ePeterso2
-
Posts
266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ePeterso2
-
-
The change I'd really like to see is some automated method of preventing people from using the forums to ask for and/or demand the return of virtuals
-
I'd start by shutting down the forums.
-
If the two games were combined it would make more sense to fold Geocaching in to the Waymarking site. Geocaching would fit very nicely as a Waymarking category with sub categories for each cache type.
Now *THAT* is something I hope is in the future from Groundspeak. I really like many aspects of the user interface in WM.com ... having used it, it makes GC.com seem inconsistent, clunky and outdated.
[Warning: Unfair sweeping generalizations ahead.]
There really do seem to be four categories of findable things out there, differentiated by the manner in which you can verify that you've really found what the thing owner wants you to look for: caches, virtuals, visited waymarks, and reported waymarks.
The thing that makes finding a cache (real or virtual) and reporting a waymark fun is reaping the reward of the find after a search. When you finally find the container, you reap the reward. When you figure out the answers to the trivia question posed by the owner of a virtual, you know you've met the goal. When you report a waymark that gets approved by the category manager, you've accomplished something.
But just visiting a waymark seems kind of lame, to me. I mean, with all of the details of a waymark contained on the waymark page, there's no challenge to be met, nothing to really overcome in the way that there is with cache seeking. There is so much information on waymark pages that you can use them to be an armchair tourist, exploring the world without ever leaving home.
Waymarks really seem to be more like locationless caches than virtuals. From the number of waymarks vs. visits, it seems to be overwhelmingly a waymark reporter's game more so than a visitor's game. Visiting a waymark just doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for people to want to write a visitation log - if it was, the number of visits would outweigh the number of waymarks. Of the 101 waymarks within 100 miles of my home coords, most have never been visited (and the ones with visit logs typically have only been visited by the people who reported them).
As such, Waymarking content seems to be evolving into a quirky version of the Yellow Pages. Visiting a waymark is about as exciting as looking something up in the phone book, going to that address, and saying "Yup, the thing I read about really is at that address. And the picture on the waymark page looks just like the object that I'm now standing near."
The visitation requirements of waymarks also seem "uncompelling". I just picked a few categories at random from the set of 30-40 waymarks categories near my home coords, and pretty much all of them say "Post a picture of the location." Well, why should I bother posting a picture of the boat ramp or the bridge or the birdhouse when there is already a perfectly adequate picture of it on the waymark page?
I've reported two waymarks, both of which were published. They were a lot of fun to research, to photograph, to write, and to see approved. Nobody has logged a visit to either one, although one of them gets a great number of accidental visitors every day. Writing up waymarks is fun ... but what's the fun if nobody bothers to read what you wrote or to visit the place you want them to see?
But enough about waymarks. I don't really like the idea of virtuals ... the "email me and I'll tell you if you're right" thing seems kinda lame. What would make waymarks more compelling is if their descriptions didn't contain complete and outright spoilers for what you'd find at that location.
[/generalizations]
-
I used to get annoyed with Waymarking.com until I figured out how to create a query that used my home coordinates as a starting point.
Groundspeak already knows your home coords ... I'd think having the default query use that as a starting point would go a long way towards helping people to feel that WM was more useful to them.
-
MUWHAHAHAHAHA.
I placed that cache. He asked me politely for a hint via email. I gave him a few nudges in the right direction. But I also said he might do better if he could enlist some help in cracking it ... the first finder was a pair of individuals.
I wouldn't think it's terribly wrong to use this forum to ask for volunteers to help tackle it. But I would think it was wrong to use this thread as a forum for cracking it ... email or private message or a private forum seems like a better way to go, AFAIC. Not sure if that's contrary to the moderation guidelines, though ...
-eP
-
There's a 2-stage multi whose first stage is nearby my place, but whose second stage requires a drive of about 50 miles, the last 20 of which is a dirt road in a wildlife management area. The hint on the cache reads something like this:
"To find stage two, take [Major Road A] west to [Major Road B], then go north to the county line, make a U-turn, then go west for 15 miles, then north until you see [this picture in the gallery]."
Kinda sorta takes the fun out of finding stage one, if you ask me.
-
I played around a bit with the Geocache Rating System. I used the easiest set of attributes and only varied the distance. Here's how the terrain changed:
Less than 1/2 mile = 1
1/2 to 2 miles = 2
2 miles to 10 miles = 3
10 miles or more = 4
Obviously, there are other factors that affect the terrain rating.
-eP
PS: I'm gonna guess that the number of people that are able to appreciate the distinction between a 10km and 20km walk is probably somewhat small ;-)
-
private forum access plz k thx bai
-
Is there any realistic chance that new attributes of any type will be added? I don't know the last time an attribute was added, but I know there are a number of ideas for new attributes floating around on the forums ... are we wasting our time by hoping that someday our prints will come?
-
My feeling was that once you've determined the final coordinates, you've now transformed your puzzle cache into a traditional cache, so the D/T ratings should be no lower than what they would be in that situation.
I agree, though, that one shouldn't make the final of a puzzle too hard to find once the cacher has solved it. The few I've placed would be rated no higher than 2/2 without the puzzle aspect.
-
I start with how the cache would rate without the puzzle, then up the difficulty factor based upon how hard the puzzle is. For instance, if I use the online rating tool and find that my cache rates as a 2.5/2, I might rate it as a 3/2 for an easy puzzle or a 4/2 for something more challenging.
What makes a +0.5-star puzzle vs. a +3-star puzzle is still kinda sorta subjective. It's something I guess you just get a feel for over time.
A good way to get a feel for it is to check with your local cachers and see if you can find some folks willing to test out the puzzle in advance. Those folks will be able to tell you if your rating factor is correct or not. You can give them the puzzle as you've written it, or give them a variation that doesn't point to the actual final location.
-
That reminds me of a tough hide that I found recently. It's a 7-stage multi in a state park about an hour away from home, and each of the first six stages is nothing more than a round metal tag stamped with the coordinates of the next stage (it's a tour of the plant life in the park ... each tag is affixed to a different species of plant).
Well, the tag for stage 3 was supposed to be attached to a steel bar sticking up in the middle of some tall grasses in a marshy prairie. The coords were spot on - the bar was right where it was supposed to be. But there had been a fire relatively recently (no prior cacher had mentioned it in their logs) which burned away nearly all of the grass in the prairie, leaving blackened ashes all over the place. The tag was missing from the pole.
Miraculously I found it, face down, in the middle of a blackened pile of ashes - it was the perfectly round shape that gave it away. Both sides were charred and black - I was barely able to scratch off enough of the burned gunk to be able to read the coords for the next stage.
-
As a test to see just how really hooked you are, why not take on the Florida Challenge?
-
I also think that there are not enough real usable benefits for premium members. All I have to tell other cachers about the benefit of being a premium member is pocket queries. And yes that is a very big reason but how many of us would still be premium members if they took away that feature? Does anybody use the other feature enough to justify the cost?
Not to get too far off of the original topic, but here's reasons enough. I use some premium membership features every single day. Here's the list of all the features you get with membership:
- Pocket Queries - Greatly expands the ability to narrow your searches
- Paperless Caching - My Palm Tungsten E2 has all the data I ever need
- Caches along a Route (haven't used this yet, but will to complete the South Florida Challenge Quest)
- Google Maps - I *LOVE* this feature
- Instant Log Notification - Great for racing the other FTF hounds when new postings come out
- Unlimited Watchlist Items - I don't know what the non-member limit is
- Bookmark and Ignore Lists - Turn off caches you don't like, remember ones you do
- Members Only Caches - This is the feature I use the least
Sorry but I think right now with the kids and all I would have to wait to become a premium member.Membership is $3/month. That's less than most people pay for a double latte at Starbucks.
The second cache I don’t think is a quest not because it isn’t but because I don’t know a lot about it.It definitely is, as log entries by Paradise and antimony13 show (because they're older entries, you might not be able to view them unless you're a premium member). I've been working on it for the past month and have probably driven 300 miles and hiked 20 miles so far while seeking and moving various game pieces. I hadn't solved the puzzle until very recently. Even having solved it, it's still going to take some nontrivial planning and effort to get to the final.
I personally like people to find my cachers and get to experience what I got to experience. The new icon would help that out.I definitely agree a new icon would rapidly draw attention to any cache that had it. There would be a big race to be the first to place and first to find such caches.
The question is one of functionality: what purpose would a new icon serve? If all the icon gives you is a merit badge, then that's probably not really a good reason to implement it in the game. I think the reward of being able to say "I did it!" is probably 100x more valuable than being able to say "Look at this cool icon on my page."
If the icon gives people the ability to use that information to search the database better than they can already, then that would be a good thing. I think that's why there are normal event, megaevent, and CITO event cache types.
You're ultimately going to have to refine those criteria for what is and what is not a quest. How far do you have to drive? How far do you have to hike? How high do you have to climb? How long should it take? What level of risk should you incur? We've already touched upon that discussion already in this thread - is the Let The Games Begin (GCTG4C) a quest or not?
The biggest problem I see with your proposal for a quest cache type is what I've said before: the effort required to review such a cache and deem it worthy of a new icon seems to be considerable and potentially loaded with drama and politics. The early quests are going to be reviewed and approved, which will then set the standard for future quest proposals. And as the definition evolves, it will be harder and harder to get new quests approved. Then folks will feel slighted because their pet quest idea was rejected when someone's much easier quest idea had been approved the year before.
I don't think adding a new cache type icon would be bad for the game. I do think adding a new level of review and approval is not going to yield any better quality quests than we currently have today.
-eP
-
Actually I am very open to criticism. I want to know why people agree or disagree with my idea not some witty one line jab at everything. Some of the later posts have valid reasons why they either don’t like the whole idea or think that just parts of it they don’t like. Comments like “Chicken and egg, anyone?” all I see is a negative comment not a complete thought.
Do not confuse the compactness of a response with a lack of careful consideration.
One of the problems with geocaching.com now is the fact that it is “all inclusive”.So making it more "elitist" would fix that problem?
This would be a cache type that you have to pay your dues to be able to complete.To me, a 5/5 rating on a cache means you're going to have to pay your dues to be able to complete it. You don't need a special icon to convey that message.
And the more premium member the more revenue Groundspeak gets for site upgrades and maintenance.So, your assertion is that creating a new icon for caches that less than 10% of the caching population could even consider attempting would increase Groundspeak's revenue stream? That seems to me like an unsubstantiated stretch of the imagination. I bet there's more money to be made in pandering to folks who like lamp-skirt micros.
On the icon thing like I said before some people care about them some don’t. I think that the folks at ground speak know how much some of us care about them. If you want proof just look at all the icons that are created for geocoins. People love the icons let me rephrase that I LOVE THE ICONS. It is a personal choice.I don't think anybody is questioning that. If Groundspeak creates a new cache type icon, there are people who will go to otherwise-irrational extremes to get it (ie, Project A.P.E. caches). The A.P.E. caches would get nowhere near the traffic and attention that they do were it not for the icon. There are also people who would go to the same extremes just to be able to report such caches to get the icon on the other side of the profile page.
But I suspect that folks that are truly motivated to complete a quest cache care a lot more about deriving pleasure from the preparation and execution of the quest than about a few pixels on the screen. Which is my original point - the existing structure allows for an adequate level of definition, publication, review, and logging of such quests today without the need for additional rules, committees, and icons.
Here are a few examples of quests that are local to me:
Final Florida Challenge Quest (GCTVTE)
These would certainly meet all of your criteria to qualify as quests. The current system today seems to support them just fine. And there is no shortage of cachers that rightfully view the completion of those quests as a personal badge of honor that is worth more than any icon.
-eP
-
What might be really cool is to create a feature that would allow cache visitors to report that a bug/coin has gone missing. It wouldn't actually remove the trackable from the cache, but would cause the cache and trackable owners to be notified. It's not too much of a leap to imagine a "Show me my caches with reported missing bugs/coins in them" PQ. Plus, give cachers the ability to report that a missing bug/coin actually is in the cache, but that the previous finder missed it (it happens). And when a bug/coin is picked up, clear the flags.
Just thinking out loud ...
-
I solved a puzzle cache recently that had a particular theme to it. As a trade item (leave item, really), I burned a mix CD with songs all related to the theme in one way or another. Made some extra copies for the next few finders.
-
I don't normally leave an FTF prize. Any new cache in the area I could probably guess who is going to be FTF with a fair amount of accuracy. If I feel like giving a gift to one of the five or six people who will get there first I'll just hand it to them.
Yeah, I've run into that situation as well. To keep that from happening when I placed one of my hides, I also placed a secret micro nearby, then hid the coords of the secret micro in a nonstandard location in the container. The only way to find the secret micro coords is by accident ... the FTF hound that shows up, signs the log, rummages through the container for swag, then packs up and ships out won't find it.
It worked perfectly. The prize went to someone who was 6th or 7th to find the main cache, but FTF on the secret micro.
-eP
-
Sorry some may think that is dumb, and others totally agree. that is the good thing about this game you can make it your own.
Amen, brother. I collect icons, too.
Since the challenges now break up to three of the guidelines for posting that just shows that these caches do not fit the molds that are in place now.I disagree. If you look at my profile, you'll see that I'm working on what you would consider to be two quest caches right now as well as a smaller one that I haven't documented there, all of which have managed to find a way to fit into the existing structure. But I want to finish them not for some 30x30 low-res image on my profile page, I want to finish them because they're compelling enough to want to finish. Isn't that more important?
As for the last log I think maybe you should do a little more thinking before you just post the first negative thing that comes to your mind. Wow I bet people have great ideas all the time but read the logs and think that if they post thier idea there will be some negative Nancy that all they do is cut it down without thinking about it.As for the last log, I think maybe you should realize that comments like this are a two-way street.
The whole point of this forum is to talk about ideas and fine tune them for Groundspeak to look at and decide if it is a good thing to implement or not.I'm sorry, but isn't that precisely what we were doing?
If the forums are just for us monkeys to fling our poo at each other I’m out! but if you have ideas or thoughts about this subject please post that. Sorry if you recived all of my frustration but since I have posted this idea I have looked at a lot of posts and they always start out with someone’s idea and it turns into someone throwing poo. If you have questions about this topic then post them and i will give you my thoughts and so will others as it stands now i am disregarding your post.That's a shame. I would imagine that you'd find participating in a discussion forum like this would be a lot more rewarding if you were more open to honest, nonpersonal constructive criticism. Ideas evolve through peer review and critique. It is the fire that forges the best ideas and turns losing ideas into ashes. Having someone publicly challenge a person's ideas and assertions is not a bad thing ... it's how good ideas come to life.
-eP
-
2 Must have at least 500 finds or be a charter member. This will be so that the cache owner has more experience and the quality should be better. This rules me out for now but that’s ok because the game is what’s important.
That sounds like a good way to motivate people to log fake finds.
4 They must have meaning. I know this one will all be subjective but I think that for it to be a quest there has to be a great adventure to go on. The final decision for this would be a panel of three administrators who volunteer for the added joy of helping a cacher place a quest.Kinda like the ol' virtual "wow" factor?
5 The cache owner must complete the quest first. There could be an exception for the Delorme challenge but the owner would have to actively pursuing the quest.Chicken and egg, anyone?
6 The quest must first be submitted as an idea and approved by the panel before continuing on with planning and work with the panel the would way through. Some may be a quick thing like a Delorme challenge or some maybe a process like a backpacking trip on the wonderland trail around Mt Rainer. http://www.nps.gov/archive/mora/trail/wonder.htmSo, even more of a workload placed upon the volunteer reviewer community?
All this just for another icon? Sounds like too much effort, not enough benefit. There's no reason you can't set up such a quest cache today in the existing structure.
-eP
-
No need to get personal with the "desperately" comment....
Let's keep this a friendly discussion.
Oh, that wasn't directed at you! That was more just a response for the seemingly nonstop stream of threads that petition for the return of virtuals.
I like the idea of automating the verification process, though. Not sure how to generalize it, but if it could be done I bet it would make Waymarking a lot more popular than it is today.
-eP
-
Maybe the folks who so desperately crave the return of the virtual could band together, hold a bake sale, and fund the development of a web app dedicated to publishing virtuals, locationless, webcams, etc.
Betcha $10 that it would end up looking awfully similar to Waymarking or Navicache.
-
That's really cool ... but why are the additional waypoints in a separate file? They seem like they'd be as handy as any of the other GPX content. And the waypoint file I get from a PQ is always MUCH smaller than the main GPX file ... why have two at all?
-
I'm guessing that the prohibition is explicitly against specific data and executable files, as opposed to programs and data in general.
And I think it applies to data as well, because applications that can run macros may have data files that contain embedded executable code.
What would change about Geocaching
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Poof! Your wish is retroactively granted!
I had my first Earthcache approved today. Listed on GC.com only.
-eP