Highlight Beginner's caches

[+Chokecherry]

I tossed in another zip code. Our oldest cache in the state (GC9FF) isn't highlighed as beginner friendly and it would be one that I would totally tell people to go find (except during hunting season). I mean it's a huge container sitting out. You can't miss it. The walk isn't that bad (muddy but not bad). Another one near by on a bog walk I would also advocate for a beginner. Not highlighted. In another town nearby relatively speaking tons of great caches for beginners. None of them highlighted.

 

I agree than attribute would be great or some way for finders to indicate that it's beginner friendly because chances are the people familiar with the area will have a better feel for the realities of caches.

 

Algorithms are interesting but there's a certain degree of subjective with caches good for people starting out and algorithms don't do subjective at all.

[Pup Patrol]

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!

 

There's a message at the top of the page:

 

Beginner caches are highlighted in green below and are recommended for new geocachers. Scroll to the bottom and uncheck the setting "Highlight beginner caches" to stop highlighting caches.

[+rtyrie]

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?

 

Out of curiosity I've tried to figure out the algorithm behind this feature and I can't figure it out. As an example, I own 4 traditional caches. All are small or regular size. All are difficulty 2. All have been found in less than 30 days (the most recent find was yesterday, and the furthest was found about 2 weeks ago). None have any issues such as NM. None of my caches are labeled as beginner caches. Yet other nearby caches - some with higher difficulties, some with longer times since the last find etc.. are labelled as beginner caches.

 

I'm quite curious about how is algorithm works!

[+Viajero Perdido]

Hah - none of my 66 hides are considered beginner caches.

 

I'm such an elitist...

 

Not even my beginner-friendly monthly event.

[+NanCycle]

 

Out of curiosity I've tried to figure out the algorithm behind this feature and I can't figure it out. As an example, I own 4 traditional caches. All are small or regular size. All are difficulty 2. All have been found in less than 30 days (the most recent find was yesterday, and the furthest was found about 2 weeks ago). None have any issues such as NM. None of my caches are labeled as beginner caches. Yet other nearby caches - some with higher difficulties, some with longer times since the last find etc.. are labelled as beginner caches.

 

I'm quite curious about how is algorithm works!

 

Whoa! Now the only caches marked for beginners are 1,1. Wha' happen?

[+Doctroid]

Whoa! Now the only caches marked for beginners are 1,1. Wha' happen?

 

Yep. Obviously someone's tweaking the algorithm with a sledge hammer.

[+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.

 

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.

 

After one skirt lifter, you are still a beginner and you have 500,000 (may be slightly exaggerated) more to find that will be easy peasy

Edited August 4, 2011 by M 5

[+NanCycle]

Whoa! Now the only caches marked for beginners are 1,1. Wha' happen?

 

Yep. Obviously someone's tweaking the algorithm with a sledge hammer.

 

This morning it's still at 1,1; no micros and found within the last month. Results for the first 10 pages from my home (which covers out to 17 miles) are 4 Beginner caches, one each on page 3, 4, 6 & 8. I think this would be pretty discouraging to a beginner.

[knowschad]

Whoa! Now the only caches marked for beginners are 1,1. Wha' happen?

 

Yep. Obviously someone's tweaking the algorithm with a sledge hammer.

 

This morning it's still at 1,1; no micros and found within the last month. Results for the first 10 pages from my home (which covers out to 17 miles) are 4 Beginner caches, one each on page 3, 4, 6 & 8. I think this would be pretty discouraging to a beginner.

http://coord.info/GCF7F is a 1/1 last found July 6 is not flagged for beginners. I presume because the cache owner updated the coordinates because he moved the cache.

[+Doctroid]

http://coord.info/GCF7F is a 1/1 last found July 6 is not flagged for beginners. I presume because the cache owner updated the coordinates because he moved the cache.

 

More likely because it has NM attribute set.

[Pup Patrol]

D'oh...I misspoke.

 

I didn't realize that I had the "beginner friendly" thing toggled when I said that there is a message at the top of the list to tell people that the option is at the bottom.

 

D'oh...when I untoggled it, the message is no longer there.

 

An option to highlight "beginner friendly caches" is not very user-friendly or obvious.

 

The whole deal is screwy any way. Events aren't highlighted as beginner-friendly.

 

Newly published caches (no one has found it yet) aren't marked as beginner-friendly even if they meet the other criteria.

 

1/1's aren't marked if they haven't had activity in, what is it, a month?

 

Seems like some extensive testing should have happened before this feature was launched.

 

It's a fantastic idea. Just very frustrating that it isn't the least bit useful yet.

[Pup Patrol]

http://coord.info/GCF7F is a 1/1 last found July 6 is not flagged for beginners. I presume because the cache owner updated the coordinates because he moved the cache.

 

More likely because it has NM attribute set.

 

The NM attribute looks like the cache owner doesn't know that he needs to post an "owner maintenance" log to clear it, because it isn't recent as far as I can see (within the last year or so).

[+tozainamboku]

Seems like some extensive testing should have happened before this feature was launched.

 

It's a fantastic idea. Just very frustrating that it isn't the least bit useful yet.

I'm not sure what testing you need. Adjustments to the algorithm are fairly easy to make. The generic criteria is based upon what is told to beginners over and over again when they express frustration at not finding the first few caches the go looking for. Specific criteria is always somewhat arbitrary and there will no doubt be individual caches included that may end up not being found by a beginner and other caches that are not included that may be easy finds that are good for a beginner.

 

It should really be called "Highlight caches that are good for your first cache hunt". The idea is help someone who has never been caching pick a cache that is likely to be there and won't be too hard to find. I think the problem is that people want it to identify all "easy" caches. That is not the point. It's to identify a cache that someone who never has been geocaching before will likely not find frustrating.

 

I think it is wrong to emphasize that finding the cache is necessary in order to enjoy geocaching. Instead I would tell beginners that you won't find every cache you look for, but you can still enjoy going to the places geocaching takes you and even searching for the cache. You and share your experience with a DNF log just as you can with a Found It log. It's clear though that not finding cache after cache is frustrating. Highlighting caches that are more likely to be found can make the game more fun for someone starting out, but it is no guarentee that they find the cache. And it is probably not meant to be used by experienced geocachers to look for quick and easy finds. There are other ways to locate these.

[+Doctroid]

Right, the point is not to identify all beginner-friendly caches, but to identify a set of caches that are likely to be beginner-friendly. And of course no script can do that perfectly, and one can argue about the criteria for that; but the idea is to try to exclude beginner-unfriendly caches, not to be comprehensive.

 

A 1/1 that has recently been hidden and not found yet may be good for a beginner — or not, if the CO has messed up on the coordinates. One that's been found is more likely to not frustrate a beginner.

[+addisonbr]

I think the problem is that people want it to identify all "easy" caches. That is not the point. It's to identify a cache that someone who never has been geocaching before will likely not find frustrating.

Right, the point is not to identify all beginner-friendly caches, but to identify a set of caches that are likely to be beginner-friendly. And of course no script can do that perfectly, and one can argue about the criteria for that; but the idea is to try to exclude beginner-unfriendly caches, not to be comprehensive.

Yep.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I just did a check.

10 beginners caches withing 16.2 mile radius containing 551 caches.

Might give beginners around here the wrong idea and think we don't like beginners.

[+tozainamboku]

I just did a check.

10 beginners caches withing 16.2 mile radius containing 551 caches.

Might give beginners around here the wrong idea and think we don't like beginners.

No. It would make the beginner happy. Instead of picking one of 551 cache for their first cache and being disappointed when they couldn't find it, they can pick one of the 10 caches and have a good first experience. Once they've found a cache, they have a better idea what geocaching is about and can select from the larger group of caches. Nobody says a beginner can only look for highlighted caches. The highlighting means that if you pick one of these caches you're more likely to have a successful first outing.

