seldom|seen

Just chiming in to show my support for all the effort of the Foundation into making this a much more desirable tool to run and build cartridges in. As a creator of a couple of my own, I know the frustrations of managing the backend components, making them all work together (without errors) and dealing with the many unknowns. Thank the stars for more code-savvy users like Geomagician, so willing to lend a hand when needed. Keep it up and try not to let the frustrations of your own struggles get the better of you! There are many out here looking forward to the day when a v1.1 hits the streets. I, for one, have a few tour cartridges in hold pattern until that day arrives...

Hate to lean on forums to work may way through a new cartridge, but I decided to give Earwigo a shot and now seem to be a bit stuck in the process of creating multiple choice questions for zone points and progression. I am not a coder, so I really heavily on the GUI to create the necessary code behind the scenes. Since I am using Earwigo, I am very willing to share the cartridge and allow anyone who can help a peak behind the scenes. What would be very useful is a rough in of ONE multiple choice question triggered on zone entry with IF THAN handling four possible inputs with a redirect on three incorrect answer to try again and a proceed to next zone for the correct answer.

I'm trying to find any trackable coin with a likeness of the Statue of Liberty for my private collection. I know there are a couple versions out there, so if you have and extra send me a PM....

"Best 10 List Which of the over 6000 EarthCaches do we consider the best in the world? This is a question that we decided was worth answering. In May this year six EarthCachers from around the world (USA, Canada, Portugal, Sweden, Australia) started the huge task of compiling the list of the best 10 EarthCaches. The team looked at the quality of the information, use of diagrams, logging requirements, references etc. While there will always be debate, the final list is :" This list is not about a good example of how to make an Earthcache. It is a list of the TOP 10 Earthcaches from around the world. I realize that you'd have some debate about naming the top 10, hell even getting a list of the top 100 would be tough, but I still think it is a huge slap in the face to Earthcache developers nationwide, to represent our contribution to this aspect of the sport, with 4 of the 10 by an individual cacher from one unique microcosm in this vast country. It is not right by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise?

Looks like there's still a little time to get an Eathcache published, so I better get crakin. I visited the International Earthcache day page to discover a list of the Top 10 worldwide earthcaches culled from a list of over 6000 around the glove. Imagine my surprise to discover that 4, yes 4, of the top 10 were by the same cacher. 4 out of 10, worldwide? Seriously? I'm not arguing that they are not great Earthcaches, but to represent the vast talent and variety of Erthcaches placed in the continental US with four caches from a single cacher just boggles my mind! There are many, many great Earthcaches out there just as good or better than those four, in fact I could list 10 in Wisconsin with just as much information and level of presentation as those. I, as well as every other Earthcache developer in the US, should be more than a bit dismayed by this Top 10 list.

Then why is it only 3 stars? I agree it is probably underrated on the difficulty. It's a three star because that's what I feel the difficulty was at the time I placed it. Sometimes these thing are hard to gauge until the cache has been active for a while. I can see now that the D rating needs to go up a tad. As far as the question of accuracy goes, I will make a few points. First I never intentionally place a cache any distance from the posted cords or solved cords just to throw people off. If there is any accuracy issues, it derives from my GPS. Secondly, I respond to any comments about my caches being found any distance greater than 30 feet, first by confirming it is still where I placed it and then my modifying cords if I trust the field reports. There are times when one cacher will say, "we found it 60' from posted cords" and that will be immediately followed by "cords were dead on" so, as many have expressed above, there is some variability and that's part of the sport. After all, if the cords were always dead on, accurate to 5', there wouldn't much sport in the hunt save clever camo. Lastly, I welcome coordinate posts from any cacher who truly believes the accuracy of the location in is question, but under 30', I don't need to know that. As far as attributes go, many cachers in the are know I like to have fun with those icons on many of my puzzle caches. They do not always represent true attributes. In this case, I have a "May require wading" and a "dangerous area" both of which are accurate. The key word for the first is "may" and the validity of the second was confirmed yesterday when Sagasu drew blood looking for it. NOW, understand, I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO GO THAT FAR! and Dave should know better, but there are some hazards to be mindful of. The question I have about this entire thread and the asker of the initial question, is how can you even be certain you're on GZ, if you aren't using a GPS to zero in on it? Are you printing maps using Google Earth, Terrabrowser or some other mapping program? Posting questions to this GC forum that put in question the cache placing practices of someone who's been around the block a few times by someone who is openly circumventing the basic tenants is, well, a little beyond the pale.

I got rid of my Lowrance GPS when I realized over time that my iPhone and the various Geocaching apps I have loaded to it outperformed my GPS every time. That is until some recent outings where my cords were way off, but that may have been due to operator error or some bad cord translation between apps as I was entering cords in one app and caching in another. I have just recently been told that the new iPhone 3G"S" now has an internal GPS built in, unlike its predecessor which relied on cell tower proximity for signal and triangulation. This means the iPhone and apps will no longer be "signal dependent" which is the biggest drawback for me so far. When you have a pin dropped on a cache location but loose your signal and then cannot navigate to the cache. I am very eager to step up to a new phone, but I typically skip a generation on upgrades just to save myself some $, so I will just have to be patient. I too am eager to dive into this Wherigo method of guided touring and can think of many tours that I would create in the area. Unfortunately, as many have said, there is no iPhone app yet and even worse, no Mac version of the player or builder that I can see. You'd think by now that everything being build would be cross-platform! I will be watching...

YOU WIN!!! Those are both super cool and it's hard for me to decide, but since I have the Nocturnal one, THE ONLY coin in my personal collection, I'm gonna have to go for the compass rose coin to increase my personal collection by 100%. Thank you for that fantastic trade. While I didn't get anything to use as FTF foder, I did get a cool coin that I have looked at on many occasions. Send me a PM with your address and I'll get the Lackey's in the mail. Thanks as well to the rest of you who responded and I apologize for not getting back to you immediately via PM or e-mail. You are a great community of collectors from what I can tell and the next time I have something to offer up, this is the first place I will go!

More interest than I thought there would be! OK. Let me lay this out for those interested. I am not a Coin Collector, but a coin giver. More often than not when I am given a coin or win a coin in a contest, it ends up becoming an FTF prize for a new cache of mine. To date I have given away at least 3 dozen or more unregistered coins for the FTFers on some of my toughest puzzle caches. So, what I'd like to do is trade for other coins. I like interesting and unique coins, but since I am not collecting, can afford not to be picky. Cool shapes, relief cuts, translucents, glow-in-the-dark, etc. Here's what I'd like to do for those interested. Post a note here (no PM or e-mail) about the coin(s) you'd offer to trade for this one. After 48 hours, I'll choose the offer I like the best. Again, you may have doubles of some coins that most collectors already have, but might be interesting enough or unique enough to interest me. Pictures of the offers would help.

Anybody interested in a 2007 Groundspeak Lackey's coin?

I'm with you 100%. I lost my GPS and haven''t replaced it. About the time that happened I purchased an iPhone and went looking for GPS enabled apps to see if I could get away with just my new iPhone in the field. The ultimate goal for me is pare down to the fewest devices possible. I found iGeocacher and without hesitation, purchased and installed for $15. It works great but has a couple limitations, the biggest being the inability to modify coordinates in the field when you are working on a puzzle or multi-cache. I then came accross an app in development called Geode, also another healthy app that does everything i want it to, but it's not out yet. Then I saw this app pop up when the site was updated and thought, OK, now just which one of these - or combination of these - should I use? Personally, I'll pay whatever I have to to get full cache searching capability on my iPhone so i don't have to spend big bucks on a replacement GPS. I'll be watching and waiting. Christmas is just around the corner...

Whew, got sucked into this one for many reasons, not the least of which is that I served in the first sand storm under daddy W. I also have a series of my own called Flags of Our Fathers, all of which are puzzle caches at various war memorials and historical markers in the Fox Valley. If my caches fell under the same scrutiny, there's no way that Flags of Our Fathers | Burn Em If You Got Em would have ever gotten published. Save that the cache type is a puzzle and the information needed to make the find is on the page. Now, I have lots of "lame" hides like this, but they almost always for puzzles where the final is merely a means to satisfy the requirement to place something in the field. If I have been into this sport 5 years ago, I would likely have had nothing but virtual caches out there. Truth is, there's room for all kinds and any cache that pays tribute to another human being for any kind of accomplishment is worthy of placement. I'd take your "lame" tribute cache over 10 well cammo'd ammo cans in the woods any day of the week. I open one of those and I see a bunch of worthless stuff. I open yours, and even if the contents are the same, I know that I will get the pleasure of saying something about the tributee when I log the cache and I know that it is the reason the cache exists. I'll not say what's been said many times over. What I will do is suggest some potential solution. My suggestion? Take the facts you have posted and work them into a puzzle. That ups the anti, reduces the traffic which might not be a bad thing, because it keeps these number hunters at bay and the cachers who take the time to solve it are certainly going to appreciate the cache, no matter how easy the find.

A couple more personal thoughts as I agree with the anything would help mentality. I like creative hides and that attribute would be nice to rank. For seasoned cachers who find themselves ranging far and wide this attribute would certainly be a plus. If you are hundreds of miles from home and have a day to do some caching in a place you will likely never visit again, (I am sure this happens more often than not), you might like to know where there are 50 caches with a 4 star or better ranking in a 60 mile radius rather than look for the nearest 50 caches, 75% of which might be forgettable. I think it's all about getting good quality caches in the field and keeping the simple forgettable ones to a minimum. Now, you say, what is a quality cache if all I like to do is find park and grabs to get numbers? Well, if that's what trips your trigger, you just ignore the cache ranking and do your nearest 50 caches. The second point. The reason I got into and am following this discussion is the whole Cache of the Month, Cache of the Year nomination system which, at least in this state, does not draw out the best and the brightest caches. Certainly, some great caches get nominated and win, but others that are run-of-the-mill do as well. The biggest problem is that the system relies on many finds on a cache to be popular enough to be voted on. If you think about it, what caches get the most visits and finds? Simple ones. And what caches get very few visits and finds? Complex and very well hidden ones. There are many fantastic puzzles out there that only have a few visits and may never get more than a dozen finds. Does that mean they don't deserve recognition because they are, by their very nature, not going to get enough visits to win a nomination? If a ranking system were in place and the top 20 ranked caches, say with at least 5 find logs, were pulled and voted on every month, more recognition would get bestowed on the best and brightest ones out there. This in turn leads others to create better caches and (I think) the quality of caches placed increases.

Seems to me the mere fact that this has been brought up a hundred times, suggests a strong desire by the cache community and more specifically those that are committed enough to contribute ideas in the forums, to get a rating system in place. After my own long-winded thread about the concept and getting beat down by all of the Pirhanas who make snide comments like the one above, I let my own attempt to push the idea lie, content to see what comes of the "rewards" system. A rating process that's being worked on to accomplish some form of this query refinement tool. Maybe by the time the topic is brought up the 200th or 300th time, somebody will start listening.... Now, all you naysayers, please add you snide remarks here...

I think everyone is missing my point to one degree or another. Cache of the Month Systems already exist. They are not as impartial as they could be because of the nomination process. Very few cachers take the time to post nominations and those who subsequently vote on them, I think, are motivated by more that just the fact that they remember them being great caches. Certainly a rating system will be open to all the forms of trickery and deciet out there. I also get the potential for abuse. I think, however, that the volume of cachers with honest and positive reviews, even if it's 80%, would be sufficient to withstand a poor rankings by the other questionable 20% Also, I don't think you can make a blanket statement about the reliability of ranking systems as some of it must surely depend on the subject matter. For my part, I have met and corresponded with a hundred cachers plus and don't know of a single one that would post a maliceous ranking. Apparently, I should recognize 20 of them that would. Perhaps I'm naiive. As I said previously, maybe its' not a ranking system but another set of attributes that defines some new catagories like, "urban camo", "unique container", "super-hard hide", but then these too are subject to abuse just as the current attributes are. I'm going to be quiet now and patiently wait for the new rewards system to come out and hope that a few of the things I have said here have been heard.

Guess that might explain why this is happening

I'd expect you'd only add the various attribute ranks to caches you have found, when you log the find. You wouldn't be voting any more as the ranking process would happen behind the scenes. The resulting numbers would get tallied for the State and instead of the Nominated caches for the month, you'd see the top ranked caches for the month. Not sure how you'd handle it month by month or year by year for top ranked caches. Actually I think "pasters", if you want to assign them a name, would take a second or two to click 5 buttons if it meant they could provide input without having to detail their experience with 5 lines of copy which is what they are avoiding so they can get through logging their 60 cache finds of the day.

I don't think there's anything wrong with those sites. On the other hand, it would be much simpler to have some of the information captured form the Cache Title and Final Coordinate fields in the Publish listing page than to do what it currently required. 1. Set up your Puzzle listing. 2. Go to Geochecker and submit the same information (room for error) 3. Take generated geochecker URL and copy paste into your description (more room for error) 4. Make it look the way you want (even more room for error). 5. Now, wait for approval, if there's a problem with the final or any other par of the Puzzle that needs modification, repeat steps 1 though 5. (Hopefully only once). To me, it's all about efficiency. Creating caches through Groundspeak "Report New Listing" page is not efficient unless your placing a single stage ammo box at confirmed coordinates. Maybe I'm just the exception to the rule , but i average 3-4 hours in creating cache listings, most of which are puzzles (yes, I bring it on myself, I know), if I had an automated button for "Include coordinate checker" and if I could please have some BBS tools to modify my listing with "Include cache image on page" {browse to file}, and "Inset other reference link" {paste URL here}, I could easily shave an hour off of my grueling publishing routine. I am nearing 60 puzzle caches. That's 240 hours of just doing the listings and getting them published not to mention the time in the field... That's a huge investment in the sport and local cachers know it and reap the rewards, sure would be nice if a little reward came back in the form of making it easier for me to give to the community in the form of more efficient publishing tools. Man, I've had a lot to say lately... (getting off soapbox)

...as are Cache of the Month Systems which is what I was trying to address by casting a wider net and getting some kind of generalized cache community input. The current system is simple cronyism. Get your friends to vote for it, and you'll get it. My extended thought as detailed above was that the best caches would get the most marks. Even if someone wasn't in the habit of ranking finds they might stop to do it on one that was especially memorable, for whatever reason that particular person found it so. Evil urban hide - Very memorable. Great view - Very memorable. Super-cool puzzle - Very memorable. If you go through your finds once a year and try to remember the caches you've done, I wonder how many caches most could without reading the logs. I am sure there are a substantial number of cachers who don't take the time to investigate and plan their "caching day." I, like many, find small windows of opportunity to make runs for a handfull. If I'm traveling I will run a queue and upload to my GPS and I'm out the door. With that information in hand, I have nothing more to go on that the basics. Name/Difficulty/Terrain/Type/Size. That's it, and that's my caching style and I'm not alone. I am not a hard core, investigate every cache and read all the cache logs beforehand kind of guy. Maybe I just have to live with the consequences of my approach to the sport. But, if I could also get a sense of Reward for my intended hunt, I might go for some I wouldn't consider and skip some I would. Maybe it's just another set of attributes instead of a ranking system so I could use the current query tools. I don't know. If I'm going through a town with 30 caches and have time for 5, I would certainly like to do the most creative and memorable ones in that town, especially if I don't think I'll ever get back there. I would just like to understand what's coming down the pike with this new release and be able to provide some Beta feedback before it goes live. So far, I have no idea what this new feature will be...

Because, as you have already discovered, rating systems do not work. If you search teh forums, you will see that some have even pulled their caches of the site you found due to the numbers being greatly skewed without merit, much less the fact that individuals generally have taste that vary to s significant degree. While I take the point, I think your statement about rating systems not working well is perhaps too generalized. I agree that a cache with a few users who got burned or had a difficult time finding it posting poor marks may not reflect the quality of the cache which could be really good. Maybe the view was spectacular and the cacher was too busy hunting to notice or it was a foggy day. But, inevitably, that poor mark will be tempered by a handful of other cachers who DID have a great experience and DID enjoy the challenge and DID take in the scenic view. For example, it is almost futile to look at a review or rating of a major appliance since you get either REALLY poor reviews from a few people who got shafted by the manufacturer or the retailer and then get a handful of people who chine in to defend the product even though it might actually be a piece of crap. But then, just by looking at that review page, I know right off the bat that I don't want the product. On the other hand, when I go to Epicurious and look up a recipie, a majority of the respondents are genuinely interested in taking the time to review the recipie so others in the community don't end up making a dish that sucks! Those reviews I trust. If I see a 3.5 or 4 star out of 4, I know it's going to be pretty darn good. I think it depends on the product and the target audience. As a whole, I think the Geocaching community is a pretty fair group of individuals and would not unfairly add poor reviews to an undeserving cache. Not that I'm saying that it wouldn't happen, but that it would be the exception, not the rule as you suggest.

Rule #1, keep modifications of off-the-shelf software to a minimum. Why? Because it becomes a nightmare when it's time to upgrade that software. If a drop-in module already exists to do this, that's another story. But if not, sorry. I'd say it's not going to happen. Besides, why not let people use whatever HTML editor they're comfortable with? It does, after all, make more sense to do this off-line, and then just send it to the site once, rather than hitting the server over and over, doing the testing on a live cache page. That also encourages people to keep an off-line copy of their cache page, just in case. Not to mention all the HTML you need for a cache posting can be learned in less than 5 minutes. DCC I'm a graphic designer and even dabble in web design. But I tend to do everything through an interface and am just not HTML brained. It does take me some trial and error to get my pages right, even though I've published over 100 caches, most of which are in HTML and include graphics, marquees and the like. I'm just saying that it would be nice to have, even for me, a semi-capable cache publisher. The Goecaching community as a whole is no longer a bunch of tech savvy ah... somethings (perhaps that's how it began) but increasingly welcoming a greater number of people who have just enough skill to navigate a web site and use a GPS, which is just about every other person on the planet these days. But if it is a nightmare to implement than forget it. I need to find a nice, easy to use (MAS OSX) HTML editor I guess. I will say that, all-in-all I find the process of publishing my cache more cumbersome painstaking than I think it should be.

