How many people don't read the descriptions ?

[+Nick_Scots]

Come on then, how many of you just download data and don't actually read the descriptions by the cache owners ?

 

Nick

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Come on then, how many of you just download data and don't actually read the descriptions by the cache owners ?

 

Nick

Particularly with the advent of so-called "paperless caching", which often seems to me, in many cases -- at least in the case of high Difficulty-rating and/or high Terrain-rating caches -- to be a euphemism for "brainless caching", it is my impression that the vast majority of cachers no longer read cache listing descriptions, even when the Difficulty or Terrain ratings, or both, are high enough to suggest that reading the cache listing description might be very prudent. Since I primarily place extreme terrain caches, and since I kinda prefer that geocachers hunting my caches not end up killing themselves by doing stupid things, and since I invest a LOT of time and energy in posting sufficient caveats and warnings regarding terrain difficulties and hazards on my cache listing pages, this "failure to read descriptions" has long been of concern to me, and I have found a number of ways to largely manage the situation.

 

I also have one or two very funny and bizarre tales of shenanigans that I have observed at the sites of some of my extreme caches due to failure by cachers to read the cache listing description. I have reiterated in past posts on this forum the various means that I employ to foil those who try to avoid reading the cache listing page, and I have also told in past posts some of my tales of the crazy antics of those who failed to read my cache descriptions.

[+TrailGators]

Come on then, how many of you just download data and don't actually read the descriptions by the cache owners ?

 

Nick

How many are worth reading? I skim through many and read all the good ones. I also read them whenever something doesn't look quite right when I get to the cache location. Edited October 19, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Parabola]

Come on then, how many of you just download data and don't actually read the descriptions by the cache owners ?

 

Nick

 

The majority of them I just skim over. Not much there worth reading.

 

But some of them I do read word for word and enjoy reading the logs attached to them. There some great storys in some of them.

 

But I look at the rating and then the size if I can't find it then I may read the descripition. Unless it's one that I really want to do which by the time I'm out looking for it I've already read it a few times.

[+J-Way]

The majority of them I just skim over. Not much there worth reading.

Yep.

 

I always at least skim the description and usually skim the logs (5 DNFs in a row on a 2/2? skip it). If it's well written and/or contains necessary info I'll read it more carefully.

[+WRASTRO]

I read almost all of them. Some of them are absolutely fabulous and others, well, not so much.

[Neos2]

I always give the cache page at least a quick skim before going for the cache.

 

I don't want to be the one to get someone else's cache shut down because I didn't read the special instructions about where to park or the times to go etc

[Mushtang]

Almost always.

 

In the rare instance where I either decide I want an additional challenge and don't read it, or where I have my pre-loaded GPS but not my Palm Pilot because I didn't expect to be caching and therefore don't have it to read, I'll take the chance.

 

However, when I do go without reading the cache page, I'd never come back to the owner (or in the forums) and complain about something that had I read the cache page it wouldn't have been a problem. That would be too embarrassing.

[+Sioneva]

Come on then, how many of you just download data and don't actually read the descriptions by the cache owners ?

 

Nick

<snip> Since I primarily place extreme terrain caches, and since I kinda prefer that geocachers hunting my caches not end up killing themselves by doing stupid things, and since I invest a LOT of time and energy in posting sufficient caveats and warnings regarding terrain difficulties and hazards on my cache listing pages, this "failure to read descriptions" has long been of concern to me, and I have found a number of ways to largely manage the situation.

 

<snip>

 

Vinny is correct. I've lost track of how many times I've died while trying to find one of his caches, without having read the description first. He keeps complaining about the huge electric bills he runs up when re-animating me, but what can you do?

 

I can't go into the other ways he has found to largely manage the situation, because he threatened not to re-animate me again if I did.

[Clan Riffster]

I read most of them. My 60CSx tells me the cache title, size, type, difficulty, terrain and hint at a glance. If I get to a cache that appears to be a simple P&G, I often won't read the cache page unless I DNF.

[+Save The Murlocs]

I read them. Why not, might be something helpful, or at least entertaining, there.

[+Buggheart]

I almost always read them as well and usually read the most recent logs too. There's lots of good info there. Tonight I went to a geo party in a park and had intended to look for a nearby cache placed near the park entrance. Fortunately I read the most recent log which indicated that the last finder also found snakes and had to cross a swamp and was able to avoid that one.

[+Printess Caroline]

I always read them and at least the most recent posts. My husband and I aren't into big number runs, so I take the time to weed out caches that don't look interesting. I appreciate a well-written description and will avoid a cache if it has a particularly poorly written description. I suspect that the owner who can't take the time to write something that doesn't make them look like a 2nd grade drop-out has given just as little time and thought to the hide.

[+mfamilee]

We always read the descriptions first to help us make the find... that's what they are there for.

 

Unfortunately, we still have our fair share of DNFs.

[+SimbaJamey]

I started out playing with a Vista and then a 60 and quickly became frustrated by the lack of information I had even though I was tweaking the fields it loaded. That above anything else got me to move up to a Colorado straight away.

I don't really plan my caching adventures per se, and even when I do I tend to not follow the plan.

So I keep the Colorado updated with about 900 caches I haven't found around home and in the places I'm most likely to be, that way when I have a little free time or happen to be driving by one I can go caching.

As for reading the pages...Well, sometimes. Usually, now that I've got a little more experience. I'm often reading the page as I'm walking up to the cache, but there are times I just go for it with just the coordinates and then work through the steps if I can't find it right away (Look...Read the page...Look...Read the logs...Look...Read the hint).

I DNFed the last cache I looked for on a successful day Friday...I read the page and I think I read the logs, but never worked my way to the hint...and it was a give-away hint too so I'm sure we would have made the grab had I read it...Oh well.

 

So no, I don't always read the page, especially for P&Gs, but if I'm in a cool location I will almost always read it before I look around.

 

I will say though, the more caches I get under my belt, the more I'm reading the pages before I even press 'go' on the Colorado...getting to the, "When you've seen one, you've seen them all" point with certain hides so I'm trying to weed them out before waste the gas. (I may have to try that 'filter by average log length' thing eventually)

[+Nick_Scots]

Well looks like I thought, that not al people read the descriptions, first.

 

I own a cache that says to dig a few inches under a standing stone to find the cache,lots of users don't dig down.

 

Ta for readinmg my post.

 

Nick

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Well looks like I thought, that not al people read the descriptions, first.

 

I own a cache that says to dig a few inches under a standing stone to find the cache,lots of users don't dig down.

 

Ta for readinmg my post.

 

Nick

Dig? Dig? Under a standing stone? Did I REALLY just read what you wrote?

 

Whether you realize it or not, you have just opened a CAN OF WORMS!

 

Enuf said, for it has all been said ten thousand times before! Meanwhile, you may wish to re-read the cache placement guidelines, carefully.

[+succotash]

Nick Scots, if the cachers actually have to dig for it that would violate the guidelines.

 

We always read the cache pages. We try to put useful or interesting information on our cache pages and find that most cache owners of the caches we seek do the same. Some cache owners really put a lot of effort into their cache pages and that's part of the whole shared caching experience. (Sometimes we do neglect to read through all the log entries and miss something important like "posted coords are 150' off" or other important information for caches where the owners don't maintain their pages!)

 

Edit: It took so long for me to compose this small post that I didn't realize Vinny addressed the whole "dig" thing 15 minutes ago...

 

Bean

Edited October 19, 2008 by succotash

[+ArtieD]

I always read the cache page in case it contains valuable information for finding the cache.

 

I wish more people would read the cache page themselves. We have specific rules about our home cache and there's a few people who obviously did not read the page to find out what they should and should not do. One person would have destroyed my cache had I not been there to remind him of the rules.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I usually try to read many of the listings for an area in which I'll be caching but it's just not realistic to read every cache listing I might potentially look for. Pretty much all of my caching outings lately involve driving 20 miles or so to an area where there are a cluster of caches then tying to find 8-10 or so before driving 20 miles back home. I might pick 2-3 that where I read the description before leaving but for others in the area I rely on the D/T and cache size info that I download to my GPS using GSAK and I have a complete copy of the listings of every cache in my GPS on my Blackberry that I might only read once I get to a cache location.

