Since When Does Writing Tnlnsl

[+southdeltan]

I've seen this quite often in the forums:

 

"If somebody wrote TNLNSL (Took nothing, left nothing, signed log), then your cache sucks".

 

I don't buy that it always means that... I write that quite often and it's not just on caches that "suck". There are plenty of enjoyable caches out there that I just had nothing to say about.

 

Am I missing something - or is this referring to those times when the ONLY thing in the log is TNLNSL? I can't recall seeing a cache that only had that in there.

 

southdeltan

[+Renegade Knight]

...Am I missing something - or is this referring to those times when the ONLY thing in the log is TNLNSL? I can't recall seeing a cache that only had that in there...

Always is an exageration. However it follow from the axim "if you have nothing good to say then don't say it" it end up coming out as "TNLNSL" or some other very short and terse acknowledgement of the cache. #22/33 isn't much better.

 

However it's also some people (my son is an example) don't have much to say, or flat out are not comfortable doing a long log about the trip over and seeing a rare mountain blue jay. People who actually do #33/47 probably are lucky to even log a cache it all has to blur together and only a few truly stand out. JoeGPS I think said as much.

 

Is it Always? No. It is true much of the time? Yes.

 

By the way I do have caches that inspire those logs and other caches that seem to always gather the longer logs. The better the experience the more likely it will make it to the log. Even if it's just "TNLNSL, wow, great cache"

 

The real answer is "it depends" and you have to look at the bigger picture to intrepret a short log. It could be someone who finds more than their ability to remember each hunt, it could be your cache sucked, or that's all they ever log no matter how great the cache is.

[+briansnat]

It doesn't always mean it, but if all the logs say little more than that, you can bet the cache is a stinker. If a cache is interesting, most people will will have something more to say about in their log than "TNLNSL" or "thanks for the cache".

Edited April 28, 2004 by briansnat

[+bons]

If you couldn't think of anything nice to say about the cache, then it's probably not a cache I want to go out of my way to see.

 

If you can think of something nice to say, then why did you just type "TNLNSL"?

[+southdeltan]

If you can think of something nice to say, then why did you just type "TNLNSL"?

Because I almost NEVER trade.

 

I took nothing, left nothing and signed the log.

 

Sometimes I write long logs, sometimes I don't.

 

----

 

On a related note - I wonder what will happen when people start writing exactly how they feel about those "bad" caches - I predict a huge uproar when people write "This cache sucks because...." and their log gets deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if the day isn't that far off.

 

southdeltan

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I am just glad they singned the log.

I am greatful to any Geocacher who takes his time to find it and leave a note at one of my cache's.

 

It is the one's that do not log(anywhere) or leave anything(evenTNLNSL) that get to me.

[+JayFredMuggs]

I have written TNLNSL a few times, usually when I decide to grab a quick cache at lunch time or on the way home from work. At these times I usually don't have anything meaningful to trade, so I prefer to trade nothing. I have also been to caches where the trade items in the cache were much better than anything I had to trade, so rather than leave something crappy in its place, I chose to TNLN.

 

I would never say anyone's cache sucks. Most of the folks who play this game put a lot of thought and effort into their hides, and it wouldn't be fair to say something like that, especially since I have never hidden one.

 

I'm thankful for every cache out there, it gives me a reason to get up off of the couch and get some outdoor exercise.

[Pto]

I dont often trade, so I am usually tnln - but I usually write a short "good Cache" or nice hide- if its relevant. I will elaborate a bit more on the website than I do in the logs, because I dont like to hang around the cache site too long. Find it, log it , rehide it and go. It also depends how much time I have the day I am loggin my finds online. If Im short on time, its late, etc- I will be pretty brief.

However, except for 1 exception- this has NEVER been the result of the cache hide, its contents, etc- Its just my practice.

[+briansnat]

I think you're taking TNLNSL too literally. What people mean is that when you see little more than brief logs, it could indicate a fairly lame cache.

 

For instance which of the two caches here would you think could be lame and which do you think could be a good one (both are from real caches with the names removed to protecty the guilty):

 

Cache 1

 

April 27, 2003 by xxxx (80 found)

Found it. Took nothing, left nothing. Signed log and continued east.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 26, 2003 by yyyyyyy (117 found)

Visited this cache with xxxxxx

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 26, 2003 by xxxxxx (239 found)

We like these little stop offs. Found the cache and signed the log.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 20, 2003 by zzzzzzz (154 found)

An easy find at before 8:00 am. It was nice to get out and enjoy the fresh air. Thanks!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

April 20, 2003 by uuuuuuuuu (344 found)

Came, saw, quick find. On the way from NH to Schoharie, CO.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

[January 18, 2003 by tttttttt. (168 found)

Third find of the day. No trades. Thanks. Marc

[view this log on a separate page]

 

January 15, 2003 by qqqqqqf (210 found)

Second finder. Made the trip with nnnnnn. Thanks.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

January 15, 2003 by nnnnnn (596 found)

Found it today with qqqqqqf. Nice quick easy one for the winter.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Now for cache 2

 

December 26, 2003 by xxxxxxxr (52 found)

First attempt at this cache was on 12/20/03. Spent a bit of time on the Hawk Watch platform talking to a couple and watching the birds in the area. Sauntered over to the first stage area and found it after about a 10 min. search. Had to read the hint to find it. From there, went to cache location and searched for about 20 minutes. Another place where there are many possible locations. Read hint and searched some more but could not find it. Gave up and decided to come back for this one and Graffiti Rock. Returned on 12/26/03 and went for Graffiti first. Then returned to search for Hawk Watch. Found it after a short search. It does not take much snow to totally obscure the cache. Last week I was literally standing on top of it and couldn't find it. SL and swapped Crayola Factory gold "coin" for a Corning Glass Museum green marble. Great area for a cache and the view is spectacular.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 2, 2003 by yyyyyyyyyyyy (42 found)

What a beautiful Fall day, best I can remember in years. Garrett, Laura and myself headed out for this one early because I had to work today, I am not off til Thursday, and who knows if we will ever have a day like this again (when I am off). Taking advantage of the weather, I decided to give this a look considering the rave reviews it recieves and being one of BBBBBB caches, how bad could it be?

We found the first stage revlatively easily. From there, we headed over to the Platform to see if we see anything. We were the only ones there and saw 12 Turkey Vultures....I think. Gorgeous veiws... quiet... peaceful.... relaxing... couldn't describe it any better. After a short stay at the platform, we went for the final cache. Definately not an easy find. Took us about an hour to find the cache. I am hoping it is because of the fallen foliage. Great hide and teriffic cache. We took nothing and left nothing. Our approach to the cahce was on the Tower road and we returned to the car via the Orange trail. Much better hike on the return. When we head out the Hawk watch seem to be getting a bit crowded, who could blame them on this gorgeous day.(Well worth the 45 min drive) Now I get to go to work. Pictures to come.....

[view this log on a separate page]

 

October 5, 2003 by Team xxxxxx (127 found)

N 40° 56.834 W 074° 28.296

#55. This cache was one of the best anywhere. This is why we are geocachers - to find out about neat places like this that we would never know about otherwise. We couldn't find the parking lot that BBBBBBB gave the coordinates for, so we parked by the Bat Cave and had a nice hike (found out later the road we were looking for was a couple miles down). We were hoping to find Pete the Polar Bear in this cache - he's supposed to be here - but there was no sign of him and nothing in the logs about him being picked up. We hope he hasn't been bearnapped! Traded a polished jasper stone and a Selby Gardens magnet for 2 AA batteries, and swapped Georges. Thanks for a great outing.

[view this log on a separate page]T

 

October 5, 2003 by mmmmmm (300 found)

#267 and 3 of 3 today

After I found the other two caches near where I parked I started the hike up to this great spot. I followed the white trail mostly but switched to an ATV road about halfway there. The hiding spot for the first element was to say the least a bit exposed feeling. I’m sure when the leaves fall from the trees this will become even harder to find without being seen. On another note. This cache is freakin’ cool!!! I spend a long time just taking pictures and taking in the view before I even started hunting. After that I used the cheat to find the first stage (I didn’t want to hang around here to long). I headed off to the second element and found it quickly in a Brian like hiding spot. I signed the log book and left a ‘’Late Show’’ pencil. Thank you for a great cache in a fantastic spot!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

October 2, 2003 by fffff (31 found)

I really enjoyed some of the view from this cache. It was a little bit of a challenge but not too bad

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 27, 2003 by oooooo (352 found)

Team oooooo hiked over from the computer cache, roughly following the White and orange trails, in addition to several unmarked, but well-defined trails. After ¼ mile of walking we where hit with a brief shower and a few thunderclaps. That storm quickly cleared and we started spotting small salamanders (or newts, not sure which is which) on the trail. Very cool! As we approached the parking area for the Hawk Watch another storm rolled in, and literally dumped gallons of water on us. iiiiiiii produced a tarp shelter for us out of his backpack of magic tricks and we waited the storm out. (Thanks iiiiii, we owe you a beer and a burger!)

Once the storm cleared, the sun came out and we moved on. We made it to the hawk watch quickly and took in the sights; we even saw a rainbow!

