OK Old schoolers

[+TrailGators]

Question:

When people suggest that you write more than TNFN in the log, are they talking about the cache page on here or in the actual log book in the cache? Or both?

 

Generally, I let the kids write in the log book in the cache, so you dont normally get much but date and our name. I figure that prevents logbooks from getting too filled too quickly.

 

I do the logging on here and try to leave at lease a few sentences if I can.

I think most people that ask that are referring to the online logs. I try to add a little extra to mine, like "Yet another lamp post / guardrail / dumpster I would not have known about if not for caching". Another way is just to mention it's a nice day to be out caching, ignoring any references to the cache or location.

If people logged those by writing YALP SLTNLN. Then we could search the logs in GSAK for YALP, YALG or YALD.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

You're missing the boat on the "subjective" discussion I think...when you confine subjectivity to like-minded individuals then you utilize that subjectivity in a manner in which assists those people.

 

Versus simply opening subjectivity up to everyone on an open-ended rating system where there are no guidelines or standards to drive the initiative.

 

You can never eliminate subjectivity....you can, however, manipulate it toward a goal which is what my solution does (either solution I mentioned actually)

Ok, your making me think too hard too soon after lunch.

 

On your first point, I am not sure that is even possible. "Subjectivity" implies that different individuals within the group would have differing opinions based on their own personal experiences, desires, etc. Once you start grouping together like-minded people based on their opinion of that criteria, that issue ceases to be "subjective" and becomes "universal" (at least within that sub group). Therefore, you cannot confine subjectivity to like-minded individuals as it then ceases to be subjective.

 

By utilizing universal criteria (grade of slope, distance of hike, height of cache) and adding in some semi-universal criteria (picturesque setting, historical significance, etc.), giving each its own value to search by, a cacher can easier find the caches that fit his desires.

[+egami]

You're missing the boat on the "subjective" discussion I think...when you confine subjectivity to like-minded individuals then you utilize that subjectivity in a manner in which assists those people.

 

Versus simply opening subjectivity up to everyone on an open-ended rating system where there are no guidelines or standards to drive the initiative.

 

You can never eliminate subjectivity....you can, however, manipulate it toward a goal which is what my solution does (either solution I mentioned actually)

Ok, your making me think too hard too soon after lunch.

 

 

On your first point, I am not sure that is even possible. "Subjectivity" implies that different individuals within the group would have differing opinions based on their own personal experiences, desires, etc. Once you start grouping together like-minded people based on their opinion of that criteria, that issue ceases to be "subjective" and becomes "universal" (at least within that sub group). Therefore, you cannot confine subjectivity to like-minded individuals as it then ceases to be subjective.

 

Well, I disagree but at this point it's more semantical. However, to prove my point, show me a "universal" mindset that doesn't have a degree of subjetivity.

 

By utilizing universal criteria (grade of slope, distance of hike, height of cache) and adding in some semi-universal criteria (picturesque setting, historical significance, etc.), giving each its own value to search by, a cacher can easier find the caches that fit his desires.

 

Those criteria are indeed universal. What is not universal is the rating of those. For instance, you are the "old school" cacher, I am the "newbie" cacher. We both find the same cache. My average rating on a 1 to 10 scale is a 7 for the cache. Yours is 3.

 

What you need to take the subjectivity out of is the rating and not the criteria. You accomplish this by grouping like-minded people to narrow that subjectivity with a set of guidelines...which will still be somewhat subjective, but those guidelines will reflect what you call a "universal" mindset and those individuals that are along that same line of thought will be attracted, more or less, to the same caches.

[+Exocet]

Absolutely nothing has changed except for the amounts.

 

I hunted some of Dave Ulmer's geocaches and they were NOT in unusual or spectacular places. The only difference is that they were in 5 gallon buckets and at least one that I recall was buried.

 

Now there are lots and lots and lots of really hideous geocaches. It was, at one point, enough to make me stop geocaching for awhile.

 

There are lots of really good geocaches, too - it's just hard to find them which is why one of the features I'd love to see is a cache feedback rating system. We all hate bad caches and we comment as such in the logs but I don't think it's enough.

 

Until there are better ways to figure out if a cache is good or not ...or a cacher is any good... is just to look at their stats and the cache description and cross-reference it to maps and so on. Almost like buying something on eBay.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Those criteria are indeed universal. What is not universal is the rating of those. For instance, you are the "old school" cacher, I am the "newbie" cacher. We both find the same cache. My average rating on a 1 to 10 scale is a 7 for the cache. Yours is 3.

I wouldnt suggest giving a cache an overall ratings, again, that is subjective.

 

If we are talking about one of the universal criteria, say something like Slope (using handicapping.com's rating scale)

1 = flat

2 = 10% slope for less than 500ft

3 = 10% for more than 500ft

4 = 10-20% for more than 500ft

5 = more than 500ft or more than 20%

 

Sure, we could differ a bit on whether or not the slope was a 10% incline or if it was more than 500ft, but I gather we could make some fairly accurate approximations.

 

If its a 3, give it a 3. I doubt a old schooler would give something a slope rating of 1 and a newbie give it a 5.

[+sbell111]

Those criteria are indeed universal. What is not universal is the rating of those. For instance, you are the "old school" cacher, I am the "newbie" cacher. We both find the same cache. My average rating on a 1 to 10 scale is a 7 for the cache. Yours is 3.

I wouldnt suggest giving a cache an overall ratings, again, that is subjective.

 

If we are talking about one of the universal criteria, say something like Slope (using handicapping.com's rating scale)

1 = flat

2 = 10% slope for less than 500ft

3 = 10% for more than 500ft

4 = 10-20% for more than 500ft

5 = more than 500ft or more than 20%

 

Sure, we could differ a bit on whether or not the slope was a 10% incline or if it was more than 500ft, but I gather we could make some fairly accurate approximations.

