Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Kayaker29

Keep logs brief

171 posts in this topic

23 hours ago, Dread_Pirate_Bruce said:

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.

That of course begs the question, if there's nothing special about them, why you bothered going for them.  I don't say that to take a swipe at you for logging power trails -- I hike them in segments all the time.  But I treat them like I treat other caches -- if it's worth my time to go find it, it's worth my time to come up with something meaningful for the cache owner, or next finder, in case they actually read my log.

Even when I find 20-30 caches in a row that are all micros on the same bike trail, I make it a mental exercise to come up with something at least slightly different for each log.  Sometimes I'll start a thought in one log and continue it in the next.  Sometimes I discuss things I saw or people who passed me on the trail.  By leapfrogging caches and logging from the field, I usually have about a quarter of a mile walk to come up with something. 

Even if all the caches are in great shape, it still may be helpful to let the CO or next finder know that.  In fact, when I start running out of things to say, I can always default to this one.  Sure, it may hurt my "log length" or "unique log content" stats, but those are on the bottom of my list of concerns. :anibad:

6

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/20/2017 at 10:10 AM, 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.

The length of my logs gives people reading them a good idea of what i thought of a cache. A cache i enjoyed gets a longer, more detailed log. The lamer the cache, the shorter the log. It's easy to tell at a glance, the caches i felt were suckers. ;)

You are absolutely right that some people write short logs no matter how great a cache is. Some 10 or so years ago, a short log on a good cache looked "fishy" so you knew there was a good chance the person logging it didn't actually find it. It's definitely not like that today since short phone logs are more the norm.

0

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, hzoi said:

That of course begs the question, if there's nothing special about them, why you bothered going for them.  I don't say that to take a swipe at you for logging power trails -- I hike them in segments all the time.  But I treat them like I treat other caches -- if it's worth my time to go find it, it's worth my time to come up with something meaningful for the cache owner, or next finder, in case they actually read my log.

Even when I find 20-30 caches in a row that are all micros on the same bike trail, I make it a mental exercise to come up with something at least slightly different for each log.  Sometimes I'll start a thought in one log and continue it in the next.  Sometimes I discuss things I saw or people who passed me on the trail.  By leapfrogging caches and logging from the field, I usually have about a quarter of a mile walk to come up with something. 

Even if all the caches are in great shape, it still may be helpful to let the CO or next finder know that.  In fact, when I start running out of things to say, I can always default to this one.  Sure, it may hurt my "log length" or "unique log content" stats, but those are on the bottom of my list of concerns. :anibad:

But a normal sane person can only come up with so much. The same 30 caches, most likely having the same exact copy and paste cache description, don't really deserve anything creative from its finders. More than likely, the owner of those caches could care less what the logs say. They're not expecting quality logs, just a bunch of them!

0

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

But a normal sane person can only come up with so much. The same 30 caches, most likely having the same exact copy and paste cache description, don't really deserve anything creative from its finders. More than likely, the owner of those caches could care less what the logs say. They're not expecting quality logs, just a bunch of them!

Which brings us back to hzoi's original question:

Quote

if there's nothing special about them, why bother going for them?

 

Edited by J Grouchy
2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hzoi said:

That of course begs the question, if there's nothing special about them, why you bothered going for them. 

And how are you supposed to know that there's "nothing special" about them unless you go out and find them?   There's no "rule" that says the cache description has to be amazingly informative or compelling.   Some of my favorite cache finds have come when I arrived at the cache and found a delightful surprise.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Posted 4 hours ago (edited) · Report post

4 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

But a normal sane person can only come up with so much. The same 30 caches, most likely having the same exact copy and paste cache description, don't really deserve anything creative from its finders. More than likely, the owner of those caches could care less what the logs say. They're not expecting quality logs, just a bunch of them!

Which brings us back to hzoi's original question:

Quote

if there's nothing special about them, why bother going for them?

 


But every cache is special - it's at a unique set of co-ords.  The "special" question can be asked about any cache.  Around here a common type of hide is the ammo can behind a log/tree/stump - what makes the 932nd one found any more special than the other 931?  It's at a different set of co-ords behind a different log/tree/stump.

