Jump to content

Extra-credits for hiders


RuideAlmeida
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

(snip) As a matter of fact, as an ignorer of hundreds of local parking lot/street corner caches, I myself pretty much never look for anything I'd consider worse than average. And of course most of my own cache hides are just average as well. :D

 

Urkman, you will like what I have planned for this summer! I need to get some more finds in before hiding - but I have some neat plans in the works. Question - is hiding caches via a private website unethical or a violation of my geocaching.com tos?

Link to comment
Question - is hiding caches via a private website unethical or a violation of my geocaching.com tos?

From the guidelines...

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

"a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable"

 

"Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website."

 

"In the interest of file security, caches that require the downloading, installing or running of data and/or executables may not be published."

Link to comment

As someone who has only been at this for a few months, I have hidden about 10 caches. I've tried to make them interesting magnetics that mimic their surroundings. Old hands seem to find them easily, but others seem to have the same blindness to them that I had when I first encountered them. That is fun. I love the DNF reports as much as the find reports. Sometimes, even more.

 

Because I spend money at Home Depot and Lowes, and then spend my time meticulously glueing and constructing them. Then I spend time studying the area I plan to use for the hide so that I can go to Lowes or Home Depot and find that exact shade of "power transformer powder-coat blue" Rustoleum to match the terrain. Then I spend time planning the position of exactly where it should be placed, usually choosing a location that is both visible and protected from the elements. It is a time-consuming process and I love it...

 

...until...

 

I drive by my cache and find that some jerkwad cacher has basically thrown it back at the hide location so that it hangs at a 37.5 degree angle in a straight-line hide, making it scream out "Hey, look at me! I don't belong here! I must be a cache!!!"

 

And then my admonishments to "place the cache back exactly as you found it" go out the window, because "exactly as I found it" was messed up.

 

Then, I start getting the logs: "Easy park and grab..." "Fast drive-by. Decent camo". Or, the worst of them...

 

"TFTC".

 

And that brings me to the real reason I'm here...

 

TFTC shows ZERO respect for the efforts I've made. I'd love to delete every damned one of them from the logs. If you don't care about the efforts I've taken to try to make this fun for you, I don't care about your freakin' numbers.

 

I'm literally just another notch on your bedpost. TFTC cheapens both of us, and I know we are better than that.

 

The money's on the nightstand.

 

Mac Hammer

Link to comment
Question - is hiding caches via a private website unethical or a violation of my geocaching.com tos?

From the guidelines...

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

"a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable"

 

"Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website."

 

"In the interest of file security, caches that require the downloading, installing or running of data and/or executables may not be published."

 

I meant publishing them outside of gc.com. Kinda like invite only caches (for a real sensitive area).

Link to comment

Yes Mac Hammer it can be hard when you make some cammo that has to be in a certain spot for the effect. When it gets moved it ruins the whole cache.

 

I noticed that people will sometimes move it if they feel it may be unsafe in the location you chose or if the magnets have come off. I am sure that your efforts are enjoyed by the quality cachers that find your caches.

Link to comment

While I think everything is fine the way it is.....

 

I think the OP had the best intentions when suggesting the idea and people should certainly be encouraged to posting what they thing would be good ideas. After all, even if it is not an idea that is used, they feel what they are suggesting would benefit the game. Nothing wrong with that! Thank you for sharing your idea!

Link to comment
Question - is hiding caches via a private website unethical or a violation of my geocaching.com tos?

I meant publishing them outside of gc.com. Kinda like invite only caches (for a real sensitive area).

Oh, in that case, there are many cachers that hide caches not listed on gc.com. It's just not a "geocache" as far as this site is concerned. There are no agreement violations if it's not involved with the site.

 

Back on topic... I would certainly use a rating system if it were implemented. In the meantime, I'll do what Kit Fox recommended.

Link to comment

I think with yesterdays updates there is hope for a rating system yet. I'd like to see something like the five stars that have popped up in our profiles where we rate our GPSr make and model. Seems GS has the system in place now.

 

A Rating system is very subjective. A couple of my thoughts are that a Cache rated 5 Stars today may be a 2 Star tomorrow because some Lazy Cacher did not trade even or up, and the quality of the hide can be trashed by it not being put back right. Jusy a couple of my thoughts why I don't promote a Rating system.

 

BrrrMo

 

There have been a couple of threads where cachers are looking for ways to "bulk log" their finds. And many cachers enter innocuous comments like "Nice hide. TFTC".

