Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Kayaker29

Keep logs brief

Recommended Posts

I don't mind either way.  Some like to write about they're entire experience (and I admit I enjoy reading about them) and some prefer to keep it short and sweet.   My only hope is they enjoyed the experience,  whether or not they choose to share it.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Mama514 said:
 Here's a log written by a guy who searched for this one after a friend and I got the coveted FTF. I thought it was hilarious and had a conversation with the cache owner, who's a friend of ours, about it at an event. He just thought the guy was loopy, which made it even funnier to me. I have this on my watchlist.
 
 
03/14/2017

No joy. Pulled up the manhole cover, got my wife to belay the rope while I went down into the underground tunnels. Got lost. Ran across some dude in a clown costume who offered to sell me some watches, but I didn't have any cash. He said he'd show me the way out, but that it would cost me an arm and a leg. Declined his offer. Followed some rats and found this crypt-like area. Thought maybe the cache was inside one of the skulls, but no luck. Floor fell out when I pulled one of them, booby trapped, I guess, and was swept away by the current. Fortunately, it dumped me out by an HEB, so I grabbed some marinated beef while waiting for my wife to pick me up. Don't recommend anybody taking a left after leaving the main shaft of light when you get down to the floor level of the sewer. That clown dude freaked me out.

 

The guy couldn't find the cache but wrote a funny (or scary, ha!) online log. 

Ahh Texas... HEB is great...

That log sounds like something my friend would write, except he would take it a step further by adding more nonsense.

I applaud that cacher! I would want that kind of log on one of my caches.

Edited by TwistedCube
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand why some feel the need to share, but I am not one of them, I log as I talk IRL, short and too the point, my wife has compared getting words out of me as like pulling teeth!!

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, narcissa said:

In the long run, the person most likely to read and re-read my logs is me. My logs are as long or short as I see fit.

Just another example of things nobody can possibly get right. Short logs, long logs, everyone gets flamed by a mean person in the end.

What?  Please explain in great detail, but don't bore me with unnecessary verbiage. :P

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TwistedCube said:

Ahh Texas... HEB is great...

That log sounds like something my friend would write, except he would take it a step further by adding more nonsense.

I applaud that cacher! I would want that kind of log on one of my caches.

Yeah, the HEB part was about the only possible truth to his story and the part that I thought most hilarious after all the creative nonsense.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 16/10/2017 at 2:57 PM, Kayaker29 said:

I don't understand why so many logs  are so long and full of unrelated personal information. Does anyone really care about how many bug bites you got that day, how many squirrels your dogs chased or any other mindless junk? Keep your comments short and related to the cache. It makes in a lot more interesting and pertinent to the hobby.

I do understand why so many logs are so long and full of personal information etc.

It's because us humans like stories. We use stories to make sense of reality, to entertain ourselves and to sugar the pill of learning (for Christians, think of how memorable biblical parables are) . It's what fuels the huge film and TV industries of the world, motivates us to read novels, and is clearly evident in the play of children. We are so ingrained to respond to stories and enjoy them that our distant ancestors came up with them as explanations for the imagined pictures in patterns of stars, the origins of mankind, and the unexpected shaking of earthquakes.

So, many of us enjoy reading about other folk's caching adventures, and wouldn't be so rude as to call them 'mindless junk'. If you don't like them, then simply don't read them, but don't expect other cachers to obey your orders ! Your attitude may change if you ever set a cache, spending time and money on a good container, selecting a great spot in an interesting location, only to get a bunch of 'TFTC' logs as feedback.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/16/2017 at 7:57 AM, Kayaker29 said:

Does anyone really care about how many bug bites you got that day

I do.

We have some wilderness nearby that becomes horrendous with mosquitoes in season.  I go through logs, especially my own, to glean tips on whether this coming weekend might be a good time to visit.  Yes, I search for "mosq" in logs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

I do understand why so many logs are so long and full of personal information etc.

It's because us humans like stories...

Totally agree. I basically think of geocaching as a weird form of story telling. It's certainly a feature of the caches I've out out - some literally, others it's a story connected with a place or the landscape or so on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

It's because us humans like stories

This. And many, many businesses large and small exist solely because of this reality. (and I don't just mean typical production companies for media like movies, books, video games).

Heck some of my favourite caches are creatively made to tell a story in some form. They draw you in. Some people just like to find things. Some people like a complete experience. And storytelling adds so much more to that experience.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Having started geocaching back in 2002, a detailed  log was the norm and not the exception. Reading the physical logbook is a part of geocaching that I will always enjoy but I don't see much of anymore with the over saturation of micros with the focus on numbers and not the human experience. I have always made sure my traditional caches have a large logbook and several pencils to encourage geocachers to share their journey and read what others have to say about the cache. It makes me cringe when I see threads like this pop up on the forums. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Good points. Though there is a fundamental difference in online logs and written logs. Many people use online logs to gain some idea about a cache before finding the cache. The physical logbook is an option read, easily skimmable or skippable, and is read of course after finding the cache. So there's a practical difference between the two. I'd presume that "Keep logs brief" is in relation to the OP's opinion of the purpose of the online digital log, not with the same purpose as the handwritten cache logbook.

(and I too don't mind long logs; love reading about experiences; but it's much easier to enjoy it when you choose to spend the time to take it all in - either sitting at the cache with the book in hand, or browsing through relevant online digital logs. But in a hurry? Looking for a tip? Brief logs online are more condusive to a positive experience)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Viajero Perdido said:

  Yes, I search for "mosq" in logs.

OT:  Of course, searching the logs for "mosq"  is only helpful if the writer has the slightest idea how to spell "mosquito."  I've seen some really strange attempts, wish I could remember them.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Viajero Perdido said:

I do.

We have some wilderness nearby that becomes horrendous with mosquitoes in season.  I go through logs, especially my own, to glean tips on whether this coming weekend might be a good time to visit.  Yes, I search for "mosq" in logs.

I know someone pretty well that is currently recovering from west nile virus.  I also know someone that got dengue fever from a mosquito bite and once co-taught (or at least I did) a workshop in Tanzania with someone that had malaria (he began having symptoms a couple of days before the event).  Mosquitoes and ticks can really ruin your day.   

In our part of the world, reading about current snow levels can be really helpful as well.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NanCycle said:
4 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

  Yes, I search for "mosq" in logs.

OT:  Of course, searching the logs for "mosq"  is only helpful if the writer has the slightest idea how to spell "mosquito."  I've seen some really strange attempts, wish I could remember them.

Could do it the Aussie way and call them mozzies, like my husband does.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Here's one online log I got a thanks from the owner for:

Rode the trail to GZ with KR and immediately spotted the notorious "honey hole" then rigged our line and got to fishing. I was trying the cane pole method but KR wanted to cast and reel, cast and reel. Then, I thought, "why not just catfish and see if anything swims its way over to our bait" but it seems our bait wasn't smelly enough. Guess who caught the fish? ...The cast and reel guy did. A nice sized red, too! We punched our tag on him then I wanted to see if I could catch a trout, but had no luck there so I gently placed the red back into the "honey hole" for someone else to wrestle with on another day.

BBQ chicken and sausage is on the menu tonight. Thanks for a fun one (cache owner) ! I believe this is the first interactive cache we've found in a TSP!

 

Sorry if it is too full of irrelevant info for some owners and unhelpful to other searchers. How the heck is everyone supposed to know what EVERYBODY else wants in an online log ??? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ambrosia said:

Could do it the Aussie way and call them mozzies, like my husband does.

 

First time I heard them called "mossies" was after we started caching. "Skeeters" is pretty common here. 

Share this post


Link to post

Kayaker29 = no caches placed. Excuse me for letting that bother me. On the bright side, you live far enough away that I can pretend that I never heard of you. But the very best part is that I can continue to write my logs as I see fit, and your opinion means absolutely nothing. But thanks for sharing.

 

Edited by Cardinal Red
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/16/2017 at 6:57 AM, Kayaker29 said:

I don't understand why so many logs  are so long and full of unrelated personal information. Does anyone really care about how many bug bites you got that day, how many squirrels your dogs chased or any other mindless junk? Keep your comments short and related to the cache. It makes in a lot more interesting and pertinent to the hobby.

