cache listings done wrong

[+narcissa]

I am a happy Oregon user, but I can't claim any sympathy for other Oregon users who don't do advance preparation for Earthcaches, multis, and puzzles.

[+Don_J]

My peeve. Well written descriptions, where the owner changed the cache a year later and refuses to edit the page to reflect the changes. I'm talking about active cachers. I'm looking for an ammo can when the owner replaced it with a film can years ago.

 

Also, people that move their cache and note the change with a simple note instead of using the update coordinates log.

 

As far as the other stuff. I saw one published this morning. Title is misspelled. Title and description is in all caps. Hint reads "WATCH OUT FOR MUGGERS". This is in an upscale part of Encino, CA. Not a lot of muggers walking around.

[+CanadianRockies]

Also, people that move their cache and note the change with a simple note instead of using the update coordinates log.

There's a multi-part puzzle cache in our area with a final cache that had been found by muggles. The cache owner moved it 18 metres and couldn't update the coordinates because that would require changing other parts of the puzzle. But the new offset was put in the hint!

 

I searched for 20 minutes before finally decrypting the hint. Arg!

[+NeecesandNephews]

My peeve. Well written descriptions, where the owner changed the cache a year later and refuses to edit the page to reflect the changes. I'm talking about active cachers. I'm looking for an ammo can when the owner replaced it with a film can years ago.

 

Also, people that move their cache and note the change with a simple note instead of using the update coordinates log.

 

As far as the other stuff. I saw one published this morning. Title is misspelled. Title and description is in all caps. Hint reads "WATCH OUT FOR MUGGERS". This is in an upscale part of Encino, CA. Not a lot of muggers walking around.

 

I don't know... I've been told FTF hounds go to extremes sometimes!!

[+Student Camper]

All modern browsers have built-in spell checkers these days. IMO there is no excuse for poor spelling on cache pages.

 

The cash is hidden by a stomp. Finders should take there time so they don't brake it.

 

I agree, There is no excuse for some of the poor spelling found on cache pages and elsewhere,

an occasional typo I can overlook but some of what I see is over the top.

I don't have spellcheck because I havn't figured out (yet) how to load it into this program, but I do have a dictionary and I use it often.

And yes, an occasional typo still gets throuhg.

[+hzoi]

- 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.

 

I don't believe it helps me to learn if I read and understand 85-90% of an earthcache, then get cut off in the middle of a sentence. If I am looking for an earthcache, I have already made the decision that I want to learn something about earth science. But your way, I may well miss out on both the end of the lesson and the possibility of logging your earthcache.

 

I am currently in a teaching position, and as a teacher, this attitude seems counterproductive to me. I was trained to adjust my teaching style as needed in order to better reach my audience and communicate the knowledge I wish to impart. It mystifies me why one would set out to educate people about something and then choose to alienate a segment of their potential audience.

 

Having nearly missed out on the opportunity to log a great earthcache in Quebec, and having had to skip other earthcaches because the description got cut off, I've gotten into the habit of posting the logging requirements for long earthcaches as a note, then running my PQ just in case.

 

For our own earthcaches, we try to communicate effectively and teach the lessons in our earthcaches with precise and succinct language, rather than overwhelm our visitors with text. We also repost the logging requirements in brackets in the hint section, just in case. I don't think these actions haves taken anything away from the lessons we seek to teach througb our earthcaches. If anything, I would argue that we've potentially reached a wider audience than we would have otherwise.

 

But if you prefer to potentially turning your nose up at paperless cachers who don't plan ahead, that's your own lookout, as they say in Britain. I am glad to see that, to date, the one cacher who has found your one earthcache did not appear to have a problem with the description.