Cut And Paste Log Entries

[+OzGuff]

The impetus for the above was a group of high number cachers from middle TN visiting western NC, finding 160+ caches in 2-3 days, and logging the same generic log for each cache. I am sure that they are all great people, and I don't mean to pick on them specifically; I just wanted to see what the feeling was on cut and paste logs that are as original as porn film plotlines.

I want to point out a sentence or so from my original post -- see where I mentioned that all I wanted to do was see what the opinions were on cut-and-paste logs. I gave my opinion and then asked for others to voice their opinions. It is obvious that there are differences in opinions and/or maybe I touched a nerve.

 

I mentioned a few cachers by name not to throw stones but as examples. I made no judgement about them as people. As JoGPS said:

OzGuff looks like you don’t like anyone doing it that’s why you started this thread , but that’s OK I like whiners to……. JOE

He is right that I would prefer a thoughtful and personalized online log for the caches I own, but as others have said anything is better than nothing. I am also not too sure if my post should be considered whining -- I gave an example and asked a question. If anything JoGPS appears to be whining about someone questioning his manhood for cutting and pasting logs. (Which I don't think is happening either; folks are generalyy agreeing to disagree.)

 

And to Mopar -- thanks for finding one of my 108 hides and using it as an example of what you probably consider a "lame" cache. [Can someone point me to the thread about cachers you do not want to meet?] I do own many micros, many of which are very easy. But I also own many caches which take hours to complete because of the 5-mile hike. There IS a place for the 1/1 park-and-grab cache, and if it weren't for these types of caches the numbers of high-find cachers would be significantly lower. But I digress...

 

I am sorry that this thread got off track -- it started as a request for opinions (albeit with a few names thrown in as examples) and has wound up as a forum for cachers justifying their modus operandi. I have said repeatedly that cut-and-paste logs are fine by me, but that I won't use them.

 

Monkeybrad -- I again repeat that I am sorry to drag you into this! I would have definitely tried to meet up with you folks had the invite been extended. Sounds like you had a great weekend! (I just noticed you had added another post ot this thread while I was composing mine!) As I was not the owner of any of the 168 caches you folks found I was not offended. And had you come to Jackson County NC, found any of mine, and logged them using cut-and-paste I would not be offended. All I said was that in my opinion cache-finders owe cache-hiders a little more than cut-and-paste.

 

(Should I close this topic?)

[+Monkeybrad]

I wouldn't close it, it is funny, we saw your name several times, and we even had a discussion about you. I mentioned to them that we had emailed back and forth and that your thoughts on London caching were a great help to me. Just wanted to let you know that we were speaking well of you on our trip.

 

The funny thing is that I basically agree with you. I prefer to get a well thought out log to a cut-paste one, but I don't think it is any big deal either way. My real pet peeve (which is funny since I am one of the so-called power-cachers) is people who list what number this cache is for the day. I am not picking on anyone in particular, but that one always kind of bugged me. I am not trying to tell anyone how they should play, I am just offering my opinion.

 

Dave mentioned earlier that we are getting a reputation for this, I hope that is not the case. I realize that because of our numbers, and the way we attack an are even when we are taking it easy, we have a higher profile than some others. I hope that people will judge us for what they know of us, not just what they have heard. I think if you will ask anyone who has met any of us from around the country they will tell you that we are all good people who will do anything in their power to help out their fellow cachers. We all care about the future of this sport intently, but we also have agreat respect for others and the way that they choose to play the game. We are honest about the game, if we find it, we log it and if we do not find it, we log a no find, even on a cache that should have been easy. We figure that if we did not find it, you should get the satisfaction of knowing that you stumped us or that you might want to check on the cache. Even when we do 100 in a day, we take the time to make sure we do not expose the cache to muggles and we always hide it back the way that we found it. We try to play responsibly and to show respect to our fellow cachers. At least that is the way I hope people will look at us, and not as a "bunch of numbers runners whose logs have all the sincerity of a turd". Thanks for that one Dave. Whether yiou believe we enjoyed and appreciate your caches or not, I am telling you that we did.

[+southdeltan]

It's interesting that some of the replies by the "guilty party" (no offense intended) are fairly long and well worded. I'n not sure if it means anything, but it's certainly interesting.

 

sd

[+OzGuff]

Crap -- so now I have to stop numbering my daily cache finds! Since I have not met any of the Labor Day Adventure Team I cannot know for sure but I would tend to believe that what Monkeybrad says is true, and that the cachers in the group are great folks and support that future of geocaching. As do I! (Is it possible that the forums are an amazing waste of time and effort, and that geocaching as a whole would be better off without them?) I look forward to meeting you folks out on the trail some day soon!

 

SD -- I suppose who is the "guilty party" depends on your point of view. Or were you saying that MY reples were well written?

[+Zartimus]

It's interesting that some of the replies by the "guilty party" (no offense intended) are fairly long and well worded.  I'n not sure if it means anything, but it's certainly interesting.

