OK Old schoolers

[+tozainamboku]

 

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

[*]Have GC.com add a rating system included under new tools. Several different rating systesms were proposed. Each has it own merits and shortcomings

[*]Have GC.com add additional search attributes (ie. historic and scenic ranking) New attributes would be an enhancement to existing tools (along with fixing the search on attributes in pocket queries which doesn't work quite as expected). There is already a scenic view attribute and an historic attribute has been proposed in other threads. LivesWithMonkeys suggestion to provide a ranking on these attributes might fall under the ratings in new tools. I like this system and have proposed something like it in previous threads on finders rating caches.

[*]Have GC.com add a new cache type that would have a higher standard to be published I think this is only workable under what I refered to as group managed categories or bookmark list. Asking the volunteer reviewers to check that a cache met certain standards to be listed as special type opens a can of worms that is bigger than when the reviewers were asked to check for "Wow" when approving virtual caches. And if there is only one special type of cache whose standards are used. Is it the caches TrailGators thinks are exceptional or is it someone who hates to hike and only likes cache where they can park less than 50 ft. away? Would the new type only be for traditional caches that meet some extra criteria? What if I had a multi that met these criteria or an unknown/puzzle cache? Whith group managed bookmarklists each group could post their requirements and when some hid a cache they could submit it to various lists they want to be linked to. Or finders might nominate caches to be put on a list.

[+Renegade Knight]

Here is an old school idea that I allways liked.

 

"If you hide it. they will come".

 

It even meets the KISS principal.

[+Snoogans]

Salami anyone?^^^^

 

Edit: Lord forgive me for that OT joke and please help the starving pygmies in New Guinea. Amen.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Snoogans

[+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.

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.

It is basically an open peer review. Like I said I think it's really only used to blackball LPCs and the like. The diehard TCers that I know are very serious about maintaining the level of caches at TC. I commented on their method because it will be very interesting to see how effective their method is over time. I don't think anybody in this thread has shown any "true" issues that the idea has actually caused, but rather, just concerns. I have never used the feature myself. I'm more into it for the fun part, which is finding caches in cool locations.

[Backup]

I've been a Premium Member since January 2003 and changes I've noticed:

 

POSITIVE CHANGES

1. There are many more people playing now. My first year and a half of caching I never bumped into another cacher. Not once. Now, I regularly have the pleasure of meeting other cachers at cache sites.

2. There are many more caches available to hunt. This includes ALL sizes, types and qualities (and I hunt them all). Thank you to all the folks who are full participants.

3. The Geocaching tools such as, Pocket Queries, Bookmarks, Notifications, Google Search, etc., that didn't exist back-in-the-day.

4. Geocoins - what a great addition - and it helps the creators make the money they have worked so hard for.

5. All the other items I've forgot to mention because I've just taken them for granted.

 

NEGATIVE CHANGES:

1. Discontinuation of Locationless, Virtual, Webcam caches.

 

Overall I don't see it as "The good old days", rather as the start of something great. Caching today is vastly better than "the good old days".

[+TrailGators]

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?

Weren't you the one telling us that we can easily read the cache pages to tell which ones we should "choose" to skip? I think this is the same thing except TC allows people to share their opinions after investing time and effort of opening up Google Earth; looking at the cache location and reading the cache logs, etc.

[+Snoogans]

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?

Weren't you the one telling us that we can easily read the cache pages to tell which ones we should "choose" to skip? I think this is the same thing except TC allows people to share their opinions after investing time and effort of opening up Google Earth; looking at the cache location and reading the cache logs, etc.

 

It's funny you chose to comment on that part of my post out of context when I qualified my comment in the next paragraph that you didn't quote.

 

Really, one of these days sombody ought to do a montage of links to you complaining about other folks twisting your words. Now THAT would be funny in a Pot meet kettle kinda way.

 

Here is the proper context:

 

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.

[+TrailGators]

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.

That doesn't change my question, which was: Weren't you the one telling us that we can easily read the cache pages to tell which ones we should "choose" to skip? You have said this many times in the past if I remember correctly. Is this correct? Anyhow, if you have said this, then why not put your money where you mouth is and vote? It is just one vote....However, if you are now saying that you really can't judge a cache by reading the cache page and so you would never "vote" based on that then you are starting to see our point that reading the cache page is hit or miss and is not an accurate or reliable method. So I think we are agreeing. Anyhow, I was honestly confused by your position. So if my confusion seems like twisting, that's not at all what I intended it to be. Edited May 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Snoogans]

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.

That doesn't change my question, which was: Weren't you the one telling us that we can easily read the cache pages to tell which ones we should "choose" to skip? You have said this many times in the past if I remember correctly. Is this correct? Anyhow, if you have said this, then why not put your money where you mouth is and vote? It is just one vote....However, if you are now saying that you really can't judge a cache by reading the cache page and so you would never "vote" based on that then you are starting to see our point that reading the cache page is hit or miss and is not an accurate or reliable method. So I think we are agreeing. Anyhow, I was honestly confused by your position. So if my confusion seems like twisting, that's not at all what I intended it to be.

 

 

Ahhhh, ok. Well this is a comprehension issue. I have no further comment. What I have already said should have answered your question. woosh..... Where is the low flying aircraft emoticon?

