Jump to content

looooooooooooooooooong descriptions


DavidMac

Recommended Posts

Well, it happened to us again... we were out caching and had plans to do a very interesting earthcache that gave us a tour of an informative and entertaining museum, followed by a visit to a fascinating site several miles away. Arriving at the first stop, we pulled out the Nuvi and brought up the cache description to see what the requirements were.

 

A problem immediately became apparent. We scrolled down through pages and pages of text (which we had read before- we just wanted to refresh our memory as to what the exact questions were), and realized that because the description was so long, the questions at the end of the text had been

 

:laughing:

 

We were able to figure out the answers by taking pictures of several plaques, one of which thankfully contained the info we needed. But this isn't the first time this has happened to us, and I've even had to forgo searching for more than one earthcache because the descriptions are too long to fit into my paperless device.

 

I realize that earthcaches are supposed to be educational. I think that sometimes the more enlightening, the better. But please, try to keep it concise and on topic. Or put your questions closer to the front so that we can get to them more easily in the field.

 

Yeah, I know, it's a technical limitation and it's probably my fault for not being more prepared. However, it seems that some earthcache hiders have the idea that their descriptions have to be as informative as possible, therefore they max them out to the character limit with material copied and pasted from Wikipedia or other websites, even if the material is only distantly related to the actual site. For example, a cache at a waterfall may have pages of text describing *other types* of waterfalls, not just the type here, then several more pages on stream ecology and other topics that are only distantly related in that they are vaguely concerned with rivers. Sure that's interesting, but is it really relevant to why you wanted to show me *this* particular spot?

 

Am I the only one who thinks that some descriptions are just a little bit too wordy? Should hiders be encouraged to keep their material concise and readable rather than just throwing in every reference they come across? Am I the only one who's been turned off from seeking an earthcache because of an overly long description that seems more like a rambling wiki page than relevant background info that will help me get something out of my visit to the site?

Link to comment

You may or may not be the only one who is turned off from finding ECs but ECs are not your typical geocache.

We are sorry that you feel that way but two points come to mind. First, EarthCaches are not your average guardrail micro and the whole intent of visiting an EC is to learn from the experience. The geological implications of the EC need to be explained fully.

Second, there are other methods of recording the pertinent cache information without the limitations that your devise presents. We use a pda which gives every bit of what was written on the cache page. It also gives a ready method of recording those darn answers! When in doubt, you can always use the time honored method of printing the cache page and writing the answers on it. :laughing:

 

P.S. edited for another spelling error!

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge
Link to comment

My descriptions are usually tooo wordy. It's the science teacher in me.

 

I try to help out by having the information you really need to know in the first paragraph. I know that some storage programs clip off unusually long pages, and I don't want anyone to miss out on just what they need to know.

 

I think it's a good compromise.

Link to comment

I forget about page length or word counts and only stop when I have said everything I need to say so that the visitor gets a clear understanding of the subject at hand. Sorry, its the geologist in me.

However, I am always open to an e-mail that says "blá, blá, blá...windows error...... blá, blá, bla but we found this and this and this. Will you allow the find?". If I feel that the lesson has been learned you can count on a +1 in your tally.

Link to comment

Yeah I also think it'd be great if the requirements to log the earthcache were in that first paragraph. I don't mind reading all the information the cache owner provides, it's just a pain in the rear to have to scroll back through it everytime we need to look back at the questions. And then you never know when it will be truncated...

Link to comment

With the increasing prevalence of cachers using single unit paperless solutions (ie, Oregon, Colorado, PN series, with more on the way), buttrflybec's idea might not be a bad one...while not necessarily always in the first paragraph, perhaps in the first three or so. Since these units also offer a self-contained opportunity to record your answers (using their found/field notes capabilities), it seems rather pointless, and indeed perhaps detrimental to attracting incoming cachers (many of which will be equipped with these units) to this type of hide, to construct cache pages that in essence force folks to equip themselves with either another device (PDA, Nuvi, iPod, smartphone, etc) or the less enviro-friendly paper copy.

 

Such a rearrangement does not dilute the educational offering of the page - the information is still there. For those folks who might be inclined to skip over that info - the current traditional arrangement can be just as easily skimmed and ignored when viewed on paper or on the web.

Link to comment

Yeah I also think it'd be great if the requirements to log the earthcache were in that first paragraph. I don't mind reading all the information the cache owner provides, it's just a pain in the rear to have to scroll back through it everytime we need to look back at the questions. And then you never know when it will be truncated...

 

I have no problem with the above expressed ideas, but you folks need to become familiar with the Submittal Form. This is the form where you type up your purposed EC and send it along it's way to Geoaware and then pray! This form determines how and in what order that an EC is constructed on paper or in this case electronically.

The first paragraph of said form allows only 255 characters and it is to be utilized for a "Short Description"!

