A mini rant from a relative newbie

[+Rainbow Spirit]

I always try to write something specific about the caches I find, even the power trail ones. Of cause I don't know how to cut and paste a log, so...

[+Crow-T-Robot]

One thing I learned early in my caching career that helped me focus on writing longer logs was: write logs for me. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but brevity in the form of TFTC isn't going to help me one iota in remembering details of a cache find months or years from now. Sometimes when I'm at work and things are kind of slow, I like to take a trip back in time and read logs of some of my favorite cache finds. If I had only written TFTC or "Found it", my trip down memory lane would've left me feeling like I must have amnesia.

 

I make it a priority to write unique logs for every cache I find. But, there are plenty of times where I just sit and stare at the monitor...digging deep to come up with something unique or memorable about whatever cache I'm logging. If I can't come up with anything, I'll just toss out something like "Great day to be out hiking. The cache was found and in good shape (or poor shape, if that's the case). Thanks for placing it, (CO's name)!" I usually feel guilty for logging a cache like that but then I realize that this isn't the cache that I'll look back on a year from now, trying to relive the memory of finding it. It was just another perfectly serviceable cache that I found but nothing that really stood out.

[+dprovan]

One thing I learned early in my caching career that helped me focus on writing longer logs was: write logs for me.

Very good point. I use my own logs all the time. I'd still claim I'm writing for the CO first, and other seekers second, but if I can't remember a cache from reading my own log, I consider it a failure. So I can't say having the record for myself is the reason I write longer logs, but it is a convenient side effect, and considering what I'd need to know myself helps me identify what would help anyone else reading it.

[+MKFmly]

One thing I learned early in my caching career that helped me focus on writing longer logs was: write logs for me.

Very good point. I use my own logs all the time. I'd still claim I'm writing for the CO first, and other seekers second, but if I can't remember a cache from reading my own log, I consider it a failure. So I can't say having the record for myself is the reason I write longer logs, but it is a convenient side effect, and considering what I'd need to know myself helps me identify what would help anyone else reading it.

 

Heresy! Dam your eyes for longer logs!

 

Logs are for hints, clues, tips, and spoiler pics. Cachers don't have the space or bandwith to display your novel on their phone/GPSr. No one, especially the cache owner gives a carp about your adventure, a couple of short lines are required at most as cache owners don't have the time to read more than three and god forbid if you find two or more of their caches and repeat yourself somewhat...TFTC and move on

 

In all seriousness I agree, I try to write adventure logs for me and my future self (with varying degrees of success) if the cache owner appreciates them so much the better, if they don't...C'est la vie.

[+thebruce0]

One thing I learned early in my caching career that helped me focus on writing longer logs was: write logs for me.

Very good point. I use my own logs all the time. I'd still claim I'm writing for the CO first, and other seekers second, but if I can't remember a cache from reading my own log, I consider it a failure. So I can't say having the record for myself is the reason I write longer logs, but it is a convenient side effect, and considering what I'd need to know myself helps me identify what would help anyone else reading it.

 

Ditto; the only exception is powertrails/series. I've mentioned before that in those cases, an individual experience (at least for me) isn't a specific cache but the trail/series, and often caches along the trail are indeed indistinguishable from each other (and many are so easy that it doesn't seem worthwhile to describe it enough that I can recall it clearly; without spoilers). I rely on my field notes for anything worth jogging my memory, but for power trails it's more likely I don't really want to remember every single cache (I'm more inclined to want to remember the experience as a whole, whether 1 or more caches).

 

So fundamentally yeah, I also tend to write enough in my log for me to remember the experience; primarily the specific cache if possible, or the power series (non-descript logs typically expected by the CO; as irritating as they are ). But field notes are more succinct and to the point for my own uses.

 

Basically, if I get a call from someone looking for help on a cache I found 2 years ago, I typically first check the map, then description, then field notes, then log. Whichever order is most convenient

[+dprovan]

One thing I learned early in my caching career that helped me focus on writing longer logs was: write logs for me.

Very good point. I use my own logs all the time. I'd still claim I'm writing for the CO first, and other seekers second, but if I can't remember a cache from reading my own log, I consider it a failure. So I can't say having the record for myself is the reason I write longer logs, but it is a convenient side effect, and considering what I'd need to know myself helps me identify what would help anyone else reading it.

