really bad caches

January 17, 2007

We recently did a number of caches set by a fellow cacher, they were...er..interesting to say the least.

The cache info was riddled with spelling mistakes and often made no sense. The cache titles and clues bore very little relevance and to the actual cache. Some of the cache hiding locations cut it very finely towards vandalism and the locations left a lot to be desired - defiantly not attractive spots.

The guy obviously has a lot of enthusiasm and we shouldn't knock him for it. But after a day fighting through random caches we began to resent him a bit and looking at the logs it seems we aren't the only ones that feel that way. Although I suppose everyone wants something different from caching is there any course of action that could/should be taken?

January 17, 2007

What did the owner say when you pointed out the typos ? :lol:

Edited January 17, 2007 by stora

8.6k · January 17, 2007

:lol: Hmmmmm

After just a small amount of research I see what you mean.

But you can't do much more than shrug your shoulders and say "Well, at least it got us out and about"

However, if you have serious concerns about the location of a cache, or the way in which it has been placed or fixed then it's worth mentioning it to one of our Moderators who are wise and will act as necessary.

MrsB

January 17, 2007

Having had a quick look maybe the thing to do is to gently encourage him to go find a few more to learn more about what makes a good cache / hide? Maybe suggest one or two to him and tell him what makes them work, then encourage him to keep setting caches, but hopefully with the lessons softly learnt?

He has set 16 or so but only found (or maybe logged?) one.

1.8k · January 17, 2007

Their one found log is interesting:

>>I took it from here earlier today but all the other we done have been 35mm micros so have returned it to were it came.<<

Don't they log micros? Don't they replace them? The mind boggles... :lol:

January 17, 2007

Their one found log is interesting:

>>I took it from here earlier today but all the other we done have been 35mm micros so have returned it to were it came.<<

Don't they log micros? Don't they replace them? The mind boggles...

I think they meant that they initially took the coin that had been left earlier but returned it as the other caches they were hunting were micros and it wouldn't fit in the container - it's not clear whether they found any or not since you can't search DNFs as far as I know.

Anyway, back to the OP, I think the text on the cache pages was relatively straightforward to understand despite the odd spelling mistakes. As for a recommending a course of action, I notice you have been quite complimentary in the logs - it may have been a good idea to mention more of the problems you encountered either in the logs or in an email.

1.7k · January 18, 2007

I haven't done any searching so don't know the details of the caches you mention. However I'd like to make a general point about bad spelling and/or grammar on cache pages.

As you can imagine Eckington, Deceangi and I get to see an awful lot of cache pages ( ) and an awful lot of errors on them. We have decided that it would be too much work for us, and would probably lead to misunderstandings with the cache owners if we had a policy of correcting them all. Regular readers will recall the many heated discussions on this forum about poor spelling etc. <_< !!

So unless there's a glaring error which badly affects the meaning of the cache page we leave them alone. We might sigh inwardly but we are not here to be the literacy police.

On the other matter about inappropriate locations, we will always check into cases reported to us.

January 18, 2007

I've just read the logs we left. They were filled in by Becca, who's the more tolerent half on the partnership :-). Maybe they could have been a bit more contructive.

After reading through the posts here I think we'll send out a mail to the owner for some of the caches suggesting some improvements to the wording and suggesting some alterations to the hides/ locations.

As for the other caches I think we'll put in a formal email to the moderators to get this checked out - as the locations are quite good, but break the rules on several counts.

Interestingly as well as only one logged find they also have a huge number of owned travel bugs -odd

January 18, 2007

Sometimes all people need is a little advice. I for one do get a little carried away with unbridled enthusiasm but a nudge in the right direction is all it takes.

I come on here to ask advice and opinions, maybe he should be invited to do the same? Being flamed is not nice but a gentle grilling can be beneficial.

As for spelling mistakes I have noticed one on one of my caches and will go and alter it, not because of this topic (I was going to do it anyway) but because of the desire to be as proffesional as possible.

I live by the mottos "Anyone who has not made a mistake has not done anything worthwhile" and "If you don't try it you will never know". Or words to those effects.

January 18, 2007

I think most people welcome constructive critisism on their caches - I know I do!

3.7k · January 18, 2007

If I was in the area I'd probably avoid these caches, reasoning that if the cache owner can't be bothered to write a clear description then the cache is likely to have been placed with little thought too.

I'm trying to avoid starting off another spelling / grammar debate (as Lactodorum mentioned, these get very heated very quickly!). But I have to assume that you don't care very much about the cache if you're happy to submit a cache description with a significant number of obvious errors (like the series in question). So why should I go out of my way for your offering?

1.5k · January 18, 2007

Interestingly as well as only one logged find they also have a huge number of owned travel bugs -odd

It's possible that he/she caches as a member of a team but wish to keep their own caches in their own name. Same with the TBs.

Bear in mind that this may be a child that owns the caches and be gentle with the criticism. His/her Dad may be 6' 4" and eat Bulldogs for breakfast <_<

January 18, 2007

It has just crossed my mind that perhaps the person involved maybe dyslexic or afflicted in another way (How can I say that nicely?).

This maybe to the best of his abilities. Maybe an offer of help from someone local might be appreciated.

Just a thought.

6.2k · January 18, 2007

It's too much to assume if the cache page is rough that the cache will be iffy too - there's a lot of very creative, intelligent people who struggle with English for one reason or another. It could be that it's not their first language, they're dyslexic or they just struggle with it because they're better at more practical things and their education reflected that.

I'd say if you do some caches by a person, find them less than enjoyable, the easy thing to do is avoid doing many of theirs in future. It's a shame to ignore caches, but if you suspect they'd take you to dull places and bore you with dull hides, it's no great loss.

Should the same thing happen to me, I might broach the subject thus: 'In the past I've done some caches I felt were...' rather than 'Recently I did a series of caches that...' which does rather pinpoint the caches I mean. If I were the setter of them, and saw this thread, I might start archiving and generally feeling peed off with the game and those who play it. <_<

1.3k · January 18, 2007

SP: If I were the setter of them, and saw this thread, I might start archiving and generally feeling peed off with the game and those who play it.

Hopefully not! Especially if possibly he/she has a lot of other caches under another identity. <_<

January 18, 2007

Interestingly as well as only one logged find they also have a huge number of owned travel bugs -odd

He/She seems to claim any TB or Geocoin that lands in his/her caches as a 'discovered'. <_< Any cache owner could do that without even visiting ones own caches each time

Is that in the spirit of the game ?

January 18, 2007

He/She seems to claim any TB or Geocoin that lands in his/her caches as a 'discovered'. Any cache owner could do that without even visiting ones own caches each time

Is that in the spirit of the game ?

You need the tracking number of the TB or geocoin to post a discovered or retrieved log, so they would need to revisit their cache to find out the number for each.

3.7k · January 18, 2007

It's too much to assume if the cache page is rough that the cache will be iffy too - there's a lot of very creative, intelligent people who struggle with English for one reason or another.

I realise that there are exceptions, but it's difficult to justify spending time on a cache hunt when you have such a poor initial impression from the presentation of the cache. Why would I expect a cache owner to have spent enough time selecting and preparing the hide if he/she pays such little regard to the clarity of the description? Am I going to find that they not only omitted to check (or to ask someone else to check) the description for howlers and gobbledegook, but also forgot to check the coordinates?

I fully understand that some people are highly intelligent yet cannot write good english and therefore cannot produce a decent cache write-up without a lot of effort - but surely they will put in that effort to ensure that the cache description is reasonably attractive, clear and readable. Just like I'd expect that they'd take ten minutes checking that the coordinates are accurate. Otherwise it shows a lack of respect for the geocaching community and they deserve to be peed off with sarcastic comments.

I've rewritten this ten times, by the way, and I still don't like it...

(and there was a typo)...

Edited January 18, 2007 by Happy Humphrey

3.9k · January 18, 2007

I realise that there are exceptions, but it's difficult to justify spending time on a cache hunt when you have such a poor initial impression from the presentation of the cache.

Well, apparently that didn't put the OP off <_<

1k · January 18, 2007

I haven't done any searching so don't know the details of the caches you mention. However I'd like to make a general point about bad spelling and/or grammar on cache pages.

As you can imagine Eckington, Deceangi and I get to see an awful lot of cache pages ( ) and an awful lot of errors on them. We have decided that it would be too much work for us, and would probably lead to misunderstandings with the cache owners if we had a policy of correcting them all. Regular readers will recall the many heated discussions on this forum about poor spelling etc. !!

So unless there's a glaring error which badly affects the meaning of the cache page we leave them alone. We might sigh inwardly but we are not here to be the literacy police.

On the other matter about inappropriate locations, we will always check into cases reported to us.

Please could all correspondants remember what Lacky said earlier. No matter what the reasons for they style of the cache page are I can't help feeling that being over critical of a possibly identifiable cacher can do nothing but create a feeling of unease .

How often has it been said - play the game the way you will <_< .

By the way HH:

"Am I going to find that they not only omitted to check (or to ask someone else to check) the description for howlers and gobbledegook"

....that's what the three of us try to do

6.2k · January 18, 2007

Of course, you could look on decoding a gobbledegook-ridden cache page as adding a puzzle-solving element to the cache hunt? <_<

3.7k · January 18, 2007

Of course, you could look on decoding a gobbledegook-ridden cache page as adding a puzzle-solving element to the cache hunt?

It's funny that these "controversial" caches end up on my "Caches for the Connoisseur" bookmark list and I find myself seeking them out whilst ignoring better ones nearby. I need treatment!

(N.B. anyone - if I logged one of your caches, don't take offence, it's not my only bookmark list!)

January 18, 2007

I have just had a horrible thought....................

You are not talking about me are you?

8.6k · January 18, 2007

I have just had a horrible thought....................

You are not talking about me are you?

:blink:

Wouldn't dare to... :blink:

Not with a signature line like yours... :rolleyes:

MrsB

3.8k · January 18, 2007

According to my GSAK database, updated today, there are 14,728 active caches in the UK (including a few events yet to take place and a few events yet to be archived). That's more than I could ever hope to find so I can be choosy. I have no ambition to 'clear my area' or any other definable area, come to that. If a cache doesn't appeal to me, for whatever reason, I don't spend my valuable time looking for it. It's highly likely that I've missed a few good hides or stunning views but so what...? I've found an awful lot of others and had some grand times finding them.

I suppose it all boils down to - do the ones you fancy, leave the rest and don't whinge about them.

ps... My mum, bless her, taught English a long time ago so I never acquired the ability to write 'gobbledygook' (but I dare say there'll be some who disagree :blink: :blink: :rolleyes: )

January 18, 2007

So, despite the spelling mistakes and poor grammar, becca&dan went on to find 8 of the cachers caches before talking about their issues with them on this forum.

I guess something must have been alright with the caches then, as personally I wouldnt have bothered to look for that many if I wasnt pleased with what I was finding!

It does remind me of the way the company I work for opperate. If there's a problem with a staff member, everyone gets to know about it, except the person 'at fault'.

Perhaps a bit of constructive instruction wouldn't have gone a miss here.

Like it's been said before, if one isnt happy with the description - then don't look for the cache.

And, who knows if any learning disabilities, reading & writing issues etc etc, could be a contributing factor to the cache setters descriptions.

Though as becca&dans profile states that becca is 'a Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator'.

I'm sure she knows best!

Though in my opinion a notice on the forum might not really have been needed.

1.6k · January 19, 2007

So, despite the spelling mistakes and poor grammar, becca&dan went on to find 8 of the cachers caches before talking about their issues with them on this forum.

I guess something must have been alright with the caches then, as personally I wouldnt have bothered to look for that many if I wasnt pleased with what I was finding!

My initial thoughts if it was me:

If I was in the area and the cache setter is the local placer, despite not liking them, I'd still do them

a ) See if the first few were placed/set on an off day

b ) More data to substantiate you original views

c ) Bump up the numbers

d ) Be in a position to provide a comprehensive account of what you really think of the caches you did.

Just a few thoughts on the matter.

Edited to put a space before the brackets otherwise b ) becomes :blink: !

Edited January 19, 2007 by Sensei TSKC

January 19, 2007

Just my ten penneth for this conversation. I think some people are giving becca&dan a hard time here, especially if their comments are valid. So what if they have done the caches and then chose to complain afterwards? There's no point complaining BEFORE you've visited. There is a large series of caches where I live and I've done most of them and I didn't enjoy them that much. But I've done them to get them out of the way.

I could have ignored them, even used the premium feature to just get rid, but whilst there maybe over 14000 caches in the UK (which is a lot!) it depends where you are. Scotland doesn't have so many. Where I am, there's plenty along the A55 corridor and in northern and very southern Snowdonia but get away from those areas and the density really goes down. So maybe some people like to visit their own local(ish) area and to give the cache / cacher a chance.

An observation, even if critical, is always valid.

January 19, 2007

I have just had a horrible thought....................

You are not talking about me are you?

Wouldn't dare to...

Not with a signature line like yours...

MrsB

I am actually only 3' tall and made of glass, I have that signature to make me look all rufty tufty

2.5k · January 19, 2007

I am one of the people who get uncomfortable when the old spelling and grammar debate raises it's crusty head again. I prefer to see good english. I prefer to see creative caches pages which contain information about the cache, the setter and the area it has been set in, but it's not compulsary to create cache pages like this. In the end, if I can glean the information I require from the cache page, then I am happy. I only get frustrated with them if the directions are unclear or ambiguous.

However, I think it is fine to criticise caches if you see fault. I think that if more people said what they thought in their logs, then we might see a general improvement. This doesn't mean you have to write rude logs, but you can phrase things in such a way as to be helpful and yet get your point across.

Consider a micro in a litter strewn layby on an A road. You could just decide that the cache was so unmemorable that you just wrote "TNLN" in your log. You could be more to the point and write "what was the point of this cache, it was just geolitter" (I have seen plenty of logs like this!). What I would do would be to say something like "what a shame there is so much rubbish round here, it spoiled the cache hunt for me. I wonder if it would be worth moving this cache along the footpath away from the layby? You may even find room for a bigger cache in that hedge". Okay, the example may be a bit dull, but I am sure you get the idea? If the OP was worried about certain cache hides being tantamount to vandalism, I am sure they could cunningly work something into their log, which got the point tactfully across.

Of course, you can always email the cache owner with your concerns. Some cache owners take exception to any criticism real or implied, so a private word may be better.

If more people spoke out we may see caches improve. I don't mean we should all be 'cache police', but we should all take an interest in the standards of our hobby (cache 'shepherds' perhaps? ). Just because it's run by a distant bunch of americans does not mean that we don't all have ownership of the passtime. Would you replace a damp log in a micro if you had a spare about your person? If so, why would you not also suggest improvements to a poor hide?

Due to a rise in inflation, my 2p has just become my £2.50's worth!

Edited January 19, 2007 by Alibags

January 19, 2007

We searched for a cache in a rather nasty park in Paris, littered with dog litter, rats and a woman peeing in the corner! We said so on our DNF and that surely there were nicer spots for the cache, and the DNF got promptly deleted. SOme people just can't take critisism.

3.8k · January 19, 2007

Would you replace a damp log in a micro if you had a spare about your person?

I did that once and the next person complained about it

Signed the new temporary log sheet... somebody should teach Deego to rip in a straight line

I do agree with your ideas though but have never felt that strongly about a "bad" cache to complain. Maybe I have been lucky... Maybe I am easily pleased

Edited January 19, 2007 by Deego

1.7k · January 19, 2007

Beautifully put Alibags !

3.8k · January 19, 2007

Beautifully put Alibags !

What telling me I should rip straight ???

2.5k · January 19, 2007

Oh, were you quoting me?

You know I dont mean it really Deego!

January 19, 2007

I knew which cache setter this thread referred to without checking! I had an e-mail regarding my no find at one of his caches from another account, so it looks like he has two accounts for some reason.

I too wondered about the apparent 'vandalism' but assumed he worked for the council or something - I would be interested if becca & dan get a response.

Lisa

EDIT: by the way, although the cache listings didn't look promising, a lot of the caches turned out to be quite imaginative and we'll do more of them when we are next in the area.

Edited January 19, 2007 by minstrelcat

January 20, 2007

Beautifully put Alibags !

Indeed, but "compulsary" should read "compulsory" <_<

6.2k · January 20, 2007

No such word as 'passtime' either <_< (Kidding kidding kidding! xxx)

January 20, 2007

lthough I suppose everyone wants something different from caching is there any course of action that could/should be taken?

I think one thing might be to avoid caches where there are more caches placed than the number the owner's found themselves. In this case - Found: 1, Placed 16.

Strange - 1 cache find but 21 trackables? I wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye?

I sympathise Becca & Dan, I really do, and I think you've been too diplomatic in your logs. In my view, if someone can't do better than to place a micro in a pile of dog poo in a smelly alley, them they are disrespecting you and this peculiar activity we share. This should be explained to them.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Lactodorum

really bad caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation