Jump to content

Power Trail


AtwellFamily
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

Why not just have a new cache type for caches placed mainly for the numbers?

 

At the risk of putting SBell to sleep, I will give a thumbs up to this idea as well.

 

I'd just like to see a way to filter bulk cache placements like this. Be it a new cache type or bulk ignore option, just give us the option to run a PQ with power trails excluded.

Link to comment
Why not just have a new cache type for caches placed mainly for the numbers?
I believe some people would claim we already do.... it's called "MICROS" B)

 

At the risk of putting SBell to sleep, I will give a thumbs up to this idea as well. I'd just like to see a way to filter bulk cache placements like this. Be it a new cache type or bulk ignore option, just give us the option to run a PQ with power trails excluded.
Everyone has their own tastes an their own idea of geo-clutter. I have found that most people hide what they like to find, so power trail owners probably like them. In our area we have a series of caches at just about every bus stop in the county. To some people it's geo-clutter.... but others love 'em. You could just as well scream for a way to filter bus stop hides, LPC's, guard rail hides, or whatever turns you off. But where would you draw the line? :anicute:

 

Where's my filter for 35mm film canisters hidden in busted up rotting palm tree trunk populated with spiders and fire ants growing in wet muddy ground and wrapped up in thorns and poison ivy at the edge of a speedy busy road totally exposed to the public next to a busy shopping center???

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment

Where's my filter for 35mm film canisters hidden in busted up rotting palm tree trunk populated with spiders and fire ants growing in wet muddy ground and wrapped up in thorns and poison ivy at the edge of a speedy busy road totally exposed to the public next to a busy shopping center???

 

Well, if there is a cacher that is known for hiding such lousy hides, then being able to ignore all that hider's caches would be useful.

 

I'd much prefer to be able to ignore a hider than to actually create a new type of hide.

 

The issue with power trails is once you get past 25 or 30 such hides, it gets rather problematic to ignore them all.

 

When 100, 200, or 500 caches show up all concentrated in one area like the one mentioned by the OP, then you should be able to easily filter those if you are not a numbers person.

 

I'm not advocating that TPTB reverse their new policy of allowing power trails. There's obviously a large enough number of cachers that like them to cause Groundspeak to change their position.

 

But just like I'm able to filter out micros and still allow others to find them, I should be able to filter out a particular hider's caches if s/he is going to hide these types of caches.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

What do other cachers think of adding a "rate the cache" feature? If, when writing a log online, there were a feature that allowed finders to "rate the cache" sayon a scale of 1-10, and show the AVERAGE cache rating on the home page, other cachers could sort out low rated caches (most likely skirt lifts, bridge magnets, power trails, exc) while cachers who enjoyed these type of caches could still go after them.

 

Just an idea....not a point of controversy!

Link to comment

What do other cachers think of adding a "rate the cache" feature? If, when writing a log online, there were a feature that allowed finders to "rate the cache" sayon a scale of 1-10, and show the AVERAGE cache rating on the home page, other cachers could sort out low rated caches (most likely skirt lifts, bridge magnets, power trails, exc) while cachers who enjoyed these type of caches could still go after them.

 

Just an idea....not a point of controversy!

 

It's been suggested about once a month. OpioNate has said that Groundspeak is considering it. I would love a 'rating system'. The hard part is getting people to agree on what a good rating system is.

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment

Why not just have a new cache type for caches placed mainly for the numbers?

What if those caches were placed to have a awesome day in teh desert? What if they were to spend a fun time with friends? How about if they were placed just because they could be?

Actually what if they were placed just for the numbers? I don't comprehend why someone who is "not into numbers" and would prefer to spend a day in the desert going on a long hike (or even a challenging 4x4 drive) to find just one or two caches, would even care about someone else who wants to see how many of the 600 caches they can get to in 24 hours? These seem to be totally unrelated to one another.

