JZRed

Why do them at all? Because you don't realize it's a "+1" until you get there. and to show my opinion of these cache , "Just for statistic purposes" This cache has nothing to do with my understanding of Geocaching" Regards JZ

......... Just to explain. You write about something you can also named much more friendlier. I suggest to use the word "Trend" or "Tendence" And yes this Trend are displayed but it is displayed by each and ever Cache type. If I do not like long distance multies/Puzzels.. I did not rate them....

I am not a handicacher but I found that offensive. You can have a high quality cache that a handicapped person could search for and find. Besides, some handicachers are more mobile than others. Mentioned above was very offensive. right! But I belive it is truth. So many Caches around me are waste in my eyes. I take a lot of them with me because they are on my way. But I start to log them with one comment "+1" without TFTC or anything else... Some people around me starting to do the same..... It is not realy fair but my effort is as big as the effort for this caches was. Regards JZ

If one of my caches were rated low I would probably assume that people who rate caches simple don't like long hikes or hard puzzles. But I know the minority that enjoys theses cache really enjoy them and would not like to see any go away because a majority rates it low. In fact if I had an LPC and it was rated low, I would assume again that the majority of people who take time to vote may not like this type of hide. But I would know that the many people who find this cache and and thank me for it would not like these to go away either. The elitist who believe that their view of "quality" is universal may think that those that thank me for an easy LPC would really prefer a better "quality" cache and that the ratings will prove this. If the ratings prove anything it will be that a few cachers who believe that there is a universal view of quality will now have a filter they believe will allow them to filter based on there definition of "quality" as something that is determined by popular vote. Perhaps they will get a better mix of "quality" to lame than just selecting caches randomly, or maybe they will just think they are getting a better mix. I think in a other kind of way. If I do not like a long walk I will not do the Cache. But a lot of peoply wo enjoy in long walks will do the cache and rate it with a experince they made in compaison with other caches they made.. it is the same with puzzle caches... IF I enjoy I will do it an I have the experince to rate the cache too.... Regards JZRed

We have a winner! Now that someone finally got it, here's a baseline standard to start with. Cache is maintained Cache contents are dry Trash is minimal or not evident (This does not say business cards are trash, that's an individual opinion.) Log book is usable. There may be a couple of other items I missed. Everything else pertaining to type, style and location is a preference. If you like to display every preference than you can say good by to each rating system. Why you are so secpticly. Again the above metnioned toold works in Germany with success..... But it is not implemented in the Goundspeak side... that the reason for my posting. A steady growing growed of people use a system which obviusly works well. Why we can not start to use is inside of the GC.com side? It is a pitty that you can not read in the German "green" forum, and it is a pitty too, that I can not translate everything.... Regards JZ

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them? http://www.handicaching.com/ Again, you're missing the point. JR849 called hiking caches high quality caches. A wheelchair bound cacher may have a differing opinion of that. Again, your post proves my point this group of people cannot come up with a baseline of standard quality. Indeed this would be a tough game for the handicapped. That isn't a tought game...... I did not get your point!!! A System who says only recommended or not recommended in a scale between 1 to 5 Star displays no disadvantage for handicaped people! You have attributes which can be selected if you combine such kind of new rating system with the PQ it is absolutly an advantage for each member in our community... Because with this query you find on one side all Caches which can be found by handicaped people and on the other hand you see high rated caches as highlight on the tour. Regards JZRed I know a little about handicapped people, my son has been in a wheelchair for 22 years. He will NEVER be able to find a cache. I know how those with some physical difference in their body than others even go so far as to think they have no handicap! My good friend's son was born with no arms and his leg bones needed many surgeries to allow him to walk with braces. Recently while going shopping with a friend of his, the friend parked in a handicap spot and said he did it for Jesse, Jesse said to him, "but I am not handicapped." He has overcome much and is an achiever. That is great but there are many others who this game simply would be too difficult for no matter what the number of the hide rating or terrain. Jesse could play this game and I bet he would even get to some 3's and 4's with no arms even! Hi have worked a long time with "handicaped" people too( as civallian servant) and sometimes iI am in contact during my "second work" (german red cross organisatzion) today. I know that's life isn't easy but honestly, dandicapped people ar not not second class human from my sight (not saying that I read that in your posting). Futher I belive that we would not discriminate them with a rating system. Or do you think so? Regards Jürgen

It could be that I did not get your point. But each child needs a development. Without a starting point, we will never get any kind of system. Because we will find everywehere, problemens, errors and so on.... But If someone on systemside work on it, the "child will become an adult" but fist we need the child. Regards JZ

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them? http://www.handicaching.com/ Again, you're missing the point. JR849 called hiking caches high quality caches. A wheelchair bound cacher may have a differing opinion of that. Again, your post proves my point this group of people cannot come up with a baseline of standard quality. Indeed this would be a tough game for the handicapped. That isn't a tought game...... I did not get your point!!! A System who says only recommended or not recommended in a scale between 1 to 5 Star displays no disadvantage for handicaped people! You have attributes which can be selected if you combine such kind of new rating system with the PQ it is absolutly an advantage for each member in our community... Because with this query you find on one side all Caches which can be found by handicaped people and on the other hand you see high rated caches as highlight on the tour. Regards JZRed

Amazing, isn't it? Some people just don't understand that the best kinds of caches are blinkers hidden in plain sight on public sculptures, caches with "evil" 4-star camouflage, and puzzles with great "Aha!" moments. They want large caches with swag for their kids, or locations that can be accessed only with special equipment (4x4, climbing gear, scuba, etc.), caches they can find within 5 minutes, or other irrelevant things that they mistake for "Quality". Absolty agree. Thats what I think too. But if you use a PQ together with that additional rating you reach a better "selection" and if you plan a tour in a region you never been befor. You find more of your personal highlights.... Futher we all in the same community. Why? Easys we have all the same basement/Hobby. We love to find stashs but each of us has prefences which can be selcted with attributes and with a rating system you will find only the best of them. A easy tool like GC-Vote is not able to provide you a real measurement of quality but a indication of it and it protect you against a huge effort(e.g. looking in each listing of the unkown region) and provide you more highlight on your trip. Regards Jürgen

Geocaches are not Groundspeak's "product". The listing service is Groundspeak's "product". Geocaches are the "product" of the cache owners. Not from my point of view, because they need the listings to provide her service. So it is a composition of both.

Again, I like to repeat my questions to Groundspeak I like to repeat my questions to the Groundspeak team: Is there something in the working pipeline? If yes, whats the schedule of implementing? If no, why not? Is there no need to check the "quality" of your product? Best Regards JZ

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them? Not every wheelchair user wants to log a skirtlifter cache, does he? ;-) With a ratingsystem based on Groundspeak it could be possible to search for caches with wheelchair-icon and a higher quality. No one have to be segregated. We already have icons available for caches and they are not being used by the majority of hiders. My point is what you determine to be high quality can be a low quality by someone else in different circumstances. A rating system is based on a base line standard and you don't have that with this game. Heck, this small group in this thread can't come to terms for a base line standard. You can come up with one, and I can point out a contradiction. Hi, as I know the community is adviced to use the differnent attribut icons. Maybe this is a special "problem" in your region. Because the attributes are used in our region Furhter I can not believe that the understanding of "Quality" is so much different. You can read in other postings. that a rating system can work for all of us (Geocaching platform in Os, GC-Vote members). It is your right to be scepticly but. I can not read in any log a real argument again a rating system.(Futher You can ignore the rating, if you not interested because of different reasons) general: Only one...... Groundspeak will not accept that some caches stashes are waste (?of time?) and from month to month we have more low quality cache (for handicaped people too) in the database. But I think if we want a rating system we will get one. If you are able to read in the green forum (www.geoclub.de) you will find more and more people who has lost the fun for this hobby because of so much low quality caches around his home Koords. There is no need to look into the big glas bowl, that these leads to a "diminishing" community ---> less premium members --> less money for Groundspeak. I say that a combination of attributes for preference (surely we have to add some) together with a Rating System (how ever it ist called e.g. "Quality" "recommendition") will bring us forward and will help to find caches much more easier. That Tool is an investment in the future. I didn't know any product/Brand sold a long without a high quality. Bad quality leads automaticaly to dissatisfied customers. This is hopefully not the target of Groundspeak Best Regards JZ

Do you actually use it to plan your cache tours? When I look on your profile the first page of your last found caches shows many unrated caches and the highest rating is 3 stars (out of 5). Yes I will use is for my next real tour. Buf If you read my listing I found it on Monday my last log is from Sunday!!! Further you will see that my last found are all in my "homezone" So I have to do it out of several reasons which has "nothing" to do with quality

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too. It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund. See, that right there is my point. You'd give it a thumbs up if you thought it was a cut above. I won't even look for it so my thumbs down won't be cast and thus can't average out your opinion. We end up with a playground cache that is highly rated yet for me that rating is useless in helping me maximize my caching experience. I like to remember that I found in Germany a tool called GC-Vote which is from my point of view a good starting point. The current existing resuls of vote displays that very good Caches reach 5 Stars and worse caches end with one Stars. GC-Vote ratingtool That means from my point of view that Quality is measureable althrough differnet understanding of Quality exist. JZ

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too. It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund. That's called mediocrity. There are other sites that have tried to control the quality of the ratings, but it still comes down to them being easily manipulated and skewed. I call that politics. If it's going to be implemented, I want mine opted out not opted in by default. I don't care for the idea in any implementation that's been brought up and I've seen this bandied about since I joined. I've gotta say, I'd rather no rating system than an open popularity contest. A system that is based around user preference is not that open contest. Nothing on the cache page to indicate that it is popular cache. The only return is to the individual user who gets a list that says "others who rated this cache similar to you also enjoyed these caches." That a very good extension. I think that I read something about this in the green(german) forum too!

