Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
FossTanager

Burnout?

Recommended Posts

On 10/22/2018 at 11:31 AM, L0ne.R said:

 

Or the macro function that really annoys me--enough to give me cache ownership burnout.

I have recently archived 2 caches after getting 10-50 bulk GSAK-style logs -- the groups that cache around here seem to be sharing the same macro too..."Thanks so much #cacheownername for placing a cache here, we had a great day!

 

You were triggered enough by "macro logs" that you archived caches? Dude.. as Tripper says to the kids at Camp North Star.. "It just doesn't matter.."  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/22/2018 at 6:44 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

 

Yeah.  When I started geocaching (fourteen years ago), geocaching was mostly about hiking.  Most of my geocaches (well, except for my urban hides) were/are hiking caches.  Nowadays, they don't get found very often.  Most have a find or two this year.  Now GS thinks I should do frequent maintenance on my caches (for the CHS).  I don't think so.  I do feel that burnout coming.  

On the other fin, since I retired, I am working on a streak.  That's my exercise for the day.  105 days.  Today's hike was three miles with 300' of climb.  

 

I've been a cacher since 2009 and I just hit 300 caches this week, lol! We started out doing hiking caches as a way to make hiking more fun for our 3 & 4 year olds. I would create weekend adventures around a small handful of caches that I would scope out on the map. We camp near where a neat hike to a cache was, and maybe we hit a couple more that were in the area but a drive on a forest service road or something. That's how we spent most of our summer weekends for years. I think that's how I kept from being burned out. Then I got a friend interested in caching who is really competitive, type-A, type of person. She liked power trails and micros in town because she could really rack up numbers and not have to worry about swag. I cached with her for awhile and THAT burned me out. 

 

We didn't cache for like 2 years then, because 1) We were planning trips around other things to see and do, and looking for caches would take time from getting to some site we wanted to see, and 2) My kiddos didn't think it was fun any more to treasure hunt when the "treasure" was mostly moldy crap (here in the soggy PNW, moldy caches are the norm). Then this last summer we accidentally stumbled upon a coin challenge. We were supposed to be backpacking in Eastern Oregon, but a couple logistical issues axed that plan, so we had 2 days to fill. I decided, what the heck? Let's cache! One of the caches had a code in it and I knew what that meant. After a little research we had our activity for the new couple days. Granted, one (and sometimes both) kiddos would stay in the car while Geohubby and I got the cache, but they mostly had fun (they're 12 & 13 now, and their phones are *so compelling*). I made a friend via the site and just spend two days 60 miles from home helping her with some crazy challenge caches. 

 

Last week I went and checked on a cache of mine in the Coast Range that I placed in 2011, and had been found by 3 whole people in 6 years. Took almost a year for the FTF! So I feel ya, Harry. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bflentje said:

"It just doesn't matter.."  :-)

 

Right. Exactly. My cache just doesn't matter.

50 people sent a clear message.  

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/22/2018 at 6:44 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

 

On the other fin, since I retired, I am working on a streak.  That's my exercise for the day.  105 days.  Today's hike was three miles with 300' of climb. 

Congrats on 105 days of getting out and getting exercise!!

 

Hubby retired in Dec. 2016.  We began geocaching for ourselves (had been doing so vicariously through our son for years) in March 2017.  We are working on a cache a day in 2018, (309 days and counting, which includes Dec. 30 & 31, 2017) and I think hubby is nearing burnout more than I am.  I'm also trying to mix it up and get my % traditionals lower than 75%, and we are at the point where we need to drive at least 20 minutes (not far to most I'm sure, but it can be a challenge some days) out of town to find a cache.  Some days we hike, or walk, and some days it's a quick park n grab, depending on our other committments.

 

2018 is coming to an end; I may go for a challenge cache where I need 400 consecutive days but hubby says he's done on  December 31!  It's still fun for me; though I think I will enjoy being able to find all of the caches along a route instead of just finding one and saving the others for another day we may need later!!

