"We need a 6 month ban..." revisited.

[+Simply Paul]

Thanks Mrs B & keehotee; I do take solice from the fact those who looked for it found it, and enjoyed the experience enough to upload photos and write a fair bit about their experience -especially the Dutch cachers- I also accept that it's not an easy spot to reach (580m/1900ft climb) but I had expected a few more finds as it's in prime caching/holiday country not far from Fort William and the Road to the Islands as well as Ben Nevis. If the location was within 50miles of London it'd be £4 to park, £8 to get in and there would be a well made path up to it

[+keehotee]

..especially the Dutch cachers- I also accept that it's not an easy spot to reach (580m/1900ft climb) but I had expected a few more finds as it's in prime caching/holiday country not far from Fort William and the Road to the Islands as well as Ben Nevis.

 

Expect a few more finds next summer .....

[+Simply Paul]

Expect a few more finds next summer .....

Well yes, but my point stands; while it's generally good to hide caches you'd like to find, you have to accept your tastes may not be everyone's and sometimes four trads leading to a puzzle bonus really are better than a lone multi- the number of visits they/it gets is likely to reflect this, rightly or wrongly.

[+mantajohn]

I've only just discovered geocaching. Don't ban it before I've had a chance to hide my first cache.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Well yes, but my point stands; while it's generally good to hide caches you'd like to find, you have to accept your tastes may not be everyone's and sometimes four trads leading to a puzzle bonus really are better than a lone multi- the number of visits they/it gets is likely to reflect this, rightly or wrongly.

The number of visits is no reflection of the quality of the cache. It bears little, if any, relation. So it's wrong to say that one cache is "better" than another because it's more popular.

 

In my opinion, you should hide a cache that you're inspired to hide and that's that.

 

Of course, one thing you might be inspired by is the notion that you'll get loads of cache logs! If so, don't hide the cache high on a remote Scottish hillside...

Edited January 9, 2010 by Happy Humphrey

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

As far as I am concerned, a six month placing ban would quite suit me although I feel it would be unfair for others.

 

We have got 140 caches within a 10 mile radius which are still unfound by us. When we first started caching, as there were far fewer caches we travelled a lot further afield and consequently enjoyed a greater variety of locations. With the much higher rate of publication of new caches, we are finding ourselves returning repeatedly to previously visited areas. Admittedly we don't HAVE to do ALL our local caches but it has resulted in us getting a bit lazy.

 

Having had a look at SP's aforementioned cache (which looks superb) I am reminded of one of the aspects of caching which initially delighted us ie superb locations in NEW areas. Therefore I feel the answer lies within my own hands. As a belated New Years Resolution, I intend to put more effort into seaching out MY idea of quality caches. (wonder how long I can keep it )

 

Izzy

[+Simply Paul]

Sound advice

 

Ok, here's a semi-on-topic question. Is it 'better' to hide a cache which gets half as many visits as another, but is enjoyed twice as much? The net 'contribution to caching' is the same. An awesome cache which pleases one person a month, a great cache which is enjoyed by two, a good cache that makes four happy... Which is better? There's only one way to find out. Fiiiiiight!

 

P.S. I didn't say any cache was better than another, just that it might be a choice people are making- simply a reflection of other finders understandable desire for numbers, especially if visiting the area from some distance away.

[+Team Steamrunner]

Well yes, but my point stands; while it's generally good to hide caches you'd like to find, you have to accept your tastes may not be everyone's and sometimes four trads leading to a puzzle bonus really are better than a lone multi- the number of visits they/it gets is likely to reflect this, rightly or wrongly.

The number of visits is no reflection of the quality of the cache. It bears little, if any, relation. So it's wrong to say that one cache is "better" than another because it's more popular.

 

In my opinion, you should hide a cache that you're inspired to hide and that's that.

 

Of course, one thing you might be inspired by is the notion that you'll get loads of cache logs! If so, don't hide the cache high on a remote Scottish hillside...

 

I'd much prefer to recieve a single good report for a cache I've placed than loads of mediocre logs. Granted, I haven't found billions of caches like lots of you guys but I've found enough to know the kind of cache I like and in the locations I like to find them. I tailor my searching and hiding accordingly. To be subjected to some arbitrary embargo because of the length (or lack) of my chain is simply ridiculous. There's a mountain biking expression which, if you stretch your imagination a bit, applies here:

 

It's not the speed you go.

It's the size of your smile.

 

Hide and seek the caches you like, place them when you feel like it, and where you think people will enjoy them. It's simple really. Experience is gained by DOING, not by not doing.

[GerritS]

Thank you HH for the links it has taken some digesting.

 

As I understand the issues seem to be:

 

1) It is simply impossible to define a quality cache, to many people expect so many different things from a cache.

