Read or Not Read the Cache Descriptions

[GPS-Hermit]

I saw on another topic people using paperless caching don't read the Descriptions. Just want to know if that is most of you or not. I went to alot of trouble to make good descriptions to enhance the experience and show there is alot more to this than just the cache. Many logs indicated they did read the description and doing so influenced them to find it. Sometimes I add a point system to encourage folks to see all they can while out there. If they report the point I know they read the description. So who does and who doesn't and why.

[+IDLookout]

I read every one I find.

[+briansnat]

I read every description, but it's often after I found it and while I'm logging it.

 

I load my GPS with PQs and usually load the pages for those waypoints to Cachemate, but sometimes I forget to bring my PDA, or I just don't have the time to load the pages to Cachemate.

 

Even if I have the page along with me I usually don't refer to it unless I encounter a problem. I'd estimate that

half, to 3/4 of my finds came without looking at the cache page.

 

Actually I prefer geocaching with the coordinates only. Sometimes it adds to the challenge and I think it's

the way the originators of the sport meant it to be played.

[+wesleykey]

I load my PQ and head out. Upon arriving at the area I hunt for a cache. If I can't spot it, I look at the hint. If I still can't spot it, I check past logs to see if there is a string of DNFs or if there are alternate coords in a past log. If I still can't spot it, I'll get into the description. This means that 90% of my finds are accomplished without ever reading the full description.

[+welch]

I saw on another topic people using paperless caching don't read the Descriptions. Just want to know if that is most of you or not. I went to alot of trouble to make good descriptions to enhance the experience and show there is alot more to this than just the cache. Many logs indicated they did read the description and doing so influenced them to find it. Sometimes I add a point system to encourage folks to see all they can while out there. If they report the point I know they read the description. So who does and who doesn't and why.

Unless the palm has some problem and ates the data (like if the batteries go dead because I was dumb and forgot to change them before leaving...) then I'll skim threw the descrption. Also usually look at what type of the logs the last few were, finds = good , DNF etc means read everything (again). I don't think 'additional waypoints' gets carried over, so any info written in just doesn't get read (usually).

[+jahoadi and john]

I load my PQ and head out. Upon arriving at the area I hunt for a cache. If I can't spot it, I look at the hint. If I still can't spot it, I check past logs to see if there is a string of DNFs or if there are alternate coords in a past log. If I still can't spot it, I'll get into the description. This means that 90% of my finds are accomplished without ever reading the full description.

 

This is the way we do it so we first try to find the goods with just the coords. We do read the description as we are logging the find (or DNF).

[+Jhwk]

Always. Also palm based, and I pull up the cachemate 'overview' which gives you all of the data at one glance.

[+Ambrosia]

I always read the description.

 

After doing more paperless caching while traveling, I've tried to work on my cache descriptions that are longer, with things like historic stuff. If there's info pertaining to the finding of the cache, I put that on the top, with the rest on the bottom. That way they see the important stuff first, and then have the option to read the rest. It's not the way I'd prefer it, but I think it's easier for travelers.

[+The Jester]

I always read the description.

 

After doing more paperless caching while traveling, I've tried to work on my cache descriptions that are longer, with things like historic stuff. If there's info pertaining to the finding of the cache, I put that on the top, with the rest on the bottom. That way they see the important stuff first, and then have the option to read the rest. It's not the way I'd prefer it, but I think it's easier for travelers.

That's very nice of you. That's what I prefer. Most of the time I read the page, but often it's some time before the hunt, so a quick review helps at the time of the hunt. When travelling, I always read the page ahead of time, just so I know which caches are of interest - at least at that time.

[+Jhwk]

After doing more paperless caching while traveling, I've tried to work on my cache descriptions that are longer, with things like historic stuff. If there's info pertaining to the finding of the cache, I put that on the top, with the rest on the bottom. That way they see the important stuff first, and then have the option to read the rest. It's not the way I'd prefer it, but I think it's easier for travelers.

and I, for one, thank you for that.

