Jump to content

Complaint from CO


neilo10

Recommended Posts

I'm surprised some perennial phrases have not crop up yet. Things like "get your knickers in a twist", "sense of entitlement", and the ever popular "puritan". No one has brought up the fact that people used to write long logs "back in the days", followed by "maybe you don't have as many caches to log back when". But the "smartphone users are to blame" has been brought up. I'm also disappointed that no one has declared that This Is The End Of Geocaching As We Know It™.

 

Not to mention the always effective and conclusive invocation of Godwins Law.

 

Here let me do it.....

 

Geez, even Hitler didn't mind getting TFTC logs!

Link to comment

I'm surprised some perennial phrases have not crop up yet. Things like "get your knickers in a twist", "sense of entitlement", and the ever popular "puritan". No one has brought up the fact that people used to write long logs "back in the days", followed by "maybe you don't have as many caches to log back when". But the "smartphone users are to blame" has been brought up. I'm also disappointed that no one has declared that This Is The End Of Geocaching As We Know It™.

 

Not to mention the always effective and conclusive invocation of Godwins Law.

 

Here let me do it.....

 

Geez, even Hitler didn't mind getting TFTC logs!

Well, that's because hitler never got around to hiding (or finding) a geocache. Neither did hitler, adolf or Adolf.Hitler.

Link to comment

The CO would most likely not have seen that alleged "more complete" log, since he would not be receiving notification on an edit, and few of these 'more later" loggers bother to delete and add, chosing rather to edit their short log. They won't wand to delete and relog because OMG, it might mess with their stats!

That's not really relevant, since he wouldn't get notification for the edited version regardless of whether he asked for an improvement or not.

Isn't that what I said?:unsure:

I thought you were arguing that the fact that the OP was going to write a fuller log later wasn't good enough to excuse the OP, since the CO wouldn't get notified of the final version, so my counter was that that argument also argues against asking for the log to be improved, since the CO wouldn't get the notification of the requested improvement, either.

 

By the way, I suspect people just don't think of the option of deleting and relogging, not that they think about it and then reject it because of stats. (I'm not even sure how it would mess with my stats. Worst case, it would just get the caches on that day out of order, and even that would only be if I didn't delete and relog all of them.)

Link to comment

Well, there's actually only one person who uses both "get your knickers in a twist" AND Puritan. So apparently he hasn't yet. :ph34r:

:mellow:

It's like 90 degrees here. People in the Northeast US and Canada must be cooped up and the forums may be the only place for them to let off some steam.

 

Well, it's about 80 degrees colder here. But that wasn't angst, that was humor. And pretty much right on, I might add. :lol:

Link to comment

I'm surprised some perennial phrases have not crop up yet. Things like "get your knickers in a twist", "sense of entitlement", and the ever popular "puritan". No one has brought up the fact that people used to write long logs "back in the days", followed by "maybe you don't have as many caches to log back when". But the "smartphone users are to blame" has been brought up. I'm also disappointed that no one has declared that This Is The End Of Geocaching As We Know It™.

 

Not to mention the always effective and conclusive invocation of Godwins Law.

 

Here let me do it.....

 

Geez, even Hitler didn't mind getting TFTC logs!

Well, that's because hitler never got around to hiding (or finding) a geocache. Neither did hitler, adolf or Adolf.Hitler.

 

Well, he's hardly likely to use his real name is he?

 

In any case, Hitler also does not write TFTC logs. He always has more to say, although the logs are always in all caps.

Link to comment

Well, he's hardly likely to use his real name is he?

 

In any case, Hitler also does not write TFTC logs. He always has more to say, although the logs are always in all caps.

Come to think of it, I think we should make one of those Hitler tirade parodies based off the scene of "Downfall". "Hitler finds out one of his caches received a TFTC log".

Link to comment
By the way, I suspect people just don't think of the option of deleting and relogging, not that they think about it and then reject it because of stats.
The main problem I know about with deleting and relogging is that you end up losing a tenth of a Favorites point. Only the original Find log counts towards earning Favorites points. When you delete the original Find log, you lose that. When you relog, you don't get it back.

 

And of course, if there are multiple logs for the day, and you want them to appear in the correct order, then you have to delete and relog them all. Or at least, you have to delete and relog all of the logs that appear after the one you're really interested in.

 

Or you could edit the original log, then post a Note containing the new text (so everyone gets email notifications with the new text), then delete the Note (to get rid of the duplication).

 

There are probably other workarounds too, but I'm pretty sure they're all more complicated than just using field notes and waiting to post your actual log.

Link to comment

And of course, if there are multiple logs for the day, and you want them to appear in the correct order, then you have to delete and relog them all. Or at least, you have to delete and relog all of the logs that appear after the one you're really interested in.

Yeah, I decided all that could go without saying since presumably if you don't have time to log more than a place holder find for one cache, you'll be doing the same thing -- or not logging at all -- for all the rest of the caches you log after that.

 

Anyway, I still think just waiting until you have time is the best approach, but if you do a simple pre-log, I think just editing is fine. After all, every single TB drop log has to be edited, and we all live with not getting any text in the notification for those.

Link to comment

I'm surprised some perennial phrases have not crop up yet. Things like "get your knickers in a twist", "sense of entitlement", and the ever popular "puritan". No one has brought up the fact that people used to write long logs "back in the days", followed by "maybe you don't have as many caches to log back when". But the "smartphone users are to blame" has been brought up. I'm also disappointed that no one has declared that This Is The End Of Geocaching As We Know It™.

 

Yeah, I hang out here too much *sigh*

 

Well, there's actually only one person who uses both "get your knickers in a twist" AND Puritan. So apparently he hasn't yet. :ph34r:

 

Per the bold, here ya' go. A 2001 placed cache which was archived in 2007, pre-smartphone geocaching. Find me one Tftc log, I dare you. FTF by MortonFox, then known as StayFloopy. And what was Cheech Gang doing in Central New Jersey? :P

 

"back in the days" people had to travel a lot further to find geocaches.

Link to comment

I'm surprised some perennial phrases have not crop up yet. Things like "get your knickers in a twist", "sense of entitlement", and the ever popular "puritan". No one has brought up the fact that people used to write long logs "back in the days", followed by "maybe you don't have as many caches to log back when". But the "smartphone users are to blame" has been brought up. I'm also disappointed that no one has declared that This Is The End Of Geocaching As We Know It™.

 

Yeah, I hang out here too much *sigh*

 

Well, there's actually only one person who uses both "get your knickers in a twist" AND Puritan. So apparently he hasn't yet. :ph34r:

 

Per the bold, here ya' go. A 2001 placed cache which was archived in 2007, pre-smartphone geocaching. Find me one Tftc log, I dare you. FTF by MortonFox, then known as StayFloopy. And what was Cheech Gang doing in Central New Jersey? :P

 

"back in the days" people had to travel a lot further to find geocaches.

 

And it was uphill both ways in the snow and nobody every complained........about anything.

Link to comment

If I get TFTC, or a standard, GSAK-like log without any customization, it means, I simply haven't impressed the geocacher with anything, neither positive nor negative.

 

I have one letterbox which begins very nice, but the last 100 meters are off-road, and people are constantly complaining about the mud in the woods :D At least I know they'll remember the adventure :D

Link to comment

Well, he's hardly likely to use his real name is he?

 

In any case, Hitler also does not write TFTC logs. He always has more to say, although the logs are always in all caps.

Come to think of it, I think we should make one of those Hitler tirade parodies based off the scene of "Downfall". "Hitler finds out one of his caches received a TFTC log".

 

Edited by cheech gang
Link to comment

Well, he's hardly likely to use his real name is he?

 

In any case, Hitler also does not write TFTC logs. He always has more to say, although the logs are always in all caps.

Come to think of it, I think we should make one of those Hitler tirade parodies based off the scene of "Downfall". "Hitler finds out one of his caches received a TFTC log".

 

Your idea, go for it. You have to come up with all the text yourself though. make your own Hitler video

 

I'm surprised some perennial phrases have not crop up yet. Things like "get your knickers in a twist", "sense of entitlement", and the ever popular "puritan". No one has brought up the fact that people used to write long logs "back in the days", followed by "maybe you don't have as many caches to log back when". But the "smartphone users are to blame" has been brought up. I'm also disappointed that no one has declared that This Is The End Of Geocaching As We Know It™.

 

Yeah, I hang out here too much *sigh*

 

Well, there's actually only one person who uses both "get your knickers in a twist" AND Puritan. So apparently he hasn't yet. :ph34r:

 

Per the bold, here ya' go. A 2001 placed cache which was archived in 2007, pre-smartphone geocaching. Find me one Tftc log, I dare you. FTF by MortonFox, then known as StayFloopy. And what was Cheech Gang doing in Central New Jersey? :P

 

"back in the days" people had to travel a lot further to find geocaches.

 

I don't think it was that bad that they had to travel from Toledo to Westfield, New Jersey. :blink:

Link to comment

Finders on my caches can write as little or as much as they like, I'm not the cache note cop.

I rant about a lot of things...but my rants tend to have tangible value and some level of support by fellow cachers. This issue (acronym logs) is not one. I'm sure it is just a proud cache owner and they desire social validation for their efforts. Popular game...lots of personalities.

Link to comment

Well, he's hardly likely to use his real name is he?

 

In any case, Hitler also does not write TFTC logs. He always has more to say, although the logs are always in all caps.

Come to think of it, I think we should make one of those Hitler tirade parodies based off the scene of "Downfall". "Hitler finds out one of his caches received a TFTC log".

 

 

GREAT......I'm in tears.

 

Also, Narcissa, YOU GO GIRL !

Link to comment

My simple thoughts on this:

 

1. As a cache owner, I would never email a finder to tell them I would appreciate it if they wrote more in a log of my cache.

 

2. I understand the view that a cache owner sending such an email could be done with the best intent to educate, but I think it is more likely to cause more harm than good - even if politely written.

 

3. As a finder and log writer, I would find it odd to receive such a mail from a cache owner about a log I've written.

 

4. I have, and will continue to send polite unsolicited mail to a cacher I do not know there is some guideline issue, they appeared to use the wrong log type, etc.

 

+1, thanks..I agree.

Link to comment

If I get TFTC, or a standard, GSAK-like log without any customization, it means, I simply haven't impressed the geocacher with anything, neither positive nor negative.

 

I have looked at other logs from finders that just posted a TFTC on a couple of my caches and typically find that those that drop a TFTC on a cache will tend to write just a TFTC on every cache they find, while those that write a sentence or two will tend to write a sentence or two on every cache they find. In other words, the existence of a TFTC log on a cache has more to do with the finder then the cache.

 

 

Link to comment

 

For some people just being able to type out TFTC is a great feat last thing they need is some rude CO criticizing them.

 

Fact is if you publish a cache you will get canned logs, if you can't handle them maybe you shouldn't be a CO.

 

Agreed...and an important thing to remember.

 

Here are my thoughts on the issue: I don't understand why certain COs get their undies all in a wad over something so pointless. In my experience as a finder, I've seen plenty of pathetic logs...but in the vast majority of cases there are one, two or more acceptable logs for every bad one.

 

I understand the desire for appreciation when you've put time into something, but in a world where COs crave hide 'numbers' as much as 'Found It' numbers, and in the age of power trails and other series containing dozens, hundreds or even thousands of caches, can we really argue that every cache deserves a unique and special log? I realize that isn't what everyone is saying, but I've also encountered COs who seem to be blinded by their own arrogance and expect way too much...especially when it comes to copy-paste logs.

 

In fact, there is a cacher near me who has several hundred hides and over 15,000 finds. He specifically told me that his biggest pet-peeve in geocaching was short 'TFTC' logs and copy-and-paste logs. He has apparently emailed multiple cachers to complain about this. Two weeks after meeting him and hearing this with my own ears, he logged a series of 21 caches I owned at the time with short, copy/pasted logs through all of them.

 

As a cache owner, I really don't care what people write because I receive enough positive and/or informative logs to outweigh the lazy ones. As a cache finder, I will copy and paste to an extent...but I almost always include a portion of the log to inform the CO of the condition of the cache. Having said that, I can't remember the last time my log was a simple 'TFTC'.

Edited by blackdog7
Link to comment

For some people just being able to type out TFTC is a great feat last thing they need is some rude CO criticizing them.

 

Fact is if you publish a cache you will get canned logs, if you can't handle them maybe you shouldn't be a CO.

 

Agreed...and an important thing to remember.

 

Here are my thoughts on the issue: I don't understand why certain COs get their undies all in a wad over something so pointless. In my experience as a finder, I've seen plenty of pathetic logs...but in the vast majority of cases there are one, two or more acceptable logs for every bad one.

 

I understand the desire for appreciation when you've put time into something, but in a world where COs crave hide 'numbers' as much as 'Found It' numbers, and in the age of power trails and other series containing dozens, hundreds or even thousands of caches, can we really argue that every cache deserves a unique and special log?

 

Yes, I think we can argue that caches deserve unique meaningful logs. It's a community thing. Geocaching involves the interaction between cache hider and cache finder. Between past finders and future finders. We communicate to other finders and reviewers via our cache logs. We remember our cache experiences via our online logs. We need to encourage responsible, cache owners who put out quality caches by providing meaningful logs addressing their cache.

 

Many cachers find only as much as they can remember and leave time to write meaningful logs, either in the field or when they get to a computer. If that means just 5 caches that day, then it's a meaningful 5-cache day, instead a forgettable 50-cache day.

 

 

Link to comment

For some people just being able to type out TFTC is a great feat last thing they need is some rude CO criticizing them.

 

Fact is if you publish a cache you will get canned logs, if you can't handle them maybe you shouldn't be a CO.

 

Agreed...and an important thing to remember.

 

Here are my thoughts on the issue: I don't understand why certain COs get their undies all in a wad over something so pointless. In my experience as a finder, I've seen plenty of pathetic logs...but in the vast majority of cases there are one, two or more acceptable logs for every bad one.

 

I understand the desire for appreciation when you've put time into something, but in a world where COs crave hide 'numbers' as much as 'Found It' numbers, and in the age of power trails and other series containing dozens, hundreds or even thousands of caches, can we really argue that every cache deserves a unique and special log?

 

Yes, I think we can argue that caches deserve unique meaningful logs. It's a community thing. Geocaching involves the interaction between cache hider and cache finder. Between past finders and future finders. We communicate to other finders and reviewers via our cache logs. We remember our cache experiences via our online logs. We need to encourage responsible, cache owners who put out quality caches by providing meaningful logs addressing their cache.

 

Many cachers find only as much as they can remember and leave time to write meaningful logs, either in the field or when they get to a computer. If that means just 5 caches that day, then it's a meaningful 5-cache day, instead a forgettable 50-cache day.