This usually, while not always, involves a short set of directions to the EC. Two sentences at most and that includes html code.

After you have submitted an EC or two, you soon learn that 255 characters doesn't cover much.

The second section (paragraphs) of the Form, while allowing 8000 characters, is supposed to be used for Educational Information defined as: "Details about the EarthCache: Thorough educational explanation of the feature or site: earth science, formation, interesting facts, links to other nearby sites, geosciences historical information, stories/legends, fossil record, etc.."

Admittedly, this is where it can get a little wordy. After all, while 255 characters doesn't do much, you can go gang busters with 8000!

Some people like to be wordy and are more interested in reading their own writing than communication but I don't think that applies to most EC owners, geologists or not. Enthusiasm on the part of the EC developer probably explains most.

Even though it might look a little awkward, I would have no big problem with the proposed changes but as an individual EC developer, I /we are limited.

The bottom line is this: Geoaware would have to make the change in the form for future ECs. I know that the most important aspect of an EC is not just another smiley but is the educational experience as Geoaware has often expressed, so I am not sure he would want a EC description to lead off with the question requirements! But I certainly would not want to speak for him. :ph34r:

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge
Link to comment

Interesting...looking at the form, its accompanying instructions and the submittal guidelines, there don't appear to be any specific directions regarding where the questions should appear. But if it is truly Geoaware's intent to have the questions always appear at the end, no big deal...but it still may be a good idea to take some consideration of page length, or some similar tact to keep the questions a bit more accessible.

Link to comment

In our opinion a developer should use the words they need to describe the site so people visiting have a great learning experience. If you can do that briefly then great. If it takes the whole form, then great.

 

If we have any concern its the ECs that contains a pile of irrelevant information (mostly cut and pasted from a website) that really does not add to the educational experience. Likewise, we are never happy to see the same information used over and over and over again with just the coordinates changed - such as what we have seen with river gauging stations, waterfalls, hot springs...

Link to comment
Likewise, we are never happy to see the same information used over and over and over again with just the coordinates changed - such as what we have seen with river gauging stations, waterfalls, hot springs...

 

I agree wholeheartedly on this point...This is why I don't look at other folks work before creating an EC...I want it to be original. I had one fellow ask to borrow "some" of my page text for his listing I agreed...the only thing he changed were the coords and about 5 lines of original thought. I was pretty miffed about it. But getting back on topic, I feel guilty if I make a too short listing but then I have always been guilty of using 10 words when 5 words would suffice.

Link to comment

I do not need to know the entire geological history of the world! And that's what some of the EarthCaches seem to be giving me.

I need to know why you are bringing me to this point. What is so interesting about this place. The explanation of what it is that you are showing me. And the questions that I must answer/photographs that I must take.

My sister is very interested in EarthCaches, so we have bookmarked a number of them along our route for our upcoming vacation.

Andy Bear and I are working with a Palm Pilot. (Since he's a bear, we call it the Paw, but that is irrelevant.) And that is what we have to work with. I do not know what limits the Paw has. (It does not have an expansion port, so we are limited.) When we upload the nearest 500 caches, there are always a few (seldom more than three) that are too long, and are cut off. One of them is an EarthCache. Quite frankly, we ignore anything that is that long! Probably, my sister's equipment will upload the entire description. Dunno yet.

If you want to tell the entire geological history of the world, feel free to do so! But, it is not really necessary. And we will not be searching for it! Common sense should tell you to keep it short enough that most cachers using a PDA will have all the necessary information. I cannot think of any reason why anyone feels the need to have such verbose EarthCache Pages. (The other ones that get cut off are five stage multi-caches describing the Revolutionary War battles in Brooklyn and Staten Island. And one mystery cache.)

The point I am trying to make is that it is seldom necessary to go into such long details that our Paw will cut them off. So show some consideration to your fellow cachers.

Link to comment

I wholeheartedly agree that earth caches are entirely too long. I have been trying to get an EC published for 3 weeks, the problem, the administrator thinks I need more info. I already have too much in my opinion. I too am a teacher and I know the research on this. People do not want or need 5 pages of info to read because they won't read it. There are times when more information might be warranted, especially if the questions are from the info. However, there are caches that need less information and just let cachers find and observe some of the spectacular works of nature. Some are unusual in nature and that is why we desire to make them a cache. Most people that do earth caches are already well educated on most cache topics. I myself do the caches to visit the actual cache and admire it for its features, area, etc...not how much internet info they have for me to read.

 

Personally I skip most of the info and go directly to the questions. If I wanted a lesson on the topic and had to answer questions from the info, I would just do that, I would not hunt ECs. I think it makes people feel like they are doing us a favor and must educate folks before they can obviously gleam any value from the cache. This is totally untrue, caches are aesthetic in nature, why can't you enjoy the beauty and majesty of the cache.

