Not Logging Your Find..

[CoyoteRed]

You mean log their finds online.

 

No I don't.

So... what do you mean? Write in the logbook? Leave feedback? Email? Verbal? What?

[Mushtang]

You mean log their finds online.

 

No I don't.

So... what do you mean? Write in the logbook? Leave feedback? Email? Verbal? What?

I mean mainly logging online, but any sort of feedback is better than none. I don't understand why people don't log their finds online, and there are even some that don't log online and only sign their name in the logbook. No description of their experience or note to say that they at least had a good time. Why do they even bother?

 

What if everyone cached this way?

 

It's unacceptable.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't understand why people don't log their finds online, and there are even some that don't log online and only sign their name in the logbook. No description of their experience or note to say that they at least had a good time. Why do they even bother?

 

What if everyone cached this way?

 

It's unacceptable.

Well, some people are very terse, just as some are verbose. Some are shy and very social, just as some are very sociable. People are the way they are.

 

Let's just take an example: fictitious, but certainly very plausible. My father lives so far out in the country that no land-based internet company is available without additional long distance charges. $65 a month for satellite-based service is out of the question. That's not to mention he doesn't even own a computer nor has the desire to. But, they both thought caching was a fun way to get out of the house.

 

What if I bought them a GPS and created a cache book of printouts from the sites? All of the caches within their stomping grounds. (Let's not even get into stale data. We're just supposing. I could snail mail them updates to the list every other week or so.) But my Pop is a man of very few words and if he did sign the log, I can just about guarantee it will be short and to the point.

 

By claiming not logging online or even signing more than their name is unacceptable, you exclude a good number of people.

 

They bother because it is fun. Not everyone will cache this way.

 

Why force everyone to cache the way you want them to when the issue is about personal choice? It doesn't affect you hardly in one way or the other. Would you just rather them not hunt your cache if they would otherwise not conform to your ideal?

[+briansnat]

What if I bought them a GPS and created a cache book of printouts from the sites? All of the caches within their stomping grounds. (Let's not even get into stale data. We're just supposing. I could snail mail them updates to the list every other week or so.) But my Pop is a man of very few words and if he did sign the log, I can just about guarantee it will be short and to the point.

 

By claiming not logging online or even signing more than their name is unacceptable, you exclude a good number of people.

 

I think you're taking things to extremes. If somebody does not have the capacity to log something online, I don't think anybody has a problem with their not doing so. I'm sure there are a handful of these people.

 

As far as short logs, there is one guy in NJ who just started logging. His logs are no more than 1-2 sentences and they are absolutely hilarious. But even "found the cache, thanks" is all anybody really needs to write.

[Mushtang]

But my Pop is a man of very few words and if he did sign the log, I can just about guarantee it will be short and to the point.

 

By claiming not logging online or even signing more than their name is unacceptable, you exclude a good number of people.

 

They bother because it is fun. Not everyone will cache this way.

 

Why force everyone to cache the way you want them to when the issue is about personal choice? It doesn't affect you hardly in one way or the other. Would you just rather them not hunt your cache if they would otherwise not conform to your ideal?

Then I'd say your pop was being a slackard and I'd be upset that he didn't say more in his log.

 

I'm not forcing anyone to cache any way, I'm just stating my opinion. In fact, I mentioned earlier that it wasn't something that could be enforced and you quoted me and put it in bold. Now I'm trying to force someone???

 

However, it certainly does affect me. It keeps me from knowing how someone's cache experience was. What if there was an issue that the cacher had, but since he doesn't log his finds, or if he's a man of few words, then I won't know about it.

 

Perhaps I come along to a cache after your pop (or whoever), and because he didn't log his find online I don't know about a problem that he came across? Or maybe there wasn't a problem at all, I'd also like to know that.

 

Logs, both online and in the log book, are useful parts of the game.

[CoyoteRed]

Point is, don't make the blanket statement that you're being rude if you don't log. There are plenty of perfectly good reasons not to.

[+wimseyguy]

There are plenty of perfectly good reasons not to.

This appears to be the debatable point. Nothing else. And just to see your hypothetical and raise you; if your Pops lived so far out, then I doubt there would be that many caches for him to find. And if you were such a good son as to snail mail him the cache details to find why not post his online logs for him too?

