# OK Old schoolers

## Recommended Posts

Sorry, but handicaching is extremely subjective and TOTALLY open to personal interpretation!

I am handicapped and don't use handicaching.com because I can't figure out how to rate things there in a useful manner!

Wheelchair accessible? What's that? A manual chair? An electric one? Can the subject use his arms? If so can he bump up over a 2" obstacle? A 4" one? Can he use his legs at all to stand up?

I can do things in a wheelchair most can't do - If I can get to it is it wheelchair accessible? Sure - I did it... but could you?

Totally subjective.

When you get 'wheelchair accessible' worked out we'll move on to other reasons why this ratings business doesn't work.

I apologize, perhaps I shouldnt be using handicaching.com as an example without looking more deeply into it. I opened up a cache just now (GC10QF5). its ratings read:

3 = Distance to cache = 0.4 miles to 0.6 miles (0.6km to 1km)

4 = Route surface = Rocks/sand/mud

3 = Route slope = 10% or less for MORE than 500ft (150m)

3 = Route obstructions = Small branches/moderate vegetation/steps

2 = Cache height = 0ft to 3ft above ground (0cm to 1m)

Now, I didnt notice where this cache was or was not rated as "wheelchair accessible", however, I am fairly certian that the type of wheelchair I have or the number of limbs I have that function will not in anyway change the distance travelled, the surface I travel upon, the grade of the slope, the types of obstructions, or the cache height. To me, these seem to be absolute (aka non-subjective) measurements.

I could be wrong.

I guess that I'm an 'Old Schooler', also so I better give my official suggestion. Here it is:

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.

This is how it is now.

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.
I don't think that you quite understand my post.
• With PQs you can be pretty darn sure that you'll like the results.
• By adding GSAK, you can easily drill down deeper. You can even ignore caches placed by individual cachers as TrailBlazers suggests. (you can automate this step using macros)
• I suggested bookmarks and hidden/found because someone requested recommendations as a solution.

I completely understand your point...and, I don't disagree with your perception, I just don't see it as a viable solution because I think it needs to be easier.

My point is it shouldn't require that much work. It should be inherent in the database as an attribute not a collection of attributes that are hit and miss.

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 that I'm an 'Old Schooler', also so I better give my official suggestion. Here it is:

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.

This is how it is now.
Really? Problem solved.
I don't think that you quite understand my post.
• With PQs you can be pretty darn sure that you'll like the results.
• By adding GSAK, you can easily drill down deeper. You can even ignore caches placed by individual cachers as TrailBlazers suggests. (you can automate this step using macros)
• I suggested bookmarks and hidden/found because someone requested recommendations as a solution.

I completely understand your point...and, I don't disagree with your perception, I just don't see it as a viable solution because I think it needs to be easier.

My point is it shouldn't require that much work. It should be inherent in the database as an attribute not a collection of attributes that are hit and miss.

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.

Well there's the next thread in GC.com website

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?

Because we live in America...

For most people this is true...granted, the point of this thread is for a subset of the geopopulous, which is where you and I part ways in this conversation. I agree with you, but for the sake of the topic this does not suffice.

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

My solution appeases both mindsets.

I guess that I'm an 'Old Schooler', also so I better give my official suggestion. Here it is:

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.

This is how it is now.
Really? Problem solved.

Not really,but we'd like to think so..

Ok, so let's get this straight...

I can use a combo of:

- PQ

- GSAK

- Bookmarks

- Personally searching "Cache's hidden by"

- Personally searching "Cache's found by"

I don't think that you quite understand my post.
• With PQs you can be pretty darn sure that you'll like the results.
• By adding GSAK, you can easily drill down deeper. You can even ignore caches placed by individual cachers as TrailBlazers suggests. (you can automate this step using macros)
• I suggested bookmarks and hidden/found because someone requested recommendations as a solution.

