Spew Be Gone!

[+Renegade Knight]

Oh, well if that's the definition then there are NO lame micros. There are redeeming qualities on all caches other than just adding to the find count.

 

I guess the discussion is over?

 

Ok... I am a co-worker of yours and you are describing geocaching to me. Please describe to me your experience finding a magnet case stuck to the back of a dumpster. Explain the redeeming qualities of that cache. Seriously, do this for me, because I want to hear it.

 

As your co worker I'd know what the heck you like, or at least have a clue. If you are into urban exploration it might interest you to know that that very dumpster has been the middle of a tag war betweeen 4 rival gangs whos turf all comes together at that spot.

 

Or maybe the springs that bubbles out of the ground 10' away and is piped, but which the town is named after and is all but forgotten is there, except the only spot to hide the cache...

 

Maybe this place is famous among the homeless for throwing away carefully bagged food that they can eat.

 

Since I don't know exactly your schtick, I can't sell you on any one cache. In the front office there is a lady who goes caching with me if I ask. Her limit isn't trash, it's weather. Someone placed that cache there, why?

[magellan315]

If I don't like strawberries, I don't buy the strawberries.

So if you don't like micros, don't look for them. Crisis resolved.

[Trinity's Crew]

<snip>

I think people generally understand the differences between something being GOOD and something being BAD.. I want to believe that you know the difference and you are just being difficult.

 

My partial list of "bad" things:

Motorcycles

Brussels sprouts

Pepsi

Anchovies

Bees

Snakes

Popcorn

Coors Light (or any tasteless beer)

Strawberries

Peaches

 

Does my list match yours?

 

But it's well defined. If I don't like strawberries, I don't buy the strawberries. If all these items were placed into a box and labeled the same, the only way I could find out if they are strawberries is to open up the box and look.. Understand the difference?

Good and bad are in the eye of the beholder and completely subjective. Understand the similarities?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Good and bad are in the eye of the beholder and completely subjective. Understand the similarities?

 

Yes, I understand the similarities, but do you understand the differences? Because this is the root of our discussion.

[Mushtang]

Oh, well if that's the definition then there are NO lame micros. There are redeeming qualities on all caches other than just adding to the find count.

 

I guess the discussion is over?

 

Ok... I am a co-worker of yours and you are describing geocaching to me. Please describe to me your experience finding a magnet case stuck to the back of a dumpster. Explain the redeeming qualities of that cache. Seriously, do this for me, because I want to hear it.

I've done it. Lots. But I'll do it again because you asked so nicely.

 

I travel on business a lot. Most of the time when I'm done for the day and sitting in my hotel room I'll fire up the GPS and see if there are any caches within walking distance. If there are, there's a good possibility I'll get my fat butt off the couch and go looking for it. It won't matter to me if it's an ammo can under a parallel pile of sticks, a small container in a lamp post, or a micro behind a dumpster. I've gotten some exercise, gotten a little fresh air, enjoyed playing with my GPSr, enjoyed being in on a secret that most people don't know, and have gotten to find a cache that someone hid.

 

If the cache weren't on that dumpster and there weren't other caches to find, I would probably have just stayed in my hotel room and watched HBO or The Discovery Channel. Thats fun too.

[CoyoteRed]

There will never be a "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like" filter. Anything other that this will not be satisfactory to you.

Hmmm... This could very well be considering the past responses to various rating schemes in the past.

 

However, such a type of rating does, in fact, exist. I've talked about it a couple of times in the past. In fact, everyone would have their own "caches that [username] doesn't like" filter.

 

It was said there would never be an off topic forum. Never say never.

[+Renegade Knight]

Good and bad are in the eye of the beholder and completely subjective. Understand the similarities?

 

Yes, I understand the similarities, but do you understand the differences? Because this is the root of our discussion.

Difference between subjective opinions? That's a tough one.

 

Let me tackle Trinity's list.

 

Motorcycles, The most fun you will ever have trying to kill yourself. This is my retirement plan to keep me out of "The Home"

Brussels sprouts, I like them when done right. Nobody can do them right. Mostly they suck.

Pepsi, Agreed. Yuck, Yuck, Yuck.

Anchovies. Tried them on Pizza once. Nobody else tried them. The pizza sucked. I got razzed over that.

Bees, I like them as long as they are not the "Killer" variety.

Snakes, Great things.

Popcorn, I never want it when asked, but eat it all when served.

Coors Light (or any tasteless beer), Agreed. The stuff needs flavor.

Strawberries, What? Straberries? How can you hate these things?

Peaches, Fresh off the tree dripping with juices...They are the best. We used to have a peach tree. You just has to watch for the worms. Of course the crappy ones you buy in the store can't compare. Yuck.

[+Renegade Knight]

...However, such a type of rating does, in fact, exist. I've talked about it a couple of times in the past. In fact, everyone would have their own "caches that [username] doesn't like" filter....

 

The Netflix style rating?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Good and bad are in the eye of the beholder and completely subjective. Understand the similarities?

 

Yes, I understand the similarities, but do you understand the differences? Because this is the root of our discussion.

Difference between subjective opinions? That's a tough one.

 

Let me tackle Trinity's list.

 

Motorcycles, The most fun you will ever have trying to kill yourself. This is my retirement plan to keep me out of "The Home"

Brussels sprouts, I like them when done right. Nobody can do them right. Mostly they suck.