Ditto; the only exception is powertrails/series.

I agree, although I wouldn't call it an exception. When I go back and reread my small or empty log on a powertrail, I'll remember the cache accurately. I won't be able to distinguish it from any other powertrail cache, but I couldn't distinguish it at the time, either. (Speaking hypothetically, since I've never actually done a powertrail.)

[+thebruce0]

I agree, although I wouldn't call it an exception. When I go back and reread my small or empty log on a powertrail, I'll remember the cache accurately. I won't be able to distinguish it from any other powertrail cache, but I couldn't distinguish it at the time, either. (Speaking hypothetically, since I've never actually done a powertrail.)

heh, well that's another way to look at it, yes. I remember the powertrail cache exactly as I wrote it down. Indistinguishably

[+jellis]

Cut and paste logs.

 

I've been doing this properly for just over 2 months now. Absolutely loving finding caches, having to hunt around GZs and exploring new areas I'd never previously known existed. I also take great care to leave messages that are specific to each cache that I find as I, perhaps naively, imagine that it might be of interest to the CO or other cachers.

 

There is what I believe is called a "powertrail" near where I live. Lots of very small caches, punctuated by the odd small or medium cache (many of which are placed by others in and around the area of the powertrail). I am working my way around the powertrail bit by bit - having a chronic illness, doing the whole thing in one go is not really feasible for me.

 

But one of the things I really enjoy is reading the cache logs subsequent to my find. I've enjoyed reading them prior to my finds as well, but I do like to look back at my cache finds and see how other people got on. Sadly, with such a significant powertrail near to me, so many of the logs I read are cut & paste, with nothing specific to each cache whatsoever.

 

I wonder if this is a GPS receiver vs smartphone issue. As I can log my finds immediately via smartphone app, and I always take care to write something unique for each find - and take a pic if I can (not usually of the cache, but of the nice view, or similar). So if that's the case I'd be glad if someone could just confirm that for me - ie, people go out with 100s of caches on their GPS receiver and no way to log them until they get home. But even if that's the case, just a few words about each individual cache would be of great interest to those of us who like to look back on previous caches.

 

That is all! Love this new hobby. /endrant

With many powertrails, the caches are mostly the same, there isn't much to write about. That is mostly how cut and paste became so popular and easy. Especially if you do 800 + in a day and all you remember was a small pile of rocks 800+ times. And you want to log them as fast as you can before your next trip so you won't be backlogged. I am still up in the air about a recent invitation to do another powertrail. I remember the horror stories and anger between members.

[+fizzymagic]

I am still up in the air about a recent invitation to do another powertrail. I remember the horror stories and anger between members.

 

That's too bad. I am planning a new outing to do a challenging 4x4 trip to the top of a peak in eastern CA. We'll probably get less than 12 caches that day. Last time I went with the group we failed to get to the peak, found about 20 cache total in two days, had a fantastic time, and there was never even a hint of discord.

 

That sure sounds like more fun to me than a power trail. And I won't have any trouble at all remembering every cache at the end of the expedition!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I am still up in the air about a recent invitation to do another powertrail. I remember the horror stories and anger between members.

 

That's too bad. I am planning a new outing to do a challenging 4x4 trip to the top of a peak in eastern CA. We'll probably get less than 12 caches that day. Last time I went with the group we failed to get to the peak, found about 20 cache total in two days, had a fantastic time, and there was never even a hint of discord.

 

That sure sounds like more fun to me than a power trail. And I won't have any trouble at all remembering every cache at the end of the expedition!

 

It also seems to me that there would be a lot more time to socialize with the other geocachers when finding 20 caches in two days than it would be when finding 800 in a day.

 

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

Big cut-n-paste logs seem excessive and unnecessary. Why not chop up the story of your caching day into 10 parts, one for each cache you found, rather than the whole thing on all 10 caches?

 

As far as remembering individual caches enough to log details when finding more than a few (or while traveling): carry a notepad. If you're doing field puzzles, Virtuals, or Earthcaches you probably need it any. Jot down a few relevant things for each cache and it can jog your memory when you're writing at home.

 

Who is a log for? Yes, it is mostly to alert COs to problems and provide guidance to others seeking the cache. But if you write interesting logs then some COs will read them and some cachers will actively follow your logs. I don't speak hypothetically either.

