Finding more interesting caches

[+ar_kayaker]

Anybody know enough computer programing and/or GSAK macro editing to be able to sort PQ data and determine the average length of the log entries?

 

I know for a fact I write longer logs for caches I like where all I write for a PNG is one sentence, sometime less.

 

I'm thinking that if you could sort the data in a PQ or GSAK database so that the caches with the longest average log entries were sorted to the top you'd have a good chance of getting a list of the more interesting caches to visit.

 

AK

[jholly]

Anybody know enough computer programing and/or GSAK macro editing to be able to sort PQ data and determine the average length of the log entries?

 

I know for a fact I write longer logs for caches I like where all I write for a PNG is one sentence, sometime less.

 

I'm thinking that if you could sort the data in a PQ or GSAK database so that the caches with the longest average log entries were sorted to the top you'd have a good chance of getting a list of the more interesting caches to visit.

 

AK

 

I'm not sure that is a really good system. First off what is an interesting cache? And will average cache log really indicate that a give cache is within your interesting cache parameters? You write longer logs, but do others? Then you would have the problem of getting all the logs into GSAK to do the analysis. PQ's only give you five. Is that enough? Other macros can give you more, but they either take time to run or are a one at a time thing. But why write a new macro? Try this one, it might be just what your looking for. It would be interesting to see how you made out.

 

Jim

[+nekom]

Some people have bookmark lists of favorites, or of particular kinds of caches. For instance, I have one listing all caches that I know of that are near my favorite historic railroad.

 

So find a cache you really liked, see if it's on any bookmark or favorites lists, then look into other caches on that list.

[+DanOCan]

Anybody know enough computer programing and/or GSAK macro editing to be able to sort PQ data and determine the average length of the log entries?

 

Yep, Clyde does and jholly gives the link in Post #2.

 

It actually works better than I thought it would. If you continually update the same GSAK database without clearing it between loads you can get a fair number of logs to provide a better analysis and it certainly seems the caches which provide a more interesting experience rise to the top -- sometimes that's a good experience and sometimes it's bad.

[+The Leprechauns]

One of my favorite methods for finding interesting caches is to preview my pocket query results and then click the link at the top of the results page to see the image gallery for all the caches in my pocket query. When I see a nice picture of a scenic overlook or of people hiking up a hill in a pine forest, I investigate that cache. I put the good ones on a "to-do" bookmark list.

 

If the pocket query image gallery is ever "Cool Iris" enabled, this process will be even more fun and fast.

[CoyoteRed]

I use a custom macro that provides the length of the median find log, the average length of find log, min and max length of find log, and average number of days between finds. I've been keeping a running database since PQs started. For me, the median find log length is a very good indicator of whether I will like the cache.

 

While not as accurate because of the fewer samples, you can do this with only the 5 logs you're allowed from Groundspeak. Larger find logs tend to be written on more memorable caches. Exceptions include liar's caches and folks who tend to copy and paste. These are few enough to not make this technique useless.

 

The frequency of being found is useful, too. This an additional indicator to the difficulty and terrain of how convenient the cache is to find. While it might not exactly convenient for you to travel to the area, but once in the area the cache should be a cinch to find if the average number of days between finds is relatively low. Conversely, the other end of the scale tells you something, too!

 

Something I've been rolling around in my head is a macro that would directly rate the cache compared to caches in the area. Something like the average length of all find logs written on all caches within a 50 mile radius compared to the median length of find log of the target/center cache would provide a number above or below zero. An average cache would be around zero. Caches with very short logs would in the negatives and memorable caches would be in the positives. This would answer the problem of determining an "average cache." From what I can figure simply by looking at the figure of the macro I now run is, for my area, the average is around 25-28 words. You get into the 50+ and it's a pretty decent cache. 10 words or less, skip it. (...unless you simply want the smilie.)

[+ar_kayaker]

I'm thinking that if you could sort the data in a PQ or GSAK database so that the caches with the longest average log entries were sorted to the top you'd have a good chance of getting a list of the more interesting caches to visit.

 

I'm not sure that is a really good system. First off what is an interesting cache? And will average cache log really indicate that a give cache is within your interesting cache parameters? You write longer logs, but do others?

 

It may not be a perfect system, but it's better than a sharp stick in the eye. Like you say, some people are going to write one sentence logs for every cache they find no matter what, but then those are more likely the people who have 10,000 PNG finds which means I'd sort those right to the bottom of the list.

 

As somebody else has already mentioned it may be a little flaky at first with only 5 logs per PQ, but I have an "All active caches" database for my state that included a few dozen PQ's of the same area over time. By using an average, especially once the database builds up to 50 or 60 logs per cache, it will bring the most likely cadidates to the top. The I only have to actually read the top few hundred, not the full 5000+, especially when coupled with other filters to weed out terrain 1/difficulty 1 micros from the start.

 

AK

[+BigFurryMonster]

Come and cache here in NL. We have a nice rating system over here.

[+ar_kayaker]

There are ways to add a "rating" to your cache here too, but it's voluntary and not a searchable flag. Or if it is searchable, it is only searchable on whatever linked website hosts the rating system. Not many cache pages use it and certainly not the PNG's. Would anyone really place a PNG cache then hope for a good rating?

Edited October 19, 2008 by ar_kayaker

[+Rev Mike]

I have a way but it is not a good one.

 

I look through all of the caches around where I am going to be, read all the listings, look at a few of the pictures, and look for "favorites list" bookmarks.

 

Very time-consuming but I find better caches in the end.

 

- Rev Mike

Edited October 19, 2008 by Rev Mike

[+ar_kayaker]

I have a way but it is not a good one.

 

I look through all of the caches around where I am going to be, read all the listings, look at a few of the pictures, and look for "favorites list" bookmarks.

 

Very time-consuming but I find better caches in the end.

 

- Rev Mike

 

That is the procedure i've used in the past and I'm trying to avoid, or at least shorten some.

[+ar_kayaker]

This macro seems to be doing a fair job. I had 4 sets of PQ's of every active cache in Arkansas dating back to March so I had a fair number of logs to start with, though obviously older, more frequently visited caches had more logs than newer, seldom sought ones.

 

At a glance I saw several caches among the top few dozen that I have since been to (I didn't import my found caches at first) and knew to be interesting ones, so in that regard the process has at least some merit. Coupled with some filters it will certainly make the manual sorting process shorter.

 

However, using it got me to wondering. If this can be done to sort out logs by length, could another macro also be developed to search for specific keyword(s) in the logs?

 

Could you create a macro to sort out a list of caches that contain the words "view" "vista" "hike" and "beautiful" while automatically ignoring caches with word like "skirt-lifter" and "LPC"?

 

AK

[+TrailGators]

This macro seems to be doing a fair job. I had 4 sets of PQ's of every active cache in Arkansas dating back to March so I had a fair number of logs to start with, though obviously older, more frequently visited caches had more logs than newer, seldom sought ones.

 

At a glance I saw several caches among the top few dozen that I have since been to (I didn't import my found caches at first) and knew to be interesting ones, so in that regard the process has at least some merit. Coupled with some filters it will certainly make the manual sorting process shorter.

 

However, using it got me to wondering. If this can be done to sort out logs by length, could another macro also be developed to search for specific keyword(s) in the logs?

 

Could you create a macro to sort out a list of caches that contain the words "view" "vista" "hike" and "beautiful" while automatically ignoring caches with word like "skirt-lifter" and "LPC"?

 

AK

Wouldn't that be nice. One suggestion I would have (being in the same boat as you are) is to find only regular sized caches. Doing so eliminates all the LPCs, guardrails, etc. I checked and I have 500 regulars within 23 miles of my home. When I started caching most caches were regulars and there were not 500 that close to my home.

[+fizzymagic]

When I see a nice picture of a scenic overlook or of people hiking up a hill in a pine forest, I investigate that cache. I put the good ones on a "to-do" bookmark list.

I do much the same thing. Seems like the best caches have longer photo galleries.

 

The only problem with this method is that the bookmarks feature of the site is so bad; it's a real pain to remove the bookmark after you've found the cache.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I think both length of log and the photo gallery are a good idea. I do use Favorites lists.

 

Lep's notion of a special "Favorites" list, PQable (cache appears on 2+ "Favorites"* lists) appeals to me - or perhaps a score = average length of log.

Both would be cool...... If there were a site supported PQable rating system I might expand into some suburban/urban caching, though I doubt I'd make much of a drive for those - but I might grab some that were near enough my path.

 

Ditto that on getting the buggy buggy bookmarked list feature fixed. I was hoping, when Nate spoke to your post about loading all bookmarks on a single page, that something would happen there. I'm still hopeful. I found a cache to add to my favorites list yesterday, and realized that I should edit the archived caches off (or alternately add Z to the title to drop them to the bottom) but what pain to do it.....

 

 

My caching tendencies having narrowed to pretty much hiking or 'yaking caches. Finding the 'yak caches is pretty easy, here, as mostly terrain 5 = boat.

 

*I mention 2+ Favorites lists because I notice a tendency for caches to end up on the Favorites list of the FTF, if the cache is any more than a "one for the smiley". There's a tedious multi near me (count the railings, take this number off this power pole - that the FTF has marked Favorite; we quit on it; and many say delightful things, like, "glad to get this on off the nearest list" heckuva endorsement ;-| ).

[Clan Riffster]

You write longer logs, but do others?

It's been my experience that a vast majority of folks write longer logs (than usual) when they've experienced a cache that meets my own biased preferences. By comparing their logs on a "great" cache, (as determined by my own biased preferences), with their logs on a "Ho-Hum" cache, I see a huge increase in log size. True, that difference may be as slight as going from a dozen "TNLNSL" logs to one "Thanks for the cache!" 6 characters vs. 21 characters is a significant increase. Ergo, I think the macro would work well as an indicator. Perhaps it's not gonna be perfect, but I bet it'll get him going in the right direction.

 

Disclaimer: Regardless of how great a cache is, there will always be a few who are unwilling or unable to type anything more than "TNLNSL".

[J.A.R.S.]

Has there been any discussion on the boards about an anonymous ranking system where the top 15% of caches get a marker signifying that it has been ranked as most popular by cachers? Atlas Quest has a 'blue diamond' system that uses a variety of factors to determine rankings such as your voting history, experience level, and even the standard deviation of how people vote on a given box: http://www.atlasquest.com/help/bluediamond.html

[Mushtang]

Has there been any discussion on the boards about an anonymous ranking system where the top 15% of caches get a marker signifying that it has been ranked as most popular by cachers? Atlas Quest has a 'blue diamond' system that uses a variety of factors to determine rankings such as your voting history, experience level, and even the standard deviation of how people vote on a given box: http://www.atlasquest.com/help/bluediamond.html

There's been about a godzillion discussions about ranking systems, so I'd guess that at least a brazilian of them have discussed the top 15% getting a marker.

 

The folks in charge have said they're going to have some way of giving awards to caches that you like on the next version of the geocaching website (released after Tuesday), so hopefully this will let folks filter out caches that have won lots of awards.

[+Juicepig]

log length generally tells you how much fun they had, there are a few macros out there for that.

[+michigansnorkelers]

One of my favorite methods for finding interesting caches is to preview my pocket query results and then click the link at the top of the results page to see the image gallery for all the caches in my pocket query. When I see a nice picture of a scenic overlook or of people hiking up a hill in a pine forest, I investigate that cache. I put the good ones on a "to-do" bookmark list.

 

If the pocket query image gallery is ever "Cool Iris" enabled, this process will be even more fun and fast.

 

WOW! I'VE BEEN GEOCACHING FOR TWO YEARS AND NEVER KNEW ABOUT THIS!!!

 

I just looked up the gallery for one of my Pocket Queries and have come up with some MUST FIND caches. And you guys were keeping this all to yourselves, weren't you!

[+Buggheart]

One of my favorite methods for finding interesting caches is to preview my pocket query results and then click the link at the top of the results page to see the image gallery for all the caches in my pocket query. When I see a nice picture of a scenic overlook or of people hiking up a hill in a pine forest, I investigate that cache. I put the good ones on a "to-do" bookmark list.

 

If the pocket query image gallery is ever "Cool Iris" enabled, this process will be even more fun and fast.

 

WOW! I'VE BEEN GEOCACHING FOR TWO YEARS AND NEVER KNEW ABOUT THIS!!!

 

I just looked up the gallery for one of my Pocket Queries and have come up with some MUST FIND caches. And you guys were keeping this all to yourselves, weren't you!

 

I didn't know about that either so thanks for the tip. I guess I better start using PQs.