What would you change?

[CoyoteRed]

Personally I think the ClayJar system is flawed, especially for urban caches and whatnot.

How is it flawed?

[+wimseyguy]

I'll agree that it tends to overrate caches for our terrain, but a little common sense tells you to reduce it's recommendations by .5* before submitting them. But overall it is a pretty good system and can be viewed as a constant if only it were used more often.

 

I find that newer cachers tend to overrate their hides, but perhaps that is because they haven't seen enough caches to know what true evil cammo lurks out there? :rolleyes:

[+J-Way]

Personally I think the ClayJar system is flawed, especially for urban caches and whatnot.

How is it flawed?

I don't think it's flawed, but it can definitely stand to be cleaned up a bit. I know of several caches rated 5/5 because the owner misused the clayjar system. In some cases "specialized equipment" was required to open the cache (magnet, screwdriver, container to hold water). In other cases "specialized equipment" was required to get to the cache site (usually a boat). In all cases the owner got a 5/5 rating because the rating page isn't clear as to which questions pertain to terrain and which questions pertain to difficulty.

[+J-Way]

Back on topic...

 

Guideline changes

- I'd like to see at least one, maybe two new categories broken out of the current Mystery/Unknown category. Preferably a new Puzzle or ALR category, or both.

 

- I'd like the current "no burying" rule reworded to make it clearer. Specifically, many people think that if the container isn't covered back up (buried) you can dig as big of a hole as you want with as many pointy objects as are necessary.

 

Website changes

- Give cache owners the option to only allow one find per cacher per waypoint ID.

 

- Give every one the option to NOT show find counts adjacent to cache logs.

 

- I currently use itsnotaboutthenumbers.com for stat compilation, and I think it's a great website. However, the owner of that site is busy at a new job and doesn't have time for tweaks and small fixes anymore. I'd love it if Groundspeak would incorporate the INATN stats features into the site, maybe even purchasing the code from INATN. Make it a Premium only feature (just as it is now), and make it optional (default is stats are NOT displayed).

[+TrailGators]

Personally I think the ClayJar system is flawed, especially for urban caches and whatnot.

How is it flawed?

I don't think it's flawed, but it can definitely stand to be cleaned up a bit. I know of several caches rated 5/5 because the owner misused the clayjar system. In some cases "specialized equipment" was required to open the cache (magnet, screwdriver, container to hold water). In other cases "specialized equipment" was required to get to the cache site (usually a boat). In all cases the owner got a 5/5 rating because the rating page isn't clear as to which questions pertain to terrain and which questions pertain to difficulty.

That reminds me of something I would change. I would get rid of the "specialized equipment" terrain rating of 5 and use an attribute for that. The reason is that I would like to know what the terrain rating really is on those caches. I also think that a terrain rating of 5 should be only be used to for the most difficult hikes.

[CoyoteRed]

I also think that a terrain rating of 5 should be only be used to for the most difficult hikes.

Don't forget other modes of travel. Having to brave some white water should be up there, too.

 

Really, "specialized equipment" should be more than 50' of rope, a rubber dingy, or a screwdriver. It should refer to SCUBA, technical climbing gear, one-off tools, etc. It should be something the layperson should either have to spend a fair amount of time building or learning to use.

 

I mean a boat takes less skill than a bicycle, yet it warrants a 5 star rating and a bike isn't even considered. A boat is merely a means of transportation.

 

Additionally, the amount of terrain change should be taken into account. A nice easy stroll then a 20' shimmy up a tree shouldn't rate 4 stars simply because you had to use your hands.

 

In essence, there are 5 stars caches and then there are 5 STAR CACHES. The two are very different.

[+TrailGators]

I also think that a terrain rating of 5 should be only be used to for the most difficult hikes.

Don't forget other modes of travel. Having to brave some white water should be up there, too.

 

Really, "specialized equipment" should be more than 50' of rope, a rubber dingy, or a screwdriver. It should refer to SCUBA, technical climbing gear, one-off tools, etc. It should be something the layperson should either have to spend a fair amount of time building or learning to use.

