Jump to content

Please tell me that this is not the cache of the future?


Recommended Posts

In the general Portsmouth/Fareham area, there has been an upsurge of recently placed caches which seem to share some common features.

 

1 They are normally film canisters or nanos

2 They are normally placed on lamp-posts or other street furniture

3 The location appears to be totally random with no redeeming feature to otherwise warrant a visit to the spot.

In other words, "there's not a cache near here so let's stick a magnet somewhere"

4 They are "Traditionals"

5 The originally published co-ordinates are frequently between 60' and 200' away from the cache

6 The cache owner puts a comment on the cache page asking for the first few finders to provide him with a correct location. ;)

7 The caches are not subject to much (or any) maintenance and the cache owner frequently fails to respond to e-mails or posted notes.

 

For example, one cache owner moved the published location by over 300' soon after publication, then posted to say that "it's still somewhere North of that revised location" It was eventually moved by something like 1000' :D

Another published cache co-ordinates for the middle of a busy main road, then invited cachers to let their dogs play in the area and to bring a picnic along. :D

 

It seems fairly typical that these caches are set by newcomers to the hobby, whose previous finds have been of a similar nature. It's the old scenario of "Monkey see and Monkey do".

 

The co-ordinates discrepancy invaiably results from the use of an iPhone (or similar device) to generate the cache location. Many users have found that this type of equipment cannot be depended upon to reliably deliver a location with greater than 60'-80' accuracy. The use of Google Earth to run a quick check on the co-ordinates prior to publication is an obvious precaution, but one that is seldom (if ever) used.

 

Now I'm not knocking micros/nanos per se, (although many of them do represent a poorly thought out or poorly placed cache).

Nor am I suggesting that GPS enabled Smartphones should not be used for caching.

I am sure that this type of cache is becoming widespread in many areas of the country.

 

So.........

 

Does general caching opinion support this type of cache, or merely condone it, or condemn it?

 

Can the Reviewers, or should the Reviewers, be empowered to do anything to try and curb this degradation of what many perceive to be generally acceptable standards? Please note, I am NOT inferring that the Reviewers are in any way lax, or are condoning the situation. When a cache is submitted for publication, the cache owner gives a written undertaking that the submitted details are correct, and the Reviewer presently has no option but to accept that undertaking in good faith.

 

Is there anything that individual cachers can do if (and when) such caches appear in their area?

 

Discuss.

Link to comment

Back to the old suggestion of:

Minimum time as a member and minimum number of finds before you can list a cache...

 

I've got my eye on a cache, co-ords are totally wrong, C/O has tried to change them (can't, it's more than the system allows) has listed the correct co-ords on the cache page -using minutes and seconds...

 

I've emailed to say 'contact your reviewer' to change the co-ords, finders have posted the same info as well...

Cacher hasn't logged in for two weeks...

 

And. At 15 days old, the cache contents are already wet!

 

;)

Link to comment

Hmmm.....I know what you mean. Fortunately up here in Carlisle, Cumbria, we are pretty lucky. There aren't that many of them about.

 

I have been hiding lately, and have deliberately not hid nano's, etc. I could hide hundreds in this city, but I won't. I try to hide the sort of caches that I like to find. And the ones I have hid, get good logs on the cache pages, which I enjoy reading. ;)

Link to comment

In my humble opinion it boils down to two words "bone idle"......... if they put no effort in to hiding a cache then they deserve no effort from us to go and find it :D

 

I agree with GAZ I try to set caches I would like to find myself, most of ours are short walks in pretty areas where we can let Jess have a run ;) ........ I also get pretty good write ups from most of my caches thankfully, which I too enjoy reading ;)

 

Off to get my bullet proof knickers :D

 

Mandy B)

Edited by Us 4 and Jess
Link to comment

As a Newbie to both finding and placing, I gave thought to what most of you comment on above. One of my first was a magnetic "key safe". Predictably the UK weather changed, and the log got wet. I took note of the logs and changed the cache to a "lock and lock" type small box. We, hopefully learn by our mistakes! I decided on a circular route of six, which like the Douglas Adams Books (Hitchhikers !) turned in to numbers seven and eight as well ! We are lucky to live in a rural part of Oxfordshire with vast acres of spaces and interesting locations to place caches. I agree with lots of the comments - One of the great things about the hobby is finding places and locations that we have never been to, good walking, great views, slimmer dogs !

