Whats the lamest cache you found?

[+w2b]

I really hate Walmart Micro's. It just seems like stiking a old pill bottle under a lamp in the middle of a asfault hunk is really lame, IMO.

 

~.~Scare Force One

at least when I leave golf balls they are new

[+KBI]

I'll never understand what drives some folks to complain about occasional lameness or to believe they are somehow entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment they already receive for free.

Maybe you'd understand if you asked yourself what drives you to complain about them every chance you get?

Huh? When have I complained about occasional lame caches? When have I claimed to be entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment I already receive for free? I think you've got me confused with someone else.

You misinterpreted what I said. When I said "them," I meant the people that are not happy with lame caches. The point I was making is why don't you just leave these people alone?

Didn't you say – and didn’t I agree – that folks should be free to state their opinions? I am stating my opinion. It is my opinion that such ungrateful complaining is boorish and unjustified.

 

You know, lately you have made some very generous and tolerant statements regarding less-than-awesome caches. I haven’t really heard you complain about other people’s lack of creativity in a looong time. I'm happy to see you making good progress, TG. Unless you are now reverting back to your former intolerance, why jump all over me for stating my opinion? Your defensiveness makes me wonder.

 

Again I ask: My comments were not directed at you, TG, yet you're sounding mighty defensive here. Does this mean you still consider yourself to be one of the intolerant/demanding/entitled whiners I mentioned?

 

Let them gripe, it's no sweat off your back. They are just letting off some steam, which is healthy. The way I figure it, as long as there are lame caches there will be people griping about them. They are not hurting anyone, so they should be free to gripe just like people are free to hide lame caches.

 

Right?

Right.

 

And I reserve the right to be amazed by it all.

[+Snoogans]

I'll never understand what drives some folks to complain about occasional lameness or to believe they are somehow entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment they already receive for free.

Maybe you'd understand if you asked yourself what drives you to complain about them every chance you get?

Huh? When have I complained about occasional lame caches? When have I claimed to be entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment I already receive for free? I think you've got me confused with someone else.

You misinterpreted what I said. When I said "them," I meant the people that are not happy with lame caches. The point I was making is why don't you just leave these people alone? Let them gripe, it's no sweat off your back. They are just letting off some steam, which is healthy. The way I figure it, as long as there are lame caches there will be people griping about them. They are not hurting anyone, so they should be free to gripe just like people are free to hide lame caches. Right?

 

WRONG!

 

TG,

 

You never fail to entertain me. If you ever take a long break from the forums I will revive the "What ever happened to" thread in your honor. Your atrophied sense of irony would be greatly missed.

 

I TRIED to have a thread to end all griping threads as you may well remember, BUT for some reason the mods felt it wasn't in the spirit of what this forum is about. It was popular though. 66 Posts in LESS than a day.

 

I'm going to study that thread and tryyy to get a "Whipping Boy II" thread going that will fit the guidelines. Por voux.

[+TrailGators]

I'll never understand what drives some folks to complain about occasional lameness or to believe they are somehow entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment they already receive for free.

Maybe you'd understand if you asked yourself what drives you to complain about them every chance you get?

Huh? When have I complained about occasional lame caches? When have I claimed to be entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment I already receive for free? I think you've got me confused with someone else.

You misinterpreted what I said. When I said "them," I meant the people that are not happy with lame caches. The point I was making is why don't you just leave these people alone? Let them gripe, it's no sweat off your back. They are just letting off some steam, which is healthy. The way I figure it, as long as there are lame caches there will be people griping about them. They are not hurting anyone, so they should be free to gripe just like people are free to hide lame caches. Right?

 

WRONG!

 

TG,

 

You never fail to entertain me. If you ever take a long break from the forums I will revive the "What ever happened to" thread in your honor. Your atrophied sense of irony would be greatly missed.

 

I TRIED to have a thread to end all griping threads as you may well remember, BUT for some reason the mods felt it wasn't in the spirit of what this forum is about. It was popular though. 66 Posts in LESS than a day.

 

I'm going to study that thread and tryyy to get a "Whipping Boy II" thread going that will fit the guidelines. Por voux.

Snoogans, what about the people griping about the gripers? Aren't they griping too? I actually think they are more annoying. The people that gripe about the gripers actually make the problem worse by escalating every one of these threads into a food fight. If they simply ignored these threads (like they want the gripers to ignore lame caches) then everyone would ignore what annoys them and we would all be happier. Right? Edited December 2, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Snoogans]

I'll never understand what drives some folks to complain about occasional lameness or to believe they are somehow entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment they already receive for free.

Maybe you'd understand if you asked yourself what drives you to complain about them every chance you get?

Huh? When have I complained about occasional lame caches? When have I claimed to be entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment I already receive for free? I think you've got me confused with someone else.

You misinterpreted what I said. When I said "them," I meant the people that are not happy with lame caches. The point I was making is why don't you just leave these people alone? Let them gripe, it's no sweat off your back. They are just letting off some steam, which is healthy. The way I figure it, as long as there are lame caches there will be people griping about them. They are not hurting anyone, so they should be free to gripe just like people are free to hide lame caches. Right?

 

WRONG!

