Pretty Stars

[Jeremy]

Additionally the term "Winter Friendly" must be taken in context with respect to the expectations of the region.

It is "available in winter." It should be taken in context with the location which should be obvious.

[cezanne]

As long as there is no definition of what those attributes stand for, it is quite difficult to use them.

Use you're best judgement. It's not rocket science. There's no penalty if you don't get it perfect. But *something* is better than nothing.

I do not agree at all. Attributes that are not used in a standardized way are worse than no attributes at all because if there are no attributes, the motivation is higher to read the description and refrain from making incorrect deductions from some attributes which are interpreted in different ways by different cachers.

 

If someone does not know what the limit of sin(x)/x is for x tends to zero, I rather prefer that he gives no answer at all instead of saying that is 1.05 which is wrong.

 

Moreover, as long as attributes remain searchable only for PMs, the motivation for non PMs to use attributes will not be that high.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

Additionally the term "Winter Friendly" must be taken in context with respect to the expectations of the region.

It is "available in winter." It should be taken in context with the location which should be obvious.

But how do you define Winter? I know many caches that cannot be found when there is snow and in those regions snow can be found in Autumn and Spring as well.

 

And how do you define "available"?

 

Cezanne

[Jeremy]

But how do you define Winter? I know many caches that cannot be found when there is snow and in those regions snow can be found in Autumn and Spring as well.

 

And how do you define "available"?

 

Cezanne

Will the attribute for the listing be helpful to a geocacher or won't it? If it won't then why use it?

 

If you can look at a cache listing and its placement and go, "yes, I think this would be useful for a geocacher to know" then you apply an attribute. If you can't figure out what an attribute does then don't use it and wait for someone to recommend that attribute for your listing instead.

 

I do not agree at all.

 

That's your prerogative. I don't agree with your argument so we can agree to disagree on this one. They're used to provide helpful information for a listing and I completely disagree that attributes will deter people from reading the description. In fact I believe behavior would show that people pay more attention to the description than ignore it.

[+JDandDD]

They're used to provide helpful information for a listing

I happen to find the attributes quite useful. If a cache shows not available in winter then I won't try it when there is significant snow on the ground (fall, winter, or spring) unless people are having success or I am in the region anyway. Similarly poisonous plants tell me to take precautions before I try the cache and be on the lookout.

 

I don't expect symbols to be perfect and I do expect that I still have to use my own best judgement when doing any cache. And yes I always read the descriptions.

 

JDandDD

[cezanne]

But how do you define Winter? I know many caches that cannot be found when there is snow and in those regions snow can be found in Autumn and Spring as well.

 

And how do you define "available"?

 

Cezanne

Will the attribute for the listing be helpful to a geocacher or won't it? If it won't then why use it?

 

You did not answer my questions at all.

The problem is that "the geocacher" does not exist. One geocacher will feel that a certain attribute is appropriate while the next will think that it is completely wrong to use that specific icon. I am aware of quite a number of discussions about the meaning of several attributes.

 

Even attributes as the P for parking available are not defined in a way that means the same to everyone. I came across a cache which is marked by the public transportation icon, but not by the parking icon - the nearest station of the subway and the nearest parking lot are at a distance of about 500 meters from the cache. I agree with the cache owners that their usage of the icons is correct as typically users of public transportation do not expect to be able to go directly to a specific location and 500 meters is a short walk while typically car drivers do not feel that a parking possibility at a distance of 500 meters (I am talking of a city cache and not a cache in a forest area) is not something which needs special mention in a city (at least not if the parking is not available free of charge). There are, however, other caches who feel that either both attributes should be set for that specific cache or none of them.

 

While this example does not result in heavy discussions, the situation is more delicate as icons like the "available in Winter" and the "recommended for kids" icon are regarded.

 

If you can look at a cache listing and its placement and go, "yes, I think this would be useful for a geocacher to know" then you apply an attribute. If you can't figure out what an attribute does then don't use it and wait for someone to recommend that attribute for your listing instead.

 

One typically will receive contradictory requests.

Moreover, as soon as I start to use icons, people will start to deduce incorrect statements from icons are not present. For example, one can get exposed to ticks at almost every cache in my home region, even caches in the city. For that reason, local cachers use the tick icon (if they use icons at all) only for those caches where the density of ticks is untypically high. Using no attributes at all and mentioning untypically many ticks in the text of the cache description does a better service to the community as a whole from my personal point of view. Foreign cachers will be less tempted to deduce from a missing tick icon that there are no ticks and local cachers will still get the information whether at a certain place an untypically high population of ticks is to be expected.

 

Cezanne

Edited December 29, 2005 by cezanne

[+The Blue Quasar]

So we're arguing about the wordings and expectations of what the actual Attribute Images and Decriptions are?

 

What do you do when you seek a cache that is rated as a 3 Terrain and you feel it should be a 2.5 ? Or a 4?

 

Attributes are supposed to be 'additional suggested support' and vague at best. Guideline might be a better term.

 

As a parent, I would never dream of letting a movie company or censorship board determine if I could or couldn't take my child to see a film. I'm sorry I don't know the exact terms used in the USA but I assume they are similar.

