Jump to content

long winded logs


Shawnonabike

Recommended Posts

The type of log I like varies with the cache I have placed. If I went to a lot of trouble to place a really special cache I do like to receive a short personal note from the finder. What bothers me are the long-winded, obviously cut and paste variety that sometimes run to pages and have very little to do with that cache in question. These logs also bother me when I am searching for a cache. I often check previous logs on my GPS only to find that the entire space is filling with these long impersonal notes.

Link to comment

Not much you can do about it, just be a good example yourself. You expect to see copy and paste logs on say power trails, I mean, the more caches one does on a day the less likely they will say something original. As a person in GeoArt I do sometimes think its annoying that someone posts, "loved your puzzle, TFTC" but had said that on all 45 caches so obviously they did not really mean that on mine. However, just delete the email and move on, not much you can do. I try to write unique logs, just appreciate the logs you enjoy more and be a good example logging the way you like to see logs on your caches.

Link to comment

Not much you can do about it, just be a good example yourself. You expect to see copy and paste logs on say power trails, I mean, the more caches one does on a day the less likely they will say something original. As a person in GeoArt I do sometimes think its annoying that someone posts, "loved your puzzle, TFTC" but had said that on all 45 caches so obviously they did not really mean that on mine. However, just delete the email and move on, not much you can do. I try to write unique logs, just appreciate the logs you enjoy more and be a good example logging the way you like to see logs on your caches.

 

You have a good philosophy. I guess the most frustrating part is that when I look for a tricky cache I often scroll "previous logs" on my GPS looking for hints or updated coordinates, etc. and it only shows a couple of pages. The cut and paste people ruin this.

Link to comment

The type of log I like varies with the cache I have placed. If I went to a lot of trouble to place a really special cache I do like to receive a short personal note from the finder. What bothers me are the long-winded, obviously cut and paste variety that sometimes run to pages and have very little to do with that cache in question. These logs also bother me when I am searching for a cache. I often check previous logs on my GPS only to find that the entire space is filling with these long impersonal notes.

 

It's even better when they also add multiple spoiler images that basically give away the final location of your multi-cache :angry:

Link to comment

The type of log I like varies with the cache I have placed. If I went to a lot of trouble to place a really special cache I do like to receive a short personal note from the finder. What bothers me are the long-winded, obviously cut and paste variety that sometimes run to pages and have very little to do with that cache in question. These logs also bother me when I am searching for a cache. I often check previous logs on my GPS only to find that the entire space is filling with these long impersonal notes.

 

It's even better when they also add multiple spoiler images that basically give away the final location of your multi-cache :angry:

 

My GPS doesn't show images, but I agree. Like when you enjoy a puzzle and someone just shouts out the answer. Legitimate hints are the ones that simply correct missinformation. But even a message like, "Wow, I didn't expect that!" can be helpful (and Okay, in my opinion)

Link to comment

Signed in with our team stamp [team name]. The weather was [great, perfect, wet, cold, etc.] for the day's trip. Our goal was to find xxx number of caches for the [name] challenge. We found [xx] caches and met our goal. Thank you [high numbers cacher] for organizing the hike. Thanks to all the cache owners for their cache placements and contribution to a great day of caching. TFTC

Last week I paid back the favour on a cache hidden by a power logger. I wrote:

Out caching with my dog. Thank you geodog for organizing this adventure, although you didn't get much of a walk because I did mostly roadside caches. Our goal was to find at least 3 caches after work and we surpassed today's goal by 8. Thank you Tim Hortons for supplying the coffee. And thanks to the cache owners for the finds.

Link to comment

Signed in with our team stamp [team name]. The weather was [great, perfect, wet, cold, etc.] for the day's trip. Our goal was to find xxx number of caches for the [name] challenge. We found [xx] caches and met our goal. Thank you [high numbers cacher] for organizing the hike. Thanks to all the cache owners for their cache placements and contribution to a great day of caching. TFTC

Last week I paid back the favour on a cache hidden by a power logger. I wrote:

Out caching with my dog. Thank you geodog for organizing this adventure, although you didn't get much of a walk because I did mostly roadside caches. Our goal was to find at least 3 caches after work and we surpassed today's goal by 8. Thank you Tim Hortons for supplying the coffee. And thanks to the cache owners for the finds.

