Jump to content

History of "TFTC" only logs


Recommended Posts

I'm not actually bothered that much by the intro app log. My least favorite of all are where the lame logger doesn't even thank the CO. Such as emoticon, punctuation, or "Found it" logs. Or like the two real life examples in my area who log every single cache with "<3" or "I did it!" respectively. :mad:

 

Sometimes a cache is sufficiently lame it's hard to generate enthusiasm to say much more than "LOFTS".

 

Lowlights from my caching history included a film pot attached with a magnet to a metal fence that stretched for 100 feet either side of the coordinates, with nettles and brambles growing through it, and a clue that said something like "it' son the fence". Then there was the dingy corner of the parking area at the station with a pile of trash behind the guard rail, and a film pot hidden in the trash. Or the keysafe attached to the back of a green box in the street, nice and low down among discarded fruit peel and other trash and, judging by the smell, the area was used as a dog latrine. I didn't even bother retrieving that one. Or how about the cache hidden at the base of a hawthorn bush (for those unfamiliar, hawthorn is a very spiky tree where the spines can easily grow to a couple of inches) near the gorse bush that stank of dog urine (gorse has more spikes than hawthorn, even if they aren't as long or as vicious), only to finally turn up 100 feet away?

 

When a cache is the truly awesome type (and, to be fair, I've found several of those as well as the dismal variety), thanking the hider rings desperately hollow when the "thanks" are nothing more than the standard identikit wording from a standard log text.

Link to comment

Years ago I was starting to notice the trend of terse TFTC-like logs, so I created a cache to basically poke fun of it. This was in 2008. I never did get around to publishing it, but I still find it kind of funny. Since I can't link to an unpublished cache, here are some screenshots of the listing (I tend to get wordy, so it took four screen captures to get it all, sorry):

 

375da7c7-bf69-434f-8135-5e0e61faf62e.jpg

96c33bd3-0b08-456a-92d5-3c865ec0ecff.jpg

b229b8fb-b195-474a-a100-01015ef0e49b.jpg

400379f3-b5ff-4807-ac1c-9ae0a5100d47.jpg

Link to comment
I'm the bonafide expert on this one. :laughing: They absolutely appeared out of nowhere in early 2010, shortly after the smartphone apps came out. Some may disagree with me, but I will forever hold my ground. Finding a TFTC only log from 2009 or earlier is about as common as finding a disposable camera in a cache for finders to take their picture with (a once common practice).

 

I defy you :P . This cache was placed in 2007 as a commentary on the use of TFTC-only logs:

 

Give Me an F!

Edited by nonaeroterraqueous
Link to comment

Years ago I was starting to notice the trend of terse TFTC-like logs, so I created a cache to basically poke fun of it. This was in 2008. I never did get around to publishing it, but I still find it kind of funny. Since I can't link to an unpublished cache, here are some screenshots of the listing (I tend to get wordy, so it took four screen captures to get it all, sorry):

 

375da7c7-bf69-434f-8135-5e0e61faf62e.jpg

96c33bd3-0b08-456a-92d5-3c865ec0ecff.jpg

b229b8fb-b195-474a-a100-01015ef0e49b.jpg

400379f3-b5ff-4807-ac1c-9ae0a5100d47.jpg

!

 

That's like schizophrenic or bipolar or something. :laughing: I feel like I don't ever have to write out a cache log again!

 

You should have that cache published. ;)

Link to comment

When I saw the "." log in one cache, fortunately not mine, I asked myself, why?!?!?!?

 

But, putting some wood in the fire, what about stamps?!?!? Aren´t those impersonal too?

 

I think people should sign the logbook, it´s what the guidelines say... they don´t mention stamp the logbook...

 

But than again, maybe it´s just geogaching "devoluting"...

Link to comment
The person who introduced me to geocaching told me (when I asked him what the heck I was supposed to say in my logs) that "TFTC" was an accepted norm. But I could tell early on that "TFTC" was not the norm in my part of the country - one CO had a blurb on all her cache pages deploring brief logs.

When I started Geocaching, I saw "TFTC" everywhere, so that's what I typed. That seemed to be the custom, so who was I to deviate? However, I'm one of the only people who realized that a log can be edited (hey everyone, why not go fix those 'TFTC' logs right now?), so I went to each of my early logs and typed something better.

