What to do with old logs when putting a new log in a nano?

[+gginnj]

I've on occasion put a new nano log in place - but for obvious reasons you can't fit both in the container.

What do you do with the old? I've kept them and messaged the owner to see if they wanted it mailed to them,

which both said no don't bother.

 

what's the suggested course of action?

 

GG

[+colleda]

You run the (unlikely) risk of being chatised by the CO for doing maintenance without their permission. You've done what you thought was a favour for the CO and advised them. If they don't want the logs then bin them.

Personally, I would find somewhere to on the log to squeeze in a mark or letter/s that would identify me as a finder and note that in my log. I would also log a NM and let the owner to sort it.

My experience with full nano logs is that there is usually a string of Found It logs mentioning the full log, no NMs, and no response from the CO who probably doesn't bother to read the logs anyway. Perhaps the CO is just hoping that others will do his/her work for them, as you have done, so they don't have to get out of their comfy chair. Paint me cynical.

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, colleda said:

Personally, I would find somewhere to on the log to squeeze in a mark or letter/s that would identify me as a finder and note that in my log. I would also log a NM and let the owner to sort it.

That's what I've done with blinkers and other nano-caches that I've found with full logs.

[+L0ne.R]

29 minutes ago, colleda said:

My experience with full nano logs is that there is usually a string of Found It logs mentioning the full log, no NMs, and no response from the CO who probably doesn't bother to read the logs anyway. Perhaps the CO is just hoping that others will do his/her work for them, as you have done, so they don't have to get out of their comfy chair. Paint me cynical.

 

This. 

[+cerberus1]

47 minutes ago, gginnj said:

I've on occasion put a new nano log in place - but for obvious reasons you can't fit both in the container.

What do you do with the old? I've kept them and messaged the owner to see if they wanted it mailed to them,

which both said no don't bother.

what's the suggested course of action?

 

Well, a nano and it's limited space doesn't have the fun, memory-filled  writings in them to keep.

 

Our older log books  contain poems, long writings and even drawings in them, in expression of another's fun day. 

 - Some never logged online.

Similar to colleda, if we see a list of "log full" posts, I'll write my initials across another's if I have to and log a NM as well.

The container type alone should make the "CO" aware that maintenance is a given.   Let them do it.  

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, colleda said:

Personally, I would find somewhere to on the log to squeeze in a mark or letter/s that would identify me as a finder and note that in my log. I would also log a NM and let the owner to sort it.

Yeah, the first answer is just to sign the log, anyway. In addition to squeezing, I find that often a full log is old enough that the earliest signatures have faded out, so I don't worry about signing over them.

 

I don't file an NM for a full log, though, although I don't care if other people think it's a good idea.

 

But that's not really the OP's question. If you ignore the advice you're getting here and do replace a log, and there's no room to leave the old one, take pictures the log and attach them to your find log. (It's not a crime to replace a log, I just don't do it myself.)

[+gginnj]

The only problem with taking pictures is it might take quite a few shots to get the whole log  - I have written over faded areas, which always made me feel bad - erasing someone from history (unless they logged it also online).  So looks like squeezing it in there - anywhere seems to be the consensus.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, gginnj said:

 I have written over faded areas, which always made me feel bad - erasing someone from history (unless they logged it also online).  So looks like squeezing it in there - anywhere seems to be the consensus.

 

I wouldn't feel bad.  The people we know who don't log online wouldn't search for a nano. 

All we know go for further-than-the-parking lot hides, and hope to find a log with room to at least leave a full name and date.

(To me) COs who use that container type mustn't have much interest in history either.

 - Little can be gleaned from a tiny, faded log with little room for even initials and often no date.

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by cerberus1
redundant, redundant, and splleling

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, gginnj said:

The only problem with taking pictures is it might take quite a few shots to get the whole log 

Yes, of course, it will almost always require multiple pictures. For a nano, it will typically take at least two, front and  back.

 

4 hours ago, gginnj said:

I have written over faded areas, which always made me feel bad - erasing someone from history (unless they logged it also online).  So looks like squeezing it in there - anywhere seems to be the consensus.

Obviously squeezing in is preferable, but often the faded signatures are already erased from history, and I'm merely signing where they used to be.

 

But, to be honest, I don't lose much sleep about just flat out signing over readable signatures when there's no other option. Yes, that's a shame, but their place in history isn't any more important than my current signature. It's not my fault the log is full. If the CO isn't worried about the history in the physical log, why should I be? And I don't really expect anyone to ever notice that I did it beyond what I say about it in my found log.

[+The Jester]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 - Little can be gleaned from a tiny, faded log with little room for even initials and often no date.

 

I use an extra sharp point pen (Zebra F-301), and can write three lines on those thin little log 'sheets' - and yes, they are readable - often in less space than others with just date and intials.

[+noncentric]

11 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 - Little can be gleaned from a tiny, faded log with little room for even initials and often no date.

 

I concur with "The Jester", I don't find that it's overly difficult to sign nano logs. Some examples:

 

[+noncentric]

On 11/13/2018 at 12:56 PM, gginnj said:

I've on occasion put a new nano log in place - but for obvious reasons you can't fit both in the container.

What do you do with the old? I've kept them and messaged the owner to see if they wanted it mailed to them,

which both said no don't bother.

 

what's the suggested course of action?

I don't replace logs, but I will occasionally add log paper to a cache.  My reason is just to give future cachers something to log until the CO can get to it, so I don't always put a full log paper into the cache. One thing you might consider is adding less than a full strip of paper to the nano cache, and maybe if you add less than it will still fit.  I would also mention in your online log that you added log paper, but that it won't last long and the CO should replace the logstrip.

 

If adding even an abbreviated strip of log paper isn't an option and you decide to replace the logstrip, then taking photos is a good idea. There are several phone apps that will let you combine multiple photos into one - like the photo in my post above, which was three different photos combined into one.

 

[+cerberus1]

52 minutes ago, noncentric said:

 

I concur with "The Jester", I don't find that it's overly difficult to sign nano logs. Some examples:

 

 

Not sure why, but the nano logs we've seen aren't the same.  Even my arthritic old fingers could write in those.   

They're not only not numbered,  but each space is only around 1/4"x1/4", or just enough room for me to write "C1".