Jump to content

Signing logs in random places


Recommended Posts

You can sign my logs any way you want. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over it if you sign differently.

Seekers look at logs far more often than COs, so while it's nice of COs to be flexible, they're not really the ones I'm advocating for when I encourage orderly dated logs.

 

As a cache finder, how someone else signs the log has absolutely no impact on me. If the log is dry, I'll figure out a way to squeeze my name in there somehow. There's no reason to attack and vilify other geocachers for something so benign.

Link to comment

You can sign my logs any way you want. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over it if you sign differently.

Seekers look at logs far more often than COs, so while it's nice of COs to be flexible, they're not really the ones I'm advocating for when I encourage orderly dated logs.

 

As a cache finder, how someone else signs the log has absolutely no impact on me. If the log is dry, I'll figure out a way to squeeze my name in there somehow. There's no reason to attack and vilify other geocachers for something so benign.

 

Attack and vilify? That's a little over the top, wouldn't you say?

Link to comment

As a cache finder, how someone else signs the log has absolutely no impact on me. If the log is dry, I'll figure out a way to squeeze my name in there somehow. There's no reason to attack and vilify other geocachers for something so benign.

Well, it has an impact on me. Sometimes I want to figure out who signed this log when for any number of reasons. So I'm asking you to sign in order as best you can and date your signature, please.

Link to comment

You can sign my logs any way you want. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over it if you sign differently.

Seekers look at logs far more often than COs, so while it's nice of COs to be flexible, they're not really the ones I'm advocating for when I encourage orderly dated logs.

 

As a cache finder, how someone else signs the log has absolutely no impact on me. If the log is dry, I'll figure out a way to squeeze my name in there somehow. There's no reason to attack and vilify other geocachers for something so benign.

 

There is no reason to diminish the concerns of others about something that doesn't bother you (the general you) personally but characterizing them as having their panties in a bunch.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

You can sign my logs any way you want. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over it if you sign differently.

Seekers look at logs far more often than COs, so while it's nice of COs to be flexible, they're not really the ones I'm advocating for when I encourage orderly dated logs.

 

As a cache finder, how someone else signs the log has absolutely no impact on me. If the log is dry, I'll figure out a way to squeeze my name in there somehow. There's no reason to attack and vilify other geocachers for something so benign.

 

There is no reason to diminish the concerns of others about something that doesn't bother you (the general you) personally but characterizing them as having their panties in a bunch.

 

Of course there's a reason.

 

It fuels the protagonist's inflated ideas of superiority and self importance <_<

Link to comment
... Of course there's a reason.

 

It fuels the protagonist's inflated ideas of superiority and self importance dry.gif

I'm reminded of Zaphod Beeblebrox in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (not the protagonist, but plays one in Arthur Dent's story) when he discovers that in fact, the whole universe really was about him. Because who knows... from the reader's perspective, maybe the universe really is all about the protagonist.

 

Who's the protagonist in this story?

 

Chris

Edited by LaughterOnWater
Link to comment
... Of course there's a reason.

 

It fuels the protagonist's inflated ideas of superiority and self importance dry.gif

I'm reminded of Zaphod Beeblebrox in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (not the protagonist, but plays one in Arthur Dent's story) when he discovers that in fact, the whole universe really was about him. Because who knows... from the reader's perspective, maybe the universe really is all about the protagonist.

 

Who's the protagonist in this story?

 

Chris

The mice.

Link to comment
... Of course there's a reason.

 

It fuels the protagonist's inflated ideas of superiority and self importance dry.gif

I'm reminded of Zaphod Beeblebrox in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (not the protagonist, but plays one in Arthur Dent's story) when he discovers that in fact, the whole universe really was about him. Because who knows... from the reader's perspective, maybe the universe really is all about the protagonist.

 

Who's the protagonist in this story?

 

Chris

The mice.

 

Like!

Link to comment

There is no reason to diminish the concerns of others about something that doesn't bother you (the general you) personally but characterizing them as having their panties in a bunch.

 

Geocachers are being characterized as lazy, disrespectful, discourteous, and dishonest because they didn't put their name in the right place on a piece of paper. If there was ever a concern that deserves to be diminished, it's this.