 

If its a 3, give it a 3. I doubt a old schooler would give something a slope rating of 1 and a newbie give it a 5.

How many people are going to say 'Screw this' and give it a 3?

[+egami]

Those criteria are indeed universal. What is not universal is the rating of those. For instance, you are the "old school" cacher, I am the "newbie" cacher. We both find the same cache. My average rating on a 1 to 10 scale is a 7 for the cache. Yours is 3.

I wouldnt suggest giving a cache an overall ratings, again, that is subjective.

 

If we are talking about one of the universal criteria, say something like Slope (using handicapping.com's rating scale)

1 = flat

2 = 10% slope for less than 500ft

3 = 10% for more than 500ft

4 = 10-20% for more than 500ft

5 = more than 500ft or more than 20%

 

Sure, we could differ a bit on whether or not the slope was a 10% incline or if it was more than 500ft, but I gather we could make some fairly accurate approximations.

 

If its a 3, give it a 3. I doubt a old schooler would give something a slope rating of 1 and a newbie give it a 5.

 

Ok, that's all fine and dandy, but we aren't talking about an entire set of universal criteria to rate a cache....if we are then that isn't satisfying the request of the old school cachers.

 

It's not the amount of slope or tree coverage that are turning these people off.

[+Ed_S]

You bring up a good point.It's also getting harder for folks to be original with their caches because alot of it has been done already.

 

But why do they have to copy the lame hides??

[+sbell111]

You bring up a good point.It's also getting harder for folks to be original with their caches because alot of it has been done already.

But why do they have to copy the lame hides??

People copy the hides that they like.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Ok, that's all fine and dandy, but we aren't talking about an entire set of universal criteria to rate a cache....if we are then that isn't satisfying the request of the old school cachers.

 

It's not the amount of slope or tree coverage that are turning these people off.

I thought we were looking for a way to please all the groups? Given enough criteria, the old schoolers could filter for caches that met their desires as could any other sub group.

[+sbell111]

Ok, that's all fine and dandy, but we aren't talking about an entire set of universal criteria to rate a cache....if we are then that isn't satisfying the request of the old school cachers.

 

It's not the amount of slope or tree coverage that are turning these people off.

I thought we were looking for a way to please all the groups? Given enough criteria, the old schoolers could filter for caches that met their desires as could any other sub group.

Yet, as you add more and more criteria, your compliance rate will fall. People will either give average answers or they will simple not hide a cache.

[+egami]

Ok, that's all fine and dandy, but we aren't talking about an entire set of universal criteria to rate a cache....if we are then that isn't satisfying the request of the old school cachers.

 

It's not the amount of slope or tree coverage that are turning these people off.

I thought we were looking for a way to please all the groups? Given enough criteria, the old schoolers could filter for caches that met their desires as could any other sub group.

 

No single set of criteria will appease all groups...we are primarily talking about "old school" cachers and higher quality cache hides, but the principle I am talking about is true for all groups.

 

You are going to need to write out a set of criteria for me to demonstrate to you how this won't work effectively.

Edited May 17, 2007 by egami

[+TrailGators]

You bring up a good point.It's also getting harder for folks to be original with their caches because alot of it has been done already.

But why do they have to copy the lame hides??

People copy the hides that they like.

They copy the hides that they like the most? I don't think so. I think many just hide something that they like (even a little), but it's very easy and effortless to hide. I also think some people feel pressure to hide caches because they haven't hidden "enough" (whatever that is) so this contributes to less thought. I also think that some people are trying to hide as many as possible. So that lends itself to a certain style of cache placement as well. If people hid caches like the ones they like the most (or at least like a lot), then things would get a lot better. I've done enough caches off "must-do" lists to know that much. Furthermore, they would still be hiding caches that they "like," so it fits with your rule.

[+egami]

You bring up a good point.It's also getting harder for folks to be original with their caches because alot of it has been done already.

But why do they have to copy the lame hides??

People copy the hides that they like.

They copy the hides that they like the most? I don't think so. I think many just hide something that they like (even a little), but it's very easy and effortless to hide. I also think some people feel pressure to hide caches because they haven't hidden "enough" (whatever that is) so this contributes to less thought. I also think that some people are trying to hide as many as possible. So that lends itself to a certain style of cache placement as well. If people hid caches like the ones they like the most (or at least like a lot), then things would get a lot better. I've done enough caches off "must-do" lists to know that much. Furthermore, they would still be hiding caches that they "like," so it fits with your rule.

 

I think it's probably a little of both. I think people copy what they like and then I think on their other hides some people just lack originality compared to others. Some people are naturally more creative and artistic and their hides probably get a boost from that.

 

But, yeah, that's a good point...I doubt anyone hides a cache they don't like for the most part.

[+Snoogans]

Perhaps some sort of group could be formed to help promote quality caches.

 

This is similar to another idea I've had, but it's independent from a GC.com solution. You could essentially create a group that created a higher standard and caches could be submitted for review and they could essentially earn the seal of approval from the group.

 

I am sure there would subsequently be a way to make that searchable in GSAK.

 

If I'm not mistaken, that is the idea of TerraCaching. I was going to try it out, I wasn't really sure about the idea of listing a cache outside of geocaching.com.

 

 

What's not to be sure about??? TCs get less visitors, but so what. That just means less maintenance.

 

I use terracaching to add DOH! factor to my caches. I had a TC micro less than 8 feet from a GC travel bug hotel and not one GC-centric person found it, because they were looking for a cache that was described as LARGER than a 50 cal ammo can.

 

TeamAlamo just did many of my hardest caches in the Mammoth area and on their hike to my Ode to Rainboze and bthomas cache ABOVE 10,000 feet, they passed within 50 feet of an as yet unfound TC of mine called "You Found it! You Name IT!" Too bad. So sad.

 

I hide terracaches within the bounds common sense, but it's refreshing to not have to deal with some of the much needed, but none the less arbitrary rules that govern a cache listing service the size of this one.

