+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 In my opinion this whole discussion should be about how to more easily filter out caches we don't want to look for. It should not be about how to convince everyone to only hide caches we want to look for. I couldn't agree more.
+traildad Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 1) I didn't say that you suggested having attributes. Re-read what I wrote in bold. I was pointing out how what you suggested would be better than attributes, but it still has one issue that attributes have. What I read was this; There have been threads asking for historical, just for numbers, and parking lot attributes. The problem with attributes is that a lot of people don't use them. You seemed to be saying that this was another thread asking for some new attributes. It seemed that you followed up with some reasons more attributes would not work. If I misunderstood, I stand corrected. As far as the problem of people not using them, This would be a required part of setting up a new cache listing. If people chose not to use them to help filter what to hunt... nothing we can or should do about that.
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) 1) I didn't say that you suggested having attributes. Re-read what I wrote in bold. I was pointing out how what you suggested would be better than attributes, but it still has one issue that attributes have. What I read was this; There have been threads asking for historical, just for numbers, and parking lot attributes. The problem with attributes is that a lot of people don't use them. You seemed to be saying that this was another thread asking for some new attributes. It seemed that you followed up with some reasons more attributes would not work. If I misunderstood, I stand corrected. As far as the problem of people not using them, This would be a required part of setting up a new cache listing. If people chose not to use them to help filter what to hunt... nothing we can or should do about that. The very next sentence I wrote said this: There have been threads asking for historical, just for numbers, and parking lot attributes. The problem with attributes is that a lot of people don't use them. Another problem is that they use them improperly. So if you had to answer some questions when you submitted a cache it would solve the first problem but it wouldn't solve the second problem. So when you read the entire passage the meaning is different than if you only read the first two sentences. I was simply contrasting what you were asking for with some other past ideas involving attributes. I also said that the advantage was your idea over attributes would be that people would have to use them. So I'm not sure why you just said "If people chose not to use them." I didn't say that either. Anyhow, the issue I brought up was that hardly anybody is going to admit that they hid a cache just for the numbers, which is what we need to know to filter out these caches. Edited September 9, 2007 by TrailGators
+elmuyloco5 Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 It's easy to make it so that they HAVE to answer something. Let's say that you have a set of "attributes" about the terrain. You could have: rural / roadside rural / trail urban / roadside urban / park Force the cache owner to pick one before they can move on. If "trail" is picked, then force them to give an approximate length of trail. ( not saying that these are the "best" labels to use, but an example of something that could be used) There could be other lists of attibutes too. But, it's easy to solve when you make them pick one. You have to pick a size.....so what's the difference? It would be equally helpful if you had a description of sizes as well as this attribute can be a bit vague as well. Why not make it, between "this" and "this" is large, and so on?
+traildad Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 So when you read the entire passage the meaning is different than if you only read the first two sentences. As I said, I stand corrected. So I'm not sure why you just said "If people chose not to use them." I didn't say that either. Maybe it is not what you meant. This is what you wrote. The problem with attributes is that a lot of people don't use them. Later in the same passage you wrote I still think the best solution is the awards system they have been talking about for a couple of years.Without the bold highlighting the paragraph reads differently. The overall sense of your words did not seem to be a ringing endorsement.That is a problem with both picking a cache to hunt and reading the forums. It is not always easy to tell exactly what is in a person's mind.
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 It's easy to make it so that they HAVE to answer something. Let's say that you have a set of "attributes" about the terrain. You could have: rural / roadside rural / trail urban / roadside urban / park Force the cache owner to pick one before they can move on. If "trail" is picked, then force them to give an approximate length of trail. ( not saying that these are the "best" labels to use, but an example of something that could be used) There could be other lists of attibutes too. But, it's easy to solve when you make them pick one. You have to pick a size.....so what's the difference? It would be equally helpful if you had a description of sizes as well as this attribute can be a bit vague as well. Why not make it, between "this" and "this" is large, and so on? "Urban / park" is already easy to identify now. What is hard to know is if a non-urban park was placed just for the numbers or if it has some other redeeming value. So how would having people check "urban / roadside" help us?
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 So when you read the entire passage the meaning is different than if you only read the first two sentences. As I said, I stand corrected. So I'm not sure why you just said "If people chose not to use them." I didn't say that either. Maybe it is not what you meant. This is what you wrote. The problem with attributes is that a lot of people don't use them. Later in the same passage you wrote I still think the best solution is the awards system they have been talking about for a couple of years.Without the bold highlighting the paragraph reads differently. The overall sense of your words did not seem to be a ringing endorsement.That is a problem with both picking a cache to hunt and reading the forums. It is not always easy to tell exactly what is in a person's mind. You have to read the entire passage to get the meaning. You can't pull out pieces because you are taking them out of context. Anyhow, I'm done explaining it.
+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 It's easy to make it so that they HAVE to answer something. Let's say that you have a set of "attributes" about the terrain. You could have: rural / roadside rural / trail urban / roadside urban / park Force the cache owner to pick one before they can move on. If "trail" is picked, then force them to give an approximate length of trail. ( not saying that these are the "best" labels to use, but an example of something that could be used) There could be other lists of attibutes too. But, it's easy to solve when you make them pick one. You have to pick a size.....so what's the difference? It would be equally helpful if you had a description of sizes as well as this attribute can be a bit vague as well. Why not make it, between "this" and "this" is large, and so on? Wouldnt work in Phoenix. We have urban parks that are 5 star terrain hikes. And the assumption is that people will label their cache appropriately. The best system is to read the cache page before you go there.
+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 It's easy to make it so that they HAVE to answer something. Let's say that you have a set of "attributes" about the terrain. You could have: rural / roadside rural / trail urban / roadside urban / park "Urban / park" is already easy to identify now. What is hard to know is if a non-urban park was placed just for the numbers or if it has some other redeeming value. So how would having people check "urban / roadside" help us? Urban roadside could entail my Old Glory cache, which is a good one. All log entries show that it is a hit. That label would also fit a dumpster micro. So how would that label filter out good urban micros from bad ones?