 

2) Anybody can place a cache of any type as long as it is in the guide lines. As long as they maintain it it is not going to be kicked no matter what people say about it.

 

3) There is a continued grumbling by some, in the caching community about the quality of caches. Although point 1 makes this kind of ironic.

 

4) It is hard to filter caches to suit your style caching.

 

With this in mind there is never going to be a perfect solution, with this many people involved there is always going to have to be a compromise.

 

My thoughts are:

a) Caches should have further "attribute" style ratings that can be used to define the search. EG Cache Circle. Cache and Dash, I am sure there would be plenty more suggestions as to types.

 

b ) I still feel a qualifying no of caches and/ or membership time would be good, maybe this could be set by country instead of internationally, even better by Cache density and distance of caches!

 

c) There should be a BASIC Cache rating system, preferably with the option of getting caches Archived. Which would be set low so only the caches that have constantly very pool rating should be given a warning to improve or....

 

As much as anything with point c) it could be used to encourage cache setters to set caches that people enjoy or state in there description what to expect from a cache.

 

It would not be a rating system you can choose your cache from, I believe there never will be its to complicated. What it would do is encourage quality from cache setter who are interested. There will always be cache setter that set caches for there own reasons and will not care about the finders. If a cache is found 5 times a year or 500 times a year people will rate it on what they think its merits are.

 

The whole thing is going to be a compromise, there will be no perfection. There can always be the argument what if...

 

The game is changing in some ways for the better some ways for the worse, the development must be managed. The community is so diverse now you could not please all the people all the time, the management of the game just has to be managed for the greater good.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Thank you HH for the links it has taken some digesting.

 

As I understand the issues seem to be:

 

1) It is simply impossible to define a quality cache, to many people expect so many different things from a cache.

 

2) Anybody can place a cache of any type as long as it is in the guide lines. As long as they maintain it it is not going to be kicked no matter what people say about it.

 

3) There is a continued grumbling by some, in the caching community about the quality of caches. Although point 1 makes this kind of ironic.

 

4) It is hard to filter caches to suit your style caching.

 

With this in mind there is never going to be a perfect solution, with this many people involved there is always going to have to be a compromise.

 

My thoughts are:

a) Caches should have further "attribute" style ratings that can be used to define the search. EG Cache Circle. Cache and Dash, I am sure there would be plenty more suggestions as to types.

 

b ) I still feel a qualifying no of caches and/ or membership time would be good, maybe this could be set by country instead of internationally, even better by Cache density and distance of caches!

 

c) There should be a BASIC Cache rating system, preferably with the option of getting caches Archived. Which would be set low so only the caches that have constantly very pool rating should be given a warning to improve or....

 

As much as anything with point c) it could be used to encourage cache setters to set caches that people enjoy or state in there description what to expect from a cache.

 

It would not be a rating system you can choose your cache from, I believe there never will be its to complicated. What it would do is encourage quality from cache setter who are interested. There will always be cache setter that set caches for there own reasons and will not care about the finders. If a cache is found 5 times a year or 500 times a year people will rate it on what they think its merits are.

 

The whole thing is going to be a compromise, there will be no perfection. There can always be the argument what if...

 

The game is changing in some ways for the better some ways for the worse, the development must be managed. The community is so diverse now you could not please all the people all the time, the management of the game just has to be managed for the greater good.

 

I guarantee you that if any official rating system is introduced - especially with mandatory archiving of caches - you are going to get retaliatory rating feedback as well as potential retaliatory filching of caches. You are also going to take power away from Groundspeak over listings and hand it over to cachers - so that the power goes to cliques and back-scratchers.

 

This is not Ebay, there is no transaction of money happening between cachers. Why do people feel entitled to some kind of 'experience' from other cachers when they pay nothing to those cachers? Pay me directly to seek my caches and I'll customise it for a rewarding experience just for you, otherwise be satisfied with the 'public' service.

 

If cache seekers were paying me for the caching experience they certainly, I would care about their experience. Thus far, I have received no money from caching but I have put a lot into it through trade items, containers and maintenance.

 

Even a film can, someone has gone to the effort to put it out and maintain clean logs - some amount of effort has gone into it, perhaps not enough for YOUR (plural) standard but some amount of effort indeed.

 

If you don't like seeing a certain type of cache being placed, start placing some of your own to counter balance and effectively 'block' that area from the type of cache you don't like to see.

 

If you want to put mandatory rating on caches, then COs should be allowed to delete logs at whim that don't suit their personal taste.

 

For example, I may consider someone who logs only a few sentences of not putting enough effort into their online log - thus I should be able to delete their online log and demand a better one.