I'm not sure where you see "so many logs that are long and full of unrelated personal information" - I see a whole lot more of TFTC or Found it than logs that tell a story or give useful information about the previous cachers' experience. 

I was not a geocacher in the early days of the hobby when log books were just that - a book, where people wrote asentene or three int he logbook for others to read after fnding the cache.  I have found a few like that, and it's enjoyable to read and then tell my story to add to the book!  With all logs online now, and an overabundance of nanos and micros where there is no room for anything but a signature (and often abbreviated, or signed as a group at that!), the online log becomes the story of the cache.

Having started this adventure in March of this year, I do like the logs that tell me of previous experiences.  Sometimes it willl give me a hint as to where to look that is helpful if I'm not locating it easily.  I often write the log so I can remember the experience, or something specific that happened associated with the cache; why I was in that particular location at that time and sometimes a note about the condition of the cache, either good or needing attention.  I have had CO's email me thanking me for the story in the log; they prefer that to "TFTC", which really tells them nothing.

Maybe some don't care to read all that I write; they don't have to.  It's there for those that do, and for me to remember when I go back from time to time.

Edited by CAVinoGal
typo corrections

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/16/2017 at 6:57 AM, Kayaker29 said:

I don't understand why so many logs  are so long and full of unrelated personal information. Does anyone really care about how many bug bites you got that day, how many squirrels your dogs chased or any other mindless junk? Keep your comments short and related to the cache. It makes in a lot more interesting and pertinent to the hobby.

And when every cache is plagued with "TFTH" and "QEF" then what? Oh wait... 

Share this post


Link to post

My contribution to the thread. I am one of those who like to write long logs and full of personal experiences. I know a lot of people do not like it (some also hate it). I know that many others love my logs. I do not care if others like it or not. I write my logs mainly for myself, although I also try to share useful information for owners and seekers (like "the caches is Ok, but the logbbok is close to be full" or "I searched in that awful/dangerous zone but the cache was 10m behind"). That's why my logs are all different even for series of caches. That is why sometimes I make the effort of linking the previous and next logs to a chain of several caches on the same day.


In my way of looking at things, finding a cache consists of three phases: 1. Read the listing and gather information needed to start the search of the cache. 2. Go out, find it and sign the physical logbook. 3. Write in the online log how I lived that experience. The three phases are imperative, for me, to consider a cache as found. And it's something that I keep to myself. In fact I have about 50 caches (which represent around 10% of my "Found it" numbers) that I have signed but I do not have in my FI registry for several reasons. Some because the owner thought it wrong to write long logs, so I deleted them and I put all the caches from those owners in my ignore list. Others because some caching mates thought it wrong that I wrote in the log that we had separated to do a PT and I just logged (all totally different logs!) those I had signed. I deleted those logs because if I can not reflect what my true experience was, I consider that cache is incomplete for me. If, as owner, you bother my long logs, just tell me and I have no problem deleting them and not logging back a cache of yours. There are enough caches in the world!

Once a colleague asked me why those logs were so long? My answer was: I enjoy geocaching. Writing long logs forces me to remember and, above all, to reflect on the activity. I perfectly remember all the caches I've found (Of course, my finds numbers are quite small, 500 in 3 years). In addition, writing is always a highly recommended exercise. And I love reading long logs from others that are sincere and reflect their experience (positive or negative). I love to learn how others live their own way of geocaching. On the other hand, I don't like very short meaningless logs, generic and/or repetitive logs or those that are simply compliant with the owners but do not reflect a real or sincere experience. But even I don't like them, I do not complain about them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I'm not sure where you see "so many logs that are long and full of unrelated personal information" - I see a whole lot more of TFTC or Found it than logs that tell a story or give useful information about the previous cachers' experience. 

Some areas have a lot of power cacher types, so it could be a lot of both--TFTC/Found it logs,  cut n paste unrelated logs. Unrelated-to-the-cache logs, whether they are long or short, are not community-friendly and I consider them to be impolite treatment of cache owners of quality caches, who monitor and maintain their caches, and look forward to every log that comes in.

Power cachers seem to like to use the GSAK cut n paste method (write one log and GSAK can paste it on to all the caches you log that day -- this may also be a feature on some of the third party apps). Sometimes I see a power logs that start with "Sorry about the cut n paste, but...", so even the cut-n-paster knows they are being impolite.

If its got to be an unrelated log, I prefer the TFTC log to the cut n paste log. Both are bad, both make some of us question why we bother being cache owners. But the TFTC takes up less time to read through only to discover there's no mention of your cache in the long blurb. And at least you don't find out that the caches you spent days making, and regularly monitor, are just a smiley commodity for the more coveted challenge cache prize (often a bison tube on a fence):

'Went caching with GeoGroup. We found 65 non-traditional caches today, beating our goal of 50 caches for the GeoLPC 10-10-10 Challenge cache. Thanks GeoGroup host for the final coordinates, it really sped things up. The weather was great and we had lots of fun. We found most of the caches and only had to replace about 5 logs and replaced 3 containers. Thank you GeoBob for bringing a sackful of pre-signed bison tubes. And thanks to the cache owners for your cache placements.'

Then 20 other cachers in the group also post long unrelated-to-the-cache logs that are practically the same as each other, maybe tweaked slightly -- does the group share a GSAK template?

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Some areas have a lot of power cacher types, so it could be a lot of both--TFTC/Found it logs,  cut n paste unrelated logs. Unrelated-to-the-cache logs, whether they are long or short, are not community-friendly and I consider them to be impolite treatment of cache owners of quality caches, who monitor and maintain their caches, and look forward to every log that comes in.

Power cachers seem to like to use the GSAK cut n paste method (write one log and GSAK can paste it on to all the caches you log that day -- this may also be a feature on some of the third party apps). Sometimes I see a power logs that start with "Sorry about the cut n paste, but...", so even the cut-n-paster knows they are being impolite.

If its got to be an unrelated log, I prefer the TFTC log to the cut n paste log. Both are bad, both make some of us question why we bother being cache owners. But the TFTC takes up less time to read through only to discover there's no mention of your cache in the long blurb. And at least you don't find out that the caches you spent days making, and regularly monitor, are just a smiley commodity for the more coveted challenge cache prize (often a bison tube on a fence):

'Went caching with GeoGroup. We found 65 non-traditional caches today, beating our goal of 50 caches for the GeoLPC 10-10-10 Challenge cache. Thanks GeoGroup host for the final coordinates, it really sped things up. The weather was great and we had lots of fun. We found most of the caches and only had to replace about 5 logs and replaced 3 containers. Thank you GeoBob for bringing a sackful of pre-signed bison tubes. And thanks to the cache owners for your cache placements.'

Then 20 other cachers in the group also post long unrelated-to-the-cache logs that are practically the same as each other, maybe tweaked slightly -- does the group share a GSAK template?

We don't always agree, I know.  But here we do, every word.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

When you read one cut and paste log, it's not the end of the world. But if you own a bunch of caches that the cut and pasters went to in a row, it gets a bit old when you open the sixth identical log for each of your caches.

You also start to not trust the logs. They could even tack on something like, "this cache needs maintenance" or some such, and especially if they're not specific, you really wonder if they even got the correct cache. When you're spamming a bunch of caches all day with the same logs, do you remember which cache you're actually logging at the moment?

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Ambrosia said:

When you're spamming a bunch of caches all day with the same logs, do you remember which cache you're actually logging at the moment?

 

 

I got a cut and paste log once on one of my earthcaches about a numbers run and that they had replaced my log sheet. :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:
26 minutes ago, Ambrosia said:

When you're spamming a bunch of caches all day with the same logs, do you remember which cache you're actually logging at the moment?

 

 

I got a cut and paste log once on one of my earthcaches about a numbers run and that they had replaced my log sheet. :rolleyes:

Exactly! <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Hang on, did we all just agree on something?! (other than the OP, of course)

...is that allowed to happen in the Groundspeak forums? :laughing:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Ambrosia said:

When you read one cut and paste log, it's not the end of the world. But if you own a bunch of caches that the cut and pasters went to in a row, it gets a bit old when you open the sixth identical log for each of your caches.