+Snoogans Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) Folks, it boils down to this; Caching time is quality time. The time you make to cache is a form of currency that you spend. You can CHOOSE to spend it wisely, or you can CHOOSE to fritter it away..... Either way the problem is YOURS alone. Feeble attempts to blame the cache or the cache hider for your own choices are the REAL SPEW. Take some responsibility for your own choices..... Spew be gone indeed! Edited September 9, 2007 by Snoogans
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Folks, it boils down to this; Caching time is quality time. The time you make to cache is a form of currency that you spend. You can CHOOSE to spend it wisely, or you can CHOOSE to fritter it away..... Either way the problem is YOURS alone. Feeble attempts to blame the cache or the cache hider for your own choices are the REAL SPEW. Take some responsibility for your own choices..... Spew be gone indeed! We are trying to figure out ways to help make better choices in the least amount of time. The "currency" is being wasted behind a computer....
+traildad Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Anyhow, I'm done explaining it. This is good.
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Anyhow, I'm done explaining it. This is good.
Dinoprophet Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 There are flaws to the "Why this was hidden" checkbox idea, but every feature of the listing has the same flaws. Not everyone uses the attributes, and even if someone does, you can only choose so many of them, so they may not be wholly accurate. D/T ratings are often debatable. For that matter, a person can lie in the very description (and that happens enough that the term "liar's cache" has come about). So I don't see where "People might not use it correctly" is an argument against it. Even if you truly love every last cache you've found, wouldn't it be nice to be able to say, "I only have one free hour on this business trip, so I'll only query on parking lot hides", or "I want to do a caching backpack trip, so I'll query on long hike caches"? Of course I don't think it solves the whole problem of filtering out what you don't want, but it would be a big help. Heck, never mind the issue at hand, it would be a tremendous improvement to the site.
+elmuyloco5 Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Tail: Like I said, the labels I gave were just an example and not intended to necessarily be the best to work around. I was basically trying to find a way to differentiate a few "urban" caches. I see "urban" as any city and not necessarily a "large" city. So, with that in mind, I've found two main type of "urban" caches: 1. Those that are in a park like setting (could be cemetery, actual park, dog park, etc) basically with trees, grass, etc. Something with some scenery anyway. 2. Those that are placed in areas easily reached with a car such as somewhere along a sidewalk, off a freeway ramp, parking lot, etc. You could also add "historical" or some kind of monument as a third option as well. TMDV: Yes, I know what you mean. I live in the mountains in NM in a small town, and we too have hikes going everywhere into canyons and such. This specific situation was what I had posted in another thread about needing to differentiate things better. Maybe they could also include "urban/ trail" for those of us in towns that have that sort of thing. My suggestion wasn't made though to filter out "bad" caches. The rating of "bad" varies among cachers and wasn't my intent. I think there is the possibility of finding a bad cache in rural and urban areas. I was proposing it to help filter out "types" of caches that someone may not want to do, and to help those of us living in towns like I described above who cannot easily look at a map and determine what type of cache it will be. Unfortunately, I've run across several in my area that don't mention there's a hike involved, when infact there is. I usually go for the hiking kind, but sometimes it doesn't fit into what I can do that day, ya know? Our trails aren't limited to park areas. We have trail heads leading off from downtown areas, neighborhoods, behind the library....you name it. I live amongst a bunch of mesas, so it doesn't take much to lead off down a canyon. And when it's mapped for my area, the cache could look like it's on the road, but it indeed is not. So, you can see that reading a cache isn't always the way. If the cache owner doesn't describe the area well.....that won't work. And, it's also time consuming. Sure, the method I mentioned is NOT perfect, but would certainly be an improvement on the current capabilities. If I had the ability to just look and say, "I don't want any of these today as I want to ONLY go hiking", then I could limit my search to that. It's just like shopping at a store online and limiting your search to only items in a specific price range. You'd still have to look through them, but not as many. I hope that makes more sense. As for filtering out bad ones? I think the only way that will happen is with stricter reviews of caches. But, with that, it takes away freedoms from cachers. It's a Catch 22, so I won't enter that part of the argument. I feel, no matter how much you try to filter, you will always have some that you didn't like. It's just part of caching. But, to filter to "type" of cache would help get rid of the 20+ pages of caches to read......and as a busy mom....I can stand to save all the time I can!
+Renegade Knight Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 It's easy to make it so that they HAVE to answer something.... The more work people make it for me to hide a cache, the more I wish I could just limit my finders to the ones worth hearing from. Not every finder is a gem, and in the end I really could care less if any one finder doesn't like any one of my caches. That is entirely their problem. People get out of caching what they bring to it. If they stand around all day lamenting "oh woe is me, why am I hear looking at this spot, this cache is so lame I don't like that I've even been here" that's about all they are worth. I swear some finders couldn't have fun at a cache if it was in a fun factory.
+Renegade Knight Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 ....My suggestion wasn't made though to filter out "bad" caches. The rating of "bad" varies among cachers and wasn't my intent. .... At the end of the day, if you read Coyote Red's post, there is a system that would be easy to use though maybe not set up that would offer the most freedom to finders and hiders when it comes to filters.
+elmuyloco5 Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 It's easy to make it so that they HAVE to answer something.... The more work people make it for me to hide a cache, the more I wish I could just limit my finders to the ones worth hearing from. Not every finder is a gem, and in the end I really could care less if any one finder doesn't like any one of my caches. That is entirely their problem. People get out of caching what they bring to it. If they stand around all day lamenting "oh woe is me, why am I hear looking at this spot, this cache is so lame I don't like that I've even been here" that's about all they are worth. I swear some finders couldn't have fun at a cache if it was in a fun factory. I get what you're saying, and I agree that there are a group of people who will never be happy. But, I don't think that people who just want a better way to search for the types of caches that they want to do, necessarily makes them that type of person. I think they just want to make things easier on everyone to pinpoint the caches that fit what they need. I was commenting to the point that was brought up to the fact that it was up to the cache owner to list the attributes. But, if you make a quick checklist that requires the lister to select one, then it's no longer at the owner's whim. Sometimes we have to take a few more steps in life to make things easier in the long run. I would have to fill out the same forms you would, and everyone else would. I don't mind taking a few extra seconds to make others' lives easier....and in turn, mine too. It takes a lot less time to click on a little box than to search through 20 pages of caches. If you don't want someone like me coming to your caches....that's ok too
+Scaber Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 I enjoy finding all types of caches. I love running around in the woods looking for ammo cans. It is also nice to find a few micros while running around town or doing errends. I would do a lot less caching if I only hunted regular caches in the woods. If you don't want to find micros don't look for them! It is idiotic to say that just because you don't like them that no one should be able to find them. What are you, a geonazi?
+Scaber Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Is "Ready or Not" the cache bandit? See post. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=170234
+elmuyloco5 Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 ....My suggestion wasn't made though to filter out "bad" caches. The rating of "bad" varies among cachers and wasn't my intent. .... At the end of the day, if you read Coyote Red's post, there is a system that would be easy to use though maybe not set up that would offer the most freedom to finders and hiders when it comes to filters. I agree that it sounds interesting. However, it doesn't address the point I was trying to cover. Again, I am in NO WAY trying to filter "bad" caches....or in other words for Coyote Red, "caches that I don't like". I was talking about a way of classifying caches so you could limit a "type" to look at. Really, it's no different than selecting all the "micros" or all the "large" caches. It's just a way to select certain types so that you have less to muddle through. While Coyote has a great idea, it won't do what I'm saying. It would make a "agreeable" list of caches no different than your tv satellite system has a function that will "suggest" movies or shows you might like according to the shows you have watched in the past. That's great, but doesn't serve the same purpose. Now, notice, I'm not saying his idea is a bad one, just not the one that will address the issue I pointed out. Using his method, I would be very unlikely to EVER find an urban or a micro. I just don't personally prefer those as much. But, what if I want to go to one some day? With his method, I would back to searching through all of the pages again because my "list" wouldn't pull it up. His is a fine method, but for a separate purpose. Mine allows you to look at a specific category of caches and search within those parameters. It WON'T filter out ones you wouldn't like because it's not the point of the filter.
Dinoprophet Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Selecting "Why I hid this" would take less time than rereading the guidelines each time, which we're supposed to do. It would take less time than checking those two checkboxes without rereading them. In some cases, it would take less time than deciding what the size should be listed as. Forget the whole LUM, some-people-don't-know-how-to-have-fun thing and then consider whether this would be useful. Don't think of it as filtering ones you don't like, but as providing you with the ones you're interested in doing at a particular time. Is "Ready or Not" the cache bandit? See post. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=170234 RoN is in Oregon, that bandit is in Ohio. Can we not drag this discussion back into the mud when it's just starting to get constructive?
+Snoogans Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Folks, it boils down to this; Caching time is quality time. The time you make to cache is a form of currency that you spend. You can CHOOSE to spend it wisely, or you can CHOOSE to fritter it away..... Either way the problem is YOURS alone. Feeble attempts to blame the cache or the cache hider for your own choices are the REAL SPEW. Take some responsibility for your own choices..... Spew be gone indeed! We are trying to figure out ways to help make better choices in the least amount of time. The "currency" is being wasted behind a computer.... It only takes a second to check the google satellite image and zoom it in. If you see a parking lot and you don't like skirt lifters your choice is made, on to the next cache. If you see a long hike in a park and you just want a park-n-grab, on to the next cache. It's not rocket surgery. You have a point. Many folks don't like to spend their quality time behind a computer and guess what, they don't. They hunt the odd cache every now and then.... and then they don't log it. My sister and brother-in-law (MtnFrog & Camel) cache that way. They maintain their 2 caches along with many of mine often and they rarely log a visit. They have logged 6 or so of their many finds which I would guesstimate to be near or over 200. I myself, logged mainly events only for a year and a half, but I continued to cache. Until folks start taking responsibility for their own choices, I'll be here to remind them that they still CHOSE to hunt a cache, posted within the guidelines of this site, that disappointed them, when they could have taken a second to check and see if it was worth the expense their quality time. Boo hoo the onus is still on you. (and by you I mean the royal you) Maybe I missed it. Please list one example of "a better way" that has been accomplished by this thread.....?
Dinoprophet Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Folks, it boils down to this; Caching time is quality time. The time you make to cache is a form of currency that you spend. You can CHOOSE to spend it wisely, or you can CHOOSE to fritter it away..... Either way the problem is YOURS alone. Feeble attempts to blame the cache or the cache hider for your own choices are the REAL SPEW. Take some responsibility for your own choices..... Spew be gone indeed! We are trying to figure out ways to help make better choices in the least amount of time. The "currency" is being wasted behind a computer.... It only takes a second to check the google satellite image and zoom it in. If you see a parking lot and you don't like skirt lifters your choice is made, on to the next cache. If you see a long hike in a park and you just want a park-n-grab, on to the next cache. It's not rocket surgery. You have a point. Many folks don't like to spend their quality time behind a computer and guess what, they don't. They hunt the odd cache every now and then.... and then they don't log it. My sister and brother-in-law (MtnFrog & Camel) cache that way. They maintain their 2 caches along with many of mine often and they rarely log a visit. They have logged 6 or so of their many finds which I would guesstimate to be near or over 200. I myself, logged mainly events only for a year and a half, but I continued to cache. Until folks start taking responsibility for their own choices, I'll be here to remind them that they still CHOSE to hunt a cache, posted within the guidelines of this site, that disappointed them, when they could have taken a second to check and see if it was worth the expense their quality time. Boo hoo the onus is still on you. (and by you I mean the royal you) Maybe I missed it. Please list one example of "a better way" that has been accomplished by this thread.....? It only takes a second to look at one. It takes a bit longer to look at every cache in a 50-mile radius in another state that way. Quite a few of us think that having a "Why I hid this" filter on the cache page is a great idea. And it goes well beyond the simplistic parking lot micro vs long hike comparison. A Civil War buff going to western Pennsylvania could filter on Historical Caches and look at a much smaller set to find what he wants. Combine "Quick Find" with a route for easy grabs on a road trip.
