Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Brooklyn51

Favorite points for logs?

Recommended Posts

I received a few new logs on some of my caches today. The first one read, in its totality, "!" , which I found a little perplexing. Did they like it or were they exasperated by something at the cache site? Dunno. I've completely made my peace with "TFTC" type logs though, so I didn't really dwell on it. But the next couple of logs were interesting narratives of the cacher's find. They weren't necessarily very long, just brief paragraphs really, but it made me kind of wish I could award some of the better logs I've gotten over the years with some kind of a favorite point, much like we do for the caches we like. Such a system wouldn't be at all punitive, if someone wanted to continue with "TFTC" or even "!" they certainly could, but it might encourage better logs in general to be given some small recognition for writing fun logs to read. I know several cachers in my area who would most definitely deserve that. I'm not a programmer so I wouldn't have the first idea how difficult it would be to implement, but I'd enjoy hearing everyone's thoughts on the idea.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a lot of threads on this subject.

I feel that "points for logs" will eventually just be another stat for third-party sites...

Share this post


Link to post

In the meantime, there's always the option to send an email of, "Thanks for the kind words".

- That's what we do. :)

Share this post


Link to post

If the found it log has no indication of the cache being found (!, or even a random letter) I just delete them. My justification is either the cache page is not a forum, so anything not relating to the cache I can delete. Or that a random letter or symbol, or whatever it is not indicating a cache has been found would be more appropriate for a write note, not a found it. If you can't be bothered to even put TFTC (which imo is pretty easy and just lazy) then you must not want the find that bad.

 

And while I haven't had it a lot, those people have not logged any of my caches like that again.

 

But I will say that some people may put place holder text until they can log properly. But it should still be something indicating the found the cache.

 

 

As for better logs, well being able to like them or favorite them (if it will even make a dofference at all) will result in false "good" logs. That is logs that are good just so they can get the points, not because they appreciate the cache, or the effort of the CO.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this isn't the first time this has been mentioned. :) Thanks for your input and all the links.

Share this post


Link to post

If the found it log has no indication of the cache being found (!, or even a random letter) I just delete them. My justification is either the cache page is not a forum, so anything not relating to the cache I can delete. Or that a random letter or symbol, or whatever it is not indicating a cache has been found would be more appropriate for a write note, not a found it. If you can't be bothered to even put TFTC (which imo is pretty easy and just lazy) then you must not want the find that bad.

 

I have always deleted blank logs, single character logs, and nonsense single word logs. If it was actually meant to be a genuine log, they will get the hint and log it again. I suppose they could also appeal to Groundspeak to have the log restored, but that has never happened.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder how many one character logs are from smartphone users without validated accounts who never know their log was deleted?

Share this post


Link to post

While it would be nice to have a way to encourage meaningful logs, there's a sense of entitlement I get from some cache owners that good logs are somehow required. All the finder is technically required to do is sign the log sheet and select "found it" when logging it online (not counting challenge caches, of course).

Share this post


Link to post

While it would be nice to have a way to encourage meaningful logs, there's a sense of entitlement I get from some cache owners that good logs are somehow required. All the finder is technically required to do is sign the log sheet and select "found it" when logging it online (not counting challenge caches, of course).

 

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone suggest that longer, meaningful logs should be required but I suspect that quite a few think that meaningful are appreciated. Technically as players of this game we are not required to be courteous, polite, generous with our time and knowledge to help out other players but the game is improved for everyone when we are.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

While it would be nice to have a way to encourage meaningful logs, there's a sense of entitlement I get from some cache owners that good logs are somehow required. All the finder is technically required to do is sign the log sheet and select "found it" when logging it online (not counting challenge caches, of course).

 

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone suggest that longer, meaningful logs should be required but I suspect that quite a few think that meaningful are appreciated. Technically as players of this game we are not required to be courteous, polite, generous with our time and knowledge to help out other players but the game is improved for everyone when we are.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post

While it would be nice to have a way to encourage meaningful logs, there's a sense of entitlement I get from some cache owners that good logs are somehow required. All the finder is technically required to do is sign the log sheet and select "found it" when logging it online (not counting challenge caches, of course).

 

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone suggest that longer, meaningful logs should be required

Apart from the two cachers on this page who admit to deleting logs they don't think are good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Apart from the two cachers on this page who admit to deleting logs they don't think are good enough.
Was it a matter of "good enough"? Or was it a matter of knowing whether or not the single-character log was pocket dialed by some muggle who installed a free app? Edited by niraD

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure I am a fan of 'like'-like buttons either, nor am I of single character logs. I might be old (or old school), but that is plain rude. I try to keep my logs individual and to more than a 'TFTC', like a comment about the surrounding, the weather or a funny shaped rock I saw on the way. Something as individual as the cache and its page, which on the flip side can also border on the rude, if all it says is: 'this place did not have a cash, so now I place one.' (Really?)

I guess you could say that I tailor my effort in logging to the effort of the CO in hiding and composing the listing. A great hide or a listing with some local history should get a longer log from me than a copy-paste listing for a power trail (which might get a copy-paste-log)

 

I tend to liken the CO-listing / Cacher-log to a short meet and greet. If you start with ' 'sup?', you get 'Hmm'(nod); if you start with 'Hey! how are you? Nice to meet you, man' you get a 'Same here, good to meet you. How'S life?' and so on. Which is why I do get briefly irritated at short logs for great cachers.

Thore

Share this post


Link to post

I have concerns about this idea based on the weirdness that already surrounds favourite points.

 

When favourite points came out, they were advertised as a way for us to denote our favourite caches. The points are visible to others, hooray, it will be fun for everyone to see which caches people really enjoy.

 

Then along came these people insisting that favourite points should be applied according to a bunch of arbitrary rules to help a handful of very particular people filter caches for themselves.

 


  •  
  • They should be removed from archived caches.
  • They should be applied to caches that you recommend to others, not caches you merely enjoyed.
  • They should only be applied to caches that are in good condition and you should monitor every cache you've given a point to so you can swiftly remove that point if the cache looks like it isn't as good as it once was.
  • They should be applied according to a standard set of criteria whether or not that criteria has anything to do with what you enjoy about caching.

 

I can just see the same weirdness happening with points awarded to logs. Here come the rules!

 


  •  
  • You should only reward a log that fully describes the experience.
  • Minimum word count; even witty or insightful brevity is not welcome here!
  • Find logs only, DNF logs don't count.
  • If the cacher who wrote a favourited log writes another log that isn't as good, you must remove any points awarded to their other logs.
  • And so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Apart from the two cachers on this page who admit to deleting logs they don't think are good enough.
Was it a matter of "good enough"? Or was it a matter of knowing whether or not the single-character log was pocket dialed by some muggle who installed a free app?

Does it matter? Unless you have a legitimate suspicion the log is bogus (logging in three countries in one day, for example), then you're deleting a valid log just because you don't like it. I think that's wrong.

 

From what I understand, you're required to put something in the message field or you can't log the find. Perhaps the cacher doesn't want to say anything so hit a random key to satisfy the logging software. Sure, that's a crappy way to log anything and a slap in the face to the CO, but it isn't against the rules of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Apart from the two cachers on this page who admit to deleting logs they don't think are good enough.
Was it a matter of "good enough"? Or was it a matter of knowing whether or not the single-character log was pocket dialed by some muggle who installed a free app?

Does it matter? Unless you have a legitimate suspicion the log is bogus (logging in three countries in one day, for example), then you're deleting a valid log just because you don't like it. I think that's wrong.

 

From what I understand, you're required to put something in the message field or you can't log the find. Perhaps the cacher doesn't want to say anything so hit a random key to satisfy the logging software. Sure, that's a crappy way to log anything and a slap in the face to the CO, but it isn't against the rules of the game.

^This

 

If I suspected that an unusually-short log may be bogus, I'd go check the physical log to confirm and/or send the cacher a message to ask if they did find the cache. I would never delete a log simply because I didn't like the length of it.

 

For those who require longer logs, do you send an accompanying message/email to the affected cacher to let them know why you're deleting their log, or do you do it silently?

Share this post


Link to post

I don’t think favorite points for logs will have any effect on how someone signs a log just like it doesn’t have any effect on creating better caches. I enjoy reading both the physical and online logs. I consider it good manners to write something nice and personal about a enjoyable cache for the CO and others that find the cache. As someone who reads logs, I find it very annoying and distracting to read logs that someone copies and pastes over and over.

Share this post


Link to post

In the meantime, there's always the option to send an email of, "Thanks for the kind words".

- That's what we do. :)

 

I do it as well. :)

 

But anyway, the OP's suggestion wouldn't harm anyone and there certainly would be people who would be encouraged to write more meaningful logs (while the majority wouldn't, I know ;) )

Share this post


Link to post

How about require that a log message be a minium amount of letters. Like 20?

