Jump to content

Quality of caches


Moote

Recommended Posts

Easier said than done. Until people stop logging caches "TFTC" regardless of whether they liked it or not, there's little point in using the logs as any basis for filtering out caches you might not enjoy.

The logs on their own are of limited use, although if a cache only gets "TFTC" all the time I'd advise not bothering with it. But in conjunction with the description and a look on the map, I'd be fairly confident of being able to spot the outstanding caches in an area (from my POV), given a couple of hours of research (I'm just doing this for the Lake District).

And location seems to get mentioned a lot in this thread. There is NO shortage of great places to hide caches in the UK - unless you're too worried/lazy/unfit to walk further than the width of your car door. Even around areas full of micro trails, there's still plenty of space to hide new caches.

Point is, that the real classic, top-quality locations in many areas already have a cache or three. There are still likely to be some "quite nice" places to hide a cache but people aren't going to rave about them.

Link to comment

I'd like to make a serious and practical proposal.

 

I propose that "Found" logs be given an option to rate the cache, qualitatively, on a scale such as 0 to 10 (or 1 to 11, if you work for the BBC). A purely subjective and qualitative vote for the cache, with, of course, an option for abstaining.

 

It would be a trivially simple matter for the the GC.com programmers to create a running total which averages those votes and display the current result on the cache page.

 

I think it would be much more useful than the X/Y Difficulty/Terrain quantification which is currently made only and solely by the one person who is least likely to be able to make an objective assessment.

Link to comment

I'll second the Forester's proposal - I think it's a great idea. I've only placed one cache so far and had some pretty good feedback in the comments. However, before placing it I agonised over location, contents etc. A rating for caches would give me an overall indication of if I've chosen wisely and if the cache is being enjoyed.

 

Similarly there are some caches I've found that I've loved and some I've hated (micros in ivy covered trees mainly!) but I seem to always say TFTC anyway to be polite!

Link to comment

I'd like to make a serious and practical proposal.

 

I propose that "Found" logs be given an option to rate the cache, qualitatively, on a scale such as 0 to 10 (or 1 to 11, if you work for the BBC). A purely subjective and qualitative vote for the cache, with, of course, an option for abstaining.

 

 

So let's just say - for example only - that GC*&^% is a 35mm film pot, in a hedge, by a lay-by.

Initially, anybody that doesn't like this sort of cache either puts it on their ignore list, or filters it out in GSAK, or just deletes the flag on Memory Map. The only people left to find the cache are numbers hounds - who are in such a hurry to get on to the next drive-by that they can't remember the cache anyway and so give it a middle-of-the-road 5; and people who like 35mm film pots in hedges - who give this one a 10 for being so close to such a convenient layby.

After a month or two the rating system has worked - people are dilligently rating GC*&^%, and it averages out at 7.5. So now anybody from outside the immediate area looking in sees an unfound cache with 7.5 stars, and goes for it........

 

Any rating system like this is going to be subjective. If you like this sort of cache you'll give it a high vote. If you don't like this sort of cache you'll do exactly as you do now, and ignore it. Every cache in the country - except those so appallingly bad that even their fans don't like them - will end up with exactly the same score.

Link to comment

A good crit, DonQ.

 

I'll take that one head on.

 

Under my suggested regime, cache-page readers would very easily see that it was a film-pot-in-a-hedge job and would also see what points had been awarded for that particular film-pot-in-a-hedge, made by people who have enjoyed or disenjoyed that particular film-pot-in-a-hedge.

 

Not all film-pot caches are equal. Some are truly brilliant; others are complete shyte.

 

My proposal proposes to differentiate them qualitatively, not quantitively. For all to see.

Link to comment

Many caches I has seen recently have drop in quality compared to the old days, could this be due to our obsession on numbers.

 

Moote

 

It's a function of another number. There is only one best cache spot in the country. There are only a few truly great spots, A few more great spots. Take it down to the bottom and the number of crappy cache spots is astounding. The more caches placed the more they have to make use of the lesser locations as the prime spots were alwasy limited in number.

Link to comment

A good crit, DonQ.

 

I'll take that one head on.

 

Under my suggested regime, cache-page readers would very easily see that it was a film-pot-in-a-hedge job and would also see what points had been awarded for that particular film-pot-in-a-hedge, made by people who have enjoyed or disenjoyed that particular film-pot-in-a-hedge.

 

Not all film-pot caches are equal. Some are truly brilliant; others are complete shyte.

 

My proposal proposes to differentiate them qualitatively, not quantitively. For all to see.

 

I agree that a grading system would be very useful, but to make sure it's done in the best possible way, I think it would need to be very carefully thought out. As keehotee points out, votes risk becoming 'averaged' as it's inevitable that personal preferences for certain types of caches will influence votes.

 

It might be more productive to break down grades for different aspects of the cache rather than have one overall cache score. Three examples that came to my mind are container quality, family friendliness and accuracy of cooordinates, but I'm sure we could come up with more.

The advantage is that they would allow cachers to judge a cache on the category that most effects you.

For example accuracy of coordinates would be very important to a urban micro hunter, but maybe not so crucial to a family out hunting together in the countryside. A family would be looking for a good 'family friendly' rating, but may not be so concerned about coordinate accuracy. A container quality rating would enable us all to differenciate between a soggy film pot and a nice watertight bison tube or a rusty ammo can and a nice well sealed lok'n'lok.

 

You would just pick the cache ratings that effected your style of caching and ignore those that didn't.

 

I think pursuading Groundspeak to bring in ratings might be difficult, so in the meantime I use GCVote, but there is much potential in my opinion in a system for ratings.

Link to comment

 

I agree that a grading system would be very useful, but to make sure it's done in the best possible way, I think it would need to be very carefully thought out. As keehotee points out, votes risk becoming 'averaged' as it's inevitable that personal preferences for certain types of caches will influence votes.

 

It might be more productive to break down grades for different aspects of the cache rather than have one overall cache score. Three examples that came to my mind are container quality, family friendliness and accuracy of cooordinates, but I'm sure we could come up with more.

The advantage is that they would allow cachers to judge a cache on the category that most effects you.