 

On the other hand, some people think every cache should either be found or ignored. If they have decided they don't want to find power trail caches, they would like an easy way to ignore them. If these caches weren't out in the remote desert, it might become more important to ignore them in order to see the other caches you are interested in finding, either on a map or returned in a pocket query. I don't think a "Placed mainly for numbers" cache type it the right approach. I wouldn't object to a voluntary power trail attribute however. Most series like this are on a bookmark list already, so perhaps a way to ignore all the caches on a bookmark list would be useful - or at least the ability to bulk add the caches on a bookmark list to your ignore list. The people who want to ignore any particular type of cache (puzzle to hard, location too trashy, micro in the woods, caches at playgrounds, etc.) could make their own bookmark lists and share them with their like minded friends and let other people who like to find these caches find them without reading in the forums about how they are degrading geocaching.

Link to comment

What do other cachers think of adding a "rate the cache" feature? If, when writing a log online, there were a feature that allowed finders to "rate the cache" sayon a scale of 1-10, and show the AVERAGE cache rating on the home page, other cachers could sort out low rated caches (most likely skirt lifts, bridge magnets, power trails, exc) while cachers who enjoyed these type of caches could still go after them.

 

Just an idea....not a point of controversy!

You're still going to get good ratings...from the people who like to find them.

 

Those who like PTs* will find them, and rate them high. Those who don't like PTs will not find them, and then not rate them. Then those who seek Caches based on high ratings will seek them, and likely find something other than what they expected.

 

*PTs used as an example in this thread...you can apply the theory to whatever type Cache that you like

Link to comment

What do other cachers think of adding a "rate the cache" feature? If, when writing a log online, there were a feature that allowed finders to "rate the cache" sayon a scale of 1-10, and show the AVERAGE cache rating on the home page, other cachers could sort out low rated caches (most likely skirt lifts, bridge magnets, power trails, exc) while cachers who enjoyed these type of caches could still go after them.

 

Just an idea....not a point of controversy!

You haven't been around here long. Rating systems are more controversial than power trails.

Link to comment

Why not just have a new cache type for caches placed mainly for the numbers?

What if those caches were placed to have a awesome day in teh desert? What if they were to spend a fun time with friends? How about if they were placed just because they could be?

 

You can't predict how good a time someone will have any any cache, and there is no attribute that says it's only good if you come with friends. I have had less fun at some nice caches and have had a great time at some lesser caches. Rating caches would do no better, everyone has their own idea what makes a good cache.

 

Regarding caches placed because they could be, if there were attributes describing why the cache was placed, one could be added that was "For no particular purpose". Read through the UK forum thread I posted earlier and consider the possibility.

 

It seems to me this would be a good thing for both sides. Those that like to find these numbers caches could find them more easily, and those who don't would have less reason to complain because there would be a way to somewhat effectively filter those out. The worst that could happen is a cache owner who his a cache for no purpose would lose a few finds from someone who didn't really care to do the cache anyway.

Edited by brdad
Link to comment
What do other cachers think of adding a "rate the cache" feature? If, when writing a log online, there were a feature that allowed finders to "rate the cache" sayon a scale of 1-10, and show the AVERAGE cache rating on the home page, other cachers could sort out low rated caches (most likely skirt lifts, bridge magnets, power trails, exc) while cachers who enjoyed these type of caches could still go after them. Just an idea....not a point of controversy!

It's been suggested about once a month. OpioNate has said that Groundspeak is considering it. I would love a 'rating system'. The hard part is getting people to agree on what a good rating system is.

I totally disagree.... I think it's been suggested about once a week B) But I totally agree that a user rating system would be great. Have it be part of the found it log page and show the average or just show it in the log listings. Could even expand it to include :

 

- Overall rating

- Accuracy of listing

- Creativity

- Kid Friendly <--- I think this is kind of an important one.

- Location

 

It would be great because I think people in an area for a short visit might be more likely to visit a high user rated cache then a low one. And people can make a listing "look" great even for a lame hide. And some people put out great hides but aren't good at creating an appealing listing. And I doubt someone wants to open every listing and read the logs to see what people think. Would be nice to PQ the 50 best user rated hides near some location. Still subjective but the whole realm of GC is, would be just another tool to decide what you want to seek.

