Do people really like long cache descriptions/logs

[Geodes]

I'm currently preparing a description for a new cache and, despite my best intentions, am finding it's starting to get rather long. As I sometimes skip a full read of new caches with long descriptions unless they're within my territory (and I'm a pretty avid reader) I was wondering what everyone else thinks of long cache descriptions (and logs).

[listmaker]

I'll read anything - provided it's interesting.

[Derringer]

We really enjoy reading caching adventures in logs,
Especially for those hard to find caches - either because of difficulty or terrain.
Super short logs ie Found TFTC TNLN
To us means that the finder either didn't like the cache or had no experience during the cache finding process, good or bad - just going for the numbers mentality.
We prefer a little more to be written than that.
But everyone's different.

Cache descriptions - Long cache descriptions are good, when there is information/history/Photos etc not readily available to the finder.
The description adds to the cache experience.

Placing long paragraphs in cache descriptions which just repeat info from a sign which you have to read to find the cache, we find a little repetitive.
We find ourselves reading all information boards etc during a cache hunt anyway.

If the hider is just repeating info from another web page - we prefer that a hyperlink is used - we can then decide ourselves whether to read it or not.

Most of the time we read all history/background info to a cache.

Kevin

[setsujoku]

ill always read them no matter what length.

There are cachers here in SA that only do short descriptions, whilst others include photo's, and heaps of info about the area. either way works

And then there is puzzle cache descriptions. sometimes shorter is better, as there is less information to confuse you

I like to put detail into logs, and try attach photo's as often as i can. usually my urban logs are shorter than my country logs.
I think that usually this is because the country caches aren't (usually)visited as often, and there is a journey/story to getting to the cache, so i like to tell that, along with the experience at GZ.
I also like to read others experience for when they visited a cache that I've been to, so chances are others are like this as well, and would be interested in my journey
If i go country i will always have my camera with me (as the trips are usually planned) as well, so the pics get included

It also annoys me when people just put TNLNSL or TFTC on any cache, but even more so when it is a really remote one, or isnt visited very often, as there is quite often a good story to be told about the trip to it

I guess reading all of the above, for me, its all about the journey, and not as much about the cache

[penguin]

I don't think that it's an issue of legth, but an issue of quality.

Cache descriptions: A good story about the location (if appropriate) doesn't go astray - it adds to the experience.

Logs: As others have stated, an entry such as "TNLN TFTC", "Found it", or "Very good" to be personally a little iritating. However, at the end of the day, people can write whatever they choose. I personally prefer the log entries from those that have had (even if it's in their own twisted minds) an adventure and write an informative/entertaining entry.

At the end of the day, simpy write what you think needs to be written.

[rhinogeo]

One of the problems with some LONG cache descriptions is that they can be truncated by Cachemate

This is a major problem if it's a multi with the finding instructions at the bottom of the page leaving you without a clue when you get to the first location before you read the information in your PALM to find that the critical stuff is missing

I like to see a reasonable description of an intersting location but if it goes on for more than a few paragraphs I tend to cut to the chase

As others have already mentioned, extremely short logs infer a lack of satisfaction with the cache and I confess that if I'm struggling for anything nice to say, I usually don't say very much

[Richary]

I have decided not to vote as it doesn't really matter to me. Either way I don't like to see a lot of waffle. But if I am putting out a cache in a historical area (such as my End of the Line caches in Adelaide, Our Lady in the Clare Valley, or Triazolam here in Sydney) then I like to write something about the history of the area and include photos if appropriate.

Often a hyperlink doesn't work as sometimes the information has had to be sourced from a few places (or a book), or the link gives way too much irrelevant information as well.

If there is nothing special about the area apart from it being a good spot to put a cache then I won't say more than a few lines.