[+sbell111]

I use Plucker on my PDA and read each page right before I hit <goto> on my GPSr. That way, I'm pretty sure that the cache interests me before I go decide to go look for it.

 

Mushtang's post reminded me that I don't always read every cache page. On a recent European trip, I found that some cache pages had failed to correctly load to my pda. I ended up looking for one or two without cache page guidance.

Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[+Mule Ears]

I read the descriptions, and I really appreciate the minority that are concise, helpful and well-organized. I want to know interesting backstory, but I'd also like to know what I'm looking for, how to get there, any access gotchas, etc.

 

Before the usual crows start cawing finding your way past the no-trespassing signs is part of the chaaaaallllenge I'd ask that they scan my finds. Finding a tricky route up a mountain is a worthy challenge, driving around an as-yet-unmapped tract development looking for unobtrusive parking is a nuisance.

[+Mule Ears]

Dangit. Double post.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Mule Ears

[Luckless]

If I have trouble it is almost always due to not reading the cache page and I don't ever seem to learn. (I also never ask for directions).

[+tozainamboku]

Back in the days before paperless caching, cachers read the cache pages before going out to find caches. Sometimes to select the caches they wanted to find, or if you were trying to find all the cache in a area, then to plan and optimize your route. Back then there were far fewer complaints about lame caches, people posting found it logs when they found the remains of a cache with no log to sign, or additional logging requirements on traditional caches. PQs and the tools to go paperless are the cause of most of the complaints in the forums today. It is just to easy to get a PQ of all the caches in the area you have not found. You can filter out non-traditional caches, those with high terrain/difficulty, and those which have a DNF for the latest logs. Then load this into your GPSr, claim that you should be able to go find any cache in this list without any information besides the coordinates, and go. Then when you see a lot of LPCs and guardrail hides you can complain about urban spew. You can complain that you wasted time and money looking for a cache that wasn't there because of some jerk posting a find when they didn't really find the cache. Or you can complain about your log being deleted because you failed to post a picture of yourself standing on your head. I personally think geocaching was more fun before we all went paperless. However, reading the forums is more fun now

[+Ambrosia]

I always read the description.

 

After doing more paperless caching while traveling, I've tried to work on my cache descriptions that are longer, with things like historic stuff. If there's info pertaining to the finding of the cache, I put that on the top, with the rest on the bottom. That way they see the important stuff first, and then have the option to read the rest. It's not the way I'd prefer it, but I think it's easier for travelers.

That's very nice of you. That's what I prefer. Most of the time I read the page, but often it's some time before the hunt, so a quick review helps at the time of the hunt. When travelling, I always read the page ahead of time, just so I know which caches are of interest - at least at that time.

 

After doing more paperless caching while traveling, I've tried to work on my cache descriptions that are longer, with things like historic stuff. If there's info pertaining to the finding of the cache, I put that on the top, with the rest on the bottom. That way they see the important stuff first, and then have the option to read the rest. It's not the way I'd prefer it, but I think it's easier for travelers.

and I, for one, thank you for that.

Thank you for the feedback. I figured that it would be helpful, but I've always wondered if it really was, and if people would appreciate something like that.

[+Team Typowiz]

We always read the descriptions. Too much information of value in there to pass up (usually). I appreciate a good description, but I also appreciate it when they don't run several pages long - especially in those days when we were printing them all out. We've gone looking for a few that had long "creative" descriptions, with a dozen or more photos linked in, but only a few sentences of it contained information that was helpful in looking for the cache itself. We generally avoid that hider's caches now, just on principle. On the other hand, we did a cache with my folks on Labor Day that was an all-day semi-historical tour of Old Mission Peninsula in Northern Michigan. You collected up numbers along the way to build the coordinates for a final stage up in the woods near the lighthouse. It was a blast. Had to print that one out - it was four full pages long - and it was worth all of it.

[+StarBrand]

I'm about 80/20.

 

80% of my finds - I read the whole page before/while looking.

20% - I either skipped reading it or just skimmed through for important information.

 

I filter out most puzzles and many muticaches though - so that helps.