[+thebruce0]

I am still up in the air about a recent invitation to do another powertrail. I remember the horror stories and anger between members.

 

That's too bad. I am planning a new outing to do a challenging 4x4 trip to the top of a peak in eastern CA. We'll probably get less than 12 caches that day. Last time I went with the group we failed to get to the peak, found about 20 cache total in two days, had a fantastic time, and there was never even a hint of discord.

 

That sure sounds like more fun to me than a power trail. And I won't have any trouble at all remembering every cache at the end of the expedition!

 

It also seems to me that there would be a lot more time to socialize with the other geocachers when finding 20 caches in two days than it would be when finding 800 in a day.

 

enh, it really depends on the experience. Could be, maybe not. The 3 day experience I had with my friends -- all of us completely of the same mindset -- was absolutely amazing, and that was 2400 caches found, a marathon, on the ET. You get out of it what you put it, but there is the risk that I tell people - for a goal like that, you all need to be on the same page. If one person wants to quit, it kills the whole experience. Thankfully we were all in it 100% from beginning to end, and we had an absolute blast. And I followed the logging strategy I explain below.

 

Whether it's 20 or 900, a caching experience can easily be spoiled by one bad ingredient. Cache with the people you enjoy caching with whether the caches themselves are each specifically memorable or not.

 

 

Big cut-n-paste logs seem excessive and unnecessary. Why not chop up the story of your caching day into 10 parts, one for each cache you found, rather than the whole thing on all 10 caches?

This is why I'll try to remember on some days (especially where I'd like to share a longer experience) to copy the link to the full log, and include the link in the other cache logs as an optional read and then add content relevant to each specific cache where possible. No more c/p except for the link, optional reading for anyone interested, and keeps the experience all together. I wouldn't want to chop up a single experience into multiple logs where no part is really relevant to the cache it's included on =/

[+L0ne.R]

Who is a log for? Yes, it is mostly to alert COs to problems and provide guidance to others seeking the cache. But if you write interesting logs then some COs will read them and some cachers will actively follow your logs. I don't speak hypothetically either.

 

Example:

 

F&J

 

Found it

05/19/2014

Nice to be back in this area. cache is in great condition.

Interesting to see the pics and read the previous log from LOne.R. We recalled finding a cache or 2 over in the zoo area many years ago.

THANX for the cache !

-------------

L0ne.R

 

 

Found it

05/17/2014

This was my favourite of the day because I did not expect to visit a llama at the back of the cemetery. And a turkey. The llama was lovely. The turkey protested loudly and ruffed up his feathers. Good cache hide. Nice container. Left signature smiley coin and a pencil. Took the cute little vampire.

 

The cemetery Lovely llama Ruffled turkey

Edited September 17, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+Harry Dolphin]

Of course, you have to love cut and paste logs with a typo.

Today I was going for the second half of this tour. The weather was not as nice as yesterday, but that also meant that there are less people around, which means easier logging. Thanks for showing me this area! Greetings from Seitzerland

 

Unless, they actually are from Seitzerland?

[+fizzymagic]

Big cut-n-paste logs seem excessive and unnecessary. Why not chop up the story of your caching day into 10 parts, one for each cache you found, rather than the whole thing on all 10 caches?

 

I did a powertrail. Once. And that is exactly what I did. I wrote a long description of the day and then a program to chop it into pieces, each of which had pointers to the previous and next finds. If there was anything even remotely memorable about an individual cache I added that by hand.

 

If I were to do it again, which is pretty unlikely, I would do the same thing. If someone wants to read the whole story they can follow the links in the logs and get it. If they don't care, then it makes no difference.

[+thebruce0]

I did a powertrail. Once. And that is exactly what I did. I wrote a long description of the day and then a program to chop it into pieces, each of which had pointers to the previous and next finds. If there was anything even remotely memorable about an individual cache I added that by hand.

 

If I were to do it again, which is pretty unlikely, I would do the same thing. If someone wants to read the whole story they can follow the links in the logs and get it. If they don't care, then it makes no difference.

See that's a fun/interactive idea and non-intrusive. And additive - there's no inherent way on the web to view logs posted by someone in order unless you view the user's find summary and find their logs by visiting individual caches in finding the logs.

