Jump to content

Length of Cache Description


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I think that the current setting is 5000 characters, including any HTML markup you do.

 

I've gotten around these limitations by using the <iframe> tag, but it doesn't work in netscape.

 

What you can do to get around this is create an HTML document with the descriptions and load the document as an "image" to the file. That way, the HTML document can be linked in your description and it's only limited by the 100KB size (which is a pretty LLOONNGG description).

 

To see and example, check out my Winds of Fury cache. I needed four lengthy descriptions.

 

Markwell

My Geocaching Page

Link to comment

Does that 5000 character count include long and short descriptions or anything else on the page but what I type in the "long description" text box? I'm at 4630 including spaces according to MS Word. But I don't know HTML so I know that the "editors" at geocaching.com add some HTML to make it appear correctly. Do I need to worry? Thanks for the quick replies.

Link to comment

The Short description is limited to 200 characters.

 

Your 4630 characters will be sufficient for the Long Description. Geocaching.com does not take any of the 5000 character allotment for formatting purposes etc.

 

The 5000 is purely for your use. If you use HTML youself to design your cache page, all the coding characters used would be taken out of the 5000 allotment, but it sounds like you dont need to worry about that for now.

 

9929_1400.gif

Link to comment

Back last year, a number of us worked collectively to develop a solution to the 5,000 character limit. Jointly, we came up with a solution that, using javascript and some easy online tools, allowed a seamless solution to storing the extra content off-site and worked for the majority of browsers. Those viewing these cache pages had no idea it was being done (although some asked how we did it, which we were happy to share).

 

On February 20th of this year, jeremy discovered that javascript was functionaly on cache pages, and as it could be used for nefarious purposes, he disabled it, thereby shutting down our cache pages that used it. I have a cache page that has been broken since that date.

 

Jeremy has been working since that time to increase our limit (I've requested 15k), and I have even offered to fund this development personally (over and above my membership).

 

As Markwell mentioned, iframes accomplish much the same purpose as our joint-javascript code, except iframes will only work with a few versions of IE, and print often with very poor results.

 

Markwell's solution he used in Winds of Fury, linking the text to additional pages, also worked. However, I have found many cachers will pull up a cache, print it, and go on to the next, not actually reading it all until they are out in the field, where they will discover there were other pages they needed to pull up and print/view.

 

Also, making a graphic version of the text is another solution, but changes are a PAIN, and will not work for the folks that cut and paste cache pages into PDAs or other devices. Text browsers such as WAP will not work either.

 

As you can see, there are some existing solutions, but none are close to perfect. Short of turning javascript back on (which I concurr should not be done), only increasing the 5,000 limit will give us what those of us that create involved storylines need.

 

I corresponded with Jeremy as recently as this morning on the topic (before I saw this thread), and he is hoping to get it done this week. Lets keep our fingers crossed! I have folks waiting to hunt my cache, and I've got others in the works...

 

_________________________________

Member:

banner-small.gif

Link to comment

Recently, I've seen several new caches in my area consisting of nothing more than coordinates and descriptions totaling 15 - 20 words; no clues, no gimmicks, no extraneous material. Excellent!

 

Say, wouldn't it be nice if those cache owners could assign their unused characters to you verbose fellers. icon_wink.gif

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on May 21, 2002 at 12:26 AM.]

Link to comment

Recently, I've seen several new caches in my area consisting of nothing more than coordinates and descriptions totaling 15 - 20 words; no clues, no gimmicks, no extraneous material. Excellent!

 

Say, wouldn't it be nice if those cache owners could assign their unused characters to you verbose fellers. icon_wink.gif

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on May 21, 2002 at 12:26 AM.]

Link to comment

I agree Brian sometimes I like the quick descriptions. But sometimes and in this case a cache has historical significance that would be totally missed if not explained. In this cache there is an unsolved mystery. The cache takes you to the sights of this mystery and is a 4 mile hike into unknown areas (a rare thing in heavily populated New England). There are also some unusual trail dangers that need to be outlined before someone complains about coming upon something that they were unprepared to deal with or worse were hurt. Its suprising how many edits I've made to keep it under 5000 characters. Next geocache is definately going to be short. This is too much work!!!

 

I checked out Winds of Fury Markwell's cache he posted earlier. It is a good example of a more involved cache that would be nothing if not explained.

 

Thanks for everyone's help and replies.

