J.A.R.S.

Yep, that's what I use the ignore list for. After I've been to the area and abort the mission because I decide it's not for me I put the cache on the ignore list in order to filter it out from my PQs.

Thanks. The last couple of years I've really been feeling overwhelmed by the number of caches. I've been caching since 2001 but I don't do a lot of geocaching (about 100 finds or less per year) so the caches that I have to search through are growing exponentially. If I want to spend the afternoon geocaching within, for example, 10 miles of City Hall in a large city a 40 minute drive from where I live, I'd have to spend hours reading through 329 cache descriptions and their logs. My method currently is, I download caches in destination area to my GPS and PDA and head out. I get to ground zero and check the GPS for nearby caches, then I read the description off of my PDA. If the cache doesn't suit my mood I check for the next nearest. It's been my experience that I can waste a lot of time and driving with this method. I don't want to filter out micros and 1/1 because I've found some really nice micro hides and 1/1 hides. In fact I keep a bookmark lists of the micros I've enjoyed finding. I'd ideally like to see a "Cream of the Crop"/"Gold Star" rating system (or any good rating system) so I can spend more time enjoying choice caches. I'm not interested in finding every cache that's been placed. Just not my thing. I don't mind the "just because I wanted to hide a cache" local geocaches. They're good when I need a cache fix and can't drive out of town to cache. But when I drive for miles and have a limited amount of time to cache, I want to spend as much quality time as possible. How do other people maximize quality time? Do most of you spend hours researching before heading out to your destination? Do most of you try to get every cache that's out there?

OK. So far a stinker of an idea. With all the lame cache discussions on the boards (seems like 40% of the topics in the General Geocaching Discussions board are about lame caches) it just got me thinking about how we could encourage people to think about the hides they place. If there were something on the form that made people stop and reflect for a minute, maybe it might contribute to more thoughtful cache placements. Not that "just because I wanted to hide a cache" geocaches don't have their place, they do. But based on the discussion boards and my own experience of being overwhelmed by the number of boxes in an area, I thought this might be a useful form field to help make finding the best caches that suit our caching personalities easier.

dup

That's my point. If I saw "so that someone could find it", I'd put it on the backburner. If I'm in the area for a short visit I'd probably leave this one unless it's on the way to another cache where the owner filled in the "Why" box with something more interesting like "I placed this cache because my wife and I think it's a peaceful area for a quiet walk in the woods with the dogs". Isn't filtering by attribute only a premium member feature? The above example of a nice walk in the woods with the dogs, would not justify a scenic attribute but might still show that the owner had a thoughtful reason for placing the cache.

Perhaps existing caches would have a canned message that says something about -not applicable, cache placed before this feature was implemented- Of course, the opportunity to go back through old active caches and place something in the note field could be an option.

Exactly. These reasons would help us decide if we want to run out and find a cache placed "because there wasn't already one here" or leave it for another day when you just want to get out and find any cache or put it on the ignore list.

Thinking out loud - here's an idea: Add another field to the online form that asks... Why did you place this cache? The answer would be displayed on the activated page for everyone to see. Could it possibly be a useful tool to help geocachers find caches where the owner put some thought into the placement?

There's a 5-stage multi terracache by Team Rowe in James Island County Park.

It depends on when you first paid for membership, not when you first joined the site. Oh that makes more sense. Premium membership probably came about a year later when I found out about PQs.

So True.........Shhhhh! What was the cut-off date? I notice you joined in 2001 and you're a Charter Member. I joined in 2001 but I'm a Premium Member.

From Jeremy Irish: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2123673 So don't expect hybrids to go anywhere because they accomplish three goals: 1. Make people aware not to take the stamp and to introduce folks to a sister activity. (Just a mention to those who think otherwise, Geocaching did not spawn from letterboxing but was a completely different concept created without prior knowledge of letterboxing.) 2. Allow an alternate method for finding a geocache without a GPS receiver, and... 3. Provide a searching method for some letterboxes that have a starting coordinate.

And there in lies the problem. Seems simple enough but: 1) Reviewers don't have a consensus about posted coordinates. Some feel that coords that start at trailheads and parking lots shouldn't be allowed, yet THs and PLs are OK for other cache types. Some feel that all LBHs should be multistaged where the first stage contains a set of instructions to get to the final stage. Some feel that LBHs are traditionals with a stamp, where the posted coords take you to the exact location. 2) Not all reviewers understand that a stamp must be included. So how do people feel about grandfathering the LBH cache type and instead provide stamp attributes (hand-carved and commercial)? Would it be easier on reviewers?

Letterbox hybrids along with traditionals are my favorites. I've been planting and posting them here since 2002. Through the years the box type has always been contentious. It has ticked off some finders who thought that letterbox hybrids were traditionals - they get cheesed when they go home to check the listing and find that the box was not placed at the listed coordinates. Also there's too much confusion amongst reviewers about what "integral" means (a parking lot? a trailhead? half way from the parking lot to the box? the exact box location?). And I've seen stampless boxes granted the LBH icon simply because they also include directions to the box or they ask the finder to bring a stamp to impress into the cache's logbook. There's too just much confusion among finders, hiders and reviewers. I'm beginning to see the positive aspects of grandfathering the LBH box type and adding a stamp attribute (I'd like to see 2 stamp attributes: a handcarved attribute and a commercial stamp attribute).