[+TrailGators]

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.

That doesn't change my question, which was: Weren't you the one telling us that we can easily read the cache pages to tell which ones we should "choose" to skip? You have said this many times in the past if I remember correctly. Is this correct? Anyhow, if you have said this, then why not put your money where you mouth is and vote? It is just one vote....However, if you are now saying that you really can't judge a cache by reading the cache page and so you would never "vote" based on that then you are starting to see our point that reading the cache page is hit or miss and is not an accurate or reliable method. So I think we are agreeing. Anyhow, I was honestly confused by your position. So if my confusion seems like twisting, that's not at all what I intended it to be.

Ahhhh, ok. Well this is a comprehension issue. I have no further comment. What I have already said should have answered your question. woosh..... Where is the low flying aircraft emoticon?

You are one the rudest people I have come across in these threads. I simply wanted to clarify that you are admitting that reading the cache page to determine if a cache is NG is not an accurate or reliable method. If I don't clarify things with you, then you blast me for "twisting" things. Edited May 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Snoogans]

Perception IS reality.

[Tahosa and Sons]

Oh yea its changed. But I still hide them the way I did back in '01. Way back in and up the hill. It seems that there are about the same amount of finds per year on most of my caches 2 to 3 so the hikers are still out there. Now I'm looking forward to hiding several more before June and as usual they won't be easy.

Both are at least a (4 x 4.5) and a (4 x 4)

[Trinity's Crew]

I think perceptions about caches have changed more than the actual caches have. A while back someone (Team GPSaxaphone maybe?) started a thread asking whether finding hundreds or thousands of caches had caused some cachers to be less than enthused by average caches. In other words, had some cachers become jaded, bored, or burned out on the game, causing them to be less than impressed with caches that may have satisfied them earlier in their caching career?. I think he may have hit the nail on the head with that postulation.

[+Snoogans]

I think perceptions about caches have changed more than the actual caches have. A while back someone (Team GPSaxaphone maybe?) started a thread asking whether finding hundreds or thousands of caches had caused some cachers to be less than enthused by average caches. In other words, had some cachers become jaded, bored, or burned out on the game, causing them to be less than impressed with caches that may have satisfied them earlier in their caching career?. I think he may have hit the nail on the head with that postulation.

 

 

I sometimes call that jaded mindset, MY subjective version of geocaching 2.0. It is also known as the Theory of Geocaching Evolution. It's a basic cause of geocaching angst.

 

 

 

To summarize our "Geocaching Tree of Angst" so far:

 

We have an atmosphere rich with CO2 that is represented by one atom of "Entitlement" ( C ) and two atoms of "Expectation." (O2)

 

We have a rich medium for the growth of angst in our soil, which is represented by a common/general, "unawareness that this hobby is intrinsically linked to other people."

 

The water (H2O) that nourishes the tree is either actual or perceived (H2) negative interaction (O) between geocachers.

 

Our tree is furtilized by misconception, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding (MMM) whether actual or deliberate.

 

The roots of our tree are based in actual participation and experience in geocaching as an activity.... Hiding, finding, & moving trackables.

 

The trunk of our tree emerges over time. It is actually just individual experience that expresses itself in this way, "I know better than YOU what geocaching is supposed/intended to be all about."

 

From there our "Tree of Angst" branches out in many directions. Some branches sprout from the trunk and some branches think they are attacking the trunk from the other side, but are seemingly unaware that they are part of the same tree.

 

The named branches of our tree so far:

 

The Theory of Geocaching Evolution

 

Geocaching would be more fun for me, IF

 

Perceived Staunch Defenders of Everything Perceived Lame (P.S.D.E.P.L.)

[+Logscaler and Red]

 

Place is falling apart again.

 

Finally had to jump to the last page and post.

 

It has been a couple days since I was here - responding to a forum topic - and as I see it, very little has changed.

 

Oh, Hello to RK. Don't I still owe you a beer for something or another? Back in Idaho yet?

Snoogans, I will one day get your way and find the bunker.

 

Old School v New School.

 

Why? I am "Old School" so to speak.

 

Isn't this "game" about doing something you enjoy?

 

I remember driving several hundred miles after work to fix a couple problem caches for a Tourist on Vacation. I won't do that now. But I will fix a cache if I am at it and there is a problem. Habit.

 

Not every cache has to be "WOW". Your WOW and my ??? could conflict. I Drive a Dodge, you drive a Chev. Big deal.

 

But on the other hand, "WHY HERE?" caches are a pain in the neck but I learn who to avoid.

 

As for the sorting issue.

 

I use a PQ, then GSAK and then load them all onto National Geographic TOPO! to check locations. Then we use the laptop to find our way around.

 

Yes, I also know which cachers will leave a good cache the majority of the time. Also which one tend to leave cruddy caches BUT in a good location. Then there are those that are just a PITA and who we choose to ignore.

 

Solutions?

 

I doubt if there is one and no amount of bickering - whining here will fix that. Period.

 

Most ratings are subjective - as has already been pointed out in way to may threads already.

 

I guess my question would have to be, What are you looking for in this game? Location? History? View? Numbers? Bragging rights?

 

Myself, I am after the respect of my fellow cachers who will say "There is a NEW logscaler cache out. Lets go."

 

I find that in reading the logs of the Old school cachers v the New crop of cachers, I might have set way to high of a benchmark for most of the newbies. Tough.

 

What ever you decide to do with or about caching, be it this site or another one, Just remember that you should be enjoying the game. If your not, then look to your hole card and see if you can be happy.

 

Logscaler.

[+Logscaler and Red]

I think perceptions about caches have changed more than the actual caches have. A while back someone (Team GPSaxaphone maybe?) started a thread asking whether finding hundreds or thousands of caches had caused some cachers to be less than enthused by average caches. In other words, had some cachers become jaded, bored, or burned out on the game, causing them to be less than impressed with caches that may have satisfied them earlier in their caching career?. I think he may have hit the nail on the head with that postulation.

 

I don't know about this for myself.

 

I think someone placing a crappy cache in '01 or '02 or even '03 got a lot more flak then they do know. PC?

 

I have ALWAYS expected something to be worthwhile to be there when I found a cache. Be it history or location.

 

As for the post about insulting to have "Easy find' in a log. What if it is?

 

Wow, two post on one thread in one day. Wonders will never end.

 

Logscaler.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

As for the post about insulting to have "Easy find' in a log. What if it is?

 

Wow, two post on one thread in one day. Wonders will never end.

 

Logscaler.

Gee . . . is it insulting to have "Easy find" in a log? Guess I shouldn't have named a cache "Hard Hike, Easy Find."

[vtmtnman]

 

Place is falling apart again.

 

Finally had to jump to the last page and post.

 

It has been a couple days since I was here - responding to a forum topic - and as I see it, very little has changed.

 

Oh, Hello to RK. Don't I still owe you a beer for something or another? Back in Idaho yet?

Snoogans, I will one day get your way and find the bunker.

 

Old School v New School.

 

Why? I am "Old School" so to speak.

 

Isn't this "game" about doing something you enjoy?

 

I remember driving several hundred miles after work to fix a couple problem caches for a Tourist on Vacation. I won't do that now. But I will fix a cache if I am at it and there is a problem. Habit.

 

Not every cache has to be "WOW". Your WOW and my ??? could conflict. I Drive a Dodge, you drive a Chev. Big deal.

 

But on the other hand, "WHY HERE?" caches are a pain in the neck but I learn who to avoid.

 

As for the sorting issue.

 

I use a PQ, then GSAK and then load them all onto National Geographic TOPO! to check locations. Then we use the laptop to find our way around.

 

Yes, I also know which cachers will leave a good cache the majority of the time. Also which one tend to leave cruddy caches BUT in a good location. Then there are those that are just a PITA and who we choose to ignore.

 

Solutions?

 

I doubt if there is one and no amount of bickering - whining here will fix that. Period.

 

Most ratings are subjective - as has already been pointed out in way to may threads already.

 

I guess my question would have to be, What are you looking for in this game? Location? History? View? Numbers? Bragging rights?

 

Myself, I am after the respect of my fellow cachers who will say "There is a NEW logscaler cache out. Lets go."

 

I find that in reading the logs of the Old school cachers v the New crop of cachers, I might have set way to high of a benchmark for most of the newbies. Tough.

 

What ever you decide to do with or about caching, be it this site or another one, Just remember that you should be enjoying the game. If your not, then look to your hole card and see if you can be happy.

 

Logscaler.

Basically.

 

See what happened is I was catching up on my thread,and as usual two users (One who seems to be involved everytime)get into an argument over silly baloney and derail the thread,thus solving nothing.

 

I wanted this thread to be for newbies learning from the old schoolers since they are always telling us we are ruining caching.So what better way to get it back to where it mythically was then for them to air grievences and tell us suggestions.From what I've been seeing so far from all of the old schoolers is that caching wasn't that great in the early days.Most of them say it's better now.

[+Renegade Knight]

<snip>

 

As for the post about insulting to have "Easy find' in a log. What if it is?

 

Wow, two post on one thread in one day. Wonders will never end.

 

Logscaler.

Gee . . . is it insulting to have "Easy find" in a log? Guess I shouldn't have named a cache "Hard Hike, Easy Find."

Heck after busting my butt, barefoot and naked up hill all the way and slogging through the snow to get there I sure do like an easy find. Especially since it's going to be uphill all the way back and I'll have frostbitten buns from sitting to sign the log.

 

The only thing better than an easy find would be a flask of liquid heat to take a swig of before I head back.

Edited May 18, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Jennifer&Dean]

 

Place is falling apart again.

 

Finally had to jump to the last page and post.

 

It has been a couple days since I was here - responding to a forum topic - and as I see it, very little has changed.

 

Oh, Hello to RK. Don't I still owe you a beer for something or another? Back in Idaho yet?

Snoogans, I will one day get your way and find the bunker.

 

Old School v New School.

 

Why? I am "Old School" so to speak.

 

Isn't this "game" about doing something you enjoy?

 

I remember driving several hundred miles after work to fix a couple problem caches for a Tourist on Vacation. I won't do that now. But I will fix a cache if I am at it and there is a problem. Habit.

 

Not every cache has to be "WOW". Your WOW and my ??? could conflict. I Drive a Dodge, you drive a Chev. Big deal.

 

But on the other hand, "WHY HERE?" caches are a pain in the neck but I learn who to avoid.

