Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Kayaker29

Keep logs brief

171 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Ultimately it shouldn't matter to us whether someone is convinced or not. It's their choice, not ours

It matters to me in that I'm going to stand up and present the opposite view because I don't agree that short logs are better. I wasn't suggesting the OP couldn't have his say, too. I was responding to a note that, as I read it, was suggesting the only necessary response to the OP was "do what you want," and I was saying, no, it is also necessary for me to say, "Here's another way to think about it."

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I agree with recent comments - "back in the day" I think "better" logs were posted more often because more often there were "better" caches.

Caching was once an add-on to a hike, so it's always had a tradition of using the cache as a reason to report the hike. Over my time as a cacher, since 2010, it's definitely become more focused on the cache, so many people are more likely to report no more than "I found the cache." So I have to agree with you that that's a fundamental change to geocaching. I do like better logs, and I write better logs, but I'm still fine with more people not being into that part of the game.

But I don't think "more often" is correct: I think as many people are writing as many fine logs as ever, it's just that, in addition, there are a lot more pedestrian logs. So there were proportionally more better logs back in the day, but I'm not convinced there were numerically more. But I don't mean to imply that "proportionally more" dilutes your argument any, though: it's still a very real change that COs have a legitimate reason to take note of.

0

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, dprovan said:
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Ultimately it shouldn't matter to us whether someone is convinced or not. It's their choice, not ours

It matters to me in that I'm going to stand up and present the opposite view because I don't agree that short logs are better. I wasn't suggesting the OP couldn't have his say, too. I was responding to a note that, as I read it, was suggesting the only necessary response to the OP was "do what you want," and I was saying, no, it is also necessary for me to say, "Here's another way to think about it."

Sure, I agree. I was responding to: "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."  I'm saying why worry about the choice someone else makes?  Of course you can respond with your reasoning why you think it's better another way, but it's not worth worrying over their choice. I too strongly advocate for a balanced log content ethic - avoid empty 'tftc' logs, and avoid boring and/or irrelevant copy/paste caching summary booklets, and fashion the log visibly so it's easier to pick out directly relevant log content. To me, that strikes a balance between the finder, the CO, and followup finders, so that's the way I like to log (and I'll continue to encourage that). It doens't matter to me if someone chooses to write those types of logs.  I chose a while back not to sweat the small stuff.

 

36 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But I don't think "more often" is correct: I think as many people are writing as many fine logs as ever, it's just that, in addition, there are a lot more pedestrian logs.

Yes it's the difference between quantity and ratio. The ratio of 'quick' (generalizing) caches to 'good' (stereotyping) caches has grown; with it, the style of logging that's reflected. Just like the 'good' caches are still being placed, and in good quantity (generally, depending on your region), there are still people who write interesting and relevant logs that also aren't books to wade through. Quantity has increased all around, but I think the ratio has grown in favour of the short/quick/easy finds, and likewise the ratio of less-preferrable logging habits.

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I agree with recent comments - "back in the day" I think "better" logs were posted more often because more often there were "better" caches.

I won't argue that "back in the day" that there may have been a higher percentage of "better caches", but even on a cache for which the cache owner has spent a considerable amount of effort to make it "a better cache", you'll still see some posting a TFTC log.  It may be that an increase in caches which seem to be placed for no other reason than to increase the find count of others, has made it more acceptable to post a log which serves no other purpose other than the obligatory step needed to get credit for the find.  

1

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe this would fit better in the "What irks you most" thread, but there is log style that really annoys me and it goes like this:

"Great caching day with Harry, Berry and Jerry. We found a lot of caches in the area and really enjoyed some other cache that is completely unrelated to this one. Here's the story of what we experienced during our hunt for that other cache. Thanks to all owners for hiding and maintaining".

In that case, I agree with OP. Just log "TFTC" or "+1".

1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I won't argue that "back in the day" that there may have been a higher percentage of "better caches", but even on a cache for which the cache owner has spent a considerable amount of effort to make it "a better cache", you'll still see some posting a TFTC log.

Yes. I never said only 'good' caches got 'good' logs, or vice versa.

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I'm saying why worry about the choice someone else makes?  Of course you can respond with your reasoning why you think it's better another way, but it's not worth worrying over their choice.

