all I have to say is why?

September 8, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

4.8k · September 8, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

It's a 1/1. What more is needed?

September 8, 2009

while aparently it not that easy if the first person to look for it loged a DNF

22k · September 8, 2009

I've seen puzzle caches with less information. I wouldn't be complaining about a 1/1.

September 8, 2009

Why would be irrelevant to me. I figure if there's no description (even on a 1/1) then there must not be much of a reason to bring me there.

Pass -

September 8, 2009

Judging by the Google Sat map - it appears to be an easy find.

4k · September 8, 2009

Why does it require anything to be said? Besides, lots of cachers don't use anything but the name and coords.

If you have everything you need, nothing needs to be said about it. Do you want to read a story about their dog or about what happened when they took their Grandma to a strip mall?

1.1k · September 8, 2009

Why does it require anything to be said? Besides, lots of cachers don't use anything but the name and coords.

If you have everything you need, nothing needs to be said about it. Do you want to read a story about their dog or about what happened when they took their Grandma to a strip mall?

It's discourteous. It shows a lack of respect for both the game and the people who play it. Do you really believe there is nothing that can be said about the cache that will help a geocacher decided if they should or shouldn't search for it?

22k · September 8, 2009

Why does it require anything to be said? Besides, lots of cachers don't use anything but the name and coords.

If you have everything you need, nothing needs to be said about it. Do you want to read a story about their dog or about what happened when they took their Grandma to a strip mall?

It's discourteous. It shows a lack of respect for both the game and the people who play it. Do you really believe there is nothing that can be said about the cache that will help a geocacher decided if they should or shouldn't search for it?

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. I guess I didn't know I should be offended by some reviewer approved cache. Apparently I'm not as sensitive to things as I should be. :laughing:

September 8, 2009

:laughing: My questions is, how did it get approved? The reviewers in Kentucky, Illniois, Tennessee, and Missouri would immediately not approve such a listing. They even disapprove if we leave off the description of the cache container.

Did the owner, after the cache get approved, simply erase the description?

22k · September 8, 2009

My questions is, how did it get approved? The reviewers in Kentucky, Illniois, Tennessee, and Missouri would immediately not approve such a listing. They even disapprove if we leave off the description of the cache container.

Did the owner, after the cache get approved, simply erase the description?

I went and grabbed the text from a nearby cache description. This is the full text.

"This town along Hwy. 30 was the only one without a cache. Problem solved."

Edited September 8, 2009 by BlueDeuce

6.5k · September 8, 2009

!

10.2k · September 8, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

I dunno. But I've learned never to question the ways of others. :laughing: I do admit I've rarely seen a cache with umm, no cache description. I did do some research though. Cache placer appears to be a kid, per the picture in their profile. The cache appears to be near the extreme far end of the park, and just outside of it, if you can believe the green on Google maps. There's a very strong possibility it's really in the park, and the the young man blew the coordinates. If this cache is really a 1/1, I would think it needs a freaking cache description, to be honest. Put up a three word "nice quick grab" cache page, for pete's sake.

Edited September 8, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

22k · September 8, 2009

Put up a three word "nice quick grab" cache page, for pete's sake.

Yes you are correct! That would be showing respect to the game and community. Some people, I tells ya.

4k · September 8, 2009

My questions is, how did it get approved? The reviewers in Kentucky, Illniois, Tennessee, and Missouri would immediately not approve such a listing. They even disapprove if we leave off the description of the cache container.

Please show me this in the guidelines. Why would it not be approved?

That sounds like a reviewer issue. Maybe that reviewer is incorrect?

1.1k · September 8, 2009

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. I guess I didn't know I should be offended by some reviewer approved cache. Apparently I'm not as sensitive to things as I should be.

Your sarcasm has been noted.

I never said you should be offended. Being offended is a personal choice and I would never recommend choosing to be offended.

My point was exactly what I said: Not giving appropriate information to the cachers looking for your cache is discourteous.

A cache owner could get a huge pile of dung in the middle of a used hypodermic needle dump published as a cache. That would also be discourteous, to say the least.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Arrow42

4k · September 8, 2009

It's discourteous. It shows a lack of respect for both the game and the people who play it. Do you really believe there is nothing that can be said about the cache that will help a geocacher decided if they should or shouldn't search for it?

I don't think it is discourteous. I don't believe that nothing can be said. I believe that nothing needs to be said. You don't have to look for it. You could also look for it and find it.

4k · September 8, 2009

My point was exactly what I said: Not giving appropriate information to the cachers looking for your cache is discourteous.

Size/Terrain/ Difficulty/Coordinates/[assumed] permission. This is sufficient and appropriate info to find many caches.

