Jump to content

If you could change one thing about geocaching what would it be?


TrailGators
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

I would like to see a time limit (1 or 2 years) set on all caches to keep the sport fresh. I've found all the caches at some nearby parks, which are now at saturation. Archive them and rehide the caches, so that the locals can enjoy caching at prime locations again.

 

That is a foolish and very selfish idea. That means all of the original caches still in existance would be purged so you can have more smilies. :blink:

 

Posters who are clearly intolerant of the opinions of other cachers (when their opinions were asked for), and fail to abide by the rules of the OP, would have their posting privileges revoked. :wub:

 

Great touche Mushtang, but i'm still tired of your broken record arguments, say hello to my ignore list.

 

"plunk."

Link to comment

I like the idea of virtual caches in places that don't allow physical caches (e.g. National parks and historical sites)

 

A cache rating system could be a two phase rating. A simple 1-5 star would suffice for most caches when you log it as found. Or if you choose, you could rate it according to a list of particular criteria much like the attributes offered when publishing a cache. The cumulative overall results or specific attributes being a searchable item.

 

I don't particularly like "old dusty road micro series" but one of that group might have a particularly interesting feature. So it might get a one from me for being a dusty road series. Others may agree or may not, but the average rating would give cachers an idea of its peer-reviewed value.

The consensus of many may also rate it for individual attributes such as a great view, historical significance, or creative hide.

 

Then a visitor could discriminate according to their own preferences; e.g. all caches in an area, or all 4-5's, or only micros, or any regular sized caches with 4-5 rating with an interesting hike and a killer camo job.

 

Not all caches would get an attribute rating but it would be helpful if all finds required an overall rating.

Link to comment

Oh, I just though of another. A cacher can't have a new cache published until he/she has mainantce there caches or archived their cache that has been down for 6 months. So after a cache has been down for 6 months they can't have a new one published till those are fixed or done away with.

 

I'm just tired of seeing ones that have been down for 4 or 5 months and I know the owner has been near them but won't take the time to fix them and really it seems like is waiting for someone else to fix it. Heck, I've seen a couple that have been down for a year and a half.

 

I guess just some sort of system that make an owner get out and fix missing caches that sit disabled for a very long period over time.

Link to comment

[

 

I would like to see a time limit (1 or 2 years) set on all caches to keep the sport fresh. I've found all the caches at some nearby parks, which are now at saturation. Archive them and rehide the caches, so that the locals can enjoy caching at prime locations again.

 

That is a foolish and very selfish idea. That means all of the original caches still in existance would be purged so you can have more smilies. :blink:

 

Nothing to do with smilies, which I don't care about, but having caches in nearby parks to do, which I do care about. As far as original caches, does it really matter under which bush or pile of rocks a cache in located? No reason not to move them. :wub:. As as may own caches, I will/have practice what I preace, once the number of finds tails off, I will archive and move container to a new location

Link to comment

***I would like to see a time limit (1 or 2 years) set on all caches to keep the sport fresh***

 

And

 

***Nothing to do with smilies***

 

I agree...once the locals have found the caches it is basically done unless the "Out-Of-Towners" come look for them.

 

Even if the caches change once a year...it gives the locals and frequent "Out-Of-Towners" fresh caches to look for too.

Link to comment

***I would like to see a time limit (1 or 2 years) set on all caches to keep the sport fresh***

 

And

 

***Nothing to do with smilies***

 

I agree...once the locals have found the caches it is basically done unless the "Out-Of-Towners" come look for them.

 

Even if the caches change once a year...it gives the locals and frequent "Out-Of-Towners" fresh caches to look for too.

 

I can see where you're coming from... But personally, I just started geocaching recently. So all the spots in the area that have been in hiding (and found frequently) for the past couple years - are all new to me!

 

 

- Get rid of the way the GC code search on the main page displays the GC but when you click in it your cursor jumps in front of the |GC and not after it GC|

 

Oooh, the drives me crazy when it does that!

Link to comment

Remove the need for so much of the heavy lifting of sifting through cache data having to be done by using outside applications. Move this functionality into the site.

 

Yeah thats what I meant

 

It doesnt seem like that PQ thing is that great, and I just read about it, so let me understand this.... you select criteria, submit it, then wait for an email to be generated and there is a limited number per day and such?

 

How is a PQ easier than a "tag/filter search" type thing on the web? where you can tweek it to narrow or widen results as you go. Can still be only for "Premium Members" listed like "Advanced Search" like almost all membership type websites have. Oustside apps are neat but we shouldnt have to rely on them.

Link to comment

I would bring back virtuals. They allow cachers to place new caches in the places they visit without going through the hassle of finding a person that would maintain their cache. A place like Ocho Rios, Jamaica doesn't even have a cache and no cacher is there to provide maintanence. I really like the cache quality rating system too suggested at the beginning of this post.

Link to comment

Yeah thats what I meant

 

It doesnt seem like that PQ thing is that great, and I just read about it, so let me understand this.... you select criteria, submit it, then wait for an email to be generated and there is a limited number per day and such?

 

How is a PQ easier than a "tag/filter search" type thing on the web? where you can tweek it to narrow or widen results as you go. Can still be only for "Premium Members" listed like "Advanced Search" like almost all membership type websites have. Oustside apps are neat but we shouldnt have to rely on them.

 

5 PQs a day 500 caches per PQ total 2500 caches a day, usually delivered to your email within minutes.

It only takes $3.00 to try it for a month, you might want to try it. :blink:

Edited by vagabond
Link to comment

Another thing:

Make the distance between caches according to area.

That's confusing, so let me explain.

I found a perfect spot to hide a cache in Sausalito, CA, but was unable to place it because it was only .06 miles away from another cache which was in the bay! You couldn't have sailed right off the rocks from my not-to-be cache and go directly to the cache in the bay. That's one of the things that tick me off!

Link to comment

:blink:

I would reinstate Virtual Caches as they were done, because the PHOTOS being included in the "Waymarking" setup are the ULTIMATE SPOILERS (Who wants to bother seeking out a "special" spot after after seeing a PHOTO of it? Not I!)

 

I've done plenty of virtuals that require you take a picture of the location, usually with myself in it. And many others I have included a photo but just didn't show the required answer info.

Link to comment

Bring back 'virtuals,' and make an easier way to get 'illegal' caches removed (ie, caches placed on private property--there's a trend going thru my location for Walmart/Walgreen's) And seriously, if I get sent to ONE MORE light post-slide the base cover up-cache I'll scream.

Link to comment

Wouldn't it be better if this thread was in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum instead of the Geocaching Forums...? Hmmmm

The OP asked about changing geocaching, not the site. I agree that the bulk of the responses pertain to the site, but it is not exclusive. :blink:

 

which is why i haven't voiced MY biggest complaint about geocaching...

 

these forums :unsure:

Link to comment

***I would like to see a time limit (1 or 2 years) set on all caches to keep the sport fresh***

 

And

 

***Nothing to do with smilies***

 

I agree...once the locals have found the caches it is basically done unless the "Out-Of-Towners" come look for them.

 

Even if the caches change once a year...it gives the locals and frequent "Out-Of-Towners" fresh caches to look for too.

 

Guess I'm not understanding the problem here. I've got a very nice cache that hasn't been found in, it'll be a year tomorrow... Pretty area. Nearest cache is 1.2 miles away. It has had 19 finds in the last 3 and a half years. It does require a hiking permit. And a hike of almost a mile each way. No one has ever set a cache within a mile or more.

And you're telling me that I should archive it 'to open up the area for new hides'? Actually, New Jersey has a number of caches like that one.

Nope, sorry. One size does not fit all.

Link to comment

Stats.

Dan's Stats

 

Yes, accessible stats provided either by GC.Com or some third party would be a welcome addition. I've not seen any references to stat programs that work with Mac OSX

How many here even know of Dan's great stats? Not just smilies but all stats sliced and diced any way you'd like them. For me a big part of Geocaching died when Dan's Stats went away.