After finding the great hiding spot for stage one, we proceeded to stage two. I think we actually found this stage quicker then it took us to actually retrieve it. The cache had managed to get itself wedged in to a tight spot. Be we where in good hands, ooooooo used her girl power to remove the cache and the three guys made their trades and signed the log.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 27, 2003 by zzzzzzz (69 found)

Geo#45 This was my first Group Hunt, I met Team DDDD on the Parking lot for the Cave and then waited for Team RRRRR to arrive. From there we headed to the Bat Cave & Computer Caches that I had done previously, so as an spectator I had the opportunity to watch their Geocaching Skills in action. They spotted both caches in no time and then we headed to the Hawk Watch. Our determination was not going to be deterred by a "small" downpour, so we basically swam the trails in our way up. Once there we enjoyed the AMAZING view from the top, and spent a few minutes looking for the first stage of the cache. Once found, we hiked towards the last stage were Team's EEEE's Female Power was the key to reach the sneaky cache.Took a Carabiner and left a Safety Strove light and a Cheesequake Park Trail Map.Thanks for another Great Hunt!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 27, 2003 by Team DDDD (130 found)

This was the 3rd find of the day for myself with zzzzz and Team EEEEEE. On the way to cache from our 2nd find, it absolutely poured. We all got soaked. Once we got to the lookout point, it was worth it. What a view! We snapped some pics and headed to the 1st stage. Found it after a couple of minutes of looking - that BBBBB is sneaky!! With the coords for the 2nd stage, we set off for the short walk to it and found it pretty quickly. Getting it out was another matter!!! I wonder who made it so tough - must have been the last cacher! We finally had to have the female power of Team EEEEEE get the cache. I signed the log, TNLN. Nice cache BBBBB and SSSSS - thanks!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 24, 2003 by hhhhhhhhh (294 found)

Took the day off today and after we'd loaded the kids on the schoolbus, my wife and I figured it was a perfect day to enjoy a hike. We enjoyed the drive down splitrock road and to the site - then hiked up to the ridge. Found the first stage immediately (how did I miss that last time?), spent a little time conversing with the hawk watchers - then headed off to find the cache. Quick find - took a tape and left a big yellow flashlight (wow - that ammo box is FULL!). We rehid the cache exactly as we found it and headed over toward 'Graffiti Rock Ramble'.

Thanks for a fun hunt and a great excuse to get out hiking without the kids!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 21, 2003 by JJJJJJJJl (59 found)

Last cache for the day found the first part with a little help, second part quite easily. Due to time and the sun going down we boggied out of their after taking a whistle and leaving a keychain. What a great ending to a great day.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 21, 2003 by LLLLLLLLL (64 found)

This was the final cache of the day for JJJJJJ and I. We had to use the hint for the first stage. After reading it we found it without too much trouble. It is awfully close to the trail but I think it is well out of site. Replaced it where we found it and off to the cache which JJJJJJJ found fairly quickly. I took the Smiley Face bubbles and left a Judge Button and some rubber frogs. We took the white trail back to the bat cave and just made it out when the bats were emerging. Cool. On the way down we saw the spooky cemetary but did not have time to investigate and were lucky enough to hear a screech owl calling just as we came out of the wood. Thanks for the ending to a great day.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 21, 2003 by eeeeeeee (207 found)

The Hawk Watch was full today - there must have been 25 people there. I felt very uncomfortable search for the first stage. I couldn't see any of them, so I hope they couldn't see me. I came by way of the Bat Cave and scored the first part of the new Graffiti Rock cache. After finding both parts of Hawk Watch, I completed Graffiti Rock on my way out. I highly recommend this hike to others, especially if you need 2 for a milestone. I swopped WG$ and added an extra, series 1988A.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 18, 2003 by BBBBBBBBt (1111 found)

Find #1019. Nice hike in; quite a few people at the platform ... I see some people get to drive right up to it. That bald eagle was circling the area again today. Both stages were easy finds. Took nothing, left a ''George.'' Thanks.

(Egads! As I was typing this log, somebody just lost control of their car and smashed in my neighbor's basement wall and window! Film at 11!)

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 14, 2003 by SSSSSSSS (61 found)

Headed over to this cache after finding the first part of Graffitti Rock. Found the first part easily, but took a little longer with the 2nd since there were people back and forth to the hawk watch platform. Traded WG$ and signed log book. Met Team VVVVV on my way back to find the 2nd stage of Graffitti Rock, and saw SSSSSSSS in the parking lot, but didn't realize it was them untillater on....they look nothing like their pictures on the cards they leave.

