Jump to content

Recipe for fun


Kit Fox

Recommended Posts

There are multitudes of threads pertaining to the "changing of the game," and how the proliferation of uninspired hides is ruining the game. This thread is not intended for the bashing of caches you dislike (there are already hundreds of lame cache threads.)

 

 

I use the following tools to weed out caches I dislike:

 

I run a current pocket query through GSAK and then look more closely at caches with ratings of "1/1."

 

I check the locations of "lower rated caches" using "Geocaching Google maps."

 

If the cache is located in a spot where I would not want to look for the cache, I place the cache on my ignore list.

 

I frequently read previous logs for caches that don't appear to be placed in areas I deem bad. If the previous logs are all "one liners," or nothing but "cut and paste jobs," I assume the cache is "uninspired" based on my criteria for fun.

 

I tried weeding out all 1/1s but I found that many of the older caches (4 years and older) are often improperly rated.

 

Pocket queries that search for caches based on attributes are great for newer caches, but are often unreliable for older caches that have not been updated.

 

I spend time checking for caches with bookmarks. I find that caches that have bookmarks denoting "Geocacher A's favorite cache finds," or Geocacher B's Top 5% of finds list usually indicates a good cache in my book.

 

Please share your recipe for fun. What steps do you take to weed out caches that you dislike? Please keep the thread on topic.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

There are multitudes of threads pertaining to the "changing of the game," and how the proliferation of uninspired hides is ruining the game. This thread is not intended for the bashing of caches you dislike (there are already hundreds of lame cache threads.)

 

 

I use the following tools to weed out caches I dislike:

 

I run a current pocket query through GSAK and then look more closely at caches with ratings of "1/1."

 

I check the locations of "lower rated caches" using "Geocaching Google maps."

 

If the cache is located in a spot where I would not want to look for the cache, I place the cache on my ignore list.

 

I frequently read previous logs for caches that don't appear to be placed in areas I deem bad. If the previous logs are all "one liners," or nothing but "cut and paste jobs," I assume the cache is "uninspired" based on my criteria for fun.

 

I tried weeding out all 1/1s but I found that many of the older caches (4 years and older) are often improperly rated.

 

Pocket queries that search for caches based on attributes are great for newer caches, but are often unreliable for older caches that have not been updated.

 

I spend time checking for caches with bookmarks. I find that caches that have bookmarks denoting "Geocacher A's favorite cache finds," or Geocacher B's Top 5% of finds list usually indicates a good cache in my book.

 

Please share your recipe for fun. What steps do you take to weed out caches that you dislike? Please keep the thread on topic.

 

1. Avoid micros. That weeds out 99% of the chaff and avoids a lot of the all pre-trip recon.

 

2. Find 5* terrain caches that are accessible by kayak.

Link to comment

Since over a year I work with only one pocket query that gives me just caches which have a regular or large container and a terrain rating of 2.5 or greater. With a few exceptions, the caches in there are really fun for me.

 

And yes, I know that with this scheme I ignore a lot of caches which would be also fun for me. But as long as there are enough caches in my PQ, I just don't mind.

Edited by eigengott
Link to comment

I'm all ears (or should I say eyes?) because I've yet to find an easy way to do so.

 

Weed out micros? I've enjoyed many micros and include some among my all time favorites.

 

Avoid urban and suburban hides? I thoroughly enjoy well thought out urban and suburban caches.

 

Filter 1/1 caches? That might eliminate many of the caches at historic sites that I love.

 

Filter the caches of certain hiders? Might work if I'm familiar with them, but outside my immediate home area I really have no way of knowing someone's reputation.

 

Read through all the cache logs? It has a better chance of working, but it's tedious to read through dozens

of cache pages and kind of defeats the purpose of running PQs.

Link to comment

I like woods, big trees and small wading creeks, I use google earth to find an area then search for caches - everything after that is gravy. Trails are nice but not required, pretty views are nice but not required all that's required is a nice hike in the woods following a stream.

Link to comment

I'm all ears (or should I say eyes?) because I've yet to find an easy way to do so.

 

Weed out micros? I've enjoyed many micros and include some among my all time favorites.

 

Avoid urban and suburban hides? I thoroughly enjoy well thought out urban and suburban caches.

 

Filter 1/1 caches? That might eliminate many of the caches at historic sites that I love.

 

Filter the caches of certain hiders? Might work if I'm familiar with them, but outside my immediate home area I really have no way of knowing someone's reputation.

 

Read through all the cache logs? It has a better chance of working, but it's tedious to read through dozens

of cache pages and kind of defeats the purpose of running PQs.

I must quite sadly agree. Sigh...........

 

I found myself spending too many hours using various techniques and it yeilded only minimal results. These days I often just ignore micros and then read the description/logs on the next one before I get to it - to save time. I abondon many attempts when I see the area upon parking. Others based on the description - but this is out in the field - not at home. Sometimes I go anyway - just because I am already there.

Link to comment

As a newbie cacher, I find myself enjoying larger than micro caches more often. In an urban environment, even though many hides might be 1/1, I still enjoy the technique and eye for placement that many of the cachers here have. Also, I enjoy finding TBs and geocoins when they are out there - just to read some of the history, or admire the artistry of the coins. With the younger members of the family team, they love trades - they really fall into the "treasure hunt" aspect, and to them there isn't much treasure to it if all that exists is a log book.

 

So for getting started purposes, yes, I filter out micros. Later down the road I might add them back in.

 

Since most of my caching is done with family, easier terrains and hides let the younger ones get more into the hunt than would some of the tougher terrain/more difficult hides.

 

I also try to read the cache write-ups. I enjoy caches that have some meaning to the cacher. If it has a good story behind it, I want to see it. This again also eliminates many of the micros - many of which in my area seem to have no more driving factor behind them than "there wasn't a cache within .1 mile."

 

I found my first nano the other night. It slipped by in my PQ because it was listed as an "unknown" size. It was in a nice little area, the CO wrote a brief but nice write-up on it, and it seemed fun. Didn't mind that one at all.

 

Finally - if all else fails, a quick drive-by may tell me whether or not I'm interested. If it doesn't look at all interesting, doesn't have a decent write-up, and the location makes me uncomfortable, then I'm moving on to the next one.

Link to comment

Please share your recipe for fun. What steps do you take to weed out caches that you dislike? Please keep the thread on topic.

I hadn't thought of it as "weeding out caches I dislike", but rather "picking caches I will probably like". Any one of these would be enough to make a cache go on my list of ones to go for:

  • if it's placed by a cacher whose other hides I have enjoyed
  • if it's in an area that I've been to before and I liked
  • if it's been recommended by other cachers
  • if the description or cache logs make it sound good
  • if it's near another cache we're planning on doing, and the descriptions and logs don't make it sound horrible

The set of caches within our caching radius that fit at least one of those criteria has never been anywhere near empty.

 

Yes, it takes time to read (or at least glance at) the descriptions and logs, but to me, it's worth it to take the time to do that. It's unlikely that I'd find an automated method to make my selections for me.

Link to comment

I don't have much of a system other than figuring that if it is in large park or forest preserve that I will probably like it, and if it is in a parking lot, I likely will not want to make any special trips for it.

 

Our local group also has a cache of the month award, and reading about nominated caches has given me some ideas for ones that should be high on my want to find list.

Link to comment

Please share your recipe for fun. What steps do you take to weed out caches that you dislike? Please keep the thread on topic.

I hadn't thought of it as "weeding out caches I dislike", but rather "picking caches I will probably like". Any one of these would be enough to make a cache go on my list of ones to go for:

  • if it's placed by a cacher whose other hides I have enjoyed
  • if it's in an area that I've been to before and I liked
  • if it's been recommended by other cachers
  • if the description or cache logs make it sound good
  • if it's near another cache we're planning on doing, and the descriptions and logs don't make it sound horrible

The set of caches within our caching radius that fit at least one of those criteria has never been anywhere near empty.

 

Yes, it takes time to read (or at least glance at) the descriptions and logs, but to me, it's worth it to take the time to do that. It's unlikely that I'd find an automated method to make my selections for me.

 

I think this is what it really boils down to. Filtering for what I like rather than what I don't like. I get fewer hits on the ones I don't care for this way. Add to the fact I generally hike to get to these caches and I'm likely to have fun regardless if I have a find or not, the likelihood of going after the "spew" goes down. As with all things, there have been exceptions.

Link to comment

I use a couple methods. First of all, while I include micros in my PQ just to see what's out there, I don't load them into the GPS. If it's a good one I'll flag it and hunt it, but only after a pretty strict review.

 

Another method I use when preparing to hunt an area is to run a filter on log length. GSAK has the capability to do this and there's a macro available for it. Filtering caches in order of log length is a pretty good way to find the hidden gems, because the longer logs are the more people have to say about their caching experience, and that usually points to a good cache.

 

I review favorites lists of cachers I know that like the same kinds of caches I do. Favorites lists are one of the best ways to find great hides. Of course I keep my own list of favorites as well to help others.

 

Every month or so I run PQs to download all regular and large caches in my state that I haven't found. It usually takes a couple days to get them all, but it gives me a nice searchable database in GSAK. I can search for cache logs containing "nice view" or "waterfall' or other keywords that interest me.

 

I also run searches online using keywords such as "vista", "lookout", "falls", "waterfall", "overlook", "furnace", "cave" etc that help to pinpoint potentially interesting caches. While that doesn't guarantee I'll find everything, it helps me find some.

 

Of course terrain settings are sometimes helpful when combined with other things in a search. If I'm looking for a hike no terrain less than 2.5 or 3 would fit the bill.

 

Any cache series like Wally World, Roll out the Barrel, Homer, etc throws up an immediate red flag. Same if I see the name of a store in the cache name, like "Lowe Down Cache". I go to stores to buy stuff, not to hunt throw-downs in the parking lot.

 

The terms P&G or C&D are other red flags that are usually best avoided. Same with the "stealth" attribute.

 

I guess I'm particular, but I was burned out on finding pointless waypointed paper scraps. At least the fun has returned since I started weeding out the junk. It's a pain to have to do that, but it's either that or find another hobby.

Link to comment

I guess I don't really have the same problem I see on these forums others have.

 

I haven't found a type of cache that I dislike enough to not seek. I have enjoyed many micros, lamppost caches, and NRV. caches. There have been very few caches that, after finding it, I had wished I hadn't looked for it. (there have been caches, I've got to the parking lot, and just skipped it. But not often.)

 

Some caches just give me a feeling of "well that was fun, whats next?". Others leave me feeling "Wow that was great" and I think and talk about it for a long time. Obviously I prefer the latter, but the former is a big part of the game for me also.

 

The only research I do is to try to assess whether I can even go for the cache with my limited mobility. Otherwise, I just go for it and try to enjoy it as much as the type of cache will allow.

Link to comment
Another method I use when preparing to hunt an area is to run a filter on log length. GSAK has the capability to do this and there's a macro available for it. Filtering caches in order of log length is a pretty good way to find the hidden gems, because the longer logs are the more people have to say about their caching experience, and that usually points to a good cache.

 

I've never tried that macro before. It sounds like a great way to weed the proverbial chaff.

 

I found the reference macro. http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=...amp;#entry32556

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

Here's how I do it: I run a PQ three times a week to keep my GSAK pretty up to date as to which ones might be disabled and to give me the latest logs. Whenever I'm going caching I make sure my GPS and Palm Pilot are updated.

 

I'll look at my MapSource map on my computer as I'm loading my GPS to look at the area I'm planning on caching in to see what is there, or to help me pick out a cache rich area if I haven't decided yet. Then I go and find as many as I can.

 

Or if I'm not caching I usually always have my GPS on the dash of my car, and if I pass close to one and I have time, I'll stop and get it.

 

As far as filters to remove any caches that I won't like... nah. There's not a Mushtang's Preference filter yet so I just find whatever is there and am grateful for the chance to look. If after I'm done it wasn't the best cache ever, that's okay. There's always the next one.

 

I'm easy to please when it comes to finding caches. :P

Link to comment
Read through all the cache logs? It has a better chance of working, but it's tedious to read through dozens of cache pages and kind of defeats the purpose of running PQs.
I see posts like this pretty often in these threads. (Perhaps they are all yours, who knows?)

 

I think that this take overcomplicates a really good method. In my mind, you don't have to read bunches of cache pages. You only have to look over ONE cache page. It's the page for the very next cache that you are about to tell your GPSr to find. If you take a few seconds to peruse that cache page, you might discover that you won't care for that cache, so you can save yourself the time and strife and not look for it.

 

Easy peasey. You avoided the cache that you wouldn't like and no longer have to wring your hands over.

Link to comment
Please share your recipe for fun. What steps do you take to weed out caches that you dislike? Please keep the thread on topic.
I hadn't thought of it as "weeding out caches I dislike", but rather "picking caches I will probably like". Any one of these would be enough to make a cache go on my list of ones to go for:
  • if it's placed by a cacher whose other hides I have enjoyed
  • if it's in an area that I've been to before and I liked
  • if it's been recommended by other cachers
  • if the description or cache logs make it sound good
  • if it's near another cache we're planning on doing, and the descriptions and logs don't make it sound horrible

The set of caches within our caching radius that fit at least one of those criteria has never been anywhere near empty.

 

Yes, it takes time to read (or at least glance at) the descriptions and logs, but to me, it's worth it to take the time to do that. It's unlikely that I'd find an automated method to make my selections for me.

I think this is what it really boils down to. Filtering for what I like rather than what I don't like. I get fewer hits on the ones I don't care for this way. Add to the fact I generally hike to get to these caches and I'm likely to have fun regardless if I have a find or not, the likelihood of going after the "spew" goes down. As with all things, there have been exceptions.
I think that that is a very smart way to approach it. Sure, you'll probably fail to include some caches that you would have liked to find, but who cares as long as you haven't run out of pearls in your PQ? Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I haven't found a method that works well yet, but here is what I do:

 

I use GSAK to filter out anything where the last three logs have been DNFs. If I'm going hunting I want a good shot a bagging a Find, so why waste time on a cache that has a higher probability of being missing? (Around here if you see 3 DNFs in a row you can ususally assume there have been at least that many that didn't log it.)

 

Naturally, anything that is Archived, Disabled or Found gets filtered out.

 

Then, if I am in a particularly cynical mood, I have a GSAK macro that filters out caches from several local hiders who have a reputation. If I am my normal happy self I'll leave those in.

 

After that I'll dump the remaining caches into Mapsource and use it to get an idea of where I want to go. (Look for a park with several targets or look around the area I happen to be heading to.) I'll pull up the cache pages for the caches in the area to read what others have experienced and have to say about it. (This step is becoming more and more useless as people resort to copy 'n paste logs or tnlnsl.)

 

Finally I'll go hunting. Lots of prep work but it keeps the caching enjoyment higher.

 

--------

 

Other times I'll just load active caches into the GPSr and head off. If I get to ground zero and discover I don't like the area I'll add that cache to my Ignore list. I normally like to try and give a cache a chance before I ignore it so I don't resort to filtering out micros or 1/1 caches. Normally I won't add a cache to the Ignore list until I have at least scoped out the area -- the exception to this are caches where I read/hear from other cachers that there are issues in the area like homeless people, trash or security guards.

Link to comment

Some recent posts highlight our "recipe." We use Google Earth to spot areas of cache concentration. Urban, mountain or desert are our choices, along with the distance we feel like traveling. Sometimes we will be in the area for another reason and just take advantage of the caches there. .

 

We run a PQ for that area, usually of 450 caches. This gives us flexibility; once we get to the area, we can change routes and plans as necessary.

 

We compare notes on caches we have researched to determine if there are some "must-see" locations. We much prefer hikes and scenic locations, but urban caches often take us to some nice areas and/or historical spots.

 

When we are out in the cache area, we aim for those we would really like to go to. We will check the printed maps or GPS maps for caches on the way; and, when we spot one we look at the cache page in the PDA. We then decide on whether we should go there. If it is a LPC, we either drive by or stop and get it. No big deal.

Link to comment

We don't do numbers runs or try to set 'records' for the most caches in a day. If we're going to hit some caches, I do some reading ahead of time I look for caches that have:

 

A lot of interesting logs - comments like "great camo", "how'd you think of THAT?" or "this is the third time we've come looking" really interest me. A few DNFs thrown in add to the challenge. I avoid the ones that are simply TNLNSL

 

Anything in a park I've never been by or heard of that's harder than a 1 x 1

 

Descriptions of interesting things in the area or at the hide location

 

Descriptions that have a lot of humor, an intersting story or just really quirky (I figure if who is writing up the cache can write an interesting tale, finding it should be intersting also)

 

Takes time, but I have better luck than if I'm working on the fly and looking for caches from on the road. It may mean not rolling up much in the way of numbers but I'm generally happier with the ones that I find.

Link to comment

I research for caches I really want to find. They will go onto my "To Do" bookmark list (long-term) or will get a user checkmark in GSAK (short-term). How do I find them?

  • The cache is on a bookmark list of recommended favorites.
  • I read about the cache in a forum thread.
  • The cache is in a park or at a historic site, etc., that I want to visit.
  • I preview the photo gallery for my pocket query. Good caches tend to have interesting photo galleries.

I then plot a route to one or more "destination caches" from my list. I then pick up caches along the way, without worrying about their quality. They are part of my journey for the day, and have worth on that basis alone. On one day, I will drive past many and stop at a few. On a different day with different goals, I'll find every cache I can in the area I've targeted.

Link to comment

We've been caching pretty much since it started in our area so we've found most everything that has been put out. Because of this, i don't try searching for just the types of caches i really like (there wouldn't be any within 60 miles), and instead have fun finding any new cache that get's put out in our area. Granted, i usually go with other cachers which is what makes it fun for me, no matter how lame (imo) the hide it is!

 

If i did do a search for what i like, then it would be for caches with higher difficulty and terrain levels. I tend to enjoy finding larger containers most of the time but i don't think i would filter for those in a query since i have found some fun micros that have been placed.

Link to comment

As I don't mind what the container size is, there's no point in eliminating micros. Some micros turn out to be the most interesting caches in the area anyway.

 

I approach from the opposite end: I try and find "good" caches in a given area, rather than trying to knock out the dross.

 

The usual trick is to scroll down the list of caches from a centre point, then try and spot a likely-looking candidate. If there's a public bookmark list mentioned with this cache (you usually find one after checking two or three caches), look at the other caches in the bookmark. I'm looking for bookmarks along the lines of "memorable caches in the Seattle area", or "the ten best caches ever" (not "1000 lamp post hides"). Each time you find what appears to be an interesting cache, add it to a bookmark list ("Next itinerary" or something).

 

Often, the person who created the bookmark list has kindly placed the caches into a category that you can understand ("Caches with long walks" / "caches with puzzles you solve at home" etc.) and you can use that to decide whether you might be interested.

 

(Edit: rather similar to the Leprechauns' approach, I'll also throw in caches along the route as well).

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I forgot to mention this in my first post. I always place good caches in one of my public bookmarks. This way future hunters (who look for bookmarked caches) can find what they are looking for.

 

Like The Leprechauns I also look for caches with large photo galleries.

Link to comment

What I've found is this: I enjoy the traditional caches because of the hikes and views, I enjoy the quick urban micros because of the company I'm with. If I head to the city on my own I'll hit one or two caches and that's all I need, but if I'm with other people we drive around and have a blast together.

 

I guess the recipe for me isn't so much what I weed out as who I include.

Link to comment

From GSAK I filter caches as to types and sizes then export each filter into MS Streets and Trips. I then use a different icon for the different types (and sizes) of caches. I pick a destination (place or cache) then figure out a route to and return. The route will vary as I begin to look at what caches are available in that area. The different icons tell me if that micro is in the middle of a park or parking lot to help me decide to stop or skip past. This also helps me get a mix of different caches for the day. I then look at the cache page and often the logs to decide if there is any question as to stopping or skipping. Bookmark lists are helpful as stated earlier. And also knowing other cachers. Not just who hides ones I like, but also who likes what I like. Looking at a cache I will sometimes look at who found it that I may know. Even on trips I have seen many local names as visiting a cache, knowing that person can tell me I would like that cache also.

Link to comment

I use a two fold approach similar to those mentioned above:

I run 19 PQ's a week, covering various geographic locations I might might find myself in. 18 of those, including my local PQ exclude micros entirely. I also get instant notifications for any cache published within X miles of my residence, and I read all of these as they come in. If I see one that is a micro, and looks intriguing, I'll load it up and go hunting for it.

 

The 19th is just for micros, as my wife still enjoys shrub hunts and P&G's.

 

If I'm going out of town, I'll run a PQ including everything, then I'll sort through it, deleting anything that doesn't appeal to me.

Link to comment

I have yet to find a cache I didn't like, so my recipe?

 

Put on clothes, download coords to GPS, grab my cache bag and hit the road!

 

Man, I feel so simple.

 

Ditto. I find that much of my obsession with caching has to do with getting out into the wild. I'll pretty much hunt any cache in area with any conditions. For multis and puzzles I do the obvious recon. And I definately browse logs. Numbers are good but not required. Are there things that irritate me? Of course. But nothing to get all worked up about... "I hate this or I hate that". Silly.

Link to comment
[*]if it's been recommended by other cachers
.... Huh??? Oh, sorry, daydreaming again about the day we get a system in place to allow cachers to rate caches and others to view those ratings (on the GC site and not something area specific).

 

Not being in the numbers game, we plan trips to places we like and if there are caches around where we're heading then we go after them. Also why we often don't spend a lot of time seeking something in a boring spot too long.

 

Rule out micros????? No way! We look at the swag routine as a kid thing so we don't haul along a bag of keychains and crayons when we do an all day hike. That space is more valuable for water or power bars. And often trying to find something small enough to hold in your hand is more of a challenge then something you could see from 100 yards away if not covered. Guess it's kind of like target shooting... anyone could hit the bale of hay the target's mounted on, but some of us like the challenge of trying to hit the bullseye. Yeah, a few of us often don't care to just walk up to ground zero, look around and see 3 places an ammo can could be and within a few seconds go "There it is!". It's a fun challenge walking up and seeing the 3,500 places a micro could be and that's when the game begins :)

Link to comment
I have yet to find a cache I didn't like, so my recipe? Put on clothes, download coords to GPS, grab my cache bag and hit the road! Man, I feel so simple.
My tag line :

 

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

 

The few caches I have found I actually "didn't like" were things like in playground parks with tons of kids running around with their parents in front of tons of houses where people sit on their front porches and stare you down and you feel like some predator on the hunt. Normally I like a muggle challenge but not like that. And other then those few there are just caches I liked "less" then others... but I sure wouldn't discard one for the size of the container or what it looked like on Google Earth. We have urban caches hidden in what look like alleyways and when you arrive you find it's a hidden little butterfly garden spot with sculptures and benches and a cool spot to relax. Looking at GE you'd swear it was marching you into an episode of Cops.

Link to comment

FWIW - half the enjoyment of the game, for me, is the planning and research that goes into getting ready for a cache run.

me too. I've always liked to read, so going over cache pages is not a chore at all. i just don't have time to read as many books as I used to!

I only use PQ's to download bookmark lists that I have compiled from reading caches pages. I have a few lists for areas near home base and I'll make a new one when I'm traveling.

I recently took a trip through new hampshire and maine to go to a professional conference. I found about 50 caches in a five day period. All but a few were, at the very least, nice walks in pleasant parks. There were just a few micros thrown in because they were right on the way to something else and looked like they might be in pretty spots. I enjoyed every single cache! There were LOTS of other caches near the ones that I found and if I had done a straight PQ, even with filters, I would have been exhausted chasing down a lot of poor caches. Reading the cache pages helped me quickly eliminate this series: "These caches were placed to help pump up the number of caches in Brattleboro." You could see my dust as I left town!

One more thing: If I am going out of state I will often go to the regional forum and ask for suggestions on the type of caches I like. This has worked out quite well. It even led to meeting a wonderful cacher who helped me get my only 5 star (kayak) caches. You can't get that from a PQ!

Link to comment

If we're not simply looking for numbres, we'll go to our local geocaching forum, which has a "Top Pick" page where users pick their favorite caches.

 

We'll often use that to pick one primary cache for the day and then do research and pick 20 or so others in the area or on the way for "extras" to do before, during and after the primary cache.

Link to comment
Another method I use when preparing to hunt an area is to run a filter on log length. GSAK has the capability to do this and there's a macro available for it. Filtering caches in order of log length is a pretty good way to find the hidden gems, because the longer logs are the more people have to say about their caching experience, and that usually points to a good cache.

 

I've never tried that macro before. It sounds like a great way to weed the proverbial chaff.

 

I found the reference macro. http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=...amp;#entry32556

 

I finally got a chance to play with the log length macro, It is very handy tool. The caches that I want to find most were ranked highest by log length. This macro isn't perfect because a verbose cachers can skew the results in favor of caches I choose not to hunt. A parking lot micro made it into the top ranked logs due to 4 paragraph log. :)

Link to comment

What I've found is this: I enjoy the traditional caches because of the hikes and views, I enjoy the quick urban micros because of the company I'm with. If I head to the city on my own I'll hit one or two caches and that's all I need, but if I'm with other people we drive around and have a blast together.

 

I guess the recipe for me isn't so much what I weed out as who I include.

 

Uh huh! I wouldn't even think about going over to Houston to cache by myself. Not saying the caches over there are lame or anything, but alot of them are the routine urban types that i've found many times and my enjoyment for finding those types seems to diminish quickly after just a few finds. On the otherhand, i look forward to going and have a great time finding those same exact caches when i go with the Gang!

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment
Another method I use when preparing to hunt an area is to run a filter on log length. GSAK has the capability to do this and there's a macro available for it. Filtering caches in order of log length is a pretty good way to find the hidden gems, because the longer logs are the more people have to say about their caching experience, and that usually points to a good cache.

 

I've never tried that macro before. It sounds like a great way to weed the proverbial chaff.

 

I found the reference macro. http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=...amp;#entry32556

 

I finally got a chance to play with the log length macro, It is very handy tool. The caches that I want to find most were ranked highest by log length. This macro isn't perfect because a verbose cachers can skew the results in favor of caches I choose not to hunt. A parking lot micro made it into the top ranked logs due to 4 paragraph log. :)

I modified the macro to rank on the median log length rather than the average log length thinking that would take care of outliers like the 4 paragraph log on a parking lot micro. That did have the effect of lowering the ranking of that cache hat but there were still some cases where the log length was not always a good indicator of how much fun a cache would be. For example a cache that was often in need of maintenance would result in a lot of logs about wet logs or the container needing replacement which tended to be longer than "Nice cache with a great view". I think that a filter that looks for keywords in the logs like good, great, or excellent would be more useful.

Link to comment

So we tried this new method this past weekend while traveling out of state (get this) instead of turning on the GPS and aiming for all of the little boxes on the screen we looked at a paper map and picked the trails we wanted to hike on. We drove to the trailhead and then turned on the GPS.

 

Okay so I was still disappointed in the caches: mostly at trailheads or .2 miles down the trail, with none anywhere near the landmarks/peaks we were aiming for... but I didn't not have fun. Had a great time infact.

 

edit to add:

 

At home, it's easy: pick a park BrianSnats been to.. Actually, I don't think I'm ever disappointed hides placed by anyone locally :)

Edited by ThirstyMick
Link to comment

I finally got a chance to play with the log length macro, It is very handy tool. The caches that I want to find most were ranked highest by log length. This macro isn't perfect because a verbose cachers can skew the results in favor of caches I choose not to hunt. A parking lot micro made it into the top ranked logs due to 4 paragraph log. :)

 

It's not a perfect tool, but then nothing will ever be. All it does is act like any other filter - to reduce the number of caches that you have to examine the individual pages for. There's always going to be be both false positives and false negatives...

Link to comment

FWIW - half the enjoyment of the game, for me, is the planning and research that goes into getting ready for a cache run.

 

I don't know that it's half the enjoyment for me, but I certainly do it, and don't mind. I'm surprised at some of the more complex methods I've seen here. I basically research the caches on a one-by-one basis, and it's pretty much 100% flawless, even for an area I'm not the least bit familiar with. I guess those dozens of 5 word or less cache logs don't lie. :D

 

One thing I saw that was interesting in Kit's OP was the problem with filtering out 1/1's, and many older caches being under rated. How many caches have you seen from '01 or '02 rated at 1/1 that are really more like 2/3? I'd need more than my fingers and toes to count, that's for sure.

 

Editing, as a matter of fact, I'm going about 100 miles out of town this weekend, so I just happen to have a couple of examples of why my old-fashioned, manual, Google Earth and study method is the best. here is an outstanding sounding 1/1 rated micro, that I'll be sure to check out. While here is a 1.5/2 non-micro that was most likely tossed out of a moving car window, and I'll not be stopping at. Just kidding about the moving car, by the way. :)

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

When I'm grabbing a cache on the way to of from somewhere, I just wing it, but when I'm planning a cache trip, I use the google earth KML to locate a `target' cache that seems extremely interesting to me. My absolute favorite caches are those that come with a history lesson, but those are unfortunately difficult to find automatically. Once I have my target cache, I'll look for any caches nearby that might be of interest.

 

When I hand pick a target cache, I am rarely disappointed. Nearby caches can range from meh all the way to surprisingly awesome, but that's a calculated risk I take.

Link to comment

There are multitudes of threads pertaining to the "changing of the game," and how the proliferation of uninspired hides is ruining the game. This thread is not intended for the bashing of caches you dislike (there are already hundreds of lame cache threads.)

 

 

I use the following tools to weed out caches I dislike:

 

I run a current pocket query through GSAK and then look more closely at caches with ratings of "1/1."

 

I check the locations of "lower rated caches" using "Geocaching Google maps."

 

If the cache is located in a spot where I would not want to look for the cache, I place the cache on my ignore list.

 

I frequently read previous logs for caches that don't appear to be placed in areas I deem bad. If the previous logs are all "one liners," or nothing but "cut and paste jobs," I assume the cache is "uninspired" based on my criteria for fun.

 

I tried weeding out all 1/1s but I found that many of the older caches (4 years and older) are often improperly rated.

 

Pocket queries that search for caches based on attributes are great for newer caches, but are often unreliable for older caches that have not been updated.

 

I spend time checking for caches with bookmarks. I find that caches that have bookmarks denoting "Geocacher A's favorite cache finds," or Geocacher B's Top 5% of finds list usually indicates a good cache in my book.

 

Please share your recipe for fun. What steps do you take to weed out caches that you dislike? Please keep the thread on topic.

 

I tryyyyyy to make no assumptions about a cache before I head out to look for one I have no word of mouth on.....

 

My approach to FUN in finding:

 

Using the geocaching.com google map and walking it down my route, I usually download waypoints for what looks convenient along the way I'm traveling, or for caches that have EXCELLENT word of mouth. Bookmarks aren't always what I look for but they can be of help.... but not always from my experience....

 

I got 72 caches on my 6,028 mile trip to GW6 and back: 20 were found on the awesome GWVI4WD run. Another 15 or so were found just because I wanted to hunt a cache. 1 was found walking home from breakfast in Folsom, because some other cachers were there trying to look like they had a good reason to be in the bushes. :lol: Fully HALF of my finds were because The Snooglet needed a diaper change, The Snoogstress needed a potty break, or because Cujo needed walkies and there was a convenient cache to stop for too... thanx to all the rest stop, guardrail, skirt lifters, and genuine ammo cans that other geocachers placed and maintained for me to find. I passed hundreds of caches bye.... Aren't geocachers AWESOME!?

 

My new approach to GREAT FUN hiding:

 

For my latest hide, I used google earth to find a neat looking bit of terrain near one of my most celebrated caches. Darned if I didn't just hit the nail on the head. :ph34r: It was EXACTLY as I imagined it would be from the satellite photo and the year and a half of anticipation was great too. :D

 

What I've found is this: I enjoy the traditional caches because of the hikes and views, I enjoy the quick urban micros because of the company I'm with. If I head to the city on my own I'll hit one or two caches and that's all I need, but if I'm with other people we drive around and have a blast together.

 

I guess the recipe for me isn't so much what I weed out as who I include.

 

Uh huh! I wouldn't even think about going over to Houston to cache by myself. Not saying the caches over there are lame or anything, but alot of them are the routine urban types that i've found many times and my enjoyment for finding those types seems to diminish quickly after just a few finds. On the otherhand, i look forward to going and have a great time finding those same exact caches when i go with the Gang!

 

Mudfrog, if you came to Houston to cache by yourself, you'd probably get ripped on in the HGCS.org forums for being anti-social. :D I'd rip in ya for not taking time to get our little critters (Tadpole & Snooglet) together to play. :(

 

Bret, you hit the nail on the head.

 

Where ever I go there I am as well you saw at GW6. I didn't hunt one other cache in Wheatland. Those caches didn't look fun to me, BUT if I had hunted them, they would have been fun. I get it. Sadly, others can't or won't.

 

I can love a skirt lifter or a poorly concieved virt if it helps me color another state red on my map of states cached. I can have a blast with a group of other cachers looking for an urban micro that I surely would have skipped on my own. I've never been motived to do more than a few caches in a day unless I borrowed the motivation from other cachers.

 

It's not about cache size, contents, hide, or location for me..... It's about how I CHOOSE to spend my quality time or a random opportunity to cache. I can't ever lose or feel cheated, because I'm ALWAYS in control.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

My method for weeding? Grasp the weed firmly at the base and yank that sucker outta the ground! :ph34r:

 

Oh, weeding out undesirable caches you mean? Well, for starters, I've never seen an undesirable cache. I desire them all. And I have fun or enjoy every cache I've found in one way or another.

 

But I do research every cache by looking it up and trying to figure out just what kind of fun I'm going to have with this one. I read all the cache pages and logs to see what kind of fun others have had with it. If other people don't seem to have enjoyed a particular cache, I go there to find out why. I guess I'm just nosy and curious and have a need to see them ALL.

The caches you guys weed out? If you hunted them with my husband you would see why even those are fun for me. :lol:

Link to comment

Please share your recipe for fun. What steps do you take to weed out caches that you dislike? Please keep the thread on topic.

 

Download the potentials as a PQ, then dump them into GSAK.

 

Delete all that have three or four red blocks in the "lg" column.

 

Delete the ones hidden by users known to always be 50'-60' off on their coords. (Not a large number)

 

Pre-solve the puzzle caches if possible.

 

Mail the bondsman his monthly retainer check.

 

Start early Saturday, like 6 AM at the latest, anf make it an all day event.

 

If nothing goes wrong, call the bank Monday and cancel the check to the bondsman.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...