A question directed to reviewers (incomprehensible cache descriptions)

[cezanne]

I have a question directed to volunteer cache reviewers. Suppose you encounter a cache description in your review work that is written in a extremely poor language. Each sentence is full of grammar and spelling mistakes and it is not even always possible to guess the intended meaning. I have some really extreme cases in mind and not just a few typos or spelling mistakes.

 

Do you publish such a cache right away or do you suggest to the hider of the cache that it might be recommendable to revise the description? Do you feel that you need to fully understand the description to be able to check whether the cache fulfills the guidelines?

 

 

Cezanne

[+palmetto]

I only recall one cache description that I found utterly incomprehensible. The cache had other issues, so I asked about those. I never got any response, so archived the listing.

 

I've surely read some that were tough going, but typically the cache "description" and the coordinates seem to be a match - or potentially a match. This in mostly reading and publishing traditional caches. With multi and puzzle cache designs, comprehensible descriptions become more critical, and I have on occasion attempted to help cache owners clarify intent.

[+narcissa]

I've seen some pretty bad cache descriptions. Sometimes I wish there were higher standards for these things, but I wouldn't want to see people excluded from hiding caches because they aren't good at writing.

 

Interested to see reviewer thoughts on this.

[+StarBrand]

I have sometimes 'mis-used' language as a way to give a subtle hint in my descriptions.

 

I would think things would have to be really, really bad for the reviewer to mention that it needs cleaned up.

[+Monkeybrad]

I don't review for grammar or excellence in writing, I review for guideline compliance. Some people write well, some people, well...write. I try to not let my opinions on how "good" or "bad" a cache listing is influence my decisions.

[knowschad]

Maybe this guy can help: http://www.fiverr.com/users/trolltaker

[+briansnat]

If I couldn't comprehend the page I would ask for it to be re-written so it was clearer, but as long as the grammatical and spelling mistakes don't make the page totally incomprehensible, I would publish it intact.

[cezanne]

I don't review for grammar or excellence in writing, I review for guideline compliance. Some people write well, some people, well...write. I try to not let my opinions on how "good" or "bad" a cache listing is influence my decisions.

 

I would like to thank all who have already replied to my question. Maybe I should clarify that when asking my question I do not had in mind to reject a cache due to linguistic deficiencies. I just was curious how reviewers deal with the situation if they cannot even guess the meaning of some statements. Rejection of a cache is a very severe measure. Asking for clarification is something much more mild in my point of view.

 

Suppose e.g. that I take a text in English, introduce some typos, then use google to translate it to German (French or whatever) and then translate back into English and use the now just crazy text as description of my next traditional. One possible attitude might be to ignore the text at all as a traditional can also exist with no description at all. On the other hand, quite often caches do not get published in the original form because the description e.g. has overtones on advertising, mentions that a shovel is needed to find the cache or that a forbidden area has to be entered etc.

 

I guess that my original question is also related to the question how much role the description (the contents, not the quality of the writeup!) plays in the review process apart from performing distance checks and checking the location of the waypoints on maps.

 

Cezanne

[+palmetto]

The text is read for commercial content, agenda, family friendly, and bad coords. Bad coords can sometimes be determined if the description is of a park, and the coords are in a commercial district.

 

Typically the more incomprehensible pages are "me" oriented (what happened to me here, what I remember/know about this place), or are directions, as if the point wasn't that the coords will get you there (on your left)(2 r Lft).

 

Occasionally, there will be a complex puzzle or multi with masses of unpunctuated text that's barely comprehensible. Or someone will have chosen the wrong cache type and the text doesn't seem to support it. Trying to determine if they meant to submit a puzzle, for instance, can be daunting. It took me a while to realize that I should explain that they HAD chosen a cache type, explain that, and ask if what they chose matches the cache. But the text doesn't have to make any sense.

Edited June 17, 2010 by palmetto