WCMO - Copy and paste logs

Big Matt and Shell · Post by **Big Matt and Shell** » 15 January 09 10:17 pm

caughtatwork wrote:I've done 1,600 logs with an verbosity average of 115, so obviously I don't subscribe to the TNLN TFTC (although on a few caches I have been very let down and my log length reflects that).
http://geocaching.com.au/cacher/statist ... rk/general

Ah, I know exactly where your coming from...

rhinogeo · Post by **rhinogeo** » 15 January 09 10:36 pm

big_matt wrote:
caughtatwork wrote:I've done 1,600 logs with an verbosity average of 115, so obviously I don't subscribe to the TNLN TFTC (although on a few caches I have been very let down and my log length reflects that).
http://geocaching.com.au/cacher/statist ... rk/general
Ah, I know exactly where your coming from...

I'm not as verbose as some but I reckon an average log length of 61 words is not too bad ... like others If I don't have anything nice to say my logs tend to be shorter

I did have to count to ten after all a recent finder of one of my caches left a log of TFTC

After checking a few of their past logs it seems this seems to be the norm for about 50% of their logs

If I ever find any of their caches my log might just be

jusojara · Post by **jusojara** » 15 January 09 10:41 pm

As a newer hider (I only have three at the moment, with a fourth in the planing stage) it is very encouraging to read a log where the finder has commented on the hide, the location, the experience finding the cache or even their memories of the area.

It is good to hear that others are enjoying the effort you have put into your hide and encourages me to put the effort into creating a cache that is worthwhile. There are plenty of areas where a micro or a small could just be placed with the 'come and get it' attitude but as I mentioned, appreciation shown in the logs make me want to create a cache, rather than just place one.

SamCarter · Post by **SamCarter** » 15 January 09 10:42 pm

Here's a trick that some people might find useful. If you carry a PDA or certain kinds of phone you can make a voice memo after each find. I am very absent-minded and after only the first three or four finds in a day (yes, THAT few

) I sometimes forget what I did/swapped/saw/enjoyed at each particular cache. A few words blathered into my PDA and that's usually enough to trigger the rest when I get home.

I try to log as soon as I can, and, having come to appreciate the logs of those who have made an effort to write about their experience, I've tried to put a bit more effort into my own logs (but of course, like many, my log length varies depending on the experiences with the cache). I also enjoy going back (on-line) to caches I've visited to read recent logs, to see how others' experiences differed from or were similar to mine. So, I for one say a big thankyou to the folk who write good logs (and "good" doesn't necessarily mean novel-length!). I know some people have a knack for writing creative logs, but whatever your writing skills it's appreciated when the log writer makes an effort beyond just the bare minimum.

SamCarter · Post by **SamCarter** » 15 January 09 10:53 pm

Oh ... and another cacher alerted me to a possible reason for shorter logs: Folks with hi-tech wizz-bang in-the-field internet access phones sometimes write and submit their logs in the field ... but in their hasty on-the-go frame of mind and with those poky little keyboards I guess it's a bit more of an effort to write a longer log. (Not sure if this is "reason" or "excuse". YMMV!)

Richary · Post by **Richary** » 15 January 09 10:55 pm

I normally try to log caches the same day or the next day if I can, though some trips have been without net access for a few days. But when doing those I make a brief note in a paper notebook and can generally remember what the cache was about when I go to log it.

Yes, I get peeved at the "Found it" and nothing else logs. I can understand it on the record attempts, at the same time realising the people were just hitting numbers and not stopping to smell the roses and understand why the cache was placed there in the first place. So they annoy me a bit as well. I would rather travel to the spot, admire the view (or whatever reason the placer took me there).

OK some caches don't deserve more than a "Found It" log. Most are there for a reason and I try to let the cache owner know why I appreciated it.

I guess we could all include that the log must be a certain length or will be deleted clause in our caches. It's our right as owners.

the farmers 5 · Post by **the farmers 5** » 15 January 09 11:03 pm

Have to agree with Webguy's original comment.Its frustrating when you put out a cache with location,great hide and plenty of quality swaps only to have an a insult of a "one line log". Its either a numbers cacher or laziness or both .I see plenty still and i know teams who log this way every single time.

Thats why no will ever contest the best story teller ever in Australia....Dave of dak's Emu Mob.He was the king.It was pure pleasure to sit there and just read through a days caching with his great mate Eric (acts 2).Every log was an adventure and story with detail.I never saw a "one liner" ever from dak.Most of the time too,it was 20 to 30 lines long.Eric had the ultimate pleasure of finding a few thousand caches with dak and reading all his logs.
Next best would be Eric (acts 2 ) and Mr Coffee and the coffee clan who equally continually write great logs .Also they both tell great stories and put "the effort" into writing a lengthy find no matter what type of cache it is.Still through the magic of all logs being recorded,you can go back and visit any caches these three teams did and be entertained today.

Damo. · Post by **Damo.** » 16 January 09 9:11 am

Wow. That's some impressive idol worship there the farmers 5!
I guess I'm kind of mid range for log length. Like others if a cache is boring and uninspiring it's possible my log will be as well but I usually try and put something interesting about the find.

traineediplomat · Post by **traineediplomat** » 16 January 09 2:23 pm

Allright with a verbosity of only 41 words I'll endeavour in 2009 to pick it up a little bit!

I do like how the C@W stats say my shortest log is 4 words... when it's one word ; "Verily" on Molonglo Meander (GC9435). My caching partner that day wrote a wordy log that I agreed with!

Mr Router · Post by **Mr Router** » 16 January 09 3:49 pm

Damo. wrote:Wow. That's some impressive idol worship there the farmers 5!

thats a worry

Post by **caughtatwork** » 16 January 09 5:16 pm

traineediplomat wrote:Allright with a verbosity of only 41 words I'll endeavour in 2009 to pick it up a little bit!

I do like how the C@W stats say my shortest log is 4 words... when it's one word ; "Verily" on Molonglo Meander (GC9435). My caching partner that day wrote a wordy log that I agreed with!

That's because it is (was) actually 4 words. There are a bunch of spaces and other assorted things after the single word so they're counted too. I've edited your log at GCA and removed the spurious stuff so it now calculates what it looks like.

Never question the programmer

(Only joking).

svn07 · Post by **svn07** » 16 January 09 5:43 pm

My personal favourite log-writer is If. With over 4000 finds he still writes nice stuff, is articulate and witty, relates a good adventure and is the most creative user of emoticons I've seen

. 

Would be interesting to examine the correlation between the length of the cache DESCRIPTION with the average log length on finds. Personally, when there has been little effort in writing a description (and/or if it is riddled with errors) I do feel a little disinclined to verbosity.

Richary · Post by **Richary** » 16 January 09 9:02 pm

svn07 wrote:Personally, when there has been little effort in writing a description (and/or if it is riddled with errors) I do feel a little disinclined to verbosity.

Could be, but I think we would also find a cache with a short/bad description is also probably not an good cache on averaqge - therefore also encouraging a short log. I can't think of a brilliant cache I have found that had a crap page for it, whether city or country. If it is because a special spot, people normally include info as to why it is a special spot.

penguin · Post by **penguin** » 16 January 09 9:37 pm

Crappy cache description?

Not to be mean or anything, but check out this newly published literary epic: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 08b3b9e0da (Apologies for the lengthy URL).

I love the Flinders area, and would be keen to go out there, but honestly if as much effort has gone into the cache as has gone into the description, I would be expecting a steaminig pile of disappointment...

setsujoku · Post by **setsujoku** » 16 January 09 9:41 pm

penguin wrote:Crappy cache description?

Not to be mean or anything, but check out this newly published literary epic: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 08b3b9e0da (Apologies for the lengthy URL).

I love the Flinders area, and would be keen to go out there, but honestly if as much effort has gone into the cache as has gone into the description, I would be expecting a steaminig pile of disappointment...

Lol I've seen some ordinary ones, but that takes the cake.

Why would I want to drive there just on the off chance that there might even be something interesting there, let alone a half decent cache