 

I hope to run the 1000+ GCCO GeoArt series in eastern Colorado later this year. It's a project I've worked on solving for several months now. When I log these caches, I plan to use copy/paste logs per each day I am in the field, with the added specific note if a particular cache was damaged, wet, lost, replaced, etc. (as stated in my previous post). I will write up a very descriptive, detailed log for the first cache in the series (GCCO GeoArt #0001) covering our days on the trail, experiences and anything worth detailing. I have no intention of writing unique logs for each of the 1005 caches in the series, and I see no indication from the COs that they expect this.

 

Do you disagree with my plan?

 

Keep in mind that this series involves cache pages that are all almost identical, they are all puzzles which are identical and they are all hidden in an easy-to-find fashion.

 

I realize this scenario is somewhat different than the OPs post, (copy/paste vs. the 'TFTC' short log) but it seems relevant to what you're suggesting, if I understand you correctly.

Edited by blackdog7
Link to comment

For some people just being able to type out TFTC is a great feat last thing they need is some rude CO criticizing them.

 

Fact is if you publish a cache you will get canned logs, if you can't handle them maybe you shouldn't be a CO.

 

Agreed...and an important thing to remember.

 

Here are my thoughts on the issue: I don't understand why certain COs get their undies all in a wad over something so pointless. In my experience as a finder, I've seen plenty of pathetic logs...but in the vast majority of cases there are one, two or more acceptable logs for every bad one.

 

I understand the desire for appreciation when you've put time into something, but in a world where COs crave hide 'numbers' as much as 'Found It' numbers, and in the age of power trails and other series containing dozens, hundreds or even thousands of caches, can we really argue that every cache deserves a unique and special log?

 

Yes, I think we can argue that caches deserve unique meaningful logs. It's a community thing. Geocaching involves the interaction between cache hider and cache finder. Between past finders and future finders. We communicate to other finders and reviewers via our cache logs. We remember our cache experiences via our online logs. We need to encourage responsible, cache owners who put out quality caches by providing meaningful logs addressing their cache.

 

Many cachers find only as much as they can remember and leave time to write meaningful logs, either in the field or when they get to a computer. If that means just 5 caches that day, then it's a meaningful 5-cache day, instead a forgettable 50-cache day.

 

I hope to run the 1000+ GCCO GeoArt series in eastern Colorado later this year. It's a project I've worked on solving for several months now. When I log these caches, I plan to use copy/paste logs per each day I am in the field, with the added specific note if a particular cache was damaged, wet, lost, replaced, etc. (as stated in my previous post). I will write up a very descriptive, detailed log for the first cache in the series (GCCO GeoArt #0001) covering our days on the trail, experiences and anything worth detailing. I have no intention of writing unique logs for each of the 1005 caches in the series, and I see no indication from the COs that they expect this.

 

Do you disagree with my plan?

 

Keep in mind that this series involves cache pages that are all almost identical, they are all puzzles which are identical and they are all hidden in an easy-to-find fashion.

 

I realized this scenario is somewhat different than the OPs post, (copy/paste vs. the 'TFTC' short log) but it seems relevant to what you're suggesting, if I understand you correctly.

 

In that sort of obvious power trail, I'd think your plan is fine. Or, as at least one situation I'm aware of, the CO asked for any maintenance issues be posted to cache #1 of the series... that was the only cache that he was going to not ignore.

 

 

As for your previous post, where you mention that you sometimes do still copy/paste, but then add something personal to the end. I see that pretty often. Better than straight copy/paste, for sure. But I have to ask: why? Why bother with the copy/paste portion at all? It isn't about how many words you use. So, what is the reason for the boilerplate portion? I don't get it. Don't mind it... but don't get it.

Link to comment

For some people just being able to type out TFTC is a great feat last thing they need is some rude CO criticizing them.

 

Fact is if you publish a cache you will get canned logs, if you can't handle them maybe you shouldn't be a CO.

 

Agreed...and an important thing to remember.

 

Here are my thoughts on the issue: I don't understand why certain COs get their undies all in a wad over something so pointless. In my experience as a finder, I've seen plenty of pathetic logs...but in the vast majority of cases there are one, two or more acceptable logs for every bad one.

 

I understand the desire for appreciation when you've put time into something, but in a world where COs crave hide 'numbers' as much as 'Found It' numbers, and in the age of power trails and other series containing dozens, hundreds or even thousands of caches, can we really argue that every cache deserves a unique and special log?

 

Yes, I think we can argue that caches deserve unique meaningful logs. It's a community thing. Geocaching involves the interaction between cache hider and cache finder. Between past finders and future finders. We communicate to other finders and reviewers via our cache logs. We remember our cache experiences via our online logs. We need to encourage responsible, cache owners who put out quality caches by providing meaningful logs addressing their cache.

 

Many cachers find only as much as they can remember and leave time to write meaningful logs, either in the field or when they get to a computer. If that means just 5 caches that day, then it's a meaningful 5-cache day, instead a forgettable 50-cache day.

 

I hope to run the 1000+ GCCO GeoArt series in eastern Colorado later this year. It's a project I've worked on solving for several months now. When I log these caches, I plan to use copy/paste logs per each day I am in the field, with the added specific note if a particular cache was damaged, wet, lost, replaced, etc. (as stated in my previous post). I will write up a very descriptive, detailed log for the first cache in the series (GCCO GeoArt #0001) covering our days on the trail, experiences and anything worth detailing. I have no intention of writing unique logs for each of the 1005 caches in the series, and I see no indication from the COs that they expect this.

 

Do you disagree with my plan?

 

Keep in mind that this series involves cache pages that are all almost identical, they are all puzzles which are identical and they are all hidden in an easy-to-find fashion.

 

I realized this scenario is somewhat different than the OPs post, (copy/paste vs. the 'TFTC' short log) but it seems relevant to what you're suggesting, if I understand you correctly.

 

In that sort of obvious power trail, I'd think your plan is fine. Or, as at least one situation I'm aware of, the CO asked for any maintenance issues be posted to cache #1 of the series... that was the only cache that he was going to not ignore.

 

 

As for your previous post, where you mention that you sometimes do still copy/paste, but then add something personal to the end. I see that pretty often. Better than straight copy/paste, for sure. But I have to ask: why? Why bother with the copy/paste portion at all? It isn't about how many words you use. So, what is the reason for the boilerplate portion? I don't get it. Don't mind it... but don't get it.

 

Simple: because the copy/paste portion of the log reported the caching day we had...how many caches we found, anything interesting we encountered, any goals/challenges we met, how the weather was, etc.

 

Would it be better to simply write;

 

'Container was in good shape.'

 

or

 

''Log was soaked so we replaced it.'

 

or

 

'Log almost full. Will need new log soon.'

 

?

Link to comment

For some people just being able to type out TFTC is a great feat last thing they need is some rude CO criticizing them.

 

Fact is if you publish a cache you will get canned logs, if you can't handle them maybe you shouldn't be a CO.

 

Agreed...and an important thing to remember.

 

Here are my thoughts on the issue: I don't understand why certain COs get their undies all in a wad over something so pointless. In my experience as a finder, I've seen plenty of pathetic logs...but in the vast majority of cases there are one, two or more acceptable logs for every bad one.

 

I understand the desire for appreciation when you've put time into something, but in a world where COs crave hide 'numbers' as much as 'Found It' numbers, and in the age of power trails and other series containing dozens, hundreds or even thousands of caches, can we really argue that every cache deserves a unique and special log?

 

Yes, I think we can argue that caches deserve unique meaningful logs. It's a community thing. Geocaching involves the interaction between cache hider and cache finder. Between past finders and future finders. We communicate to other finders and reviewers via our cache logs. We remember our cache experiences via our online logs. We need to encourage responsible, cache owners who put out quality caches by providing meaningful logs addressing their cache.

 

Many cachers find only as much as they can remember and leave time to write meaningful logs, either in the field or when they get to a computer. If that means just 5 caches that day, then it's a meaningful 5-cache day, instead a forgettable 50-cache day.

 

I hope to run the 1000+ GCCO GeoArt series in eastern Colorado later this year. It's a project I've worked on solving for several months now. When I log these caches, I plan to use copy/paste logs per each day I am in the field, with the added specific note if a particular cache was damaged, wet, lost, replaced, etc. (as stated in my previous post). I will write up a very descriptive, detailed log for the first cache in the series (GCCO GeoArt #0001) covering our days on the trail, experiences and anything worth detailing. I have no intention of writing unique logs for each of the 1005 caches in the series, and I see no indication from the COs that they expect this.

 

Do you disagree with my plan?

 

Keep in mind that this series involves cache pages that are all almost identical, they are all puzzles which are identical and they are all hidden in an easy-to-find fashion.

 

I realized this scenario is somewhat different than the OPs post, (copy/paste vs. the 'TFTC' short log) but it seems relevant to what you're suggesting, if I understand you correctly.

 

In that sort of obvious power trail, I'd think your plan is fine. Or, as at least one situation I'm aware of, the CO asked for any maintenance issues be posted to cache #1 of the series... that was the only cache that he was going to not ignore.

 

 

As for your previous post, where you mention that you sometimes do still copy/paste, but then add something personal to the end. I see that pretty often. Better than straight copy/paste, for sure. But I have to ask: why? Why bother with the copy/paste portion at all? It isn't about how many words you use. So, what is the reason for the boilerplate portion? I don't get it. Don't mind it... but don't get it.

 

Simple: because the copy/paste portion of the log reported the caching day we had...how many caches we found, anything interesting we encountered, any goals/challenges we met, how the weather was, etc.

 

Would it be better to simply write;

 

'Container was in good shape.'

 

or

 

''Log was soaked so we replaced it.'

 

or

 

'Log almost full. Will need new log soon.'

 

?

 

In MY opinion, yes. That would be preferable to (and this may just be because I have many caches in a small area, so it isn't uncommon for me to get a number of finds in one day from any given cacher) "Out caching with MyBuddy and MyBestFriendForever. It was a great day to be out caching. Thanks for all you cache owners for putting out all these wonderful caches for me to find." ten times in a day.

 

But I want to stress that my panties are in no way in a bunch.

Link to comment

 

In MY opinion, yes. That would be preferable to (and this may just be because I have many caches in a small area, so it isn't uncommon for me to get a number of finds in one day from any given cacher) "Out caching with MyBuddy and MyBestFriendForever. It was a great day to be out caching. Thanks for all you cache owners for putting out all these wonderful caches for me to find." ten times in a day.

 

But I want to stress that my panties are in no way in a bunch.

 

My apologies...I could've been more clear. What I meant was, on days when I find several caches (~10+), I typically use a copy/paste portion followed by a specific comment on the cache. The cache-specific portion ranges from pretty short to fairly detailed depending on the situation. For example, a series of logs for one day might be as follows:

 

#1:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

Cache was in great shape. Thanks!"

 

#2:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

This cache took us a few extra minutes to find...tricky container!

 

Cache was in great shape. Thanks!"

 

#3:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

This cache was completely soaked so we added a new log sheet. Thanks!"

 

--------

 

As I type this it seems like a petty point to make, but I have encountered cachers/COs who disagree with the idea of copy/paste altogether, granted they are few and far between.

Link to comment

A shorter response might involve the question: Would you post a completely unique log to each cache in a 100 cache power trail?

 

You may have missed this part of my post.....Many cachers find only as much as they can remember and leave time to write meaningful logs, either in the field or when they get to a computer. If that means just 5 caches that day, then it's a meaningful 5-cache day, instead a forgettable 50-cache day.

I would not visit 100 caches in a day, power trail or not. I don't think it would be possible for me to do 100 caches in a day and have the time to jot down meaningful notes and take photos to remember each cache. On average I spend 10-20 minutes at each cache. Every individual cache experience matters to me. I have done portions of many power trails but I'm selective and may return to the trail to do other portions if the caches prove to be decent experiences with individual merit.

Link to comment

For some people just being able to type out TFTC is a great feat last thing they need is some rude CO criticizing them.

 

Fact is if you publish a cache you will get canned logs, if you can't handle them maybe you shouldn't be a CO.

 

Agreed...and an important thing to remember.

 

Here are my thoughts on the issue: I don't understand why certain COs get their undies all in a wad over something so pointless. In my experience as a finder, I've seen plenty of pathetic logs...but in the vast majority of cases there are one, two or more acceptable logs for every bad one.

 

I understand the desire for appreciation when you've put time into something, but in a world where COs crave hide 'numbers' as much as 'Found It' numbers, and in the age of power trails and other series containing dozens, hundreds or even thousands of caches, can we really argue that every cache deserves a unique and special log?

 

Yes, I think we can argue that caches deserve unique meaningful logs. It's a community thing. Geocaching involves the interaction between cache hider and cache finder. Between past finders and future finders. We communicate to other finders and reviewers via our cache logs. We remember our cache experiences via our online logs. We need to encourage responsible, cache owners who put out quality caches by providing meaningful logs addressing their cache.

 

Many cachers find only as much as they can remember and leave time to write meaningful logs, either in the field or when they get to a computer. If that means just 5 caches that day, then it's a meaningful 5-cache day, instead a forgettable 50-cache day.

 

I hope to run the 1000+ GCCO GeoArt series in eastern Colorado later this year. It's a project I've worked on solving for several months now. When I log these caches, I plan to use copy/paste logs per each day I am in the field, with the added specific note if a particular cache was damaged, wet, lost, replaced, etc. (as stated in my previous post). I will write up a very descriptive, detailed log for the first cache in the series (GCCO GeoArt #0001) covering our days on the trail, experiences and anything worth detailing. I have no intention of writing unique logs for each of the 1005 caches in the series, and I see no indication from the COs that they expect this.

 

Do you disagree with my plan?

 

Keep in mind that this series involves cache pages that are all almost identical, they are all puzzles which are identical and they are all hidden in an easy-to-find fashion.

 

I realized this scenario is somewhat different than the OPs post, (copy/paste vs. the 'TFTC' short log) but it seems relevant to what you're suggesting, if I understand you correctly.

 

In that sort of obvious power trail, I'd think your plan is fine. Or, as at least one situation I'm aware of, the CO asked for any maintenance issues be posted to cache #1 of the series... that was the only cache that he was going to not ignore.

 

 

As for your previous post, where you mention that you sometimes do still copy/paste, but then add something personal to the end. I see that pretty often. Better than straight copy/paste, for sure. But I have to ask: why? Why bother with the copy/paste portion at all? It isn't about how many words you use. So, what is the reason for the boilerplate portion? I don't get it. Don't mind it... but don't get it.

 

Simple: because the copy/paste portion of the log reported the caching day we had...how many caches we found, anything interesting we encountered, any goals/challenges we met, how the weather was, etc.

 

Would it be better to simply write;

 

'Container was in good shape.'

 

or

 

''Log was soaked so we replaced it.'

 

or

 

'Log almost full. Will need new log soon.'

 

?

 

In MY opinion, yes. That would be preferable to (and this may just be because I have many caches in a small area, so it isn't uncommon for me to get a number of finds in one day from any given cacher) "Out caching with MyBuddy and MyBestFriendForever. It was a great day to be out caching. Thanks for all you cache owners for putting out all these wonderful caches for me to find." ten times in a day.

