Jump to content

Short Cache Description = Lame Cache?


Recommended Posts

It seems like cache descriptions are getting shorter and shorter. Is that because good locations are becoming harder to come by?

Here's one that I'm guessing is quite lame (no finds yet): That Bridge The hint cracks me up! :D

 

And here's the shortest one I've ever seen: Sounds like a Tribute cache for me :-)

 

So how about it? Caches with longer descriptions = more enjoyment?

Edited by cache-n-dash
Link to comment

Here's one that I'm guessing is quite lame (no finds yet): That Bridge The hint cracks me up! :D

 

Okay, that's a funny hint.

 

There are a couple caches around here with very intricate (not necessarily "good" but I'm not in the myspace crowd so my opinion on that could be skewed) cache pages, and IMO the caches are very poor. Your examples, though, make me think yeah, the pages may reflect the caches :o

Link to comment

I did one once that had almost no information on the cache page (It's changed since then and been archived, or I'd point to it). I think it said something like "Have fun" --I did have fun, it was a fantastic cache.

 

I've done plenty of caches that had fascinating cache pages while the cache itself was nothing special. Looking back, it may even be true that reading about some of those caches was the best part of the entire experience. That's not necessarily a bad thing although I suppose in a perfect world I would enjoy every part of the experience equally.

 

I agree that many people who are creative in their cache creation tend to produce intriguing pages, but that doesn't automatically mean that understated writing = uninspired cache.

Link to comment

I didn't think much about it till you mentioned it, but it does seem like caches with nice pages tend to be good caches. Doesn't mean the ones with short one are by default, lame.

 

I think generally, the person that puts extra time on the cache page will put extra time on their caches as well.

 

I have to agree with this statement. My lesser quality, personal hides have short descriptions, my "best caches" have long descriptions.

Link to comment

And here's the shortest one I've ever seen: Sounds like a Tribute cache for me :-)

 

So how about it? Caches with longer descriptions = more enjoyment?

 

Holy flying carp! The hint's more than three times longer than the description! :D

 

As far as a descriptions/enjoyment ratio goes, I'll bet that the best correlation would be between amount of time spent on the page vs amount of time spent on cache. Someone who's likely to be thoughtful in putting together the cache will also be thoughtful about the cache description.

 

There are, of course, exceptions in both directions, I'm sure.

Link to comment

Huh, well this one is pretty short. I doubt many would dare call it 'lame'.

See, you actually put some effort into putting that page together. You might not have added a whole lot of content, but you formatted it nicely with html, and obviosly care about what it looks like. Thus, your amount of time spent on the page vs. spent on the cache is coming in line. Yes? No? :anitongue:

Link to comment

I didn't think much about it till you mentioned it, but it does seem like caches with nice pages tend to be good caches. Doesn't mean the ones with short one are by default, lame.

 

I think generally, the person that puts extra time on the cache page will put extra time on their caches as well.

 

I have to agree with this statement. My lesser quality, personal hides have short descriptions, my "best caches" have long descriptions.

 

I was just looking through my caches and there is no real pattern. Some of my best caches have short descriptions and some have long. Same for the my lesser caches.

 

With some of my lesser quality caches I guess I feel the need to explain the significance of the area on the page. Sort of a justification for the cache. With some of the better caches I just let the journey speak for itself.

Link to comment

NO, at least not around here. There are a number of cache placers with no typing skills and at least one "English as a second language" placer. Their pages tend to little or no description, but they're great fun adventure caches. My own pages have gotten shorter and shorter and shorter (unlike my forum posts :anitongue: - maybe I should put a couple more "shorter"s in there?) because I cache from PDA and want, "just the basics, please".

not a lot of description, recommended cache...

Link to comment

Except for the clue, I find the cache in the original post very intriguing. I might think differently if I checked a map and started planning to find it, but I like the element of mystery and surprise.

 

I had a cache that was near an old foundation on the highest point in the county. I described the terrain and the park, but I didn't mention the ruins at all. I wanted it to be a surprise. Maybe brief descriptions are generally unappealing, and maybe I'd have had more visits if I'd mentioned the foundations or at least promised a big surprise at the end. But that's not the experience I wanted to create. I hoped the promise of a rugged hike (for my area) is appealing enough.

 

I'd point out we're talking about length, not formatting.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

I think there needs to be a balance between the content in the description and the experience of the find. The description should be long and content-filled enough to compel you to go find the cache, but not so long that it spoils the experience.

 

This is my shortest description, I think. It's all worth it for log entries like on January 11. It's not terribly difficult, just a bit maddening ... if you follow your GPS arrow, you can get to within 150' of the container and see EXACTLY where it's hidden. But to get any closer requires at least a 3-mile trek, of which the last mile inbound is on foot. Plus the hint has a double meaning to add further confusion. Not bad for a simple urban hide, eh?

 

I think this is one of my longest descriptions, and it's probably a lot longer than necessary. The directions in it might seem redundant, but there's a purpose to them - the shortest way to the cache is through some residential neighborhoods, so my directions are aimed at steering people to park their cars in a nearby park and avoid walking through people's backyards.

 

-eP

Link to comment

I didn't think much about it till you mentioned it, but it does seem like caches with nice pages tend to be good caches. Doesn't mean the ones with short one are by default, lame.

 

I think generally, the person that puts extra time on the cache page will put extra time on their caches as well.

I agree that this is generally true, but there are plenty of exceptions as well, as already mentioned above.

Link to comment

I don't believe that there is any correlation between the amount of verbiage on the cache page and the quality of the cache.

Agreed. I like finding ammo cans hidden in the woods where I follow a well-maintained trail and only have to wander off-trail the last 50ft without any bushwhacking. I doubt many of us would call such a cache lame. Probably quite lovely in the fall. How much of a description would this cache need? "An ammo can in the woods." Good enough for me.

 

One trend I don't like is how some land managers are requiring cachers to list park rules on the cache page. It isn't enough that there are already rule signs at the park that you will see once you get there?

Link to comment

I just went to my account and reviewed some of the caches I've found. In general, I agree that the longer the description, the more I enjoyed the cache.

 

I'll also add this: In looking to decide which caches to do, I'm much more likely to do a cache that has a better description, than one that is very brief. Yes, that may be judging a book by its cover. But when you have limited opportunities to go geocaching, you want to make the most of your time.

So when Mrs. OuttaHand and I decide to hit a couple caches on a given Saturday, I'm far more likely to choose the ones that describe the area and attractions at the cache site.

Link to comment

I don't believe that there is any correlation between the amount of verbiage on the cache page and the quality of the cache.

 

Perhaps. I would venture to say that someone who places a dull PLC at Wal*Mart isn't going to fill up four pages in cache information, stories, etc.

 

A good cache can be short or long, but a bad cache is generally going to be short to medium in length, unless it rambles on about nothing, in which case, that should send up a red flag to the cacher.

Link to comment
I just went to my account and reviewed some of the caches I've found. In general, I agree that the longer the description, the more I enjoyed the cache.

That's true, but only to a point. That's why I'm not planning to ever do the Psycho Urban and Psycho Backcountry series - their cache descriptions are far too long.

 

-eP

Link to comment

A good cache can be short or long, but a bad cache is generally going to be short to medium in length, unless it rambles on about nothing, in which case, that should send up a red flag to the cacher.

 

I can agree with that.

 

The OP actually poses two separate questions:

 

Short Cache Description = Lame Cache?
Caches with longer descriptions = more enjoyment?

I'd say the answer to the first is no, a short description is no indication of the quality.

 

The answer to the second is -- well, still not absolutely yes, but much more likely.

 

The likelihood that a cache is lame is inversely proportional to the length of the description.

Link to comment

i just reviewed my caches. length of description seems to have no correlation with cache quality.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8e-f96024cb4300

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...91-73dee391a7c4

 

Again, I really don't think a short description entails a bad cache, but a cache with at least a half a page to a page of relevant or semi-relevant information (read -- no philosophical ramblings or monologues about trout) tends to be of a higher quality.

Link to comment

i just reviewed my caches. length of description seems to have no correlation with cache quality.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8e-f96024cb4300

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...91-73dee391a7c4

 

Again, I really don't think a short description entails a bad cache, but a cache with at least a half a page to a page of relevant or semi-relevant information (read -- no philosophical ramblings or monologues about trout) tends to be of a higher quality.

Huh, again. This page is, at the very least, verbose. Again, I doubt anyone would call it lame.

Link to comment
i just reviewed my caches. length of description seems to have no correlation with cache quality.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8e-f96024cb4300

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...91-73dee391a7c4

Again, I really don't think a short description entails a bad cache, but a cache with at least a half a page to a page of relevant or semi-relevant information (read -- no philosophical ramblings or monologues about trout) tends to be of a higher quality.
I can't tell you how many pedestrian caches I've found that had a description with several paragraphs of dribble. Yet, I've also found many caches with almost no description whatsoever (or actually no description, at all) that led me to have a fun little cache adventure.

 

I've also found a bunch of caches that had a ton of irritating html (including music and graphics) that led to caches that were either great or average.

 

In most cases, I do not believe that their is a correlation between the amount of energy put into a cache description and the quality of the cache. Of course this is true, since the quality of the cache is based completely on a personal decision made by the finder at a specific moment of time.

Link to comment

I don't think there is a correlation.

 

Some of my best caches have short descriptions.

 

My latest cache is in Big Basin State Park (home of the Redwoods) at the top of a hill with ocean overlooks.

 

Two simple sentences explain this spot - I don't need to "sell it" - it speaks for itself. :anitongue:

Link to comment

I didn't think much about it till you mentioned it, but it does seem like caches with nice pages tend to be good caches. Doesn't mean the ones with short one are by default, lame.

 

I think generally, the person that puts extra time on the cache page will put extra time on their caches as well.

 

I have to agree with this statement. My lesser quality, personal hides have short descriptions, my "best caches" have long descriptions.

Me too...my newest one, (no find, but a DNF) is huge, but a micro that was my first hide, and borderline lame has a short description...

Link to comment

There is nothing worse than hitting goto 'next closest' and seeing a typical hide, then pulling up the page in cachemate and having to read forty screens of drivel, most of which doesn't apply to the cache. :anitongue:

 

Get to the point up front (BLUF).

 

35mm film canister hidden in the lampost. I don't need a history lesson on sam walton and the location that his current store is located at.

Link to comment

I'm reminded of this article in Today's Cacher from 2 years ago. Thanks to Google, was able to dig it up:

http://www.todayscacher.com/2005/apr/caches2.asp

 

Quote from the article:

"It seems as time goes by the fine art of a quality cache page is dying"

 

I tend to agree. I don't know if there is a correlation between the cache page length and cache quality, but I do like to see more than just the minimum. Especially if I'm from out of town: why might I want to visit this cache? What's special about the location? Is it nearby significant POI's? (But don't tell me what was in the cache when it was placed 3 years ago, but that's another topic).

Link to comment
I'm reminded of this article in Today's Cacher from 2 years ago. Thanks to Google, was able to dig it up:

http://www.todayscacher.com/2005/apr/caches2.asp

 

Quote from the article:

"It seems as time goes by the fine art of a quality cache page is dying"

 

I tend to agree. I don't know if there is a correlation between the cache page length and cache quality, but I do like to see more than just the minimum. Especially if I'm from out of town: why might I want to visit this cache? What's special about the location? Is it nearby significant POI's? (But don't tell me what was in the cache when it was placed 3 years ago, but that's another topic).

That's pretty ironic when you consider that when I started paying the game, the most verbose cache pages had a couple of sentences and a list of starter stuff. The most common cache name, at the time, was 'geocache'. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Here's one that just popped up on my instant notify:

 

Log only.

Bring you own pen.

 

Additional Hints ( No hints available )

 

Pretty short description, I'd say. It's called WAAS UP?

 

So, what would your guess be, lame or excellent?

 

Well, if I hadn't looked at the page and seen it was a traditional, I'd have guessed it was a puzzle that somehow involved WAAS coords. But unless it is mis-categorized, this is not the case. At least they gave parking coords. :huh:

 

Edited to add: I think one red flag on this one is looking at the owners caches. They've logged 40, have placed 5, 4 of which were archived after going MIA.

Edited by Too Tall John
Link to comment

Here's one that just popped up on my instant notify:

 

Log only.

Bring you own pen.

 

Additional Hints ( No hints available )

 

Pretty short description, I'd say. It's called WAAS UP?

 

So, what would your guess be, lame or excellent?

Based on description -- no idea. It could be anything.

Based on Google Maps -- potentially cool, I can't figure out what that is. But urban micros aren't my favorite, and it looks residential urban.

Based on three logs so far -- not super exciting

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

I didn't think much about it till you mentioned it, but it does seem like caches with nice pages tend to be good caches. Doesn't mean the ones with short one are by default, lame.

 

I think generally, the person that puts extra time on the cache page will put extra time on their caches as well.

Perhaps, but nonetheless a broad generalization.

 

What it definitely DOES indicate is that the owner spent a little time on the whole process, but it really doesn't say anything at all about the time spent in preparation or placement of the cache itself.

 

An eloquent description of a cache could be given with the cache being nothing more exciting than a film can in a rose bush.

 

The only real conclusion that can be drawn from the cache description verbosity is short description = lame cache page (but still possibly good cache);

long description = rambling cache owner or well done cache page (but still possibly lame cache).

Link to comment

I didn't think much about it till you mentioned it, but it does seem like caches with nice pages tend to be good caches. Doesn't mean the ones with short one are by default, lame.

 

Agreed! Just because the cover of a book is red, does it have to be a slasher novel?

 

I think generally, the person that puts extra time on the cache page will put extra time on their caches as well.

This would probably be the best explanation of the exemplary cache page for awesome caches paradigm.

Link to comment

On our first few caches placed, we included a few paragraphs of explanation in the write-up.

 

We then placed a Letterbox-Hybrid, such that reading the description was essential to finding the actual cache. We got some complaints from people who couldn't find the cache at the posted coords (it's not there - you must follow the instructions) and that's when we realized that many people just don't read the cache descriptions. Since then we try to keep the descriptions short and sweet.

 

Despite the short write-ups, we still try to put out quality caches, and do a pretty good job of maintaining them.

Link to comment

On our first few caches placed, we included a few paragraphs of explanation in the write-up.

 

We then placed a Letterbox-Hybrid, such that reading the description was essential to finding the actual cache. We got some complaints from people who couldn't find the cache at the posted coords (it's not there - you must follow the instructions) and that's when we realized that many people just don't read the cache descriptions. Since then we try to keep the descriptions short and sweet.

 

Despite the short write-ups, we still try to put out quality caches, and do a pretty good job of maintaining them.

At least you use proper spelling and punctuation. It seems like some cachers have spent a large investment of time in learning how to use a GPS, and still don't know or care little about the English language.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...