Unfilled log books: Is it just me?

[garnercx]

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?

[noikmeister]

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?

It's just you!

I reckon you should be dirty on people who report a full log book when there are plenty of interstitial blank pages...

[Bronnie_1990]

No, cant be just you at all.


I'm now getting into the habit of just finding the first blank spot to write my log. Yes, it may not be in proper order, but..it's there!
(One cache, i think i found with my rover crew in July. I then logged it by myself, right below them in February. Yep, it begins with "..I think i was with these guys.." )

[Captain Terror]

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.

[gmj3191]

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.

Don't you just hate it when Immigration/Emmigration guys do that in your passport when you're travelling?

[garnercx]

I hate the very same (almost as much as I hate negative threads, but this is also a pet peeve).

Don't feel too bad! I have supplied a potential fix that seems to work provided you can be bothered spending 15 minutes to sit down and rule 88 lines and write 176 numbers down.

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.

I have a vision of a guy in big clown shoes and a red nose writing in a log in my head.

[garnercx]

Don't you just hate it when Immigration/Emmigration guys do that in your passport when you're travelling?

Oh my god, yes.

Tip: Don't mention your annoyance to the immigration officer.

[caughtatwork]

I also hate when some clown writes a novel in a small logbook.

Ahhh, you youngsters.
There was a time when that was normal (and expected) and you were out every 2nd month replacing logbooks.
Interesting how the world turns.
I call laziness on behalf of the cache owner who doesn't want to maintenance so forces everyone to use the minimum paper possible to write their name and maybe, if there's room, date.

[pprass]

Hey - I rely on cachers leaving gaps and whole pages. How else do you think I can find a spot when the log book is full

Wait a minute - if they did log in all of the spaces in the first place - then the log book wouldn't be full would it.

I'm getting a brain ache thinking about this one.

[Happy Chappies]

While we're in logbook related gripe mode.....

How about the maintenance request to replace a full logbook - and then you find out that it's only full on one side of the pages....

Seen more than once...

[garnercx]

The advantage of the pre-ruled, numbered log book, is that you know pretty much exactly when it's going to need replacing by adding the number of slots in the log book to the total number of finds so far.

A half a page on an 8cm x 11cm Marbig log book is quite a large space that most people will find enough. If someone is going to write a small novel (which I actually quite like) they are welcome to go into the next slot. It's only if they skip a slot when starting their entry that I will start twitching.

[gmj3191]

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.

[ruzzelz]

I also hate when some clown writes a novel in a small logbook.

Ahhh, you youngsters.
There was a time when that was normal (and expected) and you were out every 2nd month replacing logbooks.
Interesting how the world turns.
I call laziness on behalf of the cache owner who doesn't want to maintenance so forces everyone to use the minimum paper possible to write their name and maybe, if there's room, date.

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.

[belken]

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?

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.

Logging on-line takes a back seat so I suppose I have now three strikes. Iv'e never considered myself stupid or a bad cacher. I suppose I should read more then I could learn more.

[Richary]

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.

Nowadays the average hide quality and size seems to have dropped meaning there is less to write about and less space to do it. Couple that with the focus for some people on numbers means shorter logs.

I don't generally write long logs, figuring that the owner won't usually check the logbooks regularly, but if I write the long log online then the owner gets to see it straight away.