I worry that they don't know they have a choice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I worry that they don't know they have a choice.

If they've been told they have a choice, then they know they have a choice. And I saw no one saying "you have to do it this way". No one in this discussion even said that. Everyone knows it's a preference. Some people just push their preference more than others. Everyone knows it's a choice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If they've been told they have a choice, then they know they have a choice. And I saw no one saying "you have to do it this way". No one in this discussion even said that. Everyone knows it's a preference. Some people just push their preference more than others. Everyone knows it's a choice.

I worry that that haven't been told they had a choice. The OP said "Do it this way." So I said "Consider doing it this other way." That's all I'm saying. No, if someone only hears "Do it this way", they'd have no idea there's a choice. That's the point.

0

Share this post


Link to post

If someone doesn't know that they have the choice of what to put in their online log, then I'd worry that there's a bigger problem at hand than some stranger saying "Do it this way" especially when it's clearly visible that log content varies across the board.

But sure, I concede, maybe I'm just wrong in assuming that people know that the online log is entirely customizable to their liking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 27/11/2017 at 7:21 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

I won't argue that "back in the day" that there may have been a higher percentage of "better caches", but even on a cache for which the cache owner has spent a considerable amount of effort to make it "a better cache", you'll still see some posting a TFTC log.  It may be that an increase in caches which seem to be placed for no other reason than to increase the find count of others, has made it more acceptable to post a log which serves no other purpose other than the obligatory step needed to get credit for the find.  

I'd agree with that.

What was that appalling found it log wording the app used to offer ? Something like 'That's one more find for me !' Me ! It's all about me ! Who cares about the cache, or the journey, or the search, or the owner ?

2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If someone doesn't know that they have the choice of what to put in their online log, then I'd worry that there's a bigger problem at hand than some stranger saying "Do it this way" especially when it's clearly visible that log content varies across the board.

But sure, I concede, maybe I'm just wrong in assuming that people know that the online log is entirely customizable to their liking.

Well, I've seen a fair amount of newer cachers come in to threads like these over the years and say that they didn't realize that they could post in a more wordy manner. Perhaps they've mostly been doing park n grab nanos and all they see are TFTF logs.

Not sure if putting down their mental acuity is the best route to go. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post

When it comes to logging, it just depends on the cache.

LPC: TFTC Out caching today with friends.

My favorite cache: (20 lines of text here)

With the LPC, there isn't much to say. But with my favorite cache, there would be nothing but good things to say there. Or, if something funny/weird/unusual/scary happened, like if the cops stopped you, or if you saw someone dancing to Elvis with a horse head on, there would be more to add.

Also it depends on time, like if you're doing the E.T power trail in Nevada, it would take at least a week to add 20+ lines of text to each one, unless copied and pasted. However, it gets old seeing the same text reiterated 1000+ times.

Edited by TwistedCube
0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Our three-week vacation started from Boston and we drove through fifteen states before we reached our destination, Chicago.
The weather was quite varied: sun, wind, rain, cold and warm.
We found a lot of nice caches in great places.
Thanks for the cache

0

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Ambrosia said:
16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If someone doesn't know that they have the choice of what to put in their online log, then I'd worry that there's a bigger problem at hand than some stranger saying "Do it this way" especially when it's clearly visible that log content varies across the board.

But sure, I concede, maybe I'm just wrong in assuming that people know that the online log is entirely customizable to their liking.

Well, I've seen a fair amount of newer cachers come in to threads like these over the years and say that they didn't realize that they could post in a more wordy manner. Perhaps they've mostly been doing park n grab nanos and all they see are TFTF logs.

I don't think it's so much that newer cachers aren't aware that they can write wordier logs, but that newer cachers are trying to "fit in" with the community, and if they see others writing terse logs, they'll do the same.  This is just a general observation but I frequently see regional trends in how the game is being played.  In some areas, the FTF game is strong, but not so much in others.  There seems to be some areas where geoart has become very popular.  A few geoart creations lead others in the region to create more geoart because that's what the regional community is doing.   A numbers mentality in general also seems to be regional.   If most of the logs that a newer geocacher reads are one or two words (or four letters), that's how a newer geocacher is going to log their finds to become part of the local community.   Of course, if more people led by example perhaps, over time, we'd start to see more of a trend towards longer, wordier logs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I don't think it's so much that newer cachers aren't aware that they can write wordier logs, but that newer cachers are trying to "fit in" with the community, and if they see others writing terse logs, they'll do the same. ...   If most of the logs that a newer geocacher reads are one or two words (or four letters), that's how a newer geocacher is going to log their finds to become part of the local community.   Of course, if more people led by example perhaps, over time, we'd start to see more of a trend towards longer, wordier logs.

