Addition to Report a New Cache Page - Suggestion

[+marcjboudreau]

After reading thread after thread on cache saturation, lame light post caches, etc. I was wondering if the idea of an extra field that must be filled in when listing a new cache for approval might be worthwhile.

I was thinking that if there was a field that must be filled in explaining why you think the placement of your new cache is a good one may be helpful. If the only reason for it is that there isn't another cache within 528' then that may not be an acceptable placement. If the reason is that there is a great view from here, it's a place of historical interest, it's in a rarely visited park/place/etc. then these are all good reasons (of which there are plenty of other great reasons for placing a cache).

It just seems with all the complaining on here about the "numbers only" caches, the light post caches, cache saturation issues, etc. that this would help to alleviate some of the problems. It will still, of course, be up to the reviewer's discretion to approve/disapprove a cache but it may help improve the quality of the hides/cache locations.

What do you think? Am I way off base with this idea?

[+StarBrand]

Interesting idea but there really is no guideline or rule that prevents the placement of a broken magnetic cache on the bottom of a fence rail behid the local big box store dumpsters as long as you have permission.

 

I know the reviewers often "pinch thier nose" when reviewing and publishing caches. But there is often no good reason to deny them. Got to get something in the guidelines for this to fly and that just isn't going to happen.

 

By the way - 528 isn't allways enough - an area can be determined to be saturated with caches further apart then the minimum - check part II of the saturation guideline.

Edited September 12, 2008 by StarBrand

[+marcjboudreau]

Oh, I know there is no rule/guideline preventing, "the placement of a broken magnetic cache on the bottom of a fence rail behid the local big box store dumpsters," but maybe there should be.

Is geocaching just about placing as many caches as we can based on the current guidelines, is that really all it is? I would hope that there is a desire to improve this game as much as possible.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Bottom line is that it's us, the cachers, that "own" this game, not the reviewers. The reviewer's job is to assure that caches placed are within the guidelines, are legally placed, are not within 150 feet of active railroads, etc. It's not to "approve/disapprove" the cache itself. That would be one job I would NOT want. Groundspeak is a facilitator for us, providing this website. They are not the "police". I, for one, would ban all bush hides and ivy wall hides but that's just 'cause I don't like them.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Cache O'Plenty

[+marcjboudreau]

I don't know about that, they already "approve/disapprove" caches based on lots of different guidelines (i.e. cache location, cache contents, caches that solicit, commercial caches, cache types, etc.)

The precedent already exists for gc.com to make whatever guidelines they want in order to be able to list on their site. In reality they already are the "police" in regards to what they list, this isn't really much of an extension of their responsibility.

While I agree that it is us cachers that "own" the game, in alot of cases we're taking really bad care of it.

Edited September 12, 2008 by marcjboudreau

[+KoosKoos]

The issue is the same that gets back to virtuals. You're introducing a LOT more subjective terms on what's acceptable within a guideline:

 

"If the reason is that there is a great view from here, it's a place of historical interest, it's in a rarely visited park/place/etc"

 

If I think the little park offers a great view, but you think it's a vagrant camp full of trash, who determines the truth?

 

If I think it's historically significant that this park was the first one opened in the city, but is now full of drug abusers, is that a good reason?

 

If I say this place is rarely visited and you point out it's because there was a triple homicide there last year, is it a good reason to have a cache there or not?

[+marcjboudreau]

Of course it's subjective, but why is that a bad thing? The reverse of that is the current system where the only over-riding rationale is cache saturation. That's it, no cache close by so I'll put one here.

[+KoosKoos]

Of course it's subjective, but why is that a bad thing? The reverse of that is the current system where the only over-riding rationale is cache saturation. That's it, no cache close by so I'll put one here.

 

And who makes the subjective choice that a specific listing is good enough?

[+marcjboudreau]

I'd say two people would be making the subjective choice, the person who hides the cache and the reviewer that approves it.