 

TG,

 

You never fail to entertain me. If you ever take a long break from the forums I will revive the "What ever happened to" thread in your honor. Your atrophied sense of irony would be greatly missed.

 

I TRIED to have a thread to end all griping threads as you may well remember, BUT for some reason the mods felt it wasn't in the spirit of what this forum is about. It was popular though. 66 Posts in LESS than a day.

 

I'm going to study that thread and tryyy to get a "Whipping Boy II" thread going that will fit the guidelines. Por voux.

Snoogans, what about the people griping about the gripers? Aren't they griping too? I actually think they are more annoying. The people that gripe about the gripers actually make the problem worse by escalating every one of these threads into a food fight. If they simply ignored these threads (like they want the gripers to ignore lame caches) then everyone would ignore what annoys them and we would all be happier. Right?

 

As usual irony abounds. Thank you.

[+TrailGators]

I'll never understand what drives some folks to complain about occasional lameness or to believe they are somehow entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment they already receive for free.

Maybe you'd understand if you asked yourself what drives you to complain about them every chance you get?

Huh? When have I complained about occasional lame caches? When have I claimed to be entitled to more than the enormous volume and variety of entertainment I already receive for free? I think you've got me confused with someone else.

You misinterpreted what I said. When I said "them," I meant the people that are not happy with lame caches. The point I was making is why don't you just leave these people alone? Let them gripe, it's no sweat off your back. They are just letting off some steam, which is healthy. The way I figure it, as long as there are lame caches there will be people griping about them. They are not hurting anyone, so they should be free to gripe just like people are free to hide lame caches. Right?

 

WRONG!

 

TG,

 

You never fail to entertain me. If you ever take a long break from the forums I will revive the "What ever happened to" thread in your honor. Your atrophied sense of irony would be greatly missed.

 

I TRIED to have a thread to end all griping threads as you may well remember, BUT for some reason the mods felt it wasn't in the spirit of what this forum is about. It was popular though. 66 Posts in LESS than a day.

 

I'm going to study that thread and tryyy to get a "Whipping Boy II" thread going that will fit the guidelines. Por voux.

Snoogans, what about the people griping about the gripers? Aren't they griping too? I actually think they are more annoying. The people that gripe about the gripers actually make the problem worse by escalating every one of these threads into a food fight. If they simply ignored these threads (like they want the gripers to ignore lame caches) then everyone would ignore what annoys them and we would all be happier. Right?

As usual irony abounds. Thank you.

It is ironic that the people that hate griping are the ones griping about the people griping! It is comical!

 

Like I told CR above, Groundspeak is introducing some new site features in January that should help people sift through the zillions of caches out there to find the ones that they will have a higher likelihood of enjoying (I wish I could find that link). Anyhow, the site recognized the need for this so they did something about it. Would they have recognized the need if nobody had ever griped? I doubt it. So negative feedback can have positive results!

Edited December 2, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Snoogans]

Like I told CR above, Groundspeak is introducing some new site features in January that should help people sift through the zillions of caches out there to find the ones that they will have a higher likelihood of enjoying (I wish I could find that link). Anyhow, the site recognized the need for this so they did something about it. Would they have recognized the need if nobody had ever griped? I doubt it. So negative feedback can have positive results!

 

Well yes, I don't believe I ever said it didn't. It makes good business sense and make no mistake, geocaching IS a business. If folks complain enough, someone will figure out a way to shut as many of them up as possible. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. (I.E. There was NEVER going to be an OT forum on this website. I was one of the BIGGEST squeakers about that. Check the forum history.)

 

I can't wait to be entertained by the threads griping about the new filter not working they way folks hoped it would. So, do you really believe folks that are inclined to complain, ad nauseum, about this hide, or that container, or the odd puzzle multi, will stop when their blinders are fimly in place?

 

Personally, the old fashioned filter works best for me. I don't HAVE to cache EVERY day, so I take my time, read the cache pages and the logs, check the satellite view and zoom it in to see if the location fits my aesthetic needs for the day or appointed time I plan to cache. I also go to lots of events (I'll be attending my 100th event tomorrow. YAY.) and I ask and listen for folk's word of mouth on the best caches to hit all over the local area, the country, and the world.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Snoogans

[+BooBooBee]

Geocaching=Hide + Seek (very uncomplicated)

 

But some folks neeeeed Geocaching to = Hide + Top Quality Large Container + Breathtaking Scenery + Exercise + Convenient Parking + Wonderful NEW Swag that has ALWAYS Been Traded Evenly or Up + Restrooms at the Trailhead + Laser Perfect Coordinates + Someting for the Kiddos + Whatever Else it Takes to Float Their Boat on that Particular Day. (Ummm, ya just can't please EVERYONE.)

 

I don't require a large container, or really cool swag (though a girl can DREAM, can't she? ), but I do appreciate a clever hide. It doesn't have to be somewhere fancy, or even a long hike. (Hey, I'm a mom, a writer, a woman with a life outside geocaching, though for awhile there friends and family would've questioned me on that last one. So I like the quick grabs, too.) But throwing a rolled up bit of paper (no pen) into a piece of trash and throwing into a vacant lot filled with trash is going a bit far for me. This isn't creative...this is laziness.

 

So, onto the "ignore" list it goes. (I'm thankful for the "ignore" feature. Out of sight, out of mind.)

 

And as for O/C, yep, I've discovered that I MUST be a bit O/C. Caching led me to that assumption. Fortunately for me, the GPSr vanished for a couple of months, and I recovered some sanity. Still, the only thing that keeps me from finding them all (just because they're THERE) is that my GPSr has some serious issues...GOOD THING!

 

I haven't always taken the time to read about the caches before heading out to grab them. They'd be on the way, or otherwise convenient, so I'd go for it. I've since learned my preference, and am taking the time to make sure the caches meet those preferences. I'll never be EMC Northridge material, or Tprints, or degreno. Heck, I may never reach 1,000! But I plan to enjoy the remaining cache hunts, even if I DO post a DNF in the end.

 

Caching has been most fun when we're traveling. It's led us to some great spots off the beaten path (even in town) that we, as tourists, would otherwise have been unlikely to find. Regardless of cache size, shape or quality, THIS is what I enjoy. Hide and seek a micro in a haystack..eh. New places, new people and a game to play...right on!

[+BooBooBee]

Personally, the old fashioned filter works best for me. I don't HAVE to cache EVERY day, so I take my time, read the cache pages and the logs, check the satellite view and zoom it in to see if the location fits my aesthetic needs for the day or appointed time I plan to cache. I also go to lots of events (I'll be attending my 100th event tomorrow. YAY.) and I ask and listen for folk's word of mouth on the best caches to hit all over the local area, the country, and the world.

 

I'd LOVE to have that kind of time. (I'd also LOVE to have the kind of life in which I could travel the world, caching all the way.) Someday...someday...

 

(Like I said, I girl can dream...)

 

But I HAVE learned my lesson, and while I don't spend a LOT of time researching each cache, I DO take the time to read not only the description, but enough logs to determine whether the cache is one that is likely to be of interest to me.

[+TrailGators]

Like I told CR above, Groundspeak is introducing some new site features in January that should help people sift through the zillions of caches out there to find the ones that they will have a higher likelihood of enjoying (I wish I could find that link). Anyhow, the site recognized the need for this so they did something about it. Would they have recognized the need if nobody had ever griped? I doubt it. So negative feedback can have positive results!

Well yes, I don't believe I ever said it didn't. It makes good business sense and make no mistake, geocaching IS a business. If folks complain enough, someone will figure out a way to shut as many of them up as possible. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. (I.E. There was NEVER going to be an OT forum on this website. I was one of the BIGGEST squeakers about that. Check the forum history.)

 

I can't wait to be entertained by the threads griping about the new filter not working they way folks hoped it would. So, do you really believe folks that are inclined to complain, ad nauseum, about this hide, or that container, or the odd puzzle multi, will stop when their blinders are fimly in place?

Sorry if you took it that way, I wasn't implying anything about what you did or didn't say. I was talking in general terms. I work in quality so I live and breath with customer gripes. Successful companies try to minimize valid customer gripes. It's up to them to decide what is valid.

 

I'm a firm believer that you get the behavior that you reward. Right now the people with the highest numbers get the most recognition, even though the site admits that this was not their intention in posting the numbers. So when Version 2 comes out there will be some enhancements that will allow the recognition of those that hide great caches. In my my view, anyone that hides great caches deserves some recognition.

[+TrailGators]

Geocaching=Hide + Seek (very uncomplicated)

 

But some folks neeeeed Geocaching to = Hide + Top Quality Large Container + Breathtaking Scenery + Exercise + Convenient Parking + Wonderful NEW Swag that has ALWAYS Been Traded Evenly or Up + Restrooms at the Trailhead + Laser Perfect Coordinates + Someting for the Kiddos + Whatever Else it Takes to Float Their Boat on that Particular Day. (Ummm, ya just can't please EVERYONE.)

 

I don't require a large container, or really cool swag (though a girl can DREAM, can't she? ), but I do appreciate a clever hide. It doesn't have to be somewhere fancy, or even a long hike. (Hey, I'm a mom, a writer, a woman with a life outside geocaching, though for awhile there friends and family would've questioned me on that last one. So I like the quick grabs, too.) But throwing a rolled up bit of paper (no pen) into a piece of trash and throwing into a vacant lot filled with trash is going a bit far for me. This isn't creative...this is laziness.

 

So, onto the "ignore" list it goes. (I'm thankful for the "ignore" feature. Out of sight, out of mind.)

 

And as for O/C, yep, I've discovered that I MUST be a bit O/C. Caching led me to that assumption. Fortunately for me, the GPSr vanished for a couple of months, and I recovered some sanity. Still, the only thing that keeps me from finding them all (just because they're THERE) is that my GPSr has some serious issues...GOOD THING!

 

I haven't always taken the time to read about the caches before heading out to grab them. They'd be on the way, or otherwise convenient, so I'd go for it. I've since learned my preference, and am taking the time to make sure the caches meet those preferences. I'll never be EMC Northridge material, or Tprints, or degreno. Heck, I may never reach 1,000! But I plan to enjoy the remaining cache hunts, even if I DO post a DNF in the end.

 

Caching has been most fun when we're traveling. It's led us to some great spots off the beaten path (even in town) that we, as tourists, would otherwise have been unlikely to find. Regardless of cache size, shape or quality, THIS is what I enjoy. Hide and seek a micro in a haystack..eh. New places, new people and a game to play...right on!

BooBooBee, you just described exactly how I feel!

[+Team GeoBlast]

Was out caching today. In the middle of a parking lot was a circular concrete curb with some river rocks in cement with a man hole in the middle. The cache was a fake sprinkler head tossed on the river rocks. Talk about drive by caching. sheesh. Rated 1.5 no less.

 

Jim

 

I've been posting in the forum for about a year now and I've noticed something. The outcome and eventual closing of a thread of this nature has become extremely predictable. It is the same people having the same never ending discussion. This is not a knock on any of the people having it, in fact I've come to respect most of their opinions on matters other than these. I'm just wondering if it will ever evolve or move forward.

[+Snoogans]

Like I told CR above, Groundspeak is introducing some new site features in January that should help people sift through the zillions of caches out there to find the ones that they will have a higher likelihood of enjoying (I wish I could find that link). Anyhow, the site recognized the need for this so they did something about it. Would they have recognized the need if nobody had ever griped? I doubt it. So negative feedback can have positive results!

Well yes, I don't believe I ever said it didn't. It makes good business sense and make no mistake, geocaching IS a business. If folks complain enough, someone will figure out a way to shut as many of them up as possible. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. (I.E. There was NEVER going to be an OT forum on this website. I was one of the BIGGEST squeakers about that. Check the forum history.)

 

I can't wait to be entertained by the threads griping about the new filter not working they way folks hoped it would. So, do you really believe folks that are inclined to complain, ad nauseum, about this hide, or that container, or the odd puzzle multi, will stop when their blinders are fimly in place?

Sorry if you took it that way, I wasn't implying anything about what you did or didn't say. I was talking in general terms. I work in quality so I live and breath with customer gripes. Successful companies try to minimize valid customer gripes. It's up to them to decide what is valid.

 

I'm a firm believer that you get the behavior that you reward. Right now the people with the highest numbers get the most recognition, even though the site admits that this was not their intention in posting the numbers. So when Version 2 comes out there will be some enhancements that will allow the recognition of those that hide great caches. In my my view, anyone that hides great caches deserves some recognition.

 

Okay, there's the disconnect. Geocaching.com is a listing service. They do not do quality control of listed caches. Every reviewer that has tried to control quality overtly has seen it blow up in their face.

 

All geocaching.com can do is help people NOT see what they don't wanna see. Blinders hep the hoss hoe straight.

 

People are the problem. The geocachers themselves, some quite young, produce the caches. Stupid people out hiding caches some folks don't wanna see.

 

Here's some wisdom from a thread I posted once:

 

I'm still holding to my original point about angst- it stems from people being unaware that this hobby is intrinsically linked to other people.

 

Some more wisdom from another, more recent thread:

 

I have done a micro or two, and frankly find them pretty boring.

If only there were a way to avoid micros, to filter them out, so that you'd never have to SEE any of the cache pages, that way you wouldn't ever have to hunt them.

 

If only there were a way to find out if a cache was good, regardless of it's size ...

If only there were a way to participate in an amateur, all-volunter hobby without expecting never to be disappointed.

 

As long as folks keep downing the valid efforts of other geocachers who just want to contribute, regardless of their motivation, folks like me will be here to hold the mirror up to let them look at themselves from the other side of the fence.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Snoogans

[+TrailGators]

Okay, there's the disconnect. Geocaching.com is a listing service. They do not do quality control of listed caches.

The site QCs each cache to make sure it meets the guidelines. The site also has the ability to have a strong influence on the overall quality of caches. I've already given one example how they will demonstrate this ability. When Version 2 of the site comes out in January there will be some enhancements that will allow the recognition of those that hide great caches. This will have a positive influence on the overall quality (customer satisfaction) of geocaching. Quality is about trying to make the majority of your customers as happy as possible so they keep coming back for more.

[+Snoogans]

Okay, there's the disconnect. Geocaching.com is a listing service. They do not do quality control of listed caches.

The site QCs each cache to make sure it meets the guidelines. The site also has the ability to have a strong influence on the overall quality of caches. I've already given one example how they will demonstrate this ability. When Version 2 of the site comes out in January there will be some enhancements that will allow the recognition of those that hide great caches. This will have a positive influence on the overall quality (customer satisfaction) of geocaching. Quality is about trying to make the majority of your customers as happy as possible so they keep coming back for more.

 

Okay. I guess we'll see if it comes about the way you envision it.

 

I doubt the actual listing guidelines will change much which is exactly my point. If a cache is hidden within the guidelines what makes it subjectively lame for one person will be totally opposite for another.

 

I seriously doubt there will be system archives for subjective lameness like there is over on terracaching.com. A cache listing service that is supposed to be all about quality and all I ever found there was a rose by another name.

 

Remember, there will always be folks that will find a way to manipulate the system whatever that system may be. I called out the roughly 25 mostly unseen (except for review counts) folks that were manipulating the cache quality system over there on TC when they affected my caches and lo and behold my cache approval scores went back to normal. I wonderrrr whyyyy? The flaw in that system is that you can vote and are encouraged to vote on cache quality JUST by reading the cache page, so if you want to down the competition, you just pull up their caches and vote a silent SBA that drives down their approval score without ever bothering to visit the cache. I got a system archive on one of my LCs and it was gonna be ON. I was just lighting the pitchforks and handing out torches when wisely, they (or enough of them) went back and corrected the error in their ways where my caches were concerned. TC is about 3 steps above Navicaching to me because of it though. I've almost completely lost interest.

 

So, how far into Pandora's box do you think these new improvements will go?

Edited December 2, 2007 by Snoogans

[+TrailGators]

So, how far into Pandora's box do you think these new improvements will go?

I'm not sure. Perhaps mtn-man will chime in with that link that explained exactly what they plan on doing. It sounded interesting to me. I'll be happy with any new enhancements that help make caching more fun! Edited December 2, 2007 by TrailGators

[CoyoteRed]

Remember, there will always be folks that will find a way to manipulate the system whatever that system may be. I called out the roughly 25 mostly unseen (except for review counts) folks that were manipulating the cache quality system over there on TC when they affected my caches and lo and behold my cache approval scores went back to normal. I wonderrrr whyyyy? The flaw in that system is that you can vote and are encouraged to vote on cache quality JUST by reading the cache page, so if you want to down the competition, you just pull up their caches and vote a silent SBA that drives down their approval score without ever bothering to visit the cache. I got a system archive on one of my LCs and it was gonna be ON. I was just lighting the pitchforks and handing out torches when wisely, they (or enough of them) went back and corrected the error in their ways where my caches were concerned. TC is about 3 steps above Navicaching to me because of it though. I've almost completely lost interest.

Dude, there's been folks complaining about MCE scores tanking and coming back, and nobody had been voting. It probably had nothing to do with all of your huffing and puffing.

 

Additionally, even those who had placed really lame caches here placed better caches there. Never mind those who intentionally try to post caches that run counter to that site's philosophy in what I can only imagine as an attempt to somehow discredit it.

 

My reasons for becoming disillusioned with that site is the rabid complaining of how the points are calculated and the slow site response times.

 

So, how far into Pandora's box do you think these new improvements will go?

Don't know. Depends on how the system is implemented. Seems as those the list of the things Groundspeak has gotten right is longer than the things it has gotten wrong.

 

I thought an aggregate of folks' favorite lists would be a good way to go--at first blush. It still might. However, after a few years into this hobby there are lots of cache listings folks would have to revisit in order to designate as a favorite. It's going to be a lot of work for folks to do to get the system even halfway viable.

 

If it's a "would you recommend this cache" type of system then would folks simply recommend every cache? What if they can only recommend 10% of those found? How would that weed out the caches at the bottom of the list? Remember, contrary to the naysayers, I'm not that picky. I'm just vocal about the really lame caches. I'd be happy with just weeding those out.

 

So, what if folks could recommend 50% of the cache they found. But wait, 1/1's get found at lot more often and by more people than harder caches. That might actually push the better caches down the list and they tend to be harder or more out-of-the-way caches. The "score" would have to be adjusted for the number of times that cache has been found.

 

I've talked about Bayesian filtering based on invisible recommendations of others. A problem there is when you go outside any sphere of influence of those who have an overlapping found caches list with you. The smaller the overlap the less reliable the system recommendation.

 

I've been examining (read: running experiments) with a word counts in the logs and frequency of finds. Folks have been saying for a long time that the best way to judge if you're going to like a cache is read the logs. The problem with that is quantification and spoilers. What has been noted for a long time is the length of log is a direct, though rough, indication of how well one liked the cache--or should I say, how memorable that cache was. It's rough because folks have more to say about a cache that has issues, as well. But, if there are no issues and it's simply a ho hum cache then the word counts can be quite low. Just how memorable can a cache be when it's been found 9 times and the average word count is 9?

 

Some factors that would skew the about scheme are folks who are verbose vs folks who are terse, difficulty of the cache, type of cache, folks chatting about things that have nothing to do with the cache, and attempts at direct manipulation among others. Knowing that your friends' cache is "ranked" low you could help by posting a larger log. This is little different, though less direct, than a simple recommendation.

 

How about multiple systems? Bayesian analysis of the words in the logs, comparing favorites with other who are similar to you, and statistical analysis of word counts in the logs. When one or two don't have enough data to make a viable recommendation the other should. If all fail, then that cache is simply not recommended until until there is enough information.

 

Analyzing what words are in the logs will go a long way to determining whether you might like a cache based on what is actually said about it. You may be in an area where you have little overlap with others who have found the same cache as you. Using what is said there and comparing with what is said here can make a fairly intelligent recommendation. It's not fool proof as there are ways to manipulate the system, but there are also countermeasures.

 

By combining the three systems, you can ask for, say, the top recommendations of all three in order to get a "must do" list. On the opposite, your could ask for the lowest ranked, but only those that are actually ranked, and automatically put those on your ignore list. Or you could do any combination you choose.

 

Some of what I'm talking about above would have to be implemented on this site. Some of the work could be off-loaded to be crunched locally. Actually, some of the required changes would be fairly easy to accomplish. For log word count analysis to be more accurate while crunching offline you need either a complete set of logs or the numbers you would come up with if you did: find count, average word count in the logs, the median word count, max and minimum word counts. These figures would give a better idea beyond just an average word count because you can spot inordinately large logs which the sole purpose of increasing the average. A maximum word count that is a lot higher than the median could indicate such a thing happening or someone who is inordinately verbose. Either way, it would indicate less confidence in the average.

 

Plus, you analysis of caches can be compared any way you wish. You want to compare a cache with only those with the same size, type, and difficulty? You can. The site doesn't have to make that decision for you.

 

Not only would this be easier to implement, but the effect would be immediate as no one has to go back and make a recommendation, and it would work in areas where you have no overlap with common cachers.

 

Add to this either, or preferably both, the ability to filter our PQs by average word count and a way to bulk ignore specific caches, and this would go a long way to helping weed out caches we might not like or find memorable.

 

* Yes, I understand the differences in the way individual cachers log can skew a word count. If you normalized a logger's score based on this log over the average of all his logs, then you'd get a better feel of whether that quiet cacher liked that cache even though he wrote few words. There are problems with normalization, though. Someone who finds a lot of easy park-n-grabs and generally only logs "TFTC" would be given a lot more weight to a longer log of just 10 words than someone who only goes after the more memorable caches and always logs with 75 or more words--unless he wrote 750 words! If normalized scores were given I'd rather to also have the raw numbers. Normalized scores would be better for caches with one or very few logs, but raw numbers would be better for more logs.

[Keystone]

I'm posting simply to note that there's been no official announcement that Geocaching.com v2 will debut in January. Something else is scheduled for announcement on January 7th.

 

There has been favorable commentary from Groundspeak about implementing certain types of ratings systems. There has not been an official announcement that these changes will roll out of the box when v2 is launched.

 

Just to set expectations.

 

By the way, the topic of the thread is "Whats the lamest cache you found?, Like no effort at all?" So keep posting those examples.

[CoyoteRed]

By the way, the topic of the thread is "Whats the lamest cache you found?, Like no effort at all?" So keep posting those examples.

I was confused by the title. Maybe a lot of others are as well. Lameness and easy are not interchangeable unless there has been some false advertising.

 

At one time I was looking for a place to put a mailbox-style container on the side of the road where it wouldn't violate right-of-way. Painted bright orange and with the word "CACHE" on both sides the title would have been "The Easiest Find in the World?" I think someone beat me to it, though.

 

Of course, I could extend that notion to "The Most Convenient TB Hotel in the World?" and place it at a crossroads and put a combination lock on it to keep muggles out.

 

Neither of these would I consider "lame," just easy.

[+gelfling6]

I dont think I would call it the 'lamest' cache but it I have one posted that is really really easy to find!!! go to GCZTQZ and scroll down to see the picture of where it is... I have alot of fun with local cachers over this one and enjoy some of the logs people leave me...

 

www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gcztqz

 

 

this is probably as bad as my "That Was Easy" series.. GC171XM , GC176NK , GC176NZ & GC17BDK

 

All are Lamp post caches, Coordinates are dead-on.

All are hidden near Staples stores

All are virtually the same! (small 3" plastic tupperware type box, 2" square log book, Staples Gel ink cartridge)

 

I deliberately made them easy, mainly for kids to get started finding. But adult cachers have fun with

them too.

 

If anything, they make for a easy find on days with too many DNF's.

 

Stephen (gelfling6)

[+TrailGators]

I'm posting simply to note that there's been no official announcement that Geocaching.com v2 will debut in January. Something else is scheduled for announcement on January 7th.

 

There has been favorable commentary from Groundspeak about implementing certain types of ratings systems. There has not been an official announcement that these changes will roll out of the box when v2 is launched.

 

Just to set expectations.

 

By the way, the topic of the thread is "Whats the lamest cache you found?, Like no effort at all?" So keep posting those examples.

Hi Keystone, there was a post that explained the two likely systems that were being considered. Do you have a linky to that?

 

Back OT: I "used to" just load my GPS and head out. During those free and easy caching days, I found one of my lamest caches. It was a Centrum vitamin bottle with the label still on it that was diverted from someone's kitchen garbage can to a lamp post behind a fast food restaurant next to a very smelly garbage dumpster. It had a crumpled torn piece of paper for a logbook. I think it was at that moment that I had a catharsis. I thought to myself, "I can no longer freely run from cache to cache. Some people are playing some odd version of this game that is not the least bit fun. It's called "findmygarbage.com." Now I will have to study each and every cache before seeking it." As a result of this catharsis, I sat down and ignored every one of this hider's other caches, so I would not make the same mistake twice (at least with them). I also ignored caches hidden by others that were like them. That's when it dawned on my how handy it would be to have this feature. This feature would help me to go back to those free and easy caching days.

 

Snoogans mentioned TC above. I'll add TCs to my GPS when I'm out hiking. I don't pay attention to the ratings because I don't have to (yet). There was a disgruntled GCer that became a TCer in our area. This person hid some of the worst GCs you could possibly imagine. I was warned so I ignored them. Anyhow, it was obvious what they were trying to do, but it didn't work. People kept finding those garbage caches because they got a smiley. So I have to hand it to the Whos in Whoville. You guys can find garbage and keep singing "Baa Who Ra Who!"

Edited December 2, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Zop]

I'm fairly new at this game but I have found a good number of caches - MOST of them have been a lot of fun! There are a few that stand out though that make me wonder just wtf the hider was thinking when he/she placed the cache.

 

I would have to say that one of the lamest caches I have found was a drilled out pinecone with a rolled up peice of paper wedged into the hole with no baggie, no plug nothing. Just a wedge of paper pushed into the hole. To top that off - the pine cone was laying on the ground on a dirt sidewalk. I thought that maybe it had been muggled but on inspecting the log, it was obviously just replaced so it was pretty clear the hider meant it to be lame.

 

Another (by the same hider) was a paper scroll in a stick - again with no means of weatherproofing.

 

Sometimes though, a lame hide may be well intended but the hider simply has no clue of permanence.

[+Lizzy]

My own personal thought: Lame=Micro in woods/bad coords/plenty of options for larger container. Do I think they need to be regulated/stopped/banned - No. To each his own. Just a personal pet peeve of mine. Do I hunt them? yes.... It's my sort-of-OCD about finding all caches within 10-20 mile radius of home .

Edited December 2, 2007 by Lizzy

[+KBI]

People kept finding those garbage caches because they got a smiley. So I have to hand it to the Whos in Whoville. You guys can find garbage and keep singing "Baa Who Ra Who!"

Dr Seuss! Of course!

 

 

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. Everyone is welcome to choose how they wish to express their opinion.

 

Some lame-micro-haters are happy to quietly ignore them and move on.

 

Others prefer to express entitlement, superiority and disgust, and to attempt to shame the cache owners by making a loud show of it – like the Wickersham Brothers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Boil that dust speck! Boil that dust speck! Boil that dust speck! Boil that dust speck!"

[+TrailGators]

People kept finding those garbage caches because they got a smiley. So I have to hand it to the Whos in Whoville. You guys can find garbage and keep singing "Baa Who Ra Who!"

Dr Seuss! Of course! Everyone is welcome to their opinion. Everyone is welcome to choose how they wish to express their opinion.

C'mon KBI, did you read what I wrote? I wasn't the Grinch TCer that actually hid their garbage!

 

Also where is your OT example of a lame cache?

Edited December 2, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Ambrosia]

By the way, the topic of the thread is "Whats the lamest cache you found?, Like no effort at all?" So keep posting those examples.

I was confused by the title. Maybe a lot of others are as well. Lameness and easy are not interchangeable unless there has been some false advertising.

 

Yeah, that's what confused me, too (hence my earlier posts). Are we supposed to post the lamest cache we've found, or the one with the least amount of effort? Umm, that's not the same thing.

 

In my opinon, the easiest caches are the best!

Edited December 2, 2007 by Ambrosia

[+Harry Dolphin]

Lamest cache? A coffee can sitting on the ground behind a guard rail, on the approach to a bridge.

[+TrailGators]

In my opinon, the easiest caches are the best!

So your all-time favorite cache (better than all those scenic ones you post) would be an LPC that you can drive up to and reach from inside your car while you are picking up a pound of bread and a loaf of bologna from the grocery store? (that's as easy as I can think of)

[+Ambrosia]

In my opinon, the easiest caches are the best!

So your all-time favorite cache (better than all those scenic ones you post) would be an LPC that you can drive up to and reach from inside your car while you are picking up a pound of bread and a loaf of bologna from the grocery store? (that's as easy as I can think of)

I still haven't actually done a cache that you can physically reach from inside your car, even on the ones that say you can. I've wanted to finally find one! That's like Shangri -la to me.

[+Ambrosia]

To clarify though, for all the boys and girls out there avidly following my life and likes (i.e. stalkers...you know who you are ), just because I like easy caches, doesn't traslate to me liking LPC's the most.

 

As I posted earlier in this thread, ammo or large containers in the woods or whatever, covered in cairns of rocks or parallel sticks are might easy to find! And they have the added bonus of being in great locations.

 

(Not sure if this is off topic, depends on how you interpret the thread title, sorry K.)

Edited December 2, 2007 by Ambrosia

[+TrailGators]

To clarify though, for all the boys and girls out there avidly following my life and likes (i.e. stalkers...you know who you are ), just because I like easy caches, doesn't traslate to me liking LPC's the most.

 

As I posted earlier in this thread, ammo or large containers in the woods or whatever, covered in cairns of rocks or parallel sticks are might easy to find! And they have the added bonus of being in great locations.

 

(Not sure if this is off topic, depends on how you interpret the thread title, sorry K.)

Some of the lamest cachest I've looked were very difficult to find. In fact, they were impossible to find because the joker's coords were a mile off.

 

Am I a stalker Ambrosia? Just let me know and I won't kid around with you anymore...

[+Ambrosia]

To clarify though, for all the boys and girls out there avidly following my life and likes (i.e. stalkers...you know who you are ), just because I like easy caches, doesn't traslate to me liking LPC's the most.