You also start to not trust the logs. They could even tack on something like, "this cache needs maintenance" or some such, and especially if they're not specific, you really wonder if they even got the correct cache. When you're spamming a bunch of caches all day with the same logs, do you remember which cache you're actually logging at the moment?

Yep.    :)

A group here does the same C/P log for all caches they've found that day.  Billybob writes "Caching with Jimbo, Jake and Rex for a fun day.  Thanks for the hide", and the only difference is all the following logs just have the names changed, with little of a cache at all.

Pretty sure many have seen the cut/paste logs followed by "Thanks for placing and maintaining this cache for others to enjoy!" at the end of every C/P log, when there's mentions of log soaked, everything's soaked, or a NM placed  by others immediately before it.    ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Ambrosia said:

When you read one cut and paste log, it's not the end of the world. But if you own a bunch of caches that the cut and pasters went to in a row, it gets a bit old when you open the sixth identical log for each of your caches.

I have to believe that verbose cut&pasters are oblivious to the fact that anyone seeing their cut&pastes logs are going to see them over and over. Any defense of cut&paste I've seen only considers the impact of a single log entry, not the cumulative impact of all the logs taken together. It's bad enough for COs, but I claim it's even worse for seekers since, in most cases, seekers are going to read more logs in any given area that the cut&paster went through.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that a log should describe the "experience" of the search. This includes maybe the journey to the cache, and I appreciate when someone writes a long log to my caches, and I try to do the same. When you read the logs of a cache, it is interesting to read a lot of different logs instead of a series of "TFTC" " found quickly"...

writing a good log is , in my opinion, a good way to thank the owner for the time spent while hiding and mantaining the cache.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, anpefi said:

Some because the owner thought it wrong to write long logs, so I deleted them and I put all the caches from those owners in my ignore list.

I would Ignore the CO but leave the log. If the CO gives me a hard time or deleted my log I would report them to Groundspeak.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I agree logs  should make it clear that, yes, the cacher did definitely find the cache and what the cache's condition is. I would suggest this should be broken out into a separate paragraph from all the other text to make it easy to find. It's considerate of others, especially those who might be reading the logs in the field desperately trying to find a clue to avoid a DNF.

I also dislike massive copy & paste logs. If you find 10 caches over the course of the day, don't write 1 essay and paste it 10 times. Instead, split the essay into 10 parts, or write it once and, as others have suggested, have the other 9 logs link back to the first.

However, I think including a sentence or two of copy-n-paste into every log on the same day is fine. Something along the lines of "I enjoyed the great fall weather today hiking in Some State Park with Tom, Dick, and Harry. We found 19 of 20 caches we looked for."  That's useful for the person writing the logs when they look back later and reminisce. It's also potentially useful to the CO or other finders. They can see that these 4 logs on one day were by one group of people. It gives them a better sense of the cache activity. It especially matters on DNFs - a group of four people looking for the same cache without finding it has a little different significance than four people looking for the same cache separately and not finding it. A copy-and-paste note like "Found during my three week vacation to Oregon." lets people reading the log know, without looking at their profile, that the cacher was a non-local. I think it's reassuring when someone suddenly logs 50 of your caches backdated to a month ago to know it's just someone on vacation and not an armchair logger.

I enjoy log longs, both writing and usually reading. I try to leave them whenever I can, although that doesn't always happen. Depending on the caches, location, and conditions I may not have as much to say some days as others. I try to log when i get home so they are fresh in my mind; I regret when I have a delay of days or weeks between finding and logging (such as when on vacation) because I don't remember as much about the experience. I usually keep a small notepad with me so I can not only keep an accurate list of what I found or didn't find and in what order, but also to make brief notations to jog my memory later when writing my log. Besides my experience going to the cache, I treat the cache as a writing prompt. What did the name, description, or location make me think about? Why did I seek out the cache?

If you write long, but interesting logs you there are people who appreciate it - sometimes the CO, sometimes other people who seek the cache, sometimes your geo-friends, and sometimes total strangers.