 

I mean a boat takes less skill than a bicycle, yet it warrants a 5 star rating and a bike isn't even considered. A boat is merely a means of transportation.

 

Additionally, the amount of terrain change should be taken into account. A nice easy stroll then a 20' shimmy up a tree shouldn't rate 4 stars simply because you had to use your hands.

 

In essence, there are 5 stars caches and then there are 5 STAR CACHES. The two are very different.

I agree. 5 star terrains should be the most demanding caches. I could see the most challenging 4x4 trails qualifying too. Edited December 1, 2008 by TrailGators

[+JBnW]

Include DNF counts.

[Clan Riffster]

I would get rid of the "specialized equipment" terrain rating of 5 and use an attribute for that.

I like this idea. When I create a cache page I follow the D/T generator's recommendation. Because several of my caches require specialized equipment, (flashlights/kayaks/etc), they end up with a 5 rating, when, without that qualifier, they'd only rate a 3 or 4.

[+Star*Hopper]

I would get rid of the "specialized equipment" terrain rating of 5 and use an attribute for that.

I like this idea. When I create a cache page I follow the D/T generator's recommendation. Because several of my caches require specialized equipment, (flashlights/kayaks/etc), they end up with a 5 rating, when, without that qualifier, they'd only rate a 3 or 4.

 

^^^^^^^^^

I've thought for some time the whole Terrain/Difficulty 'Application Guide' is in need of some tweaking.

More times than not when I've followed it literally, one of or both ratings it output were near ludicrous for the actual circumstances of the cache. It's good to have....but frankly I consider its product as little more than a suggestion; merely a 'starting point' for final determination.

 

I don't mean this to be derogatory or sound like a condemnation. Perhaps that (suggestive) is what was intended by its creators -- I don't know. I think a more 'applicable' tool would be of particular benefit to the caching community when being utilized by the lesser experienced, or 'newby' cachers....helpful in getting them off on the right foot when it comes to properly rating their hides.

 

~*

[+Star*Hopper]

I know I'll likely catch some heat for this one, but I do wish there was a system for cache hiders to 'forbid' or bar certain geocachers from seeking or logging specific caches of mine....something you could 'file' with new cache submissions or edit in later after publication.

 

And before anyone starts laying that dastardly title of 'Elitist' (or worse) on me -- I have one local individual, an 'FTF' hound as it were, who tends to be very destructive in his methods. I've even had to remove a cache by demand of the property owner, and archive it, for damage he did. I won't here, but believe me I could write a book or at least a lengthy chapter of the problems I've had with him. More than once I've been tempted to quit the whole game because of things he's done....it's that bad!! Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of having to deal with him.

 

OK, kill me.

~*

[+Isonzo Karst]

I wouldn't mind seeing use of a boat as an attribute only, not a terrain rating.

Of course, I live in Florida, where boats are common. ( Indeed, I often look at 4 terrain caches in swamps to see if they're close enough to paddling water to make them "5 terrain" and hence easier. )

 

On the

A nice easy stroll then a 20' shimmy up a tree shouldn't rate 4 stars simply because you had to use your hands.

 

I disagree. If I have to use my hands to climb, that's a 4. At the first event I hosted, I learned that there were cachers in my area unable to find some of my 2 terrain walks in the county preserve, because they could NOT climb a gate (the only access, climbing the gate at the hinge side). I didn't alter the rating to 4, but I did mention the gate climb in the short description. Again, probably because I live in Florida, where there are a lot of geriatric cachers, I'm aware of severely arthritic hands, replaced knees and hips, walking while towing oxygen cylinder. The current ratings work for those people, as well as for those with pre-school children.

[+Wild Thing 73]

Why would "nerds" like us want to get on a public forum like this and spouse what we would like to change about a very excellent, well thought out, extremely easy to use program. This Ground Speak program is abut the best thing that has happened to me in a very long time, and it is just a lot of enjoyment. No don't change a thing, don't even think about changing anything. If changes are needed, then GS will make those changes. There must be a topic somewhere that you can vent you likes and dislikes about Groundspeak. Go there and vent, but leave the changes to GS, I'm sure they have heard your rantings. Or, you could take up an other "hobby" etc.....So Go fishing or somthing.....

[CoyoteRed]

On the

A nice easy stroll then a 20' shimmy up a tree shouldn't rate 4 stars simply because you had to use your hands.

 

I disagree. If I have to use my hands to climb, that's a 4. At the first event I hosted, I learned that there were cachers in my area unable to find some of my 2 terrain walks in the county preserve, because they could NOT climb a gate (the only access, climbing the gate at the hinge side). I didn't alter the rating to 4, but I did mention the gate climb in the short description. Again, probably because I live in Florida, where there are a lot of geriatric cachers, I'm aware of severely arthritic hands, replaced knees and hips, walking while towing oxygen cylinder. The current ratings work for those people, as well as for those with pre-school children.

The ratings are based on the "average" enthusiast. If we used the lowest common denominator then all caches would a lot higher. Don't forget those folks whose IQ is barely above that which they can figure out how to follow the arrow. Just using the GPS is difficult for them. Folks with one leg. Blind. You name it, there are plenty things that will make caching more difficult for some folks than the "average" geocaching enthusiast.

 

Having to use your hands and making the terrain rating a 4 is no different than making it a 5 because of a boat.

[+TrailGators]

On the

A nice easy stroll then a 20' shimmy up a tree shouldn't rate 4 stars simply because you had to use your hands.

 

I disagree. If I have to use my hands to climb, that's a 4. At the first event I hosted, I learned that there were cachers in my area unable to find some of my 2 terrain walks in the county preserve, because they could NOT climb a gate (the only access, climbing the gate at the hinge side). I didn't alter the rating to 4, but I did mention the gate climb in the short description. Again, probably because I live in Florida, where there are a lot of geriatric cachers, I'm aware of severely arthritic hands, replaced knees and hips, walking while towing oxygen cylinder. The current ratings work for those people, as well as for those with pre-school children.

The ratings are based on the "average" enthusiast. If we used the lowest common denominator then all caches would a lot higher. Don't forget those folks whose IQ is barely above that which they can figure out how to follow the arrow. Just using the GPS is difficult for them. Folks with one leg. Blind. You name it, there are plenty things that will make caching more difficult for some folks than the "average" geocaching enthusiast.

 

Having to use your hands and making the terrain rating a 4 is no different than making it a 5 because of a boat.

The funny thing is that the "average" person doesn't do 4 or (true) 5 star terrain caches. So a 3 to a 3.5 star is probably the highest terrain that the average person would do.

 

I agree that there needs to be some better clarification.

[+Star*Hopper]

Why would "nerds" like us want to get on a public forum like this and spouse what we would like to change...

 

Because we can.

And Groundspeak lets us.

 

What I can't fathom is the mentality of someone who, having nothing constructive to add to a conversation amongst others who do, tries to stop it. Even less so, why he's even bothered to read a subject he has no interest in in the first place.

 

Even moreso, you seem to do these things quite a lot.

 

(& JFTR, it's 'espouse'.)

 

~*

[Clan Riffster]

Why would "nerds" like us want to get on a public forum like this and spouse what we would like to change

Because the OP asked us to? Wasn't that the whole point of this thread? Did I miss something?

 

If changes are needed, then GS will make those changes.

Naturally. It's their sandbox. They own the playground. We are mere customers.

However, if you looked carefully, you might notice that most succesful companies listen to their customers.

Maybe that's what the OP was hoping for when they started this thread?

 

There must be a topic somewhere that you can vent you likes and dislikes about Groundspeak.

You mean like a forum thread, asking what changes you'd like to see?

 

I'm sure they have heard your rantings.

Has anyone been ranting?

(other than you?)

It sure seems like a civil conversation so far.

[+wimseyguy]

Why would "nerds" like us want to get on a public forum like this and spouse what we would like to change...

 

Because we can.

And Groundspeak lets us.

 

What I can't fathom is the mentality of someone who, having nothing constructive to add to a conversation amongst others who do, tries to stop it. Even less so, why he's even bothered to read a subject he has no interest in in the first place.

 

Even moreso, you seem to do these things quite a lot.

 

(& JFTR, it's 'espouse'.)

 

~*

Nah, he got it right-his wife tells him what to type.

 

Back OT, I like the terrain setting for the hydrocaches. We now have close to 100 around here. I like being able to exclude them from my PQ's easily. I don't trust them to all have the proper attribute set.

Edited December 2, 2008 by wimseyguy

[+Waldo_Mudd]

Too much to read it all, so maybe this has already been covered... Some people have stated a multi is not worth the effort, and alot of numbers guys don't find them. Then make them worth more. In Arizona they have a site that tracks finds and assigns point values based on the number of finds on a particular cache. Here's how it works. For each year a cache is available it is worth 100 pts, now divide the number of finds it has and you have its caching value. A cache that's been around for a year and a half is worth 150 pts and if 14 people have found it, then it's worth 10.7 points for each of those 14 people. A max of 100 points for a single cache, but let's face it, almost all caches get found more than once a year. I've figured out my point values using this method for all my caches. My highest stateside cache is GCTK0Q worth 30.86 as of today and my highest cache value overall is GCK0F9 worth 36.48 in South Korea. The Stateside cache took quite a hike to the top of the Franklin Mountains in El Paso. By contrast, the highest point in El Paso, GCQKX5

, which is hiked quite regularily is worth only 16.04, so even though the hike is higher and longer, it is less because it's been visited more frequently. Now these numbers are constantly changing and an old cache is always worth more than a brand new cache, but I like the system. I just wish GC.com could make it easy for me and do all the math automatically.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Waldo_Mudd

[CoyoteRed]

...so even though the hike is higher and longer, it is less because it's been visited more frequently.

This is the primary flaw in the "frequency over time" scheme of rating difficulty. The best caches are lower than so-so caches simply because they are more popular. If you are really into the game aspect then you are actually discouraged to place and find the best cache. The really winners of the scheme of the very inconvenient caches. Being inconvenienced isn't the reason I'm into this hobby.

[+J-Way]

Too much to read it all, so maybe this has already been covered... Some people have stated a multi is not worth the effort, and alot of numbers guys don't find them. Then make them worth more. In Arizona they have a site that tracks finds and assigns point values based on the number of finds on a particular cache. Here's how it works. For each year a cache is available it is worth 100 pts, now divide the number of finds it has and you have its caching value. A cache that's been around for a year and a half is worth 150 pts and if 14 people have found it, then it's worth 10.7 points for each of those 14 people. A max of 100 points for a single cache, but let's face it, almost all caches get found more than once a year. I've figured out my point values using this method for all my caches. My highest stateside cache is GCTK0Q worth 30.86 as of today and my highest cache value overall is GCK0F9 worth 36.48 in South Korea. The Stateside cache took quite a hike to the top of the Franklin Mountains in El Paso. By contrast, the highest point in El Paso, GCQKX5

, which is hiked quite regularily is worth only 16.04, so even though the hike is higher and longer, it is less because it's been visited more frequently. Now these numbers are constantly changing and an old cache is always worth more than a brand new cache, but I like the system. I just wish GC.com could make it easy for me and do all the math automatically.

This sounds dangerously similar to the defunct Skydiver Geocaching Point System (of the northwestern USA), which was outlawed by Groundspeak many years ago. This spawned a competing website (www.terracaching.com), attacks by lawyers, banning of members, and much angst and gnashing of teeth.

 

Personally, I like the idea, because it gives more points to people who like to go for interesting and "hard" caches. Theoretically, a day spent on a 10-mile hike for one rarely found cache could be worth as much as a day spent racing around town peeking under lamp post skirts. But it'll never be applied officially on this site because too many very vocal people like the current system of park-n-grabs for points. If my 500-ish finds (including several caches that are rarely found) are suddenly worth more than their 3000 park-n-grabs, then the whinyness would reach a level never before seen in the world of caching.

 

[Edit to say I agree with CR in the above post. I still like the concept, but it will never be truely "fair". Point values are affected by more than just difficulty; a 10-mile hike with an awesome view within a short drive of a large urban area with lots of cachers will be worth less than a 1-mile hike through a smelly swamp a 6-hour drive away from the same city. It's also easy to cheat this system by placing several impossible caches (or by listing ones that really aren't there), allowing a friend to "find" them, then just let it sit there wracking up points. Your friend does the same thing for you.

 

Also, Teams suddenly have much more affect. A Team of three cachers logging a single "Find" has a different affect on points than if the same three people log three independent finds.]

Edited December 3, 2008 by J-Way

[+wimseyguy]

The points and scores and numbers only have value if you give it to them. I find value in having FUN while I am out caching. I can have FUN in any number of ways, and when looking for a specific cache ceases to be FUN I move onto another search.

 

I wouldn't want a scoring system based on someone else's definitions of fun to influence which caches people search for just to get a higher score. I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of 'favorites' award system that pointed out the highlight caches in an area though.

[+Star*Hopper]

Most people dislike or refuse to accept the logic that says "No matter the size of the cue, somebody will have to be last".....especially when they're the one on the end. I didn't for a good while think much of any kind of rating system for caches, but once intruduced to the concept, realized it would be extremely difficult to come up with a comprehensive & equitable system. In the realization of that, I don't care WHAT was created, it'd truly PO a whole slew of cachers.

 

Now I've had a sort've change of heart, and wish there was some way to do it - AND that it'd be instituted by Groundspeak. Even if it means some will just have to bite the bullet.

 

One thing I've wondered however....if such a system were started, how it might 'lower the bar' on, and lead to many ignoring the more plain-Jane Micros & Nanos & such. Or at least, curtailing (to what degree?) their 'Found' rates.

 

And conversely, how it might make the creation of high-quality caches become more of a competitive, hence sought after, 'way of things' for geocaching. Methinks it'd really up the ante!

 

 

\ (& please nobody say "I've upped my ante; up yours!")

~*

[+izce.nine]

How about actually enforcing the no military bases rule for Iraq and Afghanistan?

[+tozainamboku]

Cache owners would not be able to delete 'Found It' logs (or any other type of log). Instead cache owners would have a new option to hide the log. This will cause the log to be hidden on the display of the cache page, and in most pocket queries. The log owner can still see his log from the link on his My Account page and the cache will still be in his list of found caches (assuming this was a Found It log). The log would also be in the All My Finds PQ of the log owner. The cache owner could unhide a hidden log assuming the logger made any requested changes.

 

ALR caches will simply become log will be hidden if you don't meet the ALR. So people who don't like ALR caches could still find them they just can't publicly log them.

 

In addition there should be a new option available to anyone who finds a log that violates guidelines to be stated by Geocaching.com, for example: offfensive language or commercial content, but could also include obvious bogus logging; to report a log. A reviewer could then take action to edit/hide/delete the log and to report the offender to Groundspeak. Repeat offenders accounts would be banned. People who abuse the report log capability would be subject to similar sanctions. A cache owner could both report a log and hide it.

[+ventura_kids]

There should be a LTF log that activates upon the Archiving of a cache.

If you are the Last To Find a cache, it should show up on your statistics.

I know a cacher that has been Last To Find many, many caches.

[+ventura_kids]

There should be a Cheater log.

If you cheat and log a find even though you only drove by the area, you should be credited with a Cheater log.

Some cachers I know would already have hundreds of these logs.

 

Perhaps if you know someone has cheated, you can post a cheater log by quoting the previous log on the cache page.

[+TrailGators]

There should be a LTF log that activates upon the Archiving of a cache.

If you are the Last To Find a cache, it should show up on your statistics.

I know a cacher that has been Last To Find many, many caches.

What is their caching name? Kiss_of_Death?

[+C&C+COMPANY]

bring back the grandfathered locationless caches

[+Star*Hopper]

There should be a LTF log that activates upon the Archiving of a cache.

If you are the Last To Find a cache, it should show up on your statistics.

I know a cacher that has been Last To Find many, many caches.

 

Afraid I'd have to disagree, part & parcel, with that'n.

What useful purpose would it serve? As in, who'd want that statistic by their name, & why?

Exceptin' if it's all tongue-in-cheek....the "inner message" for that k-o-d person. Then - *snicker*

~*