Pepsi, Agreed. Yuck, Yuck, Yuck.

Anchovies. Tried them on Pizza once. Nobody else tried them. The pizza sucked. I got razzed over that.

Bees, I like them as long as they are not the "Killer" variety.

Snakes, Great things.

Popcorn, I never want it when asked, but eat it all when served.

Coors Light (or any tasteless beer), Agreed. The stuff needs flavor.

Strawberries, What? Straberries? How can you hate these things?

Peaches, Fresh off the tree dripping with juices...They are the best. We used to have a peach tree. You just has to watch for the worms. Of course the crappy ones you buy in the store can't compare. Yuck.

 

no, no, no.. Given a list of things that he didn't like, versus trying to determine what caches I don't like. It's easy with strawberries because strawberries are well defined.. The differences that make caches good or bad are not well defined. That is the difference I am talking about, not the specifics of the items he doesn't like..

 

i could care less if he doesn't like brussel sprouts, but if all vegetables were put in the same packaging, I bet he would have a problem with that.. Am I wrong?

[Trinity's Crew]

Good and bad are in the eye of the beholder and completely subjective. Understand the similarities?

 

Yes, I understand the similarities, but do you understand the differences? Because this is the root of our discussion.

No, the root of the discussion (lately) is whether you can define lame in a way that the masses can understand, identify, and agree with. So far you haven't and I don't think you (or anyone) can.

[CoyoteRed]

...However, such a type of rating does, in fact, exist. I've talked about it a couple of times in the past. In fact, everyone would have their own "caches that [username] doesn't like" filter....

The Netflix style rating?

I don't know what mechanism Netflix uses. I'm talking about a Bayesian system. I've gone into it deeper in teh past, but in short the rating for you are taken from other users who have agreed with you in the past. If you poll a group that has agreed 100% with you in the past, you can give a very high probability their future recommendations will agree with you, as well.

[+sbell111]

Ok... I am a co-worker of yours and you are describing geocaching to me. Please describe to me your experience finding a magnet case stuck to the back of a dumpster. Explain the redeeming qualities of that cache. Seriously, do this for me, because I want to hear it.

Three or four years ago, I was in business in LA for several weeks. In the late afternoons and evenings, I'd take several-mile walks and hit caches on the way. One evening, I found myself in Manhattan Beach and bumped into a few of my coworkers in a gelato shop. (yummy!)

 

I had previously explained geocaching to one of them this way: It's a game in which people hide things and then post the coordinates for them online. Other people from all over the world pull up the coordinates and finds whatever the person hid. They sign the logbook and make a trade if the cache is large enough for trade items. I also explained to her about virts.

 

When I bumped into Kristina, she asked me if I had been geocaching and whether there were any nearby ones. I told her that there was one that I hadn't yet found that showed just a few blocks away.

 

She and I wandered over to the location, which was a parking garage. She found the magnetic keyholder attached to some sort of big power box or AC unit on the bottom floor, as I recall.

 

This was her log:

I am visiting LA and just learned of geocaching from a friend/coworker who has spoke of this hobby highly. I first got excited about finding a cache when we were walking under airplanes near LAX. His GPS said there was a cache and I was intrigued to learn more. We were in Manhattan Beach with 2 other coworkers today, St. Patrick's Day, we found a cache in Manhattan Beach. It was fantastic to find and I can't wait to find more! This has been a great experience!

Granted, that keyholder wasn't attached to a dumpster, but it would fit many people in this thread's definition of lame. I liked it. She liked it. Lots of people before and after liked it. Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[Trinity's Crew]

i could care less if he doesn't like brussel sprouts, but if all vegetables were put in the same packaging, I bet he would have a problem with that.. Am I wrong?

Actually, provided that someone was giving me the vegetables (you know, I drive to the store, hike or walk in, take several boxes and drive back home) I might be disappointed if all of the unmarked boxes I chose WERE brussels sprouts but I'd just go back and try again when I had the time.

And I certainly wouldn't complain to the person giving me the free, unmarked vegetables. Aside from this being rude, they might stop giving them to me.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Good and bad are in the eye of the beholder and completely subjective. Understand the similarities?

 

Yes, I understand the similarities, but do you understand the differences? Because this is the root of our discussion.

No, the root of the discussion (lately) is whether you can define lame in a way that the masses can understand, identify, and agree with. So far you haven't and I don't think you (or anyone) can.

 

100% understanding is not possible. And it's not necessary.. The boxes just need to be defined better, so I can understand what I'm dealing with. If I know I'm dealing with a magnetic box stuck to a dumpster before I get there, I'll be happy.. The best way to do that is through a rating system, but it is not my intention to splinter this discussion in that direction.

[Mushtang]

...However, such a type of rating does, in fact, exist. I've talked about it a couple of times in the past. In fact, everyone would have their own "caches that [username] doesn't like" filter....

The Netflix style rating?

I don't know what mechanism Netflix uses. I'm talking about a Bayesian system. I've gone into it deeper in teh past, but in short the rating for you are taken from other users who have agreed with you in the past. If you poll a group that has agreed 100% with you in the past, you can give a very high probability their future recommendations will agree with you, as well.

