OK Old schoolers

[+Cornerstone4]

The only way that I can get respect as a noob is to place AS MANY caches and find as many caches as I can. There are little rewards for placing an excellent cache.

I don't agree with this.

 

There is a local cacher that doesn't have enough time to participate. However, the few caches she has placed have been very creative, and she got a ton of great feedback. I always look forward to her hides.

 

There is also another cacher that has proven herself to be very adept at camoflage. Not a huge numbers person, but what she puts out is quality stuff.

 

One of my best buds that I introduced to caching fell in love with skirt-lifters, guard rail, and fence cap hides! To my chagrine, he quickly had nearly 100 of those types of hides out! I took a lot of flak from some of the other locals for the proliferation of "lame" hides. I talked to him about them, and tried to get him to raise the bar a bit, but he told me to read the logs on his caches...sure enough, many of them had glowing logs from other new cachers! He told me that he thought he was doing the game a service by putting out easy finds to help folks get a start in the game before they graduate to difficult hides...I told him I thought he was just encouraging more folks to put out caches like that...

 

We still don't agree, but he's still my bud!

You know, C4, that guy has a point. If all the caches up in your area were as creative as yours, including "Tower of Power," newbies would never find any caches and they would take up golf, or paintball, or . . .

 

Thank you!

 

I have a few successful hides...but I have my fair share of lameness out there too!

[+TrailGators]

I don't care what you read! But let's try make it easier for others to avoid the books they don't want to read!

 

I'll bite. How?

One good way is to remove all the authors and all their books that we don't like from our own personal booklists.

[+TrailGators]

The only way that I can get respect as a noob is to place AS MANY caches and find as many caches as I can. There are little rewards for placing an excellent cache.

I don't agree with this.

 

There is a local cacher that doesn't have enough time to participate. However, the few caches she has placed have been very creative, and she got a ton of great feedback. I always look forward to her hides.

 

There is also another cacher that has proven herself to be very adept at camoflage. Not a huge numbers person, but what she puts out is quality stuff.

 

One of my best buds that I introduced to caching fell in love with skirt-lifters, guard rail, and fence cap hides! To my chagrine, he quickly had nearly 100 of those types of hides out! I took a lot of flak from some of the other locals for the proliferation of "lame" hides. I talked to him about them, and tried to get him to raise the bar a bit, but he told me to read the logs on his caches...sure enough, many of them had glowing logs from other new cachers! He told me that he thought he was doing the game a service by putting out easy finds to help folks get a start in the game before they graduate to difficult hides...I told him I thought he was just encouraging more folks to put out caches like that...

 

We still don't agree, but he's still my bud!

You know, C4, that guy has a point. If all the caches up in your area were as creative as yours, including "Tower of Power," newbies would never find any caches and they would take up golf, or paintball, or . . .

 

Thank you!

 

I have a few successful hides...but I have my fair share of lameness out there too!

Pobody's Nerfect! I liked your Beep Beep cache the best. That one was a riot! Edited May 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Snoogans]

Re-read this entire thread.

 

The issue isn't that the game has gotten better or worse, but so diverse, with all of the new players and methods, that it will never be everything that everyone wants.

 

For example, the more I cache, the more I realize that I like the idea of the micro. I trade rarely, outside of coins, due to the frustration of the junk in caches around here. Obviously, a lot of people also detest micros and love heading out into the woods for a big ammo can hunt. I like this, too, but I'm a bit short of big, fat forests to cache in, so I enjoy my method.

 

I've said this before -- Geocaching.com is more or less a library now. You don't read all the books in a library. You find something that works, and go for it. The issue is really ensuring that everyone finds what they're looking for, or helps them discover something they weren't.

 

Aesthetics don't enter into the equation. What I like or you like is for no one else to decide.

 

Who's deciding anything? I think a lot of you guys put words in people's mouths that were never said to make some kind of case. Using the analogy, I think many of us just want a list of the action/adventure/thriller/etc. books and we don't want to have to open up every book in the library to figure out which book is which. Some of you like any book. That's fine! Read the entire series of Adventures at the Garbage Dumpster. I don't care what you read! But let's try make it easier for others to avoid the books they don't want to read!

 

 

I've pretty much given up responding to you on any serious topic, but here goes....