 

sd

I'll say, they'd probably write a GREAT log if they could remember what cache it was after doing 50 in a day or what have you(One of the perils of powercaching). I'd love to read 'em.

 

I for the record get tired of the "cache 567 of 592 on the day" stuff too. Unless they are doing it for their own book-keeping.

Edited September 13, 2004 by Zartimus

[+drat19]

(snip)I think if you will ask anyone who has met any of us from around the country they will tell you that we are all good people who will do anything in their power to help out their fellow cachers.  We all care about the future of this sport intently, but we also have agreat respect for others and the way that they choose to play the game.

 

I do agree with that, Brad. As you know, I met Joe and several other of your local compadres for dinner during my Nashville run last December, and it was a wonderful visit, and I appreciated the hospitality.

 

Having debated (hopefully respectfully, although I've been known to be an a**h@le from time to time) with you on this subject and also the whole "lame caches" thing, the following is clear: Like so many folks on these forums and in our sport, Geocaching has truly changed my life (and I'm sure the same is true for you). As a result, I (we?) have strong opinions about this activity that takes so much of our time. Like the Nashville group and so many others on these forums with strong opinions, I also believe that most people around here (myself included) are generally good people even if our opinions are strong and not necessarily agreeable to all.

 

(snip)At least that is the way I hope people will look at us, and not as a "bunch of numbers runners whose logs have all the sincerity of a turd".  Thanks for that one Dave.  Whether yiou believe we enjoyed and appreciate your caches or not, I am telling you that we did.

 

I discussed the "good or bad or indifferent reputation" thing, as to y'all's copy/pasting of log entries, in one of my posts above, but I never said THAT (quoted above). I hope that you merely extrapolated it based on others' posts (or if someone else said it, that you attribute it to that other person and not incorrectly to me, if you please). On the other hand, now that I think about it, if I ever DID say that in some other discussion (probably in the heat of my fingers flying and smoke coming out of the keyboard during one of our spirited exchanges!), by all means please DO call me on it - if I said that, I probably shouldn't have!

 

-Dave R. in Biloxi

Edited September 13, 2004 by drat19

[+Team Perks]

I for the record get tired of the "cache 567 of 592 on the day" stuff too. Unless they are doing it for their own book-keeping.

While I quickly grow weary of caches that are nothing but "cache 567 of 592 on the day" logs, I DO find some value in those who include that statement. Often when I'm planning to visit a new area I will follow the tracks of previous cachers, and I know of others who have done the same thing after I've visited an area. (Why spend the time planning a route when someone else has already done the work for you?)

[+Mopar]

And to Mopar -- thanks for finding one of my 108 hides and using it as an example of what you probably consider a "lame" cache. [Can someone point me to the thread about cachers you do not want to meet?] I do own many micros, many of which are very easy. But I also own many caches which take hours to complete because of the 5-mile hike. There IS a place for the 1/1 park-and-grab cache, and if it weren't for these types of caches the numbers of high-find cachers would be significantly lower. But I digress...

Well, I didn't use it to insult you or call it "lame" at all, sorry you feel that way. I used that cache as the type of cache that probably isn't going to generate 4 paragraph long logs. There is nothing wrong with that, and I have a few like that myself. Funny thing to me is they are the most popular ones.

 

So don't get me wrong, I basically agree with you. I've said before my personal feeling is that if someone took the time to hide the cache for me to find, the least I can do is find the time to say SOMETHING specific and original about that cache. If you look through my finds, you will find plenty of 20 to 50 cache days in there. I usually make a basic "cut-n-paste" for a certain part of the trip explaining where I'm from and how I happen to be there caching. Then I try to include at least a few sentences about that specific cache. I'm a painfully slow typist, and I also include lots of pics with almost every log. Monkeybrad was complaining about 3 minutes per log? Mine often take 30 minutes or more each. It's a well known joke around here that I have no clue what my find count is. In part because I care little for competing against anyone else, but also because it's not unusual for me to get weeks or months behind on my logs, rather then just cut and paste.

 

As for the thread about cachers you don't want to meet: I have no clue where it is. I never posted to it, because there is no cacher yet I wouldn't want to meet. I've probably meet well over 300 cachers from all over the country. Some of them I've bumped heads with here in the forums. No biggie. We are playing a game here, where we hunt 99 cent junk with a 12 billion dollar navigation system. I'm pretty sure most of the people I've come across understand this, and are mature enough (no matter what their age) to be able to discuss something and disagree with someone without taking it personal. Man, if you hate everyone in the world who doesn't agree with you 100% on everything, you're gonna be quite lonely.

[+sbell111]

The way I see it, there are four types of logs that people enter regarding caches I own.

 

The first type is the log that tells their story and gives me an 'attaboy'. Sure, I like these. My ego likes to bestroked as much as the next one and reading interesting stories is fun.

 

The second type is a copy and pasted 'found it while I was on a run through Franklin. Thanks.' These tend to be on the micros that I've scattered about town. I appreciate this type because it lets me know that the cache is still there and probably doesn't have any big problems that I should correct.

 

The third type is a log that explains a problem with the cache. I appreciate these because it alerts me to a problem that needs solving.

 

Finally, there is the DNF logs. These alert me to a potential problem with the cache.

 

Why would anyone have a problem with any of these types of logs?

[+Monkeybrad]

On the other hand, now that I think about it, if I ever DID say that in some other discussion (probably in the heat of my fingers flying and smoke coming out of the keyboard during one of our spirited exchanges!), by all means please DO call me on it - if I said that, I probably shouldn't have!

 

-Dave R. in Biloxi

 

We had a group of 4-digit caches come through the area and so now every PQ I get, most of the caches five most recent logs are identical. They're all some variant of "Nice cache, thanks."

 

Those are the worst. I'd rather read about how someone accidently found the cache when they went to go take a dump.

Jamie...

Yep, that same group of 4-digit cachers (a group based in an area about equidistant from both you and me, right?) (OK, a bit closer to you, but you know...) came thru my area and cut/pasted the same log entry on every one my caches they found. And it wasn't "TNLNSL", it was a couple sentences with all the sincerity of floating turds. I'd have PREFERRED "TNLNSL".

 

Couldn't agree with you more.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

Just to set it straight, i did not quote you correctly, you actually said, "And it wasn't "TNLNSL", it was a couple sentences with all the sincerity of floating turds. "

 

Sorry, but that one stuck with me. You went on to say that you would have preferred a "TNLNSL" log to what we copy-pasted.

 

I'll say it again, I create a basic, who we are, why we were here blurb to copy and paste into every cache page, even the ones that i do choose to write quite a bit on. I then log with it and add something to the beginning or end if i have something i want to say about the cache. If not i just paste the blurb alone. Unfortunately, when i do not have alot of time to spend on logging, i log poorly, when i do have time to spend I try to log well. If you will look back at my logs for London in may I tried to write something specific for every cache, of course i was only doing 5-10 caches a day and had lots of time at the hotel to do my logging. If i had waited till I got home, my logs would have been shorter and less thoughtful. I am sorry, it is just a function of time. If I do not log when i have time, my backlog can pile up fairly quickly, so i try to avoid that. If I have lots of time and a few caches to log i will log better than if I have little time and lots of caches to log.

 

I am sorry, I have apologized many times if i have offended anyone, but that is the way I have to play this game.

[+OzGuff]

And to Mopar -- thanks for finding one of my 108 hides and using it as an example of what you probably consider a "lame" cache. [Can someone point me to the thread about cachers you do not want to meet?] {OzGuff stuff deleted}

 

{Mopar stuff deleted}

As for the thread about cachers you don't want to meet: I have no clue where it is. I never posted to it, because there is no cacher yet I wouldn't want to meet. I've probably meet well over 300 cachers from all over the country. Some of them I've bumped heads with here in the forums. No biggie. We are playing a game here, where we hunt 99 cent junk with a 12 billion dollar navigation system. I'm pretty sure most of the people I've come across understand this, and are mature enough (no matter what their age) to be able to discuss something and disagree with someone without taking it personal. Man, if you hate everyone in the world who doesn't agree with you 100% on everything, you're gonna be quite lonely.

I most have forgotten a smilie in my original Mopar-reference post... Here are two to make up for it:

[+drat19]

Yep, very good...I THOUGHT I had a vague recollection of that when I got off on one of my rants elsewhere...you found/remembered it. I must have been on one of my "rolls" that day in the forums. (This is like the presidential election...any quote "on the record" is fair game!) Guess it made an impression.

 

OK, I'll leave it at this: My language ("floating turds") may have been a bit too, uh, colorful, and for that I apologize. However, I stand by the spirit of my comment (that I'd prefer a copy/paste of "TNLNSL" 10-20 or more times, over multiple copy/pastes of apparently-sincere comments that, when read over and over again on 10-20 or more cache logs, develop the perception to the reader as being insincere (sorry, that's the perception)).

 

I'm willing to accept that you probably really did enjoy your visit to my area (or western NC, or any other area where you copy/pasted the same log multiple times in the interest of logging efficiency), but to the readers/hiders, it comes off as insincere. There's no getting around that.

 

If you really did enjoy your visits to these areas and are genuinely concerned that you come off a bit more positively than just "numbers runners storming an area" (and based on your and Joe's responses on this thread, it's clear that you DID enjoy and that you DO care), may I suggest that maybe you could drop the local hiders of caches who hid, say, more than just a few in an area you've stormed, a single note via their GC profiles sharing an experience or two, or expressing your appreciation in some not-generic way.

 

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

-Dave R.

Edited September 13, 2004 by drat19

[+OzGuff]

If you really did enjoy your visits to these areas and are genuinely concerned that you come off a bit more positively than just "numbers runners storming an area" (and based on your and Joe's responses on this thread, it's clear that you DID enjoy and that you DO care), may I suggest that maybe you could drop the local hiders of caches who hid, say, more than just a few in an area you've stormed, a single note via their GC profiles sharing an experience or two, or expressing your appreciation in some not-generic way.

 

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

-Dave R.

What he said!

[+JoGPS]

This starting to get a little, lets say weird, next the suggestions will be for us to email everyone in the area and say “ Look Out Here We Come” we are going to try to find all of your caches and not even have the respect of letting you know how lame some of them are. But we would like to thank you in advance for hiding them all …………. JOE

[+drat19]

This starting to get a little, lets say weird, next the suggestions will be for us to email everyone in the area and say “ Look Out Here We Come” we are going to try to find all of your caches and not even have the respect of letting you know how lame some of them are. But we would like to thank you in advance for hiding them all …………. JOE

No, Joe, it's not getting weird. Remember this thread started as a result of a cacher observing that y'all copied/pasted the same log entry into x numbers of cache pages when you stormed through an area, and grew further when it was noted that you and your crew have done this to caches/cachers in multiple areas.

 

You've defended your reasons for doing it, and others have engaged in discussion as to why we agree, disagree, or are indifferent, with the technique. It is what it is. Just as I (and so many others) must live with the consequences of what we post in these forums, so must you in terms of your handling of your own caching activities. By all means DO defend what you do, but others have just as much right to have a differing opinion.

 

Nothing weird about it.

 

As for your reaction to my comment about showing your appreciation to cachers in an area you've stormed, or not: No, no one's saying to have to do that. However (and here I go again using presidential politics as the example), you opened the door earlier in this thread by expressing your positive opinion about those areas. Why did it take a forum thread for that to happen, when it could just as easily have happened via your logs or a simple Email (if including such comments in your log was really too time consuming given how many logs you had to write)? Sorry Joe, telling me that you "took nothing but a smile" once sounds great (really), but copy/pasting it into cache pages of 20 or more of my hides...doesn't. Was that your intent? Of course not. I know you, I know your heart's in the right place. But that's the PERCEPTION. As I said earlier, as a fellow numbers-runner myself, if it's really too much to offer something unique about a cache if it warranted it (nice cache/hide/location), I'd prefer you just say you came through on a numbers run and be done with it. THAT'S honest.

 

And once again, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

-Dave R.

Edited September 13, 2004 by drat19

[+SixDogTeam]

Nothing weird about it.

 

-Dave R.

Actually Geocaching and talking about it is in itself kinda weird if you ask me. You GPS-totin' geeks make my skin crawl! Git outa our woods! and take your dang tupperware with you! Or we'll sic the dogs on ya!

[+Two Geeks and a GPS]

Some of us, who are not made of money, don't necessarily have all the cool gadgets. If we were on vacation, we cannot log (online, that is!) until we get home from vacation. That could be two weeks. Now, we do write notes to ourselves etc. and we recently went paperless, but even using those notes two weeks later will not yield very good logs. At least not up to our standards. Believe me, I am a very good (interesting) logger when the situation warrants. The logging may be my favorite part!

Not all caches, and I believe this has been covered, have anything interesting that happens. What do you log?

example

my favorite

 

Edit: To add links

Edited September 13, 2004 by Two Geeks and a GPS

[+Monkeybrad]

Just for the record let me reiterate...

 

This thread was started when OzGuff questioned the practice of copying and pasting logs. In doing that he specifically named my group of cachers. Since we were named specifically I felt that I should respond. A couple of us have explained why we logged the way we did. I am not defending my logging practices, there is nothing wrong with them, I am explaining why I do things the way I do.

 

I am inclined to agree with Joe. He is carrying it to an extreme, but he is right. I have logged the caches in a way that i am comfortable with, if any cache owner has a problem with that I am willing to discuss it with them and I may even change my log to reflect my thoughts on a given cache. I am a little fed up with justifying my actions. They are what they are.

[+Anonymous']

I think that copying and pasting logs is just plain lazy.

[+JoGPS]

I was along with other good geocaching friends named in this thread and to me that’s a personal attack, we thanked everyone for placing the caches and did not do the TNLN post like a lot of other folks do, but caching is finding something not writing an essay. When I do meet some of the cache owners in person am sure we will talk about a lot of things and have a great time. But again its about finding the cache not about posting if you don’t want me to find your caches because I will not write a long detailed post about how great it was , send me a email and I will not hunt them. Its that simple, and will show how simple you are.

 

I am sure you have noticed that I do not have command of the English proper, spelling and grammar is all bad . If I have a good copy and paste that works I am going with it. If you our anyone else does not like it tough nuts …………… JOE

 

BTW thanks sbell111

[+Monkeybrad]

Not all caches, and I believe this has been covered, have anything interesting that happens. What do you log?

You log a simple "who we are and why we were here" log. If you find lots of caches like that you log it lots of times. It is faster and easier if you cut and paste when you do this.

[+JoGPS]

Anonymous, you have not found enough caches to consider copy and pasting yet. and don't look at me that way. Heee Heee ……….. JOE

Edited September 13, 2004 by JoGPS

[+Two Geeks and a GPS]

Not all caches, and I believe this has been covered, have anything interesting that happens. What do you log?

 

More rhetorical than anything else!

[+Anonymous']

Anonymous, you have not found enough cache to consider copy and pasting yet. Heee Heee ……….. JOE

It's not about the numbers. Even if you have tons of finds you should still write out good logs.

[+JoGPS]

Why, what's wrong with TNLN start talking about that one, that's not what we did, if the cache is lame also write out a good log, don't think so............. JOE

Edited September 13, 2004 by JoGPS

[+sbell111]

OMG. I can't believe that this is an issue. How does a copy-n-paste log differ from 'TNLNSL. Thanks.'?

 

Does anyones ego really need so much stroking that I should be required to either post an essay about every cache hunt or personally email the cache owners?

 

Please take a step back and consider how rediculous this sounds.

[+Monkeybrad]

Anonymous, you have not found enough cache to consider copy and pasting yet.  Heee Heee ……….. JOE

It's not about the numbers. Even if you have tons of finds you should still write out good logs.

I think what Joe was trying to say is, you haven't been there so how can you judge.

 

When you called us lazy I looked over at your profile and realized that on Sunday we found more caches before our dinner break than you have found since April of 02, I decided that it would be tacky to mention it so i did not then, i went out and had a cigarette to cool down. When i came back in I realized that it was appropriate. How can you call us lazy if you have never been in that position. I could easily say that you are lazy for not finding more, but I do not believe that. This game is not about the numbers, but the numbers are a fun part of it if you go in for that sort of thing, I do. Unfortunately, this whole discussion was brought on because of the numbers. If we had gone and found twenty this weekend and copy pasted the logs, no one would have noticed, but because we found several it gave our actions more visibility. i am not ashamed that we found alot of caches this weekend, we will do it again, proudly. But remember how bad it feels for someone to imply that you are lazy for not finding more caches, well that is how it feels on the other side of the coin as well. It sucks to go out and have fun and then to have a bunch of people second guess it at every turn.

[+drat19]

OK Joe and Brad, although I wasn't the original poster on this thread who referenced your copy/paste logs in particular (although I must admit Brad DID catch me making a VEILED reference to y'all's practice in another thread), I did jump on the bandwagon, having seen it firsthand myself.

 

To that end, for the following I speak only for myself and not for anyone else on this thread who may have posted.

 

As with our longstanding difference of opinion regarding the PROLIFERATION (not the placement of 1 or 2 in an area, but of BOMBING an area with...) of less-than-high-quality caches, on the issue of copy/pasting log entries as discussed in this thread, let us just agree to simply respectfully disagree, and move forward. If you construed any of my posts as not-respectful and thus as personal attacks, for that I humbly and sincerely apologize.

 

I hope that if I'm able to attend GW3 (which at the moment is my plan to do so), we may share a cold beverage and some BBQ and some good Geocaching adventure stories. On THAT we should have no disagreement.

 

-Dave R.

[+flask]

oooh, oooh! this is one of my favorite topics but i didn't get to jump in until now because i was out numbers-whoring and just got back.

 

i'm going to dispense with my usual balanced diplomatic approach and say that cut-and-paste logs suck. if you want to suck, that's your business.

 

some people came through my state and left a very nice chatty little log that was exactly the same on every cache, and they even failed to change the name "thanks, (insert hider here), we really appreciate you taking the time to show us (name of park)."

 

if i write tnlnsl, it's bad news. often i link together all the logs i find on one trip. so you may see a log that's a couple thousand characters long linked to a log that says very little followed by a long log. it don't take a rocket surgeon ta figger it out. often if it's a perfectly acceptable but ininspiring hide, that's where i'll make my notes about what we had for lunch, or who in my party should have used better deodorant.

 

if it's JUST about finding the things and not about telling about it, why is writing in the log so prominently mentioned in descriptions of the sport? (and i'm sorry- if honkin' FIGURE SKATING can be a sport, so can geocaching. deal with it.)

 

and i respectfully submit that if you say you had a blast finding all 498 caches that weekend you went off on a toot, you are full of roadapples. you didn't have a blast FINDING them; you had a blast racking up finds. there's a significant difference.

 

sometimes i go out with the express intent of finding a bazillion, but i usually end up having a little lunch or stopping to take some pictures (cache owners like those, too.) or actually LOOKING at some of the stuff the cache owner wanted us to see.

 

and don't get all het up about personal comments. i'm shooting from the lip and i don't know or even care who said what along the course of the thread. it ain't personal and in the morning i won't remember what i said let alone who made the various salient points, except that somewhere mopar said a very funny thing and i don't remember what it was but i know it had a smiley and that stuff came out my nose.

 

there.

[+reg3]

Again -- all I wanted to do was state my opinion. Folks can agree with me or not. We all "play" this differently! And to each their own...

