Jump to content

Symbolic logs?


Recommended Posts

Oh goodness. We've found the bottom. We thought it was "TFTC". Then we thought it was "." Then we thought it was "That's another find for me! Thanks for hiding this geocache".

But I think "just emoji" logging might actually be the bottom --  and can FOR CERTAIN be blamed on the smartphone app revolution of this hobby.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

I think nonsensical logs in general are starting to get popular. This was one I saw today on one of the caches I looked for to show my mom how the hobby worked.

c17e65a166.png

The cache wasn't next to a hot dog place or uh.. any other thing that might lead to that sort of comment. The one after it was a simple $.

Edited by mimaef
Link to comment

I don't usually post of the forum but this subject caught my attention.  As a hider I do not necessarily look for accolades for my caches but taking the time to write a few words about your experience is definitely appreciated.  Those too lazy to write and actual log should find another hobby where they don't have to expend so much energy, say something like TV binging.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, ibgpin said:

Those too lazy to write and actual log should find another hobby where they don't have to expend so much energy, say something like TV binging.  

 

Normally "tftc" indicates boring run of the mill micros and copy/paste 1-Z caches. It's those kind of past logs that let me know to pass on a geocache. I'd rather watch Netflix than seek boring geocaches. :)

Edited by Manville Possum
spelin'
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Normally "tftc" indicates boring run of the mill micros and copy/paste 1-Z caches. It's those kind of past logs that let me know to pass on a geocache. I'd rather watch Netflix than seek boring geocaches. :)

My one that received one of these logs yesterday (GC5V6C6) isn't a micro and I would hope it isn't boring. It's had 8 FPs from 35 finds at any rate. I'm going to check on it this morning in case rehiding it was as difficult a task for this person as writing a log.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

My one that received one of these logs yesterday (GC5V6C6) isn't a micro and I would hope it isn't boring. It's had 8 FPs from 35 finds at any rate. I'm going to check on it this morning in case rehiding it was as difficult a task for this person as writing a log.

Newbies with a phone app was the reason I went PMO a few years ago. :( I think I would check my cache too if I were you. ;)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

My one that received one of these logs yesterday (GC5V6C6) isn't a micro and I would hope it isn't boring. It's had 8 FPs from 35 finds at any rate. I'm going to check on it this morning in case rehiding it was as difficult a task for this person as writing a log.

Newbies with a phone app was the reason I went PMO a few years ago. :( I think I would check my cache too if I were you. ;)

Well the cache is fine and properly hidden, but curiously the name in the logbook is different to the name on the online log although they drew the same emoji symbol. Weird.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

Normally "tftc" indicates boring run of the mill micros and copy/paste 1-Z caches. It's those kind of past logs that let me know to pass on a geocache. I'd rather watch Netflix than seek boring geocaches. :)

What I have noticed when seeing just a TFTC on my caches is that those that only post a TFTC tend to post it for all of their finds and those that tend to write longer logs with complete sentences do so for all of *their* finds.  The type of cache appears to be less of a factor than the type of geocacher.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

What I have noticed when seeing just a TFTC on my caches is that those that only post a TFTC tend to post it for all of their finds and those that tend to write longer logs with complete sentences do so for all of *their* finds.  The type of cache appears to be less of a factor than the type of geocacher.  

Yeah, I also see short or vacuous logs being more a factor of the cacher than the cache. And I'm also seeing more long time cachers who were chatty in the past get less and less interesting in writing much except who they're caching with.

But I've also noticed that the most battle hardened seekers will break down and glow about a particularly good cache. So while I don't think the "short log means bad" yardstick is valid anymore, "long log means good" might still work, although I still think you'd have to factor in who's writing the log.

Link to comment

So many "long logs" that I find are a copy/paste recap of an entire day of caching.

"Me, Cacher1, Cacher2, and Cacher3 (Team ME123) headed down to Louisville to clean up some unfounds. We hit virtuals, ECs, and Mysterys extra hard. Found a few traditionals along the way, including a few oldies. Logs were replaced when needed. Thanks to all the COs for placing these caches for us to find. We will hide some more when we get back home to return the favor. Favorite points will be forthcoming. It was a fantastic day of caching!"