Really, I don't see this idea as something that would "make or break" a cache, just something that would encourage a little more thought into cache placement, and would that be so bad?

[+markandsandy]

The issue is the same that gets back to virtuals. You're introducing a LOT more subjective terms on what's acceptable within a guideline:

 

"If the reason is that there is a great view from here, it's a place of historical interest, it's in a rarely visited park/place/etc"

 

 

Of course it's subjective, but why is that a bad thing? The reverse of that is the current system where the only over-riding rationale is cache saturation. That's it, no cache close by so I'll put one here.

 

Why is it a bad thing? Do you really think we all would answer the questions that KoosKoos asked in the rest of his post the same way?

 

 

If I think the little park offers a great view, but you think it's a vagrant camp full of trash, who determines the truth?

 

If I think it's historically significant that this park was the first one opened in the city, but is now full of drug abusers, is that a good reason?

 

If I say this place is rarely visited and you point out it's because there was a triple homicide there last year, is it a good reason to have a cache there or not?

 

Of course it's subjective, but why is that a bad thing? The reverse of that is the current system where the only over-riding rationale is cache saturation. That's it, no cache close by so I'll put one here.

 

And who makes the subjective choice that a specific listing is good enough?

 

Not me. A lot of people complain that the guidelines are too vague now. If this was added...

[+KoosKoos]

I'd say two people would be making the subjective choice, the person who hides the cache and the reviewer that approves it.

Really, I don't see this idea as something that would "make or break" a cache, just something that would encourage a little more thought into cache placement, and would that be so bad?

 

I'm all for putting thought into cache placements. I just don't think a box on the submission form is going to do that.

 

Part of the problem is who decides on the list of "good" caches? I may prefer lamppost caches because I'm not very mobile and they're the only way I can participate, so finding one every 528' would be a blessing to me since I can actually find geocaches.

 

Once you had a list of questions from a consensus, who verifies that the answers are accurate? Is my definition of scenic the same as the reviewers? the same as the next 5 finders?

 

And if the item isn't a "make or break" for a cache, then I don't see how it adds anything to the process.

 

edit: fixing a typo

Edited September 12, 2008 by KoosKoos

[+marcjboudreau]

Think of it as an extra note to the reviewer showing that there was at least some thought put into the placement of the cache. Like I've said, I know it's a subjective thing but so what.

[+markandsandy]

I'd say two people would be making the subjective choice, the person who hides the cache and the reviewer that approves it.

Really, I don't see this idea as something that would "make or break" a cache, just something that would encourage a little more thought into cache placement, and would that be so bad?

 

Think of it as an extra note to the reviewer showing that there was at least some thought put into the placement of the cache. Like I've said, I know it's a subjective thing but so what.

 

So it's an extra note - that the hider has to fill out - and the reviewer has to read - that has no impact on the approval of the cache? Did I get that right?

 

Sounds totally useless.

[+Prime Suspect]

The people who put out lame LPCs have already justified it in their minds. Having them write it out won't make any difference.

[knowschad]

The percieved quality of a cache is something that only the finders can judge, and then, only for themselves. And each reviewer would certainly have their own ideas of that makes a quality cache, as well. It'll never happen, and I for one am very glad of that. Although clearly you are expressing only the best of intentions, I think its a bad idea that would actually harm our activity and not improve upon it.

[+marcjboudreau]

"So it's an extra note - that the hider has to fill out - and the reviewer has to read - that has no impact on the approval of the cache? Did I get that right?

 

Sounds totally useless."

 

LOL! Wow, people certainly have some strong feelings against this. Guess I'll just leave it alone, consider my suggestion canned.

[+blb9556]

I completly dissagree with the OP. Enough said

[+deejay44]

Some people do it for the numbers, some do it to get out, some do it for the exercise and some do it for the great places they find. Its a game of deferent aspects and I would not like to spoil the game for anyone.

 

Dave and Jean