L0ne.R

Why do them at all? Because you don't realize it's a "+1" until you get there. I am quite happy to drive right on by a cache without logging it. There are certain types of hide and locations that I won't log for any reason. If I arrive at the location and find it is one of these I walk away. Wouldn't logging the find (or better yet, don't log the find but leave a note) with a polite yet honest critique go a lot further to discourage the placement of poorly placed caches then saying nothing? And on the flip side wouldn't rewarding those that place well-thought out and cared for caches encourage more people to strive for the coveted golden award? If you don't think so then why do we as a society bother to give out awards (science (nobel), literature (pulitzer), sports (heisman), entertainment (oscars), grade one (gold star sticker), etc.)?

Why do them at all? Because you don't realize it's a "+1" until you get there.

Oh yee of little faith. I believe that people who play for the numbers can still judge quality. A cracked film canister under a walmart lamp post with a soaked full logsheet will probably still rate a 1, where a pine cone micro by a spectacular fountain in a beautiful park will rate much higher. I'm a member of a website where my vote is weighted. I can't mark everything as 5/5 - that shows I put little thought into my vote. A variety of factors is taken into account to determine rankings such - voting history, experience level, and even the standard deviation of how people vote on a given letterbox. Here's what my ratings stat page says: The vote is anonymous, i.e. the owner does not know who voted and how they voted. Only those that have visited can vote. More than one visitor vote is required for calculations. Once every few weeks the database runs these calculations and assigns diamonds to those items that rank the highest. I believe that only the top 5% of items in the database get a diamond rating. In my area, those that received the diamond rating deserved it. The items are high quality. One other thing, the ranking is optional. If you are an owner that, on principal, doesn't like the idea of people ranking your caches, you can opt out.

Thank you GOF & Bacall. Exactly.

How do you find these bookmark lists? You can't do a search for bookmark lists. And wouldn't that be relying on the opinion of one cacher. Wouldn't such a bookmark list be more appropriately entitled "Caches Tucson-Traveller recommends in the Phoenix area". Tucson-Traveller may be a big urban cache fan, or maybe he only recommends caches that require a 5 mile or longer hike. How is the opinion of one cacher better than a rating system that takes into account the opinions of many cachers? Of the discussion so far, I'm favouring the "72% of cachers recommend this cache" method. Another idea would be a "golden cache" award system, where caches that get a high percentage of 4/5 and 5/5 get a special "golden cache" rating which can be filtered for in PQs.

Part of the problem is that micro is not a type, it's a size. So if someone places a logbook-only cache in a small (let's say a small lock n lock) container then technically they are correct, the log is in a small, not micro, container and technically can be listed as a small container. Should a reviewer insist that a logbook-only cache get listed as a micro-size when it actually isn't? Is micro a size or a type? From the previous forum topic most posters said a micro is a size not a type. The attribute could help. Hopefully the reviewer and finder peer-pressure could persuade most planters of these types of caches to use the attribute.

Just wanted to add that it's not my idea but rather andynshe's idea in the previous Micro/Nano topic. I, of course, like the idea.

No Glass!!!! Check your local dollar stores. I have found small Lock-n-Locks there for a dollar. Then you can also pick up some swag while your there. I have found a few dollar store lock n lock knock-offs with there tabs broken off or just about to fall off. Invest in a real lock n lock. It will last for years.

But it's the caches marked as small that are the problems. I found 4 caches today. All marked as small. 2 of the 4 said in the clues... "Cache is a small camoed container with just a log. You will need your own pen or pencil." Which I didn't realize until I was already at the cache site, found the cache and read the clues -- I know what some will say, cachers should read every cache description and a few logs for each cache before heading out on an expedition, those that don't only have themselves to blame. I filter out micros because after 7+ years of caching, the log-only caches are really starting to spoil my caching experience. So to decrease my frustration I filter out micros. It's been my experience in the last couple of months that about 1/3 of the small caches are actually pseudo-micros -- a micro logsheet placed in a container that's bigger than a film canister. Most don't even bother putting a small pencil inside. If I filter out small caches I'm going to miss out on the 2/3 of small caches that are true to the definition - tradable items and they usually contain a logbook that is large enough for signature stamps (micro logsheets only give you enough room to write and date and trailname in tiny print). I want to be able to filter out logbook-only types of caches, whether they are micro or small (I have never seen a logbook-only cache in a regular or large size container - if it ever happens I'd like to filter those out too).

Could those in charge delete this dup/triplicate new topic. My computer is acting up.

From: Should Groundspeak separate Micros/Nanos If creating a "type" doesn't work then how about a "Log Only" attribute? A new attribute would be easy to implement, not confusing, and filter-able. BTW, I don't consider a Letterbox Hybrid to be log-only, there is an exchange. Although the stamp remains with the box - you leave a stamp image (your signature stamp) and take a stamp image (the box's stamp). A log only attribute makes more sense than a cache type. Bring it up in the website forum. So I've moved this over to the website forum and hope I can get some feedback from TPTB regarding a "logbook-only" attribute. I filter out micros in hopes of removing logbook-only caches. But more and more I'm finding that caches marked small include only a microlog (the kind with a table full of about 200 tiny cells with just enough room for a trailname and date) and the cache description says there's no room for tradables or a pencil. 2 of the 4 caches I found today were like this. I want to filter out these types of caches. I think a "logbook-only" attribute could help.

If creating a "type" doesn't work then how about a "Log Only" attribute? A new attribute would be easy to implement, not confusing, and filter-able. BTW, I don't consider a Letterbox Hybrid to be log-only, there is an exchange. Although the stamp remains with the box - you leave a stamp image (your signature stamp) and take a stamp image (the box's stamp).

Wow, I had a feeling that the answer wasn't going to be simple (i.e. 1000) but I'm amazed at how complicated it could get. Fascinating to read the permutations. I asked the question based on a post in another forum where someone said they had 1500 caches in their zipcode and another person reported that they beat that, they have 3748 caches in their zipcode. I thought those numbers were too high, but it would depend on the area the zipcode encompasses. Figuring 10 square miles I wondered hypothetically what the maximum number would be that could fit, not factoring in real terrain, just to get a ideal maximum. Factoring real terrain in, I'm guessing the number would be about half the ideal number (or less depending on the landscape).

I couldn't find the answer to this in a forum search, so I don't know if it's been asked umpteen times before but... What's the maximum number of caches that can fit into a 10 square mile area?

I have seen this too. I filter out micros but a few get through disguised as "small".

I see someone has already come up with the "log only" idea. I, of course like the idea, an attribute may be easier to implement then a "log only" cache type. However, hopefully the cache owner would use the attribute.

How about a "Logbook only" cache type?

If the topic keeps coming up, doesn't that tell you that many cachers feel there's a genuine problem with the current system? Vacation caching is an important issue - everyone's time is limited while on vacation. How do you propose cachers optimize their search in order to find the should-not-be-missed caches in the area? Currently that would be to spend many hours reading through 1000s of logs to determine if other cachers found the cache interesting.

I actually don't find much drama in these threads on cache rating. I agree wholeheartedly. Many of us want to discuss this topic again in order to come up with a good rating system idea. Markwell's idea sounds good. My preference is an anonymous rating system that pulls out highly recommended caches - Markwell's system would do that.

[delete - dup - sorry - glitchy system]

[delete - dup - sorry - glitchy system]

[delete - dup - sorry - glitchy system]

[delete - dup - sorry]

For those who are curious about carving your own stamp: How to carve a stamp tutorial (lots of instructional photos)

I find I'm more irritated. Partly my own fault. I don't spend the hours required reading through every cache to choose the caches that I think will best suit my geocaching style. I tend to use the PQs, download caches for my intended target area and then drive to the location. Once there I check the GPS and GPXviewer file on my iPAQ for nearest caches and start reading the description. Dang, a micro in the woods. Forget it. So I drive to the next nearest cache. Dang a parking lot. Forget it. Drive on. A regular size cache in the forest. Sounds good but the last 2 entries say the container is in bad shape and the contents are wet. No owner maintenance. Forget it. Drive on. So I find myself driving for an hour (that's not counting the time it took to drive to the area) and maybe get one worthwhile cache, if I'm lucky 2. I now filter out micros (although I know I'm going to be missing out on a few great micros). But recently I've been noticed that some small caches really are micros - the containers are too small for trinkets or they are part of a series (I've learned I don't like series caches - I'm always forgetting to take down the number/letter/code) designed to collect letters or numbers and the containers are not really big enough for trinkets. So now I filter out micros and small caches, just to decrease the irritation.