C5B

... just one additional thought to go with my last post ... I think also that each rating should have a lifetime ... maybe 30 days. This is because caches change over time ... they either start out good, and go bad ... or start out bad, and then with careful maintenance by the cache owner, become good. So, for a cache's average rating to be able to change over time to reflect the current status of the cache, each person's rating vote should expire after a limited period of time. This way, the ratings are dynamic and can change as the cache changes, in either direction, good or bad. --c5b

I too often lurk on these boards and am speaking up now because I feel this suggestion deserves support. Although not a permanent solution, it would at least partially address some of Lil Otter's and countless others' concerns. It wouldn't have to be a requirement, just an option similar to those websites with items for sale or forums where threads are rated. I think this idea has been raised before and don't believe it would be an overwhelming feat for the admins. Let me try again..... I'll draw a mental picture: Person "A" goes to cache #1 and loves it. Person "B" goes to cache #1 and hates it. Person "C" goes to cache #1 and doesn't give a hoot either way. Person "D" goes to cache #1 and loves it forever because it is their first ever find. Person "E" goes to cache #1 and hates it. Who's right? This isn't Amazon.com..... How about this: Person "A" goes to cache #1 and loves it. Person "B" goes to cache #1 and hates it. Person "C" goes to cache #1 and doesn't give a hoot either way. Person "D" goes to cache #1 and loves it forever because it is their first ever find. Person "E" goes to cache #1 and hates it. Person "F" goes to cache #1 and hates it. Person "G" goes to cache #1 and hates it. Approver "A" decides to archive it for lameness..... YIPPY! MOB RULES! Let's burn some books. Snoogans... thanks for the reply. You do indeed have a valid point, but I don't think the discussion should stop with just this... there are solutions to these concerns! For example, if a ratings system were implemented, it would probably be a good idea to not allow anyone to rate caches until they have reached a minimum number of finds ... perhaps 10. Maybe there could be a way to disable or enable the ratings system in your account preferences, that way cachers like yourself could easily opt out of the ratings system if desired. Nobody said anything about archiving caches, so I don't think the admins should archive caches simply for a low average rating! If 10 people like the cache, and 10 people hate it, then it's average rating will be in the middle somewhere, which is fine, because that's probably going to be an accurate over-all rating of the cache. Additionally, a cache's average rating shouldn't be displayed until a certain number of rating votes have been logged so that the rating is fair and accurate. If little Timmy hides a cache full of broken toys, well... he might get a few bad ratings... and not to be harsh to little Timmy, but that's the whole point of the ratings system. It would encourage "cache excellence" and would encourage cache maintainers to be a bit more attentive to their caches. Additionally, little Timmy's parents should have done a better job at directing him in his cache endeavor! Anyway, it's just my $0.02 and I'm not trying to make any enemies here We all love the game/sport/hobby and obviously care about it's future, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. --c5b www.snowjournal.com

You made some excellent points in your long post. For the most part, I agree with your sentiments, althought not quite exactly. My concern with geocaching is the infiltration of really crappy caches ... bad locations, poorly planned, etc. I know the topic has been hashed to death in these forums, so I'll move on to my point. I'd like to offer a possible solution to the problem, and hopefully the admins will consider my suggestion. I think a simple rating system should be added. When a cacher logs a visit, how about selecting a rating value 1-10 stars or something to rate the cache. Ratings are then averaged to show the cache's "average rating". Throw in some auditing so the rating system can't be abused, and then we're all happy! Through the rating system, you'd be able to identify the crappy caches from the good ones ... if you're a cacher that likes crappy caches, then only go hit the lower rated caches. In your case, Lil Otter, go hit the 8-10 star caches. Everyone's thoughts on this? Admins? --c5b www.snowjournal.com

891 days!! Awesome... now, if we could only get the post-office to deliver that fast

We had a related problem with a TB this weekend ... we picked up a travel bug on Saturday. Saturday night, we went to log the travel bug and the previous geocacher hadn't logged it as a drop-off, so we had to "grab" it. Well, the next day, the previous geocacher logged their visit to the cache... turns out that they dropped the bug only a few hours before we picked it up. Unfortunately, we logged it first and "grabbed" it, so now there is no record that the bug was ever in that particular cache!! I think there are still some improvements that could be made to the bug tracking system... it needs to be able to log entries out of sequence or something. Also, since I cache with my girlfriend, and we both log our finds, it would be nice if travel bugs could be logged with multiple people. Perhaps have a "primary" person be the custodian of the bug, but when found in groups, it would be nice if everyone else in the group could get credit for the bug. Just some thoughts... and probably not the first time these things have been mentioned

I had an idea while driving to work today... Geocaching via triangulation. It works like this: select a target cache from the list, but don't look at it's cache page. Instead, choose 3 caches around the target cache. From those caches, using the geocaching website, its possible to get a known distance from each of the chosen caches to the target cache (without looking at the target cache's page) With 3 known distances, we can then triangulate the location of the target cache by plotting on a map. Seems easy enough? Probably is with a good map... except, here's the part where I'm stuck and need some expert help. I'd like to calculate the coords of the plot (target cache). My intuition tells me its possible as long as I know a distance and azmuth from 3 known points. Anybody know how to make this calculation? Anybody else want to jump in on this experiment and give this a try?