I suppose this could land in the "what irks you" thread -- but this is up there for me. I'm hunting through logs for any kind of indication as to the state of this cache, a little nudge in the right direction -- and all I get is a general recap of an entire day of caching. /end rant 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

So many "long logs" that I find are a copy/paste recap of an entire day of caching.

"Me, Cacher1, Cacher2, and Cacher3 (Team ME123) headed down to Louisville to clean up some unfounds. We hit virtuals, ECs, and Mysterys extra hard. Found a few traditionals along the way, including a few oldies. Logs were replaced when needed. Thanks to all the COs for placing these caches for us to find. We will hide some more when we get back home to return the favor. Favorite points will be forthcoming. It was a fantastic day of caching!"

I suppose this could land in the "what irks you" thread -- but this is up there for me. I'm hunting through logs for any kind of indication as to the state of this cache, a little nudge in the right direction -- and all I get is a general recap of an entire day of caching. /end rant 

We have a couple like that here, everything about them (and a reference to their stats...), their friends, sometimes even their dogs,  and all cut/paste,   but very little about the actual cache itself.

 Yeah, thanks for that...

I asked one once and turns out a third-party site has a stat for  log length.    Figures...

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I asked one once and turns out a third-party site has a stat for  log length.    Figures...

PGC does have a stat for log length. And it is something that I'm focused on. About the same time that I learned that there was a stat for log length was the same time I started hanging out on these forums and learned that TFTC was NOT a well-received log. That there is actually somebody receiving that log who might value what I have to say about their cache. 

So yeah, I chase that stat on PGC as well. But I chase it with individual logs about my experience with each cache. 

Link to comment
On 8/20/2017 at 1:19 AM, mimaef said:

I think nonsensical logs in general are starting to get popular. This was one I saw today on one of the caches I looked for to show my mom how the hobby worked.

c17e65a166.png

The cache wasn't next to a hot dog place or uh.. any other thing that might lead to that sort of comment. The one after it was a simple $.

Ummm...

 

 

f751014e9580e38338cc96498e154760.gif

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, mvhayes1982 said:

So many "long logs" that I find are a copy/paste recap of an entire day of caching.

Good point. I didn't think about cut&past logs. But that's another reason that it can't really be a raw log length: "long equals good" would have to be relative to that loggers typical log length, and even then it wouldn't be that accurate. Just more accurate, I think, than "short equals bad" since so many logs are short these days even when the cache is decent.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

Good point. I didn't think about cut&past logs. But that's another reason that it can't really be a raw log length: "long equals good" would have to be relative to that loggers typical log length, and even then it wouldn't be that accurate. Just more accurate, I think, than "short equals bad" since so many logs are short these days even when the cache is decent.

For sure. I definitely see AWESOME caches -- with a TFTC. Or a "Cool cache, thanks". It's -- disappointing. 

Link to comment
On 8/19/2017 at 9:47 PM, mvhayes1982 said:

Oh goodness. We've found the bottom. We thought it was "TFTC". Then we thought it was "." Then we thought it was "That's another find for me! Thanks for hiding this geocache".

But I think "just emoji" logging might actually be the bottom --  and can FOR CERTAIN be blamed on the smartphone app revolution of this hobby.

I got a found log of a fist emoji the other day, for quite some time I wondered if that meant they wanted to deck me! LOL. But also..GRRRRRRR. 

Link to comment

For me, I enjoy writing longer logs when the cache experience has been particularly memorable or when it is based on a subject that lends itself to longer logs.  For example, recently I did a Monty Python & the Holy Grail themed Multi - the log was written from the POV of Arthur, King of the Britons.  An Invasion of the Body Snatchers themed Multi got an in-theme log, as well.

I will be the first to admit that I have run the gamut from TFTC to several hundred words.  I even had 1 log that was just a '.' (because the CO requested logs as simple as possible to reduce the use of extraneous electrons).  I then proceeded to add a picture of a 1000 word document to my log - because a picture is worth a 1000 words, and sometimes 1000 words is worth a picture.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...