As for logs, the very short ones indicate either the finder didn't particularly enjoy the experience and/or can't be bothered writing anything meaningful (or was on a record attempt and can't remember the thing anyway )

Yes I enjoy reading some of the adventures people do to get to a cache especially some of the harder ones. And often inadvertent clues can be left if I am having trouble

[Team GraMon]

I must admit to doing a long story if the place I am bringing people to has a very interesting history. Otherwise why would I bother to just put up the co-ords and not tell the story?
I envisage people reading the story or at least skimming it when they go out to find our caches, but then read the whole story again when they have found it and go to log it to see what it was all about. The logs almost always reflect that people have read and enjoyed the history and why we brought them there.
I guess it all boils down to why you cache.
We love caching for all the history and interesting places it brings us to and we love to read about the place, the history and why the cache is there.
There are a few of our caches that have a short description because they are in interesting places but we did not need to provide a big history as the place was obvious as to why we brought people there.
AS for logs - I love, love long interesting logs as for example that Craig D does - as you feel they appreciated all the research effort and expense you went to to place the cache and they enjoyed the experience, history and trip.
So yes Geodes provide all the info you want to show the interesting place your cache is at.

[tronador]

We really enjoy reading caching adventures in logs,
Especially for those hard to find caches - either because of difficulty or terrain.

Here here

[SamCarter]

I like cache descriptions that help me appreciate the reason the hider picked this spot for a cache, or relates to the cache's purpose or alerts me to some feature of the cache/surroundings. A good cache description often gives me added incentive to visit a spot.

I really appreciate when people have made the effort to write good logs for caches I have hidden -- I can get a sense that they understood why I placed it. Similarly, if a hider has provided me with an enjoyable experience I try to give thanks for that by highlighting what I enjoyed about it (e.g., a fun journey, a great view, the delight at spotting a good camo job, the satisfaction of solving the puzzle, the education from a good multi, etc, etc). Even with caches that have really only been a hidden plastic box (i.e., nothing special to me), I try not to be too brief in my log because someone still went to the trouble of placing it. On a long caching run (i.e., after about 5 caches, given my bad memory!) I used to forget what was special about each cache, but I now use the voice recorder on my PDA to make a quick verbal note after each find to remind me what to include in my written log when I get home.

[CarrollEyre]

I really enjoy finding out why people put the caches where they have whether it is the GZ history or their personal history. But then I am a stickybeak which is one of the reasons that I like caching. I also use maps and compass to find caches as it gives me a feel for the land and try not to use the GPSr unless I am totally lost or if there is a chance of a geo trail forming and it can be avoided. The long descriptions usually allow me to have a feel for why the cache is where it is.
I also like like reading adventure stories and funny situations that occur when people go hunting for caches, even when they do not find them.

[GammaPiSigma]

For me description length is relative to requirement. I have four caches with lengthy descriptions but for them I think it is important. Especially when one requires a 12km bushwalk and if you miss a turn you will be a long way off from the cache. For one cache, which is a puzzle cache, the description is short to add to the frustration.

Log length. If you want to read epic logs look for a cacher called Oregone. You have not read anything like what this guy has written for some of the caches he has done. Page after page after....you get the idea.

I always try to write something about the experience as it is about the "journey" and only occasionally about the cache container itself.

Cheers,
Mike (pi).
GPS

[Big Matt and Shell]

I try and put a bit or research into the area if it has some history and share that with cachers. I always read the cache description on each cache! Some of the best are djcache's cache pages as there is always heaps of information as to the area of the cache.<P>When it comes to logs, you can judge my thoughts of a cache by the length of my logs. I always thank the owner for their cache and try and write a note about the adventure, if I can't really see the point of a cache then I just shorten my log, if it is an impressive cache, my log gets longer.<P>When it comes to logs on my caches I get annoyed with logs like "QF @ 2020". I know people can write what they want but as a cache owner the amount of effort that goes into researching an area, placing the cache, maintaining the cache, I love it when people give feed back to a cache, good or bad I don't mind but the log above says nothing to me. I think that the least someone can do for the find is spend 5 minutes and put a bit of effort into their logs.

[Richary]

Not having used cachemate or similar PDA programs I was not aware they limited how much info you could get on a cache, and a long description would scroll past the bottom. I have always put the historical or whatever info first (like most I suspect) then any info required to find the cache (esp a multi) at the bottom.

What is the line/character length limitation on these programs? We can then adjust our descriptions to suit.

I like putting the info first so people will read or at least skim it before getting the info required to find it. If it appears after the info required for a find I suspect many may not bother to read it. Their loss I suppose.