No attributes listed on cache page

[+Max and 99]

Why are so many caches being published with no attributes listed? It takes literally 15 seconds to click the attribute box and give cachers so much useful information. I'd estimate that out of the past 100 caches published in my area, maybe a few had attributes listed.

[Keystone]

Those listings are published because they meet the listing guidelines. Attributes are entirely optional, with the exception of the "Beacon" attribute in limited cases.

 

I hope you are not asking for proper attribute selection to be a part of the cache review process? That would significantly increase the cycle time from submission to publication.

 

My best advice is to politely note which attributes a cache owner might add to their page, after you seek out the cache. You could do this as part of your "found it" log, or in an email message to the owner.

[+BCandMsKitty]

The reviewers in our area have reminded me in the past if I have forgotten to put attributes on. And I have legitimately forgotten to do it.

Maybe other reviewers aren't as diligent.

 

Just sayin.

[Keystone]

Any "reminders" about attributes would be an entirely voluntary act by a reviewer. A reviewer who does not do that optional task cannot be faulted for lack of diligence. Overlooking the fact that a cache is 100 feet from another cache would be a lack of diligence.

 

And, a "reminder" is different than holding up publication until the correct attributes are added.

[+Max and 99]

Exactly! Our reviewers used to give cache owners a reminder to please add attributes when approving a cache. Now they don't.

It's important to know that a cache is only accessible during daytime hours, and if that is not listed on the cache page, an attribute giving that information would be helpful!

It's a shame that this feature isn't being used by more cachers.

[+JesandTodd]

You know, I never even notice attributes. Ever. I bet they are helpful, but I don't click on the button to see what they are....

 

ETA: I mean as a cacher, not an owner...I just never look

Edited December 13, 2010 by JesandTodd

[+narcissa]

It's very common for older caches to have no attributes.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Ok, I guess diligent wasn't the proper word to have used. And I was aware that it was voluntary on the reviewers part, because of the wording used in the "reminder/suggestion, and wasn't meaning to fault anyone.

And I don't think anyone suggested that a listing be held up if there were no attributes.

I just know that the reviewers I deal with are the best, and have helped keep me out of trouble on more than one occasion!

 

Edit:spelling

Edited December 13, 2010 by BC & MsKitty

[+Max and 99]

And my point was that a huge percentage of published caches these days aren't using the helpful attribute feature, NOT a complaint that the reviewers are publishing them that way!

 

I wish more cachers would take an extra 30 seconds to click on the appropriate attributes for the cache they are hiding.

[+Don_J]

And my point was that a huge percentage of published caches these days aren't using the helpful attribute feature, NOT a complaint that the reviewers are publishing them that way!

 

I wish more cachers would take an extra 30 seconds to click on the appropriate attributes for the cache they are hiding.

 

Thanks to your post, I just added a "No Dogs" attribute to one of my caches. I think that this one of the more important attributes that we have. It would be a pain to drive dozens of miles to trail head with your pooch, just to find a sign that he wasn't welcome.

[+M 5]

Exactly! Our reviewers used to give cache owners a reminder to please add attributes when approving a cache. Now they don't.It's important to know that a cache is only accessible during daytime hours, and if that is not listed on the cache page, an attribute giving that information would be helpful!

It's a shame that this feature isn't being used by more cachers.

 

And my point was that a huge percentage of published caches these days aren't using the helpful attribute feature, NOT a complaint that the reviewers are publishing them that way!I wish more cachers would take an extra 30 seconds to click on the appropriate attributes for the cache they are hiding.

 

Which is it?

[+t4e]

they should be mandatory

[+niraD]

they should be mandatory

Yeah, because the San Francisco Bay Area needs more caches with the "No Snowmobiles" attribute...

[+uxorious]

Half of my caches have no attributes on them. Mostly because I'm not always sure which ones are appropriate.

I guess I should think more about it. I just looked at a list of attributes, and can see there are some I wish others would use.

If I would hope others would use them, I guess I should try a little harder to use them myself.

[+Walts Hunting]

they should be mandatory

 

Kind of a simplistic approach. If I got a note back saying I had to add attributes I would probably click something random (livestock nearby comes to mind) and resubmit. Since the reviewers are not going to turn into the attribute police it would be approved.

 

Reviewers already have a difficult job and adding this would make their job even harder. If you think attributes are that important you can always choose to not go to those that don't meet your standards.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Walts Hunting

[+Don_J]

they should be mandatory

 

Kind of a simplistic approach. If I got a note back saying I had to add attributes I would probably click something random (livestock nearby comes to mind) and resubmit. Since the reviewers are not going to turn into the attribute police it would be approved.

