egami

What if you don't have a PDA? I understand what your saying, but not everyone has the tools you do. I personally use GSAK. That fact that I'm retired (thank you Uncle Sam) means I have the time to sort through the caches. This is not the case for a lot of very busy cachers who would like to be able to get quality cache at the end of a long day. The last thing they want is to have to buy more tools like a PDA, or spend time sorting by hand or with software. All these folks are saying is it would be nice if GC.com had some way of helping them find a cache that they would like, without a lot of extra time and effort. At the end of the day....not even this method truly satisfies the request of "old school" people for detecting high quality caches.

The arguement can be made that the card catalog is a bit insufficient. Besides, how many people go to a card catalog for a book? Most people I know look to a review or some sort of independent reference.

It's hard to remain interested in the topic when most of the "old school" whiners aren't throwing out ideas. I guess they are mostly satisfied with trolling occassional threads to resurrect their frustration every week or so.

Ummmm, get over yourself and enjoy what's out there already by taking responsibility for your own choices. This is fine for cachers like you and I that just simply enjoy the game how it is...this doesn't address the topic at hand.

I think most of what's been said so far agrees with that...the issue is the cache owner. That's why I suggested my solution. The only way to somewhat control the integrity of caches is through the cache requirements and the review process.

There are standards right now? For regular caches. You'd have to establish the group to determine what the new category cache standards would be. Actually, I had never read the current guidelines for placing a cache..until just now. Who are the group that established those guidelines and how does one become a member? I would have to default that question to someone with more knowledge...my answer is TPTB. What I am proposing for the initial development of my proposed standards would be a small subset of the "old school" cachers that see this as a major issue. I don't think it's a permanent committee or anything that is in place now though.

There are standards right now? For regular caches. You'd have to establish the group to determine what the new category cache standards would be.

How much micros sucked. Like all threads, huh? Some days it seems that way....

Ok, now bear with me here...I see your point, but do you really, truly think that with the number of people in the game now, and the vast difference in peronalities, that this would have honestly played any significant role in the actual overall integrity of the game and the quality of caches? I would think that just the sheer volume of people playing would've contributed to the current problem outside of any perception that the numbers themselves are responsible....and I am not trying to negate your point, because your concern for numbers I think is valid, I am just not sure that it's the ultimate solution to the actual integrity of the game and quality of the caches.

How much micros sucked.

This is true, but there are fair number of sites that have a "Library" type forum that minimizes overhead on the search engine and can be more centric location for people looking for various topics like this. Too many pinned articles get easily overlooked...I used to Admin a board with 10k+ users, I can relate to that. The Mods and I limited ourselves to 3 pinned topics max per forum and tried to keep it to 1 most of the time.

Back when I first started we were had to walk to the cache backwards, through knee-high snow, uphill, both ways, holding our GPSr's upside down. Back then men were men, women were beautiful and children were well behaved. All caches were the size of Volkswagen Beetles and were stocked with gold and jewels, and the average FTF prize was a new house. Cachers were courteous and we all knew not only each others first names, but addresses, birthdays and shoe sizes as well. You punks have ruined everything. I'll think of you when I run over the next toad with my truck...

This PQ would likely miss the original cache and the current oldest published cache the Moose Mob spoke of in the other thread...then again, Moose Mob made an intriguing point about those two caches.

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact.That's not exactly true. For instance, many people don't like urban caches in uninspired locations. With a few PQs, you can eliminate most of those. Sure, you'll leave a few lamers in and you'll filter out some good ones, but you'll be left with a good sized target population with a fairly low number of lamers. I'm reminded of those cachers who merely want to go back to that fictional time when most caches were large-sized and required a hike. Strangely, with one PQ I can simulate those golden years. From strictly an "old school", higher caching standards, point of view though it is absolutely true. I agree that it's avoidable somewhat, but I can see brian's issue in this regard as well.

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact. Ultimately, that is the question that needs solving. How can caches be further filtered so that people can easily and without additional research extract the types of caches they like? And, based on an opinion I do not share but has been voiced a few times, any method of rating caches will end up flawed, skewed, or in some other way useless. So, in answering the above question, any rating system cannot be utilized. Well, I don't mean to be too negative toward a rating system...like I said, I was in that camp myself, but the more I thought about it as it applied to existing systems, and in relation to the subjectivity of caching perception, it just didn't seem viable for this particular issue that has been brought up. That's why I like the idea of new cache type with simply a higher standard: - It would be searchable by type - It might inspire newer cachers to get more back to grass roots caching - It would allow 'old school' people to focus on these caches - It would flow right along with mainstream cachers just fine that have a lower standard anyway I really don't see a negative side to it. My only question is, who decides if a cache meets the standard for this new type? And what are these criteria for this new higher standard? and while were at it, who decides what this criteria should be for this higher standard? Isnt all that subjective? Oh wait! I just came up with a non-subjective measurement: Distance from nearest dumpster Just as TPTB do now with regular cache standards they'd limit the new standards to some sort of committee or subset group. That way the subjectivity is limited to within the scope of the goal. Whereas an open rating systems subjectivity is exposed to the entire populous which may largely not have that high of a standard. Subjectivity, in and of itself, isn't the problem so much as to whose subjectivity affects the outcome.

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact. Ultimately, that is the question that needs solving. How can caches be further filtered so that people can easily and without additional research extract the types of caches they like? And, based on an opinion I do not share but has been voiced a few times, any method of rating caches will end up flawed, skewed, or in some other way useless. So, in answering the above question, any rating system cannot be utilized. Well, I don't mean to be too negative toward a rating system...like I said, I was in that camp myself, but the more I thought about it as it applied to existing systems, and in relation to the subjectivity of caching perception, it just didn't seem viable for this particular issue that has been brought up. That's why I like the idea of new cache type with simply a higher standard: - It would be searchable by type - It might inspire newer cachers to get more back to grass roots caching - It would allow 'old school' people to focus on these caches - It would flow right along with mainstream cachers just fine that have a lower standard anyway I really don't see a negative side to it.

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact.

I have a problem with someone hiding behind their dog's account. If that is what you are all about then I take pity on you. And that's worse than hiding behind your monkey's account how?

I agree with egami.You see it in everything else.Oh that's my buddy's cache,I'll hook him up and so on. Funny how some noobs come around to old school thinking. It just takes them 500 grievences or so to get there. Just to explain. That wasn't an attack, ad nausium or ad homium it was humor, and had a point burried in it (that being someone complaning about whining and wanting to see solutions isn't proposing solutions in thier own complaining/whining/grievences). Sometimes I'm probably too subtle. You know...actually, I wish I would have came to that thinking via an old school individual offering up ideas versus on my own simply because I am tired of hearing whine session 501, 502, 503...

I still think a higher standard cache type is a win-win. It's searchable. People can limit themselves to it if they want. It might inspire people that haven't really harbored that "old school" appreciation. It's a minor change programatically...in theory, it shouldn't require any if they built the software right.

I think the problem with this is that this is a subset of cachers. I haven't noticed this trend in "old school" people in those I've met here or on our Iowa boards. The "old school" people I've talked to all accept and appreciate the game for what it is...granted, they have some pet peaves, but I don't find near the disdain for LPC's and other hated caches as I do here from a few people. I do, however, think that there would be a wide appreciation for a cache type that is a higher caliber requirement. It might be the best solution for two reasons...the whiners, er "old school", could restrict themselves to this cache type if they wanted...and I think it'd also be a huge attraction, as well as inspiration, for the "joe cacher" type who really isn't nearly as picky about caching. And we all know the "smiley cacher" would love it...anything for more smiley's...(not that we care about these vile creatures ).

Well, in fairness to his idea (and because I've already thought this through when I liked the idea as a solution), you could mitigate against that by only allowing PM (elitist.. ) accounts to vote.

Only in theory...if statistically, and this is what is being alleged by many "old schoolers", there are significantly more lower standard cachers than higher standard cachers then no matter what rating system you use the figure will be artificially inflated because my 'excellent' might be your 'so-so' rating. That helps, but doesn't solve the inherent issue I mentioned above. It most definitely might be....but then again, what if it wasn't anonymous? It'd be more helpful to me to see what a similar-minded cacher ranked it. I am relatively new myself and had a similar belief early on. My alternative...make a seperate cache type with a higher standardization process for approval.

I think there is a fair amount of it actually...there is in our state from what I've seen. However, the problem with everyone doing it I think is similar to the rating system issue...if indeed most cachers are "lower standard" cachers then this would inherently make the problem worse.

For fear of being repetative...my earlier response: And I think that a valid issue regardless of the system. Ratings are too subjective...especially if so many cachers indeed have a "lower" standard.