Jump to content

cache listings done wrong


JL_HSTRE

Recommended Posts

Lets say a cache has been placed and approved. The coordinates are accurate, the container is good, the cache location doesn't violate guidelines; in other words, there's nothing wrong with the cache itself (other than it may not be one you personally enjoy).

 

But the cache page...well, it could be filled out better by the cache owner. Some don't know, some are lazy, maybe some are being intentionally antagonistic. But what are some things you have seen done wrong on cache pages you wish all cache owners would do right? These things are generally annoying or impair you from filtering caches in your searches (filtering out caches you want to avoid & locating caches you're more likely to enjoy).

 

1) The cache page is written WITH CAPSLOCK TURNED ON.

 

2) The hint is useless, such as "No hint needed", "to the left of the tree", "enjoy the view", or "Park at the shopping mall".

 

3) "Very Large" (giant ammo cans or larger) caches listed as Other or Not Chosen

 

4) Obviously Micro containers (bison tubes, keycases) listed as Small.

 

5) Micros or Nanos listed as size Other or Not Chosen without good reason. Not Chosen does make sense if it's a high Difficult cache and the container is part of the challenge. Other makes sense if the container is unusual or is a Micro in a larger host.

 

6) Attributes not being chosen.

 

7) Waypoints, especially Parking, not being given where they probably should be.

 

What else?

Edited by joshism
Link to comment

Wow, Joshism sums up my feelings pretty well.

I get REALLY irked by bad spelling and grammar too (typos don't count). I especially get frustrated when I know a college student is typing up that cache page. I just want to shake them and say "Really? That's the best you can do? How do you expect to get a job with those grammar and spelling skills?"

 

I think one cache page I saw years ago that really got my goat was one that was typed 100% in texting lingo. It wouldn't be fair to post the text here, so I hope you can imagine what I'm talking about. I had to read that page three times to figure out what the heck it was trying to tell me!

 

As Joshism already stated in his post, and I agree with: one of my biggest frustrations is cache owners not taking 30 seconds to list attributes. Come on! It's not that hard!

Edited by Max and 99
Link to comment

- Hints that, when decoded, say essentially "no hint."

- Atrociously bad spelling and grammar, to the point where I can't tell if the CO is trying to send me a coded message or not. I can live with the occasional typo.

 

Edit:

- Lack of parking coordinates.

- Additional coordinates being given in the description, but not listed as additional waypoints. (If they are listed as additional waypoints I don't have to manually enter them in my gps.)

Edited by Mom-n-Andy
Link to comment

...

1) The cache page is written WITH CAPSLOCK TURNED ON.

That bugs me but not to the point of not searching because of it

2) The hint is useless, such as "No hint needed", "to the left of the tree", "enjoy the view", or "Park at the shopping mall".

That bugs me but not to the point of not searching because of it - strangle compultion to use the blank spot despite the warning not to.

3) "Very Large" (giant ammo cans or larger) caches listed as Other or Not Chosen

Never have seen that.

4) Obviously Micro containers (bison tubes, keycases) listed as Small.

Growing problem but again - in and of itself not a reason to skip a cache

5) Micros or Nanos listed as size Other or Not Chosen without good reason. Not Chosen does make sense if it's a high Difficult cache and the container is part of the challenge. Other makes sense if the container is unusual or is a Micro in a larger host.

Although incorrect technically - some areas and groups teach that nanos should be listed as 'other'

6) Attributes not being chosen.

Doesn't bug me in the least as they don't appear in the PQs on my unit

7) Waypoints, especially Parking, not being given where they probably should be.

Doesn't bug me in the least. Sometimes finding the parking (best approach) is just a a part of doing the cache to me.

 

Missing descriptions bug me - I have seen a lot of totally blank descriptions.

 

Badly misrating the terrain bugs me.

Link to comment

There are a couple more things that are extremely annoying.

 

- A puzzle cache that is placed up a tree or in another dangerous place with no indication of the placement in the cache description, so that you waste hours if not days working out the puzzle only to find when you get to GZ that you cannot retrieve the cache. This is probably my biggest pet peeve in geocaching.

