Jump to content

all I have to say is why?


jasondulac

Recommended Posts

 

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

 

/getoffmylawn!

//where's my pudding?

 

And it's sad to see that your a humorless... oh never mind. I want some pudding too.

 

And stop calling me a youth!

 

There's a reason for my obliqueness, but it flies right over the heads of some... well, something was definitely flying.

 

:) <<<smiley so you'll know where I'm coming from (gotta be obvious with some of youse)

Link to comment
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?

 

Because taking a subjective position is safe and doesn't require showing some proof of harm.

Link to comment

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.

 

Perhaps it is intended to be a minimalist cache?

Link to comment
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?

 

I could be totally off base here, but I sort of liken it to the person who wraps up their used kitchen appliances and passes them out as gifts. On the one hand a gift is a gift and should be appreciated regardless of content, but on the other hand, "Why bother?" And, of course, on the third hand (there's always a third hand) I'm sure they have their reasons.

Link to comment

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.

 

Perhaps it is intended to be a minimalist cache?

 

hmmmm,

"Good hide. Not to hard"

'Thanks for the fun find!"

"Thanks so much for these caches. They're just what our rusty geocaching brains needed to get going again."

"Nice Hide Thanks!"

 

Just looking through some of these logs I'm not finding where people were offended.

Link to comment

I suppose that if you really have nothing to say that it's better to say nothing. I don't know how much a description would help if it just said the owner decided to place a container there for no particular reason. So I guess I would look for it if it was local and ignore it if I were visiting. But there are a lot of caches that leave me wondering "why.".

Link to comment

I completely agree with this:

Description or no description. Hunt or do not hunt. Choices abound.

... but I must disagree with this:

Move along. Nothing to see here. :)

There is plenty to see here. Lotsa good laughs of the kind you just can’t get anywhere else.

 

One contributor equated a description-less cache with a pile of dung. That was priceless.

 

The regulars who roll their eyes at anyone who dares to disagree with their version of 'proper' caching never fail to amuse me either.

 

And the many who claim to be offended and/or victimized by the mere existence of the cache being discussed are absolutely hilarious.

 

So are the ones who claim they are entitled to a description. Or a hint. Or a cache size notation. Or who suggest that each and every cache placer should not only read the minds of each and every potential finder of his cache, but also only place caches that are capable of satisfying the minimum entertainment demands of each and every potential finder – as opposed to placing whatever guideline compliant hide he, the cache placer, wants to place.

 

Yes, there is plenty to see here.

Link to comment

I have to admit that I don’t read the descriptions of traditional caches until I have a problem finding the cache. There are cachers out there that believe that the hint is part of the description and get angry if no hint is provided. I placed a series of 25 micro caches all with the same description meaning that they essentially had no description, and they had no hint other than the title. Finders loved them.

 

Could it be this cache is a commentary on the current state of geocaching? Why bother putting any effort in if people are just going to run out, get their smiley, and move one? I don’t get and don’t expect a huge loving letter of gratitude from every cacher that finds one of my caches. Just having people find my caches is enough.

 

Personally, I think complaining about this is right up there with bashing people and accusing them of diminishing the game just because they chose not to log their finds on-line. Some people out there need to take caching a little less seriously and be a little less obsessed about trivial things.

Link to comment

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

I don't think it's terribly wrong to place a cache without a description.

 

The cache owner did take the time to actually place a cache, and submit it on GC.com, and add a title...so they can't be considered too lazy or 'discourteous' merely because they didn't add a description.

 

Furthermore, many people never even read the description. We placed a letterbox cache that gave some people a problem because they thought they were looking for a traditional and never bothered to read the description.

 

As for the hint, certainly not required, but maybe they're waiting for the cache to be found before adding one.

Edited by Cedar Grove Seekers
Link to comment

In regard to the actual issue at hand...I could care less if there's a description, honestly.

 

When I go hunt geocaches, I just load the pocket query into my 60CSx, add categories to put in the description. All I see for every cache I do is 8 characters of the title, the cache size, diff/terr, and the first 14 characters of the hint. If a hint isn't available, I get the cache owner's username and whether the last four loggers have found it.

 

So...description is pointless to me.

 

Now, if I'm looking for a multi or an unknown, those require descriptions. I would be irritated if I was supposed to find multiple stages or the actual coordinates with no description of how.

 

You have to remember though...virtuals are gone. The idea of finding a neat location more than finding a log to sign may be over or evolving. For many people the game is nothing more than signing a log and moving on. A description is not a 100% necessity.

 

If someone puts an LPC in a parking lot, is a description REALLY that necessary? Who really cares about the historical significance of the lamp post?

 

Maybe that's a little cynical, but you have to admit: a number of caches really don't need descriptions.

Link to comment

If someone puts an LPC in a parking lot, is a description REALLY that necessary? Who really cares about the historical significance of the lamp post?

So there is really no difference between this cache, which provided an historical description of the barn of the famous heavyweight champion Jim Jefferies that used to stand in this location; and this cache, whose descrition is "Another Burbank hide to help increase the cache density in the area."?

Link to comment

If someone puts an LPC in a parking lot, is a description REALLY that necessary? Who really cares about the historical significance of the lamp post?

So there is really no difference between this cache, which provided an historical description of the barn of the famous heavyweight champion Jim Jefferies that used to stand in this location; and this cache, whose descrition is "Another Burbank hide to help increase the cache density in the area."?

Of course there is a difference. The latter didn't need a description though the one given is apt. On the other hand if I take you to the right spot with a cache the kind of location that speaks for itself, I may very well choose not to lessen the nice ending by mere words.

 

On my third hand, if you have to explain why a spot is cool, most times it probably isn't. I can make an excption to this rule with something snazzy like "This spot is the location of the first paved parking lot, ever." as opposed to "This parking lot is constructed with asphalt over gravel and was freshly re-sealed last fall allowing for another 7 years of glorious parking lot life".

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

If someone puts an LPC in a parking lot, is a description REALLY that necessary? Who really cares about the historical significance of the lamp post?

So there is really no difference between this cache, which provided an historical description of the barn of the famous heavyweight champion Jim Jefferies that used to stand in this location; and this cache, whose descrition is "Another Burbank hide to help increase the cache density in the area."?

Of course there is a difference. The latter didn't need a description though the one given is apt. On the other hand if I take you to the right spot with a cache the kind of location that speaks for itself, I may very well choose not to lessen the nice ending by mere words.

 

Exactly. There's a difference, of course. Person 1 wanted an interesting description because it was warranted. Person 2 did not because it wasn't.

Link to comment
"Good hide. Not to hard"

'Thanks for the fun find!"

"Nice Hide Thanks!"

Heck, that would end up on my ignore list just based on the logs. :laughing:

If a cache is so lame as to only generate a 4-5 word log, it's likely not my cup of tea.

 

If someone puts an LPC in a parking lot, is a description REALLY that necessary?

When I hid this LPC, my description was 5500 characters. :)

On a serious note, on occasion, I'll be asked by noobs what my thoughts are regarding various aspects of this game.

Concerning cache pages, after I point out that my caching aesthetics are highly biased, I give them this suggestion to mull over:

 

Write Up

Your cache page write up is the medium used to present your cache to the community. You should be proud of your cache, and let your cache page reflect that fact. If there are more words tattooed on Rosie O'Donnell's backside than in your write up, folks might get the impression that you don't care about your hide. A bit of history about your site, or some humorous anecdotes about yourself, seem to go over well with the caching community. On a similar note, spellcheck is your friend.

 

(Note: These statements are simply my preference, and should not be confused with entitlement)

Link to comment

...spellcheck is your friend.

 

Now that's something I can get behind. I don't care how many words you put in your description so much or how many syllables those words have in them; but for Pete's sake, spell the words correctly and use proper capitalization. If I see a cache description that looks like an AOL chat room exchange, it goes on the ignore list for lack of effort.

Link to comment
Now that's something I can get behind. I don't care how many words you put in your description so much or how many syllables those words have in them; but for Pete's sake, spell the words correctly and use proper capitalization. If I see a cache description that looks like an AOL chat room exchange, it goes on the ignore list for lack of effort.

Speaking of AOL chatroom type language, this mystery cache popped up near me recently.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...2d-5524fd3298c6

 

A fair bit of effort went into this one :)

Link to comment
"Good hide. Not to hard"

'Thanks for the fun find!"

"Nice Hide Thanks!"

Heck, that would end up on my ignore list just based on the logs. :)

If a cache is so lame as to only generate a 4-5 word log, it's likely not my cup of tea.

