Copy-paste stories in logs

[+fishgeek]

If I'm doing more than a few caches, I will keep a paper list of the caches that I found (or did not find) to back up the GPS. I try to jot a short note for each one, something like "EZ", "coords off", "nice view", "PI", or "wet log" to jog my memory when I log on line. Many times, there is nothing memorable about the cache, but if there is, I try to include it.

 

I completely agree that your perspective on logs as a CO is much different from that of a desperate searcher. When you need some help or encouragement just before settling for a DNF, both the empty travelogue and "TFTC" are frustrating, but the travelogue is more of a waste of time and energy.

[+dprovan]

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.

...

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.

Please, I beg you to stop worrying about the other possibilities and just always assume it means this first sentiment. You will be much happier, and you won't lose anything at all. In addition:

 

I think the only time I would even consider doing it now is if I was trying to upset the CO.

You won't get pissed off by jerks that are just trying to piss you off. It's the perfect solution!

[+niraD]

Second, as people said, logs should be about geocaches.

Another school of thought is that logs should be about your experience (as in, "Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.").

 

For some caches, my experience is dominated by solving the puzzle. For others, my experience is dominated by the trip (whether it's a group geocaching hike, a geo-kayaking trip, a family vacation, or something else). For others, my experience is dominated by the search. And so on. I expect that it varies for others as well. And therefore, I expect others' logs to vary, just as mine do.

 

And FWIW, I try to avoid leaving hints/spoilers in my logs. I make an effort to express things in a way that will make sense to the CO and to others who have solved the puzzle or found the cache, but that will not spoil the cache for others. If that makes my logs less useful to frustrated seekers who read them at GZ, then so be it.

 

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

+1My 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?

It's pretty much the same as "TFTC". If it's part of a longer log, then great. If that's the entire content of the log, then it doesn't really say much.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

To many cache owners, TFTC and nothing more, is like giving a ridiculously low tip to a waiter because you think the service was bad. In other words, there is absolutely nothing about your cache that makes it stand out from the rest.

 

I would only use such a log if I thought that a cache totally stunk and it was impossible to write anything nice. I have tried over the years to write unique logs for every cache I find, but the very nature of caches and hiders has changed over the years. I can be walking up a trail in the mountains with beautiful clear skies, great views of the ocean and birds singing all around me, find a pill bottle in a SPOR three feet from the trail, then walk .2 miles and find another pill bottle in a SPOR hidden three feet from the trail.

 

The trail and the hike is wonderful and I wouldn't have know about the trail if not for the caches, but the caches themselves are really quite unremarkable. I have resorted to generic logs, but I try to keep them to a sentence or two and limit it to the the time that my feet were on the ground looking for caches. No one needs to know what time I wake up, what my work schedule is, what I eat for breakfast, or what the traffic was like on the freeway. I think that all of that is just filler for people that feel that they must write a long log for every cache, even though they are finding that there really is nothing to write about.

[+lamoracke]

So, folks are posting TFTC on cache logs to "jerks" by posting something rude in return. Are we in kindergarten? There have been a few COs that I have been tempted to write TFTC only but I just cannot do it because I feel it would be doing to them what they do to me so I write something short and move on, that no one would be able to tell is rude by reading it.

 

The only time I write TFTC only is if I am really stuck at a loss of words on a cache that is so beyond terrible or against the guidelines that I have surrendered my attempt to say anything of value and will just do that only.

 

I know that many folks do not say TFTC to be rude in any way, but I do try to log the way I wish others would to me. Once in a while I may say something I regret as I do my cache logs so quick sometimes that I did not notice something could be taken wrong, but hopefully those are few and far between.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Second, as people said, logs should be about geocaches.

Another school of thought is that logs should be about your experience (as in, "Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.").

 

I think both schools of thought are valid but unfortunately for many geocachers the online log has become nothing more than and obligatory step one must endure to get credit for a find.

 

 

[+-CJ-]

Some (many?) people think that posting only "TFTC" indicates that the cache deserves no other good words. Maybe. Then pasting 50 identical logs for 50 different caches from one template is even worse. The author camouflages his "TFTC practice" with additional general sentences. So, it looks like that he believes I'm stupid enough not to understand this (if I'm a CO). With a single "TFTC" log he looks at least more honest and straightforward

 

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.

 

Yes.

 

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.

 

Good example.

 

I also cannot accept the arguement "he's probably so busy and visited maybe 100 caches per day so he just cannot say anything special about each one". Writing logs IMHO is a very important part of the game itself. It's not just about getting smileys; it's about feedback and sharing of experience.

 

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.

 

Exactly. I may wish to find out if anyone met any problems with it recently. Where are trackables that are listed? Did anyone take them and haven't logged them yet? Am I the only one who found the container in a different place then it was suggested by the hint? (Did I read the hint wrongly or the cache had been moved?) Has anyone found better way then the muddy path I just used to approach the GZ? So many things to say. Instead, there is a story about someone's journey to several European countries enjoying nice views, good food, parties and geocaching. The story I've read 10 times already.