 

Burnout? No.  It adds a new perspective to every place we visit now - new places and places we've been before.  And it 's something we share in his retirement - keeps us active, physically and mentally (as we solve puzzles of various types) and we are having fun creating hides for other to find!

Share this post


Link to post

Haven't burned out yet, but did appreciate taking a few days off from caching after finishing a 100-day streak.  Felt a bit burned out then, but knew that it wouldn't last very long.  Caching had become a chore and so I was glad when I didn't HAVE TO go find a cache. Since that streak, I've only cached when I wanted to.

 

On 10/22/2018 at 9:31 AM, L0ne.R said:

Or the macro function that really annoys me--enough to give me cache ownership burnout.

I have recently archived 2 caches after getting 10-50 bulk GSAK-style logs -- the groups that cache around here seem to be sharing the same macro too..."Thanks so much #cacheownername for placing a cache here, we had a great day!

On 10/26/2018 at 1:08 PM, L0ne.R said:

Right. Exactly. My cache just doesn't matter.

50 people sent a clear message.  

The 1 cache that was archived after a group of 9 cachers found it?  Seems like the bigger offense is that none of them gave that multi-cache a favorite point, which brought down the fave percentage - especially since a drop in fave percentage was stated as the reason for another of your archivals at the beginning of the year. Some numbers do seem to matter after all.

 

On 10/22/2018 at 6:44 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

Yeah.  When I started geocaching (fourteen years ago), geocaching was mostly about hiking.  Most of my geocaches (well, except for my urban hides) were/are hiking caches.  Nowadays, they don't get found very often.  Most have a find or two this year.  Now GS thinks I should do frequent maintenance on my caches (for the CHS).  I don't think so.  I do feel that burnout coming. 

Most of my hides are also in not-often-visited locations, so the potential for some defined "regular" maintenance schedule is certainly on my mind and would deter me from placing more 'in the woods' caches if the "regular" schedule seems too frequent to me. We'll see what happens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, noncentric said:

The 1 cache that was archived after a group of 9 cachers found it?  Seems like the bigger offense is that none of them gave that multi-cache a favorite point, which brought down the fave percentage - especially since a drop in fave percentage was stated as the reason for another of your archivals at the beginning of the year. Some numbers do seem to matter after all.

.

 

 

I haven't looked at her caches, haven't read any of the logs. Even so, I doubt you're correct about her motive. I can understand completely how this kind of stuff (copy and paste using a macro) can be so irritating. While I do try to put some thought into most of my cache hides, I don't automatically expect favorite points to befall them. But at the same time, I don't expect, or want, copy and paste logs. I know they sometimes show their ugly face and I can deal with that. But when they start becoming more of the norm, it's time for the cache to go.

 

It's sad that the number's mentality has had such an impact on our hobby. That quantity had become so important that macros and the such were developed to help numbers hunters.  Imo, macros and programs developed mainly for bulk logging are just more nails in the geocaching as we once knew it coffin. :signalviolin:

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

I haven't looked at her caches, haven't read any of the logs. Even so, I doubt you're correct about her motive. I can understand completely how this kind of stuff (copy and paste using a macro) can be so irritating. While I do try to put some thought into most of my cache hides, I don't automatically expect favorite points to befall them. But at the same time, I don't expect, or want, copy and paste logs. I know they sometimes show their ugly face and I can deal with that. But when they start becoming more of the norm, it's time for the cache to go.

 

It's sad that the number's mentality has had such an impact on our hobby. That quantity had become so important that macros and the such were developed to help numbers hunters.  Imo, macros and programs developed mainly for bulk logging are just more nails in the geocaching as we once knew it coffin. :signalviolin:

 

I’m normally sympathetic about COs wanting a ‘decent’ log on their caches, but sorry, this really does seem to be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

Archiving caches because you don’t like the logs?  Just wow!