Seems to me that making cache publishing easier should be a high priority. I spend half of my time when devoloping caches going back and forth between the edit listing page and the pre-publish page checking to see if all of my hand coded <tag>s are placed in the right spots and that the page looks the way I want it to. in the process, I spend less time on the listing itself and it shows up with erroneous clues or misspellings. I am constantly being asked by other cachers, "how I go about placing an image on a cache page", or "how do I create a hyperlink to another source of information". There are lots of creative cachers out there who aren't familiar with HTML tags and therefore are being limited by their own lack of knowledge. I find it ironic that it is a simple matter to add flourishes to this forum page, where they're rarely needed {except to link to other listings} but a rather difficult matter to add flourishes to cache listings where they are. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a whole bunch of juiced up cache listings with multi-color copy just for giggles, it should serve a purpose. On the other hand, for those of us who like to make captivating cache listings, it shouldn't be so laborious... if is doesn't have to be.

I found exactly what I had in mind: http://www.ratethiscache.com/ Only, why would I want the list to be limited to the caches posted in that list? This features should be implemented system wide and available on all caches when logging a find..

Remember : any system where you rely on counts (positive, negative, specific notes...) is flawed. Simply because the number depends on the number of visitors. A cache (or a hider) near a large city or a populated area will get more hits. Similar, a cache (or a hider) which (who) is operational for a long time will have more hits too. Please don't go for cheap solutions which look attractive and simple when they fail otherwise. Anyword on when the new site is going to be up and running? Not necessarily, as long as the system is built with consideration of those limitations in mind. Here is a post I pulled from another spot on this topic: I'd like to supply a list of rewards, who want is? I am quite sure that this has probably been discussed and if so I apologize beforehand. What are the chances that a simple cache rating system could be implemented into the "visit" cache page when logging finds? The reason I ask is that there is a cache recognition process in place called Cache of the Month (at least in Wisconsin there is) and this process is flawed in that it relies on regional word of mouth to solicit votes for favorite caches. What is does is recognize halfway decent caches based on a single cachers ability to communicate to other cachers he/she knows that a certain cache has been nominated and should be voted for. What is isn't is a system designed to highlight some of the most creative and unique caches in the State. I would propose a simple ranking system, stars or similar icon, to rate caches in a few discernable categories like: 1. Location 2. Container 3. Creativity 4. Memorable 5. Recommend At the end of the month, the top 20 caches could go into a list and be voted on by the geocaching community as a whole, a list derived not by nomination, but by objective evaluations of caches visited that month. A really difficult Puzzle cache found by 5 people might get 1 star for location, 1 star for container (keyholder for example), 5 star for creativity, 4 star for memorable, and 5 star for recommend. Another traditional cache on a high cliff found by 20 people might get a 5 star for location, 1 star for container, 1 star for creativity, 5 star for memorable and 4 star for recommend. Both caches, depending on the weight assigned to the categories and frequency of visitation might come out to about the same rank and end up on the months top ranked caches, even though the puzzle cache would never get nominated under the current system which necessitates a high degree of visitation to get nominated, or it doesn't stand a chance. Of course it would have the added benefit of giving cachers an idea if they should even attempt to go after a cache. A cache that is a mile down the trail that is not memorable, is in a poor location and isn't very creative might then be ignored by cachers who don't have much time to spend caching. At the same time, other that might seem like simple grab and go's and could get overlooked might not be if they had a high score. I find that the difficulty and terrain are simply not an accurate representation of cache creativity, I've done plenty of 1/1's that are memorable and conversely, many higher designated caches that are wholly forgetable. It seems like there is a little more room in the Geocaching world to recognize the effort and creativity of the best and brightest beyond the logs which are sometime copy/pasted by cachers who don't have the time or intrest in adding glowing marks when they have 30-50 caches to log and this could be a functional solution with any number of benefits. There, I think I'm done....

Contact Team Deejay in Wisconsin, they'll get you started down the right path. Our lonely cache game started Jan 1st and they'd done an outstanding job of monitoring the reports and getting the game off to a great start in this state.