[last edit: 9/14/2003 6:02:42 PM PST]

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 14, 2003 by Team VVVVV (13 found)

Headed up to the first stage from the bat cave and stopped at Grafitti Rock Ramble stage one. Than we saw SSSSSS and headed twards the first stage. On the way we saw the YYYYYYYYs. Found the first stage fairly easily. Found the second part easily too. Saw a few hawks and hawk watchers. Took WG dollar and pocket knife left marble and silver.

Thanks!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

September 14, 2003 by SSSSSSSSS (107 found)

Parked in the desinated area and met with one of the hawk counters, he said look a bald eagle and pointed to a large bird circleing in the air, sure enough an eagle was flying around. he asked if we were geocachers? we interduced ourselfs and we chatted for a while, then we headed up the fireroad to the platform we grabbed the first stage (the numbers were right on) we punched the new cord into the gps and headed to the 2nd stage, found it and logged the book, took mini cache ready to go, and left smiliy face bubbles and a package of dice. and headed over to the rock cache, met with team sssss on the white trail while they were on the way to this cache, on our way back to the car the rain started and we got caught on the mountian in a downpour, we were soaked. (know how hard it is to walk up trails with wet jeans? ) great cache, we will be comming back with our camaras when the trees start to turn color

[view this log on a separate page]

 

August 31, 2003 by hhhhhhh (294 found)

What a great spot for the cache. Waking up to a cool clear day today - we packed a lunch and all headed up for a hike (on BrianSnat's suggestion). Well - a great suggestion it was, we reached the Observation platform and found about a dozen or so people watching and identifying hawks. Very nice view - so we sat and had some lunch before looking for stage 1. Finding a micro in the woods isn't my forte and we only spent a few minutes searching, but alas, came up empty. We'll certainly be back (will be fun to bring friends to this out of the way gem) and will take more time to search for stage 1, but we really enjoyed the hike.

Thanks for a fun hunt!

[view this log on a separate page]

 

August 30, 2003 by MMMMMMMl (91 found)

Stopped by today because I felt guilty about taking a book and just leaving some WG$. I left a book called, The Home Brewer's Companion. Hopefully some cacher will be able to use it. I also traded the 2 new WG$ that were there for a Tom.

Some other interesting notes.. Spotted what we believe to be a Vermilion Flycatcher near stage 1 of this cache. I'm actually going back today to see if we can spot it again because its a rare find for NJ.

 

Also going from the Hawk platform to the cache we saw a copperhead. Of course I didn't have my camera!!!  It was trying to make its way across the trail and froze when it saw us.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

August 30, 2003 by Sssssssss. (586 found)

#445 – 8/30/03 I’ve been chomping at the bit to find this cache since it popped up on the website a few days ago. It was just Ashley, Autumn, an me today. I had the parking cords punched into my GPS’r but somehow couldn’t get there (I know there is parking available there since we passed the area on our hike to the cache and saw several cars parked there). I decided to park in another designated spot right off Green Pond Rd. From there, the first part of the hike was pretty steep, but after that it was a piece of cake. We got to the vicinity of stage 1 without a problem, and Ashley found it quickly. I jotted down the coords for the final stage and punched them into my e-trax. There was small blue lizard (that’s right, blue) by the cache site. I never saw one like it. I tried to catch it but it scurried under a tree stump. We stopped by the overlook to take some pictures then moved onto the final stage. That was a pretty straight forward find as well as Ashley found it after just a few minutes. We swapped WG$’s - Ashley took the pocket dictionary and logged our visit – I left a bunch of WWF pencils, crayons, a mini pencil & sharpener. We took the same route back to the car. Our round trip was just a little over 4 miles. This was another classic BBBBBBB cache in a very nice area. Thanks BBBB for placing the cache!

Edited April 29, 2004 by briansnat

[+rusty_tlc]

I'm suprised no one has stated the obvious. TNLNSL could be considered what folks in the quality industry call an indicator.

-If you never see it in the logs the cache is probably stellar.

-If you see it in the logs occasionaly, either those individuals either didn't care for the cache, were tacitern9sp?), or were in a hurry.

-If most of the logs are TNLNSL it may well be a stinker.

-If all[/n] the logs are TNLNSL you probably qant to put the cache on your ignore list.

[+southdeltan]

That answered my question. I've been around forums long enough to know better, but you can never tell how literal somebody is being.

 

I would close this thread but I hope it'll keep getting hits for a while longer - I'd love for people to see Brian's example.

 

sd

[MOCKBA]

If you can think of something nice to say, then why did you just type "TNLNSL"?

Because I almost NEVER trade.

If I didn't trade and didn't have anything to tell or to show, I just won't log it.