 

Cut and paste this once a week until we get our user rating system. :anicute:

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment

So I have a question for all you crying for a Weapon of Mass Deletion or the "This is a power trail cache" attribute. At what point does a series of caches cross the line from being a series of caches to the dreaded and much defiled power trail? Is it 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? I think before we go present TPTB a request for a WMD or attribute we need to sit down and clearly define a guideline that describes a power trail and under which circumstances the WMD or attribute would be used. Can someone please present in one or two sentences just exactly what and under what circumstances a series of caches becomes a power trail? Remember prior placements do not provide definitions.

Link to comment

So I have a question for all you crying for a Weapon of Mass Deletion or the "This is a power trail cache" attribute. At what point does a series of caches cross the line from being a series of caches to the dreaded and much defiled power trail? Is it 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? I think before we go present TPTB a request for a WMD or attribute we need to sit down and clearly define a guideline that describes a power trail and under which circumstances the WMD or attribute would be used. Can someone please present in one or two sentences just exactly what and under what circumstances a series of caches becomes a power trail? Remember prior placements do not provide definitions.

Haha, it would be funny for someone to come here after searching for PTs, and complain that 90% of the results had too few in the trail.

 

"Crud, I was looking for power trails, and this one only has 25...what a waste of time"

Link to comment

Can someone please present in one or two sentences just exactly what and under what circumstances a series of caches becomes a power trail?

 

If voluntary, whatever number the owner decides constitutes a power trail.

 

If mandatory, 50+ caches placed within .1 - .25 miles of each other concentrated along a defined path would be a good start.

Link to comment

I'd be against a power trail attribute. There could be a numbers cache hidden by another player that is not technically a power trail cache but might as well be. There could also be a power trail cache that was hidden for more than just a number (scenic spot, historical marker). Treat every cache individually! If there are multiple "numbers" caches in a row you can assume it is a power trail.

Edited by brdad
Link to comment

So I have a question for all you crying for a Weapon of Mass Deletion or the "This is a power trail cache" attribute. At what point does a series of caches cross the line from being a series of caches to the dreaded and much defiled power trail? Is it 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? I think before we go present TPTB a request for a WMD or attribute we need to sit down and clearly define a guideline that describes a power trail and under which circumstances the WMD or attribute would be used. Can someone please present in one or two sentences just exactly what and under what circumstances a series of caches becomes a power trail? Remember prior placements do not provide definitions.

 

There was a time in the not-so-distant-past when reviewers were able to determine what a power trail was. I would think this ability has not changed. Clearly at some point there was a "magic" number running around in the background, unseen on the guidelines page.

 

Also- your frequent use of hyperbole is not constructive. Nobody is asking for/discussing deletion. Deletion != ignore.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

So I have a question for all you crying for a Weapon of Mass Deletion or the "This is a power trail cache" attribute. At what point does a series of caches cross the line from being a series of caches to the dreaded and much defiled power trail? Is it 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? I think before we go present TPTB a request for a WMD or attribute we need to sit down and clearly define a guideline that describes a power trail and under which circumstances the WMD or attribute would be used. Can someone please present in one or two sentences just exactly what and under what circumstances a series of caches becomes a power trail? Remember prior placements do not provide definitions.

 

There was a time in the not-so-distant-past when reviewers were able to determine what a power trail was. I would think this ability has not changed. Clearly at some point there was a "magic" number running around in the background, unseen on the guidelines page.

 

Also- your frequent use of hyperbole is not constructive. Nobody is asking for/discussing deletion. Deletion != ignore.

 

Exactly. When they were not allowed, you can bet the reviewers could define them.

 

And why is it that dissenting opinions are considered whining or crying. Can't we just agree to disagree?

 

I think most of the folks have been talking about how to have the cake and eat it too.

Link to comment

Why not just have a new cache type for caches placed mainly for the numbers?

What if those caches were placed to have a awesome day in teh desert? What if they were to spend a fun time with friends? How about if they were placed just because they could be?

 

You can't predict how good a time someone will have any any cache, and there is no attribute that says it's only good if you come with friends. I have had less fun at some nice caches and have had a great time at some lesser caches. Rating caches would do no better, everyone has their own idea what makes a good cache.