 

But I want to stress that my panties are in no way in a bunch.

 

I agree with knowschad. I would much prefer just the part that pertains to the specific cache. Short is fine with me, as long as it pertains to the cache. "Nice walk in the park. The container is in good shape but the log is full." "Two of the tabs on the container are broken. The log and contents are wet." "Love finding an ammo can. The container and contents are in great shape."

Link to comment

A shorter response might involve the question: Would you post a completely unique log to each cache in a 100 cache power trail?

 

You may have missed this part of my post.....Many cachers find only as much as they can remember and leave time to write meaningful logs, either in the field or when they get to a computer. If that means just 5 caches that day, then it's a meaningful 5-cache day, instead a forgettable 50-cache day.

I would not visit 100 caches in a day, power trail or not. I don't think it would be possible for me to do 100 caches in a day and have the time to jot down meaningful notes and take photos to remember each cache. On average I spend 10-20 minutes at each cache. Every individual cache experience matters to me. I have done portions of many power trails but I'm selective and may return to the trail to do other portions if the caches prove to be decent experiences with individual merit.

 

I saw that portion of your post. I applaud you for adhering to your personal standards. I have my own preferred goals when geocaching and I like to stick to them as well.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood my initial post.

 

I understand that there are almost as many unique caching styles as there are unique cachers. Many cachers are concerned about total numbers of finds, so they seek out massive power trails such as the Extraterrestrial Highway trail in Nevada, USA or similar. Many cachers are only concerned with difficult, intriguing or challenging caches and therefore only log few caches. Perhaps you are among this latter group. Many cachers only seek out wilderness caches while others choose to seek those in urban settings......Personally, I prefer Earthcaches and will plan trips around them.

 

Point is, some of us encounter scenarios where detailed, specific logs are seemingly unnecessary for each individual cache. If I were to decide to run a power trail, as unlikely as that may be, I see no need to create a unique log for each cache.

Edited by blackdog7
Link to comment

In MY opinion, yes. That would be preferable to (and this may just be because I have many caches in a small area, so it isn't uncommon for me to get a number of finds in one day from any given cacher) "Out caching with MyBuddy and MyBestFriendForever. It was a great day to be out caching. Thanks for all you cache owners for putting out all these wonderful caches for me to find." ten times in a day.

 

But I want to stress that my panties are in no way in a bunch.

 

My apologies...I could've been more clear. What I meant was, on days when I find several caches (~10+), I typically use a copy/paste portion followed by a specific comment on the cache. The cache-specific portion ranges from pretty short to fairly detailed depending on the situation. For example, a series of logs for one day might be as follows:

 

#1:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

Cache was in great shape. Thanks!"

 

#2:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

This cache took us a few extra minutes to find...tricky container!

 

Cache was in great shape. Thanks!"

 

#3:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

This cache was completely soaked so we added a new log sheet. Thanks!"

 

--------

 

As I type this it seems like a petty point to make, but I have encountered cachers/COs who disagree with the idea of copy/paste altogether, granted they are few and far between.

 

As far as cut n paste go, this at least has the pertinent information in the log. Perhaps you can switch it around. Put the pertinent info at the top, the cut n paste at the bottom. Still don't know if it's necessary to put the information about all the caches you planned to find that day in each cache log. Maybe the first log, if you want to remember what your goal was for that day and who you went with.

 

Personally I've been quite frustrated lately. Big groups of 15 or more cachers come through with their goal to find 50 (or more) non-traditional caches in one day in order to qualify for challenges. They treat our puzzle caches and our multi, which I spent hours working on, as just another smiley to get the coveted challenge. Most logs however only have the cut n past part of your examples above...."Went caching with Group15. Our quest today was to find 50 puzzles/mystery/letterbox caches across the county today. We met our goal. Thanks BobCacher for organizing the day. Thanks to all the cachers for maintaining these caches."

 

And it makes me wonder how 15+ cachers moving in a group can find 50 multis and puzzles in a day covering a large portion of a couple of cities without skipping stages, sharing puzzle answers and probably not seeing the cache container at all. I don't expect that all 15+ people wait for everyone to catch up, then find the cache, stand around it while it's opened and watch as one person signs in for everyone else, then walk as a group to the next cache, or head back to the cars drive to the next cache, wait for everyone to park then walk to the next cache.

 

Each of our puzzles and multi have a unique container. People who find them as they were meant to be found always leave nice meaningful logs. People who go group caching for-the-numbers leave cut-n-paste "Thanks BobCacher for organizing our mega day", which is almost equivalent to the TFTC grunt, in some ways worse.

Link to comment

 

And it makes me wonder how 15+ cachers moving in a group can find 50 multis and puzzles in a day covering a large portion of a couple of cities without skipping stages, sharing puzzle answers and probably not seeing the cache container at all. I don't expect that all 15+ people wait for everyone to catch up, then find the cache, stand around it while it's opened and watch as one person signs in for everyone else, then walk as a group to the next cache, or head back to the cars drive to the next cache, wait for everyone to park then walk to the next cache.

 

Each of our puzzles and multi have a unique container. People who find them as they were meant to be found always leave nice meaningful logs. People who go group caching for-the-numbers leave cut-n-paste "Thanks BobCacher for organizing our mega day", which is almost equivalent to the TFTC grunt, in some ways worse.

 

I can understand that situation, which is why I feel like I'm forcing this thread a little off topic.

 

Also, when I said 'we', I meant only my wife and myself (we're both blackdog7 although it is mostly just me). I've never cached as a large group. Once or twice I've cached with a single other friend.

Edited by blackdog7
Link to comment

 

Still don't know if it's necessary to put the information about all the caches you planned to find that day in each cache log. Maybe the first log, if you want to remember what your goal was for that day and who you went with.

 

 

I don't see the problem here. It's my log, my day spent in the field...I don't see any reason for a CO to complain. I'm not writing it as a journal entry for me to remember, in fact, I keep a detailed journal while caching for that purpose.

 

When I search cache pages while planning a day out, I enjoy reading the logs of other cachers. If they only included details about their day in the first log of the day, perhaps I would miss that info (as irrelevant as it may be).

Link to comment

In MY opinion, yes. That would be preferable to (and this may just be because I have many caches in a small area, so it isn't uncommon for me to get a number of finds in one day from any given cacher) "Out caching with MyBuddy and MyBestFriendForever. It was a great day to be out caching. Thanks for all you cache owners for putting out all these wonderful caches for me to find." ten times in a day.

 

But I want to stress that my panties are in no way in a bunch.

 

My apologies...I could've been more clear. What I meant was, on days when I find several caches (~10+), I typically use a copy/paste portion followed by a specific comment on the cache. The cache-specific portion ranges from pretty short to fairly detailed depending on the situation. For example, a series of logs for one day might be as follows:

 

#1:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

Cache was in great shape. Thanks!"

 

#2:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

This cache took us a few extra minutes to find...tricky container!

 

Cache was in great shape. Thanks!"

 

#3:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

This cache was completely soaked so we added a new log sheet. Thanks!"

 

--------

 

As I type this it seems like a petty point to make, but I have encountered cachers/COs who disagree with the idea of copy/paste altogether, granted they are few and far between.

 

As far as cut n paste go, this at least has the pertinent information in the log. Perhaps you can switch it around. Put the pertinent info at the top, the cut n paste at the bottom. Still don't know if it's necessary to put the information about all the caches you planned to find that day in each cache log. Maybe the first log, if you want to remember what your goal was for that day and who you went with.

 

Personally I've been quite frustrated lately. Big groups of 15 or more cachers come through with their goal to find 50 (or more) non-traditional caches in one day in order to qualify for challenges. They treat our puzzle caches and our multi, which I spent hours working on, as just another smiley to get the coveted challenge. Most logs however only have the cut n past part of your examples above...."Went caching with Group15. Our quest today was to find 50 puzzles/mystery/letterbox caches across the county today. We met our goal. Thanks BobCacher for organizing the day. Thanks to all the cachers for maintaining these caches."

 

And it makes me wonder how 15+ cachers moving in a group can find 50 multis and puzzles in a day covering a large portion of a couple of cities without skipping stages, sharing puzzle answers and probably not seeing the cache container at all. I don't expect that all 15+ people wait for everyone to catch up, then find the cache, stand around it while it's opened and watch as one person signs in for everyone else, then walk as a group to the next cache, or head back to the cars drive to the next cache, wait for everyone to park then walk to the next cache.

 

Each of our puzzles and multi have a unique container. People who find them as they were meant to be found always leave nice meaningful logs. People who go group caching for-the-numbers leave cut-n-paste "Thanks BobCacher for organizing our mega day", which is almost equivalent to the TFTC grunt, in some ways worse.

 

For some people caching is about fun with friends, numbers, group experience...etc. There are so many aspects to this activity that one finder or hider is never going to please every other participant who is involved. Some like to write 10 paragraph novels for their logs...others do not. This thread can go another 20 pages and it will be filled with many differing opinions...and none of them will be right or wrong, just different opinions. If a cacher finds a cache in the field and physically logs it there. Then they can write whatever they want in the online log (short of profanity) that includes TFTC, cut and paste, and short novellas. I find it odd that people expect special praise or acknowledgement "in their case" and will email others asking for such in a log because "in their case" it should be expected. :blink:

Link to comment

For some people just being able to type out TFTC is a great feat last thing they need is some rude CO criticizing them.

 

Fact is if you publish a cache you will get canned logs, if you can't handle them maybe you shouldn't be a CO.

 

Agreed...and an important thing to remember.

 

Here are my thoughts on the issue: I don't understand why certain COs get their undies all in a wad over something so pointless. In my experience as a finder, I've seen plenty of pathetic logs...but in the vast majority of cases there are one, two or more acceptable logs for every bad one.

 

I understand the desire for appreciation when you've put time into something, but in a world where COs crave hide 'numbers' as much as 'Found It' numbers, and in the age of power trails and other series containing dozens, hundreds or even thousands of caches, can we really argue that every cache deserves a unique and special log?

 

Yes, I think we can argue that caches deserve unique meaningful logs. It's a community thing. Geocaching involves the interaction between cache hider and cache finder. Between past finders and future finders. We communicate to other finders and reviewers via our cache logs. We remember our cache experiences via our online logs. We need to encourage responsible, cache owners who put out quality caches by providing meaningful logs addressing their cache.

 

Many cachers find only as much as they can remember and leave time to write meaningful logs, either in the field or when they get to a computer. If that means just 5 caches that day, then it's a meaningful 5-cache day, instead a forgettable 50-cache day.

 

I hope to run the 1000+ GCCO GeoArt series in eastern Colorado later this year. It's a project I've worked on solving for several months now. When I log these caches, I plan to use copy/paste logs per each day I am in the field, with the added specific note if a particular cache was damaged, wet, lost, replaced, etc. (as stated in my previous post). I will write up a very descriptive, detailed log for the first cache in the series (GCCO GeoArt #0001) covering our days on the trail, experiences and anything worth detailing. I have no intention of writing unique logs for each of the 1005 caches in the series, and I see no indication from the COs that they expect this.

 

Do you disagree with my plan?

 

Keep in mind that this series involves cache pages that are all almost identical, they are all puzzles which are identical and they are all hidden in an easy-to-find fashion.

 

I realized this scenario is somewhat different than the OPs post, (copy/paste vs. the 'TFTC' short log) but it seems relevant to what you're suggesting, if I understand you correctly.

 

In that sort of obvious power trail, I'd think your plan is fine. Or, as at least one situation I'm aware of, the CO asked for any maintenance issues be posted to cache #1 of the series... that was the only cache that he was going to not ignore.

 

 

As for your previous post, where you mention that you sometimes do still copy/paste, but then add something personal to the end. I see that pretty often. Better than straight copy/paste, for sure. But I have to ask: why? Why bother with the copy/paste portion at all? It isn't about how many words you use. So, what is the reason for the boilerplate portion? I don't get it. Don't mind it... but don't get it.

 

Simple: because the copy/paste portion of the log reported the caching day we had...how many caches we found, anything interesting we encountered, any goals/challenges we met, how the weather was, etc.

 

Would it be better to simply write;

 

'Container was in good shape.'

 

or

 

''Log was soaked so we replaced it.'

 

or

 

'Log almost full. Will need new log soon.'

 

?

 

In MY opinion, yes. That would be preferable to (and this may just be because I have many caches in a small area, so it isn't uncommon for me to get a number of finds in one day from any given cacher) "Out caching with MyBuddy and MyBestFriendForever. It was a great day to be out caching. Thanks for all you cache owners for putting out all these wonderful caches for me to find." ten times in a day.

 

But I want to stress that my panties are in no way in a bunch.

 

I agree with knowschad. I would much prefer just the part that pertains to the specific cache. Short is fine with me, as long as it pertains to the cache. "Nice walk in the park. The container is in good shape but the log is full." "Two of the tabs on the container are broken. The log and contents are wet." "Love finding an ammo can. The container and contents are in great shape."

 

You forgot my favorite: "Wow! Never seen one like THIS before!" :P

Link to comment

Point is, some of us encounter scenarios where detailed, specific logs are seemingly unnecessary for each individual cache. If I were to decide to run a power trail, as unlikely as that may be, I see no need to create a unique log for each cache.

Agreed. I have also done a bit of copy/paste logs, although I was unhappy with myself for not remembering more. And there are some caches that I simply cannot say anything more than "TFTC" for, although even then I've been known to post several false DNF logs first, or to say "Hey, I'm getting better at these" or something hopefully more fun than "Found it."

 

But that's just me.

Link to comment

Most logs however only have the cut n past part of your examples above...."Went caching with Group15. Our quest today was to find 50 puzzles/mystery/letterbox caches across the county today. We met our goal. Thanks BobCacher for organizing the day. Thanks to all the cachers for maintaining these caches."

 

I think this is moving logging from the personal letter phase to the Hallmark greeting card phase.

 

You don't want to see the Twitter phase.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

In MY opinion, yes. That would be preferable to (and this may just be because I have many caches in a small area, so it isn't uncommon for me to get a number of finds in one day from any given cacher) "Out caching with MyBuddy and MyBestFriendForever. It was a great day to be out caching. Thanks for all you cache owners for putting out all these wonderful caches for me to find." ten times in a day.

 

But I want to stress that my panties are in no way in a bunch.

 

My apologies...I could've been more clear. What I meant was, on days when I find several caches (~10+), I typically use a copy/paste portion followed by a specific comment on the cache. The cache-specific portion ranges from pretty short to fairly detailed depending on the situation. For example, a series of logs for one day might be as follows:

 

#1:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

Cache was in great shape. Thanks!"

 

#2:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

This cache took us a few extra minutes to find...tricky container!

 

Cache was in great shape. Thanks!"

 

#3:

 

"We went out today to wrap up the Alphabet Challenge and finish up our goal of finding 100 Multis. We found 22 caches in total, logged 3 DNFs and and were able to fill in 1 space on the D/T grid. All in all it was a great day. Thanks for all the effort in placing and maintaining these caches.

