Manitoba Geocaching Association


 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileEdit Profile/Settings   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Logging Etiquette
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MBGA Forum Index -> Caching
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KeeGee



Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 36
Location: Winnipeg (Ft. Richmond)

PostPosted: Nov 22, 2011 3:09 am    Post subject: Re: Logging etiquette Reply with quote

Quality logs aren't written solely for the CO. A quality log could help fill some of the deficiencies of the cache description at least. And a quality log doesn't mean it has to gush about how wonderful the cache is. Why not include some comment on the lack of quality? One aspect of logging is the review. Not all reviews are positive. Some need to be bad and many average for the really good ones to stand out. Bad reviews don't have to be nasty, but they may help get the point across about some bad practices. Logs have personal value for me in that it's a bit of a travel diary - why I was in the area, something might've happened, who I was with, something discovered. Quality logs have value for the writer and other cachers despite what CO may not have provided.

Trove Chasers wrote:
After reading the Battlecache requirements.

It is "OUR" opinion that ONE of the following criteria should be met to receive a "quality log":


A quality location,
A quality cache, or
A quality cache page description.



In "OUR" opinion why should the time and effort be put in to a quality log when a "CACHE OWNER" does not put the time or effort into a quality cache or location or if the cache page description is blank?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ertyu



Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 551
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Nov 22, 2011 5:06 am    Post subject: Re: Logging etiquette Reply with quote

IMHO you make good points, much the same as I made over two years ago in my first post, but experience says that 95% of the time the CO will do nothing in response to logs. It's jaded, but it has become the reality. I don't really want to write a negative log for dozens of finds, and perhaps it's not even the CO's fault as there are far too many examples of what not to do that they may be referencing. I might put in a massive amount of effort in writing a log, fixing a cache, improving things, but if the CO takes no action, then it might be all for not. And from my experience, the likelihood of them taking action is quite low. That's not to say all hiders are the same, there are tons out there that are very diligent and I'm happy to help them out as they accept my help.

As for a log directed to other finders, that is also of importance. It is my view though, that a log should not rewrite the story of the cache, the description should stand alone. The logs add an important element, the stories of the find, the experience, but they shouldn't be needed to find the cache. Perhaps a log could direct people towards or away from a particular cache in some limited fashion. But there is something to be said for experiencing it yourself without preconceptions or spoilers.

A log of ones' self is perhaps of the utmost of purpose. But it gets to the point where there is just no reason to remember the find or perhaps it was already forgotten before the log was even written.

I still think it's a good idea to write something for every log, but the cordial days to expect such are gone and I agree with the Troves that the tacked on rule for the Battlecache contest is out of place.

KeeGee wrote:
Quality logs aren't written solely for the CO. A quality log could help fill some of the deficiencies of the cache description at least. And a quality log doesn't mean it has to gush about how wonderful the cache is. Why not include some comment on the lack of quality? One aspect of logging is the review. Not all reviews are positive. Some need to be bad and many average for the really good ones to stand out. Bad reviews don't have to be nasty, but they may help get the point across about some bad practices. Logs have personal value for me in that it's a bit of a travel diary - why I was in the area, something might've happened, who I was with, something discovered. Quality logs have value for the writer and other cachers despite what CO may not have provided.

Trove Chasers wrote:
After reading the Battlecache requirements.

It is "OUR" opinion that ONE of the following criteria should be met to receive a "quality log":


A quality location,
A quality cache, or
A quality cache page description.



In "OUR" opinion why should the time and effort be put in to a quality log when a "CACHE OWNER" does not put the time or effort into a quality cache or location or if the cache page description is blank?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MBGA Forum Index -> Caching Time synchronized with your computer time
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

GPS
Central Landsharkz MBGA 5th Anniversary Geocoin GPS Wolf Hunt