Jump to content

Empty and short logs


Geovius
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Any log that is a period, or random number or something like that gets deleted without explanation. I will assume its a mistake, and delete it o keep up maintanance in the online log.

Yep.

 

I would naturally assume it is a mistake. The next move would be up to the period logger, but they likely wouldn't be bothered.

 

While I find a TFTC only log to be insulting, I leave it alone because they are sort of saying thanks.

 

I still insist period or random character logs are done on purpose, and they probably have no clue their uploading the log to a website, they just think they're marking them as found in their phone. I'll also bet you'd have a 100% success rate of deleting them, without ever being contacted by Groundspeak. :ph34r:

I understand what you are saying, so they should learn how to log properly. Re-logging a few times might cause them to understand ... and if they still "do it on purpose" then I'd still consider them and their logs as being a mistake! :ph34r:

Link to comment

When I first started letterboxing on Atlas, I was surprised that logs (comments) were optional, that they can be sent privately rather than posted on site, and that some owners retain discretion to approve logs before they are actually posted. I like the system on this site better, but the trade off is the four letter logs rather than just an update that the container has been found.

 

My own logs are important to me. I have never cut and paste, If something inspires me, I will write longer logs even on my smartphone. I invented a cartoon character (Aura Raines) for logs in some thematic caches. I always post a photo if there is something I find photogenic on the way to a cache or at its location. Several years ago, I did around 150 caches on the original ET highway - we were in the area for other reasons - but afterwards my wife complained that I was spending more time logging the caches than it took to find them, when no one would read them in any event.

 

But what other people choose to write is outside my control. With one of my caches having around 3500 finds, I have gotten my share of TFTC logs. I consider those to be the equivalent of the "update notice" with my letterboxes, but at least it is not TFTCC (which a friend was once rumored to use). The "another one for me" logs are slightly more annoying simply because it is more of a reflection on the current state of the game. Numbers. Repetitive caching and repetitive logs. Did they even stop to pay attention to the reason why I thought the site was worth visiting? Couldn't they find a photo to post other than the cache log? But someone finding one of my caches is enough for me and I don't expect anything in particular.

 

It's always nice when there is more. It's fun to learn where people live or what brought them to a cache that had not been found in two years. I am happy when there is a log indicating that someone understands why I placed a cache (which is different than when someone thanks me for a container). I am even happier when the finder does not deplete the cache contents. I placed my cache for these people. I hope the others are enjoying the game.

Link to comment

I put TFTC for lame caches. I've done 50 in a day and written something individual for each. I occasionally find that a one-word compliment especially as part of a trail or a cache and dash, is a sincere expression of appreciation: "Audacious!", "Clever!", "Fiendish!" etc.

I own 11 caches - 26% favourite points. A few hilarious logs from people who've wrestled with the caches. The 2 (bothe very prolific) local cachers who really peeve me each paste in a log along the lines of "did 74 squillion caches today, read my blog". One of the 2 writes a 1/2 decent blog, the other's is utter bilge. He's top 10 UK but obviously very self-engrossed and IMHO has lost sight of what caching's all about.

 

BUT... nothing to lose any sleep about.

Link to comment

Last summer I found about half of my first ever geoart/power trail series, after a year and half of caching. Many of my logs have been short up to that point, but it was right before that time that I found these forums and realized the importance of longer logs. My friend and I found 3-4 caches adjacent to the geoart. While the GA/PT caches all got a cut and paste TFTC... the adjacent caches each got their own, longer, cache-specific log.

 

The problem? I mentioned in those logs that I had found that cache while working the adjacent GA/PT. The next morning I started receiving "deleted log" emails on those caches. When I contacted the CO, he let me know that they delete any log that mentions the GA/PT series. Even though my log had been very specific to his caches, he deleted them because of a three word reference at the end or beginning of a 100 word log.

 

My new logs were all TFTC.

Link to comment

Ok, I didn't want to sound completely selfish with my response. I guess it's good to be altruistic and say that if you never got a single log (just no word finds, lets say) on your caches, you can be happy to know that you're at least doing a service for the community.

 

One of the reasons that I placed caches at first, was because it was back in the dark ages when there were no/very little caches in the area. I wanted to provide fun for other cachers.

 

But now, there are a million caches out there. Because of health issues, it can be difficult for me to replace/fix caches. So at this point, selfishly, there's little incentive for me to keep some of my caches. Oh, there are still some of them that I especially love (oh, oh - playing favourites with my babies!), that I don't see giving up any time soon.

 

With millions of caches out there, and people playing a game that might be quite different than I ever envisioned, I still get a "I'm new and this is totally cool", or, "took my kid out for an adventure, this is fun", every so often. That makes my day, and makes up for a dozen TFTC logs. I just can't give up on my caches.

 

Whatever you do, don't ever give up on the caches along the Going to the Sun Road. I found all of them, and it is still my best Geocaching adventure.

