SG-MIN
-
Posts
393 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SG-MIN
-
-
Man, I bet the Berkshires were beautiful a couple weeks ago...I'm jealous!
Wasn't Thoreau a frequent visitor there?
The leaves are hitting their peak here in Baltimore, and I'm hitting the trails
as often as I can.
Of course nothing can compare to where ever you come from.
For me it's the hills in the Daniel Boone Forest back home in Kentucky.
Where abouts in the Daniel Boone are you from? My father used to work on the Boone, and I grew up in the area.
-
Things you can overlook are Type of Cache, Size of Cache, Difficulty of Cache, Terrain of Location.
Strangely enough, to me this IS a Rating System. I can look at those 4 variables and know pretty much if I will enjoy the cache or not.
For even more details from a cache page, referring to the owner provided Attribute Icons will further enhance my expectations.
I am going to call your bluff on this one. Looking at your profile I would say you generally like multi's more than most people. Also, you tend you go after slightly harder caches than average and prefer them to regular sized caches, but you will tolerate smalls.
So all that being said, if we were to go find all the regular sized, 2.5 / 2.5 multi-caches, even with those distinctions, some of those are always going to be better than the others. In fact they will run the gamat between awsome and awful. All you have addressed is specific types of caches. Within those types there will always be some that stand out. I am advocating for an easy way to find those that stand out.
-
A couple things to consider though.
Cache submission drop in the winter
HOWEVER
I anticipate a race at the end to get GCZZZZ. I actually think it may get here earlier than anticipated because people will start submitting bogus requests just to get either GCZZZZ or the new 7 digit GC#
-
Or if I may, if you are going to a specific area, lets say Nashville for sbell's sake, and you really like puzzle caches, a rating system could help you. If there are 200 puzzle caches in nashville and you can only do 3, would you not want to do the 3 that people in the community generally prefer.
JD - I have a real simply solution for you... DON"T USE IT IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED. In the mean time, if it would help me, let me have my fun. The horse isn't dead yet.
-
that "specificly defined" is what you are paying the big buck ($3/month) for!!
It really is worth it.
-
There is a current rating system? What is it, reading the logs?
The number one thing to fix the problem is to allow more filter fields in the search. There are plenty of attributes that are attached to a cache, why can't I filter on those? Show me all caches in this area with "significant hike" and "scenic view" attributes. Is that a premium option? If it is, maybe that should be made more clear and I'll upgrade right now.
Groundspeak will be expecting your subscription anytime now.
Yes it is possible. I just ran a pocketquery that gave me the closest 500 caches to your last find that were either a scenic view or involved a stenuous hike.
you can download the file and take a look at www.kickert.info/qteam.zip
-
SG-MIN, your idea still can't say that the cache was rated highly by people who like the same types of caching experiences as you.
I'm not sure just how the mechanics work but if you purchase a DVD from one of many online sorces you often get a message like "Those who purchased this movie also purchased that movie".
Would such a system work for caching? "Those cachers who rated this cache highly also liked these caches"
I consider what you are suggesting "Phase II" of this project.
-
Man, we are so close... lets get those final caches placed!!
BTW where do we stand with the placement of the DC final cache?
-
Okay, I couldn't even stay out of the conversation for 1 full day. In the end, I really would like to get some responces on the system I proposed in the last thread. It seems to be an option that has the fewest overall objections
Most people seem much more hospitable to the idea of compiled favorites list (i.e. Best of the Best.) than other options and I think that would be a fine idea. Now in that, many of those aggragate lists utilize a percentage i.e. the top 10%. A problem with that is that to enforce 10%, it would have to be linked to number of finds, which is something everyone is kind of skittish about. (I mean anyone could go add a bunch of finds to their lists just so they could vote. This does also tend to favor park and grabbers. I would hate to be an epic cacher that only does 5/5 and not be able to recommend all of them that are incredible). Some cachers would add more caches to their favorites, some would add less, in the end, it would even out.So here is my thought. First, I think we have to do away with the percentage idea. It makes sense in theory, but I think a general compilation of favorites lists accomplishes the same goal without having to touch the dreaded numbers conversation.
Now here is the kicker... in order to facilitate ease of use, on the cache log page there would be a check box labeled "Would you like to add this cache to your 'Recommended' list?" and every user (or PM only) would have a recommended cache list which they could edit as any other favorites list.