 

Here's a kicker. I know the area so well... Ben Thomas is standing about 200 yards from my unfound TC in this picture and when he sees this, he is going to know right were it was too. Gotta love that DOH! factor.

 

Edited May 17, 2007 by Snoogans

[+SeventhSon]

I'm curious about this rating system that is being mentioned. Who gets to be the guinea pig FTF on a cache not yet rated? Assuming the rating system would not be manditory, how many finds will occur before someone decides to take the time to rate it? There would need to be several ratings before an accurate average rating was in place. Do you guys plan on letting caches sit for a couple weeks while this occurs?

 

Caching for me has always been between the hider and myself. Aside from rehiding the way I found it and trading even or up, the rest of you just don't enter into it. Is that a bad attitude?

[+egami]

Perhaps some sort of group could be formed to help promote quality caches.

 

This is similar to another idea I've had, but it's independent from a GC.com solution. You could essentially create a group that created a higher standard and caches could be submitted for review and they could essentially earn the seal of approval from the group.

 

I am sure there would subsequently be a way to make that searchable in GSAK.

 

If I'm not mistaken, that is the idea of TerraCaching. I was going to try it out, I wasn't really sure about the idea of listing a cache outside of geocaching.com.

 

I somehow missed this earlier reply (snipped it from Snoogans reply).

 

This has been directed at me about 3 times now in this thread and I've yet to read a good answer, but my understanding is that that is not the primary purpose.

 

To allow geocaching to become self-regulating and self-sustaining by establishing ourselves as a not-for-profit member owned organization that works with landowners and the geocaching community to achieve its goals.

To enable national and local organizations to take on a more direct role in geocaching within their areas.

To provide a permanent archive for geocaching databases in order to preserve logs and caches for access and posterity.

 

Here is their Mission: http://www.terracachers.org/index.php?opti...9&Itemid=84

 

Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

Edited May 17, 2007 by egami

[+Snoogans]

Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

 

 

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Snoogans

[+egami]

Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

 

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive.

 

Are there any LPC's listed?

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

No single set of criteria will appease all groups...we are primarily talking about "old school" cachers and higher quality cache hides, but the principle I am talking about is true for all groups.

 

You are going to need to write out a set of criteria for me to demonstrate to you how this won't work effectively.

 

Fair enough.

 

First, we keep the existing criteria:

 

Difficulty rating:

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

Cache Sizes

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 litres -- typically containing only a logbook)

Small (Sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar -- less than approximately 1 quart or litre -- holds trade items as well as a logbook)

Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can)

Large (5 gallon/20 litre bucket or larger)

 

Cache Types

Traditional - This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook

Multi-Caches - There are many variations to multi-stage caches. The most common is that in which the first container or waypoint contains or provides coordinates to the next location

Mystery or Puzzle Caches - The “catch-all” of cache types, this form of cache often involves complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve in order to determine the coordinates.

 

Now, apparently this is not enough criteria for people to easily filter out things they don't like. Let's just add in a couple more and we can see where, using all of these criteria we end up in the wrong place.

 

Scenic-Picturesque - Obviously, these may need to be tweaked a bit

1 - Examples may include Dumpster/ Landfill/ Toxic waste dump/ Guardrail next to smog filled expressway

2 - Examples Playground/Small City Park

3 - Examples Lake view, county park trail just off the path

4 - Snowcapped mountain panoramic view, secluded tropical beach

5 - Sea of Tranquility looking back at Earthrise

 

Historical/ Educational Significance - Also may need tweaking

1 - Behind one of a million Stripmalls

2 - Local Memorial/ local cemetary

3 - Mueseum/ Battlefield

4 - Top of Eiffel Tower

5 - Inside Noah's Ark

[+Snoogans]

Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

 

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive.

 

Are there any LPC's listed?

 

 

Another Friggin' Lightpole Cache, by Geowyz is highly rated. I haven't found the time to do it yet. Geowyz is an "Old Skooler" who ditched GC for TC and never looked back. We miss him at events.

[+sbell111]

You bring up a good point.It's also getting harder for folks to be original with their caches because alot of it has been done already.

But why do they have to copy the lame hides??

People copy the hides that they like.

They copy the hides that they like the most? I don't think so. I think many just hide something that they like (even a little), but it's very easy and effortless to hide. I also think some people feel pressure to hide caches because they haven't hidden "enough" (whatever that is) so this contributes to less thought. I also think that some people are trying to hide as many as possible. So that lends itself to a certain style of cache placement as well. If people hid caches like the ones they like the most (or at least like a lot), then things would get a lot better. I've done enough caches off "must-do" lists to know that much. Furthermore, they would still be hiding caches that they "like," so it fits with your rule.

Remember all those times when you accused others of twisting your words? Well, you just did it to me.

 

I didn't say that people copy caches that they liked the most, I said that they copy hides that they like.

 

For instance, JoGPS has a great local cache, Geo MoJo #6 in the Shadow of the TITANS. Am I going to copy it? Nope. Is anyone going to copy it? Probably not. However, there are thousands of caches out there sitting below a pile of sticks.

 

<I realize that I sipped the rest of your post. I'll catch it in a different post.>

Edited May 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+egami]

Now, apparently this is not enough criteria for people to easily filter out things they don't like. Let's just add in a couple more and we can see where, using all of these criteria we end up in the wrong place.

 

Scenic-Picturesque - Obviously, these may need to be tweaked a bit

1 - Examples may include Dumpster/ Landfill/ Toxic waste dump/ Guardrail next to smog filled expressway

2 - Examples Playground/Small City Park

3 - Examples Lake view, county park trail just off the path

4 - Snowcapped mountain panoramic view, secluded tropical beach

5 - Sea of Tranquility looking back at Earthrise

 

Historical/ Educational Significance - Also may need tweaking

1 - Behind one of a million Stripmalls

2 - Local Memorial/ local cemetary

3 - Mueseum/ Battlefield

4 - Top of Eiffel Tower

5 - Inside Noah's Ark

 

Ok, cutting to the chase.