Let's say you choose to ignore caches hidden by me. You will miss an evil micro in the woods. A lame key holder on a billboard. A cool traditional at a very unusual southern country store (walk in and you are back in Civil War times), a traditional at a historical railroad trestle site, a traditional at a nice YMCA park, a traditional 30 miles from nowhere at my beautiful lake property where you can camp and swim, another at an interesting fishing camp, just for starters. Which ones are worth your time?

Let's say you choose to ignore caches found by me - man would you be missing out! Everything from 8-mile hikes through a state park, boat-required caches to which you have to climb steep 200' slopes on islands, to the lamest of LPC and park-n-grabs, in fact every sort of hide in every imaginable style and location! Which ones are worth your time?

No, that won't work.

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

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.

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.

That's good.

I think what they are asking for is a more affinitive way of sorting caches.

For instance there is a very nice 1.5/1 micro on the Greenway here that normal PQ and GSAK filtering would exclude, but it's a great little cache. At the same time there is the 2/2 regular just on the edge of town in a trashy area. PQs and GSAK would include this in types of caches that I like, but it's a poor cache as far as I'm concerned.

They want better quicker sorting, possibly by affinity, and have it on GC.com.

What they want has nothing to do with, nor can it be done with PQs of GSAK.

OSer's...this is true??

I remember a time when we were able to find caches before they were even approved. <IMG WIDTH="15" HEIGHT="15" SRC="/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="big grin"><BR><BR><A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/" TARGET=_blank>http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/</A>

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.
Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

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?

Because we live in America...

For most people this is true...granted, the point of this thread is for a subset of the geopopulous, which is where you and I part ways in this conversation. I agree with you, but for the sake of the topic this does not suffice.

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

My solution appeases both mindsets.

Actually it doesn't. I have a friend coming to town who wants to see Birmingham's best features - I will take him to caches near such places.

Saturday I will attend an event, afterward folks will want to hit local caches, usually four to a car and multiple cars. Mostly we'll do drive-ups at night, but we'll let the majority choose which ones interest them... or we may have all but one found a cache, we'll go let that one find it while we watch and giggle!

How in the world am I going to get a PQ of caches I want to do when the caches I want to do change daily, if not multiple times daily? I'd have to be pretty set in my ways to get PQs of only select types, sizes and locations!

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.
Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

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?

Because we live in America...

For most people this is true...granted, the point of this thread is for a subset of the geopopulous, which is where you and I part ways in this conversation. I agree with you, but for the sake of the topic this does not suffice.

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

My solution appeases both mindsets.

Actually it doesn't. I have a friend coming to town who wants to see Birmingham's best features - I will take him to caches near such places.

Saturday I will attend an event, afterward folks will want to hit local caches, usually four to a car and multiple cars. Mostly we'll do drive-ups at night, but we'll let the majority choose which ones interest them... or we may have all but one found a cache, we'll go let that one find it while we watch and giggle!

How in the world am I going to get a PQ of caches I want to do when the caches I want to do change daily, if not multiple times daily? I'd have to be pretty set in my ways to get PQs of only select types, sizes and locations!

You have not demonstrated how my solution didn't appease both mindsets. Did you read my solution?

Edited by egami
Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

I've never said "This is the way things must be" . What I do say is ""Here are things as I would like to see them". I don't see how that is being elitist, selfish, dictatorial, etc... any more than the side who says "We like the way things are, tough cookies, deal with it" is.

Edited by briansnat
Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

I've never said "This is the way things must be" . What I do say is ""Here are things as I would like to see it". I don't see how that is being elitist, selfish, dictatorial, etc... any more than the side who says "We like the way things are, tough cookies, deal with it" is.

And that's what this thread was for.

And that's what this thread was for.

Operative word being "was"...

Actaully, there has been some decent discussion.

Ok, so let's get this straight...

I can use a combo of:

- PQ

- GSAK

- Bookmarks

- Personally searching "Cache's hidden by"

- Personally searching "Cache's found by"

I don't think that you quite understand my post.
• With PQs you can be pretty darn sure that you'll like the results.
• By adding GSAK, you can easily drill down deeper. You can even ignore caches placed by individual cachers as TrailBlazers suggests. (you can automate this step using macros)
• I suggested bookmarks and hidden/found because someone requested recommendations as a solution.