 

This cache was completely soaked so we added a new log sheet. Thanks!"

 

--------

 

As I type this it seems like a petty point to make, but I have encountered cachers/COs who disagree with the idea of copy/paste altogether, granted they are few and far between.

 

As far as cut n paste go, this at least has the pertinent information in the log. Perhaps you can switch it around. Put the pertinent info at the top, the cut n paste at the bottom. Still don't know if it's necessary to put the information about all the caches you planned to find that day in each cache log. Maybe the first log, if you want to remember what your goal was for that day and who you went with.

 

Personally I've been quite frustrated lately. Big groups of 15 or more cachers come through with their goal to find 50 (or more) non-traditional caches in one day in order to qualify for challenges. They treat our puzzle caches and our multi, which I spent hours working on, as just another smiley to get the coveted challenge. Most logs however only have the cut n past part of your examples above...."Went caching with Group15. Our quest today was to find 50 puzzles/mystery/letterbox caches across the county today. We met our goal. Thanks BobCacher for organizing the day. Thanks to all the cachers for maintaining these caches."

 

And it makes me wonder how 15+ cachers moving in a group can find 50 multis and puzzles in a day covering a large portion of a couple of cities without skipping stages, sharing puzzle answers and probably not seeing the cache container at all. I don't expect that all 15+ people wait for everyone to catch up, then find the cache, stand around it while it's opened and watch as one person signs in for everyone else, then walk as a group to the next cache, or head back to the cars drive to the next cache, wait for everyone to park then walk to the next cache.

 

Each of our puzzles and multi have a unique container. People who find them as they were meant to be found always leave nice meaningful logs. People who go group caching for-the-numbers leave cut-n-paste "Thanks BobCacher for organizing our mega day", which is almost equivalent to the TFTC grunt, in some ways worse.

 

For some people caching is about fun with friends, numbers, group experience...etc. There are so many aspects to this activity that one finder or hider is never going to please every other participant who is involved. Some like to write 10 paragraph novels for their logs...others do not. This thread can go another 20 pages and it will be filled with many differing opinions...and none of them will be right or wrong, just different opinions. If a cacher finds a cache in the field and physically logs it there. Then they can write whatever they want in the online log (short of profanity) that includes TFTC, cut and paste, and short novellas. I find it odd that people expect special praise or acknowledgement "in their case" and will email others asking for such in a log because "in their case" it should be expected. :blink:

 

+1 and we're back on topic.

Link to comment

What I meant was, on days when I find several caches (~10+), I typically use a copy/paste portion followed by a specific comment on the cache. The cache-specific portion ranges from pretty short to fairly detailed depending on the situation.

A little off topic, but are you aware that no one reads down to the cache-specific portion? As soon as I see "Caching to Orinda with Fred and Jim..." for the 2nd or 3rd time, I stop reading. For one thing, most people that do that end up with no cache-specific portion at all, and if they do, it's often about as interesting as "quick find". But even if I happen to notice that you're including a real log that's cache specific after your boiler plate, it's usually so hard to find, I don't bother to look for it.

 

Oh, and by the way, by the time I get to the 10th log, I'm starting to get a little annoyed at all the wasted space I'm having to climb over to get to the logs that actually have content. I think you use a cut&paste intro because you're thinking of each log in isolation, but when I'm following your path 2 days later, I see them as a collection, and the redundancy really starts to add up.

 

I just thought you might want to know that.

Link to comment

What I meant was, on days when I find several caches (~10+), I typically use a copy/paste portion followed by a specific comment on the cache. The cache-specific portion ranges from pretty short to fairly detailed depending on the situation.

A little off topic, but are you aware that no one reads down to the cache-specific portion? As soon as I see "Caching to Orinda with Fred and Jim..." for the 2nd or 3rd time, I stop reading. For one thing, most people that do that end up with no cache-specific portion at all, and if they do, it's often about as interesting as "quick find". But even if I happen to notice that you're including a real log that's cache specific after your boiler plate, it's usually so hard to find, I don't bother to look for it.

 

Oh, and by the way, by the time I get to the 10th log, I'm starting to get a little annoyed at all the wasted space I'm having to climb over to get to the logs that actually have content. I think you use a cut&paste intro because you're thinking of each log in isolation, but when I'm following your path 2 days later, I see them as a collection, and the redundancy really starts to add up.

 

I just thought you might want to know that.

 

This is pretty much how I feel about this form of logging too.

 

I rely on logs for feedback about MY caches and this form of log typically contains a paltry half a dozen words about MY cache that amount to 'we found it' - which is dull to read and doesn't even confirm in any real way that what you found was in fact the cache I placed which, in my book, makes this form of log EXACTLY equivalent to TFTC.

Link to comment
Expecting people to do things the way you do them is futile.
Yeah, but if someone is routinely violating basic geocaching etiquette, then there's a chance they're doing it out of ignorance, rather than malice. If they're doing it out of ignorance, then letting them know how their actions are perceived by others might actually help them.

 

I like that point. But the OP is long gone from this thread in this case and thinks everything is hunky dory, after like the first 4 people, including a reviewer, told them the CO was an idiot for emailing them. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I had not left the thread and I certainly don't thimk everything is hunky dory. Some people have to work and have life with family etc. I thank all those who commented both with positive and negative attitudes etc. in future we will just geocache for the fun and the pleasure and not worry about comments etc from CO,s or other cachers.

Link to comment

I had not left the thread and I certainly don't thimk everything is hunky dory. Some people have to work and have life with family etc. I thank all those who commented both with positive and negative attitudes etc. in future we will just geocache for the fun and the pleasure and not worry about comments etc from CO,s or other cachers.

 

4 pages of posts, and you quoted me, I'm honored. :) It sure looked like you left to me, with 5 posts out of the first 13, and the 5th one saying "bye". Work, life with family, etc.. is a hollow excuse in my opinion. We all have that, with very few exceptions. Including the 173 out of 174 people who wrote excellent logs for the pre-smartphone era cache that lasted from 2001-2007 that I linked to somewhere in these pages. I love this hobby, and will continue to believe on the spot smartphone logging, which goes hand in hand with "lame logs", is a detriment to it. If you think some of us take it too seriously, or have too much time on our hands, I don't know what to tell you. :)

Link to comment

I had not left the thread and I certainly don't thimk everything is hunky dory. Some people have to work and have life with family etc. I thank all those who commented both with positive and negative attitudes etc. in future we will just geocache for the fun and the pleasure and not worry about comments etc from CO,s or other cachers.

 

No comment about misleading us about the circumstances? We first envisioned the cache owner emailing you out of the blue, but then discovered that you emailed him first for a hint. That kind of alters the scenario, as I doubt that he would email anyone else who posted a TFTC.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Wish they had a rule for that. Have it instead of just a Maximum of characters but a minimum. Like more then 20. TNLNSL TYFTH would be too short.

 

So we update our auto logging or whatever to make it TNLNSL TYFTH 0000000. It would just result in more garbledygook on the page. At least TFTC gets to the point.

Link to comment

I had not left the thread and I certainly don't thimk everything is hunky dory. Some people have to work and have life with family etc. I thank all those who commented both with positive and negative attitudes etc. in future we will just geocache for the fun and the pleasure and not worry about comments etc from CO,s or other cachers.

 

No comment about misleading us about the circumstances? We first envisioned the cache owner emailing you out of the blue, but then discovered that you emailed him first for a hint. That kind of alters the scenario, as I doubt that he would email anyone else who posted a TFTC.

