Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
KBI

Feature enhancement request: 'Interesting Location' attributes

Recommended Posts

Coming late to the party...

 

I prefer the idea of user-contributed tags or ratings, because cache owners are not necessarily going to use the attributes thoroughly. If a cache owner doesn't choose the "Park & Grab" attribute, does that mean it's not a PNG or does that mean the owner didn't take the time to choose attributes carefully?

 

Will every owner of a lamp-post cache come in and add the LPC attribute to their existing caches? No way. Uuser-submitted tags or ratings would mean that many of today's 900,000 existing caches would get tagged, without the owner having to lift a finger!

 

- Joe

Share this post


Link to post
I prefer the idea of user-contributed tags or ratings, because cache owners are not necessarily going to use the attributes thoroughly....

Owner selected, user selected, or even both – as log as it works, it works.

 

Remember, however, that we already trust cache owners to properly use the existing attributes, the difficulty and terrain ratings, the container size and the cache type. If my idea is to be rejected on the grounds that owners will fumble it, then maybe all those other things should be reevaluated as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Coming late to the party...

 

I prefer the idea of user-contributed tags or ratings, because cache owners are not necessarily going to use the attributes thoroughly. If a cache owner doesn't choose the "Park & Grab" attribute, does that mean it's not a PNG or does that mean the owner didn't take the time to choose attributes carefully?

 

Will every owner of a lamp-post cache come in and add the LPC attribute to their existing caches? No way. Uuser-submitted tags or ratings would mean that many of today's 900,000 existing caches would get tagged, without the owner having to lift a finger!

 

- Joe

In a way we already have user tags (at least for premium users). Premium users can create a bookmark list for and cache attribute they can think of and start listing caches in that bookmark list. By making it public, the name of the list will show up on the cache page (unless users rank the usefulness of the list as low). The advantage of a tagging system is that it might be searchable. TPTB have yet to come up with a system to search for bookmark lists.

Share this post


Link to post

I much prefer a quality-level voting system (like GC VOTE) over a bookmark list.

With over 5000 finds now, my 'Top 10% Favorite Caches' bookmark list will need revision and (heart-rending and time consuming) comparison of current listings (and at least one deletion) before I can add that spectacular cache I finally got to yesterday.

 

Conversely, I can cast unlimited 5-star votes on GC Vote.

I can also anonymously give a feeble cache a low rating, IF I think it deserves one.

When was the last time you saw a bookmark list of 'Caches that SUCK!'? I'll bet that if there was one, the owner would be required to remove it.

 

While this thread is about finding the good stuff, doesn't that also (at least partially) mean avoiding the bad stuff?

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is not about cache rating systems.

 

This thread is about making new attributes available to the cache owner, attributes which the owner might select in order to indicate that his cache is specifically designed to bring the cache seeker to an interesting location.

 

Whether or not an owner selects "kid friendly," "parking available" or "historic location" would be irrelevant to the operation of any hypothetical rating system.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is not about cache rating systems.

 

This thread is about making new attributes available to the cache owner, attributes which the owner might select in order to indicate that his cache is specifically designed to bring the cache seeker to an interesting location.

 

Whether or not an owner selects "kid friendly," "parking available" or "historic location" would be irrelevant to the operation of any hypothetical rating system.

 

OOOOPS! Sorry! :lol:

My thought was that what the hider thought interesting/worthy may not coincide with what the community-at-large may find interesting/worthy.

 

If I know the owner, I probably already know the likelihood I will enjoy their cache.

If I do not know the owner...

 

Perhaps Jim-Bob really likes rummaging through the trash at the bottom of a fifteen-foot cliff off the side of a side road, and will hide a cache at every one he finds. Since he finds it interesting, it naturally gets the 'Interesting Location' attribute.

 

You are asking cache owners to admit to hiding sub-par caches (that do not deserve the 'Interesting Location' attribute).

I doubt many would be quite so introspective.

I could be wrong.

It has happened before.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps Jim-Bob really likes rummaging through the trash at the bottom of a fifteen-foot cliff off the side of a side road, and will hide a cache at every one he finds. Since he finds it interesting, it naturally gets the 'Interesting Location' attribute.

That is a speculative and pointlessly exaggerated strawman argument.

 

Besides: Perhaps our Jim-Bob also thinks a 90-degree climb up a four-story concrete wall rates a two-star terrain. Or perhaps Jim-Bob thinks a film cannister should be listed as a 'Regular' size container. Or maybe Jim-Bob feels the presence of a tree is enough to merit a 'Public Restrooms Nearby' attribute.

 

By your reasoning, then, since no owner can ever really be trusted not to make such misjudgments, then maybe all those existing elements should be eliminated from the "Report/Edit a Cache Listing" as well. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

Of course these things get misapplied by cache owners. It happens. All cachers are amateurs.

 

You are asking cache owners to admit to hiding sub-par caches (that do not deserve the 'Interesting Location' attribute).

I doubt many would be quite so introspective.

Your premise is that any cache which does not specifically bring the seeker to an interesting location is automatically a "bad" cache.

 

I disagree with your premise.

 

I have found many exceptionally enjoyable caches which did not involve particularly interesting locations. I have even found plenty of exceptionally enjoyable caches which were hidden in remarkably bland locations.

 

I have also found caches where it was obvious the hider thought the location was exceptionally interesting, yet I did not.

 

Maybe an interesting location is an absolute and non-negotiable requirement before you can enjoy a cache. If so, that is a perfectly valid preference, but you should know that not everyone shares your requirement.

 

I have made no promise that caches which bear my proposed attributes will be guaranteed to entertain you. I am only proposing that the attributes be made available to owners to allow for better filtering by folks like you who tend to prefer interesting locations.

 

If it turns out my enhancement doesn't work for you, I promise nobody will force you to use it. You will be free to carry on as you do now.

 

My proposed enhancement can’t hurt you; it can only help. So why the objection?

Edited by KBI

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not objecting to your idea.

If used properly by the owner, it could be VERY useful! :D

Many attributes are NOT used properly, and I am as guilty as anyone.

 

My premise is that most (if not all) cachers will hide their cache in a location that is 'interesting' to them, but perhaps not so 'interesting' to others. Team XYZ will probably find the neighborhood park three blocks from their home 'interesting', since they have fond memories of many happy times spent there.

To me it's just another lampskirt hide in a park.

 

I seldom look at attributes on the website pages, and the information is not conveyed in .gpx/Pocket Query downloads, so I would have no way of selecting for or against this if it were to be implemented.

Equally true that the GC Vote info is not included either. :unsure:

 

If I were on vacation looking for extraordinarily good caches to seek, I would certainly take into account an 'Interesting Location' attribute if one were available.

 

As a numbers ho, any location where I can increment my smiley count holds some interest. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I support this idea 100%. I've often wished there was a way to attribute that a cache had historic or educational value. Please do this, Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not objecting to your idea.

If used properly by the owner, it could be VERY useful! B)

Many attributes are NOT used properly, and I am as guilty as anyone.

 

My premise is that most (if not all) cachers will hide their cache in a location that is 'interesting' to them, but perhaps not so 'interesting' to others. Team XYZ will probably find the neighborhood park three blocks from their home 'interesting', since they have fond memories of many happy times spent there.

To me it's just another lampskirt hide in a park.

I think I see what you’re saying now.

 

You make an excellent point, one that I hadn’t really considered.

 

If I imagine a cache hider, one who has just placed a new hide and who is now sitting in front of the cache submission screen, and if I imagine him looking at the menu of attribute options, I can easily see how he might be compelled in most cases, as you point out, to choose an attribute called something like "interesting location" to label his cache. Overuse would make the attribute meaningless.

 

You have made an excellent case as to why something so vague as "interesting location" should not be one of the specific attributes made available. I looked back at my OP just now, and I see that I was at least smart enough not to suggest that one, and to instead list very specific types of interesting locations.

 

I think "Interesting Location" should be the name of the attribute category, not an attribute itself. To see what I’m talking about, go look at the cache-owner attribute selection page. Look specifically at the way they are organized, and then re-read my original post.

 

I seldom look at attributes on the website pages, and the information is not conveyed in .gpx/Pocket Query downloads, so I would have no way of selecting for or against this if it were to be implemented.

The thing I am proposing would be of little help to me either. Attributes can be used as filters when creating PQs, but I myself never use PQs.

 

My proposal is intended to help others, not me.

 

Equally true that the GC Vote info is not included either. :D

Again, this thread is not about a cache rating system. It is about adding new owner-selected attributes to the already-available list.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think "Interesting Location" should be the name of the attribute category, not an attribute itself. To see what I’m talking about, go look at the cache-owner attribute selection page. Look specifically at the way they are organized, and then re-read my original post.

 

 

Now that makes sense to me, and would be less prone to misuse.

An 'Interesting Location' CATEGORY of attributes, with members like:

Scenic View

Historic Building

Unusual Urban Art

Etc.

 

Now we are on the same page!

Yes, I like this idea.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think "Interesting Location" should be the name of the attribute category, not an attribute itself. To see what I’m talking about, go look at the cache-owner attribute selection page. Look specifically at the way they are organized, and then re-read my original post.

 

 

Now that makes sense to me, and would be less prone to misuse.

An 'Interesting Location' CATEGORY of attributes, with members like:

Scenic View

Historic Building

Unusual Urban Art

Etc.

 

Now we are on the same page!

Yes, I like this idea.

That gives me an idea. How about better integration between Waymarking and Geocaching? I could select my favorite Waymarking categories and ask for only geocaches that are within 500 ft (or whatever distance I specify) of a waymark in that category? If I only want to look for caches in Wal*Mart parking lots I can pick the Wal*Mart category and have it return caches near Wal*Marts. If I want only caches near historic markers, I can choose that category.

Share this post


Link to post
That gives me an idea. How about better integration between Waymarking and Geocaching? I could select my favorite Waymarking categories and ask for only geocaches that are within 500 ft (or whatever distance I specify) of a waymark in that category? If I only want to look for caches in Wal*Mart parking lots I can pick the Wal*Mart category and have it return caches near Wal*Marts. If I want only caches near historic markers, I can choose that category.

That might be effective as well. A user would simply choose an interesting-sounding Waymark category, and then request a search of all caches within so many feet (miles, meters, whatever) of that item. Maybe the PQ feature could be modified as well to allow for a Waymark-based filter.

 

I’m not all that familiar with Waymarking. Is it a fairly comprehensive list of interesting places? How well does it parallel the universal set of interesting places that are highlighted by Geocaches? How many cool and interesting caches would be missed by a Waymark-based filter?

Share this post


Link to post

Now we are getting into the realm of the integration that was touted with the promise of an upcoming 'Groundspeak 2.0' version of these sites.

PQs for Waymarks?

Mixed PQs for Waymarks and Geocaches?

OH MY! :(

Share this post


Link to post

Attributes are great if they're accurate. Too many cache hiders abuse the ones we have now. People flag non-applicable attributes just to be "funny" or to try to make their cache appear better than it is. Now if the finders had a say in which of the attributes were actually applied, that might make a difference. The hider could choose which ones he thought were applicable and the finders could vote whether they agree or disagree with the hiders choices. The votes would determine whether the attribute was actually shown on the cache page or not. Obviously this is not part of our existing attribute system, but for subjective attributes like the ones proposed here it might be an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Attributes are great if they're accurate. Too many cache hiders abuse the ones we have now. People flag non-applicable attributes just to be "funny" or to try to make their cache appear better than it is.

Yes, many cache hiders misuse the ones we have now.

 

They also regularly misuse ALL of the other owner-determined items such as the difficulty rating, the terrain rating, the hint field, the container size ...

 

I submit to you that if the fear of misuse is enough of a problem not to activate my proposal, then it is enough of a problem that ALL the existing attributes, along with the difficulty rating, terrain rating, hint field and container size should be scrapped as well, and immediately. Maybe cache owner shouldn’t even be trusted to write their own descriptions or take their own coordinate readings ...?

 

Seriously. Do you really think 'owner misuse' is a good enough reason not to have any of those things? There is no difference between current misuse of current features and potential misuse of potential features.

 

Now if the finders had a say in which of the attributes were actually applied, that might make a difference. The hider could choose which ones he thought were applicable and the finders could vote whether they agree or disagree with the hiders choices. The votes would determine whether the attribute was actually shown on the cache page or not. Obviously this is not part of our existing attribute system, but for subjective attributes like the ones proposed here it might be an improvement.

That is a creative suggestion, but ...

 

Large numbers of cachers are regularly stumped by the relatively straightforward procedures required to track travel bugs. Do you really think the complex system you propose will work effectively?

 

I suggest we keep it simple. ALL cache hiders are amateurs. A certain amount of confusion, misunderstanding and misuse of features is a guarantee. The simpler the system, the more often it will be used as intended.

 

Thanks for your input. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously. Do you really think 'owner misuse' is a good enough reason not to have any of those things?

 

No, and I never suggested any such thing. I merely pointed out a flaw with the existing attribute system.

 

Now if the finders had a say in which of the attributes were actually applied, that might make a difference. The hider could choose which ones he thought were applicable and the finders could vote whether they agree or disagree with the hiders choices. The votes would determine whether the attribute was actually shown on the cache page or not. Obviously this is not part of our existing attribute system, but for subjective attributes like the ones proposed here it might be an improvement.

 

That is a creative suggestion, but ...

 

Large numbers of cachers are regularly stumped by the relatively straightforward procedures required to track travel bugs. Do you really think the complex system you propose will work effectively?

 

Complex? It needn't be complex at all. Implemented correctly it could be as simple as clicking an attribute icon then clicking Agree or Disagree. How is that overly complex? Your attribute idea has merit and I'm not knocking it. Frankly we'd probably never see my extension of your idea implemented. No money in it for Groundspeak. I'm not suggesting your idea was bad, or wouldn't stand on its own, I think it would be an improvement over what we have now. I'm just suggesting that it could be taken a little farther.

Share this post


Link to post
Complex? It needn't be complex at all. Implemented correctly it could be as simple as clicking an attribute icon then clicking Agree or Disagree. How is that overly complex?

If that's the case, then I'm all for it. When you describe your modification that way it sounds ... pretty good, actually!

 

Your attribute idea has merit and I'm not knocking it. Frankly we'd probably never see my extension of your idea implemented.

Nevermind any extensions. Frankly, near as I can tell, my entire idea is being ignored by those who would implement it. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

 

Your attribute idea has merit and I'm not knocking it. Frankly we'd probably never see my extension of your idea implemented.

Nevermind any extensions. Frankly, near as I can tell, my entire idea is being ignored by those who would implement it. :anibad:

 

That's ok, you're in good company. Many excellent ideas that have been suggested here have yet to be acknowledged and/or implemented. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...