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

[Mushtang]

I don't see how merely choosing a "location type" from a "Drop down" list has anything to do with "defending" the location.

"Before your cache can be approved you have to pick from the following list to identify why you chose that location"

 

Isn't that essentially what the proposed "filter" would require?

[+TrailGators]

If Dave Ulmer had hidden a 35mm film can with only a log sheet, I really don't think we would even be here discussing this...

The old saying was "The language of location."

The new saying is "Whatever floats your boat."

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

The suggestion that Traildad made would work work well, if the form that each cache hider filled out asking why they chose the hiding spot resulted in an icon change. Currently there is only 1 icon for a traditional cache on every profile page which is misleading. Micros really are not caches at all, as they have no trade items. An icon for a micro find should just be a log sheet. If it was a historical micro it could have a H behind it. If it was a micro in a parking lot or rest stop, it could have a picture of a car, meaning you could drive right up to it, or just a # symbol meaning it was a numbers cache. A micro in a nice park could have a leaf behind it.

 

Then why single micros out? Many regular caches could easily get the same attribute. There are some regular caches that have no redeeming value except to just place one (for the numbers). Some might be in historic places, some in scenic places, some in rest stops or parking lots too. Why single micros for special treatment when they could just as easily be filtered out in a pocket query by eliminating micros from the search.

 

I disagree that micros are not caches. A cache by definition contains a log book. Micros contain that. Once people start claiming that micros are not "real" caches, then its just a matter of time before micros go the way of virtuals and cease to be on this site.

[+huggy_d1]

...

I disagree that micros are not caches. A cache by definition contains a log book. Micros contain that. Once people start claiming that micros are not "real" caches, then its just a matter of time before micros go the way of virtuals and cease to be on this site.

I cannot imagine anyone actually programming/coding out "micro" caches as an option from geocaching.com. I mean really, come on.. who would do that when creative micros are what sort of replaced virtual caches if you get my drift. A "virtual" location is a "real" location but there is no log and the management of them was unwieldy on geocaching.com because not everyone agreed on their appropriate use (just one of several reasons).

 

A real cache is any cache with a log, which you clearly stated, and is easily agreed upon In geocaching, size matters not

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Then why single micros out? Many regular caches could easily get the same attribute. There are some regular caches that have no redeeming value except to just place one (for the numbers). Some might be in historic places, some in scenic places, some in rest stops or parking lots too. Why single micros for special treatment when they could just as easily be filtered out in a pocket query by eliminating micros from the search.

 

I disagree that micros are not caches. A cache by definition contains a log book. Micros contain that. Once people start claiming that micros are not "real" caches, then its just a matter of time before micros go the way of virtuals and cease to be on this site.

 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy finding all types of micros, and I would hate to see them go.

 

But the true definition of a "cache" implies a container containing items. They should not be singled out, but more easily identified as not containing trade items. Regular caches could have a variety of icons to easily identify them also, rather than running a PQ. The icons could be coded using different colors to determine the general type of area.

 

Grey- urban

Brown- suburban

Green- forest

Blue- mountaintop

 

A urban numbers micro could be a grey logsheet with a car in the backround.

A urban historical micro could be a grey logsheet with an H.

A regular sized cache in a suburban area could show a traditional cache box colored brown.

A small cache in a historical forest type area could show a smaller traditional cache icon colored green with an H in the background, ect.

 

When you click on a profile, instead of showing a simple number it would give a quick look at the types of caches the person had found. By checking off a list during the cache submission the icon could be determined. One reason the coins are so popular is because people love those icons. Its not perfect, but would give a clearer view of the many varieties of caches.

[+Miragee]

What is wrong with asking a wide, generic question about whether a cache is Urban, Park, Hike, Forest, Highway, Reststop, Historic Location, (add other suggestions here), Surprise?

I think everyone knows which caches are in parks (higher terrain and greenspot on map) and which caches are urbans. They also know which caches are right on a highway/reststop. So you don't need to ask them that. People don't know historic locations unless it is written in the cache description so that is useful. I still think that should be added to the attributes. So I don't see where the questions you are asking are really giving us any new information. The checklist could work but IMHO think you need different items in the list than stuff that is already listed (or should be listed) in attributes or stuff that we can easily figure out without the list.

 

A similar idea would be to just have a simple text box that the user types in the reason(s) that he/she hid the cache in the spot he/she chose. Then that info could be included on the cache page. This would be simple and would give us more info about each cache. If someone doesn't provide an interesting reason then you can skip that cache.

I don't need to know the reason the person hid the cache. I want to know, very generally, about the location where the cache is hidden. For me, if I could get a PQ without any caches classified as "Urban" that would be great. If I were traveling, perhaps I would request PQs for caches that are only in Highway Rest Areas, Parks, and those in "Historic" locations.

 

Wouldn't that be handy when caching paperless with nearly 1000 waypoints in your GPSr to only have the "Next Nearest" caches be in your preferred locations?

 

When creating a PQ, you can filter for specific Cache Types, and specific Cache Sizes. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to filter for your preferred locations?

[+traildad]

On the other hand, it is trying to require a cache hider to defend the reasons for the hide. This is not necessary and pointless. '.

Are you making things up as you go along? Where did anyone suggest that a hider would need to "defend" the reasons for the hide?

First post in this thread. Second paragraph, first sentence.

 

The idea presented clearly is asking hiders to support or maintain their reasons for hiding a cache.

Support or maintain = defend?