 

All we as cachers need is a basic lesson on the cache topic...not a full semester. Give us some credit.

Edited by Bossmyers
Link to comment

I wholeheartedly agree that earth caches are entirely too long. I have been trying to get an EC published for 3 weeks, the problem, the administrator thinks I need more info. I already have too much in my opinion. I too am a teacher and I know the research on this. People do not want or need 5 pages of info to read because they won't read it. There are times when more information might be warranted, especially if the questions are from the info. However, there are caches that need less information and just let cachers find and observe some of the spectacular works of nature. Some are unusual in nature and that is why we desire to make them a cache. Most people that do earth caches are already well educated on most cache topics. I myself do the caches to visit the actual cache and admire it for its features, area, etc...not how much internet info they have for me to read.

 

Personally I skip most of the info and go directly to the questions. If I wanted a lesson on the topic and had to answer questions from the info, I would just do that, I would not hunt ECs. I think it makes people feel like they are doing us a favor and must educate folks before they can obviously gleam any value from the cache. This is totally untrue, caches are aesthetic in nature, why can't you enjoy the beauty and majesty of the cache.

 

All we as cachers need is a basic lesson on the cache topic...not a full semester. Give us some credit.

 

I am glad somebody finally said that. You folks who want this or that don't know what you talkin about because you have got no earthcaches! It's very easy to say that questions ought to be here or there and the dang page shorter because you never done it! The people who approve earthcaches make the pages longer because they are always asking for more information. I've got a lot of friends who do earthcaches and they are always sayin the same thing happens to them. The approvers say, "you need more geological information." I seems like the shortening of the page should begin there.

Another thing, you people want us to change how earthcaches are written up just 'cause you use different equipment to record the cache page? Why didn't you check that out before buying? There are a lot of ways to take the page with you and you went the wrong way. It aint the earthcaches fault, its yours.

Edited by mtmanva2
Link to comment

I do not use anything but a GPS. I print off the EC I want to find, and yes I have been trying to get an EC published, but I am constantly being ask for more information. I have included enough information to help the cacher. I don't want to give them a passel of information they are not going to read. I know from my own experience more is not better. I just know that many people get very discouraged when trying to get an Ec published and you are constantly ask for more information, but they don't explain what they want. It's like playing a guessing game for weeks and personally I don't have time for all that. I spent a long drive and time trying to develop what seemed like a great EC. SoI finally quit because I did not know what the reviewer wanted.

Edited by Bossmyers
Link to comment

At NO stage do we ask any developer to write pages of earth science information. What we ask is that the focus of the EC be on Earth science...and that should be able to be explained in a few paragraphs (tops) for any site. Too often we get submissions that have almost no earth science. Our request to 'add some more geology' is really a plea to make the focus on Earth science (as needed to meet EC guideline 1)....it is really not cause we want pages and paged of text.

 

The trend to have a full semester of Geology 101 lessons in the EC text was not started or encouraged by us as EC approvers. We like seeing brief submissions that provide the user the information they need to enjoy the site and learn something. A page of 'cut and paste' from a website of irrelevant information often adds nothing.

Link to comment

I've noticed you have approved several earthcaches with only one "sentence" of very brief earth science information. Check out GC1Q5Y9. :P

 

This is whats mentioned.

 

Schaefferstown Spring issues from the limestone conglomerate of the Hammer Creek Formation (Triassic age). The yield is usually less than 10 gallons per minute.

 

Yep folks, thats all the geological information you will read on that earthcache :D .

 

At NO stage do we ask any developer to write pages of earth science information. What we ask is that the focus of the EC be on Earth science...and that should be able to be explained in a few paragraphs (tops) for any site. Too often we get submissions that have almost no earth science. Our request to 'add some more geology' is really a plea to make the focus on Earth science (as needed to meet EC guideline 1)....it is really not cause we want pages and paged of text.

 

The trend to have a full semester of Geology 101 lessons in the EC text was not started or encouraged by us as EC approvers. We like seeing brief submissions that provide the user the information they need to enjoy the site and learn something. A page of 'cut and paste' from a website of irrelevant information often adds nothing.

Link to comment

Why should the onus be on the EC developer to create lighter pages when it is really a hardware limitation imposed by the manufacturers of electronic gizmos?

Pages are as long as they need to be. If they're too long and have unnecessary information then we have Geoaware filters.

 

One of my pet hates is why Garmin makes top end GPS's that limit the amount of waypoints to 1000? Surely it is simple enough to increase that 10 fold :P

Link to comment

Curious. Using .GPX files, GSAK and PoiLoader, I can load over 10000 waypoints on my Garmin.

But, my point was that if you create a cache page that is too long for my Palm, I will probably never hunt for it. That is, of course, your prerogative. But keeping the page within limits makes it available to all.