and interesting caches. There are far too many "nanos, even in this part of the country. I shall continue to watch this thread and get "educated" by the experienced cachers. We don't use mobile phones much, so only have pay as you go Bricks, so have never been tempted by the "Apps" for mobiles - our friends use one, and they get a lot of DNFs due to inaccuracy. We used paper maps and compass until I could afford a GPS- now have a great Garmin ETrex legend - which works a treat. Now working on paperless caching. Saving for a bluetooth GPS to mate to my PDA, with Memory maps - but still a long way off (£180 for mapping !!) ;)

Link to comment

Back to the old suggestion of:

Minimum time as a member and minimum number of finds before you can list a cache...

 

I've got my eye on a cache, co-ords are totally wrong, C/O has tried to change them (can't, it's more than the system allows) has listed the correct co-ords on the cache page -using minutes and seconds...

 

I've emailed to say 'contact your reviewer' to change the co-ords, finders have posted the same info as well...

Cacher hasn't logged in for two weeks...

 

And. At 15 days old, the cache contents are already wet!

 

;)

Perfect opportunity for a Needs Maintenance log and if nothing happens then a Needs Archived log. You've already offered some kind of help to the CO so it's time they sort it out or ask for help.

 

As to the OP have you tried contacting the COs and asking them if they need any help getting their coordinates sorted. At that stage you could try helpfully suggesting ways they could improve the quality of their caches.

 

Reviewers can't/won't get involved in quality discussions with COs. Inaccurate coordinates are a different matter though and tend to be very dimly looked on!

Link to comment

I am not a fan of magnetic film cans stuck in random spots in city centres.

I have done quite a few film pot caches in my local area placed by cachers that put the effort in to take you somewhere nice with their film can caches.

I don't really mind what size the container is if its in a place thats interesting / scenic. That said, I do take the approach of placing the largest container the location will allow.

 

On the subject of coords. Everyone makes mistakes with them at some time but writing that the coords are probably incorrect; and for finders to tell what the real coords are is just lazy.

 

I recently found a cache in a city centre (Stoke on Trent).

The cache was listed as an ammo box which I thought was weird.

I DNF'd it twice before finding it. I would recommend the mentioned cache to anyone wanting inspiration for a hide. GC28ZX2

Link to comment

In the general Portsmouth/Fareham area, there has been an upsurge of recently placed caches which seem to share some common features.

 

1 They are normally film canisters or nanos

2 They are normally placed on lamp-posts or other street furniture

3 The location appears to be totally random with no redeeming feature to otherwise warrant a visit to the spot.

In other words, "there's not a cache near here so let's stick a magnet somewhere"

4 They are "Traditionals"

5 The originally published co-ordinates are frequently between 60' and 200' away from the cache

6 The cache owner puts a comment on the cache page asking for the first few finders to provide him with a correct location. :D

7 The caches are not subject to much (or any) maintenance and the cache owner frequently fails to respond to e-mails or posted notes.

 

For example, one cache owner moved the published location by over 300' soon after publication, then posted to say that "it's still somewhere North of that revised location" It was eventually moved by something like 1000' ;)

Another published cache co-ordinates for the middle of a busy main road, then invited cachers to let their dogs play in the area and to bring a picnic along. B)

 

It seems fairly typical that these caches are set by newcomers to the hobby, whose previous finds have been of a similar nature. It's the old scenario of "Monkey see and Monkey do".

 

The co-ordinates discrepancy invaiably results from the use of an iPhone (or similar device) to generate the cache location. Many users have found that this type of equipment cannot be depended upon to reliably deliver a location with greater than 60'-80' accuracy. The use of Google Earth to run a quick check on the co-ordinates prior to publication is an obvious precaution, but one that is seldom (if ever) used.

 

Now I'm not knocking micros/nanos per se, (although many of them do represent a poorly thought out or poorly placed cache).

