What will kill the game

[Sloughfoot]

Fair warning, this is a rant. Team Sloughfoot has noticed that the majority of new cachers don’t know how to write a log. All we get is TFTC. We lay this to the fact that so many are using their smart phones and logging on the run and not going back a writing a decent log. Quite frankly we are pretty fed up and have been tossing around the idea of sending a message to these cachers and giving them some reasons to write a log. We spend a lot of time and money to place caches and all we expect is a couple of lines in the log. We are afraid we might tend to get a little rude in our message but if enough of us get fed up and quit hiding caches, there goes the sport. The final straw was not a word in the log but a link to a picture of the signed log with the container in the picture. They got a letter from us. We know many of these cachers are not WGA members so we are preaching to the choir but we are ready to pull caches and just start finding.

[rtrezrsnhvn]

We just did some of your caches recently and it would be a shame to loose your talents, but I completely understand. The caches one places are a like a piece of artwork crafted and are a reflection of how your mind works and a reflection of your talents.

As a new cacher, we were blessed to meet up with the Sandlanders and a group of other cachers that really shared some of the “etiquette” of the sport. I learned a lot here as well by being in the forums. If you don’t have that experience, it’s almost glamorized as being a good thing to be short with your logs or give the alphabet soup response of TFTC or TN/LN/SL…..

I think new cachers should really be mentored about the whole trackable/discovery process too. I have a feeling trackables are taken from caches and are considered just another piece of SWAG… and are then lost.

I think it would be a shame, but understand where you are coming from.

[labrat_wr]

I am not sure how other smartphone apps log but on my Blackberry, I have Geocache Navigator from Trimble and while I can mark a cache found or not found, it only goes into my field notes and to actually log them, I have to to that one by one and have the ability to edit the generic logged by text that the navigator applies. Now I could just log that text but that would just be wrong, even on a guardrail cache.

I disagree with Groundspeaks recent change to the log requirements as now you don’t even have to enter a character, yes a totally blank log is valid now. I would prefer they go the opposite way and require at least 10 words….

Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.

[Walkingadventure]

I feel your pain as we’ve had a few of us in the area gently contact some of the newbies. Do you think it is more an instance of immature/new cachers?

Following the signals from space.

[Todd300]

@labrat_wr wrote:

I would prefer they go the opposite way and require at least 10 words….

TFTC TFTC TFTC TFTC TFTC TFTC TFTC TFTC TFTC TFTC

😛

[BeccaDay]

I am not sure if I still qualify as a newbie, I just passed my year anniversary two weeks ago. I still feel like I am learning a lot about the sport though. This thread has me thinking and I’m glad you said something because I hadn’t really thought about it before. There are times where I have written a short novel for my logs but there are also plenty of times when I have done the “TFTC” only. Usually I write a couple of sentences. After seeing this post I think I may try not to do the TFTC-only thing any more. However, is it really so wrong on those caches that are simply for the numbers? You know the ones I’m talking about, like the film cannisters hidden in the guard rails in the city with no spectacular or historical view or anything. ❓

Not all who wander are lost. -J.R.R. Tolkien

[rtrezrsnhvn]

@beccaday wrote:

I am not sure if I still qualify as a newbie, I just passed my year anniversary two weeks ago. I still feel like I am learning a lot about the sport though. This thread has me thinking and I’m glad you said something because I hadn’t really thought about it before. There are times where I have written a short novel for my logs but there are also plenty of times when I have done the “TFTC” only. Usually I write a couple of sentences. After seeing this post I think I may try not to do the TFTC-only thing any more. However, is it really so wrong on those caches that are simply for the numbers? You know the ones I’m talking about, like the film cannisters hidden in the guard rails in the city with no spectacular or historical view or anything. ❓

I’m pretty sure most here, would agree there are some that really are TFTC.

[Team Black-Cat]

I wouldn’t blame the trend of very brief logs to phone apps. It has more to do with the extreme abundance of less than satisfying caches. It has become way too easy to get into the habit of short logs when nearly every cache you find is uninspired. A good cache just doesn’t stick in the mind when it’s one of forty done in a day.

People (me included) can complain about the simple caches, but we all find them. With $4.00 per gallon gas, cache dense areas are more attractive, so we’re sure to get our fill…

Try to ignore the short logs and appreciate the more eloquent ones when you get them.

[Sloughfoot]

No Beccaday, some caches are just numbers caches and the COs know this and don’t expect much. I guess I try to at least say something about the day I am having or some small observation, just to acknowledge the experience. I hate to sound so negative on an activity we enjoy so much. As another example. We spent the day at Devils lake doing 2 caches on the ice age trail. These are by hotdogsoffthetrail and Rocklady03. They were a great walk up a trail that was just difficult enough for two old guys like us. It was a beautiful day with the wildflowers coming out on a pretty rocky stream. The cachers ahead of us logged. TFTC. That really set us off.

[zuma]

@Sloughfoot wrote:

Fair warning, this is a rant. Team Sloughfoot has noticed that the majority of new cachers don’t know how to write a log. All we get is TFTC. We lay this to the fact that so many are using their smart phones and logging on the run and not going back a writing a decent log. Quite frankly we are pretty fed up and have been tossing around the idea of sending a message to these cachers and giving them some reasons to write a log. We spend a lot of time and money to place caches and all we expect is a couple of lines in the log. We are afraid we might tend to get a little rude in our message but if enough of us get fed up and quit hiding caches, there goes the sport. The final straw was not a word in the log but a link to a picture of the signed log with the container in the picture. They got a letter from us. We know many of these cachers are not WGA members so we are preaching to the choir but we are ready to pull caches and just start finding.

I feel your pain.

I believe that the finders of caches owe a debt to the cacher who placed the cache. If it was a fun, interesting, or enjoyable scenic cache, that debt is large, and merits a substantial log.

If it was a boring PNG, that debt is small, since the effort placing the cache was small, so a less than substantial log is quite adequate.

When I do a Sloughfoot cache, I know that I am doing a cache that took some thought, and was placed in a great area, usually by water, often with a bit of history or a great view. That is a debt that should be paid with an appropriate log.

There are a number of factors why people are not paying their debt, in leaving a decent log when they log their find:

1. Too many cachers get used to the plethora of disposable caches, when a cut and paste quickie log is more than adequate. (What the heck am I gonna say about a stop sign, a bus stop or a fire hydrant? TFTC is plenty.)

2. Smart phones make it easy to find caches, log em when you find em, but are more difficult (not impossible though) to log a longer note.

3. Some geocachers are borderline illiterate, and would have trouble stringing more than 4 words together, even if they wanted to.

4. GC.com gives cache owners the abilty to delete a log for any reason, or for no reason at all, which makes some cache finders concerned that their precious smilie will be taken away if they log too much information, or anything interesting other than cut and paste.

5. Some people are just plain lazy inconsiderate slobs who know better than to post just TFTC, but just do not care to pay their debt. These are the same people who dont leave their waitress a decent tip when they get good service and the same people who never learned from their mothers the value of saying “please” and “thank you.”

Just my personal opinion, and I could be wrong (but I dont think so).

zuma

[gotta run]

I’ve ranted on this subject before but I’ve changed my mind.

The lack of an online log has not killed similar games like letterboxing. What will kill this game are crap caches. And the majority of what is published today is crap.

If the logs on my cache isn’t that great, maybe my cache isn’t as great as I thought it was and I should rethink it. The best logs I get are on caches where the logging experience itself is fun and not just an obligation, like Hotel Hell.

If lots of logs tell me a cache is a good one and I get a clinker log, well, they can kiss my big shiny hiney.

Either way, the caches we have left out there are ones we like having there. Everything else are just ones and zeros.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[CodeJunkie]

I consider myself part of the choir like I’d consider everyone else here that has posted so far. Fact is everyone here writes logs that I’d consider in the top 25%. Then there are the bottom 25% and we could all name a number of these but I won’t call them out here.

For the most part I’ve decided to skip placing crappy P&G caches for the number hounds (disclaimer – I have one but it’s supposed to be “scenic” depending on the time of year). I have many caches that are only done by a few people and that’s fine by me. These same people generally don’t do multis, puzzles, anything with T>3, or anything more than 200′ from the parking area. My hunch is that it’s too time consuming and all about the numbers for them. Using these observed stats to my advantage I’ve been placing caches that don’t fit the “TFTC” hunter’s MO. It’s not perfect but really cuts down on the crap logs.

Sloughfoot – You’ve got some great caches and here’s a great example. Kelly’s Island : French Creek – Placed in 2006 and only 35 finders (about 7 / year average). Not what I’d consider a hard cache, but it’s basically dedicated cachers finding this one (no Marc or similar logging this cache, but they’ve been in the area logging others). The comparison is Wee White Kirk (where my grandparents are buried coincidently) which was published 3 years ago and has almost 60 finds (20 / year average). Still some decent logs on this one, but French Creek doesn’t have any TFTC.

I also used to get upset when people wrote TFTC on mine and other worthy caches. Thanks to some great mentoring by others I’ve learned to get over it and beat these idiots by changing my style. There are plenty of people willing to place the P&G caches and I say let em go. In fact my most recent White River Marsh series are multi’s that are blocking out P&G spots in great areas by putting WP1 close to the parking areas.

[rtrezrsnhvn]

@CodeJunkie wrote:

For the most part I’ve decided to skip placing crappy P&G caches for the number hounds (disclaimer – I have one but it’s supposed to be “scenic” depending on the time of year). I have many caches that are only done by a few people and that’s fine by me. These same people generally don’t do multis, puzzles, anything with T>3, or anything more than 200′ from the parking area.

This is an interesting point as I hadn’t thought about that aspect, but that is something I look at for us if RT3 is along. Because I never know if water is around or what the terrain truly is, I do tend to look at those a little differently and may avoid them. I’m in awe of how Kungfuhippie has taken his littles on some pretty interesting journeys – we just haven’t crossed that threshhold yet. Hoping as he gets older, we can expand our terrains.

[rcflyer2242]

Slughfoot I am with you. As you know I have a lot of WSQ caches that are placed with a lot of thought. Either civil war related or in out of the way places. (Not to mention our War Patriot series) I get TFTC logs all the time. Got one the other day by a cacher with 3 finds and writes “Easy ! ! !” I emailed the cacher and explained that the cache was about the the area and I bet he did not read the cache page. I also asked that he edit his log to something like Nice cache or quick find or even the TFTC. I explained that WSQ should be easy in respect to the cemetery grounds. So what happens? I get 3 new logs, one with each suggestion. What an idiot. I also get the same cut and paste loggs with America the Beautifull caches. Some of those I do expect those type loggs on some of the caches but there are some custom made containers mixed in that are the memorible ones and I still cut and paste loggs. I just blow them off and enjoy the loggs that do make notice of the custom ones.
I have enjoyed your caches we have done sofar and look forward the getting to your area soon to do more. Keep up the good work and dont take those TFTC loggs personal.

[zuma]

Speaking of having logs deleted and loosing smilies for posting more than a TFTC, I had this log deleted this morning:

“””””””””””””””””””””
Looked for quite awhile before Dark Raider scored the find. I would not have looked under the USPS box, since caches are not allowed to be attached to postal boxes, and I thought everyone knew that. You will need to move this off of the postal box, since placement there can cause problems for future caches, and is not allowed by the postal service.

Thanks for the cache, and I liked the novel container. I hope you understand that placing a cache under the postal box is not allowed. Thanks.

###########################

I dont really mind all that much, but I do know that it is one reason why people are afraid to say anything relevent about a cache…..Folks hate to loose the smilie.

Personally, I am going to continue to log positives on positive caches, and tell it like it is on caches with problems. This particular cache had a dozen previous finders who all failed to let the guy know that placing a cache on a post office box is not allowed. How other to explain the behavior of just letting this go, then fear of offending and fear of loosing a smilie?

Maybe we will get less lame logs, if the Sloughfoots and the others posting to this thread start routinely deleting logs for being too short?

z

[Author]

Posts