- Lack of a common understanding of what "winter accessible" means. If you live above the Mason-Dixon line and your cache is on the ground covered by a geopile, it is NOT winter accessible.

Link to comment

 

- Lack of a common understanding of what "winter accessible" means. If you live above the Mason-Dixon line and your cache is on the ground covered by a geopile, it is NOT winter accessible.

 

This is my biggest ever ever pet peeve right now. I've looked for a good few that say winter friendly, and when you finally dig down in 2 feet of snow, you find it frozen to the ground under a log. That would classify as NOT winter friendly, or at least not winter friendly.

 

I do know that anything is winter friendly when you put the effort in, but when you don't want to spend the day digging in the snow, it's nice to know if it's in the tree or not.

Link to comment
Additional coordinates being given in the description, but not listed as additional waypoints. (If they are listed as additional waypoints I don't have to manually enter them in my gps.)

 

I agree. It's so much nicer to have the additional waypoints in my GPS.

 

Atrociously bad spelling and grammar, to the point where I can't tell if the CO is trying to send me a coded message or not. I can live with the occasional typo.

 

I can't think of a cache that I've found, with a description that combined bad spelling/grammar/syntax, that was a good caching experience. It seems that as much thought goes into the actual hide as went into the cache description.

 

Lack of a common understanding of what "winter accessible" means. If you live above the Mason-Dixon line and your cache is on the ground covered by a geopile, it is NOT winter accessible.

 

I don't get why anyone would choose the winter accessible attribute for anything but caches that could be found when there's a foot or 2 of snow on the ground. Who cares if the park is open in the winter. I'm not checking the geocaching.com site for available parks, I'm looking for available geocaches.

Link to comment

That bugs me but not to the point of not searching because of it

 

I think you misundersood the question; I'm not talking about skipping caches because of bad cache pages. I'm talking about errors and omissions that are annoying about a cache page when you try to read it and/or make it harder for you determine if the cache is something you'd like.

 

3) "Very Large" (giant ammo cans or larger) caches listed as Other or Not Chosen

Never have seen that.

 

I have found more Very Large caches listed as Other or Not Chosen than I have found listed as Large.

 

Missing descriptions bug me - I have seen a lot of totally blank descriptions.

 

Back In The Day weren't many cache listings little more than a set of coordinates?

Link to comment

My two main peeves are already on other lists.

Poor spelling - I'm not a perfect speller or typist, but I do know how to edit the page if a mistake slips in.

Misrepresented size - just because there are now nanos doesn't mean a film container is the new small.

....and one that may be unique to me, and probably not noticed by the owner at all. Split maps. I hate it when the map is split on two different pages. It makes preparation for GPS-less caching more difficult. It is usually a result of having a much longer verbal description than necessary, which often takes us back to peeve #1.

Link to comment

If the cache meets all the guidelines and the coordinates are reasonably accurate, then who cares what is written on the cache page or how it is written? Geocaching is about finding caches, not fill-in-the-form webpage creation.

 

However, I do like the idea about long, rambling, encoded clues that don't really offer much of a clue... GreySmile.gif

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment

That bugs me but not to the point of not searching because of it

 

I think you misundersood the question; I'm not talking about skipping caches because of bad cache pages. I'm talking about errors and omissions that are annoying about a cache page when you try to read it and/or make it harder for you determine if the cache is something you'd like.

 

3) "Very Large" (giant ammo cans or larger) caches listed as Other or Not Chosen

Never have seen that.

 

I have found more Very Large caches listed as Other or Not Chosen than I have found listed as Large.

 

Missing descriptions bug me - I have seen a lot of totally blank descriptions.

 

Back In The Day weren't many cache listings little more than a set of coordinates?

I think I understood the question ok - I just can't see how all caps would prevent me from filtering or searching for a cache!!

 

What do you consider a "very large" cache?? (examples?) - I've only seen 3 true larges in 9+ years of caching!! :) - wish I could see more....

 

Many of the older caches have much more complete descriptions than many of todays newest caches. Might be because there just isn't much to say... :omnomnom:

Link to comment

Titles that are a bunch of letters, plus series number ABNOREQ #5 somewhere in the useless and repetitive description ABNOREQ is explained, and not much else.