Link to comment

ONE thing to change? Only one?

I'm sure that I've posted this before, so here's the reprise...

Bring back Virtual Caches. With limits. Yes, I've found some very bad Virtual Caches. And some great ones. And, the great ones deserve to be listed.

The problem seems to have been defining the "Wow" factor. I propose a panel of (say) five hundred volunteers. Each proposed Virtual would be sent to fifty volunteers chosen at random.

Explanations, and photos, as to why this would be a good virtual, and why a regular cache could not be placed there would be submitted to each juror. Two week limit on voting. Yes. No. Or No vote (abstention, or on vacation, no difference.) 35 votes required to list.

No pressure on the reviewers. "Your cache has been submitted to our panel of judges. It has/has not been approved."

I would have approved 19 of the 57 virtuals that I have found. 35 No votes. 3 abstentions. On a panel of judges, I would probably have approved fewer. (Something about feelig a bit better about a few that I have found.)

Link to comment

Harry, that's an interesting idea. It might actually work.

 

One other thing I'd like to see changed is attending events counting toward your find count. When I click on "My Account", I see the little stat box claiming I found 880. Yet, several of these were events, not caches, so I'm not sure exactly what it was I found there. Maybe it means I "found" the event? :unsure:

Link to comment

Wouldn't it be better if this thread was in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum instead of the Geocaching Forums...? Hmmmm

The OP asked about changing geocaching, not the site. I agree that the bulk of the responses pertain to the site, but it is not exclusive. :blink:

 

which is why i haven't voiced MY biggest complaint about geocaching...

 

these forums :laughing:

 

Careful, there. Mr. Wisearse was given a 14 day ban for his post #119 above when he simply said in two words: "New Management." Your criticism, though just as valid, might get you a visit to the principal's office, too!

Link to comment

Wouldn't it be better if this thread was in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum instead of the Geocaching Forums...? Hmmmm

The OP asked about changing geocaching, not the site. I agree that the bulk of the responses pertain to the site, but it is not exclusive. :huh:

 

which is why i haven't voiced MY biggest complaint about geocaching...

 

these forums :blink:

 

Careful, there. Mr. Wisearse was given a 14 day ban for his post #119 above when he simply said in two words: "New Management." Your criticism, though just as valid, might get you a visit to the principal's office, too!

 

i've got no complaint with the management at all. :laughing:

Link to comment

Some kind of system for deleting sock puppet accounts and accounts of inactive cachers. Seriously, if a newbie stops caching for a year, then there's a good chance that person won't even remember his caching name or password in the unlikely event that he starts caching again.

 

How do sock puppet accounts affect you? Seriously, I am naive as to why this would be a problem.

Link to comment

Some kind of system for deleting sock puppet accounts and accounts of inactive cachers. Seriously, if a newbie stops caching for a year, then there's a good chance that person won't even remember his caching name or password in the unlikely event that he starts caching again.

 

How do sock puppet accounts affect you? Seriously, I am naive as to why this would be a problem.

 

Sock puppet accounts are essential for those among us with multiple personalities. :laughing:

Link to comment
Forget mods, what about forum visitors with way too many posts?
Hear, Hear!
Term limits for Volunteer Reviewers and Forum Moderators.
How about not having your mistakes rubbed in your nose in the forums over and over again.
How about not posting with a sockpuppet account, even a really old one.

 

Stats.
Removal of all stats, i.e. extinction of the smilie.

 

Justification: no reward, no reason to place or find cache that have no other inherent value and 90% or better of the trache would eventually go away.

 

Barring that then the option to both turn off my public display of my find log count and the ability to deny the increment of others' find count with finds on my caches.

 

Add to this to the ability to see someone's list of DNFs when they DNF one of my caches. I don't care how many finds they have, that doesn't tell me anything. I want to know how often their DNFs are just them not finding a viable cache versus the cache actually being missing or having problems.