 

PG (aka, PG-13 or AA - Adult Accompanyment) is actually a SUGGESTION by the movie business. If I want to take my 12 year, I have that right. And if my 16 year old wants to see a movie that is PG and I don't agree with the rating... he ain't going!

 

So, taking the definitions or wordings of the attribute as gospel may not be wise. And trying to get a tight package that is very specific is not the idea of an image, that would be better served in the cache description itself.

 

In the Disclaimer on every cache page it clearly states

Geocaching, hiking, backpacking and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property. There are many variables including, but not limited to, weather, fitness level, terrain features and outdoor experience, that must be considered prior to seeking or placing a Cache. Be prepared for your journey and be sure to check the current weather and conditions before heading outdoors. Always exercise common sense and caution.

 

There is no way that everyone can agree on finite terms for winter, nearby, available, recommended or the countless other terms that are open to individual interpretation.

 

Attributes are just for help, but they aren't going to do all the work. There are too many variables to try to cover.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+JDandDD]

There is no way that everyone can agree on finite terms for winter, nearby, available, recommended or the countless other terms that are open to individual interpretation. 

 

Attributes are just for help, but they aren't going to do all the work.  There are too many variables to try to cover.

 

The Blue Quasar

Absolutely right Blue. And I would add that individual interpretation is also somewhat regional. We both live in the same region of the country but in such different areas that what you might call winter available might not be in the snowbelt where I live and vice versa. And that's Ok because the interpretations we make when we put an attribute on our cache are accurate for our specific locales.

 

A cacher has to use their judgement at all times when caching and that goes with attributes. If I'm geocaching in your area I take the nature of your area of the region into account and when you've been up here I'm sure you did the same thing.

 

Given the worldwide nature of the sport it would be impossible to give completely specified definitions for attributes that would be accurate in all parts of the world. So I think you're right on saying that attributes are another guideline not a specific rule.

 

JDandDD

Edited December 30, 2005 by JDandDD

[+Lil Devil]

Well said, Blue Quasar!

[cezanne]

[

Absolutely right Blue. And I would add that individual interpretation is also somewhat regional. We both live in the same region of the country but in such different areas  that what you might call winter available might not be in the snowbelt where I live and vice versa. And that's Ok because the interpretations we make when we put an attribute on our cache are accurate for our specific locales.

If the attribute system works well in your local area, than it is fine. My experience is that it does not work well at all in my country. We use to have debates about the meaning of many icons. (Some of the controverses are due to the fact that the descriptions of the icons you get on the attribute page and by moving the mouse over the icon differ for some icons.)

 

Take for example the kid icon mentioned above. If there is no such icon, then the parents have to decide by themselves judging from the text whether the cache is recommendable for their children. This avoids complaints of the type that the cache does not offer special attractions for children. The main source of debate is not whether a cache is dangerous or too difficult for children - the term "recommendable" is just too subjective. In my opinion, it is almost impossible for a cacher without children to decide what parents of children in a particular age might consider as recommendable.

 

My personal conclusion is that I am better off with using no icons at all because this keeps the amount of discussion low.

 

Cezanne

Edited December 30, 2005 by cezanne

[+fishingdude720]

Bah! Humbug! I'm probably the only one, but I don't like the new stars. The old stars were slightly bigger, brighter, and easier to see at a glance. They also matched other GC colors and were different for difficulty and terrain.

on the pdf printouts the stras are bigger and same old colors.

[+Search1128]

I like the GC code in the corner, but I would suggest that it be in the upper left instead of upper right since all the other cache identification info is on the left side of the page (name, coords, distance, map, small gc code, etc.) then chage the words that currently are in the upper left (traditional cache, etc) to the right hand side since that is where the characteristics and attributes are anyway. Seems more logical to me that way. Good job though!

 

I like the idea of changing the stars back to the original colors but with shaded/greyed empty non-stars to complete the "X out of five" concept. I also like the idea of using Signal's head for the stars. (but not to cut it in half for half a "star" maybe do a mini-head for half...)

 

Thanks again. I love what you have done with the place!

 

Kirk out.

[+Prime Suspect]

With the nice addition of the GC number in the corner, would it be possible to put a check mark next to it if you've found it before?  There's no real way to tell other than remembering every cache you've done (names change) or go through the logs.  This would be very useful when people directly link to a cache page!

I've update the Totals by Log Type Greasemonkey script to go one better than that.

 

In the upper right, it now shows a summary of all the logs you've posted to a cache page. Click on the date, and it repositions the cache page to show that log.

 

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I much like the new stars -- they remedy the deficiencies of the old stars. And, I like the user waypoint ID at the top corner of the page... thanks! Happy New Year to all!

[+ChileHead]

I don't care one way or another, but how are the new stars different/better than the old ones?

[+Prime Suspect]

I don't care one way or another, but how are the new stars different/better than the old ones?

They're 37% shinier!

[+The Blue Quasar]

They aren't better or worse than the old ones.

 

They do seem a bit smaller. They are new, and people like to see things change once in a while. It's the little tweaks that keep things fresh instead of stagnant. For me, the stars mean very little, I seek them all. The container size tells me much more. At least I know where to consider looking.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Enchanted Shadow]

Just to toss in a really quick observation, personally, I hate the new stars. It makes it a lot harder to tell at a glance what's what - *especially* for half-stars.