I do get the occasional newbie log, which makes me happy. And there are some of my caches that still get some good logs, like the ones in Glacier Ntl Park. Thanks, I'm glad that you enjoyed them, we enjoyed making them! I don't foresee ever giving up my virts, don't worry. The one that I just archived and the one that I'm thinking about archiving are "just" micros. ;)

Link to comment

I think it depends on the cache. I am very much in the camp "TFTC" log = poor cache. If I go out and find a cache and it is simply a pill bottle under a bush, guard rail, lamp post and is not unique in any way or bring me somewhere that "In my opinion" is nothing special then it will not get a decent log. It takes only seconds to place a LPC, guard rail, etc so it will only take sec for me to make a log. Now if the cache takes me somewhere with a view, unique container, some effort in the cache design then it deserves a good log.

 

Just my opinion.

 

I agree. If a cache is memorable I'll write somethign about the experience. If I've done several caches in a day and can't particularly remember any of them, chances are they'll all get copy-n-paste short logs.

Link to comment

Last summer I found about half of my first ever geoart/power trail series, after a year and half of caching. Many of my logs have been short up to that point, but it was right before that time that I found these forums and realized the importance of longer logs. My friend and I found 3-4 caches adjacent to the geoart. While the GA/PT caches all got a cut and paste TFTC... the adjacent caches each got their own, longer, cache-specific log.

 

The problem? I mentioned in those logs that I had found that cache while working the adjacent GA/PT. The next morning I started receiving "deleted log" emails on those caches. When I contacted the CO, he let me know that they delete any log that mentions the GA/PT series. Even though my log had been very specific to his caches, he deleted them because of a three word reference at the end or beginning of a 100 word log.

 

My new logs were all TFTC.

In a case like that, report the deletion to Groundspeak, they can re-instate the log and lock it so the CO can't delete it.

Link to comment

Last summer I found about half of my first ever geoart/power trail series, after a year and half of caching. Many of my logs have been short up to that point, but it was right before that time that I found these forums and realized the importance of longer logs. My friend and I found 3-4 caches adjacent to the geoart. While the GA/PT caches all got a cut and paste TFTC... the adjacent caches each got their own, longer, cache-specific log.

 

The problem? I mentioned in those logs that I had found that cache while working the adjacent GA/PT. The next morning I started receiving "deleted log" emails on those caches. When I contacted the CO, he let me know that they delete any log that mentions the GA/PT series. Even though my log had been very specific to his caches, he deleted them because of a three word reference at the end or beginning of a 100 word log.

 

My new logs were all TFTC.

 

I think that's kinda ironic. He won't let you mention the PT, but I'll bet a lot of cachers that find that cache where there because of the PT.

 

I've got a similar cache, that just happens to be at the turn off for the PT(I didn't know they put it there, they got published the same day I think) and I'll bet most of my visitors had been on the way to the PT, and I'm sure some have thought it was part of the PT.

Link to comment

I think that's kinda ironic. He won't let you mention the PT, but I'll bet a lot of cachers that find that cache where there because of the PT.

 

It is not necessarily ironic. While I never would delete logs in such a case, I would be inclined to archive any of my caches once a PT or a large series of caches

gets so close.

I do not want to receive extra traffic for my caches and even less visits where the visitors shortcut the cache (by receiving external help) to be able to

integrate it well into their power tour.

 

It never ever has been my goal to attract many cachers to my caches, just to offer something of interest to a specially selected relatively small group.

 

Whenever I read logs that mention PTs I get angry again about Groundspeak's decision to allow them. So I certainly would not be happy if logs for my caches mention PTs and

it would be another reason for archival.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Whenever I read logs that mention PTs I get angry again about Groundspeak's decision to allow them. So I certainly would not be happy if logs for my caches mention PTs and

it would be another reason for archival.

 

What I find slightly ironic is that you allow the proliferation of the type of cache you don't like to wipe off the map the type of caches that you do like - at least those that you own anyway :(

 

As far as I can see, the only people suffering are those who like to find your type of caches - certainly not the PT hounds.

Link to comment

Last summer I found about half of my first ever geoart/power trail series, after a year and half of caching. Many of my logs have been short up to that point, but it was right before that time that I found these forums and realized the importance of longer logs. My friend and I found 3-4 caches adjacent to the geoart. While the GA/PT caches all got a cut and paste TFTC... the adjacent caches each got their own, longer, cache-specific log.

 

The problem? I mentioned in those logs that I had found that cache while working the adjacent GA/PT. The next morning I started receiving "deleted log" emails on those caches. When I contacted the CO, he let me know that they delete any log that mentions the GA/PT series. Even though my log had been very specific to his caches, he deleted them because of a three word reference at the end or beginning of a 100 word log.

 

My new logs were all TFTC.

 

I think that's kinda ironic. He won't let you mention the PT, but I'll bet a lot of cachers that find that cache where there because of the PT.

 

I've got a similar cache, that just happens to be at the turn off for the PT(I didn't know they put it there, they got published the same day I think) and I'll bet most of my visitors had been on the way to the PT, and I'm sure some have thought it was part of the PT.

 

Well, if your cache consists of a film pot thrown behind a telephone pole, then yes they did! :lol:

Link to comment

Last summer I found about half of my first ever geoart/power trail series, after a year and half of caching. Many of my logs have been short up to that point, but it was right before that time that I found these forums and realized the importance of longer logs. My friend and I found 3-4 caches adjacent to the geoart. While the GA/PT caches all got a cut and paste TFTC... the adjacent caches each got their own, longer, cache-specific log.