 

I like the blurb idea. Did it work?

Sorry - I took forever to get back to this thread. It seemed to me that this CO got better logs overall than other CO's with similar caches, so perhaps the blub had at least a little impact. If nothing else, it did make me put more effort into my logs...although I have to admit, I was a little taken aback at reading the blurb the first time.

 

Interesting thread! Moun10bike's stats surprised me. And hermit crabs' unpublished cache is hilarious!

Link to comment
But, putting some wood in the fire, what about stamps?!?!? Aren´t those impersonal too?

 

I think people should sign the logbook, it´s what the guidelines say... they don´t mention stamp the logbook...

I know someone whose legal signature is a self-inking stamp. If it's good enough for the government, her bank, her mortgage company, etc., etc., etc., then I think it's good enough for a mildewed log sheet in a plastic container hidden as part of a game.
Link to comment
But, putting some wood in the fire, what about stamps?!?!? Aren´t those impersonal too?

 

I think people should sign the logbook, it´s what the guidelines say... they don´t mention stamp the logbook...

I know someone whose legal signature is a self-inking stamp. If it's good enough for the government, her bank, her mortgage company, etc., etc., etc., then I think it's good enough for a mildewed log sheet in a plastic container hidden as part of a game.

I´m not saying it is not a valid way to log a cache, I´m saying I consider it impersonal, like some logs mentioned in the thread.

Link to comment

I have no problem using "TFTC" if there's a string of caches along a trail. Take a look at this map and tell me which caches you think I might use a generic "TFTC" on when I hit up this area this summer...

 

https://www.geocachi...,-97.11507&z=14

 

I suppose the easy thing to do is just use the program I use and have it store a generic log statement that I can just paste in there with one button press... I see a number of people did just that and logged the exact same couple of sentences for the entire string of caches.

 

On another note, it's got to be work to maintain and keep track of hundreds of caches like that.

Edited by sholomar
Link to comment

Years ago I was starting to notice the trend of terse TFTC-like logs, so I created a cache to basically poke fun of it.

 

*snip, snip*

 

Oh my goodness! That is too funny! You made me smile/laugh out loud/groan/make faces at my monitor at work/home/my laptop while driving on the interstate. :laughing:

 

Mrs. Car54

Link to comment

I have no problem using "TFTC" if there's a string of caches along a trail. Take a look at this map and tell me which caches you think I might use a generic "TFTC" on when I hit up this area this summer...

 

https://www.geocachi...,-97.11507&z=14

 

I suppose the easy thing to do is just use the program I use and have it store a generic log statement that I can just paste in there with one button press... I see a number of people did just that and logged the exact same couple of sentences for the entire string of caches.

 

On another note, it's got to be work to maintain and keep track of hundreds of caches like that.

 

That is indeed the No. 1 cache placer in the world. Wow, 38 finds in 2.5 years, and you're going to "hit a trail"? :P TFTC is the poster child for lameness, although there are lamer things, such as the emoticon log, the period log, or the random character log: ikrwedsj. I think you should give them the same coherent sentence for them all. My opinion, of course.

Link to comment

I have no problem using "TFTC" if there's a string of caches along a trail. Take a look at this map and tell me which caches you think I might use a generic "TFTC" on when I hit up this area this summer...

 

https://www.geocachi...,-97.11507&z=14

 

I suppose the easy thing to do is just use the program I use and have it store a generic log statement that I can just paste in there with one button press... I see a number of people did just that and logged the exact same couple of sentences for the entire string of caches.

 

On another note, it's got to be work to maintain and keep track of hundreds of caches like that.

 

That is indeed the No. 1 cache placer in the world. Wow, 38 finds in 2.5 years, and you're going to "hit a trail"? :P TFTC is the poster child for lameness, although there are lamer things, such as the emoticon log, the period log, or the random character log: ikrwedsj. I think you should give them the same coherent sentence for them all. My opinion, of course.

 

The same coherent sentence (or two), such as "That's another one for me! Thanks so much for hiding this geocache"

Link to comment

Just for crunching numbers and looking at data...I wonder what the numbers Moun10bike posted would look like next to the number of total active caches, and then at the total of members.

 

I'd guess that we could look to see if the rise in sole "TFTC" logs is at a similar rate to membership totals and make some guesses about "why?" based on that.

Link to comment

Of all of the "Found it" cache logs I received on my caches this weekend, 43% (n=7) contained "TFTC" in the log. Only 1 (14%, n=7) was only "TFTC".

 

Of all the "Found it" logs on caches I am watching, 72% (n=18) contained "TFTC". 33% (n=18) were only "TFTC" (or "tftc!"), and 22% (n=18) contained "TFTC " and only one other word or acronym, such as "SL". That means 55% of the caches I watch had simple acronyms for logs.

 

Now, there were 4 logs on my caches that were long, descriptive of the experience, and had good details. They even wrote out "thanks for the cache" within the log. Caches that were included were slightly longer walks/hikes, or slightly challenging hides.

 

The hides on my watchlist contained a larger percentage of powertrail caches. A series of 12 or so caches along a bike path/sidewalk near my in-laws' house had 2 caches that I couldn't find. I decided to watch them to find out what was going on. Those 2 caches made up for most of my watchlist logs in my inbox, and those logs were far more likely to have simple acronyms than the other caches I saw watchlist logs for.

 

This is just a small sample of logs, but certainly serves as anecdotal evidence. We could look at cache type and proximity considerations such as power trails for what those logs contain for words/acronyms.

 

It would also be interesting to look at the start date of those who are logging these power trails to see what the demographics are of those who are logging those caches, and the log words/acronyms they choose to use.

 

I would venture a guess that, because it is easier to enter a simple, short log on many logs in a row (power trail), people are going to learn that behavior and display it elsewhere on other caches. To study this hypothesis further, however, I'd need access to things I can access, and tools to crunch numbers a little faster than I can enter it by hand into SPSS...

Link to comment

I relate to what NeverSummer says...

 

In more challenging caches even I usually write more than a simple experience like when it is a PT, that I usually only write something very simple like: "Found this one in the usual place. TFTC" or "A spider web was covering the cache. TFTC but poor spider..."

 

I really think that in harder/more challenging caches a person tends to write more than a simple PT.

Link to comment

 

I would venture a guess that, because it is easier to enter a simple, short log on many logs in a row (power trail), people are going to learn that behavior and display it elsewhere on other caches. To study this hypothesis further, however, I'd need access to things I can access, and tools to crunch numbers a little faster than I can enter it by hand into SPSS...

 

I will disagree. "Tftc only" is merely the poster child for lame logs. Lame logging, but not necessarily Tftc, is at epidemic proportions among newbies, and nearly universal at this point. I'm the local maintainer for an old time cache in my area, and I got a "Yay!" find log on my watchlist yesterday. Or the guy in my area who logs every cache with "I did it!"; or the girl in my area who logs every cache with "<3"; Or the person who started a recent thread around here who wanted to give a class on Geocaching, and someone noted they typed 17 words in their 8 career find logs (that wasn't me, by the way :)) This has nothing to do with seeing power trail logs, in my opinion. These logs are all thumbed out from the cache site on smartphones, and represent the Textmessageification of Geocaching logs. B)

Link to comment

Reviewed my oldest cache placed 8/20/02 (110 finds) and the shortest log is "Cool cache". Checked my easiest cache (190 finds) placed on 2/17/10 and it has 9 TFTC logs. Give people something to write about and they will most likely write.

 

You're not going to find many 2002 caches with a lot of lame logs. :P I won't post a link, but I know of a 2001 placed park-n-grab (although it involves nasty bushwacking in the summer, and a garbage strewn area), and I just looked, and it has about 15 lame logs. Which for the purposes of this post, I will describe as 20 characters or less.

 

Here's the old cache I mentioned yesterday that I'm the local maintainer for (placed by a guy who lives about 100 miles away, when his daughter was going to college across the street for 4 years). You can't park less than 1/4 mile from it, although there are many other caches in the park. It must show in the intro app, as there's a couple recent "that's one more find for me" logs. I'd consider that to have a boatload of lame logs. Again 20 characters or less, not necessarily Tftc.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...