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

It's sad that the number's mentality has had such an impact on our hobby. That quantity had become so important that macros and the such were developed to help numbers hunters.  Imo, macros and programs developed mainly for bulk logging are just more nails in the geocaching as we once knew it coffin. :signalviolin:

Bulk logging isn't just for number's.  I use it (thru GSAK) so that I can write my logs off-line (very important when we travel), getting them spell checked, photo's/tb's linked in, and make sure emails to CO's happen for EC & Virtuals.  Once everything is in order - and we have wifi - the logs are then uploaded to GC.com.  Before this, all the logs for a trip would be done after we arrive home, when my memory is clouded with all the details of the trip (on our trip across Canada many years ago, there is one cache I have no memory of the details - not helpful when writing logs). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

 

I’m normally sympathetic about COs wanting a ‘decent’ log on their caches, but sorry, this really does seem to be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

Archiving caches because you don’t like the logs?  Just wow!

 

Logs indicate the impact the cache has on finders. If a CO cares about creating a good experience, logs are an indication that the cache is meeting the owner's goal.  Favorite points are also an indication. If 40+ people think the cache is not worthy of a mention, or that it should retain a high FP percentage, then the cache has lost its impact. Or the game has changed so much that putting effort into a cache really doesn't matter. A CO is not obligated to participate in the new style of play. 

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar clarity
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Logs indicate the impact the cache has on finders. If a CO cares about creating a good experience, logs are an indication that the cache is meeting the owner's goal.  Favorite points are also an indication. If 40+ people think the cache is not worthy of a mention, or to retain a high FP percentage, then the cache has lost its impact. Or the game has changed so much that putting effort into a cache really doesn't matter. A CO is not obligated to participate in the new style of play. 

 

For someone who complains that FPs aren't a reliable indication of cache quality, I'm a bit surprised you put stock into their importance with regard to your caches, as it pertains to the number of FPs and the FP percentage.  I don't put out caches thinking about such things, nor do I consider them important.  If they want to give them to my caches, great; if not, then no big deal.

 

I don't see it as a reason, though, for archival.  You're shortchanging those people, like you, who crave a good experience by removing the very thing that would provide the good experience you so desperately seek.  If every CO did that, you, along with every other cacher who wants those types of experiences, would NEVER have a good experience because they'd all be upset that some lazy cachers have come along and ruined a good hide, even though they've done nothing of the sort.  All they've done is opt to write a crappy log and you take it as a sign that "...the cache in question has lost its impact."

 

While a CO isn't obligated to participate in the new style of play, loggers aren't obligated to log in a manner that's pleasing to you either.  While all COs certainly appreciate good logs, I believe a log reflects as much upon the finder as it does the cache being found.  If they're too lazy to write a decent log on a cache that has garnered some favorability within the community, then it tells me they overlooked the qualities that made it a commendable cache in the pursuit of just another find.  I'm not offended by that because they have chosen to play that way.  That doesn't negate the fact that other cachers enjoyed the experience that you and I provided.  Now, however, you removed that possibility from the playing field because it's somehow "less" of a cache than when you first placed it.  Unless I'm mistaken, it's still the same cache with the same experience.  The only difference is your attitude toward it based on what other people think (or don't think) about your cache.

 

I have a series of traditional caches that allow cachers to either log it as just a regular hide or log it and play the game I provided to find the final in the series.  The 5 hides have a combined 616 finds, yet the final only has a total of 16 finds.  That means that less than 3% of the people who have found one or all of these caches have chosen to play the game I've offered.  I keep the series alive because it's an opportunity for some cacher to have a different experience that might also impact their love of the activity as well as the types of hides they might choose to put out themselves.  If I were to archive the series, that opportunity would be lost to all future cachers.  I don't care that the FPs for the series are low or that the FP % is low.  I hid them for the overall experience and if they choose not to participate in the game portion, then they choose not to participate.  I can't force them to do it but I can at least provide them with the opportunity.  I'd rather provide the opportunity, even if only 3% take advantage of it, than NOT provide the opportunity, where 0% can take advantage of it.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Mudfrog said:
15 hours ago, noncentric said:

The 1 cache that was archived after a group of 9 cachers found it?  Seems like the bigger offense is that none of them gave that multi-cache a favorite point, which brought down the fave percentage - especially since a drop in fave percentage was stated as the reason for another of your archivals at the beginning of the year. Some numbers do seem to matter after all.