I LOL'd.

 

I hate getting these types of logs. It's irritating. There's one I see all the time that starts with "WELCOME TO THE ADVENTURES OF (ANNOYINGLOGGER)" and ends with some lame tag line. In the middle is the usual filler about how awesome their day was finding X number of caches and of course the "Thanks to all of the cache owners (especially "specific cache owner") for placing and maintaining these caches". Then they'll boast about how they personalize every log because they include the cache owner's name in their copy and paste cookie cutter log.

 

Writing actual logs about each specific cache takes time. Power cachers don't have time for that crap. They have hundreds, even thousands of caches to find/log.

Link to comment

Sigh. Just ... sigh.

 

If a cacher posts "TFTC", some cache owners will complain that they aren't composing a thoughtful log. But if a cacher posts a long, detailed log, other cache owners will complain that the long logs are hard to scroll past when looking at the cache entry out in the field.

 

If a cacher posts a cut-and-paste log, some cache owners will complain about lack of originality. But if a cacher takes the time to compose a unique log for every find, other cache owners will complain that the cacher is taking too long to post their finds.

 

Last time I checked, there were exactly three rules to this game: trade even-or-better, sign the logbook, and log the find online.

Link to comment

Sigh. Just ... sigh.

 

If a cacher posts "TFTC", some cache owners will complain that they aren't composing a thoughtful log. But if a cacher posts a long, detailed log, other cache owners will complain that the long logs are hard to scroll past when looking at the cache entry out in the field.

 

If a cacher posts a cut-and-paste log, some cache owners will complain about lack of originality. But if a cacher takes the time to compose a unique log for every find, other cache owners will complain that the cacher is taking too long to post their finds.

 

Last time I checked, there were exactly three rules to this game: trade even-or-better, sign the logbook, and log the find online.

 

All we ask is that finders post a meaningful log that addresses the cache owner's cache. Something that says, 'Yes, I was there and I saw your cache'. Could be short or long, but make it meaningful and sincere.

Link to comment

Out caching with my dog. Thank you geodog for organizing this adventure, although you didn't get much of a walk because I did mostly roadside caches. Our goal was to find at least 3 caches after work and we surpassed today's goal by 8. Thank you Tim Hortons for supplying the coffee. And thanks to the cache owners for the finds.

 

I like that. I have seen similar logs extolling the scenic wonders of parking lot caches - commenting on the sure strokes that were used in painting the lines, the quality of the asphalt, and the like.

 

Although I have never cut and paste, people who scroll through logs looking for information on the hide or the container would probably consider mine to be irritating. If I write about the hide it means I was either bored, tired, or on a trip with my noncaching spouse who wants to know what's taking me so long. The logs I like to write the best have nothing to do with the container and are fragments of a stream of consciousness taken from whatever might have made it interesting. Or just an excuse to post a photo.

 

Still, if people want to cut and paste about their day or their vacation, it does not bother me as either a cache owner or finder. It just means I won't pay it any attention.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

As a still "I'm not 100% sure what I'm doing yet" newbie with only 41 finds so far, I feel like this topic is the main thing holding me back from completely understanding how the system works and the etiquette. From what I've seen (which I also imitate) it appears that for quick C&D's that involve guardrails or lamp post skirts, the logs are often minimal and average out to "TFTC" or some variant of that, and sometimes I feel guilty just posting that, as others say they don't like those logs so I try to include something personal, which I then feel is TMI for something so "simple". Although I don't want to insult any CO's by calling their caches "simple", but it's what they are (?) so why should the logs be anymore than that (not trying to offend anyone)? As a newbie I feel like it's hard to learn the ropes when everyone plays by their own rules and there aren't always great examples/role models out there. Same thing with posting hints/clues, when is/isn't that acceptable?

 

I mean when it comes down to it, the log is part of the cache's history, but it's also a way for cachers to record their experiences while searching/finding a cache (or am I wrong and that's not the point of the logs because if it's not please tell me), so why would it be a problem if people want to make notes about the weather at the time or who they were with or how many they found that day? Or do people keep written journals for that kind of thing?

Edited by SaRothe
Link to comment

Sigh. Just ... sigh.

 

If a cacher posts "TFTC", some cache owners will complain that they aren't composing a thoughtful log. But if a cacher posts a long, detailed log, other cache owners will complain that the long logs are hard to scroll past when looking at the cache entry out in the field.

 

I have repeatedly expressed my preference for TFTC logs over long, wordy, useless cut-and-paste logs.

 

All of my logs are unique to the cache and I try to always include information useful to other finders or the CO. And I have never (repeat: never) had anyone complain that I took too long to log a find.

Link to comment

As a still "I'm not 100% sure what I'm doing yet" newbie with only 41 finds so far, I feel like this topic is the main thing holding me back from completely understanding how the system works and the etiquette. From what I've seen (which I also imitate) it appears that for quick C&D's that involve guardrails or lamp post skirts, the logs are often minimal and average out to "TFTC" or some variant of that, and sometimes I feel guilty just posting that, as others say they don't like those logs so I try to include something personal, which I then feel is TMI for something so "simple". Although I don't want to insult any CO's by calling their caches "simple", but it's what they are (?) so why should the logs be anymore than that (not trying to offend anyone)? As a newbie I feel like it's hard to learn the ropes when everyone plays by their own rules and there aren't always great examples/role models out there. Same thing with posting hints/clues, when is/isn't that acceptable?

 

I mean when it comes down to it, the log is part of the cache's history, but it's also a way for cachers to record their experiences while searching/finding a cache (or am I wrong and that's not the point of the logs because if it's not please tell me), so why would it be a problem if people want to make notes about the weather at the time or who they were with or how many they found that day? Or do people keep written journals for that kind of thing?

SaRothe - if you want to write more than TFTC, do so. :) I think more people complain about just "TFTC" logs than they do about logs that contain weather information.

 

As for hints/clues, I think try to put yourself in the cache owner's place. If you were the CO, would you want your cache hidden under a small bridge, with a hint of "think troll", to have a log that says, "It's under the bridge!"? Probably not, or they would have written that on the listing. :) But something less obvious, like, "I got my knee muddy going after this one" would probably be just fine.

 

Keep in mind that Geocachers aren't the Borg - we don't all think the same. So what is OK with one cache owner won't be with another. There's no satisfying all of us all the time, so just go with common sense and some empathy for the CO, and you should be OK most of the time. :)

Link to comment

All we ask is that finders post a meaningful log that addresses the cache owner's cache. Something that says, 'Yes, I was there and I saw your cache'. Could be short or long, but make it meaningful and sincere.

 

"Meaningful" is, at best, judged in the eye of the beholder. At worst, it's an ALR.

 

Precisely. Who are you to decide what is a "meaningful" or "sincere" log? Either way, it's not your place to whine about how a cacher logs in the first place. They found it, they signed the sheet, they logged it online. They have held up their end of the bargain.

Edited by Arthur & Trillian
Link to comment

 

Keep in mind that Geocachers aren't the Borg - we don't all think the same. So what is OK with one cache owner won't be with another. There's no satisfying all of us all the time, so just go with common sense and some empathy for the CO, and you should be OK most of the time. :)

 

Thanks for the laugh, and that helps. I guess this is very true, as I've come to see in the short time I've been at this. There really is no way to satisfy every CO unless they blatantly say in the listing what they want in the logs, which I've encountered a few times now. Like I said, it's a little difficult to learn "rules" or etiquette when everyone has their own ideas/opinions, but I guess that's part of the (learning) process.

Link to comment

I try to give each cache the comment I feel it deserves. If the cache is the type designed just to allow you to accumulate numbers (easy to find, the same as the previous one, and the same as the 50 next ones) then it deserves just a few words. (I am not putting these caches down. They serve there purpose and can be fun). But if I feel a cache is very difficult, tricky, or creative it deserves a longer personal note, so that's what I give it. I have found many lonely caches (never found for months or years) and the owners are often so happy for a log that we begin a correspondence. But please don't expect a long personal note when its a power trail. The series may have a unique and personal nature, but the individuals don't.

Link to comment

All we ask is that finders post a meaningful log that addresses the cache owner's cache. Something that says, 'Yes, I was there and I saw your cache'. Could be short or long, but make it meaningful and sincere.

 

"Meaningful" is, at best, judged in the eye of the beholder. At worst, it's an ALR.

 

Precisely. Who are you to decide what is a "meaningful" or "sincere" log? Either way, it's not your place to whine about how a cacher logs in the first place. They found it, they signed the sheet, they logged it online. They have held up their end of the bargain.

 

I can assure you that I do not care one whit about what YOU think of my log. My online log is for me. It is a record of my experience. I found one cache today. When I compose my online log I am certain I will discuss the 38 mile bicycle ride that I was on when I found it. I will talk about the 19 miles of fighting a 20 mph headwind. I will not wax rhapsodic over the match container stuck in a tree. But I will let the CO know that the log is dry.

Link to comment
Precisely. Who are you to decide what is a "meaningful" or "sincere" log?

 

Well, since I am a physicist, I can do it via information theory. I would say that "meaningful" == "high information density"

 

TFTC conveys one bit of information in 4 bytes, or an information density of about .25 bits/byte.

 

A long log conveys more information, but cut-and-paste logs reduce that information by the number of times they are cut-and-pasted.

 

Probably the best indicator of the information content of a log would be the Kolmogorov complexity. A cacher in my area generates long logs that would be trivial to auto-generate on a computer; my estimate is that the information content (as described by the entropy between messages) is roughly 8-12 bits per log, with log lengths that regularly exceed 500 characters. That is an information density of around .02 bits/byte, less than a tenth that of the TFTC log.

 

My own logs tend to be about 100 characters or so. Since each is unique, I will use the average information density of English, which is described to be between 0.6 and 1.3 bits per character. Since many of my logs contain common information (albeit expressed differently) let's be conservative and say that I have an information content of 0.2 bits per character, or an information density approximately equal to that of the TFTC log. That still gives me about 20 bits of information per log.

 

Now let's assume that one of these cut-and-paste entries contains twice the amount of information that I would put into a log. If the logger finds 40 caches in a day, then the information content is about 1 bit per log, on a par with the TFTC log, but at a much lower density.

 

So who am I to say what is or is not meaningful? Somebody who knows math, that's who.

Link to comment

So who am I to say what is or is not meaningful? Somebody who knows math, that's who.

 

This helped me recall all the reasons why I was glad after I took my last math class and decided to draw meaning from poets, artists, professional darts players, high strangeness, mystics, visionaries, musicians, or lawyers. It's probably why my logs are so much better - and more long winded - when a cache intersects with one of the above.

Link to comment
Precisely. Who are you to decide what is a "meaningful" or "sincere" log?

 

Well, since I am a physicist, I can do it via information theory. I would say that "meaningful" == "high information density"

 

TFTC conveys one bit of information in 4 bytes, or an information density of about .25 bits/byte.

 

A long log conveys more information, but cut-and-paste logs reduce that information by the number of times they are cut-and-pasted.

 

Probably the best indicator of the information content of a log would be the Kolmogorov complexity. A cacher in my area generates long logs that would be trivial to auto-generate on a computer; my estimate is that the information content (as described by the entropy between messages) is roughly 8-12 bits per log, with log lengths that regularly exceed 500 characters. That is an information density of around .02 bits/byte, less than a tenth that of the TFTC log.

 

My own logs tend to be about 100 characters or so. Since each is unique, I will use the average information density of English, which is described to be between 0.6 and 1.3 bits per character. Since many of my logs contain common information (albeit expressed differently) let's be conservative and say that I have an information content of 0.2 bits per character, or an information density approximately equal to that of the TFTC log. That still gives me about 20 bits of information per log.

 

Now let's assume that one of these cut-and-paste entries contains twice the amount of information that I would put into a log. If the logger finds 40 caches in a day, then the information content is about 1 bit per log, on a par with the TFTC log, but at a much lower density.

 

So who am I to say what is or is not meaningful? Somebody who knows math, that's who.

 

I enjoyed reading this more than I probably should have, thanks Sheldon (sorry just finished an episode of Big Bang Theory), is there a way to like favorite this post and use it on every discussion about this topic in the future? lol

Link to comment

If I'm in range of a data signal on my Android, I will often log the find right on the spot by stating "Found @ 1300 TFTC More Later"

 

Then once I am back home or near a PC, I will go in and edit my log. My log will almost always describe what I'm doing that day "Visiting the Black Hills of SD on vacation" or "Out celebrating my wife's 44th birthday" (as was the case yesterday). I may cut and paste on occasion. I also will almost always end my log with providing a short note on the condition of the cache container and log. According to "MyGeocachingProfile" stats, my logs are an average of 59 words long. I don't think this qualifies as long winded and yet it is not just abbreviations either.

 

Jerry

KD0BIK

Link to comment

Sigh. Just ... sigh.

 

If a cacher posts "TFTC", some cache owners will complain that they aren't composing a thoughtful log. But if a cacher posts a long, detailed log, other cache owners will complain that the long logs are hard to scroll past when looking at the cache entry out in the field.

 

If a cacher posts a cut-and-paste log, some cache owners will complain about lack of originality. But if a cacher takes the time to compose a unique log for every find, other cache owners will complain that the cacher is taking too long to post their finds.

 

Last time I checked, there were exactly three rules to this game: trade even-or-better, sign the logbook, and log the find online.

 

All we ask is that finders post a meaningful log that addresses the cache owner's cache. Something that says, 'Yes, I was there and I saw your cache'. Could be short or long, but make it meaningful and sincere.

 

+1

Link to comment

Sigh. Just ... sigh.

 

If a cacher posts "TFTC", some cache owners will complain that they aren't composing a thoughtful log. But if a cacher posts a long, detailed log, other cache owners will complain that the long logs are hard to scroll past when looking at the cache entry out in the field.

 

If a cacher posts a cut-and-paste log, some cache owners will complain about lack of originality. But if a cacher takes the time to compose a unique log for every find, other cache owners will complain that the cacher is taking too long to post their finds.

 

Last time I checked, there were exactly three rules to this game: trade even-or-better, sign the logbook, and log the find online.

 

All we ask is that finders post a meaningful log that addresses the cache owner's cache. Something that says, 'Yes, I was there and I saw your cache'. Could be short or long, but make it meaningful and sincere.

 

+1

 

Thank you. I think everyone is nitpicking and focussing on the word 'meaningful' without including it with the rest of my statement .....Something that says, 'Yes, I was there and I saw your cache'.

Link to comment

As a cache owner, I would say I'm the ultimate authority of what is meaningful in any log posted to my cache page.

 

And so, we're asking cacher finders to leave "meaningful" logs for cache owners, when the cache finder has no way to know how the cache owner defines "meaningful".

 

 

I'm doing no such thing.

CO is the ultimate judge of what is "meaningful" for their own cache.

Cachers may or may not find a log "useful" for their own purposes, but nobody is under any obligation to post anything "meaningful" OR "useful".

 

Everything is 100% subjective...even the "usefulness" of a TFTC log. As long as a log is posted, it isn't "wrong".

Link to comment
If I'm in range of a data signal on my Android, I will often log the find right on the spot by stating "Found @ 1300 TFTC More Later"

 

Then once I am back home or near a PC, I will go in and edit my log.

Note that the owner (and anyone else watching the cache) will not get an email copy of your edited log. They'll have to go to the cache page and scroll down to find your log, assuming they figure out that you've edited your log.

 

I encountered that situation again this weekend. The first log was one of those "Found, more later" logs. Then came a real log from someone else in the group. Then came a Note that was "part 2" of the first finder's log. I had to go to the cache page to read part 1 of the first finder's log.

 

Just something to be aware of.

Link to comment

 

Keep in mind that Geocachers aren't the Borg - we don't all think the same. So what is OK with one cache owner won't be with another. There's no satisfying all of us all the time, so just go with common sense and some empathy for the CO, and you should be OK most of the time. :)

 

Thanks for the laugh, and that helps. I guess this is very true, as I've come to see in the short time I've been at this. There really is no way to satisfy every CO unless they blatantly say in the listing what they want in the logs, which I've encountered a few times now. Like I said, it's a little difficult to learn "rules" or etiquette when everyone has their own ideas/opinions, but I guess that's part of the (learning) process.

 

Don't over think it. Just write what you feel like writing. Consider however that the cache owner spent the time, effort and money to hide the cache, so the least you can do is let him know that you enjoyed the experience (or not if that is the case). Of course there are caches that are so mundane that there is little to say beyond "found it" or "TFTC". At one time, leaving only TFTC or Found It basically meant "your cache was so awful that I couldn't think of anything worth writing." It was considered by many to be an insult. I still feel that my cache fell short of someone's expectations when I receive those logs, but then I remember that it's the new normal for many people and not necessarily a negative commentary on my cache.

Link to comment

Thank you. I think everyone is nitpicking and focussing on the word 'meaningful' without including it with the rest of my statement .....Something that says, 'Yes, I was there and I saw your cache'.

 

Isn't that implied simply by the existence of the "Found it" log itself? After all, the fact that they logged it means that there were there and they saw it --- more in fact, because they signed the log. At that point, any textual content is superfluous.

 

Hey, don't get me wrong. I try to write "meaningful" logs when I make finds, and I appreciate "meaningful" logs when I receive them on my caches. But I'm not going to criticize anyone's logs; the fact that they took the time to find my cache and log it --- in any manner --- is thanks enough for me.

Link to comment
1442887827[/url]' post='5538667']
1442841816[/url]' post='5538502']

Thank you. I think everyone is nitpicking and focussing on the word 'meaningful' without including it with the rest of my statement .....Something that says, 'Yes, I was there and I saw your cache'.

 

Isn't that implied simply by the existence of the "Found it" log itself? After all, the fact that they logged it means that there were there and they saw it --- more in fact, because they signed the log. At that point, any textual content is superfluous.

 

Hey, don't get me wrong. I try to write "meaningful" logs when I make finds, and I appreciate "meaningful" logs when I receive them on my caches. But I'm not going to criticize anyone's logs; the fact that they took the time to find my cache and log it --- in any manner --- is thanks enough for me.

 

These days "Found it" has little meaning. many cachers log a "Found it" find when the cache is missing. The "Found It = Did not find it" thread is an example of the growing problem with people logging finds when they didn't find it. Group caching often involves one or two people finding it while the rest continue along the trail or wait on the trail while someone bushwacks in. Most did not actually find or see the cache. Logs that say something about the cache, are an indication that the cache was actually found and seen. This can be especially encouraging to a cache owner who has put some effort into their caches.

Glad to hear that you appreciate and write "meaningful" logs.

Link to comment

When I write my logs, I try and keep in mind three audiences:

 

- The cache owner

- Future seekers

- My future self

 

The other thing I keep in mind is how many different COs have been involved with my day of caching? If I do ten caches that were all owned by the same person, I may write a more detailed log for the first one and the other nine may not say much more than what time I was there. Or, I may use all ten logs to tell a longer narrative where one log leads to the next one. I figure the CO doesn't need to read ten logs all saying the exact same thing. If those ten caches are owned by ten different people, my ten logs may contain a lot of repeat information: what brought me to the area, who I was with, etc., along with cache-specific information.

 

So, it all depends?

Link to comment

When I write my logs, I try and keep in mind three audiences:

 

- The cache owner

- Future seekers

- My future self

 

The other thing I keep in mind is how many different COs have been involved with my day of caching? If I do ten caches that were all owned by the same person, I may write a more detailed log for the first one and the other nine may not say much more than what time I was there. Or, I may use all ten logs to tell a longer narrative where one log leads to the next one. I figure the CO doesn't need to read ten logs all saying the exact same thing. If those ten caches are owned by ten different people, my ten logs may contain a lot of repeat information: what brought me to the area, who I was with, etc., along with cache-specific information.

 

So, it all depends?

 

This sounds like a winning strategy to me and a common sense approach B)

Link to comment

When I write my logs, I try and keep in mind three audiences:

 

- The cache owner

- Future seekers

- My future self

And the fun thing is writing a single log for those 3 audiences in a way that the audience in the know understands what I'm saying while the audience that doesn't know something doesn't learn it from me.

 

The other thing I keep in mind is how many different COs have been involved with my day of caching? If I do ten caches that were all owned by the same person, I may write a more detailed log for the first one and the other nine may not say much more than what time I was there. Or, I may use all ten logs to tell a longer narrative where one log leads to the next one. I figure the CO doesn't need to read ten logs all saying the exact same thing. If those ten caches are owned by ten different people, my ten logs may contain a lot of repeat information: what brought me to the area, who I was with, etc., along with cache-specific information.

As long as what you write also works for future seekers. I'm not 100% sure I understand you, but I read this as arguing against 10 duplicate logs even when there are 10 COs, an important consideration when you recognize that even though there are 10 COs, future seekers will tend to find all 10 caches for the same reason you did, and they (not to mention your future self) shouldn't be inflicted with repetitious logs, either.

 

So, it all depends?

It goes without saying. Although in the specific case you mention, I don't worry about the two cases: splitting up the narrative makes sense since only part of it will be relevant to any given cache regardless of whether the caches happen to have a single owner.

Link to comment

As long as what you write also works for future seekers. I'm not 100% sure I understand you, but I read this as arguing against 10 duplicate logs even when there are 10 COs, an important consideration when you recognize that even though there are 10 COs, future seekers will tend to find all 10 caches for the same reason you did, and they (not to mention your future self) shouldn't be inflicted with repetitious logs, either.

 

I don't understand this.

 

Not inflicting future seekers with repetitious logs is an important consideration?

 

My initial response to that is - nobody's forcing them to read any logs... :unsure:

Link to comment

Not inflicting future seekers with repetitious logs is an important consideration?

 

My initial response to that is - nobody's forcing them to read any logs... :unsure:

You can ignore the impact of how you write your logs on future seekers if you wish, but I was a responding to a post by someone that does, in fact, keep future seekers in mind. I presumed that that poster would not want to force future seekers to read the same text over and over.

Link to comment

Not inflicting future seekers with repetitious logs is an important consideration?

 

My initial response to that is - nobody's forcing them to read any logs... :unsure:

You can ignore the impact of how you write your logs on future seekers if you wish, but I was a responding to a post by someone that does, in fact, keep future seekers in mind. I presumed that that poster would not want to force future seekers to read the same text over and over.

 

Which is exactly why I wrote nobody's forcing them to read any logs... - which you then quoted.

Link to comment

I presumed that that poster would not want to force future seekers to read the same text over and over.

 

Which is exactly why I wrote nobody's forcing them to read any logs... - which you then quoted.

 

You do not seem to understand the problem. My GPS has limited memory available for cache listings and logs. Long cut and paste logs eat up that space and often useful logs are cut off by the useless ones.

Link to comment

I presumed that that poster would not want to force future seekers to read the same text over and over.

 

Which is exactly why I wrote nobody's forcing them to read any logs... - which you then quoted.

 

You do not seem to understand the problem. My GPS has limited memory available for cache listings and logs. Long cut and paste logs eat up that space and often useful logs are cut off by the useless ones.

As would long non-cut and paste logs? Just because a log is long and NOT cut and paste, does not make it useful. By all means, everybody who adds a log, they should make its length appropriate for every type of GPS device so that it is not too long, but also not TFTC. Anybody have an exact length everyone should write?

Link to comment

Not inflicting future seekers with repetitious logs is an important consideration?

 

My initial response to that is - nobody's forcing them to read any logs... :unsure:

You can ignore the impact of how you write your logs on future seekers if you wish, but I was a responding to a post by someone that does, in fact, keep future seekers in mind. I presumed that that poster would not want to force future seekers to read the same text over and over.

Which is exactly why I wrote nobody's forcing them to read any logs... - which you then quoted.

They are reading the logs. It doesn't matter whether anyone's forcing them to.

Link to comment

Not inflicting future seekers with repetitious logs is an important consideration?

 

My initial response to that is - nobody's forcing them to read any logs... :unsure:

You can ignore the impact of how you write your logs on future seekers if you wish, but I was a responding to a post by someone that does, in fact, keep future seekers in mind. I presumed that that poster would not want to force future seekers to read the same text over and over.

Which is exactly why I wrote nobody's forcing them to read any logs... - which you then quoted.

They are reading the logs. It doesn't matter whether anyone's forcing them to.

 

Are they reading the logs? How do you know this? Why are they reading the logs? Under what circumstances? How often? How long after I've written them?

 

And of course it matters - if you're suggesting that I somehow owe a duty of some sort to as yet unidentified future seekers of caches I have found with as yet unknown expectations.

 

I'm mildly curious as to how you think I should shape my logs for them or rather, why I should avoid repetition in my logs specifically for them.

 

I wouldn't want to waste an awful lot of time second guessing what some mystery individual may or may not expect me to write in my logs for them.

Link to comment

I presumed that that poster would not want to force future seekers to read the same text over and over.

 

Which is exactly why I wrote nobody's forcing them to read any logs... - which you then quoted.

 

You do not seem to understand the problem. My GPS has limited memory available for cache listings and logs. Long cut and paste logs eat up that space and often useful logs are cut off by the useless ones.

 

So now, when writing my logs, I need to consider not only that some unknown person might want to read it for some unknown reason, I have to think about what unknown device they might use too?

 

Where do I draw the line here? Do I need to imagine what the weather might be like on the day or what time of day it might be?

 

So rather than writing logs for my own purposes and with the CO in mind, I should be writing a concise field report for the benefit of some unknown future finder at some unknown time in the future?

 

That sounds like a lot of work.

 

I think I'll pass thanks :blink:

Link to comment

Are they reading the logs? How do you know this?

Because I read logs.

 

I'm mildly curious as to how you think I should shape my logs for them or rather, why I should avoid repetition in my logs specifically for them.

Again, I was responding to a note that stated he shaped his logs for future seekers (in addition to the CO and himself), and I was discussing the matter based on the premise. I was not asserting that you or anyone else should adopt the same values.

 

But I have to ask myself, who are you shaping your logs for? Do redundant, cut&paste logs do anyone any good?

Link to comment

Are they reading the logs? How do you know this?

Because I read logs.

 

I always put my left shoe on before my right - but I wouldn't consider that a sound basis to assume that everyone does the same.

 

I'm mildly curious as to how you think I should shape my logs for them or rather, why I should avoid repetition in my logs specifically for them.

Again, I was responding to a note that stated he shaped his logs for future seekers (in addition to the CO and himself), and I was discussing the matter based on the premise. I was not asserting that you or anyone else should adopt the same values.

 

...Just that he shouldn't inflict repetitious logs on future seekers - which of course isn't doing because he isn't forcing them to read any of his logs.

 

If at GZ I resort to reading previous logs to see if there's any useful information in there and I do indeed find a useful nugget, I count myself lucky. I wouldn't though dream of feeling somehow inflicted by a log written by someone else, just because it didn't suit my particular purpose or taste and I find the idea that anyone would quite odd and happily something I've never experienced.

 

But I have to ask myself, who are you shaping your logs for? Do redundant, cut&paste logs do anyone any good?

 

I allow myself the freedom to shape my logs for all sorts of different purposes and they may or may not include information relevant or useful to a number of different people.

 

As to the second question I can't say I have access to data which would prove that point one way or the other. I could assume that everyone is like me and make a finger-in-the-wind guess but that doesn't seem a sound or in any way scientfic basis of reasoning and has little to do with my original query so I think I'll leave that one to be answered by someone better qualified :)

Link to comment
So now, when writing my logs, I need to consider not only that some unknown person might want to read it for some unknown reason, I have to think about what unknown device they might use too?

 

OK, I get it now. You are purposely misunderstanding the issue for some reason that escapes me. Probably to get some form of Forum Jollies.

 

Whatever. I'm not going to waste my time.

 

BTW, here is a log I came across yesterday that exemplifies what I am talking about:

 

I woke up this morning to go after a few geocaches to keep my daily streak alive and I had to get at least 5 geocaches today to keep my new years resolution alive. My New Years resolution is to get at least 5 geocaches a day in 2015. I also needed to get a geocache today to keep my daily streak alive. My daily streak is now up to 69 days. This was my 2nd geocache out of 5 geocaches found today. 2/5.

 

What a nice log there! See how the finder talked about his experience finding the cache and offered hints for future finders? An inspiration to us all.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...