 

In fact, if they introduce mandatory ratings, I imagine it would not be too difficult to assess who just rated your cache and whether they rated it up or down, therefore it's feasible that if you're going to force archiving on someone they have nothing to lose by denying you a smiley and deleting your online log.

 

I think there should really be a disclaimer on this geocaching.com:

 

1) You are responsible for your own enjoyment

2) The next cache you are about to seek may not bring you ultimate satisfaction - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Thank you HH for the links it has taken some digesting.

 

As I understand the issues seem to be:

 

1) It is simply impossible to define a quality cache, to many people expect so many different things from a cache.

 

2) Anybody can place a cache of any type as long as it is in the guide lines. As long as they maintain it it is not going to be kicked no matter what people say about it.

 

3) There is a continued grumbling by some, in the caching community about the quality of caches. Although point 1 makes this kind of ironic.

 

4) It is hard to filter caches to suit your style caching.

 

With this in mind there is never going to be a perfect solution, with this many people involved there is always going to have to be a compromise.

Well summarised!

[+Happy Humphrey]

I guarantee you that if any official rating system is introduced - especially with mandatory archiving of caches - you are going to get retaliatory rating feedback as well as potential retaliatory filching of caches. You are also going to take power away from Groundspeak over listings and hand it over to cachers - so that the power goes to cliques and back-scratchers.

 

This is not Ebay, there is no transaction of money happening between cachers. Why do people feel entitled to some kind of 'experience' from other cachers when they pay nothing to those cachers? Pay me directly to seek my caches and I'll customise it for a rewarding experience just for you, otherwise be satisfied with the 'public' service.

 

If cache seekers were paying me for the caching experience they certainly, I would care about their experience. Thus far, I have received no money from caching but I have put a lot into it through trade items, containers and maintenance.

 

Even a film can, someone has gone to the effort to put it out and maintain clean logs - some amount of effort has gone into it, perhaps not enough for YOUR (plural) standard but some amount of effort indeed.

 

If you don't like seeing a certain type of cache being placed, start placing some of your own to counter balance and effectively 'block' that area from the type of cache you don't like to see.

 

If you want to put mandatory rating on caches, then COs should be allowed to delete logs at whim that don't suit their personal taste.

 

For example, I may consider someone who logs only a few sentences of not putting enough effort into their online log - thus I should be able to delete their online log and demand a better one.

 

In fact, if they introduce mandatory ratings, I imagine it would not be too difficult to assess who just rated your cache and whether they rated it up or down, therefore it's feasible that if you're going to force archiving on someone they have nothing to lose by denying you a smiley and deleting your online log.

 

I think there should really be a disclaimer on this geocaching.com:

 

1) You are responsible for your own enjoyment

2) The next cache you are about to seek may not bring you ultimate satisfaction - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Great post. I agree. I think that if there is any rating system, there has to be the opportunity for the cache owner to respond to any negative ratings and remove them. Otherwise you get the situation where a few people post low ratings (because they don't like that type of cache or they don't like the cache owner, not because it's a bad cache), so the overall rating of the cache becomes low, then people are put off seeking it due to the poor feedback. There would have to be a clear definition of "quality" too, (otherwise judging caches would be completely random depending on what criteria wish to use) and despite claims that it's an easy task, no-one has ever demonstrated that they can define it in any satisfactory way.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Happy Humphrey

[+keehotee]

Great post. I agree. I think that if there is any rating system, there has to be the opportunity for the cache owner to respond to any negative ratings and remove them. Otherwise you get the situation where a few people post low ratings (because they don't like that type of cache or they don't like the cache owner, not because it's a bad cache), so the overall rating of the cache becomes low, then people are put off seeking it due to the poor feedback. There would have to be a clear definition of "quality" too, (otherwise judging caches would be completely random depending on what criteria wish to use) and despite claims that it's an easy task, no-one has ever demonstrated that they can define it in any satisfactory way.

 

Any ability by COs to delete negative ratings is just going to result in no caches being rated below average.

 

Caches are just as likely to get artificially high ratings because the finders DO like that sort of cache, or LIKE the cache owner - unless you're also proposing some sort of independent arbitrator who can delete unrealistically high ratings from caches too?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Any ability by COs to delete negative ratings is just going to result in no caches being rated below average.

 

Caches are just as likely to get artificially high ratings because the finders DO like that sort of cache, or LIKE the cache owner - unless you're also proposing some sort of independent arbitrator who can delete unrealistically high ratings from caches too?

I don't disagree with your reservations, but that's why I'm not too keen on simplistic "cache rating" systems either. Despite several of my caches being in the top 100 the last time the G.UK rating system was operational!