[+Team Geofrog]

I read the descriptions. I am into geocaching for the trip to the interesting place. Why do you want to bring people to this location (beauty, history or whatever)? I look for this in the description. I like to read the local history. I am also divided between paper and paperless. I like the idea of paperless, but it is a pain. For paper, I hit print. The end. For paperless, I have to send it to GSAK and then sync. If my my Palm goes wacky for some reason, all the info is lost and all I have is coordinates without really knowing what I'm looking for. Also, I don't complain about micro's. Not as exciting, but more chalenging.

[+J-Way]

I always read the descriptions, especially if I'm away from home on a work trip. I'd rather find ONE interesting cache than five park-n-grab LPC's, which is probably why my find count is as low as it is. I once spent an entire weekend (sunup to well after sundown) caching with no DNFs and all I found were a dozen or so mystery, multi, letterbox, and interesting traditionals. I probably passed up over a hundred easier traditionals during that time.

 

When around home, I maintain a database of unfound local caches in GSAK and my pocket PC. I grab them when I can and the description is ready to read whenever I need it.

 

When traveling, my usually practice is to create a PQ centered near my hotel and maybe a few more locations I'll be visiting. I include about 100-200 active caches and import into GSAK. Then I read the descriptions of the mystery, multi, and letterbox caches (which are usually more interesting than your basic LPC). If I can solve a mystery I set the solved location as the GSAK center point, read the descriptions of all nearby caches, then "check" them in GSAK if they're interesting or if they have a TB I want. If a multi is reasonable (i.e., fairly short with at most two or three stages), I'll do the same thing. I usually end up with several "clusters" of interesting caches. I export the checkmarked caches to my GPSr and I'm ready to go.

 

I never have time to find all the caches I've exported, but I always have a variety of places to see in the time I do have.

[Mushtang]

I don't always read the description (PDA left behind on accident, PDA batteries drained, specifically decide to skip description to make more challenging, etc).

 

On those cases where I don't read the page and am not able to find the cache because I'm missing required information, I'd be too embarrassed to complain that it was someone else's fault.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I almost always read cache descriptions fully before hunting a cache. The few and only exceptions have been when I have been traveling to a distant city, and when Sue has solved a puzzle cache in that city and asks me to pick up the find on the final stage for her while I am there. In these cases, she enters the coordinates for the final stage on my GPSr, and assures me that the final stage hide is rated at a Difficulty of 1. In almost all such cases, when I get to the final stage hide site in the distant city, I discover that the hide is either an illegal LUM or hidden so well (or missing in action) that I cannot find it after 45 minutes of searching, and thus end up logging a DNF! Nowadays, I cringe when she asks me to pick up the "easy" final stage of a puzzle cache during my travels!

[+DanOCan]

If I am in the mood for a quality cache hunt I will read the description before I head to the waypoint to see if the cache interests me. If I am in the mood for a numbers run I'll look at the description only if I can't find the cache when I get there.

[Uberquandary]

I put information in my descriptions that I hope people will read before they hunt, so I always read the description before I go hunting. Besides, you can learn a lot about a user from their cache descriptions, and they're often downright amusing.

 

Reason # 2 why I'm not a premium member: Pocket queries would cheapen the experience of reading the descriptions. Then again, I think dial up is fine...

[+Team Typowiz]

Reason # 2 why I'm not a premium member: Pocket queries would cheapen the experience of reading the descriptions. Then again, I think dial up is fine...

 

We use PQ's now, just made the switch in the last couple weeks. The descriptions are all there - they're just on the Palm Pilot now. We're going to save a small fortune in paper/ink cartridges in the process - and NumberOneWife, who was initially skeptical, found out she likes working with the Palm just fine. When she's happy, I'm happy

[+nekom]

If I plan to go to a cache, I read the description first. If I just see one I happen to be near on my GPS, I read it after I find it and get back home. But I do always read them at one point or another. A lot of them have historical information about what happened at the site that I wouldn't want to miss.