Couldn't you compliment at least something if the cache was good and you chose to log it online? "Well hidden"? "Nice view"? "I didn't know this fill-in-the-blank was here"? "Good swag"? "You should read fill-in-the-blank entries in this logbook"?

[+southdeltan]

If you can think of something nice to say, then why did you just type "TNLNSL"?

Because I almost NEVER trade.

If I didn't trade and didn't have anything to tell or to show, I just won't log it.

Couldn't you compliment at least something if the cache was good and you chose to log it online? "Well hidden"? "Nice view"? "I didn't know this fill-in-the-blank was here"? "Good swag"? "You should read fill-in-the-blank entries in this logbook"?

I think that there is some confusion here.

 

I actually sign TN/LN/SL on most traditional caches I find, it doesn't matter if I write a 10 paragraph log or a 2 sentence log.

 

I never said that TN/LN/SL was the only thing I wrote. Sorry for any confusion....

 

That being said - you now have to write something good or you can't log a cache?

 

(Incidentally, I never write "logs" in log books - I sign my name and date the find. I save the good stuff for the online log.)

 

southdeltan

[+rusty_tlc]

If you can think of something nice to say, then why did you just type "TNLNSL"?

Because I almost NEVER trade.

If I didn't trade and didn't have anything to tell or to show, I just won't log it.

Couldn't you compliment at least something if the cache was good and you chose to log it online? "Well hidden"? "Nice view"? "I didn't know this fill-in-the-blank was here"? "Good swag"? "You should read fill-in-the-blank entries in this logbook"?

I think that there is some confusion here.

 

I actually sign TN/LN/SL on most traditional caches I find, it doesn't matter if I write a 10 paragraph log or a 2 sentence log.

 

I never said that TN/LN/SL was the only thing I wrote. Sorry for any confusion....

 

That being said - you now have to write something good or you can't log a cache?

 

(Incidentally, I never write "logs" in log books - I sign my name and date the find. I save the good stuff for the online log.)

 

southdeltan

I find that odd. (Please don't read that as "bad". )

 

I tend to write more in the cache log than I do on-line. Unless the location is such that I need to get the cache closed up and hidden quickly. When I am at the cache the events are fresh in my mind. By the time I get home the memories may not be as fresh, or I may have several caches to log.

[+JMBella]

If you can think of something nice to say, then why did you just type "TNLNSL"?

Because I almost NEVER trade.

 

I took nothing, left nothing and signed the log.

 

Sometimes I write long logs, sometimes I don't.

 

----

 

On a related note - I wonder what will happen when people start writing exactly how they feel about those "bad" caches - I predict a huge uproar when people write "This cache sucks because...." and their log gets deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if the day isn't that far off.

 

southdeltan

I think it's bad form to flame someone on their own cache page but I've seen it done. If I really think a cache is terrible I'll try and give a real reason why I feel that way with out insulting anyone. Then maybe I'll add a DPM at the end. If all that you write is TNLNSL, it's pretty much the same as writing DPM or this cache is lame. If you don't really have anything elaborate to write in the log but it was a good cache and you had no problem with it, just write "found with no problem, Nice area. thanks for a great cache, TNLNSL." Still short, quick and lets the owner know you appreciate their cache.

[+southdeltan]

I find that odd. (Please don't read that as "bad". )

No offense taken. I see just as many brief logs (1 sentence) as I do longer logs at the actual cache, but I digress.

 

My handwriting is quite terrible. I can type much better than I can write. It's terrible even when I have something stable to support the paper, so writing on a note pad in the field is often a pain in my rear. And even on those occassions when the cache is secluded I often have nothing to say at the time (I like to "digest" the experience) and I rarely read the logbooks- (I have started doing that more lately). It's a 90 minute drive one way to anywhere with unfound caches so I am often in hurry up mode. If I'm gonna drive 3 hours, I really want to find at least 12 and that doesn't mean the "lame" drive up micros. There are probably some other reasons but those come to the top of my mind.

 

southdeltan

[+boulist44]

I don't excahange or replace, so there.

However I log the cache as a find. does anyone have a problem with that?

Some people treat the hunt as a greater experience than exchanging the odd item of little consequence. So each to his own and do as you will.

[+rusty_tlc]

Lighten up Francis.

[inventorjg]

I just placed a cache, with a FTF certificate. The finder didn't even mention he took it.

[+bigredmed]

I've seen this quite often in the forums:

 

"If somebody wrote TNLNSL (Took nothing, left nothing, signed log), then your cache sucks".

 

I don't buy that it always means that... I write that quite often and it's not just on caches that "suck". There are plenty of enjoyable caches out there that I just had nothing to say about.

 

Am I missing something - or is this referring to those times when the ONLY thing in the log is TNLNSL? I can't recall seeing a cache that only had that in there.