Let's say you choose to ignore caches hidden by me. You will miss an evil micro in the woods. A lame key holder on a billboard. A cool traditional at a very unusual southern country store (walk in and you are back in Civil War times), a traditional at a historical railroad trestle site, a traditional at a nice YMCA park, a traditional 30 miles from nowhere at my beautiful lake property where you can camp and swim, another at an interesting fishing camp, just for starters. Which ones are worth your time?

Let's say you choose to ignore caches found by me - man would you be missing out! Everything from 8-mile hikes through a state park, boat-required caches to which you have to climb steep 200' slopes on islands, to the lamest of LPC and park-n-grabs, in fact every sort of hide in every imaginable style and location! Which ones are worth your time?

No, that won't work.

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

I agree with you. It is TrailBlazer's contention that ignoring all caches by certain hiders would be useful. I was merely noting that this option already exists for those that want to use it.

Edited by sbell111
The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.
Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.
Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"
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.

The first one is pretty darn easy with the terrain ratings. The second one may or may not be simple depending on your other desires. Of course, I can't imagine any way that you are going to satisfy that requirement and other expressed unless you have a hundred options for people to check off when they list a cache. That clearly wouldn't work.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".

The first one is pretty darn easy with the terrain ratings. The second one may or may not be simple depending on your other desires. Of course, I can't imagine any way that you are going to satisfy that requirement and other expressed unless you have a hundred options for people to check off when they list a cache. That clearly wouldn't work.

Exactly, it'd fail for many reasons previously mentioned umpteen times...that's why it'd be more feasible to implement a cache type that simply had a higher standard.

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.

That's good.

I think what they are asking for is a more affinitive way of sorting caches.

For instance there is a very nice 1.5/1 micro on the Greenway here that normal PQ and GSAK filtering would exclude, but it's a great little cache. At the same time there is the 2/2 regular just on the edge of town in a trashy area. PQs and GSAK would include this in types of caches that I like, but it's a poor cache as far as I'm concerned.

They want better quicker sorting, possibly by affinity, and have it on GC.com.

What they want has nothing to do with, nor can it be done with PQs of GSAK.

I completely agree with you.

My filtering method certainly doesn't guarantee that all 'good' caches will be filtered in and all 'bad' caches will be filtered out. What it does do is leave a person with a much higher probability that the caches sorted in will be 'good'. I like to think of it as a 'good old day' emulator.

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

I've never said "This is the way things must be" . What I do say is ""Here are things as I would like to see it". I don't see how that is being elitist, selfish, dictatorial, etc... any more than the side who says "We like the way things are, tough cookies, deal with it" is.

And that's what this thread was for.

Judging from some of the responses, I thought it was for me and those who are on my side of the argument to be called disparaging names.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".

Sorry, I fell behind in this thread and so I skimmed through a bunch of it to catch up. So what do you suggest?
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?
Because we live in America...

For most people this is true...granted, the point of this thread is for a subset of the geopopulous, which is where you and I part ways in this conversation. I agree with you, but for the sake of the topic this does not suffice.

I guess Jeremy could give me a call before allowing any cache to be listed, but that would get cumbersome after a while.
My solution appeases both mindsets.
Actually it doesn't. I have a friend coming to town who wants to see Birmingham's best features - I will take him to caches near such places.

Saturday I will attend an event, afterward folks will want to hit local caches, usually four to a car and multiple cars. Mostly we'll do drive-ups at night, but we'll let the majority choose which ones interest them... or we may have all but one found a cache, we'll go let that one find it while we watch and giggle!

How in the world am I going to get a PQ of caches I want to do when the caches I want to do change daily, if not multiple times daily? I'd have to be pretty set in my ways to get PQs of only select types, sizes and locations!

I think egami's solution was 'ratings'. Mine was PQs.