Nor am I suggesting that GPS enabled Smartphones should not be used for caching.

I am sure that this type of cache is becoming widespread in many areas of the country.

 

So.........

 

Does general caching opinion support this type of cache, or merely condone it, or condemn it?

 

Can the Reviewers, or should the Reviewers, be empowered to do anything to try and curb this degradation of what many perceive to be generally acceptable standards? Please note, I am NOT inferring that the Reviewers are in any way lax, or are condoning the situation. When a cache is submitted for publication, the cache owner gives a written undertaking that the submitted details are correct, and the Reviewer presently has no option but to accept that undertaking in good faith.

 

Is there anything that individual cachers can do if (and when) such caches appear in their area?

 

Discuss.

 

Sad to say my caching has been very much stopped by this sort of cache...

 

I used to pop out if I had an hour spare and grab what ever was around now...

 

If I have 1/2 a day spare I have a few caches on my hit list...

I will go caching but basically cache circuits and good singles are all I do, as there so so many more poor caches around....

 

What can we do?

1) My answer is honest logs!

2) GC-Vote

 

I have found caches in my area which have been found by very experienced cacher's still with bags around them.. No complaints from them...

 

Also when I have given poor logs, I have often had people excessively complimentary afterward...

One I logged as a pill pot between 2 doctors surgerys one less than 500m away. the other less than 0.1 mile away and in high muggle area...

 

Its in a church yard that is the main through fair for people walking to high street from car parks it is busy...

 

Next person who lives 50 miles away said great cache no muggle's.. I if I remember something about doctors surgery not being near... :ph34r:

 

No problems for me... I have done it logged it GC-Voted it low, leave it to the community to decide...

 

I now just ignore about 1/2 the caches published ;) ... Looking forward to going home and trying out the new filter on my Garmin :D . Maybe that will get me out caching more ;) ...

 

Unless the weathers good and I will be sailing....

 

600 hundred finds in first year ;) to urm 1 or 2 hundred in second year :ph34r: ....

 

You can see my interest waning :ph34r:

Link to comment

Isn't it quite simple? You log the cache with a note to say that you can't recommend this cache as in your opinion it's a waste of time. If you can be bothered, you could also mention why - inaccurate coordinates, no apparent point of interest, poor container etc. That should limit future finds to those that don't read the logs, should help discourage further placements of similar type, and should help downgrade the cache placer's reputation so that people start avoiding their caches.

 

Those that say "TFTC" or "Nice cache, thanks" are part of the problem; if these caches don't get logged they'll die off sooner or later, but encouraging logs will mean more of the same type of cache.

 

If you don't like to be quite so direct, you might log the cache in neutral fashion but then send some (diplomatically worded) advice to the cache owner, in the hope that their next hide will be better (or that there is no next hide!).

 

There's nothing wrong with magnetic micros on street furniture, in principle, so I'm not advocating complaining just because it's not your type of cache.

But they have to be particularly well-described (so your expectations are realistic) and well-maintained; and good coordinates are a must.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I also recommend honest logs and gc vote.

I am also trying to make sure all my caches are good, so that new comers copy good ones rather than rubbish ones, if they only find film pots in areas that have no redeeming features then they will copy that, if they find ammo cans in beautiful locations hopefully they will copy that

Link to comment

I've just had a look at the caches you mention.

 

Whilst I understand that not everyone is educated at the same level as others, surely it's not difficult to put some punctuation into a cache description?

 

I don't care if people think I'm a snob, but I'm starting to consider doing caches only where the cache pages are well written, thought out, have some information about the area, parking suggestions and so on.

 

My own caches probably have some spelling and grammar mistakes, but almost all of them have parking coordinates and information about the area. Anyone who has actually bothered reading the cache pages on the Woburn series will know the lengths I went to to find out information on all the different animals.

 

A cache which says something like

 

 

this is a cach in a park which you can bring youre kids too i put this here because its a nice place sometimes there is some litter so its a bit dirty

 

 

isn't going to inspire me.

Link to comment

Honest logs are what is needed. When we are out and about we often scan previous logs and if the cache sounds interesting we go, if others have said its in a horrible location we often just drive past. We use the ignore button based on other's logs without even looking or visiting the location.