Link to comment

Why should the onus be on the EC developer to create lighter pages when it is really a hardware limitation imposed by the manufacturers of electronic gizmos?

Pages are as long as they need to be. If they're too long and have unnecessary information then we have Geoaware filters.

 

One of my pet hates is why Garmin makes top end GPS's that limit the amount of waypoints to 1000? Surely it is simple enough to increase that 10 fold :D

 

I couldn't agree more. If the "I have to have the latest techno gizmo" people don't check things out before purchase who's problem is that? Should we all be going back and deleting material from our cache pages and/or Geoaware rearranging the cache pages to start with questions that would make the cache page look horrible? Maybe so but why?

Maybe Garmin should check with the real World instead of rushing a product to market just to marry a new form of geocaching to the new gizmo?

For those of you whom have all of the wonderful ideas, try walking in a developers shoes first!

P.S. I too would like shorter pages but maybe, mistakenly, I thought I was giving what Geoaware wanted! Sometimes sandstone is just that, sandstone. :P

Link to comment

Couple of things here. First, the number of waypoints available on a given paperless GPSr unit is really not at issue here - be it 500, 1000, or unlimited. The number of waypoints typically falls under different hardware/software restrictions than does the number of characters allowed for a given waypoint...so the argument again focuses on the size of an individual file, not the aggregate number of files.

 

Second...this game/sport/hobby grows both by the addition of people/participants as well as by the increase in the number of caches available. With regard to the former, many of those newcomers are choosing to acquire one of the newer entrants, most of whom are paperless units (seeking economy of use in the field)...indeed, there is also a significant trend among more "seasoned" users to go with such a unit as they upgrade/replace their existing equipment. In such times of change and growth, it may be wise to try to embrace and accomodate such changes in practice in order to further enable the long-term growth of the hobby. Indeed, this very discussion has given pause to rethink some features of cache pages we've written for other types of caches, and to try and determine ways to make them perhaps a bit more "field friendly". To each his own, however.

Link to comment

I've noticed you have approved several earthcaches with only one "sentence" of very brief earth science information. Check out GC1Q5Y9. :P

 

This is whats mentioned.

 

Schaefferstown Spring issues from the limestone conglomerate of the Hammer Creek Formation (Triassic age). The yield is usually less than 10 gallons per minute.

 

Yep folks, thats all the geological information you will read on that earthcache :D .

 

 

Sounds fine to me. Those two sentences contain 4 or more geological facts, and I'm more likely to share that with the co-finders when i read the description out than 2 pages of wikipedia-copied stuff. Earth science leaves me cold, but I have learnt some interesting facts about geology while doing ECs...but I'm more likely to do that through well crafted questions on site than pages of waffle.

Edited by Maingray
Link to comment

Curious. Using .GPX files, GSAK and PoiLoader, I can load over 10000 waypoints on my Garmin.

But, my point was that if you create a cache page that is too long for my Palm, I will probably never hunt for it. That is, of course, your prerogative. But keeping the page within limits makes it available to all.

 

As POI's I once had 22000+ points on my 60CSX but that not what we're talking about here. You cannot mark more than 1000 wpts.

Anyway. Your comment leads on to another never ending story. Your palm will have a limitation of x characters or x lines or whatever. The other guy's other make PDA will have a different limit and so on and so on.

Who do you please?

Link to comment

I have had that problem myself before.

 

There were a couple of times when I was trying EarthCaches (all by the same person) only to find that the logging requirements had been truncated in Cachemate. This happened to me two times and both time out of my home state.

 

Am I upset at the CO?

 

Most certainly not. It is no different than going on a long hike with no water. In the end being prepared is entirely your responsibility. If that means taking the time to check that the listings in the palm are all there and complete than that is what it means. If nec essary print it out on paper the old-fashioned way.

 

I am not sure what the OP uses but I know that I use a palm with Cachemate and GSAK and you do get a message telling you which listings were truncated.

 

I have found more than a couple of EarthCaches and can't really say that has happened to me more than twice. I know that I have a problem myself because when I sit down and start writing my EarthCache listing I have a very hard time keeping it simple. I likely have one or two myself that fall into the category of too long but I never think that I have said too much or filled the page with any irrelevant garbage.

 

I do believe that it is always up to the seeker to be prepared.

 

- Rev Mike

Link to comment

In the end, I agree with the Scouts: Be Prepared. Do the little bit of checking you have to do to make sure it stays fun.

 

But I also agree that there are ways the developer can help the cacher out. I remember my English teachers telling me that a report is like a skirt: long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to keep interest. As Shakespeare said, "brevity is the soul of wit".