[+TrailGators]

I read every mystery and multi cache page before I find it for obvious reasons. I always read the cache pages for favorite/must-do caches. Finally, I read the cache pages for the creative/humorous writers in the area.

Edited September 6, 2007 by TrailGators

[Uberquandary]

Reason # 2 why I'm not a premium member: Pocket queries would cheapen the experience of reading the descriptions. Then again, I think dial up is fine...

 

We use PQ's now, just made the switch in the last couple weeks. The descriptions are all there - they're just on the Palm Pilot now. We're going to save a small fortune in paper/ink cartridges in the process - and NumberOneWife, who was initially skeptical, found out she likes working with the Palm just fine. When she's happy, I'm happy

Alright, reason 2.5: Don't want to buy a palm. Just old fashioned. I normally scribble notes down, hardly print anything out.

[Trinity's Crew]

I read every page before I go caching. Of course since I've only found 166 (and none in several months as someone was kind enough to point out) I've probably only read 300 to 400 pages.

 

If I was more of a power cacher or used any of the nifty tools this site has been gracious enough to provide I might cache without looking.

 

Wait... This isn't a "lame cache" thread. How did I get here? And who are you people?

[+Renegade Knight]

I read them before I seek. It adds to the experience.

[+Lotho]

I always read the description incase it helps me to find the cache or tells me how to access it.

[Neos2]

I always read the cache descriptions before I go to the cache. I usually pick an area to go caching, run a PQ for that area, read enough of the cache pages to pick out several interesting sounding caches that will be my target caches for the day (Ones I feel fairly sure I'll enjoy).

 

At some point we run out of those and start looking for the nearest cache to the one we have just done, so I pull out the PDA and look at the cache page for the nearest cache to see if I want to do it. I've saved myself a lot of grief that way (By avoiding a trip to a cache in a closed park, caches that had a theme that I couldn't cover, caches that were puzzles that I couldn't solve on the fly etc).

[+WalruZ]

Many high-number cachers I know try to search for the cache with just the coordinates at first. If the going gets tough, they'll go back and look at the description, then the hint, then the logs. Then, when they log the cache, they'll read the description if they haven't already. Doing this makes caches a little more challenging. Sometimes descriptions will have size and hide information in them, and not reading that ahead of time makes it more of a hunt.

[+Jeep_Dog]

 

Actually I prefer geocaching with the coordinates only. Sometimes it adds to the challenge and I think it's

the way the originators of the sport meant it to be played.

 

80% or so of my finds are this way. I find it makes the hunt more interesting. However, I always read the description after finding or DNFing.

 

Every so often I get burned, such as a traditional cache last weekend that had "updated coordinates" more than .10 from the original location - yup, you guessed it, in the cache description and not getting with the reviewer and updating the database coordinates. However, the fun of having no information makes even some of the easier rated caches more interesting.

 

By the way, I do scan attributes for critical information, also the cache name, and I will note the terrain difficulty as well. If it turns out that the cache presents more challenge than my abilities, then I abort.

[+Kiwi Nomad]

Always read.

Ok so I have always loved reading anything and with two small boys I like to know what I am hunting before I get there.

 

I read to pick which ones to hunt.

I print them.

I skim read at gz

I read again online so I can write a better log.

[+OwlCacher]

I read it. It either has interesting information about the location, or helps find the actual cache.

[Blue_Stone]

I ALWAYS read them. Helps me decide whether its a cache I want to do or not.

I have 6 caches based on historical sites, and am longwinded in my descriptions. I also put the pertinent cache info in the short description, then the history lesson goes in the long description. That way people can read it or not. If they dont want to print the three pages of history lesson, they can just print the first page, and (mostly) everything they need to find the cache is right there, in the first paragraph.

I figure if people dont want to take the time to read and appreciate my history lesson, they are the cachers I probably wont be interested in reading the logs for anyway.

