texasgrillchef
-
Posts
456 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by texasgrillchef
-
-
When it comes to rating quality that is in the eye of the beholder. You will find that some people love the Netflix system and some don't. People that don't like lamp post caches might give it a low rating even if it was done well. Power Cachers that want to do 500 caches in a day might give a park and grab a five star rating. Now you have to consider what kind of cache the "rater" likes. If you are a power cacher and you know the "rater" is a power cacher then maybe you can agree on the cache. If you don't consider who is doing the rating then you might end up with 100 power cachers that love the cache and 100 others that hate it and the average rating doesn't mean much.
These issues are ironed out with 'Top 10 Profiling'.
How would 'Top 10 Profiling' work?
Would the top 10 be based on geographic areas, or all 850,000+ cache hides?
Who would decide what cache hides are in the top 10? How would the top 10 hash out issues between a "power cacher" and a "Nature cacher" or any other type of cacher?
What about 'BOTTOM 10 profiling'. I only ask because sometimes I want to know WHO the WORST are so I don't go there.
Example... being that I am a chef, I of course know the TOP 10 restaurants in Dallas/Fort Worth. But as well as knowing the top 10. I know the BOTTOM 10 as well. Why? Because I can garuntee you that you don't ever want to go to a BOTTOM 10 restaurant... you literly might not survive!
But like I said in a previous post. I don't have any complaints with any CO's that I have looked for. Even the ones that I logged as DNF. My suggestions were entirely generated by the shear number of complaints I read in the forums about CO's and various issues.
TGC
-
It always is interesting to me that it is mostly the cachers with the least amount of caches, that seem to always want to re-write the rules of Geocaching, and or modify the concept, exsisting rules have been in place since Geocaching started, and has been proven to be a VERY successful game the way it is. If it ain't broke don't fix it comes to mind. JMO
Scubasonic
I personally don't have any complaints with any cache hides that I have found, or DNF. Not saying there weren't any issues with some of my find's or DNF's, but I don't have any complaints about the issues that I had.
My suggestions that I have suggested for open review were based soley on the number & type of complaints that I read about CO's on these forums/threads.
Whenever I see a problem/issue of any type, anywhere I have an inhierant urge to help find a solution. I do realize that sometimes there isn't always a solution to every issue/problem. But I do believe that one should at least try to find a solution. I never meant to imply that my suggestions were perfect. Far from it. That is EXACTLY why I posted my suggestions in a forum to get others opinions & suggestions as well. I appreciate your opinion. Obviously you don't see a problem/issue, in that case you should be perfectly happy. Right?
I do agree if it ain't broke don't fix it. But with over several hundred complaints about CO's (many of the SAME complaints by different people) that I read about in these forums, then IMHO there IS something that is broken!
TGC
-
What terrain difficulty rating would a brand new cache have? A 70 year old might show up with his 5 year old grand daughter to find you have to climb a tree or hike up a steep hill.
How could someone rate a cache difficulty if they didn't find it? It might be very easy but their GPSr had them looking in the wrong spot. I think you need to find the cache before you can give an accurate rating of difficulty.
When it comes to rating quality that is in the eye of the beholder. You will find that some people love the Netflix system and some don't. People that don't like lamp post caches might give it a low rating even if it was done well. Power Cachers that want to do 500 caches in a day might give a park and grab a five star rating. Now you have to consider what kind of cache the "rater" likes. If you are a power cacher and you know the "rater" is a power cacher then maybe you can agree on the cache. If you don't consider who is doing the rating then you might end up with 100 power cachers that love the cache and 100 others that hate it and the average rating doesn't mean much.
Very good points that you make.
Of course I never said that my suggestions were perfect. But you do have to start somewhere before you can find a solution. I am still thinking. 
TGC
-
I reward caches I truly like by uploading images to the cache's gallery, and bookmarking those caches with my "top finds" bookmark.
Interesting thought. I have a question though. I have looked at gallery images BEFORE I went on a hunt & in one case it ruined my hunt because it was a "Spoiler"
So not for sure how looking at gallery images would help a POTENTIAL hunter in determining if a particular cache/hide will be to their likeing or not.When I am on a potential cache/hide page how do I see that it is in your "Top finds" bookmark or anyone elses? How will that help a potential hunter?
I personally don't see the point in bookmarking caches I have allready found, as now that I have found them, I won't be returning and will be looking for more caches to find that I havent' allready found.
I currently bookmark caches that I haven't found yet, but that I want to find at a later date when I am either in that area that the cache is in, or when I know I wil have more time to find that cache (Such as if it is a multi-cache, or a puzzle/mystery cache).
I guess what I am failing to understand is how your system would help other potential hunters?
TGC
-
Hello everyone...
I have a suggestion I would like to make to Groundspeak.com/geocaching.com. I have put this in a thread in a forum to get everybodies thoughts on this suggestion.
Here is my background for the reasons behind my suggestion.
While I am new to the geocaching.com scene & forums. One thing I have noticed in this forum is that there are a large amount of posts from people about those who do cache hides & cache owners. These include complaints about HOW, WHERE, & WHY a cache is hidden to even how it is maintained &/or published. At my age I have learned from life that their are ALWAYS "Bad Apples" in every group of people you meet. Thus even getting into this sport (Yes I consider this a sport and not a hobby, as many other sports are required or needed to obtain the cache. Such as hiking, biking etc...) I realized that their would be "BAD" hides/caches for many many different reasons. Just part of dealing with life.
Thus from my actual experiances geocaching, to the litterly HUNDREDS of posts/complaints about CO's and their hides I have come up with the following idea/suggestion.
I am sure many of you have a Netflix.com &/or a Blockbuster.com account where you receive your movies/DVD's/Blu-ray's in the mail & in the case of Netflix even through your Netflix enabled "Box", know that you can easily "RATE" the movies you have seen/rented/watched. This rating system goes into a big database so that when you review a movie prior to adding it to your que, you can see how the memebership of Netflix or Blockbuster have rated that movie. The movies are rated on a scare of 1 to 5 stars.
Thus if you can do it for MOVIES/DVD's/Blu-rays/Instand watches.... You SHOULD be able to do it for CACHES as well.
I see this as a 3 part process...
1. Instead of the CO rating the "DIFFICULTY" from 1 to 5 stars... this should be done by the cache finders when they log a FIND or a DNF. Let the difficulty rating be done by the actual users NOT the CO.
2. Instead of the CO rating the "TERRAIN" from 1 to 5 stars... this should also be done by those who log a find &/or DNF. Let the users rank it not the CO.
3. Last but not by any means least.... a "QUALITY" rating from 1 to 5 stars. Again created by those who log a find &/or DNF. This "Quality" rating would be one that takes all things into consideration (Placement, Maintenance, The cache page, etc...) & how the finder or DNF'er found the cache to be in their opinion.
Yes these would be AVERAGED out based on the OPINIONS of the those who SEARCHED for the cache. But as a potential hunter of any cache we would/should take those ratings and understand that they are opinion rated. EXACTLY the same way we would take the Movie/DVD/BLu-ray ratings we find on Netflix &/or Blockbuster.
What are your thoughts on this (The suggestions)? Bad idea? Good idea? Something Groundspeak.com/Geocaching.com should consider? Should my suggestions stand as is, or should they be tweaked?
Would love to hear... I do have an open mind.
TGC
P.S. For reference... there are some of my finds that I would rate (Quality) 1 star, and others 5 stars, just as their are some of my DNF's that I would rate a 1 star as well as a 5 star. Just cause I didn't find a cache doesn't mean I would give it a 1 star.
-
One geocacher's "frustrate and annoy" is another geocacher's "challenge and exhilarate".Deliberately placing caches in locations or containers that are designed to frustrate and annoy is not fairFWIW, I used a PQ to identify a 4-star nano-cache for my 666th find. I logged 6 DNFs on another 4-star nano-cache before eventually finding it. I enjoy them, and as long as they're rated correctly, I think they're perfectly fair. But I can understand that others might not enjoy them.
If you don't enjoy them, then don't search for them. Spend your time searching for caches you will enjoy more.
A PQ? I did look, but I couldn't find the meaning of this. Can you please tell me what PQ means?
TGC
-
Hello everyone...
I do realize I am very new to this game of Geocaching. I however am not new to this world, nor am I new to using GPS devices.
I started using GPS back in the summer of 1989. I have known about geocaching for some years & have always been interested in this "SPORT". (I don't consider it a hobby, bur more a sport)
Being that I have now taken an early retirement I have decided to start enjoying this interesting game.
I prefer to look at the world I have traveled (Been around it twice now) from a logical point of view.
At this time that I am writing this post, I have 21 finds. 6 or 7 more finds I haven't posted yet. I have also searched for an additional 15 caches that I have yet to log a DNF for, or I will be returning to look for very soon & want to give another try before I post a log.
However.... even so... This is my opinion on CO's & the hides that they do.
1. There will ALWAYS be hides that some of us find interesting, challenging, & fun to find for some of us & others HATE for various reasons.
2. There will ALWAYS be CO's who make hides out of spite, bitterness & pure hatred, with no intent of the cache ever being found & with the pure intent of actually torturing people &/or putting a person/family in harm. Think about Ted Bundy or Charlie Mason hiding a cache. These type's of CO's who make these types of hides COULD in FACT be placing themselvs in LEGAL LIABILITY. This could be considered CRIMINAL by some states. If not criminal, then this could in fact open themselvs up for a law suit of some type. One thing I have NOT noticed in any threads in this forum on Groundspeak is legal liability that a CO could place on themselvs with certain hides. Either where the cache was placed, or how it was placed, or even with the intent.
3. Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is the "Perfect" or "Imperfect" cache hide.
4. There are ALWAYS "bad apples" in a group. There are some CO's who are "Bad Apples" and there are some cache finders (CF's) that are bad apples too. Just as their are CO's who make bad hides. There are CF's who couldn't find their own A*S even if it was pointed out to them.
5. There will ALWAYS be what I call "SPECIALTY" Hides/Caches. These are cache hides that are designed for the "Novelty" of the cache/hide or for certain groups of individuals. Those who climb mountains, Scuba Dive. I have a friend who went to the SOUTH POLE (He is in the scientific field of study) & told me that they have their OWN Form of Geocaching that they do for fun down there. Some thought about publishing their caches, but they don't like "Tourists" down there as it is anyways. (Many cruise ships are now making the journey Antartica with side trips to the south pole)
Because of this... this is how I go about Geocaching...
I look at the page describing the hide very well. I don't look at any hints given. I then based on my OWN criteria for what I want in hunt for the day choose which caches to hunt for. There is a vast amount of criteria that I have, as well as the simple. The area that I wish to look. ie... Im in Texas, Kind of hard to look for hides in CA since I am not there today. So should CA hides be unfair since Im not in CA? Obviously not
I do beleive though that every responsible CO SHOULD in fact clearly make certain facts of their hides known on their cache page. (Without of course giving away important clues), & should be SAFE for the enviroment as well as for the cache finder. Consider this, there is legislation pending in many cities & states that if passed will make liable any CO who places a cache that is harmfull to the enviroment, or an UNREASONABLE safety hazard to the finder. Such as placing a cache in a den of crocodile/alligator eggs. Very bad for the alligator/crocodile and very dangerous for the Cache finder.
One suggestion I would LOVE to see added to geocaching.com is USER ratings of cache hides. Think of NETFLIX/BLOCKBUSTER.... Once you can RATE the moview you have seen/rented. One star to 5 stars. Your input goes into their servers and is averaged out over all the inputs so when you view a movie, you can see how that movie is RATED among the members of Netflix/Blockbuster. I think we need the SAME kind of system on Geocaching.com. Lets rate the caches. 1 star to 5 stars.
But now on a more REAL note. As much as we may NOT like some CO's and their hides or how some CF's lack the skill or willpower to find some hides. Those people will continue to exist and their honestly isn't much we can do about them, other then try to avoid them to the best of our ability & help through communication of those who do make "Bad" hides.
TGC
P.S. I am serious about the idea of having a USER generated Rating system of Cache hides very similar to the ones used for rating movies by Netflix/Blockbuster.
-
Our city is considering a PERMIT ordinance for the city park system.
This will REQUIRE that in each & every cache that the log have on it the PERMIT #. Without the permit # the cache could be in violation & could possibly be removed by City park employees.
I don't know if I approve of this & other ordinances that are being proposed in various cities about geocaching. But be prepared it's coming. There are serveral HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS in texas that won't allow any caches on any of its Parks unless it was placed their by a member of the HMA.
So if your a cacher and have a DNF on a cache. Be very carefull about replacing the cache WITHOUT the original owners consent or knowlege. As you could in the future possibly be breaking the law, &/or an HMA agreement the original CO has with their HMA.
All I am saying is just be carefull about replacing caches.
TGC
-
interestingly, there is much evidence that children (especially boys) when not permitted to use toy weapons, will press into service non-weapon items as toy weapons.
Exactly... when I was younger and got into trouble and had ALL my toys taken away... my FINGER gun ended up being the BEST toy I had!
Then again even as an adult seems my fingers & hands are still my best toy! LOL
TGC
-
Now on to a more serious note...
For those of you who have used a nalgene bottle to submerse underwater. How was the seal of the lid? Did it leak? How far did you submerse it?
I/we used a nalgene bottle on our underwater hide (2-3 feet of water). At first we just used lots of rocks to weight it down and when we checked on it there was moisture inside but not a lot of water...could have come from the rocks. Fixed it with concrete and put log in a match holder inside nalgene bottle. Log is good and dry now. Some moisture still in nalgene bottle though.
