SquamLoon

First of all, Radman Forever, kudos for putting yourself out there, and I think you're onto something. Personally, to me the 867 I got doesn't do anything for me: you're right that the very act of filling in (or not filling in) the blanks was the meaningful part of the exercise. Since that's the case, then—since what you're trying to create is a tool for discriminating the degree of diversity of an individual cacher—would it be possible, along with computing a single total number that some might value (although I do have to agree that the weights are a tough issue), to have the thing create a graphical display—a pie chart, perhaps, or a dashboard with several different gauges? My dashboard would show a cacher who likes small hikes, enjoys a healthy dose of puzzles and multis, won't shun an LPC but doesn't binge on them, has done a small amount of casual travel caching, is an FTF hound in his ten-mile radius, and has a fairly well balanced (if not prolific) set of hides. So then, whether I had 55 finds or 5555, you could still look at my dashboard and gauge the various shades of my caching diversity. Just a thought. Fun stuff to think about.

For anyone who's interested, I've created a Google Map of the fourth iteration of Worldwide Flash Mob event caches scheduled for November 8th. You can click on the place markers to get links to the various event pages. I know that there are some here who feel that a 15-minute geocaching get-together is the LPC of event caches, but in my experience, it really isn't that way. In most cases, the flash mob is just one part of a day of group caching, while also allowing those who only want a fun, interesting, 15-minute event that option as well.

I went through the same stages of frustration that you did, but you'll be happy to know that it looks like it is, in fact, being addressed!

Looks like I'd better go run the ADDLOGS macro on everything I've got in GSAK.

I knew I forgot something big. This is the problem with not finishing what you start. Had I kept going with the process I was going to undertake, I would have broken it down by player and the take of each on the concept. Your method was, like my log above, long to get through but well thought out, and I had meant to go back and give it its due, but didn't have time. Ironic. BTW The purpose of the post was originally to try to gather the pithy stuff from all of the disparate threads on the topic so as to bump it up with grist for productive conversation. Not sure how well I succeeded, but I figured it was better to try than remain silent.

Understandable. Here's the part about you, though, that I put in at the end. In fact, it's especially you. Not only have I enjoyed your posts, but I based my only real caching road trip to date, in part, on your recommendation of A Cachin' Combination. Your bookmark list is a model to follow.

My subtitle was too long. This is what I meant it to say: Wherein I nearly get to the point of wondering if we can have a forum-post rating system. If you read nothing else in this post, read Jeremy’s words here. (I wrote this post for the PodCacher forums, but I figure I may as well throw it in here too. Someone made mention in a recent post to the new rating system in the 2.0 version of the GC website. If I missed the most recent discussion, I'd love to read it. That said, with a few minor edits, here's what I posted over at PodCacher): I have learned a great deal about the ratings/favorites debate over the past twenty-four hours. I’ve also been reminded of how very much I prefer these forums to the ones I’ve just been reading. There’s a whole lot of flaming going on over there. Isn’t this game/hobby/pastime supposed to be a game/hobby/pastime? But I digress. I don’t think I exhausted the topic, but I read twenty or thirty major threads (one of which I myself started a few months after I began caching incidentally), and I think I have gained a pretty good handle on where the debate stands at this juncture. Allow me to share the results of my research. And please forgive the length. I kind of got carried away. I guess I'm passionate about this issue. This topic is raised a lot. There is a vocal minority who are of the opinion that any system, no matter how well meaning, will turn the game into a popularity contest or a competition, discourage hiders from hiding, demoralize newbies, lead to ratings padding, foment petty politics and bickering, and/or damage feelings in general. While I’m sure that their concerns would be valid with a poorly implemented system, it’s amazing how consistently and how vehemently they endeavor to staunch creative, positive discussion. The general direction of flow of the various threads at GC that seems to have gathered momentum steers away from rating/grading caches, and focuses on methods of recommending. The key concept, which seemed to make a lot of headway and still very well may, is to cull individual favorites lists and create group favorites therefrom. Recommended caches would have special icons and be findable in a Pocket Query. To get a sense of the history of the idea, here’s a good recap by Markwell of how things stood in 2005. The closest thing I could find to a final word thus far is my link at the top of this post. It seems somewhat different from Markwell's model and I'd love to know how things evolved in between. (As an aside, I’m wondering, Sandy and Sonny, if you’re familiar with TrailGator, since he’s in your area? He has had a lot to say on this issue, and evidently he set up this list as a model for the consensus favorites idea. Interesting to see that there are caches that you’ve featured on your show on the list.) Anyway, it looks like a recommendations engine will highlight the great caches—probably generally the epic, milestone ones, but unless it's more complex than I realize—and Jeremy's post may actually imply that it is— I’m not sure that it will fully settle the issue. The heart of the matter seems to be the same thing we come across time and time again: there are so many kinds of cache and cacher that quantifying and qualifying becomes incredibly complex. Okay, so I just need to interject something into my own post. I’ve spent way too many hours researching this, and I have an urge to write a full report on it, but if I do, I won’t have a life. So I’m going to begin getting disjointed, but still share stuff I think is worth gathering. Below, in no particular order, are the other things I meant to synthesize somehow. Attributes People want to be able to search by more attributes than currently exist. As I explored the forums, I jotted down the various criteria that people want to sort by. If only there were a way to do it all, without adding major demands to loggers and hiders. Too much work and no one would do it. * Beauty * Uniqueness * Scenery * Historical nature * Educational value * Cleverness * Innovativeness * Time * Deviousness * Fun factor * Funniness * Number of photos attached * Number of watchers * Muggle factor * Distance you’d go to seek it * Length of logs So many systems and means to the end were discussed that Rube Goldberg came into the discussion. But here are a few concepts that I found interesting about methodology: Methodologies * Many people reference ratings systems that they’d like to see emulated. I guess most European countries have some form of local ratings/favorites system. This is a European system that was mentioned, and then there are references to sites like geocaching.nl, the hide/environment Hungarian rating system, etc. * KeenPeople.com is well known. * There's always a tip of the hat to the esoteric Terracaching system. * Handicaching has their own system. * This is a cool post by Ju66l3r about Slashdot’s meta system, with points you build up to spend positively or negatively. * Hot or Not? Was referenced as a site that actually works. (Hmm.) * People reference the affinity rating systems at Pandora (whose method I love), Netflix, and Amazon, among many others. People who liked this cache, like… * Someone brought up the difference between Bayesian and Frequentist probability. Googling Bayesian is an interesting exercise. And to get even more disjointed, here are more snippets from what I jotted down as I read: The inception of Bookmark lists was interesting to read about. I think that it had been hoped that more people would use them, and that they would be the tool from which this system developed. Many detractors say that the best way to judge a cache’s worthiness is to read the logs. True. But a> we don’t always have time and b> logs can sometimes be spoilers. Advice from several that shouldn’t be ignored, but is in my opinion irrelevant: Rather than worry about ratings, connect with cachers from the area you’re going to. They’ll help you out. The question arises a lot, and is relevant to discussion of methods: Does high finder necessarily mean good judge of quality? This metaphor made me chuckle: who’s the better judge of food, the how-many-can-you-eat contest winner, or the cooking contest winner? How to rate the rater? Somewhere I saw: This recommendation is based on this log (with a link) Ratings of caches will typically be by those who like that kind of cache. Discuss. As experience grows, tastes change. Relevance? Yes/no doesn’t work ‘cos yes is a given 99% of the time. Beware of Sock Puppet accounts. I learned,among other things, that there are cachers out there with Boycott this Cache bookmark lists. Amazing. And sad. K.I.S.S. A bad cache is a bad cache. All caches are worthy. And finally some links, so that you, too, can become obsessed (Groundspeak forum regulars, please realize, this whole post was written for a different audience. I just figure that since I compiled a fair number of ideas from many threads, I'd re-create it here. I'm sure I missed some incredibly important concepts, and that I made at least one person angry with something I did. My apologies in advance. One thing I can say though, is that if someone asks me "Did you even read the thread?" I can answer: I wish I'd had the time to read them all. I sure did my best. Also, lest my intro be misunderstood, I have incredible respect for the majority of the posters I've read on this board. Looking in pretty much from the outside, you seem resilient, insightful, committed, devoted, and fun. And it looks like you do a lot for Geocaching.): I believe the first one’s the most informative. A thread A thread A thread A thread A thread A thread A thread A thread A thread Lastly, this is a good forum search, if you, too, want to dive into the mines.

