Jump to content

Counting Finds


gerboa
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Since some finds may be achieved when picking up the groceries, while others require nights of brainstorming and an expedition of days, should the number of finds reflect the effort?

For example a 1/1 and a 5/5 and everything in between could use these numbers as a factor.

I doubt if I'm the first to think of this and I guess we are too far down the road for change.

Sort of like the Olympic Gold for the Decathlon and one for Lawn Bowls.

Edited by gerboa
Link to comment

The smiley is the great equalizer. The parking lot micro and the hike up the mountain are worth exactly the same.

 

It's one of the things I like best about this game. You really can't make it competitive if everything is apples and oranges.

 

You might try the listing site with the point system.

 

If not competitive why count at all ?, and from posts here it's a big deal..who has the most etc..etc.

Personally I'm indifferent to counting/scoring, but to see counts made as a basis of authority seems nonsense.

Link to comment

Hey! you think Lawn Bowls is easy, try it on top of the mountain!

 

As you point out, the playing field isn't level. My stats reflect my caching, to me. Some caches were extraordinary, some were extraordinarily poor. Are they all valued the same to me? No. But I recieved important information about myself from each of them. I grow as a cacher with each find and each hide. I refine the way I play the game. I look forward to each find and each hide, and don't worry much about numbers.

Link to comment

For me, caching is a fun way to get out and explore my world. More than anything, I use cache pages as trail guides to help me find the special and different places wherever I happen to be.

 

My smilie count is only a nice record I can look back on and remember where I have been.

Link to comment

A find is a find and the type and difficulty of the caches you hunt is entirely up to you. Let's just keep it simple and enjoy geocaching the way it was meant to be enjoyed. In the big picture, numbers mean nothing and the rewards you find along the way mean everything.

Link to comment

The problem I see with using this as a score is that people really don't have a clue how to rate the difficulty. It's so very subjective. I can shoot up a 300ft rockpile with 1meter + strides and not be winded. Someone wheelchair-bound would find that to be pretty impossible without a helicopter.

 

I can rappel aussie-style down a cliff in the middle of the night in a "lightly arrested freefall". The average person would fall to their deaths not having been trained to do that. So that x/5 for me is an x/2. For someone else it's an x/aint-never-gonna-happen.

 

I've seen a 4.5 rating that was about 20ft off a paved trail over flat ground. I've seen 1.5s that were an hour hike over rock piles - of course, I later figured out there was a fireroad or paved trail (or major roadway) within feet of it.

 

A cache is what you make of it. The more work the owner put into it, the more enjoyment I get, the longer my log entries...

Edited by Adrenalynn
Link to comment

Don't see the need for it. The smileys count the number of finds you have, not the quality of them.

Those are counted in your logs and memories and that's enough for me.

 

Well said, to many people are into the numbers way to much as it is this would just add fuel to the fire.

 

Just go find a cache and be happy about it!

:D

Link to comment

The smiley is the great equalizer. The parking lot micro and the hike up the mountain are worth exactly the same.

 

It's one of the things I like best about this game. You really can't make it competitive if everything is apples and oranges.

 

You might try the listing site with the point system.

 

If not competitive why count at all ?, and from posts here it's a big deal..who has the most etc..etc.

Personally I'm indifferent to counting/scoring, but to see counts made as a basis of authority seems nonsense.

Because it keeps track of where I have been. In a numbers sense, I don't care how many I have, or you have. Sure, I'll toss a 'gratz' to milestone hitters, but outside of that, MYOC (Mind Your Own Count) and I'll do the same.

 

As far as authority, I'd say experience would be a better word, and there is logic to that. If by authority you mean people standing on their high horse and bragging how much greater they are than everyone else, well... THAT is nonesense of which I will have no part. But truthfully, how much of that really happens?

Link to comment

If I were thinking of how the rating system might be changed, it'd lean more towards the granularity of ratings. 1-5 isn't enough... A 1-10 scale, or a split-scale for the difficulties would be more realistic.

 

Right now, a paddleboat required 150' off a calm lake/puddle is the same 5 terrain as a cache requiring a powered respirator, a tyvec bunnysuit, and a 25' rapel into an abandoned nuclear reactor's fuelrod containment area... Gotta admit that's kinda silly. Sure - they both require "special equipment". But the special knowledge needed to operate a kiddie-boat is not quite the same as that needed to make a wreck dive off a zodiac in unsheltered atlantic waters...

Link to comment

System doesn't need changing. I have DNF'd a cache only to have the next few cachers log a "quick cache and dash.," and vice versa. How can you rate something like that? It is not a competition, nor does it have to be. I don't really care how much anyone else caches and how tough their finds are. I do my own thing. Happy caching to all, have a ball.

Link to comment

I don't really care how much anyone else caches and how tough their finds are. I do my own thing. Happy caching to all, have a ball.

 

If you go after a "real" 5/5 - you'd BETTER care how tough the find is! Nothin' like waking up dead at the bottom of a 200ft fall to say "gosh, wish I'd cared a bit more how tough that really was. . ."

 

And that's my point: Many 5/5's just aren't. Someone does a 5/5 in a paddle boat and probably thinks they're more prepared for the next one than they probably are.

Link to comment

Since some finds may be achieved when picking up the groceries, while others require nights of brainstorming and an expedition of days, should the number of finds reflect the effort?

For example a 1/1 and a 5/5 and everything in between could use these numbers as a factor.

I doubt if I'm the first to think of this and I guess we are too far down the road for change.

Sort of like the Olympic Gold for the Decathlon and one for Lawn Bowls.

 

Can't we just go geocaching and enjoy the activity for what it is and why we each want to do it? Why does everything have to develop into some sort of competition?

 

Why not just go out, find some caches and have fun doing just that?

Link to comment

Since some finds may be achieved when picking up the groceries, while others require nights of brainstorming and an expedition of days, should the number of finds reflect the effort?

For example a 1/1 and a 5/5 and everything in between could use these numbers as a factor.

I doubt if I'm the first to think of this and I guess we are too far down the road for change.

Sort of like the Olympic Gold for the Decathlon and one for Lawn Bowls.

 

Can't we just go geocaching and enjoy the activity for what it is and why we each want to do it? Why does everything have to develop into some sort of competition?

 

Why not just go out, find some caches and have fun doing just that?

 

Why not make the 'found' count visible only to the account holder?

Link to comment

And that's my point: Many 5/5's just aren't. Someone does a 5/5 in a paddle boat and probably thinks they're more prepared for the next one than they probably are.

 

I see your point. However, that paddle boat might just be a 5/5 for that person. Sure, the next 5/5 they attempt could be waaaay more difficult, but it could be waaaaay easier, also. For any proposed rating or scaling solution, as long as it introduces someone's judgement to assign a value it's gonna be completely subjective.

 

My 5/5 could just as easily be your 2/3. You just have to go out and try them for yourself. Read the logs. Email the owner and ask questions. Read the cache descriptions.

 

Not every cache rated ?/? is for every person. Heck, I've seem some 1/1 caches that could bake your noodle. Does that mean someone who conquered a 5/5 wouldn't have to expend the same energy? Who knows? There's just no consistent way to do this any time you introduce a human element.

Link to comment

If I were thinking of how the rating system might be changed, it'd lean more towards the granularity of ratings. 1-5 isn't enough... A 1-10 scale, or a split-scale for the difficulties would be more realistic.

 

Right now, a paddleboat required 150' off a calm lake/puddle is the same 5 terrain as a cache requiring a powered respirator, a tyvec bunnysuit, and a 25' rapel into an abandoned nuclear reactor's fuelrod containment area... Gotta admit that's kinda silly. Sure - they both require "special equipment". But the special knowledge needed to operate a kiddie-boat is not quite the same as that needed to make a wreck dive off a zodiac in unsheltered atlantic waters...

And that's why you read the cache descriptions, which will be much more explanatory than a number rating.

Link to comment

If I were thinking of how the rating system might be changed, it'd lean more towards the granularity of ratings. 1-5 isn't enough... A 1-10 scale, or a split-scale for the difficulties would be more realistic.

 

Right now, a paddleboat required 150' off a calm lake/puddle is the same 5 terrain as a cache requiring a powered respirator, a tyvec bunnysuit, and a 25' rapel into an abandoned nuclear reactor's fuelrod containment area... Gotta admit that's kinda silly. Sure - they both require "special equipment". But the special knowledge needed to operate a kiddie-boat is not quite the same as that needed to make a wreck dive off a zodiac in unsheltered atlantic waters...

And that's why you read the cache descriptions, which will be much more explanatory than a number rating.

So what's wrong with a filtering system that helps eliminate - or in my case, LOCATE - such things?

 

What I'm proposing is simply more granularity.

Link to comment

If I were thinking of how the rating system might be changed, it'd lean more towards the granularity of ratings. 1-5 isn't enough... A 1-10 scale, or a split-scale for the difficulties would be more realistic.

 

Right now, a paddleboat required 150' off a calm lake/puddle is the same 5 terrain as a cache requiring a powered respirator, a tyvec bunnysuit, and a 25' rapel into an abandoned nuclear reactor's fuelrod containment area... Gotta admit that's kinda silly. Sure - they both require "special equipment". But the special knowledge needed to operate a kiddie-boat is not quite the same as that needed to make a wreck dive off a zodiac in unsheltered atlantic waters...

And that's why you read the cache descriptions, which will be much more explanatory than a number rating.

So what's wrong with a filtering system that helps eliminate - or in my case, LOCATE - such things?

 

What I'm proposing is simply more granularity.

The problem (as I see it, anyway) is when do you stop? If you have a worked out scale with descriptions that would be more helpful to me visualizing it than a general "canoe <> 200' cliff", that would be great.

 

Also, for an experienced cliff-climber (do they have a name for that?) a 200 footer might be dead easy, but someone like me, a 10 foot cliff scares the stuffing outta me. So a '5 but really a 2' for him/her, is a 5 but reallly 11' for me. There's a lot of judgement call in there, based upon the readers skills.

 

There may well be a great way to do what you are thinking, but I am not creative enough to see it. Show me! :D If it makes sense, then I'll be all for it.

Edited by New England n00b
Link to comment

Since some finds may be achieved when picking up the groceries, while others require nights of brainstorming and an expedition of days, should the number of finds reflect the effort?

For example a 1/1 and a 5/5 and everything in between could use these numbers as a factor.

I doubt if I'm the first to think of this and I guess we are too far down the road for change.

Sort of like the Olympic Gold for the Decathlon and one for Lawn Bowls.

 

It's an interesting take on things, but akin to keeping score when you play solitaire :) The biggest problem I see is that it would show very little about how much "caching" you actually did. The last few weeks for us have been a good example. We've only hit one cache, but we've climbed thousands of feet and hiked dozens of miles through the mountains for maintenance runs and scouting for a bunch of new multi-caches. Those experiences are just as important to caching as actually running out to find a cache. Not every place you explore will be a good for a cache, but many of them may be a 4.5 terrain requiring hours of effort. Those numbers mean something different to everyone. For us, it's mostly a way to keep track of how many we put out and how many we're taking in. :)

Edited by fox-and-the-hound
Link to comment

You can't refer to geocaching as a 'sport' at the same time that you complain that there should be no competition. Anytime you get a bunch of testosterone involved in any activity, it will eventually turn to competition. Last time I checked, the domain "eunuchcaching.com" is still available to those that are interested :anicute:

 

One of the best new features that was implemented was the email instant notifications of new caches. What fun trying to get the First to find! I never met another cacher until this new feature. Wait, that's competitive isn't it? With competition comes innovation. And this "SPORT" is so darn fun because of the amazing innovations.

 

Want to see the result of lack of innovation? Check out letterboxing sometime.

Link to comment
Want to see the result of lack of innovation? Check out letterboxing sometime.

 

Probably one of the dumbest comments I've seen in a long time.

 

As far the MYOC-type comments, we don't cache in a vacuum. Even if we mind our own count, their are others that will attempt to drag us into it anyway. This happens on at least a couple of levels. Neither are healthy. I've commented on these numerous times so I won't go into it again here.

 

I will repeat I'd rather go in the opposite direction and remove all smilie counts from the site. Alternatively, allow a cache owner to remove the ability of his own caches to increment a count. Yes, I understand I can do just that off-site, "I'm working on it."

Link to comment

Since some finds may be achieved when picking up the groceries, while others require nights of brainstorming and an expedition of days, should the number of finds reflect the effort?

For example a 1/1 and a 5/5 and everything in between could use these numbers as a factor.

I doubt if I'm the first to think of this and I guess we are too far down the road for change.

Sort of like the Olympic Gold for the Decathlon and one for Lawn Bowls.

 

You're not the first to think of it. Check bullet point 3 on THIS link.

 

Some people are interested in competiton and some or not. To each their own.

Link to comment

The smiley is the great equalizer. The parking lot micro and the hike up the mountain are worth exactly the same.

 

It's one of the things I like best about this game. You really can't make it competitive if everything is apples and oranges.

 

You might try the listing site with the point system.

 

If not competitive why count at all ?, and from posts here it's a big deal..who has the most etc..etc.

Personally I'm indifferent to counting/scoring, but to see counts made as a basis of authority seems nonsense.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that anyone is granted any 'authority' based on his/her find or post counts? If you are indifferent then why did you even start this thread; is your popcorn supply running a bit high? :anicute: I think the current counting system is just fine.

 

I like knowing what my numbers are but do not care what you think about them. I also do not care about your numbers, or those of anyone else. BTW both of my numbers are in the 2-3K range, and my find count is greater than my post count. But that's just how I like to play; YMMV. :yikes:

Link to comment
Want to see the result of lack of innovation? Check out letterboxing sometime.

 

Probably one of the dumbest comments I've seen in a long time.

 

The truth can be hard to hear sometimes. There are many letterboxing sites, but it's not a very organized activity. Why? Because it's not innovative and because of that it didn't catch on like geocaching did. The geocaching.com website is amazing because of how innovative it is. Do you think Jeremy would have been able to create such a fantastic website without the support of the hordes of geocaching members throughout the world? On the other side of the coin, why do you think there is not a fantastic letterboxing website? (the answer is lack of innovation). Why am I dumb for noticing this CoyoteRed? Just because you enjoy letterboxing doesn't mean it doesn't lack innovation.

 

The more 'COOL' 'INNOVATIVE' features that Jeremy adds to the website, the more attractive the 'SPORT' will become. Without the website, geocaching is no better than letterboxing.

 

The idea that I can drop an ammo can in the woods and someone will find it THE SAME DAY speaks volumes. My sister is an active letterboxer and rarely gets emails when people find her letterbox and it can take months before someone finds it initially.

 

To Groundspeak: KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK AND INNOVATION

To CoyoteRed: SHUTUP AND GO FIND A LETTERBOX :)

Link to comment
Want to see the result of lack of innovation? Check out letterboxing sometime.

 

Probably one of the dumbest comments I've seen in a long time.

 

The truth can be hard to hear sometimes. There are many letterboxing sites, but it's not a very organized activity. Why?

 

The main reason is that they do not WANT the level of organization that geocaching has. They are happy with only the clue lists and the lower numbers participating. In fact, many are unhappy that the clues are listed online at all. Letterboxing.org is simply a clue repository with little else. AtlasQuest.com has a bit more. Very very few (and none of those who starting the boxing hobby in the US) want comments on boxes, a count clicker, an approval board, etc so it's not that they are suffering. They are enjoying their level as it stands and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any more "innovations" to the hobby.

 

I may, or may not, agree with them, but if they're happy, then more power to them :)

Link to comment
Want to see the result of lack of innovation? Check out letterboxing sometime.

 

Probably one of the dumbest comments I've seen in a long time.

 

The truth can be hard to hear sometimes. There are many letterboxing sites, but it's not a very organized activity. Why? Because it's not innovative and because of that it didn't catch on like geocaching did. The geocaching.com website is amazing because of how innovative it is. Do you think Jeremy would have been able to create such a fantastic website without the support of the hordes of geocaching members throughout the world? On the other side of the coin, why do you think there is not a fantastic letterboxing website? (the answer is lack of innovation). Why am I dumb for noticing this CoyoteRed? Just because you enjoy letterboxing doesn't mean it doesn't lack innovation.

 

The more 'COOL' 'INNOVATIVE' features that Jeremy adds to the website, the more attractive the 'SPORT' will become. Without the website, geocaching is no better than letterboxing.

 

The idea that I can drop an ammo can in the woods and someone will find it THE SAME DAY speaks volumes. My sister is an active letterboxer and rarely gets emails when people find her letterbox and it can take months before someone finds it initially.

 

 

Are you in management?? Has anyone else played buzz word bingo???

 

Back on topic:

 

I think the system is just fine. It cool too see the high number, but I don't really think much of them.

Edited by Polar B's
Link to comment

I don't think you know what the term innovative means. Letterboxing was highly innovative. Geocaching essentially revisited the same idea, i.e. not as innovative.

 

Maybe you mean "popular".

 

I am aware of what the term means. What you wrote above is EXACTLY my point - "Letterboxing 'WAS' highly innovative". Past tense. No longer innovative. That's my point. My post was not meant to put down letterboxing, but to showcase what is so great about geocaching.

 

I understand that a lot of people like letterboxing and I have no problem with that. Heck, record players were innovative in their time, but now we have CD's. Yet you still find people that swear by record players. That's all...

 

To everyone that didn't call me dumb - "Have a great day!"

To CoyoteRed (who called me dumb) - "Comparing geocaching to letterboxing is like comparing 8 tracks to CD players" <-- a bit more accurate I think

To Maingray - "You are right! It's more popular too. Good one."

 

Here's the definition:

 

adj 1: ahead of the times; "the advanced teaching methods"; "had advanced views on the subject"; "a forward-looking corporation"; "is British industry innovative enough?" [syn: advanced, forward-looking, modern] 2: being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before; "stylistically innovative works"; "innovative members of the artistic community"; "a mind so innovational, so original" [syn: innovational, groundbreaking]

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment
To CoyoteRed (who called me dumb)

 

Naw, you just have a reading comprehension problem. I called the statement you made dumb. I can only make a judgment on what you say and I called the statement dumb. I don't know you so I don't know if you are dumb.

 

But, since you won't let this go, let's explore further, shall we? What exactly were you trying to get at with this quote, "Want to see the result of lack of innovation? Check out letterboxing sometime?" On what level are you trying to compare the two activities? By website? By the number of folks participating? What? Can't really argue a point unless we clarify why you think letterboxing is somehow inferior.

 

(Do I see some popcorn icons?)

 

Let me just close this post with this little tidbit of information; there are a goodly-sized portion of folks here that also letterbox. Trying to somehow insult letterboxing (go ahead a back peddle all you want, but your message was clear) you insult letterboxers, as well. That means you insult a portion of the population here. Good job.

Link to comment

CR, don't bother, you'll never change his mind. He's too enamored with our innovations, like:

 

1. Parking lot/lamp post hides. Letterboxing is sure sorry they missed out on that idea.

2. Nano's. Oh, look! I don't have to carve as large a stamp!

3. Smilies. LB'ers have to content themselves with a physical log book filled with unique stamps, while gc'ers get to collect a bunch of electronic smiles that all look the same. Technology rules!

 

There are more, but those are just examples.

Link to comment

CR, don't bother, you'll never change his mind. He's too enamored with our innovations, like:

 

There are more, but those are just examples.

 

Both activites have crap hides and good hides. Comparing either is stupid, much like CR's comments.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...