When I first started, way back 8 months ago, I read a lot of logs - my son's, local cachers I had met, random logs on caches I found ... and I found I enjoyed the stories, and the information given in those that took the time to write about things surrounding that particular cache (weather, construction, detours, potential difficulties, easy peasy, and yes, even bugs!).  I try to write logs that others may find helpful in the same way.

I love to read, so wordy logs are not an issue for me.  Then again, some people have difficulty writing, and a wordy log just isn't going to happen.  That's OK too.

I can easily skip over those that recap their entire trip and caching journey in each post, or shout their statistics ... but I don't really see that too often.  There are several cachers local to me that write readable, interesting logs, and I hope to add to that trend here and wherever I go to find geocaches.

1

Share this post


Link to post

To those of you that leave short logs, no matter the reason, I will offer a compromise that I hope you can make. 

When you take notice that the hider went a little extra on the hide. They placed it somewhere out of the ordinary, they spent a bit of money on it, they made it a little different than the majority out there. Just add something short that tells the hider that you recognized that. You don't have to appreciate it, just give the hider a feeling that he/she understands that you were present in that moment of signing the log.

I love long, wordy logs, but I don't expect them and if I only got the above, I would be satisfied with what I try to offer as a hider.

Edited by fbingha
2

Share this post


Link to post

My cache page sometimes say no babbling - just cache related comments - I agree that I don't need every detail but love to hear the stories where interesting things happen and really want to know if you liked the location!

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

I rarely post in these forums but I'm one of those guys. I babble in logs. I'll admit it. If I ever find one of your caches, though, don't fret. Just skip to the end, where I almost always type TFTC!

Honestly, my logs generally tend to be directly proportional in length to either the effort that was put into the cache or the effort it took to get to or find it. A long, detailed log should be a compliment.

To the OP, when I got stung nine times by hornets while running up a creek canyon to get to a cache, there was no way I wasn't going to talk about it in my log. When I got swarmed by mosquitoes while grabbing another? Okay, maybe I could have left that out. But there were a LOT of mosquitoes at that cache.

Edited by mraudrey
0

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/16/2017 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.

Jeez, you wouldn't have liked caching back when I started. You probably would have found yourself writing long logs and hiking further than the nearest lamppost. Oh the humanity.

3

Share this post


Link to post

Similar to bflentje,  we've seen cache logs wordier than the rare online log today.  Heck, most times I brought a lunch, hung out, and read most.  Most times there wasn't another I could get to (and back to the car) before dark anyway.    ;)

We saved our logs  (log books, not a piecea paper...)  from our earlier hides.   Some had a page side or two of ramblings in them by a single cacher, including poems and even drawings.  Often much more written than the short online logs we see today.  Those placed before us were packed with even more "observations", many from members who never logged online, some caches had a couple books inside.

Our few caches placed on/after '09 went from RIR blank journals to the much smaller RIR spiral notebooks, when we noticed just signatures/dates on one side of each page.   We could have gotten ruled ones I guess.  They'd last forever...   

So possible I guess, that a few who might have been wordy on the cache log (how many have more than a paper strip today?) now head online simply because that's all there is. :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

We saved our logs  (log books, not a piecea paper...)  from our earlier hides.   Some had a page side or two of ramblings in them by a single cacher, including poems and even drawings.  Often much more written than the short online logs we see today.  Those placed before us were packed with even more "observations", many from members who never logged online, some caches had a couple books inside.

When I found "The Spot" (GC39), I spent about a half an hour sitting in that pretty spot reading the original log book.  Something I noticed was that finders would frequently include where they were from.  That's something that I usually do when I find a cache far from home.  Here's a photo from someones log earlier this year.  Note that some are still writing a full paragraph in the physical log book.

cb2c38c7-8c58-4ac1-8c87-86701fc3d261.jpg

0

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