Jump to content

Culling the Geocache Population


duhgee

Recommended Posts

After reviewing my own caches, I realized that two out of three were not up to snuff, so I voluntarily archived them. There have been discussions about archiving caches older than a certain age, but the age of my caches was not a factor, even though they have saturated the local geocaching community, and sometimes the oldest caches are the best caches. The primary driver for my archiving was the plethora of mediocre caches and the difficulty in finding the good ones. The discussion of rating caches has been long ago exhausted, but what I'm proposing is a nomination of caches that are below average as candidates for archiving, with a net result of increased average calibre of caches. We could even name an annual award after them, similar to the EDDIES for crappy movies, with a limited nomination period (ie. the month of May), and nominations occurring as a Note log on the cache.

 

Two questions:

a... What would you suggest for the name of this annual competition/nomination?

b... Would this concept work, and is it better/more viable than a rating of all caches?

Edited by duhgee
Link to comment

b. Would this concept work, and is it better/more viable than a rating of all caches?

People have differing views of whats good and whats bad, first you'd have them all to agree on what's what. Then you'd have to try and nicely tell someone 'you cache isn't very good, please archive it and start over' :rolleyes:

But if you can get past those things, then yea it would work.

Link to comment

I don't think such a thing would be a good idea.. but kudos to you for recognizing which caches of your own were no longer up to your own standards and pulling them. I've done the same. Awhile back, I came to the conclusion that I was no longer proud of my first cache and decided to archive it. We evolve and our tastes change. As my eyes were opened to more and better caches I could no longer live with myself if I owned a hide-a-key cache :rolleyes:

Link to comment

....

Two questions:

a... What would you suggest for the name of this annual competition/nomination?

b... Would this concept work, and is it better/more viable than a rating of all caches?

I once set out to place the worst cache I could come up with. I failed. People liked it. Had it been nomitated for this award, and especially if I had won, I would have filled with pride over my accomplishment. Instead I failed at the crappy cache effort and had to archive the cache due to that failure.

 

As for a name. "The DPM Award". Or "The Clam" or maybe the "Clammy"

Link to comment

You've tread on some really mucky ground here. I proposed that owners self evaluate their caches and archive the worst one a few years ago, and got soundly shouted down. I am in total agreement that if everyone archived their worst cache the overall cache quality would have to go up. Anyone that thinks otherwise must either have a strange sense of quality, or a huge ego that allows them to think they are the only cacher that knows what is good. I knew of one other person that agrees.. now there are three. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

You've tread on some really mucky ground here. I proposed that owners self evaluate their caches and archive the worst one a few years ago, and got soundly shouted down. I am in total agreement that if everyone archived their worst cache the overall cache quality would have to go up. Anyone that thinks otherwise must either have a strange sense of quality, or a huge ego that allows them to think they are the only cacher that knows what is good. I knew of one other person that agrees.. now there are three. :rolleyes:

 

Problem is that I can think of a couple of cachers whos worst hide is better than the best hides of a couple of other cachers. This means that the net gain would be effectively zero. I can think of at least one cacher who would think that every last one of their hides is simply perfection. A home run every time. I haven't looked for one of that persons caches in a long long time. We just don't have the same idea of what makes for a fun cache, and that's ok.

 

As for the OPs idea, well, not any better. What would happen when I nominated that cachers hides, every last one of 'em, for crappies or what every you want to call the dubious award. We are quite happily not looking for each others caches. After that we would just be angry with each other. It would sap the fun right out of it.

 

No, I'm not in favor of a popularity contest. There has to be a better way. I've been in favor of the Amazon system. Some way for the system to return a list that says "others who enjoyed this cache also liked these caches. Perhaps a hidden rating system. Only returning results tailored to the user without comparing them to others. Say I rate cache X a four. The system comes back with "Other cachers who rated this cache a four also rated these caches three and up." No reason for anyone to see how I rate the caches as it would mean little to them unless the thought just like me, and no one thinks just like me.

Link to comment

You've tread on some really mucky ground here. I proposed that owners self evaluate their caches and archive the worst one a few years ago, and got soundly shouted down. I am in total agreement that if everyone archived their worst cache the overall cache quality would have to go up. Anyone that thinks otherwise must either have a strange sense of quality, or a huge ego that allows them to think they are the only cacher that knows what is good. I knew of one other person that agrees.. now there are three. :rolleyes:

 

Problem is that I can think of a couple of cachers whos worst hide is better than the best hides of a couple of other cachers. This means that the net gain would be effectively zero. I can think of at least one cacher who would think that every last one of their hides is simply perfection. A home run every time. I haven't looked for one of that persons caches in a long long time. We just don't have the same idea of what makes for a fun cache, and that's ok....

 

Nice counterpoint.

My self culling comes down to the "fun to own" factor. If I enjoy owning it I keep it. If I don't it gets archived. What makes a cache fun to own (for me) is how well it's doing following the vision that guided its' creation. Its why a "made to be bad cache" that failed because people are enjoying it gets archived. An urban Micro (yuck if there ever was yuck) is working well. A fair number have to make two trips to get it, and a fair number improvise on the spot and prove that geocachers can be inventive. That one is fun to own.

Link to comment
I proposed that owners self evaluate their caches and archive the worst one a few years ago, and got soundly shouted down.

I'm pretty sure your suggestion was the driving force behind me reviewing my active hides. If not you, it was the same idea suggested by someone else. What I used as my own criteria were the logs. When I saw the majority of the logs devolving to single sentence entries, I figured the adventure I had built was gone, and pulled the plug on those. I still use log length as my inner lameness litmus test, and continue to yank the ones that become stinkers.

 

Along a similar line of thought:

I have an event in the planning stages that will be called "LOQI", an accronym for "Lame Out, Quality In".

It's going to be a contest in which those who choose to enter will archive what they consider to be their lamest hide. They'll bring the cache, and a cache page printout to the event. The participants would vote, and the winners would get a prize.

1st Place = Super sized ammo can.

2nd - 4th Place = 50cal ammo can.

5th - 10th Place = 30cal ammo can.

(all cans would receive our signature camo)

274b4784-62c8-4146-ab40-504cfdf11979.jpg

 

Obviously, the grossest error in logic is that only an ammo can can qualify as a quality hide, but since these are all I have to give as prizes, I'll have to live with that.

Link to comment

You've tread on some really mucky ground here. I proposed that owners self evaluate their caches and archive the worst one a few years ago, and got soundly shouted down. I am in total agreement that if everyone archived their worst cache the overall cache quality would have to go up. Anyone that thinks otherwise must either have a strange sense of quality, or a huge ego that allows them to think they are the only cacher that knows what is good. I knew of one other person that agrees.. now there are three. :rolleyes:

 

Problem is that I can think of a couple of cachers whos worst hide is better than the best hides of a couple of other cachers. This means that the net gain would be effectively zero. I can think of at least one cacher who would think that every last one of their hides is simply perfection. A home run every time. I haven't looked for one of that persons caches in a long long time. We just don't have the same idea of what makes for a fun cache, and that's ok....

 

Nice counterpoint.

My self culling comes down to the "fun to own" factor. If I enjoy owning it I keep it. If I don't it gets archived. What makes a cache fun to own (for me) is how well it's doing following the vision that guided its' creation. Its why a "made to be bad cache" that failed because people are enjoying it gets archived. An urban Micro (yuck if there ever was yuck) is working well. A fair number have to make two trips to get it, and a fair number improvise on the spot and prove that geocachers can be inventive. That one is fun to own.

 

I kind of liked it. But I thought that

We are quite happily not looking for each others caches.
was my best line in that post.

 

Let me counter your compliment with this one. I like your way of self culling your caches. If it has stopped being fun to own time to let it go.

 

I have a couple that I'm gonna get rid of soon. I haven't been enjoying one or two of 'em as much as a some of the finders. The only reason they still exist is because some people keep saying "Oh, wait. That one is on my todo list" Well they best get a move on as I'm about done with 'em. Time to do something else.

Link to comment

I've been in favor of the Amazon system. Some way for the system to return a list that says "others who enjoyed this cache also liked these caches. Perhaps a hidden rating system. Only returning results tailored to the user without comparing them to others. Say I rate cache X a four. The system comes back with "Other cachers who rated this cache a four also rated these caches three and up." No reason for anyone to see how I rate the caches...

Sounds interesting. Have people shot down this idea? I don't see how it would be a bad thing. Maybe it's too complicated for Groundspeak to adopt.

 

I'm in favour of some kind of hidden rating system that will help us sort for caches that most people consider a good cache. Right now I'm resorting to setting my PQs to only traditional, small, regular or large caches. But I'm sure I'm missing out on some good micros/multis/puzzles in interesting locations or maybe cleverly hidden or perhaps with a unique container. It's just so overwhelming to read through all those logs to see which caches are favourably reviewed. This is especially a concern when travelling, even travelling to nearby cities - there are 100s to sort through.

Link to comment
But I'm sure I'm missing out on some good micros/multis/puzzles

When I first editted my PQs to closer fit my biased caching aesthetics, I worried that I might be missing out on a few quality hides that got filtered out. I kwickly learned that there are enough folks hiding caches that do fall within what qualifies as fun for me, so I'll never catch up. My end result is that almost every cache I do hunt provides me with an enjoyable experience, so I never miss the ones that got away.

Link to comment

I have a name for the award. I would name it after a local teenager who caches. It seems like his goal is to hide as many as he can and they are crap hides without permission.

 

Along a similar line of thought:

I have an event in the planning stages that will be called "LOQI", an accronym for "Lame Out, Quality In".

It's going to be a contest in which those who choose to enter will archive what they consider to be their lamest hide. They'll bring the cache, and a cache page printout to the event. The participants would vote, and the winners would get a prize.

1st Place = Super sized ammo can.

2nd - 4th Place = 50cal ammo can.

5th - 10th Place = 30cal ammo can.

I like this idea as long as folks don't create lame caches just so that they could enter them in this event. Neat idea!

Link to comment

After reviewing my own caches, I realized that two out of three were not up to snuff,

 

"Not up to snuff" is a perfectly good qualifier, as long as you are the only person involved...........

 

Would this concept work, and is it better/more viable than a rating of all caches?

 

Ah. Here's the problem.

 

Using "up to snuff" as a rating basis would most likely not work, because you then have a whole 'nother set of problems to contend with. First and foremost, whose snuff will be used as the benchmark? If your snuff is used, but it turns out the cache you are rating was placed by someone who prefers his snuff a bit more moist than you like yours, well, we now have an impasse.

 

First, some level of appropriate snuff has to be defined.

 

Then, we have another set of issues. Since youngsters under the age of 18 cannot have snuff (by law), then do we prohibit youngsters from rating caches, or illegally provide them with snuff so they can make comparisons.

 

See the bottomless bag of snakes this can create?

 

What if you have a cacher who believes snuff is bad, and refuses to buy it, use it, or possess it?

 

I can see all sorts of problems here with this rating system.

 

I much prefer a rating system where we decide if a cache cuts the mustard or not. Yes, French's Classic Yellow is legal everywhere, without restrictions, and is loved by all, except, of course, for the few anarchists who prefer mayonnaise.

 

Snuff? No. Fraught with problems.

 

Mustard? Yes. It's a standard we all understand.

Link to comment

After reviewing my own caches, I realized that two out of three were not up to snuff,

 

"Not up to snuff" is a perfectly good qualifier, as long as you are the only person involved...........

 

Would this concept work, and is it better/more viable than a rating of all caches?

 

Ah. Here's the problem.

 

Using "up to snuff" as a rating basis would most likely not work, because you then have a whole 'nother set of problems to contend with. First and foremost, whose snuff will be used as the benchmark? If your snuff is used, but it turns out the cache you are rating was placed by someone who prefers his snuff a bit more moist than you like yours, well, we now have an impasse.

 

First, some level of appropriate snuff has to be defined.

 

Then, we have another set of issues. Since youngsters under the age of 18 cannot have snuff (by law), then do we prohibit youngsters from rating caches, or illegally provide them with snuff so they can make comparisons.

 

See the bottomless bag of snakes this can create?

 

What if you have a cacher who believes snuff is bad, and refuses to buy it, use it, or possess it?

 

I can see all sorts of problems here with this rating system.

 

I much prefer a rating system where we decide if a cache cuts the mustard or not. Yes, French's Classic Yellow is legal everywhere, without restrictions, and is loved by all, except, of course, for the few anarchists who prefer mayonnaise.

 

Snuff? No. Fraught with problems.

 

Mustard? Yes. It's a standard we all understand.

 

The mustard standard won't work. Some elitist snob will trot out the Grey Poop-on and then us poor shmucks that can only afford the off brand stuff a Aldi's will be to embarrassed to cut our mustard with the others.

Link to comment

I've been in favor of the Amazon system. Some way for the system to return a list that says "others who enjoyed this cache also liked these caches. Perhaps a hidden rating system. Only returning results tailored to the user without comparing them to others. Say I rate cache X a four. The system comes back with "Other cachers who rated this cache a four also rated these caches three and up." No reason for anyone to see how I rate the caches...

Sounds interesting. Have people shot down this idea? I don't see how it would be a bad thing. Maybe it's too complicated for Groundspeak to adopt.

 

I don't know. Every time I mention it it gets lost between the "I want to shame 'em by putting a rating on the cache page" crowd and those who can only say "Your idea of a good cache isn't my idea of a good cache so no rating system can possibly work" gang. Once, way back when, Jeremy said in a post that he liked the idea, or it had promise, or words to that effect. Never went any farther that I know of.

Link to comment

... Some elitist snob will trot out the Grey Poop-on...

Great, Now I'm an elitist snob. Another title to put with the others; my favorite being Pompous Donkey.

 

Yessir Mr Donkey sir! Sorry to offend you sir.

May I address you as pompous?

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
But I'm sure I'm missing out on some good micros/multis/puzzles

When I first editted my PQs to closer fit my biased caching aesthetics, I worried that I might be missing out on a few quality hides that got filtered out. I kwickly learned that there are enough folks hiding caches that do fall within what qualifies as fun for me, so I'll never catch up. My end result is that almost every cache I do hunt provides me with an enjoyable experience, so I never miss the ones that got away.

 

This right here is the greatest epiphany any cacher can ever have.

 

When I first started caching back in 2001, there were 16 caches within the Chicago area - that's a WIDE ranged area of with the closest about 7 miles and the furthest about 33 miles.

 

I've found some caches (not nearly as many as I'd like). Somewhere around 2003 or 2004, this area exploded with micro caches. But that's about when I started getting more "choosy" about the caches I hunted.

 

My typical criteria that I load into my GPS includes Traditional caches, regular or large in size, between 1.5 and 4.5 for both difficulty and terrain. Here's a chart of how the active caches looked at each six month interval from when I started to March 31 2009. Notice that the number of caches matching my criteria is not increasing at the same speed as the number of caches overall - but it is increasing:

58cbd9de-2e02-4e30-b76a-9d09a96b8a6f.jpg

 

But looking at that same data of active caches from "My Criteria" and the number of caches that I've found in the Chicago Region (and bumping up the scale), you'll see that there was only one point when the active caches matching my criteria actually decreased (fall of 2003), but my rate of finds hasn't even come close to matching the rate of placed caches. One other interesting point on this graph is that in late August 2001, it seems that I had found more caches in the Chicago region than ones that fit my known best criteria. That means that I found several that didn't match my criteria...

ae4d7e09-1d39-414c-817d-0ed7cd2464e3.jpg

 

As of right now, in my standard load of caches (which also limits based on a polygon and whether the cache is active or disabled), I have about 474 caches that match my criteria, which only represents about 8.5% of the total caches in the Chicago area. Will I miss out on some great caches? Probably. So what?

 

Many have made the book analogy before: If I REALLY like science fiction books by Arthur C. Clarke, I would do well to buy science fiction books by Arthur C. Clarke. Will I miss out on a great novel if I don't read a historical drama? Sure. But I know that most of the time I'll come away with a good experience - at least until I've read all of his books.

Link to comment

Nice charts.

 

Are you active in your local geocaching community?(he asks to keep the conversation going) Ask around. Let it be known that you want to hear about the top one percent of those micro/puzzle/multi whatever it is that isn't in your normal PQ profile. That and keeping an eye on the "top ten lists" (almost universally more than ten) of a double handful of carefully selected cachers will add many of the best caches you have been missing to your todo list.

Link to comment

 

Problem is that I can think of a couple of cachers whos worst hide is better than the best hides of a couple of other cachers. This means that the net gain would be effectively zero. .............

 

... for that one cache, but think of the thousands of cases where there is an overlap. When we think of it in the perspective of OUR caches it muddies the water a bit. How about if we think of it like this...

 

There are 1000 emu farmers in Sandusky Ohio. Each farmer takes the weakest, ugliest bird from his flock and has it for dinner. Isn't the emu population of Sandusky stronger overall the next morning? And don't those stronger emus propagate and spawn stronger offspring instead of more weak, scrawny ugly emus?

Link to comment

 

Problem is that I can think of a couple of cachers whos worst hide is better than the best hides of a couple of other cachers. This means that the net gain would be effectively zero. .............

 

... for that one cache, but think of the thousands of cases where there is an overlap. When we think of it in the perspective of OUR caches it muddies the water a bit. How about if we think of it like this...

 

There are 1000 emu farmers in Sandusky Ohio. Each farmer takes the weakest, ugliest bird from his flock and has it for dinner. Isn't the emu population of Sandusky stronger overall the next morning? And don't those stronger emus propagate and spawn stronger offspring instead of more weak, scrawny ugly emus?

 

Your theory is interesting. First in that is there enough call for emu to support 1000 emu farmers in Sandusky, Ohio? But second, and of more interest is the thought that crappy cache hides are out there mating. *shudder*EWE!

 

Truth is that those emu are starting out in better shape than the average geocache. The emu have been selectively bread for centuries. Crappy caches have the ability to breed more crappy caches through the example they set. It is a copycat crime. :laughing: The emu only get to breed if the farmer lets 'em. Poor emu.

 

Last, how would you feel if I nominated one of your caches for a crappy? Suddenly you'd start taking a closer look at my caches. Do I have a hte on the cache page instead of a the? Must mean my lousy cache deserves a crappy, right? Ok, perhaps you are above such childish retaliation, but you get my point.

 

Instead of banning, archiving and guide lining the hell out of geocaching we need better tools to work with. How easy would it be if I could hunt caches that others of my mindset recommended? Then you could hunt caches that people who like the same types of hides as you said they enjoyed.

 

I used to think that puzzle were the boil on the butt of geocaching. Then I realized that some people actually like those things. It got me to thinking, we have a tool to keep those out of our PQs. What we need are the tools to sort for other things we like or dislike.

Link to comment

Rating systems are as old as the micro cache. It does seem simple to have a rating system on a cache to be able to give your approval or disgust with the cache. I've never liked the idea because there is a person behind that cache page. I didn't get in this hobby to hurt people's feelings. :laughing:

 

I've always believed that the best way a geocacher can improve the caches in their area the most is by leading by example. You can't rid the world of bad caches, but you can hide caches that make you feel better about your contribution to this great hobby. Others will take notice if they like the hide. "Monkey see, monkey do" does fit when it comes to geocaching, especially when it concerns newer cachers, who like to hide caches that they just recently found.

Link to comment

After reviewing my own caches, I realized that two out of three were not up to snuff, so I voluntarily archived them. There have been discussions about archiving caches older than a certain age, but the age of my caches was not a factor, even though they have saturated the local geocaching community, and sometimes the oldest caches are the best caches. The primary driver for my archiving was the plethora of mediocre caches and the difficulty in finding the good ones. The discussion of rating caches has been long ago exhausted, but what I'm proposing is a nomination of caches that are below average as candidates for archiving, with a net result of increased average calibre of caches. We could even name an annual award after them, similar to the EDDIES for crappy movies, with a limited nomination period (ie. the month of May), and nominations occurring as a Note log on the cache.

 

Two questions:

a... What would you suggest for the name of this annual competition/nomination?

b... Would this concept work, and is it better/more viable than a rating of all caches?

 

Those of you who follow a thread, rather than comment on the original post, forgive me. My thoughts stopped after reading the OP.

 

I think that this approach to caching could come out as quite mean-spirited. I got all snotty about a cache that was truly terrible, and found out it was hidden by two twelve year olds. They're just trying to play the best they can, and here's grumpy the cacher telling them they suck. I fessed up to being a jerk. I won't make much effort to go find their hides, but I certianly won't post snotty logs and notes on their caches anymore.

 

The last thing newbies need to face is the chance that some cache snob will honour their efforts with a nomination for worst cache - I think if we do this, we would end up culling cachers and caches.

 

I noticed that a few others posted about monitoring their own caches, and I think that's the way to go. I also like the idea of a contest where people try for lame - we have owned two "Port Alberni's Lamest Caches", and the logs we get on them are a hoot.

Edited by doingitoldschool
Link to comment

Rating systems are as old as the micro cache. It does seem simple to have a rating system on a cache to be able to give your approval or disgust with the cache. I've never liked the idea because there is a person behind that cache page. I didn't get in this hobby to hurt people's feelings. :laughing:

 

I've always believed that the best way a geocacher can improve the caches in their area the most is by leading by example. You can't rid the world of bad caches, but you can hide caches that make you feel better about your contribution to this great hobby. Others will take notice if they like the hide. "Monkey see, monkey do" does fit when it comes to geocaching, especially when it concerns newer cachers, who like to hide caches that they just recently found.

 

I think that VISIBLE ratings are a horrible idea.

 

From one of my earlier posts.

 

No, I'm not in favor of a popularity contest. There has to be a better way. I've been in favor of the Amazon system. Some way for the system to return a list that says "others who enjoyed this cache also liked these caches. Perhaps a hidden rating system. Only returning results tailored to the user without comparing them to others. Say I rate cache X a four. The system comes back with "Other cachers who rated this cache a four also rated these caches three and up." No reason for anyone to see how I rate the caches as it would mean little to them unless the thought just like me, and no one thinks just like me.

 

A system that can return usable information to me without hurting any ones feelings. But once again it is lost in the "ratings suck" mantra.

Link to comment

After reviewing my own caches, I realized that two out of three were not up to snuff, so I voluntarily archived them. There have been discussions about archiving caches older than a certain age, but the age of my caches was not a factor, even though they have saturated the local geocaching community, and sometimes the oldest caches are the best caches. The primary driver for my archiving was the plethora of mediocre caches and the difficulty in finding the good ones. The discussion of rating caches has been long ago exhausted, but what I'm proposing is a nomination of caches that are below average as candidates for archiving, with a net result of increased average calibre of caches. We could even name an annual award after them, similar to the EDDIES for crappy movies, with a limited nomination period (ie. the month of May), and nominations occurring as a Note log on the cache.

 

Two questions:

a... What would you suggest for the name of this annual competition/nomination?

b... Would this concept work, and is it better/more viable than a rating of all caches?

 

Those of you who follow a thread, rather than comment on the original post, forgive me. My thoughts stopped after reading the OP.

 

I think that this approach to caching could come out as quite mean-spirited. I got all snotty about a cache that was truly terrible, and found out it was hidden by two twelve year olds. They're just trying to play the best they can, and here's grumpy the cacher telling them they suck. I fessed up to being a jerk. I won't make much effort to go find their hides, but I certianly won't post snotty logs and notes on their caches anymore.

 

The last thing newbies need to face is the chance that some cache snob will honour their efforts with a nomination for worst cache - I think if we do this, we would end up culling cachers and caches.

 

I noticed that a few others posted about monitoring their own caches, and I think that's the way to go. I also like the idea of a contest where people try for lame - we have owned two "Port Alberni's Lamest Caches", and the logs we get on them are a hoot.

 

No problem. It is a very good example of why ratings visible on the cache page are a bad idea. Not to mention a good lesson in why tact is such a grand concept. Kudos to you.

Link to comment

 

Problem is that I can think of a couple of cachers whos worst hide is better than the best hides of a couple of other cachers. This means that the net gain would be effectively zero. .............

 

... for that one cache, but think of the thousands of cases where there is an overlap. When we think of it in the perspective of OUR caches it muddies the water a bit. How about if we think of it like this...

 

There are 1000 emu farmers in Sandusky Ohio. Each farmer takes the weakest, ugliest bird from his flock and has it for dinner. Isn't the emu population of Sandusky stronger overall the next morning? And don't those stronger emus propagate and spawn stronger offspring instead of more weak, scrawny ugly emus?

 

Your theory is interesting. First in that is there enough call for emu to support 1000 emu farmers in Sandusky, Ohio? But second, and of more interest is the thought that crappy cache hides are out there mating. *shudder*EWE!

 

Truth is that those emu are starting out in better shape than the average geocache. The emu have been selectively bread for centuries. Crappy caches have the ability to breed more crappy caches through the example they set. It is a copycat crime. :laughing: The emu only get to breed if the farmer lets 'em. Poor emu.

 

Last, how would you feel if I nominated one of your caches for a crappy? Suddenly you'd start taking a closer look at my caches. Do I have a hte on the cache page instead of a the? Must mean my lousy cache deserves a crappy, right? Ok, perhaps you are above such childish retaliation, but you get my point.

 

Instead of banning, archiving and guide lining the hell out of geocaching we need better tools to work with. How easy would it be if I could hunt caches that others of my mindset recommended? Then you could hunt caches that people who like the same types of hides as you said they enjoyed.

 

I used to think that puzzle were the boil on the butt of geocaching. Then I realized that some people actually like those things. It got me to thinking, we have a tool to keep those out of our PQs. What we need are the tools to sort for other things we like or dislike.

 

You must not have understood my post. I don't nominate your worst cache for elimination.. you do.. and I pick out mine. I'm not suggesting a guideline... just some voluntary internal improvement. Never tasted emu bread so I can't really comment on that. ;)

Link to comment

It's not a mantra, it's just never really picked up steam. Those who like to have ratings on their caches can do so with third-party software.

 

The Amazon suggestion is a good idea. Does the owner see the ratings, or do you just see a list of caches you might like? It might be hard to apply to a website that has problems with the way it is now.

 

Until then, living by example is the best way to go. :laughing:

Link to comment

...How about if we think of it like this...

 

There are 1000 emu farmers in Sandusky Ohio. Each farmer takes the weakest, ugliest bird from his flock and has it for dinner. Isn't the emu population of Sandusky stronger overall the next morning? And don't those stronger emus propagate and spawn stronger offspring instead of more weak, scrawny ugly emus?

 

And what happens to all those farmers eating weak and sickly birds?

 

Ok, I don't go totally OT:

 

Some people love caches that take 2 seconds to find and are every .10 mile. Going to Wal-Mart? Yay! We can cache in the parking lot, too!

 

I personnally grow weary of these. Sure, the 1st LPM was clever, but the 807th one gets a bit old. I do enjoy watching my numbers grow, but I'd rather spend all day hiking for a cache that overlooks a beautiful waterfall, or something like that.

 

While I agree with the OP, It's against the nature of the sport. Suppose I started a topic that said "I hate all these bugs and snakes! Let's try to do away with some of the harder caches because they take too long. We should try to all hide more easy ones!"

 

A bit hyberbolic, of course, but it gets my point across.

Link to comment

 

Problem is that I can think of a couple of cachers whos worst hide is better than the best hides of a couple of other cachers. This means that the net gain would be effectively zero. .............

 

... for that one cache, but think of the thousands of cases where there is an overlap. When we think of it in the perspective of OUR caches it muddies the water a bit. How about if we think of it like this...

 

There are 1000 emu farmers in Sandusky Ohio. Each farmer takes the weakest, ugliest bird from his flock and has it for dinner. Isn't the emu population of Sandusky stronger overall the next morning? And don't those stronger emus propagate and spawn stronger offspring instead of more weak, scrawny ugly emus?

 

Your theory is interesting. First in that is there enough call for emu to support 1000 emu farmers in Sandusky, Ohio? But second, and of more interest is the thought that crappy cache hides are out there mating. *shudder*EWE!

 

Truth is that those emu are starting out in better shape than the average geocache. The emu have been selectively bread for centuries. Crappy caches have the ability to breed more crappy caches through the example they set. It is a copycat crime. :laughing: The emu only get to breed if the farmer lets 'em. Poor emu.

 

Last, how would you feel if I nominated one of your caches for a crappy? Suddenly you'd start taking a closer look at my caches. Do I have a hte on the cache page instead of a the? Must mean my lousy cache deserves a crappy, right? Ok, perhaps you are above such childish retaliation, but you get my point.

 

Instead of banning, archiving and guide lining the hell out of geocaching we need better tools to work with. How easy would it be if I could hunt caches that others of my mindset recommended? Then you could hunt caches that people who like the same types of hides as you said they enjoyed.

 

I used to think that puzzle were the boil on the butt of geocaching. Then I realized that some people actually like those things. It got me to thinking, we have a tool to keep those out of our PQs. What we need are the tools to sort for other things we like or dislike.

 

You must not have understood my post. I don't nominate your worst cache for elimination.. you do.. and I pick out mine. I'm not suggesting a guideline... just some voluntary internal improvement. Never tasted emu bread so I can't really comment on that. ;)

 

Oh crap! I guess I did. I was still thinking about the whole nominate a cache for archival suggested by the OP. Bad idea that.

 

I have in the past and will again archive any of my caches that I don't think are up to my standards for whatever reason.

Link to comment

I'm offended that you are only considering culling geocaches. If you get one cache archived, two more can pop up. You need to get to the root of the crappy cache problem. :laughing:

 

Suggestions? Or rather suggestions that don't involve the words extreme prejudice? Is there a way you can think of to prevent the spread of less than stellar caches? Until that happens we need to figure out how to find the caches we enjoy. The problem with that is the massive amount of information we need to sift through. At the start there weren't that many caches. Those who have been here from the start talk about two or three caches within a hundred miles. Now we have two and three hundred caches within a few miles. The tools are going to need to upgrade if we are going to keep growing. The question is how? I can only say what I'd like to see. I'm not a programmer.

Link to comment

It's not a mantra, it's just never really picked up steam. Those who like to have ratings on their caches can do so with third-party software.

 

The Amazon suggestion is a good idea. Does the owner see the ratings, or do you just see a list of caches you might like? It might be hard to apply to a website that has problems with the way it is now.

 

Until then, living by example is the best way to go. :laughing:

 

The way I envision it is that no one sees the ratings. It just returns suggested caches that the user can choose to add to their todo list.

Link to comment

Rating systems are as old as the micro cache. It does seem simple to have a rating system on a cache to be able to give your approval or disgust with the cache. I've never liked the idea because there is a person behind that cache page. I didn't get in this hobby to hurt people's feelings. :laughing:

 

I've always believed that the best way a geocacher can improve the caches in their area the most is by leading by example. You can't rid the world of bad caches, but you can hide caches that make you feel better about your contribution to this great hobby. Others will take notice if they like the hide. "Monkey see, monkey do" does fit when it comes to geocaching, especially when it concerns newer cachers, who like to hide caches that they just recently found.

 

Agree with this. Liking/disliking a given cache is very much a product of our individual experiences, perceptions and filters - its as individual (for the most part) as our fingerprints. Look around at the caches you've found, figure out what you liked and didn't like, and hide the caches you liked to find...maybe others will like them, maybe others won't. If they don't, perhaps they will hide the kind of caches they like to find, and the community as a whole wins from the resulting diversity.

 

Constant reassessment of your existing hides is a must. Environments change, and may turn what was once a "good" hide into one of lesser quailty. Communities' "tastes" change with the influx and exit of cachers. Shoot, even the "rules" change sometimes - or so we've heard. Its an evolving hobby - evolve with it as best you can.

Link to comment

so, i personally think that "crap" caches started my career in this game and i have escalated to more quality finds. i think many people start the way i did and here in phoenix the crap caches get people started and like me may give people the confidence and drive to keep trying when they hit those unique caches. now i am very much into quality caches and i think a visual rating system for caches would be fine a five star system with no anonymity. I on the other hand dont think culling the caches forcefully is a good idea. maybe telling people there caches could use some work and why is a better idea.

Link to comment

Some interesting (and some very tangential) comments.

 

In retrospect, the intent is to leverage the 'wisdom of crowds' to provide feedback to cache owners, and advise them of what the general population of geocachers sees as quality (or rather, non-quality). As one responder mentioned, some people think their caches are perfect - so some feedback (provided in a non-insulting manner) would perhaps counteract their delusions of grandeur.

 

Yes, it's subjective, but with a large enough input, even subjective results can be meaningful. Perhaps it is too close to a rating system (which this topic was intending, unsuccessfully, to avoid). Okay, so nominations aren't the best idea, but maybe some direct messaging to crappy cache owners providing private input as to how to improve caches would be valuable.

 

Some people will be too sensitive to accept criticism, and some people can't provide criticism in a constructive manner, but most of us can give and most can take it appropriately (I hope). I think geocaching is as likely to lose cachers over crappy caches (I for one am much less enthusiastic after a few boring trips of predominantly crappy caches) as by insulting a crappy cache owner. Perhaps both groups deserve to quietly abandon the sport - another type of culling the sport of geocaching.

 

It's important to remember that geocaching isn't a solo sport - we don't create caches for our own satisfaction, rather we do it to contribute to the community. To say our responsibility to the community extends only as far as we are satisfied in maintaining the cache is to neglect the effect we can have on contributing to the fun (or un-fun) of others.

 

Perhaps the greatest outcome is this discussion, and the individual awareness of opportunity (and/or responsibility) to uphold quality over quantity, without formalization of a process or means to force, rather to encourage, change.

Link to comment

... Some elitist snob will trot out the Grey Poop-on...

Great, Now I'm an elitist snob. Another title to put with the others; my favorite being Pompous Donkey.

What do you mean "now I'm an elitist snob?" Weren't you always? I know I have been one since about 2003. At least, that's what they told me.

Link to comment

I think that one of the biggest challenges in trying to come up with any kind of a rating system is figuring out how to factor in the finder's experience level when they rate caches and their previously stated preferences. We thought the first LPC we found was amazing. We marvelled at the first bison tube we found hanging on the back of a fence rail. There is a cache in a Pine cone? Awesome! We have always appreciated a well placed micro and/or nano. Around our caching area a blinky sure isn't the smallest of containers we have come across over the years.

 

The math required to create a "fair" rating system would be mind boggling when you try to consider all of the variables that would need to be included.

 

Experience makes for better cache hunters and cache hiders. I definitely support the self regulation premise and have archived caches that just didn't meet my standards as I became more experienced in the game.

Link to comment

I'm offended that you are only considering culling geocaches. If you get one cache archived, two more can pop up. You need to get to the root of the crappy cache problem. ;)

Suggestions? Or rather suggestions that don't involve the words extreme prejudice?

Cull the geocachers, not the geocaches. :laughing::)

 

soupnazi.jpg

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...