 

For what it's worth, my attempt at the definition of a "quality" cache is as follows;

 

1. Robust and weatherproof container, designed to stay intact for years rather than weeks.

2. A suitable-sized and robust log book is inside, along with a pen and a spare (where possible).

3. Placement takes muggles into account. Cache seekers should normally able to search without attracting muggle attention unduly (consider if the cache area is overlooked by houses, for instance). The container can be easily replaced so that it's invisible but is still in the same spot that it was found. If there is a strong likelihood of muggles, consider making the hint a giveaway so that a quick cache grab can be made).

4. Seasonal conditions have been thought about (mud, nettles, brambles have been observed and the cache positioned sensibly to avoid undue unpleasantness).

5. If there are many potential hiding places to which GPS is likely to point (this could be hundreds if it's a micro in trees, for instance), the description and hint reduce the search in order to minimise the tedium factor (and reduce potential for damage to the environment).

6. Time and effort has been spent in making the cache description clear and interesting. The "point" of the cache has been explained if it's not obvious.

 

Of course lack of one or more of these factors doesn't make a cache entirely bad, but if all these six points have been taken into account I'd find it hard to criticise. If, in addition, there seems to have been a bit of imagination used then it'll be a good cache!

[+keehotee]

Any ability by COs to delete negative ratings is just going to result in no caches being rated below average.

 

Caches are just as likely to get artificially high ratings because the finders DO like that sort of cache, or LIKE the cache owner - unless you're also proposing some sort of independent arbitrator who can delete unrealistically high ratings from caches too?

I don't disagree with your reservations, but that's why I'm not too keen on simplistic "cache rating" systems either. Despite several of my caches being in the top 100 the last time the G.UK rating system was operational!

 

For what it's worth, my attempt at the definition of a "quality" cache is as follows;

 

1. Robust and weatherproof container, designed to stay intact for years rather than weeks.

2. A suitable-sized and robust log book is inside, along with a pen and a spare (where possible).

3. Placement takes muggles into account. Cache seekers should normally able to search without attracting muggle attention unduly (consider if the cache area is overlooked by houses, for instance). The container can be easily replaced so that it's invisible but is still in the same spot that it was found. If there is a strong likelihood of muggles, consider making the hint a giveaway so that a quick cache grab can be made).

4. Seasonal conditions have been thought about (mud, nettles, brambles have been observed and the cache positioned sensibly to avoid undue unpleasantness).

5. If there are many potential hiding places to which GPS is likely to point (this could be hundreds if it's a micro in trees, for instance), the description and hint reduce the search in order to minimise the tedium factor (and reduce potential for damage to the environment).

6. Time and effort has been spent in making the cache description clear and interesting. The "point" of the cache has been explained if it's not obvious.

 

Of course lack of one or more of these factors doesn't make a cache entirely bad, but if all these six points have been taken into account I'd find it hard to criticise. If, in addition, there seems to have been a bit of imagination used then it'll be a good cache!

 

An excellent set of criteria that I agree with 100%

I agree as well, though, that it's going to be very very difficult to devise and implement a rating system that is objective enough to be of real use. Maybe a tick-box type template that people could cut and paste into their logs would be a start?

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I think 3 and 4 are handled by the attributes icons already.

 

If ratings are introduced then GS need to think clearly about including several types of rating e.g. a cache which takes you on a significant hike may not be particularly creatively hidden.

 

I think to implement forced archival would be disastrous - and lead to reprisals as I've suggested. Maybe we should think through examples of exactly how this would work in real life and what are the potential pitfalls:

 

Scenario A.) Leetcacher has a high standard, but goes after caches he hates anyway, and so consistently marks down Lazeeman, Wetlog and Geotard's hides whenever he logs them. Lazeeman, Wetlog and Geotard dislike this and retaliate on Leetcachers quite brilliant hides, marking down everyone they find. Cachers outside of the local area visit. They look at Leetcachers hides, notice that they seem to have a lower than average rating and avoid them. After a while, Blindman the local reviewer looks at Leetcachers hides, determines they are low quality and not popular and archives them.

 

Scenario B.) Leetcacher, Hikelover and Geofreak are all popular in their local area. They know Blindman the reviewer and have a certain amount of experience and influence amongst their local community. Geonewb joins up to geocaching.com. For some reason Leetcacher takes a disliking to Geonewb (perhaps they know each other and have bad history, Geonewb gave a bad rating to one of Leetcachers hides and ruined a perfect score or Geonewb placed a cache which was good, but it blocks a hide which Leetcacher was planning). At the next event Leetcacher shares his annoyances with Hikelover and Geofreak and maybe a few others. From then on, Geonewb's cache consistently gets rated down, even though a lot of thought has gone into it and it's a creative hide. Blindman eventually archives it.