At the same time, don't feel like you have to write an essay. I have a friend who is a very casual cacher. He writes more than a couple sentences in his log. He often logs in the field from his iPhone and, by his own admission, usually can't think of much to say. But I'm pretty sure most COs appreciate that he takes the time to write a few complete sentences rather than "TFTC."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I do the same.  I log 99% of my finds from my phone on the spot.  Others have said that it is better to wait so you can write a long log.  I can type on my phone just as well as I can on the computer.  When logging at GZ I can remember much more of what is going on then if I wait.

I once did a hike with a group and the mountain didn't really have phone service. When I got home to log them I didn't have much I could think of to say about each one because they all kind of blended together after all that time.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, simoktm said:

writing a good log is , in my opinion, a good way to thank the owner for the time spent while hiding and mantaining the cache.

Agreed.  However, when said CO has hundreds of hides in the same local area, and most are pill bottles and LPC's, then TFTC and a quick note about the weather or muggle situation may be approriate! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Agreed.  However, when said CO has hundreds of hides in the same local area, and most are pill bottles and LPC's, then TFTC and a quick note about the weather or muggle situation may be approriate! 

 

Yes, I agree. When I found a PT of 20/30 identical caches is very difficult to say something different for every cache...Generally I write a "common part" for the entire trail, where I give my opinion (I liked, it was a difficult/easy path..) and then add a few (short) considerations  in the log of every cache..

Share this post


Link to post

Now thinking more about it, brief logs are handy for me to weed out caches that I don;t want to visit. If I see "tftc" posted by several others, then I will most likely pass on it.:)

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Now thinking more about it, brief logs are handy for me to weed out caches that I don;t want to visit. If I see "tftc" posted by several others, then I will most likely pass on it.:)

From what I have seen, those that tend to only write very short (tftc only) logs write them on all (or most caches they found) and those that tend to write long logs for a cache tend to write long logs on all or most of the caches they find.  If the only logs on a cache are very short or tftc only then it might be an indication that it's not a cache worth visiting, but even a highly favorited cache might get several tftc logs if it's been visited by a group of like minded geocachers that never write long logs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 If the only logs on a cache are very short or tftc only then it might be an indication that it's not a cache worth visiting

That's been mentioned on these forums before and looks to be accurate. Logwordcount (is that a word?) is often a good indicator of cache quality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

From what I have seen, those that tend to only write very short (tftc only) logs write them on all (or most caches they found) and those that tend to write long logs for a cache tend to write long logs on all or most of the caches they find.  If the only logs on a cache are very short or tftc only then it might be an indication that it's not a cache worth visiting, but even a highly favorited cache might get several tftc logs if it's been visited by a group of like minded geocachers that never write long logs.

 

I'm sure you are correct, but that is not my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

That's been mentioned on these forums before and looks to be accurate. Logwordcount (is that a word?) is often a good indicator of cache quality.

 

Not anymore. There are statistic hounds that do this to up their logwordcounts, which some third party sites record on a person's profile. Wordy is no longer an indication of quality. This recent log on a roadside micro (66 finds, one FP in 2014). The logger (over 10000 finds) posted this on the 21 caches he found that day :

 

Found it Found it
07/21/2017

Day 335 of my current caching streak as I work towards a goal of 365 days straight. Day 44 of my caching road trip from Salt Lake City, UT to Ohio, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Texas and then back to Utah on the 21st day of July with partly cloudy skies and temperatures in the mid 90's. All is well with the cache container and log. Thanks for the cache.


With all the time we spent caching, have you ever stopped to think how much news you've missed out on since this crazy game of geocaching was created back in early 2000? I hope this helps....This Day in History - July 21, 2000, 2001 & 2002:

  • 2000 - Group of Eight leaders met for an economic summit on the Japanese island of Okinawa, where President Clinton also sought to soothe long-simmering tensions over the huge American military presence.
  • 2000 - Special Counsel John C. Danforth concluded "with 100 percent certainty" that the federal government was innocent of wrongdoing in the siege that killed 80 members of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, in 1993.
  • 2000 - Norm Mineta, the 1st Asian American to serve in a president’s cabinet, was sworn in as the 33rd US secretary of commerce.
  • 2000 - Researchers reported that human general intelligence, as measured in IQ tests, came from clearly defines regions in the frontal lobes.
  • 2000 - It was reported that warming climate was causing Greenland to lose 11 cubic miles of ice a year, or 12.5 trillion gallons, enough to raise sea level by .005 inches annually.
  • 2000 - It was reported that computers at Los Alamos simulated a nuclear blast in 3 dimensions for the 1st time.
  • 2000 - In Hawaii a tour helicopter crashed and killed 7 people on Maui.
  • 2000 - Marc Reisner, author of "Cadillac Desert," died in Marin, Ca., at age 51. His 1986 book was an angry indictment of water depletion in the American West.
  • 2000 - In Chechnya 4 Russian soldiers were killed when a land mine blew up their truck in the Shali region.
  • 2000 - In Russia 19 airmen were killed when a Mi-8 helicopter crashed north of St. Petersburg.
  • 2001 - Over 140 UN nations agreed on a voluntary pact to stem small arms into conflict zones. It required manufacturers to compile records of sales and to mark weapons to enable their traces. The US managed to keep out some restrictions.
  • 2001 - In Japan 10 people, mostly children, were killed on a crowded pedestrian bridge as they left a fireworks display in Akashi.
  • 2002 - WorldCom filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy about a month after disclosing it had inflated profits by nearly $4 billion through deceptive accounting. With $107 billion in assets, it was the largest US bankruptcy ever.
  • 2002 - In south central Oregon an 87,000 acre wildfire burned along a mile-long front.
  • 2002 - Ernie Els won the British Open in the first sudden-death finish in the 142-year history of the tournament.
  • 2002 - In Israel an explosion under a moving passenger train near Tel Aviv moderately injured one Israeli.
  • 2002 - In the Philippines 3 people drowned in floods and a landslide buried alive a family of three as heavy rains pummeled the main island of Luzon, including Manila.
  • 2002 - In Russia fighting started when a vendor at the Moscow Orion market opened fire at a group of wholesale buyers who allegedly refused to pay him for his goods. The armed vendor was from the Dagestan region in southern Russia, and the buyers were from the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan.
  • 2002 - A methane gas explosion tore through a Ukrainian coal mine, killing at least six miners and leaving more than 28 missing.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Not anymore. There are statistic hounds that do this to up their logwordcounts, which some third party sites record on a person's profile. Wordy is no longer an indication of quality. This recent log on a roadside micro (66 finds, one FP in 2014). The logger (over 10000 finds) posted this on the 21 caches he found that day :

 

Found it Found it
07/21/2017

Day 335 of my current caching streak as I work towards a goal of 365 days straight. Day 44 of my caching road trip from Salt Lake City, UT to Ohio, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Texas and then back to Utah on the 21st day of July with partly cloudy skies and temperatures in the mid 90's. All is well with the cache container and log. Thanks for the cache.

Thanks for posting that--I decided not to repeat the whole thing.  I saw that when it was posted and was looking for it again to use as a prime example against overly wordy logs.  If  the log were only the portion that I included above I would be fine with it, but the rest is just unrelated and unnecessary verbiage.  IMO not a good cache log.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Not anymore. There are statistic hounds that do this to up their logwordcounts, which some third party sites record on a person's profile.

While there are exceptions, in general it remains true. A long log still stands out between many short ones and of course t's not the only thing to check when filtering for quality. There's still FP, GC-vote, % of FP vs. found it logs and most important knowing which CO place "good" caches and which finder's logs to trust.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Not anymore. There are statistic hounds that do this to up their logwordcounts, which some third party sites record on a person's profile.