 

Personally, in the earthcaches that I'm planning, I will either give the reader all the information they need to answer the questions (other than any text on interpretive signs onsite) or give them just enough to get started on their research. I've been slightly disappointed at how many cut and paste entire articles from wikipedia. That kind of information is pretty easily found, and not always entirely relevant to the cache. Teach me what you want me to learn about the site, and then quiz me on it.

 

Bottom line: don't dumb down the concept, but if you make education easy and fun, more people will do it and appreciate it.

Link to comment

I have had that problem myself before.

 

There were a couple of times when I was trying EarthCaches (all by the same person) only to find that the logging requirements had been truncated in Cachemate. This happened to me two times and both time out of my home state.

 

Am I upset at the CO?

 

Most certainly not. It is no different than going on a long hike with no water. In the end being prepared is entirely your responsibility. If that means taking the time to check that the listings in the palm are all there and complete than that is what it means. If nec essary print it out on paper the old-fashioned way.

 

I am not sure what the OP uses but I know that I use a palm with Cachemate and GSAK and you do get a message telling you which listings were truncated.

 

I have found more than a couple of EarthCaches and can't really say that has happened to me more than twice. I know that I have a problem myself because when I sit down and start writing my EarthCache listing I have a very hard time keeping it simple. I likely have one or two myself that fall into the category of too long but I never think that I have said too much or filled the page with any irrelevant garbage.

 

I do believe that it is always up to the seeker to be prepared.

 

- Rev Mike

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Link to comment

I have had that problem myself before.

 

There were a couple of times when I was trying EarthCaches (all by the same person) only to find that the logging requirements had been truncated in Cachemate. This happened to me two times and both time out of my home state.

 

Am I upset at the CO?

 

Most certainly not. It is no different than going on a long hike with no water. In the end being prepared is entirely your responsibility. If that means taking the time to check that the listings in the palm are all there and complete than that is what it means. If nec essary print it out on paper the old-fashioned way.

 

I am not sure what the OP uses but I know that I use a palm with Cachemate and GSAK and you do get a message telling you which listings were truncated.

 

I have found more than a couple of EarthCaches and can't really say that has happened to me more than twice. I know that I have a problem myself because when I sit down and start writing my EarthCache listing I have a very hard time keeping it simple. I likely have one or two myself that fall into the category of too long but I never think that I have said too much or filled the page with any irrelevant garbage.

 

I do believe that it is always up to the seeker to be prepared.

 

- Rev Mike

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

Amen to both of you.

 

Nobody here wants to be overly wordy and no one is afraid of technological change but in the final analysis it's up to the cacher to be prepared or respectively, don't do the ECs. :D

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge
Link to comment

I had a problem on a recent, long roadtrip with cache descriptions being truncated on my Oregon. The long descriptions can remain, but it would be helpful to put the requirements at the beginning of the description. Not only would they not be truncated, but it would help for easier and faster access when out in the field.

I may be changing my mind on this point. But, in order for the questions/requirements to be put first or at least closer to the top of the page, Geoaware will need to change the submission form and suggest EC developers change their approach. :(

Link to comment

I had a problem on a recent, long roadtrip with cache descriptions being truncated on my Oregon. The long descriptions can remain, but it would be helpful to put the requirements at the beginning of the description. Not only would they not be truncated, but it would help for easier and faster access when out in the field.

I may be changing my mind on this point. But, in order for the questions/requirements to be put first or at least closer to the top of the page, Geoaware will need to change the submission form and suggest EC developers change their approach. :(

Why do you think there needs to be a change?

 

I am famous for long descriptions, but the key info is at the beginning of the EarthCache. I didn't have to change anything.

 

The first sentence or two is a general descriptions of what to expect. ("You will be looking for X in this kind of terrain at this place" sort of thing), and then in the first paragraph or two of the main body, I give the requirements (In order to log this EarthCache, do X, Y, and Z) and then I start all the description. I save all the highly technical info for the end (detailed description of rock layers, scientific research links, etc)

 

Like any decent writer, I give a nice thesis statement at the beginning that summarizes the entire thing, and then I break each part down into smaller, more detailed bits of information in the following paragraphs. A good reader would realize all they need to do is skim the first paragraph and perhaps the first sentence of each subsequent paragraph if they need/want more info---if they don't need details, they can do everything off the first few sentences.

 

Example:

Well-kept paths led you to breath-taking views of two waterfalls along a deep gorge displaying some of the oldest rock exposures in Indiana. Wooden steps help provide safe access in steeper areas.

 

The coordinates take you to a prime viewing spot for "Big" Clifty Falls. A well-marked trail will take to you two related features: Cake Rock, and "Little" Clifty Falls. Clifty Canyon was carved out of 425 million-year old shales and limestones during the last Ice Age, 10 thousand years ago or more. The nearby Ohio River formed from the meltwaters of glacial ice as the sand and gravel at the extreme edge of the advancing glaciers dug deeply into the bedrock.