 

These are somewhat simplified examples but not impossible to imagine.

 

I know there are people who would disagree and argue that all cachers are good natured and would never wrong another human being, ever. But going by my experience with human nature, something I overheard at the one event I attended, and the attitudes and expressions here on the forums, I can see this happening quite easily. It would be naive to dismiss these potential scenarios.

Edited January 11, 2010 by _TeamFitz_

[+The Blorenges]

 

Scenario A.) Leetcacher has a high standard, but goes after caches he hates anyway, and so consistently marks down Lazeeman, Wetlog and Geotard's hides whenever he logs them. Lazeeman, Wetlog and Geotard dislike this and retaliate on Leetcachers quite brilliant hides, marking down everyone they find. Cachers outside of the local area visit. They look at Leetcachers hides, notice that they seem to have a lower than average rating and avoid them. After a while, Blindman the local reviewer looks at Leetcachers hides, determines they are low quality and not popular and archives them.

 

Scenario B.) Leetcacher, Hikelover and Geofreak are all popular in their local area. They know Blindman the reviewer and have a certain amount of experience and influence amongst their local community. Geonewb joins up to geocaching.com. For some reason Leetcacher takes a disliking to Geonewb (perhaps they know each other and have bad history, Geonewb gave a bad rating to one of Leetcachers hides and ruined a perfect score or Geonewb placed a cache which was good, but it blocks a hide which Leetcacher was planning). At the next event Leetcacher shares his annoyances with Hikelover and Geofreak and maybe a few others. From then on, Geonewb's cache consistently gets rated down, even though a lot of thought has gone into it and it's a creative hide. Blindman eventually archives it.

 

 

 

It's very good. I'm hooked already. This has potential as a gritty "real-life" drama for Channel 4...

 

"GeoWorld - an everyday story of caching folk."

 

MrsB

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

 

Scenario A.) Leetcacher has a high standard, but goes after caches he hates anyway, and so consistently marks down Lazeeman, Wetlog and Geotard's hides whenever he logs them. Lazeeman, Wetlog and Geotard dislike this and retaliate on Leetcachers quite brilliant hides, marking down everyone they find. Cachers outside of the local area visit. They look at Leetcachers hides, notice that they seem to have a lower than average rating and avoid them. After a while, Blindman the local reviewer looks at Leetcachers hides, determines they are low quality and not popular and archives them.

 

Scenario B.) Leetcacher, Hikelover and Geofreak are all popular in their local area. They know Blindman the reviewer and have a certain amount of experience and influence amongst their local community. Geonewb joins up to geocaching.com. For some reason Leetcacher takes a disliking to Geonewb (perhaps they know each other and have bad history, Geonewb gave a bad rating to one of Leetcachers hides and ruined a perfect score or Geonewb placed a cache which was good, but it blocks a hide which Leetcacher was planning). At the next event Leetcacher shares his annoyances with Hikelover and Geofreak and maybe a few others. From then on, Geonewb's cache consistently gets rated down, even though a lot of thought has gone into it and it's a creative hide. Blindman eventually archives it.

 

 

 

It's very good. I'm hooked already. This has potential as a gritty "real-life" drama for Channel 4...

 

"GeoWorld - an everyday story of caching folk."

 

MrsB

 

K, but I want a 60/40 cut and merchandising rights!

Edited January 11, 2010 by _TeamFitz_

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think 3 and 4 are handled by the attributes icons already.

Not really.

 

On point 3, yes you should warn the cache seeker to be vigilant because muggles are likely.

But you might not notice that the area is overlooked, or you might be lazy and don't check what the area is like at different times of day (perhaps there's a school nearby and the area is busy in the morning and late afternoon). So you don't realise that muggles are going to be around.

In any case it's often possible make the hide slightly different so that the cache seekers are just hidden from view, or can appear to be tying shoelaces, or waiting for a bus, or reading a notice. Just a little thought can make all the difference.

 

If there's absolutely no choice but to place the cache in a thorn bush, then you can use the attribute to warn the seeker. But the idea is to place the cache better, by checking around the area and trying to avoid unnecessary unpleasantness. It might be that you place the cache in January but you're lazy and don't consider that it's actually in the middle of a nettle patch (because there are no nettles in January). That's what I was getting at with point 4.

 

So you can warn about the cache placement's shortcomings, but a quality cache would minimise these anyway. Of course, you might WANT to place the cache inside a thorn bush in a nettle patch right against the bus stop - in which case point 6 covers it!

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I think 3 and 4 are handled by the attributes icons already.

Not really.

 

On point 3, yes you should warn the cache seeker to be vigilant because muggles are likely.

