Dating the log

[+Adventure.AS]

I had never thought of NOT dating the logs, even on nanos.

That's a great way to quickly fill the log in a nano, like those who insist on using their stamps on nano logs.

 

Horse hockey.

 

Even on thumbnail sized nanos, I've gotten the date and our full username in on ONE line.

 

For teeny-tiny log scrolls, I use a fine-point Sharpie.

 

And I write the date (always) in D/M/Y format: 17/8/15

 

I've never thought to not include the date on our logs, until this thread. It just never occurred to me to not include it.

 

B.

 

The nanos that I have placed are in scenic spots where the main objective is to bring a geocacher to the location and the location (in an urban setting) makes it impossible to put a bison tube or small lock and lock and not have it stolen. In these instances, it is about the experience not the cache container.

 

I always appreciate having the log dated and I will replace the log when it becomes full. When I find a nano I usually follow the local custom for date format, so in the USA I will write 8.17.15 and in Canada 17.8.15 and in EU 15.8.17

[+on4bam]

When I find a nano I usually follow the local custom for date format, so in the USA I will write 8.17.15 and in Canada 17.8.15 and in EU 15.8.17

 

Normal date annotation in EU (Belgium) is 17/8/15 and I don't recall any logs where dates were in a different format in any of the European countries we visited.

[+Adventure.AS]

When I find a nano I usually follow the local custom for date format, so in the USA I will write 8.17.15 and in Canada 17.8.15 and in EU 15.8.17

 

Normal date annotation in EU (Belgium) is 17/8/15 and I don't recall any logs where dates were in a different format in any of the European countries we visited.

 

Even in Canada the "correct" way to date is using the ISO date format written 2015 08 17, but most people seem to stick with the old way of dd/mm/yy. I was under the impression that most of EU used the ISO 8601 date format.

[Pup Patrol]

When I find a nano I usually follow the local custom for date format, so in the USA I will write 8.17.15 and in Canada 17.8.15 and in EU 15.8.17

 

My husband and I don't agree on the "correct" format. He does it his way, and I do it my way.

 

I didn't think there was an "accepted" format in different places. I just like D/M/Y, beacause that's sensible to me.

 

Maybe I'm an oddball.

 

Whatever format used, I think it would be recognizable to a cache owner, especially if it's logged online the same day.

 

B.

[+Adventure.AS]

When I find a nano I usually follow the local custom for date format, so in the USA I will write 8.17.15 and in Canada 17.8.15 and in EU 15.8.17

 

My husband and I don't agree on the "correct" format. He does it his way, and I do it my way.

 

I didn't think there was an "accepted" format in different places. I just like D/M/Y, beacause that's sensible to me.

 

Maybe I'm an oddball.

 

Whatever format used, I think it would be recognizable to a cache owner, especially if it's logged online the same day.

 

B.

 

In the USA they write numerically like people say it - August 17, 2015 = 8.17.15. I try and follow the system used in the location I am visiting so it isn't confusing to the cacher who finds the cache after me.

[+dprovan]

Don't be lazy. Write down the date please; it's part of the tradition, maybe a rule too.

 

It's useful information. "Hey, the last find was over two years ago, cool!" Or for figuring out TB mysteries, or whatever.

 

Just do it please.

It's not a rule. My date is online. Don't assume because it's important to you it's important to others.

I think the more relevant suggestion here is, "Don't assume because it's not important to you, it won't be important to someone else reading the log." Your version suggests that it's not important to you, so you aren't going to date because you don't care what anyone else thinks about it.

 

The online date is irrelevant: the date in the physical log is useful when I'm out in the field looking at the log. The date online is useful when I'm online, but does me no good when I'm looking at the physical log.

[+narcissa]

I had never thought of NOT dating the logs, even on nanos.

That's a great way to quickly fill the log in a nano, like those who insist on using their stamps on nano logs.

 

Horse hockey.

 

Even on thumbnail sized nanos, I've gotten the date and our full username in on ONE line.

 

For teeny-tiny log scrolls, I use a fine-point Sharpie.

 

And I write the date (always) in D/M/Y format: 17/8/15

 

I've never thought to not include the date on our logs, until this thread. It just never occurred to me to not include it.

 

B.