 

Let's say we have a cache located at a mountain top park that is also the site of a civil war battle. We are going to assume 10 geocachers represent the entire community. 9 are "the average cacher" and 1 is the "old school" cacher with high standards.

 

9 "average cacher" people rate this a 4/3.5

1 "old school cacher" rates this a 4/ 3.5

 

It worked, right?! We've achieved 100% success with our rating system?

 

No, you see...this cache was a LPC located in the museum parking lot. While it was a nice trip and a nice location the cache itself was a disappointment to the "old school" cacher. He just drove 200 miles for a LPC.

 

*edit*

 

Now granted, the other attributes likely would have filtered this out, but the items you included aren't subjective rankings. If you want to discuss adding more non-subjective attributes that may be helpful, but that isn't what most of us invision when you bring up "cache ratings". These are more cache attributes than ratings.

Edited May 17, 2007 by egami

[+Jennifer&Dean]

It is too late. There are already too many caches published to institute new criteria. Go ahead and check how many existing caches were updated to add attributes when those became available! Not many! If the older caches aren't up to date with attributes, you can't expect folks to add new criteria as well.

It is wishing at the highest level as you would need to talk the site owners into adding them to their system also.

 

Let me recommend the method I use to weed out carpy caches- search GSAK for TNLNSL in logs. If a cache has more than 3 of those, avoid it at all cost.

 

Also, someone above was a bit confused. Terracachers.org is totally different from terracaching.com. Two separate groups, one for working to better caching, and one a cache listing site.

 

-J

[+egami]

Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

 

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive.

 

Are there any LPC's listed?

 

Another Friggin' Lightpole Cache, by Geowyz is highly rated. I haven't found the time to do it yet. Geowyz is an "Old Skooler" who ditched GC for TC and never looked back. We miss him at events.

 

Ok, well, according to many "old school" people LPC's aren't keeping with the high standard. Now, this cache itself may be somehow special...I don't know...I am just guessing that there are caches on TC.com that don't live up to many "old school" standards...or possibly some of them are too partisan to go there.

[+TrailGators]

Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive.

Are there any LPC's listed?

I doubt it. As Snoogans said it would not be a good idea either. TC is not about numbers but is about a point system based on consensus quality. I still don't totally understand all the details but have been happy with the TCs that I've found albeit only 10 of them. TCs are hidden in areas where I'm also happy with the geocaches that I've found. I load them both up when I'm out hiking. But TC allows virtuals and you can place anywhere in the country that you want to. We did some off-roading in Moab last year and found a couple awesome places for virtuals. So I made a couple. To me caching has always been about location. Edited May 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+egami]

It is too late. There are already too many caches published to institute new criteria. Go ahead and check how many existing caches were updated to add attributes when those became available! Not many! If the older caches aren't up to date with attributes, you can't expect folks to add new criteria as well.

It is wishing at the highest level as you would need to talk the site owners into adding them to their system also.

 

Let me recommend the method I use to weed out carpy caches- search GSAK for TNLNSL in logs. If a cache has more than 3 of those, avoid it at all cost.

 

Also, someone above was a bit confused. Terracachers.org is totally different from terracaching.com. Two separate groups, one for working to better caching, and one a cache listing site.

 

-J

 

Well, in fairness, you could implement it on a "going forward" basis, but you are absolutely right...that does pose a problem even then because it's not a 100% reflective for long-time caches. Another reason why a new cache type with stricter standards being introduced might better server the purpose of appeasing the old schoolers.

[+sbell111]

You bring up a good point.It's also getting harder for folks to be original with their caches because alot of it has been done already.

But why do they have to copy the lame hides??

People copy the hides that they like.

They copy the hides that they like the most? I don't think so. I think many just hide something that they like (even a little), but it's very easy and effortless to hide.

Lots of people like 'easy and effortless' caches.

I also think some people feel pressure to hide caches because they haven't hidden "enough" (whatever that is) so this contributes to less thought.

While I know that this was certainly an issue in the old days, I'm not sure that it is as much as an issue currently. I suspect that this is one area that has certainly improved over time.

I also think that some people are trying to hide as many as possible. So that lends itself to a certain style of cache placement as well.

I don't know if this necessarily is a cause of a 'problem'. Brian owns tons of caches, but I don't see anyone calling his caches lame.

If people hid caches like the ones they like the most (or at least like a lot), then things would get a lot better. I've done enough caches off "must-do" lists to know that much. Furthermore, they would still be hiding caches that they "like," so it fits with your rule.

I don't get your point. I already believe that the great majority of caches that are placed are done so by people who would enjoy finding a similar cache.

[+egami]

Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive.

Are there any LPC's listed?

I doubt it. As Snoogans said it would not be a good idea either. TC is not about numbers but is about a point system based on consensus quality. I still don't totally understand all the details but have been happy with the TCs that I've found albeit only 10 of them. TCs are hidden in areas where I'm also happy with the geocaches that I've found. I load them both up when I'm out hiking. But TC allows virtuals and you can place anywhere in the country that you want to. We did some off-roading in Moab last year and found a couple awesome places for virtuals. So I made a couple. To me caching has always been about location.

 

I haven't had time to check them out, but that is on my list this summer....after we are moved, after the house is built, after....geez, I have so much to do that hinders caching.

[+TrailGators]

You bring up a good point.It's also getting harder for folks to be original with their caches because alot of it has been done already.

But why do they have to copy the lame hides??

People copy the hides that they like.