But you might not notice that the area is overlooked, or you might be lazy and don't check what the area is like at different times of day (perhaps there's a school nearby and the area is busy in the morning and late afternoon). So you don't realise that muggles are going to be around.

In any case it's often possible make the hide slightly different so that the cache seekers are just hidden from view, or can appear to be tying shoelaces, or waiting for a bus, or reading a notice. Just a little thought can make all the difference.

 

If there's absolutely no choice but to place the cache in a thorn bush, then you can use the attribute to warn the seeker. But the idea is to place the cache better, by checking around the area and trying to avoid unnecessary unpleasantness. It might be that you place the cache in January but you're lazy and don't consider that it's actually in the middle of a nettle patch (because there are no nettles in January). That's what I was getting at with point 4.

 

So you can warn about the cache placement's shortcomings, but a quality cache would minimise these anyway. Of course, you might WANT to place the cache inside a thorn bush in a nettle patch right against the bus stop - in which case point 6 covers it!

 

I agree....

 

However I always assumed the 'thorn bush' attribute to warn that there were thorns in the area, ie. that you might get stung on the way to seeking the cache - not that the cache is actually hidden IN the thorns itself!

[+Team Noodles]

more honesty in logs/more PM's and people actually reading said logs in advance would be a good start, lets all do that for a year or two then revisit said suggestions.

 

""great hide, tftc!""

 

was/is it? Tell me so I can change it please.

[GerritS]

from post #110 if what is guaranteed to be happened happened, I would stop caching that is not the sort of game that I wish to be involved in.

 

As a CO you should not be able to remove negative logs, and certainly not ratings. Yes initially a cache owner would know who rated a cache poorly but over time with averages it would be come harder to tell.

 

I am not talking about immediate archiving of caches, if they do not reach an average rating. I thinking more along the lines of a 1 to 5 star rating system that if a cache falls below 1.5 stars say (would be hard to get unless there are allot of cacher's scheming) on average over a period of time the cache owner should be approached even then it should not be manditory.

 

The advantage of good cache owners taking pride to be highly rated has been overlooked, that to me is the biggest advantage.

 

As for placing my kind of caches, to block an area I will not I live in an area with restrictions on the number of caches to be placed and I do not set too many caches because of this, it is a game for all...

 

"3. Placement takes muggles into account. "

A couple of caches I have done the muggles where going to be half the fun! it said that in the cache notes to start with... The problem is there can be no rules to a good cache...

 

I do think that a little more trust in the Caching community would not go amiss here... There is space now for individuals using logs to make caches unpopular. As a whole people do not...

 

There is already reports on here about caches getting stolen ammo box's changed for tubaware etc.

I only have 3 caches placed, 1 has a collection of very low value foreign money in as part of the theme. Not only has this been borrowed, but logs like I liked the XYZ money so I swapped for 50p. People have swapped my caches only pen! Camo net has gone missing form a large ammunition box in a park (a key feature of the hide). The other one a one hour multi and my oldest cache is fine, lesson learnt I know what type of cache I will set in future (they are also my favorite type of cache).

 

more honesty in logs/more PM's and people actually reading said logs in advance would be a good start, lets all do that for a year or two then revisit said suggestions.

 

""great hide, tftc!""

 

was/is it? Tell me so I can change it please.

 

I have to agree, honesty goes along way let nurture and promote it...

[+Happy Humphrey]

"3. Placement takes muggles into account. "

A couple of caches I have done the muggles where going to be half the fun! it said that in the cache notes to start with... The problem is there can be no rules to a good cache...

Indeed, so you took muggles "into account". I'm not saying that you shouldn't place a cache in view of muggles, just that you should think about whether that's such a good spot and whether there could be a better one just round the corner.

 

If you think it is a good location, and explain in the cache description about the muggles, then fine. I wasn't proposing restrictions on caches, just that these factors should be considered.

 

More commonly, muggles are a nuisance and you try and hide the cache in such a way that the risk of them spotting you (and therefore compromising the cache location) is minimised. But I accept that you might deliberately set up a challenge to find a cache under the nose of throngs of passers-by.

 

I was going out of my way to keep my cache-quality guidelines as objective as possible, hence the lack of advice about whether the cache should be at a place of interest, or whether it should be a larger box, or a good walk or whatever.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

from post #110 if what is guaranteed to be happened happened, I would stop caching that is not the sort of game that I wish to be involved in.

 

As a CO you should not be able to remove negative logs, and certainly not ratings. Yes initially a cache owner would know who rated a cache poorly but over time with averages it would be come harder to tell.

 

I am not talking about immediate archiving of caches, if they do not reach an average rating. I thinking more along the lines of a 1 to 5 star rating system that if a cache falls below 1.5 stars say (would be hard to get unless there are allot of cacher's scheming) on average over a period of time the cache owner should be approached even then it should not be manditory.