 

 

A new cache popped up recently then the next day the same reviewer archived another cache due to lack of maintenance from the same owner. ;) I assume in several months time this one will get archived due to lack of maintenace. :D

Link to comment

...A cache which says something like

 

 

this is a cach in a park which you can bring youre kids too i put this here because its a nice place sometimes there is some litter so its a bit dirty

 

 

isn't going to inspire me.

You're not kidding! Whilst a few typos and the occasional grammatical mishap don't put me off, something like the above would cause me to ignore that cache altogether. If the cache placer can't be bothered to spend a bit of time getting the description reasonably readable and interesting, it seems unlikely that the cache will be well thought out and interesting.

I think that what some cache placers don't appreciate, is that a poor cache experience will cause the finder to ignore future caches by the same person. So if your first couple of hiding efforts are mediocre, you've already put off quite a few people from bothering with any more of your caches, even if new ones are much improved.

Link to comment

Isn't it quite simple? You log the cache with a note to say that you can't recommend this cache as in your opinion it's a waste of time. If you can be bothered, you could also mention why - inaccurate coordinates, no apparent point of interest, poor container etc. That should limit future finds to those that don't read the logs, should help discourage further placements of similar type, and should help downgrade the cache placer's reputation so that people start avoiding their caches.

 

That's exactly what I did!

The CO responded by deleting all uncomplimentary logs/notes, and said that "If people can't write nice things about his caches then they shouldn't post anything at all"! ;)

Link to comment

My own caches probably have some spelling and grammar mistakes, but almost all of them have parking coordinates and information about the area. Anyone who has actually bothered reading the cache pages on the Woburn series will know the lengths I went to to find out information on all the different animals.

 

Well yes, OK, I haven't done a lot of caches, and the vast majority to date have probably been yours so maybe I've been lucky, but when I did the Woburn series I knew where they were pretty much by definition of the game and an unprecedented access to technology that shows us what an area is like if we choose to look before we leap.

 

I didn't arrive there and say "Blimey! I didn't expect a field" "Nobody expects a field in Woburn, our chief weapon is surprise..." ;)

 

I can only assume someone that ends up next to a lamp post in Grimsby in a way that makes them complain about the strong smell of fish afterwards must just load (hundreds of) caches and blithely follow the GPS to them to see what is there.

 

Of course, I think that's a reasonable take on it, if that's what you want to do, just load some caches and go and see where they are. But if you choose TV by picking a channel at random sometimes you're going to get Richard Dawkins and sometimes Songs of Praise.

 

If it matters to you which one you watch you have to be selective beforehand. If someone wants to find caches in places Wordsworth and Coleridge wrote home about, or stuck to lamp posts in town centres, they need to select them to that end.

 

Of course the co-ordinates need to be accurate because that's the most fundamental aspect of the game.

 

As for what's there when you get there in terms of the size or contents of the cache, that might matter to my 11 year old (at least until the novelty wears off) I've already got the toy I wanted to play with - the GPSr.

 

I could just as well buy a GPSr, plan some walks / cycles / drives or whatever and go on them.

 

So yes, you or someone else putting a set of caches in a place and saying "Here are some caches in a nice place for a walk (or cycle or drive)" works. The geocaching just adds a novelty to that walk and gets my son off the xbox on a Saturday afternoon to come with me.

 

But clearly people geocache for different reasons to that. So I don't think you can assume that a cache is going to be anywhere particular or have any specific attributes - bar that the co-ordinates are accurate - because our likes and dislikes are our own subjective requirements which will differ from person to person.

 

As for "TFTC" logs, perhaps I lead an uneventful life compared with most here, but generally I find when walking across a field for 500-odd metres between one cache and the next that not a huge amount happens that seems worth writing about. When I get there generally I look around for a bit and find a box, open it and....well surely you already know the rest?

 

"I walked across a field, looked around a bit and found a box" would fit the vast majority of caches. At least the ones that are walks across fields. Perhaps Stephen Fry could find 20 different ways to say that and make it exciting and entertaining to read. Mea culpa.