 

Here is the sentence,

My suggestion was to have every hider choose from a list of reasons why they chose the spot to hide the cache.

The idea presented is clearly asking for some info that could be used to help filter with a pocket query. This topic is not part of the "get rid of lame caches" movement. It is about helping people select a cache to hunt that fits their caching preferences.

[+traildad]

"Giving a reason why you've chosen a spot" may sound more positive, but it's still supporting or maintaining a reason for hiding a cache, is it not?

 

No matter how you say it, it's still defending your reasons for selecting the location.

No, No, NO. This is not about defending your reasons. This is only I repeat only about giving people more info to help them pick a cache that will fit their caching wants or needs. Thank you.

[+TrailGators]

What is wrong with asking a wide, generic question about whether a cache is Urban, Park, Hike, Forest, Highway, Reststop, Historic Location, (add other suggestions here), Surprise?

I think everyone knows which caches are in parks (higher terrain and greenspot on map) and which caches are urbans. They also know which caches are right on a highway/reststop. So you don't need to ask them that. People don't know historic locations unless it is written in the cache description so that is useful. I still think that should be added to the attributes. So I don't see where the questions you are asking are really giving us any new information. The checklist could work but IMHO think you need different items in the list than stuff that is already listed (or should be listed) in attributes or stuff that we can easily figure out without the list.

 

A similar idea would be to just have a simple text box that the user types in the reason(s) that he/she hid the cache in the spot he/she chose. Then that info could be included on the cache page. This would be simple and would give us more info about each cache. If someone doesn't provide an interesting reason then you can skip that cache.

I don't need to know the reason the person hid the cache. I want to know, very generally, about the location where the cache is hidden. For me, if I could get a PQ without any caches classified as "Urban" that would be great. If I were traveling, perhaps I would request PQs for caches that are only in Highway Rest Areas, Parks, and those in "Historic" locations.

 

Wouldn't that be handy when caching paperless with nearly 1000 waypoints in your GPSr to only have the "Next Nearest" caches be in your preferred locations?

 

When creating a PQ, you can filter for specific Cache Types, and specific Cache Sizes. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to filter for your preferred locations?

What you are talking about is different than what the OP asked for and what we are discussing:

My suggestion was to have every hider choose from a list of reasons why they chose the spot to hide the cache. We could make this part of the cache submission just like choosing the cache type or difficulty rating. The cache hider is the best one to explain what if anything is the reason that spot was used.

So I would suggest starting a new topic to discuss your new spin-off idea.

[+TrailGators]

This topic is not part of the "get rid of lame caches" movement. It is about helping people select a cache to hunt that fits their caching preferences.

Don't let him suck you into another lame argument. Just ignore it.

 

I understand what you are asking for I would just like to see an actual example of what the new proposed submission page would look like with the actual selections.

Edited September 13, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

In the second post in this thread, I posted this image of what the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" could look like with the addition of one, simple, required, location question:

 

 

I think traildad and I are basically on the same page here, although we may have used different words to express our desire to have location information to filter for, or against.

 

Perhaps a constructive discussion would be what sort of very general location selections would be in the drop down list.

• historic
  
• urban
  
• park
  
• hike
  
• rest area
  
• "surprise"
  

[+TrailGators]

Perhaps a constructive discussion would be what sort of very general location selections would be in the drop down list.

• historic
  
• urban
  
• park
  
• hike
  
• rest area
  
• "surprise"
  

1) "Historic" is very useful but should be an attribute.

2) "Urban" is obvious if you look at a cache map

3) "Park" is obvious if you look at a cache map

4) "Hike" is obvious is you look at the terrain rating and a cache map

5) "Rest area" is obvious if you look at a cache map

6) "Surprise" is what we have now even after you read many cache pages.

Edited September 13, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team Cotati]

In the second post in this thread, I posted this image of what the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" could look like with the addition of one, simple, required, location question:

 

 

I think traildad and I are basically on the same page here, although we may have used different words to express our desire to have location information to filter for, or against.

 

Perhaps a constructive discussion would be what sort of very general location selections would be in the drop down list.

• historic
  
• urban
  
• park
  
• hike
  
• rest area
  
• "surprise"
  

 

You had something going there right up until you threw in that "surprise" thing, that right there killed the whole idea.

[+Miragee]

Perhaps a constructive discussion would be what sort of very general location selections would be in the drop down list.

• historic
  
• urban
  
• park
  
• hike
  
• rest area
  
• "surprise"
  

1) "Historic" is very useful but should be an attribute.

2) "Urban" is obvious if you look at a cache map

3) "Park" is obvious if you look at a cache map

4) "Hike" is obvious is you look at the terrain rating and a cache map

5) "Rest area" is obvious if you look at a cache map

6) "Surprise" is what we have now

 

What the OP was suggesting were "reasons." None of those are reasons except for "surprise."

I want to get only certain locations in my PQs. I don't want to have to look at the cache map for each of the 500 caches in the PQ.

 

If I am going into a nearby city, what if I only want to have caches located in Parks or on trails. What if I would prefer to not have any caches in "urban" (parking lot) locations? Without a "Location" option, I cannot filter for, or against, particular locations.

 

If I can exclude "Unknown" or "Webcam" caches from my PQs, why can't I also ask to be able to exclude "Urban" caches?

[+TrailGators]

Perhaps a constructive discussion would be what sort of very general location selections would be in the drop down list.

• historic
  
• urban
  
• park
  
• hike
  
• rest area
  
• "surprise"
  

1) "Historic" is very useful but should be an attribute.