 

The problem? I mentioned in those logs that I had found that cache while working the adjacent GA/PT. The next morning I started receiving "deleted log" emails on those caches. When I contacted the CO, he let me know that they delete any log that mentions the GA/PT series. Even though my log had been very specific to his caches, he deleted them because of a three word reference at the end or beginning of a 100 word log.

 

My new logs were all TFTC.

 

I think that's kinda ironic. He won't let you mention the PT, but I'll bet a lot of cachers that find that cache where there because of the PT.

 

I've got a similar cache, that just happens to be at the turn off for the PT(I didn't know they put it there, they got published the same day I think) and I'll bet most of my visitors had been on the way to the PT, and I'm sure some have thought it was part of the PT.

 

Well, if your cache consists of a film pot thrown behind a telephone pole, then yes they did! :lol:

 

I hid a 4.5 difficulty puzzle cache 25 feet up a tree on the middle of someone's power trail. I thought it would be hilarious that the numbers grabbers would have to pass up a smiley in the middle of a PT. In any case, out of twenty some finds, I have yet to get a mention of the PT in a log or a "Tftc".

 

On the topic of one word/letter logs, I try to fashion my caches in a way that adds some kind of "wow" factor, so the short logs are few and far between, thankfully. I wouldn't delete valid finds though, regardless of how they're logged online.

 

When it comes to the logs that I write, I always try to log at least a couple of paragraphs about the entire experience. If the cache was extraordinary and it's obvious that the CO put a ton of effort into their hide/cache page, then generally my find log will go above and beyond. I feel it's the least I can do for the CO's efforts.

 

On the other hand, on the rare occasion that I find an LPC or GRC,etc....If there was nothing spectacular about it at all and the CO put no effort into it at all and the cache page is just a one liner, then I'll log ".-" since it's just easier than typing out "pointless". :-D

Edited by billdavidsaurus
Link to comment

My personal equivalent of "TFTC" is "Thanks for the smiley." It's my way of saying "I don't think the cache itself is worth much other than a chance to increment my smiley count by one."

 

After having a log deleted once for a supposed spoiler, I relogged it with a single '.'

 

For the most part I tend to write something unique for each cache and try to provide a log that a) I would enjoy getting as a cache owner and/or B ) think could be useful to the next seekers.

Edited by DanOCan
Link to comment

Last summer I found about half of my first ever geoart/power trail series, after a year and half of caching. Many of my logs have been short up to that point, but it was right before that time that I found these forums and realized the importance of longer logs. My friend and I found 3-4 caches adjacent to the geoart. While the GA/PT caches all got a cut and paste TFTC... the adjacent caches each got their own, longer, cache-specific log.

 

The problem? I mentioned in those logs that I had found that cache while working the adjacent GA/PT. The next morning I started receiving "deleted log" emails on those caches. When I contacted the CO, he let me know that they delete any log that mentions the GA/PT series. Even though my log had been very specific to his caches, he deleted them because of a three word reference at the end or beginning of a 100 word log.

 

My new logs were all TFTC.

 

I think that's kinda ironic. He won't let you mention the PT, but I'll bet a lot of cachers that find that cache where there because of the PT.

 

I've got a similar cache, that just happens to be at the turn off for the PT(I didn't know they put it there, they got published the same day I think) and I'll bet most of my visitors had been on the way to the PT, and I'm sure some have thought it was part of the PT.

 

Well, if your cache consists of a film pot thrown behind a telephone pole, then yes they did! :lol:

 

I would never do that!! It's by a fence post. :laughing:

Link to comment

A big part geo-caching is reading the experience of the finders - assuming they are not just babbling. To say that the TFTC is an indication of a bad cache - I don't agree - for some it would be - for others just lazy or cheaters or someone who just doesn't like to write! Telling the story doesn't always mean they enjoyed the cache so much, I like the positive comments that actually say so. I like to hear what you liked or didn't! Anyway love those logs so keep them coming so we know what you did and how it went - it is great sharing!

Edited by GPS-Hermit
Link to comment

A big part geo-caching is reading the experience of the finders - assuming they are not just babbling. To say that the TFTC is an indication of a bad cache - I don't agree - for some it would be - for others just lazy or cheaters or someone who just doesn't like to write! Telling the story doesn't always mean they enjoyed the cache so much, I like the positive comments that actually say so. I like to hear what you liked or didn't! Anyway love those logs so keep them coming so we know what you did and how it went - it is great sharing!

 

THIS....this is why some people don't write longer logs (such as myself). I would hate to have my log be called "babbling" when I'm spending precious time and battery life writing them...

Link to comment

A big part geo-caching is reading the experience of the finders - assuming they are not just babbling. To say that the TFTC is an indication of a bad cache - I don't agree - for some it would be - for others just lazy or cheaters or someone who just doesn't like to write! Telling the story doesn't always mean they enjoyed the cache so much, I like the positive comments that actually say so. I like to hear what you liked or didn't! Anyway love those logs so keep them coming so we know what you did and how it went - it is great sharing!