 

As for the sorting issue.

 

I use a PQ, then GSAK and then load them all onto National Geographic TOPO! to check locations. Then we use the laptop to find our way around.

 

Yes, I also know which cachers will leave a good cache the majority of the time. Also which one tend to leave cruddy caches BUT in a good location. Then there are those that are just a PITA and who we choose to ignore.

 

Solutions?

 

I doubt if there is one and no amount of bickering - whining here will fix that. Period.

 

Most ratings are subjective - as has already been pointed out in way to may threads already.

 

I guess my question would have to be, What are you looking for in this game? Location? History? View? Numbers? Bragging rights?

 

Myself, I am after the respect of my fellow cachers who will say "There is a NEW logscaler cache out. Lets go."

 

I find that in reading the logs of the Old school cachers v the New crop of cachers, I might have set way to high of a benchmark for most of the newbies. Tough.

 

What ever you decide to do with or about caching, be it this site or another one, Just remember that you should be enjoying the game. If your not, then look to your hole card and see if you can be happy.

 

Logscaler.

 

What he said. I wish there were more Logscaler caches in our area! (Hi Logscaler!)

[+Renegade Knight]

...Oh, Hello to RK. Don't I still owe you a beer for something or another? Back in Idaho yet?...

 

I don't know if you owe me one or I owe you one, so lets just do the right thing and do both. These days I'm a little further east in Pocatello, so our paths don't cross as much.

[+TrailGators]

I think perceptions about caches have changed more than the actual caches have. A while back someone (Team GPSaxaphone maybe?) started a thread asking whether finding hundreds or thousands of caches had caused some cachers to be less than enthused by average caches. In other words, had some cachers become jaded, bored, or burned out on the game, causing them to be less than impressed with caches that may have satisfied them earlier in their caching career?. I think he may have hit the nail on the head with that postulation.

He did hit the nail on the head! It happened to me to with urban caches. Although most urban caches aren't in the best locations (like hiking caches) they had other advantages. Urbans were more about the challenge and the variety of the hide. But somewhere along the way I got sick of seeing YALPs (yet another lamp post) and YAGs (yet another guardrail). There was no variety with these. There was no challenge with these. Over time the frequency of finding these types definitely increased. So I started to feel like I was spending my day just collecting smileys and that was not fun to me. So I burned out on urban caching. The good news is that I'm just as excited about hiking caches now as I was when I started. I don't think they have changed one bit except that there's more of them.

[+Logscaler and Red]

 

Basically.

 

See what happened is I was catching up on my thread,and as usual two users (One who seems to be involved everytime)get into an argument over silly baloney and derail the thread,thus solving nothing.

 

I wanted this thread to be for newbies learning from the old schoolers since they are always telling us we are ruining caching.So what better way to get it back to where it mythically was then for them to air grievences and tell us suggestions.From what I've been seeing so far from all of the old schoolers is that caching wasn't that great in the early days.Most of them say it's better now.

 

Kinda growly ain't yea?

 

I didn't see where I was arguing with anyone but it is subjective I guess.

 

As for suggestions to newbies.

 

First off, What percentage of newbies do you think come to these threads?

 

"They" may be newbies to this game but my bets are that most of them are over the age of 30. Most of them have read books of adventure. Most of them have kids.

 

My advice to newbies would be to make their hides something that they would like to find, be that at whatever level they are comfortable with. Expand on what you enjoyed as a kid.

 

Then as they evolve into the game and see what others have hidden, they just might be able to expand a type or style of hide they have found.

 

One of the best things that newbies can do is to attend events. That is one of the best places to exchange ideas and to hookup with other people looking for partners of their level of caching or people needing a partner to go out with.

 

You suggested a rating system. Been hashed and rehashed to death but lets do it again I guess.

 

Too subjective no matter how you try break it down or whatever guide lines you put out to steer people along. Different skill levels, physical conditioning IQ's, etc.

 

And at one time, the cache numbers where dropped from your stats. Didn't work then either.

 

I would suggest that IF a rating system is implemented, there should be one vote when you log your find and no deleting of a log by the finder but still allow the cache owner to either delete or modify the log with approver permission, yet still retain the vote cast for that cache. Clear as mud?

 

To what level do you want to go? Are you wanting micro details? General? Rough?

 

As for the cache's themselves, We have found over time that we did enjoy the older caches better then the newer ones.

 

Then it was go find it and now there seems to be a lot of mystery, puzzles, online research videos to watch or seeing how small and hidden you can go.

 

Now I even see a couple caches out there that brag about how many DNF's they can get.

 

But, this is how things evolve, Like it or not. YOU have to decide what you want out of this game.

 

Sure, some of us want things to stay the way they where. I can have that with PQ's, GSAK and using selective cache page reading.

 

Now, was that what you wanted to hear?

 

Logscaler

[+The Jester]

Just catching up on my reading - WOW, 5 new pages today! Sorry if these seem "old" to some here.

 

...

As far as what has changed since the old days - Back then, a caches were never (or at least very rarely), placed for the sole purpose of placing them. They had either some hide or location value, and often both. Some were pretty basic and hidden just to help populate an area with a cache. Nowadays there is a third cache value - a numbers value - caches that have no value other than to increase your count. As stated in other posts, there is no way to filer these out. At least until there is either an attribute or a cache type "numbers only cache".