 

The nanos that I have placed are in scenic spots where the main objective is to bring a geocacher to the location and the location (in an urban setting) makes it impossible to put a bison tube or small lock and lock and not have it stolen. In these instances, it is about the experience not the cache container.

 

I always appreciate having the log dated and I will replace the log when it becomes full. When I find a nano I usually follow the local custom for date format, so in the USA I will write 8.17.15 and in Canada 17.8.15 and in EU 15.8.17

 

Kudos to you for doing the maintenance. Too often, nanos are incorrectly seen a low-maintenance way to slap down a cache for numbers.

 

To avoid ambiguity, my preferred date format is like this: Aug. 17,2015, but on a nano probably Aug 17/15.

[Pup Patrol]

Okay, okay, I AM an oddball. Even the other Canadians do this differently.

 

 

But...that means that I will have to concede to my husband being....

 

argh, I can't say it!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

B. 17/08/15

[+niraD]

Personally, I find both 09/08/15 and 08/09/15 confusing. Ten years ago, 06/07/05 and 07/06/05 were even more confusing. I use the format 2015-08-17 for geocaching. When I use it on computers, it has the added advantage of sorting correctly.

[+J Grouchy]

Knowing that people write dates differently, I just assume that others do as well.

I don't really worry about whether they will know if my date is month or day first. It isn't that difficult to figure out.

[+NanCycle]

I always write the date, usually MO/DA/YR although on micros sometimes just MO/DA. I never can remember what the date is and used to write the wrong one a lot. but since I got my Montana I have one of the fields on my Geocaching screen set as the date, so if I don't know what it is, my GPSr can tell me. Also since I got the Montana I usually post my online logs from the Field Notes, so they're right also.

[+biggles1024]

I had never thought of NOT dating the logs, even on nanos.

That's a great way to quickly fill the log in a nano, like those who insist on using their stamps on nano logs.

 

Horse hockey.

 

Even on thumbnail sized nanos, I've gotten the date and our full username in on ONE line.

 

For teeny-tiny log scrolls, I use a fine-point Sharpie.

 

And I write the date (always) in D/M/Y format: 17/8/15

 

I've never thought to not include the date on our logs, until this thread. It just never occurred to me to not include it.

 

B.

 

Just keep on deluding yourself that you're performing some sort of community service. Sheesh..

[+narcissa]

I had never thought of NOT dating the logs, even on nanos.

That's a great way to quickly fill the log in a nano, like those who insist on using their stamps on nano logs.

 

Horse hockey.

 

Even on thumbnail sized nanos, I've gotten the date and our full username in on ONE line.

 

For teeny-tiny log scrolls, I use a fine-point Sharpie.

 

And I write the date (always) in D/M/Y format: 17/8/15

 

I've never thought to not include the date on our logs, until this thread. It just never occurred to me to not include it.

 

B.

 

Just keep on deluding yourself that you're performing some sort of community service. Sheesh..

 

Community service is properly maintaining your nano caches instead of blaming others for putting standard information in their logs.

[+redsox_mark]

I date my logs as

- It was what I was taught by friends who introduced me to geocaching

- It is what most everyone does; i.e. it is the common practice

- I can see the information being useful in several ways.

 

It is not something I've ever questioned.

 

But there is no rule.

 

On nanos I tend to abbreviate my caching name and leave the year off of the date to make it shorter. I also write very small.

 

I noticed in Czech Republic (or at least in Prague) the norm is to put the time as well. I guess because caches there typically get many finds per day.

[Pup Patrol]

I had never thought of NOT dating the logs, even on nanos.

That's a great way to quickly fill the log in a nano, like those who insist on using their stamps on nano logs.

 

Horse hockey.

 

Even on thumbnail sized nanos, I've gotten the date and our full username in on ONE line.

 

For teeny-tiny log scrolls, I use a fine-point Sharpie.

 

And I write the date (always) in D/M/Y format: 17/8/15

 

I've never thought to not include the date on our logs, until this thread. It just never occurred to me to not include it.

 

B.

 

Just keep on deluding yourself that you're performing some sort of community service. Sheesh..

 

I'm not sure why you felt the need to post this snarky comment.

 

I said nothing about "community service". I was saying that it is perfectly possible to use the given space to write the date and username, that's all.

 

Do you own a lot of nanos that need to have the log replaced often?

 

That is the cache owner's choice and responsiblity. If one doesn't want to properly maintain the cache, then they should not own the cache.