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Folks, it boils down to this; Caching time is quality time. The time you make to cache is a form of currency that you spend. You can CHOOSE to spend it wisely, or you can CHOOSE to fritter it away..... Either way the problem is YOURS alone. Feeble attempts to blame the cache or the cache hider for your own choices are the REAL SPEW. Take some responsibility for your own choices..... Spew be gone indeed! We are trying to figure out ways to help make better choices in the least amount of time. The "currency" is being wasted behind a computer.... It only takes a second to check the google satellite image and zoom it in. If you see a parking lot and you don't like skirt lifters your choice is made, on to the next cache. If you see a long hike in a park and you just want a park-n-grab, on to the next cache. It's not rocket surgery. You have a point. Many folks don't like to spend their quality time behind a computer and guess what, they don't. They hunt the odd cache every now and then.... and then they don't log it. My sister and brother-in-law (MtnFrog & Camel) cache that way. They maintain their 2 caches along with many of mine often and they rarely log a visit. They have logged 6 or so of their many finds which I would guesstimate to be near or over 200. I myself, logged mainly events only for a year and a half, but I continued to cache. Until folks start taking responsibility for their own choices, I'll be here to remind them that they still CHOSE to hunt a cache, posted within the guidelines of this site, that disappointed them, when they could have taken a second to check and see if it was worth the expense their quality time. Boo hoo the onus is still on you. (and by you I mean the royal you) Maybe I missed it. Please list one example of "a better way" that has been accomplished by this thread.....? There is no other way besides completely ignoring urbans until the site adds some type of enhancement. A few good enhancement ideas have been discussed in this thread and many other threads. I don't want to sit behind a PC zooming in on hundreds of caches to see if they are LUMS. That is a waste of my time. So I will stick to doing caches with terrain > 1.5 and load up and go. Anyhow keep the ideas coming guys!
+Snoogans Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Folks, it boils down to this; Caching time is quality time. The time you make to cache is a form of currency that you spend. You can CHOOSE to spend it wisely, or you can CHOOSE to fritter it away..... Either way the problem is YOURS alone. Feeble attempts to blame the cache or the cache hider for your own choices are the REAL SPEW. Take some responsibility for your own choices..... Spew be gone indeed! We are trying to figure out ways to help make better choices in the least amount of time. The "currency" is being wasted behind a computer.... It only takes a second to check the google satellite image and zoom it in. If you see a parking lot and you don't like skirt lifters your choice is made, on to the next cache. If you see a long hike in a park and you just want a park-n-grab, on to the next cache. It's not rocket surgery. You have a point. Many folks don't like to spend their quality time behind a computer and guess what, they don't. They hunt the odd cache every now and then.... and then they don't log it. My sister and brother-in-law (MtnFrog & Camel) cache that way. They maintain their 2 caches along with many of mine often and they rarely log a visit. They have logged 6 or so of their many finds which I would guesstimate to be near or over 200. I myself, logged mainly events only for a year and a half, but I continued to cache. Until folks start taking responsibility for their own choices, I'll be here to remind them that they still CHOSE to hunt a cache, posted within the guidelines of this site, that disappointed them, when they could have taken a second to check and see if it was worth the expense their quality time. Boo hoo the onus is still on you. (and by you I mean the royal you) Maybe I missed it. Please list one example of "a better way" that has been accomplished by this thread.....? It only takes a second to look at one. It takes a bit longer to look at every cache in a 50-mile radius in another state that way. Quite a few of us think that having a "Why I hid this" filter on the cache page is a great idea. And it goes well beyond the simplistic parking lot micro vs long hike comparison. A Civil War buff going to western Pennsylvania could filter on Historical Caches and look at a much smaller set to find what he wants. Combine "Quick Find" with a route for easy grabs on a road trip. Point for you. Here's mine. Your post belongs in the geocaching.com forum, not in a troll thread (Spew be gone!) in the general forum. If geocaching.com put in an affinity filter like amazon.com uses I wouldn't complain. I'd be alllll for it. Again, that is for a different forum. Now, I'm no I.T. guru, but how much time & money would that cost gc.com?
Dinoprophet Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) Point for you. Here's mine. Your post belongs in the geocaching.com forum, not in a troll thread (Spew be gone!) in the general forum. If geocaching.com put in an affinity filter like amazon.com uses I wouldn't complain. I'd be alllll for it. Again, that is for a different forum. Now, I'm no I.T. guru, but how much time & money would that cost gc.com? The affinity filter is something else. I like that idea as well, but it is far more complicated. The idea being thrashed about right now is sort of a second set of attributes. From a list of selections, the hider chooses "Why did you hide this cache". The possible answers would have to be determined, but someone posted a good starting list on the previous page. You are right that there should be a new thread elsewhere for this to be taken seriously. The idea popped up here, though, as a result of the original topic. Time and money -- I would guess very little. On the front end, it should be pretty easily adapted from the size container logic. Databases aren't my thing, so I don't know how much of a tearup to the cache info and the queries it would be. Edited September 9, 2007 by Dinoprophet
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Point for you. Here's mine. Your post belongs in the geocaching.com forum, not in a troll thread (Spew be gone!) in the general forum. If geocaching.com put in an affinity filter like amazon.com uses I wouldn't complain. I'd be alllll for it. Again, that is for a different forum. Now, I'm no I.T. guru, but how much time & money would that cost gc.com? The affinity filter is something else. I like that idea as well, but it is far more complicated. The idea being thrashed about right now is sort of a second set of attributes. From a list of selections, the hider chooses "Why did you hide this cache". The possible answers would have to be determined, but someone posted a good starting list on the previous page. You are right that there should be a new thread elsewhere for this to be taken seriously. The idea popped up here, though, as a result of the original topic. Time and money -- I would guess very little. On the front end, it should be pretty easily adapted from the size container logic. Databases aren't my thing, so I don't know how much of a tearup to the cache info and the queries it would be. I agree that Traildad should post his idea in a fresh thread.
Trinity's Crew Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) It's easy to make it so that they HAVE to answer something.... The more work people make it for me to hide a cache, the more I wish I could just limit my finders to the ones worth hearing from. Not every finder is a gem, and in the end I really could care less if any one finder doesn't like any one of my caches. That is entirely their problem. People get out of caching what they bring to it. If they stand around all day lamenting "oh woe is me, why am I hear looking at this spot, this cache is so lame I don't like that I've even been here" that's about all they are worth. I swear some finders couldn't have fun at a cache if it was in a fun factory. This is a great idea! We should start a "Lame Cache Finders" thread. We could bash all of the Lame Cache Finders (henceforth referred to LCFs, or Spewers, or perhaps Spewer Mouths) and complain about their lack of logging skills. We could then refer to this bashing as "encouragement". We could also lobby for an "ignore" feature that would keep spewers from logging our caches. Edit: Added the ignore feature. Edited September 9, 2007 by Trinity's Crew
Mushtang Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only. If you read Dave Ulmer's early posts on the sport, that is exactly what he had in mind. Have you been to the spot where Dave hid the first geocache? I have, and it's nothing special. If most hides were in places like that you'd be complaining even more, I promise. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe life was better way back then when Dave was the only hider and knew what the best way to do it was. Of course back then there was only 1 cache. Eventually there were a few dozen more though. And they were all quality hides I'm sure. The best way to download a PQ and insure you have nothing but great caches to hunt must be to log onto Dave Ulmer's web site, become a member, and download his PQs. His site only allows caches that take you to scenic locations. This site, however, offers a wide variety of cache hides, locations, levels of enjoyment, and methods to reduce the types of hides you don't like in your PQs. I'm hoping you figure out how to have fun on this site before you leave the game.
CoyoteRed Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 I agree that it sounds interesting. However, it doesn't address the point I was trying to cover. Again, I am in NO WAY trying to filter "bad" caches....or in other words for Coyote Red, "caches that I don't like". I was talking about a way of classifying caches so you could limit a "type" to look at. One issue you'll run into is getting folks to "properly" classify their caches. Some may not understand, some may stretch different definitions, or outright falsify the classifications. You could allow the finders to classify the caches. That would get the cache closer to properly classified. The next problem is hard-coded classifications. What if Groundspeak missed a type or two? Problems. Angst. Another suggestion I had a long time ago is tags. Allow everyone from the owner to the loggers tag the the cache in a free form fashion. The more folks you get tagging the more likely you'll get a nominal and more accurate representation of that single cache. Who cares if one person uses "lame" as a tag if no one else did? Why tags? Well, why does just about every other site that allows user content have tags? Think about it. There are other schemes that would help filter caches. You could use Bayesian filtering on the description and/or logs. This would put a lot of strain on the servers, but could be done fairly easily in an offline program. Perhaps Clyde could implement such a feature on GSAK. The next hurdle would be an easy way to ignore those caches that the program determined you'd least likely to enjoy. Groundspeak would need to implement a way to ignore caches in bulk. Another very doable scheme and one that would require very little user input above what is happening right now is analyzing a cache page. The total number of finds over a period time, finds of the its lifetime, the average word count, percentage of words that are topical abbreviations, etc. would parallel the present scheme of reading the logs. A higher percentage of very short logs generally means the cache didn't inspire the loggers to write more. The opposite is true as well. You get an average of all logs within a certain radius and if one cache has a higher or lower number then that tells you something. Also, a cache with fewer days between finds means the cache is more convenient and to a lesser extent how popular. A higher rated cache found more frequently would be something folks might like to do. OTOH, a lower rated cache that is found more frequently would be good for those on cache runs. You could create a hybrid of some of the above scheme. An affinity scheme that also looked at some of the broken out numbers from the cache page might increase the range and effectiveness of the system when one scheme alone might not do such a good job. As an example, the first scheme I presented wouldn't work for anyone on a newly published cache that has yet to be voted on or even found for that matter. Some of these mean the cache has to have been in the wild for a little while to be effective. However, if you look at nearby caches you can start to get a picture of what that cache might be like the instant it is published. For instance, a cache in published and the three closest caches are spread around it (not in just one direction) and those indicate an easy (read: convenient) find, then this one would likely be one as well. Conversely, the nearest three caches indicate fewer finds over a period, are rural, has a high average number of words per log, then this cache may likely be the same. Of course, that doesn't mean it can't be an easy, uninspired cache directly in some little podunk town that is in the middle of these remote caches. However, it does mean you have a lot more information than you do now. Anyway, food for thought.
CoyoteRed Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only. If you read Dave Ulmer's early posts on the sport, that is exactly what he had in mind.Have you been to the spot where Dave hid the first geocache? I have, and it's nothing special. If most hides were in places like that you'd be complaining even more, I promise. The first cache was a prototype. You can't judge the first hundred caches by the first cache. Go back and look at the first few hundred caches back when the hobby was ironing out the wrinkles, then comment.
+JoesBar Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 I'll add my dime's worth. Like many, newbies want to hide caches as well as find them. But many areas are so full of older hides that only the parking lots are left. So, if some of those older hides are removed, the nice park will open up for a newbie to hide a cache. I think this is a simple soultion. One must hope that the next cacher doesn't hide a micro in the woods. (Bad, Bad, Bad.) But that's possible. While these forums are filled with folks beefing about micros, it has been my observation that the very caches that get the most complaints, also get the most visits. Many folks include some 'count' in their logs; "one of fifteen today," or something like that. Those long walks in the woods make for low cache count days. Those long walks in the woods also have fewer visitors. So it seems to me that there is some hypocrisy here. Instead of sitting on our butts complaining about lame micros, we should be out getting a good walk and visiting those caches we claim to cherish.
Mushtang Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only. If you read Dave Ulmer's early posts on the sport, that is exactly what he had in mind.Have you been to the spot where Dave hid the first geocache? I have, and it's nothing special. If most hides were in places like that you'd be complaining even more, I promise. The first cache was a prototype. You can't judge the first hundred caches by the first cache. Go back and look at the first few hundred caches back when the hobby was ironing out the wrinkles, then comment. So if I go back and look at the first 100 or so caches, that will mean that listing sites are suddenly supposed to list caches that bring you to scenic locations, and not caches placed for other reasons? Sorry, I'll maintain my position quoted, that "Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only."
CoyoteRed Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Sorry, I'll maintain my position quoted, that "Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only." I can see that and to a degree I agree, but only to point that it's not the sole reason for geocaching. A scenic location is only one element that makes an enjoyable hunt whether it's the journey or the destination. A scenic location is one of the things that adds to the entertainment value of a geocache. There are other things that add to the entertainment value of a hunt, some are more universal than others. A scenic location is probably one that few would wish didn't exist on any particular hunt. Urban decay is probably one that is less appreciated by all, yet some of us find it interesting depending on the subject. One of the things I hear a lot from cachers about the hobby as they go from geophyte to mere n00bs is, "Wow! I never knew that was there!" A large part of geocaching is the discovery of out-of-the-ordinary, maybe even extraordinary, but at least the not-mundane. Dave's first cache wouldn't fly in today geocaching environment for various reasons. True, the first days were filled with experiments as folks played with the direction the hobby was to go. In my first days and months the hobby was mostly interesting places and the issue was the containers. Heck, most didn't know how long some containers would last in the wild, how different containers stood up to folks abuses, or even that some couldn't stay dry no matter what you do. While many aspects of the hobby is evolving, it seems the desire to make a cache stand on its own merit and entertainment value is devolving. That's just my observations.
+Miragee Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 I placed a new cache recently that highlights the thirty oldest caches in San Diego County. Although I haven't visited all of the caches in this list yet, the ones I have been to, such as "Powder Can Cache" are in great locations. There isn't a parking lot cache in the bunch. But, since 2000, the game has changed. It has evolved. For some people that evolution didn't go in the optimal direction . . . I think traildad came up with a great suggestion to help with filtering for the caches you want to find, or don't want to find. It will be interesting to see if anyone considers the idea.
+elmuyloco5 Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 It only takes a second to check the google satellite image and zoom it in. If you see a parking lot and you don't like skirt lifters your choice is made, on to the next cache. If you see a long hike in a park and you just want a park-n-grab, on to the next cache. It's not rocket surgery. I just wanted to mention, that while Google maps and sat images are a very useful tool, they aren't always helpful. Let me give you a few examples: 1. Sometimes sat pics are old: I went to one recently that google's sat pics were as old as the cache was, 3 years. Since the cache was first placed in a big open field, a Sam's, a Sportman's warehouse, and plenty of eating establishments had been built. Not quite the same search anymore, and in the near future....will be under a building. 2. Sometimes the maps are just plain wrong. I went to one recently at a ski resort. We had a heck of a time finding the road it was listed to be on. Finally, we went to ask a local how to find the road. Turns out the road didn't exist, but from what they could tell, google was calling the ski lift a road The cache didn't mention anything about it, so we had no way to know differently. 3. Sometimes the area that is being mapped makes it difficult to acertain the terrain. I live in a small mountain community atop a lot mesas. There are tons of bridges in my little town because there are canyons everywhere. So, looking at the google maps and sat pics don't help us at all. There have been several that appear by the cache description to be roadside but are indeed a hike into the canyon. The maps show the marker at the roadside, but since call our roads are near canyons....not too much help. While I love the canyon hikes, it's not so good when you are unprepared for them. I have three small kids and a hike requires plenty of water and first aid items. 4. Sometimes the area you are trying to look at has fuzzy sat pics, or none at all. Again, my small town, it exists because of a National Lab. The lab is spread out around town and alot of pics don't show up because of security issues. But, it's not all lab property, so caches are located in those areas. I've encountered other places across the nation that this poses a problem as well. So, as you can see, sat pics don't always work. They are certainly a very useful tool, and should be used when the opportunity arises. But, they don't solve the problem for everyone. Therefore, other options must be developed. No, it's not "rocket surgery", but I urge everyone to try to remember that just because something works for your needs, doesn't mean it is the answer for everyone.
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 I agree that it sounds interesting. However, it doesn't address the point I was trying to cover. Again, I am in NO WAY trying to filter "bad" caches....or in other words for Coyote Red, "caches that I don't like". I was talking about a way of classifying caches so you could limit a "type" to look at. One issue you'll run into is getting folks to "properly" classify their caches. Some may not understand, some may stretch different definitions, or outright falsify the classifications. You could allow the finders to classify the caches. That would get the cache closer to properly classified. The next problem is hard-coded classifications. What if Groundspeak missed a type or two? Problems. Angst. Another suggestion I had a long time ago is tags. Allow everyone from the owner to the loggers tag the the cache in a free form fashion. The more folks you get tagging the more likely you'll get a nominal and more accurate representation of that single cache. Who cares if one person uses "lame" as a tag if no one else did? Why tags? Well, why does just about every other site that allows user content have tags? Think about it. There are other schemes that would help filter caches. You could use Bayesian filtering on the description and/or logs. This would put a lot of strain on the servers, but could be done fairly easily in an offline program. Perhaps Clyde could implement such a feature on GSAK. The next hurdle would be an easy way to ignore those caches that the program determined you'd least likely to enjoy. Groundspeak would need to implement a way to ignore caches in bulk. Another very doable scheme and one that would require very little user input above what is happening right now is analyzing a cache page. The total number of finds over a period time, finds of the its lifetime, the average word count, percentage of words that are topical abbreviations, etc. would parallel the present scheme of reading the logs. A higher percentage of very short logs generally means the cache didn't inspire the loggers to write more. The opposite is true as well. You get an average of all logs within a certain radius and if one cache has a higher or lower number then that tells you something. Also, a cache with fewer days between finds means the cache is more convenient and to a lesser extent how popular. A higher rated cache found more frequently would be something folks might like to do. OTOH, a lower rated cache that is found more frequently would be good for those on cache runs. You could create a hybrid of some of the above scheme. An affinity scheme that also looked at some of the broken out numbers from the cache page might increase the range and effectiveness of the system when one scheme alone might not do such a good job. As an example, the first scheme I presented wouldn't work for anyone on a newly published cache that has yet to be voted on or even found for that matter. Some of these mean the cache has to have been in the wild for a little while to be effective. However, if you look at nearby caches you can start to get a picture of what that cache might be like the instant it is published. For instance, a cache in published and the three closest caches are spread around it (not in just one direction) and those indicate an easy (read: convenient) find, then this one would likely be one as well. Conversely, the nearest three caches indicate fewer finds over a period, are rural, has a high average number of words per log, then this cache may likely be the same. Of course, that doesn't mean it can't be an easy, uninspired cache directly in some little podunk town that is in the middle of these remote caches. However, it does mean you have a lot more information than you do now. Anyway, food for thought. I like the tag idea! There's yet another very good idea! It should be easy to implement and it would help quite a bit once everyone starts tagging caches!
+Miragee Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 I posted over in traildad's other thread in the Web Site Forum. I don't know why the simple addition of a dropdown box on the cache submission form, like in this crude graphic I made, wouldn't help. The dropdown list could be short, or long. The list would include things like: Historic Location Scenic View Great Hike Favorite Restaurant/Coffee Shop/etc. Just for the numbers Seems like a simple addition to me . . . and if cache owners weren't truthful, a "Needs Maintenance" note could let them, and other cachers, know the "Cache Location Type" needs to be changed. Could work . . .
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 I posted over in traildad's other thread in the Web Site Forum. I don't know why the simple addition of a dropdown box on the cache submission form, like in this crude graphic I made, wouldn't help. The dropdown list could be short, or long. The list would include things like: Historic Location Scenic View Great Hike Favorite Restaurant/Coffee Shop/etc. Just for the numbers Seems like a simple addition to me . . . and if cache owners weren't truthful, a "Needs Maintenance" note could let them, and other cachers, know the "Cache Location Type" needs to be changed. Could work . . . God help you if you ever posted a "Needs Maintenance" log because someone didn't check "Just for the Numbers." Would you do that? I'm sure we would have some new threads popup to cry about that. I still think the judgement should be left to the finder and not the hider. Whether it's an affinity system, awards/favorites system, tags, etc. This would be more unbiased and would give more accurate results.
+Dianalynnxk Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 What about those of us relying on public transportation who live in dense urban areas? I just moved to Los Angeles from the woods of Washington State. I am used to finding camouflaged coffee cans stuffed in a tree, or behind a pile of rocks in a park. In Washington, we don't have the density so there weren't many, as they have been referred to in this post, Lame Urban Micros. Now that I'm in LA, while I do miss those big caches, I'm enjoying just getting out and looking for any caches at all. I would love to place a large crafty cache, but in LA... where? I'm so glad there are so many caches around, even if they are micros. I'm still new at this, with >30 finds, and I'm not trying to argue. My question is, to those of us who are in urban areas, what choice do we have? I'd rather have something lame to look for than nothing at all, and I honestly like the little sneaky caches that hundreds of people walk by a day without noticing. But really, is there a way around this in dense urban areas? or do you all suggest we just don't get to have caches?
CoyoteRed Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 My question is, to those of us who are in urban areas, what choice do we have? Plenty. You can most certainly hide caches larger than a micro in urban areas. We have caches in urban areas and not a single one of them are micros. The issue is it's simply too easy to plop a blinkie under a lamp post skirt. Hiding a fat-fifty (SAW can) nearby is much too hard for most people. Heck, few letterboxes are in the micro size yet plenty are in urban areas. The idea that urban areas dictate a micro or smaller is simply bunk, IMHO.
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 My question is, to those of us who are in urban areas, what choice do we have? Plenty. You can most certainly hide caches larger than a micro in urban areas. We have caches in urban areas and not a single one of them are micros. The issue is it's simply too easy to plop a blinkie under a lamp post skirt. Hiding a fat-fifty (SAW can) nearby is much too hard for most people. Heck, few letterboxes are in the micro size yet plenty are in urban areas. The idea that urban areas dictate a micro or smaller is simply bunk, IMHO. Not to mention that you don't have to turn your brain off when you hide urbans no matter what size you hide. If there were some awards given for placing caches then I bet a lot more people would find ways to be very clever and creative.
+Renegade Knight Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 ...While Coyote has a great idea, it won't do what I'm saying. It would make a "agreeable" list of caches no different than your tv satellite system has a function that will "suggest" movies or shows you might like according to the shows you have watched in the past. That's great, but doesn't serve the same purpose. Now, notice, I'm not saying his idea is a bad one, just not the one that will address the issue I pointed out. Using his method, I would be very unlikely to EVER find an urban or a micro. I just don't personally prefer those as much. But, what if I want to go to one some day? With his method, I would back to searching through all of the pages again because my "list" wouldn't pull it up. His is a fine method, but for a separate purpose. ... If you simplify what I have said and what you have said. You end up with this. 1) Focus on the caches you may like. 2) Remove the caches you probably won't like. In both cases, what you have left is about the same. One is just a lot more work for everyone involved. Your urban argument doesn't work. If others who enjoy similar caches to you, found an urban cache and enjoyed it, it would show up on your list of suggested caches. In both cases there is always the risk of a bad apple or not having on your list a cache you may enjoy. But in the end you would always have the option to read the cache descriptions and make up your own mind.
+Vinny & Sue Team Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 I posted over in traildad's other thread in the Web Site Forum. I don't know why the simple addition of a dropdown box on the cache submission form, like in this crude graphic I made, wouldn't help. The dropdown list could be short, or long. The list would include things like: Historic Location Scenic View Great Hike Favorite Restaurant/Coffee Shop/etc. Just for the numbers Seems like a simple addition to me . . . and if cache owners weren't truthful, a "Needs Maintenance" note could let them, and other cachers, know the "Cache Location Type" needs to be changed. Could work . . . For the caches which are improperly listed -- why post a "Needs Maintenance" note? Why not post an SBA, or, even better, a local geocaching organization could add that cache to their CITO list.
+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 Elitist factor again. You are making the judgment call that micros = bad, and urban caches are somehow less worthy than rural caches.
+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) I posted over in traildad's other thread in the Web Site Forum. I don't know why the simple addition of a dropdown box on the cache submission form, like in this crude graphic I made, wouldn't help. The dropdown list could be short, or long. The list would include things like: Historic Location Scenic View Great Hike Favorite Restaurant/Coffee Shop/etc. Just for the numbers Seems like a simple addition to me . . . and if cache owners weren't truthful, a "Needs Maintenance" note could let them, and other cachers, know the "Cache Location Type" needs to be changed. Could work . . . For the caches which are improperly listed -- why post a "Needs Maintenance" note? Why not post an SBA, or, even better, a local geocaching organization could add that cache to their CITO list. So you get to decide whether or not a cacher has a right to place a cache based on your aesthetic view? All because you dont want to do some work to research caches before you look for them? Yea, thats fair. (Note sarcasm.) Edited September 9, 2007 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking
+elmuyloco5 Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 ...While Coyote has a great idea, it won't do what I'm saying. It would make a "agreeable" list of caches no different than your tv satellite system has a function that will "suggest" movies or shows you might like according to the shows you have watched in the past. That's great, but doesn't serve the same purpose. Now, notice, I'm not saying his idea is a bad one, just not the one that will address the issue I pointed out. Using his method, I would be very unlikely to EVER find an urban or a micro. I just don't personally prefer those as much. But, what if I want to go to one some day? With his method, I would back to searching through all of the pages again because my "list" wouldn't pull it up. His is a fine method, but for a separate purpose. ... If you simplify what I have said and what you have said. You end up with this. 1) Focus on the caches you may like. 2) Remove the caches you probably won't like. In both cases, what you have left is about the same. One is just a lot more work for everyone involved. Your urban argument doesn't work. If others who enjoy similar caches to you, found an urban cache and enjoyed it, it would show up on your list of suggested caches. In both cases there is always the risk of a bad apple or not having on your list a cache you may enjoy. But in the end you would always have the option to read the cache descriptions and make up your own mind. Actually, statically speaking, they could pull up VERY different results, which is exactly why both ideas have merit and a place in the system. I understand that you want your friend's idea to be used. I wish him the best. There's no need to argue which is better as they are just different. I think, as a group, we will get more accomplished and find that the site is more responsive to our suggestions if we are able to present ideas without argument.
+Dianalynnxk Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 My question is, to those of us who are in urban areas, what choice do we have? Plenty. You can most certainly hide caches larger than a micro in urban areas. We have caches in urban areas and not a single one of them are micros. The issue is it's simply too easy to plop a blinkie under a lamp post skirt. Hiding a fat-fifty (SAW can) nearby is much too hard for most people. Heck, few letterboxes are in the micro size yet plenty are in urban areas. The idea that urban areas dictate a micro or smaller is simply bunk, IMHO. I don't know of any local spot where something so big could be hidden though. I would love to hide something of that size, or see someone do that, but I just don't see that being a possibility unless people put it on private property... Here in LA anyway. I just e-mailed my local library about placing a cache there, though. does that count as not micro-spew? I am not trying to argue, I'm just trying to get advice. I don't think merely saying "don't make micros" will work unless people are presented with alternatives. I'd love to make a big cache, but like I said, where? Do you agree that as long as some thought goes into the camo or an interesting local that they aren't spew? iif you get there and you really have to think about it, doesn't that count as a decent cache? I thought, getting into this, that it was more about the hunt than the ca(t)che. i guess i'm learning elsewise now, which is good. but yeah, how can one, other than not sticking altoids tins inside lamp covers and behind signs, prevent spew IN DENSE urban areas? that's what I'm asking.
+TrailGators Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) My question is, to those of us who are in urban areas, what choice do we have? Plenty. You can most certainly hide caches larger than a micro in urban areas. We have caches in urban areas and not a single one of them are micros. The issue is it's simply too easy to plop a blinkie under a lamp post skirt. Hiding a fat-fifty (SAW can) nearby is much too hard for most people. Heck, few letterboxes are in the micro size yet plenty are in urban areas. The idea that urban areas dictate a micro or smaller is simply bunk, IMHO. I don't know of any local spot where something so big could be hidden though. I would love to hide something of that size, or see someone do that, but I just don't see that being a possibility unless people put it on private property... Here in LA anyway. I just e-mailed my local library about placing a cache there, though. does that count as not micro-spew? I am not trying to argue, I'm just trying to get advice. I don't think merely saying "don't make micros" will work unless people are presented with alternatives. I'd love to make a big cache, but like I said, where? Do you agree that as long as some thought goes into the camo or an interesting local that they aren't spew? iif you get there and you really have to think about it, doesn't that count as a decent cache? I thought, getting into this, that it was more about the hunt than the ca(t)che. i guess i'm learning elsewise now, which is good. but yeah, how can one, other than not sticking altoids tins inside lamp covers and behind signs, prevent spew IN DENSE urban areas? that's what I'm asking. Hi Diane, what I would suggest that you go to your local forum and ask people what the "Must-Do" urbans are in your area. Then go find a bunch of those. Then come back and share your thoughts/observations! I think you will be pleasantly surprised and you will also have a blast! Edited September 9, 2007 by TrailGators
Recommended Posts