 

To claim this Earthcache, visit both waterfalls and Cake Rock, and determine the answer to one of two questions:

1) Why is Little Clifty Falls called "Little" when it is the same height as "Big" Clifty Falls? Can you explain how they may have formed so differently, even though they formed at the same time?

2) Which layer of the rock bedding of the Falls matches the rocks in Cake Rock? (To claim this question, include the coordinates for Cake Rock in your email) Photographs are welcome!

Link to comment

Any Earthcache that requires research or reading should be reflected in the difficulty level. For example if it's 3 or 4 star rating you should plan on digging through the details.

 

Whether or not those details are relevant should be part of the approval process.

I'm of the opinion that it's hard to judge the difficulty of any cache and EarthCaches may be even more difficult than others because you have to judge what "the average person" knows about that subject. But difficulty level can be tweaked after you get some feedback from the first few visitors.

 

My students, for instance, know a lot (before they ever grace my classroom door) about fossils and hydrology, because we live near a major river, in its floodplain, in an area known for having vast exposures of fossil bearing limestone. They know almost nothing about volcanic formations.

 

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "reading" requiring a higher difficulty level. The guidelines for submitting an EarthCache say the page must give explanations about the formation or feature written at about the level of a 14 year old student who knows nothing about earth science--and they can contain additional technical information for the scientific community.

 

So I set my EarthCaches up to tell you what the terrain will be like, what you are supposed to appreciate during your visit and how to log your visit--all in the first paragraph or two. The average person ought to be able to complete the earthcache with just that info.

 

If not, the rest of the page has more detailed information about that kind of feature. Not more complicated--just a more thorough explanation. I might add links of interest for anyone who wants to know more or links to scientific info of a technical nature if it's available--but that isn't needed to do the EarthCache, it's just extra.

 

Are you saying that someone shouldn't have to go to a library to do additional reading or research? If so, then I agree with you. If you are saying they shouldn't have to read the page to learn about the EarthCache, I disagree. I think a clear explanation of how that feature formed ought to on the EarthCache page. And the learning experience on-site ought to reinforce or clarify that information.

Edited by Neos2
Link to comment

I'm not talking about people's capabilities, or reading levels. I'm talking about what is required from people to complete the cache.

 

There's a Earthcache near me that the requirements are: Go to this location. Email me this easy to get information and post a photo with your gps. That should be a fairly low difficulty level.

Reading the other six paragraphs of information about the location is not part of the requirements.

 

A cache that requires several steps, which may be reading a lot of information listed in the cache to understand the requirements to log the cache, or it may be researching whatever to meet the logging requirements, should have the rating adjusted accordingly.

 

Now I suppose someone could mix the cache logging requirements in the middle non-logging requirement information just so people have to read everything just to find it, but the rating should be higher.

 

 

Edit: clarification.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

I'm not talking about people's capabilities, or reading levels. I'm talking about what is required from people to complete the cache.

 

There's a Earthcache near me that the requirements are: Go to this location. Email me this easy to get information and post a photo with your gps. That should be a fairly low difficulty level.

Reading the other six paragraphs of information about the location is not part of the requirements.

 

A cache that requires several steps, which may be reading a lot of information listed in the cache to understand the requirements to log the cache, or it may be researching whatever to meet the logging requirements, should have the rating adjusted accordingly.

 

Now I suppose someone could mix the cache logging requirements in the middle non-logging requirement information just so people have to read everything just to find it, but the rating should be higher.

 

Edit: clarification.

OK, maybe I am just dense, but I am still not following you---but I do want to understand!

I don't recall saying anything about "reading levels"? And how exactly are "people capabilities" and "being able to complete the cache" different?

 

Originally, you said: Any Earthcache that requires research or reading should be reflected in the difficulty level. For example if it's 3 or 4 star rating you should plan on digging through the details.

 

I don't know of any EarthCaches that requires someone to go do research. I'm also unaware of any that require a trip to the library to get out geology books. It's been my experience that the EarthCache pages contain all the information I need to do that EarthCache.

 

Maybe if you give me a concrete example. Here's one of my EarthCaches:

 

GC1J9ZV Architecture of Geology: The Interpretive Center

 

If you already know some pretty basic geology terminology, all you have to do is go there, find some recognizable stratigraphic feature and take a photo of it. If you don't already know that sort of thing, the basics are listed on the page, with illustrations, explanations, examples and extra links if you still need more. I rated it a 1.5, because "finding a feature and photographing it" really isn't all that hard. Could you explain how this example does or doesn't demonstrate what you are talking about?