1.1k · September 8, 2009

It's discourteous. It shows a lack of respect for both the game and the people who play it. Do you really believe there is nothing that can be said about the cache that will help a geocacher decided if they should or shouldn't search for it?

I don't think it is discourteous. I don't believe that nothing can be said. I believe that nothing needs to be said. You don't have to look for it. You could also look for it and find it.

It's funny... you say that but it's certainly not something you do. I made a quick glance at each of your 23 hides. Each one has a well thought-out description. Many are pages long, many have wonderful pictures. I haven't visited any of your caches yet, but I suspect that each one has the same thought put into it.

It's clear that you value the hard work that others put into their caches because I can see that you put hard work into yours.

It's intellectually inconsistent for you to claim that having no description is a good way to build a cache.

2.5k · September 8, 2009

... I did do some research though. Cache placer appears to be a kid, per the picture in their profile. The cache appears to be near the extreme far end of the park, and just outside of it, if you can believe the green on Google maps. There's a very strong possibility it's really in the park, and the the young man blew the coordinates. If this cache is really a 1/1, I would think it needs a freaking cache description, to be honest. Put up a three word "nice quick grab" cache page, for pete's sake.

I'm going to bet that the pic is the CO's kid, as they list their occupation as "Sales," not student. The sat view seems to confirm Google Maps's park boundary.

It would appear their efforts in cache writeups went downhill. On their first of 3 hides, they have a brief description (six words, same # as in hint) & a hint. The 2nd, no description but a hint. Now, this one. . . Nothing really wrong with it, I've seen it done to add challenge/mystery/adventure to a cache, but it really shouldn't be a 1/1. Not without a hint, anyways.

1.1k · September 8, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

September 8, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

Nobody said it was "good" practice, but I really don't think it's the worst thing ever; not worth getting excited about. People place caches with little to no effort all the time. This guy just did the same thing with the page, as well.

1.1k · September 8, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

Nobody said it was "good" practice, but I really don't think it's the worst thing ever; not worth getting excited about. People place caches with little to no effort all the time. This guy just did the same thing with the page, as well.

There are three people in this thread arguing that it's a fine way to build a cache.

4k · September 8, 2009

I certainly don't think it is a fine way or would encourage this. I have the same feelings about a LPC. I wouldn't place one or encourage you to place one, but it is still an acceptable geocache. (Although debatable by some! :laughing: )

I would prefer it if cache pages said a little more. I would still look for it if it didn't though. I can think of plenty of mindless micros that don't deserve a write up.

And hints? Who needs hints anyways? I am not the type of cacher that reads the hint as I am walking up to the cache.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Knight2000

7.7k · September 8, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

If you're so curious, why not ask the cache owner?

I've seen some cache descriptions where not writing something could have been an improvement. No, I'm not going to point them out.

It would be amusing if every found log is "TNLNSL".

September 8, 2009

GCP59B

1.1k · September 8, 2009

GCP59B

It's sad to see the youth of today have no pride in craftsmanship.

/getoffmylawn!

//where's my pudding?

8k · September 8, 2009

My questions is, how did it get approved? The reviewers in Kentucky, Illniois, Tennessee, and Missouri would immediately not approve such a listing. They even disapprove if we leave off the description of the cache container.

Please show me this in the guidelines. Why would it not be approved?

That sounds like a reviewer issue. Maybe that reviewer is incorrect?

I agree.

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.

The Kentucky, Illinois, Tennessee, and Missouri reviewers might express concerns about a cache without any discription or hint but I would think they would have to approve it as it is within the guidelines.

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

It may or may not be good practice to put something in the description. It is not part of the guidelines. And I will defend it not being part of the guidelines. I've done several puzzles that relied on this. Some geocachers load up their GPSr with nothing but the coordinates and go out to hunt caches without reading the description. In this case, the CO is just making sure we are all in the same boat. It could be that in this case the cache title says all there is that you need to know.

2.1k · September 8, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

What is wrong with one, two, or a few caches in a given area having no description?

September 8, 2009

I certainly don't think it is a fine way or would encourage this. I have the same feelings about a LPC. I wouldn't place one or encourage you to place one, but it is still an acceptable geocache. (Although debatable by some! )

I would prefer it if cache pages said a little more. I would still look for it if it didn't though. I can think of plenty of mindless micros that don't deserve a write up.

And hints? Who needs hints anyways? I am not the type of cacher that reads the hint as I am walking up to the cache.

I'll amit I usally don't use hints but it would be nice if there was a little description maby just even telling you what kind of contanior you are looking for

5.7k · September 8, 2009

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. I guess I didn't know I should be offended by some reviewer approved cache. Apparently I'm not as sensitive to things as I should be.

