unnecessary comments in unnecessary logbooks

[+Melbermans]

Have had a number of caches around our area & Melbourne over the last few years & it amazes me the amount of negative feedback that a lot of geocachers give during their logging of the find. Some are warranted, but many are (in my opinion) a bit over the top. The idea of the caches we hide are that they are low maintenance or self maintaining with little input & invite different people to areas that generally they wouldn't travel to. It encourages exploration of different surroundings.

 

The log book in a current micro cache has required replacing a number of times due to:

1. missing (the fault of one of the finders of this cache);

2. damp & sodden (sometimes just cannot be helped if the lid not put on properly - refer point 1);

3. can't get logbook out (last finder has pushed it in too far - refer point 1);

4. full (too many geacachers finding this cache & filling in the logbook - refer point 1).

 

Obviously points 1 to 3 are negative problems whilst point 4 is a good negative.

 

I think logbooks for this type of geocache are over rated & really this type of geocache could probably do without a logbook. An honesty system? In reality, if someone logs a find which they haven't actually found, they are not bothering me.

[+lamoracke]

So, a cache is missing is the fault of the cachers who attempt this? That seems a bit fantasy to me especially if the cache was in a spot its unrealistic to be stealthy on (ie a parking lot, next to a business) and even if you can be stealthy, you know, people walk by suddenly, its part of the life of a cache. And its complaining to mention that the log is damp? I do not understand this, just mentioning the log is damp is a factual statement meant to alert the CO that their container may not be waterproof or they might need to go replace the log sheet. Perhaps if you are hiding caches that are in need of constant maintenance, maybe you are getting a sign that your caches are not the best. Sure we all want great long fantastic logs on our caches but if you expect folks to never comment on the cache conditions you find, I think that is a little unrealistic.

[+Team Microdot]

As far as I can tell the OP has two live caches and two archived caches.

 

My advice given the circumstances - archive the other two and the problem goes away - and saves the effort of a multi-page thread at the same time

[+The Leprechauns]

Q: What would you get if logbooks weren't required anymore?

A: Lots of really well-traveled Germans.

 

Look at the Geocoins and Travel Bugs forum sections for a sneak preview of what life would be like, in the current threads about virtual logging. Or, do a forum search on the term "armchair" and learn one reason why Geocaching.com stopped publishing new virtual caches in 2005.

 

Is there an alternative solution for the logbook woes complained of by the OP? Yes. Hide bigger caches that are farther away from pavement.

[+irisisleuk]

There are other gps games that do not require logbook or even logs.

 

With geocaching, the game we are playing using this website, there is a logbook, which is supposed to be well maintained by a cache owner who wants cachers to have a great experience. And these cachers are then supposed to log this experience in their online log to make sure the CO has a great experience as well.

Clearly this does not seem to be the case with your caches, since cachers complain about the cache and you complain about the logs.

 

Since you as a CO feel the cache/location can do without a log and feel geocaching is only/mainly about leading people to a certain place, you seem to like only one aspect of the game we are playing, so you might want to consider exploring other gps games.

[cezanne]

Is there an alternative solution for the logbook woes complained of by the OP? Yes. Hide bigger caches that are farther away from pavement.

 

Well, I agree with your opinion that physical caches should have a log book and also with your statement that putting out larger containers

helps in the maintenance issue. I was quite amazed that the OP has only a very small number of caches hidden shown in the profile. Maybe there are few

others, but still it seems pretty manageable.

 

 

Q: What would you get if logbooks weren't required anymore?

A: Lots of really well-traveled Germans.

 

I'm neither German nor do I live in Germany, but I need to admit that I would prefer if I had chosen to formulate your reply in a more neutral way.

Virtual logging is not something which is restricted to Germany and many German cachers never ever would cheat with respect to their logs.

 

Look at the Geocoins and Travel Bugs forum sections for a sneak preview of what life would be like, in the current threads about virtual logging.

 

In my opinion this is a completely different topic and Groundspeak is very much responsible of what is happening. They introduced the "discover it" and "took to" log types.

Even local events in many countries of Europe tend to be large and even if every attendant on average brings just 3 trackables to the event, this will end up in a huge number of trackables that visited the event and I'd be very careful to refer to someone who posts "discovered it" logs for all the trackables at the event as a cheater and put this at the same level as logging a cache as "found it" that one never has visited. In my opinion it was a big mistake to allow trackables in events at all.

 

Whenever I visit a larger event (takes place very rarely) I'm very concerned about trackables lying around in some boxes where everyone can take out whatever they one. As an owner of a trackable, I'd prefer if the trackables are lying around openly, but just lists of the numbers of the trackables present at the event and if the cachers who bring along trackables to an event exchange them in 1:1 interaction with other cachers.

 

Or, do a forum search on the term "armchair" and learn one reason why Geocaching.com stopped publishing new virtual caches in 2005.

 

I do think the armchair problem could easily have been handled and it would never have arisen if it were not for the involvement of

Groundspeak reviewers from The Netherlands and Germany who published virtual caches where one could not even visit a location to get them done.

Edited December 2, 2014 by cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

I see you (the OP) have 2 active caches, a micro and a small. I assume the comments are on the micro http://coord.info/GC2KV3W

 

The description says it is an "Eclipse container", which don't do so well in terms of waterproofness.

 

In general I don't see finders going "over the top" in their logs. Several mention the log was wet, full, or they had trouble getting it out. Perhaps this recent log annoyed you a bit:

 

Must say after approx 10 cache finds the scrunched up logbooks in tiny cache tins are getting a tad cumbersome

 

Logbooks are part of the game. And while I don't personally hold that point as something untouchable, I don't think it will change.

 

It is a reality that logs can get wet, and it seems most common with micros. Often the log gets so wet it becomes pulp and any signatures on it become unreadable. If I find one like that, I'll try and sign on it- even if I know it can't be read - to satisfy the small amount of "puritan" in me. And I will mention the state of the logbook in my log.

 

Of course I'd prefer to find a nice dry log. But I don't lose any sleep when I find a wet, unsignable one.

 

As an owner.. you either need to:

 

1. Use a more waterproof container. You can't guarantee it will stay dry if people don't close the lid, but you can increase the chances of it staying dry.

 

2. Replace the log regularly.

 

3. Put up with people mentioning the log is wet.

[+Touchstone]

Kind of begs the question, if there's no logbook/sheet, what exactly is the purpose of the container?

 

Here's one possible solution to your dilemma and remove the burden of replacing logsheets on a regular basis:

 

Waymarking

[+L0ne.R]

I see you (the OP) have 2 active caches, a micro and a small. I assume the comments are on the micro http://coord.info/GC2KV3W

 

The description says it is an "Eclipse container", which don't do so well in terms of waterproofness.

 

In general I don't see finders going "over the top" in their logs. Several mention the log was wet, full, or they had trouble getting it out. Perhaps this recent log annoyed you a bit:

 

Must say after approx 10 cache finds the scrunched up logbooks in tiny cache tins are getting a tad cumbersome

 

 

That's a very polite annoyed cache log.

 

And typically it takes at least 5 mentions in the logs that a logbook is soggy/moldy/unsignable before someone finally logs an NM. If I was finder and saw that at least one other person mentioned a soggy log, and the CO did not respond I'd be posting an NM. If the CO does nothing, at least the red cross attribute will warn future finders that the cache needs attention. I filter out caches with the NM attribute. I don't want to waste my time. For me geocaching is about the whole experience and especially about a decent cache. I do not like going to a nice location only to have the memory eclipsed by a junky cache experience.

 

[+cerberus1]

Perhaps if you are hiding caches that are in need of constant maintenance, maybe you are getting a sign that your caches are not the best. Sure we all want great long fantastic logs on our caches but if you expect folks to never comment on the cache conditions you find, I think that is a little unrealistic.

+1

[+bflentje]

Kind of begs the question, if there's no logbook/sheet, what exactly is the purpose of the container?

 

Here's one possible solution to your dilemma and remove the burden of replacing logsheets on a regular basis:

 

Waymarking

 

You have to love the self righteous

[4wheelin_fool]

I have a few micros that have been out for almost 10 years without any maintenance, and which are still on their original, tiny 100 page logbook. I think it might be easier for the CO to stop using Eclipse containers, rather than to try and convince everyone that logbooks are unnecessary.

[4wheelin_fool]

Perhaps if you are hiding caches that are in need of constant maintenance, maybe you are getting a sign that your caches are not the best. Sure we all want great long fantastic logs on our caches but if you expect folks to never comment on the cache conditions you find, I think that is a little unrealistic.

 

Some people stubbornly insist on using lousy containers, even after they get continually get wet. Rather than using something different, they may expect finders to do maintenance for them, or want logbooks to disappear.

[+cerberus1]

I think logbooks for this type of geocache are over rated & really this type of geocache could probably do without a logbook.

If "this type of geocache" is still referring to an eclipse container, without a logbook, I'd think it'd be considered trash and CITO'd with the rest of the other carp found along the trail.

[+DanOCan]

In reality, if someone logs a find which they haven't actually found, they are not bothering me.

Perhaps they are not bothering you, but they would certainly bother someone who wastes time looking for a cache that is actually missing but was recently logged as found.

[+NanCycle]

. . . .

 

I think logbooks for this type of geocache are over rated & really this type of geocache could probably do without a logbook. . . .

 

I think containers for this type of geocache are over rated & really this type of geocache could probably do without a container. Maybe just put a sticker that people could scan with their smart phones. Oh wait, I think i saw that idea somewhere else already.

[+dprovan]

Have had a number of caches around our area & Melbourne over the last few years & it amazes me the amount of negative feedback that a lot of geocachers give during their logging of the find. Some are warranted, but many are (in my opinion) a bit over the top. The idea of the caches we hide are that they are low maintenance or self maintaining with little input & invite different people to areas that generally they wouldn't travel to. It encourages exploration of different surroundings.

Putting a cache in a good location does not relieve the CO from the responsibility of using a suitable container and maintaining the cache, including managing the log and replacing it when necessary.

 

I think logbooks for this type of geocache are over rated & really this type of geocache could probably do without a logbook. An honesty system? In reality, if someone logs a find which they haven't actually found, they are not bothering me.

Well, the simple answer is that that's the game: find the cache, sign the log. The slightly more sophisticated answer is that someone finding a cache can't really be sure they've found the cache if there's no logbook in it.

[+uxorious]

The idea of the caches we hide are that they are low maintenance or self maintaining with little input & invite different people to areas that generally they wouldn't travel to. It encourages exploration of different surroundings.

 

The log book in a current micro cache has required replacing a number of times due to:

.

 

So which is it? A low maintenance self maintaining cache, or a micro?

 

Micros by there very nature are going to be higher maintenance. If you want a cache that is low maintenance, hide an ammo box with a bit of a hike to it. If you decide on a micro be prepared to spend more time on taking care of it.

[cezanne]

I think containers for this type of geocache are over rated & really this type of geocache could probably do without a container. Maybe just put a sticker that people could scan with their smart phones. Oh wait, I think i saw that idea somewhere else already.

 

That game and also Waymarking may indeed address the needs of those who do not care at all about logs. For those who want to focus on interesting locations and get decent online logs, there is no offer at all since the abolishment of virtual caches on this site.

 

As the OP apparently does not care at all about logs, however I agree that one of the existing alternatives might indeed be something to consider.

Edited December 2, 2014 by cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

Q: What would you get if logbooks weren't required anymore?

A: Lots of really well-traveled Germans.

 

Look at the Geocoins and Travel Bugs forum sections for a sneak preview of what life would be like, in the current threads about virtual logging. Or, do a forum search on the term "armchair" and learn one reason why Geocaching.com stopped publishing new virtual caches in 2005.

Does it really make your underwear uncomfortable? In an Internet world there are always a few who will post false logs. But it would seem to me to be self-regulating. Just how much fun is it to sit at home and post false logs on the internet compared to actually finding caches or actually discovering a coin?

 

I'm not sure if the is a reason that so many of these silly logs happen to come from one country. I have a theory that is is a remnant from the former DDR, where posting annonymous false logs on the internet is one way you can get away with standing up to authority, but I really haven't researched this. Another theory is that they are just craving attention and it would be better to simply ignore these logs (or let cache owners quitely delete them).

 

BTW, did cezanne press the report button because you cast aspersions on all Germans? Who moderates the moderators?

[cezanne]

I'm not sure if the is a reason that so many of these silly logs happen to come from one country. I have a theory that is is a remnant from the former DDR, where posting annonymous false logs on the internet is one way you can get away with standing up to authority, but I really haven't researched this. Another theory is that they are just craving attention and it would be better to simply ignore these logs (or let cache owners quitely delete them).

 

I do not think that one of these theories is true.

I have already explained in other threads where this was on topic that one of the reasons why arm chair logging of virtuals became such an issue were very bad decisions by some reviewers:

They published virtual caches like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCF55A_four-windows?guid=b2108465-3caa-4652-b288-f4291a31d94a

and many others and it took many years until they have been archived.

 

This and the unfortunate name virtual made a lot of geocachers in countries where such caches existed or were popular believe that this is even the normal way virtual caches are done.

 

I would not dare to state that the proportion of Austrian or Dutch cachers (just two examples) who logged armchair logs for virtuals was/is really lower, but of course there are so many more German cachers. Take for example Austria where only 4 virtuals have been published. One of them was a travelbug graveyard with coordinates in the middle of a lake where found it logs were not possible at all, one was a cache in Innsbruck where the owner was well aware of the fact that most logs will be armchair ones. There remained only two others (one of them being mine which is linked to a quite complex puzzle cache). So this means that a lot of cachers who are not traveling to countries where much more virtuals exist/existed (like the UK in Europe), never learnt to know who virtuals look like in the way they had been intended.

 

There are questionable practices like multiple logs of events for temporary caches that have been quite popular in some areas of the US (or still are) which I have never heard about in Europe.

A lot depends on what somehow got popular and was accepted in a certain area.

 

 

BTW, did cezanne press the report button because you cast aspersions on all Germans?

 

Short anwer: No, and I won't do it.

[+narcissa]

Have had a number of caches around our area & Melbourne over the last few years & it amazes me the amount of negative feedback that a lot of geocachers give during their logging of the find. Some are warranted, but many are (in my opinion) a bit over the top. The idea of the caches we hide are that they are low maintenance or self maintaining with little input & invite different people to areas that generally they wouldn't travel to. It encourages exploration of different surroundings.

 

The log book in a current micro cache has required replacing a number of times due to:

1. missing (the fault of one of the finders of this cache);

2. damp & sodden (sometimes just cannot be helped if the lid not put on properly - refer point 1);

3. can't get logbook out (last finder has pushed it in too far - refer point 1);

4. full (too many geacachers finding this cache & filling in the logbook - refer point 1).

 

Obviously points 1 to 3 are negative problems whilst point 4 is a good negative.

 

I think logbooks for this type of geocache are over rated & really this type of geocache could probably do without a logbook. An honesty system? In reality, if someone logs a find which they haven't actually found, they are not bothering me.

 

I don't think you should be a cache owner if you honestly expect your caches to be "low maintenance or self maintaining." Archive your caches and leave the cache placement for those who can handle the responsibility. There's nothing wrong with simply finding caches. Not all people are cut out for cache ownership.

[+Mudfrog]

Have had a number of caches around our area & Melbourne over the last few years & it amazes me the amount of negative feedback that a lot of geocachers give during their logging of the find. Some are warranted, but many are (in my opinion) a bit over the top. The idea of the caches we hide are that they are low maintenance or self maintaining with little input & invite different people to areas that generally they wouldn't travel to. It encourages exploration of different surroundings.

 

The log book in a current micro cache has required replacing a number of times due to:

1. missing (the fault of one of the finders of this cache);

2. damp & sodden (sometimes just cannot be helped if the lid not put on properly - refer point 1);

3. can't get logbook out (last finder has pushed it in too far - refer point 1);

4. full (too many geacachers finding this cache & filling in the logbook - refer point 1).

 

Obviously points 1 to 3 are negative problems whilst point 4 is a good negative.

 

I think logbooks for this type of geocache are over rated & really this type of geocache could probably do without a logbook. An honesty system? In reality, if someone logs a find which they haven't actually found, they are not bothering me.

 

I don't think you should be a cache owner if you honestly expect your caches to be "low maintenance or self maintaining." Archive your caches and leave the cache placement for those who can handle the responsibility. There's nothing wrong with simply finding caches. Not all people are cut out for cache ownership.

 

This is exactly what i was thinking when i first read the opening post. Of course, that "other" game might be a better overall choice for the OP.

[+The A-Team]

Have had a number of caches around our area & Melbourne over the last few years & it amazes me the amount of negative feedback that a lot of geocachers give during their logging of the find.

I have no idea where you're seeing this negative feedback. It certainly isn't in the logs on your active caches. I just looked through the logs for both Kinder Hill and Christmas Crackers, and I couldn't find a single negative comment. Zip. Zero. Not a single one. On the contrary, I saw more positive comments than I see on many caches. The closest any of the logs come to providing "negative feedback" are a few that indicate problems with the caches, such as a wet or full log, the container being out in the open, or a couple stating the coordinates were slightly off, but they were all written in constructive ways meant to provide you with the necessary information for you to maintain your caches.

 

If the logs you've been receiving on these two caches have been "over the top", then cache ownership is definitely not for you. If you choose to remain a cache owner, you can expect to receive many more logs expressing gratitude for your effort and complimenting the area around your caches. If this isn't the type of feedback you like getting, then you should archive your caches.

 

Lastly, there's no such thing as a "self maintaining" cache. Cache owners are expected to maintain their own caches, not expect finders to perform maintenance on their behalf.