Everything else functions just the same, we just make it easier for people to create their lists. Thus encouraging input from the community.
Here is why I think I am on to something. It is all positive so no one gets their egos hurt. It makes the compiled favorites list (Best of the Best) easier to use and easier to manage. Basically, we just look at that check box as a easy way to add a cache to a favorites list. (and noone objects to using favorites - this just simplifies the process).
Now there are some options here. We can leave it as a normal favorites list, so when you go the cache page you can see whose list the cache is on. Or, we could not show whose list the cache is on, but keep a running tally on the top ("Recommended by 15 Finders" or "10 of 40 Finders Recommend This Cache (25%)" or "Recommended by 5 Finders"). If you can see who recommends it, local cachers can follow the advice of cachers they trust.
At a minimum, there could be some search function. I am indifferent as to how specific it is. It could be something as simple as a box on the PQ form that says "Only caches that have been recommended" or something more specific "Caches that have are recommended by __% or better." You could even have a link to: "Most recommended caches in (insert state here)" Although I think that last idea would generally be a bad idea.
In Sum: At a minimum, the above system encourages favorite lists and thus gives our community more input. At best, it gives people some sort of search function without hurting anyone's feelings. It would be easy to use, easy to ignore, provide helpful information even to those against rating systems (in fact, this is not a rating system, it is a recommendation / favorites system).
Any thoughts? I honestly think this idea could appease most people (with some tweaking). Oh and lets not play devil's advocate to the extreme here, yes I know people can set up sock puppet accounts, etc, etc, etc. Lets work under the general assumption that people are honest (after all, we do leave our possessions out in the open and tell people where they are and hope they do not steal them).
BTW, I did edit this post slightly for clarity.
-
-
"He that would pun, would pick a pocket" —Alexander Pope
Pun (n.): the lowest form of humour" —Samuel Johnson, lexicographer
"Puns are the last refuge of the witless."
"Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted." —Fred Allen
[Edited to include the following admital of guilt: I too enjoy a punny one-liner]
-
Does anyone know why spaces are being added between lines in all my posts?
This has been going on for a few months but I finally got tired of it.
I am using the Rich Text option.
How do I stop this from happening?
All the lines in this post were single spaced when I typed them. But after I hit enter they are came out double-spaced.....
I can go back and edit the post to get rid of the extra spaces but that is a pain....
Hold down shift when you press enter to put in a single line break.
like this
or just hit enter by itself to get the double line break.
notice this won't happen with the fast reply feature.
-
so basicly this has nothing to do with real geocaching... it is just a fictional math problem.
I think that is where most of the confusion was coming from.
The question you are asking us actually has nothing to do with geocaching (no more than the ole "two trains traveling in opposite directions" has to do with actual station masters.)
That being said, I would proceed with your math problem by determining the weight/time ratio of each cache so you know which caches are worth it. Then focus on an area that has the highest concentation of high weigh/time ratios that are centrally located.
-
I would just hope for an atmosphere where we can be encouraging of good ideas. I apologize if I was rude.
Mtn-main, I value your opinion on caches because of your extensive find count (and reputation); I however would rather hear a developer comment on the feasibility of new features.
-
I never said you should not have a voice in the matter. Here are my points (and my only points):
1.) There is no reason to argue against a proposed feature unless that feature would clearly negatively affect your personal caching experiance.
2.) The most common arguement against a feature often is its effect on the website/servers or the difficulty in developing it. I am simply saying that the people who should speak to these server/development issues should be the developers rather than the average cacher who has absolutely no connection with the actual behind the scenes development and implementation of the features.
Now if someone were to be advocating the implementation of a feature such as the ability to "impeach" a cache (i.e. 10 votes against a cache and it is archived), then yes people could argue against that because it could have a negative affect on people's personal experiance. In that case, experianced cachers would have much more to say.
-
Pardon me? The main part of my post dealt with how you use the data in getting finds.
Frankly, my point is illustrated very well by the number of finds SG-MIN and benh57 have. Neither of you have over 200 finds. Yet, you talk down to me because I can't understand why you need to pull 5,000 caches each day? The main part of my post did not talk about server load. I'm talking about the reality of being able to *actually use the data*. At least the OP is something of a power cacher at almost 900 finds. Still, getting 2,500 caches emailed to you a day seems to be enough to me as it relates to *actually being able to find those caches*.