For example accuracy of coordinates would be very important to a urban micro hunter, but maybe not so crucial to a family out hunting together in the countryside. A family would be looking for a good 'family friendly' rating, but may not be so concerned about coordinate accuracy. A container quality rating would enable us all to differenciate between a soggy film pot and a nice watertight bison tube or a rusty ammo can and a nice well sealed lok'n'lok.

 

You would just pick the cache ratings that effected your style of caching and ignore those that didn't.

 

I think pursuading Groundspeak to bring in ratings might be difficult, so in the meantime I use GCVote, but there is much potential in my opinion in a system for ratings.

 

Grade aspects might certainly be more useful. In fact you could take a selection of the attributes and just grade on those.

 

Should it be an optional scheme, I can imagine logging find becoming something of a real pain if you had to select more than 3 attributes to grade.

 

Also, I think it goes without saying that it should be anonymous voting - but what about voter numbers. I mean if the FTF visits and gives a cache a low grade equalling say 1/10, for the wrong kind of reasons, that's going to prejudice other finders. Therefore maybe the grades should kick in after several finds, so that no-one attempts to derail or assassinate someone elses cache.

 

That way at least the FTF hounds are giving back something to the community :D -- that was just a joke ok?

Link to comment

Grade aspects might certainly be more useful. In fact you could take a selection of the attributes and just grade on those.

 

Should it be an optional scheme, I can imagine logging find becoming something of a real pain if you had to select more than 3 attributes to grade.

 

Also, I think it goes without saying that it should be anonymous voting - but what about voter numbers. I mean if the FTF visits and gives a cache a low grade equalling say 1/10, for the wrong kind of reasons, that's going to prejudice other finders. Therefore maybe the grades should kick in after several finds, so that no-one attempts to derail or assassinate someone elses cache.

 

That way at least the FTF hounds are giving back something to the community :D -- that was just a joke ok?

 

The attributes are there to tell you more about the cache - and to ease filtering. Why would you want to grade them? What could anybody possibly gain from knowing that a cache was more - or less - findable 24/7, or child friendly, or wheelchair accessible?

 

And why anonymous? The ratings aren't going to do anything that an honestly worded log wouldn't... and if people aren't prepared to log honestly, why would you think an anonymous rating system will make them any more honest?

Link to comment

Grade aspects might certainly be more useful. In fact you could take a selection of the attributes and just grade on those.

 

Should it be an optional scheme, I can imagine logging find becoming something of a real pain if you had to select more than 3 attributes to grade.

 

Also, I think it goes without saying that it should be anonymous voting - but what about voter numbers. I mean if the FTF visits and gives a cache a low grade equalling say 1/10, for the wrong kind of reasons, that's going to prejudice other finders. Therefore maybe the grades should kick in after several finds, so that no-one attempts to derail or assassinate someone elses cache.

 

That way at least the FTF hounds are giving back something to the community :D -- that was just a joke ok?

 

The attributes are there to tell you more about the cache - and to ease filtering. Why would you want to grade them? What could anybody possibly gain from knowing that a cache was more - or less - findable 24/7, or child friendly, or wheelchair accessible?

 

And why anonymous? The ratings aren't going to do anything that an honestly worded log wouldn't... and if people aren't prepared to log honestly, why would you think an anonymous rating system will make them any more honest?

 

Good points. I dunno just spinning ideas. Though, I would say that anonymity will get honesty from those that are afraid to offend. Not everyone who geocaches is a forum blowhard.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

The attributes are there to tell you more about the cache - and to ease filtering. Why would you want to grade them? What could anybody possibly gain from knowing that a cache was more - or less - findable 24/7, or child friendly, or wheelchair accessible?

 

And why anonymous? The ratings aren't going to do anything that an honestly worded log wouldn't... and if people aren't prepared to log honestly, why would you think an anonymous rating system will make them any more honest?

 

Not everyone feels comfortable telling the whole truth about a cache :D - I think you will (and do) get more honest response when it's anonymous. GCVote already supports this for my caches......

 

Also attributes are an indicator, but can never tell the full story. Grading is a useful way of breaking down the symbol into more meaningful information. Handicaching was a perfect example of this. It allowed cachers to grade aspects of the cache (such as access etc), so a cacher with a disability could make a more informed decision about a cache, rather than just rely on someone ticking an attribute box.

 

What would be great is if the GeocacheUK website could be resurrected. I always used to vote on that site and I also used the grades to plan my days out caching. If we could bring it back then I think it would be a great way to approach this. That way its there for those that want it, but can be left alone by those who don’t.

Link to comment

 

<snip> ...Handicaching was a perfect example of this. It allowed cachers to grade aspects of the cache (such as access etc), so a cacher with a disability could make a more informed decision about a cache, rather than just rely on someone ticking an attribute box. <snip>

 

Even if Groundspeak didn't introduce grading, I think having a feature for wheelchair users and anyone else with disability would be a good idea.

 

A couple of times I've umm'ed and aww'ed over whether I should tick that box or not with caches that have been borderline - terrain is flat, easy to get to but the last step where the cache is hidden I'm not sure if it's reachable by a wheelchair or not.. I mean maybe if the wheelchair user was quite agile yes, but if the wheelchair user was short or not as flexible - which side do you err on?

Link to comment

 

<snip> ...Handicaching was a perfect example of this. It allowed c achers to grade aspects of the cache (such as access etc), so a cacher with a disability could make a more informed decision about a cache, rather than just rely on someone ticking an attribute box. <snip>

 

Even if Groundspeak didn't introduce grading, I think having a feature for wheelchair users and anyone else with disability would be a good idea.

 

A couple of times I've umm'ed and aww'ed over whether I should tick that box or not with caches that have been borderline - terrain is flat, easy to get to but the last step where the cache is hidden I'm not sure if it's reachable by a wheelchair or not.. I mean maybe if the wheelchair user was quite agile yes, but if the wheelchair user was short or not as flexible - which side do you err on?

 

Handicaching.com allows cache owners to create a rating about their cache on several criteria. It also allows finders to do the same.

 

[note the site seems to be suffering from a server error at the moment]

 

Deci

 

spelling corrected

Edited by Deceangi
Link to comment

Get all narked. I wonder if you are aware of the fact that people cant just place caches where everthey want to. There's this little hassle called permission.