 

 

I didn't want to bog down my post with the full logs as some were quite lengthy. The summary sentence was enough to make my point that there wasn't much angst due to no description.

 

Full example

 

Good hide. Not to hard -- not too easy. But be sure you hang onto the container, or you have to trek to pick up the contents. Just ask deacons5 scout about that LOL

Took train, left a quarter TFTC

 

Well the other day we signed on to geocaching.com and were shocked to see that the grand total of caches found for the last 30 days was three. Yup 3.

Time to get back out there and find some caches. The email alert for this new cache arrived at 9:15am. We knew the folks with email phones would beat us to it for FTF... no worries. We're proud to say we've partly joined the techno-crew with a snazzy pocket PC, which we named Suzi Q -- no relation to William. It took mum way too long to figure out how to load the software and then the .gpx files, but pop patiently waited and before noon we hit the road.

Minimalist 16 was our first stop. It's been so long since we used the GPSr, it didn't know how to act. That arrow pointed up, down, behind us... ugh. Surely the powerlines didn't help. We knew which trail to take and once we got close, we just had to start looking with our CHEF sharpened eyes, which are half blind without glasses now a days. It was obvious someone(s) had already scoured the site. We kept to it and finally had the log in hand. Very clever hide, just what we've come to expect from CHEF.

Next on our list was Quercus or not Quercus. How kind you were to help a good 'ole friend by placing this cache Turtletoes! We weren't sure which shrubs/trees we were looking at. There were however some really pokey leafed ones nearby. Ouch! Muggles were not a problem, the trail was quiet this noontime... too hot for most I'm sure. On the walk back to the car, we spotted a wild boar. He REALLY wanted to cross the paved trail, but wasn't sure about us. We froze and let him sniff the air. He almost started across, began turning around to go back, then finally decided whatever was on the other side of the trail was worth the risk. As we began walking again we got to within 20 feet of him. He was happily rooting for lunch in the damp ditch.

Thanks so much for these caches. They're just what our rusty geocaching brains needed to get going again.

 

Note to self. When torn between a minimalist cache and another cache. Choose wisely grasshopper. Well I was correct in my choice of caches to go to first this morning. Although in retrospect it really didn't matter both took just as long to find. ISAG. I was really hot by the time I got done with Quercus and got back here. In fact I was mindlessly pacing my way to the cache (counting steps) instead of watching the GPSr. Perhaps I lost count along the way somewhere. When I got to what I thought was my number I got the GPSr out of the holster and discovered I'd gone by the cache location by about 280 feet. Well my first thought was that the GPSr was in limbo looking for sats, but it wasn't. So I back tracked to GZ and proceeded to search and search and search and hide from the occasional biker then search and search and search some more. I spent 20 minutes within 2 feet of GZ and another 20 minutes within 15 feet. So many places to look when you have NO CLUE what you are looking for. Before passing out from heat stroke I chose to do the wise thing and called a life line. Of course I was standing within 2 feet of the cache when I called. Lucky for me I got an answer and the duh moment struck me blind. I had looked there, just not there, there. There does that make sense? Thanked the life line and proceded to sign the log. Then I wandered back to the Jeep where the A/C was ready to cool me off. Sure is a lot of water between the parking area and the tunnel. Wow. I kept an eye out for Mr Gator but never saw him. I was going to back home via 44 and finish off the new ones. Nope too dadgum hot. I'm going home. Thanks for the fun CHEF.

Jackie and Bob

 

We looked and looked and looked...then we turned around. Thanks for the fun find!

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

well if you look at the rest of his hides I am sure he just does not know any better. I know for a fact that cache would never get published in Louisiana. That would never get past MTN-Man

Until mtn-man wades into this thread, I'm going to have to call shenanigans and suggest that you owe mtn-man an apology for suggesting that he would deny any guideline-meeting cache simply because it didn't live up to his personal standards.

Link to comment

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0e-501852116ee1

 

Hey, at least the coordinates were provided on that cache!

check out the above one.

 

And I'm not saying that the one you pointed out is a good cache.

But there are so many bad caches out there, that one doesn't even really rate. i'm sorry.

 

If you want a list of really bad caches some time, we can come up with one.

I'd rather not waste my time though.

 

The point is, who cares? Is it really that worth getting upset over it??

If this is the worst thing in your day, then you are a lucky person.

 

Tons of bad caches out there. Tons of bad people.

Don't let it ruin your day. Move on. Get over it.

 

There are also tons of good caches out there with lots of great cache owners.

Go find those. Ignore the rest.

Link to comment

well if you look at the rest of his hides I am sure he just does not know any better. I know for a fact that cache would never get published in Louisiana. That would never get past MTN-Man

This is the second or third time in this thread that someone has said their reviewer would never publish this cache. If this is true, perhaps Mtn-man can elucidate us on which guideline says you have to put anything in the description. Certainly a blank description is not promoting an agenda or making this a commercial cache. Show me the guideline that says you have to say something in the description.

 

There isn't one and for that reason, mtn-man and all the other reviewers would publish a cache with no description. They might hold their noses while doing so. They may send a note to the cache owner telling them that having a description is a good idea. But if everything else is within the guidelines they will publish this cache.

 

Some people have decided that caching is being ruined by people who don't spend some requisite amount of time or effort on their caches. Unless you spent hours camouflaging your container, scouting the exact perfect spot for your cache, stocking it with good swag, and writing a great description for the cache page - YOUR CACHE IS LAME! Sorry, there is no requirement that I spend more time than what I need to determine I have adequate permission, get coordinates using a GPS, include a log book, maintain the cache, and comply with the other stated guidelines for placing a cache. Certainly some geocachers will feel that the caches they prefer to find are ones where the cache owner spends a little more time and effort. Just like some people feel the best ice cream is made in small batches on with a hand cranked ice cream maker using only natural ingredients. Excuse me now, I am going out to get some soft-serve. :)

Link to comment

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. :)

Whatever would we do without someone telling us what we should be outraged about? :laughing:

Link to comment

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0e-501852116ee1

 

If you want a list of really bad caches some time, we can come up with one.

I'd rather not waste my time though.

 

 

Oh I do. I recently found a cache that leaked water and into which someone placed Lime Salt. My hands were sticky...I had to add a log. As per CITO, my car smelled like rotten limes for a week.

 

The point is: that cache had a description. I realize the lime salt wasn't the CO's fault, but there's a lot more to complain about than a perfectly good cache without the extras. I don't see the cache page until after I've found a cache.

Link to comment

As a n00b I've found this thread thoroughly entertaining and enlightening.

 

FWIW I'd see a cache with no desc/hint as part of the challenge - however I'd expect it to be a higher difficulty.

 

Annoying... yes, discourteous... maybe, un-friendly... possibly, un-helpful... yes, offensive... absolutely not!

 

How can you get offended by something someone else does to something that is

 

a) not your property

:lol: not on your property

c) no obligation to partake in

d) ignorable

e) not related to you or your family

f) not dangerous for you or your family

and

g) does not intefere with your life in any way at all?

 

Calm down dear, it's only a geocache.

Link to comment
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. :lol:
Whatever would we do without someone telling us what we should be outraged about? :(
Some highlights from outraged posters to the forums over the years:

"The cache description is too long!"

"The cache description is too short!"

"The cache description doesn't exist!"

"The cache has too much swag!"

"The cache doesn't have enough swag!"

"The cache is too difficult to find!"

"The cache is too easy to find!"

"The cache is too hard to get to!"

"The cache is too easy to get to!"

"The cache is too small!"

"The cache is too big!"

"The cache has too much of something I don't like!"

"The cache doesn't have enough of what I'd want it to have!"

"This cache displeases me in some way! I deserve to have every cache fit my personal preferences exactly, and if it doesn't then the owner of that cache is doing it WRONG!!!!!"

Link to comment
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. :lol:
Whatever would we do without someone telling us what we should be outraged about? :(
Some highlights from outraged posters to the forums over the years:

"The cache description is too long!"

"The cache description is too short!"

"The cache description doesn't exist!"

"The cache has too much swag!"

"The cache doesn't have enough swag!"

"The cache is too difficult to find!"

"The cache is too easy to find!"

"The cache is too hard to get to!"

"The cache is too easy to get to!"

"The cache is too small!"

"The cache is too big!"

"The cache has too much of something I don't like!"

"The cache doesn't have enough of what I'd want it to have!"

"This cache displeases me in some way! I deserve to have every cache fit my personal preferences exactly, and if it doesn't then the owner of that cache is doing it WRONG!!!!!"

 

You left out "You cheated me out of an FTF because I couldn't find the cache and had to come back after someone else found it."

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...