Micro or Regular? regular Traditional or Multi? traditional Mystery or Earth? mystery In a group or alone? alone Hiding or Finding? both Virtual or Webcam? virtual Letterbox or Wherigo? letterbox Favorite GPS? garmin 60Cx Social(event) or not? every once in a while FTF'er or not? not Podcast listener or not? not (HOH) Out of state or In state? I'd like to do more out just haven't had the opportunity "Extreme/Hardcore" or Layed back? layed back Urban / Rural? urban

Great photos. Maybe you could start a "Snoogan's recommended best caches" bookmark list.

I'm definitely not talking about rude public (or private) criticism. The cachers I admire are great because they know how to provide constructive honest criticism, no pussyfooting around but no rude comments either. They have never called a cache "crap". They have stated they're concerns about caches and have made suggestions. I think that's a great service to the cache owner and the cache finders.

Definitely, but I do think it's an indication that the cache is likely to be as good as the description. Not that a reviewer can do anything about that. I'm thinking that one way to decrease poorly placed caches is by honest, tough criticism in the logs. If other newbies read it they may think harder about how they place their hides. Easier said then done though. I'm not particularly good at it but I'm thankful for a few in my area that are and can dish out some tough love when it's necessary. Regarding new-ness, I do think that commitment to geocaching increases the chance that the cache will be a better hide, at least there's probably a better chance that the hider will make more of an effort. And if they mess up (bad coordinates, improper placement) that they are more likely to fix things rather than ignore problems or abandon the cache.

I don't think it's simply about being new. However you just get a feeling when that new hider, often with no finds or maybe a couple, posts their first cache. It's usually reflected in the write-up. If the write-up is sloppy and short with poor spelling and punctuation, I think it's a good sign that the hide was also down without care and concern. In the Brampton box example, it was immediately reflected in the inaccurate coordinates and the poor placement. Often the hider subsequently shows a lack of communication and inaction about coordinates and placement.

I think what makes a cache truly winter friendly is: safe plowed parking nearby container hidden above snow level (about a meter or more high) container not likely to get frozen in place I've been keeping a bookmark list of types of caches I've found that meet these requirements. You might consider helping out fellow cachers in your area by keeping a bookmark list.

It certainly is difficult to go caching when there's a lot of snow on the ground. One of the challenges is parking. There were many times when I had to abort a geocache hunt because there was hazardous - i.e. the trailhead parking area was covered in a 2 foot layer of snow (didn't want to have to call a tow truck to get out); you can't park on the edge of a country road for fear of sliding into a snow-filled ditch. Then there's the problem with caches that are hidden at ground level and are covered by a foot or more of snow or caches hidden where water can accumulate and freeze the cache in place. That's why I decided to start a bookmark list for winter-friendly caches in my area - for caches that have safe parking and where the cache is accessible (above the snow line and not likely to be frozen in). I figured if I would like to know which caches are accessible in the winter, others might want to know too. Of course, there's also the winter-friendly attribute to look for on the cache listing.

That would be bookmarking but very few people use the feature. Does anyone have any theories about why that is? Bookmark lists are not catching on, so what other system where geocachers can recommend caches would you suggest? The only other one that the anti-rating/ranking posters seem to be suggesting is reading all of the logs on all the caches in an area you'd like to cache in.

Does that chart indicate: ... Nothing about which I was referring. The score I to which I was referring was to the "quality" rating one would be giving to a cache and was pointing out the problem with weighted scores. Why should a very high quality cache be punished because it was found who only finds high quality caches, but his vote was weighted lower because of it? So how do you screen out for only high quality caches? How long does it take you to do the research? If you were new to the area do you read all the logs in all of the caches within a 10 mile radius or along a route to screen out for high quality only? Are there certain words you look for? Have you ever gone to what you perceived as a high quality cache only to find it OK, really just an ordinary cache.

[dup deleted]

I don't like puzzles that require you to have something special in order to find them e.g. a piece of software you download to your cell phone that allows you to read barcodes. My other least favourite puzzles are multi-stage puzzles that require you to visit more than 2 locations to collect information. Same reason I'm not keen on regular multis - if one part of the multi is missing, or changes, or is simply wrong, it means you can't finish the puzzle and will need to return to the location. I loved this puzzle I did recently: GC19P92 All the research is done online. For me it was a head scratcher for a little while until I finally twigged in. I thought it was very creative. PLUS I really appreciate puzzle caches that include a geochecker. This puzzle has one. Since there's an extra effort required to figure out the puzzle cache location, it's extra nice when the puzzle cache owner puts out a regular size (not micro) cache container.