An idea for an easier way to filter for caches we like.

[+TrailGators]

It's hard to imagine anyone rating a DNF highly, but I suppose it's possible. I think for the most part all DNFs would average lower.

It doesn't make sense to rate a movie until you've seen the entire movie unless the movie is bad from the get-go. There are movies I've hit the eject button on after 5-10 minutes. So I think in general it's much better to only rate caches, if you've found them. Edited September 15, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Saying "I never found it, but it was good", or "I never found it, but it wasn't good", doesn't seem like valid data to put in the mix.

 

Ive had DNFs on a few caches that I thought were very good ones and I enjoyed going there even though I didnt get the smiley. Some I found later, others I didnt.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

How can any system guarantee you have a cache worth doing? My Old Glory: the Dogs of War cache, which is a good one and well liked, is just off a parking lot. How would your system filter out my cache as one worth doing?

Which system are you asking about?

 

Sorry, forgot to answer this one.

 

For any system being proposed, I would like to know how my caches would be rated, given how Old Glory and Rx: GPS prn are good caches, but dont seem to stand out in any of the proposed methods that I can see. Rx: GPS prn is in a park, but its an ordinary hide in a special park. Old Glory is a special hide near a special place, but looks like its just off a parking lot. A rural cache I have, Lonesome Bush, just off a dirt road and a seemingly ordinary cache has a feature and history to go along with it. How would something like that stand out in any of the methods?

[+Miragee]

How can any system guarantee you have a cache worth doing? My Old Glory: the Dogs of War cache, which is a good one and well liked, is just off a parking lot. How would your system filter out my cache as one worth doing?

Which system are you asking about?

Sorry, forgot to answer this one.

 

For any system being proposed, I would like to know how my caches would be rated, given how Old Glory and Rx: GPS prn are good caches, but dont seem to stand out in any of the proposed methods that I can see. Rx: GPS prn is in a park, but its an ordinary hide in a special park. Old Glory is a special hide near a special place, but looks like its just off a parking lot. A rural cache I have, Lonesome Bush, just off a dirt road and a seemingly ordinary cache has a feature and history to go along with it. How would something like that stand out in any of the methods?

For what I am proposing, which is just one additional piece of information to filter for, your first cache would be in my Pocket Queries because it is in a "Park." The second one would also be in my PQs because it would be "Historic." The last one would also be in my filter because of its "Rural" or "Trail" and/or "Historic" location.

 

If a cache has been designated as being "Urban," which would encompass those caches hidden in parking lots, I would usually filter those out from my Pocket Queries.

 

I believe a very general location designation would help filter for caches people want to find, without giving away what they would find (as on Waymarking), and without requiring a "rating."

 

A brand new cache can be filtered in, or out, of someone's preferred caches with the addition of a generic "Location" added to the cache information. To implement a "rating" requires the cache to be found.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

How can any system guarantee you have a cache worth doing? My Old Glory: the Dogs of War cache, which is a good one and well liked, is just off a parking lot. How would your system filter out my cache as one worth doing?

Which system are you asking about?

Sorry, forgot to answer this one.

 

For any system being proposed, I would like to know how my caches would be rated, given how Old Glory and Rx: GPS prn are good caches, but dont seem to stand out in any of the proposed methods that I can see. Rx: GPS prn is in a park, but its an ordinary hide in a special park. Old Glory is a special hide near a special place, but looks like its just off a parking lot. A rural cache I have, Lonesome Bush, just off a dirt road and a seemingly ordinary cache has a feature and history to go along with it. How would something like that stand out in any of the methods?

For what I am proposing, which is just one additional piece of information to filter for, your first cache would be in my Pocket Queries because it is in a "Park." The second one would also be in my PQs because it would be "Historic." The last one would also be in my filter because of its "Rural" or "Trail" and/or "Historic" location.

 

If a cache has been designated as being "Urban," which would encompass those caches hidden in parking lots, I would usually filter those out from my Pocket Queries.

 

I believe a very general location designation would help filter for caches people want to find, without giving away what they would find (as on Waymarking), and without requiring a "rating."

 

A brand new cache can be filtered in, or out, of someone's preferred caches with the addition of a generic "Location" added to the cache information. To implement a "rating" requires the cache to be found.

 

The park one would seem to be the same as any old park when its not. It goes from standing out to being lumped in with other park caches. The same with the rural cache. I thought whatever system was used was to help someone have a better chance to get caches that were better than average caches.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

The park one would seem to be the same as any old park when its not. It goes from standing out to being lumped in with other park caches. The same with the rural cache. I thought whatever system was used was to help someone have a better chance to get caches that were better than average caches.

Rating caches, in my opinion, is too subjective, and seems like it could be difficult to implement. How many cachers create Bookmark Lists? How would infrequently-visited caches, like many of mine, get rated?

 

Also, as I stated, to rate a cache, it has to be found first. Simply knowing the general location of a cache, the minute it is "Published," allows it to be filtered in, or out, of Pocket Queries, if a cacher has location preferences. It could be just one more section in the PQ form, just like the choices that presently exist for Sizes of containers, or Types of caches people prefer.

 

This is a "refinement" of my idea:

 

 

I would be interested to see what others would suggest to be included, or excluded, from a simple drop-down list the cache owner would choose when listing their cache.

 

My caching experience would be enhanced by simply being able to filter out "Urban" caches, which would be those placed in a parking lot, in front of a business, next to a busy sidewalk, or on a traffic signal pole at a busy intersection.

 

Other people might want to filter for caches in those locations, and filter out caches located in parks, or on hiking trails. We can presently filter for cache Size and cache Type. Seems like having the ability to filter for preferred, very general, locations, would be a useful, easy-to-implement Site enhancement.

[+CTYankee9]

Just the 2 cents worth of a cacher:

 

I don't really filter out any caches when I go hunting, just me and the way I am, they are all good in my opinion!

 

Now from the standpoint of a cache hider; adding a couple extra blocks to check when submitting a cache listing isn't that big of a bother to me. I probably spend more time on the attributes and deciding which ones are best for the listing. If a couple simple check-boxes would help what seems to be a large portion of cachers out there who like to limit their caches to a particular type on a hunt, then I would be for this idea.

 

On the angsty side, just because; why filter out caches from your day's adventure? They are all good in my opinion {see tagline, before flaming} if there is a cache at some location, somebody found it interesting at some point in time. Or even if not interesting it gave you something to do for five minutes {LUMPS} of your very busy life solving world hunger, ending all wars, pestilence and creating the cure for the common cold.

 

OK, all done with the angst.

[+the pooks]

I have not read this whole topic, so probably are not qualified to comment. I am new to the game and when I first placed a cache I was required to tick "attributes" with a maximum of 10. I ticked away without too much understanding or thought - I found the attributes thing stuffy and superfluous and I don't look at the attributes of caches in our area. Part of the fun of caching is the mystery/unpredictable part of it - the more you put the game in a box, the more you take the fun out of it.

[+Prime Suspect]

I have not read this whole topic, so probably are not qualified to comment. I am new to the game and when I first placed a cache I was required to tick "attributes" with a maximum of 10. I ticked away without too much understanding or thought - I found the attributes thing stuffy and superfluous and I don't look at the attributes of caches in our area. Part of the fun of caching is the mystery/unpredictable part of it - the more you put the game in a box, the more you take the fun out of it.

Well, no, you're not "required" to add attributes. And if you do, you should have put a little thought into it, rather than just ticking things off until you reach the maximum, as you apparently did.

 

For example, one of your caches is a 1-star terrain. That usually indicates it's wheelchair accessible. But you didn't bother to check that attribute, one way or the other. But you did check a lot of pointless things. For example, if you live in a area where it rarely or never snows, it's a bit redundant to check the No Snowmobiles attribute.