 

southdeltan

I agree with you entirely. I myself have been in a mood to write a two paragraph log note and done so, and at other times just written TNLN. No reflection on the cache, more one on my mood or my schedule.

 

The issue is not that one person writes TNLN, its that it strikes people as odd when most of the finders do.

 

I would not skip a cache just because people TNLN'd the logs.

[+Quadcache]

I don't have very many caches under my belt yet so with that said...

 

I seem to always forget to get stuff for trading or I just leave it at home. I don't plan when I am going to go caching but just up and go on a whim. Maybe soon I will go and get some good swag for trading.

 

The times that I TNLNSL I try to make sure and put a note about how I liked the cache or that it needs maint. I know that on one cache I only took some crappy stuff (junk or broken stuff) out and left nothing. I logged it and got an email from the cache owner thanking me. On another cache I noted that it had grown from a small tin into a small tin and several plastic store bags but TNLNSL. What kind of cacher am I? Do I need to do things differently? I am always learning.

 

I thought the purpose of logging online is to provide feedback for the owner and future finders. I guess some people only do it for the numbers. To each his own.

 

Happy Caching.

[+norbu]

Geez, lighten up. TNLNSL means exactly what it stands for, if you would prefer it be written out the long way....

 

Don't get your ego tied up in this either. Even if a cache does "suck" it might not be due to something the owner can control. I came across a moldy cache the other day. I alerted the owner to the state when I logged my find, and to my surprise, they archived it within days....I didn't mean for that to happen, but it was their choice. The cache is in a great place too.

 

I just haven't gotten creative enough to leave stuff. I don't want to leave mcToys, etc. I would want to leave something cool, and it just hasn't come to me yet. I also am usually too tired from hiking up some darn tall hill to have a lot to write about once I get there.

 

hehehee

anyway, try to relax.

[+Markwell]

I don't agree that it always means "This cache sucks." It may simply mean that there isn't much else to say.

 

That being said, I believe this thread spawned off of my post over here.

 

It kind of begs the question: If "TNLNSL" doesn't necessarily mean "This cache sucks", what can we write and still be diplomatic when the cache truly is below even the lowest of standards? I'm not talking about poorly maintained ones. I'm talking about ill-conceived caches set by lazy people. I haven't found too many of those, but I've always been left with the "thanks for the cache" or TNLNSL as a standard bare minimum logging of the cache.

 

I did log one once that I hoped people could read through the lines...

This cache is a perfect one to teach my five-year-old how to Geocache, with a prize that he could really appreciate.

Edited April 28, 2004 by Markwell

[+SkinGuy]

I am guilty of sometimes having a brief log for caches that I find -- have never used "TNLNSL." I agree with the sentiment of at least noting the enjoyment of the find, the area, the hunt, or something else memorable.

 

On a couple of occasions, I've gone with a friend to hit as many caches as possible during a long caching day (42 caches and 30 caches on those days). Although I try to recall each one while making the logs, only a few will stand out in my brain -- so some of the logs really aren't much more than: "Thanks for the cache, #11/33 for the day."

 

That isn't meant as any kind of a reflection on the quality of the cache, but more on the limited space on my mental hard drive.

 

On caches that I have placed, I certainly appreciate a longer cache note -- that way I have some idea of what was done right or wrong with that particular cache. I don't think that it makes sense, however, to take offense at simple cache logs (or solely initials).

 

SkinGuy

[+southdeltan]

That being said, I believe this thread spawned off of my post over here.

 

It kind of begs the question: If "TNLNSL" doesn't necessarily mean "This cache sucks", what can we write and still be diplomatic when the cache truly is below even the lowest of standards? I'm not talking about poorly maintained ones. I'm talking about ill-conceived caches set by lazy people. I haven't found too many of those, but I've always been left with the "thanks for the cache" or TNLNSL as a standard bare minimum logging of the cache.

Yes, that was the inspiration for this post, but I've seen the 'tnlnsl' = sucks all over the place as of late and thought it was worth discussing. I mainly was wondering if it was just the short logs (or logs that only say TNLNSL) or if it was using it at all.

 

I think you raised some valid points in your posts. Down here private emails have become the best way to deal with issues such as poor caches. Most of the time the constructive critiscism is gladly welcomed. When it becomes to traditional-regular - the biggest problem is often poor containers (not waterproof) or newbie-itus (hey, this is neat, lets hide a cache before we find any).

 

I suppose the best thing is to post a brief log and email the person with concerns.

 

====

 

On a non related note, in response to another poster:

 

I have NO idea what DPM means. I have never seen that in a log.

 

southdeltan

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I've seen this quite often in the forums:

 

"If somebody wrote TNLNSL (Took nothing, left nothing, signed log), then your cache sucks".

 

I don't buy that it always means that... I write that quite often and it's not just on caches that "suck". There are plenty of enjoyable caches out there that I just had nothing to say about.

 

Am I missing something - or is this referring to those times when the ONLY thing in the log is TNLNSL? I can't recall seeing a cache that only had that in there.

 

southdeltan

It certainly doesn't mean that to me.

[+SixDogTeam]

I don't think that the majority of cachers KNOW that TNLNSL has a negative meaning...

[+briansnat]

I don't think that the majority of cachers KNOW that TNLNSL has a negative meaning...

 

But it really doesn't. I think the point is that if you see a cache with nothing but TNLNSL's, you can bet it's probably a pretty lame cache. I see TNLNSL on logs for my caches all the time, but I don't take it as anything bad. If the log reads "blah blah blah blah blah.......blah blah blah, TNLNSL" then that's fine.

 

Now if all the logs were one sentence (e.g. Quick find, thanks. TNLNSL), then I'd think I might have a stinker on my hands. See my earlier post in this thread of the logs for two different caches to see what I mean.

Edited April 29, 2004 by briansnat

[+SamLowrey]

I, too, almost never trade. To boot, I don't say "SL" because that seems to be a given if I'm logging it.

 

To me, the cache is the location/find. The contents hold little value to me, usually, but that is a whole other topic IMO. I would hate to think someone thought I had misgivings about the cache because people choose to trade childish things.

[lowracer]

I always shorten TNLNSL to XNSL. eXchanged Nothing, Signed Log. Saves keystrokes and bytes of server storage on geocaching.com. If every cacher who signs the wasteful TNLNSL (or worse) TN/LN/SL, would just sign XNSL instead, we'd save three to six bytes of server storage for each log. Considering the millions of logs that are made each minute, pretty soon this adds up to saving a new hard drive every couple of weeks. You want your $30 subscription fee to go a little bit longer? Don't write so much in your logs. Keep it short. XNSL.

[uperdooper]

I always shorten TNLNSL to XNSL. eXchanged Nothing, Signed Log. Saves keystrokes and bytes of server storage on geocaching.com. If every cacher who signs the wasteful TNLNSL (or worse) TN/LN/SL, would just sign XNSL instead, we'd save three to six bytes of server storage for each log. Considering the millions of logs that are made each minute, pretty soon this adds up to saving a new hard drive every couple of weeks. You want your $30 subscription fee to go a little bit longer? Don't write so much in your logs. Keep it short. XNSL.

that sounds fine to me, but i've had cache owners threaten to delete my logs if i didn't write what amounts to a short story about their cache. i'm not an author. the cache owners should take what is written and leave it at that. if i have a problem with a cache i e-mail it to them so they get the info in private.

[+TotemLake]

I too have bad handwriting so I made a label to shortcut a lot of the same text that normally gets added. I rarely write much of anything in the log preferring to put it on-line instead. I also reached the point that I rarely trade for anything and usually put something into a cache if it was a particularly challenging or enjoyable one to find, and only if I remembered to bring my swag.

[bnolan]

Personally one of my favorite aspects of geocaching is reading the logs by the people who have found my caches. I like hearing about why they chose my cache, what they thought of it, was it hard to find?, did they break any ribs?

 

I wouldn't take a TNLNSL as an insult, but I would much prefer to read a nice long log. For that reason I try to write a bit more than minimum on all my logs and a long detailed log on the best caches.

 

So if you happen to get one of my rambling 3 page cache logs, consider that a compliment.

[+Red Clover]

Ok maybe I'm having a blonde moment .. but what the heck is DPM? I've tried to search I've checked the "abbreviation" pages. I'm probably over examining it (as usual) and I'll end up having one of the Doh moments when I finally find out

[+Gizmo & Brazin]

(Incidentally, I never write "logs" in log books - I sign my name and date the find.  I save the good stuff for the online log.)

 

southdeltan

Same here. As much as I would like to sit and write a few profound paragraphs in the actual log, I usually just sticker it, add the date and a quick thanks. I prefer to write a paragraph or two in the online log.

 

When we are out caching we have at least one dog and sometimes all three. Plus my son comes along most of the time. It's hard to take the time to gather my thoughts and add something legible to the log with the uproar that usually ensues when we are together. (The 'boys' get restless and start horsing around which gets the dogs upset who then start barking and jumping....you get the idea.)

 

And about the TNLNSL, I would like to see more written in the logs for the caches I have hidden, but if a lot of those show up I know I need to try harder on the next one. It's not a failure, just an opportunity to improve next time and maybe inspire people to comment.