If 1/1 lamp post caches were only worth 1/10th of a smiley, people would spend more time outdoors visiting caches that feature "the Language of Location," rather than parking lots, alleys, etc. Of course a few whiners would would scream discrimination because they can't hike and their "smiley value" would be less than those of us who do hike. :laughing:
A couple quick thoughts:

 

First, I don't think that this would work. I believe that most people are like myself. They like to get out and find a bunch of caches, even easy peasey ones that you may not enjoy. However, they don't fixate on their cumulative find total. Heck, I couldn't even guess my number of finds within 50 or 100, most of the time. Removing find counts or somehow giving greater 'credit' to caches with a higher terrain or difficulty rating would not cause people to stop hiding or seeking caches that you don't like.

 

That being said, your post tells me that you are very fixated on numbers; both yours and that of others. I guess, foy you, it is 'about the numbers'.

Link to comment

Stats.

Dan's Stats

 

Yes, accessible stats provided either by GC.Com or some third party would be a welcome addition. I've not seen any references to stat programs that work with Mac OSX

How many here even know of Dan's great stats? Not just smilies but all stats sliced and diced any way you'd like them. For me a big part of Geocaching died when Dan's Stats went away.

+1! I'm fairly confident that a good number of the oldtimers in Mississippi gradually faded away from the game because the "friendly in-state competition" that we had back then was lost when Dan's Stats went away. (And those stats did NOT diminish our state's overall cache quality back then, by the way!)

Link to comment

Hmmm, if someone is obsessed about number maybe an update would be your count is based on D/T # of the caches you found, and on multi's you get addition credit for the stages. If you think about it in a numbers kind of way, why would a 5/5 five part multi be the same towards your stats as a PAG on a guard rail? IMHO numbers are not why we're here...

 

http://www.ratethiscache.com/ is cool but very subjective as you could have the best cache in the world, yet if it's found only by people who don't know about the site or don't care about "voting" then it's not even going to be mentioned. And a PAG that is owned by someone with 17 geocaching friends could take the #1 spot on the list.... only way this will work is if it's a part of the GC site itself and people can "vote" or rate a cache as they're entering thier log.

Link to comment

Some kind of system for deleting sock puppet accounts and accounts of inactive cachers. Seriously, if a newbie stops caching for a year, then there's a good chance that person won't even remember his caching name or password in the unlikely event that he starts caching again.

 

How do sock puppet accounts affect you? Seriously, I am naive as to why this would be a problem.

 

Sock puppet accounts are essential for those among us with multiple personalities. :huh:

Reminds me of a poem: :blink:

 

Roses are red

Violets are blue

I'm schizophrenic

and so am I

 

Edit: I'm not debating the suggestion, but I'm not sure how they would stop sock puppet accounts on a free service. I've been using "Manage Ignored Users" in my control panel to ignore them.... :laughing:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I am relatively new, but I would love the opportunity to see beautiful spots through virtual caching - if I understand what they are correctly.

 

AND - I was really disappointed when I found out that the cool SWAG wasn't all that cool - so my biggest thing would be to require (under penalty of death of course) that you must trade UP, and for an increasingly interesting or cool gadget or item for people like me that really wanted it to be more like treasure hunting! It doesn't have to be expensive - a cool LED keychain now and then would brighten my spirits (sorry for the pun - okay, no I'm not :laughing:)

Edited by kraushad
Link to comment

1- cache rating system ie, 1=not so good/fun, 5=very good/fun

2- no multiple finds or finding your own caches (try it, it can happen) {except events}

3- set number of finds before allowing a hide

4- set ratio of micros to larger sizes for hiders... 1:1 for example

5- everyone has to have more fun

Link to comment

  1. A form to type in the coordinates of a new hide to determine if the caches can be placed there. This would tell if the hide was too close to another cache (particularly the final of a puzzle or mystery cache). You could limit the number of times one person could run it per day to help eliminate someone from trying to use it to determine the location of a puzzle. If that is a real concern, you could impose a penalty for using the search but not submitting a hidden cache.
  2. Don't allow someone to log or hide a new cache if one of their owned caches needs maintenance.
  3. Raise the 500 limit on PQs.
  4. Mentoring program for new Reviewers. More reviewers in an area would get caches posted faster.
  5. Nano container size.
  6. Revamp cache attributes so they can be used effectively, allow more than 10 attributes.
  7. Bring back virtuals to areas that prohibit cache placement.

Link to comment

I wold like VIRTUAL Caches Reinstated here.

 

Just like micros...If you don't like them...don't do them.

VIRTUAL Caches Reinstated, Bad idea, I remember some of the problems with Virtuals-like you go to the trouble to find the information to log the find, then you send the information to the owner of the cache for permisson to log the cache, and then they never get back to you with permission to log your find.

Link to comment

I would like to see a time limit (1 or 2 years) set on all caches to keep the sport fresh. I've found all the caches at some nearby parks, which are now at saturation. Archive them and rehide the caches, so that the locals can enjoy caching at prime locations again.

Not a good idea. I have lots of caches that are more than two years, they still get found by new cachers, Some of my caches do not get found that often because a large number of cachers do not care to do a lot of multi caches and a lot of cachers will not walk more than 100 yards to find a cache.

Link to comment

I would like to see a time limit (1 or 2 years) set on all caches to keep the sport fresh. I've found all the caches at some nearby parks, which are now at saturation. Archive them and rehide the caches, so that the locals can enjoy caching at prime locations again.

Fix the forums so that doulbe post can be deteted like this one-stupid forum machine :laughing:

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment

a cache quality rating system with the cumulative results of that rating appearing on the page.

If you use Firefox as your browser and have Greasemonkey, this can be done very easily with a script.

 

On to what I think should be done: Bring back Virtuals, allow an option where it will tell you if you are to close to another cache when placing your own, add the quality rating without the need of external programs, disallow cachers to log a cache twice, have some sort of "code" be put inside of each physical container that must be used in order to log a cache (similar to TB's and geocoins), put some sort of limitations on low-quality caches. I don't really care that there are so many micro's, it's that fact that most of them are just plain crap. I would love micros if the majority were high quality. I have seen some really really really cool ones, but not a whole lot.

Link to comment

a cache quality rating system with the cumulative results of that rating appearing on the page.

If you use Firefox as your browser and have Greasemonkey, this can be done very easily with a script.

 

On to what I think should be done: Bring back Virtuals, allow an option where it will tell you if you are to close to another cache when placing your own, add the quality rating without the need of external programs, disallow cachers to log a cache twice, have some sort of "code" be put inside of each physical container that must be used in order to log a cache (similar to TB's and geocoins), put some sort of limitations on low-quality caches. I don't really care that there are so many micro's, it's that fact that most of them are just plain crap. I would love micros if the majority were high quality. I have seen some really really really cool ones, but not a whole lot.

 

The rating system is coming. Obviously a built in rating system is much better than a Greasemonkey script. I'm sure 85% of the cachers out there don't use firefox, let alone a greased up monkey. This thread is about changes you would make to geocaching, not your browser.

Link to comment
Wouldn't it be better if this thread was in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum instead of the Geocaching Forums...? Hmmmm
The OP asked about changing geocaching, not the site. I agree that the bulk of the responses pertain to the site, but it is not exclusive. :blink:
which is why i haven't voiced MY biggest complaint about geocaching...

 

these forums :laughing:

Careful, there. Mr. Wisearse was given a 14 day ban for his post #119 above when he simply said in two words: "New Management." Your criticism, though just as valid, might get you a visit to the principal's office, too!
Any attempt to arrest a senior officer of OCP results in immediate shutdown
Link to comment

Harry, that's an interesting idea. It might actually work.

 

One other thing I'd like to see changed is attending events counting toward your find count. When I click on "My Account", I see the little stat box claiming I found 880. Yet, several of these were events, not caches, so I'm not sure exactly what it was I found there. Maybe it means I "found" the event? :laughing:

 

I believe you "attend" events, but they do come with posted coordinates and you can use those to find the event if you like.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...