 

2all: sorry for not quoting every answer/opinion that I think deserves quoting. I'm just glad that (it seems to me) I reached a good level of understanding within the community.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Some (many?) people think that posting only "TFTC" indicates that the cache deserves no other good words. Maybe. Then pasting 50 identical logs for 50 different caches from one template is even worse. The author camouflages his "TFTC practice" with additional general sentences. So, it looks like that he believes I'm stupid enough not to understand this (if I'm a CO). With a single "TFTC" log he looks at least more honest and straightforward

 

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.

 

Yes.

 

I'm not usually too loquacious in my logs. Not much to say about the fifth pull off on the highway with a medicine bottle at the bottom of the sign... If the view is pretty, I'll mention that I liked it...

I have a series of caches with about a four mile hike/bike ride. The hides are not especially interesting, but the puzzles are fun, and the view is great. Same view, but from different perspectives.

Nine finds on one. Six interesting logs. Three longwinded cut-and-paste logs that appear on up to twenty one of the caches. (One has 'time' spelt 'rime' on the ten caches they found.)

I know they enjoyed the series. But it is the same log for all. Off to another area where I have a number of hides. Same log on the ten caches there. Oh, well...

But, you know, somehow I prefer

What number am I on now? 10? hahaha

or

Cache number nine! Another one that I stared at and stared at and stared at and stared at... and (previous poster) solved in seconds. I REALLY need to start letting go of some of my pre-conceived assumptions.

Thanks for the cache!

I guess that I should just be happy that they enjoyed the caches.

[+jellis]

I don't care for TFTC cause it's an insult. At least the copy and past says more. But either way it's no help when searching for hints and doesn't tell of your experince. Though I admit I do the latter mostly. I copy and paste and if the cache has something I can remember whether good or bad, I may add something.

[cezanne]

Some (many?) people think that posting only "TFTC" indicates that the cache deserves no other good words. Maybe. Then pasting 50 identical logs for 50 different caches from one template is even worse. The author camouflages his "TFTC practice" with additional general sentences. So, it looks like that he believes I'm stupid enough not to understand this (if I'm a CO). With a single "TFTC" log he looks at least more honest and straightforward

 

For me there are many reasons why I prefer the copy and paste logs to TFTC. TFTC logs will make newcomers believe that this the normal way to log caches and perfectly ok and they will henceforth log in the same way (which is quickly done on a mobile phone many newcomers are using). If a longer text is written, then it is easier to see that TFTC is not a standard log. The issue of copy and paste logs showed up when it became common to visit many caches per day.

 

As a cache owner I own only one cache per area and all my caches are quite time-consuming. So I would hardly get two logs of the same type at the same day anyway. I someone is hiding a lot of short caches in the same area, then he/she will have to live with the fact that copy and paste logs come in given how geocaching has developed. If I receive only one log by a cacher and this log is a log not telling anything about the cache, it makes me milder if I get to read that the visitors are tourists or visited many caches during the day and I prefer reading a few sentences about how they spent the day to getting no information at all. With TFTC I do not even know which language the logger can understand.

 

Of course it would be preferable if copy and paste texts are augmented by one or two sentences about the particular cache,

but quite often the loggers cannot recall what they experienced where after a long tour and not everyone takes notes. I have quite a good memory, but when I visit a couple of traditionals at the same day in a similar area, I typically have problems to remember which cache was which even when the caches were not bad. This is also one of the reasons why I prefer by far longer multi caches. All what I experience along my hike can go into one log and I do not need to remember what happened where. If I remember a wet log sheet, it is obvious where this occured etc.

 

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.

 

Yes.

 

Probably, but is it ideal if someone has so many hides in the same area that all can be done on the same day?

In my opinion, no.

 

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.

 

Good example.

 

I do not agree as SPAM is probably something no one wants to get.

With cache logs the situation is much more complicated.

There are many sides to consider.

 

As a cacher finding caches and logging them, my top priority is writing my own caching journal which I can look at in later years. My next highest priority is telling a few friends about my activities. My third priority is to the cache owner.

My fourth priority is to provide guidance to other cachers with similar caching preferences whether they would enjoy that particular cache. Providing help for other cachers to find the cache plays a role only in special cases, e.g. if something is wrong in the cache description and has not yet been corrected.

 

I also cannot accept the arguement "he's probably so busy and visited maybe 100 caches per day so he just cannot say anything special about each one". Writing logs IMHO is a very important part of the game itself. It's not just about getting smileys; it's about feedback and sharing of experience.

 

But still you can only report what you remember. For years (I started geocaching 11 years ago) it was not necessary for me to take notes and I do not want to change my style. I do not write copy and paste logs, but when I visit cache series with say 15 caches consisting of all traditionals and where each cache page looks the same, even I do not have much to say and I will definitely not remember which 9 out of 15 might have had a damp log book.

 

Exactly. I may wish to find out if anyone met any problems with it recently. Where are trackables that are listed? Did anyone take them and haven't logged them yet? Am I the only one who found the container in a different place then it was suggested by the hint? (Did I read the hint wrongly or the cache had been moved?) Has anyone found better way then the muddy path I just used to approach the GZ? So many things to say. Instead, there is a story about someone's journey to several European countries enjoying nice views, good food, parties and geocaching. The story I've read 10 times already.

 

As trackables are regarded, I often do not look carefully if there are any in the container ad I do not read the log entries in the logbook. When I'm sure that a trackable is missing that is in the inventory I post a note to the page of the trackable. I do not mention this on the cache page (only if the trackable has spent there for months and if the trackable owner does not react). In most cases I only realize at home when logging that trackables are logged into a cache. Then I could not even check whether someone wrote something in the logbook.

As the hint is regarded: Often I do not need a hint and then it might easily happen that I never (also not at home when logging) ever look at it. Why should I? I do not act as a cache tester and I do not offer certificates for cache hiders like in school. I cache out of purely egoistic motivations - I want to be physically more active and spend a nice time in nature.

 

For me the cache container itself and the search for it are the least interesting part of geocaching. When I log a hiking traditional I might write several paragraphs about my hike and then just write maybe "The cache was found quickly and is ok" about the container. The container is just a way for me to be able to log my experience in the internet which plays a much larger role for me.

 

When I read logs, I typically do so at home at the screen of my PC. There I can easily ignore logs that I do not want to read.

For me logs are nothing that I read directly at the cache location and none of my logs are written to be read at the cache location. Doing so would just make you unhappy even though I'm not writing copy and paste logs.

 

Cezanne

[+-CJ-]

TFTC logs will make newcomers believe that this the normal way to log caches

 

I haven't thought about this from educational perspective in this thread. At the same time, my logs are always more then just TFTC and one of the reasons is that I simply write logs of the sort I'd like to see at my own geocaches. Sadly, I don't see if it works. Most logs are more than TFTC but still not informative.

 

quite often the loggers cannot recall what they experienced where after a long tour and not everyone takes notes

 

I would add that many people don't even pay attention to the place/area. Another hide, another find. Of course they have not much to recall.

 

Probably, but is it ideal if someone has so many hides in the same area that all can be done on the same day?

In my opinion, no.

 

Not necesasrily on the same day.

 

As a cacher finding caches and logging them, my top priority is writing my own caching journal which I can look at in later years. My next highest priority is telling a few friends about my activities. My third priority is to the cache owner.

My fourth priority is to provide guidance to other cachers with similar caching preferences whether they would enjoy that particular cache. Providing help for other cachers to find the cache plays a role only in special cases, e.g. if something is wrong in the cache description and has not yet been corrected.

 

Then we probably have different approaches. I don't use geocaching.com as my diary.

 

But still you can only report what you remember. For years (I started geocaching 11 years ago) it was not necessary for me to take notes and I do not want to change my style. I do not write copy and paste logs

 

Good.

 

I want to be physically more active and spend a nice time in nature.

 

The hobby you just described is called hiking here in my country. Geocaching is more about treasure hunting and I feel it's important for this game to be more developed here. This is why if a logbook is wet or a trackable is missing I feel I need to write about this. Not only because it is suggested by some guidelines but to make the game better - so yes, it's about being a beta tester to some (little) extent If I had the same motivation as you I won't need geocaching at all.

 

When I read logs, I typically do so at home at the screen of my PC. There I can easily ignore logs that I do not want to read.

For me logs are nothing that I read directly at the cache location and none of my logs are written to be read at the cache location. Doing so would just make you unhappy even though I'm not writing copy and paste logs.

 

OK, I undestood that's your style.

[+dprovan]

I don't care for TFTC cause it's an insult.

The best way to get back at someone trying to insult you with "TFTC" is to assume they really are thanking you for the fun cache.

 

TFTC logs will make newcomers believe that this the normal way to log caches and perfectly ok and they will henceforth log in the same way (which is quickly done on a mobile phone many newcomers are using).

I'd much prefer newbies learn that "TFTC" is normal than learn that repetitive irrelevancy is normal.

[cezanne]

I'd much prefer newbies learn that "TFTC" is normal than learn that repetitive irrelevancy is normal.

 

What I had in mind is that hopefully not too many beginners not perform monster tours where they cannot recall any longer where they have been. So if they write some text, it will not repetitive anyway. Moreover, as I said I prefer anything to the TFTC or an empty log. If someone writes "Your cache sucks" I at least know that he did not like the cache. TFTC leaves me clueles.

 

Cezanne

[+-CJ-]

If someone writes "Your cache sucks" I at least know that he did not like the cache. TFTC leaves me clueles.

 

"Your cache sucks" is a log about this particular cache while "the weather was good" is not

[+JesandTodd]

So, folks are posting TFTC on cache logs to "jerks" by posting something rude in return. Are we in kindergarten?

 

You tell me? If I'm blunt, honest and direct...people get their feelings hurt.