 

(edit: typo)

Edited April 29, 2004 by Gizmo & Brazin

[+JeepCachr]

I don't understand this attitude.

 

Who gets to say whether a cache sucks or is lame? You guys are all being insensitive and selfish. There are caches of all types for all people out there. Unless the cache in some way violates the guidelines then it shouldn't be complained about. Just because the cache was easy for your 5 yr old to find doesn't mean that the cache was lame. If you look at the ratings how much can you really expect from a 1/1? If you think its to easy than look for some with higher ratings. If you feel the rating is wrong you can complain about that but you shouldn't complain about the cache being lame. Leave the easy ones for those that like them.

 

There are 2 types of cachers, newbies who will hunt for anything and be gratefull for it often breaking rules along the way especially when they hide their first lame cache, and seasoned veterans who think that every cache should be a major challenge in a unique location, with a clever container, .

[+southdeltan]

I think this thread has served it's purpose....

 

Time to close it.

 

(I still don't know what DPM means)

Edited April 29, 2004 by southdeltan

[+Red Clover]

If you find out..let me know!

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

DPM is some french thing which means your cache sucks. I suppose those who use it think they're clever. I just think they're rude.

[Jamethiel]

DPM= search forums for Des Paldres (sp) references by Brian Snat (I think)

It is a way of saying something.

-Jen

[+Renegade Knight]

DPM is some french thing which means your cache sucks. I suppose those who use it think they're clever. I just think they're rude.

Someting about clam dip at midnight. But if you see DPM on a log it means with no doubt whatsoever "Your cache sucks".

[+Mastifflover]

DPM is some french thing which means your cache sucks.  I suppose those who use it think they're clever.  I just think they're rude.

I agree. If I ever see a DPM on one of my caches I would be really tempted to delete the log even though I don't agree with the practice. A polite email I would welcome.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Des Palordes Mortes

[Nudecacher]

Well, there are lots of games here. The discussion above is limited to a very stereotyped view of the geocaching game. Nudecacher particularly notices this. The activity of signing the physical log and posting the digital log both may have aspects that have nothing to do with the standard stereotype. Nudecachers game has a much more complex set of criteria applying to each part of the geocaching event. There are issues in selecting which caches will be searched for, how they will be searched for, which foundand how found, which logged and how logged or whether logged at all, what will be revealed in the logs, how pictures taken on the caching trip turn out, what is revealed in discussions, how caching events are handled and much more. Further issues arise depending on whether I am caching alone, or with others, and who I am caching with. The log entry may reflect this. Some caches that I choose to log get only a TNLNSL for many different reasons, just as other types of log entries are made for many different reasons. As nudecacher, I also have to consider how the owner of the cache might respond to the log. Frequently this affects how I log.

[+GeoKender]

Briansnat wrote...

For instance which of the two caches here would you think could be lame and which do you think could be a good one

 

Where is that Cache #2!!!

 

-GeoKender

[+norbu]

XNSL - that is wonderful. I believe I shall emulate you!

save the electrons!!!

namaste

[+briansnat]

(I still don't know what DPM means)

 

DPM = Des Palourdes Mortes, or The Dead Clams. It's shorthand for a very lame cache.

 

It originated in this thread. To save you some reading, it was a thread about (what else?) lame caches.

I jokingly suggested that people use the phrase "The dead clam dances at midnight" in their logs to warn others of lousy caches. Perfect Tommy then suggested we use "The long sobs of the violins of autumn wound my heart with a monotonous languor". I followed with a compromise: "The long sobs of the dead clams wound my heart with a monotonous languor as they dance at midnight". Perfect Tommy agreed, but thought it should be in French (this is before we didn't like the French) "Les longs sanglots des palourdes mortes blessent mon coeur avec un languor monotone pendant qu'ils dansent à minuit". So we thought we were set until Stayfloopy complained that it was simply way to long to write in a log. He suggested shortening it to "Des Palourdes Mortes, and even further to DPM". So now, you know, the rest of the story.

 

Edit: oops, I see Team GPSax would have saved me some typing had I noticed his Markwell.

 

I don't understand this attitude.

 

Who gets to say whether a cache sucks or is lame? You guys are all being insensitive and selfish. There are caches of all types for all people out there

 

I think you're missing the entire point of this thread. Very few people here are talking about saying that a cache is lame in the log. What we are saying is that when we find what we perceive to be a lame cache, it rarely moves us to write much more than TNLNSL in the log. Besides, if you walk 50 feet across a parking lot and find a cache on a lamp post, how much IS there to write?

Edited April 29, 2004 by briansnat