Does ANYONE read the Cache Description anymore??

[SicilianCyclops]

I believe reading the cache page is important for the reason that one motivation for placing a cache is to bring others to an area of interest. Many times, these areas have a particular history to them which is why the cache was placed there in the first place. If a cacher doesn't read the description then they might miss out on a crucial aspect of the cache's purpose.

Edited April 27, 2018 by SicilianCyclops

[+StumblinMonk]

I read for 2 reasons:

1. My first attempted find was almost a DNF.  Stopped the search, read the description and found in a few minutes. 

2. Like I have seen stated before, I like reading the history, if there is  any.  Between local nature areas that have old stone building remains, Civil War/Revolutionary War battle fields and other just fun history, it is a nice perk to this hobby.  

I just hope that others enjoy this as much as I do.  I am plotting out my first multi/puzzle, and plan to use a lot of clues throughout the description.  

[321geocache]

I always read the description. Sometimes the CO will include an area for parking that is better than the parking area mentioned on Google Maps. Other times, there will be a description of the history of the area.

[+J Grouchy]

On 3/2/2018 at 10:28 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

What you consider not useful about the cache?   There is a local geocacher that has put out about 300 caches all based upon types of trees or bushes in the area. The cache listings are extremely thorough with descriptions, photos of each plant in it's different stages but there is little about the actual cache. The caches themselves are pretty much hidden in an identical manner somewhere close (or even tethered) to the plant it features.  If she were to take all the descriptions and bind them into a book it would be a comprehensive guide to the local plants in the area.   For me, sometimes the best descriptions are not about the cache itself, but about the area and it's history and tells us why a specific location was chosen to place a cache.  

Those are the TL;DR cache pages I tend to ignore.  Sorry not sorry.

In those cases, they need to put pertinent CACHE information up at the very top, then all the other stuff after that for people who might be interested.  

[+kunarion]

29 minutes ago, SicilianCyclops said:

I believe reading the cache page is important for the reason that one motivation for placing a cache is to bring others to an area of interest. Many times, these areas have a particular history to them which is why the cache was placed there in the first place. If a cacher doesn't read the description then they might miss out on a crucial aspect of the cache's purpose.

 

I almost always skip over the 97 paragraphs of directly copied Wikipedia text, to make a note of the one-sentence puzzle at the very end.

[SicilianCyclops]

21 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

I almost always skip over the 97 paragraphs of directly copied Wikipedia text, to make a note of the one-sentence puzzle at the very end.

It's obvious if there's a glut of information copied from online (A cache I found which had the complete natural history of box turtles comes to mind). However, there are many caches which are in a spot for a reason and the cacher will have no idea why they were brought there if they don't read the description. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by SicilianCyclops

[+L0ne.R]

21 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

I almost always skip over the 97 paragraphs of directly copied Wikipedia text, to make a note of the one-sentence puzzle at the very end.

OMG, yes! Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way about the super long descriptions.

We are writing for the web. Our eyes scan web pages looking for important tidbits. If we want readers to actually read, we have to keep it short and to the point. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by L0ne.R

[SicilianCyclops]

4 minutes ago, SicilianCyclops said:

Sorry, dp.

Edited April 27, 2018 by SicilianCyclops

[+Team DEMP]

I typically read descriptions. Probably contrary to the norm, earth caches seem to provide too much noise and I don't read most of those beyond what's necessary. 

To be fair, there are different types of cachers and approaches. If you just use the app and don't do advance planning, I can see minimal descriptions being read. I typically create lists and cache against those lists so I've hand picked caches and reviewed the descriptions typically on a computer.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Team DEMP

[+*GeoPunx*]

reviewed the descriptions typically on a computer.

I do this as well.

[+sir dumil]

I usually read descriptions as part of the experience offered by the geocache.

I know of some caches I've placed in areas where there's only one road or trail that will take you all the way to the geocache reliably, where the description is the only way to explain how to get there or to warn of impedances that block other routes.  On some of these, the cache has logs that include something like, "if I'd read the description, I would have been able to get there first try!"

After all, some of the best places to place and find a geocache are special and a bit tricky to get to.

Edited May 2, 2018 by sir dumil

[+BCandMsKitty]

On 4/27/2018 at 11:20 AM, L0ne.R said:

OMG, yes! Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way about the super long descriptions.

We are writing for the web. Our eyes scan web pages looking for important tidbits. If we want readers to actually read, we have to keep it short and to the point. 

 

+1

 

We always read the description, but sometimes not well enough.

We recently did a night cache that needed a UV light to get the proper final coords.

This was only listed in the attributes, and a too hasty reading missed that tidbit.

we looked for a long time at the wrong final coords, until we sat down and really read the description and previous logs.

Finally, a light came on!

 

We couldn't get the proper TOTT so the next day we went out in the daytime and found the cache based on interpreting past logs.

 

Anyway ... we always read the description, and in future, will read more closely.

Lesson learned!