[+ladyleo191]

I do indeed read the description before I hunt a cache. I wish everyone did. My first hide is a perfect example.

 

It clearly states in the description that the cache is on private property and the landowner requested no nighttime hunts. There is also a caveat about respect for the man's property.

 

So...what happens? The FTF happened after 10 pm! And another cacher...who for some reason decided not to park and walk from the very obvious driveway...drove across the man's land to retrieve the cache! Just one more incident and I'm going to archive a kid-friendly, pet-friendly rural cache that isn't just another Micro.

 

I have 3 more caches ready to place, but I haven't figured out a way to require the cache page to be read, so I probably won't hide them. I think technology is great and being able to download coordinates without looking at the cache page certainly makes it easier, but sometimes, the old-fashioned way is necessary.

[+SimbaJamey]

I've been thinking about this from the hider perspective as of late.

As my cache hides become increasingly evil, I've started to think that sometimes the instructions should be in the cache name, "Do Not Dig" or, "Don't Move the Rocks" or, "Out in the Open" or something to that affect if it's a sensitive type area or a difficult find.

[+Printess Caroline]

Well looks like I thought, that not al people read the descriptions, first.

 

I own a cache that says to dig a few inches under a standing stone to find the cache,lots of users don't dig down.

 

Ta for readinmg my post.

 

Nick

 

How ironic! Here you are upset that people aren't reading your description and you haven't done your required reading. Perhaps the cachers who don't read the descriptions are the reason that you have anyone search for your cache at all. Certainly, I would immediately weed a cache with such a direction out of my caching itinerary.

[+succotash]

ladyleo191, you may want to consider whether some of your planned hides can be made into puzzles, offsets, multis - something that will make it more likely to ensure the cacher knows they should read the cache page first.

 

If you have avid FTFers in your area, you can also ask the assistance of your reviewer to hold a cache for morning/daytime release, if possible. Our reviewer had the forethought to do that for us on a cache we placed at an Audubon sanctuary, and he was wise because the FTF occurred as soon as the gates opened that morning! Although we have an avid FTF community in our area (not us!), they do seem to be quite conscientious in following the warnings on cache pages.

[+ladyleo191]

Succotash, thanks for the tip about holding the publishing. I wouldn't have thought of that since I didn't know the reviewers were able to do things like that.

 

As for the puzzle or multi, I was kicking that idea around.

 

Thanks again.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I usually try to read many of the listings for an area in which I'll be caching but it's just not realistic to read every cache listing I might potentially look for. Pretty much all of my caching outings lately involve driving 20 miles or so to an area where there are a cluster of caches then tying to find 8-10 or so before driving 20 miles back home. I might pick 2-3 that where I read the description before leaving but for others in the area I rely on the D/T and cache size info that I download to my GPS using GSAK and I have a complete copy of the listings of every cache in my GPS on my Blackberry that I might only read once I get to a cache location.

 

Not realistic??

 

When making a recipe, do you read that recipe first? When driving to a hard-to-find location, do you read maps first (well, maybe not now that we all have mapping, but then, do you read the instructions/map info first)?

 

People go through the trouble to write up the cache, but it's not realistic to read them all?

 

Back to the buried cache the OP is complaining no one reads the listing for...it doesn't say dig in the listing (or I'd be willing to bet you'd have had a problem publishing the cache), does it? I read it and saw it said something close to dig, but was a bit vague (on purpose maybe??). If you need a shovel or pointy object to find this cache, it isn't within guidelines and should be brought to follow the guidelines. Having a cache which is buried is a BIG nono. Seeing one of the searchers mentioned they'd come back (or might or whatever) with a shovel sends up red flags IMHO.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+Star*Hopper]

I read your post title & first thought was : "Forum Noob".

 

I read your post's content & first thought was : "Geocaching Noob".

 

I read your followup response:

"Well looks like I thought, that not al (sic) people read the descriptions, first.

I own a cache that says to dig a few inches under a standing stone to find the cache,(spacing; sic)lots of users don't dig down.

Ta (sic)for readinmg(sic) my post."

 

And my first thought (re bolded part) was, "DIG?!?!? D00D!!!!" NO you DID-INT!!!!!

 

And soooo many other of the responses came to mind.....chief among them: " ...like a 2nd grade drop-out "; but mostly, your references to your instructions to "DIG". (sick) (sick) (sick)

 

Soooooo.....

Let's suggest a new topic for you:

 

Vice

"Come on then, how many of you just download data and don't actually read the descriptions by the cache owners ?,

 

let's go with

"Come on then, how many of you just downupload data and don't actually read the descriptionsguidelines by the cache game owners ?

 

FIFY!!,

~*

[+Printess Caroline]

Nick Scots, I just took the time to read a couple of your cache descriptions. Being a cacher who always reads the description and makes her judgement on whether or not to do a cache at least partially on that description, I would probably not do the two I read unless I saw some amazing pictures of the location or read an awesome log. It seemed to me that your descriptions told me right where to find the cache. I consider it my job as the finder to figure that out. If I did see the pictures and logs that would entice me to search for your cache, I would actually try to ignore your description.

[+DanOCan]

It depends.

 

If I am planning a cache run I'll typically read the descriptions to weed out caches that don't sound interesting. If I happen to be passing a cache and I have a few minutes to try for the find I'll go in armed with only the Name, Type, Size, Difficulty, Terrain, Hint, and results of the last four logs.

[+The Leprechauns]

I'll also say "It depends." If I'm hiking more than 500 feet from the car, or for a cache with high difficulty and/or terrain, or for a cache other than a traditional cache, I'll certainly read the description. I have all the caches on my laptop with me in the cachemobile.

 

But at other times, I'm interested in just driving around and finding so-called "park and grabs." These can get boring after awhile. To make it more challenging, I use the GPS to navigate to the posted coordinates. Then I leave the GPS in the car and hunt for the cache, without knowing anything except the cache type, size and star ratings. If I get stumped, or if I'm at a non-standard place for geocaching, I'll then look at the cache page for help.

 

On my best day of caching in this manner, I found 72 caches on a long drive through four rural counties. I made it fun.

[+Kohavis]

Now I always read the description. I've been "DNF-ed" too many times in the past because I didn't read it

[+DiamondDaveG]

I fully read most of the descriptions and skim a few (obvious LPCs) but every one is checked for additional info that would be helpful.

 

I also read the most recent log notes and sometimes expand it to all the log notes. A lot of times you can gain additional information that doesn't take away from the hunt but assists in making the hunt a little easier.

[+Rev Mike]

TOO MANY people don't bother reading the cache pages.

 

I can think of one of mine in particular that I made very clear "you should follow the stream bed the entire way"... I believe I made mention of it about three times in the listing.

 

This was the log from the second finder:

 

Nice easy cache my as..... I did this cache I received my first geocaching injury. I was doing some local Behrend caches when I got the Stumblin cache, I then looked at my GPS unit and saw that the first stage of this was less than .10 mile from where I was. Plus the creek was right there too. Totally unprepared, khaki shorts, polo shirt, sneakers (my nice ones), and no flashlight (didn't see why we needed this during the day), I was off. Found stage one fine then found stage two, this is where boglemans story and mine change, unlike him I took on the challenge of tackiling the 4.5-5 terrian difficulty. After a lengthy climb (dumbass me) the unit then pointed down the gorge. Here we go. I slid down down down, then i slipped and we were off sliding down the gorge, not to bad, tree to hold on to, grab it and get a tree burn, blood everywhere. Got back to the creek, found the cache on the other side of where I was and saw the telephone, too tired and sore to write down those coords, so I signed the log and kissed the container and rehid it. Even though this is in a creek I advise not to take little kids. Oh by the way TFTC! It was fun!

 

This is what he climbed up and then went down...

 

 

That is not the only time someone not reading the page has resulted in something like that with one of my caches but it was the first thing to come to mind while reading this topic.

 

- Rev Mike

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I usually try to read many of the listings for an area in which I'll be caching but it's just not realistic to read every cache listing I might potentially look for. Pretty much all of my caching outings lately involve driving 20 miles or so to an area where there are a cluster of caches then tying to find 8-10 or so before driving 20 miles back home. I might pick 2-3 that where I read the description before leaving but for others in the area I rely on the D/T and cache size info that I download to my GPS using GSAK and I have a complete copy of the listings of every cache in my GPS on my Blackberry that I might only read once I get to a cache location.

 

Not realistic??

 

When making a recipe, do you read that recipe first? When driving to a hard-to-find location, do you read maps first (well, maybe not now that we all have mapping, but then, do you read the instructions/map info first)?

 

People go through the trouble to write up the cache, but it's not realistic to read them all?

 

 

No, I don't think it is. It's really not that unusual for me to go out cache and not know exactly which caches I am going actually look for. As I said, most of the time when I go geocaching I am driving 20 or so miles (or flying across the country as in the case of last weekend) to an area that I may not have done any geocaching before. As of this morning I have found every cache within 14 miles from home so I'm usually going to another small town where there may be a concentration of 30-100 caches that I might potentially look for depend on which way my route takes me.

 

In the case of last weekend I had downloaded a PQ with 500 caches that covered a radius of probably less than 10 miles and only because I changed my flight after I arrived for my trip home was I able to spend the day geocaching instead of just a couple of hours. I picked out a few that I wanted to hit the night before (after spending the entire day at a meeting at Google) but for the most part I only had a general idea of which caches I might actually hit. As it turned out, I ended up downloading a second set of PQs near SFO airport and grabbed a couple before I got to the airport. So yes, I think it's unrealistic to expect that everyone is going to ready every cache listing before leaving home (or even a hotel) and as I wrote I *do* have complete listings for every cache in my GPS on my Blackberry. If I encounter a cache that looks like it might be on private property (as I did in one case last weekend) I can check my Blackberry while near the cache site and read the entire listing when I need it.

[+Mother Wolf]

I am a reader. The 1st thing to draw me to the cache is the title. Then the CO. I read every cache page for the caches Im going to look for. Thats 1/2 the fun. I also read many if not most of the logs. I have gotten vital info from them alone.

 

From there it just gets more insane. I dont download anything.

after I choose the caches that I want I write it in my little log bk. w/ coords, type & rating. I also add any special notes I have. I have a hand drawn map (actually several) of different sections of the countries. I divided up the map based on N-695, S-50, E-Rt2 to the bay, W-Rt2 to 95. Then there is west of 95 & south of 50 & lastly Eastern Shore. It obviously takes more time than just DL coords but its part of my enjoyment along with the reading the cache page.

 

I, too, have gotten emails from cachers because they couldnt find the cache because of this or that when on the cache page almost the 1st sentence is 'YOU MUST READ THE ENTIRE PAGE' plus other references through the page to be sure to read all of this.

 

If you are going to hunt someones cache why not read what they have written. It seems like the nice thing to do if they have taken the time to write something. Just MHO.

[+Star*Hopper]

Wellllllllllllll........to tell da troof, I'm one who does read 'em. Several others have mentioned the benefits.

 

AND, I have a way about my hides....90% of 'em, I give clues in the descriptions. The other 10% are simple ones, & don't need such. I also make a point when some contact me for a hint, & most ASSUREDLY when their question has already been answered, they're told if they'd read the description they would see the clues....and that's all they get.

 

And that's my way of ensuring folks read my descriptions - doing so, & 'putting the clues together' (most times by things that become apparent once you're on site) makes it easier to find. However, if NOT reading is the path you choose, then that's the path you'll walk, dag-nab it!

 

It's like, ya know, some people who won't read assembly instructions? Thinking they're so smart they can figure it out on their own?

I let 'em.

 

~*

[Vik&Mäh]

My husband and I are noobs at this, but after our 4th find we vowed never to skim over the description again!

 

The description in question was very long and told the story of why the cacher hid something in the place he did. It was a detailed 3rd person account of his journey and method and I kind of lost interest...

 

The hint was something like 'when you've found the white cross, look 30cm up'. We found the cross easily enough, which was at head height but it was carved into solid, sheer rock. My husband tried scrambling up the rockface, only to fall down a few times, but there were no crevices, nothing! Tired, muddy and in a bad mood we were about to give up when I read the description and realised that when we got to the white cross, we should look at the rock face directly opposite! The cache was 30cm up from the ground, not the cross and we found it in about 5 seconds after we were facing in the right direction! How silly..

 

So yes, now we always read the description...

[+Star*Hopper]

My husband and I are noobs at this, but after our 4th find we vowed never to skim over the description again!

 

The description in question was very long and told the story of why the cacher hid something in the place he did. It was a detailed 3rd person account of his journey and method and I kind of lost interest...

 

The hint was something like 'when you've found the white cross, look 30cm up'. We found the cross easily enough, which was at head height but it was carved into solid, sheer rock. My husband tried scrambling up the rockface, only to fall down a few times, but there were no crevices, nothing! Tired, muddy and in a bad mood we were about to give up when I read the description and realised that when we got to the white cross, we should look at the rock face directly opposite! The cache was 30cm up from the ground, not the cross and we found it in about 5 seconds after we were facing in the right direction! How silly..

 

So yes, now we always read the description...

 

There ya go -- PERFECT example!!

 

Not that it couldn't be found without the additional knowledge....just that using what's provided can make it a whole lot easier.

 

Brings to mind the saying, "Life is hard. It's lots harder if you're dumb."

~*

[+briansnat]

Most of the time I just download the waypoints and go. Just going by the coords is getting back to the basics of geocaching.

 

I cache paperless, so if I encounter trouble in the field with the cache I may read the description, but usually just go right to the hint.

 

Usually I don't get to read the description until I log the cache

[+Hobo2]

Come on then, how many of you just download data and don't actually read the descriptions by the cache owners ?

 

Nick

Particularly with the advent of so-called "paperless caching", which often seems to me, in many cases -- at least in the case of high Difficulty-rating and/or high Terrain-rating caches -- to be a euphemism for "brainless caching", it is my impression that the vast majority of cachers no longer read cache listing descriptions, even when the Difficulty or Terrain ratings, or both, are high enough to suggest that reading the cache listing description might be very prudent. Since I primarily place extreme terrain caches, and since I kinda prefer that geocachers hunting my caches not end up killing themselves by doing stupid things, and since I invest a LOT of time and energy in posting sufficient caveats and warnings regarding terrain difficulties and hazards on my cache listing pages, this "failure to read descriptions" has long been of concern to me, and I have found a number of ways to largely manage the situation.

 

I also have one or two very funny and bizarre tales of shenanigans that I have observed at the sites of some of my extreme caches due to failure by cachers to read the cache listing description. I have reiterated in past posts on this forum the various means that I employ to foil those who try to avoid reading the cache listing page, and I have also told in past posts some of my tales of the crazy antics of those who failed to read my cache descriptions.

 

An idea for making sure people read your cache page before going, is to put a short warning "first" in the hint section. This way even if they just load the cache before checking the cache page first, they might see the warning early enough to prevent trouble.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Hobo2

[+wapahani]

I write the description for a reason, not for my gain.

Most of my caches have hints in there, or tell you how to go about getting the cache.

 

Sometimes the info is everything and will lead you to a quick find on a otherwise tougher cache.

 

its all in the details my friend.

[+Muddy Dawgs]

Yes, going paperless may be expeditious and may add adventure to your caching. However, not reading or ignoring important information on cache pages can give geocaching a bad name and result in many great areas for caching being placed off limits.

 

I'll admit that some cache pages have lame descriptions, but many cache pages have warnings such as no night caching, do not enter from the west (or whatever direction) as you will be on private property, no caching during school hours, park at these coordinates, trailhead is located at these coordinates, stay on the trail until you are within 100 feet, etc.

 

It doesn't take many times for such guidelines to be ignored before a great cache or caching location gets the axe. Many caches are placed with permission based on some of these guidelines. Don't ruin the fun for others by ignoring/not reading that information on the cache pages.

[Skippermark]

I usually plan caches runs a week in advance, so while I'm looking for caches to do, I always read the descriptions. That's what helps us determine if we want to find it or not.

 

If we decide to find a cache along the way that wasn't on "the list," we'll usually read the description. If the description is long, like many paragraphs, I'll usually browse it rather than read it word for word.

[+Okiebryan]

Particularly with the advent of so-called "paperless caching", which often seems to me, in many cases -- at least in the case of high Difficulty-rating and/or high Terrain-rating caches -- to be a euphemism for "brainless caching", it is my impression that the vast majority of cachers no longer read cache listing descriptions, even when the Difficulty or Terrain ratings, or both, are high enough to suggest that reading the cache listing description might be very prudent....

Vinny, Vinny, Vinny.... Paperless caching does not equal blind caching. Paperless caching is loading cache pages into a handheld device so that you have the needed information at your fingertips while out in the field.

 

Please don't confuse others about what paperless caching is, or more accurately, what it ISN'T.

 

I love paperless caching, I have the cache pae of every cache in my state loaded in my Palm, and update the database weekly, at a minimum. It stays in my pocket, unless I'm about to attempt something that could be risky, then I put it back in the car for safekeeping.

[Mushtang]

Just going by the coords is getting back to the basics of geocaching.

That's a load of B S.

[Skippermark]

On a related note, a couple weeks ago, I posted a note in another forum where I thanked people for putting some thought into their descriptions.

 

We've seen lots of descriptions that say something like, "Hidden on Main St." or "Found on my way home from work." That's it. That's the whole cache description.

 

The thing is the cache may bring you to some place cool, like an old mill or something. I don't want to read a book-length description, but if there was a little info that told about the mill, that would be cool.

 

I realize that not all caches warrant a lot of info, but a little something about the cache or the area is nice. Even for a quick park and grab at a roadside pull over. It could be "Cache is located at a roadside pull over. It's a busy spot near a pretty stream where you are likely to see people fishing all year long."

[+sataraid1]

If I'm going to pull 40-50 caches for an area I might be covering, I'm not going to take the time to read each and every description. Generally, if I get to ground zero and something seems off or amiss, I will read the description on my iPod.

 

I fail to see why reading the description at home is cool, but reading it in the field in paperless mode is "brainless."

 

An idea for making sure people read your cache page before going, is to put a short warning "first" in the hint section. This way even if they just load the cache before checking the cache page first, they might see the warning early enough to prevent trouble.

 

This. If you want people to get in the habit of reading your descriptions, make them useful and put all relevant information at the top in the short description. Then write your great american novel. There's nothing more frustrating out in the field than scrolling through pages and pages of stuff, only to find the description is truncated due to its length and the owner has failed to say ANYTHING about the hide itself.

 

As far as I'm concerned, unless the hide is an offset, puzzle, multi, or virtual, 90% of cache descriptions are superfluous. A good description can enhance a hide, but the hide shouldn't have to rely on it to be successful.

 

Show me, don't tell me.

[+wimseyguy]

Add me to the it depends group. I recently started downloading the data to an Ipod nano so I can carry it wherever I may be headed. If it is a traditional cache less than .25 miles from parking I'm likely to just head off down the trail or across the field or parking lot with nothing in hand/pocket except the GPS and nano.

 

But if I need to read the page after an appropriate search time, I have it right there in my pocket. If it is a multi or puzzle I'll read it right away though, and often base my decision to hunt the cache based on the reading.

 

I do tend to read the well written cache pages during my logging sessions though.

[+Kealia]

I read them all before heading for a cache.

 

A lot of pages contain great information about the area, history, etc. that wouldn't be the same to know after-the-fact.

 

Sometimes there's advice on when the cache is available, how NOT to approach, etc.

 

It's also how many caches end up my ignore list.

[+DanOCan]

I'll admit that some cache pages have lame descriptions, but many cache pages have warnings such as no night caching, do not enter from the west (or whatever direction) as you will be on private property, no caching during school hours, park at these coordinates, trailhead is located at these coordinates, stay on the trail until you are within 100 feet, etc.

 

A lot of that information should be captured as childl waypoints as well as in the description. That way, even if someone hasn't read the cache page, they have a chance of seeing the Trailhead or Parking coordinates on their GPS out in the field.

 

Too many cache owners want people to approach and find their cache in a certain way and then don't use the tools available to provide that information to the seekers.