I think that stating an opinion takes only one post. More that one post could either indicate a change in opinion, or an attempt to force your opinion upon others.

 

Here is my one post to this thread. Caching is a game. It is fun. I write logs. Some logs are cut and paste. I am glad to receive logs, even TNLNSL. I don't think that means that my cache sucks. It means someone found it, and didn't trade anything. Caching is a game. It is fun.

 

Sometimes I think we need to remember that...Caching is a game. It is fun. Anyone want to go caching?

[+Monkeybrad]

I am with you, Dave. We will be at GW3 and I honestly look forward to meeting you, I respect your views even though we disagree on many things. I guess I should also take this opportunity to point out that there will be a "Kick Monkeybrad's Butt" booth at GW3, so if I have really angered anyone, they will have the opportunity to teach me a lesson there.

 

BTW SBell's post is absolutely right. Geocaching is a game of finding caches, the forums are where the ego's come in.

[+drat19]

OMG. I can't believe that this is an issue. How does a copy-n-paste log differ from 'TNLNSL. Thanks.'?

 

Does anyones ego really need so much stroking that I should be required to either post an essay about every cache hunt or personally email the cache owners?

 

Please take a step back and consider how rediculous this sounds.

In contrast to some other posters on this thread, I believe I was clear (and if I wasn't, I will clarify now) that I, for one, would prefer "TNLNSL" copy/pastes over the copy/pastes in question. At least it's clear that the logger is on a numbers run (or thought the cache sucked and is using that as "geo-code"). That's fine with me.

 

And no, if you're going to say anything other than that (good or bad), it doesn't have to be an essay. A sentence or two illustrating some reference to the specific cache/site is generally plenty if you're not inclined to write more.

 

Speaking only for myself, that's not so much about ego-stroke as it is just "part of the game". But as this thread amply illustrates, different folks play the game differently.

 

-Dave R.

[+drat19]

and i respectfully submit that if you say you had a blast finding all 498 caches that weekend you went off on a toot, you are full of roadapples. you didn't have a blast FINDING them; you had a blast racking up finds. there's a significant difference.

Now THAT is well said!

 

I'll be the first to admit that when I go out on a numbers run, I don't always have a blast on each and every cache (esp. when many of them are lame lamppost/guardrail/roadside trash dump micros), but at the end of the day I DO have a blast realizing I just added x number of finds to my stats.

 

I also fully admit that while I continue to believe that the profileration of said lame caches is taking our game in the wrong direction, I still keep the stats.

 

Having said all that, I still primarily play this game to explore new places I would not have seen before, and to get some exercise and some problem-solving in that's enjoyable (as opposed to the often-stressful problem-solving I do for a living). But I fully admit and accept that the stats are fun too!

 

-Dave R.

Edited September 13, 2004 by drat19

[+rippietoe]

Okay, so I've never posted here before or have I ever been in the forums until Monkeybrad sent me this link to read the logs. Since I was mentioned I should respond myself. I have never been on such a great cache run or have I enjoyed myself so much on a trip then I did to NC and SC. I too, like AB4N don't have high speed internet and actually my computer is very out dated and it takes a long time just to log when I'm coping and pasting. And Monkeybrad, I can say "dunkey" if I want to instead of donkey, I'm a born yankee, imported to the south! I agree with everything Monkeybrad said in his log way back in the beginning of all of this. So for all of you who don't want to read them all and go all the way back to Monkeybrad's post I'm going to do something that it seems our group was good at doing.

 

Coping and Pasting

 

As one of the mentioned poor loggers, I guess I should respond.

 

Our run to NC was not meant to be a big numbers run anymore than any of our runs are. We chose NC and SC because most of us had not hunted there before and it was close enough to allow us to loeave after work on Friday and to be back in Nashville by midday monday, becasue a couple of us had tickets to the Sting/Annie Lennox concert Monday night. When we got there we were amazed at the cache density and had a ball hunting. We ended up in SC because Spartanburg was the closest hotel room we could find to Hendersonville NC when we started looking for one around 10PM. When we left we pulled several pocket queries of all types of caches with a terrain of 2 or less. That way we could pretty much wander any direction we wanted without running out of caches and we generally pull terrains of 2 or less when we are on the road, because we would raqther see a large area than just do one or two in a single park. Also if you get 300 miles from home there is no point having 5's in your query since we probably wouldn't have the proper equipment with us anyway. We did fifty something on Saturday just wandering around the Asheville-Hendersonville area, grabbed dinner and then tried to find a room. When we got up Sunday morning we started back north and found two incredible strings of caches. They were close together and allowed us to take a scenic route back towards Hendersonville, up through Tryon. We saw lots of great sights, did a little shopping and even met some particularly interesting people. We made it back to Asheville late, spent the night and got up early to head back to Nashville on Monday morning.

 

We really had a great trip, finding lots of caches was just a bonus for us. The thing you have to understand is that we are not just fellow cachers riding together. The labor day adventure team was a group of close friends. We take these trips not to "up our numbers" but to spend time together doing something we all enjoy. My greatest memories of these trips rarely involve caching at all. I remember Southpaw and Angelflye at Hook, Line and Sinker kicked back with a drunken pirate, or Rippietoe wanting to stop to talk to every "Dunky" she saw, or JoGps mooning us from the top of a cliff, etc. These trips are about the experience, we make side trips if we see something interesting, whether there are caches there or not. Don't look at us as a group of power-cachers out to sweep an area clean, look at us as a group of friends out enjoying themselves.

 

With that said, you do also have to remember that when my truck left home with the six of us in it we represent around 15,000 combined cache finds from all over the country and a couple of other countries to boot. If the cache is there, we generally will find it pretty quickly, and it is getting to be pretty rare for us to find something hidden in a new style. I would also like to add, that we sometimes get hung up on the simplest caches and just cannot find them. We also are running six gpsr's and two laptops, so navigation is rarely a problem.

 

I was surprised that we found as many as we did, but it is a testimony to the cache density in the area. We did find lots of clever hides and we enjoyed them all. I did not find anything that I would call a lame cache. We did find a couple that were in need of maintenance and you will see that reflected in our logs. If something was particularly clever I noted it in my logs, before i pasted my generic "who we are, why we were here" tag. I figure that the information in my "paste" was important for anyone who looked at the page and I added anything else that I thought was important either before or after it. If nothing particularly interesting happened at a cache site and the hide wasn't particularly clever, i just posted my "paste". If something did happen, I mentioned it, for the most part.

 

However there were things that I chose not to mention. There was a wasps nest at one location that had not been mentioned in previous logs, I was feeling around for the cache in the dark and found the nest instead, got stung on my hand a couple of times and cursed loudly. Instead of mentioning it on the page and perhaps scaring people away, I disposed oif the nest and moved on. There were caches where the logs mentioned how tough they were or how clever the hide was, I chose not to mention it when we found them within thirty seconds of stopping or that I had seen that type of hide hundreds of times, or that I owned one like that. We also found a nanocahce where everyone talked about how small it was and how long it took to find. We found it at 11PM in the dark in less than a minute and when we did , I checked and found that three of my new nanocaches would fit comfortably inside it, I did not mention this because it was a good hide and the owner was obviously proud of it, so there was no point bursting their bubble. It seems to me that it is only polite to be appreciative of the caches that people have hidden for us to find and to not take potshots at the locals. With the nanocache mentioned above we did enjoy it immensely, and we were proud of ourselves for finding it so quickly, but i did not thinik that it would be a good thing to point this out to the owner. We found some caches where the coords were off significantly, but we did not mention it, because, we found the cache, so they got us to the right area. We found caches of questionable placement, but we did not mention it, because who am I to say they did not get permission.

 

We were all truly appreciative of every cache we found and I think that even our "pasted" logs show that. I am sorry if it seems hard for us to be sincere when we cut and pasted many of the logs, but I was there and I know it to be true. I try to be complimentary when we go through an area, while still being honest. I will say for myself, that I copy-pasted most of my logs because I was leaving town again on Wednesday and i did not want to get behind on my logging, I figured it would be better to copy paste the log, than to get behind and not get it logged at all. Even pasting my logs with a couple of short personalizing things on some of them it took me over four hours on DSL to get the weekend logged up. So I apologize if anyone was offended that i did not take the time to write a personalized log for each and every one of the 168 caches, but at least i did take the time to come and hunt them and to make sure that they were rehidden as well as we had found them. I enjoyed your caches.

[+Two Geeks and a GPS]

The only problem I see is that the original post listed specific people. That should not have been done. Now the supposed "transgressors" have to defend short copy/paste logs, they appear very verbose!

 

PS

This was meant in complete jest (thus the smiley) sometimes the true meaning is missed in the written word. I am just CYAing!

[+drat19]

The only problem I see is that the original post listed specific people. That should not have been done.

Actually, that showed quite a bit of courage on the part of the original poster and gave the parties in question an opp'y to make their counterpoints. It was probably better that the original poster did that as compared to the veiled slap that I made in a different thread that Brad so effectively tracked down in one of his counterpoints to me.

 

-Dave R.

[+Monkeybrad]

I guess it shows the difference between having a short amount of time to get everything logged before leaving town again, and having a fairly easy day at the office and lots of time to respond to posts on the forums. Like i said earlier, if I have the time I do a better job.

 

With that said, I will sign off for the evening, I will look back in the morning to see whwther this has died, or if I should keep feeding the fire.

[+sbell111]

Flask- How can you say whether or not anyone had fun finding a cache or not. Knowing JoGPS and Monkeybrad, I bet they did have fun on every cache. I bet it was a blast for these ubercaches to bag the cache the quickest, if nothing else. Why do you think its appropriate to pass judgement on their fun.