 

THIS....this is why some people don't write longer logs (such as myself). I would hate to have my log be called "babbling" when I'm spending precious time and battery life writing them...

 

Of course. Your precious time and battery life is much more important than properly thanking someone that placed a cache for you to find. ph34r.gif

Link to comment

Of course. Your precious time and battery life is much more important than properly thanking someone that placed a cache for you to find. ph34r.gif

 

And if they exhaust their battery life, they won't be able to find any more of your caches, much less thank you for them. Or, if they run out of time (time available for caching, time with adequate daylight, time with adequate weather conditions), they won't be able to find any others, either. :)

 

Two rules: sign the physical log, trade even or better. Nothing in the rules about "properly thanking the cache owner".

Link to comment

To me, it depends on the cache itself. When I see a fence post with a pile of 4 or 5 small rocks at at the base that's hiding a leaking film canister, kind of hard to be very enthusiastic when logging. Or the one I found recently--a ziplock baggie. Yes, that was it in it's entirety. Lots of effort went into that one, right? Now, show me something clever that's well camo'd, then it's something to comment about about. As for those who find mine, I don't really care what they say or don't say.

Link to comment

A big part geo-caching is reading the experience of the finders - assuming they are not just babbling. To say that the TFTC is an indication of a bad cache - I don't agree - for some it would be - for others just lazy or cheaters or someone who just doesn't like to write! Telling the story doesn't always mean they enjoyed the cache so much, I like the positive comments that actually say so. I like to hear what you liked or didn't! Anyway love those logs so keep them coming so we know what you did and how it went - it is great sharing!

 

THIS....this is why some people don't write longer logs (such as myself). I would hate to have my log be called "babbling" when I'm spending precious time and battery life writing them...

 

Of course. Your precious time and battery life is much more important than properly thanking someone that placed a cache for you to find. ph34r.gif

 

Especially when you consider it rambling....

 

People complain logs are too short, people complain logs are rambling

 

People just like to complain.

 

And YES. My battery life, and time IS more important. I am on a trail, and when my phone dies, it dies. If you're the type that thinks long logs are babble, why on earth would I waste my time?

 

Eta:spelling

Edited by JesandTodd
Link to comment

I am not sure it's a question of properly thanking the cache owner- I am not even sure of what that means- but what I write is important to me. They are for me - a record of my experience - as much as anyone else. It is the reason why I don't cut and paste even on caches where no one reads the logs.

 

It may be a couple of sentences. It may be a stream of consciousness. Did anyone write better logs along those lines than Oregone?

 

It may be just an excuse to post a picture that I took along the way or provide another installment in the Adventures of Aura Raines. Isn't that why I have a couple dozen photo editing apps on my phone? So regardless of whether I am using my phone or gpsr, I will upload the log as a field note and save it for later. There are other things to do if I am out somewhere.

 

The best logs I have written have little to do with finding a container. It might have something to do with the title of a cache. Or something I noticed out of the corner of my eye that got me thinking. The best pictures I have posted have nothing to do with the container.

 

Reading a couple of Oregone's old logs, though, got me thinking about how my standards have slipped. I still take care with the photos, but generally write shorter logs these days. Maybe it's time to get back to the basics. The time when writing something in the caching log and online were an important part of the game. Writing what comes to mind or posting a photo that I liked might be the best way of thanking the owner.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

A big part geo-caching is reading the experience of the finders - assuming they are not just babbling. To say that the TFTC is an indication of a bad cache - I don't agree - for some it would be - for others just lazy or cheaters or someone who just doesn't like to write! Telling the story doesn't always mean they enjoyed the cache so much, I like the positive comments that actually say so. I like to hear what you liked or didn't! Anyway love those logs so keep them coming so we know what you did and how it went - it is great sharing!

 

I have a series of 38 micros along a local bike trail; they are named for persons from the local area history and the cache pages each have a short paragraph about the person. Many of the logs on them are TFTC, which I have to admit is about all the caches themselves deserve. But sometimes I'll get "we had a nice walk along the trail this morning" or "I took the kids for a bike ride on the trail today" or "I enjoyed reading the bits of local history." These logs more than make up for all the TFTCs, because the main reason for placing the caches was to get people (myself included) out on the trail more often.

Link to comment

Since there is no requirement to leave an online log it shouldn't matter if a person decides to leave TFTC, ".", or a blank log. They didn't have to leave anything in the first place as long as they signed the physical log. Personally I like to leave a few words that describe something unique about my search for the cache, but sometimes I just say thanks for the cache.

Link to comment

Of course. Your precious time and battery life is much more important than properly thanking someone that placed a cache for you to find. ph34r.gif

 

And if they exhaust their battery life, they won't be able to find any more of your caches, much less thank you for them. Or, if they run out of time (time available for caching, time with adequate daylight, time with adequate weather conditions), they won't be able to find any others, either. :)

 

signalviolin.gif

 

 

Two rules: sign the physical log, trade even or better. Nothing in the rules about "properly thanking the cache owner".

 

There are no rules in life that dictate that one should say thank you when someone does something nice for you. There shouldn't have to be. Expressing thanks is a polite and considerate thing to do. This game would not exist but for the time, effort, and money that cache owners expend to provide caches for others to find. I find it very odd how often some people insist that writing four letters (or less) is sufficiently appreciative. I'm not suggesting that every log needs to be several sentences of glowing praise. Even spelling out "Thank you for the cache" is better than grunting out an acronym.

Link to comment

Of course. Your precious time and battery life is much more important than properly thanking someone that placed a cache for you to find. ph34r.gif

 

And if they exhaust their battery life, they won't be able to find any more of your caches, much less thank you for them. Or, if they run out of time (time available for caching, time with adequate daylight, time with adequate weather conditions), they won't be able to find any others, either. :)

 

signalviolin.gif

 

 

Two rules: sign the physical log, trade even or better. Nothing in the rules about "properly thanking the cache owner".

 

There are no rules in life that dictate that one should say thank you when someone does something nice for you. There shouldn't have to be. Expressing thanks is a polite and considerate thing to do. This game would not exist but for the time, effort, and money that cache owners expend to provide caches for others to find. I find it very odd how often some people insist that writing four letters (or less) is sufficiently appreciative. I'm not suggesting that every log needs to be several sentences of glowing praise. Even spelling out "Thank you for the cache" is better than grunting out an acronym.

 

Rehiding the cache properly, along with closing the lid correctly is all the thanks that I need. The logs are not really intended to praise the cache owner who may have only made one trip to that spot. They are to give a report of the finders experience. A "thank you" is rather meaningless if it is expected, rather than being sincere. With the majority of geocaches today being hidden in commercial locations and consisting on a container that has no value, I don't think that many deserve or are expected to receive any thanks. The only way to generate a decent log is to make the hide a challenge, unique, or to place it in a spot so remote that there will be less likely hood of being 1 of 100 for the finder for that day. If the finder really enjoys it, they will say so.

Link to comment

Whenever I read logs that mention PTs I get angry again about Groundspeak's decision to allow them. So I certainly would not be happy if logs for my caches mention PTs and

it would be another reason for archival.

 

What I find slightly ironic is that you allow the proliferation of the type of cache you don't like to wipe off the map the type of caches that you do like - at least those that you own anyway :(

 

As far as I can see, the only people suffering are those who like to find your type of caches - certainly not the PT hounds.

 

I totally get what Cezanne is saying. Groundspeak provides the means that allows some hiders to take-over a trail and swallow up everything in its path. The caches that were there before, become a power trail cache. I would not like one of my caches to be considered a PT cache.

 

One of my caches has felt the sting of being too close to a PT. It is approximately 1 km from a power trail yet most finders' logs mentioned the PT. Some posts thanked the power trail owners for my cache hide. I did consider removing it, but instead put a note in the short description of our cache listing in bold that our cache is not part of the power trail. That did the trick. No more logs that mentioned the power trail.

Link to comment

Whenever I read logs that mention PTs I get angry again about Groundspeak's decision to allow them. So I certainly would not be happy if logs for my caches mention PTs and

it would be another reason for archival.

 

What I find slightly ironic is that you allow the proliferation of the type of cache you don't like to wipe off the map the type of caches that you do like - at least those that you own anyway :(

 

As far as I can see, the only people suffering are those who like to find your type of caches - certainly not the PT hounds.

 

I totally get what Cezanne is saying.

 

So do I - and my point still stands.

 

Removing your caches because a PT came galloping through doesn't make a jot of difference to those who placed or those who like to find PT's. In fact if anything it probably helps them to achieve total domination :ph34r:

 

Groundspeak provides the means that allows some hiders to take-over a trail and swallow up everything in its path. The caches that were there before, become a power trail cache. I would not like one of my caches to be considered a PT cache.

 

Nor me, I'll be honest - but it's probably going to happen given low churn rates and the fact the game will grind to a halt without new caches to find.

 

I reckon before very long in some parts of the world caches will be so densely packed there'll be no need for a GPS :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Two rules:

sign the physical log, trade even or better.

Nothing in the rules about "properly thanking the cache owner".

That's true. You cannot force an ingrate to express gratitude. I assume Groundspeak recognized that. If someone is so brimming with self entitlement that they are unwilling to properly thank a cache owner for creating a hide, you won't be able to regulate that behavior out of them. Sociologists contend that these attitudes are developed by the time we reach 5 years old. By the time someone is wandering around the woods, hunting Tupperware, it's way to late to teach courtesy.

Link to comment
I have a series of 38 micros along a local bike trail; they are named for persons from the local area history and the cache pages each have a short paragraph about the person. Many of the logs on them are TFTC, which I have to admit is about all the caches themselves deserve.

 

If 'TFTC' is all the caches deserve, then why did you place them? I know you go on to say that that "the main reason for placing the caches was to get people (myself included) out on the trail more often," but don't you think that placing a few good caches would be vastly superior to placing 38 crappy (by your own admission) caches?