Link to comment

I've done several historical or involved caches where the cache owner has placed a wealth of information about an area or site in the first stage of a multicache, often as a part of the logbook.

 

I've done others where the cache owners have included printouts of the information for cachers to take along. Nice idea, and they've been well done, but keeping the cache supplied with printouts certainly entails far greater diligence on the part of the cache owner.

 

And I've also done caches where the cache page contains only the information required to find the cache, with the page containing a link to the cache owner's website where all the historical or background information is available for the potential seeker to peruse or download as they desire.

 

And I've done caches where the page has been constructed in a manner similar to Markwell's.

 

It's merely a matter of whose resources are best/easiest to exploit. All accomplish the job very nicely; some contain a significant amount of extraneous material that serves only to inflate the character count and storage size of the page. A bit of judicious editing can reclaim many wasted characters.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on May 21, 2002 at 06:38 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team CacheCows of Wisconsin:

I corresponded with Jeremy as recently as this morning on the topic (before I saw this thread), and he is hoping to get it done this week. Lets keep our fingers crossed! I have folks waiting to hunt my cache, and I've got others in the works...


Well, it didn't happen icon_frown.gif

 

For what its worth, my cache that was broken by the removal of the JS solution to the 5k limit is also a historical cache, hence the page size.

 

Guess I'll just keep asking Jeremy. I would not have gotten my hopes up in the first place if he had not indicated that he was agreeable to the increased text limit being a viable solution to him disabling javascript.

 

I had hoped being a paying member might have helped my cause, but even the offer to pay Jeremy for his development time over and above membership has been ignored...

 

_________________________________

Member:

banner-small.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team CacheCows of Wisconsin:

I corresponded with Jeremy as recently as this morning on the topic (before I saw this thread), and he is hoping to get it done this week. Lets keep our fingers crossed! I have folks waiting to hunt my cache, and I've got others in the works...


Well, it didn't happen icon_frown.gif

 

For what its worth, my cache that was broken by the removal of the JS solution to the 5k limit is also a historical cache, hence the page size.

 

Guess I'll just keep asking Jeremy. I would not have gotten my hopes up in the first place if he had not indicated that he was agreeable to the increased text limit being a viable solution to him disabling javascript.

 

I had hoped being a paying member might have helped my cause, but even the offer to pay Jeremy for his development time over and above membership has been ignored...

 

_________________________________

Member:

banner-small.gif

Link to comment

I have run into the problem of space myself. Our team has a cache game running that has a lot of links, tables, and other html code goodies. These change almost everyday and more than once I have found myself moving or removing to get things to fit. I agree and would like to see the long description size extended to help out those of us with caches that need it.

Link to comment

I've politly eMailed Jeremy asking for an update, but no word back yet... I know he's busy... but its been 3 months now.

 

I have heard from a few others asking for an increase, so I know I'm not the only one.

 

Please Jeremy?

 

_________________________________

Member:

banner-small.gif

Link to comment

<object> tag puts extra stuff in your description, works everywhere.

 

Netscape 4, Opera, IE3 and many other commercial browsers have supported the OBJECT tag tag in HTML for a few years now. Anything that doesn't gets a hyperlink instead. Everybody wins. Other than a hyperlink, it's your best shot at not leaving someone out. BTW, Netscape 6 does support the <iframe> element. The idea Markwell came up with - using image space for additional descriptions - is quite resourceful. He doesn't even have to have to use his own Web space! but the <object> tag is today's "politically correct" way of inserting external text (or movies, applets, sounds, pictures, or anything else for that matter) into your description space.

 

The only drawback is that few HTML editors support this tag icon_mad.gif You could just learn this one small piece of HTML and type it in yourself...

 

NAAAH! I'll just post it here for you. The following code puts the whole 25,299 characters of Travelbug Olly's log page into your description for only 208 characters icon_smile.gif It'll either show up on their screen directly in your description, or they'll get a link.

 

* * * * CUT HERE * * * *

<object data="http://www.geocaching.com/track/track_detail.asp?ID=1395" border="0" vspace="0" width="100%" height="100%"><a href="http://www.geocaching.com/track/track_detail.asp?ID=1395">Olly's log</a></object> 

 

* * * * CUT HERE * * * *

 

Put whatever you want in place of the "http:/..." part for your own included text.

 

Now get out there and post that huge description!

Link to comment

<object> tag puts extra stuff in your description, works everywhere.

