Unfilled log books: Is it just me?

[PrincessDiala]

I remember finding this cache with a group of others..... were we suppose to write in just the one box, or one box per person?

[Zalgariath]

I dont tend to write much in Logs, as Richy said due to size an the uninspired nature of a lot of caches. But if I find a great one with a big book I will. As far as skipping pages go I try to go in order, but honestly most cache owners dont maintain thier logs regularly enough or call a random sheet of scribble paper a log sheet so strict order in that case doesnt bother me at all. If like the OP they have gone to the effort to use a proper, ruled, numbered, neat book. Then I will play nice and fill in the proper slot. If its a scrap of paper, anywhere will do

[Facitman]

I hate the very same (almost as much as I hate negative threads, but this is also a pet peeve). I also hate when some clown writes a novel in a small logbook. If there is space, I don't mind if you write a few words, but have some consideration. If I can fit '29 FEB 11 Captain Terror TFTC' on one line of even the smallest logbooks, then I don't see why some feel the need to write in mega-maxi font.

/rant.

I don't care much too about the log book, as long as they write a small to medium sized novel on the cache page.

I, on occasions, write something in the physical logbook that I would not write online as it would be considered a spoiler. I hope others might read the logbook and laugh at/with me. I will read past logs given time and opportunity (aka muggle free).
We certainly tend to write longer logs for out of the way caches. Urbans often get a physical log of one line, but I always try help my online log length average increase regardless of the time spent at the cache.

YMMV

[Yurt]

I see the same thing all the time with the 'other' side of the page being ignored. The question is in which orientation do you right on the back of the page? Do you flip it over or just write as though it were the same as the other page?

I think the 'best' has to be people with silly long user names that don't abbreviate them and they log a rivet cache by writing along the length of the paper!

As for long logs, if there's nothing much to say then date, name and thanks will probably do it. This will occur for your standard suburban park drive-by a lot of the time. However, if it's more than 500m from the road then it will be lucky to get 10 visitors a year these days so if there's a good sized log book I say write to your heart's content. There's a lot more to write about when it's a bit more of a trek and of course you'd like the chance for a bit of a sit down (especially if it's several kms to walk). That's when it's fun to read the logs of those who have passed before. This sort of cache is often quite old in geocaching terms so it's interesting to read what people used to say and put in caches - a lot of food back then!

[garnercx]

I would skip a few lines just knowing it would peeve you. My idea of fun I suppose. Also when the mood takes me I may write you a nice note that may take a few more lines than many seem to believe necessary.

If you did that deliberately, I wouldn't mind at all! I respect that kind of humour. In jokes are great!

In fact you could leave a few lines and then make a comment about how you hate it when people skip lines in a log. Nice!

[garnercx]

I remember finding this cache with a group of others..... were we suppose to write in just the one box, or one box per person?

I don't think it really matters. I can work out when there are multiple logs in a box. It's just flipping past log position 123 and 124, to write in 125 that gives me the heebies!

[Geodes]

I remember finding this cache with a group of others..... were we suppose to write in just the one box, or one box per person?

I don't think it really matters. I can work out when there are multiple logs in a box. It's just flipping past log position 123 and 124, to write in 125 that gives me the heebies!

What is it about geocaching that so appeals to the OCD afflicted

[gmj3191]

I remember finding this cache with a group of others..... were we suppose to write in just the one box, or one box per person?

I don't think it really matters. I can work out when there are multiple logs in a box. It's just flipping past log position 123 and 124, to write in 125 that gives me the heebies!

What is it about geocaching that so appeals to the OCD afflicted

Well we who are so afflicted would say what is it that appeals to the dysfunctional, illogical, random writing, carelessly wasteful, nano hiding, psycho loggers of this world.

[garnercx]

What is it about geocaching that so appeals to the OCD afflicted

Tell me about it!

It can be really hard work ignoring little things that bug you when you have disproportionate sense of attention to detail.

By the way, you forgot the question mark on the end of your sentence.

[Zalgariath]

What is it about geocaching that so appeals to the OCD afflicted

Tell me about it!

It can be really hard work ignoring little things that bug you when you have disproportionate sense of attention to detail.

By the way, you forgot the question mark on the end of your sentence.

Hahaha... I resent the TLA OCD... its not a disorder, its a perfectly logical state of being... in my mind there is nothing wrong with ensuring all of your CDs are in alphabetical order by artist... then arrange by release date accordingly...

[ian-and-penny]

I don't like empty pages in log books. There, I said it.

I don't like it when cachers don't use up the rest of a page before starting a new one. I don't like it when cachers don't write on the back of a page, and I really don't like it when cachers flip past a few blank pages in a 8cm x 11cm marbig log book before making a log entry.

Maybe I've just had too many full log books where one has to go back to find a blank page that should never have been blank? (I guess that's more a problem with the log book not being replaced by the cache owner than the page-flippers per se.)

Anyway - in the first log book for "Welcome to Melbourne" (GC2GVR5) I ruled a line dividing each page in half, front and back and wrote a log number in every log space - two per page, both sides - from 1 to 176. I have just replaced the log book and retrieved the first one and the plan has worked fairly well. Only 5 cachers weren't able to work out how the numbers worked and skipped a log entry position to start a new page. (It's probably more a habit for them now - maybe they didn't register that the numbers were there, rather than lacking the smarts being able to work it out.)

So is it just me and my obsessive desire for detail and accuracy, or do others have the same 'problem' too?

If it's your cache, and the book is (almost) full, replace the book. (If there's one or two blank spots, you would have had to replace it soon anyway.)

If its not your cache, its not your problem.

Its a fact of life, move on.

[Trigg-A-Nomics]

I don't like empty pages in log books. There, I said it.

I don't like it when cachers don't use up the rest of a page before starting a new one. I don't like it when cachers don't write on the back of a page, and I really don't like it when cachers flip past a few blank pages in a 8cm x 11cm marbig log book before making a log entry.

Sorry, I'm going to push your buttons!

I don't like it when cachers use up the rest of the page instead of starting a new one. I don't like it when cachers write on the back of a page!

Hence I don't do those things myself. I will always turn to a nice new crisp page and write out my log with a thoughtful comment. If someone has provided a micro log I'll usually use up two lines.

I guess this comes from my childhood. When we were being taught to write neatly, we were told never to write on the last line of the page (made it look cluttered) and to write on a new page each time (so your writing didn't show through on the other page).

However I also don't like it when people skip pages and I would write in the correct place in your numbered logbook, just because it was symmetrical.

One cacher's OCD is another cacher's bugbear I guess!

[pprass]

One cacher's OCD is another cacher's bugbear I guess!

Yes it is, but don't you think you can bend your well entrenched habits just a wee bit to allow for the fact that a log book is usually not a huge exercise book and that a cacher is not there at the drop of a hat to replace a log book when it is claimed to be full?

Try to adapt to the conditions that are before you is what we try and do.

[Alansee]

A long time ago people used spend long enough at the cache site to appreciate why the cache was hidden there in the first place. I think people also stayed and read what was written in the log books as well.

Having listened to Dave from EcoTeam give a talk about caching in the early days, I believe the cache quality was probably higher on average back then, and they were generally placed at a site that was worth visiting. So there was more to write about.

No, it was because there were no other caches to go and find so what the heck else were you going to do with the rest of the day!

[caughtatwork]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 483f733715