2) "Urban" is obvious if you look at a cache map

3) "Park" is obvious if you look at a cache map

4) "Hike" is obvious is you look at the terrain rating and a cache map

5) "Rest area" is obvious if you look at a cache map

6) "Surprise" is what we have now

 

What the OP was suggesting were "reasons." None of those are reasons except for "surprise."

I want to get only certain locations in my PQs. I don't want to have to look at the cache map for each of the 500 caches in the PQ.

 

If I am going into a nearby city, what if I only want to have caches located in Parks or on trails. What if I would prefer to not have any caches in "urban" (parking lot) locations? Without a "Location" option, I cannot filter for, or against, particular locations.

 

If I can exclude "Unknown" or "Webcam" caches from my PQs, why can't I also ask to be able to exclude "Urban" caches?

99% of urban caches have a terrain rating <2. You can add the terrain rating to your cache name using GSAK. Plus when you are driving around looking at your GPS you can see green spots and streets. Green spots on your GPS are parks and caches near streets are urban. I still don't see the point of making everyone fill out extra info for stuff that is easy to figure out. Plus this is not what the OP was asking for. Edited September 13, 2007 by TrailGators

[+traildad]

This topic is not part of the "get rid of lame caches" movement. It is about helping people select a cache to hunt that fits their caching preferences.

Don't let him suck you into another lame argument. Just ignore it.

 

I understand what you are asking for I would just like to see an actual example of what the new proposed submission page would look like with the actual selections.

For me this is a concept. I don't expect, if approved, Groundspeak would ask me to program it. I would assume that if TPTB thought it was a usable idea they would put some thought into it. I don't claim to have the one and only "best" way of doing it. I do know for sure that nothing we come up with will be all things to all people. Whether they are called labels or attributes or categories is not important. I just want more info on the cache page so I can better decide what caches to hunt. More info so "I" can decide. I prefer not to have a logic program decide what I want to hunt.

 

In reply to any that have suggested it, since in the end it would most likely be a mouse click or two, I consider all suggestions that it puts too much of a burden on the hider as being silly. Some people spend hours between looking for the spot and making a container. It also costs money. After all that I don't imagine that any will say' "What you expect me to click the mouse again, " If they are a cacher that puts no time, effort or money into their hides, maybe it is right to ask them to think just a bit and click that mouse.

[Mushtang]

I want to get only certain locations in my PQs. I don't want to have to look at the cache map for each of the 500 caches in the PQ.

 

If I am going into a nearby city, what if I only want to have caches located in Parks or on trails. What if I would prefer to not have any caches in "urban" (parking lot) locations? Without a "Location" option, I cannot filter for, or against, particular locations.

 

If I can exclude "Unknown" or "Webcam" caches from my PQs, why can't I also ask to be able to exclude "Urban" caches?

I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches in wooded areas beside shopping centers if I only want to find caches that are in parks, and I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches that are in Lock-n-Locks if I want to find caches that use ammo cans. So let's require the hider to fill out information on every possible aspect of the cache so we can filter out everything.

 

I want to get a PQ of all the caches within 100 miles of my house that are hidden in a park, using an ammo can, within 50 feet of the walking trail, that is hidden in any method OTHER than under a pile of sticks, that contains a Rite In The Rain logbook, and was placed for a historical reason.

 

In fact, I don't want to even have to do any searching, or have anything unknown at all about a cache, so let's require that hiders from now on include spoiler photographs of all cache hides so I'll know without a doubt where I'll be going and exactly what I'll be looking for, and make everything filterable so I'm not FORCED to enter any parking lots if I want to remain on long hikes.

[+Miragee]

99% of urban caches have a terrain rating <2. You can add the terrain rating to your cache name using GSAK. Plus when you are driving around looking at your GPS you can see green spots and streets. Green spots on your GPS are parks and caches near streets are urban. I still don't see the point of making everyone fill out extra info for stuff that is easy to figure out. Plus this is not what the OP was asking for.

Okay, you think my idea is different from traildad's, but it is along the same line of thought. If we are trying to find "an easier way to filter for caches we like" this is on topic.

 

I think a single additional question on the new cache submittal form would help filter for caches people would prefer to search for.

 

In my Pocket Queries, and therefore on my GPSr, it would be great to have only caches that are in Parks or along Trails. Driving around wasting gas to find out the "Next Nearest" cache is actually in a parking lot is what I would like to avoid. On the other hand, if someone is on a "numbers run," they might want to choose caches that are designated as being "Urban," and therefore in parking lots.

 

Filtering my GSAK database to eliminate all the caches with a Terrain rating of '1' would eliminate caches located in nice parks that are on a paved walking trail. As opposed to filtering my offline database, it would be better to get a Pocket Query of 500 caches, of whatever type or size, located in a park, and no caches located in parking lots.

 

I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches in wooded areas beside shopping centers if I only want to find caches that are in parks, and I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches that are in Lock-n-Locks if I want to find caches that use ammo cans. So let's require the hider to fill out information on every possible aspect of the cache so we can filter out everything.

 

I want to get a PQ of all the caches within 100 miles of my house that are hidden in a park, using an ammo can, within 50 feet of the walking trail, that is hidden in any method OTHER than under a pile of sticks, that contains a Rite In The Rain logbook, and was placed for a historical reason.

 

In fact, I don't want to even have to do any searching, or have anything unknown at all about a cache, so let's require that hiders from now on include spoiler photographs of all cache hides so I'll know without a doubt where I'll be going and exactly what I'll be looking for, and make everything filterable so I'm not FORCED to enter any parking lots if I want to remain on long hikes.

This is just silly.

 

Perhaps people would rather be argumentative in these Forums than constructively discuss the actual suggestions being made in the "Web Site Forum" where suggestions and enhancements to the Web Site are supposed to be brought up.

 

This is a discussion about an easier way to filter for caches we like. I have made a suggestion for a single additional question on the new cache submission form. Implementing this would make filtering much more useful.

 

Is it not possible to constructively discuss the actual suggestions being made?

[+TrailGators]

In my Pocket Queries, and therefore on my GPSr, it would be great to have only caches that are in Parks or along Trails. Driving around wasting gas to find out the "Next Nearest" cache is actually in a parking lot is what I would like to avoid. On the other hand, if someone is on a "numbers run," they might want to choose caches that are designated as being "Urban," and therefore in parking lots.

If you create a PQ for caches with >2 terrain you will filter out parking lot caches. If you do the reverse then you will get urbans. I don't understand why you want want thousands of people to have to indicate that their cache is an urban cache. It seems like unnecessary work to me. The real benefit would be to know which urbans are not "just for the numbers" and not just which caches are urbans. Edited September 13, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

As I already stated, there are caches in nice parks that have a terrain rating of '1'. I don't want to eliminate those because I have found interesting neighborhood "Pocket Parks" looking for caches.

 

If "Limiting Questions" are used extensively in Waymarking, I don't understand why one additional question couldn't work in Geocaching.

 

The ability to more-easily filter for caches someone prefers to search for would cut down on the number of "Lame cache Threads" because people could filter for their Preferred cache locations when they take a road trip.

[Mushtang]

I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches in wooded areas beside shopping centers if I only want to find caches that are in parks, and I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches that are in Lock-n-Locks if I want to find caches that use ammo cans. So let's require the hider to fill out information on every possible aspect of the cache so we can filter out everything.

 

I want to get a PQ of all the caches within 100 miles of my house that are hidden in a park, using an ammo can, within 50 feet of the walking trail, that is hidden in any method OTHER than under a pile of sticks, that contains a Rite In The Rain logbook, and was placed for a historical reason.

 

In fact, I don't want to even have to do any searching, or have anything unknown at all about a cache, so let's require that hiders from now on include spoiler photographs of all cache hides so I'll know without a doubt where I'll be going and exactly what I'll be looking for, and make everything filterable so I'm not FORCED to enter any parking lots if I want to remain on long hikes.

This is just silly.

 

Perhaps people would rather be argumentative in these Forums than constructively discuss the actual suggestions being made in the "Web Site Forum" where suggestions and enhancements to the Web Site are supposed to be brought up.

 

This is a discussion about an easier way to filter for caches we like. I have made a suggestion for a single additional question on the new cache submission form. Implementing this would make filtering much more useful.

 

Is it not possible to constructively discuss the actual suggestions being made?

The filter method being discussed is silly.

 

My post addressed what I thought about the actual suggestions being made.

[+StarBrand]

While certainly not a perfect solution. A simple checkbox that says something akin to:

 

"Log only placed for no reason other than numbers and/or ease"

 

Would at least allow us to filter for them or filter them out. At least some of them. I have to believe that most cachers could be honest enough to check that kind of box when it applies. If it doesn't - then the description might explain why.

[+TrailGators]

While certainly not a perfect solution. A simple checkbox that says something akin to:

 

"Log only placed for no reason other than numbers and/or ease"

 

Would at least allow us to filter for them or filter them out. At least some of them. I have to believe that most cachers could be honest enough to check that kind of box when it applies. If it doesn't - then the description might explain why.

This would work and it is simple.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Is it not possible to constructively discuss the actual suggestions being made?

 

If you guys all want to filter for what you like, then what's wrong with the netflix system that suggests what you would like based on what others have reported liking?

[+Renegade Knight]

..."Log only placed for no reason other than numbers and/or ease"...

 

That typically, is a finder criticism.

[+TrailGators]

...Is it not possible to constructively discuss the actual suggestions being made?

 

If you guys all want to filter for what you like, then what's wrong with the netflix system that suggests what you would like based on what others have reported liking?

I like the Netflix system and agree that it would be very effective because it recommends caches based on common likes. Example: If you really liked Urban X, then you will probably like Urban Y, because 80% of people that liked Urban X also really liked Urban Y.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

As I already stated, there are caches in nice parks that have a terrain rating of '1'. I don't want to eliminate those because I have found interesting neighborhood "Pocket Parks" looking for caches.

 

If "Limiting Questions" are used extensively in Waymarking, I don't understand why one additional question couldn't work in Geocaching.

 

The ability to more-easily filter for caches someone prefers to search for would cut down on the number of "Lame cache Threads" because people could filter for their Preferred cache locations when they take a road trip.

 

Waymarking categorizes things so completely that one complaint is that it takes away from the surprise aspect of the location. Its one of 2 reasons I dont use Waymarking much. (The other is that the site lags on my computer for some reason, making it quite tedious to try and pull up category descriptions etc.) If you want to have a filter that allows you to only pull up caches for a prefered cache location, then I hope TPTB also allow someone not to see that filter if they so choose. I would like to retain the surprise element of the location. The caches are more fun for us if we get there and its something unexpected.

[+TrailGators]

As I already stated, there are caches in nice parks that have a terrain rating of '1'. I don't want to eliminate those because I have found interesting neighborhood "Pocket Parks" looking for caches.

 

If "Limiting Questions" are used extensively in Waymarking, I don't understand why one additional question couldn't work in Geocaching.

 

The ability to more-easily filter for caches someone prefers to search for would cut down on the number of "Lame cache Threads" because people could filter for their Preferred cache locations when they take a road trip.

 

Waymarking categorizes things so completely that one complaint is that it takes away from the surprise aspect of the location. Its one of 2 reasons I dont use Waymarking much. (The other is that the site lags on my computer for some reason, making it quite tedious to try and pull up category descriptions etc.) If you want to have a filter that allows you to only pull up caches for a prefered cache location, then I hope TPTB also allow someone not to see that filter if they so choose. I would like to retain the surprise element of the location. The caches are more fun for us if we get there and its something unexpected.

You have a good point here. Waymarks are visited and caches are found. If you walk around with enough hints and clues than caches become visits because you've short-circuited the challenge. People that don't like the challenge or the enjoyment of the surprise would like Waymarking or very easy caches better.

[+traildad]

I want to get only certain locations in my PQs. I don't want to have to look at the cache map for each of the 500 caches in the PQ.

 

If I am going into a nearby city, what if I only want to have caches located in Parks or on trails. What if I would prefer to not have any caches in "urban" (parking lot) locations? Without a "Location" option, I cannot filter for, or against, particular locations.

 

If I can exclude "Unknown" or "Webcam" caches from my PQs, why can't I also ask to be able to exclude "Urban" caches?

I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches in wooded areas beside shopping centers if I only want to find caches that are in parks, and I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches that are in Lock-n-Locks if I want to find caches that use ammo cans. So let's require the hider to fill out information on every possible aspect of the cache so we can filter out everything.

 

I want to get a PQ of all the caches within 100 miles of my house that are hidden in a park, using an ammo can, within 50 feet of the walking trail, that is hidden in any method OTHER than under a pile of sticks, that contains a Rite In The Rain logbook, and was placed for a historical reason.

 

In fact, I don't want to even have to do any searching, or have anything unknown at all about a cache, so let's require that hiders from now on include spoiler photographs of all cache hides so I'll know without a doubt where I'll be going and exactly what I'll be looking for, and make everything filterable so I'm not FORCED to enter any parking lots if I want to remain on long hikes.

 

Please keep within the spirit of having a adult discussion.

[+traildad]

...Is it not possible to constructively discuss the actual suggestions being made?

 

If you guys all want to filter for what you like, then what's wrong with the netflix system that suggests what you would like based on what others have reported liking?

I suppose this system could have its uses. The thing is, it is not a substitute for the one I suggested. To be given a list of caches that you would probably like because other people you agree with like them is just not the same. Apples and oranges if you ask me. My suggestion if implemented would in some way give you the ability to filter for what you wanted to do at that moment. Your system would list all different kinds of caches as long as certain people liked them. My system is not about returning a list of caches you "like". It is supposed to allow you to decide what you like today and filter for that kind. If you mostly do rural caches with a hike or scenic view, that is what your system would suggest for you. What if you were going to the big city and wanted something different. How would your system handle this situation?

[+TrailGators]

What if you were going to the big city and wanted something different. How would your system handle this situation?

If you look at a map of all the caches that the Netflix system returns you will see some in urban areas, others in parks and others out in the country. You can sort them by difficulty and terrain. You can sort them by the size and type of cache. I guess I don't see the value of sorting for just urban caches. I want to know which urban caches are worth doing. Edited September 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+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?

Edited September 14, 2007 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+TrailGators]

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?

Who said anything about a guarantee? These systems will increase your odds of finding caches that you will enjoy.

[+traildad]

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?

[+traildad]

What if you were going to the big city and wanted something different. How would your system handle this situation?

If you look at a map of all the caches that the Netflix system returns you will see some in urban areas, others in parks and others out in the country. You can sort them by difficulty and terrain. You can sort them by the size and type of cache. I guess I don't see the value of sorting for just urban caches. I want to know which urban caches are worth doing.

This assumes that the likes and dislikes it is trying to include has all those. If all you hunt is "just for the numbers" and all your friends are just for the numbers cachers, won't the system say here are a new bunch of "just for the numbers" type caches just like the ones you seem to like? How will it know what you like if you take a vacation and want to try something different? It seems you would be back to reading each cache listing trying to figure out if you wanted to consider it.

[Mushtang]

I want to get only certain locations in my PQs. I don't want to have to look at the cache map for each of the 500 caches in the PQ.

 

If I am going into a nearby city, what if I only want to have caches located in Parks or on trails. What if I would prefer to not have any caches in "urban" (parking lot) locations? Without a "Location" option, I cannot filter for, or against, particular locations.

 

If I can exclude "Unknown" or "Webcam" caches from my PQs, why can't I also ask to be able to exclude "Urban" caches?

I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches in wooded areas beside shopping centers if I only want to find caches that are in parks, and I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches that are in Lock-n-Locks if I want to find caches that use ammo cans. So let's require the hider to fill out information on every possible aspect of the cache so we can filter out everything.

 

I want to get a PQ of all the caches within 100 miles of my house that are hidden in a park, using an ammo can, within 50 feet of the walking trail, that is hidden in any method OTHER than under a pile of sticks, that contains a Rite In The Rain logbook, and was placed for a historical reason.

 

In fact, I don't want to even have to do any searching, or have anything unknown at all about a cache, so let's require that hiders from now on include spoiler photographs of all cache hides so I'll know without a doubt where I'll be going and exactly what I'll be looking for, and make everything filterable so I'm not FORCED to enter any parking lots if I want to remain on long hikes.

 

Please keep within the spirit of having a adult discussion.

Sorry, if an extreme example given to try and illustrate a point is too complicated for this thread, I'll try and keep it simple (adult?).

 

Filter system = not work well

Information needed already on cache page.

Existing tools can be used to increase the chance that you'll have a PQ of caches you like.

 

It seems you would be back to reading each cache listing trying to figure out if you wanted to consider it.

Bingo! That's what the information is there for. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[+Kit Fox]

 

Sorry, if an extreme example given to try and illustrate a point is too complicated for this thread, I'll try and keep it simple (adult?).

 

Filter system = not work well

Information needed already on cache page.

Existing tools can be used to increase the chance that you'll have a PQ of caches you like.

 

It seems you would be back to reading each cache listing trying to figure out if you wanted to consider it.

Bingo! That's what the information is there for. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

The problem with the current method of reading the cache listing, and reviewing past logs, is that it's

 

A. Time consuming when you have a PQ with 500 results.

B. Many cachers engage in deception when writing their narratives.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+Too Tall John]

I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches in wooded areas beside shopping centers if I only want to find caches that are in parks, and I don't want to be FORCED to look for caches that are in Lock-n-Locks if I want to find caches that use ammo cans. So let's require the hider to fill out information on every possible aspect of the cache so we can filter out everything.

 

I want to get a PQ of all the caches within 100 miles of my house that are hidden in a park, using an ammo can, within 50 feet of the walking trail, that is hidden in any method OTHER than under a pile of sticks, that contains a Rite In The Rain logbook, and was placed for a historical reason.

 

In fact, I don't want to even have to do any searching, or have anything unknown at all about a cache, so let's require that hiders from now on include spoiler photographs of all cache hides so I'll know without a doubt where I'll be going and exactly what I'll be looking for, and make everything filterable so I'm not FORCED to enter any parking lots if I want to remain on long hikes.

This is just silly.

 

Perhaps people would rather be argumentative in these Forums than constructively discuss the actual suggestions being made in the "Web Site Forum" where suggestions and enhancements to the Web Site are supposed to be brought up.

 

This is a discussion about an easier way to filter for caches we like. I have made a suggestion for a single additional question on the new cache submission form. Implementing this would make filtering much more useful.

 

Is it not possible to constructively discuss the actual suggestions being made?

The filter method being discussed is silly.

 

My post addressed what I thought about the actual suggestions being made.

What? Your post was nothing but sarcasm. If you think the filtering system is silly and won't work, fine, say so & state your reasons.

 

Some people would like to see a filtering system. Maybe you wouldn't care for one. Fine. Don't use it if it ever happens. The development team at Groundspeak is intelligent enough to know what is doable and what isn't, feature-wise. If someone comes up with a good idea that people would use and would be implementable, great. They don't need your "help" in shouting down ideas that aren't feasible. In fact, it probably makes it harder for them to find the good ideas with all the other clutter. That said, I'm done here unless I think of something more constructive to say.

[Mushtang]

 

Sorry, if an extreme example given to try and illustrate a point is too complicated for this thread, I'll try and keep it simple (adult?).

 

Filter system = not work well

Information needed already on cache page.

Existing tools can be used to increase the chance that you'll have a PQ of caches you like.

 

It seems you would be back to reading each cache listing trying to figure out if you wanted to consider it.

Bingo! That's what the information is there for. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

The problem with the current method of reading the cache listing, and reviewing past logs, is that it's

 

A. Time consuming when you have a PQ with 500 results.

B. Many cachers engage in deception when writing their narratives.

I understand, but you don't have to read every cache page in the PQ before you go looking for any, just read the page of the one you're about to go for. If it sounds like one you wouldn't like, pick another.

 

And if cachers engage in deception when writing narratives, wouldn't they do likewise when checking a box about why they hid the cache, or when rating caches?

 

BTW, the ONLY way I'd support a rating system, is if you were only allowed to rate the cache IF you've logged a find on it. If folks are allowed to cruise the cache pages putting low ratings on any micro they see, just because they don't like the micros they've found in the past, the system would be less than useless.

[Dinoprophet]

BTW, the ONLY way I'd support a rating system, is if you were only allowed to rate the cache IF you've logged a find on it. If folks are allowed to cruise the cache pages putting low ratings on any micro they see, just because they don't like the micros they've found in the past, the system would be less than useless.

That depends on the type of rating system. If we're talking about an affinity-type system, I don't see why that would be a problem.

 

I was originally very in favor of the Reason system. I still think it has potential, but what I'd really like to see is a combination of searchable cache pages (Mushtang's suggestion in the spew thread), CoyoteRed's tagging capability, and maybe a small dictionary of recommended tags that would include some of the terms discussed here.

[Mushtang]

What? Your post was nothing but sarcasm. If you think the filtering system is silly and won't work, fine, say so & state your reasons.

Again, I used an extreme example to illustrate a point. Apparently it went over your head so I'll simplify it for you. It sounds to me like people are trying to come up with a filter system because they're acting like without a filter system they're forced to find all caches, or that all caches have to entertain them. My point is that for these people to be satisfied the filter system will become so detailed that every little detail about the cache will have to be known in order to filter out what people don't like. A filter system like that would reduce all caches to a difficulty of one.

 

They don't need your "help" in shouting down ideas that aren't feasible. In fact, it probably makes it harder for them to find the good ideas with all the other clutter. That said, I'm done here unless I think of something more constructive to say.

So if someone has a bad idea and sets it forth in the forums for discussion, anyone that doesn't like it shouldn't comment on it because the development team will know the bad from the good? But if people like the idea they should feel free to comment?

 

I'm sorry, but in the original post he asked for comments both positive and negative, so you can start your own thread and suggest only positive replies be posted if you want. I'll tell you not to get your hopes up too high though, I've seen posts like that before and they're not always followed by only positive posts.

[CoyoteRed]

BTW, the ONLY way I'd support a rating system, is if you were only allowed to rate the cache IF you've logged a find on it. If folks are allowed to cruise the cache pages putting low ratings on any micro they see, just because they don't like the micros they've found in the past, the system would be less than useless.

Taking the second sentence first: I agree. It would be counter-productive since we already know the cache is a micro. (...or is supposed to be a micro.) The size doesn't make or break a hide.

 

However, you have a serious hurdle to overcome in the first sentence and that is retaliatory log deletions. If the logger doesn't rate the cache favorably then the log is deleted. Of course, that should then be a Mystery/Puzzle because it is de facto an ALR.

 

Additionally, you can not find a cache and still get a feel of the enjoyment of the cache. I've walked off plenty of times from caches I didn't enjoy. I wouldn't be able to rightfully log a find, and thus be able to rate it, if I didn't sign the log. By restricting the rating to only those who log a find removes the option for those who think the cache is such a stinker that they refused to continue on the hunt and removing valid feedback.

 

When you one action contingent on another action you must be careful of the relationships. Asking a user "do you like this cache" does not really give much weight to that user's ability to recommend it to another. It doesn't force some conditions to apply--like actually going the hunt. But if you ask, "did you like going on this cache hunt" then narrowed the parameters and have actually asked a pertinent question, but didn't unnecessarily narrow the scope.

 

One thing that might work is if you restrict it to log-types that at least indicate attempts--Finds and DNF's--then those like myself might log those we walk away from. After all, we did attempt it, right?

 

However, the above doesn't even begin to address the glaring issue of wildly varying tastes.

[CoyoteRed]

It sounds to me like people are trying to come up with a filter system because they're acting like without a filter system they're forced to find all caches, or that all caches have to entertain them.

Well, for me, it's more about the limited space in the weekly cache downloads. Why should a cache that I never intend to find take up that slot in my PQs?

 

You know, a third party could come up with a filtering system, but it wouldn't do much good if you still have to ignore each cache individually. There's great automation is getting bulk cache downloads, but the shear volume has increased to the point where it's unwieldy.

 

Filter it here on GC.com or allow bulk ignores. Either way, it would be helpful.

 

One solution could be a special URL similar to the one that allows adding bookmarks. You type the special URL, add a few waypoint codes and those caches get ignored. Clyde could easily program the function into GSAK. (Again with volunteering Clyde! ) That's just one way of the top of my head. The bigthinkers could do better, I'm sure.

[Mushtang]

BTW, the ONLY way I'd support a rating system, is if you were only allowed to rate the cache IF you've logged a find on it. If folks are allowed to cruise the cache pages putting low ratings on any micro they see, just because they don't like the micros they've found in the past, the system would be less than useless.

Taking the second sentence first: I agree. It would be counter-productive since we already know the cache is a micro. (...or is supposed to be a micro.) The size doesn't make or break a hide.

 

However, you have a serious hurdle to overcome in the first sentence and that is retaliatory log deletions. If the logger doesn't rate the cache favorably then the log is deleted. Of course, that should then be a Mystery/Puzzle because it is de facto an ALR.

 

Additionally, you can not find a cache and still get a feel of the enjoyment of the cache. I've walked off plenty of times from caches I didn't enjoy. I wouldn't be able to rightfully log a find, and thus be able to rate it, if I didn't sign the log. By restricting the rating to only those who log a find removes the option for those who think the cache is such a stinker that they refused to continue on the hunt and removing valid feedback.

 

When you one action contingent on another action you must be careful of the relationships. Asking a user "do you like this cache" does not really give much weight to that user's ability to recommend it to another. It doesn't force some conditions to apply--like actually going the hunt. But if you ask, "did you like going on this cache hunt" then narrowed the parameters and have actually asked a pertinent question, but didn't unnecessarily narrow the scope.

 

One thing that might work is if you restrict it to log-types that at least indicate attempts--Finds and DNF's--then those like myself might log those we walk away from. After all, we did attempt it, right?

 

However, the above doesn't even begin to address the glaring issue of wildly varying tastes.

I know what you're saying about not finding the cache but still having an opinion of the cache, but I don't agree that these opinions should be allowed in the rating system because you didn't finish the complete experience that the hider wanted you to have, and therefore couldn't really have a complete opinion.

 

For instance, if you drive up to a lamp post in a Walmart parking lot and are within 10 feet of GZ, you'll probably decide you're facing yet another boring LPC that you think you wouldn't enjoy, and drive off. At this point you might decide to rate this cache very low. But without finding the log book, you might have missed a ridiculously cool hide that you would have loved (and maybe copied) assuming it was different than what you assumed it would be. I've been to a number of lamp posts where I'd lifted the skirt and found nothing, and it took a while to find the actual cache. I would rate these higher than a normal LPC with a film cannister under the skirt.

 

Another example. If someone looked around in the woods after a nice hike for one of your caches, and couldn't find it so they gave up and assumed it was a micro hidden in some needle in a haystack method that they hated, they might rate the cache low. They may also assumed you tagged the cache as a regular size but assumed that it just had to be a micro. But they would have missed the neat ammo can hanging high above them by a rope, and missed the challenge of figuring out how to lower it.

 

Those are just two examples of caches that someone could leave without finding and think they have enough information to rate the cache. Without completing the cache, and logging a Find, I still don't think someone should be allowed to rate that cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...What if you were going to the big city and wanted something different. How would your system handle this situation?

The system doesn't care about any one cache. It doesn't care if it's urban or rural. What it does is find other people who like the same caches you like. It then suggests that since they liked these other caches that you may also like them.

 

Your system is not based on what you like. It's based on filtering what you think you like or perhaps filtering out what you think you don't like. What it does is improve the odds of liking a cache.

 

The other system isn't about filtering so much as predicting how much you will like a cache.

[CoyoteRed]

Those are just two examples of caches that someone could leave without finding and think they have enough information to rate the cache. Without completing the cache, and logging a Find, I still don't think someone should be allowed to rate that cache.

I hear what you're saying. However, a DNF alone does not mean the cache is an enjoyable cache or not.

 

Also, actually finding the cache will not remove the assumptions made by the finder. You'd have our of the ordinary experiences that have nothing to do with the cache to sway the opinion. There's a plethora of reasons that would change the ratings. That's not to mention the degradation of a cache area, the hunt or cache itself.

 

So, it gets to a point where you simply toss out all of the what-ifs.

 

If we take a look at your scenarios a minute then we'd know the tricky thought-it-was-a-LPC was rated highly and thusly there must be something to it. We'll look further. Same with the ammo can in a tree. Your scenarios will only really happen for the first finders or those who ignore the ratings (and not rate the cache anyway.) In short, a cache's reputation via the rating would likely affect a different level of patience with assumed bad placements.

 

EDIT TO ADD: You do have a valid point. Maybe if we go about differentiating the finds from the DNFs. If the finds are averaging 4.5 stars for instance and the DNFs are averaging 1.25--assuming a 5 star scale--then we'd know the final is tricky and cool. Otherwise, the rating would be somewhere in the middle and might not pique someone's interest enough to attempt it.

Edited September 14, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+Too Tall John]

<<Due to a lack of on topic response, taking it to PM's.>>

Edited September 14, 2007 by Too Tall John

[Dinoprophet]

EDIT TO ADD: You do have a valid point. Maybe if we go about differentiating the finds from the DNFs. If the finds are averaging 4.5 stars for instance and the DNFs are averaging 1.25--assuming a 5 star scale--then we'd know the final is tricky and cool. Otherwise, the rating would be somewhere in the middle and might not pique someone's interest enough to attempt it.

When we were discussing the affinity ratings a few months back, this same disagreement arose over whether unfound ratings should count. I suggested that there could be an option when you run the filter: base your results on Found ratings only or on all ratings. So anyone could rate a cache, even without hunting it, and when you use the ratings, you could decide for yourself whether you would find those useful.

[+TrailGators]

...What if you were going to the big city and wanted something different. How would your system handle this situation?

The system doesn't care about any one cache. It doesn't care if it's urban or rural. What it does is find other people who like the same caches you like. It then suggests that since they liked these other caches that you may also like them.

 

Your system is not based on what you like. It's based on filtering what you think you like or perhaps filtering out what you think you don't like. What it does is improve the odds of liking a cache.

 

The other system isn't about filtering so much as predicting how much you will like a cache.

 

Exactly. Imagine going to Netflix and instead and instead of seeing 1-5 star recommendations all you saw was movies broken out by type like adventure movies, westerns or chick flicks, etc. If I am hearing you correctly, this is similar what you are proposing. I agree that would help you choose a western over a chick-flic, but it does nothing to differentiate good and bad westerns. So you "initially" have no idea if one western slapped together or if it was really well done. You can read the back of the movie which makes them all sound great. You can also read the reviews and try to figure which one is worth watching from that info. This is what we do now with caches. However, if most of the reviews said "Nice western, thanks for the movie," that info wouldn't help you at all and you could easily end up renting a lot of crummy movies. Netflix saw this as an issue to their business and decided to let people rate movies so they can determine which westerns they would have a greater chance of liking. I you don't take the time to rate any then you don't get any recommendations. But I found that once I rated a bunch that it started to point out some better movies and I seldom got stuck watching crummy ones. So it works! So IMHO you need both systems, so I don't think there's any point in comparing them because they serve different purposes. Edited September 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

If we take a look at your scenarios a minute then we'd know the tricky thought-it-was-a-LPC was rated highly and thusly there must be something to it. We'll look further. Same with the ammo can in a tree. Your scenarios will only really happen for the first finders or those who ignore the ratings (and not rate the cache anyway.) In short, a cache's reputation via the rating would likely affect a different level of patience with assumed bad placements.

Even then, someone that can't find it but only knows its a highly rated cache may look for it longer, but if they do eventually give up without finding it I don't think their rating could be valid.

 

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.

 

EDIT TO ADD: You do have a valid point. Maybe if we go about differentiating the finds from the DNFs. If the finds are averaging 4.5 stars for instance and the DNFs are averaging 1.25--assuming a 5 star scale--then we'd know the final is tricky and cool. Otherwise, the rating would be somewhere in the middle and might not pique someone's interest enough to attempt it.

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.