 

If I say:

 

This cache is too close to a daycare playground

This cache is painfully too close to a police station

I felt like I was on display with this cache being right in front of a doctors office window

This cache container is not good four our weather

Why is this cache so far off the trail in a nature area

There is great evidence off geotrauma to the area

 

Then the CO usually posts a log back, or sends me a terse email about how inappropriate It is to comment of these things.

 

People can't be adults! So after you've sent me a very rude email...I'm NOT going to give you a long log about how fun it was to find your crappy cache (a figurative your, of course)

 

In W. Seattle there is a craptastic cache. A crumbled up Az ice tea aluminum can, shoved up in between two signs. It's literally garbage.

 

I said, "this cache is literally garbage, and gives geocaching a bad name"

 

My found it log was deleted.

 

I rewrote my log to be more specific. But on each cache I encounter from here on out from that CO, they only get a TFTC. Why on earth would I waste my iPhone battery on writing more than that?

[cezanne]

"Your cache sucks" is a log about this particular cache while "the weather was good" is not

 

Yes, but whether the weather was good or not is something I want to remember and moreover it has often a big influence on how much I will enjoy a cache. Aspects like whether I was accompanied by a dear friend, whether my knee hurted, whether I found tasty blue berries two hours earlier all influence my mood and I want to record things like that in my logs.

As I mentioned, they are not copy and paste logs, but still will tell you hardly anything of what you want to read at the cache site. My logs are not written to be read at the cache site.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 2, 2013 by cezanne

[+lamoracke]

So, folks are posting TFTC on cache logs to "jerks" by posting something rude in return. Are we in kindergarten?

 

You tell me? If I'm blunt, honest and direct...people get their feelings hurt.

 

 

I agree in some situations, some that you even posted, that the cache is so bad you do not know what else to say so you just say TFTC, but for folks to just say TFTC because they do not like the CO, that seems kindergarten to me and basically is just not taking the high road. If both parties insult each other in logs, then caching to me seems mean spirited. I am not trying to sing campfire songs in my log but I think its mean to insult cache owners with logs. If that cacher knows you write stories on every other cache, they will know your TFTC is for them only. One's choice of course, but I would rather not stoop to that level.

 

However, if it was a cache that was by a police station and you were uncomfortable due to that, I might be prone to post that. I would probably not say my true feelings and just say, "was a bit uncomfortable given where GZ was" or something like that, its true, but not insulting. If I said my real feelings, well, I try not to.

 

Agree though, if I had my log deleted for no real reason in my book, I would write TFTC after that no question because they obviously cannot handle feedback on that cache.

Edited November 2, 2013 by lamoracke

[+-CJ-]

Yes, but whether the weather was good or not is something I want to remember and moreover it has often a big influence on how much I will enjoy a cache. Aspects like whether I was accompanied by a dear friend, whether my knee hurted, whether I found tasty blue berries two hours earlier all influence my mood and I want to record things like that in my logs.

As I mentioned, they are not copy and paste logs, but still will tell you hardly anything of what you want to read at the cache site.

 

I put a smiley at the end of my phrase...

 

Of course I don't mind when people write about weather, blueberries, broken legs, etc. No, seriously, it's all about how they got to the cache, their adventures, it's interesting. Sometimes I'm happy to read them on my way to the cache or after I replaced the container. Actually, I'm from that geocaching community where people used to publish much longer and more detailed logs then it has been practiced at geocaching.com.

 

This thread was about copy-pasted logs only.

 

My logs are not written to be read at the cache site.

 

I respect that you published this disclaimer here but when I open a listing of some geocache (whether I'm at the cache site, at home, at work, on the road, anywhere) I usually don't know how I'm expected to read someone's logs. I just read them all "as is".

[+DsrtMtnRox]

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."

 

I love the Leprechauns idea!! "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."

 

I have copy and pasted many logs when there were just simply to many caches in one day to remember everything. I am heading out to the Mojave Desert here in California in less than a week. We are hoping to pull off over 1000 caches in 3 days. This idea will work great! THANK YOU THANK YOU!

Edited November 3, 2013 by Buka2

[+DsrtMtnRox]

/

Edited November 3, 2013 by Buka2

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would rather have a copy & paste log than 'TFTC' or blank. Although I think it is better if rather than copy-n-paste for the entire day into each log I would rather them write one big log then chop it up amongst the different logs, like a multipart story.

[+dprovan]

I rewrote my log to be more specific. But on each cache I encounter from here on out from that CO, they only get a TFTC. Why on earth would I waste my iPhone battery on writing more than that?

In case you really haven't thought it it, the reason to write more than that is to alert other seekers of the problems. Admittedly that's not going to help if the logs pointing out problems are always deleted, but if you phrase them impartially enough, you should be able to appeal an unwarranted deletion.

 

I have to admit, though, it's hard for me to imagine your situation. In my area, if there's a problem, people mention it in logs. I like to think that the COs feel informed rather than hurt.

[+Ike 13]

I usually start off my log with a one or two sentences explaining why I was there and what the day was like. Then I write a unique log. It is sometimes annoying to see logs that just say caching with x, y, z and nothing about the actual cache when you need a hint but as a CO that is still a little better than TFTC

[+Fugads]

A lot of interesting debate here. One thought I wanted to add: When a series of caches have copy-paste listings (perhaps common in power-trails?), copy-paste logs are appropriate. There are of course exceptions to this, some series make each cache something unique and memorable. But for many, the CO is not attempting to create a new and different experience at each cache. If the CO is not going to the effort to do this, then a generic log entry is appropriate. I suspect these COs do not typically read through each of the logs on these series anyways (probably get them filtered straight to a special folder in their mailbox... like the trash folder). I would be curious to hear thoughts from these COs though. If you are the CO of a 50-cache power trail called "Geocaching the XXX rd" #1-50, what do you like to get from people finding your trail? On the few trails in my area, I've looked back at the logs. The longer the trail the more likely it is to be copy-paste, but even the shorter trails have a large share of copy-paste logs. The case where someone writes something different on each of the 50 caches is rare indeed.

[+fbingha]

I don't think many of us care about the logs left on power trails.

[+Ma & Pa]

****************************************

 

When we have a big caching day out of town or on a bike trail or a hiking trail I certainly cant remember everything. If there is something to note about a cache I indicate so with personal codes in the GPS. The notes can relate to a new log added, a favorite, an incident at the cache, difficulty, etc.

 

Back home I usually publish with GSAK. I make a line as above, and below the line I write a summary of our day including such things as our appreciation of certain series, the condition of trail, etc. This appears in all the logs. I then review my notes on all the caches in the gps and add information above the line. The CO only needs to read the day summary once and on each cache log he can see if we added notes on particular caches at the top of the log.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

A lot of interesting debate here. One thought I wanted to add: When a series of caches have copy-paste listings (perhaps common in power-trails?), copy-paste logs are appropriate. There are of course exceptions to this, some series make each cache something unique and memorable. But for many, the CO is not attempting to create a new and different experience at each cache. If the CO is not going to the effort to do this, then a generic log entry is appropriate. I suspect these COs do not typically read through each of the logs on these series anyways (probably get them filtered straight to a special folder in their mailbox... like the trash folder). I would be curious to hear thoughts from these COs though. If you are the CO of a 50-cache power trail called "Geocaching the XXX rd" #1-50, what do you like to get from people finding your trail? On the few trails in my area, I've looked back at the logs. The longer the trail the more likely it is to be copy-paste, but even the shorter trails have a large share of copy-paste logs. The case where someone writes something different on each of the 50 caches is rare indeed.

 

I'd be more interested to hear thoughts from COs that own caches that were placed before a nearby power trail was placed. I've seen numerous example of non-power trail caches, even earth caches, getting the same cut-n-paste logs the were posted for the power trail caches on the unique and memorable cache that was not part of the PT.

 

Frankly, I don't think that "I wanted to find as many caches as possible" is an excuse for cut-n-paste logging or other questionable practices. It sends the message that increasing ones find count is more important than properly thanking a cache owner.

 

 

[+fizzymagic]

I find cut-and-paste logs far more annoying than TFTC logs. They tend to be amazingly narcissistic; in my experience, the cut-and-paste logs are all about the cacher and not at all about the cache. They contain no useful information for future finders, and they contain no useful information for the CO. They are clearly left by finders who do not consider the logs to be for anyone but themselves.

 

Is it rude to post cut-and-paste logs? I don't know. Is it self-centered and thoughtless? Most certainly.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I don't like cut-and-paste logs, especially long ones. I don't like TFTC either but I'd prefer it over a cut-and-paste logs.

I recently hid a bunch of caches in one area. I put work into each one, but alot of people just wrote cut-and-paste logs. I figured maybe instead of trying to make each one unique, I should have gone out with a pocket full of film canisters. That's how the numbers cachers see your caches, so why not just play along.

[+-CJ-]

I don't think many of us care about the logs left on power trails.

 

I agree, this thread was not intended to discuss power trails logs.

[+-CJ-]

I find cut-and-paste logs far more annoying than TFTC logs. They tend to be amazingly narcissistic; in my experience, the cut-and-paste logs are all about the cacher and not at all about the cache. They contain no useful information for future finders, and they contain no useful information for the CO. They are clearly left by finders who do not consider the logs to be for anyone but themselves.

 

Is it rude to post cut-and-paste logs? I don't know. Is it self-centered and thoughtless? Most certainly.

 

I liked this explanation.

[cezanne]

I find cut-and-paste logs far more annoying than TFTC logs. They tend to be amazingly narcissistic; in my experience, the cut-and-paste logs are all about the cacher and not at all about the cache. They contain no useful information for future finders, and they contain no useful information for the CO. They are clearly left by finders who do not consider the logs to be for anyone but themselves.

 

I think you genereralize too much.

 

I someone e.g. finds 5 caches in a mountain area along the same track and tells everywhere the same story, I still like to read the story once (I can skip the other four times if I come across them) and quite often it is not even that easy to split up the story into parts (what I try to do). What really counts for me for such hikes is the overall experience of the entire hike. Therefore it is ideal for me if hike has been the route along a single multi cache has led me. When I visit five individual traditionals, what I remember is still mainly the hike and that I found five containers instead of one.

While I make an effort to write individual logs, I prefer by far to read the hiking experience of those who write the same log for all five caches to a TFTC log. I easily can understand those that write in such cases the same log for all five caches. There are cachers for whom it is about the hike and not the container and the search for it. So if 5 caches send me along the same nice hiking trail, what many will remember is the hike and not the individual containers. Quite often everyone keeps different spots in mind and in my case when I search several traditionals almost all of what I remember for longer than a few days is what happened between the caches.

 

I enjoy reading reports about hikes (and not all copy and paste logs contain just "Found the cache with A and B as nr 5 of the day" and I prefer to know whether people enjoyed their day to knowing nothing at all. I read many logs for caches which are not mine and which I'm never going to visit. This shows that not only the cache owner and furure finders who are looking for hints are interested into logs.

 

As hints in logs are regarded, personally I prefer if a finder/searcher of my caches tells me things that are real hints by mail. Then I can decide whether I want to add them to the cache page. I try not to give hints in my logs whenever I regard hints as inappropriate.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

I don't like cut-and-paste logs, especially long ones. I don't like TFTC either but I'd prefer it over a cut-and-paste logs.

I recently hid a bunch of caches in one area. I put work into each one, but alot of people just wrote cut-and-paste logs. I figured maybe instead of trying to make each one unique, I should have gone out with a pocket full of film canisters. That's how the numbers cachers see your caches, so why not just play along.

 

Do you really prefer TFTC over receiving the same log for all your caches where you are told that the finder enjoyed them all?

 

As your other remark is regarded: If I were in your area, I would not care about whether you hide film canisters, or creative containers where the actual container is equally small so that no trackables fit (that's the only reason why I prefer cache containers of size at least small). Other than that I do not care about the hideout and the container at all. Bring me to a nice location or even better led me end up with a nice walk, then I will show full appreciation. I do try to acknowledge a high amount work put into a cache even if I do not care at all, but that's not easy for me as I always need to think then like another person. Note that I'm definitely not a numbers cacher. Essentially each cache has a target audience, but often will be visited also by people outside of that group and then the logs will often not be in the way the cache owner would like them to be.

 

 

Cezanne

[+fizzymagic]

As hints in logs are regarded, personally I prefer if a finder/searcher of my caches tells me things that are real hints by mail. Then I can decide whether I want to add them to the cache page. I try not to give hints in my logs whenever I regard hints as inappropriate.

 

You are making the incorrect assumption that useful information in logs means hints.

 

I frequently get valuable information from logs that COs should have (but did not) include in the cache listing. Some examples:

• Warnings about unsafe conditions near the cache (e.g. "watch out for the exposed wires")
  
• Information that keeps other cachers from potentially destroying property near GZ (e.g. "no need to check sprinkler heads")
  
• Corrected coordinates
  
• Information about the cache condition (e.g. "need a tool to extract the log," "wet log," etc.)
  

 

None of these is a hint, but all consist of valuable information that finders leave for later finders. Note that leaving such information requires finders who can think about someone besides themselves.

 

On another point you make: If you are merely interested in reading about peoples' hiking experiences, may I recommend everytrail.com, a site dedicated to exactly that? You wouldn't have to bother yourself with the whole messy "finding caches" thing and you can read hiking reports to your heart's content.

[cezanne]

As hints in logs are regarded, personally I prefer if a finder/searcher of my caches tells me things that are real hints by mail. Then I can decide whether I want to add them to the cache page. I try not to give hints in my logs whenever I regard hints as inappropriate.

 

You are making the incorrect assumption that useful information in logs means hints.

 

I frequently get valuable information from logs that COs should have (but did not) include in the cache listing. Some examples:

• Warnings about unsafe conditions near the cache (e.g. "watch out for the exposed wires")
  
• Information that keeps other cachers from potentially destroying property near GZ (e.g. "no need to check sprinkler heads")
  
• Corrected coordinates
  
• Information about the cache condition (e.g. "need a tool to extract the log," "wet log," etc.)
  

 

None of these is a hint, but all consist of valuable information that finders leave for later finders. Note that leaving such information requires finders who can think about someone besides themselves.

 

The point I wanted to make is that most of what you listed above are aspects that a responsible cache owner should add to the listing and so there is no need for future cache finders to extract it from the logs. I still see no reason why logs should be written such that they are convenient to be read on a smartphone right at the cache.

 

Of course I prefer as a cache owner to receive information about aspects you list above to a copy and paste log with no status information, but nothing turns me more off than TFTC which for me has an insulting touch. A while ago a Finnish cacher wrote such a log for a very complex cache of mine and it was the worst kind of log he could have written except . or TFTP (thanks for the point). I even asked him why he wrote such a log. Greetings from Finnland would not have told me more about the cache, but would have made me less angry.

But certainly that's subjective. For me TFTC is the most selfish log I could think of. Those who tell a copy and paste story at least please those who prefer a few lines of text.