0

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Posted 4 hours ago (edited) · Report post

Which brings us back to hzoi's original question:

 


But every cache is special - it's at a unique set of co-ords.  The "special" question can be asked about any cache.  Around here a common type of hide is the ammo can behind a log/tree/stump - what makes the 932nd one found any more special than the other 931?  It's at a different set of co-ords behind a different log/tree/stump.

There's more to being "special" than just having a unique set of coordinates.  But that's probably a whole 50 page thread in and of itself.

2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Jester said:

But every cache is special - it's at a unique set of co-ords.  The "special" question can be asked about any cache.  Around here a common type of hide is the ammo can behind a log/tree/stump - what makes the 932nd one found any more special than the other 931?  It's at a different set of co-ords behind a different log/tree/stump.

But...that's the best hide in the world! :mellow::wub: I wish they were all that way. :D To me, the quintessential hide is an ammo can in a tree stump. Ahhhh....

2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ambrosia said:
3 hours ago, The Jester said:

But every cache is special - it's at a unique set of co-ords.  The "special" question can be asked about any cache.  Around here a common type of hide is the ammo can behind a log/tree/stump - what makes the 932nd one found any more special than the other 931?  It's at a different set of co-ords behind a different log/tree/stump.

But...that's the best hide in the world! :mellow::wub: I wish they were all that way. :D To me, the quintessential hide is an ammo can in a tree stump. Ahhhh....

And fortunately there are still a lot more tree stumps than ammo cans in the world so finding the cache isn't always a gimme.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
2 hours ago, Ambrosia said:
4 hours ago, The Jester said:

But every cache is special - it's at a unique set of co-ords.  The "special" question can be asked about any cache.  Around here a common type of hide is the ammo can behind a log/tree/stump - what makes the 932nd one found any more special than the other 931?  It's at a different set of co-ords behind a different log/tree/stump.

But...that's the best hide in the world! :mellow::wub: I wish they were all that way. :D To me, the quintessential hide is an ammo can in a tree stump. Ahhhh....

And fortunately there are still a lot more tree stumps than ammo cans in the world so finding the cache isn't always a gimme.

I like gimmes. :unsure: :laughing:

1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Which brings us back to hzoi's original question:

 

In my case, i used to cache with friends that liked those kinds of caches. No, i didn't have to log all those caches but since i did find them, why not. Our group no longer caches together so now i choose caches i think i'll enjoy. I don't have to worry about logging 30 identical caches now days because it's not likely to happen..

0

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, hzoi said:

That of course begs the question, if there's nothing special about them, why you bothered going for them.  I don't say that to take a swipe at you for logging power trails -- I hike them in segments all the time.  But I treat them like I treat other caches -- if it's worth my time to go find it, it's worth my time to come up with something meaningful for the cache owner, or next finder, in case they actually read my log.

Even when I find 20-30 caches in a row that are all micros on the same bike trail, I make it a mental exercise to come up with something at least slightly different for each log.  Sometimes I'll start a thought in one log and continue it in the next.  Sometimes I discuss things I saw or people who passed me on the trail.  By leapfrogging caches and logging from the field, I usually have about a quarter of a mile walk to come up with something. 

Even if all the caches are in great shape, it still may be helpful to let the CO or next finder know that.  In fact, when I start running out of things to say, I can always default to this one.  Sure, it may hurt my "log length" or "unique log content" stats, but those are on the bottom of my list of concerns. :anibad:

I try and do the same.    I might mention the muggle or dog I met near #3, that #7 took me a bit longer to find than most, and that it started to rain when I got to #11, the mud near #14.    Though back to the OP, this may involve me writing things that others may not care about.    For some if I really have nothing special to say I might say something generic like "All fine here, enjoying the walk so far".   

But I also think it is fine, in the case of 20 identical caches on a trail, to write one summary log and have the others point to that one, and only note in the individual logs if there is something the finder wants to mention (e.g. the log on this one is wet).   

It is also fine to have one longer log which describes the whole series and cut and paste that on every one, though that is my least preferred method.   

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

23 hours ago, hzoi said:
  On 10/22/2017 at 10:24 AM, Dread_Pirate_Bruce said:

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.

Quote

 

Which brings us back to hzoi's original question:

 

Quote

if there's nothing special about them, why bother going for them?

I agree. Once you've done maybe 5 of the "bunch of caches along a trail with nothing special about them" and have all the evidence you need that the next couple of miles are only more of the same, why continue?

I suppose it's more of a psychology type of question. Why do so many cachers do this? And LOTS do this.

 

 

 

0

Share this post


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

I agree. Once you've done maybe 5 of the "bunch of caches along a trail with nothing special about them" and have all the evidence you need that the next couple of miles are only more of the same, why continue?

I suppose it's more of a psychology type of question. Why do so many cachers do this? And LOTS do this.

Yep. People enjoy different things.

I've said elsewhere, but when it comes to powertrails, I don't think of each individual cache (much likely as do the COs) insomuch as the whole trail is one experience; especially if the trail is done with friends. Some people don't like powertrails because each individual cache is nothing to remember, nothing interesting, redundant. In most cases, that's true. But in those cases, the people who enjoy them aren't looking for specific individual cache experiences. And in geocaching there are many types of experiences, which many enjoy, and those which few enjoy.  As long as, practically speaking, each individual cache is still treated as an individual cache (logging and the act of finding/signing) as it pertains to how the activity affects other cachers, then imo there's no harm in it.  But there's definitely a lot of people who demonstrate the "powertrail mentality" for lack of a better term, which does affect others. Throwdowns (unsanctioned replacements), unattentive logging (unconfirmed finds, mistaken logs from batch Find-everything practices, etc), incorrect maintenance, and more.

Alas, this thread isn't about powertrails, plenty of other threads to cover that :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I've said elsewhere, but when it comes to powertrails, I don't think of each individual cache (much likely as do the COs) insomuch as the whole trail is one experience; especially if the trail is done with friends.

I've heard this idea that the whole trail is a single experience, except that the fans of these trails insist that each cache in the trail be listed separately, as if it stood on its own. If the whole trail really is a single experience, then why did fans of these trails reject the idea of a new listing type that treats the entire trail as a single entity?

1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh I know it's not universal. We could go back to the initial suggestion to list them as a single multi-stage cache. For whatever reason (whether it's smiley count or otherwise, whether we think a reason is 'good' or not), the desire was to allow them listed as individual caches. *shrug* For this experience, numerous signable caches along a route whether by foot, bike, or car, whether traditionals, mysteries, or multis, community who enjoyed them desired them as individual cache listings, and placed them as such. And GS probably realized that there was really no way to universally restrict what would inevitably still become a "powertrail" of whatever style of hides someone wanted to place, so better to reign it in and find a sweet spot of allowability.  A bunch of caches along a trail may or may not be an actual series by one CO, a powertrail placed sequentially, or even related to each other at all, let alone people always out for the same experience or finding strategy. Far too complex a concept to assume and stick in a box to restrict. If you look at the negatives, it's ultimately cachers who push the limits of generally positive geocaching etiquette, rather than some universal standard that's being broken.

In the end, strictly speaking, we have a type of experience making use of allowed hide styles, that some people will make use of and enjoy, and others may enjoy differently, while others may yet ignore outright. As far as that goes, everyone wins (or at the very least, no one is directly hurt; of course there are exceptions to the rule). Until there's a rotten apple in the bunch :(

Edited by thebruce0
0

Share this post


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

Once you've done maybe 5 of the "bunch of caches along a trail with nothing special about them" and have all the evidence you need that the next couple of miles are only more of the same, why continue?

I suppose it's more of a psychology type of question. Why do so many cachers do this? And LOTS do this.

 

 

 

Because maybe finding the caches are the excuse to get out and enjoy the walk along the trail. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Team Hugs said:

Because maybe finding the caches are the excuse to get out and enjoy the walk along the trail. 

It only takes one cache to give me an excuse to get out and enjoy the walk along the trail. If there are multiple caches along the trail, then I'm inclined to leave the others, so they can give me an excuse to get out and enjoy the walk along the trail again, on some other day.

1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Hugs said:

Because maybe finding the caches are the excuse to get out and enjoy the walk along the trail. 

That's where I think they help degrade the game. They really just want to go for a walk, they could care less about the geocache. 

They could care less about the quality of caches.

They could care less if the trail is saturated in cheap leaky pill bottles.

They could care less if cachers who would prefer a diverse set of geocaches with a diverse set of geocache owners, are pushed out. 

Geocaching as an incentive to walk doesn't mean a park/trail/town has to  be saturated with meaningless, abandoned, repetitive junk.  It could be filled with almost the same amount of caches with perhaps at least a 50% chance that those caches will be interesting and maintained.

Edited by L0ne.R
extraneous word
1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/23/2017 at 1:53 PM, Team Hugs said:
On 10/23/2017 at 10:19 AM, hzoi said:

That of course begs the question, if there's nothing special about them, why you bothered going for them. 

And how are you supposed to know that there's "nothing special" about them unless you go out and find them?   There's no "rule" that says the cache description has to be amazingly informative or compelling.   Some of my favorite cache finds have come when I arrived at the cache and found a delightful surprise.

Not sure why you're responding for Bruce, since that question was in response to his post and was about why the caches were logged a certain way -- which is the topic of this thread.  But you did, and you apparently ignored the rest of what I posted, so I'll ask you to look at the rest of my thought up there and see if that changes your response to me, in terms of why you think copy paste logs are or are not apropos. 

Quick reminder, the topic here isn't whether caches are worth finding, but about writing the log for caches you found:

On 10/23/2017 at 10:19 AM, hzoi said:

That of course begs the question, if there's nothing special about them, why you bothered going for them.  I don't say that to take a swipe at you for logging power trails -- I hike them in segments all the time.  But I treat them like I treat other caches -- if it's worth my time to go find it, it's worth my time to come up with something meaningful for the cache owner, or next finder, in case they actually read my log.

Even when I find 20-30 caches in a row that are all micros on the same bike trail, I make it a mental exercise to come up with something at least slightly different for each log.  Sometimes I'll start a thought in one log and continue it in the next.  Sometimes I discuss things I saw or people who passed me on the trail.  By leapfrogging caches and logging from the field, I usually have about a quarter of a mile walk to come up with something. 

Even if all the caches are in great shape, it still may be helpful to let the CO or next finder know that.  In fact, when I start running out of things to say, I can always default to this one.  Sure, it may hurt my "log length" or "unique log content" stats, but those are on the bottom of my list of concerns. :anibad:

 

Edited by hzoi
0

Share this post


Link to post

My logs are usually directly related to the quality of the cache experience.  A 35 mm film can tossed in a bush in a wonderful old cemetery that could have had a good-sized hide with a side helping of history - that will get a "Found it."  A cache page with history of the site is really appreciated, and a larger cache container even more so, and my logs will reflect that.  I've gotten thank you notes from COs who liked my logs.  As a cache owner, I like it when folks say something to acknowledge the work I've put into it.  

2

Share this post


Link to post

Just noticed all the extra info one person seems to put on their finds.

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
I have been caching since July 2012, a bit of a stat man so here you go
Instagram for ******: Geocaching******
This is Cache Number: 6051
Most Countries in a Day 9
Highest Elevation GC18Z99 Hawaii, 3043m
Church Micros 352 - Archdeacon
Sidetracked 76 - Sidetracked Engineer
Longest Caching Streak days Number: 380
First To Finds Number:: 190
Months in a row with a FTF: 30
Best caching Day: 168 Most Icons In One Day 10
Grid Box Fill Loop 5 76/81
☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
Travel Bugs Found: 965
Geocoins Found:1973
Trackables Owned: 47
☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, FunnyNose said:

Just noticed all the extra info one person seems to put on their finds.

:facepalm:

1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, FunnyNose said:

Just noticed all the extra info one person seems to put on their finds.

Eesh.

I put the number of my find up front, because I like to keep track.  #13, #6012, etc.  The only time I add anything else to that is when that particular cache has some meaning to it, like it was my first find in Kerblechistan or what have you.  You want anything else, that's why I have a profile; I'm not going to force it down your throat.

edit to add: wasn't hard to figure out who this was, and it doesn't help their case that maybe 10% of their typical log is a copy/paste blurb about the particular day they went out caching -- not even the particular cache -- and the other 90% is about them.

Quote

TFTC out today with [other cacher who leaves similar logs] completing a few caches in the area, thanks to all the CO's for placing and maintaining

 

Edited by hzoi
0

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/24/2017 at 9:21 PM, TeamCatalpa said:

My logs are usually directly related to the quality of the cache experience.  A 35 mm film can tossed in a bush in a wonderful old cemetery that could have had a good-sized hide with a side helping of history - that will get a "Found it."  A cache page with history of the site is really appreciated, and a larger cache container even more so, and my logs will reflect that.  I've gotten thank you notes from COs who liked my logs.  As a cache owner, I like it when folks say something to acknowledge the work I've put into it.  

Exactly this, im not going to give a large story to for a cache that took 3 seconds to put together and 2 seconds to toss out the window as they drove by. That said the cache description can change my mind on how i jude something. a small micro in the spot where this geo couple met 20 years ago now married is a bit more personal, just as a cache placed by a child getting into it isnt going to be extreme, and id want to encourage them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/10/2017 at 0:41 PM, OpticalShadow said:

Exactly this, im not going to give a large story to for a cache that took 3 seconds to put together and 2 seconds to toss out the window as they drove by. That said the cache description can change my mind on how i jude something. a small micro in the spot where this geo couple met 20 years ago now married is a bit more personal, just as a cache placed by a child getting into it isnt going to be extreme, and id want to encourage them.

Interestingly, it's highly unlikely that the CO of a "cache that took 3 seconds to put together and 2 seconds to toss out the window" is actually expected a large story or interesting log.

I think the issue exists more for COs who either put a lot of effort into their caches, or have them placed in locations that provide a very memorable experience. Those are the ones where 'tftc' or irrelevant c/p logs are likely to cause a fuss.

Edited by thebruce0
1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/1/2017 at 8:46 AM, hzoi said:

I put the number of my find up front, because I like to keep track.  #13, #6012, etc.  The only time I add anything else to that is when that particular cache has some meaning to it, like it was my first find in Kerblechistan or what have you. 

I add the FInd # and timestamp at the end of each log for my own record keeping; and I do try to say something about each cache I find.  It may help someone seeking it later, it may be about the experience that day.  I enjoy reading informative, cache specific logs and try to produce the same.

1

Share this post


Link to post

This entire subject can be summarized in one sentence: You cache your way, and I'll cache mine. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

You cache your way, and I'll cache mine. 

Until the ways clash. Then what?  Nope, don't like the "everyone caches their own way" sentiment. Far too often it's used as an excuse for not caring about how actions affect other people.

I prefer "Don't sweat the small stuff. Cache within the guidelines and think of other cachers before yourself."

2

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoy reading other peoples experiences on the way to the cache and I like hearing who they are with. Like the person said above, skip the long log

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Until the ways clash. Then what?  Nope, don't like the "everyone caches their own way" sentiment.

Neither do I. To put it another way:  I don't care what floats your boat, until it starts to sink mine. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I don't care what floats your boat, until it starts to sink mine. 

And not making a long, detailed, creative log on your cache sinks your boat .... um, how, exactly?

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 16 octobre 2017 at 8:57 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.

You are definitely entitled to that opinion, so you should write short logs if that's what you prefer.

In my opinion, logs that describe your experience in detail are important. They tell the story of your cache, and they tell the story of me as a cacher. Sometimes when I have a free moment, I enjoy going back and reading some logs on my found caches. It's nice to reminisce about a cool caching day, a cool cache, or even a cool experience that happened while looking for and finding a cache, even if the cache itself wasn't particularly special.

And, on the other side of the coin, I love reading about what people experienced while finding my caches. And, it actually ticks me off quite a lot when there is a short log. I go through a lot of effort for almost all my hides; my reward is reading about the fulfilling experience of others. If I spend hours putting together a cool puzzle cache and finding the perfect hiding spot with a cool view, and you give me ten words or less, that's really crappy.

So, moral of the story: to each their own. I don't complain about the short logs I hate (........ except in this post I guess....), and I don't expect others to complain about my longer logs.

2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

And not making a long, detailed, creative log on your cache sinks your boat .... um, how, exactly?

'tftc' or c/p irrelevant book logs are two of those "don't sweat the small stuff" things. But as a logger, I'm conscious of what I write being considered just that, something someone else can't "don't sweat". So as a logger, I'm going to log in a way that I believe is most interesting and best for everyone (ie compromise), as opposed to "I'm gonna log how I want to log".

Edited by thebruce0
0

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the OP wouldn't appreciate the logs from Oregone from years back. He would usually run out of characters they were so long and finsish then in a note.  90 percent of the log had nothing to do with the cache.  Some people didn't like them but lots of people found them to be hilarious.  Anybody remember "Soapy Boy Rinsy Boy?"

Example  https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=51440274-28f2-428a-9043-06e194f3a311

1

Share this post


Link to post

Oregone is my role model!  I was just thinking of him today, in fact, reading through this thread.

I don't have a life half as interesting as his (or as he presented it), so I'd need a really full bottle of creative juice and some good writing mojo to create stuff like that as fiction.  (It'd have to be fiction; a certain % of my stories usually is, but generally I make it obvious.)

Once in a while, the creative energy comes together, and finally I sit down to catch up on my storytelling.

Storytelling.  I don't think of it as logging.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Quote

Which brings us back to hzoi's original question:

"if there's nothing special about them, why bother going for them?"

 

Maybe because you're at "point A" today (maybe the family wanted to go to a certain park, for example) and all the caches near there are so-so, but you still felt like caching.  Nothing wrong with that - just like every meal can't be a gourmet meal.

Edited by wmpastor
1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/24/2017 at 10:07 AM, L0ne.R said:

Once you've done maybe 5 of the "bunch of caches along a trail with nothing special about them" and have all the evidence you need that the next couple of miles are only more of the same, why continue?

I suppose it's more of a psychology type of question. Why do so many cachers do this? And LOTS do this.

I'm hiking the trail. Why not stop for the caches along the way?

I am a little selective though. I will usually do a trail of 10 preforms (and definitely 10 ammo cans), but I'll the skip the trail of 10 pill bottles. In instances of mixed trail contents I will sometimes just get the ammo can and the preform, but skip the pill bottle and film can - especially if nor close to home.

0

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Joshism said:

I'm hiking the trail. Why not stop for the caches along the way?

I've not found/logged caches I've walked passed and even seen from less than 2 meters while doing a multi, Wherigo or series. I just don't care enough about some caches to stop and pick them up. Closest we've ever been to a cache without logging it was when doing a 20+Km multi by bike and putting my foot 10cm from a micro at the base of a pole with an info board we needed to get some information from. I just didn't (and don't) care about the +1. So that's my reason for not stopping ;)

3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

And not making a long, detailed, creative log on your cache sinks your boat .... um, how, exactly?

I'm not asking for long, detailed, and creative logs.   There are some geocachers that think just posting four letters as a log is sufficient.  I think those that find a geocache should at least make an effort to describe their experience in the log.  Not posting a long, detailed and creative log won't sink my boat, but it does make it less enjoyable for me, which is a metaphor for "starting to sink your boat".  I'm not going to give up the game because of one TFTC log, but thankless geocachers are just one small hole in the boat.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, briansnat said:

I guess the OP wouldn't appreciate the logs from Oregone from years back. He would usually run out of characters they were so long and finsish then in a note.  90 percent of the log had nothing to do with the cache.  Some people didn't like them but lots of people found them to be hilarious.  Anybody remember "Soapy Boy Rinsy Boy?"