...

I'm not sure how they can be both (the hightlited sections) - hide/location value vs. populate an area. Isn't the second what people are complaining about now? And every cache hidden back then was about the numbers - there was another cache to be found!

 

I was looking over the first bunch of caches I did back in Spring/Summer 2001. Most of them would be considered unispired caches today. Only one had any real scenic value, most were just a little off trails in parks or near roads. But it was all new, back then. I guess I can't see where the "oldies" have that much more appeal (as caches - I just hid a Challenge cache that requires you to find the existing first year caches, but that's history NOW.). The post above with the rose-colored glasses was right on!

[+The Jester]

How can anyone expect it to be any easier than by having GC.com automatically send you files of caches that you might like and GSAK automatically doing additional filtering to give you caches that have a high probability of you liking them?

 

I guess Jeremy could give me a call before allowing any cache to be listed, but that would get cumbersome after a while.

 

I guess I am missing the part where I can tell GC.com to send me only caches in places with scenic vistas which require 1 to 1.5 miles of hiking to reach. Or ones that are hidden so as not to exceed 4 ft height to reach. Personally, I dont need to filter on those things, but someone might want to.

 

And for the record, i dont see those options within GSAK either.

As a hider, I just don't see me specifying a height to the cache - it gives too much away. And how would you classify a cache hidden high in tree with the rope connected low to the ground? The more details you have hiders rate, the less challenge is left in the hide - "Let's see we're looking for a 1 level camo'd micro that's within a foot of ground level" - doesn't leave a whole lot of choices in that picnic shelter, does it? (I took the example from one of my caches)

[+The Jester]

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

Why? It's still on the mountain with that #4 view. Which covers it? The view of the mountains, or parking lot? The cacher who got there at there at sunrise with the mountain all around glowing pink will see something other than the cacher who got there when the clouds gathered around and you couldn't hardly see across the parking lot. (BTW, I've been too two parking lots that fit the bill: Paradise on Mt. Rainier & Pikes Peak - grand with clear weather, "boring" when the clouds rolled in.)

 

Which brings up the point that a scenic spot is that way only when the weathers good. Does the ammo can hidden behind the tree covered in sticks become a lesser cache because the fog/rain closed off the view?

 

And how much does the locale affect the "view" or quality of the cache? I can point you to many a big box parking lot around here that has a wonderful view of Mt. Rainier - would that make a "lame" cache better? Is a LPC in Hawaii "better" than one in a rest area in E. WA (think flat, wheat lands as far as you can see)?

Edited May 18, 2007 by The Jester

[+Too Tall John]

Salami anyone?^^^^

 

Edit: Lord forgive me for that OT joke and please help the starving pygmies in New Guinea. Amen.

• Sorry, what was the joke?
  
• I thought you were agnostic...
  

[+Snoogans]

Salami anyone?^^^^

• Sorry, what was the joke?

Look at RK's post above that post. (^^^^) I guess it could be a wayhomer for some. RK keeps tellin' me I'm too obscure.

 

 

Edit: Lord forgive me for that OT joke and please help the starving pygmies in New Guinea. Amen.

 

• I thought you were agnostic...

My Larry the Cable Guy is showing. Sorry.

 

 

BTW- Agnostics CAN pray. It's Atheists that don't believe in the power of prayer.

Edited May 18, 2007 by Snoogans

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

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

Why? It's still on the mountain with that #4 view. Which covers it? The view of the mountains, or parking lot? The cacher who got there at there at sunrise with the mountain all around glowing pink will see something other than the cacher who got there when the clouds gathered around and you couldn't hardly see across the parking lot. (BTW, I've been too two parking lots that fit the bill: Paradise on Mt. Rainier & Pikes Peak - grand with clear weather, "boring" when the clouds rolled in.)

 

Which brings up the point that a scenic spot is that way only when the weathers good. Does the ammo can hidden behind the tree covered in sticks become a lesser cache because the fog/rain closed off the view?

 

And how much does the locale affect the "view" or quality of the cache? I can point you to many a big box parking lot around here that has a wonderful view of Mt. Rainier - would that make a "lame" cache better? Is a LPC in Hawaii "better" than one in a rest area in E. WA (think flat, wheat lands as far as you can see)?

Rethinking your example, I may have been off base by suggesting the score should get lowered by adding "parking lot" to level 1. The fact is, these criteria worked. By filtering properly, I was brought to a cache that has a spectacular mountain view (albiet possibly only sometimes) and a locale of historic significance.

 

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*

 

If this is the type of old cacher who, regardless of the view and historical significance of the spot, would have been disappointed by the hide, I imagine he would have filtered on that instead....which of course you mention below...

 

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.

 

So now, we have a cache rating of

Scenic - 4

Historic - 3.5

Terrain - 1

Difficulty - 1.5

Size - Micro (supposedly)

Type - Traditional (supposedly)

 

Now theres more to query against so that each can get a list that better suits their needs. Add another (such as "hike distance to cache") and you can further make it easier to find the caches you want.

 

As for how they get scored, I would think 1 find per account, all scores are optional. People mentioned that some cachers might get bored and just mark everything as 3. Well, if they are that uninterested in improving the game, give them the option to opt out of voting.

[+sbell111]

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.

That doesn't change my question, which was: Weren't you the one telling us that we can easily read the cache pages to tell which ones we should "choose" to skip? You have said this many times in the past if I remember correctly. Is this correct? Anyhow, if you have said this, then why not put your money where you mouth is and vote? It is just one vote....However, if you are now saying that you really can't judge a cache by reading the cache page and so you would never "vote" based on that then you are starting to see our point that reading the cache page is hit or miss and is not an accurate or reliable method. So I think we are agreeing. Anyhow, I was honestly confused by your position. So if my confusion seems like twisting, that's not at all what I intended it to be.

Deciding which cache is good for you to hunt and rating a cache for everyone else's use are two totally different things.

 

I am totally comfortable with making judgements regarding which caches I want to hunt. However, I am completely unwilling to rate a cache for everyone else if I have not yet found it.

 

I think that Snoogans and I agree on this issue and I hope that my post helps clarify it for you.

[+TrailGators]

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.

That doesn't change my question, which was: Weren't you the one telling us that we can easily read the cache pages to tell which ones we should "choose" to skip? You have said this many times in the past if I remember correctly. Is this correct? Anyhow, if you have said this, then why not put your money where you mouth is and vote? It is just one vote....However, if you are now saying that you really can't judge a cache by reading the cache page and so you would never "vote" based on that then you are starting to see our point that reading the cache page is hit or miss and is not an accurate or reliable method. So I think we are agreeing. Anyhow, I was honestly confused by your position. So if my confusion seems like twisting, that's not at all what I intended it to be.

Deciding which cache is good for you to hunt and rating a cache for everyone else's use are two totally different things.

 

I am totally comfortable with making judgements regarding which caches I want to hunt. However, I am completely unwilling to rate a cache for everyone else if I have not yet found it.

 

I think that Snoogans and I agree on this issue and I hope that my post helps clarify it for you.

I agree too. This is also why it is hard to avoid YALPs and YAGs. You just never know what a cache is like until you find it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

You are in control of your life. You are in control of your cache hides.

 

Outside of a few listing guidelines and terms of service Groundspeak tells you neither how to hide caches nor how to live your life. Groundspeak controls its listings, the geocaching community controls quantity and quality.

 

I like that.

 

You have almost no control, however, over your finds.

 

You can prefer long hikes to scenic places with well-stocked dry well-hidden caches. Fine.

 

Good luck determining which caches fit that description.

 

Groundspeak can't tell you, I can't tell you, the community can't tell you.

 

I can tell you that when I found the cache it was a 1 mile hike, well-hidden in an interesting place, but if another cacher found it since I did or if it has rained since, all bets are off - it may be moved, poorly re-hidden, wet, or even worse someone may have put a religious tract in it!! A rating system can only tell me what the cache used to be.

 

I don't care for long hikes, it hurts me to walk over a mile, so if I do it I sure don't want to be stumped by a well hidden cache, I want to find the sucker, sit for a while and enjoy the view.

 

How will my preferences fit your perception and how will the fact that I didn't enjoy the hike, wasted time hunting some elusive cache and couldn't enjoy the view because now I am pressed for time to get back to real life help you when I go to rate the cache with your spiffy new rating system?

 

Unless you know me and can understand why I didn't like the cache you won't know what the rating means.

[vtmtnman]

You are in control of your life. You are in control of your cache hides.

 

Outside of a few listing guidelines and terms of service Groundspeak tells you neither how to hide caches nor how to live your life. Groundspeak controls its listings, the geocaching community controls quantity and quality.

 

I like that.

 

You have almost no control, however, over your finds.

 

You can prefer long hikes to scenic places with well-stocked dry well-hidden caches. Fine.

 

Good luck determining which caches fit that description.

 

Groundspeak can't tell you, I can't tell you, the community can't tell you.

 

I can tell you that when I found the cache it was a 1 mile hike, well-hidden in an interesting place, but if another cacher found it since I did or if it has rained since, all bets are off - it may be moved, poorly re-hidden, wet, or even worse someone may have put a religious tract in it!! A rating system can only tell me what the cache used to be.

 

I don't care for long hikes, it hurts me to walk over a mile, so if I do it I sure don't want to be stumped by a well hidden cache, I want to find the sucker, sit for a while and enjoy the view.

 

How will my preferences fit your perception and how will the fact that I didn't enjoy the hike, wasted time hunting some elusive cache and couldn't enjoy the view because now I am pressed for time to get back to real life help you when I go to rate the cache with your spiffy new rating system?

 

Unless you know me and can understand why I didn't like the cache you won't know what the rating means.

 

You do make a good point here though.This rating system thing may not be the all solving solution,because folks are different.

[+Miragee]

You are in control of your life. You are in control of your cache hides.

 

Outside of a few listing guidelines and terms of service Groundspeak tells you neither how to hide caches nor how to live your life. Groundspeak controls its listings, the geocaching community controls quantity and quality.

 

I like that.

 

You have almost no control, however, over your finds.

 

You can prefer long hikes to scenic places with well-stocked dry well-hidden caches. Fine.

 

Good luck determining which caches fit that description.

 

Groundspeak can't tell you, I can't tell you, the community can't tell you.

 

I can tell you that when I found the cache it was a 1 mile hike, well-hidden in an interesting place, but if another cacher found it since I did or if it has rained since, all bets are off - it may be moved, poorly re-hidden, wet, or even worse someone may have put a religious tract in it!! A rating system can only tell me what the cache used to be.

 

I don't care for long hikes, it hurts me to walk over a mile, so if I do it I sure don't want to be stumped by a well hidden cache, I want to find the sucker, sit for a while and enjoy the view.

 

How will my preferences fit your perception and how will the fact that I didn't enjoy the hike, wasted time hunting some elusive cache and couldn't enjoy the view because now I am pressed for time to get back to real life help you when I go to rate the cache with your spiffy new rating system?

 

Unless you know me and can understand why I didn't like the cache you won't know what the rating means.

Some very excellent points there!!

 

One day when I decided to look for some urban caches while I was in town, I realized my own mood greatly affected my opinion of the cache, and the cache hunt. I did a quick "mood adjustment" and had much more fun that afternoon.

 

However, I can think of a cache hunt my caching partner and I embarked on. After a long, arduous hike, we could not find the ammo can . . . That cache definitely did not go on my favorites list, although others, who had hints about where it was before they started out, thought that cache was great fun!

 

I can "justify" the placement of all of my caches, even my LPC. Some people who have found that cache have had a great time while they were there. Others think it is just another cache in a parking lot.

 

Filtering for the types of caches you like, or are capable of doing, seems like a simple way to solve the problem of repeated disappointments while on a caching expedition.

 

Oh . . . back to the original question. I am not an "Old Schooler," but some of the caches I have found that have been out for a long time were nothing special, and one, in an icky, black plastic bag, is on my "least favorite" list.

[+TrailGators]

I typically cache with a group. Whenever the group runs into YALPS or YAGS, I let the others get those. The smiley hunters love them and they admit that. That's OK with me. It doesn't really "bother" me. On the flip side, when I'm with a group and we run into a clever cache, the excitment level picks up because everyone really appreciates those kind of caches. So I think I have a good sense of what most people like and don't like because I've seen it so many times. So I think the group would rate these caches fairly, and you would see the caches that the group as a whole liked better rise up in the voting.

 

The real problem with a rating system is that it would make some people look bad when their caches got low votes. TPTB have already said they won't do it for this reason. But they will do an award system because that is positive reinforcement. So I'm crossing my fingers!

Edited May 18, 2007 by TrailGators

[vtmtnman]

I guess we'll have to see how the award system pans out.Hopefully it'll be a good thing.

[+CheshireFrog]

You are in control of your life.

 

Rambler, we usually see eye to eye, but you have obviously not met my wife.

 

Or my boss.

 

Or my daughter.

 

Or my brothers.

 

Or my banker.

 

Or my coworkers.

 

Or my mechanic.

 

Or the police here in town.

 

We have a stray cat in the neighborhood. It's a scrawny gray thing that gets stuff thrown at it whenever it shows up.

 

In the chain of command, I'm right below the cat.

[vtmtnman]

You are in control of your life.

 

Rambler, we usually see eye to eye, but you have obviously not met my wife.

 

Or my boss.

 

Or my daughter.

 

Or my brothers.

 

Or my banker.

 

Or my coworkers.

 

Or my mechanic.

 

Or the police here in town.

 

We have a stray cat in the neighborhood. It's a scrawny gray thing that gets stuff thrown at it whenever it shows up.

 

In the chain of command, I'm right below the cat.

[+Renegade Knight]

...We have a stray cat in the neighborhood. It's a scrawny gray thing that gets stuff thrown at it whenever it shows up.

 

In the chain of command, I'm right below the cat.

 

What's the cat throw at you when you show up?

 

On topic.

 

Ratings are for sissies. If you need ratings you ain't worthy of old school.

[vtmtnman]

...We have a stray cat in the neighborhood. It's a scrawny gray thing that gets stuff thrown at it whenever it shows up.

 

In the chain of command, I'm right below the cat.

 

What's the cat throw at you when you show up?

 

On topic.

 

Ratings are for sissies. If you need ratings you ain't worthy of old school.

This from an old schooler....what say the rest?

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

...We have a stray cat in the neighborhood. It's a scrawny gray thing that gets stuff thrown at it whenever it shows up.

 

In the chain of command, I'm right below the cat.

 

What's the cat throw at you when you show up?

 

On topic.

 

Ratings are for sissies. If you need ratings you ain't worthy of old school.

New Schooler here.

 

I vote for more values (as non-subjective as possible) that can be filtered upon, creating the ability for people to create a list of caches which suit them.

 

I agree, Ratings are useless

[+Jennifer&Dean]

...We have a stray cat in the neighborhood. It's a scrawny gray thing that gets stuff thrown at it whenever it shows up.

 

In the chain of command, I'm right below the cat.

 

What's the cat throw at you when you show up?

 

On topic.

 

Ratings are for sissies. If you need ratings you ain't worthy of old school.

 

 

[+Miragee]

...We have a stray cat in the neighborhood. It's a scrawny gray thing that gets stuff thrown at it whenever it shows up.

 

In the chain of command, I'm right below the cat.

 

What's the cat throw at you when you show up?

 

On topic.

 

Ratings are for sissies. If you need ratings you ain't worthy of old school.

New Schooler here.

 

I vote for more values (as non-subjective as possible) that can be filtered upon, creating the ability for people to create a list of caches which suit them.

 

I agree, Ratings are useless

Just curious, what values would you add?

 

When you can filter on Size, Terrain and Difficulty, so you can get either the hiking caches you are likely to enjoy, or the easy Park and Grabs you want while on a roadtrip, what else would you filter for?

 

I do agree the "trashcan" attribute would be a good one. If it was added, I wonder how many hiders would admit their cache is attached to the dumpster behind a shopping center.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

[Just curious, what values would you add?

 

When you can filter on Size, Terrain and Difficulty, so you can get either the hiking caches you are likely to enjoy, or the easy Park and Grabs you want while on a roadtrip, what else would you filter for?

 

I do agree the "trashcan" attribute would be a good one. If it was added, I wonder how many hiders would admit their cache is attached to the dumpster behind a shopping center.

To be honest, I think Size, Terrain and Difficulty can do a lot, however, they arent granular enough.

 

Size is fine I guess, although I would think a Bison being so much smaller than a film container almost deserves a "mini-micro" type listing.

 

Terrain of 1 could mean I can drive up and touch the cache (such as a LPC in the middle of a parking lot) or can also mean a hike up to 1/2 mile down a flat path. How can I filter if I'm looking for the latter but trying to avoid the former?

 

To be honest, I am a bit too new to make the determination as to what values are missing. I keep seeing nebulous terms tossed around like "lame caches", "good caches", "inspired locations" and I am just trying to fill in the blanks.

 

Some comments seems to elude to the desire for a cache to bring them to a location that has some sort of value, such as is historic or interesting or has a nice scenic view. A couple values that can help get people to those kind of caches while avoiding the others would be nice.

 

Others seem to mention how well maintained a cache is (soggy, empty, etc.). Perhaps a value relating the state of the cache when found might help people sort based on that criteria.

Edited May 18, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+Miragee]

There is an Attribute now for "Scenic View," and there is a "Needs Maintenance" choice when someone chooses a log type. That will flag the cache as needing help.

 

As for the reason someone places a cache . . . sometimes the cache page explains why the cache is in that parking lot, or hidden along a suburban street. The cache description gives the cache hider's "justification" for what other people would deem a "Lame Cache."

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

There is an Attribute now for "Scenic View," and there is a "Needs Maintenance" choice when someone chooses a log type. That will flag the cache as needing help.

 

As for the reason someone places a cache . . . sometimes the cache page explains why the cache is in that parking lot, or hidden along a suburban street. The cache description gives the cache hider's "justification" for what other people would deem a "Lame Cache."

Although the cache description may contain those things, I believe the idea was to filter or do a PQ that could pull up a list of caches that meet your desires without the need to opening each cache description and reading it

 

And , from what I have heard, the attributes were only added somewhat recently and few cache hider's went back and added them to their existing caches.

Edited May 18, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+sbell111]

...We have a stray cat in the neighborhood. It's a scrawny gray thing that gets stuff thrown at it whenever it shows up.

 

In the chain of command, I'm right below the cat.

 

What's the cat throw at you when you show up?

 

On topic.

 

Ratings are for sissies. If you need ratings you ain't worthy of old school.

This from an old schooler....what say the rest?

agreed

[+SixDogTeam]

and few cache hider's went back and added them to their existing caches.

 

We did.

[+Miragee]

There is an Attribute now for "Scenic View," and there is a "Needs Maintenance" choice when someone chooses a log type. That will flag the cache as needing help.

 

As for the reason someone places a cache . . . sometimes the cache page explains why the cache is in that parking lot, or hidden along a suburban street. The cache description gives the cache hider's "justification" for what other people would deem a "Lame Cache."

Although the cache description may contain those things, I believe the idea was to filter or do a PQ that could pull up a list of caches that meet your desires without the need to opening each cache description and reading it

 

And , from what I have heard, the attributes were only added somewhat recently and few cache hider's went back and added them to their existing caches.

That is very true. And, because I'm not sure the Attribute thingie works properly with PQs, I've never bothered with them.

 

And, I agree, only the cache description can explain why a "lame cache" might not be so lame afterall, but with "paperless" caching, some people never even see that carefully-crafted, HTML- and photograph- enhanced cache page.

 

I think the biggest difference between the way things were during the "Old School" days was the number of caches. Back then, people probably wanted to find all the caches that appeared near their home base. They didn't care about the poor cache placement so much . . . a cache was a cache . . . Whoooo Hooo!

 

Now, especially for people who are "Radius Slaves" (a term coined by one of our local cachers), they are "forced" to find every cache, regardless of its worth . . . or they put it on their Ignore list so they can pretend it isn't cluttering up the radius they try to keep clear.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I do agree the "trashcan" attribute would be a good one. If it was added, I wonder how many hiders would admit their cache is attached to the dumpster behind a shopping center.

 

I'd use it just to prove a point. That being my caches would all get filtered out by the discriminating cache snobs and only those who spend some time thinking about their finds would figure out that some of my caches are worth finding.

 

Of course I'm a Ted Kooser fan and like the Irony of these kinds of things.