The Moisture problem can come from CONDENSATION. People seem to forget that no air is 100% dry. Not unless it is "processed" air. Thus alot of times the moisture cachers find in GC's isn't because the cache container leaked, but because of condensation inside the container.
You can control "CONDENSATION" in smaller containers with dry packets. They are very inexpensive and easy to get. Check out Uline.com. I have a ton of them that come with all my perscription drugs. I have placed one in each of my "MICRO" caches. (That have yet to be published).
TGC
-
I think a scuba cache is an awesome idea. You would only have to find a way to anchor it permanantly so the choords don't change.
Great idea.
Not that hard to do. Depending on where your diving at. In Lake Travis a good nylon rope and any one of the rocks laying on the bottom will suffice.
Sometimes we have found boat anchors laying on the bottom too. (From boats who have lost their anchors) so that will work as well.TGC
-
"The thought that comes to my mind is "Cache Police".
Yes! Cache police!!! That's what we need!! And I'm serious!!!
There are some cities/parks that have just that. To make sure that the caches are following all the appropriate laws & regulations of the local, state & federal goverments.
TGC
-
As far as "Lord British"'s hide goes of the seahorse in 7000+ feet of water I say COOL! At least someone was willing to do something cool and interesting!
I hope if he makes it back up into space he can leave a Travelbug there too!
Now as far as cost goes. I looked into the trip he was talking about it. It isn't that expensive considering comparing it to other similar trips. The cost about $9500 per person. That isn't expensive when you go and compare that to say a 2 week crusie of the Panama canal in a room with a balcony on Princess or Holland America cruise lines.
Take a look at some of the vacations offered by the Smithsonian &/or National Geographic. Alot of those are also around $9500 a person as well.
Now I do agree... a trip into space is a little to expensive for 99% of the people in the world. As that trip currently costs about 20 million bucks. 2.5 million once Virgin Atlantic starts operating its commercial space flights.
Now on to a more serious note...
For those of you who have used a nalgene bottle to submerse underwater. How was the seal of the lid? Did it leak? How far did you submerse it?
I only ask the previous question based on IP standards. My GPS unit is IP7 rated for it's waterproof capability. IP7 means it can be submersed in up to 30 feet of water for 30 minutes without any leakage. Although honestly I wouldn't try that on my Garmin. I HAVE dropped my Garmin GPS into 3 or 4 feet of water & taken about 5 to 10 min to get it out again. It survived with NO damage & it was even on! I could see the glow of the lcd display under the water.
I go scuba diving at lake travis near austin texas. I was thinking of placing a cache there for other scuba divers. Using a underwater pen & other water proof/underwater items.
TGC
-
You caches were submitted on the 8th. According to my math that's only about 2 days.
The email you received said it may take up to 72 hours for a first look. So wait one more day.
That all said, reviewers are volunteers. Sometimes they have real life to deal with and reviews must take a back seat. Be patient. Yours will be reviewed soon.
Thanks... Ok I will do that. I wasn't complaining. I was just curious about the time frame. I was going on the cache place date that I had one my earliest one (July 7th, 2009)
I understand about the volunteers... and to all the volunteers... I want to say thank you for all the hard work that you do!
TGC
-
In my understanding a "SBA" IS a RTN log in a sense.
Welcome to geocaching and have fun!!!
It is mine as well, but as I have read some of the posts in this thread, there are some that don't want to view a SBA log as being a RTN log. Go figure!
-
One from the U.K. (Sept 06) on the cache "Men of the Sea", near Bristol.
MrsB
And some people on another thread don't see why "packing heat" might not be such a bad idea while caching.
Easy to do in Texas as a good percentage of Texans have a "Concealed weapons" permit. However, This cacher that found that stash was in the "British Isles" and if memory serves me correctly. They aren't allowed to carry concealed weapons, or even own certain weapons as well. Not like in the USA
TGC
-
At one point, I was scouting a place to hide a cache in one of my favorite, little known, local forest preserves. Found a decent spot, in a hollow tree - not too bushwacky. Went to put the cache in, and found another cache! Pulled it out, pristine log. Hmm - I had checked before I left, I knew there were no published caches nearby. I signed the log, put it back and hiked away the requisite distance to hide my own. I figured it was bad timing - and they would both show up on GC. Never hear from the other one again. Checked on it some months later when checking on my own, - and it was gone.
Still wondering...
All the more reason why I beleive one should always put their GC1 cache code somewhere IN and ON their cache! That way it can be traced back to the owner.
The city that I live in, is considering making it a city ordinance that requires such information be on it so that the police can track it back to the owner. At least for geocaches placed on PUBLIC land.
