egami

I thought we were looking for a way to please all the groups? Given enough criteria, the old schoolers could filter for caches that met their desires as could any other sub group. No single set of criteria will appease all groups...we are primarily talking about "old school" cachers and higher quality cache hides, but the principle I am talking about is true for all groups. You are going to need to write out a set of criteria for me to demonstrate to you how this won't work effectively.

I wouldnt suggest giving a cache an overall ratings, again, that is subjective. If we are talking about one of the universal criteria, say something like Slope (using handicapping.com's rating scale) 1 = flat 2 = 10% slope for less than 500ft 3 = 10% for more than 500ft 4 = 10-20% for more than 500ft 5 = more than 500ft or more than 20% Sure, we could differ a bit on whether or not the slope was a 10% incline or if it was more than 500ft, but I gather we could make some fairly accurate approximations. If its a 3, give it a 3. I doubt a old schooler would give something a slope rating of 1 and a newbie give it a 5. Ok, that's all fine and dandy, but we aren't talking about an entire set of universal criteria to rate a cache....if we are then that isn't satisfying the request of the old school cachers. It's not the amount of slope or tree coverage that are turning these people off.

Concealed in my case due to state laws. I probably wouldn't wear openly if I could. When I carry I generally carry in a holster inside the belt of my pants or shorts, but sometimes just leave it in the backpack.

Ok, your making me think too hard too soon after lunch. Well, I disagree but at this point it's more semantical. However, to prove my point, show me a "universal" mindset that doesn't have a degree of subjetivity. Those criteria are indeed universal. What is not universal is the rating of those. For instance, you are the "old school" cacher, I am the "newbie" cacher. We both find the same cache. My average rating on a 1 to 10 scale is a 7 for the cache. Yours is 3. What you need to take the subjectivity out of is the rating and not the criteria. You accomplish this by grouping like-minded people to narrow that subjectivity with a set of guidelines...which will still be somewhat subjective, but those guidelines will reflect what you call a "universal" mindset and those individuals that are along that same line of thought will be attracted, more or less, to the same caches.

Due to the "insta-notify" feature, I'd argue that even the advantage of timing is removed from the reviewer. (Well, except when there's a problem with the e-mail server, of course!) Anyone with insta-notify finds out about the cache being published pretty much the same time when I do. They can then hop in the car to go get that FTF. Now, of course, I could drive to the trailhead and publish the cache in my car using a mobile WiFi connection, and I don't think that would be fair! More realistically: having published a cache five miles from my house, I turn to the next cache, which might be in Toledo, because that owner is entitled to a prompt review, too. My last FTF was accidental, and occurred in August 2004 on a cache more than 150 miles from my home that I published before leaving for a road trip. For traditional caches, reviewers have no real advantage because we see the same maps, coordinates, etc. as everyone else does. So, we can be the FTF on those whenever we want. If the reviewer made a habit of it, I'm sure there'd still be complaints. So I don't do it, even though I *could* if I wanted to. I used to enjoy being the FTF but I would not enjoy it anymore. For puzzle caches and multicaches, it's best to wait for someone else to get the FTF, or to allow enough time to pass that everyone says "gee, we sure had our fair chance at FTF" and nobody gets bent out of shape. Or, I could just ask another reviewer to publish the puzzle cache near my home so that I could try to solve it and be the FTF. (This is hypothetical as everyone knows I am terrible at puzzles.) Yeah, I was mainly contesting that an approver could wait to approve when it's convenient to their schedule. Not that they get notified earlier per se. In the case of a "puzzle" cache that time could by them solving the puzzle. Just to clarify. And, again, I don't see this is a major problem...just hypothetical and I like that TPTB seem to maintain a pretty ethical position in dealing with potential abusers of the system.

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. Higher standard? Quality caches? Lame caches? Good caches? Arent there all the subjective-type terms that make any solution "impossible"? You're missing the boat on the "subjective" discussion I think...when you confine subjectivity to like-minded individuals then you utilize that subjectivity in a manner in which assists those people. Versus simply opening subjectivity up to everyone on an open-ended rating system where there are no guidelines or standards to drive the initiative. You can never eliminate subjectivity....you can, however, manipulate it toward a goal which is what my solution does (either solution I mentioned actually)

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.

It's still brings up a good question. Should reviewers be FTF on caches with money when they have the advantage of publishing the cache at possibly their convenience and getting first crack at it? Regardless of the integrity of the reviewer to have to jump through the proper hoops this is still a good question, imo. I trust the reviewers. I could seriously care less if they find a cache prior to someone else. If there's a pattern, raise a flag to Groundspeak. I think that says it best. Yes, we are allowed to play the game like other players and be FTF. We do have to *solve* puzzles, and are not allowed to lift coordinates out of the system. The part about "the advantage of publishing the cache at possibly their convenience" is there, but we are all so nervous about topics like this that most of us just avoid puzzle caches for quite some time if we know how to solve it right away. I am not insinuating you shouldn't be allowed to play the game like others. However, by the very nature of the fact that you dictate when the cache hits the streets you're at a competative advantage, so it's not "like everyone else" in that regard. Maybe a thread like this is deterent enough...I am sure most reviewers have the integrity to not use their power to their advantage, but it is there...and until this thread was posted I didn't see where to "report a reviewer". I think some good has come of the conversation nonetheless. It sounds like the particular incident wasn't an issue. That is nice to know. It's also nice to know TPTB don't take an incident like this lightly and research the facts.

This is your guys' thread to tell we noobies where the sport was and where we need to keep it.Great post. I'm in training all day and don't have time to debunk the junk and credit the good parts. However I'll tackle this one piece. You can't use the old tree, the waterfall, the historic item of interst as your cache spot. Thats ground zero for muggles. You have to use the uninspired pile of stick 500' out of the way or your cache will be muggled. The goal is for the cache to be found by cachers, and to be close enough so the cacher will wander over to the item of interest. It is a fair comment that the cache page should offer up some history if it's known or hint that there is some to be found if you are willing to invest the time. I think the point is that there are completely uninspired surroundings where caches are placed.

LOL...Dont I know it...But I also realise it and deal with it...The OP asked a question, and I answered with what I would LIKE to see....Not with what I BELIEVE I will see...I know it wont happen, but newbs wont get edumicated unless you preach it...LOL And, in fairness, being that it's of subjective nature this is the approach you have to take (well, you could elect to be a whiner I guess). With the varying degree of personalities of cachers you'll get varying degrees of expectations and in the end...as long as it meets the guidelines it's fair game. This is why I choose the same road...I am not too picky about caches. I just try to visit them all, but knowing that I can appreciate whichever I choose to the degree I choose. For me it's not so much about the cache itself as much as the journey as a whole. Sure, I think there are some crappy caches, but I am not going to let that ruin anything for me....because, ultimately, I know there will be a good one down the road.

Ok, no hurry. Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking the obvious.

Am I missing where the new features are listed or do we just have to easter egg discover them? Thanks.

Quiet newb.

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense". What thew heck is 'hidersense'? I think the concept is the ability to hide caches that aren't crap. Step one. Define universal quality. I don't believe that really exists.

There isn't much angst to be caused. It simply creates a subset of caches with a higher standard...how people choose to treat them is up to them. It wouldn't cause anymore "angst" than PM does. Besides, at the end of the day, if your goal is making everyone happy then all solutions fail by default. Functionally, my solution doesn't fail. Trust me. There would be tons of threads from people whining that their cache didn't get chosen. Ask any reviewer how much flak they received regarding 'Wow'. You missed the point, re-read that. I am not interested in worrying about avoiding people getting their panties in a bunch. You state emphatically the purpose behind the new cache type, and that it has a higher standard and refusal rate, and people can't get over it or they can become the inherent whiners.

Actually, someone did, and called them Terracaches. Supposed to be the creme de la creme of geocaches. It didn't work there either. That was not the intent published by their founder. 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.

There isn't much angst to be caused. It simply creates a subset of caches with a higher standard...how people choose to treat them is up to them. It wouldn't cause anymore "angst" than PM does. Besides, at the end of the day, if your goal is making everyone happy then all solutions fail by default. Functionally, my solution doesn't fail.

I didn't define it...I was just referring to what I thought the individual meant. The point remains I am not in support of either as a solution to this perceived issue. Because they are both completely subjective across the entire geocaching populous.

Personally, I'd avoid Vista like the plague for a while....glad you got it working.

No, my solution is a new cache type that has a higher standard for placement. I am against any form of rating system. People are obviously skipping large parts of the convo. Sorry. I thought I had it straight. I still don't get how that new cache type will be any different than the old 'traditional' type and who would determine if a cache should be in that type. Page 3, see my replies, covers most of that question.

And see that no one has been called out...

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".What thew heck is 'hidersense'?I think the concept is the ability to hide caches that aren't crap.'Carp' being as subjective as it is, I think I'll stick with 'Hide what you'd like to find'. You know what...I agree with you, but in the context of the topic that doesn't solve the issue.

I figured it was something pop-up related originally...that's why I asked the first question to clarify. ZA would do that. Firewalls will certainly create that problem.

Exactly, it'd fail for many reasons previously mentioned umpteen times...that's why it'd be more feasible to implement a cache type that simply had a higher standard.According to whom? sbell...go back and read the dadgum thread.

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense". What thew heck is 'hidersense'? I think the concept is the ability to hide caches that aren't crap.