I'll say it again.
If you had 500 finds per day, maybe I could understand it. If you had 500 finds per week, maybe I could understand it. As is, I don't understand it.
How about some facts for you. Even a team of mega power cachers trying their hardest to find as many caches as they could in 24 hours that broke into two groups at times and signed the outside of the containers instead of the logbooks didn't even go over 400 finds and DNF's combined in 24 hours. The facts speak for themselves.
Edited to add... let's do the math. 2,500 caches divided by 24 hours is 104.16 caches an hour. Divide that by 60 minutes and that is 1.736 caches per minute. Best of luck on achieving that.
And where did I talk down to you? If you read my post is has nothing to do with pulling PQ's or database load or anything like that (and thus is admittedly off topic). I was just stating my disdain for people who argue against a new site feature for no reason. Maybe I was talking about, but more than likely I was not. I just think it is ridiculous for people to balk at new feature ideas when in truth if they were to be implemented it would have absolutely no affect on them.
A side point to that, concerning the database, was the fact that many people, in the course of their arguing against feature ideas, often talk as if they have authority over GC.com's servers. Only the developers know the limitations of a particular system, and thus they should be the ones talking about feasibility and the such rather that John Q. Cacher.
And by the way, how does having 140 caches instead of 1527 make me any less qualified to speak to the attitude of cachers in regard to new feature requests?
-
This post seems a bit fishy to me. Solo Traveler only has 6 posts, and this is one of them. Seems like if GC.com really were looking for new photos, they would have a better way, and would come from a more notable source. Just a thought.... I could be totally wrong and just stepping on the toes of the hand that feeds me (or something like that).
Solo Traveler is the Director of Marketing at Groundspeak.
I'm sure that there are better ways to do it but this seems like a perfectly fine and fun way to do it.
I did not mean to start a stir, I was just curious. I have seen plenty of sock puppet accounts with only a few posts, so I was a bit hesitant to post anything.
-
This post seems a bit fishy to me. Solo Traveler only has 6 posts, and this is one of them. Seems like if GC.com really were looking for new photos, they would have a better way, and would come from a more notable source. Just a thought.... I could be totally wrong and just stepping on the toes of the hand that feeds me (or something like that).
-
I am blown away by the way people respond to feature requests. Inevitably, someone requests a feature, and within a couple posts someone is explaining why we should not have it. I have never witnesses such a love for status quo.
Take this thread for instance, why in the world would you argue against it. Having an upper limit of 1000 would not in any way negatively affect your caching experiance. If it would help others, then it seems like a valid request.
Also, it drives me nuts how quickly individuals speak on behalf of the developmers at Groundspeak. Talk about backseat drivers - how can you all speak about sever loads, or development agendas, or the such.
If there is a valid disadvatage then that needs to be discussed, but let the experts talk about server-side issues. They are one who know what is possible.
-
I am sticking with December 17th at 8:15pm MST
I am feeling pretty good about this date here...
hey, wait a second, isn't there usually some money in an office pool?
-
So is the final finished and just waiting for all the "reindeer" caches to be placed? I haven't heard anythign about the DC cache, but I am wondering now that we are closing on the end of this project.
-
The most I could understand from that is that The Leprechauns was wanting to get drunk and do a jig after every cache find
Only in geocaching...
-
I have only driven about 30 miles for a cache specific trip - of course it was multi so I ended up putting about 80 miles on the car to get there, get the cache and get back.
However, I did drive 13.5 hours from Kentucky to Minnesota instead of flying so I could add 4 more states to my life list. I figure 27 hours of driving to light up 4 red areas on my profile map... yeah it was worth it.
-
The huge, black officer
Why did he have to be black?
I don't think you're allowed to change. Unless you're Michael Jackson.
LOL - Litterally I am laughing out loud even as I type this.
Pocket Queries For Geocache Saturated Areas
in General geocaching topics
Posted
The dates will not change. You will never need to adjust the lower dates, because it is impossible for more caches to be placed between Jan 01 and Jan 03 for instance.
Going by size and container type will constantly flux.