 

I would be really concerned that people like that would just click on the "1" or whatever.

 

Not to mention someone decides they don't like you and give you a poor rating on a good cache.

 

Lots of potholes to hit with a rating system.

 

I doubt you will see it occur.

 

If it was an averaging rating system and the cache was found often enough the "oners" and "fivers" would weigh each other out in the long run. I think it can work, will it be perfect? Probably not but it might help me prioritize my order of hunting on a day long trip. I am one of those "I like em all" guys, so I don't exclude something because it may be "lame", but if I knew ahead of time an approximation of what others thought of the caches I could fine tune my fun as I saw fit. I think it would be great if done correctly.

Link to comment

As someone who has only been at this for a few months, I have hidden about 10 caches. I've tried to make them interesting magnetics that mimic their surroundings. Old hands seem to find them easily, but others seem to have the same blindness to them that I had when I first encountered them. That is fun. I love the DNF reports as much as the find reports. Sometimes, even more.

 

Because I spend money at Home Depot and Lowes, and then spend my time meticulously glueing and constructing them. Then I spend time studying the area I plan to use for the hide so that I can go to Lowes or Home Depot and find that exact shade of "power transformer powder-coat blue" Rustoleum to match the terrain. Then I spend time planning the position of exactly where it should be placed, usually choosing a location that is both visible and protected from the elements. It is a time-consuming process and I love it...

 

...until...

 

I drive by my cache and find that some jerkwad cacher has basically thrown it back at the hide location so that it hangs at a 37.5 degree angle in a straight-line hide, making it scream out "Hey, look at me! I don't belong here! I must be a cache!!!"

 

And then my admonishments to "place the cache back exactly as you found it" go out the window, because "exactly as I found it" was messed up.

 

Then, I start getting the logs: "Easy park and grab..." "Fast drive-by. Decent camo". Or, the worst of them...

 

"TFTC".

 

And that brings me to the real reason I'm here...

 

TFTC shows ZERO respect for the efforts I've made. I'd love to delete every damned one of them from the logs. If you don't care about the efforts I've taken to try to make this fun for you, I don't care about your freakin' numbers.

 

I'm literally just another notch on your bedpost. TFTC cheapens both of us, and I know we are better than that.

 

The money's on the nightstand.

 

Mac Hammer

 

OMG this is the funniest, but truthiest, post in this whole thread. I agree with you on all counts. I too consider myself somewhat of a crazy cache inventor, and the one word logs and acronyms drive me nuts. I try and always find something nice to say about every cache I find. I found 32 caches last Saturday, every one of them has a unique log describing something about that cache and my hunt for it.

Link to comment

The only method to give hiders extra credit for great caches,

 

* Write nice found it logs

 

* Take many pictures to post to the cache page

 

* Add the cache to your public bookmark of favorite finds.

 

Exactly. Folks who hide good caches get lots of these warm fuzzies. I'd add that they also end up being minor celebrities at the events/CITOs they attend.

Link to comment
I found 32 caches last Saturday, every one of them has a unique log describing something about that cache and my hunt for it.

 

ZSandmann;

 

Not flaming, but how in the world can you find 32 in one day?

 

BrrrMo

 

One after the next :D Seriously though, it's not difficult if you live near any larger metropolitan area. Baton Rouge, LA in my case. There are hundreds of caches there. I have a PQ of 500 unfound caches loaded in my GPS, and the full cache pages stored in my iPod. I load them into my Garmin Nuvi to navigate there and off we go.

Link to comment
I found 32 caches last Saturday, every one of them has a unique log describing something about that cache and my hunt for it.

 

ZSandmann;

 

Not flaming, but how in the world can you find 32 in one day?

 

BrrrMo

 

One after the next :D Seriously though, it's not difficult if you live near any larger metropolitan area. Baton Rouge, LA in my case. There are hundreds of caches there. I have a PQ of 500 unfound caches loaded in my GPS, and the full cache pages stored in my iPod. I load them into my Garmin Nuvi to navigate there and off we go.

 

:blink: Thats the way I find them to, hadn't thought about it that way. If I search by Zip Code for my area there are only 55 total in approx. a 25 mile circle from my location.

Link to comment

If you want a rating system you have to really decide first what your goal is. In the past, most suggestions have focused on how to help finders select caches they would enjoy more and avoid caches they may not as enjoy as much. Of course several people have stated that they believe a rating system would have the effect of creating a competition among cache owners that may result in an improvement of caches. There is a basic assumption that one could improve their cache hides just by spending a little more effort on cache hides. There is no doubt that the really exceptionally hides are ones where the person spent time in selecting the area of the hide, creating the cache container, and writing a cache page and these elements coalesce around a theme. On the other hand someone who just tossed a film canister under a lightpole skirt or leaves Gladware in a bush and writes a cache page that says only "Another quick P&G to pad your numbers", is not likely to be on your list of the most exciting caches. A competition for rewards for the best hides is not likely to influence the people who are hiding the quick P&Gs in any location. It may get the few people who are already putting out excellent caches to try to outdo one another until every cache requires you solve a difficult puzzle that leads you on a 5 star terrain hike to some spectacular site where you find a camouflaged oversized cache stocked with geocoins and six Jeep travel bugs. But I suspect the people who hide these caches do it for the reward of

 

* Nice found it logs

 

* Many pictures posted to the cache page

 

* The cache on many public bookmark lists of favorite finds.

 

The point is that not many people will find these caches. Those that do will tend to save them for some milestone or other special event. Many people are into numbers - whether or not you like it. And even if they are not into numbers, they still prefer easy finds and P&G caches to something that says "A Geocaching Adventure" on the page. And many cache hiders are more than happy to cater to these people by hiding caches that are cheap and easy to hide.

 

People who propose a rating system as way of encouraging "better" caches are going to be disappointed. They are not going to see much difference in the numbers of caches because they will still be a demand for the easy so-called "lame" P&G caches and there will always be a supply of them. On the other hand there could be some ways to help filter caches to find ones that are more likely to be special. You could start with Kit Fox's list: Perhaps a way to filter caches with longer average logs or with logs that contain certain keywords. Perhaps a way to filter caches with lots of pictures in their gallery. Perhaps a way to filter caches that appear on multiple geocachers' favorite lists.

Link to comment

i wouldn't mind an amazon-style rating system, but i have to stamp my feet and hold the line against any rating system that people could use to keep score.

Let them keep score. Who cares? With your self admitted indifference to how others play, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

I still think there is no need for a rating or reward for placing caches.

Link to comment

The only method to give hiders extra credit for great caches,

 

* Write nice found it logs

 

* Take many pictures to post to the cache page

 

* Add the cache to your public bookmark of favorite finds.

As already quoted...exactly. And, if I may add, this would create the rating system that seems to be requested. If somone is looking for a bunch of PnGs for a numbers run, read the logs. If someone is looking for a good hike to a scenic destination, read the logs. Doesn't seem that much different than cruising cache pages looking at a rating system.

 

The only return on the investment of placing a cache that I look for is good logs and pics. (Although I will still probably chuckle at a complaint from a "numbers chaser" who had to go "way out there" for a single smiley.) :D

Link to comment

 

OMG this is the funniest, but truthiest, post in this whole thread. I agree with you on all counts. I too consider myself somewhat of a crazy cache inventor, and the one word logs and acronyms drive me nuts. I try and always find something nice to say about every cache I find. I found 32 caches last Saturday, every one of them has a unique log describing something about that cache and my hunt for it.

 

Thank you ZSandmann!

 

32 is a great day. So far, 9 has been my best afternoon. This statement is completely un-scientific, but I would bet that those of us who spend our time and money trying to create good hides, also spend more time and effort in providing feedback to those we find. I always try to add something to the experience by posting a good log. The hard (and fun) part is discussing the hide with the owner, in the open, in front of others, without sharing a tidbit of useful information that betrays the hide.

 

And to comment on the original posting of the thread, I do get a little bit upset by the cachers who have 8000 finds, but have hidden 10 caches. Yes, they might give back to the sport in other ways, but most of the time, their logs seem to be auto-uploads where they add a stock sentence for today's efforts and post the same bit of drivel to the 42 caches they found today. This is particularly noticeable from those that have a stock statement that they post to EVERY cache, no matter the day, no matter the experience.

 

I figure that someone thought enough of me to take the time to put something here for my pure enjoyment, I ought to at least say thank you in a way that makes it seem personal and true. If you only own one cache, you'd probably never know. But own 3 or 4 in the same region, and you will receive 4 identical postings within a matter of minutes when they run their GSAK Macro (don't get me wrong. I love GSAK) and their posts all land in my in-box.

 

I just go to my in-box (dresser) and retrieve my feedback (money).

 

See you next time, John.

 

Mac Hammer

Edited by MacHammer
Link to comment

If somone is looking for a bunch of PnGs for a numbers run, read the logs. If someone is looking for a good hike to a scenic destination, read the logs. Doesn't seem that much different than cruising cache pages looking at a rating system.

 

You are right, but they are too many... it is humanly impossible to read (properly) all the logs posted every day here in Portugal... I cant imagine in other huge geocaching areas, such as Germany or USA.

 

I figure that a rating-Amazon-like-system would help us filter the truly good from the very bad.

 

______________________________

 

Our daily best was 44 founds and 3 DNF's in a fantastic adventure with six more geocachers that we called "86400 seconds tour"(yes, 24 hours non-stop-caching... what a dream)... all carefully choosed in an itinerary that covered around 300km.

 

I think that everybody should try

 

PS: Last but not the least... it was my birthday, last September :D

Edited by ruidealmeida
Link to comment

i wouldn't mind an amazon-style rating system, but i have to stamp my feet and hold the line against any rating system that people could use to keep score.

Let them keep score. Who cares? With your self admitted indifference to how others play, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

I still think there is no need for a rating or reward for placing caches.

 

my indifference to how other people play stops at exactly the point at which other people attempt to be in competition with me.

 

that other people insist on seeing find counts as some sort of score leads, i believe, to greater numbers of sloppy logs by number whores who can't be bothered to take the time.

 

when other people started to use the hide count as some kind of score, trashy little hides went through the roof in a big fat hurry.

 

 

using ratings for some kind of scoring practice will only end in tears, i tell you. i can see a vast majority of parking lot enthusiasts giving high scores to every cache they drive up to and log in under a minute, ans more hiders will want to emulate these traches because they want to get better scores.

 

it's like collecting "friends" on facebook.

Link to comment

If somone is looking for a bunch of PnGs for a numbers run, read the logs. If someone is looking for a good hike to a scenic destination, read the logs. Doesn't seem that much different than cruising cache pages looking at a rating system.

 

You are right, but they are too many... it is humanly impossible to read (properly)...snip

 

OK, I'll give you that, and agree. However, what I see this coming out as is a line on each cache page saying something like:

 

"People who found this cache gave it 4 :D 's out of 5. They also liked these...".

 

But we're all left to wonder what that means. Was it the 10 people who found that LPC during the last week, or the 3 people who found a cache way back in the sticks in the last 3 months?? And then one would go check the others as well to see if they still fit the search criteria. I just don't see how a rating system can be implemented that would make selecting which cache to chase any easier. Maybe I don't see that well, but Amazon never helped me select what I prefer. On the contrary, what I see is something that gives more information to digest, making that process even more involved and time consuming. And probably misleading...

 

Our daily best was 44 founds and 3 DNF's in a fantastic adventure with six more geocachers that we called "86400 seconds tour"(yes, 24 hours non-stop-caching... what a dream)... all carefully choosed in an itinerary that covered around 300km.

 

I think that everybody should try

 

Sounds like an epic adventure, I'll have to give that a try sometime! Thanx!! :blink:

Link to comment

Caching is already way, way, way too much of a numbers game. I don't know that I can stand any more meaningless "stats". The only significance my stats have is for ME, and I already know what caches I've hidden and what the quality is.

I'm not much into numbers either. But sometimes I feel I would like to give a "thumbs up" to a cache I particularly enjoyed.

So I just had this idea: Wouldn't a simple "one star" system be useful? Just something you can click onif you would like to recommend a cache, for whatever reason.

 

Considering there are so many differnt criteria to rate a cache - like location, container, swag, puzzle, description... - people would never agree on an "accurate" rating system anyway.

 

People who propose a rating system as way of encouraging "better" caches are going to be disappointed.
Right, maybe you would never "improve" overall quality. But I would quite like to see "recommendation stars" and could use them as a quick way of finding the most interesting caches in an area.

 

BTW, I'm new here. Hi, everybody!

:)

Link to comment
People who propose a rating system as way of encouraging "better" caches are going to be disappointed.

It's been said before, but one method could be a "suggest" feature... something like... "if you like this cache, you may also like these". This could potentially cater to anyone's preference, whether it's a quick grab or an epic adventure.

Of course if you read my whole post you would have seen where I said

On the other hand there could be some ways to help filter caches to find ones that are more likely to be special

An affinity system where you rate the cache and it finds other caches that people who rated this cache high also rated high is on way of doing this.

 

I don't really like the idea of a single rating on a scale of 1 to 5 or whatever and then posting the average rating on the page. This would not work any better on Geocaching.com than it does on any other site where it gets used. You will usually see something like this on a movie site. There the movies are already divided by genre. They may also be classified by how recent the movie is or by who the stars are. People will generally select a genre of films they want to see and perhaps narrow this down to recent movies or ones staring Bruce Willis. After that they might select the one with 5 stars instead of the one with 2 stars. But more likely they will look at the reviews or will select the film based on something they heard about it. On Geocaching.com we really don't have genres. You could decide you only want to find a regular sized traditional cache with a terrain less than 3 or some other combination. Then you might look a the rating but what does it really tell you? Somebody may have rated the cache a 1 because the log was wet or because they thought it was too far of the trail. Someone else may rate the same cache a 5 because it's an ammo can under a pile of sticks. Now on a movie site someone who hates Bruce Willis might rate all his movies low. But on the movie site you may get hundreds of people rating the movie, so this one rating will not have much weight. Typically geocaches get less than 100 finders and not everyone will rate the cache. Many caches that are higher terrain or difficulty get even fewer finders. So these "outlier" ratings carry bigger weight. Add to that that friends could get together and decide to give each other high ratings, I wouldn't trust an average rating to reflect anything of what the average cacher thought or even be useful in ranking caches.

 

I used to be a big supported of the affinity type rating - "if you liked this cache you may also like..." However this is useful only for caches in your home area. When you find something you like it can recommend others to find. If you are new in a area and haven't found anything yet it would be so useful. It could also give results that aren't quite what you are looking for. A newbie who finds an LPC may think that this was an unusual way to hide a cache. They say they like it hoping to see other clever hiding techniques in the area. Won't they be surprise when they get a list of all the other LPCs they can find?

 

There have been suggestions for rating on several attributes instead of just one overall rating for the cache. For example: 1= cache is a quick and easy find to 5 = cache takes considerable effort to get and may be difficult to find; or 1 = cache is located in an interesting spot that is worth visiting to 5 = I wouldn't have come here except to find the cache. The problem would be to get agreement on the attributes to rank and wording them in a neutral way. Also have to rate on several attributes is more time consuming so you might get less participation.

 

The suggestion that I have come to favor is what Markwell suggested some years ago and has already been presented in this thread. This is the idea of allowing premium members to designate a bookmark list as a favorite caches list. The number of cache that can be listed would be limited someway, presumably a percentage of a cacher's find up to some maximum number. This would keep people from listing every cache as a favorite and discourage people from adding a friends cache that doesn't really deserve this. Cache that appear on some number of favorites list (say 3 or 4) would be designated as "recommended caches". You would be able to search for "recommended caches" in an area. Perhaps they would also get a special designation on the search page and the maps (such as a blue ribbon or a star). Now when you visit and area you can get some recommendations of caches to hunt. Of course this doesn't give you a list of caches you should avoid - which is what I think a lot of people really want but won't admit.

Link to comment
However, what I see this coming out as is a line on each cache page saying something like:

 

"People who found this cache gave it 4 :) 's out of 5. They also liked these...".

I don't think a raw number is useful. There are plenty of movies on the IMDb Top 250 list that I'm not interested in seeing, and I've enjoyed plenty of movies that have much lower average ratings than those on that list. And unless I'm looking at a cache that I've found and especially enjoyed, I don't think "They also liked these..." will be useful.

 

I find that I exhibit different "geocaching styles" depending on the situation. Most of my caching is "blast radius" caching, where I take a caching detour before/after work, or before/after a church activity, or before/during/after errands, or whatever. I'm not very picky in this mode, since I just grab a cache from the top of my "nearest to ..." list and find it. If a cache doesn't look very interesting, then for a while I may choose other caches instead, but eventually I'll probably drop by to grab it anyway.

 

Some of my caching is on geocaching-oriented hikes. For these, I find all the caches along a particular trail, or I choose specific caches that I'm interested in. If I'm introducing others to geocaching, then I usually choose specific caches, starting with easy regular-size caches, and then taking them to some that show a little variety (smaller containers, more difficult hides, multi-caches, etc.). I don't think a rating system will help this process.

 

Some of my caching is opportunity caching. I'm away from home, and I have some unexpected time to find a cache or two. Right now, I just search for the caches nearest to my current location. It would be nice to search for the caches near my current location that I would probably enjoy most.

 

Some of my caching is on non-geocaching-oriented trips. I know where I'll be going in advance, so I can spend some time researching caches in the area. I might solve a couple puzzles, or plan a visit to a night cache, but my geocaching time will be limited, so I'll want to stick to the more interesting caches. It would be nice to search for caches in the area that I would probably enjoy, to speed up the research process.

 

In these last two cases, I'm interested in caches that were rated well be people who have rated other caches the way I do. And that's the hard part. It involves comparing everyone's ratings to find patterns, rather than just presenting a simple average of the ratings.

Link to comment

Of course if you read my whole post you would have seen where I said

On the other hand there could be some ways to help filter caches to find ones that are more likely to be special

I certainly agree that enhanced filtering options would be a great addition and possible alternative to a rating system. You have some nice ideas for filtering on log length, keywords, # of photos, and favorite lists. Another indicator is sometimes # of watches. In my area, elevation may also be a significant factor. Yes, now that I think about it... enhanced filtering would be a fantastic tool for cache targeting. At the very least it could help narrow the field down to a manageable list so that one could start "reading the logs". :)

Link to comment

it's like collecting "friends" on facebook.

You can do that?

I guess that's another game I lost.

While I don't see the need for a rating system, it wouldn't bother me if one was implemented. No one can compete with me if I don't want to compete.

It's like the guy in a Mustang pulling up next to my anemic green mini-van and revving up the engine. Humerous, really, but not anything I feel the need to oppose.

Link to comment

Maybe just another silly idea of mine (maybe not).

What do you feel about geocachers with thousands of finds and none or few caches hide?

What do you think about a reward system for cache quality, voted by finders?

 

I think such a system could increase cache quality... and also compelling those other geocachers to give us the pleasure to find caches of their own. :)

 

I feel sad when I see a thousand-finds-geocacher that dont care about hide any cache at all... as if it wasnt the hiders that keep this game rolling.

 

What do you all think about it?

 

Go to terracaching.com if they are still around. all caches are voted on, and scored/rated by fellow cachers.

 

Cabear

Link to comment
I found 32 caches last Saturday, every one of them has a unique log describing something about that cache and my hunt for it.

 

ZSandmann;

 

Not flaming, but how in the world can you find 32 in one day?

 

BrrrMo

 

We have people around here who have found over 100 in one day. I know two of them personally. With friends to help you look, a couple of good power trails, and free time from midnight to midnight, it can be done, but it's not something I'm willing to do. I've found 30 or so caches in one day with no problem and time to spare, but when caching by myself, 30's about my limit before I get tired and a cold beer is more compelling than another cache find.

Link to comment

 

32 is a great day. So far, 9 has been my best afternoon. This statement is completely un-scientific, but I would bet that those of us who spend our time and money trying to create good hides, also spend more time and effort in providing feedback to those we find. I always try to add something to the experience by posting a good log. The hard (and fun) part is discussing the hide with the owner, in the open, in front of others, without sharing a tidbit of useful information that betrays the hide.

 

And to comment on the original posting of the thread, I do get a little bit upset by the cachers who have 8000 finds, but have hidden 10 caches. Yes, they might give back to the sport in other ways, but most of the time, their logs seem to be auto-uploads where they add a stock sentence for today's efforts and post the same bit of drivel to the 42 caches they found today. This is particularly noticeable from those that have a stock statement that they post to EVERY cache, no matter the day, no matter the experience.

 

I figure that someone thought enough of me to take the time to put something here for my pure enjoyment, I ought to at least say thank you in a way that makes it seem personal and true. If you only own one cache, you'd probably never know. But own 3 or 4 in the same region, and you will receive 4 identical postings within a matter of minutes when they run their GSAK Macro (don't get me wrong. I love GSAK) and their posts all land in my in-box.

 

I just go to my in-box (dresser) and retrieve my feedback (money).

 

See you next time, John.

 

Mac Hammer

 

I'm with you on this one.

 

As for posting logs, I like to write, and so I usually write decent, unique logs for each cache I find. I rarely, if ever, write TFTC and its related tripe unless it is part of a larger log, and even then, I almost always take the time to spell it out. Just as I can't bring myself to type "How R U 2day" in a text message, I really like to use the English language in a way that pays respect to it both on my cell phone and in a cache log. As for what I write in those logs, I usually write some kind of poetry unless I have something to say that doesn't lend itself to limericks or four line rhymers. It's not good poetry, or necessarily long poetry, but even if all I do is a 3 line haiku about the weather I encountered that day, every single log I write is unique to the cache it was written for. You can't believe the amount of emails I get thanking me for my interesting logs, and THAT alone is motivation enough for me to continue to write good ones. It really doesn't take much effort to come up with four lines about a cache; each log takes me 5-10 minutes to write from scratch and I feel that it's equivalent to eating in a restaurant... if you can't afford to leave a proper tip, you can't afford to eat out... and so I feel like each cache owner deserves something unique said about their cache. Yup, even a boring lamp post micro.

 

A typical recent log for a virtual cache at an artesian well:

 

Fresh water runs from underground

And drips upon the mortared stones

While flakes of snow fall all around

A transient who sits here cold, alone.

 

I've noticed over time, that reading back on my logs also has a benefit for me in that it becomes a diary of sorts, and because I've taken the time to record detail via my logs, I can remember each cache I've found and what I was doing, or what I felt that day, even clear back to when I started this sport. It's fascinating to read back some of my logs from 2001 or 2002 and see what a different person I was then, and how different caching was than it is now.

 

I have around 600 finds and have hidden two caches. I'd like to hide more, but haven't found a spot I'm happy with for my next ones (a couple of puzzle caches). However, waiting til I find the right spot is preferable to me than just throwing it out under a lamp post to get it out there. I'm a believer in quality over quantity.

 

I don't dictate to others that this is what they should do. It's just the personal ethics I've set up for myself and what I'm comfortable with doing, and what makes caching fun for me.

 

BlueDamsel

Edited by BlueDamsel
Link to comment

As a new family to geocaching, I mean NEW, 3 finds 3 DNFs we want to hida a cache at some point in the distant future. Some obstacles to overcome are, we need more experience as to what a good hide is, and where to place it.

Every place I have thought would be a good place has been covered by soeone else. We will find an interesting place to hide one, with a reasonable difficulty rating and an interesting place.

The theme is going to be a book trading cache. We just need to find that placey new to this fun and chall that is reasonably close enough to maintain so as to keep it a better quality trading cache.

Pretty limited parameters in my opinion. So we really don,t care about a rating system or reward for hiding. We are not going to be rushed into hiding a cache by anyone or anything.

Just the humble opinion of some who are very new to a fun sport to get us off our lazy butts and outdoors.

Link to comment

As a new family to geocaching, I mean NEW, 3 finds 3 DNFs we want to hida a cache at some point in the distant future. Some obstacles to overcome are, we need more experience as to what a good hide is, and where to place it.

Every place I have thought would be a good place has been covered by soeone else. We will find an interesting place to hide one, with a reasonable difficulty rating and an interesting place.

The theme is going to be a book trading cache. We just need to find that placey new to this fun and chall that is reasonably close enough to maintain so as to keep it a better quality trading cache.

Pretty limited parameters in my opinion. So we really don,t care about a rating system or reward for hiding. We are not going to be rushed into hiding a cache by anyone or anything.

Just the humble opinion of some who are very new to a fun sport to get us off our lazy butts and outdoors.

 

Although, if everybody would have that kind of self-judgement when thinking of hiding a cache... this topic would not be necessary :D

 

Welcome to the game!!

Link to comment

Since there's no 'score', what difference would 'extra credit' make?

 

Everyone of us will "profit" if we have some kind of recognition of those good hiders, quality hiders...

Maybe one day we could have a game without LPC every 160m... maybe one day we know where all the lame caches are, without having to bump with one of those.

 

All of our 27 caches are carefully prepared... thats the only way we know, respecting the game... not just throwing film canisters (as a matter of fact, we only use them as stages of multis).

Edited by ruidealmeida
Link to comment

 

 

 

A typical recent log for a virtual cache at an artesian well:

 

Fresh water runs from underground

And drips upon the mortared stones

While flakes of snow fall all around

A transient who sits here cold, alone.

 

BlueDamsel

 

Beautiful. Keep it up.

 

I only have 90+ finds right now, but I can remember every one. And I do think it is because I take a moment to write something about each one in the logs.

 

Mac Hammer

Link to comment

Since there's no 'score', what difference would 'extra credit' make?

 

Everyone of us will "profit" if we have some kind of recognition of those good hiders, quality hiders...

Maybe one day we could have a game without LPC every 160m... maybe one day we know where all the lame caches are, without having to bump with one of those.

 

All of our 27 caches are carefully prepared... thats the only way we know, respecting the game... not just throwing film canisters (as a matter of fact, we only use them as stages of multis).

I'm not convinced that having a rating system or rewards for caches will result in any difference in the numbers of caches hidden that "show some extra effort by the hider" versus the numbers that are "just another film can hidden in a lamppost". I suspect that people who take more time to select a hiding spot, prepare the cache, or write up an interesting description do so because 1) these are the kind of cache they prefer to find and 2) they already get a reward by the longer more descriptive logs, the photos posted in the log, and getting added to peoples favorites bookmark lists. I suspect the people who hide quick and easy park 'n grabs with simple descriptions on the cache pages do so because 1) these are the kind of cache they prefer to find at least some of the time and 2) they get rewarded by the number of people who find their caches even if many of the logs are TFTC.

 

Look at the Academy Awards. Lots of movies still get made with the goal of becoming a box office blockbuster. These film makers know their films will never be considered for best picture or any of the other major awards. They might hope for a film editing or special effects award but that really isn't their motivation. And there are lots of small artsy films that know they are not likely to be considered for an award either. These film makers are motivated to tell a story even thought they know only a few people will see it. And that means it won't get enough viewers to qualify for an award. My guess is that the Academy Awards really has little effect on what movies are made. They do have some effect on which movies get seen and some people would argue that if you only went to seen nominated films you'd miss out on a lot of good entertainment. In fact the Academy Awards are more or less a way to reward movies that show up on the favorites lists of lots of Academy members. -- Hey that's an idea. Let Groundspeak premium members designate a bookmark list of favorite caches and reward caches that show up on some number of favorites lists.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Maybe just another silly idea of mine (maybe not).

What do you feel about geocachers with thousands of finds and none or few caches hide?

What do you think about a reward system for cache quality, voted by finders?

 

I think such a system could increase cache quality... and also compelling those other geocachers to give us the pleasure to find caches of their own. :mad:

 

I feel sad when I see a thousand-finds-geocacher that dont care about hide any cache at all... as if it wasnt the hiders that keep this game rolling.

 

What do you all think about it?

I think your idea is awesome. I felt great pride when a geocacher wrote great professional hide about one of my new caches. With such a system it will definitely give people incentive to put more exicting caches out there.

 

I've been caching less than a year, own 3 caches and have less than 50 finds. As I get more experience, I plan on setting up more fun caches. B)

Link to comment
My guess is that the Academy Awards really has little effect on what movies are made

Look at the Nobel Prizes. I know for a fact that the Nobel Prizes have an effect on the research that is funded and the kinds of research risks that the very best scientists take.

 

But the effect the Nobel prizes have on research funding is tiny compared to their biggest effect: they inspire people. Children dream of growing up to be a scientist and cure a disease; other scientists push forward, encouraged by the success of their peers.

 

Awards in general aren't large enough or widespread enough to directly influence an activity. But they inspire, encourage, and show the possibilities. That's what we need more of in geocaching: a way to spotlight awesome hides to inspire others to know that they can hide great caches, too.

 

The Academy Awards probably don't affect which movies get made. But they inspire young actors, and that's what they are really for.

Link to comment

I am inspired every single time I go outside. Every time I look at the stars. Every time I smell the ocean. Every time I hear the leaves rustle. Every time I smell cow manure as I ride my bike past open pastures. B)

 

Someone doling out a "reward" isn't going to increase or decrease that on iota.

 

If the satisfaction of simply finding caches and having people find your caches isn't enough on its own, that's a pretty sad state of affairs in my opinion.

 

And a rating system for cachers or caches will likely not result in any improvement in the game. More likely (as discussed in the many previous threads on this and similar subjects) it will lead to greater angst and less enjoyment for people as the discussion about "why isn't my cache rated higher" multiply.

 

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
How many times do you think when finding a cache "What a crap, somebody would have warned me!!"?

I never think things to myself that make absolutely no sense, so my answer would be zero times.

 

However, if I'm finding a cache that I don't like, I'm not sure who could have warned me that I wouldn't like it. Should I listen to the people that don't like micros, the people that don't like long hikes, the people that don't like difficult to find caches, the people that don't like caches without a nice view, the people that don't like easy finds, etc.

 

Instead, I usually am just happy to have had a cache to find anyway and get on with my day.

 

ruidealmeida, I see that you are new to geocaching. Welcome!

I've learned that reading log entries can tell you a lot about caches. If you see a lot of one line log entries those are caches to be wary of. If you see a lot of acronyms like TFTC and not much else those are caches to avoid.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...