TGC
-
Or hide one of these in the woods:
hmmmm could be done... Got a helicopter to drop one of those things off?
-
Third, I need a larger, softer, gentler bicycle seat.
Being a Chef... I can help enlarge and soften your seat... come on over and let me feed you a few million calories.
-
It has been almost 4 days since I have submitted a cache to be published and a reveiwer has yet to review my submitted cache. How long does it take before it is published &/or reviewer feedback is given?
I did a search of the FAQ's and Forum but didn't come up with anything. Not saying nothing is there. Just wasn't able to find anything based on the search criteria I used.
Thanks
TGC
-
As I am new to the "Game" I have a few comments to make regarding the subject matter at hand here.
Yes, I know I am a newbie. Yet my comments are based on my understanding of the English language and how I interpret and perceive the ideal "Game play" of geocaching should be.
First, I want to say that No one is ever perfect. Neither a cache finder nor a cache owner, not even a reveiwer.
My definition of a "VIABLE" cache is one that follows all the accepted rules of placement, isn't broken in a way that would keep it from performing it's duties.
Since I am in the process of not only finding caches, but placing a few myself I view the SBA and NM logs as follows.
NM logs are just that. Anytime a cacher beleives some form of "M" needs to be done then it should be brought to the CO's attention. If this maintnance is an ongoing issue, &/or problem. Then a SBA log should be created, because CURRENTLY there is no other way to get action taken on a cache when a CO refuses to do so.
Ideally there should be another LOG type created. Maybe in addition to a SBA maybe a RTN (Reviewer Take Notice) log. Where a reviewer will look into what the problem is and then take the appropriate action.
I do understand that on occasion Caches need to be "Disabled" for a short time because of contruction or some other mishap that will temporarily make a cache unaccesable. However, how LONG should a cache be "Disabled" for before it should really be archived? 3 months? 6 months? a year? 2 years? 5 years? Some construction projects can EASILY last for more then 2 or 3 years & even as long as 10! If the reason your disabling your cache temporarily is because of contruction, then you should find out how long the construction will last. DON'T GUESS! A disabled cache in a construction zone that will last for more than a year SHOULD be Archived!
IMHO a cache that has been disabled for MORE than a year SHOULD be ARCHIVED.
There is one location very near me that I would love to place a cache. I haven't placed one there because I know that our city will soon start a TWO YEAR contruction project at that location. I don't beleive a cache should be disabled that long before it returns. When construction is finished... then maybe I will place one there. The OTHER problem when dealing with "Disabling" caches temporarily BECAUSE of CONSTRUCTION... is that you NEVER know what the LOCATION will be like AFTER the contruction is complete. Questions to be raised are... what will the muggle activity be like? Safety? Legality? will the area be off limits, landscaping issues... etc.. etc... etc...
So... IMHO.... if a cache is disabled because of CONSTRUCTION for longer thatn 6 months... it SHOULD be archived UNTIL construction is COMPLETE. Especially if the construction project is initiated by ANY government entity (Local, State, or Federal). In Texas I have seen contruction projects change MIDSTREAM 4 or 5 times BEFORE it was even completed.
Last but not least... anytime a cache is temporarily disabled there should ALWAYS be a log explaining why it was disabled and a for how long the CO beleives this cache will be disabled.
I beleive that RESPONSIBLE CO's will take PRIDE in the caches they own and will do their best to keep them "VIABLE". I know I will take pride in the caches I hide to keep them clean, dry & viable.
Anyways... thats my opinions and thoughts. This is a free country and you are free to agree or disagree with me. If you do disagree that is your right. Just understand you won't be able to change my opinion.
Thanks
TGC
Of course I never said that my suggestions were perfect. But you do have to start somewhere before you can find a solution. I am still thinking. 
Sometimes we have found boat anchors laying on the bottom too. (From boats who have lost their anchors) so that will work as well.
Unexpected find while hiding
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Not really anyway to tell in a Nebraska winter. I have been to Nebraska a few times. Found the plants growing WILD on the side of the road & at rest stops as well.
A "Pot Plantation" is fairly easy to know if you see one. Even without the "Weed". The field will almost always be in a very remote location. Which will require hiking of some sort. Will not be visable from any nearby road. The ground area will look as though it has been cultivated at some point in recent history. That is if it is a field that had been recently used. (last growing season). There won't be alot of other vegitation in this field that will appear to be very old. First year grasses, weeds, etc...
My rule of thumb. If it looks like a peice of land that has been cultivated and is NOT easily accessable by NORMAL farm equipment. Then I would would say it just might be a "Pot Plantation".
TGC