 

...what would be neat would be if GS added in a dynamic link with the log to view the user's next log; all that's needed is a request based on userid, and the log being viewed, then the script can look up and redirect to their next posted log (caveat: log posting order may not be chronological order). Yeah, probably won't happen. But that would be neat, heh

[+briansnat]

Some people just can't write long logs. Creative writing was never my thing in school. Asked to write a 3 page short story, I'd struggle to come up with more than a paragraph.

 

You don't need a creative writing background to write "Cool location, I loved the view, thanks for bringing me here" or "'This was a tough one, but we finally found it. Nice camo on the container", etc.

[+hzoi]

Some people just can't write long logs. Creative writing was never my thing in school. Asked to write a 3 page short story, I'd struggle to come up with more than a paragraph.

 

You don't need a creative writing background to write "Cool location, I loved the view, thanks for bringing me here" or "'This was a tough one, but we finally found it. Nice camo on the container", etc.

 

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

 

But despite all that, we found the cache in short order and signed the log. After replacing it, we moved on to the next pill bottle in the power trail.

 

TFTC!

[+thebruce0]

You don't need a creative writing background to write "Cool location, I loved the view, thanks for bringing me here" or "'This was a tough one, but we finally found it. Nice camo on the container", etc.

 

Well, unless, you know, it wasn't a cool location, the view wasn't one to love, it wasn't tough, it was found quick, and the camo was non-existent.

 

"Quick find, thanks for the cache!"

and we're back to square one - for some caches it really could take some creative writing skills to write something unique and informative for such a hide =)

[+narcissa]

You don't need a creative writing background to write "Cool location, I loved the view, thanks for bringing me here" or "'This was a tough one, but we finally found it. Nice camo on the container", etc.

 

Well, unless, you know, it wasn't a cool location, the view wasn't one to love, it wasn't tough, it was found quick, and the camo was non-existent.

 

"Quick find, thanks for the cache!"

and we're back to square one - for some caches it really could take some creative writing skills to write something unique and informative for such a hide =)

 

I agree. Writing about a boring cache is much, much more difficult than writing about a good one!

[+L0ne.R]

You don't need a creative writing background to write "Cool location, I loved the view, thanks for bringing me here" or "'This was a tough one, but we finally found it. Nice camo on the container", etc.

 

Well, unless, you know, it wasn't a cool location, the view wasn't one to love, it wasn't tough, it was found quick, and the camo was non-existent.

 

"Quick find, thanks for the cache!"

and we're back to square one - for some caches it really could take some creative writing skills to write something unique and informative for such a hide =)

 

[+thebruce0]

*standing ovation*

[+J Grouchy]

You don't need a creative writing background to write "Cool location, I loved the view, thanks for bringing me here" or "'This was a tough one, but we finally found it. Nice camo on the container", etc.

 

Well, unless, you know, it wasn't a cool location, the view wasn't one to love, it wasn't tough, it was found quick, and the camo was non-existent.

 

"Quick find, thanks for the cache!"

and we're back to square one - for some caches it really could take some creative writing skills to write something unique and informative for such a hide =)

 

I agree. Writing about a boring cache is much, much more difficult than writing about a good one!

 

It's why I often find myself writing more about my activities leading up to - or immediately following - the actual finding of the cache. Sometimes the cache itself it the least important part of the experience.

[+thebruce0]

And this is why I don't think the issue is so much "everyone needs to write gooder logs!"

COs who put out caches generally considered mundane (such as cookie cutter power trail caches) most likely aren't expected unique and special logs on every single cache. Many don't even read the logs because they most often come in bulk. And as a finder, I don't expect to see interesting logs on such caches.

 

I think the issue is more on individually distinct caches, especially where a lot of work was put into construction or hiding, or the location is intended to be one to really appreciate. In those cases, I completely understand the pet peeve of 'boring' find logs.

 

But I certainly won't expect to see interesting logs on every cache I find.

[+narcissa]

Whenever this topic comes up, I notice the comments from people who say "I used to write short logs but I stopped when I realized people think it's rude." That tells me there is a lot of value in leading by example, and giving people the benefit of the doubt.

[+Mama514]

I started out writing TFTC or TFTC (fun/find) but quickly realized "Now how am I going to remember a cache years from today?" My 500th find could have been obnoxious to the CO because it was VERY long. I now struggle with writing shorter logs at times with enough info for me to go back down memory lane. Then, sometimes there really isn't anything notable about the cache. However, I chose to find it so I atleast give a report of it's condition.