 

Regarding caches placed because they could be, if there were attributes describing why the cache was placed, one could be added that was "For no particular purpose". Read through the UK forum thread I posted earlier and consider the possibility.

 

It seems to me this would be a good thing for both sides. Those that like to find these numbers caches could find them more easily, and those who don't would have less reason to complain because there would be a way to somewhat effectively filter those out. The worst that could happen is a cache owner who his a cache for no purpose would lose a few finds from someone who didn't really care to do the cache anyway.

It's possible that you missed my point. Let me try to get there from a different direction.

 

Requiring a cache type (or attribute) to be used to identify the reason why each cache is hidden wouldn't work for two reasons.

  1. The cache owner may have hidden the cache for some reason other than the one that you think they used.
  2. A cache may be enjoyable to find regardless of the cache owner's underlying reason to hide it. For instance, many people's stated reason for hiding caches is to 'give back to the game'. The random cache hidden for this reason could be awesome or lame, depending on the desires and moods of the cache seeker.

Link to comment

So I have a question for all you crying for a Weapon of Mass Deletion or the "This is a power trail cache" attribute. At what point does a series of caches cross the line from being a series of caches to the dreaded and much defiled power trail? Is it 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? I think before we go present TPTB a request for a WMD or attribute we need to sit down and clearly define a guideline that describes a power trail and under which circumstances the WMD or attribute would be used. Can someone please present in one or two sentences just exactly what and under what circumstances a series of caches becomes a power trail? Remember prior placements do not provide definitions.

 

There was a time in the not-so-distant-past when reviewers were able to determine what a power trail was. I would think this ability has not changed. Clearly at some point there was a "magic" number running around in the background, unseen on the guidelines page.

 

Also- your frequent use of hyperbole is not constructive. Nobody is asking for/discussing deletion. Deletion != ignore.

 

Exactly. When they were not allowed, you can bet the reviewers could define them.

 

And why is it that dissenting opinions are considered whining or crying. Can't we just agree to disagree?

 

I think most of the folks have been talking about how to have the cake and eat it too.

 

Because on the interweb condescension=intelligence+logic. It's a better application of resources to talk down to people with a difference of opinion than it is to reach a middle ground.

Link to comment

Can someone please present in one or two sentences just exactly what and under what circumstances a series of caches becomes a power trail?

 

If voluntary, whatever number the owner decides constitutes a power trail.

 

If mandatory, 50+ caches placed within .1 - .25 miles of each other concentrated along a defined path would be a good start.

 

Ah, NGA said it was not a power trail, end of discussion. Thank you I understand.

 

So if I

place (some number of caches -1) a minimum distance from each other

skip 2 times minimum distance

Repeat until containers are gone or I run into the ocean

 

it is not a power trail? Thank you, now I understand.

 

And no, container size does not matter. I could get a pallet of 30 cal ammo boxes, find a road like Stud Mill Road or Powerline Road or any number of roads in the southwest or plains states and hide 400 ammo cans.

 

These are the issues I have been trying to understand. I can't find a definition of what constitutes a power trail.

Edited by jholly
Link to comment
There was a time in the not-so-distant-past when reviewers were able to determine what a power trail was. I would think this ability has not changed. Clearly at some point there was a "magic" number running around in the background, unseen on the guidelines page. ...
Exactly. When they were not allowed, you can bet the reviewers could define them. ...
I bet that the guidelines were changed because it was difficult for the reviewers to manage the 'what is a power trail' question. It was a wow-like determination. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Requiring a cache type (or attribute) to be used to identify the reason why each cache is hidden wouldn't work for two reasons.

  1. The cache owner may have hidden the cache for some reason other than the one that you think they used.
  2. A cache may be enjoyable to find regardless of the cache owner's underlying reason to hide it. For instance, many people's stated reason for hiding caches is to 'give back to the game'. The random cache hidden for this reason could be awesome or lame, depending on the desires and moods of the cache seeker.

 

(Here's me "reaching across the aisle".)