 

I don't see how crude, gendered language adds anything to the conversation. I know you're capable of better.

Link to comment

There is no reason to diminish the concerns of others about something that doesn't bother you (the general you) personally but characterizing them as having their panties in a bunch.

 

Geocachers are being characterized as lazy, disrespectful, discourteous, and dishonest because they didn't put their name in the right place on a piece of paper. If there was ever a concern that deserves to be diminished, it's this.

 

I don't see how crude, gendered language adds anything to the conversation. I know you're capable of better.

 

Both concerns deserve to be diminished.

Link to comment

I've asked politely and explained why I care, so I don't know what else I can do.

 

Nobody can make you not care about someone scribbling their name in the "wrong" place.

 

The fact that you care about it does not mean that the person doing it meant to cause you harm.

 

"It irks me when geocachers do X."

 

"Geocachers who do X are disrespectful."

 

There's a difference.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Nobody can make you not care about someone scribbling their name in the "wrong" place.

And no one can make you do something trivial that has been politely asked of you.

 

Is it really polite when the consequences are being called a cheater for not complying with someone's personal preference?

 

Is it really polite to expect geocachers to read minds so they don't run afoul of everyone's imaginary rules in addition to the actual ones?

Link to comment

Nobody can make you not care about someone scribbling their name in the "wrong" place.

And no one can make you do something trivial that has been politely asked of you.

 

Is it really polite when the consequences are being called a cheater for not complying with someone's personal preference?

 

Is it really polite to expect geocachers to read minds so they don't run afoul of everyone's imaginary rules in addition to the actual ones?

 

+1 and +1

Link to comment

Is it really polite when the consequences are being called a cheater for not complying with someone's personal preference?

I haven't called anyone a cheater, and I've explained how a well organized log is useful, so my request is not based on simple personal preference.

 

Is it really polite to expect geocachers to read minds so they don't run afoul of everyone's imaginary rules in addition to the actual ones?

I don't know who you're talking about, but I've explained quite clearly what I'm asking for and why, and I don't pretend my request constitutes a rule.

Link to comment

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log in the "next available space".

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log and include the correct date in the "next available space".

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log and include the date wherever they signed the log.

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log as an individual, only with the "group name".

 

Again I ask, what is expected of a finder, other than making a marking on the physical cache log, to be legitimately allowed to claim their find? There is no requirement to mark the log in a certain place, or with a date - correct or otherwise - before claiming a find.

"Find the cache, Sign the log, Log it online."

Link to comment

Again I ask, what is expected of a finder, other than making a marking on the physical cache log, to be legitimately allowed to claim their find? There is no requirement to mark the log in a certain place, or with a date - correct or otherwise - before claiming a find.

"Find the cache, Sign the log, Log it online."

Did anyone in this thread ever contested that?

Link to comment

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log in the "next available space".

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log and include the correct date in the "next available space".

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log and include the date wherever they signed the log.

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log as an individual, only with the "group name".

 

Again I ask, what is expected of a finder, other than making a marking on the physical cache log, to be legitimately allowed to claim their find? There is no requirement to mark the log in a certain place, or with a date - correct or otherwise - before claiming a find.

"Find the cache, Sign the log, Log it online."

 

It amazes me just how irked people can get over a game. For those of you that get irked over this stuff, get off your computer and go outside. Maybe even go find some caches. It will do you some good.

 

It's a game. Just a game.

Link to comment

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log in the "next available space".

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log and include the correct date in the "next available space".

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log and include the date wherever they signed the log.

Some people get irked because a cache finder didn't sign the log as an individual, only with the "group name".

 

Again I ask, what is expected of a finder, other than making a marking on the physical cache log, to be legitimately allowed to claim their find? There is no requirement to mark the log in a certain place, or with a date - correct or otherwise - before claiming a find.

"Find the cache, Sign the log, Log it online."

 

That's it. As cache owners, we should be able to anticipate, and accommodate, circumstances that aren't ideal or exactly in line with our picky personal preferences. When we put caches out, it's so others can enjoy them, not so we can hyperventilate about things that are harmless and completely beyond our control.

Link to comment

I believe you did when you requested finders to sign the next available place with the date of their signature.

Nope. Not even close. If you think I said anything about dating the log being required, please quote my statement and I'll explain what I really meant.