Example  https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=51440274-28f2-428a-9043-06e194f3a311

That's just great. I didn't find the cache and I'm not the owner, but this is simply awesome and a joy to read.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/25/2017 at 1:21 PM, Ed_S said:

This entire subject can be summarized in one sentence: You cache your way, and I'll cache mine.

I agree with letting everyone cache how they want, but I don't agree that summarizes this thread. I'm not worried about the OP caching his own way, I'm just worried about someone who likes to write detailed logs being convinced by the OP to cache the OP's way even though they don't want to.

0

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Rebore said:

That's just great. I didn't find the cache and I'm not the owner, but this is simply awesome and a joy to read.

Oregone found over 900 caches and pretty much all of his logs lwere like this.  You can spend hours reading his lold logs and get a good laugh over each one.  I wish I could find his Soapy Boy Rinsy Boy log. It was widely shared and hilarious.   Unfortunately it seems he stopped geocaching sometime in 2004.  Hope nothing happened to him. But imagine writing logs that people remember 12+ years later.

1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/25/2017 at 7:32 PM, Team Hugs said:

And not making a long, detailed, creative log on your cache sinks your boat .... um, how, exactly?

It doesn't sink just his boat. The current logging ethic has changed tne game eniirely and I think for the worse.   The logs were once about sharing experiences, which was a big part of geocaching's early success.  Letterboxing was introduced to the US  roughly the same time geocaching started and didn't gain  much traction, even though they are similar games (and Letterboxing didn't require an investment in expensive equipment). I believe this was largely because Letterboxing didn't provide a platform for sharing experiences at the time. 

Those shared expriences created a bond in the community that no longer exists.  Back before about 2006 or 2007ish the vast majority of  online logs were at least several sentences.  Often a lot more.  They were sometimes funny and often interesting.  Somtimes you felt you knew someone through their logs before you met them and  looked forward to meeting them. Often an ice breaker when meeting another geocacher was "Hi, I saw your log on XXXX cache...." and a conversation, and sometimes a friendship would ensue. We lost that with the "TFTC", and "Found it" type logs.   You weren't there at the time, so you have no idea how much lthe new logging ethics have changed geocaching.  Please forgive those of us who miss the sharing of experiences and community feel that developed from that, and therefore ocassionaly complain about  current  logging  practices.

Edited by briansnat
6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, briansnat said:

Those shared expriences created a bond in the community that no longer exists.  Back before about 2006 or 2007ish the vast majority of  online logs were at least several sentences.  Often a lot more.  They were sometimes funny and often interesting.  Somtimes you felt you knew someone through their logs before you met them and  looked forward to meeting them. Often an ice breaker when meeting another geocacher was "Hi, I saw your log on XXXX cache...." and a conversation, and sometimes a friendship would ensue. We lost that with the "TFTC", and "Found it" type logs.   You weren't there at the time, so you have no idea how much lthe new logging ethics have changed geocaching.  Please forgive those of us who miss the sharing of experiences and community feel that developed from that, and therefore ocassionaly complain about  current  logging  practices.

I wasn't "there" in 2006-2007 and prior; I've only been part of this hobby (at least directly) since March 2017.  My son has been a geocacher since 2005 and I've been preipherally involved by watching him, and testing his gadget caches, and solving his puzzle caches, and indulging his "Can we pull over and park here for a few minutes?...." since then.  I use my smartphone; he has used series of ever more sophisticated GPS devices.  He writes logs that give details of the find, who he was with, anything he encountered of interest while seeking .... I've tried to follow that pattern.  

