Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thebruce0

  1. There are various ways of 'rating' a cache. 1. Number of FPs. 2. % of FP to Finds. 3. Wilson score The wilson score (via PGC) is even better, since 30 FP out of 100 (30%) finds may still be enormously better than that 6 FP out of 8 finds (75%). Wilson takes some other factors into consideration.
  2. Specific example: A cache listing is immediately archived because it's become known that the CO is (supposedly repeatedly) letting fake logs stand. COs cannot "give permission" to log caches as found if the cache is not there, and some COs are so lax about it that no one even attempts to hide it. Reviewers caught the trend and started reacting to abuse of that owner responsibility. Just as with any reviewer action, it's not like this happens immediately and for every single instance. But if reviewers know of someone they feel is abusing their responsibility (up to reviewer judgment) yes, they may well take action. Reviewers can't technically "ban" someone from publishing caches, or submitting for review. But we know HQ can do that. But, they can certainly become more strict in their application of the guidelines they're there to enforce, especially where they are given the flexibility to be lenient or not. Reviewers aren't restricted from being proactive in enforcing guidelines - though most don't, usually I'd wager to avoid the drama that might ensue (as we all know by the 'cache police' insult). Everyone knows you don't get on a reviewer's naughty list =P
  3. ...and (c) be willing to take flack for being a rEsPoNsIbLe cAcHe oWnEr instead of letting people "play their own way". /minirant
  4. From what you've said I wouldn't call you a bad cacher. For one, there will always be people who don't like someone's etiquette. You can't make everyone happy. Secondly, I'd say a "bad cacher" is more likely someone who is intentionally doing things that knowingly make the game worse for others, whereas you certainly seem to be doing what you think is right and are willing to learn etiquette where possible. (though there will still be people who just hate "newbies" who they think don't get it - that is, their own way of doing things). All that said, for the travelbugs, there's no "right way" except for what the TB owners wants for their TB. But when there's no clear instruction, I think the fallback to a generalized balance of "visits, photography, and movement" is the safest mentality. If I pick up a TB and it has no goal, I'll likely hold it no shorter than a couple of days, may or may not take photos with it, and may or may not 'dip' it into caches that I think are relevant to its theme (there's always a theme, even if it's totally inferred :)), but I'll drop it somewhere else, hopefully not right next to it, so it gets some mileage. I don't think you were doing anything wrong, if I read your comment right. Unless you were doing something with the TB that was not what its owner wanted. And yeah, sometimes it might be better to leave a TB in a cache rather than pick it up, but I find that's very rare (like it's almost met its goal and is waiting to be picked up by someone near its destination, for example). Many have had TBs reach a destination area only to be picked up casually and taken across the world to be dropped off again. Argh! ;D I think if you're trying to be a 'good cacher', then you're not a 'bad cacher', even if you make mistakes. But you'll never be free from someone's criticism, that's for sure; no one is, sadly.
  5. According to the guidelines for challenge caches the D is the difficulty to complete the challenge and T the actual one of the final cache. Yes, that was my point. Like challenge caches - where the D is for the required challenge (and its container difficulty where relevant, such as camouflage difficulty) and the T is for the container terrain only (and not of the containers required to qualify) - the bonus would have D set to completion of the AL (and/or getting the required info to begin and complete the bonus, and potentially the D of the container where relevant, such as camouflage) and the T is for the bonus cache terrain itself, not including the terrain of the AL. Still going by the basic idea that D/T ~ brain/braun, and the T is for only the container you're searching for directly. In short: Challenge D includes qualification difficulty and cache difficulty; Challenge T includes only cache terrain. Bonus D includes AL difficulty and cache difficulty; Bonus T includes only cache terrain.
  6. You know, I dislike the term 'cheat' in geocaching, but many Geotours do offer non-geocaching bonuses like geocoins, coupons, and collectible items, usually while supplies last. I could understand people being frustrated by "cheaters" who simply learn the required information to complete a geotour without actually doing the geocaches, just to get the swag, leaving none for other people who do the geotour legitimately... The "cheating" isn't about geocaching so much as it is collecting tangible rewards from the geotour hosts without doing the tasks legitimately. That I get. (unfortunately there's nothing HQ can do about that - the Geotour host would be the organization to communicate with)
  7. As a db developer, considering ways to optimize the data needed to calculate the %, you'd need the PM Find count and FP count. Sum totals are a dime a dozen when looking up cache details/searches/lists. If a list pulls Find count, and FP count, it could pull PM Find count as well. Then the % calculation is trivial - even if it's done on the front end, not on a server. There's no reason to store a percentage value when the data used to calculate it is right next to it, and it's not a resource-intensive algorithm calculation (like a/b isn't); at least not unless every little nanosecond is worth an ounce of gold and a couple of bytes of data per row is no big thing... A search result list can easily on the front end display a % value when displayed as long as it has the PM find count and FP count to work with. I'd guess that's how PGC does it.
  8. Then check out his actual site - https://geocachingwhileblack.com
  9. Yep, I'd rate the bonus T for the bonus T, and make the D rated for the AL and bonus, just like a challenge cache. Older challenges were a little more convoluted (like those 5/5 challenges in a 1/1 LPC), but today at least in my experience, most people are dedicating the T to the listing directly. If anything, you can note the expected D/T individually in both the AL and Bonus descriptions.
  10. The little point to note is that those UI widgets aren't intuitive, in that you have to experiment with them to determine what they do, rather than there being any indication. Alone, they are vague mystery buttons that aren't self explanatory =P
  11. That was pretty much the primary reason our reviewers stopped publishing any listings, after having only denied events when this all started. Once outdoor gatherings of reasonable size (like 5-10) were allowed, the 'risk' of excessive gathering size was lesser. Also publishing so many (~1200 in a half day) made a much wider spread of options available anyway, so even less risk =P
  12. What could be good as well is tracking cache data changes. If you're working to qualify for a fizzy, for example, and one day you no longer qualify, it's awful to try to figure out which cache was changed and to where. But if you load the new PQ, if a listing's details change, tracking that would make issues like that much easier to track down. Just a thought ETA: To note, afaik gsak doesn't even offer that type of changelog to cache details. Though there may be a macro or feature someone created to do it, likely clunkily
  13. Truth. And what the smiley represents. I'm not a fan of a smiley representing putting a text word into a mobile app. I'd much prefer my smileys to remain representative of : 1. A signature in a physical logbook (geocache) 2. Effort required for study and discovery (earthcache) 3. Effort required to arrive at and complete a task (virtual) 4. Work required to successfully enter a web cam image frame and capture myself in it (webcam) 5. Attendance of a gathering of geocachers, possibly with a beneficial activity (event/cito) 6. The number of Found It/Webcam Photo Taken/Attended logs posted to geocache listings (I'm sure I may be missed something) But hey, that's just me All that said, right now the best option as described is to Delete hide the AL finds from the profile. It'd be nice if hiding from stats would be distinct from hiding them from the public though.
  14. Those are the situations where, even if the geocache(s) has a perfectly legitimate and legal right to be there, as do you in a public space (whether you're a geocacher or not) and the resident is acting out of place if even illegally - it's generally safer to err on the side of caution for the sake of other geocachers. Let the CO know, post a Note/NM/NA to let the community know, or directly let a reviewer know. They can decide whether to "fight" it, or just archive because it's not worth the potential risk to people or hassle in dealing with disgruntled (though irrelevant) nearby residents. I mean, at the very least it avoids the potential for geocaches to 'mysteriously' go missing...
  15. I've resigned myself to just reacting to comments I think the point here is that the request was to hear about how fake finds have affected people's finding experience. Sure, other aspects have been mentioned as well, primarily how it affects cache owners' experiences. But there have been plenty of examples of how people have been affected by false find logs. Those examples seem to either get dismissed, or downplayed in a kind of "blame the victim" way (as in, if you thought this way you wouldn't have been affected the same). I suppose one can ask - what is the ultimate goal of the thread? Clearly, finders are affected by false finds - whoever may be at fault. So, is it productive to share those examples if it seems like you'll be made to feel bad for thinking that way? Or are we attempting to condone not posting fake logs because people are and have been affected - whether finders or cache owners? (and part of me is apprehensive about commenting again instead of just reacting to responses )
  16. AFAIK, publishing in your local region is entirely up to the discretion of your local reviewers. Regional restrictions are all across the board around the world right now, so no blanket rule could apply. Since being listed on the site can't be seen as HQ condoning people to break laws, there's no reason HQ would universally allow or disallow publishing. So it'd be up to the reviewers, who (likely) know their community very well, to decide what threshold would be reasonable to allow publishing. My region has been up and down, from a complete moratorium on new listings, to only CITO events (being outdoors and not gathering in one place where there'd be gathering limits), and now we're back to publishing all but events: Our reviewers decided that since events cannot strictly have attendance limitations, then events won't be published until our group gathering limits are lifted. Their choice may not be the same as other reviewers' regions. To be more direct - if your reviewers have decided not the publish during health restrictions, HQ won't tell them to allow new publishing. Just be patient; keep placing caches (if you can justify it during health regulations) and eventually they'll get published (We recently had over 1000 listings published in one swoop between 12 and 12:30am one day, and another couple hundred by noon, once our reviewers allowed them again - it was a big day, heh)
  17. Well that's a gross mischaracterization. I didn't get that from any comments, in any of these threads. Nor was that ever said. Only that it's the cache owner's responsibility to maintain the integrity of their cache listing. "must immediately" is something you threw in there. Everyone has agreed and accepted that there is a risk when searching for a cache that it may be missing - it may have gone missing at some point after a legitimate find log, and nothing could be done about that. That is not the point. The point is that we do not condone people posting false finds, whether intentionally or not. And that a cache owner's responsibilities include removing known false logs, whether or not cache owners do that regularly. If it comes to light that a CO is not removing false logs but letting them stand, they can - and do - face consequences from reviewers or hq as shirking cache owner responsibility. Letting false logs stand is contrary to the whole basis of the hobby - finding geocaches. That hammer doesn't come down with one single incident, it happens when tptb feel that a pattern is emerging and requires attention, usually a suspension of cache publishing rights. This!
  18. Challenge difficulties will almost certainly be more relevant to the local region. When I was in Nevada we came across some challenges and the "easy/bronze" requirement was something like 20,000 finds. Yeah, right. But no, it may hard, but not "showing off". In Ontario our challenge are absolutely shaped around our local geocaching landscape, so quite a few are more "well rounded" statistically, because a lot of COs try to place caches that are fewer, more rare in the area. We have many high terrain because of tree climbs and paddling series, and high difficulty because of the abundance of challenges. Other regions may have a high number of a certain type of experience that makes a challenge there "easy" compared to here, and on it goes. We need to realize that localized geocaching communities are going to have very different makeups compared to other regions, and not compare our own directly with others. If anything, I'd see a hard (to me) challenge in some distant US state that would be easy there either as a real challenge to complete here, or something to look forward to completing more easily over there. To be on topic: I think challenges are a great way to boost the longevity in the hobby because it can encourage geocachers to travel, to get out of their comfort zone, to basically try new things where their usual geocaching habits have grown perhaps somewhat stale, or "cached out".
  19. We have quite a few extreme challenges, but I've never seen them as "show off" challenges, though I know the COs and that's not their intent. The issue I have with extreme challenges is only that only a handful of cachers in the region may be able to log them even over a long period of time. Sometimes they get archived to be replaced by other caches (maybe even another challenge). But I see those as goals to work towards, even if long term. Heck I may still work towards that goal after such a cache gets archived. In my mind, if one person placed that challenge, chances are it also exists somewhere else, or will very soon. So if I qualify, it's another cache I'll be able to find right away. IMO, it'll only feel (to me) like "showing off" if I'm in a competitive frame of mind. I avoid that as much as possible to have the best time geocaching and achieving accomplishments.
  20. Including the notification of uploaded images. That's wonderful.
  21. And who knows, if it actually is missing you may well have actually found it if it were there. In many cases it's clear where the cache should be, so obvious if it's missing - but it may have been "replaced" somewhere else incorrectly, who knows; any number of reasons. But if you go for it under the impression it is there, end off with a DNF, and find out that it was actually missing - it's different if you find out the prior find was a false log that had you searching when you'd otherwise have passed, and also postponed any alert and maintenance for the cache owner who may have been able to fix it in short order. I do think the biggest effects of false finds though are on the cache owner and the health score, moreso than potential finders. If there is a problem, the system thinks there isn't if it's been logged "found", and the cache owner may also consider the cache okay to be found when it really needs maintenance.
  22. And a project to fill the Trans Canada Highway is on the go, and that spans the entirety of the country.
  23. The issue is that HQ can't define "good" or "bad" caches subjectively. If the listing is according to the guidelines (under the assumption of the agreement of the owner to guidelines), then it's published. The community does the rest. The grey areas on subjective opinions tend to get pushed to reviewers or appeals to adjudicate. Otherwise, there's nothing that can be done about lack of indication of safe parking for a 1.5/1.5, or the existence of lots of trash, for example. If someone is concerned about that, they should get used to reading past logs for details the CO may (choose to) leave out of their description. Guideline violations should be reported. Major concerns could be lifted to reviewers or hq. Otherwise, at some point geocachers just need to be reasonable and proceed with due caution.
  24. Seriously? Yeah I don't think this is going to be productive based on your response.
  • Create New...