 

I'm not even thinking about what a CO might do with this information. I'm just asking, pretty please, as someone that may find the cache after you.

 

It amazes me just how irked people can get over a game.

Don't I know it. People have spent more time and effort here objecting to my simple request than it would have taken to just humor me by dating their logs.

Link to comment

Don't I know it. People have spent more time and effort here objecting to my simple request than it would have taken to just humor me by dating their logs.

 

I am specifically asking people NOT to date their logs. Please stop dating your logs.

Link to comment

I am specifically asking people NOT to date their logs. Please stop dating your logs.

Are you pretending I'm making an arbitrary request that I haven't justified?

 

Either you are pretending to, or you really are making an arbitrary request that you have not justified.

 

It's a game.

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment

I am specifically asking people NOT to date their logs. Please stop dating your logs.

Are you pretending I'm making an arbitrary request that I haven't justified?

 

Nope, I am asking everyone to please stop dating logs. Here are my reasons for this reasonable and polite request:

 

1. We all know logbooks are getting smaller. Save space by putting your name only!

 

2. There is so much drama around FTFs. Let's elevate ourselves above the petty drama by putting only our names in logbooks. It doesn't matter when you found it, it just matters that you did.

 

3. Time is money, or, in this case, more caches. Save yourself a moment by only writing your name.

 

4. Sometimes, geocachers inadvertently become terrible cheaters when they accidently log a find on the wrong day because they forgot to change it on the log form. If your log dates don't match between paper and online, I have no choice but to tell everyone what a terrible cheater you are. Save me the hassle and just put the date online.

 

5. Nobody likes a logbook that is damp and crusted with dead mosquitoes. In adverse environmental conditions, it's best for everyone if you just get your name in the logbook and put it back as quickly as you can.

 

Now that I have explained my personal preference in detail, surely everyone will humour me and abide by this simple, reasonable request. It's just a matter of courtesy. You want to be courteous, don't you? Anybody who wants to be polite and not a cheater will stop writing dates in logs.

Link to comment

There is no reason to diminish the concerns of others about something that doesn't bother you (the general you) personally but characterizing them as having their panties in a bunch.

 

Geocachers are being characterized as lazy, disrespectful, discourteous, and dishonest because they didn't put their name in the right place on a piece of paper. If there was ever a concern that deserves to be diminished, it's this.

 

I don't see how crude, gendered language adds anything to the conversation. I know you're capable of better.

 

Many geocachers ARE lazy, disrespectful, discourteous, and dishonest but it has nothing to do with where they've signed their name. When you own a couple hundred active caches you quickly find during cache maintenance just how true it is. Where someone signs on the log is the least of a cache owners problems.

Link to comment

I am specifically asking people NOT to date their logs. Please stop dating your logs.

Are you pretending I'm making an arbitrary request that I haven't justified?

 

Nope, I am asking everyone to please stop dating logs. Here are my reasons for this reasonable and polite request:

 

1. We all know logbooks are getting smaller. Save space by putting your name only!

 

2. There is so much drama around FTFs. Let's elevate ourselves above the petty drama by putting only our names in logbooks. It doesn't matter when you found it, it just matters that you did.

 

3. Time is money, or, in this case, more caches. Save yourself a moment by only writing your name.

 

4. Sometimes, geocachers inadvertently become terrible cheaters when they accidently log a find on the wrong day because they forgot to change it on the log form. If your log dates don't match between paper and online, I have no choice but to tell everyone what a terrible cheater you are. Save me the hassle and just put the date online.

 

5. Nobody likes a logbook that is damp and crusted with dead mosquitoes. In adverse environmental conditions, it's best for everyone if you just get your name in the logbook and put it back as quickly as you can.

 

Now that I have explained my personal preference in detail, surely everyone will humour me and abide by this simple, reasonable request. It's just a matter of courtesy. You want to be courteous, don't you? Anybody who wants to be polite and not a cheater will stop writing dates in logs.

 

 

I'm convinced!

Edited by instep_guy
Link to comment

Many geocachers ARE lazy, disrespectful, discourteous, and dishonest but it has nothing to do with where they've signed their name. When you own a couple hundred active caches you quickly find during cache maintenance just how true it is. Where someone signs on the log is the least of a cache owners problems.

I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this over and over, but the subsequent seekers are the ones most likely to find a dated log useful.

Link to comment
I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this over and over, but the subsequent seekers are the ones most likely to find a dated log useful.
I'm confused. How will the subsequent seekers find a dated log useful? Or did you mean the subsequent finders would find the dated log useful?

 

But even so, I don't think I've ever looked at the dates on the physical log, except maybe the few times when I've sat down and read some of the old handwritten logs. But on a typical log sheet? Never...

Link to comment
I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this over and over, but the subsequent seekers are the ones most likely to find a dated log useful.
I'm confused. How will the subsequent seekers find a dated log useful? Or did you mean the subsequent finders would find the dated log useful?

 

But even so, I don't think I've ever looked at the dates on the physical log, except maybe the few times when I've sat down and read some of the old handwritten logs. But on a typical log sheet? Never...

As a newbie, I'm interested in previous log signers. It gives me an idea who else might be in my area, playing recently. If there's an obvious order, I'll sign after the last signed date.

 

On several occasions I've found either two logs with competing log lists by date, or scraps of paper each with names and dates in a jumble.

 

From an anthropological standpoint, it's fascinating. If the logs are well-managed and in order, people tend to sign where they're expected and include the date, just like a guestbook in a fancy inn. If there doesn't seem to be any maintenance style, we'll sign just about anywhere. I still haven't found any signatures in permanent marker on the inside of an empty cache, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

 

I suspect that if the CO maintains the cache, providing clean, dry logs and removing old logs and debris, we sign in orderly fashion, one guest after another with the date. If the cache is not well maintained, chaos ensues. We rise only to the expectations of the cache owner.

 

Chris

Link to comment
I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this over and over, but the subsequent seekers are the ones most likely to find a dated log useful.
I'm confused. How will the subsequent seekers find a dated log useful? Or did you mean the subsequent finders would find the dated log useful?

 

A few years ago I remember finding a few caches in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina (about 450 miles from home) and recognizing a couple of user names of geocachers that lived about 20 miles from me. From the dates on the logs I could see that they spent the week before I was there in the area. Useful? Maybe not, but it made reading the logs more interesting to me.

 

 

Link to comment

We see logs with, besides name and date, also the time. If on a longer series you get an idea how much others are in front. The moment it's less than 10 minutes and closing in, we take time off and take a rest on a bench or make a sidetour for another cache or drink/snack.

Link to comment
I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this over and over, but the subsequent seekers are the ones most likely to find a dated log useful.
I'm confused. How will the subsequent seekers find a dated log useful? Or did you mean the subsequent finders would find the dated log useful?

 

But even so, I don't think I've ever looked at the dates on the physical log, except maybe the few times when I've sat down and read some of the old handwritten logs. But on a typical log sheet? Never...

As a newbie, I'm interested in previous log signers. It gives me an idea who else might be in my area, playing recently. If there's an obvious order, I'll sign after the last signed date.

 

On several occasions I've found either two logs with competing log lists by date, or scraps of paper each with names and dates in a jumble.

 

From an anthropological standpoint, it's fascinating. If the logs are well-managed and in order, people tend to sign where they're expected and include the date, just like a guestbook in a fancy inn. If there doesn't seem to be any maintenance style, we'll sign just about anywhere. I still haven't found any signatures in permanent marker on the inside of an empty cache, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

 

I suspect that if the CO maintains the cache, providing clean, dry logs and removing old logs and debris, we sign in orderly fashion, one guest after another with the date. If the cache is not well maintained, chaos ensues. We rise only to the expectations of the cache owner.

 

Chris

 

I will often check the latest date if it's obvious. On many occasions I will see that someone may have found the cache yet still have not logged it online. There are a few cachers who are notoriously bad at keeping up-to-date with their online logging. One in particular I see quite often since I will frequently find a cache soon after she has, but when I check the logs on the cache page, I don't see her name anywhere. I'll never really understand those folks who waits days, weeks or even months to finally log online.

Link to comment
I will often check the latest date if it's obvious. On many occasions I will see that someone may have found the cache yet still have not logged it online. There are a few cachers who are notoriously bad at keeping up-to-date with their online logging. One in particular I see quite often since I will frequently find a cache soon after she has, but when I check the logs on the cache page, I don't see her name anywhere. I'll never really understand those folks who waits days, weeks or even months to finally log online.

Yeah...

A friend bounces around states and often doesn't log 'til a month or so later, then only types in a cut n paste log (usually about stats) most cases anyway. :laughing:

 

We still have a few who don't log online at all.

Those are the ones (and reason) I'll sometimes look at names/dates on others cache logs.

Some are regulars to area hides, yet few have met them (I've only met two).

Link to comment

I'll never really understand those folks who waits days, weeks or even months to finally log online.

 

My husband is sometimes more than a year behind his online logging. He likes to write long logs, but he's busy and he'd rather spend his free time finding more caches than catching up on the logs for old ones. It's just not a priority for him to do them within a certain time frame, because he's not into side games or numbers. He doesn't want to cheap out and write short logs just so he can plow through them, because he takes pride in his logs.

 

"You can have long logs, or you can have prompt logs. You can't have both."

Link to comment

I'm confused. How will the subsequent seekers find a dated log useful? Or did you mean the subsequent finders would find the dated log useful?

I used "seeker" to contrast with "owner", assuming it would be obvious that only successful seekers would find the current log.

 

But even so, I don't think I've ever looked at the dates on the physical log, except maybe the few times when I've sat down and read some of the old handwritten logs. But on a typical log sheet? Never...

I guess that's one difference between us. I almost always look at the date for one reason or another, so I'm pleased most people in our area do include it.

Link to comment

If your log is wet... I am going to just sign it... might be right in the middle of the paper.

 

there been times that I have to hurry and sign it because of muggles. The faster its signed and cache hidden again, the better.

 

CO that jammed ton of papers in a small cache(one of my pet peeve) is going to make me sign it just anywhere. I will say this...not my problem.

 

When I was at Geowoodstock this year... I saw alot of just sign it! :laughing: The faster, the better. There was SN everywhere!

:anitongue:

Link to comment

 

Oh, and wmpastor, it's "Quayle", not "Quale"! :laughing: :laughing:

 

Mrs. Car54

 

By the time he's as famous as John Hancock, i'll have learned to spell his name. :ph34r:

 

In one cache I found two mini notebooks. The CO described it as advance maintenance. I guess anywhere I signed would seem random.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

I still haven't found any signatures in permanent marker on the inside of an empty cache, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

 

It sure does!

 

Also on random debris that is near the GZ for a missing cache.

:lol:

 

I imagine technically, that's a DNF, right? They don't know for sure the cache is actually missing. If this were your cache, and the cache were actually missing, would you count it as a find or a DNF?

 

Chris

Link to comment

"You can have long logs, or you can have prompt logs. You can't have both."

 

That depends, really. I've seen plenty of folks who are able to churn out descriptive and/or entertaining logs in short order. Folks with a lot higher numbers than myself.

 

It's in quotation marks.

Link to comment

I still haven't found any signatures in permanent marker on the inside of an empty cache, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

 

It sure does!

 

Also on random debris that is near the GZ for a missing cache.

:lol:

 

I imagine technically, that's a DNF, right? They don't know for sure the cache is actually missing. If this were your cache, and the cache were actually missing, would you count it as a find or a DNF?

 

Chris

 

I would delete the find.

 

My husband would allow the find and then tell everyone about how ridiculous it was.

Link to comment

"You can have long logs, or you can have prompt logs. You can't have both."

 

That depends, really. I've seen plenty of folks who are able to churn out descriptive and/or entertaining logs in short order. Folks with a lot higher numbers than myself.

 

It's in quotation marks.

So does that mean it's not true or just that you posted it to try to annoy everyone?

Link to comment

"You can have long logs, or you can have prompt logs. You can't have both."

 

That depends, really. I've seen plenty of folks who are able to churn out descriptive and/or entertaining logs in short order. Folks with a lot higher numbers than myself.

It's in quotation marks.

So does that mean it's not true or just that you posted it to try to annoy everyone?

 

Since i'm newer to the forums, please tell me more about the subtle differences between

"Quotation marks"

 

&

 

Quotation marks

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...