I'll keep this thread active with my echoing call for a return to the GCXXX—CACHE NAME by CACHE OWNER title tab format, or at least a correction to the A before UNKNOWN , EVENT, and EARTHCACHE. And I'll throw in a bonus plea (posted elsewhere as well) to have someone take a look at the GC.com clock, as Today is Yesterday on my search results page, and has been for some time. And I'll also say thank you again to the powers that be for providing this amazing site with all of its features, and upgrading it on a regular basis. You rock!

So I'm wondering if it's just me, or if everyone's still having this problem. Again, the issue: where I live, at least, the search results on the Geocaching.com "Seek Geocache" page are giving the wrong date. The caches found Yesterday say they were found Today. Is there another discussion of this somewhere that I just haven't seen? The issue's been going on for quite some time now.

Interesting discussion. Here's a perspective that hasn't been shared (but I can't be alone): I don't much read the logbooks in my caches. I leaf through them when I replace them... that's about it. If you visit one of my caches and leave a limerick, the only people who will read that gem are the people who read the logbook before they sign it. How many of us really do that on a regular basis? If you're writing poetry, don't you want to share it? Why not share it with anyone who reads my cache listings? I couldn't care less if you logged your passage (other than to the extent that it's good to know someone stopped by--and you acknowledged understanding that), but you appear to be someone who likes to communicate. Why toss your artistry to the winds?

Stopped by to report the same thing. Evidently the GC clock needs to be changed?

Heartiest congratulations to 121 Tech Team on your 100th find! Your style and grace have been a wonderful addition to our community.

Wow. I haven't been to the forums in a year or so... I'm happy in the PodCacher world where life is upbeat. In any case, I noticed the gorgeous, slick new maps one day, and then noticed they were gone, so I came by to see what happened. Again, I'm not a regular poster, so I'm probably stepping in on a regular theme... but it looks like some of you folks have no idea that there are actual people taking care of the site that supports your play time. If you read this thread from beginning to end and imagine it from the developer's point of view, you feel as though you're tied in the public stocks, with the neighborhood riffraff throwing rocks at your head. I take it the font was a little big in IE? But I digress. To the powers that be: Please bring back your new maps. They were very nice.

I'm sure the subject has been broached a million times, but I can't seem to find it. If there's a whole discussion on it, please point me to it. But here's the question: Why don't we have a system whereby we rate the caches as we visit them, so that we don't have to rely on log reading to find out what previous hunters have thought?