Then I wonder if you're aware of the GAGB? We go to lots of trouble to arrange large areas of agreement with land owners. THEY get really "narked" if people trash areas of wildlife that they control. The result of that will be that they cancel the agreement and tell other organisations to also say no.

 

So, by one persons actions of placing a micro that results in damage being done, everyone else loses.

 

It's not just a matter of just not doing ones that "my high standards" mean that I don't like, I and everyone else who can see the problems that can occur should tell people to stop it happening and try to make people think.

 

Sorry if you think that any of that means I'm being too fussy or trying to impose my standards on other people. They aren't my standards they are the standards of landowners.

And to re-iterate my point - since geocaching.com - an American site - is open to anyone in the world to sign up and place caches irrespective of agencies that operate under the banner of "Geocaching" and limited to certain state boundaries, anyone can place a cache.

 

Anyone can place a cache even without signing up to geocaching.com. Just like anyone can litter without signing up to littering.com.

 

You can't police the internet and you can't police people who litter -- or place bad caches.

 

Of course, if a landowner opposes a cache they can contact Groundspeak and get the LISTING removed. But just like a landowner can't prevent litterers, trespassers who are non-cachers, landowners can't actually prevent cache placers either - who are simply using geocaching.com as a service for listing it.

 

Anyway land ownership is a red herring argument you are making. Assuming that a local council gave people permission to place caches at the local rubbish dump - there is no obligation for you to go find that cache - unless you are compulsively obsessed by numbers - which was my original point.

 

I guess that if the GAGB wanted, they could start their own website, elect you as the reviewer then you could make sure that every single GAGB placement was legit. Might have less GAGB caches listed than those on geocaching.com but at least you would be happy not having to see those little icons appear in places you personally disagree with.

 

my original and continued point is that, it's all well and good for those of us able to look and say " that's rubbish, I'm not doing it" but there will always be number hounds.

 

They will still go out and find the caches that are placed where damage is being caused and because they are number hounds they will trash an area until they find the tiny pot! So by just putting it on our ignore lists we do nothing to prevent just make sure non of the guilt is directly on our hands...

 

So this is an additional part of the rating. We need to be able to mark up caches that are bad for more than just one reason. Maybe the "Should be Archived" option could be made anonymous.

Then when you find a cache that just shouldn't be out there for whatever reason you could let others know and notify the reviewers.

or maybe it's possible for a cache listing to show how many people have marked the cache as ignore? nice anonymous way to say rubbish.

 

I think you maybe confusing what I'm suggesting the gagb is for. We try to promote good practice and try to encourage less of the littering. Act as a buffer zone between the cachers and land owners et al. What's wrong with trying to improve the overall quality? isn't that what you'd like to see?

Link to comment

 

my original and continued point is that, it's all well and good for those of us able to look and say " that's rubbish, I'm not doing it" but there will always be number hounds.

 

They will still go out and find the caches that are placed where damage is being caused and because they are number hounds they will trash an area until they find the tiny pot! So by just putting it on our ignore lists we do nothing to prevent just make sure non of the guilt is directly on our hands...

 

So this is an additional part of the rating. We need to be able to mark up caches that are bad for more than just one reason. Maybe the "Should be Archived" option could be made anonymous.

Then when you find a cache that just shouldn't be out there for whatever reason you could let others know and notify the reviewers.

or maybe it's possible for a cache listing to show how many people have marked the cache as ignore? nice anonymous way to say rubbish.

 

I think you maybe confusing what I'm suggesting the gagb is for. We try to promote good practice and try to encourage less of the littering. Act as a buffer zone between the cachers and land owners et al. What's wrong with trying to improve the overall quality? isn't that what you'd like to see?

 

Totally agree with you on quality of caches. Totally agree that GAGB helps support geocaching in the UK. This thread wasn't about the GAGB yet you felt the need to dive in and wave your GAGB credentials anyhow, which provoked me to respond in such a way. My original response was to the OP, you want more quality caches then go nab a site before a micro gets there.

 

You won't ever control the damage people do to nature places because they'll do it anyway regardless. Of course if a certain cache placement is ruining a very specific site, then the owner/Groundspeak can be notified..... but....... my understanding of the OP was not about natural surroundings - it was about quality eg. micros, quality of stash, placement in garbage dumps etc.

 

Sounds like you would be happier joining up with terracaching.com. I don't know much about how they run things but I understand there is a special emphasis on quality.

 

For people like me, new to the sport, all caches have an element of fun or interest. I hope I never get so experienced or accredited that I get so worked up and negative about these issues.

Link to comment

i have noticed the drop in quality of caches over the last few years.gone are the days when all caches were good ones in good places and well thought out.now people seem to just walk past a place and put a cache anywere.give me one good cache any day then 10 or 20 rubbish ones just for the sake of numbers.

Link to comment

 

my original and continued point is that, it's all well and good for those of us able to look and say " that's rubbish, I'm not doing it" but there will always be number hounds.

 

They will still go out and find the caches that are placed where damage is being caused and because they are number hounds they will trash an area until they find the tiny pot! So by just putting it on our ignore lists we do nothing to prevent just make sure non of the guilt is directly on our hands...

 

So this is an additional part of the rating. We need to be able to mark up caches that are bad for more than just one reason. Maybe the "Should be Archived" option could be made anonymous.

Then when you find a cache that just shouldn't be out there for whatever reason you could let others know and notify the reviewers.

or maybe it's possible for a cache listing to show how many people have marked the cache as ignore? nice anonymous way to say rubbish.

 

I think you maybe confusing what I'm suggesting the gagb is for. We try to promote good practice and try to encourage less of the littering. Act as a buffer zone between the cachers and land owners et al. What's wrong with trying to improve the overall quality? isn't that what you'd like to see?

 

Totally agree with you on quality of caches. Totally agree that GAGB helps support geocaching in the UK. This thread wasn't about the GAGB yet you felt the need to dive in and wave your GAGB credentials anyhow, which provoked me to respond in such a way. My original response was to the OP, you want more quality caches then go nab a site before a micro gets there.

 

You won't ever control the damage people do to nature places because they'll do it anyway regardless. Of course if a certain cache placement is ruining a very specific site, then the owner/Groundspeak can be notified..... but....... my understanding of the OP was not about natural surroundings - it was about quality eg. micros, quality of stash, placement in garbage dumps etc.

 

Sounds like you would be happier joining up with terracaching.com. I don't know much about how they run things but I understand there is a special emphasis on quality.

 

For people like me, new to the sport, all caches have an element of fun or interest. I hope I never get so experienced or accredited that I get so worked up and negative about these issues.

 

my credentials... what credentials? i never said i had any. experience or accredited? again I've never claimed either. negative or worked up. Nope not guilty.

 

I'm just here pointing out that quality can be measured in many ways and that to just say that you can't do anything is the negative attitude. I can speak to others and text on the forums to try and help people see that sometimes a cache might not be good for many reasons.

 

terracaching, why thanks for the help with where i might go to find only nice caches.... I'm happy using gc thanks. Am I going to just sit back and say nothing if i perceive a problem? no.

 

but we all seem to agree that some way needs to be employed to help people either make caches better or at least help people spot caches that they wont like. maybe one way is advice or examples. then maybe some way to mark cache pages with positive and negative responses.

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment

Having read most of the comments on this topic, it is clear that everyone has an opinion. I would just like to add that in my opinion it is about choice. If you don't want to walk for 6 miles and pick up 15 caches you don't have to. If the puzzle caches leave you cold, you avoid them.

There is so much on offer! From the city nano to the single box half way up a mountain. From the roadside micro cache and dash, to the cache hidden deep inside a cave.

How lucky we are to have so many choices - let's make them and embrace what's on offer, to make the whole geocaching experience one we enjoy! After all - why do we do it :(

Link to comment

Having read most of the comments on this topic, it is clear that everyone has an opinion. I would just like to add that in my opinion it is about choice. If you don't want to walk for 6 miles and pick up 15 caches you don't have to. If the puzzle caches leave you cold, you avoid them.

There is so much on offer! From the city nano to the single box half way up a mountain. From the roadside micro cache and dash, to the cache hidden deep inside a cave.

How lucky we are to have so many choices - let's make them and embrace what's on offer, to make the whole geocaching experience one we enjoy! After all - why do we do it :(

 

goodpostingsign.gif

Link to comment

I think the quality has gone right down. So much so that I rarely go caching any longer. I don't have time to sift through 100 cache pages looking for something that might be worthy of my attention.

 

Everyone seems to set power trails, sling out micros and leave it at that. I have noticed in the last few years how people now log my (old) caches with some sense of surprise and glee at having found an ammo can. When they were originally placed finding an ammo can was the norm. Not that I'm implying the container defines the cache quality, but I think its indicative of a little more effort than a(nother!) 35mm container.

 

A good cache can be many things, a clever hide, an interesting location, a descriptive cache page etc. However, my general rule of thumb is if its in a series of more than 2 others which are located within 0.5 miles of one another its going to be pants.

 

A rating system would be good, it seemed to work well on geocacheuk.com so I don't see why it wouldn't work if Groundspeak incorporated it.

 

Caching has become mainstream, and its gone down the pan because of it. We all knew it was going to happen sooner or later...

Link to comment

I think the quality has gone right down. So much so that I rarely go caching any longer. I don't have time to sift through 100 cache pages looking for something that might be worthy of my attention.

I think what you're really saying is that you can't be bothered having a look through the listings for something that might appeal, because you're not that interested in caching. Not that quality has gone down.

 

I found some great caches last weekend, but I did have to spend a couple of hours preparing; I suspect that if you can't summon up the motivation to knock up a shortlist then you may as well accept that you're not really interested. Not the same as "declining quality" at all, more a combination of too many caches and a disinterested ex-cache-seeker. With more caches, obviously there are going to be more that suit you but also more that don't, so if you're very limited in what you like then more effort is required to weed out the suitable ones.

 

Not aimed just at you, because I suspect a lot of those who complain have just basically lost interest. Nothing wrong with that, of course, it's perfectly natural.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I think the quality has gone right down. So much so that I rarely go caching any longer. I don't have time to sift through 100 cache pages looking for something that might be worthy of my attention.

I think what you're really saying is that you can't be bothered having a look through the listings for something that might appeal, because you're not that interested in caching. Not that quality has gone down.

 

 

No. I think CSC was right in what he said.

I certainly haven't lost interest in caching - in fact my annual find rate continues to rise. But there aint arf some dross out there to filter through now to get to decent caches (IMO) :laughing:

 

You can't seriously still think overall quality hasn't fallen, can you? Even if you don't see it as a bad thing? :blink::P

Link to comment

I think the quality has gone right down. So much so that I rarely go caching any longer. I don't have time to sift through 100 cache pages looking for something that might be worthy of my attention.

I think what you're really saying is that you can't be bothered having a look through the listings for something that might appeal, because you're not that interested in caching. Not that quality has gone down.

 

 

No. I think CSC was right in what he said.

I certainly haven't lost interest in caching - in fact my annual find rate continues to rise. But there aint arf some dross out there to filter through now to get to decent caches (IMO) :laughing:

 

You can't seriously still think overall quality hasn't fallen, can you? Even if you don't see it as a bad thing? :blink::P

 

out of interest, and I might do this myself, has anyone worked out the proportion of caches that were micros back in 2005 (eg), and what that proportion is now?

 

I say micros cos its the only way I can think to measure what people perceive as poor quality. I personally have no problem with them!

Link to comment

I think what you're really saying is that you can't be bothered having a look through the listings for something that might appeal, because you're not that interested in caching. Not that quality has gone down.

 

 

I think you are correct to say I'm not really that interested in caching any more, but that is mainly because I feel the quality of the caching experience has dropped right off. When I go on holiday I still like to seek out a few as I don't think every country has suffered the same fate we have (yet) but the problem is I have too many other things going on in my life to spend hours planning a caching trip.

 

I've never been interested in numbers. For me a normal caching expedition would be one or maybe two caches which looked worth a visit, and I simply don't have time to sit in front of the PC for hours hunting through pages and pages of power trails looking for a hidden gem. Wandering around a circular route to find 15 or so 35mm containers holds no appeal to anyone in my family.

 

Ratings would probably change things, the death of geocachinguk.com and its ability to filter out low quality caches quickly and easily contributed greatly to my loss of interest in hunting out local caches.

Link to comment

 

out of interest, and I might do this myself, has anyone worked out the proportion of caches that were micros back in 2005 (eg), and what that proportion is now?

 

I say micros cos its the only way I can think to measure what people perceive as poor quality. I personally have no problem with them!

 

Just had a quick look at my stats and found the following :-

 

Year_____Micros_____% of caches found

 

2004_______5____________8%

2005______14____________9%

2006______32____________11%

2007______135___________37%

2008______293___________43%

2009______511___________63%

 

So from this it seems micros really took off around 2007 and now I’m finding more micros than regular caches.

 

Not a problem though as I enjoy caching. :laughing:

Link to comment

You can't seriously still think overall quality hasn't fallen, can you? Even if you don't see it as a bad thing? :laughing::P

Overall quality of good caches seems as high as ever. :blink:

The fact that there are a lot more caches out there means that there are more to sort through, that's all.

 

If you don't bother doing that, it will doubtless seem that there are more unsuitable caches around (I say unsuitable rather than "bad" because what's a poor cache to me might be fine for someone else, or indeed what's good one day can be bad the next). But that's missing the point.

 

Let's say that you only like the type of cache that takes you somewhere interesting, that has a container more than 4 x 5 inches in size, is not too easy or hard and that you won't travel more than 20 miles. All others are regarded as rubbish (or out of range). Once you've filtered out all but traditional caches (and those you've done already) you still have quite a long list to go through.

 

What I tend to do at this stage is go through a few of them looking for key signs that a cache is likely to suit my purpose. Usually, a bookmark list crops up to help; otherwise it's just a matter of keeping on casting an eye over the descriptions and locations (using the cache map or Google Earth) and reading a few log entries. Any that look good go into my bookmark list (shortlist).

 

In my view, the number of these shortlist candidates has gone up, not down. And that's what really counts. What does it matter if there are hundreds of other caches around that don't interest you?

Link to comment

 

out of interest, and I might do this myself, has anyone worked out the proportion of caches that were micros back in 2005 (eg), and what that proportion is now?

 

I say micros cos its the only way I can think to measure what people perceive as poor quality. I personally have no problem with them!

 

Ok.. these are cumulative totals and include caches that have been archived. 'Micro' refers ONLY to caches where the cache size is listed as 'Micro'. It only refers to UK caches.

 

up to 31/12/2003 208 micros out of 2,973 total caches... 7.0%

up to 31/12/2004 724 micros out of 5,689 total caches... 12.7%

up to 31/12/2005 1,733 micros out of 10,417 total caches... 16.6%

up to 31/12/2006 3,757 micros out of 18,107 total caches... 20.7%

up to 31/12/2007 7,496 micros out of 29,065 total caches... 25.8%

up to 31/12/2008 13,493 micros out of 45,388 total caches... 29.7%

up to 21/10/2009 20,552 micros out of 65,579 total caches... 31.3%

 

Very roughly... the micos have been increasing at the rate of about 4% per year.

Link to comment

 

out of interest, and I might do this myself, has anyone worked out the proportion of caches that were micros back in 2005 (eg), and what that proportion is now?

 

I say micros cos its the only way I can think to measure what people perceive as poor quality. I personally have no problem with them!

 

Ok.. these are cumulative totals and include caches that have been archived. 'Micro' refers ONLY to caches where the cache size is listed as 'Micro'. It only refers to UK caches.

 

up to 31/12/2003 208 micros out of 2,973 total caches... 7.0%

up to 31/12/2004 724 micros out of 5,689 total caches... 12.7%

up to 31/12/2005 1,733 micros out of 10,417 total caches... 16.6%

up to 31/12/2006 3,757 micros out of 18,107 total caches... 20.7%

up to 31/12/2007 7,496 micros out of 29,065 total caches... 25.8%

up to 31/12/2008 13,493 micros out of 45,388 total caches... 29.7%

up to 21/10/2009 20,552 micros out of 65,579 total caches... 31.3%

 

Very roughly... the micos have been increasing at the rate of about 4% per year.

 

No disrespect, but statistics can be made to prove anything... e.g. I'm sure you've heard the one about car insurance and red cars.... anyway.

 

What these statistics need to be compared with is percentages of other cache types too, then lined up against each other to determine percentage of year on year growth. Probably a few other factors could be thrown in too, e.g. urban vs countryside vs % land ownership in the UK. Of course it really should be observed against a larger set of what is normal YoY growth for all caches.

 

There's lots of ways to look at these numbers, I'd say if there are more urban than countyside caches then that would skewer the stats for a start.

Link to comment

 

out of interest, and I might do this myself, has anyone worked out the proportion of caches that were micros back in 2005 (eg), and what that proportion is now?

 

I say micros cos its the only way I can think to measure what people perceive as poor quality. I personally have no problem with them!

 

Ok.. these are cumulative totals and include caches that have been archived. 'Micro' refers ONLY to caches where the cache size is listed as 'Micro'. It only refers to UK caches.

 

up to 31/12/2003 208 micros out of 2,973 total caches... 7.0%

up to 31/12/2004 724 micros out of 5,689 total caches... 12.7%

up to 31/12/2005 1,733 micros out of 10,417 total caches... 16.6%

up to 31/12/2006 3,757 micros out of 18,107 total caches... 20.7%

up to 31/12/2007 7,496 micros out of 29,065 total caches... 25.8%

up to 31/12/2008 13,493 micros out of 45,388 total caches... 29.7%

up to 21/10/2009 20,552 micros out of 65,579 total caches... 31.3%

 

Very roughly... the micos have been increasing at the rate of about 4% per year.

 

No disrespect, but statistics can be made to prove anything... e.g. I'm sure you've heard the one about car insurance and red cars.... anyway.

 

What these statistics need to be compared with is percentages of other cache types too, then lined up against each other to determine percentage of year on year growth. Probably a few other factors could be thrown in too, e.g. urban vs countryside vs % land ownership in the UK. Of course it really should be observed against a larger set of what is normal YoY growth for all caches.

 

There's lots of ways to look at these numbers, I'd say if there are more urban than countyside caches then that would skewer the stats for a start.

 

although I remain pro-micro - IN THE RIGHT LOCATION... I'm not sure that these stats can be altered in any way... there are currently 31% of all UK caches are micros (I checked, and same results for only 'active' caches) therefore, other cache types will have decreased as a percentage. I'm not working it out for all of them, as I have work to do, but I would hazard a guess that the decrease will be split across all types, with the biggest decrease for multis.

 

Obviously, actual cache numbers will have gone up for all cache types (except grandfathered ones)!

 

I agree that the proportion of countyside micros would be an interesting stat to work out, but if you can find a way of doing that, I'll be impressed!

 

We could go on for ever - we could eliminate certain seriesesess which are heavily micro based (and easy to filter out in cache searches, and see if that brings the totals down - I suspect it would... Maybe I'll try when I'm bored! :laughing:

 

Dave

Link to comment

The proportion of one type of cache doesn't matter. If Moote thinks that the quality of caches is reducing, in practice what that means is that there are fewer caches being hidden of the type you like than before.

 

The only useful comparison is the increase in number of caches hidden this year of the type you consider good, versus the same period in the good old days (2005?). No, I'm not going to spend a week working that out.

Link to comment

 

out of interest, and I might do this myself, has anyone worked out the proportion of caches that were micros back in 2005 (eg), and what that proportion is now?

 

I say micros cos its the only way I can think to measure what people perceive as poor quality. I personally have no problem with them!

 

Ok.. these are cumulative totals and include caches that have been archived. 'Micro' refers ONLY to caches where the cache size is listed as 'Micro'. It only refers to UK caches.

 

up to 31/12/2003 208 micros out of 2,973 total caches... 7.0%

up to 31/12/2004 724 micros out of 5,689 total caches... 12.7%

up to 31/12/2005 1,733 micros out of 10,417 total caches... 16.6%

up to 31/12/2006 3,757 micros out of 18,107 total caches... 20.7%

up to 31/12/2007 7,496 micros out of 29,065 total caches... 25.8%

up to 31/12/2008 13,493 micros out of 45,388 total caches... 29.7%

up to 21/10/2009 20,552 micros out of 65,579 total caches... 31.3%

 

Very roughly... the micos have been increasing at the rate of about 4% per year.

 

No disrespect, but statistics can be made to prove anything... e.g. I'm sure you've heard the one about car insurance and red cars.... anyway.

 

What these statistics need to be compared with is percentages of other cache types too, then lined up against each other to determine percentage of year on year growth. Probably a few other factors could be thrown in too, e.g. urban vs countryside vs % land ownership in the UK. Of course it really should be observed against a larger set of what is normal YoY growth for all caches.

 

There's lots of ways to look at these numbers, I'd say if there are more urban than countyside caches then that would skewer the stats for a start.

 

although I remain pro-micro - IN THE RIGHT LOCATION... I'm not sure that these stats can be altered in any way... there are currently 31% of all UK caches are micros (I checked, and same results for only 'active' caches) therefore, other cache types will have decreased as a percentage. I'm not working it out for all of them, as I have work to do, but I would hazard a guess that the decrease will be split across all types, with the biggest decrease for multis.

 

Obviously, actual cache numbers will have gone up for all cache types (except grandfathered ones)!

 

I agree that the proportion of countyside micros would be an interesting stat to work out, but if you can find a way of doing that, I'll be impressed!

 

We could go on for ever - we could eliminate certain seriesesess which are heavily micro based (and easy to filter out in cache searches, and see if that brings the totals down - I suspect it would... Maybe I'll try when I'm bored! :blink:

 

Dave

 

Ok just as a quick example, I can actually prove to you, with the stats above, that micro growth has decreased by up to 2/3rds in the past year and 75% overall since 2004....

 

2003 - start

2004 - YoY micro growth as a percentage of the whole = 81%

2005 = 31%

2006 = 24%

2007 = 25%

2008 = 15%

2009 = 5%

 

So you see, number of micros have gone up (as have all types cache), but the growth of micros has gone down significantly.

 

That took me all of 5-6 minutes. Doubtless if someone wants to spend more time and more numbers we can spin these figures anyway you want. :laughing:

 

ETA: just to make the interpretation clearer - it was a rush job.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

 

out of interest, and I might do this myself, has anyone worked out the proportion of caches that were micros back in 2005 (eg), and what that proportion is now?

 

I say micros cos its the only way I can think to measure what people perceive as poor quality. I personally have no problem with them!

 

Ok.. these are cumulative totals and include caches that have been archived. 'Micro' refers ONLY to caches where the cache size is listed as 'Micro'. It only refers to UK caches.

 

up to 31/12/2003 208 micros out of 2,973 total caches... 7.0%

up to 31/12/2004 724 micros out of 5,689 total caches... 12.7%

up to 31/12/2005 1,733 micros out of 10,417 total caches... 16.6%

up to 31/12/2006 3,757 micros out of 18,107 total caches... 20.7%

up to 31/12/2007 7,496 micros out of 29,065 total caches... 25.8%

up to 31/12/2008 13,493 micros out of 45,388 total caches... 29.7%

up to 21/10/2009 20,552 micros out of 65,579 total caches... 31.3%

 

Very roughly... the micos have been increasing at the rate of about 4% per year.

 

No disrespect, but statistics can be made to prove anything... e.g. I'm sure you've heard the one about car insurance and red cars.... anyway.

 

What these statistics need to be compared with is percentages of other cache types too, then lined up against each other to determine percentage of year on year growth. Probably a few other factors could be thrown in too, e.g. urban vs countryside vs % land ownership in the UK. Of course it really should be observed against a larger set of what is normal YoY growth for all caches.

 

There's lots of ways to look at these numbers, I'd say if there are more urban than countyside caches then that would skewer the stats for a start.

 

although I remain pro-micro - IN THE RIGHT LOCATION... I'm not sure that these stats can be altered in any way... there are currently 31% of all UK caches are micros (I checked, and same results for only 'active' caches) therefore, other cache types will have decreased as a percentage. I'm not working it out for all of them, as I have work to do, but I would hazard a guess that the decrease will be split across all types, with the biggest decrease for multis.

 

Obviously, actual cache numbers will have gone up for all cache types (except grandfathered ones)!

 

I agree that the proportion of countyside micros would be an interesting stat to work out, but if you can find a way of doing that, I'll be impressed!

 

We could go on for ever - we could eliminate certain seriesesess which are heavily micro based (and easy to filter out in cache searches, and see if that brings the totals down - I suspect it would... Maybe I'll try when I'm bored! :)

 

Dave

 

Ok just as a quick example, I can actually prove to you, with the stats above, that micro growth has decreased by up to 2/3rds in the past year and 75% overall since 2004....

 

2003 - start

2004 - YoY micro growth as a percentage of the whole = 81%

2005 = 31%

2006 = 24%

2007 = 25%

2008 = 15%

2009 = 5%

 

So you see, number of micros have gone up (as have all types cache), but the growth of micros has gone down significantly.

 

That took me all of 5-6 minutes. Doubtless if someone wants to spend more time and more numbers we can spin these figures anyway you want. :o

 

ETA: just to make the interpretation clearer - it was a rush job.

but the percentage of caches that are micros is increasing... which is surely the point?

 

Anyway, as you say, you can spin stats any way you like, and my all time favourite quite fits nicely here...

 

"Statistics are like bikinis - what they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is vital"

Link to comment

 

but the percentage of caches that are micros is increasing... which is surely the point?

 

 

Nope. The point was cache quality is going down, due to numbers and percentage of micros. I actually proved that the number of micros planted each year has been going down. Hence lower quality != higher micro numbers.

 

Anyway, as you say, you can spin stats any way you like, and my all time favourite quite fits nicely here...

 

"Statistics are like bikinis - what they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is vital"

 

That is all you are going to say - simply rely on your own sentiment and use my words as an excuse not to examine the evidence? :o

 

What I should have made clear earlier is that statistics in the wrong hands or misinterpreted can be made to prove anything. My whole point was to question the original numbers and what they mean - not simply use them to backup peoples biased opinions.

 

I would now really be interested in seeing data for the rest of cache types. I'm now pretty certain that micros are not the cause of the declining quality of caches... rather there are other factors, and I hasten to speculate that it's more to do with the decline in enthusiasm, and rise of 'grumpy old men' veterans of the sport.

Link to comment

Hi All, As a newbie I just thought I would come in from this pers pective, as you were all once.

At the moment I am trying to find as many as I can near my location just to get experience and a feel for what is required. When I have more experience I will then place caches but I will not till then.

I am semi retired and enjoy hiking, mountain bike rides and find geocaching compliments this greatly.

I have been on some outstanding walks and rides through caching in places I never knew existed with fabulous scenery near to my location, I also try and upload images to share these views. Because of my life style these days I would probably in the future look to find caches that would fit the above points.

Cheers.

Link to comment

I would now really be interested in seeing data for the rest of cache types. I'm now pretty certain that micros are not the cause of the declining quality of caches... rather there are other factors, and I hasten to speculate that it's more to do with the decline in enthusiasm, and rise of 'grumpy old men' veterans of the sport.

 

It's nothing to do with decline in enthusiasm.

And it's nothing to do with micros - micros are getting bad press in this thread because they're the (seemingly) chosen cache container of people who appear to put very little thought into their hides.

There are good micro hides out there. And there are c&*p larger caches too.

 

This stopped being a sport when 15 easy finds on a 2 mile walk through fields with no redeeming features started becoming a regular occurrence, rather than a novelty.

If you want to compare it to a sport...... once upon a time you waited for a while, and eventually - maybe - landed a fish big enough to take home to eat.

Nowadays you walk up to a tank, drop in a crabline, and go home with a bucket full of sprats. :o

 

keehotee - a grumpy old man.

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

 

but the percentage of caches that are micros is increasing... which is surely the point?

 

 

Nope. The point was cache quality is going down, due to numbers and percentage of micros. I actually proved that the number of micros planted each year has been going down. Hence lower quality != higher micro numbers.

 

Anyway, as you say, you can spin stats any way you like, and my all time favourite quite fits nicely here...

 

"Statistics are like bikinis - what they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is vital"

 

That is all you are going to say - simply rely on your own sentiment and use my words as an excuse not to examine the evidence? :o

 

Firstly, the point I was making was about the stats - I have already stated numerous times that I was merely using micros as an example of a perceived measure of quality, and not my own perception either!

 

Secondly, yes thats all I was goign to say as I really didn't feel like continuing a discussion that was starting to veer off topic and I wanted to 'sign off' with an agreement with your earlier statement that you can "spin stats any way you want". I'm not sure where I'm relying on my own sentiment, nor am I using your words as an excuse not to examine the evidence - I wasn't aware that I was obliged to contunie the discussion. Finally, my quote was an attempt at a light-hearted joke at the expense of statistics in general, which you appear to have misunderstood. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Link to comment
I actually proved that the number of micros planted each year has been going down.

 

In purely empirical values, the number of new micros planted each year has been rising. That is, the number of new micros planted in any given year is greater than the number of new micros planted in the preceding year.

 

2003... 136 new micros planted

2004... 516 new micros planted

2005... 1009 new micros planted

2006... 2024 new micros planted

2007... 3739 new micros planted

2008... 5997 new micros planted

2009 (so far)... 7059 new micros planted

 

Now... prove to me again how those figures show that the number of new micros planted each year has been going down!

Link to comment

So... are there definitely fewer good caches now than 5 years ago? Isn't that all that matters?

 

But it now takes you two hours of sitting at a pc to locate them. :o

 

The site needs to do more on the classification of caches and help people refine thier PQ's so they can go out rather than spend hours filtering and reading cache pages.

 

An afinity rating or classifying caches into groups, long walk 1 smiley, drive by, fiendish puzzle, night cache, long walk multiple smileys, group series caches into one pq etc etc.

 

Series like motorway mayhem help with this but the site certainly does not help you eliminate them, other than using Premium Memebrship and GSAK and the rather clunky add one at a time ignore list function.

 

But seeing as offline databases are not supported this will probably remain a sticking point.

Link to comment
I actually proved that the number of micros planted each year has been going down.

 

In purely empirical values, the number of new micros planted each year has been rising. That is, the number of new micros planted in any given year is greater than the number of new micros planted in the preceding year.

 

2003... 136 new micros planted

2004... 516 new micros planted

2005... 1009 new micros planted

2006... 2024 new micros planted

2007... 3739 new micros planted

2008... 5997 new micros planted

2009 (so far)... 7059 new micros planted

 

Now... prove to me again how those figures show that the number of new micros planted each year has been going down!

 

As a percentage... also my figures were based on the earlier posts not this one. Umm... new data = new results. My post was an example of how the figures could be interpreted! I don't have access to all the numbers but you do and you are withholding them from this thread.

 

Still I now have to question why you are only bringing in numbers for micros and not comparing these against other cache types.

 

:o

 

I think some people here need to go on a basic maths course. Until you provide data sets for all cache types then this is just an exercise in propaganda to fuel your bias.

Link to comment
I actually proved that the number of micros planted each year has been going down.

 

In purely empirical values, the number of new micros planted each year has been rising. That is, the number of new micros planted in any given year is greater than the number of new micros planted in the preceding year.

 

2003... 136 new micros planted

2004... 516 new micros planted

2005... 1009 new micros planted

2006... 2024 new micros planted

2007... 3739 new micros planted

2008... 5997 new micros planted

2009 (so far)... 7059 new micros planted

 

Now... prove to me again how those figures show that the number of new micros planted each year has been going down!

 

As a percentage... also my figures were based on the earlier posts not this one. Umm... new data = new results. My post was an example of how the figures could be interpreted! I don't have access to all the numbers but you do and you are withholding them from this thread.

I was merely refuting your statement that the number of micros placed each year was going down. Clearly it isn't. The numbers I quoted are available to anyone who care to make the effort to look for them, they aren't secret and by posting them, I'm clearly NOT withholding from this thread.

Still I now have to question why you are only bringing in numbers for micros and not comparing these against other cache types.

Because the post that I originally replied to only asked for information on micros.

I think some people here need to go on a basic maths course. Until you provide data sets for all cache types then this is just an exercise in propaganda to fuel your bias.

Having spent the last 39 years of my working life as a design and development engineer for a large multi-national company, I think my numerological skills are sufficient to add and subtract a few numbers.

Link to comment
I actually proved that the number of micros planted each year has been going down.

 

In purely empirical values, the number of new micros planted each year has been rising. That is, the number of new micros planted in any given year is greater than the number of new micros planted in the preceding year.

 

2003... 136 new micros planted

2004... 516 new micros planted

2005... 1009 new micros planted

2006... 2024 new micros planted

2007... 3739 new micros planted

2008... 5997 new micros planted

2009 (so far)... 7059 new micros planted

 

Now... prove to me again how those figures show that the number of new micros planted each year has been going down!

 

As a percentage... also my figures were based on the earlier posts not this one. Umm... new data = new results. My post was an example of how the figures could be interpreted! I don't have access to all the numbers but you do and you are withholding them from this thread.

I was merely refuting your statement that the number of micros placed each year was going down. Clearly it isn't. The numbers I quoted are available to anyone who care to make the effort to look for them, they aren't secret and by posting them, I'm clearly NOT withholding from this thread.

Still I now have to question why you are only bringing in numbers for micros and not comparing these against other cache types.

Because the post that I originally replied to only asked for information on micros.

I think some people here need to go on a basic maths course. Until you provide data sets for all cache types then this is just an exercise in propaganda to fuel your bias.

Having spent the last 39 years of my working life as a design and development engineer for a large multi-national company, I think my numerological skills are sufficient to add and subtract a few numbers.

 

I will simply restate:

 

Until you provide data sets for ALL cache types then this is just an exercise in propaganda to fuel your bias.

 

You originally posted the numbers of micros since someone asked for the numbers due to perception of poor quality.

 

I then countered that these numbers would be no good as an indicator of poor quality if not compared against other cache types since all cache type numbers have gone up.

 

I then answered an assertion by another poster that "other cache types will have decreased as a percentage." (based on the numbers you gave) which was an incredulously wrong statement - since we haven't seen ALL cache types yet. You haven't even had the courtesy to post a link to the data sets that you've cut and pasted here.

 

As for "design and development engineer" what does that have to do with statistical analysis? I certainly hope that in my line of business I don't have to depend on products produced by your company if this is how you approach your work only producing half the results.

 

No instead all I see is one set of numbers, for micros only, and everyone agreeing that this is a good indicator that quality has reduced with absolutely ZERO analysis into the actual data set it was taken from.

 

It's as though everyone is agreeing that the car is in good working order because it has 4 tyres but ignoring the fact that there is no engine. Or perhaps believing that everywhere in the UK is raining because it's raining where you are located right now.

 

As for "39 years of [your] working life" ... see my forum sig.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

 

But it now takes you two hours of sitting at a pc to locate them. :o

 

The site needs to do more on the classification of caches and help people refine thier PQ's so they can go out rather than spend hours filtering and reading cache pages.

 

An afinity rating or classifying caches into groups, long walk 1 smiley, drive by, fiendish puzzle, night cache, long walk multiple smileys, group series caches into one pq etc etc.

 

Series like motorway mayhem help with this but the site certainly does not help you eliminate them, other than using Premium Memebrship and GSAK and the rather clunky add one at a time ignore list function.

 

But seeing as offline databases are not supported this will probably remain a sticking point.

I agree, but really this is a different issue. Moote suggests that there is a decline in quality, not that there are MORE quality caches but they take more effort to identify. If there's a decline in quality, it would mean that for every ten good old caches that get archived, only 9 (or less) new ones of equivalent quality are being created.

 

Last weekend I used the "cache du jour" bookmark list (as well as my own "must-do" bookmark list) to spot the likely targets in the North West, and that made it quite easy. I suggest that there's a get-together of several local cachers who agree on a similar definition of quality, then produce a bookmark list for their area and publicise it on the local forum (like the "cache du jour" one).

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...