Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by d+n.s

  1. What? I didn't realize it was bigger than a match safe when I first read through the thread. Was just confused where the extra fun was coming from. It all makes sense now.
  2. Thanks for the info. If it ever comes up I'll know now.
  3. Ah! I see! Out of curiousity, can you see past it if you switch it to PMO? I don't think I'll be making my caches PMO until I have a good reason, but thanks for the answers! I thought I was just blind.
  4. None of our opinions really matter. I wouldn't log it, but who cares? If you are really worried about it e-mail the CO and ask. If you get no response do what you want.
  5. We haven't been a premium member for very long, but I don't see this feature listed anywhere... yet I have some odd memories of reading several people say you could see who has been looking at your cache page here on the forums. People talked about it in the context of sending them a hint or something. Am I insane or am I confusing something? I don't need the feature, but I would be interested in looking at it if it's real. Just curious. sorry if I'm insane.
  6. Anyway, who cares if there are a few people who would choose to hunt based solely on caches on favorite lists, without doing any research? How will their caching style negatively affect your geocaching experience? Or even geocaching in general? I'm not sure anyone does care. I expressed myself poorly, but was trying to make a point about the sort of results you get with a rating system over a "favorites" system. It seems like people want to know "how much" someone liked it by looking at a number rather than just "did you like it?" I questioned how useful/accurate this information would be when used practically. I posed the question poorly (and continue to do so ) and later clarified. I'm just trying to get at the heart of why people like one system is good over another and "scoring" a cache amongst other things would seem to appeal to people who want to know if a cache is "good" or "bad" just by glancing at them. I don't think it would lead to pleasant caching, but I also don't mean to suggest its not a valid way to do things... I also don't mean to suggest its the only reason people like a rating system over a favorties one, but I would be MORE in favor of a "thumbs up/down" than "5-star", but would prefer "5-star" to "10-point" and "10-point scale" to "out of 100" etc. if only for the sake of precise meaningful filtering. I feel that favorites are more precise than all of those.
  7. Congrats! Our 100th was "Necropolic at Britainia Manor" I plan on making #250 a local 40 stage muli we're currently chipping away at lol
  8. Good point, I never considered this. Even in highly social Alabama do most cachers know eachother? I would wager our community here is pretty tight (at least compared to places where nmy friends cache which have no award ceremonies or annual events and such) but I would say there are really just a handful of people out of the perhaps hundreds living in/passing through Austin who actively participate in the community and put names to the caches... the is all anecdotal though so I'm not really sure. I'm a member of a local group, but haven't ever crunched the number... seems like a small group though. Is it like that where you are?
  9. P.S. I totally see what you are saying and respect your opinion. I hope I didn't come across in another way. I imagine trying to filter results by score and it seems like to would save me little to no work so I don't see why we bother. I suppose some people may want to preserve some classic caches in the results, but they are still going to have to read through them all to find it so why filter? I like my filters to really get the water clean It would eliminate the bias toward high find caches but not one towards long-lived/widely liked caches. Take this cache, which I think would wind up on most finder's favorite list. By my count 9 of the 29 finders are no longer active cachers, nearly 1/3. Or this outstanding cache where I counted 28 finders (give or take a few) who are no longer active cachers. True, but I'm guessing a rating system won't get you much closer to finding that cache in your PQ without really looking for it anyway. If I'm going to filter my results, I want noticeably narrowed results. I could definitly see a future where mobile logs go from simply saying, "TFTC, TNLNSL" to ""TFTC, TNLNSL 5/5" because we've seen it in so many other places (see: user reviews on products, ebay sellers, youtube videos). It would be one thing if the purpose of this site were to review things (see: Yelp) but it would inevitably be an afterthought here as logs themselves are quickly becoming. Maybe I'm just overly pessimistic. On the other hand, I have fait that established users will initially go back and mark their all-time favorites so maybe I have too much optimism? :S
  10. Something just occured to me about this... if OC took off TBs would be even worse off
  11. Ah. I hadn't seen anyone claiming that, but if someone said they wanted a rating system so that they wouldn't have to do any further research, that's a pretty narrow way to look at ratings. To be clear: I think its fine if thats how people want to cache. Still, I think filtering by a %favorited would be much more precise for this than a point based review system. I was under the impression from people's posts that many thought a star system would somehow help them avoid negative experiences more than knowing how many people gave it a thumbs up... which would probably be false when you really think about how it usually plays out. Of course, we haven't seen it or how it works so who knows? I'm making a few assumptions about how the feature will be integrated here
  12. I'm not sure that's a perfectly fair characterization of people who would be interested in a rating system. Like many things, it depends on the situation. I doubt anyone is going to restrict their cache research solely to ratings, nor do I suspect people will use ratings as an excuse to skip the description. There are well over a million listed caches; it can be helpful to filter them down a bit before reading on. When I visit a new place with a dense cache population (like Seattle) I may not have time to read the description of every cache within city limits, to look for something I might find fun. In the past I've used targeted PQs, and have posted questions to local forums or looked for "favorites" bookmark lists. This seems like it could be another helpful tool. Perhaps I was being reductive.... But the bolded is sort-of what I'm getting at. You have to do all the same homework. In my opinion, "50 out of 150 people selected this as a 'favorite'" is just as useful (if not more) for this as "3.5 star cache" I feel like there is a desire amongst some to "punish" the "bad" caches. You could just as easily (in theory) filter by "% favorited" and get more functional/ useful results. Either way, you are going to have to read the logs and cache description to find out if things suit your likes/dislikes... I just don't see the advantage in a "rating system" over a "favorites" and I guess I don't understand why people would ask for it other than just wanting to complain or not thinking about the purpose, origins and meanings behind different rating metrics. I don't see a reason for caches to be seen in a light any more granular than "a lot of people seem to like this one." This is really all I've ever used when going after specific caches. Its a fairly binary process. It's either one I want to find or one I don't. The only reason given seems to be avoiding "bad" caches, but I think most of us forum users would be suprised at what a 1-star cache looked like to the majority of cachers. Again though, I think finding people's favorite caches and reading the descriptions is probably a better way to do this as user rating systems have proven to be either flimsy or extreme in the past without text for context. This is where I stumbled into the clumsy assumption that some people wanted a shortcut beyond readin the text... but to be fair rating systems continue to play out like this again and again in other venues. I'm sort of a nerd when it comes to rating metrics and the "science" of reviews so perhaps I'm reading to much into it, but I think this is a case where people won't know what they want unless they try both and realize one is a frustrating version of the other. People's desire to be punitive is strong thougha dn there are certainly some caches I'd enjoy giving 1-star... I just don't think that information would be that useful to anyone and/or worth the effort.
