Jump to content

Empty and short logs


Geovius
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

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?

 

I finally downloaded the intro app to see what it's all about. I wondered if there were logs listed on the cache pages. There are, under the Activity tab. If a new player uses the Activity tab to help them find the cache or to read what others have said, it's pretty obvious that logging a comment is what we do - to help finders, to share experiences, to use as a personal journal, etc.

 

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the intro app. Here are some screenshots:

 

7c7ab5a5-9053-4cb3-8410-16673574baaf.pngba16d235-713f-4f81-b18d-d431bec9a62b.pngee125cd8-9be0-4280-aad2-e1e4c821fe97.jpga0946ec6-924b-4f1f-a5ab-9370b5f02355.png8880da27-5eed-4749-a139-fb6b250450a4.png

 

For me everything is good until we get to the log in page. The "That's one more find for me" quote seems like it's expected to be the log. I really think it should be changed to "Tell your story here" (or something that encourages more then "." or "TFTC")

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

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?

 

I finally downloaded the intro app to see what it's all about. I wondered if there were logs listed on the cache pages. There are, under the Activity tab. If a new player uses the Activity tab to help them find the cache or to read what others have said, it's pretty obvious that logging a comment is what we do - to help finders, to share experiences, to use as a personal journal, etc.

 

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the intro app.

 

Fair enough, and my two possible scenarios were not specifically criticism for the intro app - I've never looked at it. However, even displaying a few logs I don't think necessarily gets the point across that there as a website with its repository of all logs. And also that those logs are there for the purpose, one important one of which would be for the cache owners, who it doesn't necessarily clearly portray as other players as opposed to the developers of the app. Knowing clearly that the hiders of the caches are other players just like yourself adds motivation to writing an actual log.

 

FWIW, for the number of stock "one more find for me" logs that have come through on my (>400) caches from obviously new players, I've probably had 5 or 10 times as many short but personalised logs from new players, like "Wow, what fun. This is my first find and I'm hooked. Thanks!", which I find more than satisfactory. :)

Link to comment

Knowing clearly that the hiders of the caches are other players just like yourself adds motivation to writing an actual log.

 

Good point. At first I didn't see a listed cache owner in the intro app. But on a 2nd look it is there, under the D/T, cache size and Favorites bar, and above the description, in small font. Perhaps a larger font and bold text would help to emphasis the point that there are actual cachers who hide the caches.

 

 

Link to comment

For me everything is good until we get to the log in page. The "That's one more find for me" quote seems like it's expected to be the log. I really think it should be changed to "Tell your story here" (or something that encourages more then "." or "TFTC")

Maybe Groundspeak could change it to "Tell your story here", as you suggest, with the 'Send' button disabled until the text is changed? Set it up so tapping the screen erases the opening text, and inputs a cursor?

Link to comment

For me everything is good until we get to the log in page. The "That's one more find for me" quote seems like it's expected to be the log. I really think it should be changed to "Tell your story here" (or something that encourages more then "." or "TFTC")

Maybe Groundspeak could change it to "Tell your story here", as you suggest, with the 'Send' button disabled until the text is changed? Set it up so tapping the screen erases the opening text, and inputs a cursor?

 

Yes. Excellent suggestion. I hope Groundspeak is listening.

Link to comment

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?

I sort out most lazy cache hiders through selective pocket queries.

The few which slip through? I just walk away, not logging anything.

 

I haven't sprung for PM yet, (it's coming, just not yet), so I don't know much about PQ's besides what I've written on here. How do PQ's help you root out lazy/apathetic cache owners ?

Link to comment

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?

I sort out most lazy cache hiders through selective pocket queries.

The few which slip through? I just walk away, not logging anything.

 

I haven't sprung for PM yet, (it's coming, just not yet), so I don't know much about PQ's besides what I've written on here. How do PQ's help you root out lazy/apathetic cache owners ?

I've noticed certain trends from lazy/apathetic cache owners, at least in my geographic region, which I exploit. Locally, those folks who can't be bothered with hiking more than 15' from their minivans, select either micro, *other, or **size not chosen, in their cache page creation process. They also limit themselves to the 1.5 end of the D/T spectrum. By customizing my PQ to ignore these, most of the uninspired P&Gs are weeded out.

 

On a related note:

*other, invariable means micro.

**size not chosen also means micro.

Link to comment

To me if a comment isn't about the cache or experience finding the cache itself, I would rather people leave a tftc. On "generic" caches I often leave comments like "5th one today, my first day caching in awhile TFTC" I leave a sentence or more but it's about nothing to do with the cache itself or my experience finding it because what more can you say about a LPC, guardrail, etc.

 

I had a friend complaining about "tftc" on his cache, I asked what did he expect with a key holder on the back of an ice machine.

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...

 

It's not mandatory to write a log within seconds of finding the cache. You could always mark it found and write a log when you get home. Then you're not spending precious battery life, and if the time to write a few words is so precious I'm surprised you bother wasting such a precious resource hunting sandwich boxes under dead trees.

Link to comment

Knowing clearly that the hiders of the caches are other players just like yourself adds motivation to writing an actual log.

 

Good point. At first I didn't see a listed cache owner in the intro app. But on a 2nd look it is there, under the D/T, cache size and Favorites bar, and above the description, in small font. Perhaps a larger font and bold text would help to emphasis the point that there are actual cachers who hide the caches.

 

After almost 1000 posts in the other thread and a 100 here, I'm glad that you took the time to post those screenshots. It seems that the info is there, so what is so baffling to me is why I continue to see the default log, linked to invalidated users.

 

Maybe the default log should be changed to something like, "The geocache that you found was hidden by a player just like you, please enter your feedback".

Link to comment

After almost 1000 posts in the other thread and a 100 here, I'm glad that you took the time to post those screenshots. It seems that the info is there, so what is so baffling to me is why I continue to see the default log, linked to invalidated users.

I think the info looks like it's there to you because you know about the website, purpose of logs, existence of real people placing caches, etc... I don't think the screenshots convey that particularly well to someone who isn't aware. I don't know if they sensibly could, other than a bit more of a general description of the game on the opening screen when they sign up perhaps.

 

Maybe the default log should be changed to something like, "The geocache that you found was hidden by a player just like you, please enter your feedback".

I think this is a good suggestion.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
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.

 

That line right there is why I used to like caching. I wish the COs in my area had your passion for quality. Unfortunately, the more I've cached in my area, the more I'm despising it. We have a "league" in this area that put out hundreds of caches with dorky or quirky (LARGE) pictures and descriptions and hints that are absolutely asinine.

 

Here's a few examples: Cheese or Beef or Smudgy or The Kiss. Most of these have a huge picture in the description (terrible for those of us caching on a phone) and stupid descriptions and titles that have absolutely nothing to do with that area.

 

I liked caching because it took me new places and I learned things about those places or I simply enjoyed being in those places. Not much anymore though.

 

I've checked out Waymarking, but there's no app for it and an app would make it easier on my phone. I'd dump this Geocaching in an instant if Waymarking were easier to use.

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 suspect that that majority of people place caches for other people to find. Here on the forum there is a vocal group that insist they place cache to get long logs with lots of praise for their cache. I suspect this group is in the minority.

 

Some people who find caches are simple not expressive. They aren't going geocaching for the purpose of being "wowed" over being taken to a new or interesting place. They may not even care to be impressed by someones elaborate handmade cammo or by a particularly well constructed hide. They go out and find caches and log them online either because they have been told by an App that they have to log their finds or because they want to keep track of how many caches they have found.

 

So for many hiders there is no reason to expect long logs (and perhaps no reason to try and hide caches that are designed to elicit such logs).

 

There are other hiders who still like finding caches in new places or finding caches that standout in the way the container may be hidden or camouflaged. They may be disappointed when someone finds their cache and doesn't reward them with a long log. Personally I see this as expecting everyone to like what you like. If you accept that there are people who aren't searching for your caches for the same reasons you search for cache, and stop feeling cheated if they leave a short or a cut and paste log, I think you'd be better off.

 

Some cachers may place caches in remote areas or may make finding the cache more difficult with a puzzle or challenge, with the hope that the far fewer cachers who look for the cache will enjoy the uniqueness of it. They may may have trouble if they can't accept that the trail gets filled over time with new caches and their original hide looses its uniqueness. Certainly it has become harder to find a cache where you take a difficult, long hike to find a single cache. In the past such a cache would often get a long log as it was the only cache that finder looked for and the adventure of just getting to the cache was enough to provide a good story. Today that cache is on a trail with 30 to 40 other caches. Each cache, including the original, gets a short cut and paste log. If the purpose of the original cache was to get long logs, then the owner might wan to archive it. If the purpose was to bring people to a new place, there are now 30 to 40 other caches that do a better job of bringing people than the single cache ever did (so you might as well archive the original cache). If the original cache was placed for people to find it, then people are still finding it (and probably more people than at any time in the past).

Link to comment

I think that most cache owners understand that some people aren't very expressive online. I don't think that's the issue. I can account for some people not wanting to post long logs, my husband is that way. But the proportion has just changed so much over the years. I don't need people to be wowed by my caches, but some sort of connection is nice.

Link to comment

I think that most cache owners understand that some people aren't very expressive online. I don't think that's the issue. I can account for some people not wanting to post long logs, my husband is that way. But the proportion has just changed so much over the years. I don't need people to be wowed by my caches, but some sort of connection is nice.

 

Right - something that connects finder to hider. Something that says 'I found this specific cache'. Doesn't have to be long.

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 suspect that that majority of people place caches for other people to find. Here on the forum there is a vocal group that insist they place cache to get long logs with lots of praise for their cache. I suspect this group is in the minority.

 

I suspect that you are right, because that's not what I'm seeing. I don't think I've ever read a post from someone that insisted that everyone posts long longs praising the cache owner. What I am seeing are people writing that posting 4 characters or less for a log is not an adequate response to those that take the time, energy, and money to place a cache for people to find.

 

Some people who find caches are simple not expressive. They aren't going geocaching for the purpose of being "wowed" over being taken to a new or interesting place. They may not even care to be impressed by someones elaborate handmade cammo or by a particularly well constructed hide. They go out and find caches and log them online either because they have been told by an App that they have to log their finds or because they want to keep track of how many caches they have found.

 

So for many hiders there is no reason to expect long logs (and perhaps no reason to try and hide caches that are designed to elicit such logs).

 

There are other hiders who still like finding caches in new places or finding caches that standout in the way the container may be hidden or camouflaged. They may be disappointed when someone finds their cache and doesn't reward them with a long log. Personally I see this as expecting everyone to like what you like. If you accept that there are people who aren't searching for your caches for the same reasons you search for cache, and stop feeling cheated if they leave a short or a cut and paste log, I think you'd be better off.

 

Some cachers may place caches in remote areas or may make finding the cache more difficult with a puzzle or challenge, with the hope that the far fewer cachers who look for the cache will enjoy the uniqueness of it. They may may have trouble if they can't accept that the trail gets filled over time with new caches and their original hide looses its uniqueness. Certainly it has become harder to find a cache where you take a difficult, long hike to find a single cache. In the past such a cache would often get a long log as it was the only cache that finder looked for and the adventure of just getting to the cache was enough to provide a good story. Today that cache is on a trail with 30 to 40 other caches. Each cache, including the original, gets a short cut and paste log. If the purpose of the original cache was to get long logs, then the owner might wan to archive it. If the purpose was to bring people to a new place, there are now 30 to 40 other caches that do a better job of bringing people than the single cache ever did (so you might as well archive the original cache). If the original cache was placed for people to find it, then people are still finding it (and probably more people than at any time in the past).

 

Your long posts blaming cache owners for the fact that some people can't be bothered to write more than 4 characters has convinced me. If the majority of geocachers think that 30-40 film pots practically in plane sight (so that it requires no effort to find them) is better for geocaching, then I will take your advice. After I get back from a business trip I'm going on tomorrow I will start archiving all my caches.

 

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 suspect that that majority of people place caches for other people to find. Here on the forum there is a vocal group that insist they place cache to get long logs with lots of praise for their cache. I suspect this group is in the minority.

 

I suspect that you are right, because that's not what I'm seeing. I don't think I've ever read a post from someone that insisted that everyone posts long longs praising the cache owner. What I am seeing are people writing that posting 4 characters or less for a log is not an adequate response to those that take the time, energy, and money to place a cache for people to find.

 

Some people who find caches are simple not expressive. They aren't going geocaching for the purpose of being "wowed" over being taken to a new or interesting place. They may not even care to be impressed by someones elaborate handmade cammo or by a particularly well constructed hide. They go out and find caches and log them online either because they have been told by an App that they have to log their finds or because they want to keep track of how many caches they have found.

 

So for many hiders there is no reason to expect long logs (and perhaps no reason to try and hide caches that are designed to elicit such logs).

 

There are other hiders who still like finding caches in new places or finding caches that standout in the way the container may be hidden or camouflaged. They may be disappointed when someone finds their cache and doesn't reward them with a long log. Personally I see this as expecting everyone to like what you like. If you accept that there are people who aren't searching for your caches for the same reasons you search for cache, and stop feeling cheated if they leave a short or a cut and paste log, I think you'd be better off.

 

Some cachers may place caches in remote areas or may make finding the cache more difficult with a puzzle or challenge, with the hope that the far fewer cachers who look for the cache will enjoy the uniqueness of it. They may may have trouble if they can't accept that the trail gets filled over time with new caches and their original hide looses its uniqueness. Certainly it has become harder to find a cache where you take a difficult, long hike to find a single cache. In the past such a cache would often get a long log as it was the only cache that finder looked for and the adventure of just getting to the cache was enough to provide a good story. Today that cache is on a trail with 30 to 40 other caches. Each cache, including the original, gets a short cut and paste log. If the purpose of the original cache was to get long logs, then the owner might wan to archive it. If the purpose was to bring people to a new place, there are now 30 to 40 other caches that do a better job of bringing people than the single cache ever did (so you might as well archive the original cache). If the original cache was placed for people to find it, then people are still finding it (and probably more people than at any time in the past).