They copy the hides that they like the most? I don't think so. I think many just hide something that they like (even a little), but it's very easy and effortless to hide. I also think some people feel pressure to hide caches because they haven't hidden "enough" (whatever that is) so this contributes to less thought. I also think that some people are trying to hide as many as possible. So that lends itself to a certain style of cache placement as well. If people hid caches like the ones they like the most (or at least like a lot), then things would get a lot better. I've done enough caches off "must-do" lists to know that much. Furthermore, they would still be hiding caches that they "like," so it fits with your rule.

Remember all those times when you accused others of twisting your words? Well, you just did it to me.

 

I didn't say that people copy caches that they liked the most, I said that they copy hides that they like.

 

<I realize that I sipped the rest of your post. I'll catch it in a different post.>

 

For instance, JoGPS has a great local cache, Geo MoJo #6 in the Shadow of the TITANS. Am I going to copy it? Nope. Is anyone going to copy it? Probably not. However, there are thousands of caches out there sitting below a pile of sticks.

Sorry if you took it that way. That was a rhetorical question. Read my entire passage and you'll see what I meant. The point was that people should try to hide caches that they like a lot and not just because they like them a little but they are quick and easy to hide.... Edited May 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Cornerstone4]

You bring up a good point.It's also getting harder for folks to be original with their caches because alot of it has been done already.

But why do they have to copy the lame hides??

People copy the hides that they like.

 

Exactly!

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Now, apparently this is not enough criteria for people to easily filter out things they don't like. Let's just add in a couple more and we can see where, using all of these criteria we end up in the wrong place.

 

Scenic-Picturesque - Obviously, these may need to be tweaked a bit

1 - Examples may include Dumpster/ Landfill/ Toxic waste dump/ Guardrail next to smog filled expressway

2 - Examples Playground/Small City Park

3 - Examples Lake view, county park trail just off the path

4 - Snowcapped mountain panoramic view, secluded tropical beach

5 - Sea of Tranquility looking back at Earthrise

 

Historical/ Educational Significance - Also may need tweaking

1 - Behind one of a million Stripmalls

2 - Local Memorial/ local cemetary

3 - Mueseum/ Battlefield

4 - Top of Eiffel Tower

5 - Inside Noah's Ark

 

Ok, cutting to the chase.

 

Let's say we have a cache located at a mountain top park that is also the site of a civil war battle. We are going to assume 10 geocachers represent the entire community. 9 are "the average cacher" and 1 is the "old school" cacher with high standards.

 

9 "average cacher" people rate this a 4/3.5

1 "old school cacher" rates this a 4/ 3.5

 

It worked, right?! We've achieved 100% success with our rating system?

 

No, you see...this cache was a LPC located in the museum parking lot. While it was a nice trip and a nice location the cache itself was a disappointment to the "old school" cacher. He just drove 200 miles for a LPC.

 

Well, in all honesty this example would also have a Terrain 1 and no more than a 1.5 Difficulty as well

And so we tweak (we are in the beta testing stage right now anyways)

 

Scenic-Picturesque - Obviously, these may need to be tweaked a bit

1 - Examples may include Dumpster/ Landfill/Toxic waste dump/Guardrail/Parking lot

2 - Examples Playground/Small City Park

3 - Examples Lake view, county park trail just off the path

4 - Snowcapped mountain panoramic view, secluded tropical beach

5 - Sea of Tranquility looking back at Earthrise

 

Historical/ Educational Significance - Also may need tweaking

1 - Behind one of a million Stripmalls

2 - Local Memorial/ local cemetary

3 - Mueseum/ Battlefield

4 - Top of Eiffel Tower

5 - Inside Noah's Ark

 

Now it should have a much lower scenic score

[+Snoogans]

Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

 

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive.

 

Are there any LPC's listed?

 

Another Friggin' Lightpole Cache, by Geowyz is highly rated. I haven't found the time to do it yet. Geowyz is an "Old Skooler" who ditched GC for TC and never looked back. We miss him at events.

 

Ok, well, according to many "old school" people LPC's aren't keeping with the high standard. Now, this cache itself may be somehow special...I don't know...I am just guessing that there are caches on TC.com that don't live up to many "old school" standards...or possibly some of them are too partisan to go there.

 

 

Partisan...?

 

 

If I was partisan, I wouldn't BE HERE.

 

 

I'm just the opposite. TC is a tool for me. I don't play the TC points game, nor do I care for the arcane logic applied to its programming. My main beef with TC is you can rate a cache that you never even visited and are encouraged to do so.

 

 

I have a system archive on a locationless cache because a group of pc -expletive deleted- didn't like my freakin' TITLE!!!! The title was "Shiz Nit" (street slang for ummm, poopy-doopy) and the cache was for having a bad day out caching that cost you EXTRA money outta pocket due to accident, loss, or injury. (Speeding tickets were a common find.)

 

 

In short, I like it better here, but TC has merit and I won't steer people away from it based on my own personal aesthetic. Ya dig?

Edited May 17, 2007 by Snoogans

[+egami]

Now, apparently this is not enough criteria for people to easily filter out things they don't like. Let's just add in a couple more and we can see where, using all of these criteria we end up in the wrong place.

 

Scenic-Picturesque - Obviously, these may need to be tweaked a bit

1 - Examples may include Dumpster/ Landfill/ Toxic waste dump/ Guardrail next to smog filled expressway

2 - Examples Playground/Small City Park

3 - Examples Lake view, county park trail just off the path

4 - Snowcapped mountain panoramic view, secluded tropical beach

5 - Sea of Tranquility looking back at Earthrise

 

Historical/ Educational Significance - Also may need tweaking

1 - Behind one of a million Stripmalls

2 - Local Memorial/ local cemetary

3 - Mueseum/ Battlefield

4 - Top of Eiffel Tower

5 - Inside Noah's Ark

 

Ok, cutting to the chase.

 

Let's say we have a cache located at a mountain top park that is also the site of a civil war battle. We are going to assume 10 geocachers represent the entire community. 9 are "the average cacher" and 1 is the "old school" cacher with high standards.