 

The advantage of good cache owners taking pride to be highly rated has been overlooked, that to me is the biggest advantage.

 

As for placing my kind of caches, to block an area I will not I live in an area with restrictions on the number of caches to be placed and I do not set too many caches because of this, it is a game for all...

 

"3. Placement takes muggles into account. "

A couple of caches I have done the muggles where going to be half the fun! it said that in the cache notes to start with... The problem is there can be no rules to a good cache...

 

I do think that a little more trust in the Caching community would not go amiss here... There is space now for individuals using logs to make caches unpopular. As a whole people do not...

 

There is already reports on here about caches getting stolen ammo box's changed for tubaware etc.

I only have 3 caches placed, 1 has a collection of very low value foreign money in as part of the theme. Not only has this been borrowed, but logs like I liked the XYZ money so I swapped for 50p. People have swapped my caches only pen! Camo net has gone missing form a large ammunition box in a park (a key feature of the hide). The other one a one hour multi and my oldest cache is fine, lesson learnt I know what type of cache I will set in future (they are also my favorite type of cache).

 

more honesty in logs/more PM's and people actually reading said logs in advance would be a good start, lets all do that for a year or two then revisit said suggestions.

 

""great hide, tftc!""

 

was/is it? Tell me so I can change it please.

 

I have to agree, honesty goes along way let nurture and promote it...

 

As a CO I don't get paid for my caches, it's a labour of love. I don't pay others for their caches, so I appreciate the effort they go to, even if it's just a film cannister. I don't consider myself as having an entitlement to a certain experience because I'm not paying for one (the premium member service is for the ability to access certain tools that allow me to manipulate the listings).

 

Of course the cache seeker does get one benefit from the CO at least, even for a poor hide - they get a smiley.

 

So whilst someone is able to rack up their smiley count and simultaneously rate down caches they don't like (even though they do them anyway for the smileys), it doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Therefore perhaps ratings should be tied into the percentage of the type of cache you do, as well as your average rating score. If you do a high percentage of micros, and have a mix of ratings then your rating can be trusted, but if you rated every micro down, no matter what or where, then it would be obvious you are some kind of ratings troll.

 

Perhaps even, if a cache is archived due to low ratings, all smileys on that cache should be revoked - after all, if the cache wasn't worth it, it wasn't worth the smiley right? This would effectively be putting your money 'smiley' where your mouth is - no pun intended.

 

Perhaps ratings need to be tied to some kind of benefit for the seeker as well as the ratings-hounds (Yes - there will be ratings hounds). You're average rating should be broadcast on your profile, and if you consistently rate down caches of any type, then the privilege of rating possibly removed.

 

Perhaps even, ratings should be the privilege only of those who have a certain number of hides - reflecting their risk, objectivity, responsibility and sacrifice to the game.

 

The truth is, as a CO, I have a problem with people who hate certain types of caches but do them anyway, and also get the benefit of a smiley from a cache placement, but the CO gets nothing from them but criticism.

 

 

The risk with the proposal of archiving caches seems to be placed all on the CO and no risk whatsoever on the seeker. The risk for CO and seeker should be balanced IMHO.

[+Amberel]

Therefore perhaps ratings should be tied into the percentage of the type of cache you do, as well as your average rating score. If you do a high percentage of micros, and have a mix of ratings then your rating can be trusted, but if you rated every micro down, no matter what or where, then it would be obvious you are some kind of ratings troll.

TerraCaching incorporates a very complex - probably too complex - rating scheme. Not only are are your ratings biassed by your experience, but they are affected by your other ratings, i.e. if you rated every cache as excellent, or every cache as rubbish, then the nett effect would be to rate them all average.

 

It does prevent the sort of problem you describe, but of course, if you really do confine yourself to finding excellent caches it prevents you from raising the overall rating on all of them all.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Edited to add the closing quote tag.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Amberel

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Therefore perhaps ratings should be tied into the percentage of the type of cache you do, as well as your average rating score. If you do a high percentage of micros, and have a mix of ratings then your rating can be trusted, but if you rated every micro down, no matter what or where, then it would be obvious you are some kind of ratings troll./quote] TerraCaching incorporates a very complex - probably too complex - rating scheme. Not only are are your ratings biassed by your experience, but they are affected by your other ratings, i.e. if you rated every cache as excellent, or every cache as rubbish, then the nett effect would be to rate them all average.

 

It does prevent the sort of problem you describe, but of course, if you really do confine yourself to finding excellent caches it prevents you from raising the overall rating on all of them all.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

I completely agree with you, which is why we need to test the theory with practical considerations.