 

 

Dude, do you actually read your posts before you submit them? Try puttin' on BIGGER blinders next time you look for a cache to hunt. Your wish has been answered.... kinda. I noticed this on my NEW cache page today. Never seen it before: ...other caches hidden or found by this user.....

 

 

Now all ya gotta do to put your BIGGER blinders on is click the "hidden" link on a cache you didn't like or don't think you'll like and poof, your percieved crappy caches go buh bye as soon as you ignore every one of them on that list. Heck, you can start with mine it's a park and grab on an old derelict logging truck near a parking lot. Just look at the terrain and difficulty. I must be an idiot to give such a high rating to a png. My other caches should be ignored. I'm clearly a sub par cache hider.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2007 by Snoogans

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

I don't care what you read! But let's try make it easier for others to avoid the books they don't want to read!

 

I'll bite. How?

Thats the question, now isn't it?

I too am waiting for an answer.

Personally, I think a rating system could work, however, others seems to think that plan would be easily corrupted.

 

Others think that turning it over to the apparent oligarchy that actually runs the sport (aka TPTB aka Groundspeak, Inc.) by way of creating a new cache type is the way to do it. Personally, I would have hoped that we as a community could at least come up with a possible solution as opposed to "running home to daddy".

 

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

[+cache_test_dummies]

I don't care what you read! But let's try make it easier for others to avoid the books they don't want to read!

 

I'll bite. How?

Easy. Just require every cache owner to enable the Cache Rating System As Voted By Your Peers display on their pages:

 

[+Snoogans]

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

 

 

Ummmm, get over yourself and enjoy what's out there already by taking responsibility for your own choices.

[+Snoogans]

I don't care what you read! But let's try make it easier for others to avoid the books they don't want to read!

 

I'll bite. How?

Easy. Just require every cache owner to enable the Cache Rating System As Voted By Your Peers display on their pages:

 

 

 

[+TrailGators]

Re-read this entire thread.

 

The issue isn't that the game has gotten better or worse, but so diverse, with all of the new players and methods, that it will never be everything that everyone wants.

 

For example, the more I cache, the more I realize that I like the idea of the micro. I trade rarely, outside of coins, due to the frustration of the junk in caches around here. Obviously, a lot of people also detest micros and love heading out into the woods for a big ammo can hunt. I like this, too, but I'm a bit short of big, fat forests to cache in, so I enjoy my method.

 

I've said this before -- Geocaching.com is more or less a library now. You don't read all the books in a library. You find something that works, and go for it. The issue is really ensuring that everyone finds what they're looking for, or helps them discover something they weren't.

 

Aesthetics don't enter into the equation. What I like or you like is for no one else to decide.

 

Who's deciding anything? I think a lot of you guys put words in people's mouths that were never said to make some kind of case. Using the analogy, I think many of us just want a list of the action/adventure/thriller/etc. books and we don't want to have to open up every book in the library to figure out which book is which. Some of you like any book. That's fine! Read the entire series of Adventures at the Garbage Dumpster. I don't care what you read! But let's try make it easier for others to avoid the books they don't want to read!

I'm clearly a sub par cache hider.

Sorry you feel that way....Look, if you can tell me which books in my local library are from the Adventures at the Garbage Dumpster series, the Lamp Post Forever series or the Amazing Guardrails series I will be forever be in your debt. All I know is that they are all on the first floor of the library, and they are mixed together with some very good books on that floor. Edited May 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

 

 

Ummmm, get over yourself and enjoy what's out there already by taking responsibility for your own choices.

You must have me confused with someone else.

I'm the newbie who has no real pre-conceived notion and thinks its just incredible that people are hiding treasure out there for my kid's to find.

I'm also the guy who seems to notice that people want the ability to more easily sort through the listings to find caches that more fit their desires.

 

Sorry, I was just trying to help.

[+TrailGators]

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

 

 

Ummmm, get over yourself and enjoy what's out there already by taking responsibility for your own choices.

You must have me confused with someone else.

I'm the newbie who has no real pre-conceived notion and thinks its just incredible that people are hiding treasure out there for my kid's to find.

I'm also the guy who seems to notice that people want the ability to more easily sort through the listings to find caches that more fit their desires.

 

Sorry, I was just trying to help.

 

I'm not sure why he slammed you. Don't worry about it, I get it all the time from him. Anyhow, I do think we can come up with some more ideas!

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Want to know how 'old school' caching was? You too can see- even if you joined just today!

 

Here ya go:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+Snoogans]

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

 

 

Ummmm, get over yourself and enjoy what's out there already by taking responsibility for your own choices.

You must have me confused with someone else.

I'm the newbie who has no real pre-conceived notion and thinks its just incredible that people are hiding treasure out there for my kid's to find.

I'm also the guy who seems to notice that people want the ability to more easily sort through the listings to find caches that more fit their desires.

 

Sorry, I was just trying to help.

 

 

 

I'm sorry. I should clarify. I can understand how I caused the confusion.

 

 

In my post, by "your" and "yourself," I was talking to everyone. I didn't mean to make it appear to be you that I was singling out. Sorry for the brevity.

[+Totem Clan]

Want to know how 'old school' caching was? You too can see- even if you joined just today!

 

Here ya go:

 

 

 

That covers most it so well.

 

 

See my sig line. It works for the caching world as well.

[+TrailGators]

Want to know how 'old school' caching was? You too can see- even if you joined just today!

 

Here ya go:

 

 

 

That covers most it so well.

 

 

See my sig line. It works for the caching world as well.

That is a great post! Nice sig line TC!

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

 

 

Ummmm, get over yourself and enjoy what's out there already by taking responsibility for your own choices.

You must have me confused with someone else.

I'm the newbie who has no real pre-conceived notion and thinks its just incredible that people are hiding treasure out there for my kid's to find.

I'm also the guy who seems to notice that people want the ability to more easily sort through the listings to find caches that more fit their desires.

 

Sorry, I was just trying to help.

 

 

 

I'm sorry. I should clarify. I can understand how I caused the confusion.

 

 

In my post, by "your" and "yourself," I was talking to everyone. I didn't mean to make it appear to be you that I was singling out. Sorry for the brevity.

Hey, no worries. My skins a lot tougher than most, but thanks for the explanation.

 

And my vote still goes for rating system

Each PM can vote once when finding a registering a find for the cache

Categories with perhaps some examples for each

Scenic 1 to 5

Historic/Educational 1 to 5

Secluded (Stealth required) 1 to 5

Camo/Hide value 1 to 5

Distance from civilization 1 to 5

 

Maybe a few other categories, I dunno.

Edited May 17, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I just get tired of hearing some of the "old school" complain to no end...there are some individuals that 80% of the replies I've read from them are constant loathing about how the sport has declined.

 

What I would be interested in is hearing solutions.

Make a seperate cache type with a higher standard. That way there is a subset of caches out there for people that don't want to accept the change without complaining in every other thread about it. I hate some of the caches myself and I've seen a whole lot less, but I'll be damned if I am going to spend 80% of my time complaining about them.

Yet again...this is what this thread is for

 

Yet, most of what I've read is more whining.

 

If the whiners quit their whining, what would you have to whine about?

[+CheshireFrog]

One good way is to remove all the authors and all their books that we don't like from our own personal booklists.

 

Enhanced ignore features would be a help, but it does nothing to answer those who say that the proliferation of micros are taking up all of the available spots where traditional caches could be placed, or those that claim that they never saw a location where a micro was hidden that couldn't also accommodate a larger cache, or that micro placers are just padding their hide stats, or that micro seekers are just trying to inflate their smiley count, etc., ad infinitum.

 

Two points:

 

1. I'm with Snoogans; there's not just something for everyone, there's plenty for everyone.

 

2. The only thing that will end these threads is Armageddon and the second coming.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

or that micro seekers are just trying to inflate their smiley count, etc., ad infinitum.

Ok, here's one you old schoolers can teach a newbie like me. Arent micros, by their sheer size actually HARDER to find thus taking more time thus reducing smiley count? I dunno but those bisons in the pine cones could take me forever to find.

[+Snoogans]

Sorry you feel that way....Look, if you can tell me which books in my local library are from the Adventures at the Garbage Dumpster series, the Lamp Post Forever series or the Amazing Guardrails series I will be forever be in your debt. All I know is that they are all on the first floor of the library, and they are mixed together with some very good books on that floor.

 

 

I can't believe you are actually asking to be told rather than deciding for yourself.....

 

 

I keep hearing the refrain from Carlos Mencia's song playing in my head "so we lower the standards....."

 

 

Please don't take my use of the word "standards" out of context and use it to prove your point.

[+Too Tall John]

Someone's got waaay too much time on their hands...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Course, I might just have to stick that on a cache page just for fun...

[+TrailGators]

One good way is to remove all the authors and all their books that we don't like from our own personal booklists.

Enhanced ignore features would be a help, but it does nothing to answer those who say that the proliferation of micros are taking up all of the available spots where traditional caches could be placed, or those that claim that they never saw a location where a micro was hidden that couldn't also accommodate a larger cache, or that micro placers are just padding their hide stats, or that micro seekers are just trying to inflate their smiley count, etc., ad infinitum.

There will never be answers for those questions. So all we can really do is get more efficient at ignoring the caches we don't like so we can spend all of our time enjoying the ones we like. Right now it's a very inefficient and ineffective process trying to separate them. Unfortunately, the most efficient way is to just ignore all urban caches.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Sorry you feel that way....Look, if you can tell me which books in my local library are from the Adventures at the Garbage Dumpster series, the Lamp Post Forever series or the Amazing Guardrails series I will be forever be in your debt. All I know is that they are all on the first floor of the library, and they are mixed together with some very good books on that floor.

 

 

I can't believe you are actually asking to be told rather than deciding for yourself.....

 

 

I keep hearing the refrain from Carlos Mencia's song playing in my head "so we lower the standards....."

 

 

Please don't take my use of the word "standards" out of context and use it to prove your point.

Ok, playing the newbie card again (just because I can)

How does one decide for yourself if a cache is a Dumpster/Lamppost/Guardrail cache without:

1) Actually visiting the spot or

2) Individually opening each cache listing, reading the info, bringing up the map. etc.

 

I think thats what people are looking for. A way of automatically doing a more granular filtering/sorting/querying so as to keep the types of caches they like and avoid the types they don't. I dont think anyone is arguing that it can't be done the manual way.

Edited May 17, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+Snoogans]

Sorry you feel that way....Look, if you can tell me which books in my local library are from the Adventures at the Garbage Dumpster series, the Lamp Post Forever series or the Amazing Guardrails series I will be forever be in your debt. All I know is that they are all on the first floor of the library, and they are mixed together with some very good books on that floor.

 

 

I can't believe you are actually asking to be told rather than deciding for yourself.....

 

 

I keep hearing the refrain from Carlos Mencia's song playing in my head "so we lower the standards....."

 

 

Please don't take my use of the word "standards" out of context and use it to prove your point.

Ok, playing the newbie card again (just because I can)

How does one decide for yourself if a cache is a Dumpster/Lamppost/Guardrail cache without:

1) Actually visiting the spot or

2) Individually opening each cache listing, reading the info, bringing up the map. etc.

 

I think thats what people are looking for. A way of automatically doing a more granular filtering/sorting/querying so as to keep the types of caches they like and avoid the types they don't.

 

 

So we lower the standard...... Just kidding.

 

 

Click on google maps and look at the satellite photo if location aesthetics are your issue, otherwise you got it.

 

 

An afinity protocol like Amazon.com uses might help, but I have no idea how it could be implemented in a way that would please everyone or if it's even possible. It has been discussed before.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Snoogans

[+cache_test_dummies]

I think thats what people are looking for. A way of automatically doing a more granular filtering/sorting/querying so as to keep the types of caches they like and avoid the types they don't.

Some are looking for this. Others are suggesting that such a feature is not necessary.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that it can't be done the manual way.

I think the argument is about the effectiveness of the manual efforts.

 

edit: when I say manual efforts, I'm talking about the research method, not an actual visit to the site. A visit is obviously a highly effective way to determine the nature of the cache, but not necessarily a very efficient way of doing so.

Edited May 17, 2007 by cache_test_dummies

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

I think thats what people are looking for. A way of automatically doing a more granular filtering/sorting/querying so as to keep the types of caches they like and avoid the types they don't.

Some are looking for this. Others are suggesting that such a feature is not necessary.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that it can't be done the manual way.

I think the argument is about the effectiveness of the manual efforts.

 

I cant see what the harm in such a Feature would be. That would be like saying the Dewey Decimal system in the library is not necessary. Maybe, but it sure makes finding books on a particular subject easier.

 

As for the effectiveness of the manual system, it is possible in some rare instances to not be totally effective, but you'd have to be rather particular about your caches if after seeing an arial photo of the spot, reading the infomation, and checking out all the finders feedback and photos you still couldnt determine if this was your kind of cache.

 

I guess I would have to side with the group that would prefer to spend more time outside caching and less time in front of the computer researching.

Edited May 17, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+Renegade Knight]

...

And my vote still goes for rating system

Each PM can vote once when finding a registering a find for the cache

Categories with perhaps some examples for each

Scenic 1 to 5

Historic/Educational 1 to 5

Secluded (Stealth required) 1 to 5

Camo/Hide value 1 to 5

Distance from civilization 1 to 5

 

Maybe a few other categories, I dunno.

 

This road was explored when Opencaching was giving things a shot. It gets to complex to where people won't actually use that type of rating system.

 

That brings us back to a Netflix style which is simple to rate but more work for the site to match things up. Or a simple "Yes I like it" such that the best of the best start to stand out. The few that have universal appeal.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I cant see what the harm in such a Feature would be.

The harm would come from the implementation of an imperfect system. An imperfect system could cause you to hunt for caches you won't like, or to miss caches you would enjoy.

 

Based on the numerous rating system discussions that have taken place over the years, it seems that a perfect system is out of reach. But some implementation suggestions have been received better than others, so there is some hope that such a feature might be available someday.

 

edit: extra word

Edited May 17, 2007 by cache_test_dummies

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

This road was explored when Opencaching was giving things a shot. It gets to complex to where people won't actually use that type of rating system.

 

That brings us back to a Netflix style which is simple to rate but more work for the site to match things up. Or a simple "Yes I like it" such that the best of the best start to stand out. The few that have universal appeal.

Well, I guess the hider can be the sole vote. If I'm not mistaken, the hider is the one who chooses the Difficulty and Terrain level right now, isn't he? I don't see a great deal of arguments about someone rating their own cache's Difficulty/Terrain too high or low. Why couldnt they be trusted to make their own determination for these other criteria?

 

I am fairly certain, if someone rates their caches too far off, we will hear about it.

Edited May 17, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+Renegade Knight]

This road was explored when Opencaching was giving things a shot. It gets to complex to where people won't actually use that type of rating system.

 

That brings us back to a Netflix style which is simple to rate but more work for the site to match things up. Or a simple "Yes I like it" such that the best of the best start to stand out. The few that have universal appeal.

Well, I guess the hider can be the sole vote. If I'm not mistaken, the hider is the one who chooses the Difficulty and Terrain level right now, isn't he? I don't see a great deal of arguments about someone rating their own cache's Difficulty/Terrain too high or low. Why couldnt they be trusted to make their own determination for these other criteria?

 

I am fairly certain, if someone rates their caches too far off, we will hear about it.

Check out the usage rate on Handicaching.com A more widely varied way to rate your terrain. You could actually us that site to pick out the caches requring a hike.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

I cant see what the harm in such a Feature would be.

The harm would come from the implementation of an imperfect system. An imperfect system could cause you to hunt for caches you won't like, or to miss caches you would enjoy.

 

Based on the numerous rating system discussions that have taken place over the years, it seems that a perfect system is out of reach. But some implementation suggestions have been received better than others, so there is some hope that such a feature might be available someday.

 

edit: extra word

Well, of course the system would be imperfect. Were talking about a system based on the subjective choices of many different individuals. But just because you cant make it 100% infallible does not mean it shouldnt be tried. Its the Microsoft plan, baby!!! Throw something together as best you can, toss it out there, and patch it as time goes on and flaws pop up.

 

Sure, you might end up with a dumpster cache rated a 5 in Scenic, but as more people go to the cache and vote, its rating will adjust to where it belongs. I seriously doubt 50 people will vote a dumpster cache a 5...but one or 2 might.

[+CheshireFrog]

2) Individually opening each cache listing, reading the info, bringing up the map. etc.

 

In the larger scheme of things, is that really that tough?

 

On a single web page you have access to:

 

- A description of the cache

- Any hints that the hider wants to pass on

- detailed maps of the cache site and the area around it

- Satellite views of the same

- Comments left by other cachers that did or did not find the cache

 

This is all assuming you don't also carry a Pocket PC or a Palm with your PQs loaded. Otherwise you're ignoring another important tool in the exclusion of "dumpster micros".

 

But let's say that is too tough. You load up waypoints and head off for a day's caching. You set a Go To, and as you approach the cache area you notice the bearing pointer is veering off to the left toward the Wal-Mart a block ahead. On entering the parking lot you see the pointer swing in line with a lamp post in the back corner.

 

Do you:

 

a. Set a Go To for the next nearest cache and leave?

b. Go ahead and grab the cache? What the heck, you're already here.

c. Make a mental note to go on the forums and tell everyone how micros are ruining your caching experience?

 

Enhanced tools will simplify the process of excluding the caches you don't like, but they won't make a dent in the tone or frequency of these threads.

Edited May 17, 2007 by CheshireFrog

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

2) Individually opening each cache listing, reading the info, bringing up the map. etc.

 

In the larger scheme of things, is that really that tough?

For me, who sits in front of a computer all day long, No. For someone who doesnt have that kind of time on their hands, I could see how it could be a problem.

 

This is all assuming you don't also carry a Pocket PC or a Palm with your PQs loaded. Otherwise you're ignoring another important tool in the exclusion of "dumpster micros".

 

I may be at the bottom of the learning curve on PQs. I cannot see how to construct one so that it, for example, includes woods micros but excludes dumpster micros for example.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Check out the usage rate on Handicaching.com A more widely varied way to rate your terrain. You could actually us that site to pick out the caches requring a hike.

Interesting site. Is there a way to tie that information into the cache listings here or tp my PQs from here?

[+Miragee]

This road was explored when Opencaching was giving things a shot. It gets to complex to where people won't actually use that type of rating system.

 

That brings us back to a Netflix style which is simple to rate but more work for the site to match things up. Or a simple "Yes I like it" such that the best of the best start to stand out. The few that have universal appeal.

Well, I guess the hider can be the sole vote. If I'm not mistaken, the hider is the one who chooses the Difficulty and Terrain level right now, isn't he? I don't see a great deal of arguments about someone rating their own cache's Difficulty/Terrain too high or low. Why couldnt they be trusted to make their own determination for these other criteria?

 

I am fairly certain, if someone rates their caches too far off, we will hear about it.

Since I had great fun hiking to this location -- two days in a row -- and placing the cache, along with three others to work as "breadcrumbs," I would rate it a '4' for "Entertainment Value" and "Scenic View." However, I can think of many others who would rate it a 'minus 4' because it is a difficult climb.

 

What I enjoy doing, and what others enjoy doing, or are capable of doing, skews the way a rating system might work.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

This road was explored when Opencaching was giving things a shot. It gets to complex to where people won't actually use that type of rating system.

 

That brings us back to a Netflix style which is simple to rate but more work for the site to match things up. Or a simple "Yes I like it" such that the best of the best start to stand out. The few that have universal appeal.

Well, I guess the hider can be the sole vote. If I'm not mistaken, the hider is the one who chooses the Difficulty and Terrain level right now, isn't he? I don't see a great deal of arguments about someone rating their own cache's Difficulty/Terrain too high or low. Why couldnt they be trusted to make their own determination for these other criteria?

 

I am fairly certain, if someone rates their caches too far off, we will hear about it.

Since I had great fun hiking to this location -- two days in a row -- and placing the cache, along with three others to work as "breadcrumbs," I would rate it a '4' for "Entertainment Value" and "Scenic View." However, I can think of many others who would rate it a 'minus 4' because it is a difficult climb.

 

What I enjoy doing, and what others enjoy doing, or are capable of doing, skews the way a rating system might work.

I guess that would be a good example of why having more rating criteria would be better, wouldnt it?

Then the cache could get a 4 rating on scenic (meaning more scenic) and a high Terrain rating (meaning hard to get to)

 

Take for example the level of granularity they have at handicaching.com for terrain vs. the simple terain 1-5 here. I can tell a lot more about the terrain to expect from that site. If I was picking my caches based on that criteria, it looks to me like I could get a more fulfilling caching experience using their terrain rating system.

Edited May 17, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+Renegade Knight]

... seriously doubt 50 people will vote a dumpster cache a 5...but one or 2 might.

 

You are making an big assumption about ratings. That people 'should't on average enjoy a dumpter' Thats technically not correct. Ratings are so are so that you, or I, can use the ratings to find the caches we enjoy. While I don't specifily enjoy a dumpster I do enjoy industiral slag and a lot of people don't. Thus they would rate those caches that I like low. Yet if I just try to go find low rated caches I may find a bunch of multi's, or swagless micros, that I really don't like most of the time.

 

The rating system you are thinking about gets complex when you start to try and factor in that different peole like different kinds of caches and so the ratings need to work for everone. Hence the suggestions of a netflix type system. Simpler ratings but more useful because it matches up people with similar taste and can actually suggest caches that I would (probabgly) enjoy.

[+Miragee]

2) Individually opening each cache listing, reading the info, bringing up the map. etc.

 

In the larger scheme of things, is that really that tough?

For me, who sits in front of a computer all day long, No. For someone who doesnt have that kind of time on their hands, I could see how it could be a problem.

This is all assuming you don't also carry a Pocket PC or a Palm with your PQs loaded. Otherwise you're ignoring another important tool in the exclusion of "dumpster micros".

 

I may be at the bottom of the learning curve on PQs. I cannot see how to construct one so that it, for example, includes woods micros but excludes dumpster micros for example.

If you use GSAK, what you can do is filter out all the Micros that have a Terrain rating of '1.5' or lower. That way you would not miss out on this cache which is a relatively-easy, less-than-.7-mile hike to a location with awesome views and many unique rock formations!!

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

... seriously doubt 50 people will vote a dumpster cache a 5...but one or 2 might.

 

You are making an big assumption about ratings. That people 'should't on average enjoy a dumpter' Thats technically not correct. Ratings are so are so that you, or I, can use the ratings to find the caches we enjoy. While I don't specifily enjoy a dumpster I do enjoy industiral slag and a lot of people don't. Thus they would rate those caches that I like low. Yet if I just try to go find low rated caches I may find a bunch of multi's, or swagless micros, that I really don't like most of the time.

 

The rating system you are thinking about gets complex when you start to try and factor in that different peole like different kinds of caches and so the ratings need to work for everone. Hence the suggestions of a netflix type system. Simpler ratings but more useful because it matches up people with similar taste and can actually suggest caches that I would (probabgly) enjoy.

I dont think I was suggesting "Enjoyability" as a rating. Thats just far too subjective.

But I would imagine an industrial slag cache might get a rating of 1 for scenic (least scenic) and 1 for distance from civilization (meaning urban/city) and probably a micro size . A search based on those critera has a good probability of finding the slag caches you might be seeking

[+TrailGators]

The rating system you are thinking about gets complex when you start to try and factor in that different peole like different kinds of caches and so the ratings need to work for everone. Hence the suggestions of a netflix type system. Simpler ratings but more useful because it matches up people with similar taste and can actually suggest caches that I would (probabgly) enjoy.

I like the Netflix system too because it does match up people with similar tastes. I also like the award system that Jeremy said that they were working on. Each cacher would give an award to their favorite caches and then the site would compile the votes to generate a list of all the award winning caches in each area. This would be awesome if you were traveling. Plus there is no wasted time trying to sift through caches. One thing that I have learned is that no matter what caches people like most seem to agree on which ones are outstanding. Edited May 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If you use GSAK, what you can do is filter out all the Micros that have a Terrain rating of '1.5' or lower. That way you would not miss out on this cache which is a relatively-easy, less-than-.7-mile hike to a location with awesome views and many unique rock formations!!

You could filter out anything less than a 1.5, but then you wouldn't see Rambler's Only Micro (gc is down so I can't link to it), a 1/1 micro in the woods outside a cemetery that is DNF'd more often than found and enjoyed, according to the logs, by the 100 or so folks who have found it in the last two years.

 

No ratings system will work for everyone. Every cache experience is subjective.

Edited May 17, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+fluffy&itchy]

 

I've said this before -- Geocaching.com is more or less a library now. You don't read all the books in a library. You find something that works, and go for it. The issue is really ensuring that everyone finds what they're looking for, or helps them discover something they weren't.

 

Excellent observation!

[+TrailGators]

 

I've said this before -- Geocaching.com is more or less a library now. You don't read all the books in a library. You find something that works, and go for it. The issue is really ensuring that everyone finds what they're looking for, or helps them discover something they weren't.

 

Excellent observation!

This is a good analogy except that it is much easier to find what you are looking for in a library. Plus you don't get smileys for every book you read. If you did, the library would be overflowing with tiny single page books.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

No ratings system will work for everyone. Every cache experience is subjective.

That is exactly why a less subjective system would be great.

 

Again, I say look at Handicaching dot com vs here. Let's say I am a world class stair climber and a cache requires me to climb 100 steps to reach. I might rate this as a terrain 1 but someone in a wheelchair might rate this as a terrain 5. Very subjective.

On Handicaching.com, you have more objective ratings (road surface, slope, distance to cache, etc.) These ratings are not really open to personal interpretation.

[+lindsychris]

Two distinctly different types of players seem to be emerging: Type#1 Those who feel any cache is a good cache and Type#2 those who think every cache should be a good cache. To co-exist and for the game to flourish, GC.com has got to find better ways for these two camps to participate in the same game. The core of Geocaching (and the group responsible for it's creation) is Type #2 and the danger is losing them IMO.

 

What I would be interested in is hearing solutions.

 

The solution in my opinion is straightforward, eliminate the Found count from cache pages and eliminate the Stats box from the main profile page. Numbers really serve no purpose, none at all and the emphasis on numbers has impacted the game in a very negative way, that is my opinion.

The problem I see today is that many new cachers feel they have to build up numbers quickly and the result is a lot of caches that are placed without any forethought. If newcomers saw the default was an activity without an emphasis on numbers they would be able to worry about quality rather than quantity. Removing a cachers Found count from cache pages and the Stats box from the main profile page would go a long way towards creating better caches, again, my opinion.

If that Found count wasn't hanging out there on every cache log like it actually meant something then it would really decrease the emphasis on the numbers, removing the Stats box would create a situation where you wouldn't see someone's numbers unless you wanted to.

You cannot force anyone to look at a profile so sticking the Found count back in the geocachers pants would be a big improvement over the current method of keeping it out all the time.

 

I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but personally, removing the find/hide count from the stats bar or the cache pages wouldn't change the way I play the game at all. I don't find a lot of caches because I want to see a big number next to our name-- I find a lot of caches because I LIKE caching, and when you enjoy something, you usually tend to want to do it fairly often. And we don't hide caches because we want to see a big number next to our name-- we hide caches so that other people who like caching will have caches to find, so they can enjoy it too. The numbers that the site tracks are just a residual effect of enjoying geocaching as much as possible, as often as possible, and in as many different ways as possible.

[+worldtraveler]

...You load up waypoints and head off for a day's caching. You set a Go To, and as you approach the cache area you notice the bearing pointer is veering off to the left toward the Wal-Mart a block ahead. On entering the parking lot you see the pointer swing in line with a lamp post in the back corner.

 

Do you:

 

a. Set a Go To for the next nearest cache and leave?

b. Go ahead and grab the cache? What the heck, you're already here.

c. Make a mental note to go on the forums and tell everyone how micros are ruining your caching experience?...

You're right; it's a tough choice: Do I do b, c, then a or b, a, then c? Edited May 17, 2007 by worldtraveler

[vtmtnman]

So this is the old schooler's solution to keeping the sport great?The rating system,correct?

[+Renegade Knight]

Check out the usage rate on Handicaching.com A more widely varied way to rate your terrain. You could actually us that site to pick out the caches requring a hike.

Interesting site. Is there a way to tie that information into the cache listings here or tp my PQs from here?

If cache owners made a practice of embedding that information inside their cache pages programs such as GPXsonar could filter it out and produce a rating that you sould see.

 

Back when we were working on some tweaks to the rating system I asked Fabian if he could do this and he said it was no problem.

 

Handicaching ratings are better than this sites ratings but they are still not quite where they need to be.

[vagabond]

Well lets see back in the good ol days I used to use a program called USAPhotomaps, similar to google sat maps. It wasn't the best if you had dial up.

It did a great job helping me decide what caches I wanted to do by showing trails, entry points, how to drive to that hidden Little park, etc etc. whether the cache was behind the mega mart or in the parking lot.

Yeah I know someone will come along and say the pics are dated, and the black and white pics are probably 5 years old, but the color pics are awesome a lot clearer then Googles

It seems like a lot of cachers do not want to take the time to look, they just want to plug in the numbers and go. Well if that's the way you want to cache then you deserve what you get.

What I'm trying to say is take a little time and plan out your day of caching and you'll have a lot more fun

Heck you could sit around in the evenings and check out cache locations instead of whining and arguing about how you can't find the caches you want because TPTB won't give you this or that.

[+CheshireFrog]

So this is the old schooler's solution to keeping the sport great?The rating system,correct?

 

Nope. Take away the smileys, add a rating system, banish micros to Waymarking, I really don't care. I'll still be out there looking for caches.

 

It's been said in here before: If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.