Wow, that's about as nonsensical as it gets. I've always been able to imagine that somewhere someone was impressed by, say, the number of TBs someone else has found, even though I had no idea what motivated them to be impressed. But I truly can't imagine anyone being impressed by someone else's word count, even before they went to look at one of those verbose logs and saw that their word count didn't actually reflect any value.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

My last Gus tell about my experience in hunting for a cache. If I'm visiting from a distance, I mention that. If I'm on a hike or bike ride, I mention it. If I'm doing a series of caches, I say something about it.,

I do this partly for me, partly for the CO, and partly for anyone who may be interested in my experience. I read others' logs to learn of their experience.

if there are a number of caches that the log applies to I will copy and paste because often there are multiple COs and I want each to be able to read of my experience. Likewise, not everyone who seeks a given cache will have looked for the same caches as I did and may not see a lot of g on a different cache.

if anyone sees multiple logs by me, they can easily. Skip them.

i try to say something about each cache, but if there are just a bunch of caches along a trail with nothing special about them, it's hard to do that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Dread_Pirate_Bruce said:

if there are a number of caches that the log applies to I will copy and paste because often there are multiple COs and I want each to be able to read of my experience. Likewise, not everyone who seeks a given cache will have looked for the same caches as I did and may not see a lot of g on a different cache.

I'm a fan of the extra information not related to the cache, don't get me wrong, but I start to disagree when you talk about cut&paste and the idea that these other things all apply just as much to all the caches. Your justification here is to list a few people that won't be negatively impacted, but that doesn't excuse all the other people you do impact. The fact remains, some people will, in fact, look at all the same caches you found, and those people will be inflicted with the repetition.

For me, I don't feel there's anything about my day that actually applies equally to all the caches. I usually feel my first cache is the place to explain what brought me to this area. The middle caches are more likely to be the places where I'll talk about riding the bike or hiking up a big ridge or whatever else there is to say about my mode of transportation or the weather or my companions. If I feel like summarizing the trip, the last cache usually has that. I understand that some people think all those things are relevant to all the caches, but that's not the way I feel about it.

3 hours ago, Dread_Pirate_Bruce said:

if anyone sees multiple logs by me, they can easily. Skip them.

You are correct, and you're certainly free to continue doing what you're doing. I can, in fact, skip them. I'm just pointing out that the impact isn't really as small as you're telling yourself. But it's still your decision whether the cost of inflicting this information multiple times on some people is worth making sure all people see it at least once.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/20/2017 at 3:23 AM, Joshism said:

I agree logs  should make it clear that, yes, the cacher did definitely find the cache and what the cache's condition is. I would suggest this should be broken out into a separate paragraph from all the other text to make it easy to find. It's considerate of others, especially those who might be reading the logs in the field desperately trying to find a clue to avoid a DNF.

 

I like all of the post I'm quoting, but to keep the post size down I'm only quoting this part.  

When I write a log, I am thinking about multiple audiences.    Any basic information about the caches condition, how easy it was for me to find etc, I try to put in a paragraph near the start, thinking of those looking in the field, as well as making it more likely for the CO to spot.   

Then there are sometimes experiences which I want to log for my benefit at least.   Others may or may not find it interesting, e.g. if I slipped and covered myself with mud, was licked by a cow, stung by a bee, etc.     There may also be information about who I was with.  

Where a cache has a theme, I will often comment on that theme, even if those comments aren't related to the physical cache.     I assume the CO may be interested here; as he/she set the theme.    It is generally not helpful for those finding the cache.  

I personally don't like long cut and paste logs, and I don't do that myself.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/16/2017 at 10:22 AM, TwistedCube said:

It depends on the situation. I would post something interesting, like how the cops stopped us or I am visiting from a foreign country.  but I wouldn't post something like: I went on a hike, we bushwhacked for 10 minutes and 20 seconds, I had my sun hat on. We were with my cousin's friend's neighbor and his pet chinchilla, so we had to take some extra precautions. I slipped on the mud twice, and my left knee was coated with it... Blah Blah Blah.

I guess it's just personal preference though. Some just type: TFTC, but others may add another 20 lines of text.

  

Personally, I would find it fascinating to know that someone hikes with their pet chinchilla! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, usyoopers said:

Personally, I would find it fascinating to know that someone hikes with their pet chinchilla! :lol:

Chinchilla, is that like a big spider on a leash? B)

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, usyoopers said:

Personally, I would find it fascinating to know that someone hikes with their pet chinchilla! :lol:

I think I was overstating my original thought, but yeah, I would find it funny to know that someone hikes with their pet rodent every time they 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 6

×