Edited by jellis

Share this post


Link to post

How about require that a log message be a minium amount of letters. Like 20?

 

jdaoudblahdbllnibazq

 

Twenty letters on the nose. And just as much meaning as "." or "found it".

Share this post


Link to post

How about require that a log message be a minium amount of letters. Like 20?

 

FTF! TFTC. TNLNSL. BTW, NM. -N&T

Share this post


Link to post

Commenting because I want to follow this thread too! For my thoughts, see a couple of the more recent in the myriad of related threads linked above.

:omnomnom:

Share this post


Link to post

The only value I see in such a thing is a setup similar to Amazon's product reviews, where there is an option for users to say whether a review was helpful to you.

 

njCgFAI.png

 

That being said, while I would not object to such a system...I wouldn't really say I'd endorse it or push for it to be instituted.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I much more readily advocate for a "Useful" rating than any form of 'like' or 'points' as if it's a form of [competitive] score, and constratined to logbook viewing and log data. 3rd party tools do what they may with available, if it's not promoted as a form of score, I don't see a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post

The only value I see in such a thing is a setup similar to Amazon's product reviews, where there is an option for users to say whether a review was helpful to you.

 

njCgFAI.png

 

That being said, while I would not object to such a system...I wouldn't really say I'd endorse it or push for it to be instituted.

 

That's an interesting take on such a system and may have some merit but I would have two concerns. Firstly, I'd be a little worried that a "Useful log" rating could encourage "spoiler logs" rather than "experience logs" which as a CO is what I'd be most interested in seeing. Secondly, opening the evaluation of the logs to the general caching traffic could quickly become unwieldy, especially on a popular cache.

 

It does raise another question about something I've often wondered about. How many of you read the previous logs of a cache either before or after you've looked for it or even during the search for that matter? And do you do it to glean a hint or two about your search or to compare your experience with that particular cache?

Share this post


Link to post
It does raise another question about something I've often wondered about. How many of you read the previous logs of a cache either before or after you've looked for it or even during the search for that matter? And do you do it to glean a hint or two about your search or to compare your experience with that particular cache?

I don't load thousands of caches I'd never do. Load 'em individually.

My area sees favorite-points for FTF, and silly things, so I don't feel that's a good indicator it's anything special.

Often go by terrain first, then read as many logs as I feel it takes to decide if it's right for me.

This helps (me) decide if it's still there, intact container, true coords & D/T, and if the difficulty's high, maybe an addition to the hint.

 

The only time I've looked back to a cache lately, was if I placed a trackable, logged an NA or NM, or had a DNF.

- Though it'd be rare for me to go back anymore to find one I DNF.

Once an action that I made was completed, I don't look back.

Share this post


Link to post

That's an interesting take on such a system and may have some merit but I would have two concerns. Firstly, I'd be a little worried that a "Useful log" rating could encourage "spoiler logs" rather than "experience logs" which as a CO is what I'd be most interested in seeing.

The CO would still have the ability to delete logs and whatnot as they currently do.

 

It does raise another question about something I've often wondered about. How many of you read the previous logs of a cache either before or after you've looked for it or even during the search for that matter? And do you do it to glean a hint or two about your search or to compare your experience with that particular cache?

What if you can only mark logs as 'useful' once you've logged it found? General traffic can't flag useful logs, you only earn that ability once it's found. And, if the CO deletes your find after you've rated other logs, that could also remove those ratings. So if you see a high rated log, you know those ratings came from previous finders, not random internet users.

Share this post


Link to post

One thing that hasn't been brought up yet is, what if the "!" was just a mistake? I log my caches "Offline" as I go. Usually with just a swipe of my finger across the keyboard. Then i save it offline to log later when i get home and can take the time to write a nice log. I have been known to hit the submit button instead of the "Save" button. I usually catch it when i do but, there may have been a time when I didn't. How about a nice email to the finder thanking them for finding the cache. Then asking them what the "!" meant?

Share this post


Link to post

One thing that hasn't been brought up yet is, what if the "!" was just a mistake? I log my caches "Offline" as I go. Usually with just a swipe of my finger across the keyboard. Then i save it offline to log later when i get home and can take the time to write a nice log. I have been known to hit the submit button instead of the "Save" button. I usually catch it when i do but, there may have been a time when I didn't. How about a nice email to the finder thanking them for finding the cache. Then asking them what the "!" meant?

+1

We see a lot leave something just so folks know its been found, then they'll edit/add something later.

The CO sees a "!" log.

- Delete.

Maybe after a day or two there'd be an edit, but the finder sees that his log's been deleted for no reason other than it's short, and remembers from than on whose caches to skip. :)

 

Or maybe after a ton of "TFTC" logs (the norm today), they thought this one was cool enough to deserve a "!". :D

Share this post


Link to post

One thing that hasn't been brought up yet is, what if the "!" was just a mistake? I log my caches "Offline" as I go. Usually with just a swipe of my finger across the keyboard. Then i save it offline to log later when i get home and can take the time to write a nice log. I have been known to hit the submit button instead of the "Save" button. I usually catch it when i do but, there may have been a time when I didn't. How about a nice email to the finder thanking them for finding the cache. Then asking them what the "!" meant?

 

You can relog or ask to have the log reinstated if it was a legitimate find. Cache owners don't need to waste time sending polite emails to every charlatan who tries to armchair a cache just in case one happens to be a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post

It does raise another question about something I've often wondered about. How many of you read the previous logs of a cache either before or after you've looked for it or even during the search for that matter? And do you do it to glean a hint or two about your search or to compare your experience with that particular cache?

I do read logs looking for clues, but the most common reason is just because I like reading stories. The fact that you don't understand that makes me start to understand why logs are becoming more vacuous these days.

Share this post


Link to post

You can relog or ask to have the log reinstated if it was a legitimate find. Cache owners don't need to waste time sending polite emails to every charlatan who tries to armchair a cache just in case one happens to be a mistake.

+ 1

 

I do read logs looking for clues, but the most common reason is just because I like reading stories. The fact that you don't understand that makes me start to understand why logs are becoming more vacuous these days.

+ 1

Share this post


Link to post

It does raise another question about something I've often wondered about. How many of you read the previous logs of a cache either before or after you've looked for it or even during the search for that matter? And do you do it to glean a hint or two about your search or to compare your experience with that particular cache?

I do read logs looking for clues, but the most common reason is just because I like reading stories. The fact that you don't understand that makes me start to understand why logs are becoming more vacuous these days.

 

+1

 

I read logs for information and for the pleasure of hearing about other people's experiences.

 

I don't really believe in forcing people to write longer logs but I certainly notice the cachers who do and hold them in higher esteem than the cachers who don't.

Share this post


Link to post

It does raise another question about something I've often wondered about. How many of you read the previous logs of a cache either before or after you've looked for it or even during the search for that matter? And do you do it to glean a hint or two about your search or to compare your experience with that particular cache?

I do read logs looking for clues, but the most common reason is just because I like reading stories. The fact that you don't understand that makes me start to understand why logs are becoming more vacuous these days.

 

I do understand that. I enjoy reading the logs on caches I have found as well, not just on my own, for much the same reasons, the possibe hints, the stories and the common experience. I would enjoy seeing better logging become a more wide spread practice but I realize there is no way, nor should there be really, to enforce it. I rarely delete logs and I have on occasion sent emails to exceptional loggers. I was just trying to think of a way to encourage and reward, in some small way, those who do write more than TFTC.

Share this post


Link to post

I do understand that. I enjoy reading the logs on caches I have found as well, not just on my own, for much the same reasons, the possible hints, the stories and the common experience. I would enjoy seeing better logging become a more wide spread practice but I realize there is no way, nor should there be really, to enforce it. I rarely delete logs and I have on occasion sent emails to exceptional loggers. I was just trying to think of a way to encourage and reward, in some small way, those who do write more than TFTC.

 

Writing a good log is its own reward. Most of my find logs are time machines that can take me back to re-experience those past moments permanently preserved by those logs. You are only wasting your time trying to make a TFTC logger appreciate that. It is not in their DNA. A good analogy would be trying to get me to appreciate Opera. Good luck with that, and I suspect that Opera Favorite Points won't help.

Share this post


Link to post

In the early years of geocaching before micros and macros the majority of geocaches were large enough to accommodate a normal size log journal for cachers to record their thoughts and experience of the cache hunt. It was the norm to write something with substance instead of useless acronyms nobody reads. Back then you had a larger proportion of the caching community that were outdoor enthusiasts who were focused on the outdoor aspect and journey to the cache. It’s a totally different mindset today with the dominating focus being on numbers and stats. Wishful thinking or favorite points for logs is not going to change this current mindset any time soon. These days I pretty much stick to logging larger remote caches and take the time to relax, read the logs and record my thoughts without the thought of having to hurry off to the next cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×