That still leaves you with a filter style that removes caches that you probably won't like, and gives you caches that you probably will like. Folks like BrianSnat will argue that it will also probably eliminate some caches that they would like, and therefore it's unacceptable.

[+ReadyOrNot]

...However, such a type of rating does, in fact, exist. I've talked about it a couple of times in the past. In fact, everyone would have their own "caches that [username] doesn't like" filter....

The Netflix style rating?

I don't know what mechanism Netflix uses. I'm talking about a Bayesian system. I've gone into it deeper in teh past, but in short the rating for you are taken from other users who have agreed with you in the past. If you poll a group that has agreed 100% with you in the past, you can give a very high probability their future recommendations will agree with you, as well.

That still leaves you with a filter style that removes caches that you probably won't like, and gives you caches that you probably will like. Folks like BrianSnat will argue that it will also probably eliminate some caches that they would like, and therefore it's unacceptable.

 

But that's better than what we have now... If we continue moving in the direction of "better", isn't that a good thing versus remaining stagnant?

[+sbell111]

But it's well defined. If I don't like strawberries, I don't buy the strawberries. If all these items were placed into a box and labeled the same, the only way I could find out if they are strawberries is to open up the box and look.. Understand the difference?

The thing is, they are placed in different boxes and the boxes are not blank.

 

They may not have a big label on them that says 'ReadyOrNot likes me', but they have labels with lots of information that you can use to give you an idea as to whether or not you will like whatever is inside.

[+sbell111]

That still leaves you with a filter style that removes caches that you probably won't like, and gives you caches that you probably will like. Folks like BrianSnat will argue that it will also probably eliminate some caches that they would like, and therefore it's unacceptable.

But that's better than what we have now... If we continue moving in the direction of "better", isn't that a good thing versus remaining stagnant?

Actually, that's exactly what we have now. You apparently just haven't tried to use the current method that would allow you to filter in caches that you would likely like and filter out caches that you would likely dislike. Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[+ReadyOrNot]

But it's well defined. If I don't like strawberries, I don't buy the strawberries. If all these items were placed into a box and labeled the same, the only way I could find out if they are strawberries is to open up the box and look.. Understand the difference?

The thing is, they are placed in different boxes and the boxes are not blank.

 

They may not have a big label on them that says 'ReadyOrNot likes me', but they have labels with lots of information that you can use to give you an idea as to whether or not you will like whatever is inside.

 

But just because there is "a way" to limit the results doesn't mean that its the "best way" to do it. I agree that the way you mentioned is better than blindly seeking caches and hoping for the best, but it certainly isn't the best way to do it.. We should be trying to find a better way, wouldn't you agree?

[Mushtang]

i could care less if he doesn't like brussel sprouts, but if all vegetables were put in the same packaging, I bet he would have a problem with that.. Am I wrong?

I'm guessing you meant that you couldn't care less, instead of could care less.

 

Anyway, if someone didn't like brussel sprouts and all veggies were in the same packaging, I'd have to ask you to clarify... are the veggies a gift left to anyone that wanted them, or are they in a store and he went in to spend money on some specific non-brussel veggie?

 

Nobody has ever paid me to place a cache, and until they do they get no say-so in what kind I place, or where I place it.

 

Gc.com might choose not to list a cache I place for whatever reason, but they've been nice and defined guidelines as to what they'll list.

 

So if you come to me and complain that a cache I've hidden is not up to your standards, even though a lot of other people are enjoying finding it, don't be surprised if I don't really care what you say about it.

 

Pay me to hide a cache for you and you'll find I'm much more responsive to your remarks and more willing to ignore the others that are enjoying it.

[+ReadyOrNot]

That still leaves you with a filter style that removes caches that you probably won't like, and gives you caches that you probably will like. Folks like BrianSnat will argue that it will also probably eliminate some caches that they would like, and therefore it's unacceptable.

But that's better than what we have now... If we continue moving in the direction of "better", isn't that a good thing versus remaining stagnant?

Actually, that's exactly what we have now. You apparently just haven't tried to use the current method that would allow you to filter in caches that you would likely like and filter out caches that you would likely dislike.

 

So your opinion is that the method that is in use right now is "THE BEST" option available? With that thinking, innovation would never happen.

[+sbell111]

But it's well defined. If I don't like strawberries, I don't buy the strawberries. If all these items were placed into a box and labeled the same, the only way I could find out if they are strawberries is to open up the box and look.. Understand the difference?

The thing is, they are placed in different boxes and the boxes are not blank.

 

They may not have a big label on them that says 'ReadyOrNot likes me', but they have labels with lots of information that you can use to give you an idea as to whether or not you will like whatever is inside.

But just because there is "a way" to limit the results doesn't mean that its the "best way" to do it. I agree that the way you mentioned is better than blindly seeking caches and hoping for the best, but it certainly isn't the best way to do it.. We should be trying to find a better way, wouldn't you agree?

Of course. However, since Jeremy doesn't yet follow my every command, he hasn't enacted the stevometer, yet. Therefore, I stick the method that works very well and is currently available.

[+ReadyOrNot]

But it's well defined. If I don't like strawberries, I don't buy the strawberries. If all these items were placed into a box and labeled the same, the only way I could find out if they are strawberries is to open up the box and look.. Understand the difference?

