+firestars Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Couple of people found my caches over the past few days. Some with other 10000 finds but nothing hidden themselves Not really fair that is it? What percentage of your finds, should you then go and hide yourself? 1% or perhaps 5%, just to keep it going and to put something back? Or are 'placers' and 'finders' different breeds? Quote Link to comment
+Haggis Hunter Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 There used to be a time when people expected you to hide a cache to give back to the process. But with so many caches I don't think it is important now. After all some people place caches just for the sake of it and we end up with some really naff caches. Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 There used to be a time when people expected you to hide a cache to give back to the process. But with so many caches I don't think it is important now. After all some people place caches just for the sake of it and we end up with some really naff caches. I agree. Far better to let people do what they want rather than force people to throw out what might be a poor hide just because they've got to make up their numbers.... Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I find caches under several different names... I don't intend to hide caches under all of them, as I don't want to have to check all of the email addresses. So, some of my names will fall into the category that you have a problem with. There are accounts out there with no finds, and several hides. Strongly suspect, and hope, that these are active finders. Accounts with 3 finds and 10 hides worry me. Quote Link to comment
jadenrich2101 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 U shouldnt hide until youve found (in my opinion) near to 100 finds....i believe this because you need to be educated in what it takes and what is needed to hide a cache! Theres 2 near me that are placed in one of our busiest parks.....there stupid....there in a place where my little boy and his friends hide......Yet this person only had 5 finds to her name when she placed it.....i didnt even log the finds because they had nothing to interest me at all.....if anything i looked like i was stood in the bush watching kids You have to have a reason for placing a cache, why you want people to visit that certain place......it needs to be thought about an planned before you go rushing into placing caches here, there and everywhere.................U not seen the thread about the Weatherby bomb threat?!?!?! Think twice before putting one of ur new caches under a planter in a urbun area Quote Link to comment
+Gushoneybun Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Couple of people found my caches over the past few days. Some with other 10000 finds but nothing hidden themselves I thought that was an interesting statement so I just checked the top 50 UK based finders on cacherstats which went down to 6,798 cache finds (on GC.com) and every single one had placed some caches. But as others have said finding and placing are two different things, some love to hide caches, certainly there are great hiders out there whose hide total maybe coming onto 50% of their finds, then there are finders whose hides are less than one percent. Or are 'placers' and 'finders' different breeds? With the huge number of caches out there these days, it is far better to have a decent hidden cache in a nice place by someone who took the time to find a location and place it carefully. Than to have someone hit their precentage so they had to go out and place another cache, just sticking a nano on the back of a signpost or a micro in a layby. Nobody should have to hide a cache, they should want to in a place they want to show to others. Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Couple of people found my caches over the past few days. Some with other 10000 finds but nothing hidden themselves Not really fair that is it? What percentage of your finds, should you then go and hide yourself? 1% or perhaps 5%, just to keep it going and to put something back? Or are 'placers' and 'finders' different breeds? Maybe you haven't thought this one through. Requiring people to hide caches might well be the single worst thing that could happen to caching. Firstly, there is no need for it at all. There are already nearly 100,000 caches in the UK alone. Secondly, a simple ratio between hides and finds is a very blunt instrument - it takes no account of the quality of the caches, and how much effort has gone into hiding them. Thirdly, many people don't live close to places that are suitable for cache hides, or those locations are already at maximum cache density. But mostly, requiring people to hide caches would mean the already pretty poor average cache quality would plummet even further, and the level of cache maintenance would fall dramatically. People should place caches because they want to, not because they must. We don't need a higher number of caches, we need a higher quality of cache. That's not going to be achieved by forcing people to place caches against their will. Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+IHaveFish Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 ok, I'm not from UK. I had reached over 1,000 founds until I hide my first cache. In my homezone there are no nice places for a cache anymore. Not for a small or bigger. I don't wan't hide a film canister as my first one. I was looking for something special and not the next tree, wall, copse or similar. I had found my own way to give something back to the community without hide a cache. I did maintaine/repair a cache when I found a cache which was damaged and have the stuff with me (little bags, tape, stripes for logs) and I write honest logs and no short logs. Its so much better to hide no or only a few but good caches then a lot of trash. Quality not Quantity. Quote Link to comment