 

Sbell is actually right. Defining the reason for a cache would mean re-thinking the entire scope of the attribute system. Is not every cache hidden for the same reason- to be found?

 

However, I posit that power-trails are in and of themselves different enough that perhaps an attribute could be developed because it could be used to describe not the reason, but the nature of the hide. In much the same way that the attributes describe the length of the hike and the dangers of the trail.

 

And hey, attributes are all optional anyway, right? Wouldn't it be nice if COs willing to describe their power-trail via an attribute had the tool available?

Link to comment

Can someone please present in one or two sentences just exactly what and under what circumstances a series of caches becomes a power trail?

 

If voluntary, whatever number the owner decides constitutes a power trail.

 

If mandatory, 50+ caches placed within .1 - .25 miles of each other concentrated along a defined path would be a good start.

 

Ah, NGA said it was not a power trail, end of discussion. Thank you I understand.

 

So if I

place (some number of caches -1) a minimum distance from each other

skip 2 times minimum distance

Repeat until containers are gone or I run into the ocean

 

it is not a power trail? Thank you, now I understand.

 

And no, container size does not matter. I could get a pallet of 30 cal ammo boxes, find a road like Stud Mill Road or Powerline Road or any number of roads in the southwest or plains states and hide 400 ammo cans.

 

These are the issues I have been trying to understand. I can't find a definition of what constitutes a power trail.

 

The guidelines themselves are not firm and fixed. The entire hobby has room for give and take, with very few exceptions. Why could this not be any different?

Link to comment

If not a Power Trail attribute, how about some way of identifying caches that are part of a series?

 

This would work in both directions. If I find a cache I like, or one I hate, it would be nice to have a button on the cache page that would show me all the caches in the series. And then buttons that either a) let me download the GPX file for the entire series, or 2) ignore the entire series.

 

I think that would make everyone happy, and be much less judgmental.

 

It would still be up to the owner to identify his "series" caches, but I think most owners would do it.

 

Edited because the character string I used to identify my point "b" was translated into a smiley!

Edited by GeoGeeBee
Link to comment
[*]A cache may be enjoyable to find regardless of the cache owner's underlying reason to hide it.
Ahhhh, like the cache I hid where the bird sanctuary donation center was and it closed and was re-opened as a massage parlor. Cache was enjoyable to find by a cacher who was invited inside during the find, regardless of my intent on hiding it there :anicute:
Link to comment

Is not every cache hidden for the same reason- to be found?

 

I don't hide my caches to be found. Most of mine are hidden to draw the cacher to hopefully see something they may not have seen otherwise. Finding the cache is an added bonus. If they don't find the cache, most will still be happy they went.

 

I think the definition of why the cache was placed would have a more broad meaning, including why the individual location was chosen.

Link to comment

I don't hide my caches to be found. Most of mine are hidden to draw the cacher to hopefully see something they may not have seen otherwise. Finding the cache is an added bonus. If they don't find the cache, most will still be happy they went.

I look for caches in order find them. If the cache owner takes me to a nice place it is a bonus. If the cache owner is solely interested in taking me to a place I may not have seen otherwise, it would make more sense just to waymark the location. :anicute:

Link to comment

I just cannot see how adding a PT attribute could possibly hurt anyone. Of course it's use would have to be voluntary, but really...what can it hurt.

 

People who want to use it to ignore the trail can do just that.

People who want to use it to seek PTs can do just that.

People who want to attract PT seekers can do just that

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

Can any of those 600 continers hold a travel bug? I visited my brother in N. Carolina and took a travel bug with me. Thought I'd be able to give it good mileage, but couldn't find a cache large enough to put it in. They have a lot of areas near him where the local cacher clubs have hidden a slew of them. Nice to have all the caches, so how come they couldn't do at least one that would hold a TB?

Link to comment

Can any of those 600 continers hold a travel bug? I visited my brother in N. Carolina and took a travel bug with me. Thought I'd be able to give it good mileage, but couldn't find a cache large enough to put it in. They have a lot of areas near him where the local cacher clubs have hidden a slew of them. Nice to have all the caches, so how come they couldn't do at least one that would hold a TB?