TFTC is just for increasing the find counter and for nothing else (except demotivating not too few cache hiders).

 

 

On another point you make: If you are merely interested in reading about peoples' hiking experiences, may I recommend everytrail.com, a site dedicated to exactly that? You wouldn't have to bother yourself with the whole messy "finding caches" thing and you can read hiking reports to your heart's content.

 

In my experience the hiking routes suggested by cachers very often cannot be found in guide books and even less on internet sites for hiking trails. The few websites that allow to write some feedback on the suggested routes (most don't) do hardly contain any reports, stories, photos etc for hikes in my region. At least in my country the logs and photos by cachers who like to hike are by far superior to whatever I found on hiking trail portals (everytrail.com has not been known to be before, but its role in my area is neglectable anyway).

 

Cezanne

Edited November 7, 2013 by cezanne

[+Harry Dolphin]

Got this one today:

Log Date: 10/27/2013

One of many found during a trip to NY with my mom. Great trip!

 

As always, a big thanks for making and maintaining this cache. The time and energy you spent to make others lives just a little bit more interesting is very much appreciated. Thanks for the cache!

 

Tells me nothing except that he found six caches in the New York area. Did he like the area? Dunno. Did he like the hide? Dunno. Same log on five other caches. Oh, well.

TFTC? Yup. Pretty much sounds so, though a bit wordier.

[cezanne]

Got this one today:

Log Date: 10/27/2013

One of many found during a trip to NY with my mom. Great trip!

 

As always, a big thanks for making and maintaining this cache. The time and energy you spent to make others lives just a little bit more interesting is very much appreciated. Thanks for the cache!

 

Tells me nothing except that he found six caches in the New York area. Did he like the area? Dunno. Did he like the hide? Dunno. Same log on five other caches. Oh, well.

TFTC? Yup. Pretty much sounds so, though a bit wordier.

 

There are two differences for me to the TFTC: First, full sentences are written and second and more importantly, I can conclude from such a log that the log is not to meant to say that the cache was so awful that TFTC is used on purpose to punish the cache owner and because nothing polite could be said otherwise.

When I get a TFTC log (happens fortunately very rarely for my caches) I always ask myself if something was wrong with my cache. If I receive a log of the type I above, it becomes clear to me that this person chose this way to log all the finds of the tour, but apparently did not think that the found caches were the worst possible ones.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 8, 2013 by cezanne

[+-CJ-]

Again, as I see this thread going, it's not about "long cut-and-paste logs are better then TFTCs" but "TFTCs are worst logs at all so everything else is better". For some number (many?) COs "TFTC" means something like "this cache was awful and I don't have any good words for it". So, it's pretty simple and straightforward explanation and the discussion may be over at this point.

 

Harry Dolphin just gave a good example of a long variant of TFTC.

[+fbingha]

I love it when people leave cut & paste logs like Harry Dolphin's example on rusty/wet/cracked/mildew infested containers.

[cezanne]

Harry Dolphin just gave a good example of a long variant of TFTC.

 

I do not agree and that's why I replied.

In his example I would not feel annoyed while I feel annoyed when I get a TFTC log for a cache of mine.

 

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

I love it when people leave cut & paste logs like Harry Dolphin's example on rusty/wet/cracked/mildew infested containers.

 

The location and or the hike to the cache location still could be nice. Of course I do mention wet log sheets/containers if I remember them back home since the owner might want to know the status of his cache but for me personally this does not play a role for whether I enjoyed a cache.

 

 

Cezanne

[+-CJ-]

In this example I especially like this place: "One of many..."

[cezanne]

In this example I especially like this place: "One of many..."

 

If caching together with other persons it can easily happen that one basically recalls to have found many caches. I recently followed a caching friend in Vienna in a park type area and what I remember is essentially just that we found many caches - I could even say how many without looking at her logs (the number was less than 15).

 

In your Budapest example, it would certainly happen to me that e.g. I could not distinguish most of the Danube Promenade caches from one another. They typically have all the same cache description and numbers in the cache title. That's exactly the type of geocaching that invites copy and paste logs.

Without taking notes or logging directly at the caches, it will get very hard to remember something useful.

 

When talking about caching in Budapest one needs to take into account that the mega event that took place there led to many mass effects and so the city also attracts a lot of people who come to visit to log several hundreds of caches on one weekend.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 8, 2013 by cezanne

[+Don_J]

Harry Dolphin just gave a good example of a long variant of TFTC.

 

I do not agree and that's why I replied.

In his example I would not feel annoyed while I feel annoyed when I get a TFTC log for a cache of mine.

 

 

 

Cezanne

 

We get it. You put a lot of time and effort into your caches and cachers need to put a lot of time and effort to find them. I agree that for them to put no effort into their log does not make a lot of sense.