 

This is the weirdest thread. As I recall, when this came up in 1991 or 1992, the general consensus in the forums was 'Who cares? Log however you want.' No one posting to this thread has swayed my opinion. People have a lot of nerve to try to make others feel guilty because they are logging a positive 'find' log, but not making it specific to the individual cache.

 

I've got to tell you, when I'm on a road trip, I blast through my route grabbing low-difficulty caches. This is because I am either on a numbers run or am caching while traveling to a destination. Either way, I consider the journey to be one experience. I try to give detailed logs for specific caches like the time when I was almost eaten in Louisville, but most of the logs are all the same.

 

Who cares???

Edited September 13, 2004 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Okay, so I've never posted here before or have I ever been in the forums ...

I had to read this twice. I've seen so many of your cache logs that I was thinking that you were a forum regular.

[+Monkeybrad]

Ooohhhhhh, I said i was leaving....

 

I have no problem with OzGuff mention me by name, but when that happens, i cannot ignore the thread. Since we were mentioned, I felt obligated to respond. If we had not been mentioned specifically, I might or might not have responded. As far as the veiled stuff goes, no one has tried very hard to hide what they were saying. When you mentioned "4 digit cachers" there were no that many, and we were the only ones who had hunted both areas. But if this one had not mentioned us, it would still have been obvious who was being talked about. Face it, together we account for 1008 logs in the carolinas over labor day weekend, that is six times 168. If anyone from the area had mentioned anything about copying- pasting, high numbers cachers, powercachers, etc. I would have known who they were talking about. The only problem with mentioning us by name is that we are forced to respond.

 

Bonus points to Rippietoe for her quirky sense of humor. Copy-pasting a post, he he he.

 

Just wait till my wife starts logging her finds from this weekend, it will be copy-paste city I am betting.

 

This time I really am going home.

Edited September 13, 2004 by Monkeybrad

[+sbell111]

Finally, I get to disagree with Monkeybrad. I really feel that this thread should have been posted as 'I hate it when people cut-n-past logs on several caches in one day', rather than the personal attack that it turned into. This topic should have been a civilized discussion. Instead, it was what it was.

[+OzGuff]

So am I a courageous poster to the forums or some crazy guy off on a rant?

 

I re-read my original post. It consists of a quoted log to a cache I found a few days ago which mentions my disdain for cut-and-paste logs, and then asks for opinions on that practice. As I was pretty sure anyone interested in the identities of the cachers could find them I apologized for dragging them into a thread that hadn't yet gotten heated.

 

I'm not sure if I should have named them, they were just the most recent exemplars. Have others used this same logging procedure? I am pretty sure the answer is "Yes." Did I commit libel? I think not.

 

I look forward to meeting these cachers out on the trail. They probably have some pretty good stories about their experiences. Am I better if I write thoughtful and original logs for each cache I find? No way. I like the way I play, but it is just one way to play.

 

To paraphrase Monkeybrad, I didn't mean to offend anyone by my post(s). [Well, maybe Mopar! ]

[+OzGuff]

Finally, I get to disagree with Monkeybrad. I really feel that this thread should have been posted as 'I hate it when people cut-n-past logs on several caches in one day', rather than the personal attack that it turned into. This topic should have been a civilized discussion. Instead, it was what it was.

I just re-read the entire thread. It started going downhill when folks began to justify their caching practices. There was no need to justify anything. Maybe if I hadn't mentioned anyone by name it could have stayed on a more even keel. (Well, as even as contentious forum threads can be...)

 

Can't we all just get along?!?!?

 

My apologies to the Labor Day Adventure Team for opening this Pandora's Box!

[+Corp Of Discovery]

You all do know that there is nothing in the 'official' guidelines/rules that states a find even HAS to be logged online, don't you? Anytime it is done is as a courtesy of the finder.

 

That being said, as a person of few words (usually), I try to make at least one comment about the experience for each cache logged. It may not be alot, sometimes only 1 or 2 words, but it's something. I do use this also tho: TNLN, SL. TFTC. # of (total) today. Except for the # of (total) today, which I cannot know at the time, that is the same thing I do in the physical log. The exact comments are very infrequently the same for both logs.

 

On a few I have felt inspiration to say more, and it may not have been because the cache was the greatest thing since the wheel, but that does not happen often.

 

As a hider and liking to look at logs in general, yes, sometimes long logs are nice, but not if they ramble on and have nothing to say in the end. Some of MY favorite logs are short, sweet and to the point.

 

I guess what it all comes down to is that you should appreciate any cache someone hid for you to find and any log that a fellow cacher has written on a cache you hid. Remember- they were under NO obligation to do it for you. But it is always nice for them to have done so.

[+r0b]

This thread was brought to my attention and I’ve read the entire long boring thing up to this point, and my reply is this:

 

The world is full of discontents and I think that’s sad, but I understand that it’s a fact of life.

 

Fortunately, I've got better things to do.

[+OzGuff]

Fair enough.

 

I'm closing this topic. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

Edited September 14, 2004 by OzGuff