 

I have read that they are all different sizes of caches along that trail unless I read it wrong. :anicute:

Link to comment

Can any of those 600 continers hold a travel bug? I visited my brother in N. Carolina and took a travel bug with me. Thought I'd be able to give it good mileage, but couldn't find a cache large enough to put it in. They have a lot of areas near him where the local cacher clubs have hidden a slew of them. Nice to have all the caches, so how come they couldn't do at least one that would hold a TB?

 

I didn't have to look at that many to see one that was specified as a large.

Link to comment

Can someone please present in one or two sentences just exactly what and under what circumstances a series of caches becomes a power trail?

 

If voluntary, whatever number the owner decides constitutes a power trail.

 

If mandatory, 50+ caches placed within .1 - .25 miles of each other concentrated along a defined path would be a good start.

 

Ah, NGA said it was not a power trail, end of discussion. Thank you I understand.

 

So if I

place (some number of caches -1) a minimum distance from each other

skip 2 times minimum distance

Repeat until containers are gone or I run into the ocean

 

it is not a power trail? Thank you, now I understand.

 

And no, container size does not matter. I could get a pallet of 30 cal ammo boxes, find a road like Stud Mill Road or Powerline Road or any number of roads in the southwest or plains states and hide 400 ammo cans.

 

These are the issues I have been trying to understand. I can't find a definition of what constitutes a power trail.

 

The guidelines themselves are not firm and fixed. The entire hobby has room for give and take, with very few exceptions. Why could this not be any different?

 

It seems to me that because most of the guidelines are not firm and fixed that a lot of the "give and take" is often the creation of a cache or many caches which, depending how one interprets the language in the guidelines manages to fit within the guidelines. I don't recall who it was off hand but there was an earlier post that argued that 600 caches, placed just over .1 of a mile apart did not meet a definition of "saturation". What seems to be forgotten is the spirit in which the guideline was written.

Link to comment

heres my take on the issue .. the 600 ft mark is 2 football fields .. i dont much mind the notion of a large amount of caches spanning that distance between them no matter how far the complete run is ....i go in groups of to full familys including neices and nephews .... it give kids a chance to get some finds , they can end the day telling gram how many each child found instead of the its not fair i didnt get any tantrum....

 

i dont see the issue if you dont want to do a " power trail " dont , if you want to than do it ....

 

it suppose to be a fun game to get out see and do something yet it seems that some people are so into the sport that numbers that other people have gets to them ...

Link to comment

Can any of those 600 continers hold a travel bug? I visited my brother in N. Carolina and took a travel bug with me. Thought I'd be able to give it good mileage, but couldn't find a cache large enough to put it in. They have a lot of areas near him where the local cacher clubs have hidden a slew of them. Nice to have all the caches, so how come they couldn't do at least one that would hold a TB?

 

Really? No caches large enough to drop a TB in? Forgive me if I am looking at poor data, but I scrolled back to page 5 of your finds to see any NC caches.

Let's see-you found a cache at an I 95 rest stop on 2/12/09. This TB hotel was published in the same rest stop a day earlier. But perhaps you didn't update your data before heading south or once you were on the road?

 

Then you found three small caches along the same greenway, possibly in your brother's neighborhood? Since these greenways follow storm drain easments, and pass between residential backyards, large caches and ammo cans would be very poor choices. You were in Cary, which is about as dense as suburbs get around here. Yet there were over 100 caches within 5 miles of that greenway, and about a dozen are regular sized including a whole series that are ammo cans on game lands.

 

It just appears that you planned and chose poorly if dropping a TB here was a high priority for your visit.

And to clarify-the local cachers place and own the caches, not any club or organization. Feel free to shoot me an email the next time you are headed south-I'd be happy to make some suggestions to help you find what you need.

 

Back OT-since the NGA already posted that there is a variety of containers and D/T ratings, I would expect there will be more than a few ammo cans under some rock piles along this route.

Link to comment
i dont see the issue if you dont want to do a " power trail " dont , if you want to than do it ....

I can't speak for others, but for me it's mostly a matter of aesthetics and preferences. I see something like those 600+ caches the way some folks view a strip mining operation. It just looks ugly to me. Because I prefer beauty to ugliness, I will continue to preach my preferences, hoping that I may touch the muse of someone, somewhere, who is planning on spewing out several hundred caches in a small area. I also thoroughly enjoy reading cache pages, and to see 600+ of them that say essentially the same thing is kinda sad.

 

So, that's why power trails are an issue to me, and why I tend to avoid them, and speak ill of them when the subject comes up.

 

For those that love them, I say "More Power To Ya!". :)

Link to comment
i dont see the issue if you dont want to do a " power trail " dont , if you want to than do it ....

I can't speak for others, but for me it's mostly a matter of aesthetics and preferences. I see something like those 600+ caches the way some folks view a strip mining operation. It just looks ugly to me. Because I prefer beauty to ugliness, I will continue to preach my preferences, hoping that I may touch the muse of someone, somewhere, who is planning on spewing out several hundred caches in a small area. I also thoroughly enjoy reading cache pages, and to see 600+ of them that say essentially the same thing is kinda sad.

 

So, that's why power trails are an issue to me, and why I tend to avoid them, and speak ill of them when the subject comes up.

 

For those that love them, I say "More Power To Ya!". :)

 

It looks ugly?

Can you please explain how a power trail of caches that are not seen, unless looked for, can be ugly?

 

Strip mining can be seen by anyone within a mile of the mine. Micros on a power trail, presumably, can't be seen unless you are within 30 feet of them.

Link to comment
i dont see the issue if you dont want to do a " power trail " dont , if you want to than do it ....

I can't speak for others, but for me it's mostly a matter of aesthetics and preferences. I see something like those 600+ caches the way some folks view a strip mining operation. It just looks ugly to me. Because I prefer beauty to ugliness, I will continue to preach my preferences, hoping that I may touch the muse of someone, somewhere, who is planning on spewing out several hundred caches in a small area. I also thoroughly enjoy reading cache pages, and to see 600+ of them that say essentially the same thing is kinda sad.

 

So, that's why power trails are an issue to me, and why I tend to avoid them, and speak ill of them when the subject comes up.

 

For those that love them, I say "More Power To Ya!". :)

 

It looks ugly?

Can you please explain how a power trail of caches that are not seen, unless looked for, can be ugly?

 

Strip mining can be seen by anyone within a mile of the mine. Micros on a power trail, presumably, can't be seen unless you are within 30 feet of them.

 

They look ugly on a google map of caches. Or they look like, "Wow, can I really bump the counter with this!"

Link to comment

I just hope that when some yahoo creates a power trail around here, and one will, that they give me a heads up first. I'd like to reroute all those notices before they hit my email box. I feel sorry for the reviewers who get stuck with the task of checking each one of the dadgum things for guideline conflicts. Do ya all help each other out with these? They are a bit above and beyond what I would suspect is your normal cache load.

Link to comment

It looks ugly?

Can you please explain how a power trail of caches that are not seen, unless looked for, can be ugly?

 

Strip mining can be seen by anyone within a mile of the mine. Micros on a power trail, presumably, can't be seen unless you are within 30 feet of them.

 

They look ugly on a google map of caches. Or they look like, "Wow, can I really bump the counter with this!"

 

So, again, some will hate the caches and some will love them, just like every other cache out there.

 

It seems some just want to be all worked up over sweaty things.

Link to comment

It looks ugly?

Can you please explain how a power trail of caches that are not seen, unless looked for, can be ugly?

 

Strip mining can be seen by anyone within a mile of the mine. Micros on a power trail, presumably, can't be seen unless you are within 30 feet of them.

 

They look ugly on a google map of caches. Or they look like, "Wow, can I really bump the counter with this!"

 

So, again, some will hate the caches and some will love them, just like every other cache out there.

 

It seems some just want to be all worked up over sweaty things.

 

I still say that being worked up over sweaty things may not be such a bad thing. It all depends on what things they are and why they are so sweaty.

Link to comment

It looks ugly?