 

9 "average cacher" people rate this a 4/3.5

1 "old school cacher" rates this a 4/ 3.5

 

It worked, right?! We've achieved 100% success with our rating system?

 

No, you see...this cache was a LPC located in the museum parking lot. While it was a nice trip and a nice location the cache itself was a disappointment to the "old school" cacher. He just drove 200 miles for a LPC.

 

Well, in all honesty this example would also have a Terrain 1 and no more than a 1.5 Difficulty as well

And so we tweak (we are in the beta testing stage right now anyways)

 

Scenic-Picturesque - Obviously, these may need to be tweaked a bit

1 - Examples may include Dumpster/ Landfill/Toxic waste dump/Guardrail/Parking lot

2 - Examples Playground/Small City Park

3 - Examples Lake view, county park trail just off the path

4 - Snowcapped mountain panoramic view, secluded tropical beach

5 - Sea of Tranquility looking back at Earthrise

 

Historical/ Educational Significance - Also may need tweaking

1 - Behind one of a million Stripmalls

2 - Local Memorial/ local cemetary

3 - Mueseum/ Battlefield

4 - Top of Eiffel Tower

5 - Inside Noah's Ark

 

Now it should have a much lower scenic score

 

You're kind of changing your position by adding a less subjective item lists. These aren't really items that cachers would "rate"...these are really cache attributes. Where it's located and it's historic significance aren't really that subjective especially as you've presented them. All these things can be set once by the approver or the owner.

 

A "rating" system allows people to rate subjective things such as how scenic the are is, cache content quality, cache camo, how cleverly it was hidden and other things.

Edited May 17, 2007 by egami

[+egami]

Now, I think TC seems to harbor that mindset to a degree, but are telling me there aren't crappy caches published there?

 

I'm sure there are, but I haven't found one. Crappy caches will system archive if enough people vote it down. It's a permanent blot on your TC stats to have a system archive.

 

Are there any LPC's listed?

 

Another Friggin' Lightpole Cache, by Geowyz is highly rated. I haven't found the time to do it yet. Geowyz is an "Old Skooler" who ditched GC for TC and never looked back. We miss him at events.

 

Ok, well, according to many "old school" people LPC's aren't keeping with the high standard. Now, this cache itself may be somehow special...I don't know...I am just guessing that there are caches on TC.com that don't live up to many "old school" standards...or possibly some of them are too partisan to go there.

 

 

Partisan...?

 

 

If I was partisan, I wouldn't BE HERE.

 

 

I'm just the opposite. TC is a tool for me. I don't play the TC points game, nor do I care for the arcane logic applied to its programming. My main beef with TC is you can rate a cache that you never even visited and are encouraged to do so.

 

 

I have a system archive on a locationless cache because a group of pc -expletive deleted- didn't like my freakin' TITLE!!!! The title was "Shiz Nit" (street slang for ummm, poopy-doopy) and the cache was for having a bad day out caching that cost you EXTRA money outta pocket due to accident, loss, or injury. (Tickets were a common find.)

 

 

In short, I like it better here, but TC has merit and I won't steer people away from it based on my own personal aesthetic. Ya dig?

 

I didn't call you out...there is no reason to take offense. I was merely talking in general terms...and, actually, referring to some diehard GC.com people that I only suspect may not utilize TC.com.

[+Snoogans]

I didn't call you out...there is no reason to take offense. I was merely talking in general terms...and, actually, referring to some diehard GC.com people that I only suspect may not utilize TC.com.

 

No offense taken. That's why I used the dude at the end of my post.

[+TrailGators]

My main beef with TC is you can rate a cache that you never even visited and are encouraged to do so.

This does seem strange but I think it provides a way to bolster votes on poor caches to keep them out. It is really no different than what peer reviewers do with waymarks because they vote them in or out without visiting them too. Edited May 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+egami]

I didn't call you out...there is no reason to take offense. I was merely talking in general terms...and, actually, referring to some diehard GC.com people that I only suspect may not utilize TC.com.

 

No offense taken. That's why I used the dude at the end of my post.

 

Ok, it was the other two dudes that was confusing me.

[Clan Riffster]

Every cache that is hidden within the guidelines has merit.

This from the man who gave away a bazillion film canisters...

 

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?

I don't think a rating system will ever be Incorporated at Groundspeak. It works fairly well at TC, and at least on a local level, has raised the creativity bar quite a bit, but if memory serves me, Jeremy mentioned some time back that he's not a fan of the concept.

 

I like TG's oft posted suggestion for a means to ignore all caches by a certain player with a single click. This would save me tons of time.

 

Why do people treat this suggestion like I asked them to kick their grandmother in the groin?

Because your suggestion might result in uninspired people being told that they are uninspired. Can't have that. Remember, your most vocal opponents honestly believe that a film canister under a dumpster has the same value as an ammo can at a waterfall.

 

As I've said before, and have been ignored for saying before, we all need to think before we hide.

Pure brilliance! Unfortunately, those who are incapable of thought are defended with religious fervor, while those who suggest creativity are portrayed as the antiChristcacher.

 

As a hider, hide what you would like to find.

As a seeker, use the tools that are available to you to maximize the percentage of caches that you will likely like.

Great advice. It describes how I cache to a "T". (or is that "tea"?)

It works well enough that I have very few disappointments on the caching trail, and those disappointments are typically brief. Once my fun meter moves close to the low end of the scale, I move on to the next cache. It does take some additional effort on my part, but I consider that effort to be well spent, as it keeps me from wasting my most precious resource, time, hunting carp.

 

However, what I keep seeing here are not arguments specifically against your methods, but rather, suggestions that Groundspeak could make the process simpler. Honestly, I don't know if any rating system would work here, as it works at TC, for various reasons. Until some easier system comes into play, I'll continue using the patented sbell method for caching pleasure enhancement.

[+egami]

My main beef with TC is you can rate a cache that you never even visited and are encouraged to do so.

This does seem strange but I think it provides a way to bolster votes on poor caches to keep them out. It is really no different than what peer reviewers do with waymarks because they vote them in or out without visiting them too.

 

I would share that concern with him.

 

How many times have you been either pleasantly surprised or disappointed in a cache? I would personally prefer people visit to vote.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

You're kind of changing your position by adding a less subjective item lists. These aren't really items that cachers would "rate"...these are really cache attributes. Where it's located and it's historic significance aren't really that subjective especially as you've presented them. All these things can be set once by the approver or the owner.

 

A "rating" system allows people to rate subjective things such as how scenic the are is, cache content quality, cache camo, how cleverly it was hidden and other things.

Im not sure if my opinion is changing that much, but it happens. Perhaps using the term "rating" was improper. Maybe "value" would be more appropriate. Just as long as there is some set of values that caches can be filtered against in addition to the ones already in place.

 

As for who sets them, it sounds like TC may be in line with what I am thinking. The owner can set the starting values but input by finders could have the effect of changing those values. This stops an owner from rating a dumpster cache a Scenic 5 and everyone being stuck with it.

 

As for the other subjective ratings you listed, I was thinking of those too. I only put out a few examples (Scenic & Historic).

[+Snoogans]

My main beef with TC is you can rate a cache that you never even visited and are encouraged to do so.

This does seem strange but I think it provides a way to bolster votes on poor caches to keep them out. It is really no different than what peer reviewers do with waymarks because they vote them in or out without visiting them too.

 

 

I haven't given Waymarking the time of day since I tried it early on. A waymark is apples and oranges from a cache.

 

 

Now, how can you or I or anyone TRULY know the aesthetic value of a cache to any cache listing service without first visiting it for ourselves? We can guess based on all available data, but do you then vote it down based on your own personal aesthetic, or go and see it for yourself to vote it down?

 

 

If you say the former, the we disagree. I refuse to judge a book by it's cover in those terms. I will pass up a cache based on my own aesthetics, but I would never vote one down unless I had been there first hand and my vote was justified.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Snoogans

[+egami]

You're kind of changing your position by adding a less subjective item lists. These aren't really items that cachers would "rate"...these are really cache attributes. Where it's located and it's historic significance aren't really that subjective especially as you've presented them. All these things can be set once by the approver or the owner.

 

A "rating" system allows people to rate subjective things such as how scenic the are is, cache content quality, cache camo, how cleverly it was hidden and other things.

Im not sure if my opinion is changing that much, but it happens. Perhaps using the term "rating" was improper. Maybe "value" would be more appropriate. Just as long as there is some set of values that caches can be filtered against in addition to the ones already in place.

 

As for who sets them, it sounds like TC may be in line with what I am thinking. The owner can set the starting values but input by finders could have the effect of changing those values. This stops an owner from rating a dumpster cache a Scenic 5 and everyone being stuck with it.

 

As for the other subjective ratings you listed, I was thinking of those too. I only put out a few examples (Scenic & Historic).

 

I need to use TC to better grasp how effective it is...I'll be doing that this summer.

 

Yeah, I think you are on the right track with the idea of adding more attributes that aren't subjective. The ratings on the more subjective items would still be questionable to me, but in the end...I don't think either of our ideas are garnering support, so I am just going to be thankful I am not a "high criteria" cacher and just ignore the whining that goes on by a few individuals.

[+Dew Crew]

My main beef with TC is you can rate a cache that you never even visited and are encouraged to do so.

This does seem strange but I think it provides a way to bolster votes on poor caches to keep them out. It is really no different than what peer reviewers do with waymarks because they vote them in or out without visiting them too.

 

It seems a little different to me. At TC they are voting on the quality. At Waymarking, the group decides if it meets the category guidelines.

[+tozainamboku]

Some interesting ideas have been posted here.

 

People hide caches for many different reasons. I'm at work so I don't have the list I put together of reasons someone might have to hide a cache. People look for caches for different reasons too. A few broad categories seem to be emerging here:

• I like to find cache that take me to an interesting place. The fact that there is a cache there is not enough by itself to make it worthwhile.
  
• I like to find caches that challenge or entertain me. I like to see the creativity of the hiders.
  
• I like to find cache that are easy to get to and easy to find. I admit it, I'm just a numbers junkie.
  
• I like any cache. I get out and get to use my GPS. If I happen to be going to Wal*Mart to buy socks, its great to be able to find a cache in the parking lot. If I have the whole day to take a hike, I like to find caches along the way.
  

So the isssue is: if you're not in that last group, how to filter for the hides you like.

 

The suggestions are

• Use existing tools to filter. Existing tools include PQs, maps, bookmark lists, and reading the cache page.
  
• Improve existing tools. Ignore all caches placed by a user, searchable bookmark lists.
  
• Develop new tools. Ratings, group managed categories or bookmark lists
  
• Change your attitude/expectation. Not every cache is going to be hidden per your criteria. Expect to find some lame ones. The good ones will be that much sweeter.
  
• Change other people's attitude. Try to convince them to consider your criteria when hiding caches. If you use the forums to do this, expect to be flamed.
  

One point about developing new tools. Some 3rd party tools can be developed (like GSAK) to help but most of these suggestion require some programming by Geocaching.com and this is a limited resource. I don't think anything will be done unless it gets thuroughly discussed here and some kind of consensus reached. This (along with the pressing issues of improving site performance) is probably why we haven't seen anything yet. Jeremy has indicated that an affinity system of some kind (like NetFlix) might be in the works. He has also mentioned some way to give recognition to exceptional caches or cache hiders.

[+Dew Crew]

Some interesting ideas have been posted here.

