Highlight Beginner's caches

[TheCacheSeeker]

It's so cool! Now I know what cache to pick when I want a easy one! Thanks Lackeys!

[+GeoBain]

Explain?

[TheCacheSeeker]

Explain?

At the bottom of the Search for Geocaches page, there is a checkbox that says Highlight Beginner's caches. With this explaination:

Some geocache characteristics make it more likely that a new geocacher will be successful when they are first getting started. Beginner caches incorporate these characteristics:

 

•Traditional type

•Low difficulty

•Recently found by others

•No micro sized caches

•No problems reported

This was released this morning.

[+M 5]

double

Edited August 3, 2011 by M 5

[+M 5]

I don't think it is filtered quite right. I checked it on my own hides. It identified 3, only 1 of them is a beginner cache. I would recommend 5 others possibly 7. Although one is disabled right now, and might make the filter when I fix it. All that said, I think it is a neat idea and hope it gets tweaked somewhat. Not sure how. I do think that many many many micros are beginner caches.

[+dfx]

I do think that many many many micros are beginner caches.

 

Serisouly? That's usually one of the first things people suggest when beginners ask for advice because they don't find caches: avoid micros!

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

A lot of mine are highlighted and I'm happy about that! I have regular sized T 1.5-2.5 and D 1.5 mostly.

[knowschad]

Explain?

At the bottom of the Search for Geocaches page, there is a checkbox that says Highlight Beginner's caches. With this explaination:

Some geocache characteristics make it more likely that a new geocacher will be successful when they are first getting started. Beginner caches incorporate these characteristics:

 

•Traditional type

•Low difficulty

•Recently found by others

•No micro sized caches

•No problems reported

This was released this morning.

 

I'm not seeing it. By the Search For Geocaches page, you must mean something other than this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/default.aspx

[+GeoBain]

Cool. Might come in handy when looking for quick caches on business trips.

[+M 5]

I do think that many many many micros are beginner caches.

 

Serisouly? That's usually one of the first things people suggest when beginners ask for advice because they don't find caches: avoid micros!

 

I consider the plethora of skirt lifters and hide-a-keys on benches and guardrails, definite beginner caches. For that matter, the thousands of 35mm and pill bottles littering the power trail runs are beginner caches as well.

[+dfx]

I do think that many many many micros are beginner caches.

 

Serisouly? That's usually one of the first things people suggest when beginners ask for advice because they don't find caches: avoid micros!

 

I consider the plethora of skirt lifters and hide-a-keys on benches and guardrails, definite beginner caches. For that matter, the thousands of 35mm and pill bottles littering the power trail runs are beginner caches as well.

 

Well, maybe. But how would you filter for those cases? Lots of other micros can be quite difficult to find for beginners. It's a much safer choice to just exclude all micros with extreme prejudice.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I do think that many many many micros are beginner caches.

 

Serisouly? That's usually one of the first things people suggest when beginners ask for advice because they don't find caches: avoid micros!

 

I consider the plethora of skirt lifters and hide-a-keys on benches and guardrails, definite beginner caches. For that matter, the thousands of 35mm and pill bottles littering the power trail runs are beginner caches as well.

 

I disagree. Beginners are not yet addicted and are not interested in numbers. Avoiding micros is a great idea so they can experience/learn about swag, trackables and cool containers. There will be plenty of time to get numbers.

[+addisonbr]

Explain?

At the bottom of the Search for Geocaches page, there is a checkbox that says Highlight Beginner's caches. With this explaination:

Some geocache characteristics make it more likely that a new geocacher will be successful when they are first getting started. Beginner caches incorporate these characteristics:

 

•Traditional type

•Low difficulty

•Recently found by others

•No micro sized caches

•No problems reported

This was released this morning.

 

I'm not seeing it. By the Search For Geocaches page, you must mean something other than this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/default.aspx

After you search, there is a checkbox at the bottom of the results page that you can use to toggle the "beginner" highlighting on and off.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Thats pretty cool.

I like it.

[knowschad]

Explain?

At the bottom of the Search for Geocaches page, there is a checkbox that says Highlight Beginner's caches. With this explaination:

Some geocache characteristics make it more likely that a new geocacher will be successful when they are first getting started. Beginner caches incorporate these characteristics:

 

•Traditional type

•Low difficulty

•Recently found by others

•No micro sized caches

•No problems reported

This was released this morning.

 

I'm not seeing it. By the Search For Geocaches page, you must mean something other than this: http://www.geocachin...ek/default.aspx

After you search, there is a checkbox at the bottom of the results page that you can use to toggle the "beginner" highlighting on and off.

 

Gotcha... thanks!

 

At the top of the page, it says, "Beginner caches are highlighted in green below". I see yellow, and pale yellow, not green, and the pale yellow ones are not exactly beginner friendly from what I can see.

[+Andromeda321]

I like it.

 

Regarding those who are saying micros should be included, firstly I think of all the nanos clasified as 1.5 difficulty that would NOT impress a beginner, and second when I was *just* starting I wanted big caches anyway as that's what you think of!

[+M 5]

I do think that many many many micros are beginner caches.

 

Serisouly? That's usually one of the first things people suggest when beginners ask for advice because they don't find caches: avoid micros!

 

I consider the plethora of skirt lifters and hide-a-keys on benches and guardrails, definite beginner caches. For that matter, the thousands of 35mm and pill bottles littering the power trail runs are beginner caches as well.

 

I disagree. Beginners are not yet addicted and are not interested in numbers. Avoiding micros is a great idea so they can experience/learn about swag, trackables and cool containers. There will be plenty of time to get numbers.

 

Who said anything about them wanting numbers. I'm talking about success with the finding. EASY CACHES. I know for a fact that most beginners won't find 2 of the caches the filter identifies on my caches. Like I said, I like the idea, I guess its good for cachers that can't find caches that are regular, 1.5/1.5 with no recent DNF's any other way.

[TheCacheSeeker]

Explain?

At the bottom of the Search for Geocaches page, there is a checkbox that says Highlight Beginner's caches. With this explaination:

Some geocache characteristics make it more likely that a new geocacher will be successful when they are first getting started. Beginner caches incorporate these characteristics:

 

Traditional type

Low difficulty

Recently found by others

No micro sized caches

No problems reported

This was released this morning.

 

I'm not seeing it. By the Search For Geocaches page, you must mean something other than this: http://www.geocachin...ek/default.aspx

After you search, there is a checkbox at the bottom of the results page that you can use to toggle the "beginner" highlighting on and off.

 

Gotcha... thanks!

 

At the top of the page, it says, "Beginner caches are highlighted in green below". I see yellow, and pale yellow, not green, and the pale yellow ones are not exactly beginner friendly from what I can see.

Actually, pale yellow is your owned caches, I believe.

Edited August 3, 2011 by TheCacheSeeker

[+Doctroid]

Who said anything about them wanting numbers. I'm talking about success with the finding. EASY CACHES. I know for a fact that most beginners won't find 2 of the caches the filter identifies on my caches. Like I said, I like the idea, I guess its good for cachers that can't find caches that are regular, 1.5/1.5 with no recent DNF's any other way.

 

Would those be the two that are difficulty 3.5 — Number 5 Is Alive and Derailed? It does seem odd to me that D3.5 would be highlighted for beginners.

[+M 5]

Who said anything about them wanting numbers. I'm talking about success with the finding. EASY CACHES. I know for a fact that most beginners won't find 2 of the caches the filter identifies on my caches. Like I said, I like the idea, I guess its good for cachers that can't find caches that are regular, 1.5/1.5 with no recent DNF's any other way.

 

Would those be the two that are difficulty 3.5 — Number 5 Is Alive and Derailed? It does seem odd to me that D3.5 would be highlighted for beginners.

 

Exactly. the new one is 3.5/3 small with 2 finds and 3 DNF's and 2 more DNF notes and thats the ones that admitted it. I don't have the answer, but those numbers seem weird to me.

[+AmphibianTrackers]

I sure like the idea. There are times when I like to take children out or it is an extremely hot day and it is nice to be able to sort out easier caches. Micros and nanos are not completely favorites of the second grader I take but she prefers to do some micros and nanos if they are easy to find than searching a long time and coming up blank. In other words, I appreciate the new feature.

[knowschad]

Explain?

At the bottom of the Search for Geocaches page, there is a checkbox that says Highlight Beginner's caches. With this explaination:

Some geocache characteristics make it more likely that a new geocacher will be successful when they are first getting started. Beginner caches incorporate these characteristics:

 

•Traditional type

•Low difficulty

•Recently found by others

•No micro sized caches

•No problems reported

This was released this morning.

 

I'm not seeing it. By the Search For Geocaches page, you must mean something other than this: http://www.geocachin...ek/default.aspx

After you search, there is a checkbox at the bottom of the results page that you can use to toggle the "beginner" highlighting on and off.

 

Gotcha... thanks!

 

At the top of the page, it says, "Beginner caches are highlighted in green below". I see yellow, and pale yellow, not green, and the pale yellow ones are not exactly beginner friendly from what I can see.

Actually, pale yellow is your owned caches, I believe.

 

Gotcha! Thanks.

 

Looking at my own hides, the new feature looks almost perfect, but I'm wondering why this one was considered good for beginners: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=dd961d92-785d-483f-8d9c-d50b8a94da2d I sure would not recommend it. I agree that the D rating is more important than the T rating, but I do think the two should be weighed together to some extent.

[+Coldgears]

Who said anything about them wanting numbers. I'm talking about success with the finding. EASY CACHES. I know for a fact that most beginners won't find 2 of the caches the filter identifies on my caches. Like I said, I like the idea, I guess its good for cachers that can't find caches that are regular, 1.5/1.5 with no recent DNF's any other way.

 

I agree completely. Not finding 2 - 3 caches in a row because they are in the woods with many possible hiding spots can be completely off putting. My first cache was a Film Can the woods. Had the hint not been a complete detailed account of how to find it, i'd probably be walking the woods like i've been doing for the last 10 years... But without a goal!!!!

[+NanCycle]

I think this feature needs a little tweaking. I see some D=3.5 caches shown as beginner and I think they ought to cut it off a bit lower, like maybe 2.0. Also many D=1.5 caches are not included just because they don't have "recent" finds; ok, but I think they should redefine "recent." Not sure what the definition is, but June 19 is not that long ago and is not included in "recent."

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

I was wondering what it was.... Cool new feature.

A bit surprised to see one of my T4's highlighted.

[+pineapplejuice]

I disagree. Beginners are not yet addicted and are not interested in numbers. Avoiding micros is a great idea so they can experience/learn about swag, trackables and cool containers. There will be plenty of time to get numbers.

 

For what it's worth, my first find (GC1294Z) was a micro. It was just a block and a half from work; how could I resist?

[cezanne]

I disagree. Beginners are not yet addicted and are not interested in numbers. Avoiding micros is a great idea so they can experience/learn about swag, trackables and cool containers.

 

It somehow depends on the area. In urban areas most of the cachers that are well suited for beginners are micros.

 

I've had a look at the suggestions for beginner's caches in my area and almost none of the caches is a good choice.

 

As a geocaching beginner I never ever would have found caches that are containers inserted into a stone or a piece of wood lying around to give two examples.

 

Typically, in my area recent caches that still get a lot of visits get listed as beginner-friendly and much better suited caches that have been found by most of the locals do not get listed.

 

I would prefer if beginner-friendly were defined via an attribute that can be set by the owner of a cache or even better via some form of voting among the visitors of the cache.

 

There are lots of simple offset caches that are much more suitable for beginners than traditionals with D=2.5 and higher.

This cache e.g. is listed as beginner friendly

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=1212f5ca-a699-4eb8-84e3-31ef1137b5e2

Many experienced cachers need both hint and spoiler picture to find it (I was there and also needed quite a while) and with an old GPS-r it is even harder to find due to bad reception and for inexperienced cachers it might even get dangerous as the terrain is tricky when one starts to search at the wrong locations.

 

A typical urban park micro where there is nothing around but a bench and where the description already mentions that the cache is found at the bench is much easier to find.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 3, 2011 by cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think this feature needs a little tweaking. I see some D=3.5 caches shown as beginner and I think they ought to cut it off a bit lower, like maybe 2.0. Also many D=1.5 caches are not included just because they don't have "recent" finds; ok, but I think they should redefine "recent." Not sure what the definition is, but June 19 is not that long ago and is not included in "recent."

 

It could definitely use more tweaking. I noticed that there wasn't a single "beginner friendly" cache on the first page of my local search results. The most recent find on any of those caches is three days. Two of those area listed as micros and one a "not specified" cache type. The rest of the caches on the first page haven't been found in over a week.

 

I don't know how "recent" is calculated either but it seems to me that it should average the find date of all the caches in the result list rather than use a raw number like "2 days". In a less cache rich environment, geocaches are just not found as often as they would be when there are a gazillion cachers out looking for and finding caches. The criteria also doesn't mention looking at the number of found it verses DNF logs. A cache that is under rated for difficulty might be a good beginner cache if it has a high ratio of DNFs to finds. The "No Problems Reported" criteria doesn't seem to make sense either. If someone posts a needs maintenance log because the log is damp, and the CO replaces the log but doesn't clear the attribute the cache could be excluded from the beginner highlighting even though the "reported problem" has been resolved.

[+Chokecherry]

I looked at the ones highlighted here and I wouldn't call at least one of them new person friendly at all and other ones that weren't high lighted I would have sent a new person to to find. If new people asked me what caches to go for I wouldn't suggest using this feature at all.

[+St.Matthew]

I just did a quick search of this from my house, highlighted beginners caches, and I had a because it highlighted a 4 terrain cache that I almost died getting.

[cezanne]

I just did a quick search of this from my house, highlighted beginners caches, and I had a because it highlighted a 4 terrain cache that I almost died getting.

 

I have encountered a similar example

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=86df25ac-3460-4563-823d-e3b67de00207

Going there without knowing what waits there and without the appropriate shoes and experience is dangerous. Certainly not a cache that a beginner should go to without reading the description (such filters increase the risk that the descriptions are not read even further).

 

Cezanne

[knowschad]

I just did a quick search of this from my house, highlighted beginners caches, and I had a because it highlighted a 4 terrain cache that I almost died getting.

 

Maybe they're trying to keep the number of new cachers to a minimum?

[+Nunavut Taidy]

"Actually, pale yellow is your owned caches, I believe."

 

Umm, nope. My search shows pale yellow and I (obviously) own no caches.

[StarDark999]

Works on my Ipod Touch, but it doesn't work on my computer.

[knowschad]

I think this is a great idea, but they shouldn't hide that checkbox way at the bottom of the list. Put it right up there on top where the beginners will be looking!

 

I'm very curious about the algorithm behind this. Right now, I'm looking a a list with a 2D/2T Regular that is not marked for beginners, and a 2.5D/3T small right next to it that is. I wonder if it also takes DNF counts into consideration.

[knowschad]

You know, I thought that particular shade of yellow-green looked familiar!!

 

 

Coincidence?

[+Doctroid]

I think this feature needs a little tweaking. I see some D=3.5 caches shown as beginner and I think they ought to cut it off a bit lower, like maybe 2.0. Also many D=1.5 caches are not included just because they don't have "recent" finds; ok, but I think they should redefine "recent." Not sure what the definition is, but June 19 is not that long ago and is not included in "recent."

 

It could definitely use more tweaking. I noticed that there wasn't a single "beginner friendly" cache on the first page of my local search results. The most recent find on any of those caches is three days. Two of those area listed as micros and one a "not specified" cache type. The rest of the caches on the first page haven't been found in over a week.

 

I tried looking for caches near Ithaca, NY, and indeed none is highlighted on the first page. But it's not because they haven't been found in 3 days. Of the 20 on the first page, 15 are micros or "other" size. (I know they reject micros and I assume they reject "others".) Of the five remaining, two are multis and two are unknowns. The one traditional, non-micro, non-other cache is marked NM.

 

 

I don't know how "recent" is calculated either but it seems to me that it should average the find date of all the caches in the result list rather than use a raw number like "2 days". In a less cache rich environment, geocaches are just not found as often as they would be when there are a gazillion cachers out looking for and finding caches. The criteria also doesn't mention looking at the number of found it verses DNF logs. A cache that is under rated for difficulty might be a good beginner cache if it has a high ratio of DNFs to finds. The "No Problems Reported" criteria doesn't seem to make sense either. If someone posts a needs maintenance log because the log is damp, and the CO replaces the log but doesn't clear the attribute the cache could be excluded from the beginner highlighting even though the "reported problem" has been resolved.

 

On caches in my area (and I assume everywhere) it highlights caches found up to a month ago, which seems not unreasonable. And if a cache is rejected because the owner failed to clear an NM attribute, I don't see that as a problem. Better that than to disregard the NM attribute. Obviously a human being can give better recommendations than any script; any simple criteria a script can check will give some false positives and false negatives. But a good script should be able to keep both to a reasonable minimum.

 

Cutting on DNF/found ratio makes some sense, but might not be feasible. The way the script is set up, it may not have easy access to individual logs — and you'd want the recent DNF/found ratio, not the ratio over the life of the cache. After all if there were 200 finds all in 2002-2009 and 5 DNFs all in 2010-2011, it's probably not beginner friendly.

 

Still, evidently the script needs further thought. Apparently it accepts difficulty up to 3.5, which I'd say is too high.

[+NanCycle]

 

On caches in my area (and I assume everywhere) it highlights caches found up to a month ago, which seems not unreasonable.

 

Maybe in a very active caching area (such as yours?), but around here one month is not at all reasonable; two months would be better and I think three months would be better yet. Of course if there are any DNFs since the last Find that's a different matter altogether.

 

Case in point: I have 3 caches that are Regular or Small size (the Small is a Lock & Lock which is much larger than some caches that are called "Small.") All ratings are 1.5 or 2.

 

Two of them make the Beginners list, because they were found within the last couple weeks, but my Ammo can cache doesn't because it was last found 6 weeks ago. Not being on the Beginners list will make it less likely that beginners will hunt for it and more likely to further increase the time since it was last found.

 

Hah! I just thought of what to do; I'll create an account to log a Find on it once a month, then delete the Found It log whenever there's a real Find.

[+tozainamboku]

I suspect that any criteria that was chosen would be criticized by someone.

 

I take it that the goal is to help find caches that are more likely to be found by a beginner. We often see threads in the Getting Started section like

Couldn't find on my first two tries

Why can't I find micros

Beginner - no luck

 

Usually the community will share there advice for caches that are likely to be found. It appears that the criteria were picked based on this advice: look for traditional caches, avoid micro caches, try easier caches, look for cache that have been found recently, and avoid caches with problems (Need mantenance or recent DNF). There are certainly individual caches that you might recommend that don't meet this criteria and of course not every cache in the criteria is going to be found by every beginner that looks for it. The idea is to quickly highlight a few caches for your first time geocaching that give you a better chance of being successful.

 

Now, the usefulness of this could be debated. Perhaps it's better to let beginners know that not every geocache hunt ends in a find. Maybe we should be encouraging people to enjoy the adventure and not be so concerned with the find. Teach newbies that you can write about your DNF just as you can write about your find. My recommendation for beginners might be to use the maps to select a location they might enjoy visiting. If they like nature look for a park where they can take a hike and find geocaches. If they like history look for caches in an historic area, perhaps even seeing if there are some multis that take you on a tour. If they want to stay close to home, find the nearest caches - even though some may be micros and hard to find.

[knowschad]

I suspect that any criteria that was chosen would be criticized by someone.

 

I take it that the goal is to help find caches that are more likely to be found by a beginner. We often see threads in the Getting Started section like

Couldn't find on my first two tries

Why can't I find micros

Beginner - no luck

 

Usually the community will share there advice for caches that are likely to be found. It appears that the criteria were picked based on this advice: look for traditional caches, avoid micro caches, try easier caches, look for cache that have been found recently, and avoid caches with problems (Need mantenance or recent DNF). There are certainly individual caches that you might recommend that don't meet this criteria and of course not every cache in the criteria is going to be found by every beginner that looks for it. The idea is to quickly highlight a few caches for your first time geocaching that give you a better chance of being successful.

 

Now, the usefulness of this could be debated. Perhaps it's better to let beginners know that not every geocache hunt ends in a find. Maybe we should be encouraging people to enjoy the adventure and not be so concerned with the find. Teach newbies that you can write about your DNF just as you can write about your find. My recommendation for beginners might be to use the maps to select a location they might enjoy visiting. If they like nature look for a park where they can take a hike and find geocaches. If they like history look for caches in an historic area, perhaps even seeing if there are some multis that take you on a tour. If they want to stay close to home, find the nearest caches - even though some may be micros and hard to find.

 

I'm not hearing much of what I would call criticism. I'm hearing mostly confusion about how the selections are made, as in my post above. What causes an apparently harder cache to be flagged as a good one for beginners while another is not. At this point, all we have is speculation.

[+briansnat]

I do think that many many many micros are beginner caches.

 

Serisouly? That's usually one of the first things people suggest when beginners ask for advice because they don't find caches: avoid micros!

 

I consider the plethora of skirt lifters and hide-a-keys on benches and guardrails, definite beginner caches. For that matter, the thousands of 35mm and pill bottles littering the power trail runs are beginner caches as well.

 

No way a skirt lifter is a beginners cache. I think most of us remember how hard it was the first time we encountered one.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I'm very curious about the algorithm behind this. Right now, I'm looking a a list with a 2D/2T Regular that is not marked for beginners, and a 2.5D/3T small right next to it that is. I wonder if it also takes DNF counts into consideration.

 

I'm not only curious but I think it would be useful for cache owners to see the algorithm. If someone wanted to create a cache for beginners it would be good to know if, for example, assigning a difficulty rating of 2 or less would flag it for highlighting, but a 2.5 rating would not. If cache owners no what the criteria that GS is using for flagging a cache as beginner friendly they may be to adjust ratings, make sure that NM attributes are cleared, etc. to make sure it gets flagged. Of course, GS could also have added a "Recommended for Beginners" attribute that a CO could set. I suspect it would get used a lot more often than "Requires Teamwork".

[knowschad]

Of course, GS could also have added a "Recommended for Beginners" attribute that a CO could set. I suspect it would get used a lot more often than "Requires Teamwork".

Did you tell them that when they asked your opinion? :lol:

[+Castle Mischief]

I do think that many many many micros are beginner caches.

 

Serisouly? That's usually one of the first things people suggest when beginners ask for advice because they don't find caches: avoid micros!

 

I consider the plethora of skirt lifters and hide-a-keys on benches and guardrails, definite beginner caches. For that matter, the thousands of 35mm and pill bottles littering the power trail runs are beginner caches as well.

 

No way a skirt lifter is a beginners cache. I think most of us remember how hard it was the first time we encountered one.

 

It's kind of a moot point, seeing as how there is no definitive way to identify them based on attributes, difficulty or terrain.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm very curious about the algorithm behind this. Right now, I'm looking a a list with a 2D/2T Regular that is not marked for beginners, and a 2.5D/3T small right next to it that is. I wonder if it also takes DNF counts into consideration.

It takes into account when the cache was last found and whether there were problems reported. It seems a beginner's cache must have been found in the last 30 days. I haven't determined what problems mean. At a minimum caches that have an uncleared needs maintenance are excluded. Not sure if a recent DNF is also counted as a problem.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I tried looking for caches near Ithaca, NY, and indeed none is highlighted on the first page. But it's not because they haven't been found in 3 days. Of the 20 on the first page, 15 are micros or "other" size. (I know they reject micros and I assume they reject "others".) Of the five remaining, two are multis and two are unknowns. The one traditional, non-micro, non-other cache is marked NM.

 

When searching for caches near a Ithaca, NY (or probably any city) the center point is going to be results of the geocoding service, typically in the heart of the downtown area. So what kinds of caches might one find in an urban center (Ithaca really stretches the definition of urban)? This is pure speculation but...

 

* they're more likely going to be micro or nano caches rather than larger containers.

* due to the higher concentration of muggles, there is a higher probability that a cache might be muggled and a NM attribute set.

* there is typically a greater density of caches in city centers, leading to a "all the good places are taken" scenario. If a spot is taken it's probably occupied by an older cache, with fewer recent finds

 

So...searching for caches by city name is probably going have fewer beginner caches on the first page than if one just used home coordinates. In generally, I like the idea of highlighting beginner friendly caches, and it would be even more useful if one could filter for beginner friendly caches using the official geocaching mobile app. Fire up the mobile app, initiate a search, and show me the closest "easy" finds.

 

BTW, I like the addition of the lat/long coordinates at the top of the search results. You can cut-n-paste them into Google maps and it'll show you the location on the map where the search results are centered. It would be nicer if the "Map this location" link would put a center point icon on the beta maps. However, If I zoom in on that map it doesn't appear that the center point is the same location as the coordinates at the top of the search results.

[+Doctroid]

At this point, all we have is speculation.

 

No, we have more than that. We have a general description from TPTB, and simply by looking at what gets highlighted and what doesn't we can narrow down the specifics. So far it seems:

 

- non traditional caches are excluded

- micros and "other" sizes are excluded

- caches with difficulty higher than 3.5 are excluded

- caches with NM attribute are excluded

- caches not found in the past month are excluded

 

That's probably most of it; are there any caches with any of the above attributes that are highlighted, or any with none of the above attributes that aren't?

[cezanne]

- caches with difficulty higher than 3.5 are excluded

 

what a perfectly suitable criterion for a traditional cache recommended to beginners (3* is already seen as challenging for experienced cachers!)

 

 

*

Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

**

Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunt.

***

Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

****

Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

*****

Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

Edited August 3, 2011 by cezanne

[+Coldgears]

* they're more likely going to be micro or nano caches rather than larger containers.

Not in the City of Brotherly Love! Nope, we have a surprising amount of regular sized caches in the middle of urban area's here! And no, they've never been muggled! Surprise Surprise, reading the cache logs, guess what? Over 50% of the finds were by non-geocachers. And some of these larger caches were there for years.

 

A larger cache has a much higher probability of surviving, because people can read about it, and put it back. A micro will be thrown without ever being opened.

 

And yes, I am talking about the heart of Philadelphia. With all the skyscrapers, drug addicts, insane people, and ridiculous prices...

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

No way a skirt lifter is a beginners cache. I think most of us remember how hard it was the first time we encountered one.

 

Ditto. They're easy if you know what to do. The first one we found, we DNF'd. I think we were the first DNF out of 200, LOL.