Your sarcasm has been noted.

I never said you should be offended. Being offended is a personal choice and I would never recommend choosing to be offended.

My point was exactly what I said: Not giving appropriate information to the cachers looking for your cache is discourteous.

A cache owner could get a huge pile of dung in the middle of a used hypodermic needle dump published as a cache. That would also be discourteous, to say the least.

Right on.

5.7k · September 8, 2009

I certainly don't think it is a fine way or would encourage this. I have the same feelings about a LPC. I wouldn't place one or encourage you to place one, but it is still an acceptable geocache. (Although debatable by some! )

I would prefer it if cache pages said a little more. I would still look for it if it didn't though. I can think of plenty of mindless micros that don't deserve a write up.

And hints? Who needs hints anyways? I am not the type of cacher that reads the hint as I am walking up to the cache.

I'll amit I usally don't use hints but it would be nice if there was a little description maby just even telling you what kind of contanior you are looking for

We always use the hint when available.

5.7k · September 8, 2009

while aparently it not that easy if the first person to look for it loged a DNF

Don't waste your breath.

3.5k · September 8, 2009

I sure liked the forums better without that avatar. :laughing:

September 8, 2009

I sure liked the forums better without that avatar.

Thats low

September 8, 2009

I have very few hides, largely because the thing I find the most fun is the research and opportunity to take the finder somewhere interesting that they may have had no reason to visit otherwise. Conversely, I realize that this may not be the motivation for many other CO's.

However, the finds I myself appreciate most are those members who have taken the time and pride to make their page and their cache someplace worth visiting. I certainly get frustrated with local cachers who just seem interested in racking up hide numbers with very little interest or motivation other than volume without quality.

That is very subjective, but this thread-starting cache certainly falls into this category. I simply would not waste my time or energy to visit. More importantly, however, it raises the question of what role a cache reviewer plays in all this, and if that role also includes encouraging qualities beyond just volume in maintaining the long-term quality and continuity of this hobby. Rather than blame a lazy CO, I would focus my gaze at a lackluster cache review.

Edited September 8, 2009 by coleminers

September 8, 2009

If you don't like the cache, don't go. Maybe there is something about the cache once you get there, who knows. His other caches don't have much for descriptions or hints either. Also looks like the CO could be a younger kid from the gallery of the user. Regardless, go find the cache or don't.

3.3k · September 8, 2009

Description or no description. Hunt or do not hunt. Choices abound. Move along. Nothing to see here. :laughing:

September 8, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

Umm... maybe they forgot? :laughing:

1.9k · September 8, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

Look at the satellite pic then when on site, lift the nearest lamp post skirt and most likely there'll be a film cannister under it.

-

no desc, no hint: about the same amount of thought that went into the hide and container.

September 8, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

At first, I was thinking the same thing about your topic.

And in regards to you saying "that's low" to 9key...did you think he was referring to you?

I'm pretty sure was his target.

And I must say, I find that avatar hilarious on so many levels. :-)

9.3k · September 8, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

Stick around. You'd be amazed as the kind of stuff folks will defend in here...

22k · September 8, 2009

Stick around. You'd be amazed as the kind of stuff folks will defend in here...

or attack.

September 8, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

mmmm ... to compensate? GC1XB0Y

September 8, 2009

(This page intentionally left blank)

20.7k · September 8, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

Nobody said it was "good" practice, but I really don't think it's the worst thing ever; not worth getting excited about. People place caches with little to no effort all the time. This guy just did the same thing with the page, as well.

There are three people in this thread arguing that it's a fine way to build a cache.

I guess you should go ahead and up that count to four.

When I first started playing this silly game, most cache descriptions were limited to a list of the junk that was originally in the cache. Obviously, after a little while in teh field, this list was totally useless so the caches may as well not have had any description.

Also, the great bulk of my caches have contained descriptions that blather on and on about basically nothing. Why is this practice better than a blank description?

2.3k · September 8, 2009

much ado about nothing.

5.7k · September 8, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.

What is wrong with one, two, or a few caches in a given area having no description?

Because it is discourteous, un-friendly, un-helpful and offensive to your fellow cachers.

That's what.

1.5k · September 8, 2009

Why would someone do this Why? no describition why? no hint Why?

hmmm....I'm thinkin that this one would go on my ignore list. If the owner can't think up anything to say about it I would figure it wouldn't be a very inspiring find.

20.7k · September 8, 2009

I am truly shocked that anyone here is defending zero information in the cache description as a good practice.
What is wrong with one, two, or a few caches in a given area having no description?
Because it is discourteous, un-friendly, un-helpful and offensive to your fellow cachers.

That's what.

Why?

all I have to say is why?

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation