egami

Personally, I haven't seen anyone call anyone a name in this thread.

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.

Maybe sitting and pouting will bring change.

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.

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".

Operative word being "was"... Actaully, there has been some decent discussion.

Because we live in America... For most people this is true...granted, the point of this thread is for a subset of the geopopulous, which is where you and I part ways in this conversation. I agree with you, but for the sake of the topic this does not suffice. My solution appeases both mindsets. Actually it doesn't. I have a friend coming to town who wants to see Birmingham's best features - I will take him to caches near such places. Saturday I will attend an event, afterward folks will want to hit local caches, usually four to a car and multiple cars. Mostly we'll do drive-ups at night, but we'll let the majority choose which ones interest them... or we may have all but one found a cache, we'll go let that one find it while we watch and giggle! How in the world am I going to get a PQ of caches I want to do when the caches I want to do change daily, if not multiple times daily? I'd have to be pretty set in my ways to get PQs of only select types, sizes and locations! You have not demonstrated how my solution didn't appease both mindsets. Did you read my solution?

I am running XP Pro with IE v.7.0.5730.11 running default settings with no problems.

The map itself does not display or when you click on it it does not display?

I thought I was the only one that did that! In Florida, we ask if its tourist season, why can't we shoot them? Well, that's what you get for living in Florida...

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.

Because we live in America... For most people this is true...granted, the point of this thread is for a subset of the geopopulous, which is where you and I part ways in this conversation. I agree with you, but for the sake of the topic this does not suffice. My solution appeases both mindsets.

Well, technically I bought mine because I heard of caching, but I was planning on getting one "someday" for marking out morelle mushroom locations and for car navigation, so I guess geocaching was what pushed me into actually spending the dough because I thought it looked like a great thing to do with the kids.

This is how it is now.

I completely understand your point...and, I don't disagree with your perception, I just don't see it as a viable solution because I think it needs to be easier. My point is it shouldn't require that much work. It should be inherent in the database as an attribute not a collection of attributes that are hit and miss.

I usually just approach a cache area and if more than 5 muggles show up I start firing rounds.

That is exactly why a less subjective system would be great. Again, I say look at Handicaching dot com vs here. Let's say I am a world class stair climber and a cache requires me to climb 100 steps to reach. I might rate this as a terrain 1 but someone in a wheelchair might rate this as a terrain 5. Very subjective. On Handicaching.com, you have more objective ratings (road surface, slope, distance to cache, etc.) These ratings are not really open to personal interpretation. Sorry, but handicaching is extremely subjective and TOTALLY open to personal interpretation! I am handicapped and don't use handicaching.com because I can't figure out how to rate things there in a useful manner! Wheelchair accessible? What's that? A manual chair? An electric one? Can the subject use his arms? If so can he bump up over a 2" obstacle? A 4" one? Can he use his legs at all to stand up? I can do things in a wheelchair most can't do - If I can get to it is it wheelchair accessible? Sure - I did it... but could you? Totally subjective. When you get 'wheelchair accessible' worked out we'll move on to other reasons why this ratings business doesn't work. Exactly...

Am not even "old school" and I have to agree with that. As I've said before, and have been ignored for saying before, we all need to think before we hide. I think you 2 may have just summed up how to improve the quality of caches. Combine that with some degree of mentoring as folks have suggested earlier and over time, you might see some changes. Is there not already a tremendous amount of this though...that's why I don't see this as the "solution" there is a lot of this going on now and what's happening is that most people mentoring are the ones that don't have the higher standard.

Am not even "old school" and I have to agree with that. As I've said before, and have been ignored for saying before, we all need to think before we hide. Agreed. Same boat here, which is why I can relate to the "old school" concern depsite the fact that personally I am not as selective. We need a campaign slogan: Friends don't let friends hide crappy caches.

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be? My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy. Ok, I understand that utopian view, but it's not practical...I should of asked what your "solution" was I suppose.

It's hard to do this when every time you throw out an idea you get tired responses like "How dare you try to dictate to us how to cache" and others along those lines. Just watch, here is a suggestion: When you go to hide a cache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the cache, then find a better spot. Well, I understand that...and it's a legitimate issue, but at the end of the day I would think getting chastised for complaining about it would start to wear on you some. I was looking for a more functional solution I guess...are you implying the standards for all caches should just be raised?

This is a good point regarding education, but I think you are leaving out an important factor in the equation: subjectivity. This problem seems to me to be inherent in both solutions because the vast majority of cachers I know, and I suspect this represents the overall trend, aren't really the "high standard" cachers that some of these old school complainers are. And, also, it seems to me there is already a tremendous amount of education, but that may be my misperception.

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?

I agree with you about using the methods/tools your reference, the problem is many that cachers never come in to the forums or ever hear about them. That's why folks want a better "card catalogue" in the library. Exactly my point. Because, in general, sbell and I generally agree on this topic...at least in terms of going out and enjoying the game and checking out other books. I am on the same page there, but I can also see that the "old school" cachers don't have a good way to limit caches to the truly higher caliber caches.

The arguement can be made that the card catalog is a bit insufficient.PQs and GSAK can be used to greatly reduce the percentage of caches that you don't like and greatly increase the percentage of caches that you will like. Did you notice Snoogan's prior post regarding 'Caches hidden by...' and 'Caches found by ...'? How about TrailBlazer's bookmark list? Many groups and many individuals keep these lists. If you really want a recommendation, ask for it. Many people email local cachers for recommendations when they are about to visit a new area. The solutions you ask for are already available to you. Ok, so let's get this straight... I can use a combo of: - PQ - GSAK - Bookmarks - Personally searching "Cache's hidden by" - Personally searching "Cache's found by" Sounds like an incredible amount of manual labor to still have a "hit and miss" shot at getting good caches? That's not a "solution". That's a "headache". That's why I like my suggestion better.