 

Obviously things move a little slower in your country, at least as far as backwoods geocaching is concerned. Around here, a cache placed five years ago that took a half a day to reach, now has pill bottle caches hidden under rock piles, or hanging in bushes every .1-.2mi along the route, with maybe some smalls or regulars mixed in along the way. The old epic cache at the end now gets the exact same log as the pill bottle at the trail head, and if ten people last made the hike, you have ten identical logs on all of the caches. If there is helpful information like Fizzy mentioned in the logs, it's impossible to find it. Yes, in a perfect world that info should be in the description, but it isn't. Not all cache hiders are perfect like those of us in the forum.

 

Then, you get what Harry Dolphin just described, but only on a grand scale. I think that this is what the OP was really referring to. I watch a lot of caches that I have found in special places in many Western US States. A couple visiting from Europe recently took a trip starting at GS HQ in Seattle, down through Oregon and into California and San Fransisco. They then headed east through Reno where they lost money on the slots, then onto the ET Hwy, visited Valley of Fire State Park, NV then up into St. George Utah where they then headed east through Zion and Bryce, east through Utah, then S/W through "John Wayne's" Monument Valley, spent a couple days at the Grand Canyon. They then continued west to the Rt 66 series, finally ending up in Los Angeles for the flight home.

 

An epic trip for sure and they found over 2000 caches. I know all this because they apparently posted the exact same log on every single one of them and I ended up with a dozen notifications in my mail. The log that they posted helps absolutely no one. Not the cache owner, not future finders. It's an entry that should be posted in a personal journal or perhaps an online blog.

 

Something's wrong when someone finds a cache at a roadside rest stop along the fence where the dogs poop, then finds a cache 10 days later overlooking the Grand Canyon 1000 miles away, and then posts the exact same log to both.

[cezanne]

Obviously things move a little slower in your country, at least as far as backwoods geocaching is concerned. Around here, a cache placed five years ago that took a half a day to reach, now has pill bottle caches hidden under rock piles, or hanging in bushes every .1-.2mi along the route, with maybe some smalls or regulars mixed in along the way. The old epic cache at the end now gets the exact same log as the pill bottle at the trail head, and if ten people last made the hike, you have ten identical logs on all of the caches.

 

That is happening also in my country and is the reason for quite a number of cache archivals by the annoyed owners of the old caches.

It did not happen to my caches as they are either difficult or in areas where there the cache density is not that high. As soon as any cache of mine would be effected by such a situation, I'd immediately archive it.

 

I said it before that I do not like copy and paste logs at all, but TFTC and "." are for me still the worst possible logs.

 

I think that this is what the OP was really referring to.

 

Not really. Most of the urban traditionals in Budapest have been hidden to attract masses. These are no epic classic caches that got effected by mass caching - most of them have been hidden to attract the masses. Geocaching in Hungary has long thrived only on the national site geocaching.hu - what later came on geocaching.com was to a large extent already negatively influenced by the modern way of geocaching, powertrails etc

 

If I had spent a few days in the Grand canyon, I would not forget that for my whole life. If I had found 10 caches hidden along a short walk along the Danube in Budapest, I would have forgotten which cache was which after 2 days. The cache descriptions there also do not help to make a distinction.

 

Something's wrong when someone finds a cache at a roadside rest stop along the fence where the dogs poop, then finds a cache 10 days later overlooking the Grand Canyon 1000 miles away, and then posts the exact same log to both.

 

I fully agree with you. If you look at mylogs (they are written in English so you can read them), you will see that I'm everything else than a writer of copy and paste logs.

I do not even write copy and paste logs or TFTC for cache series with 10 caches where each cache has the same description and where the owners write that TFTC is enough as a log.

I prefer any unique log and even if it is negative to a generic copy and paste log, but I prefer a generic copy and paste log to TFTC.

So in your Grand canyon example, receiving a log with TFTC would be worse for me as cache owner than receiving a long copy and paste log. I respect that others have other preferences.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 8, 2013 by cezanne

[+-CJ-]

I think we repeat what have already been said.

 

"TFTC" is the worst log as you see it (as a CO). OK. To me it's neither good or bad, just nothing. Whatever is my role, a CO or a cache hunter, it's still nothing.

 

You can get something useful/interesting from a paragraph of cut-and-pasted text which has no relation to the cache. Good for you. To me it's still nothing. The longer text takes more time to read.

 

"If you leave 20 cut-and-paste logs which have no relation to the specific caches you visited, would you mind if I ask you to make them shorter?" This is my questions to cut-and-paste logs authors.

Edited November 8, 2013 by -CJ-

[cezanne]

"If you leave 20 cut-and-paste logs which have no relation to the specific caches you visited, would you mind if I ask you to make them shorter?" This is my questions to cut-and-paste logs authors.

 

I just can say that as a log reader, yes, I would mind if such logs get shorter. I would not mind if the logs become individual.

There is no way of logging that pleases everyone. What makes you happier, makes me unhappier.

 

Cezanne

[+-CJ-]

I don't mind long cut-and-paste logs if they make you happier

[+wmpastor]

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?

It inspires one with hope that a new cacher is on the road to getting past TFTC, ASAP!

[+wmpastor]

I don't mind long cut-and-paste logs if they make you happier

Now that's the spirit!