.

 

 

I haven't looked at her caches, haven't read any of the logs. Even so, I doubt you're correct about her motive.

Doubt about which of the archived caches that I mentioned?  Maybe I'm wrong about the 1 cache that was 'recently' archived after receiving 9 logs from a group of cachers that cached together.  The other one that was archived ~10 months ago was expressly archived because the fave % was lowered. The CO said that was why they were archiving it, so I'm pretty sure that I'm correct about the motive on that one.  But I don't want to make this about this particular CO, except in the sense that I find it unusual for someone to complain about cachers that care about numbers, when that someone cares so much about different numbers. Is it really "right" for some numbers to matter more than others?  That's something cachers can answer for themselves, but I don't think cachers should condemn criticize other cachers that care about different numbers than they care about.

 

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

For someone who complains that FPs aren't a reliable indication of cache quality, I'm a bit surprised you put stock into their importance with regard to your caches, as it pertains to the number of FPs and the FP percentage.  I don't put out caches thinking about such things, nor do I consider them important.  If they want to give them to my caches, great; if not, then no big deal.

 

I don't see it as a reason, though, for archival.  You're shortchanging those people, like you, who crave a good experience by removing the very thing that would provide the good experience you so desperately seek. 

I completely agree with the part of your post that I bolded.  And so did at least one other cacher, who said they were sad to see a perfectly good cache archived for the reason provided by the CO - that reason being a drop of FP% to 24%.

 

 

Edited by noncentric

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

While a CO isn't obligated to participate in the new style of play, loggers aren't obligated to log in a manner that's pleasing to you either.

 

Correct. 

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder which is worse, getting a bunch of cut-and-paste logs from people who don't award FPs to your great caches, or putting a lot of effort into creating potentially great caches only for them to get practically no finds at all?

 

My only cache that gets regular finds now is GC4X42A, which is close to a motorway rest area, and a couple that I recently adopted over on the Sydney side of Broken Bay on Barrenjoey headland. The rest, well, they might as well not be there. One hasn't been found since December 2016, two others have had no finds this year and another five have had only one find, all this in a year in which we had a mega just 50km north of here with hundreds of visitors passing through the region. My most recent hide, GC7YP51, a 1.5/3 traditional with what I hope is an interestingly themed container in an interesting location, has had only one find in the month it's been out there, and that finder came up from Sydney to grab an FTF that had been sitting unclaimed for the best part of a week.

 

I'm not about to throw in the towel and archive them, though, because once in a while someone does make the effort to go out there and they seem to enjoy the experience, and I live in hope that maybe someday there'll be a bit of a resurgence of interest in adventure caches in this region, even though the current focus seems to be breeding a generation of here-today-gone-tomorrow P&G cachers.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm not about to throw in the towel and archive them, though, because once in a while someone does make the effort to go out there and they seem to enjoy the experience, and I live in hope that maybe someday there'll be a bit of a resurgence of interest in adventure caches in this region, even though the current focus seems to be breeding a generation of here-today-gone-tomorrow P&G cachers.

 

+1

 

I have kinda wondered how people who started with only The App select and find out-of-the-way caches, beyond just the one on the sidewalk where the person is standing.  Maybe they don't.  When using the web site with an old-fashioned GPS, to this day I choose caches far and wide that I want to hunt, then plan for travel.

 

I have several where you have to get out of your comfort level, to go find them. No trails, jump across a little stream, brush past thorn vines (there will be blood), knee-high weeds, hike up a hillside. Encounter bugs, critters (most recently, I found a fawn curled up on the ground, nearly stepped on it, it was so camouflaged). That's just to find one cache, an ammo box with an attached 3-foot-long dinosaur robot. The entire round-trip trip is a whopping ¾ of a mile walk. Not a super popular cache. Not many Favorites. I hope anyone who dares to go for it has a blast anyway. It's a cool and wild spot. No way I'm archiving it due to infrequent finds. If it was not there, you'd have no cache there.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/10/2018 at 12:48 PM, IceColdUK said:

 

I’m normally sympathetic about COs wanting a ‘decent’ log on their caches, but sorry, this really does seem to be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

Archiving caches because you don’t like the logs?  Just wow!

 

So the CO is supposed to continue maintaining a cache even though they're not getting enjoyment from owning it? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

So the CO is supposed to continue maintaining a cache even though they're not getting enjoyment from owning it? 

 

No, I guess that’s fair enough.

 

Personally, I get enjoyment simply by having my caches found.  Of course I prefer a nice log, and I do my best to encourage good logging etiquette (definitions may vary!), but at the end of the day what somebody else writes in their log is out of my control.  Assuming the log isn’t expressing anything too negative, I’m not going to let it spoil my enjoyment.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

So the CO is supposed to continue maintaining a cache even though they're not getting enjoyment from owning it? 

 

So they archive it, thereby preventing those people who might have provided the great logs the CO desires that allowed them to enjoy their ownership?

 

This is the same CO who has lamented on here that well-maintained caches are few and far between in their area.  By archiving this cache, they've only exacerbated the problem.

 

They are more than welcome to do what they want with their caches as they see fit, but archiving a cache because the FPs or FP% isn't at the level the CO wishes seems to be a reason that doesn't make much sense to me.  Fixating on those types of numbers will never work out well for a CO because they're something that they can't control at all.  

 

1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

Of course I prefer a nice log, and I do my best to encourage good logging etiquette (definitions may vary!), but at the end of the day what somebody else writes in their log is out of my control.  Assuming the log isn’t expressing anything too negative, I’m not going to let it spoil my enjoyment.

 

+1

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

 

No, I guess that’s fair enough.

 

Personally, I get enjoyment simply by having my caches found.  Of course I prefer a nice log, and I do my best to encourage good logging etiquette (definitions may vary!), but at the end of the day what somebody else writes in their log is out of my control.  Assuming the log isn’t expressing anything too negative, I’m not going to let it spoil my enjoyment.

 

The problem is the multitude of lame logs that come in these days. I expect to see them on power trails and simple park & grabs but not so many on creative, challenging, or nice location based caches. Receiving a tftc, got it, or thanks log on a cache is not detrimental to my enjoyment but it does begin to dwindle when these types of logs start becoming the mainstay. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/10/2018 at 8:29 PM, barefootjeff said:

I wonder which is worse, getting a bunch of cut-and-paste logs from people who don't award FPs to your great caches, or putting a lot of effort into creating potentially great caches only for them to get practically no finds at all?

 

I don't see either option as a negative.  They're just things that happen that we have no control over, as COs.  I can't completely control who finds my caches, who chooses to award FPs, or who chooses to ignore my caches.  It's out of my hands so I don't really see it as a bad thing, but more as just a thing, if that makes any sense.

 

38 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

The problem is the multitude of lame logs that come in these days. I expect to see them on power trails and simple park & grabs but not so many on creative, challenging, or nice location based caches. Receiving a tftc, got it, or thanks log on a cache is not detrimental to my enjoyment but it does begin to dwindle when these types of logs start becoming the mainstay. 

 

And if COs continue to pull their caches that are creative, challenging or nice location based caches, based on receiving lame logs, all that will be left are the types of caches that foster the lame logs.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

The problem is the multitude of lame logs that come in these days. I expect to see them on power trails and simple park & grabs but not so many on creative, challenging, or nice location based caches. Receiving a tftc, got it, or thanks log on a cache is not detrimental to my enjoyment but it does begin to dwindle when these types of logs start becoming the mainstay. 

 

I have a filter which removes all log entries without enough content. The problem is not the meaningless log but the unnecessary disturbance it cause when the email arrives. I am very pleased with this solution.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/10/2018 at 5:29 PM, barefootjeff said:

I wonder which is worse, getting a bunch of cut-and-paste logs from people who don't award FPs to your great caches, or putting a lot of effort into creating potentially great caches only for them to get practically no finds at all?

At least with a cache that is found rarely, when it is found, you generally get a decent log. The cache owners I've seen throw in the towel have gotten fed up with the flood of "out with so-and-so collecting squares for such-and-such challenge" logs. It isn't fun watching your amazing all-day adventure cache being treated as yet another cache-and-dash stepping stone to something else. When owning the cache is no longer fun, they do the responsible thing and archive it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

At least with a cache that is found rarely, when it is found, you generally get a decent log.

 

There are always exceptions. One of my themed novelty hides (GC5H5G2, a D2/T3.5 traditional in an interesting rock formation overlooking the village of Patonga) got these three logs in three consecutive months earlier this year:

 

logs.png.ff64bd2998aec795344e049b0e7531aa.png

 

Those make TFTC, Got it and Thanks seem quite wordy! But a bit further down on the same cache is this gem, so I guess we have to take the good with the bad, the clever with the dull-witted and the literate with the, um, emojifolk?

 

Loglong.png.7e6005c4744f393105df572bc71c3b32.png

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

I don't see either option as a negative.  They're just things that happen that we have no control over, as COs.  I can't completely control who finds my caches, who chooses to award FPs, or who chooses to ignore my caches.  It's out of my hands so I don't really see it as a bad thing, but more as just a thing, if that makes any sense.

 

 

And if COs continue to pull their caches that are creative, challenging or nice location based caches, based on receiving lame logs, all that will be left are the types of caches that foster the lame logs.

 

So far, I've refrained from pulling caches solely for this reason. I'm just saying that it is something that plays a part in my decisions to keep and maintain caches that we have placed. I will say though, I do tend to hit the archive button a bit quicker on a cache with a bunch of these logs that ends up having a problem.

 

To be honest, caching activity is so slow around here that I rarely get logs of any kind on our caches. Logs come in so few and far between that I simply don't notice it as much. It's when I look up a cache page and read the logs that I see a pattern.. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, coachstahly said:

And if COs continue to pull their caches that are creative, challenging or nice location based caches, based on receiving lame logs, all that will be left are the types of caches that foster the lame logs.

^This.

If cachers want to see more "good" caches, then potential cache owners need to have examples of what a "good" cache is.  If CO's of "good" caches archive their "good" caches, then they shouldn't complain that there aren't any new "good" hides.  It's like that comment that I've seen in the forums before, about how if cachers just find a bunch of film cans, then they are going to hide film cans. If cachers find "good" caches, then maybe they're more likely to hide "good" caches themselves.

What's that saying:  "Be the change you want to see" or something like that.

 

 

7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

They are more than welcome to do what they want with their caches as they see fit, but archiving a cache because the FPs or FP% isn't at the level the CO wishes seems to be a reason that doesn't make much sense to me.  Fixating on those types of numbers will never work out well for a CO because they're something that they can't control at all. 

Yeah.  I have a few caches with high FP% right now, some are even at 100%.  Not too tough when there's only 1 find.  😋

I know the FP% will drop a lot when more finders come along, but I'm not going to stress about it.  As long as they're enjoying the cache and the area it brings them to, then all is well.

 

 

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

I have a filter which removes all log entries without enough content. The problem is not the meaningless log but the unnecessary disturbance it cause when the email arrives. I am very pleased with this solution.

Do you mean it removes the email notification with that short log, so you don't even see the email?  That seems like a good way to avoid seeing all the short logs.  A sort of 'ignorance is bliss' way to deal with things. Good idea!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, noncentric said:
6 hours ago, arisoft said:

I have a filter which removes all log entries without enough content. The problem is not the meaningless log but the unnecessary disturbance it cause when the email arrives. I am very pleased with this solution.

Do you mean it removes the email notification with that short log, so you don't even see the email?  That seems like a good way to avoid seeing all the short logs.  A sort of 'ignorance is bliss' way to deal with things. Good idea!

 

 

Exactly! I have filters both for logs and message center notifications. Filter removes all unnecessarily bloated HTML content and even the whole message if it is considered unnecessary (too short). I receive only what I need and the message will be short enough to fit into my mobile phone screen at once.

Edited by arisoft

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 3

×