Polite request for new cache placement.

3.7k · July 7, 2014

Please, spend a little time when you are writing the description. Do a basic spell and grammar check. Re-read it several times if you have to. Think about the people who are reading it and if it makes sense. Don't blast it out like a text message to your BFF...put more than the bare minimum of thought into it. Believe me...people may read it and wonder if the CO is even literate. I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it...two years ago.

Just being totally honest and blunt. Trying to help...

July 7, 2014

"I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it...two years ago."

I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it them...two years ago. :huh:

7.8k · July 7, 2014

"I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it...two years ago."

I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it them...two years ago.

3.7k · July 7, 2014

"I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it...two years ago."

I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it them...two years ago.

Hook, bait...aaand we have a winner!

Edited July 7, 2014 by J Grouchy

7.4k · July 8, 2014

Geocachers come from all walks of life.

July 8, 2014

BU7 \/\/|-|@ 4B0U7 (00L L337 $P34|<? $0/\/\3 p30PL3 L0\/3 70 /\/\4|<3 7|-|3 (4(|-|3 L00|< L1|<3 4 pUZZL3!

July 8, 2014

"I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it...two years ago."

I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it them...two years ago.

Awesome.

This is a pet peeve of mine, in real life as well as geocaching. Unfortunately, I think that those who need this message the most do not frequent the forums.

4.1k · July 8, 2014

We will be traveling up the coast in another week or two, so I started to see if there were any caches I might want to visit. There was one cache that seemed like it might be interesting, but it had seven or eight mistakes in the description, including some spelling errors using all caps. I put it on my ignore list.

7.4k · July 8, 2014

One of the best caches I have ever found had a cache description written all in caps, with spelling errors and several other language errors. I'm glad I looked past those minor cosmetic issues, because the cache took us on an amazing drive to a really cool spot we never would have found otherwise. The cache owner was someone who lives in a fairly remote, rugged area. He might not be a wordsmith, but he knows the logging roads like the back of his hand. We've found some of his other caches since, and none of them have disappointed.

4.5k · July 8, 2014

I too like to see some thought put into the written description of a cache page. Correct spelling and grammer are nice to see as well. Only thing is, i figure i'd miss out on some fun caches if i used these criteria to cull them out.

3.7k · July 8, 2014

Just being totally honest and blunt. Trying to help...

All about sentence fragments

6k · July 8, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

2.8k · July 8, 2014

Why do you want to check out my gramma?

5k · July 8, 2014

Geocachers come from all walks of life.

Thank you! We have a older local cacher that can spend hours entertaining you with the experiences of his life, but he just can't use a keyboard to do the same.

On the other hand, we have young cacher that hid a cache named "back to Skool". I wrote a note. "just in time", which was promptly deleted.

14k · July 8, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

I disagree. Sometimes the description might contain information necessary to avoid trespassing or to prevent people from searching in an environmentally sensitive areas (i.e. not in the flower beds).

Just because you *can* find caches without reading the description, doesn't mean that you should.

7.4k · July 8, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

There is plenty of reason to read the description.

4.5k · July 8, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

There is plenty of reason to read the description.

This is for sure! There have been many times where i didn't read the description until after i got back home, only to find that i missed out on another aspect of the cache that i would have enjoyed. One cache, for example, had it's description inviting finders to come knock on the door and get a dozen fresh yard eggs. Mmmmmmm, those would have been good.

38.2k · July 8, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

I disagree. Sometimes the description might contain information necessary to avoid trespassing or to prevent people from searching in an environmentally sensitive areas (i.e. not in the flower beds).

Just because you *can* find caches without reading the description, doesn't mean that you should.

Also when you see:

"THES IS MY FRIST CATCH. I HOPE YOU LIKE ET."

There is a 99.7915 percent chance that it will be a lousy container in a crappy location with coordinates 150 feet off.

5k · July 8, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

Wow! I read the description on EVERY cache I seek. The idea that you don't have to is one of the reasons why this game is spiraling down.

2.3k · July 8, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

Wow! I read the description on EVERY cache I seek. The idea that you don't have to is one of the reasons why this game is spiraling down.

^ ^ ^

This.

I also read the description for every cache I seek.

First, I plan ahead for my caching day, partly to weed out caches I'm not interested in looking for. There are lots and lots of those.

Second, there's often important information in the cache description. Like parking information (not all cachers correctly use the waypoint thing). Warnings about cranky neighbors or barking dogs. Best approaches to the cache site. Warnings about not going off-path in certain parks. Etc., etc.

