crappy logs bugging me

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:45 pm

grandpa_r wrote:

First, I’m not a CO and I have to admit that I have been guilty of only signing a cache with TFTC. But, doesn’t the following mean the only requirement is to sign the log?
Also, I wonder how many cachers “out there” aren’t members of WGA and/or don’t monitor the forums!

http://support.groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (Lars) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks. This is a guideline change that applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:
1. Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
2. Edit the text of your cache listing and, if necessary, contact a reviewer to change the cache type.
3. Cease deleting logs based on Lars.

The ALR rules have nothing to do with paying the debt that cache finders owe to cache hiders. It is not an ALR to express gratitude and appreciation of other peoples efforts by logging your experience seeking the cache.

I have no problem with cut and paste logs for cut and paste caches. I do have a problem with people being rude and not logging their experience seeking a well done cache. And I think the major reason that people are being rude is that they do not know any better, and education may be helpful, though it may take a lot of time and effort to get much improvement, given the rapid turnover of noobs to geocaching.

z

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:54 pm

Almost forgot another point:

A good number of people are using smart phones to cache. Those apps allow them to log while on the go. The smart phone allows them to dictate the log.

One less excuse to not "write" more than TFTC!

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:28 pm

This is a touchy issue. I mentioned my niece from Oklahoma last November, when this topic popped up. She caches with 3 children in tow and is looking forward to the day when she can write logs! She uses her smartphone to seek and usually log a one word verification. She said that she at least wants the CO to know that the container is present.

I'd love to get long sagas on my caches, but the length of log is usually relative to the difficulty of the hide. If 'TFTC' is all there is, I think of my niece and her kids, and feel good that a cache was present to be found.

WGA Member Joined: 2009-08-17 Posts: 126

zuma wrote:

grandpa_r wrote:

First, I’m not a CO and I have to admit that I have been guilty of only signing a cache with TFTC. But, doesn’t the following mean the only requirement is to sign the log?
Also, I wonder how many cachers “out there” aren’t members of WGA and/or don’t monitor the forums!

http://support.groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (Lars) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks. This is a guideline change that applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:
1. Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
2. Edit the text of your cache listing and, if necessary, contact a reviewer to change the cache type.
3. Cease deleting logs based on Lars.

The ALR rules have nothing to do with paying the debt that cache finders owe to cache hiders. It is not an ALR to express gratitude and appreciation of other peoples efforts by logging your experience seeking the cache.

I have no problem with cut and paste logs for cut and paste caches. I do have a problem with people being rude and not logging their experience seeking a well done cache. And I think the major reason that people are being rude is that they do not know any better, and education may be helpful, though it may take a lot of time and effort to get much improvement, given the rapid turnover of noobs to geocaching.

z

Isn't the bottom line - what does Groundspeak require? If you delete their logs they have a right to complain to Groundspeak! Aren't you a little concerned that if you delete a log - they might go back and trash the cache?

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:22 pm

The bottom line is what the CO does when he/she gets fed up with all the TFTC and Smile

logs on their caches. We had a CO in N. Central WI not to long ago who pulled all his caches for this very reason. Without COs hiding and maintaining caches, Groundspeak doesn't have a game to administer.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:35 pm

Quote:

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (Lars) and must be optional.

find my caches, sign the log but if all you can muster online is a Smile

or TFTC, don't bother logging it online

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:01 pm

zuma wrote:

The ALR rules have nothing to do with paying the debt that cache finders owe to cache hiders.

WHOA. I totally disagree with this statement as I don't agree that finders are indebted to hiders. If finders were indebted to us hiders Groundspeak would have implemented a micropayment scheme where finders would be charged for each find and a portion would be credited to the hider. My opinion, but the "mileage" of others may vary.

I, like most CO's, appreciate a well written log. Over the years many of you fellow WGA members have also helped me over the hump about this though and I'm grateful for it. I used to get completely whipped out about these types of logs, but not anymore. I shrug it off and move on with my day. I didn't use to be able to do this, but over time have come to realize that I can't control the actions of others, so it doesn't pay to sweat the small stuff.

I understand different cachers like different things and do things differently. I enjoy puzzles and sharing my experiences from the field. Others enjoy posting photos. Others enjoy being out with a group of friends and just log a TFTC. That's the cool part about this sport that we can all enjoy it a bit differently.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:04 pm

BigJim60 wrote:

The bottom line is what the CO does when he/she gets fed up with all the TFTC and Smile

logs on their caches. We had a CO in N. Central WI not to long ago who pulled all his caches for this very reason. Without COs hiding and maintaining caches, Groundspeak doesn't have a game to administer.

Exactly correct.

If I were ever to commit geocide, I would have to consider using my last few days on-line going thru old logs and delete, delete, delete.

z

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:08 pm

JimandLinda wrote:

This is a touchy issue. I mentioned my niece from Oklahoma last November, when this topic popped up. She caches with 3 children in tow and is looking forward to the day when she can write logs! She uses her smartphone to seek and usually log a one word verification. She said that she at least wants the CO to know that the container is present.

I'd love to get long sagas on my caches, but the length of log is usually relative to the difficulty of the hide. If 'TFTC' is all there is, I think of my niece and her kids, and feel good that a cache was present to be found.

Well, if letting the CO know that the cache is still there is her only motive in logging the find, then she did that with that the TFTC log, and she surely will not mind having her log deleted. If she would mind having the log deleted, then obviously she has other motives for making the log, and you might want to take the time to provide her some education as to what is expected.

z

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:09 pm

Zuma - I'm hoping to do some of your challenge caches in the future. I guarantee you won't get any TFTC logs from me.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:11 pm

CodeJunkie wrote:

Zuma - I'm hoping to do some of your challenge caches in the future. I guarantee you won't get any TFTC logs from me.

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I expect most experienced cachers already understand when a TFTC is enough, and when something else is expected. The new people however, need a little education, along with a little tolerance.

z

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:29 pm

zuma wrote:

CodeJunkie wrote:

Zuma - I'm hoping to do some of your challenge caches in the future. I guarantee you won't get any TFTC logs from me.

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I expect most experienced cachers already understand when a TFTC is enough, and when something else is expected. The new people however, need a little education, along with a little tolerance.

z

Agreed. I even reached out to a noob hider recently trying to provide some gentle guidance on some new caches that were placed. No response, so I'm not sure how they received it, but was trying to provide some insight from another CO's perspective. They placed some cahces that won't survive the first snowplowing, so I was trying to "warn" them ahead of time to spare them the headache of missing caches and the associated $$$ of replacing the purchased containers. I also expressed my thanks multiple time for willingly being a hider also because there aren't as many hiders as finders. I approached it from an educational perspective so hopefully it was received that way.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:58 pm

I don't let crappy logs bother me too much. They do confuse me, though. There are so many great caches that get TFTC logs and I am just confused on how finders could take so little from the experience that all they want to do is type in the least amount possible to be able to log a find.

The one thing about crappy logs that does bother me is the loss of the feeling of community that it brings with it. Without sharing your experiences, good or bad, this just becomes a numbers game. A TFTC or smiley face log tells me absolutely nothing about the cache besides that it was found. Caches are slowly being reduced to "check this box if you found this cache". Sad

For many CO's, the reward for placing a cache is the logs you receive and being able to share in the adventure with the finder. With TFTC, there is no sharing of anything and CO's eventually won't be overly inspired to place anything beyond a park and grab cache, since numbers mean more than adventures to too many cachers.

Now, I'm not the most prolific cacher, so I can't speak from the perspective of finding dozens or even hundreds of caches in a day/weekend (heck, 10 caches in a day is a lot for me). So, I get the reasoning behind some TFTC or cut-n-paste logs...I'm sure some caches are just a blur at the end of the day. I guess that's where "play the game the way you want" comes from. Personally, I couldn't imagine racking up cache after cache if they were so unmemorable.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:19 am

The flip-side of this is also newbies that place caches and have lame 1-2 lines descriptions. Please tell me a little bit more about this place so that I want to go visit it! I think we need to see what we can do to educate them also.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:40 am

About a year ago I was fed up with the same thing in our area, and did send this to a few cachers:

Hello,

Don't be mad about what is included in this email, but it is just for your information:

You have recently logged one of our caches I would like to help you understand a bit of logging etiquette:

Groundspeak currently states that an essential part of geocaching is to "Share your geocaching stories and photos online" and that when logging online you should "Enter any comments you wish to share with the owner and/or community regarding your find."

Without cache hiders there would be NO geocaching. If every log was blank, single word, single character, acronym, or emoticon, I would suspect that many hiders would cease to place new caches and soon archive the caches that they have already placed. We have been guilty of short logs in the past when doing a lot of similar caches in an area and really had nothing to say because they were all the same but it was always at least a few words.

Logging Etiquette: Geocache hiders sometimes go through a great deal of planning to place their caches. As a result, they'd like to hear your feedback on whether you liked or disliked any aspect of the hide, or if you feel that some cache maintenance is required. Blank, single word, acronym, or emoticon logs may be easier when you have a lot of caches to log, but it doesn't tell the hider or other finders anything about your adventure (or lack thereof) in finding the cache. Please keep this in mind when entering your log.
Nice logs are about the only payback that cache hiders receive for the work that is involved in planning and placing a geocache. I am not the only one that notices the lack of good online logs recently, perhaps if some of the local cachers that have been leaving the smilies or just TFTC hid a cache or two, they would change their ways.
Now I will not delete a find log with little to nothing in it, although I have the responsibility to remove any logs that appear bogus. I don't know how someone could enjoy this activity so much as to find hundreds of caches and have nothing to say about any of them?
I don't expect to get a short story in the log but I hope this cache will make everyone remember how much we enjoy getting the emails for our caches and reading about someone's adventure or displeasure.
I do not know what kind of GPS device you are using, it may even be a Mobile Phone, but getting good logs is the main reason that cache hiders pick the places they hide their caches, if your idea of a good log is “TFTC”, maybe you should stick close to the guard rails in the city.

TFRT (Thanks for reading this)

Barry and Valarie of sweetlife