+MartyBartfast Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I was going to reply to this thread and then read that Amberel already said everything that I was going to say, particularly: But mostly, requiring people to hide caches would mean the already pretty poor average cache quality would plummet even further, and the level of cache maintenance would fall dramatically. Quote Link to comment
+little-miss-naughty Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I dont agree if you want to hide a cache it should be up to the op, but i think they should wait until a good amount of finds before they start hiding, besides what chance do they have when people who have only been caching a few months throw out lodes of them in a short space of time? if everyone was to do that we wouldnt be able to move. so people like yourself make up for those who dont hide. its a matter of opinion and how often/able you are to find/hide and maintain the caches id rather someone not hide a cache than not maintain it. lmn Quote Link to comment
+Geocass&Andy750x Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I think I was probably at about 700 finds before I hid my first, simply because that was the time when I thought I had a good idea of what I think makes a good Geocache. My percentage of hides to finds is very low, however I am proud of every single cache I've hidden and each one was thought out with the location visited several times before placing it. I *could* place a load of film cans in lay-by's on routes that I regularly travel. They'd be well maintained, but naff. I wouldn't be proud of any. On Sunday we took a big circular walk around footpaths local to us to try and scout out a new cache series. There weren't any exciting places for caches, however I *could* place 15 micros stuck in hedges or under rocks. I didn't want to though. It would be completely pointless and I wouldn't be proud of my hides. Maybe the cachers with lots of finds, but few hides have been looking for good places they just haven't found them yet! IMO Cachers should hide caches when they feel ready in places where they are proud to hide them. QUALITY, not quantity! Quote Link to comment
+prot1 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 i am still new to geocaching with less than 70 finds i would love to hide a cache but i cannot think of a good reason to hide it to get other cachers interested in finding it so i would rather wait untill i can find something interesting to use as a cache hide rather than say i can hide caches just for the sake of it. Quote Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I was going to reply to this thread and then read that Amberel already said everything that I was going to say, particularly: But mostly, requiring people to hide caches would mean the already pretty poor average cache quality would plummet even further, and the level of cache maintenance would fall dramatically. I agree. There should not be any obligation to hide caches. And there is no need. Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Well, if you insist, I'm happy to go and throw a dozen or so film tubs out, and call them 'caches' But, I'll tell you now, I'm not going to look after them, and the first DNF, or 'log wet' on any of them, I'll disable and forget it and leave it to a Reviewer to Archive it. AND. I'll say You said to do it, because YOU thought I wasn't putting enough in to Geocaching. OK? Quote Link to comment
+firestars Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Im glad my comments provoked a lively debate. Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 In the dozens of times this subject has come up over the years, the general consensus has always been the same:----- Only hide a cache if there is a good reason for it, not just because you feel you 'have to' or because nobody has 'put one there yet'. Simples!! Quote Link to comment
+Dovsport Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Being new to caching (1 short of my 100th find), Ive been keen to place a cache since I first started, infact the very day I started I thought of the perfect place to put a small series, and was surprised there weren't any there already yet there was a poor to average cache near by, as it really is a lovely walk. However Ive held off placing any until Im 100% satisfied with their location. Ive already been given permission to place them and spent a good hour or so scouting possible locations last night. However I'm still not 100% happy with 2 of the 3 locations and think it will be some time yet before Im happy enough to have them published. I'd much rather do it this way and have 3 quality caches than 3 poor ones. I think making it a stipulation that you must place a cache after x number of finds would increase the already large number of poor caches & non-maintained caches that are already around and may put some pressure on people to place caches quickly without fully thinking out their locations first. Quote Link to comment
