egami

31.

I am assuming someone said they signed it, or simply just logged the find, and didn't actually have a log entry. Believe it or not...I've actually "forgot" to sign a log a couple of times. I cache with my kids a lot (9 mo., 2yr and 4yr) and it just slipped my mind to bring the pen from the truck. My suggestion: At least contact the individual and see if they can verify it with a description of the hiding place if you are inclined to delete the log.

I generally pull out my .45 pistol and start waving it in the air and shout "Hey all you Muggles...attention please...anyone seen a green ammo can in the vicinity of these shrubs here?".

Frisco Finder, the inventor of 'TNLNSLMF'. Took nothing, left nothing, signed log, missed flight.

I know one card trick. But I've yet to see someone that knows how it's done (which is odd because I learned it from someone a long time ago).

Hate that...this is the only forum I ever occassionally do that on too. Well, admittedly, I've never accumulated a triple. /bow

2005 Dodge Ram 1500 2005 Dodge Ram 2500 2001 Honda Accord LX 2006 Suzuki Boulevard C50 Depends on the day and situation...

A FTF prize. I agree with this and I don't have an issue with reviewers being FTF of any type of cache so long as it's not conveniently when a prize is involved or something. Like I said before...TPTB seem to have high standards and as stated by others they wouldn't last long if that were the case.

I am sure there were some other ideas mentioned that got overlooked too...

Im not sure if my opinion is changing that much, but it happens. Perhaps using the term "rating" was improper. Maybe "value" would be more appropriate. Just as long as there is some set of values that caches can be filtered against in addition to the ones already in place. As for who sets them, it sounds like TC may be in line with what I am thinking. The owner can set the starting values but input by finders could have the effect of changing those values. This stops an owner from rating a dumpster cache a Scenic 5 and everyone being stuck with it. As for the other subjective ratings you listed, I was thinking of those too. I only put out a few examples (Scenic & Historic). I need to use TC to better grasp how effective it is...I'll be doing that this summer. Yeah, I think you are on the right track with the idea of adding more attributes that aren't subjective. The ratings on the more subjective items would still be questionable to me, but in the end...I don't think either of our ideas are garnering support, so I am just going to be thankful I am not a "high criteria" cacher and just ignore the whining that goes on by a few individuals.

This does seem strange but I think it provides a way to bolster votes on poor caches to keep them out. It is really no different than what peer reviewers do with waymarks because they vote them in or out without visiting them too. I would share that concern with him. How many times have you been either pleasantly surprised or disappointed in a cache? I would personally prefer people visit to vote.

No offense taken. That's why I used the dude at the end of my post. Ok, it was the other two dudes that was confusing me.

It amazes me that is the law in WA. When I lived out there 90% of the people I knew were anti-gun. It’s actually the lack of a law that allows it. Laws (all of them) don’t tell you what you are allowed to do, only what you are not allowed to do. I understand that. It was more the nature of the mindset that surprised me that there hasn't been law put in place.

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive. Are there any LPC's listed? Another Friggin' Lightpole Cache, by Geowyz is highly rated. I haven't found the time to do it yet. Geowyz is an "Old Skooler" who ditched GC for TC and never looked back. We miss him at events. Ok, well, according to many "old school" people LPC's aren't keeping with the high standard. Now, this cache itself may be somehow special...I don't know...I am just guessing that there are caches on TC.com that don't live up to many "old school" standards...or possibly some of them are too partisan to go there. Partisan...? If I was partisan, I wouldn't BE HERE. I'm just the opposite. TC is a tool for me. I don't play the TC points game, nor do I care for the arcane logic applied to its programming. My main beef with TC is you can rate a cache that you never even visited and are encouraged to do so. I have a system archive on a locationless cache because a group of pc -expletive deleted- didn't like my freakin' TITLE!!!! The title was "Shiz Nit" (street slang for ummm, poopy-doopy) and the cache was for having a bad day out caching that cost you EXTRA money outta pocket due to accident, loss, or injury. (Tickets were a common find.) In short, I like it better here, but TC has merit and I won't steer people away from it based on my own personal aesthetic. Ya dig? I didn't call you out...there is no reason to take offense. I was merely talking in general terms...and, actually, referring to some diehard GC.com people that I only suspect may not utilize TC.com.

Ok, cutting to the chase. Let's say we have a cache located at a mountain top park that is also the site of a civil war battle. We are going to assume 10 geocachers represent the entire community. 9 are "the average cacher" and 1 is the "old school" cacher with high standards. 9 "average cacher" people rate this a 4/3.5 1 "old school cacher" rates this a 4/ 3.5 It worked, right?! We've achieved 100% success with our rating system? No, you see...this cache was a LPC located in the museum parking lot. While it was a nice trip and a nice location the cache itself was a disappointment to the "old school" cacher. He just drove 200 miles for a LPC. Well, in all honesty this example would also have a Terrain 1 and no more than a 1.5 Difficulty as well And so we tweak (we are in the beta testing stage right now anyways) Scenic-Picturesque - Obviously, these may need to be tweaked a bit 1 - Examples may include Dumpster/ Landfill/Toxic waste dump/Guardrail/Parking lot 2 - Examples Playground/Small City Park 3 - Examples Lake view, county park trail just off the path 4 - Snowcapped mountain panoramic view, secluded tropical beach 5 - Sea of Tranquility looking back at Earthrise Historical/ Educational Significance - Also may need tweaking 1 - Behind one of a million Stripmalls 2 - Local Memorial/ local cemetary 3 - Mueseum/ Battlefield 4 - Top of Eiffel Tower 5 - Inside Noah's Ark Now it should have a much lower scenic score You're kind of changing your position by adding a less subjective item lists. These aren't really items that cachers would "rate"...these are really cache attributes. Where it's located and it's historic significance aren't really that subjective especially as you've presented them. All these things can be set once by the approver or the owner. A "rating" system allows people to rate subjective things such as how scenic the are is, cache content quality, cache camo, how cleverly it was hidden and other things.

It amazes me that is the law in WA. When I lived out there 90% of the people I knew were anti-gun.

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive. Are there any LPC's listed? I doubt it. As Snoogans said it would not be a good idea either. TC is not about numbers but is about a point system based on consensus quality. I still don't totally understand all the details but have been happy with the TCs that I've found albeit only 10 of them. TCs are hidden in areas where I'm also happy with the geocaches that I've found. I load them both up when I'm out hiking. But TC allows virtuals and you can place anywhere in the country that you want to. We did some off-roading in Moab last year and found a couple awesome places for virtuals. So I made a couple. To me caching has always been about location. I haven't had time to check them out, but that is on my list this summer....after we are moved, after the house is built, after....geez, I have so much to do that hinders caching.

Well, in fairness, you could implement it on a "going forward" basis, but you are absolutely right...that does pose a problem even then because it's not a 100% reflective for long-time caches. Another reason why a new cache type with stricter standards being introduced might better server the purpose of appeasing the old schoolers.

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive. Are there any LPC's listed? Another Friggin' Lightpole Cache, by Geowyz is highly rated. I haven't found the time to do it yet. Geowyz is an "Old Skooler" who ditched GC for TC and never looked back. We miss him at events. Ok, well, according to many "old school" people LPC's aren't keeping with the high standard. Now, this cache itself may be somehow special...I don't know...I am just guessing that there are caches on TC.com that don't live up to many "old school" standards...or possibly some of them are too partisan to go there.

Ok, cutting to the chase. Let's say we have a cache located at a mountain top park that is also the site of a civil war battle. We are going to assume 10 geocachers represent the entire community. 9 are "the average cacher" and 1 is the "old school" cacher with high standards. 9 "average cacher" people rate this a 4/3.5 1 "old school cacher" rates this a 4/ 3.5 It worked, right?! We've achieved 100% success with our rating system? No, you see...this cache was a LPC located in the museum parking lot. While it was a nice trip and a nice location the cache itself was a disappointment to the "old school" cacher. He just drove 200 miles for a LPC. *edit* Now granted, the other attributes likely would have filtered this out, but the items you included aren't subjective rankings. If you want to discuss adding more non-subjective attributes that may be helpful, but that isn't what most of us invision when you bring up "cache ratings". These are more cache attributes than ratings.

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive. Are there any LPC's listed?

I wish caches didn't have money in them. The reviewer policy is to give me the chance to FTF any caches with money in them before publishing them. This allows me to subsidize my jet fuel. Gas prices are pretty atrocious these days! I thought that was what PM was for.

This is similar to another idea I've had, but it's independent from a GC.com solution. You could essentially create a group that created a higher standard and caches could be submitted for review and they could essentially earn the seal of approval from the group. I am sure there would subsequently be a way to make that searchable in GSAK. If I'm not mistaken, that is the idea of TerraCaching. I was going to try it out, I wasn't really sure about the idea of listing a cache outside of geocaching.com. I somehow missed this earlier reply (snipped it from Snoogans reply). This has been directed at me about 3 times now in this thread and I've yet to read a good answer, but my understanding is that that is not the primary purpose. To allow geocaching to become self-regulating and self-sustaining by establishing ourselves as a not-for-profit member owned organization that works with landowners and the geocaching community to achieve its goals. To enable national and local organizations to take on a more direct role in geocaching within their areas. To provide a permanent archive for geocaching databases in order to preserve logs and caches for access and posterity. Here is their Mission: http://www.terracachers.org/index.php?opti...9&Itemid=84 Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

But why do they have to copy the lame hides?? People copy the hides that they like. They copy the hides that they like the most? I don't think so. I think many just hide something that they like (even a little), but it's very easy and effortless to hide. I also think some people feel pressure to hide caches because they haven't hidden "enough" (whatever that is) so this contributes to less thought. I also think that some people are trying to hide as many as possible. So that lends itself to a certain style of cache placement as well. If people hid caches like the ones they like the most (or at least like a lot), then things would get a lot better. I've done enough caches off "must-do" lists to know that much. Furthermore, they would still be hiding caches that they "like," so it fits with your rule. I think it's probably a little of both. I think people copy what they like and then I think on their other hides some people just lack originality compared to others. Some people are naturally more creative and artistic and their hides probably get a boost from that. But, yeah, that's a good point...I doubt anyone hides a cache they don't like for the most part.