+dprovan Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.