+thehalibutkid Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Even 1% would become unmanageable eventually. certainly wouldn't be able to manage 200 hides. So if I had 20,000+ finds (something recently achieved by Dr Solly) i'd have also aquired the fulltime job of hiding and managing that many hides. In fact i'd be more for a maximum of 5% finds/hides ratio and no hides with under 100 finds. Quote Link to comment
+lodgebarn Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Couple of people found my caches over the past few days. Some with other 10000 finds but nothing hidden themselves Not really fair that is it? What percentage of your finds, should you then go and hide yourself? 1% or perhaps 5%, just to keep it going and to put something back? Or are 'placers' and 'finders' different breeds? So everybody should solve puzzles, find multis should they. Should every one who sets caches find them. Total and utter nonsense. Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Even 1% would become unmanageable eventually. certainly wouldn't be able to manage 200 hides. So if I had 20,000+ finds (something recently achieved by Dr Solly) i'd have also aquired the fulltime job of hiding and managing that many hides. In fact i'd be more for a maximum of 5% finds/hides ratio and no hides with under 100 finds. I'd vote for all of that. Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Can I just add something which has not been mentioned. People should Only Hide caches if they are prepared to physically go out and Maintain that cache, for the life of that cache whilst they ate the owner of it. So they should be prepared to go out within a reasonable period (I'm not talking immediately, but with the Guideline requirements of a few weeks, or at least post a note with a genuine explanation of why maintenance in being delayed) for at least 3 months (the minimum time a cache is listed for) up to 4-5-6 or even 10 years. At no time should they sit back and rely on others to maintain the cache, that's not to say a finder performing maintenance should not take place if it falls within the reasonable maintenance period . Provided the cache owner acknowledges and thanks that person on the cache page. Why? Because it shows the Owner has actively monitored the cache, and not ignored and and has just not gone out to maintain it yet. They should be prioritising maintaining the caches they own, over going out finding them! Sadly it's all too common for a Reviewer to end up Archiving a cache due to no owner maintenance, despite that owner being out caching every week without fail! Priority Should always be Maintaining Owned Caches Finding Caches Placing Caches in that order, those who have never placed a cache, might not have done so for specific reasons. If they don't feel that they are in a position to maintain those caches they placed, or have no inclination to maintain any they place. Then they are doing the community a huge service by not placing any. Deci Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Please, please, please don't place caches because you feel a duty to "put something back in". That's a terrible motive. By finding a cache you're "putting something back in" as there's no point in hiding caches if people aren't going to look for them. The one and only good reason for hiding a cache is because you're inspired to. Either you've got a great idea about a puzzle, or a route, or an entertaining / educational story, or a creative hide, or simply that you've found a great location that you want to share with others. We don't need any more average to poor caches; there are plenty of good ones to seek out. If I see that someone has 10000 finds and no hides I think "Great - someone who knows not to waste people's time with second-rate hides but will make sure that caches don't get neglected". If there's a new cache by someone with 5 finds and 5 hides I'd probably check how well their other hides are being received before going to any trouble. Quote Link to comment
+firestars Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Couple of people found my caches over the past few days. Some with other 10000 finds but nothing hidden themselves Not really fair that is it? What percentage of your finds, should you then go and hide yourself? 1% or perhaps 5%, just to keep it going and to put something back? Or are 'placers' and 'finders' different breeds? So everybody should solve puzzles, find multis should they. Should every one who sets caches find them. Total and utter nonsense. Tired? Quote Link to comment
team tisri Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Couple of people found my caches over the past few days. Some with other 10000 finds but nothing hidden themselves Not really fair that is it? What percentage of your finds, should you then go and hide yourself? 1% or perhaps 5%, just to keep it going and to put something back? Or are 'placers' and 'finders' different breeds? I'd rather somebody left 0 hides than boosted their numbers with lame micros that they didn't look after. Living in London I accept most of my finds close to home are going to be micros and nanos but there are few things less cheering that hunting through a pile of trash for a film pot that isn't there, or doing a fingertip search of the underside of a gate hunting a nano that's long gone. A percentage of your find count is a silly way of doing it - to find a cache requires a hunt and then nothing more. To hide a cache creates a commitment to maintain it. Once your number of hides goes past a certain level I can see it becoming all but impossible to maintain them all. Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I have 51 active caches hidden and I can truly say that I spend more time visiting and maintaining them than I do finding other peoples caches. I generally can't be bothered looking for them any more. My nearest unfound is just a mile away.... a Side Tracked micro among the rubbish behind a green connection box. It will stay unfound, by me at least. Quote Link to comment
+The Growler Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Can I just add something which has not been mentioned. People should Only Hide caches if they are prepared to physically go out and Maintain that cache, for the life of that cache whilst they ate the owner of it. Deci Sort of a masochistic cannibalism Deci? Sorry, I couldn't resist. Quote Link to comment
team tisri Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Can I just add something which has not been mentioned. People should Only Hide caches if they are prepared to physically go out and Maintain that cache, for the life of that cache whilst they ate the owner of it. Deci Sort of a masochistic cannibalism Deci? Sorry, I couldn't resist. What the heck, this could be fun. Presumably once people have finished eating the owner they no longer need to maintain the cache? Quote Link to comment
+Burgerhead Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I'm fairly new to geocaching, so maybe I've missed something, but there seems to me to be a better alternative to that suggested in the OP. While it seems fairly obvious that requiring any members to place caches would lead to a surge of poor quality caches, it seems to me from what I read on these forums that there are a reasonable number of low quality caches around anyway. What about incentivising the placement of high quality caches by introducing some kind of favourite points based reward system? The favourites points system is already in place, but as I understand it, it is only used to advertise the fact that a cache is popular and therefore probably a really good cache. But what about taking that a little further and using them to measure how good a hider a particular member is, and reward them for it? At the very simplest level, internet based rewards that could go on a member's profile - something along the lines of: 5 favourite points total: bronze hide medal 10 favourite points total: silver hide medal 25 favourite points total: gold hide medal 50 favourite points total: platinum hide medal 5 favourite points for an individual cache: expert hide medal 5 expert hide medals: master hide medal You could do the same kind of thing with geoachievement coins and pins that are already sold for the finding of geocaches (100 finds, 1000 finds etc). For example the first four medals I listed here could be geocoins of the appropriate colour, with a design incorporating the blue favourites points rosette in the middle with the appropriate number inside it eg a silver geocoin with a rosette in the middle displaying "10". I am sure this kind of thing would at least encourage the placement of high quality caches. Also, it seems to me that while useful, the favourites points are not the most comprehensive way to rate a cache. It would require far more work to integrate this second idea into the website, but what about a review system that could be built into the existing log system, so that when you sign the log, you can rate the cache based on various attributes? I haven't thought too hard about what those attributes might be but for example: Container: 0-5 stars Hiding place: 0-5 stars Views: 0-5 stars So you would click on the appropriate number of stars, and then when you submit your log, these ratings get added to an average that is displayed at the top of the cache page next to where the favourite points are shown. That way cache quality would be far more obvious to geocachers searching for them on the website, and as such it would hopefully motivate people to hide good quality caches as they wouldn't want their cache to have no stars as nobody would bother going looking for it! I appreciate you can just read through the logs to get an idea of what a cache is like, but this would give a a few simple scores that would be displayed at the top of each cache page, as well as in any search lists, and it would make it far more obvious whether a cache was good quality or completely crap! I know I wouldn't want to hide a crap cache if I knew it was going to be rated by everyone who found it, but that's just me, and I wouldn't want to hide a crap cache anyway! Quote Link to comment
+fluoro Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Nah, it should be your prerogative. As an example, I don't bother hiding as I spend half my year in England and half in Scotland, so I wouldn't be able to maintain caches easily. Edited July 10, 2011 by ptniff Quote Link to comment
+thehalibutkid Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I'm fairly new to geocaching, so maybe I've missed something, but there seems to me to be a better alternative to that suggested in the OP. While it seems fairly obvious that requiring any members to place caches would lead to a surge of poor quality caches, it seems to me from what I read on these forums that there are a reasonable number of low quality caches around anyway. What about incentivising the placement of high quality caches by introducing some kind of favourite points based reward system? The favourites points system is already in place, but as I understand it, it is only used to advertise the fact that a cache is popular and therefore probably a really good cache. But what about taking that a little further and using them to measure how good a hider a particular member is, and reward them for it? At the very simplest level, internet based rewards that could go on a member's profile - something along the lines of: 5 favourite points total: bronze hide medal 10 favourite points total: silver hide medal 25 favourite points total: gold hide medal 50 favourite points total: platinum hide medal 5 favourite points for an individual cache: expert hide medal 5 expert hide medals: master hide medal You could do the same kind of thing with geoachievement coins and pins that are already sold for the finding of geocaches (100 finds, 1000 finds etc). For example the first four medals I listed here could be geocoins of the appropriate colour, with a design incorporating the blue favourites points rosette in the middle with the appropriate number inside it eg a silver geocoin with a rosette in the middle displaying "10". I am sure this kind of thing would at least encourage the placement of high quality caches. Also, it seems to me that while useful, the favourites points are not the most comprehensive way to rate a cache. It would require far more work to integrate this second idea into the website, but what about a review system that could be built into the existing log system, so that when you sign the log, you can rate the cache based on various attributes? I haven't thought too hard about what those attributes might be but for example: Container: 0-5 stars Hiding place: 0-5 stars Views: 0-5 stars So you would click on the appropriate number of stars, and then when you submit your log, these ratings get added to an average that is displayed at the top of the cache page next to where the favourite points are shown. That way cache quality would be far more obvious to geocachers searching for them on the website, and as such it would hopefully motivate people to hide good quality caches as they wouldn't want their cache to have no stars as nobody would bother going looking for it! I appreciate you can just read through the logs to get an idea of what a cache is like, but this would give a a few simple scores that would be displayed at the top of each cache page, as well as in any search lists, and it would make it far more obvious whether a cache was good quality or completely crap! I know I wouldn't want to hide a crap cache if I knew it was going to be rated by everyone who found it, but that's just me, and I wouldn't want to hide a crap cache anyway! I'm not sure any of this would really work. For starters I wouldn't really be interested in filling in a survey for every cache that i've found. I'm a relatively conscientious logger. Given that it is currently an issue getting people to fill in anything I can't see that working. Also cache quality is kindof a personal thing. I really like finding 35mm film pots. It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a beautifully crafted cache. An optional 5* rating system for caches might be worthwile. But all my mates would get an automatic 5* rating and most others would likly get nothing. It's a bit like the 5* system on xbox live (other social gaming systems are available). It should tell you if the person is an idiot but in reality it just says that they have a number of friends (I should know I have 5* ). Quote Link to comment
+Burgerhead Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 For starters I wouldn't really be interested in filling in a survey for every cache that i've found. I'm a relatively conscientious logger. Given that it is currently an issue getting people to fill in anything I can't see that working. Also cache quality is kindof a personal thing. I really like finding 35mm film pots. It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a beautifully crafted cache. An optional 5* rating system for caches might be worthwile. But all my mates would get an automatic 5* rating and most others would likly get nothing. It's a bit like the 5* system on xbox live (other social gaming systems are available). It should tell you if the person is an idiot but in reality it just says that they have a number of friends (I should know I have 5* ). Yeah I suppose. Maybe multiple categories is a little bit much, but even just an optional one click 5 star rating on the log page would be pretty cool. I see what you mean about Xbox Live, but I bet most people would go that one extra click when they're filling in a log anyway if they felt strongly that a cache was good or bad. Quote Link to comment
+thehalibutkid Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 For starters I wouldn't really be interested in filling in a survey for every cache that i've found. I'm a relatively conscientious logger. Given that it is currently an issue getting people to fill in anything I can't see that working. Also cache quality is kindof a personal thing. I really like finding 35mm film pots. It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a beautifully crafted cache. An optional 5* rating system for caches might be worthwile. But all my mates would get an automatic 5* rating and most others would likly get nothing. It's a bit like the 5* system on xbox live (other social gaming systems are available). It should tell you if the person is an idiot but in reality it just says that they have a number of friends (I should know I have 5* ). Yeah I suppose. Maybe multiple categories is a little bit much, but even just an optional one click 5 star rating on the log page would be pretty cool. I see what you mean about Xbox Live, but I bet most people would go that one extra click when they're filling in a log anyway if they felt strongly that a cache was good or bad. I think at this point in the game it would all depend on how easy that is to do via mobile device. One of the other problems with the favourite system is that it isn't easy to see how many Fave Points a cache has on the (certainly the android) app. And you need to log into the website to add Fave Points to the caches as well. Quote Link to comment
+NSJLC Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 For starters I wouldn't really be interested in filling in a survey for every cache that i've found. I'm a relatively conscientious logger. Given that it is currently an issue getting people to fill in anything I can't see that working. Also cache quality is kindof a personal thing. I really like finding 35mm film pots. It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a beautifully crafted cache. An optional 5* rating system for caches might be worthwile. But all my mates would get an automatic 5* rating and most others would likly get nothing. It's a bit like the 5* system on xbox live (other social gaming systems are available). It should tell you if the person is an idiot but in reality it just says that they have a number of friends (I should know I have 5* ). Yeah I suppose. Maybe multiple categories is a little bit much, but even just an optional one click 5 star rating on the log page would be pretty cool. I see what you mean about Xbox Live, but I bet most people would go that one extra click when they're filling in a log anyway if they felt strongly that a cache was good or bad. I think at this point in the game it would all depend on how easy that is to do via mobile device. One of the other problems with the favourite system is that it isn't easy to see how many Fave Points a cache has on the (certainly the android) app. And you need to log into the website to add Fave Points to the caches as well. Same on the iPhone. To be honest though, it's only PMs who can favourite a cache, so who cares? A newbie may need breaking in more gently that the favourites sometimes lead. I am still fairly green to this, but I think the favourite system would mean something if everyone could take part. Quote Link to comment
+Afterburned Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 The new Garmin site allows finder rating of the cache for terrain, difficulty and awesomeness. I like the idea of rating the TDA of a cache (although I do not like the word 'awesomeness'), as many people do not see any of these attributes in the same way and after 10 or more finds you should get a firm idea of what the cache is like. (although the ever changing ratings may mess up stats...!) Quote Link to comment
team tisri Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 The new Garmin site allows finder rating of the cache for terrain, difficulty and awesomeness. I like the idea of rating the TDA of a cache (although I do not like the word 'awesomeness'), as many people do not see any of these attributes in the same way and after 10 or more finds you should get a firm idea of what the cache is like. (although the ever changing ratings may mess up stats...!) The issue of rating a cache comes up every once in a while and it's almost impossible to come up with anything that's quick enough that people will bother to use and comprehensive enough that it provides useful information. Some people like finding film pots on the back of signs, just because they enjoyed the walk or ride there, or because they want to get out and about. Some people hate micros in principle. So while a lovely walk through the countryside leading to a well-maintained and well-stocked ammo box might get a large number of positive ratings, at the same time you'll probably get people complaining that the four-stage multi could have been a trail of six traditionals and marking it down. If you get a film pot behind a sign in an urban area you'll get some people saying they liked it because there's a good view from the area and others saying they disliked it because it was a film pot behind a sign. A film pot hidden more imaginatively is the kind of thing that can be challenging to hunt, but some will still not like it because they don't like film pots as caches. Just for good measure you get a lot of people who don't want to give spectacularly low ratings to caches because they think it's being too hard on the hider, or because they don't want to discourage people from setting caches, or whatever. So if you see a cache rated with an average score of 5/10 you don't know if it's got a split of people who loved it and people who hated it, or people mostly disliked it but for whatever reason gave it 3 or 4 instead of 1, or whatever. And if you're going to read every single comment to find why people rated it you'd probably be better off just going to find it for yourself and deciding for yourself. Quote Link to comment
+Icenians Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I'm fairly new to geocaching, so maybe I've missed something, but there seems to me to be a better alternative to that suggested in the OP. While it seems fairly obvious that requiring any members to place caches would lead to a surge of poor quality caches, it seems to me from what I read on these forums that there are a reasonable number of low quality caches around anyway. What about incentivising the placement of high quality caches by introducing some kind of favourite points based reward system? The favourites points system is already in place, but as I understand it, it is only used to advertise the fact that a cache is popular and therefore probably a really good cache. But what about taking that a little further and using them to measure how good a hider a particular member is, and reward them for it? At the very simplest level, internet based rewards that could go on a member's profile - something along the lines of: 5 favourite points total: bronze hide medal 10 favourite points total: silver hide medal 25 favourite points total: gold hide medal 50 favourite points total: platinum hide medal 5 favourite points for an individual cache: expert hide medal 5 expert hide medals: master hide medal You could do the same kind of thing with geoachievement coins and pins that are already sold for the finding of geocaches (100 finds, 1000 finds etc). For example the first four medals I listed here could be geocoins of the appropriate colour, with a design incorporating the blue favourites points rosette in the middle with the appropriate number inside it eg a silver geocoin with a rosette in the middle displaying "10". I am sure this kind of thing would at least encourage the placement of high quality caches. Also, it seems to me that while useful, the favourites points are not the most comprehensive way to rate a cache. It would require far more work to integrate this second idea into the website, but what about a review system that could be built into the existing log system, so that when you sign the log, you can rate the cache based on various attributes? I haven't thought too hard about what those attributes might be but for example: Container: 0-5 stars Hiding place: 0-5 stars Views: 0-5 stars So you would click on the appropriate number of stars, and then when you submit your log, these ratings get added to an average that is displayed at the top of the cache page next to where the favourite points are shown. That way cache quality would be far more obvious to geocachers searching for them on the website, and as such it would hopefully motivate people to hide good quality caches as they wouldn't want their cache to have no stars as nobody would bother going looking for it! I appreciate you can just read through the logs to get an idea of what a cache is like, but this would give a a few simple scores that would be displayed at the top of each cache page, as well as in any search lists, and it would make it far more obvious whether a cache was good quality or completely crap! I know I wouldn't want to hide a crap cache if I knew it was going to be rated by everyone who found it, but that's just me, and I wouldn't want to hide a crap cache anyway! Something very like this does in fact exist elsewhere Quote Link to comment
I! Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 it's only PMs who can favourite a cache ... I think the favourite system would mean something if everyone could take part. For info (in case you've not already seen it): 1319679-make-the-favorites-system-for-all-user. Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 it's only PMs who can favourite a cache ... I think the favourite system would mean something if everyone could take part. For info (in case you've not already seen it): 1319679-make-the-favorites-system-for-all-user. Seen it... and it's wrong... but hey what would I know. Useful PM features are now free to iPhone users... yet a rating system (in a very simple form) is to be protected... madness! Quote Link to comment
+thehalibutkid Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 it's only PMs who can favourite a cache ... I think the favourite system would mean something if everyone could take part. For info (in case you've not already seen it): 1319679-make-the-favorites-system-for-all-user. Seen it... and it's wrong... but hey what would I know. Useful PM features are now free to iPhone users... yet a rating system (in a very simple form) is to be protected... madness! Yeah it's not like people will become PM's just to fave caches. Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 it's only PMs who can favourite a cache ... I think the favourite system would mean something if everyone could take part. For info (in case you've not already seen it): 1319679-make-the-favorites-system-for-all-user. Seen it... and it's wrong... but hey what would I know. Useful PM features are now free to iPhone users... yet a rating system (in a very simple form) is to be protected... madness! Yeah it's not like people will become PM's just to fave caches. Yeah... Not a big seller... "you can tell people what were your favourite caches... So in another few years when it's been archived a while, others can look in awe as they look for newly retitled "regular" magnet on a lamp post" Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.