 

What will probably happen is that a first-time geocacher will pick some nearby geocaches to find, and will make sure that at least one is a highlighted cache. They will then go looking, confident they will find at least one cache. However, someone will eventually post on the forum how they found all the caches except for the beginner cache - so the system clearly doesn't work.

[+dfx]

Interesting. Personally I'd exclude all 1/1 caches, because there's a good chance that they're actually just misrated

[+Vater_Araignee]

I just did a check.

10 beginners caches withing 16.2 mile radius containing 551 caches.

Might give beginners around here the wrong idea and think we don't like beginners.

No. It would make the beginner happy. Instead of picking one of 551 cache for their first cache and being disappointed when they couldn't find it, they can pick one of the 10 caches and have a good first experience. Once they've found a cache, they have a better idea what geocaching is about and can select from the larger group of caches. Nobody says a beginner can only look for highlighted caches. The highlighting means that if you pick one of these caches you're more likely to have a successful first outing.

 

What will probably happen is that a first-time geocacher will pick some nearby geocaches to find, and will make sure that at least one is a highlighted cache. They will then go looking, confident they will find at least one cache. However, someone will eventually post on the forum how they found all the caches except for the beginner cache - so the system clearly doesn't work.

Consider it like this. within 5 miles of me there are at least 20 caches I could recommend to a beginner, but I see Groundspeak pandering to the smallest physical minority with such a low terrain.

A difficulty of 1, yeah that is beginner, but I know for a fact that most people can walk in the woods safely. Basically calling 1 star terrain "beginners" is calling the beginners, people with mobility problems. I would also consider 1.5 difficulty to be beginners also.

 

Then there is the phrase "beginners caches" this will lead beginners to think that these caches where placed with them in mind now if it where to say "Highlight caches recommended for beginners" that misconception could not come into being except by a limited few who are barley capable of navigating a website.

 

If I where to determine the criteria:

Highlight caches recommended for beginners

Attribute Beginners Cache (not required for system to highlight)

up to 1.5 difficulty

up to 3.0 terrain

Small, regular, large or (micro if beginner attribute is set and it meets all other requirements)

Find count and DNF count totals 10 or more but DNF is 10% or less.

A reasonable percentage that a cache is flagged NM per quarter before it loses its beginner status that uses maintenance, needs maintenance, should be archived and reviewer warnings, to alter that percentage to reduce the abuse of unwarranted log.

Multiple log types by an individual only count as one. this prevents multi DNF/NM etc abuse to remove beginner status.

 

I think GS is wasting money and risking potential revenue by implementing this without putting enough though into it and should remove it.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Interesting. Personally I'd exclude all 1/1 caches, because there's a good chance that they're actually just misrated

In my experience that misrating equals over rated.

[Pup Patrol]

Interesting. Personally I'd exclude all 1/1 caches, because there's a good chance that they're actually just misrated

That's a consideration.

 

If we submit caches with a "1" terrain, it's recommended to up it to a "1.5" if it's not wheelchair accessible.

 

Not many of them truly are, so the majority of the local caches are rated "1.5", which excludes them from being "beginner friendly".

[+tozainamboku]

Then there is the phrase "beginners caches" this will lead beginners to think that these caches where placed with them in mind now if it where to say "Highlight caches recommended for beginners" that misconception could not come into being except by a limited few who are barley capable of navigating a website.

This I agree with and have started a feedback request to call them "recommended for first-time geocachers".

[+Mosaic55]

It seems like the "Beginner" critera was changed a bit. Now (non-micro) 1.5/1.5 gets green highlighting as well.

 

Looks like terrain up to 2.5, difficulty up to 1.5, non-micro and found recently get flagged for beginners.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Mosaic55