  13. This sounds better than a 5 star system or something similar. User rating systems tend to stink because people tend to treat 4 or 5 stars as the "average" and subtract from there. Amazon for example has a useless amount of poorly written "5-star" reviews coupled with a bunch of silly "1-star" complaining their package was late or whatever. As long as people have a limitited number of favorites to spend I could see this being somewhat useful. Also, its maybe a little less heart-breaking for the noob whose first cache averages out at a 1. I know the forums would have little sympathy for those people, but I would. It seems like many here would rather not read the cache descriptions and surmise if a cache is the sort of cache they would like. These are the sort of people who let meta-critic decide what movies/music/games/books they'll consume. Its not really a good or bad thing per se, but its not a great way to maximise your enjoyment of anything. A simple "+1" feature is probably enough for me to make sure I check out a cache if I'm in the area, but I'm still gonna do my homework to avoid caches I know I'll dislike. beyond that it seems pretty arbitrary. Is anyone really going to care THAT MUCH if the average cacher think one cache is 1-star better than another? 2-Stars? At a certain point, it just turns into "thumbs up/down" which is maybe more appropriate. I'm rambling... Point is, the system sounds useful functional tool. Anything more granular would be so flawed it would basically be ignored and/or taken with a grain of salt. You're going to have to do all the same homework either way.
  14. I have one that I got as a gift. Is this a situation where "let me google that for you" is appropriate? I did not want to post a direct link to the commercial site. They have a habit of disappearing in a shower of splats. I figured if you got the google page the casual observer would be able to figure out the next step. Its just typically considered a pretty snotty method of linking to a search and is usually used in cases where someone asks people on the internet a stupid question that a quick google search could have answered. The whole "step 1. step 2. Was that so hard?" thing isn't meant to be genuinely helpful, but instead it's mocking the person who asked the initial question. Didn't seem necessary in this case.
  15. I have one that I got as a gift. Is this a situation where "let me google that for you" is appropriate?
  16. Yep. XX Large. I'd love a hat with one on it I think a hat would be better too. I don't wanna wear the same shirt when I hike or cache every time
  17. I've never explained why and have never been asked why I delete double or triple logs. If they care, I assume they go look and see their original remains untouched and realize they posted too many logs. Your e-mail is far more courteous than my silence I guess.
  18. I think that if they get implemented like "achievements" in video games ans such they could be fun reminders of your exploits and a somewhat subtle way to help steer behavior amongst a small section of the cachers out there. For.
  19. I will take those broken hemostats to add to my "broken medical supplies" collection I keep in my garage. In exchange, I traded for this TB dog tag I found 3 years ago and forgot I had (because they are swag to be traded right?) I posted a picture of it's tracking number online if anyone is interested...
  20. They don't bother me. I think we've only gotten 2 or 3. Its not s bad way to kill 3 minutes when you are already near one. I don't seek them out, but if there is one nearby and I think to check the GPS, why not?
  21. I can't wait for a TX one! It would be cool if some of these were like achievements. Not that it woul make a difference, but I think a souvenir for properly logging your first TB for example could maybe be one more nudge in the right direction if these things take off. Either way, looking forward to the TX one
  22. Awesome! Works like a charm. Now if they would just get moving! I think I'll put one on one of my cache pages like: Birthplace of: (info box) Also, I added this little tag to the end of my profile TB info thanks to<a href="http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=257396"> BlueDeuce's Tutorial</a>
  23. I would say that you should probably just find the spot, try the container and come back later after adding the GC code and giving the placement a night's thought. You are gonna be coming top to that spot often if you are maintaining it anyway, it doesn't seem like saving yourself a trip is going to make the hide much better. but, I do like caches that have the GC Code on them because its the best way for a muggle to look it up if they want you to move it, learn more or want to log it as their first find
  • Create New...