Of course, I suspect that you are a 'if you hide it, I'll find it' cacher. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In my opinion, that and a good attitude is the best way to play this game.

Judging from some of the responses, I thought it was for me and those who are on my side of the argument to be called disparaging names.

Maybe sitting and pouting will bring change.

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

I've never said "This is the way things must be" . What I do say is ""Here are things as I would like to see them". I don't see how that is being elitist, selfish, dictatorial, etc... any more than the side who says "We like the way things are, tough cookies, deal with it" is.

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

I think egami's solution was 'ratings'. Mine was PQs.

Of course, I suspect that you are a 'if you hide it, I'll find it' cacher. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In my opinion, that and a good attitude is the best way to play this game.

No, my solution is a new cache type that has a higher standard for placement. I am against any form of rating system.

People are obviously skipping large parts of the convo.

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

I've never said "This is the way things must be" . What I do say is ""Here are things as I would like to see it". I don't see how that is being elitist, selfish, dictatorial, etc... any more than the side who says "We like the way things are, tough cookies, deal with it" is.

And that's what this thread was for.

Judging from some of the responses, I thought it was for me and those who are on my side of the argument to be called disparaging names.

Why is it that some people always need to start calling people names? This is a discussion thread folks....There are two sides to every coin....

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".

What the heck is 'hidersense'?

Edited by sbell111

Why is it that some people always need to start calling people names? This is a discussion thread folks....There are two sides to every coin....

Personally, I haven't seen anyone call anyone a name in this thread.

The first one is pretty darn easy with the terrain ratings. The second one may or may not be simple depending on your other desires. Of course, I can't imagine any way that you are going to satisfy that requirement and other expressed unless you have a hundred options for people to check off when they list a cache. That clearly wouldn't work.
Exactly, it'd fail for many reasons previously mentioned umpteen times...that's why it'd be more feasible to implement a cache type that simply had a higher standard.
According to whom?

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".

What thew heck is 'hidersense'?

I think the concept is the ability to hide caches that aren't crap.

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

I've never said "This is the way things must be" . What I do say is ""Here are things as I would like to see it". I don't see how that is being elitist, selfish, dictatorial, etc... any more than the side who says "We like the way things are, tough cookies, deal with it" is.

And that's what this thread was for.

Judging from some of the responses, I thought it was for me and those who are on my side of the argument to be called disparaging names.

Who called you a name? Show them to me. I'll give them what for.
The first one is pretty darn easy with the terrain ratings. The second one may or may not be simple depending on your other desires. Of course, I can't imagine any way that you are going to satisfy that requirement and other expressed unless you have a hundred options for people to check off when they list a cache. That clearly wouldn't work.
Exactly, it'd fail for many reasons previously mentioned umpteen times...that's why it'd be more feasible to implement a cache type that simply had a higher standard.
According to whom?

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

I've never said "This is the way things must be" . What I do say is ""Here are things as I would like to see them". I don't see how that is being elitist, selfish, dictatorial, etc... any more than the side who says "We like the way things are, tough cookies, deal with it" is.

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

Humor.

Why is it that some people always need to start calling people names? This is a discussion thread folks....There are two sides to every coin....

Personally, I haven't seen anyone call anyone a name in this thread.

Go back the the beginning and search for terms like "selfish", "whiners" and "thought police".

Edited by briansnat

I think egami's solution was 'ratings'. Mine was PQs.

Of course, I suspect that you are a 'if you hide it, I'll find it' cacher. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In my opinion, that and a good attitude is the best way to play this game.

No, my solution is a new cache type that has a higher standard for placement. I am against any form of rating system.

People are obviously skipping large parts of the convo.

Sorry. I thought I had it straight.

I still don't get how that new cache type will be any different than the old 'traditional' type and who would determine if a cache should be in that type.

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

I've never said "This is the way things must be" . What I do say is ""Here are things as I would like to see it". I don't see how that is being elitist, selfish, dictatorial, etc... any more than the side who says "We like the way things are, tough cookies, deal with it" is.