That bond you speak of regarding shared experiences DOES STILL EXIST, though it may be more elusive because it's harder to find among the plethora of TFTC logs.  It is there, though.  I don't disagree that geocaching has changed - the "new logging ethics" are part of that, but the root cause is not logging practices.  It's how logging practices have evolved along with power trails, and pill bottles, and nanos, and micros in the middle of a city vs  going after a cache in the woods that is a 1/2 ( or 1 or 3) mile hike to find an ammo can 20 feet up a tree with tether line on another tree 30 feet away ..... 

Geocaching as a sport/hobby/obsession has changed over the years. I agree it isn't what it once was.  Some of the original elements are still there if you look for them - in our brief tenure in the sport we have met some very interesting folks, made new friends, and it had nothing to do with the content of the logs we, or they left.  I like to tell my story in the log; my husband tends to be succinct and doesn't say much.  We both enjoy the finds.  I enjoy reading the logs on my few hides and those that acknowledge the effort we put into the cache; there are a few cut n paste and TFTC - oh, well.  I can't control what others will write!  I've found enough LPC's and guardrails with no other attraction other than the coordinates were available that I know I don't want to do one of those ... mine will bring you to a location for a reason, and so encourage a more detailed log (I hope).

Back to the OP's point - people will log as they see fit.  I don't think anything will change that.  Every geocacher has their own style, and as geocaching has grown and changed, so have the logs and cache types, generating everythng from a simple "Found it" or TFTC to a rehash of one's statistics and adventures to date.  No one is right or wrong.

1

Share this post


Link to post

That log you posted briansnat is so cool!  I had to look up the cache to read the rest of the story!  A part of me wanted to look up his profile to read all of his logs but I knew that would get me into something I probably don't have time for right now but sounds like I would enjoy it.  I would definitely take logs like that on our caches!

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, briansnat said:

 I wish I could find his Soapy Boy Rinsy Boy log.

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f49a7af1-cc6c-45c9-b9e8-e0ef52f2ae47

I think one reason logging has changed is that "back in the day," a "busy" day involved finding one to three caches at truly memorable locations and one had to sit down at a computer to log the caches.  Now, ten finds an hour are possible in some urban areas without even trying hard and more than a thousand finds a day are possible along some power trails. Cachers are so racking up numbers, they no longer have the time to write meaningful logs and/or "thumbing" logs into a smartphone app simply isn't as conducive to writing a long log as sitting down at a keyboard and using ten fingers to type many times faster.

 

Edited by Ladybug Kids
0

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Ladybug Kids said:

Cachers are so racking up numbers, they no longer have the time to write meaningful logs and/or "thumbing" logs into a smartphone app simply isn't as conducive to writing a long log as sitting down at a keyboard and using ten fingers to type many times faster.

Nobody is forcing geocachers to find so many caches in a day that they can't find time to write a couple of sentences for each one.  They're doing that by choice and area essentially making their own find count more important than the sharing of their experience with the rest of the community.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm not worried about the OP caching his own way, I'm just worried about someone who likes to write detailed logs being convinced by the OP to cache the OP's way even though they don't want to.

Ultimately it shouldn't matter to us whether someone is convinced or not. It's their choice, not ours. We often post about the way we do things because it's our preference, and sometimes because there's a little voice hoping that others adopt similar practices. Or we post as helps and guides - not to force people against their will to change their ways, but to promote a practice we feel is more positive or beneficial, with the hope that others will agree and, yes, change their ways.

So, if someone who likes to write details logs is convinced by someone's comment that that's not always the best choice, and they choose to change their ways (no one can "force" them - "even though they don't want to"), then so be it. The discussion will continue if it doesn't stop there. =P

In this thread we have people defending "log however you want", as well as "log for other people's enjoyment".  No one can make someone log some different way "even though they don't want to". If they do, it means they've chosen to, so they now want to.

---

I agree with recent comments - "back in the day" I think "better" logs were posted more often because more often there were "better" caches. These days there are so many more "quick finds" that the landscape of cache styles is reflected in the landscape of logging styles. However cache styles really only affect the finder, whereas logging styles are read by the CO, the finder, and the community/world. So IMO, caching styles have influenced logging styles, but there's more debate about logging content because more people are directly affected (through reading) by log content.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6