 

As I posted earlier in this thread, ammo or large containers in the woods or whatever, covered in cairns of rocks or parallel sticks are might easy to find! And they have the added bonus of being in great locations.

 

(Not sure if this is off topic, depends on how you interpret the thread title, sorry K.)

Some of the lamest cachest I've looked were very difficult to find. In fact, they were impossible to find because the joker's coords were a mile off.

 

Am I a stalker Ambrosia? Just let me know and I won't kid around with you anymore...

Hey, some of my favorite people are stalkers.

[+elmuyloco5]

While we're on the discussion of lame caches, I would like to campaign for the cessation of using the term LUM to describe them as it spells out my last name, along with a good chunk of the population in China and Hawaii. Ours is actually a shortened German name, but we lived in Hawaii, which happens to have a Lum Temple. I imagine it's the only term on here that might have this effect on someone.....unless maybe someone is named Muggle or TNLNSL , in which case I am terribly sorry for referring to you in biazrre ways

[+TrailGators]

While we're on the discussion of lame caches, I would like to campaign for the cessation of using the term LUM to describe them as it spells out my last name, along with a good chunk of the population in China and Hawaii. Ours is actually a shortened German name, but we lived in Hawaii, which happens to have a Lum Temple. I imagine it's the only term on here that might have this effect on someone.....unless maybe someone is named Muggle or TNLNSL , in which case I am terribly sorry for referring to you in bizarre ways

I won't use it anymore. I have a very crazy 5 in my family too.

[+TrailGators]

To clarify though, for all the boys and girls out there avidly following my life and likes (i.e. stalkers...you know who you are ), just because I like easy caches, doesn't traslate to me liking LPC's the most.

 

As I posted earlier in this thread, ammo or large containers in the woods or whatever, covered in cairns of rocks or parallel sticks are might easy to find! And they have the added bonus of being in great locations.

 

(Not sure if this is off topic, depends on how you interpret the thread title, sorry K.)

Some of the lamest cachest I've looked were very difficult to find. In fact, they were impossible to find because the joker's coords were a mile off.

 

Am I a stalker Ambrosia? Just let me know and I won't kid around with you anymore...

Hey, some of my favorite people are stalkers.

I'm not sure if I should or ...

[+Ambrosia]

To clarify though, for all the boys and girls out there avidly following my life and likes (i.e. stalkers...you know who you are ), just because I like easy caches, doesn't traslate to me liking LPC's the most.

 

As I posted earlier in this thread, ammo or large containers in the woods or whatever, covered in cairns of rocks or parallel sticks are might easy to find! And they have the added bonus of being in great locations.

 

(Not sure if this is off topic, depends on how you interpret the thread title, sorry K.)

Some of the lamest cachest I've looked were very difficult to find. In fact, they were impossible to find because the joker's coords were a mile off.

 

Am I a stalker Ambrosia? Just let me know and I won't kid around with you anymore...

Hey, some of my favorite people are stalkers.

I'm not sure if I should or ...

What, that I confirmed that you were a stalker, or that I love stalkers? Aw, I'm just teasing you. (hugs!) On the other hand, some of my stalkers are quite proud of themselves. *cough*Saxy*cough*

[+TrailGators]

To clarify though, for all the boys and girls out there avidly following my life and likes (i.e. stalkers...you know who you are ), just because I like easy caches, doesn't traslate to me liking LPC's the most.

 

As I posted earlier in this thread, ammo or large containers in the woods or whatever, covered in cairns of rocks or parallel sticks are might easy to find! And they have the added bonus of being in great locations.

 

(Not sure if this is off topic, depends on how you interpret the thread title, sorry K.)

Some of the lamest cachest I've looked were very difficult to find. In fact, they were impossible to find because the joker's coords were a mile off.

 

Am I a stalker Ambrosia? Just let me know and I won't kid around with you anymore...

Hey, some of my favorite people are stalkers.

I'm not sure if I should or ...

What, that I confirmed that you were a stalker, or that I love stalkers? Aw, I'm just teasing you. (hugs!) On the other hand, some of my stalkers are quite proud of themselves. *cough*Saxy*cough*

I know! I was teasing back! By the way, don't look out your window....

[+Ambrosia]

To clarify though, for all the boys and girls out there avidly following my life and likes (i.e. stalkers...you know who you are ), just because I like easy caches, doesn't traslate to me liking LPC's the most.

 

As I posted earlier in this thread, ammo or large containers in the woods or whatever, covered in cairns of rocks or parallel sticks are might easy to find! And they have the added bonus of being in great locations.

 

(Not sure if this is off topic, depends on how you interpret the thread title, sorry K.)

Some of the lamest cachest I've looked were very difficult to find. In fact, they were impossible to find because the joker's coords were a mile off.

 

Am I a stalker Ambrosia? Just let me know and I won't kid around with you anymore...

Hey, some of my favorite people are stalkers.

I'm not sure if I should or ...

What, that I confirmed that you were a stalker, or that I love stalkers? Aw, I'm just teasing you. (hugs!) On the other hand, some of my stalkers are quite proud of themselves. *cough*Saxy*cough*

I know! I was teasing back! By the way, don't look out your window....

 

Okay.........back to the regularly scheduled programming.