Third, assuming there is a cache description to read, the cache owner expended the effort to write it up, and the least I can do is read what he wrote. Bad grammar and spelling and all.

Fourth, I'm really into history, especially local history, and, at least around here, there's often great information about the cache site in the description.

Lastly, I like to read.

I know several cachers who think it's more of a challenge to look for a cache without reading the description. I think they're missing out on an important part of the experience.

--Larry

7.8k · July 8, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

Wow! I read the description on EVERY cache I seek. The idea that you don't have to is one of the reasons why this game is spiraling down.

My thoughts exactly. IMO, seeking a cache without reading the description is reckless. Sure, some of the time you might be able to get away with it, but other times you might be putting yourself at risk of physical harm, legal troubles, or of otherwise performing some action that could reflect badly on the game. Take the time to read the descriptions. If that means you won't have time for that one last cache at the end of the day, then so be it. You'll survive without that extra smiley.

7.8k · July 8, 2014

Sorry, Walts Hunting, it looks like we're all piling on. It just appears that your view on descriptions is in the minority, at least in the forums.

13.7k · July 8, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

Wow! I read the description on EVERY cache I seek. The idea that you don't have to is one of the reasons why this game is spiraling down.

^ ^ ^

This.

I also read the description for every cache I seek.

First, I plan ahead for my caching day, partly to weed out caches I'm not interested in looking for. There are lots and lots of those.

Second, there's often important information in the cache description. Like parking information (not all cachers correctly use the waypoint thing). Warnings about cranky neighbors or barking dogs. Best approaches to the cache site. Warnings about not going off-path in certain parks. Etc., etc.

Third, assuming there is a cache description to read, the cache owner expended the effort to write it up, and the least I can do is read what he wrote. Bad grammar and spelling and all.

This is pretty-much my routine also.

Weed out the carp.

Parking, warnings and often logs ("HUGE wasp nest!") .

Respect to the CO, no matter how short or odd the description is, for placing it.

July 8, 2014

"Correct spelling and grammer are nice to see as well." This is cute :anitongue:

2.3k · July 8, 2014

"Correct spelling and grammer are nice to see as well." This is cute

Yeah, the only "grammer" I know of has the first name Kelsey.

--Larry

July 8, 2014

One of the best caches I have ever found had a cache description written all in caps, with spelling errors and several other language errors. I'm glad I looked past those minor cosmetic issues, because the cache took us on an amazing drive to a really cool spot we never would have found otherwise. The cache owner was someone who lives in a fairly remote, rugged area. He might not be a wordsmith, but he knows the logging roads like the back of his hand. We've found some of his other caches since, and none of them have disappointed.

Same here! Some of the most creative and technically best made caches in my area have listings with poor spelling and grammar. Nobody has ever complained, because the caches are just great!

6k · July 8, 2014

Everybody is free to cache how they want and I am not saying anyone should not read the descriptions. Just that it is really unnecessary for almost all traditionals. Especially with the growing number of "I put one here because i was driving and there wasn't one withing 528 feet"

I don't think i miss anything. I will admit there is the rare one that is worth a read but given all the chaff I would have to go through to get to the wheat is isn't worth my time. If I can't find it at GZ I will read the descrtiptiont.

I want to thank The A-Team for pointing out I am the minority at least in the forums since I consider that a badge of honor. I don't cache to the majority i do it my way.

2.3k · July 8, 2014

Especially with the growing number of "I put one here because i was driving and there wasn't one withing 528 feet"

Those are the ones I can filter out (sometimes) by reading the cache description.

--Larry

7.4k · July 9, 2014

"Correct spelling and grammer are nice to see as well." This is cute

Yeah, the only "grammer" I know of has the first name Kelsey.

--Larry

Muphry's Law

3.7k · July 9, 2014

Everybody is free to cache how they want and I am not saying anyone should not read the descriptions. Just that it is really unnecessary for almost all traditionals. Especially with the growing number of "I put one here because i was driving and there wasn't one withing 528 feet"

I don't think i miss anything. I will admit there is the rare one that is worth a read but given all the chaff I would have to go through to get to the wheat is isn't worth my time. If I can't find it at GZ I will read the descrtiptiont.

I want to thank The A-Team for pointing out I am the minority at least in the forums since I consider that a badge of honor. I don't cache to the majority i do it my way.

You're not alone. While I generally do read the descriptions, I don't always. I agree that it's often not necessary. Being that I am a competent human being, I can assess possible dangers and usually tell whether I'm on private property just by using my eyes. Sometimes, it can actually be more fun to try to find a cache with just the coordinates and not even the size. Of course, often the description will have some helpful information, but sometimes it's just a load of fluff (most of my cache page descriptions fall into this category).

2.3k · July 9, 2014

Everybody is free to cache how they want and I am not saying anyone should not read the descriptions. Just that it is really unnecessary for almost all traditionals. Especially with the growing number of "I put one here because i was driving and there wasn't one withing 528 feet"

I don't think i miss anything. I will admit there is the rare one that is worth a read but given all the chaff I would have to go through to get to the wheat is isn't worth my time. If I can't find it at GZ I will read the descrtiptiont.

I want to thank The A-Team for pointing out I am the minority at least in the forums since I consider that a badge of honor. I don't cache to the majority i do it my way.

You're not alone. While I generally do read the descriptions, I don't always. I agree that it's often not necessary. Being that I am a competent human being, I can assess possible dangers and usually tell whether I'm on private property just by using my eyes. Sometimes, it can actually be more fun to try to find a cache with just the coordinates and not even the size. Of course, often the description will have some helpful information, but sometimes it's just a load of fluff (most of my cache page descriptions fall into this category).

A few years ago while working on the Ohio county and DeLorme challenges, I drove more than a hundred miles to the southeast corner of the state for an all-day cache run. This was back when I was using a Garmin 60CSx, which wasn't anything like paperless. I normally also carried detailed cache information in a Palm Pilot.

About halfway to my destination, I realized I'd forgotten the Palm Pilot, meaning I would be flying blind and would have to rely only on the coordinates and bare details in the GPSr.

I ended the day with more finds than I'd ever had in a single day to that date. I was rather proud of myself.

I still read every cache description. It's just a lot more fun for me that way.

--Larry

4.5k · July 9, 2014

I too like to see some thought put into the written description of a cache page. Correct spelling and grammer are nice to see as well. Only thing is, i figure i'd miss out on some fun caches if i used these criteria to cull them out.

Oooops, i spelled grammar wrong. Glad this isn't a cache page!

July 9, 2014

We didn't read the description on this one until we got home. The Zombie Diary: Bunker 95

The cache itself was pretty straight forward - quick easy find in an obvious place - but I really appreciate the story the CO created. We've got some clever COs in our area!

3.3k · July 9, 2014

Since on traditionals there is really no reason to read the description there is also no reason to worry about spelling and grammer.

Wow! I read the description on EVERY cache I seek. The idea that you don't have to is one of the reasons why this game is spiraling down.

My thoughts exactly. IMO, seeking a cache without reading the description is reckless. Sure, some of the time you might be able to get away with it, but other times you might be putting yourself at risk of physical harm, legal troubles, or of otherwise performing some action that could reflect badly on the game. Take the time to read the descriptions. If that means you won't have time for that one last cache at the end of the day, then so be it. You'll survive without that extra smiley.

It really depends on the setting. If it's in a park or somewhere remote it makes sense to read the description. If it's a micro and it's on a street corner in an urban area you can be pretty sure that when you get there you'll find a sign or a piece of street furniture with a film pot behind it. If the description is proof that a word processor is so named because of what a food processor does to food then there may be little to gain from reading it. Of course if you get to GZ and find the entry to a park you can read the text to see what it's all about, but on the other hand if there was a park at GZ you'd probably have noticed it on the maps.

I'd agree that for caches I'd regard as worth finding the description is worth reading. If the description isn't worth reading the chances are the cache isn't worth finding.

14k · July 9, 2014

I'd agree that for caches I'd regard as worth finding the description is worth reading. If the description isn't worth reading the chances are the cache isn't worth finding.

Which leads me to ask, how are you going to know if a cache is worth finding if you don't read the description? It seems to me that you have to read the description to determine if it's worth reading.

6k · July 9, 2014

I'd agree that for caches I'd regard as worth finding the description is worth reading. If the description isn't worth reading the chances are the cache isn't worth finding.

Which leads me to ask, how are you going to know if a cache is worth finding if you don't read the description? It seems to me that you have to read the description to determine if it's worth reading.

I don't make that evaluation. I put on my hiking boots or hop on my bike and keep hitting Find Closest until done sometimes as long as 30 miles on my bike and 15 on foot. The areas are crowded with caches. Would seem to be foolish to pass some by to get to others.

3.3k · July 9, 2014

I'd agree that for caches I'd regard as worth finding the description is worth reading. If the description isn't worth reading the chances are the cache isn't worth finding.

Which leads me to ask, how are you going to know if a cache is worth finding if you don't read the description? It seems to me that you have to read the description to determine if it's worth reading.

Chances are if it's on a street corner in the middle of town it probably isn't worth finding. I've done too many caches that turned out to be a soggy film pot hidden among the spider webs behind a road sign placed for no reason other than the cache setter once lived within half a mile to bother with those any more.

If a cache passes that first test but the description looks like it was written by an eight-year-old then experience suggests it's likely to be disappointing, especially if it's a micro. If it's a regular size my experience is that it's more likely to be enjoyable, simply because the effort required to hide a regular is so much more than the effort required to stick a film pot on the back of a road sign or among the roots of a tree. If someone has found a spot to hide a regular size cache and made the effort to do it then I'm more likely to overlook a mangled cache page.

3.3k · July 9, 2014

I'd agree that for caches I'd regard as worth finding the description is worth reading. If the description isn't worth reading the chances are the cache isn't worth finding.

Which leads me to ask, how are you going to know if a cache is worth finding if you don't read the description? It seems to me that you have to read the description to determine if it's worth reading.

I don't make that evaluation. I put on my hiking boots or hop on my bike and keep hitting Find Closest until done sometimes as long as 30 miles on my bike and 15 on foot. The areas are crowded with caches. Would seem to be foolish to pass some by to get to others.

That's what I used to do too, except my cycling range was further and my walking range not as far. One day I made a 20-mile round trip on the bike to collect a nano - it was a puzzle I was pleased to have solved so I wanted to finish it, and as it was a year since it had been found I wanted to qualify for a local resuscitator challenge.

Personally I found stopping for endless film pots detracted from the pleasure of cycling, and hence my caching activity dropped off.

13.7k · July 9, 2014

I'd agree that for caches I'd regard as worth finding the description is worth reading. If the description isn't worth reading the chances are the cache isn't worth finding.

Which leads me to ask, how are you going to know if a cache is worth finding if you don't read the description? It seems to me that you have to read the description to determine if it's worth reading.

I don't make that evaluation. I put on my hiking boots or hop on my bike and keep hitting Find Closest until done sometimes as long as 30 miles on my bike and 15 on foot. The areas are crowded with caches. Would seem to be foolish to pass some by to get to others.

Fool here, thanks.

I have no problem passing by a pile of pill bottles that were simply placed because, "I was on the way. Thought this trail needed..." to where I'm heading.

7.4k · July 9, 2014

I don't make that evaluation. I put on my hiking boots or hop on my bike and keep hitting Find Closest until done sometimes as long as 30 miles on my bike and 15 on foot. The areas are crowded with caches. Would seem to be foolish to pass some by to get to others.

It seems foolish to zip in straight lines from cache to cache without any consideration for route planning, proper entry points, parking, trails, etc.

3.7k · July 9, 2014

Just being totally honest and blunt. Trying to help...

All about sentence fragments

Thanks, but when we're in the forums, a conversation can be typed in a casual form. At bare minimum, I would like the sentence to make sense. When it comes to spelling...I understand I can be a bit of a stickler and not everyone is as concerned about it as me. The problem is that too many people get the most basic stuff wrong - your/you're, its/it's...and the apostrophes! Don't get me started on the apostrophe's!! (yes...that was intentional)

Edited July 9, 2014 by J Grouchy

7.4k · July 9, 2014

Just being totally honest and blunt. Trying to help...

All about sentence fragments

Thanks, but when we're in the forums, a conversation can be typed in a casual form. At bare minimum, I would like the sentence to make sense. When it comes to spelling...I understand I can be a bit of a stickler and not everyone is as concerned about it as me. The problem is that too many people get the most basic stuff wrong - your/you're, its/it's...and the apostrophes! Don't get me started on the apostrophe's!! (yes...that was intentional)

It seems odd that you're a "stickler" about spelling, but a heinous ellipses abuser.

According to which rules, exactly, are writing errors acceptable in the forum, but not on cache pages?

July 9, 2014

I have to review Prehospital Care Reports for some of the local volunteer ambulance squads. You would be surprised at the number of adults who are functionally illiterate.

I find writing a cache description using a word processing program makes checking the spelling, grammar, and proof reading easier. When finished you can then cut and paste into the cache description part of the submission form.

14k · July 9, 2014

Just being totally honest and blunt. Trying to help...

All about sentence fragments

Thanks, but when we're in the forums, a conversation can be typed in a casual form. At bare minimum, I would like the sentence to make sense. When it comes to spelling...I understand I can be a bit of a stickler and not everyone is as concerned about it as me. The problem is that too many people get the most basic stuff wrong - your/you're, its/it's...and the apostrophes! Don't get me started on the apostrophe's!! (yes...that was intentional)

It seems odd that you're a "stickler" about spelling, but a heinous ellipses abuser.

According to which rules, exactly, are writing errors acceptable in the forum, but not on cache pages?

I agree that the forums are less formal than cache pages, but just as we shouldn't need any rules to be courteous and respectful to cache owners, we shouldn't need any rules which dictate we, to the best of our abilities, try to use correct grammar and spelling in the forums as well as on cache pages.

7.4k · July 9, 2014

I agree that the forums are less formal than cache pages, but just as we shouldn't need any rules to be courteous and respectful to cache owners, we shouldn't need any rules which dictate we, to the best of our abilities, try to use correct grammar and spelling in the forums as well as on cache pages.

Abilities differ from individual to individual. I've always had strong writing skills, but I'm not going to run around looking down my nose at well-intentioned cache owners who don't have the same skill set I do.

14k · July 9, 2014

I agree that the forums are less formal than cache pages, but just as we shouldn't need any rules to be courteous and respectful to cache owners, we shouldn't need any rules which dictate we, to the best of our abilities, try to use correct grammar and spelling in the forums as well as on cache pages.

Abilities differ from individual to individual. I've always had strong writing skills, but I'm not going to run around looking down my nose at well-intentioned cache owners who don't have the same skill set I do.

See bolded text.

7.4k · July 9, 2014

I agree that the forums are less formal than cache pages, but just as we shouldn't need any rules to be courteous and respectful to cache owners, we shouldn't need any rules which dictate we, to the best of our abilities, try to use correct grammar and spelling in the forums as well as on cache pages.

Abilities differ from individual to individual. I've always had strong writing skills, but I'm not going to run around looking down my nose at well-intentioned cache owners who don't have the same skill set I do.

See bolded text.

I see no evidence to suggest that anybody has not written their cache pages or forum posts to the best of their abilities.

14k · July 10, 2014

I agree that the forums are less formal than cache pages, but just as we shouldn't need any rules to be courteous and respectful to cache owners, we shouldn't need any rules which dictate we, to the best of our abilities, try to use correct grammar and spelling in the forums as well as on cache pages.

Abilities differ from individual to individual. I've always had strong writing skills, but I'm not going to run around looking down my nose at well-intentioned cache owners who don't have the same skill set I do.

See bolded text.

I see no evidence to suggest that anybody has not written their cache pages or forum posts to the best of their abilities.

How could you tell? If a forum post or cache page contains grammatical and/or errors are you assuming that the person that wrote it is incapable of even realizing that it contains spelling or grammatical errors? Isn't also possible that the person writing it just doesn't care and is too lazy to use a spell checker? In fact, that's exactly what the OP suggests in post #1.

I would also admit that I often don't proof read every post I make before posting (and it's usually pretty obvious when I haven't), but I would *always* check a cache listing for spelling or grammar errors before hitting the submit button.

Edited July 10, 2014 by NYPaddleCacher

3.7k · July 10, 2014

I agree that the forums are less formal than cache pages, but just as we shouldn't need any rules to be courteous and respectful to cache owners, we shouldn't need any rules which dictate we, to the best of our abilities, try to use correct grammar and spelling in the forums as well as on cache pages.

Abilities differ from individual to individual. I've always had strong writing skills, but I'm not going to run around looking down my nose at well-intentioned cache owners who don't have the same skill set I do.

I think it's less about ability and more about not making the effort. I've got a family member who is brilliant and university educated, but has speeling and grammers mistakes on her cache pages. It drives me nuts!

7.7k · July 10, 2014

"I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it...two years ago."

I myself have seen far too many cache pages that look like my eight year old daughter typed it them...two years ago.

You beat me to it Muphry's Law strikes again!

Polite request for new cache placement.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment