Feature Suggestion: User rated reviews.

[+gof1]

But just what is it that yo are worried about? What problem do you see that needs to be addressed? If you have a problem you want to find a solution to tell us what it is and we can discuss it. If what you want is just to rate a cache as good or bad, fun or not, then there are many threads that have covered this. Take a look at them. You'll see it is a highly contentious subject.

[+wimseyguy]

I do have connections with our Texas State Government, as well as with my local city government. I will say this, IT IS coming.

Why does my post say trackinthebox?

Edited July 13, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+Nalarangka]

Ok...I admit I was sort of skimming and lost the plot about half-way through when all the talk about mortal peril began. But I do have a couple of comments on the original topic.

 

#1 - Finder-defined terrain and difficulty ratings.

I think the CO should define the "official" terrain and difficulty. However, it might be userful to know how finders would rate these things too. So I started thinking about how zappos.com does reveiws on shoes. In addition to buyer's comments (parallel to finder's logs) they allow buyers to rate how "true to size" the shoes were, along with other things. That's very useful information if you have a lot of reviewers telling you the shoes run a size small. So what if the official rating/terrain was set by the CO and left exactly as-is, but as part of the logs, we get to see the average terrain/difficulty rating according to the finders? So, maybe at the top of the logs, we'd see something like "average finder terrain rating: X" and "average finder difficulty rating: X." People could take or leave that information as they see fit. I do think it should be limited to people posting a "found it" log since there are way too many variables related to DNFs that could have nothing to do with the cache itself.

 

#2 - Quality ratings.

I've only been around the forum for less than 2 months and I've already seen this topic come up several times. There's obviously a common desire (admittedly not held by everyone, but clearly held by many) to have more information on caches before they hunt for them. The very valid rebuttal that always crops up is that "quality" is totally subjective and different people like different kinds of caches. Plus, a 1-5 star rating system may create lot of acrimony. Not to mention it could be abused, and would all-around create an enormous headache for the people at Groundspeak. I'm not sure there's any way around this.

So what if instead of saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it," we are allowed to add finder-defined attributes to the cache log, detailing what we like or didn't like? So, as I'm filling in my log, I can check boxes for things like "Good for kids," "Scenic area," "Quick Park and Grab," etc.? I read a thread about this topic pretty recently, and I think it's a good idea.

 

I think those are two excellent ideas. You made a great analogy in the first point. I would love to see that implemented. I placed a cache and after answering the questions regarding terrain it said it should be a 4 and that is what I placed it as but I would really like to know what the cachers who found it thought about it. Was it overrated? Nobody has mentioned it in their logs but if the option was there perhaps they might.

[+Nalarangka]

#2 - Quality ratings.

I've only been around the forum for less than 2 months and I've already seen this topic come up several times. There's obviously a common desire (admittedly not held by everyone many, but clearly held by many a few) to have more information on caches before they hunt for them. The very valid rebuttal that always crops up is that "quality" is totally subjective and different people like different kinds of caches. Plus, a 1-5 star rating system may create lot of acrimony. Not to mention it could be abused, and would all-around create an enormous headache for the people at Groundspeak. I'm not sure there's any way around this.

So what if instead of saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it," we are allowed to add finder-defined attributes to the cache log, detailing what we like or didn't like? So, as I'm filling in my log, I can check boxes for things like "Good for kids," "Scenic area," "Quick Park and Grab," etc.? I read a thread about this topic pretty recently, and I think it's a good idea.

Fixed Restored that for you.

[+texasgrillchef]

 

Now could someone please quote Harrald's forum sig? It seems appropriate to add to this thread too.

Nothing personal TGC, but your geocaching experiences are too limited to have much weight at this early stage in your career. Stick around for a while, find a few more, hide a few more, attend some events, and then perhaps you might have a better idea?

 

That is exactly why I posted my suggestions in a forum, for feedback. How else am I suppose to know what others think or feel about a certain suggestion or subject matter without asking about it or posting in a forum.

 

Personally... like I have said several posts in this thread. I have not yet come across any "Bad Apple" CO's. I also haven't had any issues with any caches that I have attempted to find or have found.

 

I have been hiking, rafting, kayaking, camping, hunting, traveling the world for over 40 years. I have also been using GPS devices in my auto and in the "Field" Since even before 1990. Before I retired as a Chef I was a Paramedic working on a Search & Rescue team for 10 years as well. My beagle sara is also a certified search & rescue dog as well. I have volunteered my time to many state parks over the years as well. Because of my life experiances as described, It doesn't take much effort on my part to look at the Lat/Long coordinates, comparing them to maps & other informational sources I have & thusly know if the terrain is what I want to deal with or not.

 

Because of my S&R experiances for 10 years. My "Find" counts with & without the use of GPS that aren't caches are quite high. Trust me, finding a missing person on 10,000 acres of land is alot more difficult & dangerous than any cache hide could ever be. Oh BTW... even people with GPSr's get lost and require S&R to find them.

 

My POV with everything in life is one of prevention. Prevent things before they happen, don't wait till it has happend. My house has never been robbed. Doesn't mean I don't have an alarm system in my house, nor does it mean I havne't gotten my concealed weapons permit and know how to use it again't an intruder.

 

But if the geocaching community doesnt' want a rating system... then so be it.

If the geocaching community doesnt' want to take any preventive action to lower the odds of "Bad Apple" Co's or to find those who are... So Be it... Just dont' come crying to me when the sky falls.... I have retired!

 

TGC

[+texasgrillchef]

Very good points that you make. Of course I never said that my suggestions were perfect. But you do have to start somewhere before you can find a solution. I am still thinking.

TGC

Yes we have to start somewhere. I have made my own suggestion for a cache rating system a while back. I was more interested in being able to choose caches that would match my preferences, than weeding out "bad" caches. Of course there is NO perfect answer if for no other reason than there are lots of caches already in the field and at least some people that would not help with the system. At least that was one of the reasons given to me, " won't work, we can't expect people to make a few extra mouse clicks, or what about all the caches that haven't been "rated" yet? You might try a search on the forum for cache rating.

 

Well IF there is a "WORKABLE" rating system of any type. It sure hasn't been found or suggested yet. That I can see.

 

I personally havent' had a problem with "weeding" out cache hides that I want to find & don't want to find. My past life experiances have really helped with that aspect of geocaching. Someone who is geocaching at 18 though doesn't have quite the knowlege some of us old farts have had though.

 

I also have nothing again't ANYONE who thought my suggestions weren't good ones. Trust me in this. It isn't the first time I have had a bad idea. I am sure I will have many more. I am sure I will have good ones too. I didn't get to where I am today with the life experiances I have had without having a few good ideas along the way.

 

TGC

[+Nalarangka]

 

That is exactly why I posted my suggestions in a forum, for feedback.

 

Sorry but I don't think feedback is allowed or tolerated in these forums. It kinda gets in the way of people posting meaningless replies...like this one.

[+texasgrillchef]

Cache rating system

1. Make it anonymous in order to get more honest assessments and not to hurt the owners feelings.
    
   
2. Make it a cream of the crop system - e.g. a 10 star system. Those that get rated 8 or more stars get a special mark indicating that most raters liked this cache. This ties into the anonymous criteria - owners know only when their box is considered exceptional, not when it's average or below average.
    
   
3. Weight the quality of rater votes - I'm a member of a website where my vote is weighted. I can't mark everything as 5/5 - that shows I put little thought into my vote. A variety of factors is taken into account to determine rankings such - voting history, experience level, and even the standard deviation of how people vote on a given letterbox.
    
   Here's what my ratings stat page says:
   <div align="center">

   
   You have rated 142 [items] with an average rating of 3.02 and a standard deviation of 0.92.
    
   You've distributed your votes as follows:
   1. 5% (7 votes)
   2. 21% (30 votes)
   3. 46% (66 votes)
   4. 22% (31 votes)
   5. 6% (8 votes)
    
   The database tries to determine the quality of your votes when it comes time to calculate which items should get diamond ratings. The higher quality your votes are, the higher their weighting will be in the calculations.
    
   You have rated plenty of items within the expected distribution.

   </div>
   Only those that have visited can vote. Those who rate caches must rate all of their finds for the system to work fairly and accurately. This should weed out those who just want to rate their friends' caches only and give them high marks -- there's more of a commitment to the website and appropriate ratings when you need to rate all your finds and distribute the votes to a standard deviation. More than one visitor vote is required for calculations. Once every few weeks the database runs these calculations and assigns diamonds to those items that rank the highest. I believe that only the top 5% of items in the database get a diamond rating. In my area, those that received the diamond rating deserved it. The items are high quality.
    
   
4. Make the ranking system optional. If you are an owner that, on principal, doesn't like the idea of people ranking your caches, you can opt out.
   

 

It just occurred to me.... Ebay has a ratting system for its sellers and buyers. I don't know how many use Ebay. But I do. I have a rating of 99% which is good. meaning that 99% of those I did buisness with on Ebay were happy with doing buisness with me.

 

A similar type system might be tweaked for cache/hides. Maybe not, I do see some issues allready with the ebay rating system being ported over to cache/hides. It's just another idea though.

 

TGC

[+tozainamboku]

Your concerns are not new. They have brought up since before there was a Geocaching.com site. What will the public think of geocaches hidden in some particular locations? What will happen when the bomb squad gets called out to investigate a suspicious package? What will the parks do if the extra traffic caused by people searching for geocaches causes damage to the environment? What will happen if someone is hurt searching for a geocache?

 

The fact is all of these things have happened. They have resulted in various land managers banning geocaching in their parks or in having their own guidelines for caches. In some areas, the public has gotten upset because someone hid a geocache in a cemetery. There have been attempts to restrict the placement of geocaches in cemeteries and other historical areas.

 

Geocaching.com has established guidelines for hiding geocaches. These guidelines have grown and changed in reaction to real problems. They show a desire of Geocaching.com to work with authorities so that geocaching continues to be allowed in as many places as possible. Caches that don't meet these guidelines are not knowingly listed. The cache reviewers can archive (remove) a listing should a violation of the guidelines be discovered or even just in response to a request from a land owner or managers. The reviewers are familiar with local laws and regulations. I'm certain that the reviewers in Texas know that the Texas State Parks require you have a permit and may have guidelines other than the Geocaching.com guidelines. Caches in Texas State Parks will not be listed on Geocaching.com unless they comply with the rules of Texas State Parks.

 

In addition to enforcing guidelines, Geocaching.com spends a lot of time promoting a image of geocaching as family friendly and eco-friendly. They promote Cache-In Trash-Out events were geocachers help remove litter from parks and other areas. They willingly give interviews to local media. And when legislatures in various communities have proposed regulations that would negatively impact geocaching, Geocaching.com and local geocaching organization have mobilized to make sure that these legislatures have the facts about geocaching.

 

There is no imminent threat to geocaching and no need to create some new method to address the issue of "problem" caches. If anything, as the public has become more aware of geocaching there is more support for the activity.

[+Snoogans]

Well, hopefully Toz's excellent reply has cooled the Chef's coals a little.

 

Chef - like Snoogans said, the sky is not falling. Ease back, have a beer, and enjoy the day. Geocaching will be ok in the morning. Trust me, I'm on my 8th year of caching and it hasn't died yet.

 

Never said the sky was falling... yet... Just trying to tell everyone that it WILL!

 

But hey no problem.. I'll lean back.. I will relax.... but when it does... Allow me to say "I told you so" when it does happen.

 

As far as legislation goes... Im not supporting it, but since I do have connections with our Texas State Government, as well as with my local city government. I will say this, IT IS coming.

 

TGC

 

That's a pretty bold claim. What is it based on?

 

A) You're in the KNOW of upcoming REAL legislation from a credible source?

 

B ) Your neighbor's cousin's uncle's friend knows a guy in Austin that said sumthin' negative about geocaching once.

 

C) You can see the BIG picture and have a vast amount of experience with geocaching and the very real past history of geocaching legislation that has passed/failed in other states.

 

D) Spider sense.

 

My money's on D right now. That's cool when framed in speculative talk. My spider sense has posted many threads in this forum framed in speculation of things to come.

 

Uhhhh, but when you claim to have "connections" and use "IT IS coming" and "I told ya so's" it makes me wonder how far you would go to bring it about. It goes back to what I said about you calling other cachers "bad apples" having the vast experience that is demonstrated in your profile. One begins to wonder how far you're willing to GO to get to say "I told ya so."

 

Seriously, allow yourself more time to get the lay of the land and go to a few events and meet your fellow cachers. I bet they can lay your fears to rest.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Snoogans

[+niraD]

But if the geocaching community doesnt' want a rating system... then so be it.

If the geocaching community doesnt' want to take any preventive action to lower the odds of "Bad Apple" Co's or to find those who are... So Be it...

This seems like a non sequitur to me. How is a rating system (or lack thereof) related to the prevention (or lack thereof) of these supposed "bad apple" COs?

[+Snoogans]

But if the geocaching community doesnt' want a rating system... then so be it.

If the geocaching community doesnt' want to take any preventive action to lower the odds of "Bad Apple" Co's or to find those who are... So Be it...

This seems like a non sequitur to me. How is a rating system (or lack thereof) related to the prevention (or lack thereof) of these supposed "bad apple" COs?

 

Exxxxxaaaactlyyyy!

 

A set of guidelines exists. A cache can not be published unless it meets the minimum requirements of the guidelines. Anything that sneaks through the cracks is usually quickly seen to by the folks that go after it reporting it to Groundspeak.

[+wimseyguy]

I suspect that these so-called "bad apples" will gravitate to geocaching sooner or later. They'll lure us into dangerous areas, off the edges of cliffs, perhaps even digging tiger pits on trails leading to well know caches.

 

But this will only be after they have decimated the recreational table tennis and golfing communities with exploding dye filled balls, and greased down the local basketball and tennis courts. They'll also rough up the croquet and shuffleboard implements at retirement communities across the land leading to an increase in infectious splinter reports.

 

At that point we just might need to have our governments step in and protect us from ourselves once again.

[gojkgo]

#2 - Quality ratings.

I've only been around the forum for less than 2 months and I've already seen this topic come up several times. There's obviously a common desire (admittedly not held by everyone many, but clearly held by many a few) to have more information on caches before they hunt for them. The very valid rebuttal that always crops up is that "quality" is totally subjective and different people like different kinds of caches. Plus, a 1-5 star rating system may create lot of acrimony. Not to mention it could be abused, and would all-around create an enormous headache for the people at Groundspeak. I'm not sure there's any way around this.

So what if instead of saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it," we are allowed to add finder-defined attributes to the cache log, detailing what we like or didn't like? So, as I'm filling in my log, I can check boxes for things like "Good for kids," "Scenic area," "Quick Park and Grab," etc.? I read a thread about this topic pretty recently, and I think it's a good idea.

Fixed Restored that for you.

 

lol - thanks.

[+texasgrillchef]

That's a pretty bold claim. What is it based on?

 

A) You're in the KNOW of upcoming REAL legislation from a credible source?

 

B ) Your neighbor's cousin's uncle's friend knows a guy in Austin that said sumthin' negative about geocaching once.

 

C) You can see the BIG picture and have a vast amount of experience with geocaching and the very real past history of geocaching legislation that has passed/failed in other states.

 

D) Spider sense.

 

The answer to that question, is A.

 

Uhhhh, but when you claim to have "connections" and use "IT IS coming" and "I told ya so's" it makes me wonder how far you would go to bring it about. It goes back to what I said about you calling other cachers "bad apples" having the vast experience that is demonstrated in your profile. One begins to wonder how far you're willing to GO to get to say "I told ya so."

 

Seriously, allow yourself more time to get the lay of the land and go to a few events and meet your fellow cachers. I bet they can lay your fears to rest.

 

When it comes to legislation, local, state, or federal. I don't support passage of any legislation on any level unless I believe that passage of said legislation will actually have at least some positive outcome. Which in reality is very little! As far as making my "I Told You So's" & "It is coming" statements come true I wouldn't go any distance to make them come true. In fact. I would love to be proven wrong. PLEASE come back to me in 2 or 3 years and tell me how wrong I was. This is ONE of the FEW times I would LOVE to be proven wrong!

 

If I attended events (of any type, not just geocaching) Maybe they could lay some of my fears to rest. Maybe. However... it was some of these geocachers and thier several hundred posts in several threads that lead me to start this thread in the first place. I want to say again.... I personaly have yet to come across any "BAD" CO's.

 

The intention I had with my original suggestions, while maybe not the best suggestions. (Which I have now learned, Thank You) was with the best of intentions. The intent I had wanted to suggest was a system that would have 3 essential parts to it.

 

1. To single out those cache/hides that are of exceptional quality.

2. To single out those cache/hides that had "Qustionable Issues" that a cache hunter should be aware of.

3. To single out those Cache owners that have habitual "Questionable Issues" with a majority of their caches as to give notice to geocaching.com & cache hunters about their cache/hides. (A CO that has 50 hides and only has 1 or 2 hides that have "QI" is probably not a "Bad Apple". "Bad Apple" CO's on the other hand will more than likely have "QI" with a majority of the cache/hides)

 

Currently... Restaurants in most cities in Texas, Especially in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Are rated & judged on a A, B, C, D or F rating (By the Health Department). thus showing prospective customers that the restaurant in question is either "Exceptional", "Questionable" or even a "Problem" which of course the Health department shuts down until the problem is solved. In some cities if your restaurant is shut down more than 3 - 5 times, The Health department can shut it down permantely. This system of course requires official inspectors. Now I am NOT suggesting that this is a workable solution for geocaching either. Just making a point.

 

I just don't wish to see this sport die because of a few "Bad Apples". I was told by a Texas State Parks Superintendant, that the reason why Texas State Parks now requires a permit is exactly because there were PROBLEMS with geocaches being placed in areas that they shouldn't have been. They (The Park System) didn't want to rely on geocaching.com to correct the problem. So they corrected the problem themselvs by implementing the permit system. I am sure there are many other areas that they just banned the sport of geocaching all together. I am VERY glad that the Texas State Parks didn't ban the sport. They could have though.

 

One north Texas city Parks & Recreation department has started to get quite a few complaints about geocachers and their caches. While they haven't implemented any permit system or city ordinances yet, they are having the city attourny look into how a permit system &/or legislation could be implemented. A couple of those complaints even led to the police being called a few times because a couple of the caches were located in areas that are in areas with high gang activity. Something that a geocaching.com reviewer may not always know about, or even someone searching for a the cache/hide. Texas isn't the most leniant of states when it comes to gang activity.

 

I have to give geocaching.com & it's reviewers ALOT of credit for doing a VERY good job in maintaining a database of appropriate cache/hides, & taking QUICK action agains't cache/hides that violate the geocaching.com guidelines.

 

My suggestions, comments, & statements are only made out of concern for the sport. But like I said many many times before. I beleive in prevention, not an after thought. The Patriot Act was an after thought. Should have been implemented when the first attacks on the WTC happend. Could have saved lives. The Amber alert system, should have been enacted YEARS before Amber was ever kidnapped and killed. Could have saved even more lives then it has allready.

 

TGC

[+texasgrillchef]

But if the geocaching community doesnt' want a rating system... then so be it.

If the geocaching community doesnt' want to take any preventive action to lower the odds of "Bad Apple" Co's or to find those who are... So Be it...

This seems like a non sequitur to me. How is a rating system (or lack thereof) related to the prevention (or lack thereof) of these supposed "bad apple" COs?

 

Well, you do raise a good point. The idea though (Assuming you have a good workable system, whatever that system is) that it would alert us to the CO's that consistantly have a "Issues" with a majority of their cache/hides on an ongoing basis. Once that is known, appropriate action COULD possibly be taken.

 

A system used by some Health Departments with restaurants can alert the Health Department to resaturans that have a habitual problem with maintaining their restaurants to "Code". When this happens, the Health Department can initiate the process to PERMANTLY close a restaurant. Although, currently in our area it doesn't prevent the owner from opening a NEW restaurant in a DIFFERENT location. The Health Department uses a rating system from A-F. This rating system is of course based on a set of established rules, regulations & codes. Which ideally leaves out BIAS by the inspector. This of course can & is debated. In our area the checklist that the inspector uses is a simple YES/NO check list. Each item is given points. The points are then added up (Based on the answer) & then converted to the A, B, C, D, F system. There are few items on the check list that the (Incorrect) answer by itself can automatically generate a F rating.

 

Maybe a system like this would work for cache/hides. Although I can see issues with this as well. Who does the inpecting? Who has the time do the inspecting? (No one probably). What would it cost & who would pay for it. The cost part (If any) would be a major issue as well. I am sure there are other issues with using this type of rating system that I haven't even thought of yet.

 

One thing I will give ya though, is unless you have a good workable system finding those "Bad Apples" or even the good ones won't be an easy task.

 

TGC

[+niraD]

The idea though (Assuming you have a good workable system, whatever that system is) that it would alert us to the CO's that consistantly have a "Issues" with a majority of their cache/hides on an ongoing basis. Once that is known, appropriate action COULD possibly be taken.

IMHO, we already have a very workable system to deal with the few problems that require action: anyone can post a Should Be Archived log. If there is a real problem with the cache, then SBA is appropriate. I've seen caches with real problems (e.g., hidden on private property without permission) and they've been archived quickly once the problem was reported.

 

We don't need a rating/recommendation system to deal with caches that have real problems.

[+Chrysalides]

The idea though (Assuming you have a good workable system, whatever that system is) that it would alert us to the CO's that consistantly have a "Issues" with a majority of their cache/hides on an ongoing basis. Once that is known, appropriate action COULD possibly be taken.

IMHO, we already have a very workable system to deal with the few problems that require action: anyone can post a Should Be Archived log. If there is a real problem with the cache, then SBA is appropriate. I've seen caches with real problems (e.g., hidden on private property without permission) and they've been archived quickly once the problem was reported.

 

We don't need a rating/recommendation system to deal with caches that have real problems.

Exactly the way I feel.

 

For someone who retired 6 days ago (after obliquely threatening legislature against geocaching, which I'm sure endeared him to the hearts of many here) he sure has a lot to say.

[+Snoogans]

That's a pretty bold claim. What is it based on?

 

A) You're in the KNOW of upcoming REAL legislation from a credible source?

 

B ) Your neighbor's cousin's uncle's friend knows a guy in Austin that said sumthin' negative about geocaching once.

 

C) You can see the BIG picture and have a vast amount of experience with geocaching and the very real past history of geocaching legislation that has passed/failed in other states.

 

D) Spider sense.

 

The answer to that question, is A.

 

 

I just don't wish to see this sport die because of a few "Bad Apples". I was told by a Texas State Parks Superintendant, that the reason why Texas State Parks now requires a permit is exactly because there were PROBLEMS with geocaches being placed in areas that they shouldn't have been. They (The Park System) didn't want to rely on geocaching.com to correct the problem. So they corrected the problem themselvs by implementing the permit system. I am sure there are many other areas that they just banned the sport of geocaching all together. I am VERY glad that the Texas State Parks didn't ban the sport. They could have though.

 

One north Texas city Parks & Recreation department has started to get quite a few complaints about geocachers and their caches. While they haven't implemented any permit system or city ordinances yet, they are having the city attourny look into how a permit system &/or legislation could be implemented. A couple of those complaints even led to the police being called a few times because a couple of the caches were located in areas that are in areas with high gang activity. Something that a geocaching.com reviewer may not always know about, or even someone searching for a the cache/hide. Texas isn't the most leniant of states when it comes to gang activity.

 

I have to give geocaching.com & it's reviewers ALOT of credit for doing a VERY good job in maintaining a database of appropriate cache/hides, & taking QUICK action agains't cache/hides that violate the geocaching.com guidelines.

 

My suggestions, comments, & statements are only made out of concern for the sport. But like I said many many times before. I beleive in prevention, not an after thought. The Patriot Act was an after thought. Should have been implemented when the first attacks on the WTC happend. Could have saved lives. The Amber alert system, should have been enacted YEARS before Amber was ever kidnapped and killed. Could have saved even more lives then it has allready.

 

TGC

 

Grill Dude, your heart is in the right place but your concern-O-meter is set at 11 right now. Geocaching won't die as a result of a domino effect touched off by your local parks an rec dept.

 

 

There is a reason why the Texas State Parks board didn't over react to geocaching. $$$$$ Not to mention quite a few rangers are geocachers themselves. What happened there is a win-win.

 

As far as your local P&R dept. goes, get help from your local experts: Prime Suspect aka Prime Reviewer, 9key, and Roland Oso. They can and will help you and they WILL lay your fears to rest.

 

Back in 2004 I approached my local Parks & Rec Director about setting up a CITO which turned into a bird's nest of concern over existing caches. I explained the nature of caching to them and the common misconception that the blanket acceptance of geocaching by the BLM is often mistaken as tacit permission to hide in city parks uhh which it isn't.

 

That eased them up and then I showed them my cache pages pointing out how far away people were coming from to hunt my caches and they saw $$$ for the community by way of folks possibly needing to buy gas, drinks, snacks, breakfast/lunch/dinner, or swag as they pass through. The concept of GeoTourism opened the door.

 

They asked me to come to their regional meeting and another cacher (ParkerPlus) and I gave a lecture and demonstration + Q & A session and guess what... NOW any cacher can hide a cache in ANY metro Houston area park without stopping to ask if it's okay. Approval has been given right then for literally hundreds of parks.

 

Geocachers get around and many of us plan trips around our caching activity. Any state or local government that moves to ban geocaching loses those GeoTourism dollars. It's bad business to ban geocaching plain and simple.

 

The good folks in North (or was it South) Carolina recently squashed a statewide BAN on geocaching. If it came to that, Texas cachers could do the same.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Snoogans

[+KBI]

Most of the angst I've seen regarding people FOR rating systems is people that want to be "protected" from parking lot micros and the like.

... which is ironic, because when folks like Kit fox describe some of the elements they require from their cache hunts ...

I tend to look for caches that require a long hike ... I'm not worried about the spoiler aspect, because the thrill for me was being outdoors, and the bonus was the cache.

... they are also simultaneously describing almost every parking lot cache I have ever done.

 

I’m on the road several days a week. I hate staying cooped up in hotel rooms, and browsing in malls is rarely an attractive alternative. Having no wheels is a very limiting thing. Caching gets me outside; I get to burn calories, I get to see the town, and I get to play with my GPS. And you’d be surprised how many surprisingly beautiful natural areas I end up seeing and enjoying during my wanderings around and between the "lame parking lot caches."

 

We 'urban hikers' just roll our eyes whenever other cachers get agitated by our enjoyment or start telling us we’re not caching properly.

 

Arrow42 and niraD (and others) have it right: Rating caches is problematic because everyone’s preference is unique. A straight 'quality rating' would be of little value to most folks. One of the best proposals I have heard is the suggestion system, wherein each cache page generates a "people who liked this cache also liked these other nearby caches." I also like Markwell’s Top Ten idea.

 

But I think the best philosophy of all is: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

[+KBI]

So what if instead of saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it," we are allowed to add finder-defined attributes to the cache log, detailing what we like or didn't like? So, as I'm filling in my log, I can check boxes for things like "Good for kids," "Scenic area," "Quick Park and Grab," etc.? I read a thread about this topic pretty recently, and I think it's a good idea.

Why not just include that in your log? That's what the log is for, after all.

You’d be surprised how many people want desperately to be told in advance which caches they will be guaranteed to enjoy, yet who also simultaneously refuse to go to the trouble of reading the cache page before the hunt.

[+KBI]

As far as what the deffinition of a "Bad Apple" CO is.... that isn't for me to decide.

Correct. It is for the Reviewers to decide. That is how the system is set up at the present time, and it has been working very well for many years now.

 

Practical problems ("That cache is too close to a preschool/railroad track/military base!") are dealt with very effectively by the Reviewers. Aesthetic differences of opinion ("That cache failed to entertain me!") are completely ignored by the Reviewers ... which is as it should be.

 

(If and when they day comes that you are appointed to be a Reviewer, then it will become your job to root out the bad apples. And my guess is that it won’t be a job you will enjoy, based on my conversations with my Reviewer friends.)

 

Aesthetic quality and practical soundness are two completely different issues, yet you seem to be confusing the two. Which "bad apples" are you against, the ones who violate the existing guidelines, or the ones who merely fail to entertain you?

[+Chrysalides]

You’d be surprised how many people want desperately to be told in advance which caches they will be guaranteed to enjoy, yet who also simultaneously refuse to go to the trouble of reading the cache page before the hunt.

I see a money making opportunity here. A "geocaching concierge" service. For a fixed fee, tell the service what you like, and they'll plan out a route of geocaches that you will enjoy.

[+L0ne.R]

And you’d be surprised how many surprisingly beautiful natural areas I end up seeing and enjoying during my wanderings around and between the "lame parking lot caches."

I don't think anyone has to worry that lame parking lot caches will disappear if a rating system were available.

[CoyoteRed]

The good folks in North (or was it South) Carolina recently squashed a statewide BAN on geocaching. If it came to that, Texas cachers could do the same.

The Recent Unpleasantness here in South Carolina was on the state legislation level with a pretty good whisper campaign started long before we heard about it. This is completely different animal than a state-level department like parks and recreation. A department can ban geocaching with a stroke of a pen. Legislation takes months or years.

 

In reality a decent permit scheme in a large park system is actually beneficial to geocachers. First, it provides a way to easily find who you need talk to about permission. Second, it provides sort of endorsement when you approach smaller systems or even individuals.

 

The trick is getting an easy to use permit scheme without a whole lot of hoops to jump through.

[+Snoogans]

The good folks in North (or was it South) Carolina recently squashed a statewide BAN on geocaching. If it came to that, Texas cachers could do the same.

The Recent Unpleasantness here in South Carolina was on the state legislation level with a pretty good whisper campaign started long before we heard about it. This is completely different animal than a state-level department like parks and recreation. A department can ban geocaching with a stroke of a pen. Legislation takes months or years.

 

In reality a decent permit scheme in a large park system is actually beneficial to geocachers. First, it provides a way to easily find who you need talk to about permission. Second, it provides sort of endorsement when you approach smaller systems or even individuals.

 

The trick is getting an easy to use permit scheme without a whole lot of hoops to jump through.

 

Thanks CR. I knew you could clear that up.

[+KBI]

And you’d be surprised how many surprisingly beautiful natural areas I end up seeing and enjoying during my wanderings around and between the "lame parking lot caches."

I don't think anyone has to worry that lame parking lot caches will disappear if a rating system were available.

I believe you are correct; fact is, no one here (not even me) has expressed that worry.

 

You quoted my rambling babble somewhat out of context. I was responding to Snoogans' observation:

 

Most of the angst I've seen regarding people FOR rating systems is people that want to be "protected" from parking lot micros and the like.

I think Snoogans has it right. He’s a perceptive guy.

 

Maybe some future ratings system will actually provide such a 'protection' for the angsty crowd. If so, I think we will all be happier.

 

Of course if any kind of ratings system *is* ever established, I expect many of the frequent forum complainer-types will be surprised at some of the data trends that will emerge. Like you, I do not believe a ratings system will summarily eject certain so-called "lame" caches from the system. Why would it?

 

What I think is more likely – judging from the popularity of those caches, the volume and tone of their logs, and the way I and many of by buddies have enjoyed them – is that the collective data resulting from any meaningfully accurate rating system will merely confirm what most of us already know: (1) Cachers hide the kinds of caches they tend to enjoy finding; (2) there is a WIDE variety of personal preferences and tastes out there; (3) the existing mix of available cache hides is a natural reflection of those extremely diverse preferences; and (4) the vast majority of cachers are far more tolerant of each other’s preferences than any naive reading of the forums would lead one to conclude.

[CoyoteRed]

Wow! Great hide! Easy, quick parking close by. Found immediately. Around the back so no muggles around. Even so, the dumpster makes a great screen. Log small enough to slip out, sign, and put back quickly with no trash in the cache to contend with. A true gift! 5 stars. Thanks for putting this non-nano micro in a convenient parking lot for yet another smilie on my way to 300 in a day, one cache a day for 3 years, my Delorme/county/zipcode/areacode/state/store parking lot challenge, and simply allowing me something to do while the wife is inside doing her stupid shopping. TFTC! Again, this gift rates 5 stars!

 

The danger of straight star-based ratings.

[+KBI]

Wow! Great hide! Easy, quick parking close by. Found immediately. Around the back so no muggles around. Even so, the dumpster makes a great screen. Log small enough to slip out, sign, and put back quickly with no trash in the cache to contend with. A true gift! 5 stars. Thanks for putting this non-nano micro in a convenient parking lot for yet another smilie on my way to 300 in a day, one cache a day for 3 years, my Delorme/county/zipcode/areacode/state/store parking lot challenge, and simply allowing me something to do while the wife is inside doing her stupid shopping. TFTC! Again, this gift rates 5 stars!

 

The danger of straight star-based ratings.

You are sooooo right.

 

We cannot allow people whose caching preferences are different from yours to be freely expressing their inferior opinions via some hare-brained ratings system. "Danger" is the perfect word. People could get hurt.

 

Can’t have that. It’s much, much safer to stay with the existing system, where these deluded cachers – these inferiors who only think they are having a good time – stick to simply writing their opinions in their online logs.

 

I fully agree with your implication that there is no harm in this de-contaminated example:

 

Wow! Great hide! Easy, quick parking close by. Found immediately. Around the back so no muggles around. Even so, the dumpster makes a great screen. Log small enough to slip out, sign, and put back quickly with no trash in the cache to contend with. A true gift! 5 stars. Thanks for putting this non-nano micro in a convenient parking lot for yet another smilie on my way to 300 in a day, one cache a day for 3 years, my Delorme/county/zipcode/areacode/state/store parking lot challenge, and simply allowing me something to do while the wife is inside doing her stupid shopping. TFTC! Again, this gift rates 5 stars great hide!

Yes – status quo is best. Tossing in a dangerous unknown like a ratings system is simply too risky.

[+Mule Ears]

Right now, without a rating system, we cache owners are like the kids of Lake Woebegon--we're all above average. Ratings would spoil that pleasant delusion.

[+wimseyguy]

You’d be surprised how many people want desperately to be told in advance which caches they will be guaranteed to enjoy, yet who also simultaneously refuse to go to the trouble of reading the cache page before the hunt.

I see a money making opportunity here. A "geocaching concierge" service. For a fixed fee, tell the service what you like, and they'll plan out a route of geocaches that you will enjoy.

 

Too late-several hundred already exist, and they aren't looking to profit on it either. Some geocachers simply want to help visitors enjoy their home turf. I've had several very interesting trips out into the desert around Vegas on my visits there.

[+AstroDav]

I'm still trying to figure out how the OP got from a rating system, to capital punishment, to the government about to pass legislation which will destroy geocaching as we know it. Hummm....