Why not use the existing tools such as the satellite maps to "look" at the spot before going there? If you see the spot is in a parking lot or it's behind a building with loading docks in the picture, chances are it won't be "worthy," but if you see that it's at the end of a dead end road, overlooking a lake or ocean, it will most likely be a nice view from the cache. Hi with a simple rating method I like to avoid more work.. If I have a look into maps or in the listing... both is additional work... Futher a good map qualtiy e.g from Google Earth is only availabe in urban regions. (valid for Europe - dont know status of other regions) Regards Jürgen

You are assuming that ALL cachers will see "quality" in the same light as you. Look through these forums - you can quickly discover that some people pefer certain types over others. A wheelchair bound individual is going to rate caches along the local pathway as quality because they can reach them. An outdoor enthusist will rate the same caches low because they provided no long walk. A kid will rate any cache with low quality swag as low while and adult might appreciate the unique container despite the contents. A simple "quality" rating is just going to have a bunch of 3 star caches. It won't tell if you if you will enjoy it. Thanks for this answer. I am aware of different understandings of "Quality" but I can not imagine that a lot of people like wasty places and futher the result of the program like GC-Vote mentioned above show me that I am right. The evalution of Caches around me are OK and I can share(meaning: live with this result) it. With this simple rating system you are able to see: This cache could be nice or not. Without any views into the Listing. Some days ago there was no need for a rating System because there are not so many (to many?) caches online. Today the situation changed dramaticly. Let me make an example: If I made an PQ with all cache around my Home Koords. I see caches in a distance of max. 30km. Which one is worhty to visit? I didn't know it, also I have 2. possibilities. 1. asked someone. 2. I have to check it Listing by Listing. Thats a work I didn't like.... With a simple tool I can minimize my own effort Regards JZ

Pocket Queries are your friends here. First you should limit the sizes to regular and large, maybe small. Then set up the minimum difficulty and terrain to something like 2 or 2.5. Then see if the caches turned up by this better fit your idea of a quality cache. For me it works. Caveat: You have to drop the numbers game. And more importantly you must stop thinking about "missing" any caches. You are only searching for the next interesting caches, not for all caches. This would also be true with a rating system as then you would "limit" yourself to quality rated caches (otherwise there would be no point to have one). PQ are not my friend because I like Micos/Nannos If they are placed in a nice or "worthy" enverioment!!

Sorry to say that, but a top 10 List is not the requirment I have. It's nice to have but did not display what I want. I like to have a possibility to avoid micro/nano cashs placed in a "dirty" or absoluty uninterssant environment. I like to have a chance to see a good cache with a great riddle oder great hike or a nice story combind with a good location on the fist view, w/o reading each Log in the Listing. For me it is a good solution to put into the Log sreen "ONE" criterium "Quality of Cache" this could be shown in the listing beside Diff and Terrain. I know that this is just a "start" which can be developed. In my eyes this could be good starting point. Regards from Germany JZRed P.S. Yesterday I found the following Link: http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/index_en.php

Hi Groudspeak. I often hear in that last time, realy load screams of people here in Germany. A lot of them want a rating system for Cache Stashs on the Groundspeak platform. Do you think it ist poosible to develop someone? Background. As you know the numbers of Caches rise day by day. Each Cacher feels qualified to place a Cache in his enverimoment. From my point of view leads this development to a lot of Cacheboxes which are hiden under Wasteboxes or in beam barriers beside the roads. Three years ago when I start with my wonderful "Sport". I thougt. Each Cache is worthy to vist. I went on wonderfuls trails and visit perfect nice and charming locations naturaly I was on the hunt for smilies Today the world has changed a bit. A lot of cache stashes are hide because every Cachers feels "bad" If he is not a owner of any kind of Cache. These kind of Caches ar realy often perfect for a fast hunt. But for Cachers who wants to break out of a busy word of stress, these kind of caches are not visible at the first view. Thats a pity.... So my question is. Is there something in the working pipeline? If yes, whats the schedule of implementing? If no, why not? (The features of the last time are wonderful but the above mentioned system is from my point of view a major change which we need to reach a high qualtiy of Cache on this platform) Thanks for answers Regards JZ

Hi Guy's I am looking for an JPG of the TB Icon. The problem is the size. Because I needed as big as an DIN A4 letter sheet. Is someone of you able to provide me such kind of picture,graphik? Best Regards JZRed

Thanks I know how I am able to compare the logs of two Cachers. The problem is that sometimes Caches which we have definately loged are "unlogged" Hi, thanks for your support I startet to print srceen shots form each log and will look for more "disapeared" logs if I found a new one I will provide here an new example. Thanks a lot for your investigation JZRed

Hi, i like to say thanks to all. I bought the coins from coinandpins.com some weeks ago, furhter I am really optimistic that the owner of both coins (Code 3 and red helmet) found me *g* But if someone else thought he/she has an insteristing coin found than you can contact my via e-mail Best Regards JZRed

I forgot, some weeks ago I found an red fire fither helmet, but I can not find it again. Does someone of you know where I can buy this coin, too?

Thanks I know how I am able to compare the logs of two Cachers. The problem is that sometimes Caches which we have definately loged are "unlogged"