Link to comment

That's true. You cannot force an ingrate to express gratitude. I assume Groundspeak recognized that. If someone is so brimming with self entitlement that they are unwilling to properly thank a cache owner for creating a hide, you won't be able to regulate that behavior out of them. Sociologists contend that these attitudes are developed by the time we reach 5 years old. By the time someone is wandering around the woods, hunting Tupperware, it's way to late to teach courtesy.

I agree with you on this, but with one caveat. I know it has been mentioned in this thread, but I reckon there are a considerable number of Intro App/smartphone users who just aren't aware there even is the website with its repository of visit logs, and may not even be truly aware that there are these things called "cache owners" - rather that the caches they are finding "came with the app" just like the ill-tempered birds came with that app... ;)

 

It'd be great if the app could make them aware. If they *are* aware, and they are over the age of 5, yet they still do it, then well, we're doing the proverbial into the wind.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

That's true. You cannot force an ingrate to express gratitude. I assume Groundspeak recognized that. If someone is so brimming with self entitlement that they are unwilling to properly thank a cache owner for creating a hide, you won't be able to regulate that behavior out of them. Sociologists contend that these attitudes are developed by the time we reach 5 years old. By the time someone is wandering around the woods, hunting Tupperware, it's way to late to teach courtesy.

I agree with you on this, but with one caveat. I know it has been mentioned in this thread, but I reckon there are a considerable number of Intro App/smartphone users who just aren't aware there even is the website with its repository of visit logs, and may not even be truly aware that there are these things called "cache owners" - rather that the caches they are finding "came with the app" just like the ill-tempered birds came with that app... ;)

 

Imagine if that's true...

 

Imagine those people who download this cool, polished app onto their uber-cool smartphone, which promises an exciting treasure hunt right on their doorstep - only to find that the caches on their doorstep are battered film pots with sodden logs in among the litter and other detritus...

 

Imagine they also believe that the same people who produced that nice, polished app then effectively sent them out to hunt for rubbish.

 

Imagine their confusion :blink:

 

I couldn't really blame them for having nothing good to say in their logs.

Link to comment

That's true. You cannot force an ingrate to express gratitude. I assume Groundspeak recognized that. If someone is so brimming with self entitlement that they are unwilling to properly thank a cache owner for creating a hide, you won't be able to regulate that behavior out of them. Sociologists contend that these attitudes are developed by the time we reach 5 years old. By the time someone is wandering around the woods, hunting Tupperware, it's way to late to teach courtesy.

I agree with you on this, but with one caveat. I know it has been mentioned in this thread, but I reckon there are a considerable number of Intro App/smartphone users who just aren't aware there even is the website with its repository of visit logs, and may not even be truly aware that there are these things called "cache owners" - rather that the caches they are finding "came with the app" just like the ill-tempered birds came with that app... ;)

 

Imagine if that's true...

 

Imagine those people who download this cool, polished app onto their uber-cool smartphone, which promises an exciting treasure hunt right on their doorstep - only to find that the caches on their doorstep are battered film pots with sodden logs in among the litter and other detritus...

 

Imagine they also believe that the same people who produced that nice, polished app then effectively sent them out to hunt for rubbish.

 

Imagine their confusion :blink:

 

I couldn't really blame them for having nothing good to say in their logs.

 

I'm imagining, and it may be the case sometimes, even often. On the other hand, I own a cache at a significant geographic and scenic location in Europe, it's been Geocache of the Week and it's a close second for the most favourite points in its country, but I've had a good number of "TFTC" logs and occasionally even shorter. It's not the best cache in the world, but it's no battered film pot amongst litter...

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

 

One of my caches has felt the sting of being too close to a PT. It is approximately 1 km from a power trail yet most finders' logs mentioned the PT. Some posts thanked the power trail owners for my cache hide. I did consider removing it, but instead put a note in the short description of our cache listing in bold that our cache is not part of the power trail. That did the trick. No more logs that mentioned the power trail.

 

Are you telling me that people are ACTUALLY reading the cache description?!?! Well blow me down!

Link to comment

That's true. You cannot force an ingrate to express gratitude. I assume Groundspeak recognized that. If someone is so brimming with self entitlement that they are unwilling to properly thank a cache owner for creating a hide, you won't be able to regulate that behavior out of them. Sociologists contend that these attitudes are developed by the time we reach 5 years old. By the time someone is wandering around the woods, hunting Tupperware, it's way to late to teach courtesy.

I agree with you on this, but with one caveat. I know it has been mentioned in this thread, but I reckon there are a considerable number of Intro App/smartphone users who just aren't aware there even is the website with its repository of visit logs, and may not even be truly aware that there are these things called "cache owners" - rather that the caches they are finding "came with the app" just like the ill-tempered birds came with that app... ;)

 

Imagine if that's true...

 

Imagine those people who download this cool, polished app onto their uber-cool smartphone, which promises an exciting treasure hunt right on their doorstep - only to find that the caches on their doorstep are battered film pots with sodden logs in among the litter and other detritus...

 

Imagine they also believe that the same people who produced that nice, polished app then effectively sent them out to hunt for rubbish.

 

Imagine their confusion :blink:

 

I couldn't really blame them for having nothing good to say in their logs.

 

I'm imagining, and it may be the case sometimes, even often. On the other hand, I own a cache at a significant geographic and scenic location in Europe, it's been Geocache of the Week and it's a close second for the most favourite points in its country, but I've had a good number of "TFTC" logs and occasionally even shorter. It's not the best cache in the world, but it's no battered film pot amongst litter...

 

I addressed this in post #18. There are several reasons why people might post TFTC logs. The problem is, from a cache owners perspective, there is no way to tell based on a 4 character log, what that reason is.

Link to comment

...but I reckon there are a considerable number of Intro App/smartphone users who just aren't aware there even is the website with its repository of visit logs, and may not even be truly aware that there are these things called "cache owners" - rather that the caches they are finding "came with the app" just like the ill-tempered birds came with that app... ;)

 

Imagine if that's true...

 

Imagine those people who download this cool, polished app onto their uber-cool smartphone, which promises an exciting treasure hunt right on their doorstep - only to find that the caches on their doorstep are battered film pots with sodden logs in among the litter and other detritus...

 

Imagine they also believe that the same people who produced that nice, polished app then effectively sent them out to hunt for rubbish.

 

Imagine their confusion :blink:

 

I couldn't really blame them for having nothing good to say in their logs.

 

I'm imagining, and it may be the case sometimes, even often. On the other hand, I own a cache at a significant geographic and scenic location in Europe, it's been Geocache of the Week and it's a close second for the most favourite points in its country, but I've had a good number of "TFTC" logs and occasionally even shorter. It's not the best cache in the world, but it's no battered film pot amongst litter...

 

I addressed this in post #18. There are several reasons why people might post TFTC logs. The problem is, from a cache owners perspective, there is no way to tell based on a 4 character log, what that reason is.

 

Not quite - I raised 2 more reasons why Intro App/smartphone users might not bother writing a custom log: Not being aware there even is a website with its repository of logs, and believing that the physical caches came with the app rather than were placed by other players like themselves.

 

In both of those cases, genuinely, why bother writing a log?

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

Don't forget the slew of absentee cache owners. (Literally and figuratively)

 

Do you know how many times I write things in my log, questions about the cache, or the location, etc and get zero responses?

 

Half the time, the CO has bailed and hasnt logged in for years. Other times, they are active but usually my questions go unanswered. Most times I just get no response whatsoever.

 

This leaves me thinking only one thing: -->No one reads my logs.

 

 

So, yeah. Why bother? I'm wasting time, battery life, being told I'm rambling (if I DO even get a response), going unanswered, having my questions ignored...what's the point??. Also. I read the other logs too. I see plenty, PLENTY of issues get brought up that are never dealt with. Here I am at your cache site wondering if an issue brought up in the logs last year was ever dealt with.

 

Apathy goes far beyond *just* the cache finder.

 

I now write my logs for me. But don't sit there and pretend that onus of being polite and courteous starts and ends with the finder.

 

If you are enjoying nice logs....tell them!

If you have questions brought up in the logs....deal with them!

 

At least pretend like you're reading the logs...and then maybe....people might decide it's worth their time to write them.

Link to comment
Other times, they are active but usually my questions go unanswered. Most times I just get no response whatsoever.
Hmm... If someone included a question in a log on one of my caches, I think my first assumption would be that it was rhetorical. Unless it was very clearly addressed specifically to me as a non-rhetorical question, it wouldn't occur to me that a reply was expected.

 

Questions in emails and private messages are a different thing, of course.

Link to comment
I have a series of 38 micros along a local bike trail; they are named for persons from the local area history and the cache pages each have a short paragraph about the person. Many of the logs on them are TFTC, which I have to admit is about all the caches themselves deserve.

 

If 'TFTC' is all the caches deserve, then why did you place them? I know you go on to say that that "the main reason for placing the caches was to get people (myself included) out on the trail more often," but don't you think that placing a few good caches would be vastly superior to placing 38 crappy (by your own admission) caches?

 

I guess you and I have different ideas about what kind of cache really deserves more than TFTC. I don't consider mine to be "crappy" at all, but they are rather ordinary. I bought 38 waterproof match containers and a couple rolls of camo duck tape; to me, that's a step above "crappy."

Link to comment
Other times, they are active but usually my questions go unanswered. Most times I just get no response whatsoever.
Hmm... If someone included a question in a log on one of my caches, I think my first assumption would be that it was rhetorical. Unless it was very clearly addressed specifically to me as a non-rhetorical question, it wouldn't occur to me that a reply was expected.

 

Questions in emails and private messages are a different thing, of course.

 

Questions in logs are there for a reason; So other people with the same question can see if the issue has been addressed.

Link to comment
Other times, they are active but usually my questions go unanswered. Most times I just get no response whatsoever.
Hmm... If someone included a question in a log on one of my caches, I think my first assumption would be that it was rhetorical. Unless it was very clearly addressed specifically to me as a non-rhetorical question, it wouldn't occur to me that a reply was expected.

 

Questions in emails and private messages are a different thing, of course.

 

Questions in logs are there for a reason; So other people with the same question can see if the issue has been addressed.

 

I would make the same assumption as niraD, to be honest. Might just be a different way that some people view the logs and their purpose. A question emailed to me, I am more likely to respond to and even alter the cache description or post a note if it was warranted.