 

People hide caches for many different reasons. I'm at work so I don't have the list I put together of reasons someone might have to hide a cache. People look for caches for different reasons too. A few broad categories seem to be emerging here:

• I like to find cache that take me to an interesting place. The fact that there is a cache there is not enough by itself to make it worthwhile.
  
• I like to find caches that challenge or entertain me. I like to see the creativity of the hiders.
  
• I like to find cache that are easy to get to and easy to find. I admit it, I'm just a numbers junkie.
  
• I like any cache. I get out and get to use my GPS. If I happen to be going to Wal*Mart to buy socks, its great to be able to find a cache in the parking lot. If I have the whole day to take a hike, I like to find caches along the way.
  

So the isssue is: if you're not in that last group, how to filter for the hides you like.

 

The suggestions are

• Use existing tools to filter. Existing tools include PQs, maps, bookmark lists, and reading the cache page.
  
• Improve existing tools. Ignore all caches placed by a user, searchable bookmark lists.
  
• Develop new tools. Ratings, group managed categories or bookmark lists
  
• Change your attitude/expectation. Not every cache is going to be hidden per your criteria. Expect to find some lame ones. The good ones will be that much sweeter.
  
• Change other people's attitude. Try to convince them to consider your criteria when hiding caches. If you use the forums to do this, expect to be flamed.
  

One point about developing new tools. Some 3rd party tools can be developed (like GSAK) to help but most of these suggestion require some programming by Geocaching.com and this is a limited resource. I don't think anything will be done unless it gets thuroughly discussed here and some kind of consensus reached. This (along with the pressing issues of improving site performance) is probably why we haven't seen anything yet. Jeremy has indicated that an affinity system of some kind (like NetFlix) might be in the works. He has also mentioned some way to give recognition to exceptional caches or cache hiders.

 

I think we should add the the develop new tools: searching by attribute.

[+egami]

So the isssue is: if you're not in that last group, how to filter for the hides you like.

 

The suggestions are

• Use existing tools to filter. Existing tools include PQs, maps, bookmark lists, and reading the cache page.
  
• Improve existing tools. Ignore all caches placed by a user, searchable bookmark lists.
  
• Develop new tools. Ratings, group managed categories or bookmark lists
  
• Change your attitude/expectation. Not every cache is going to be hidden per your criteria. Expect to find some lame ones. The good ones will be that much sweeter.
  
• Change other people's attitude. Try to convince them to consider your criteria when hiding caches. If you use the forums to do this, expect to be flamed.
  
  
• Have GC.com add a rating system
  
• Have GC.com add additional search attributes (ie. historic and scenic ranking)
  
• Have GC.com add a new cache type that would have a higher standard to be published
  

One point about developing new tools. Some 3rd party tools can be developed (like GSAK) to help but most of these suggestion require some programming by Geocaching.com and this is a limited resource. I don't think anything will be done unless it gets thuroughly discussed here and some kind of consensus reached. This (along with the pressing issues of improving site performance) is probably why we haven't seen anything yet. Jeremy has indicated that an affinity system of some kind (like NetFlix) might be in the works. He has also mentioned some way to give recognition to exceptional caches or cache hiders.

 

I am sure there were some other ideas mentioned that got overlooked too...

[+Snoogans]

Every cache that is hidden within the guidelines has merit.

This from the man who gave away a bazillion film canisters...

 

 

Jealous?

 

 

I haven't updated ODS: PRIME since March. We should be well over 700 caches on the next update and the project has grown by 1 new cache listed every 10 hours since last May. We just had one get placed in Iraq fer cryin' out loud! Ain't that a HOOT?

 

 

Send ODS: PRIME! a friend request and you can track the growth of the project from your own profile.

 

 

Rank by number of caches hidden:

 

1 Texas: 133

2 Oklahoma: 53

3 Alabama: 45

4 Wisconsin: 35

5 Tennessee: 34

6 Washington: 30

7 Ohio: 34

8 Florida: 32

9 Germany: 29

10 North Carolina: 27

11 California: 17

12 Arizona: 16

13 Pennsylvania: 15

14 Idaho: 14

15 Oregon: 14

16 Missouri: 13

17 Virginia: 11

18 Colorado: 10

19 Kansas: 8

20 Illinois: 7

21 Ontario: 6

22 United Kingdom: 6

23 Maryland: 5

24 Utah: 5

25 New Mexico: 5

26 Wyoming: 5

27 Kentucky: 3

28 New York: 3

29 Georgia: 3

30 Michigan: 3

31 Massachusetts: 3

32 Thailand: 3

33 South Carolina: 2

34 New Jersey: 2

35 Iowa: 2

36 Kyrgyzstan: 2

37 West Virginia: 2

38 Mexico: 1

39 British Columbia: 1

40 Quebec: 1

41 Vermont: 1

42 Sweden: 1

43 New Hampshire: 1

44 Louisiana: 1

45 Nebraska: 1

46 South Dakota: 1

47 Minnesota: 1

48 Poland: 1

49 Maine: 1

50 Alaska: 1

51 Indiana: 1

52 Singapore: 1

52 Hawaii: 1

Total: 653(657 including 4 members only caches in OR., TX., & CA.)

[+Renegade Knight]

Ok, that's all fine and dandy, but we aren't talking about an entire set of universal criteria to rate a cache....if we are then that isn't satisfying the request of the old school cachers.

 

It's not the amount of slope or tree coverage that are turning these people off.

I thought we were looking for a way to please all the groups? Given enough criteria, the old schoolers could filter for caches that met their desires as could any other sub group.

Yet, as you add more and more criteria, your compliance rate will fall. People will either give average answers or they will simple not hide a cache.

Yup. KISS.

[+Renegade Knight]

....I think it's probably a little of both. I think people copy what they like and then I think on their other hides some people just lack originality compared to others. Some people are naturally more creative and artistic and their hides probably get a boost from that....

 

Agreed. People hide what they like. Some don't have the creative bone. That's just life.