Or two bunches of letters, some abbreviation of the cache owner's name, JKLP RECWAIN #11. When you couple this with micro, not listed, or unknown size, that's gonna get filtered right out.

 

Back In The Day weren't many cache listings little more than a set of coordinates?

 

No, you did see very looong hints, lists of original contents, and navigating instructions as much of the write up.

Many people had only base maps - ie, the interstates and major highways. Or no maps at all in the unit.

 

Here's a classic of the old type write up. Notice how much of is navigation. Including the longish hint. One of my first cache write ups is similar - i've left it alone, as it was pretty typical of the time.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

Hmm... How about <img src="ginormous4000x3000photo.jpg"> (if I have to scroll horizontally on my desktop browser, just imagine how bad it is on a mobile device)?

 

And how about <blink>, <marquee>, or anything else mentioned at www.webpagesthatsuck.com?

Edited by niraD
Link to comment

Hints that are really anti-hints. The kind that are there to make things harder rather than easier. I'd prefer no hint at all.

 

Two related examples I've found:

 

Hint: "Magnetic" Cache: Bison and magnet inside a pinecone, attached to a large nut wired to a tree branch.

 

Hint: "Not magnetic" Cache: Metal object velcroed to a metal object.

Link to comment

I can't think of a cache that I've found, with a description that combined bad spelling/grammar/syntax, that was a good caching experience. It seems that as much thought goes into the actual hide as went into the cache description.

 

Do I really want to hunt for this cache?

A small round container, that is nere Lake Hopatcong a local swimmers hot stop in the summer. It should be found easily. It contains a pencil, a log, an earaser, and Dollar bill that can be tracked on where'sgeorge.com.

Please put it back where you found it.

 

Then again, I've never tried an earaser. I certainly do not expect any more thought on the cache than went into the page.

Link to comment

Here's one I haven't seen mentioned yet that drives me nuts:

 

When there is a series of caches along a trail and the owner of each cache lists the exact same parking lot but with slightly different coordinates listed as child waypoints so your map and GPSr are filled with a mass of "P" symbols.

 

As for the others already covered:

 

- Spelling and punctuation errors.

- Descriptions that ramble on for pages

- Descriptions that tell you nothing "Here is my cache. Please find it."

- Hints that are useless or misleading

- Waypoints mentioned in the description but not entered as child waypoints (unless it is an old cache that was hidden before child waypoints were added as a feature)

- Misleading / incorrect cache size selected

 

Those are the ones that bug me. I'll also second what someone else said -- the amount of time (or lack thereof) someone puts into the cache page is often comparable to the amount of time they put into the cache hide itself.

Link to comment

There are a couple more things that are extremely annoying.

 

- A puzzle cache that is placed up a tree or in another dangerous place with no indication of the placement in the cache description, so that you waste hours if not days working out the puzzle only to find when you get to GZ that you cannot retrieve the cache. This is probably my biggest pet peeve in geocaching.

- Lack of a common understanding of what "winter accessible" means. If you live above the Mason-Dixon line and your cache is on the ground covered by a geopile, it is NOT winter accessible.

 

I have to agree with the "special" circumstances, that go unmentioned. Like climbing, or needing special equipement. Some of the few caches I have done that were "especially challenging physically" had no mention in the description.

I don't mind surprises, and have come to expect them when out caching, but would prefer to know in advance if it is a remote location, and I don't have the faintest idea.

 

edit to add- since we are speaking frankly, the main thing I would like to see changed is the way people name their caches. "Grandma's Wintertime Chicken Soup Recipe #1 through 44" shows up on my handheld as "Grandma's Wintertime Chicken" 44 times, making it nearly impossible to distinguish what number it is in the series, without lot of extra trouble. I mean, since you asked.

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

I agree about the naming of caches with the number first and then the series name or whatever. Makes it easier for my organizing. I don't do PQs or anything fancy but it would be very helpful to have it number first for me.

 

I can't say I agree about the large containers marked as other/not chosen or whatever being annoying. Found one like that and the container was just a treat with the camo involved. Loved it.