The thing is, they are placed in different boxes and the boxes are not blank.

 

They may not have a big label on them that says 'ReadyOrNot likes me', but they have labels with lots of information that you can use to give you an idea as to whether or not you will like whatever is inside.

But just because there is "a way" to limit the results doesn't mean that its the "best way" to do it. I agree that the way you mentioned is better than blindly seeking caches and hoping for the best, but it certainly isn't the best way to do it.. We should be trying to find a better way, wouldn't you agree?

Of course. However, since Jeremy doesn't yet follow my every command, he hasn't enacted the stevometer, yet. Therefore, I stick the method that works very well and is currently available.

 

So, you agree there could be a better way.. In your opinion, what would be a better way?

[+DanOCan]

Have I ever read a cache page, decided to hunt for the cache and then found out it meets my definition of lame? Yes. So, how does this affect me in a negative way? Let's see:

 

A) I find the cache and add +1 to my numbers. Cool. I will describe my experience in my online log, whether that is good or indifferent -- even if that log consists of "Well, at least this was a good way to boost my numbers."

 

I don't find the cache and I log a DNF. Oh well. No harm, no foul. If I didn't enjoy the hunt I'll say so. "Gave this one a try but the large number of people at the Tim Horton's drive thru giving me strange looks made me uncomfortable so I stopped my search early."

 

C) I look at the cache location and decide I am not hunting for it because the location is too visible, the location is too dirty or whatever. I may post a Note on the cache page saying "Didn't feel like hunting here because of the [whatever]."

 

Really, none of it is skin off my nose. Someone who is out to pump up their Hide count can do so. Someone who is out to pump up their Find count (including me some days!) is free to do so. There are things I can control and things I can't -- trying to stop someone from hiding a cache because I might not like it is one of those things I can't control. Oh well.

[+Renegade Knight]

...However, such a type of rating does, in fact, exist. I've talked about it a couple of times in the past. In fact, everyone would have their own "caches that [username] doesn't like" filter....

The Netflix style rating?

I don't know what mechanism Netflix uses. I'm talking about a Bayesian system. I've gone into it deeper in teh past, but in short the rating for you are taken from other users who have agreed with you in the past. If you poll a group that has agreed 100% with you in the past, you can give a very high probability their future recommendations will agree with you, as well.

 

That's the Gist of Netflix though I didn't know the term behind it. Such a rating system would work fairly well for most people. Though there have been some good debates over it as well.

[+sbell111]

That still leaves you with a filter style that removes caches that you probably won't like, and gives you caches that you probably will like. Folks like BrianSnat will argue that it will also probably eliminate some caches that they would like, and therefore it's unacceptable.

But that's better than what we have now... If we continue moving in the direction of "better", isn't that a good thing versus remaining stagnant?

Actually, that's exactly what we have now. You apparently just haven't tried to use the current method that would allow you to filter in caches that you would likely like and filter out caches that you would likely dislike.

So your opinion is that the method that is in use right now is "THE BEST" option available? With that thinking, innovation would never happen.

I think that you made a logical leap, there.

 

My car is awesome. In my opinion, it is the best way to travel from point A to point B. I do, however, admit that transporter technology would be pretty darn cool. Since transporter technology doesn't currently exist to me, I'm going to stick with the transportation methed that I currently have at my disposal. It is lucky that it is "THE BEST" option currently available.

 

I don't believe that my incredible little machine is going to keep the science geeks from trying to come up with something better. I also don't believe that my neighbor's whining about his Dodge Decrepit is going to spurn the engineers to get him beeming himself any faster. I also don't recommend that he gives up his vehicle without having a better mode of transport.

[+sbell111]

But it's well defined. If I don't like strawberries, I don't buy the strawberries. If all these items were placed into a box and labeled the same, the only way I could find out if they are strawberries is to open up the box and look.. Understand the difference?

The thing is, they are placed in different boxes and the boxes are not blank.

 

They may not have a big label on them that says 'ReadyOrNot likes me', but they have labels with lots of information that you can use to give you an idea as to whether or not you will like whatever is inside.

But just because there is "a way" to limit the results doesn't mean that its the "best way" to do it. I agree that the way you mentioned is better than blindly seeking caches and hoping for the best, but it certainly isn't the best way to do it.. We should be trying to find a better way, wouldn't you agree?

Of course. However, since Jeremy doesn't yet follow my every command, he hasn't enacted the stevometer, yet. Therefore, I stick the method that works very well and is currently available.

So, you agree there could be a better way.. In your opinion, what would be a better way?

Dude, I clearly mentioned the stevometer. The stevometer would force all cachers to only place caches that I would likely enjoy. It would also archive and unarchive caches depending on whether I would enjoy to find them that day. Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[Trinity's Crew]

Have I ever read a cache page, decided to hunt for the cache and then found out it meets my definition of lame? Yes. So, how does this affect me in a negative way? Let's see:

 

A) I find the cache and add +1 to my numbers. Cool. I will describe my experience in my online log, whether that is good or indifferent -- even if that log consists of "Well, at least this was a good way to boost my numbers."

 

I don't find the cache and I log a DNF. Oh well. No harm, no foul. If I didn't enjoy the hunt I'll say so. "Gave this one a try but the large number of people at the Tim Horton's drive thru giving me strange looks made me uncomfortable so I stopped my search early."

 

C) I look at the cache location and decide I am not hunting for it because the location is too visible, the location is too dirty or whatever. I may post a Note on the cache page saying "Didn't feel like hunting here because of the [whatever]."

 

Really, none of it is skin off my nose. Someone who is out to pump up their Hide count can do so. Someone who is out to pump up their Find count (including me some days!) is free to do so. There are things I can control and things I can't -- trying to stop someone from hiding a cache because I might not like it is one of those things I can't control. Oh well.

Someone who gets it. Very good post!

 

(The preceding statement was the opinion of this poster. For those of you who did NOT like this post... well it kind of proves my point about what's good and what's bad.)

[Trinity's Crew]

Dude, I clearly mentioned the stevometer. The stevometer would force all cachers to only place caches that I would enjoy. It would also archive and unarchive caches depending on whether I would enjoy to find them that day.

Cool! Where can I get one? And can I call it the Joe-o-meter? Nevermind. Stevometer has a much nicer ring to it, and besides I only like "lame" caches. What fun would that be?

Edited September 6, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+Team GeoBlast]

...However, such a type of rating does, in fact, exist. I've talked about it a couple of times in the past. In fact, everyone would have their own "caches that [username] doesn't like" filter....

The Netflix style rating?

I don't know what mechanism Netflix uses. I'm talking about a Bayesian system. I've gone into it deeper in teh past, but in short the rating for you are taken from other users who have agreed with you in the past. If you poll a group that has agreed 100% with you in the past, you can give a very high probability their future recommendations will agree with you, as well.

That still leaves you with a filter style that removes caches that you probably won't like, and gives you caches that you probably will like. Folks like BrianSnat will argue that it will also probably eliminate some caches that they would like, and therefore it's unacceptable.

 

But that's better than what we have now... If we continue moving in the direction of "better", isn't that a good thing versus remaining stagnant?

 

Watching this same discussion evolve once again, I can pick pieces of both (probably 4 or 5) sides of the fence that I agree with. This last statement is the one I can identify with more than any others. Overall, the challenge is defining "better." Although this is very tough thing to do, I am pretty confident that "sameness" and "repetition" would not be included by too many.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+sbell111]

Dude, I clearly mentioned the stevometer. The stevometer would force all cachers to only place caches that I would enjoy. It would also archive and unarchive caches depending on whether I would enjoy to find them that day.

Cool! Where can I get one? And can I call it the Joe-o-meter? Nevermind. Stevometer has a much nicer ring to it, and besides I only like "lame" caches. What fun would that be?

Brian's gonna be mighty peaved when you turn it on and all his faves get archived.

 

(I'd seriously pay a dollar to see it happen. )

[+Team GeoBlast]

If you don't like em... filter out caches that have traits of those you don't like, and you'll vastly increase the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ. You'll also remove quite a few caches you would also have enjoyed, but there are so many caches available you won't run out of these anyway.

 

I want to find the enjoyable caches out there and any method that filters some of them out is not satisfactory to me.

There will never be a "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like" filter. Anything other that this will not be satisfactory to you.

 

It's too bad too because I would use that filter every time I go caching.

[+briansnat]

There will never be a filter for "Caches that ReadyOrNot doesn't like", or "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like". This method is the best way to do what you'd want that to do anyway.

 

It may be the best way, but it's a lousy way.

 

BTW, if the spot were so good, why hadn't you already placed an "acceptable" cache there?

 

1. I'm not a millionaire and can't afford to place a cache at every good spot

2. Even if I could afford it, I work and don't have the time to maintain them all

3. I like to find caches too. If they are all mine that doesn't leave a lot for me to find does it?

4. If I'm out of town I don't know the good spots and if I did, the guidelines prohibit my placing caches there.

[+sbell111]

There will never be a filter for "Caches that ReadyOrNot doesn't like", or "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like". This method is the best way to do what you'd want that to do anyway.

It may be the best way, but it's a lousy way.

It's a lousy way that isn't too hard to set up and actually works very well. Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[+GeoScooter1]

I would think that one relatively easy way to avoid a cache some might consider lame would be to look at the attributes. If one is listed as handicapped accessible, that might be a clue for those that hate LUMs to look elsewhere. Until reading this thread, I hadn't given any thought to those geocachers who might have difficulties reaching caches on trails and I am glad that they are able to participate in caches that others might consider lame.

 

Where is it written that handicapped people have to be sentenced to a geo-lifetime of skirt lifting and lurking around dumpsters and loading docks? I know if I were to become handicapped and lame caches were all that was available to me that would be the end of my geocaching days.

 

Handicapped people deserve interesting caches too. I've found quite a few good to excellent caches that were handicap accessible. Easy terrain does not have to = lame.

 

Correct. Nor do these handicap cachers need 50% of the caches in and around many major cities in the U.S. to be placed in parking lots, around dumpsters and near loading docks, allegedly on their behalf.

 

It was not my intent to say that handicapped people should be sentenced to skirt-lifting, etc. and I apologize if that was how it was interpreted. I was just trying to find a way that the OP could use to try and rid himself of caches he deems lame. I got the impression that he thought urban micros that were easily found, park and grabs, and 1/1's were beneath him. I know some micros that have a terrain of 1 with a 4-5 difficulty that are handicapped accessible and great urban caches.

[+Markwell]

My Postulates (and these are different than what I may have posted in the past on similar subjects):

1. There are many, MANY caches out there, and many MORE being placed daily (while caches are being archived at a slower rate)
   
2. Cache seekers are trying to find caches that they will enjoy (however they personally define "enjoyment").
   
3. Cache seekers can use tools to limit the caches on their seek list by characteristics (terrain, attributes, difficulty, type, size, etc.).
   
4. Groundspeak does not limit cache hiders to the style and type of hide based on quality. According to Groundspeak listing guidelines, cache hiders ought to be able to place caches in a method and location that they believe is good so long as the cache conforms to land manager and Groundspeak rules.
   

In many threads since 2001, both sides have argued the same arguments over and over again regarding glut of what they consider lame caches.

 

There is one camp that wants to place caches in any way, and they are not concerned with how they are perceived by the public.

The other side bemoans that while it is possible to filter out caches based on a particular attribute or terrain level, there are great caches that might be missed (baby with the bathwater).

 

I could have predicted almost every aspect of this thread (and who the posters would be).

I hate lame micro caches. There's too many of them.

I don't think all micro caches are lame.

OK, I hate lame caches.

What you define as lame may not be the same definition for everyone.

OK, I hate caches that are placed in parking lots or junk piles or behind dumpsters.

You can use filters on PQs and in GSAK to limit out caches that are low terrain or micros or whatever else you want to limit by.

But there may be micros that are in great locations, or low terrain caches that might be really fun, and I don't want to miss those.

But there are enough caches out there that you shouldn't run out of ones to find that match the criteria that you DO like, so that's not a problem, right?

What about highlighting the really good ones?

No way - that's too subjective and would NEVER be practical.

((Shouting match ensues))

MOD: Thread is too far off topic. Shutting down.

============

New thread next week: I hate lame micro caches. There's even more than there were last week.

 

Netflix or Amazon style ratings have been mentioned (an automatic "if-you-liked-this-cache-you'll-love-this-cache"), but I'm not sure how high on a priority list of programming features this would be. Jeremy indicated that this was something he was considering back in 2005 with these two posts - but that was 2+ years ago and nothing has happened.

 

So - this thread (in my prediction) will not change the minds of any of the major posters, except that almost ALL of the people involved are agreeing that it is not in good form to remove a cache just because you define it as garbage.

 

Want some historical references? Here's some reading on this topic from the past:

How Do I Get Quality Caches In My Area

The question was: If you believe that there is a glut of less than desirable caches in your area (whatever that criteria might be) how do you best counteract that.

 

A recap of the suggestions so far:

• Hide good ones
  
• Hide more good ones
  
• Start a local geocaching association that can make suggestions or help cleanup unmaintained caches
  
• In some fashion, highlight the best caches and hold them up as an example
  
• Hide good ones
  
• Write good lengthy logs on the good ones
  
• Don't let micros count toward your finds
  
• Allow cachers to hide a cache only after a minimum number of finds
  
• Host events that discuss really good caches to inform newbies of the best around
  
• Don't worry about it
  
• Remove find counts I struck that one because it happened once and Jeremy got raked over the coals. It's doubtful that he'll do it again.
  
• Did I mention hide good ones?
  
• Welcoming new cachers to the area when they find your cache, and suggesting another favorite of your finds (if you liked my cache, you'll love this one)
  
• Get ideas from other areas and bring them back to your home region.
  
• Place Travel Bugs only in what you consider good caches (to encourage other visitors)
  
• Apply a "wow" factor to the approval process
  

Baby with the bathwater argument

The pocket queries and GSAK are all great, and they make for fabulous bulk downloads and carve-'em-up data mining to get just the types that I like. But throwing out ALL caches based on a particular characteristic of a cache is a "baby-with-the-bathwater" solution. Let me see if I can come up with a good hypothetical.

 

If there was a data field on the system for caches indicated the color of the container, and I found that in my region, people using purple containers placed caches that I didn't enjoy hunting, I would exclude purple containers from my search, possibly even put them on my ignore list as soon as they pop up. But then along comes a cacher that places caches EXACTLY like I enjoy hunting, but he happens to use purple containers. Because of the limitations of the system, unless I periodically try a purple container cache and realize that this new individual is hiding caches that I would enjoy, I would be missing out on an opportunity to have fun playing this game.

 

However, if there were some OTHER method of showing aggregated information that purple caches were suddenly on the rise in popularity, it would likely be enough to trigger me to look again at purple container caches.

 

There is also the problem of caching out of your area. I have found (as many others have) that caching styles are very regional. There was a time in the Chicago area that many "caches of diminutive size" were hidden with a green wire attached for visibility. I'm reasonably sure this was a local phenomenon. I don't think I have to connect the dots from that statement to this: If I were heading to another area, do I omit searching for purple containers?

[+TrailGators]

...However, such a type of rating does, in fact, exist. I've talked about it a couple of times in the past. In fact, everyone would have their own "caches that [username] doesn't like" filter....

The Netflix style rating?

I don't know what mechanism Netflix uses. I'm talking about a Bayesian system. I've gone into it deeper in teh past, but in short the rating for you are taken from other users who have agreed with you in the past. If you poll a group that has agreed 100% with you in the past, you can give a very high probability their future recommendations will agree with you, as well.

 

That's the Gist of Netflix though I didn't know the term behind it. Such a rating system would work fairly well for most people. Though there have been some good debates over it as well.

I think this system would work very well.

[Uberquandary]

...However, such a type of rating does, in fact, exist. I've talked about it a couple of times in the past. In fact, everyone would have their own "caches that [username] doesn't like" filter....

The Netflix style rating?

I don't know what mechanism Netflix uses. I'm talking about a Bayesian system. I've gone into it deeper in teh past, but in short the rating for you are taken from other users who have agreed with you in the past. If you poll a group that has agreed 100% with you in the past, you can give a very high probability their future recommendations will agree with you, as well.

 

That's the Gist of Netflix though I didn't know the term behind it. Such a rating system would work fairly well for most people. Though there have been some good debates over it as well.

I think this system would work very well.

Since my strategy is to find caches hidden by people who've found caches I've liked (and the other caches hidden by the person who hid the initial cache), that sounds good to me as well.

[+briansnat]

There will never be a filter for "Caches that ReadyOrNot doesn't like", or "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like". This method is the best way to do what you'd want that to do anyway.

It may be the best way, but it's a lousy way.

It's a lousy way that isn't too hard to set up and actually works very well.

 

Really? How does it work well? I've yet to see a way to filter out the junk caches that doesn't also filter out quality caches. If you have a method that accomplishes this without extensive research into each cache,

please explain it. A lot of people would be delighted to learn of it.

[+ReadyOrNot]

There will never be a filter for "Caches that ReadyOrNot doesn't like", or "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like". This method is the best way to do what you'd want that to do anyway.

It may be the best way, but it's a lousy way.

It's a lousy way that isn't too hard to set up and actually works very well.

 

Really? How does it work well? I've yet to see a way to filter out the junk caches that doesn't also filter out quality caches. If you have a method that accomplishes this without extensive research into each cache,

please explain it. A lot of people would be delighted to learn of it.

 

Yes, I'm eagerly waiting for the answer myself... Don't leave out the explanation for how it works well

[Trinity's Crew]

Yes, I'm eagerly waiting for the answer myself... Don't leave out the explanation for how it works well

Sbell and other think it works well. Briansnat and others think it doesn't work well. Is either side really wrong or is it strictly a matter of opinion? Will we ever agree on whether this method is good or bad?

 

[hokey organ music] Tune in tomorrow for another episode of "Does The Cache Suck?" [/hokey organ music]

Edited September 6, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+Too Tall John]

I want to find the enjoyable caches out there and any method that filters some of them out is not satisfactory to me.

That doesn't mean that the method doesn't work....

Actually, From what I can read, it sounds like he's saying that it doesn't work. Just because something might work for you doesn't mean that it works for others.

 

Watched the Back to the Future Trilogy recently. Biff (the bully) has a car. We find out that only he can start the car. If, in today's world, suddenly all ignitions in cars suddenly developed the same quirk, Biff would go around telling people that there was nothing wrong with their cars since they worked for him, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a line of cars at the garage waiting to be repaired. Well, as long as people could get them to the garage without having to start it...

 

My point? Look, Biff, just because it works for you doesn't mean it works.

[Mushtang]

There will never be a filter for "Caches that ReadyOrNot doesn't like", or "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like". This method is the best way to do what you'd want that to do anyway.

It may be the best way, but it's a lousy way.

It's a lousy way that isn't too hard to set up and actually works very well.

 

Really? How does it work well? I've yet to see a way to filter out the junk caches that doesn't also filter out quality caches. If you have a method that accomplishes this without extensive research into each cache,

please explain it. A lot of people would be delighted to learn of it.

I don't think he, or I, or anyone else that's suggested this method ever said that it didn't also filter out caches that you'd like. In fact, he and I both have admitted that it does filter some out.

 

I've also realized that this is the only thing you read when this method is discussed, and therefore this method will never work for BrianSnat. It's also obvious that no filtering method will ever work for BrianSnat.

 

I'm sorry, but you appear to be doomed to have your PQs contain all the caches in your area that you don't like instead of having them contain only a small fraction of them.

[Trinity's Crew]

My point? Look, Biff, just because it works for you doesn't mean it works.

And conversely, just because doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work.

 

To use your car analogy, my daughter can't drive my 5 speed Altima. She can't drive a clutch. Millions can't but there is nothing wrong with the car.

[+ReadyOrNot]

My point? Look, Biff, just because it works for you doesn't mean it works.

And conversely, just because doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work.

 

To use your car analogy, my daughter can't drive my 5 speed Altima. She can't drive a clutch. Millions can't but there is nothing wrong with the car.

 

How about answering the question from Briansnat now?

 

Here's the question:

 

"Really? How does it work well? I've yet to see a way to filter out the junk caches that doesn't also filter out quality caches. If you have a method that accomplishes this without extensive research into each cache,

please explain it. A lot of people would be delighted to learn of it."

Edited September 6, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[CoyoteRed]

That still leaves you with a filter style that removes caches that you probably won't like, and gives you caches that you probably will like. Folks like BrianSnat will argue that it will also probably eliminate some caches that they would like, and therefore it's unacceptable.

