FatHap
-
Posts
3 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by FatHap
-
-
7 hours ago, Dublinius said:
Not displaying negative feedback will not prevent people "ganging up" , on the contrary it would make ganging up easier because a non local reviewer does not necessarily know the "chemistry" of local caching communities and might be inclined to just archive based on quantity of negative feedback.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you suggesting that a group of cachers would join together and give a bunch of unwarranted negative feedback on someone's cache just because it's not displayed? I don't understand your argument about the "chemistry" of the local community either, unless you may be referring to a cacher who is a known complainer or something similar. I'm trying to understand your reply, not argue with you.
It seems to me if a cache is getting negative feedback from multiple cachers there is more than likely a problem. If several of the CO's caches are getting a quantity of negative feedback it's even more likely there is a problem. I also never said it should be grounds for any particular cache to be archived. When I made that suggestion I was thinking of a specific CO who just does not maintain their caches well. Key locations in field puzzles have changed making the puzzle unsolvable, the CO acknowledges the container is missing and then never replaces it, coordinates to the next stage of a multi are wrong, etc. I just don't see why cache owners like this should be allowed to continue placing caches. It is not my intention that someone who places a cache others may not like gets banned from hiding more caches. If someone wants to put out a bunch of parking lot caches, I just won't look for them. They certainly shouldn't be penalized because I don't like that particular style of caches.
-
In your mind, what is a high quality geocache?
- An interesting location (scenic view, hiking trail, historic/educational, unique place in the local community, etc.)
- An a creative hide that is appropriate for the location (magnetic nanos that are well camouflaged in urban areas, larger yet still well-hidden containers for wooded areas)
- A challenging, unique or educational puzzle
- And obviously, a clean, dry, well maintained container
In your mind, what is a low quality geocache?
- Caches that don't match the cache description (ex: cache was originally an ammo can but now it is a very small container and CO never updated the page, attributes incorrect - especially the available in winter attribute)
- Field puzzles that are missing key information due to changes in signage, etc. (especially when multiple logs point this out and the CO does nothing)
- Cache locations near thorns, poison ivy, or a bunch of litter
- Multiple pill bottle caches by the same owner close together along a trail (I'm sure some people like these since they are so prevalent, but I don't)
- Caches where it's hard not to look suspicious (ex: in the center of a small town and your obviously an outsider poking around)
- Caches that are owned by active cachers but they are not maintained (my least favorite of all are caches that are part of a series so the the rest of the series is also unavailable)
What steps can the community take to improve geocache quality?
- Don't put out replacement caches. Unless the cache has significant value, such as caches remaining from the early days of geocaching, would it be such a big deal for that cache to get archived if the owner can't/won't maintain it? This would open the area up for another cacher to place a new cache.
- Only place caches you can realistically maintain. For some people it could be 5, for others it could be 500. Know your limits.
- Owners could archive some of their run-of-the-mill caches occasionally so new people can have a chance to hide in the area, especially if they own many caches along the same trail or in the same park. This would also provide some new caches for veteran cachers who have found everything in the area.
- Host events to teach new cachers how to hide better caches. Take them to some great caches in the area as examples.
- Local geocaching groups could create "cache of the month" or similar lists to showcase great caches. I've seen old bookmarks like this in my area, but it doesn't seem to be something that is currently being updated.
What steps can Geocaching HQ take to improve geocache quality?
- When an active cacher moves away, make them submit a plan for how they will maintain caches now that they no longer live in the area. In my opinion, cachers who move should either archive or have someone adopt their caches unless they make frequent visits to the area.
- Don't let someone place excessive caches in the same park/trail at the same time. Some cachers fill a park with a bunch of identical caches leaving no room for someone else to place one.
- Allow anonymous feedback for bad caches, kind of like the opposite of a favorite. Feedback should be specific about the problem with the cache. Having it not displayed on the cache page could prevent people from ganging up on another cacher, but it could provide reviewers another tool to know who the delinquent cache owners are. Cachers with too much negative feedback shouldn't be allowed to place new caches.
Geocache Quality
in User Insights
Posted
This is the type of cache I was thinking of when I said "unless the cache has significant value". An older remote cache that has been maintained by the community in recent years sounds to me like a cache that has significant value. It's unique, and as long as the community wants to preserve it, it makes sense to leave it as is.