 

If something else happens that's worth writing about I would, but so far the cows have left me be.

Edited by needaxeo
Link to comment

Isn't it quite simple? You log the cache with a note to say that you can't recommend this cache as in your opinion it's a waste of time. If you can be bothered, you could also mention why - inaccurate coordinates, no apparent point of interest, poor container etc. That should limit future finds to those that don't read the logs, should help discourage further placements of similar type, and should help downgrade the cache placer's reputation so that people start avoiding their caches.

 

Those that say "TFTC" or "Nice cache, thanks" are part of the problem; if these caches don't get logged they'll die off sooner or later, but encouraging logs will mean more of the same type of cache.

 

If you don't like to be quite so direct, you might log the cache in neutral fashion but then send some (diplomatically worded) advice to the cache owner, in the hope that their next hide will be better (or that there is no next hide!).

 

There's nothing wrong with magnetic micros on street furniture, in principle, so I'm not advocating complaining just because it's not your type of cache.

But they have to be particularly well-described (so your expectations are realistic) and well-maintained; and good coordinates are a must.

 

Very nicely put, I totally agree........ and I agree with The Other Stu too, the spelling and punctuation on some cache pages is dreadful, it does not inspire you to even look for the cache, I am sure there will be mistakes on some of my cache pages but at least I make an effort with setting caches and the cache pages which is more than some folks do ;)

 

Off to hide again :D

 

M :D

Edited by Us 4 and Jess
Link to comment

I would like to put forward a reasonable nano cache series from the South Coast.

 

They are called Urban Guerillas and they are exactly (in my humble opinion!) what you should expect from a nano hidden in a high muggle area - they are exactly what they are - a quick escape for those out shopping. They pretend to be nothing more.

 

The difference? These cache pages are well written, have very accurate coordinates and all follow a very similar theme.

 

Urban Guerilla 1 - http://coord.info/gc179QZ

 

In this area I have, unfortunately, been spoiled by some excellent series walks in local countryside and have very little interest in running out for the FTF in an urban environment. Certainly the recent caches that the OP has mentioned really leave me cold, hence only actually getting out to find 1 cache in this month.

 

EDIT: Of course, the caches published recently have gone straight on my ignore list and will stay there until I really am that bored or just happen to be in the area.

 

Whilst it may seem elitist, I cannot disagree that the well written cache page draws me much more (even urban micros) than the ones that write "one for the numbers" and "please can you check GPS coords" right in the (badly spelled and grammar lacking) cache page.

 

I wonder if we get petition GS to add a tick box to the listing page that says "THESE COORDS HAVE NOT BEEN GATHERED USING AN IPHONE"!?

Edited by Cornell Finch
Link to comment

That's exactly what I did!

The CO responded by deleting all uncomplimentary logs/notes, and said that "If people can't write nice things about his caches then they shouldn't post anything at all"! ;)

I'm fairly sure that it would be worth complaining to Groundspeak should your valid and fairly polite (if uncomplimentary) log be deleted. The point of them listing caches is so that people can find them and record their visits, not so that someone can have a cache and accumulate lots of compliments about it.

 

In any case, I suspect that this particular cacher is losing his/her "customers" at a fair rate with this attitude!

Link to comment

The co-ordinates discrepancy invaiably results from the use of an iPhone (or similar device) to generate the cache location. Many users have found that this type of equipment cannot be depended upon to reliably deliver a location with greater than 60'-80' accuracy. The use of Google Earth to run a quick check on the co-ordinates prior to publication is an obvious precaution, but one that is seldom (if ever) used.

 

Now I'm not knocking micros/nanos per se, (although many of them do represent a poorly thought out or poorly placed cache).

Nor am I suggesting that GPS enabled Smartphones should not be used for caching.

I am sure that this type of cache is becoming widespread in many areas of the country.

 

So.........

 

Does general caching opinion support this type of cache, or merely condone it, or condemn it?

It seems that "I think the co-ordinates are near enough" brigade are moving into this part of the world too from some of the caches that pop up in the area on my watch list. Not sure which is the worst those that own up to not having much idea where they have placed a cache or those whos first cache logs tell them they are some way out and do nothing about it.

 

We remember doing loads of readings on different days before we set our first cache's to ensure we didn't incur the wrath, or jibes, of our locals. It seems a lot of new caches are placed without a care, anywhere, just to get something out there. One or two locals have asked why we haven't cleared our local patch, yet go some distance from home to do caches, and look a little bemused when we explain the above and that we can't be ar5ed bothered to do a 35mm film can on the side of a busy main road.

 

We just don't bother with them and plan our caching trips based on quality, not quantity - but each to their own.

Link to comment

That's exactly what I did!

The CO responded by deleting all uncomplimentary logs/notes, and said that "If people can't write nice things about his caches then they shouldn't post anything at all"! B)

I'm fairly sure that it would be worth complaining to Groundspeak should your valid and fairly polite (if uncomplimentary) log be deleted. The point of them listing caches is so that people can find them and record their visits, not so that someone can have a cache and accumulate lots of compliments about it.

 

In any case, I suspect that this particular cacher is losing his/her "customers" at a fair rate with this attitude!

I'll echo this :P

 

See Pt 10 at the bottom of this Knowledge Book article: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p...page&id=204

Link to comment

That's exactly what I did!

The CO responded by deleting all uncomplimentary logs/notes, and said that "If people can't write nice things about his caches then they shouldn't post anything at all"! B)

I'm fairly sure that it would be worth complaining to Groundspeak should your valid and fairly polite (if uncomplimentary) log be deleted. The point of them listing caches is so that people can find them and record their visits, not so that someone can have a cache and accumulate lots of compliments about it.

 

In any case, I suspect that this particular cacher is losing his/her "customers" at a fair rate with this attitude!

I'll echo this :P

 

See Pt 10 at the bottom of this Knowledge Book article: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p...page&id=204

 

Thanks for that, Dino. Your point is taken.

 

Having said that, life is too short to get worked up about the antics of idiots, so I'm content to let the matter rest there for now.

In any case, the cacher concerned doesn't normally respond to e-mails, unless they happen to criticise his poor caches!

 

Just in case anybody thinks that I'm being paranoid, or going off on an anti-micro rant (I'm not), have a quick look at the following offerings from one cacher and make your own mind up.

 

GC2AK7K GC2AK7A GC2AK71 GC2AJZ1

 

GC1YZ3X GC2A891 GC2A88E GC2A88Q

 

And from other local cachers

 

GC2AJYK GC2APN1

Link to comment

Isn't it quite simple? You log the cache with a note to say that you can't recommend this cache as in your opinion it's a waste of time. If you can be bothered, you could also mention why - inaccurate coordinates, no apparent point of interest, poor container etc. That should limit future finds to those that don't read the logs, should help discourage further placements of similar type, and should help downgrade the cache placer's reputation so that people start avoiding their caches.

 

That's exactly what I did!

The CO responded by deleting all uncomplimentary logs/notes, and said that "If people can't write nice things about his caches then they shouldn't post anything at all"! B)

 

So perhaps the next step is a Needs Archived log saying what you originally said in your log. Then it automatically gets sent to a reviewer who can take any action deemed appropriate.

 

And in the meantime, ignore anything placed by that person.

Link to comment
I can only assume someone that ends up next to a lamp post in Grimsby in a way that makes them complain about the strong smell of fish afterwards must just load (hundreds of) caches and blithely follow the GPS to them to see what is there.

 

Of course, I think that's a reasonable take on it, if that's what you want to do, just load some caches and go and see where they are. But if you choose TV by picking a channel at random sometimes you're going to get Richard Dawkins and sometimes Songs of Praise.

 

If it matters to you which one you watch you have to be selective beforehand. If someone wants to find caches in places Wordsworth and Coleridge wrote home about, or stuck to lamp posts in town centres, they need to select them to that end.

FWIW, my current contract takes me all over Devon and Cornwall and I sometimes have spare time on my hands between jobs. So I've got every 3/2 or lower cache in whichever area I am that day loaded in my GPSr, which sits on the dashboard. If I spot a cache "on the radar" and I've got time to go look, I'll have a go. I got three yesterday like that and two were very enjoyable. Here's my log from one of them:

Found on the way to work. Every once in a while caching brings you to an enchanted world. As I followed the arrow and the geotrails, I seemed to enter a magical kingdom. I knew I was right by the busiest road in Cornwall, yet it seemed I'd walked through the wardrobe into Narnia. Thank you so much for bringing me here.

Now that cache, and a couple of other absolute gems, were in places that I'd never have visited had I checked out the area first. Some people set caches to bring others to a hidden gem that you can only see at that very spot (GC1BQF9 is a good example, although sadly disabled at the time of writing). These caches can look very similar to the ones of which the OP complains, so you risk missing the gems by only going for ones that look good on Google Maps etc.

 

JMHO

 

Geoff

Link to comment

I had a look at a few examples, and they're not all obviously "bad". GC1YZ3X is uninspiring, for instance, and personally I wouldn't want to bother with it. But the description makes the purpose of the cache quite plain;

not much to see here but its a cache for the numbers thanks for looking

...so the only fault that I can see is the lack of effort in compiling the cache description. If you don't fancy a routine micro that was placed merely so that locals get an easy tick, then it's a simple matter of ignoring this one.

Link to comment

Got to agree with K@79 & Connell Finch urban caches of this type

will be ignored in future , so I can get out and crawl under a few

bridges looking for a micro/ big black cylinder [:P].

 

Living in Portsmouth . I do stop and look

if I have the time but won't go out my way like I would before.

 

A new one was moved by 6 feet yesterday B)

Link to comment

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=223476

 

The forum topic on GC Vote and I believe there is also the website at www.gcvote.com

 

Thank you

 

B)

 

It is interesting the reading the link about GC-Vote. The first time I heard mention of it it or mentioned it here it got quite a slanging for various reason... Yet more recently people seem less negative about it...

 

Sorry but if this is the future of caching, then a rating system is long over due...

 

I think unless you are a numbers hound where any cache will do. Unimaginative/ poor caches will be marked down as a rule and better ones marked up... It will never be perfect but it will help, if yo do not like the idea you can always choose to ignore the ratings..

 

I live fairly local and have picked some caches in Portsmouth area but these probably make it a caching no go area for me... If even if I am passing I will probably drive-by in the more traditional meaning of the word...

 

Edit to remove some appalling English, even by my standards...

Edited by GerritS
Link to comment

Sorry but if this is the future of caching, then a rating system is long over due...

But what about caches like GC1YZ3X, which as I said above looks perfectly fine, except for the poor grammar and wording. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but if it's what it says it is then I'd have to give it a top rating, knocking off a point for the bad English.

Link to comment

Sorry but if this is the future of caching, then a rating system is long over due...

But what about caches like GC1YZ3X, which as I said above looks perfectly fine, except for the poor grammar and wording. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but if it's what it says it is then I'd have to give it a top rating, knocking off a point for the bad English.

That particular cache has a bl**dy stupid encrypted hint, too. B)

Link to comment

I try to be honest as well in my logs, though it can be a double edged sword if you're not careful. Too harsh and the GC owner will probably delete your log, too easy and the point might be missed. Usually I'll say I personally didn't like this hide because of its location, etc. I made that point about a dead end street hide before. Nosy neighbors who wind up either threatening you or calling the police on you, practically nothing to see, why put it here then? Completely pointless.

 

There are times when I'll go for a quick park and grab in a shopping center, but these hides make it pretty clear that's all it is, so I have no business complaining then and like the break in the routine. What annoys me are the vague caches, the ones that only basically say "this is a cool cache!" and the logs are even more vague. Out of curiosity, I'll go out to look for it only to find it's a lamp post hide in a Walmart parking lot. :laughing:

Link to comment

Sorry but if this is the future of caching, then a rating system is long over due...

But what about caches like GC1YZ3X, which as I said above looks perfectly fine, except for the poor grammar and wording. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but if it's what it says it is then I'd have to give it a top rating, knocking off a point for the bad English.

 

But on the GCVote rating system the top rating (5) is defined as "awesome". Surely just because "it's what it says it is" doesn't qualify as awesome. A 4 is "above average"; a 3 is "average", so I would say that if the cache is simply "what it says it is" then the starting point is a 3, by the time you've deducted points for the grammar and the stupid hint then its down to a 2 "below average" or even a 1 "poor".

Link to comment

I try to be honest as well in my logs, though it can be a double edged sword if you're not careful. Too harsh and the GC owner will probably delete your log,

 

If they do, log it again.

If they delete it a second time, add a "needs archived" to your original log, and an email to the reviewer.

Link to comment

I try to be honest as well in my logs, though it can be a double edged sword if you're not careful. Too harsh and the GC owner will probably delete your log,

 

If they do, log it again.

If they delete it a second time, add a "needs archived" to your original log, and an email to the reviewer.

 

Good idea, I'll remember to try this if it happens to me. :laughing:

Link to comment

But on the GCVote rating system the top rating (5) is defined as "awesome". Surely just because "it's what it says it is" doesn't qualify as awesome. A 4 is "above average"; a 3 is "average", so I would say that if the cache is simply "what it says it is" then the starting point is a 3, by the time you've deducted points for the grammar and the stupid hint then its down to a 2 "below average" or even a 1 "poor".

Good point, but I still think that you can't better a cache that does exactly what it says on the tin. The advantage being, that if you don't like that sort of thing then you're not going to waste any time looking for it. If you're playing the numbers game at the time though, surely the most awesome cache is one that tells you clearly and accurately in advance that it's a quick cache and dash.

Link to comment

I try to be honest as well in my logs, though it can be a double edged sword if you're not careful. Too harsh and the GC owner will probably delete your log,

 

If they do, log it again.

If they delete it a second time, add a "needs archived" to your original log, and an email to the reviewer.

 

Good idea, I'll remember to try this if it happens to me. :laughing:

 

Tried that on Thursday and have been branded a "Stroppy cacher" for doing so! :laughing:

 

J

Link to comment

I try to be honest as well in my logs, though it can be a double edged sword if you're not careful. Too harsh and the GC owner will probably delete your log,

 

If they do, log it again.

If they delete it a second time, add a "needs archived" to your original log, and an email to the reviewer.

 

Good idea, I'll remember to try this if it happens to me. :laughing:

 

Tried that on Thursday and have been branded a "Stroppy cacher" for doing so! :laughing:

 

J

 

Funsies! :laughing: The only trouble I've been making was just to send a maintenance request when a log is full. I've done it a couple of times and suddenly according to a local cacher I'm the talk of the town (that crazy serial maintenance logger!!111). :laughing:

Link to comment

But what about caches like GC1YZ3X, which as I said above looks perfectly fine, except for the poor grammar and wording. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but if it's what it says it is then I'd have to give it a top rating, knocking off a point for the bad English.

Don't know how the rating system works as I'm not a fan of that type of thing - too subjective, but if no one did the cache because it was poor or if there were lots of TFTC's only, or poor logs, even if it had a good rating then surely the more experienced/discerning/sad* cachers would be reluctant to visit the cache.

 

H.

 

* Delete as applicable :laughing:

Link to comment

But what about caches like GC1YZ3X, which as I said above looks perfectly fine, except for the poor grammar and wording. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but if it's what it says it is then I'd have to give it a top rating, knocking off a point for the bad English.

Don't know how the rating system works as I'm not a fan of that type of thing - too subjective, but if no one did the cache because it was poor or if there were lots of TFTC's only, or poor logs, even if it had a good rating then surely the more experienced/discerning/sad* cachers would be reluctant to visit the cache.

 

H.

 

* Delete as applicable :laughing:

The worrying thing about the entire thread, whether it be spelling or semantics, size or placing and even ratings is that SOMEONE has taken the time to put out a cache. There are an awful lot of cachers,who are willing to critise, (even constructive criticism can be misunderstood) and NOT WILLING to put out some caches of their own. True there are "Number Hounds"also for whom any cache will do - But all you have to do is read the description on the page, and if you don't like it - Don't go !

cheers

palujia :laughing:

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...