 

In my book, if someone takes the time to do some actual research, and do a nice cache description, I figure they've probably put a decent effort into the hide. And even if they didnt, I might want to grab the cache, JUST to visit the site.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Blue_stone

[+elmuyloco5]

We always read the descriptions a couple of times before we go out. We read to see if we're interested in the cache (we don't care for the "dump it like trash on the side of the road in a bush" type cache). After we pick all of the caches out that we will search for, we read through them again to see if there's anything where we can add something educational to it for our kids. Then we will read again right before we actually start looking.

 

We really enjoy the caches that have a point to them, take us someplace nice, or have some personal attachment to the area. In turn, we also like logs that have something interesting to say, whether it's for our cache or other peoples. There's too many acronyms going on in caching. It makes the sport/game too impersonal. Plus, it's always good to hear what others think about it, or if there's anything we need to watch out for with our kids on the hunt.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I always read the cache page. I need to know if that 1 star terrain really means it, or was the cache hider a marathon runner to whom a 1 star terrain means its 1 mile away from the car and easy for him to reach. Im fussy about the caches we seek. I cant stand going to homeless camp sites, or pickle parks, or areas with a lot of dog droppings. I dont like wildcat garbage dump locations for caches. If I go alone, I need to know if the cache has any obstacles like its way underneath something and you need to lay on the ground to get it. In reading the cache page and the last few logs, I get a feel for whether or not I will like the cache.

[+palmbayfd256]

I always read everyword of every cache; the description, the hints, and every log. Being in Europe, this can be difficult, German, French, or what ever is the local language. Thank you, babelfish.yahoo.com!

 

I am new to the sport, and for now, reading everything makes it fun and interesting.

 

Thanks for all of the accidental spoilers left in your logs.

[+welch]

Back in the days before paperless caching, cachers read the cache pages before going out to find caches. Sometimes to select the caches they wanted to find, or if you were trying to find all the cache in a area, then to plan and optimize your route. ...

Back in the days before paperless reading all the pages of caches within day trip driving distance wouldn't have been an all day affair

If I know I'll want to find something specific (safe place to drop TB, oldest cache, earthcache, etc) then figuring it out before hand is super. Otherwise just dump a bunch of stuff into the palm and gps and figure it out as you go. Whats the next nearest cache, and does skimming the descrption make it sound interesting? Yes, go there. No, whats the next one past that? Decide you don't like XX's caches, pick some other ones. Riverside park under water because of flooding, find another park. No being limited to just the print outs on hand

[+Zop]

I sure do! I really learned my lesson early on when my daughter and I spent nearly an hour looking for a cache (yes, we were newbe's) only to find that it was a puzzle cache and the actual cache was almost a mile away. Another was the same week where I was looking and looking and only to find out that it was the parking coords for a local event!

 

You BET I read'em!

[+OldLog]

Being new to this I find them the most valuable tool here.

[CoyoteRed]

If I know I'll want to find something specific (safe place to drop TB, oldest cache, earthcache, etc) then figuring it out before hand is super. Otherwise just dump a bunch of stuff into the palm and gps and figure it out as you go. Whats the next nearest cache, and does skimming the descrption make it sound interesting? Yes, go there. No, whats the next one past that? Decide you don't like XX's caches, pick some other ones. Riverside park under water because of flooding, find another park. No being limited to just the print outs on hand

This is pretty much how we do it. Bulk downloads. Decide as we go. Heck, we could even just go find everything in our path and have a decent time. If we come across a stinker it wasn't that big of a deal as the next one was more than likely a good one.

 

Then it got to the point where more and more were stinkers. We started skipping caches. One weekend we didn't log a single cache as none we come across were worth it. There's a lot of places now where we skip many more caches than we find.

 

Maybe this is way some folks don't have a big issue with the way geocaching is going these days, because they research each and every cache before they make the attempt. That just seems like too much work, but what are you going to do? Those days are gone--at least here on GC.com.

 

Anyway, as for the OP, yes, anymore you've pretty much got to read the cache page to if for nothing else to see if it is worth spending any time on it. I'm not saying you have to read the whole cache page or you can't substitute other avenues of determining worth, but if care about quality experiences then you got to do something.

[+Team Cotati]

I read every description, but it's often after I found it and while I'm logging it.

 

I load my GPS with PQs and usually load the pages for those waypoints to Cachemate, but sometimes I forget to bring my PDA, or I just don't have the time to load the pages to Cachemate.

 

Even if I have the page along with me I usually don't refer to it unless I encounter a problem. I'd estimate that

half, to 3/4 of my finds came without looking at the cache page.

 

Actually I prefer geocaching with the coordinates only. Sometimes it adds to the challenge and I think it's

the way the originators of the sport meant it to be played.

 

No wonder you think paperless/PDA is so great. You hardly use it.

[+hukilaulau]

I read every description, but it's often after I found it and while I'm logging it.

 

I load my GPS with PQs and usually load the pages for those waypoints to Cachemate, but sometimes I forget to bring my PDA, or I just don't have the time to load the pages to Cachemate.

 

Even if I have the page along with me I usually don't refer to it unless I encounter a problem. I'd estimate that

half, to 3/4 of my finds came without looking at the cache page.

 

Actually I prefer geocaching with the coordinates only. Sometimes it adds to the challenge and I think it's

the way the originators of the sport meant it to be played.

I always thought you were pretty selective about what caches you look for. How do you do that if you don't read the cache page? Just by the general area?

My motto is: Just cuz you CAN download a bazillion caches without reading anything doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea! I do it the old fashioned way: Select an area on google earth, read the pages one by one, and if I like them put them on bookmark lists, then eventually pq the lists for download to the gps.

[+Miragee]

Many high-number cachers I know try to search for the cache with just the coordinates at first. If the going gets tough, they'll go back and look at the description, then the hint, then the logs. Then, when they log the cache, they'll read the description if they haven't already. Doing this makes caches a little more challenging. Sometimes descriptions will have size and hide information in them, and not reading that ahead of time makes it more of a hunt.

I ran into this exact situation the other day. Our search for the cache lasted much longer than it should have . . . but was much more exciting . . . because we didn't read the cache description first. It gave coordinates for starting the rock scramble.

 

I really, really do need to start reading the cache description first . . . instead of when I go to the page to log my find . . .

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Hubby had to work a lot of extra hours this week, and Im dealing with dental issues, so I spent time on the computer looking at cache descriptions in several regions around town we want to cache in. I had a great time reading caches and logs, including some I will never be able to get to but were interesting nonetheless. I think people miss out some of the fun when they dont read the pages. Dont look down is an interesting read. I got a kick out of the logs on Cliff Hanger 1.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+laswift]

I am fairly new to Geocaching just got my GPS this past may so I am still learinng the ropes.

 

What I do is pick an area I want to visit then check to see what caches are in the area. I read the descriptions to see which ones sound interesting, print out the pages and take them along. I try to find the cache by the coordinates and my memory of what I read in advance. If I get really stuck I will pull out the paper and re read the description and decipher the clue if one is available as a last resort.

 

I also like to plan motorcycle routes. I check to see if there are any relatively easy caches along the way, hiking far in full gear gets way to hot. I plan stops along the route by the location of the caches. switching the gps back and forth between on road and off road gets tricky at times but I have not gotten lost yet.

 

I really like geocaching, by reading the cache pages I have learned some interesting things about places that I have been before and found new places I never knew existed

[+Flatouts]

We're real new to this game but there are many in our area that there is absolutely no way to complete the puzzle to get to the cache without reading the description. Some of those you still need the PC to find the info to answer or ROT or run a script - so I don't as of yet see how you can boldly go out and hit caches without reading the information... I'm not saying that you can't collect 1s all day with just GPS reading, but light poles and fake rocks can grow boring. Heck I even read the info for Benchmakes and Waymarks (just found out about them).

 

I guess I have a lot to learn yet but it will be hard to ween away from those descriptions where some substance is included as part of the cache experience. I don't really like the spoils so I scan for DNFs on the page but don't go past that until after log in. Then I'm finding them good reads to see what others went through to see how I faired.

 

It's all fun no matter how you go about it. This is or can be a really great game with depth. I appreciated each and every participant.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Flatouts