[Mushtang]

There are plenty of perfectly good reasons not to.

None that I've seen so far.

[+Cymbaline]

To glob together a few quotable phrases:

 

You can lead a dog to the pond, but you can't teach it to swiim; it frustrates you and irritates the dog.

 

It knows how to swim in it's own way, thankyouverymuch, and it's not about to change for you or anybody else.

 

Similarly, the same goes for folx who like to geocache. Some will log online, some won't. Everybody has their own way of doing things. I know of a few folx who rarely, occasionally, or never log online - but if they encounter a problem with the cache, they all without fail let the cache owner know about it via email. Some also email saying "Golly gee, that was a teetotalling good time." Some don't.

 

Ask yourself why YOU, the reader of this post, log online. I'll hazard a guess that it's one or more of the following reasons. Maybe not. These are mine; in no particular order.

 

- To get it off my not-found pocket query.

- As a cache owner, I like reading when people find my caches, so I figure other cache owners might feel the same.

- As a finder, sometimes Funny Stuff happens, and I like to share.

- As a NOT-finder, I have no problems admitting defeat

- As a NOT-finder, I voice concerns that something is Amiss or AWOL

 

If someone chooses not to log one of my caches online, I don't feel slighted or personally offended. That's their perogative. They have their reasons, just as I have mine.

 

Personally, I think this should be a non-issue. You, the reader, may feel otherwise. Perhaps we're both right - or wrong. However, I'm not going to try to teach you to swim, and I'd be much appreciative if you don't try to teach me in return.

[+RichardMoore]

There are plenty of perfectly good reasons not to.

None that I've seen so far.

How about this combination:

*Almost no knowledge of computers, none at all of the internet.

*No computer, no e-mail address.

*Using the computers in the library, where the librarian had just enough time to get you started and on to GC.com and how to print the cache page.

 

That was me during the first nine months that I was geocaching. Then I got my own computer and I started to learn.

[CoyoteRed]

There are plenty of perfectly good reasons not to.

This appears to be the debatable point. Nothing else.

Well, it does look like all the arguments that have been made show that there are reasons not to, but where are the reasons that you have to? Other than the vague "rude" reason.

 

And just to see your hypothetical and raise you; if your Pops lived so far out, then I doubt there would be that many caches for him to find. And if you were such a good son as to snail mail him the cache details to find why not post his online logs for him too?

Why should I? You're assuming that I think it's important that all visits be logged online. I don't.

 

There are plenty of perfectly good reasons not to.

None that I've seen so far.

Actually, it certainly looks like I've been putting a much better argument for my postion than you have yours considering there has not been one reason why is should be considered rude to not post an online log.

 

Should we extend this definition of "rude" to include someone who does even hunt your cache? I mean, you spent good time and money to put it out.

 

Next, where is the line? When someone hunts the cache? When someone actually finds the cache? When they open it? When they handle the log? When they sign?

 

Give me a good reason why it is rude to not log online.

[Mushtang]

Give me a good reason why it is rude to not log online.

I have. Several times. But I'll do it again just to be clear.

 

One of the reasons is to make the cache owner, as well as other finders, aware of a problem (or lack of a problem) with a cache. If people keep finding the cache and report that everything went well then that is good information to have, just as a log that reports the container is damaged (or missing) would be useful.

 

If someone doesn't log their finds, other people (cache owners as well as other finders) won't gain anything. Not logging your finds is selfish.

 

There, I've given you one good reason why it is rude not to log online.

[+sept1c_tank]

Give me a good reason why it is rude to not log online.

 

Because Jeremy said so?

 

I find that not logging the find on the web site is rude. Provide the person who hid the cache some feedback.

 

I have a friend who caches with me. He has never logged finds, DNFs or otherwise on the site. Sometimes, he signs the physical logbook.

 

Although he does own his own GPSr, he doesn't own a computer. He gets all of his waypoints, printed out, from me. He does most, but not all of his caching with me.

 

He's never read the forums, but I have, and we've had many, many discussions about the ethics and ettiquette topics discussed here. If he were here, in this discussion, he would probably ask "why is it rude to not log a cache?"

 

He loves geocaching, and he loves talking about it. He possibly understands some of the finer aspects of caching better than seasoned oldtimers. He simply does not care to participate in the online aspect of geocaching.