 

Netscape 4, Opera, IE3 and many other commercial browsers have supported the OBJECT tag tag in HTML for a few years now. Anything that doesn't gets a hyperlink instead. Everybody wins. Other than a hyperlink, it's your best shot at not leaving someone out. BTW, Netscape 6 does support the <iframe> element. The idea Markwell came up with - using image space for additional descriptions - is quite resourceful. He doesn't even have to have to use his own Web space! but the <object> tag is today's "politically correct" way of inserting external text (or movies, applets, sounds, pictures, or anything else for that matter) into your description space.

 

The only drawback is that few HTML editors support this tag icon_mad.gif You could just learn this one small piece of HTML and type it in yourself...

 

NAAAH! I'll just post it here for you. The following code puts the whole 25,299 characters of Travelbug Olly's log page into your description for only 208 characters icon_smile.gif It'll either show up on their screen directly in your description, or they'll get a link.

 

* * * * CUT HERE * * * *

<object data="http://www.geocaching.com/track/track_detail.asp?ID=1395" border="0" vspace="0" width="100%" height="100%"><a href="http://www.geocaching.com/track/track_detail.asp?ID=1395">Olly's log</a></object> 

 

* * * * CUT HERE * * * *

 

Put whatever you want in place of the "http:/..." part for your own included text.

 

Now get out there and post that huge description!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

Yippee!!! I never did like the scroll bars of the iframe tag.

 

First one I'll use for is Scooby Doo, and eventually roll it into the Photographer's Caches.


I just got a reply from CacheCows that he has had difficulty printing the <object> tag windows, which is unacceptable. I composed the sample on IE5.0 (which I only use at work), and have used <object>s extensively at home on various platforms with little difficulty. There may be some problems with older browsers which only half-support the standard.

 

Forewarned is forearmed

Test your pages first with an HTML validator, or email me a hyperlink and I'll try to check them for you before you post

 

[This message was edited by Legal Tender Cache on May 31, 2002 at 07:44 PM.]

Link to comment

UPDATE!

 

I received an email from Jeremy this afternoon to please try posting my cache with its long description again, as he had just finished the project to increase the cache long description. The old limit was 5,000 characters, and my cache used a bit over 12,000. Anyway, it worked perfectly, thanks Jeremy!

 

The Beulah Land cache is back online [icon_smile.gif]

 

_________________________________

Member:

banner-small.gif

Link to comment

UPDATE!

 

I received an email from Jeremy this afternoon to please try posting my cache with its long description again, as he had just finished the project to increase the cache long description. The old limit was 5,000 characters, and my cache used a bit over 12,000. Anyway, it worked perfectly, thanks Jeremy!

 

The Beulah Land cache is back online [:rolleyes:]

 

_________________________________

Member:

banner-small.gif

Link to comment

Artful,

 

Where the object tag fails is when you try and use it for increasing the amount of allowed text and or images. It fails for three reasons:

  1. The height and width of the object have to be stated, and there is no way of knowing what the length of the object will be since you can't control the size that the viewer's browser is displaying the text size in. If you screw up the height or width, then scroll bars appear around the object (looks bad and the stuff outside of the scroll area won't print)
  2. printing results are spotty at best. Often the results are misaligned with left or right sides missing
  3. Display results vary depending on browser.

 

The way you are using the object tag in your example is indeed an excellent use as most of the content is not displayed. The only thing displayed is the graphic, and you can know and control its height and width.

 

But if the goal is to add additional text, the object tag does not cut it. Fortunatly, its all mote now that Jeremy increased the allowed description.

 

_________________________________

Member:

banner-small.gif

Link to comment

Hi everyone. The character limit was just raised and is no longer 5,000 characters. There should be room now for pretty much any reasonable cache page.

 

Also, you no longer have to put HTML tags in for most of the basic formatting. Until this week you had to include

and

tags (etc.) yourself. OR you may have noticed that the formatting magically appeared--That was done by your fantastic admin staff. Now it will be done automatically, just like in your log posts. You may still choose to do your own HTML coding if you wish. You'll see a check box for it when you post a new cache.

 

An aside--> Please put a lot of thought into your geocaches. There are so many being posted these days that we all need to make sure we are really trying to post quality geocaches.

Link to comment

I had a seven-stage historical multicache, with descriptions for each stage, and was faced with the unenviable choice of seven caches (probably to be rejected) or leaving out all the detail that made the stages interesting.

 

So now I don't have to! 17,000 + characters submitted in one description, doing it right.

 

You have made me one happy bird.

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...