 

Reviewers already have a difficult job and adding this would make their job even harder. If you think attributes are that important you can always choose to not go to those that don't meet your standards.

 

I actually have caches on a trail where cows have been Known to chase after Geocachers. I have attributes on each and every one of my placed caches. I feel that it is my responsibility to to apprise finders of what they may encounter.

 

That said, is this a reviewer issue? Except for a D1 and the wheelchair attribute , I don't think that they need to take on the extra workload of enforcing this. Besides how is my local reviewer going to know that cows from the nearby range occasionally cross the Devil's Cyn, or Brown's Cyn Trails in Chatsworth, CA.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Don_J

[+15Tango]

I've been geocaching for nearly 10 years, and attributes are relatively new - when they started attributes, I added them to the caches I currently had out, but I'm not in the habit of adding them to my new hides. I also rarely look at the attributes when I look at a cache page (besides, they don't even show up when I look up the cache description on my Oregon). Through looking at the D/T rating, cache size, and reading the description, I've always been able to have a positive attribute-free caching experience.

[+narcissa]

they should be mandatory

 

Indeed. When it does become mandatory, I'll be sure to mark all of my caches with "No Campfires" and "Special Tool Required." A GPS is a special tool, right?

[+narcissa]

If I got a note back saying I had to add attributes I would probably click something random (livestock nearby comes to mind) and resubmit.

 

+1

[+t4e]

Yeah, because the San Francisco Bay Area needs more caches with the "No Snowmobiles" attribute...

 

i will not say out loud what my opinion is of someone that picks random useless attributes just for the sake of it

 

Half of my caches have no attributes on them. Mostly because I'm not always sure which ones are appropriate.

I guess I should think more about it. I just looked at a list of attributes, and can see there are some I wish others would use.

If I would hope others would use them, I guess I should try a little harder to use them myself.

 

why is that?

you should know since you visited the area to place your cache

there are so many that are appropriate in any situation

is there parking or not, is it available 24/7 or not, is it winter friendly and the list goes on

 

Kind of a simplistic approach. If I got a note back saying I had to add attributes I would probably click something random (livestock nearby comes to mind) and resubmit. Since the reviewers are not going to turn into the attribute police it would be approved.

 

Reviewers already have a difficult job and adding this would make their job even harder. If you think attributes are that important you can always choose to not go to those that don't meet your standards.

 

if my approach is siplistic what does that make yours, just randomly picking an attribute without engaging any thought?

 

attributes are very useful especialy on the road, for people with kids trying to find easy stuff

and more so since the rating systen isnot exactly accurate

the attributes gives CO's a chance to say something up about what to expect because a lot of people don't read the description

Edited December 13, 2010 by t4e

[+Mother Wolf]

Is it so much effort to add attributes? No it isnt mandatory but it does help in many cases & is just 1 of those things that makes a person a more considerate CO, IMHO.

 

Leave the surprises for the hunt & finding of the cache.

[+narcissa]

Attributes are great, but on the other hand, is it so difficult to read a cache description or simply skip a cache if it doesn't have a particular attribute? Often times, I take the liberty of asking the cache owner if I can't determine something from the cache page. Forcing cache owners to use attributes would almost certainly increase the incidence of meaningless attributes. No campfires allowed! My parking lot micro could be a long hike if you wanted it to be. Oh, saw something that might be related to giant hogweed over in that ditch across the road, better mark that too.

[+t4e]

attributes are also useful in building pocket queries

most people use them responsibly, those that choose to be a smart a** and put something totally useless are not many, and at least if i get "burned" once with someone's cache that did that i will be content with ignoring all their cache

 

and i agree with Mother Wolf, will show more responsibility on the CO's part

Edited December 14, 2010 by t4e

[+L0ne.R]

attributes are also useful in building pocket queries

most people use them responsibly, those that choose to be a smart a** and put something totally useless are not many, and at least if i get "burned" once with someone's cache that did that i will be content with ignoring all their cache

 

and i agree with Mother Wolf, will show more responsibility on the CO's part

 

I agree wrt it shows some courtesy on the part of the CO to add attributes when attributes apply. For instance if there's an entry fee into the conservation area it is really nice to have a $ attribute. It would be preferable and appreciated when a CO uses attributes to be helpful to their fellow cachers.

[+L0ne.R]

there are so many that are appropriate in any situation

is there parking or not, is it available 24/7 or not, is it winter friendly and the list goes on

 

Yes, boy do I appreciate the winter friendly attribute this time of year.

[AZcachemeister]

I don't RELY on attributes, but I do find them helpful.

I always add them to my caches, but I do have a few silly ones in there as well (no snowmobiles in Phoenix...right!).

Plenty of caches in our area getting published with none, though.

 

As previously stated, they ARE optional, and not a requirement.