 

If a nano is annoying to maintain, then hide larger caches with larger log books.

 

Oh, wait, then folks will use up a whole page just to write the date and their username.

 

Can't win, eh?

 

yeesh.

 

B.

[+niraD]

On nanos I tend to abbreviate my caching name and leave the year off of the date to make it shorter. I also write very small.

I guess one of the advantages of a short geocaching name is that I don't need to abbreviate it. But on most blinker logs I don't have a problem entering my name and the date. It usually ends up looking something like this:

 

| 13   niraD |

| 20150818 |

 

(where 13 is the number of the signature space I signed in this example)

[+cerberus1]

I date my logs as

- It was what I was taught by friends who introduced me to geocaching

- It is what most everyone does; i.e. it is the common practice

- I can see the information being useful in several ways.

 

It is not something I've ever questioned.

 

But there is no rule.

 

On nanos I tend to abbreviate my caching name and leave the year off of the date to make it shorter. I also write very small.

 

I noticed in Czech Republic (or at least in Prague) the norm is to put the time as well. I guess because caches there typically get many finds per day.

I agree, it's something done by everyone else here too.

If we ever didn't, then maybe folks would wonder why.

- Guess not leaving the date is handy when doing a streak.

 

We've put the time in the online log since our second cache, and used to on the cache log too.

But with "logs" mostly just a paper strip anymore, we leave the time there out.

[+boothie103]

Oh dear, perhaps my manners will be lacking with my answer, but perhaps there may be a hint of technophobia here. Both phones, be it smart or dumb and modern GPS's have the date, time and year automatically updated on them. So why would there be no excuse to date logs of finds?

[+dprovan]

I agree, it's something done by everyone else here too.

If we ever didn't, then maybe folks would wonder why.

In my area, signatures are almost always dated, but some of the high volume cachers have taken to stamping, and I never see stamps dated.

[jholly]

I agree, it's something done by everyone else here too.

If we ever didn't, then maybe folks would wonder why.

In my area, signatures are almost always dated, but some of the high volume cachers have taken to stamping, and I never see stamps dated.

 

Did you take the geocaching quiz in the Geocaching blog? You'll love the question on logging where they show a bunch of signatures on the log, all undated.

[+cerberus1]

I agree, it's something done by everyone else here too.

If we ever didn't, then maybe folks would wonder why.

In my area, signatures are almost always dated, but some of the high volume cachers have taken to stamping, and I never see stamps dated.

 

Did you take the geocaching quiz in the Geocaching blog? You'll love the question on logging where they show a bunch of signatures on the log, all undated.

That's weird, the "awesome log" photo I saw of a log inside a hollowed book, all the sigs were dated.

[jholly]

I agree, it's something done by everyone else here too.

If we ever didn't, then maybe folks would wonder why.

In my area, signatures are almost always dated, but some of the high volume cachers have taken to stamping, and I never see stamps dated.

 

Did you take the geocaching quiz in the Geocaching blog? You'll love the question on logging where they show a bunch of signatures on the log, all undated.

That's weird, the "awesome log" photo I saw of a log inside a hollowed book, all the sigs were dated.

Apparently the pictures you see after answering are rotated. The one I saw had Moun10bike, Prying Pandora and some other lackeys on the log. It waS a picture of the log.

[+Dr. Who and K-9]

I always date the log unless its a nano and I try to conserve space on the log. I don't get the fact that people date the log for a streak purpose. One can write any date they want so that doesn't prove a thing.

[+Bigmada]

I often put the wrong date and misspell my name.

[+LightHouseSeekers]

Many times I have a brain ____ and can't remember the date.

Then I end up writing wrong date in paper log.

Sometimes easier just to sign w/o date or just use month/yr.

The phone and gps know the right date for online log.

[+bflentje]

I always date the log on worthy caches. So I guess that means I do NOT date the log 95% of the time.

[+narcissa]

Many times I have a brain ____ and can't remember the date.

Then I end up writing wrong date in paper log.

Sometimes easier just to sign w/o date or just use month/yr.

The phone and gps know the right date for online log.

 

I can't think of a word to fit in that dash that is so deeply offensive that it requires a dash.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Many times I have a brain ____ and can't remember the date.

Then I end up writing wrong date in paper log.

Sometimes easier just to sign w/o date or just use month/yr.

The phone and gps know the right date for online log.

 

I can't think of a word to fit in that dash that is so deeply offensive that it requires a dash.

 

Not to be offensive, and therefore from a strictly academic point of view, here in the US the appropriate slang term to be filled into that space is "fart".

 

A "Brain-Fart": The temporary, frequently only momentary loss of a specific intellectual capability.

[+cerberus1]

Oh dear, perhaps my manners will be lacking with my answer, but perhaps there may be a hint of technophobia here. Both phones, be it smart or dumb and modern GPS's have the date, time and year automatically updated on them. So why would there be no excuse to date logs of finds?

+1

Not just the "modern" ones.

Even my old blue legend showed time and date.

"Don't want to" would seem a bit more honest than "can't remember", or "never know the date" ...

[+narcissa]

Many times I have a brain ____ and can't remember the date.

Then I end up writing wrong date in paper log.

Sometimes easier just to sign w/o date or just use month/yr.

The phone and gps know the right date for online log.

 

I can't think of a word to fit in that dash that is so deeply offensive that it requires a dash.

 

Not to be offensive, and therefore from a strictly academic point of view, here in the US the appropriate slang term to be filled into that space is "fart".

 

A "Brain-Fart": The temporary, frequently only momentary loss of a specific intellectual capability.

 

Is this word really worthy of the dash? I think the dash is far more insulting.

[+AustinMN]

I always date the log on worthy caches. So I guess that means I do NOT date the log 95% of the time.

 

I am usually caching with PJayCee. She has much more ledgible handwriting than I do, and she dates the log.

 

But when I cache alone, I generally date the log, because I simply ignore most of the worst caches.

[+J Grouchy]

Many times I have a brain ____ and can't remember the date.

Then I end up writing wrong date in paper log.

Sometimes easier just to sign w/o date or just use month/yr.

The phone and gps know the right date for online log.

 

I can't think of a word to fit in that dash that is so deeply offensive that it requires a dash.

 

Not to be offensive, and therefore from a strictly academic point of view, here in the US the appropriate slang term to be filled into that space is "fart".

 

A "Brain-Fart": The temporary, frequently only momentary loss of a specific intellectual capability.

 

Is this word really worthy of the dash? I think the dash is far more insulting.

 

To me it reads more as though he had a brain-fart trying to remember the word brain-fart.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Oh dear, perhaps my manners will be lacking with my answer, but perhaps there may be a hint of technophobia here. Both phones, be it smart or dumb and modern GPS's have the date, time and year automatically updated on them. So why would there be no excuse to date logs of finds?

+1

Not just the "modern" ones.

Even my old blue legend showed time and date.

"Don't want to" would seem a bit more honest than "can't remember", or "never know the date" ...

 

Caching by phone, using Groundspeaks paid iphone app, I have to close the app to get to the date.

The app shows the time.

 

Saving a field note, i can add the time, the field note has the date when I log online... So long as I don't find caches too early or too late in the day, that the app dates the find as yesterday, or tommorow.

[+on4bam]

I always date the log on worthy caches. So I guess that means I do NOT date the log 95% of the time.

 

In that case I would be using the date on 95% of my finds. I don't do "not worthy" anymore

[+J Grouchy]

Unbelievable. Folks sitting here, passing judgment, talking about whether caches are "worthy" of receiving a written date on the log sheet.

 

[+Mudfrog]

Unbelievable. Folks sitting here, passing judgment, talking about whether caches are "worthy" of receiving a written date on the log sheet.

 

 

Yep, kinda silly isn't it..

 

Sure there are times when we may not know the specific date but a person is pretty much trying to insult our intelligence when they use this as an excuse for not dating a log. The date is prominently displayed on any electronic device used with geocaching. A person should just go ahead and admit that they're too lazy, that they think it's not important, or that they're fudging to meet a challenge cache's criteria. No need for silly excuses.

[+WarNinjas]

I always like when I find a cache dated in the future! Not by someone trying to cheat or something but way off by months or even years! I will almost always say...WOW! This cache is so cool someone came back from the future just to sign it! and add a pic of the log!

[+Ambrosia]

I agree, it's something done by everyone else here too.

If we ever didn't, then maybe folks would wonder why.

In my area, signatures are almost always dated, but some of the high volume cachers have taken to stamping, and I never see stamps dated.

 

Did you take the geocaching quiz in the Geocaching blog? You'll love the question on logging where they show a bunch of signatures on the log, all undated.

That's weird, the "awesome log" photo I saw of a log inside a hollowed book, all the sigs were dated.

Apparently the pictures you see after answering are rotated. The one I saw had Moun10bike, Prying Pandora and some other lackeys on the log. It waS a picture of the log.

Well, it looks like a group find, where after a while they stopped posting the date and grouped all their sigs together to make room. I usually leave out the date when I'm with a group. I did a bunch of group caching during the block party and I didn't write down the date, nor did anybody else after the first one or two did it.

[+fuzziebear3]

Sure there are times when we may not know the specific date but a person is pretty much trying to insult our intelligence when they use this as an excuse for not dating a log. The date is prominently displayed on any electronic device used with geocaching. A person should just go ahead and admit that they're too lazy, that they think it's not important, or that they're fudging to meet a challenge cache's criteria. No need for silly excuses.

 

Not really prominent on mine. It might be buried in there somewhere, but I don't see it.

The date on the paper really is not important enough to worry about it that much. If I am off a day, so be it. I'll log it correctly on the computer.

I'm not dating it wrong intentionally to game some challenge.

 

Judge much?

[+DanOCan]

A person should just go ahead and admit that they're too lazy, that they think it's not important, or that they're fudging to meet a challenge cache's criteria. No need for silly excuses.

For me it is a combination of laziness and not feeling it is important.

 

Other factors may also play into it, however. For example, in a high-visibility location I'm often trying to retrieve and sign as fast as possible and adding the date will take additional time.

If it's a cache in a nice spot with a decent size logbook? I'll be sure to look up the proper date and even write a few words rather than just rushing off to the next one.

[+Subterranean]

I prefer to write the date as: "this twenty-seventh day of October in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen."

[+TriciaG]

I prefer to write the date as: "this twenty-seventh day of October in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen."

I bet nano cache COs love that. LOL!

[+narcissa]

I prefer to write the date as: "this twenty-seventh day of October in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen."

 

+1

[+Mudfrog]

Sure there are times when we may not know the specific date but a person is pretty much trying to insult our intelligence when they use this as an excuse for not dating a log. The date is prominently displayed on any electronic device used with geocaching. A person should just go ahead and admit that they're too lazy, that they think it's not important, or that they're fudging to meet a challenge cache's criteria. No need for silly excuses.

 

Not really prominent on mine. It might be buried in there somewhere, but I don't see it.

The date on the paper really is not important enough to worry about it that much. If I am off a day, so be it. I'll log it correctly on the computer.

I'm not dating it wrong intentionally to game some challenge.

 

Judge much?

 

Just going with what i've encountered over the years. Have seen people do some crazy things while in pursuit of our hobby...

[+on4bam]

I prefer to write the date as: "this twenty-seventh day of October in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen."

 

What has lord of the rings to do with logging?

[+Tassie_Boy]

I prefer to write the date as: "this twenty-seventh day of October in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen."

 

What has lord of the rings to do with logging?

 

What had that dating technique got to do with lord of the rings?

[+on4bam]

I prefer to write the date as: "this twenty-seventh day of October in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen."

 

What has lord of the rings to do with logging?

 

What had that dating technique got to do with lord of the rings?

 

Exactly my question. Subterranean started this so I'm wondering.

[+Tassie_Boy]

I prefer to write the date as: "this twenty-seventh day of October in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen."

 

What has lord of the rings to do with logging?

 

What had that dating technique got to do with lord of the rings?

 

Exactly my question. Subterranean started this so I'm wondering.

 

But i don't see any mention of Lord of the rings in subterranean's post.

That's simply how the date was referred to a couple of hundred years ago.

[+on4bam]

But i don't see any mention of Lord of the rings in subterranean's post.

That's simply how the date was referred to a couple of hundred years ago.

 

Can't imagine any other lord than the one from the ring.. that's all. (unless you go into UK politics, house of lords and so on..)

[+TriciaG]

But i don't see any mention of Lord of the rings in subterranean's post.

That's simply how the date was referred to a couple of hundred years ago.

 

Can't imagine any other lord than the one from the ring.. that's all. (unless you go into UK politics, house of lords and so on..)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini