vb:literal>
I have a few caches I have logged only a smiley on, a few I have logged "Yet another guardrail I would not have known about for caching", And a few not great logs other than mentioning the dump in the surrounding area, but I think that is better than being totally disrespectful. I think for anyone that hides a cache at a location that appears to have little value than the smiley, a hider does risk getting these logs as Bruce suggested. It is unfortunate to see a nice cache get a bad log, especially if it is unwarranted.
DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!
"The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."
While I have only deleted one log, ( due to fact the cacher trashed me and my cache, and after a chance to edit the log I deleted it ). I could care less who or how people log my caches. I have seen the " logged from my portable device ", TFTC, and even the smiley, ( thanks brdad ) . I do not check my log books to see if they have visited or not, including the nice family that noticed the log on the ground that later turned out to be trash, and signed it to log their find. I let the log stand, and let the finder make the choice of whether they want to claim the find or not. I've seen people intend to write a note and double log the find and even the occasional DNF log with a smiley. So what! my day goes on and the sun is till shining.
Why not live life like it is your last day....instead of pretending to be a member of the Peter Pan Club and believing you will be around forever.
So I guess "who cares" might be the best approach?
Thanks for the posts...thought provoking as always. I put 4 new very different caches together this afternoon that I hope you all enjoy.
Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.
Ha, I had to check, I have never logged only a smiley on one of your caches.
I think you have to weigh the "who cares" approach, but it probably should be your first instinct. And most of the time, a first instinct is correct. But not always!
LOL While looking through my logs, I found this one on a cache in Vermont:
The name of the cache was Quick Cache 1, I guess I felt I owed a few words for a rather mundane cache - after all, given the name I can't say I wasn't warned!9/18/2008 by brdad
Cache was quick, this log is too.
Last edited by brdad; 10-11-2010 at 07:32 PM.
DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!
"The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."
Really no opinion Dan on your question. However, a few comments.
I am disturbed, but happy to see......Haffy and Bruce agreeing on points. Wow. What the heck is up with that?
As many have said, I really enjoy reading the logs on my placed caches and I would agree that as time goes on and more enter the activity, the quality of the logs is not what it once was. Perhaps the cacher did not have a mentor....perhaps they are logging on the move with a phone app.....or they really don't care.
Again, I echo those who have said, the quality of the log is directly proportional to the quality of the cache. My 707/KC-135 cache is a park & grab, placed when there was only one "7" cache in southern Maine, thus enabling cachers in Central Maine an option for the Alpha-Numeric challenge. On the other hand, my Bennet/Wilson gets the fewest visits, but the best logs. Guess that happens when you combine a covered bridge, a cemetery and outstanding views. Oh....it's a micro too.
The more I think about, if the log is signed....while you don't like the log....is not a reason to delete it. Now.....didn't sign the log 'cause you didn't want to get out of the car? As Bruce would say...."Sheesh!"
Everyone has the right to be an idiot at times. Just don't abuse the privilege.
Geocaching Parrotheads
Why can't we get a government sponsered tick eradication program?