As you're highlighting "probably" that probability is approaching 100%.

 

The spam filter I use uses Bayesian filtering and as of this very moment the accuracy is 99.28% over the last 800 days. That's properly filtering spam as spam and non-spam as non-spam. False positives is .01%. Percentage of non-spam emails is 51.49%. That's a lot of mail to try and figure out if it's good or not.

 

So, in the end, if we say my emails were caches, would missing 3 caches out of a few tens of thousands be all that bad? I won't answer for Brian, but for me I'd say that's a heck of a lot better than filtering spew by ignoring micros. By far.

 

The kicker is my filter would likely be different than yours. If you tried to use my filter the false positives and false negatives would likely be a lot higher. That's the beauty of Bayesian-style filtering. Everybody gets to have their own filter.

[+TrailGators]

That still leaves you with a filter style that removes caches that you probably won't like, and gives you caches that you probably will like. Folks like BrianSnat will argue that it will also probably eliminate some caches that they would like, and therefore it's unacceptable.

As you're highlighting "probably" that probability is approaching 100%.

 

The spam filter I use uses Bayesian filtering and as of this very moment the accuracy is 99.28% over the last 800 days. That's properly filtering spam as spam and non-spam as non-spam. False positives is .01%. Percentage of non-spam emails is 51.49%. That's a lot of mail to try and figure out if it's good or not.

 

So, in the end, if we say my emails were caches, would missing 3 caches out of a few tens of thousands be all that bad? I won't answer for Brian, but for me I'd say that's a heck of a lot better than filtering spew by ignoring micros. By far.

 

The kicker is my filter would likely be different than yours. If you tried to use my filter the false positives and false negatives would likely be a lot higher. That's the beauty of Bayesian-style filtering. Everybody gets to have their own filter.

I think spam type filter would also work pretty well. If it did filter out some good caches, you could always add them back if you heard someone rave about them. The nice thing about a spam filter is that you can filter out everything from certain people that love to spam. I still wish we could do that! (without using third party software) Edited September 6, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Too Tall John]

My point? Look, Biff, just because it works for you doesn't mean it works.

And conversely, just because doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work.

 

To use your car analogy, my daughter can't drive my 5 speed Altima. She can't drive a clutch. Millions can't but there is nothing wrong with the car.

Wait, back up the car!

 

What you are describing is a feature of the car. What I am describing is a defect in the car. Get your own analogy.

 

Actually, I can share it for a bit longer. Since my analogy involves the trait in question to spread to all cars, let's assume that suddenly, there is no such thing as an automatic transmission. Everyone who wants to drive must drive stick. If you manage to learn it, you feel, somewhere in the back of your mind, that it would be much easier to drive, drink your coffee, and tune your radio in if you had that free hand. You know you are missing something, so you invent (or at least encourage the research of) the automatic transmission.

 

So, here we are, as geocachers. We all have to learn to use PQ filters (drive stick), and some actually get to be good at it. Others realize that they are missing out on something, so they are looking for a better way (the automatic transmission).

[+GeoScooter1]

That's the Gist of Netflix though I didn't know the term behind it. Such a rating system would work fairly well for most people. Though there have been some good debates over it as well. I think this system would work very well.

 

I use Netflix and have for years. I have never rated a movie I have returned and I doubt if I ever will. Therefore, the ratings system would not be skewed towards what I like. Netflix does make recommendations based on the movies I have rented in the past and sometimes that works. For the most part, I like the majority of the caches I find. Some might be considered lame, but I do appreciate the effort someone went to in order to have a cache activated and placed. And, the cache got me outside doing something instead of sitting on my butt in front of the TV, it made me use my brain...which is always a good thing, and I usually had a smile on my face when I was done. There have been a few caches that I have driven to and decided that no way in heck was I going in there...so I left. End of story, but good for those that did.

[Mushtang]

That still leaves you with a filter style that removes caches that you probably won't like, and gives you caches that you probably will like. Folks like BrianSnat will argue that it will also probably eliminate some caches that they would like, and therefore it's unacceptable.

As you're highlighting "probably" that probability is approaching 100%.

 

The spam filter I use uses Bayesian filtering and as of this very moment the accuracy is 99.28% over the last 800 days. That's properly filtering spam as spam and non-spam as non-spam. False positives is .01%. Percentage of non-spam emails is 51.49%. That's a lot of mail to try and figure out if it's good or not.

 

So, in the end, if we say my emails were caches, would missing 3 caches out of a few tens of thousands be all that bad? I won't answer for Brian, but for me I'd say that's a heck of a lot better than filtering spew by ignoring micros. By far.

 

The kicker is my filter would likely be different than yours. If you tried to use my filter the false positives and false negatives would likely be a lot higher. That's the beauty of Bayesian-style filtering. Everybody gets to have their own filter.

If this filter system works like you say it will, I'm definitely all for it.

 

However, it doesn't exist, and I was trying to suggest to BrianSnat and ReadyOrNot how to use existing methods to help them avoid the caches that bother them. Brian appears to not want to use anything that isn't 100% at leaving good caches and eliminating bad, so for his sake I hope your filter system goes online before he gives up geocaching.

 

And even more important, I hope ReadyOrNot can use your filter system before he steals someone's cache and throws it in the garbage simply because he doesn't like it.