 

He is not rude in the biggest stretch of imagination. He would probably think it is rude to label a geocacher rude for not logging online.

[+Renegade Knight]

Parasite. Rude. Insensitive.

There is alot of name-calling being thrown around about whether or not people log online, or even in the cache logbook.

Hey, I've got a great idea.

Why not let people play this GAME their own way?

Enjoy the online logs that you DO get, and just be satisfied that your cache is out there, giving others a fun experience while trying to find it.

Parasite: I know you just love that term. But you send emails and post notes. You may identify with it but you don't qualify. Nice avitar, I'm having flashbacks.

[+Gorak]

Wow! I just finished reading through this thread. I guess I am a rude insensitive parasite because I only ever log about half of my finds online. If I find a problem with a cache I'll email the owner directly. Otherwise, I feel that logging online is my perogative and nobody else's business. In fact, it is my opinion that those who would criticize others for not logging online are being rude and insensitive to a person's right to play this game the way they see fit.

[+wimseyguy]

I'll agree with RK almost all the way on this issue. I am not calling anyone rude, parasite or any other names. I really do not care if you choose to not log your finds online. However I really, really appreciate hearing from fellow cachers who look for the caches I have hidden for them to seek.

Posting a log to the cache page seems to be the simplest and best way to do so.

 

And if you can find your way around the website well enough to find the coordinates to my caches, then you should also be able to figure out how to log them online too. I'm pretty lo-tech too, but can handle that much with the format of this website.

[+sept1c_tank]

I guess I am a rude insensitive parasite because I only ever log about half of my finds online. 

Rude and insensitive, perhaps; parasite, is too strong a word even for you!

[+nfa]

a parasite feeds off of its host, damaging it...someone geocaching without logging doesn't hurt anyone, so this was a poor word choice...

 

maybe "commensalist" (Commensalism - an interactive association of two species where one benefits in some way, while the other species is in no way affected by the association) might be a better option.

 

nfa-jamie

Edited December 6, 2004 by NFA

[+Gorak]

I guess I am a rude insensitive parasite because I only ever log about half of my finds online. 

Rude and insensitive, perhaps; parasite, is too strong a word even for you!

No fair! We've met and you know too much about me.

[+briansnat]

..., but where are the reasons that you have to? Other than the vague "rude" reason.

 

Nobody says you have to. Its just the courteous thing to do. If somebody gives me a gift, I don't have to say thank you. If I bump into someone in the store, I don't have to say "excuse me".

[CoyoteRed]

Give me a good reason why it is rude to not log online.

I have. Several times. But I'll do it again just to be clear.

 

One of the reasons is to make the cache owner, as well as other finders, aware of a problem (or lack of a problem) with a cache. If people keep finding the cache and report that everything went well then that is good information to have, just as a log that reports the container is damaged (or missing) would be useful.

 

If someone doesn't log their finds, other people (cache owners as well as other finders) won't gain anything. Not logging your finds is selfish.

 

There, I've given you one good reason why it is rude not to log online.

You know, I said good reason, but let's analyze what you've said.

 

Basically, it is to let others know the condition of your cache. That's it, in a nutshell, your good reason. To me, that's on par with picking out the trash or doing minor repairs on the cache. Helpful, but if it's not done it doesn't mean the person is being rude.

 

Got better reason?

 

..., but where are the reasons that you have to? Other than the vague "rude" reason.

 

Nobody says you have to. Its just the courteous thing to do. If somebody gives me a gift, I don't have to say thank you. If I bump into someone in the store, I don't have to say "excuse me".

True, giving feedback is being courteous, but we are back to where we started. You can't just put negatives in front of the statement and it be true, i.e. not giving feedback is rude. That's simply not the case.

 

We see this argument in many area of our lives and folks simply can't seem to get their minds around this concept.

 

Let's look at the above example of picking trash out of the cache, again. It's a good parallel Yes, it's nice and courteous to do minor repairs on someone's cache, but just because you don't doesn't mean you're being rude or discourteous. That's my point.

[Mushtang]

Got better reason?

Wow, how did I know that my reason wouldn't be accepted as a "good" one, and you'd ask for a second reason?

 

Was the reason of "Jeremy said so" also not a good one?

 

How about... the game was set up to be played that way? If Pops goes to a park and joins a pick-up basketball game he'll be expected to follow the rules of the game. If every time he has the ball he decides to just stand there and dribble it, and he does this because that's how he decided he'd rather play, he'll be invited off the court.

 

What he's doing doesn't hurt his team (it doen't take away points) but it doesn't help them either. You think the other players wouldn't think it's rude of him?

 

The rules of basketball can be enforced. The way geocaching is played cannot. This doesn't change the fact that playing your own way takes away from everyone elses enjoyment. Some folks just can't seem to get their mind around this.

[Jeremy]

For such a silly topic, far too many people are getting their knickers in a twist.

 

It's rude. More like slurping your soup than cutting someone off in traffic. You may not even know that slurping your soup is rude, so you're just uncultured. Though in other cultures it means you are complimenting the chef.

 

So in my culture (forums, tech savvy people, etc) I find it rude, apathetic or lazy, or a combination of them. If you spend a lot of time in the forums I see no reason why you aren't providing feedback to the cachers who keep you coming back. If you aren't because of some insane logic and you feel that you are being called rude for your actions, you may want to reexamine those actions. Most people that don't care about it don't get their knickers in a twist.

[+Cymbaline]

Jeremy thinks it's rude. Coyote does not. Mushtang thinks it's rude. And so on.

 

Yay! Thanks for emphasizing my point: Some folx do things their way, other folx do things there way - but who's right? All, and none.

 

The only valid opinion is your own. Your opinion beomes wrong when you force it on someone else who doesn't agree with with you.

 

That is all.

[+Renegade Knight]

It's the loggers who keep me placing caches for non loggers to find. Not vice versa.

 

Make of it what you will.

[CoyoteRed]

Got better reason?

Wow, how did I know that my reason wouldn't be accepted as a "good" one, and you'd ask for a second reason?

Why didn't you provide a better reason in the first place?

 

Was the reason of "Jeremy said so" also not a good one?

Hardly.

 

How about... the game was set up to be played that way?

No, that's how gc.com is set up. You forget the game doesn't rely on having to post your cache on the internet. It's only how it's generally played.

 

The rules of basketball can be enforced.  The way geocaching is played cannot.  This doesn't change the fact that playing your own way takes away from everyone elses enjoyment.  Some folks just can't seem to get their mind around this.

And some folks can't get their mind around trying to force others to conform to your idea of how the game should be played takes away from their enjoyment.

 

I notice you didn't even attempt to refute the comparison of online logging to minor cache maintenance.

[CoyoteRed]

If you aren't because of some insane logic and you feel that you are being called rude for your actions, you may want to reexamine those actions.

Nice. If you're not logging online, it's because of some "insane logic."

 

Because you are being called rude for not logging, it's your fault and you must change. Again, nice.

 

Pardon me if I don't accept this.

[Three Simple Words]

I'm almost sorry for posting this topic...But everybody does have a valid point.. So can't we all just get along????

[CoyoteRed]

It's the loggers who keep me placing caches for non loggers to find. Not vice versa.

Too true.

 

But I don't care if you log online or not. I'll be delighted to read them if you do, but I won't think any less of you if you don't.

[Jeremy]

Nice. If you're not logging online, it's because of some "insane logic."

 

Because you are being called rude for not logging, it's your fault and you must change. Again, nice.

 

Pardon me if I don't accept this.

That's your right.

[Jeremy]

Nice.  If you're not logging online, it's because of some "insane logic." 

 

Because you are being called rude for not logging, it's your fault and you must change.  Again, nice.

 

Pardon me if I don't accept this.

*sigh* - now I gotta untangle my words.

 

Some folks have an insane logic for intentionally *not* logging their finds. Not everyone.

 

And actually I wrote that if you feel like you are getting your knickers in a twist you may want to re-examine your actions.

 

(edit: busy fingers)

Edited December 6, 2004 by Jeremy

[Mushtang]

Why didn't you provide a better reason in the first place?

 

I did provide a better reason in the first place, I just knew that no matter what I said you wouldn't think it was a good reason.

 

No, that's how gc.com is set up.

 

Well, we're playing the game on gc.com, so I'm playing the game the way it's set up here. If others play the game a different way I'll continue to not understand why, and think that they're holding back useful information from the rest of us.

 

And some folks can't get their mind around trying to force others to conform to your idea of how the game should be played takes away from their enjoyment.

 

Once again, I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. When have I said that I'm going to force anything? I'm just stating my opinion that it's better to log your finds than to not, and to explain why I feel it hurts the game when you don't.

 

I notice you didn't even attempt to refute the comparison of online logging to minor cache maintenance.

 

Okay.

[Mushtang]

And actually I wrote that if you feel like you are getting your knickers in a twist you may want to re-examine your actions.

Quick check of the knickers reveals that mine are not in a twist.

 

I'm having fun debating here, and don't feel at all angry. This conversation is fun to me, and I hope CoyoteRed, and everyone else posting, feels the same way.

 

[+sept1c_tank]

Having a blast. This topic should be forwarded to

"Code of Ethics, Subcommittee: Be Considerate of Others."

[Jeremy]

Yes. Perhaps it should be added to the Geocacher's Code?

[+Jennifer&Dean]

I log online. I like writing logs. My brother caches with us and when he logs online he is doing his logging through a translator- me. He is has a few learning disabilities that allow him to mangle the english language like few others can achieve. He only logs online when he has enjoyed himself and wants to share his fun with the cache owner. (Or I am sitting there with him and he is logging a memorable cache and I remind him of another one we all did and he decides logging it would be cool as well.) It sometimes takes us as long as 3 months to get around to logging his finds as 1) we have to be home at the same time and 2) there has to be a working computer in the house and 3) he has to have the time to sit down with me and explain what he wants his log to say.

He isn't being rude. He isn't a parasite. He enjoys caching but isn't big on having to write logs. I think he has about 10 caches found out of 60+ where he hasn't logged them online. Even he doesn't know which ones they are because he found most of them on a trip to Idaho by himself and while he really enjoyed finding them, all he had with him was his GPS and their waypoint names. And it has been over a year now so I've given up on documenting them. But he still talks about the one where he almost fell in the river.

Logs are for the owners and the readers. Not everyone who caches now is a geek or is computer literate. In the beginning there were more computer savvy folks. Now, I am seeing more families and non computer people joining. Some of them may have good reasons why they don't log online all the time. Or leave short logs. I refuse to hold it against someone as I don't always know where they are coming from. Assuming they are rude is not fair. If you are lucky enough to be able to log and are secure enough to log online, I am happy for you. If, on the other hand you do not choose to log online, it is your choice and I will not assume anything about you.

My only complaint about non-loggers is when they move TBs but don't post anywhere on the cache page that they have visited X cache and removed the bug.

-J

[+southdeltan]

Yes. Perhaps it should be added to the Geocacher's Code?

Touche!

 

 

I would say that not logging online (unless you have a legitimate reason) is inconsiderate and rude. It would make a good addition to the minute details, heh.

 

sd

[CoyoteRed]

Yes. Perhaps it should be added to the Geocacher's Code?

You mean like, "Promptly alert the owner of any issues with their cache. "

 

Still trying to keep the Code non-site specific. We can't assume all caches will have a mechanism to log the visit or every owner will want feedback unless there is a problem.

 

I'm hesitant to enter anything about logging every visit online or giving feedback because not everyone will choose to do so. Folks who don't, have their reasons.

 

I'm with Jennifer, I won't hold it against you if you don't.

[Jeremy]

He isn't being rude. He isn't a parasite.

Do you really think I'm talking about your brother? This is not a blanket statement. Southdeltan explained it better than I did. If there is no legitimate reason for posting a log (ie. have no real excuse) I would consider it inconsiderate and rude. Ignorance is an excuse. There are also other valid ones.

[Mushtang]

Yes. Perhaps it should be added to the Geocacher's Code?

Agreed. What would it take to put that in the Code? Do we need to vote it in, or just convince the person that started the Code Of Ethics thread that it's better to log your finds than to intentionally not?

 

(not that I've been trying to convince anyone of anything so far, I've only been stating and defending my opinion)

[CoyoteRed]

If there is no legitimate reason for posting a log (ie. have no real excuse) I would consider it inconsiderate and rude. Ignorance is an excuse. There are also other valid ones.

What are some other ones?

[Mushtang]

You mean like, "Promptly alert the owner of any issues with their cache. "

A log pointing out a cache that has a problem, or issue, isn't the only log that's useful. A log that says "cache is in good condition, everything dry and in good shape" is also helpful.

 

A log that says nothing about the container or it's contents, but reads, "this ia a cleaver cache and a lot of fun to do! It's very well planned out and caches like this keep me wanting to play the game" are fantastic to read. When I see those it makes me want to go do that cache. Or as a cache owner that's gotten several of those on my own caches, it makes me feel good to read them.

 

What if Pops had a great time at one of my caches and I never knew about it because he's a man of few words? I wouldn't get to feel happy that he had a great time, and someone else might not be encouraged to find it.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

He isn't being rude.  He isn't a parasite.

Do you really think I'm talking about your brother? This is not a blanket statement. Southdeltan explained it better than I did. If there is no legitimate reason for posting a log (ie. have no real excuse) I would consider it inconsiderate and rude. Ignorance is an excuse. There are also other valid ones.

I didn't think you were. I'm not taking it that serious. I just wanted to point out a case where someone has a legitimate reason for not logging often and that we don't always know the particulars of every case. I would hate to see someone drag someone else's name through the dirt over something as silly as this.

Its a game and folks play it their way. I'm not going to hold logging style against anyone. It just seems petty to me. Kinda like the folks who got mad at oregone for posting really long logs. (I seem to remember something like that happening)

I'm happy to see logs. I'm happy to read logs on other people's caches. But I don't expect it. Kinda like I would not expect someone to fix my cache for me if it had a problem. I appreciate it when it is done but do not require it. (But I would like a note or e-mail saying it needs help if they know and I don't)

-J

[CoyoteRed]

Not saying this would be a log about one of your caches, but what if the cache just flat out sucked? Absolutely nothing good to say about. Didn't want to judge that it needed to be archived, but it was a complete waste of time and energy. What then? If it's rude to not post a log, there's no option for a silent protest.

[Mushtang]

Not saying this would be a log about one of your caches, but what if the cache just flat out sucked? Absolutely nothing good to say about. Didn't want to judge that it needed to be archived, but it was a complete waste of time and energy. What then? If it's rude to not post a log, there's no option for a silent protest.

When I see a lot of logs for a cache that say "TNLN" and not much else, I get the idea that the cache is nothing special, or that "it sucked" to use your term.

 

If none of the people that thought it sucked logged their finds, then all I would see would be the few that left nice logs, and then I'd be misled. Eventually I'd find myself signing the cache log and thinking to myself, "Man this cache sucked, why did all the logs make it seem like it was fun? I'd really looked forward to doing this one".

 

So you see, every log provides some information one way or the other. Hearing about what other people have gone through, or how they feel about a cache, is always good.

[CoyoteRed]

ROFL. You right. Not a good example.

[Jeremy]

Not saying this would be a log about one of your caches, but what if the cache just flat out sucked?

You got me there. This has happened to me on two occasions. The first time I just stopped looking so I didn't have to write a found or not found log. The second one I was with a group and didn't bother leaving the car. The other folks did log that one so there was feedback for the find that day.

[+wimseyguy]

Not saying this would be a log about one of your caches, but what if the cache just flat out sucked? Absolutely nothing good to say about. Didn't want to judge that it needed to be archived, but it was a complete waste of time and energy. What then? If it's rude to not post a log, there's no option for a silent protest.

I believe the accepted protocol for this situation is to post DPM.

I have done this once in my life, and have posted every find and DNF online.

I choose to play that way. I also own one cache that just plain sucks, but that is also it's title.

[+briansnat]

Absolutely nothing good to say about. Didn't want to judge that it needed to be archived, but it was a complete waste of time and energy. What then? If it's rude to not post a log, there's no option for a silent protest.

 

If the cache doesn't live up to your expectations, you can simply say thank you. The person took the time to place the cache, so they deserve that.

 

Kind of like when your grandmother gives you the ugliest sweater you ever saw for Christmas. You say thanks, then hide it in the bottom of your drawer.

[+SeventhSon]

... I just stopped looking so I didn't have to write a found or not found log.

Now there's a kewl way to get away from those DNFs ...

 

"I didn't not find it, I stopped looking."

 

7