Link to comment

Such a disenchanted world that you live in that you honestly cannot read a question without assuming the worst? Wow.

 

Here's how it looks to us log writers. You don't read our logs.

 

Stop complaining when they dwindling down to a tftc or a "."

 

How is it a disenchanted world that I live in just because I see a found log as a statement and you see it as a conversation? Which one of us is right?

 

I'm a log writer too and I've never once written a log that demands (that's how you're coming across) a response from the cache owner.

Link to comment

you honestly cannot read a question without assuming the worst?

So... In your world, someone thinking a question is rhetorical is "the worst"?

Sounds like a comfy place...

In my world, "the worst" is a lot worse...

 

Stop complaining when they dwindling down to a tftc or a "."

Most of us have given up on complaining about lazy ingrates who can't be bothered to actually peck out a real log. We've learned that our complaints fall on deaf ears, for one reason or another. Either ignorance or apathy, i suspect. They either don't know that those of us who spend more than 30 seconds creating a cache appreciate feedback, or they are so wrapped up in their entitlements that they don't care, offering lame excuses about battery life or small keyboards.

Link to comment

Such a disenchanted world that you live in that you honestly cannot read a question without assuming the worst? Wow.

 

Here's how it looks to us log writers. You don't read our logs.

 

Stop complaining when they dwindling down to a tftc or a "."

 

I'm really confused here. You find a cache, but have a question? A question that you think deserves an answer? Can you give an example? If there is an issue with the cache, why not simply report it?

 

FWIW, I read every single log on my caches and if someone reports something amiss, I respond appropriately. Out of almost 8000 found logs, I really don't recall anyone asking a question.

Link to comment

you honestly cannot read a question without assuming the worst?

So... In your world, someone thinking a question is rhetorical is "the worst"?

Sounds like a comfy place...

In my world, "the worst" is a lot worse...

 

Stop complaining when they dwindling down to a tftc or a "."

Most of us have given up on complaining about lazy ingrates who can't be bothered to actually peck out a real log. We've learned that our complaints fall on deaf ears, for one reason or another. Either ignorance or apathy, i suspect. They either don't know that those of us who spend more than 30 seconds creating a cache appreciate feedback, or they are so wrapped up in their entitlements that they don't care, offering lame excuses about battery life or small keyboards.

Just like I've given up on lazy cache owners.

Link to comment

you honestly cannot read a question without assuming the worst?

So... In your world, someone thinking a question is rhetorical is "the worst"?

Sounds like a comfy place...

In my world, "the worst" is a lot worse...

 

Stop complaining when they dwindling down to a tftc or a "."

Most of us have given up on complaining about lazy ingrates who can't be bothered to actually peck out a real log. We've learned that our complaints fall on deaf ears, for one reason or another. Either ignorance or apathy, i suspect. They either don't know that those of us who spend more than 30 seconds creating a cache appreciate feedback, or they are so wrapped up in their entitlements that they don't care, offering lame excuses about battery life or small keyboards.

Just like I've given up on lazy cache owners.

When you find a cache, do you take the time to determine if the CO is lazy, or not, and log appropriately?

Link to comment

Don't forget the slew of absentee cache owners. (Literally and figuratively)

 

Do you know how many times I write things in my log, questions about the cache, or the location, etc and get zero responses?

 

Half the time, the CO has bailed and hasnt logged in for years. Other times, they are active but usually my questions go unanswered. Most times I just get no response whatsoever.

 

This leaves me thinking only one thing: -->No one reads my logs.

 

How did you get from half to zero?

 

Turing this around. If know one appears to show any appreciation for the fact that I put in effort to create a quality cache that people are going to enjoy finding, why should I bother placing caches?

 

 

 

So, yeah. Why bother? I'm wasting time, battery life, being told I'm rambling (if I DO even get a response), going unanswered, having my questions ignored...what's the point??. Also. I read the other logs too. I see plenty, PLENTY of issues get brought up that are never dealt with. Here I am at your cache site wondering if an issue brought up in the logs last year was ever dealt with.

 

Apathy goes far beyond *just* the cache finder.

 

I now write my logs for me. But don't sit there and pretend that onus of being polite and courteous starts and ends with the finder.

 

If you are enjoying nice logs....tell them!

If you have questions brought up in the logs....deal with them!

 

At least pretend like you're reading the logs...and then maybe....people might decide it's worth their time to write them.

 

I frequently will send a PM to a finder after they've posted a nice log on one of my caches. When I first got into this game, I DNFd the first cache I tried to find. The owner sent me a message the following day indicating that it was probably missing (again) and that my log indicated that I was searching in the right place and to go ahead and log it (I didn't, but found it a fwe days later, then logged a find). He also welcomed me to the game and invited me to contact him at any time if I had any questions. That courtesy was one of the primary reasons I got drawn into the game.

 

I agree that courtesy extends both ways. If I hold a door open for someone, I usually get a thank you in response, and then I will respond with "Your welcome". Social interaction complete. If someone places a nice cache and basically just gets a mumbled thanks in response, the person placing the cache initiated the interaction, but the response breaks it.

 

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...