 

I think my only pet peeve is when people low ball the terrain on their caches. I use that to pick caches my mom can get to. People who low ball it make this horribly un-fun for her as she is physically unable to get to the higher terrains.

 

I've found some little gems with no cache description or minimal cache descriptions. Some bummers with huge descriptions. But I typically have fun looking for them so it is what it is. Some times I know the history of the area and wish the owners would note that in their descriptions but whatever. It's their cache.

Link to comment

I can't think of a cache that I've found, with a description that combined bad spelling/grammar/syntax, that was a good caching experience. It seems that as much thought goes into the actual hide as went into the cache description.

 

Do I really want to hunt for this cache?

A small round container, that is nere Lake Hopatcong a local swimmers hot stop in the summer. It should be found easily. It contains a pencil, a log, an earaser, and Dollar bill that can be tracked on where'sgeorge.com.

Please put it back where you found it.

 

Then again, I've never tried an earaser. I certainly do not expect any more thought on the cache than went into the page.

I like my ears just as they are. I would not seek out a cache that has something that would erase them.

Link to comment

Micros of any kind camoed by placing them in some larger object and listing the cache size as the size of the camo. If you hide a film can in a plastic rabbit and call it "small" then logic suggests that if you hide a bison tube in redwood stump it should be "huge" but the fact is, it's still just a micro. When we find those I have to listen to my partner gripe about it for hours on end.....

Link to comment

Lets say a cache has been placed and approved. The coordinates are accurate, the container is good, the cache location doesn't violate guidelines; in other words, there's nothing wrong with the cache itself

 

That's pretty much all that really matters to me. But I am a simple man from the land of the palm trees. Guantanamera. Pax Nabisco.

Link to comment

1. Comic Sans MS font. Really, who uses that?

2. Waypoints and info on how to find/use them only written in the additional waypoints. This is more a personal thing. Our android application (geohunter) does not show that info correctly, so we have to visit the cache site to be able to read it.

3. Unformatted wall of text

Link to comment
ideas for a presentation on cache hiding to be given at a future event

 

So, on the positive side, suggestions on what a cache description should have:

 

Many people will not see your cache page on their computer; they'll download 500 - 1000 caches at a time. And have tiny little screen for viewing the info. Put the crucial information neatly and briefly at the top.

 

1) The short description should provide the basic hunt info:

You're looking for a [micro, small lock and lock, camo'ed unknown, ammo can, etc]

[park and grab, name or type of property, name of park or forest]

[about X miles from the parking.]

If coords are bogus, say so. If cache is multi, give approx distance, maybe # of stages - mention if there's a drive between stages.

 

2) The long description opens with other necessary info: NOT available at night, please sign in, permission granted, access during business hours only, no bikes allowed, dogs on leashes, hunting area, etc.

 

3) The hint, if any, adds useful info for the hunt in the field.

 

THEN the interesting stuff about the location and what's cool...and if cache is a series, please, the repetitive series junk at the bottom.

 

Additional waypoints: if you're offering parking coords or other reference coords.Parking coords, if available, both in the text and as an additional waypoint?(I don't do this myself - parking coords are as an additional waypoint, not in the text).

 

Attributes

 

Rate the terrain correctly - especially at the low end, terrain 1 = wheelchair accessible, terrain 1.5 should be okay for families with rather young children or older cachers with some mobility issues. If a cache requires a CLIMB USING HANDS (like a tree climb, cliff face etc) that's a terrain 4.

If it needs a boat, that's a terrain 5 (this is somewhat Florida specific as the OP is a Florida cacher - caches rated for the terrain AFTER you get out of your boat are a common problem in the state).

 

Size, please state it. A film can is not a small. A small cache should hold a TB tag. A nano is not unknown or other, it's a flavor of micro cache.

Small size was best described by NYPaddleCacher thus: drink a beer, now firmly smash the empty aluminum can against your forehead. That crushed can = small.

 

Spell check!

Camouflage has a "u" in the middle ;-); it's abbreviated as camo'ed . The apostrophe stands in for "uflag".

Your is not the contraction of you are; that would be you're, alot is not a word in English...etc.

 

edit speeling ;-)

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

1. Comic Sans MS font. Really, who uses that?

2. Waypoints and info on how to find/use them only written in the additional waypoints. This is more a personal thing. Our android application (geohunter) does not show that info correctly, so we have to visit the cache site to be able to read it.

 

That's not really a complaint about the cache or the cache hider. You should take it up with the creator of the broken software.

Link to comment
ideas for a presentation on cache hiding to be given at a future event

 

So, on the positive side, suggestions on what a cache description should have:

 

Excellent points, Isonzo.

 

BTW I've been meaning to ask: is your geo-name is a reference to NE Italy? I read a book about World War I in Italy last year so I immediately recognized Isonzo (River) and Karst (Plateau).

Link to comment

My Oregon-specific peeves:

 

- Cache descriptions that depend on embedded or attached photos (can't see 'em) or HTML coding. (I see the HTML code but not the page as it displays.)

- Cache descriptions that are so long my Oregon cuts them off, especially earth caches that have the logging requirements at the end. (This is why I always repeat the logging requirements for our earth caches in the hints.)

- Wherigo caches that eat up too much memory and lock up the Oregon.

 

The common denominator is, of course, the Oregon unit itself. But I spent good money on it and am not keen on getting a new unit right now, so we've got to live with it.

Link to comment

Micros of any kind camoed by placing them in some larger object and listing the cache size as the size of the camo. If you hide a film can in a plastic rabbit and call it "small" then logic suggests that if you hide a bison tube in redwood stump it should be "huge" but the fact is, it's still just a micro. When we find those I have to listen to my partner gripe about it for hours on end.....

 

Yeah...I don't get why some micro hiders have trouble with that concept. How come people don't have trouble deciding on the size criteria of a sandwich size lock n lock in a large log. You never see someone post it as 'large' because the log is 10 feet long and 3 feet in diameter.

Link to comment

One I dislike the most is the hint that says " email me after DNF" That's okay for locals but those who travel a long distance maybe out of luck because by the time they get the email back they are no longer in the area.

 

yup, I have to agree with that one. One of the main things I like about geocaching is it can be a solitary activity if you want it to be. I enjoy meeting other cachers, and my sweetie and I enjoy some quality time together, but sometimes I just like to get away from everything and everyone, and enjoy the hunt.

I don't really want to find a new "pen pal".

What's worse... sometimes you never get a response from the people who asked you to email for a hint. Very frustrating.

Link to comment

One I dislike the most is the hint that says " email me after DNF" That's okay for locals but those who travel a long distance maybe out of luck because by the time they get the email back they are no longer in the area.

One of my more creative and difficult caches includes an "email me after DNF" in the description section (not in the hints). Much of the fun comes from trying to figure out how to access this cache. Unfortunately, if I included a huge hint, many people would simply check the hint before they even try to access the cache.

 

I understand that out-of-towners might be unable to return for a second visit, but that's a chance they take. Most people don't find every cache they look for. I did assign an appropriate difficulty rating.

Link to comment
- Cache descriptions that are so long my Oregon cuts them off, especially earth caches that have the logging requirements at the end.

Guilty as charged. But no plans to change, as I'd prefer the visitor read and understood the whole page rather than dive straight to the key locations for a quick (and quickly forgotten) smiley.

Link to comment

I have a huge peeve that I dont think is on this list: offsets.

 

A traditional cache is supposed to be AT the posted coordinates. If it isnt AT them and you need to go there to then do something else (like a projection, or look for the third park bench to the left, then walk distance x in direction y) - then it's something other than a traditional - like a multi or even a letterbox...

 

There was one, i spent half an hour looking in the GZ only to find out when i got home that it wasnt there - you actually had to do not one, but THREE projections from the posted coordinates - and go on an hour long hike to get to the actual GZ. I was so mad i left a snotty DNF and emailed the reviewer. Never got a response & nothing's changed. Bigger fish out there i guess.

 

<phew>

Link to comment

There are a few old "traditional" caches that were listed before the current cache types were defined, or at least, before they were rigorously enforced. They wouldn't be listed as traditional caches today, but AFAICS, they are essentially grandfathered as traditional caches.

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...