 

I have done/seen some EarthCaches that require you go to four or five or ten spots to claim the EarthCache. They were rated higher. They weren't really harder--just time consuming. I thought the owners were rewarding people with higher difficulty for going through all the tedium. Sometimes the task were "go see all these cool things in this 200 acre park and take your picture at each of them and then answer these questions off the signs in the park". I would have preferred to see each of them treated separately, so the learning could be more specific to each kind of feature--so my opinion is they needed more EarthCaches in that area, not more stars on one EarthCache.

Edited by Neos2
Link to comment

I had a problem on a recent, long roadtrip with cache descriptions being truncated on my Oregon. The long descriptions can remain, but it would be helpful to put the requirements at the beginning of the description. Not only would they not be truncated, but it would help for easier and faster access when out in the field.

I may be changing my mind on this point. But, in order for the questions/requirements to be put first or at least closer to the top of the page, Geoaware will need to change the submission form and suggest EC developers change their approach. :D

Why do you think there needs to be a change?

 

I am famous for long descriptions, but the key info is at the beginning of the EarthCache. I didn't have to change anything.

 

The first sentence or two is a general descriptions of what to expect. ("You will be looking for X in this kind of terrain at this place" sort of thing), and then in the first paragraph or two of the main body, I give the requirements (In order to log this EarthCache, do X, Y, and Z) and then I start all the description. I save all the highly technical info for the end (detailed description of rock layers, scientific research links, etc)

 

Like any decent writer, I give a nice thesis statement at the beginning that summarizes the entire thing, and then I break each part down into smaller, more detailed bits of information in the following paragraphs. A good reader would realize all they need to do is skim the first paragraph and perhaps the first sentence of each subsequent paragraph if they need/want more info---if they don't need details, they can do everything off the first few sentences.

 

Example:

Well-kept paths led you to breath-taking views of two waterfalls along a deep gorge displaying some of the oldest rock exposures in Indiana. Wooden steps help provide safe access in steeper areas.

 

The coordinates take you to a prime viewing spot for "Big" Clifty Falls. A well-marked trail will take to you two related features: Cake Rock, and "Little" Clifty Falls. Clifty Canyon was carved out of 425 million-year old shales and limestones during the last Ice Age, 10 thousand years ago or more. The nearby Ohio River formed from the meltwaters of glacial ice as the sand and gravel at the extreme edge of the advancing glaciers dug deeply into the bedrock.

 

To claim this Earthcache, visit both waterfalls and Cake Rock, and determine the answer to one of two questions:

1) Why is Little Clifty Falls called "Little" when it is the same height as "Big" Clifty Falls? Can you explain how they may have formed so differently, even though they formed at the same time?

2) Which layer of the rock bedding of the Falls matches the rocks in Cake Rock? (To claim this question, include the coordinates for Cake Rock in your email) Photographs are welcome!

 

I am prrobably going to rergret asking this but you said, "Like any decent writer, I give a nice thesis statement at the beginning that summarizes the entire thing, and then I break each part down into smaller, more detailed bits of information in the following paragraphs. A good reader would realize all they need to do is skim the first paragraph and perhaps the first sentence of each subsequent paragraph if they need/want more info---if they don't need details, they can do everything off the first few sentences."

 

I understand the 'thesis' part although it's been 50 years since English 101, but why would you write so that a good reader need not do nothing more than skim the first paragraph and the first sentence of subsequent paragraphs? Is everything else filler and therefore not necessary? In other words why the additional text if it is unnecessary? :laughing:

Link to comment
I don't know of any EarthCaches that requires someone to go do research. I'm also unaware of any that require a trip to the library to get out geology books. It's been my experience that the EarthCache pages contain all the information I need to do that EarthCache.

 

Most Earth Caches I been to or reviewed usually require you to do something at the location, for example taking measurements at the cache site.

 

(Oh, in case you are wondering I have been to Earth Caches that I haven't bothered to log yet)

 

884c8484-49e5-4e25-8787-98e64cd50295.jpg

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

I understand the 'thesis' part although it's been 50 years since English 101, but why would you write so that a good reader need not do nothing more than skim the first paragraph and the first sentence of subsequent paragraphs? Is everything else filler and therefore not necessary? In other words why the additional text if it is unnecessary? :D

No, that's a good question.

 

I'm a teacher; I teach high school science. As a matter of fact, I teach Biology, Intro to Physics, and Earth Science. That's an advantage for me when design EarthCaches. In part because I probably don't have to do as much research as the next person to set one up because of my background. In addition, I have regular feedback from real people who are trying to learn about science. My students range from very low ability to very high ability. I've learned you can't presume that anyone knows anything in particular.

 

I'm a good teacher, but I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea what the next visitor to my EarthCaches might already know about a particular feature.

 

The intro is for the person who wants a general idea of what to expect at the cache. It says straight up what they will have to do. If they read it and understand what to do just from that, they can head on out to the EarthCache and start having fun. The rest isn't "filler" ~ it's a more detailed explanation for the person who doesn't know what that is or how to do it.