 

Don't care much for reading TFTC logs but that isn't to say it bothers me (as a CO or a searcher).

[+bflentje]

Some people just can't write long logs. Creative writing was never my thing in school. Asked to write a 3 page short story, I'd struggle to come up with more than a paragraph.

 

You don't need a creative writing background to write "Cool location, I loved the view, thanks for bringing me here" or "'This was a tough one, but we finally found it. Nice camo on the container", etc.

 

double thumbs up.

[+redsox_mark]

And this is why I don't think the issue is so much "everyone needs to write gooder logs!"

COs who put out caches generally considered mundane (such as cookie cutter power trail caches) most likely aren't expected unique and special logs on every single cache. Many don't even read the logs because they most often come in bulk. And as a finder, I don't expect to see interesting logs on such caches.

 

I think the issue is more on individually distinct caches, especially where a lot of work was put into construction or hiding, or the location is intended to be one to really appreciate. In those cases, I completely understand the pet peeve of 'boring' find logs.

 

But I certainly won't expect to see interesting logs on every cache I find.

 

I agree with this.

 

Generally, I'm doing a few caches, and I write unique logs.

 

Recently I did a series of 111 caches with some friends. The caches were in a beautiful area, and it took us a full day (waking at 3:30 AM) to travel there and find them. The hides were varied, though the majority were hanging on a tree. Still; these were in the woods with many trees and well camo'd; so generally took some time. I would not call these caches "mundane" by any means, and we thoroughly enjoyed the day. But the caches were similar, and I didn't feel the need to write a unique log for each.

 

I don't see the point of cutting and pasting a long log, so what I did was write one long log with a summary of the series. For the others, I wrote a short log - Along the lines of "out with X and Y doing Z series. See log at GCxxxx for a summary of the day.". I then added specific comments to some - eg one which took an especially long time.

 

I COULD have written something unique about each, but I did not see the need. E.g. "This was a particularly fine tree", or "X and I found it at the same time". You can say I was lazy, I suppose that is true. But I didn't see the point in adding small unique details to each log that probably won't be read.

[+narcissa]

And this is why I don't think the issue is so much "everyone needs to write gooder logs!"

COs who put out caches generally considered mundane (such as cookie cutter power trail caches) most likely aren't expected unique and special logs on every single cache. Many don't even read the logs because they most often come in bulk. And as a finder, I don't expect to see interesting logs on such caches.

 

I think the issue is more on individually distinct caches, especially where a lot of work was put into construction or hiding, or the location is intended to be one to really appreciate. In those cases, I completely understand the pet peeve of 'boring' find logs.

 

But I certainly won't expect to see interesting logs on every cache I find.

 

I agree with this.

 

Generally, I'm doing a few caches, and I write unique logs.

 

Recently I did a series of 111 caches with some friends. The caches were in a beautiful area, and it took us a full day (waking at 3:30 AM) to travel there and find them. The hides were varied, though the majority were hanging on a tree. Still; these were in the woods with many trees and well camo'd; so generally took some time. I would not call these caches "mundane" by any means, and we thoroughly enjoyed the day. But the caches were similar, and I didn't feel the need to write a unique log for each.

 

I don't see the point of cutting and pasting a long log, so what I did was write one long log with a summary of the series. For the others, I wrote a short log - Along the lines of "out with X and Y doing Z series. See log at GCxxxx for a summary of the day.". I then added specific comments to some - eg one which took an especially long time.

 

I COULD have written something unique about each, but I did not see the need. E.g. "This was a particularly fine tree", or "X and I found it at the same time". You can say I was lazy, I suppose that is true. But I didn't see the point in adding small unique details to each log that probably won't be read.

 

This is a better way to approach it than copying the same lengthy log to each one, I think.

[+niraD]

I don't see the point of cutting and pasting a long log, so what I did was write one long log with a summary of the series. For the others, I wrote a short log - Along the lines of "out with X and Y doing Z series. See log at GCxxxx for a summary of the day.". I then added specific comments to some - eg one which took an especially long time.

I've done something similar, where I included full details for the trip as a whole on the first log of the day, and then later logs included links to that first log.