".") or providing no text at all." If I were running the show, completely blank logs or "." logs would never have been allowed. Unfortunately, they didn't consult me before making that change. Go figure.

 

--Larry

[+larryc43230]

The problem is, as a cache owner, one can't tell what the finder actually means without looking at the logging history for that finder.

I totally agree, and the ambiguity of a simple "TFTC" and nothing else makes that sort of log useless to both the cache owner and a cache seeker out in the field who's looking for information that might help him find the cache.

 

I get where CJ is coming from. The boiler plate cut-n-paste log doesn't say anything about the cache itself. It wouldn't matter so much if the finder found 20 caches that day from 20 distinct cache owners, but when one cache owner gets 15 identical logs for 15 distinct caches it's just an annoyance.

I agree with this, too, but I look at it more from the point of view of someone reading the logs on his GPSr out in the middle of nowhere, looking for logs that might help him find the cache. Or logs that mention possible problems. Or logs that suggest alternate coordinates (those are worth their weight in gold when the published coordinates are off). Or whatever. If most of the logs stored on your GPSr are long cut-and-paste logs that say nothing about that particular cache, it's a huge waste of time and space.

 

This happened to me on a cache run just the other day. A group of four or five cachers had swept through the same area a few days before. Every one of them posted long logs about the grand expedition they were all part of, and how much fun they were having, and not one mentioned anything about any particular cache. Any useful information about those caches, in other cachers' logs, was buried deep in all the personal memoirs.

 

Those sorts of logs, describing the journey and giving no information about any of the caches they found (or didn't find) are fun to read. The first time. At home, at my leisure. I'm very glad they all had a great time. But for goodness sake, please say something about each cache you encounter.

 

As a cache owner, when I get a series of those personal-memoir type logs, it's easy to just delete all the duplicates. When I'm out in the field looking for a cache, it makes me crazy.

 

--Larry

[+thomfre]

As a cache owner, when I get a series of those personal-memoir type logs, it's easy to just delete all the duplicates. When I'm out in the field looking for a cache, it makes me crazy.

 

I don't know if you use GSAK, but I would guess it should be easy to create a GSAK macro that removes logs like that...

Maybe this one can be modified to do that: http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=25541&st=0entry192191

And this could be used to remove empty logs, "." and "TFTC": http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=8101&st=0entry50341

[+MKFmly]

The online log is there to record YOUR experience, share your experience with your future self, share your experience with the cache owners, and share it with future cachers, past cachers, and "interested" cachers.

 

<snip>

 

The implication that a long cut and paste log is the same as a "TFTC" can be true, however some thought, organization, and effort was put into that long cut and paste log which cannot be said for most "TFTC"'s. Once posted the long log (even a cut and paste) is a much more valuable record of your experience viewed in the isolation of cache visits and time.

 

Although, sometimes hints and clues are mentioned in logs that is not the raison d'etre.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

As a cache owner, I would much rather have a copy-paste log, than TFTC!

+1

 

My first choice would be for every log to be unique and detailed. Second choice would be hybrid logs, with a copy-paste overview of the trip and some content that is unique to that specific log. Third choice would be identical copy-paste logs describing the trip as a whole. And a distant fourth choice would be terse, nearly content-free logs like "TFTC" or "Found" or "DNF" or "".

 

+5

[+fbingha]

As I said, finders who leave generic pasted logs and TFTC are selfish cachers. They surely take advantage of the descriptive logs that others leave to help find caches. Regardless of the reason that it is done, the action does not support or enhance geocaching as a whole.

[+J Grouchy]

Perhaps way back when I started I might have left a "TFTC" log (I honestly don't remember)...but would never do so now. Why? Because I've seen too many and it strikes me as the height of laziness.

 

I think the only time I would even consider doing it now is if I was trying to upset the CO. There's an unfound cache in my area where the CO is very condescending and appears to have a very high opinion of himself, as evidenced in many of his cache pages. I've dreamed about going and finding this cache and leaving a simple "TFTC" log just to drive him crazy and send a message about his bad attitude.

[+J Grouchy]

As a cache owner, I would much rather have a copy-paste log, than TFTC!

+1

 

My first choice would be for every log to be unique and detailed. Second choice would be hybrid logs, with a copy-paste overview of the trip and some content that is unique to that specific log. Third choice would be identical copy-paste logs describing the trip as a whole. And a distant fourth choice would be terse, nearly content-free logs like "TFTC" or "Found" or "DNF" or "".

 

Where does the "I found this geocache using the Geocaching Intro App." log fit in on your list?

[+JesandTodd]

Perhaps way back when I started I might have left a "TFTC" log (I honestly don't remember)...but would never do so now. Why? Because I've seen too many and it strikes me as the height of laziness.

 

I think the only time I would even consider doing it now is if I was trying to upset the CO. There's an unfound cache in my area where the CO is very condescending and appears to have a very high opinion of himself, as evidenced in many of his cache pages. I've dreamed about going and finding this cache and leaving a simple "TFTC" log just to drive him crazy and send a message about his bad attitude.

 

This. I have done this before. If someone has been super rude and disrespectful towards me, then they don't get a good log from me. In this case, logging a TFTC is better than logging 'what another crappy cache by a crappy owner' . I guess anyway.

[+Alkhalikoi]

I leave logs for two reasons. The first, is to share my experience grabbing the cache. It need not be some epic tale, but a few words are nice. But I also like to leave it as a diary to myself to remind me of my trip. So I often do a hybrid if I've gone on a big hike or trip, first, I cut-and-paste a paragraph or two describing the trip as a whole ("I hiked 10 miles and got 22 caches while out on a nice day..." etc.) and then some additional lines about the particular cache itself. Sure, some of these will be redundant to an owner who has put out several caches, but it seems to work and I've yet to hear any complaints.