Link to comment
I don't know of any EarthCaches that requires someone to go do research. I'm also unaware of any that require a trip to the library to get out geology books. It's been my experience that the EarthCache pages contain all the information I need to do that EarthCache.

 

Most Earth Caches I been to or reviewed usually require you to do something at the location, for example taking measurements at the cache site.

Communication failure. When I hear you say "do research" I think of something much more formal than taking a measurement or estimating the height of something or reading a sign in a park.

 

There is one informal research project associate with one of my class EarthCaches. At Big Clifty and Little Clifty Falls we invite the visitors to post a photo of the Falls and record the date of their visit so the class can "compare photos taken over the course of the year to determine the 'best' times to visit the Falls"--but that isn't the task set for the visitor to the EarthCache for a claim, it's a just-for-fun extra they can do. By posting their photos, visitors are collecting data the class will use to determine the answer to their research question.

Edited by Neos2
Link to comment

I understand the 'thesis' part although it's been 50 years since English 101, but why would you write so that a good reader need not do nothing more than skim the first paragraph and the first sentence of subsequent paragraphs? Is everything else filler and therefore not necessary? In other words why the additional text if it is unnecessary? :D

No, that's a good question.

 

I'm a teacher; I teach high school science. As a matter of fact, I teach Biology, Intro to Physics, and Earth Science. That's an advantage for me when design EarthCaches. In part because I probably don't have to do as much research as the next person to set one up because of my background. In addition, I have regular feedback from real people who are trying to learn about science. My students range from very low ability to very high ability. I've learned you can't presume that anyone knows anything in particular.

 

I'm a good teacher, but I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea what the next visitor to my EarthCaches might already know about a particular feature.

 

The intro is for the person who wants a general idea of what to expect at the cache. It says straight up what they will have to do. If they read it and understand what to do just from that, they can head on out to the EarthCache and start having fun. The rest isn't "filler" ~ it's a more detailed explanation for the person who doesn't know what that is or how to do it.

Thanks for your kind and level headed reply. While we may not agree, I do appreciate your position. Your profession is one of the most important in the World!

When in college I had two majors, psychology and biological sciences. The reason for the biology was I loved it and thought I may teach. Unfortunately, I went on to grad school in psych and other than student teaching, I never got the chance to teach. One of my biggest educational regrets is not taking GEOLOGY! It should be a requirement for all students because it came before everything else!

P.S. I read your Clifty Falls EC and it doesn't appear to be overly long, but it does appear to be well done and interesting. :D

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge
Link to comment

Jumping back into the fray... For our recent trip we bookmarked 240 caches, including about 20 EarthCaches. None of them were too long for the Paw Pilot. None were truncated.

Second question is: Which ones did we decide to do? Answer: Relatively easy ones that were interesting. (It will be noted that the terrain rating was off for some. 1 terrain is wheelchair accessible. None were...)

We were on a long trip with limited time. Long hikes were out. I really wanted to do Rev. Mike's Natural Bridge, and Natural Bridge Cavern. If it had been Natural Bridge only, I could have talked my travelling companions into Natural Bridge. For example. But the mile hike to Saltpeter Cave would have been too much for them, with the distance yet to be travelled. I would like to return, when we have more time. Several others looked fascinating. But not for this trip. Mile hike in at 3 terrain? Looked great. But not for this trip. So, like most of the caches on this trip, we picked easy ones. I think I'd have to be spending a fair amount of time in an area to be able to do those. Around here? Sure, got the time.

We ended up at:

Massanutten Mountain Syncline, Virginia

Shatley Springs, North Carolina

Low Gap Spring, Tennessee

Goose Creek Restoration, Tennessee

Jenkins Mountain Fault-N-Fossil Earthcache, Kentucky

Coal House, West Virginia

Ohio Black Gold, Ohio and

A Turtle's Back Rock Formation, New Jersey

Link to comment

Have to agree with the sentiment expressed by the OP. Having caches truncated when loading them in to Cachemate from GSAK bites. I tend to look at the lsit of truncated caches, decide which are worth the time and bother and then those I keep I end up editing out all the junk so we get the gist of the cache and the requirements.

Things I usually throw right out from the page are: links to outside websites and photos as their html takes up room. Anything that is "filler" and in the first read-through is not all that interesting. Sure there is some geology at this location. But I don't need the whole Continental Drift or How Mountains Form lecture before going out to look at a faultline formation.

 

Other people might need those. They can print the stuff off then. But if you can't get your point across in the word limits imposed by Cachemate, you might need to review your cache write-up for actual value. In several cases of massive pages I've found that historical information and photos that are on signs at the cache location are made part of the write-up. If i can read it there, why put more than a teaser on the page???

J

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...