 

So then, my only questions about ratings (with tied archival) would be, what's in it for the CO? Where's the risk for the seekers?

 

...And before someone suggests it, don't tell me obtaining high ratings as an end in themselves (to escape average/same ratings across the board - some acceptable caches are going to have to lose out).

 

Maybe online logs should be rated too in the same way?

 

ETA: I just looked back at the title of this topic and realise discussion of ratings has now taken it OT no matter how useful. Also, I think a CO being able to respond to feedback and take appropriate action as suggested by HH upthread is one such counter-benefit that could be added for COs. However, I can see it complicating the appeals process and creating more work for reviewers for sure.

Edited January 13, 2010 by _TeamFitz_

[GerritS]

"You're average rating should be broadcast on your profile, and if you consistently rate down caches of any type, then the privilege of rating possibly removed."

 

I would agree with your average rating being on your profile, but disagree with removing the right to rate a cache. Some people will rate higher some lower...

 

Any rating system is going to be subjective, like it or not you will be influenced by weather, personnel troubles etc.

 

Thats why I believe keep it simple the law of averages will come to the for.

 

Whats in it for the cache owner? you are right, other than nice logs AND a nice rating. Whats in it for a cache owner now nothing except nice logs...

[Neath Worthies]

As Groundspeak are never going to incorporate ratings why waste so much time discussing the merits or otherwise of various systems here?

 

Let's get the thread back on topic by discussing a theoretical ban on listing cache descriptions on Groundspeak.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Any rating system is going to be subjective, like it or not you will be influenced by weather, personnel troubles etc.

That's why I proposed some (reasonably) objective criteria. If it's based on simply how much you liked or disliked the cache, any rating system will be useless. If the judging criteria aren't clear, it will also be useless.

 

Let's get the thread back on topic by discussing a theoretical ban on listing cache descriptions on Groundspeak.

I believe that the thread was meant to be a general discussion around the "cache quality" idea, the theoretical ban being simply an idea to get things started. As the ban has never been shown to be of any value, trying to stick to discussing it would bring the thread to a halt (perhaps that's what you wanted?).

 

As Groundspeak are never going to incorporate ratings why waste so much time discussing the merits or otherwise of various systems here?

Although it's nice of you to be so concerned about the way we use our time, I think that we're all grown-up enough to decide for ourselves! You're welcome to ignore the thread and start a new one on any topic you like!

[Neath Worthies]

Any rating system is going to be subjective, like it or not you will be influenced by weather, personnel troubles etc.

That's why I proposed some (reasonably) objective criteria. If it's based on simply how much you liked or disliked the cache, any rating system will be useless. If the judging criteria aren't clear, it will also be useless.

 

Let's get the thread back on topic by discussing a theoretical ban on listing cache descriptions on Groundspeak.

I believe that the thread was meant to be a general discussion around the "cache quality" idea, the theoretical ban being simply an idea to get things started. As the ban has never been shown to be of any value, trying to stick to discussing it would bring the thread to a halt (perhaps that's what you wanted?).

 

As Groundspeak are never going to incorporate ratings why waste so much time discussing the merits or otherwise of various systems here?

Although it's nice of you to be so concerned about the way we use our time, I think that we're all grown-up enough to decide for ourselves! You're welcome to ignore the thread and start a new one on any topic you like!

Well thank you very much for putting me right. There was me thinking the thread title suggesting a possible 6 month ban meant that the thread was about the merits or otherwise of a 6 month ban. Obviously it was an invitation to discuss all and anything.

I will take up your suggestion though.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Well thank you very much for putting me right. There was me thinking the thread title suggesting a possible 6 month ban meant that the thread was about the merits or otherwise of a 6 month ban. Obviously it was an invitation to discuss all and anything.

Not really. That was just a suggestion to get people talking about cache quality;

 

We're all still here, playing this game, plus hundreds of newer UK cachers. Lathama is still hiding and finding caches. No moratorium on placing caches has occurred. The sky has not fallen in.

 

After some posts of "shock, horror" that original topic developed into considerations of 'How to improve the general "quality" of caches' and Should caches be automatically archived after x years?' etc. I suspect many would post similar contributions today... or maybe their views have changed?

 

MrsB

Today, current UK listings = 53,879

With this number of caches spread throughout the UK you have to wonder if any more are needed for the game to flourish.

 

Maybe an idea would be to require the archiving of an unloved cache before a new one is published. That would ensure a healthy turnover in caches and maybe even an improvement in that elusive beast - "Quality"

And why not? But it's clearly not an invitation to discuss "all and anything", nor did that happen.

But you're right to start a new thread if you want to keep the topic to a narrow area.