 

Your long posts blaming cache owners for the fact that some people can't be bothered to write more than 4 characters has convinced me. If the majority of geocachers think that 30-40 film pots practically in plane sight (so that it requires no effort to find them) is better for geocaching, then I will take your advice. After I get back from a business trip I'm going on tomorrow I will start archiving all my caches.

 

Don't forget to fill out the form.

Link to comment

I'm 1,000+ caches down the line...

 

How the **** does "That's one more find for me" help me remember what a great time I had doing that cache, what a pig of a hide -but the best cache of the day- that one was, what great views, what a fantastic piece of history, what a fun day the group of us had...

 

Really does need something adding to the app to get something personal written.

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 suspect that that majority of people place caches for other people to find. Here on the forum there is a vocal group that insist they place cache to get long logs with lots of praise for their cache. I suspect this group is in the minority.

 

I suspect that you are right, because that's not what I'm seeing. I don't think I've ever read a post from someone that insisted that everyone posts long longs praising the cache owner. What I am seeing are people writing that posting 4 characters or less for a log is not an adequate response to those that take the time, energy, and money to place a cache for people to find.

 

Some people who find caches are simple not expressive. They aren't going geocaching for the purpose of being "wowed" over being taken to a new or interesting place. They may not even care to be impressed by someones elaborate handmade cammo or by a particularly well constructed hide. They go out and find caches and log them online either because they have been told by an App that they have to log their finds or because they want to keep track of how many caches they have found.

 

So for many hiders there is no reason to expect long logs (and perhaps no reason to try and hide caches that are designed to elicit such logs).

 

There are other hiders who still like finding caches in new places or finding caches that standout in the way the container may be hidden or camouflaged. They may be disappointed when someone finds their cache and doesn't reward them with a long log. Personally I see this as expecting everyone to like what you like. If you accept that there are people who aren't searching for your caches for the same reasons you search for cache, and stop feeling cheated if they leave a short or a cut and paste log, I think you'd be better off.

 

Some cachers may place caches in remote areas or may make finding the cache more difficult with a puzzle or challenge, with the hope that the far fewer cachers who look for the cache will enjoy the uniqueness of it. They may may have trouble if they can't accept that the trail gets filled over time with new caches and their original hide looses its uniqueness. Certainly it has become harder to find a cache where you take a difficult, long hike to find a single cache. In the past such a cache would often get a long log as it was the only cache that finder looked for and the adventure of just getting to the cache was enough to provide a good story. Today that cache is on a trail with 30 to 40 other caches. Each cache, including the original, gets a short cut and paste log. If the purpose of the original cache was to get long logs, then the owner might wan to archive it. If the purpose was to bring people to a new place, there are now 30 to 40 other caches that do a better job of bringing people than the single cache ever did (so you might as well archive the original cache). If the original cache was placed for people to find it, then people are still finding it (and probably more people than at any time in the past).

 

Your long posts blaming cache owners for the fact that some people can't be bothered to write more than 4 characters has convinced me. If the majority of geocachers think that 30-40 film pots practically in plane sight (so that it requires no effort to find them) is better for geocaching, then I will take your advice. After I get back from a business trip I'm going on tomorrow I will start archiving all my caches.

 

Don't forget to fill out the form.

 

I'm not planning on quitting the game. I'm just not going to participate as a cache owner.

Link to comment

Your long posts blaming cache owners for ...

I didn't blame cache owners. I said that cache owners shouldn't expect more. Even cache owners who take the time to create caches that they see as more memorable experiences can't expect that everyone who finds them is looking for that same experience or wants to write a personalized online log.

 

I was being a bit facetious when I suggested that if your purpose in placing the cache was to get long logs you should archive it. Elsewhere I suggested you might be better off accepting the fact that there are people who aren't searching for your caches for the same reasons you search for caches, and not feel cheated if they leave a short or a cut and paste log.

 

I understand that the online log capability on Geocaching.com serves several purposes. Many use it just to keep track of which caches they have found. Some like the statistics they can get generated from this data. There are still many who use the logs to share their experiences with other cachers and to thank the cache owner. While some of us may be disappointed that a smaller percentage of cachers are using online log for this last purpose, there is no requirement to even log online at all. (Yes, I know the FAQ says Rule #3: Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.)

 

Believe or not, I agree with those who say that Geocaching has been made special because we can see the logs of other geocachers. Sometimes we use them to select which caches might be a more enjoyable or memorable experience. Sometimes we search them for hints when we're having trouble finding a cache. Sometimes they allow us to vicariously experience a cache we would never be able to seek on our own. And yes, for cache owners, they give a sense of value knowing that someone has enjoyed our caches so much that they take the time to say so.

 

Where I disagree is in having unrealistic expectations of people who are just playing a game. For the cache finders it's all about the activity of seeking and finding caches. There is no reward for leaving a long personalize note, and so the majority of the time they don't. So be happy when you get a long personalize log, just don't expect 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...