Can you please explain how a power trail of caches that are not seen, unless looked for, can be ugly?

 

Strip mining can be seen by anyone within a mile of the mine. Micros on a power trail, presumably, can't be seen unless you are within 30 feet of them.

 

They look ugly on a google map of caches. Or they look like, "Wow, can I really bump the counter with this!"

 

So, again, some will hate the caches and some will love them, just like every other cache out there.

 

It seems some just want to be all worked up over sweaty things.

 

I still say that being worked up over sweaty things may not be such a bad thing. It all depends on what things they are and why they are so sweaty.

:)

Link to comment
It seems some just want to be all worked up over sweaty things.

At almost 200 posts in this thread, I have yet to see anyone getting worked up. :)

Except, possibly, some guy with a green lizard avatar. :D

There's a guy here with a green lizard avater? Weird, I ususally notice these things.

 

I still say it's no biggie if there's a power trail here and there. It's a fad. It will come, and it will go. The more you make it a big deal, the bigger it will be. If people ignore them they will stop hiding them. Sort of like ammo cans in hard to get to areas. They don't get much attention so people don't hide as many. Micros in parking lots get a lot of attention which is why they seem to breed faster than hamsters.

Link to comment
It seems some just want to be all worked up over sweaty things.

At almost 200 posts in this thread, I have yet to see anyone getting worked up. :)

Except, possibly, some guy with a green lizard avatar. :D

There's a guy here with a green lizard avater? Weird, I ususally notice these things.

 

I still say it's no biggie if there's a power trail here and there. It's a fad. It will come, and it will go. The more you make it a big deal, the bigger it will be. If people ignore them they will stop hiding them. Sort of like ammo cans in hard to get to areas. They don't get much attention so people don't hide as many. Micros in parking lots get a lot of attention which is why they seem to breed faster than hamsters.

 

Just goes to show, the majority isn't always right.

Link to comment

There's a guy here with a green lizard avater? Weird, I ususally notice these things.

 

I still say it's no biggie if there's a power trail here and there. It's a fad. It will come, and it will go. The more you make it a big deal, the bigger it will be. If people ignore them they will stop hiding them. Sort of like ammo cans in hard to get to areas. They don't get much attention so people don't hide as many. Micros in parking lots get a lot of attention which is why they seem to breed faster than hamsters.

 

Just goes to show, the majority isn't always right.

 

If you only knew how silly that statement is.

 

You just said that your opinion is more important than the opinion of the majority. Even I am not that arrogant.

 

OK, I am, but still......

Link to comment
What do other cachers think of adding a "rate the cache" feature? If, when writing a log online, there were a feature that allowed finders to "rate the cache" sayon a scale of 1-10, and show the AVERAGE cache rating on the home page, other cachers could sort out low rated caches (most likely skirt lifts, bridge magnets, power trails, exc) while cachers who enjoyed these type of caches could still go after them. Just an idea....not a point of controversy!

It's been suggested about once a month. OpioNate has said that Groundspeak is considering it. I would love a 'rating system'. The hard part is getting people to agree on what a good rating system is.

I totally disagree.... I think it's been suggested about once a week :D But I totally agree that a user rating system would be great. Have it be part of the found it log page and show the average or just show it in the log listings. Could even expand it to include :

 

- Overall rating

- Accuracy of listing

- Creativity

- Kid Friendly <--- I think this is kind of an important one.

- Location

 

It would be great because I think people in an area for a short visit might be more likely to visit a high user rated cache then a low one. And people can make a listing "look" great even for a lame hide. And some people put out great hides but aren't good at creating an appealing listing. And I doubt someone wants to open every listing and read the logs to see what people think. Would be nice to PQ the 50 best user rated hides near some location. Still subjective but the whole realm of GC is, would be just another tool to decide what you want to seek.

 

Cut and paste this once a week until we get our user rating system. :)

 

I have only been doing this for 2 years, but I don't think I want a rating system. Part of Geocaching is finding, and if you have to look thru found logs to decide which Caches you want to find/look for, then so be it, that is part of the finding equation.

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...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...