 

I'm still waiting for my thank you card. The one you already sent was too plain and obviously came out of a box of thank you cards. I expect a personalized thank you card.

Link to comment

 

A little off topic, but are you aware that no one reads down to the cache-specific portion?

 

Obviously a stretch to say 'no one' reads it. I get responses relating to the cache-specific portion frequently. I do plan to reverse the order after reading through some suggestions here, though.

 

 

Oh, and by the way, by the time I get to the 10th log, I'm starting to get a little annoyed at all the wasted space I'm having to climb over to get to the logs that actually have content. I think you use a cut&paste intro because you're thinking of each log in isolation, but when I'm following your path 2 days later, I see them as a collection, and the redundancy really starts to add up.

 

I just thought you might want to know that.

 

With all due respect, I don't care how annoyed the CO feels about the length of my log. I write logs according to the experience I had for the day. I also write logs in a fashion that I would enjoy people writing when they log my caches. I enjoy reading logs stating the day other caches had. I'll have to lump your being annoyed with a length or repetitive copy/paste portion in with the COs who are annoyed by a simple TFTC.

 

You're complaining about having to flick your fingers a couple times to scroll down the page...seriously?

 

Also, keep in mind that most days I'm logging caches for multiple COs.

Link to comment

A little off topic, but are you aware that no one reads down to the cache-specific portion?

 

Obviously a stretch to say 'no one' reads it. I get responses relating to the cache-specific portion frequently. I do plan to reverse the order after reading through some suggestions here, though.

 

Oh, and by the way, by the time I get to the 10th log, I'm starting to get a little annoyed at all the wasted space I'm having to climb over to get to the logs that actually have content. I think you use a cut&paste intro because you're thinking of each log in isolation, but when I'm following your path 2 days later, I see them as a collection, and the redundancy really starts to add up.

 

I just thought you might want to know that.

 

With all due respect, I don't care how annoyed the CO feels about the length of my log. I write logs according to the experience I had for the day. I also write logs in a fashion that I would enjoy people writing when they log my caches. I enjoy reading logs stating the day other caches had. I'll have to lump your being annoyed with a length or repetitive copy/paste portion in with the COs who are annoyed by a simple TFTC.

 

You're complaining about having to flick your fingers a couple times to scroll down the page...seriously?

 

Also, keep in mind that most days I'm logging caches for multiple COs.

 

I'm kind of sorry to hear you post like that. I was more on your side before reading that. I see that you have a fair number of hides out. I did not take time to look at them to try to guess how much effort went into them, but even the simplest LPC or stop sign hide takes some effort. More elaborite caches can take days or weeks or more, and cost tens, hundreds, or even thousands of dollars (yes, we had one like that here). I hope you aren't telling me that cache owners don't have a right to their opinion, and a right to vocalize that opinion, when it comes to long copy/paste logs, OR TFTC logs. WE (cache owners, including yourself) put that cache out for YOU to find. It would be nice to at least give some consideration as to why they are annoyed. What could it hurt?

Link to comment

A little off topic, but are you aware that no one reads down to the cache-specific portion?

 

Obviously a stretch to say 'no one' reads it. I get responses relating to the cache-specific portion frequently. I do plan to reverse the order after reading through some suggestions here, though.

 

Oh, and by the way, by the time I get to the 10th log, I'm starting to get a little annoyed at all the wasted space I'm having to climb over to get to the logs that actually have content. I think you use a cut&paste intro because you're thinking of each log in isolation, but when I'm following your path 2 days later, I see them as a collection, and the redundancy really starts to add up.

 

I just thought you might want to know that.

 

With all due respect, I don't care how annoyed the CO feels about the length of my log. I write logs according to the experience I had for the day. I also write logs in a fashion that I would enjoy people writing when they log my caches. I enjoy reading logs stating the day other caches had. I'll have to lump your being annoyed with a length or repetitive copy/paste portion in with the COs who are annoyed by a simple TFTC.

 

You're complaining about having to flick your fingers a couple times to scroll down the page...seriously?

 

Also, keep in mind that most days I'm logging caches for multiple COs.

 

I'm kind of sorry to hear you post like that. I was more on your side before reading that. I see that you have a fair number of hides out. I did not take time to look at them to try to guess how much effort went into them, but even the simplest LPC or stop sign hide takes some effort. More elaborite caches can take days or weeks or more, and cost tens, hundreds, or even thousands of dollars (yes, we had one like that here). I hope you aren't telling me that cache owners don't have a right to their opinion, and a right to vocalize that opinion, when it comes to long copy/paste logs, OR TFTC logs. WE (cache owners, including yourself) put that cache out for YOU to find. It would be nice to at least give some consideration as to why they are annoyed. What could it hurt?

 

I feel like I'm respecting both sides here. I'm including in my logs the needed and useful information about the cache and/or container so the CO knows the condition. At the same time, I'm including in my log a personal side...I'm telling about my day. I enjoy challenge caches so I often mention if a cache helped reach a goal or challenge.

 

It seems like we've gone from COs being upset about logs that are too short to logs that are too long now. And dprovan is complaining about having to scroll through a long log...I don't understand the problem. Honestly.

 

Is it not ok to add a personal side to my logs?

 

Trust me, every time I run across a cache that is unique, clearly took some effort or was extra fun, I write about it. I probably also include the personal note about my day.

Edited by blackdog7
Link to comment

A little off topic, but are you aware that no one reads down to the cache-specific portion?

 

Obviously a stretch to say 'no one' reads it. I get responses relating to the cache-specific portion frequently. I do plan to reverse the order after reading through some suggestions here, though.

 

Oh, and by the way, by the time I get to the 10th log, I'm starting to get a little annoyed at all the wasted space I'm having to climb over to get to the logs that actually have content. I think you use a cut&paste intro because you're thinking of each log in isolation, but when I'm following your path 2 days later, I see them as a collection, and the redundancy really starts to add up.

 

I just thought you might want to know that.

 

With all due respect, I don't care how annoyed the CO feels about the length of my log. I write logs according to the experience I had for the day. I also write logs in a fashion that I would enjoy people writing when they log my caches. I enjoy reading logs stating the day other caches had. I'll have to lump your being annoyed with a length or repetitive copy/paste portion in with the COs who are annoyed by a simple TFTC.

 

You're complaining about having to flick your fingers a couple times to scroll down the page...seriously?

 

Also, keep in mind that most days I'm logging caches for multiple COs.

 

I'm kind of sorry to hear you post like that. I was more on your side before reading that. I see that you have a fair number of hides out. I did not take time to look at them to try to guess how much effort went into them, but even the simplest LPC or stop sign hide takes some effort. More elaborite caches can take days or weeks or more, and cost tens, hundreds, or even thousands of dollars (yes, we had one like that here). I hope you aren't telling me that cache owners don't have a right to their opinion, and a right to vocalize that opinion, when it comes to long copy/paste logs, OR TFTC logs. WE (cache owners, including yourself) put that cache out for YOU to find. It would be nice to at least give some consideration as to why they are annoyed. What could it hurt?

 

I think that dprovan was referring to the annoyance a cache owner feels when he gets multiple Found It logs in a row, where 90%+ is duplicate text, and having to look through each one to see if there is something unique in it.

 

It isn't the end of the world, what you're doing, to me. Don't get me wrong... I'm not frothing at the mouth. Just don't understand what you gain by putting the copy/paste portion in each and every cache you found that day? Why? Put it in the first log if you need a record of it (which is nice... I consider my cache log history, as well as my gallery, to be a personal journal.

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...