And that's what this thread was for.

Judging from some of the responses, I thought it was for me and those who are on my side of the argument to be called disparaging names.

Who called you a name? Show them to me. I'll give them what for.

Search the thread for the words "whiner" and "complainer" for starters....
Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"
For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".
What thew heck is 'hidersense'?
I think the concept is the ability to hide caches that aren't crap.
'Carp' being as subjective as it is, I think I'll stick with 'Hide what you'd like to find'. Edited by sbell111
Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"
For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".
What thew heck is 'hidersense'?
I think the concept is the ability to hide caches that aren't crap.
'Carp' being as subjective as it is, I think I'll stick with 'Hide what you'd like to find'.

You know what...I agree with you, but in the context of the topic that doesn't solve the issue.

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

It can look like this

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?
My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.
I've never said "This is the way things must be" . What I do say is ""Here are things as I would like to see it". I don't see how that is being elitist, selfish, dictatorial, etc... any more than the side who says "We like the way things are, tough cookies, deal with it" is.
And that's what this thread was for.
Judging from some of the responses, I thought it was for me and those who are on my side of the argument to be called disparaging names.
Who called you a name? Show them to me. I'll give them what for.
Search the thread for the words "whiner" and "complainer" for starters....
Okey dokie. (Does anyone know how to search within a specific thread?)

Search the thread for the words "whiner" and "complainer" for starters....

And see that no one has been called out...

I think egami's solution was 'ratings'. Mine was PQs.

Of course, I suspect that you are a 'if you hide it, I'll find it' cacher. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In my opinion, that and a good attitude is the best way to play this game.

No, my solution is a new cache type that has a higher standard for placement. I am against any form of rating system.

People are obviously skipping large parts of the convo.

Sorry. I thought I had it straight.

I still don't get how that new cache type will be any different than the old 'traditional' type and who would determine if a cache should be in that type.

Page 3, see my replies, covers most of that question.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"
For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".
What thew heck is 'hidersense'?
I think the concept is the ability to hide caches that aren't crap.
'Carp' being as subjective as it is, I think I'll stick with 'Hide what you'd like to find'.
You know what...I agree with you, but in the context of the topic that doesn't solve the issue.
But doesn't that make 'hidersense' as you've defined it, unworkable? Otherwise, we would have to assume that both of our positions (hidersense & 'hide what you would like to find') are actually the same thing and that people already do it.

But doesn't that make 'hidersense' as you've defined it, unworkable? Otherwise, we would have to assume that both of our positions (hidersense & 'hide what you would like to find') are actually the same thing and that people already do it.

I didn't define it...I was just referring to what I thought the individual meant.

The point remains I am not in support of either as a solution to this perceived issue. Because they are both completely subjective across the entire geocaching populous.

I think I may be missing pieces of the puzzle. Can someone direct me to the definitions for each grade of Terrain and Difficulty?

I would rate a paved smooth parking lot behind a Walmart as a 1 Terrain, but I would also rate a nice paved or flat trail which went for miles into the woods as a 1 Terrain.

And I am clueless as to "Difficulty". I figured that was the difficutly of finding the cache once you reach ground zero.

Playing the Noob card again.

Edited by LivesWithMonkeys
I think egami's solution was 'ratings'. Mine was PQs.

Of course, I suspect that you are a 'if you hide it, I'll find it' cacher. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In my opinion, that and a good attitude is the best way to play this game.

No, my solution is a new cache type that has a higher standard for placement. I am against any form of rating system.

People are obviously skipping large parts of the convo.

Sorry. I thought I had it straight.

I still don't get how that new cache type will be any different than the old 'traditional' type and who would determine if a cache should be in that type.

Page 3, see my replies, covers most of that question.
Thanks.

As I understand it, a committee establish by TPTB would determine whether caches met this 'higher standard'.

I think this would cause angst that would dwarf that caused by 'Wow' by an order of magnitude.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.