+Amberel Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Groundspeak have posted a review of 2011 on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGBkOpKF_KM&feature=youtu.be Right at the end Jeremy stated that in 2012 the focus would be on quality over quantity. Does anyone have any idea how they plan to implement this? Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+Delta68 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Right at the end Jeremy stated that in 2012 the focus would be on quality over quantity. Does anyone have any idea how they plan to implement this? Scrapping 'Challenges' perhaps? Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Bye bye powertrails. They are the first to go. Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 35mm film pot are to be deemed unacceptable and reviewers not allowed to publish any cache that uses them. Quote Link to comment
+metal-bijou Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 35mm film pot are to be deemed unacceptable and reviewers not allowed to publish any cache that uses them. Drat I only just picked up 40 odd film pots for use on the CBN trail and didn't need any of them. Perhaps a 40 stage multi..... with a film pot at the end of course. And no I wasn't planning on placing them out anyway. Though I do have a film pot out there. Quote Link to comment
+Gackt Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Does anyone have any idea how they plan to implement this? Rgds, Andy Have no idea, but I would make a suggestion to up rate the favourite point system to be a bit more meaningful, for example in the fashion of your award system site, which I have found useful. It would be nice to have an idea of why favourite points have been awarded, i.e. if it was just because the finder had a generally nice day out, or if it was for the location, the container etc. Quote Link to comment
+Mark+Karen Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Indeed on Opencaching as part of the logs you are asked to rate the cache out of 5 on (I think) 4 different categories, Groundspeak should do something similar so we can see at a glance the 'awesomeness' of each cache. Quote Link to comment
+Malpas Wanderer Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Does anyone have any idea how they plan to implement this? Rgds, Andy Have no idea, but I would make a suggestion to up rate the favourite point system to be a bit more meaningful, for example in the fashion of your award system site, which I have found useful. It would be nice to have an idea of why favourite points have been awarded, i.e. if it was just because the finder had a generally nice day out, or if it was for the location, the container etc. A decent marking system would be good but it doesn't prevent the less quality cache being placed in the first place. There have recently been placed caches which have been archived after only 2 days. There needs to be a lot more thought before placing caches and perhaps a criteria meeting regime here. Difficult to set such criteria though as a blank or one word cache page can be a totally naff cache or brilliantly clever, that bog snorkelling experience is revelled by some but will be hateful to other individuals. Where do you draw the line? Whatever 100's of caches published and equally archived each day is not the ideal geocaching process. Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 It would be nice to have an idea of why favourite points have been awarded, i.e. if it was just because the finder had a generally nice day out, or if it was for the location, the container etc.I agree it would be nice. But any system has to be simple, or people will misunderstand it or won't bother with it. I wondered about having a required field on the cache page where the cache setter was required to state the reason for setting the cache - its raison d'etre, or mission statement. Reviewers could then decline to publish caches where the reason was, for example, "because there isn't another cache within 0.1 miles". But I guess people could just make up a plausible sounding reason that bore no relation to the actual cache. But at least it might make people think. The big disadvantage I can see is that it would make it difficult to set "surprise" caches, where the user finds something amusing or unusual but the setter wants it to be a surprise. Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+mellers Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 If it's not possible to monitor quality, perhaps the emphasis will be more on limiting quantities. Perhaps hiding caches will be limited, so that you're only allowed to hide one for every 50 or 100 you find and not allowed to hide any until you've found 100 (or 200). Perhaps they'll limiting the hiding to premium members only or to those who've been members for at least a year... Or how about increasing the saturation radius to 0.2m Not necessarily good ways to implement anything, but it's a way of limiting quantity, if that's what they're after. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Right at the end Jeremy stated that in 2012 the focus would be on quality over quantity. Isn't that what they said last year too? Quote Link to comment
I! Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) Isn't that what they said last year too? Yep, it was. I wonder if I can find the quote ... (EDIT: here) Edited January 6, 2012 by I! Quote Link to comment
+micky n dave Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I agree with Mellers that you must of found at least 100 before you can hide one, and film pots do have there place in the caching world, if you ban them then what about key boxes ? there just flat film pots surely, it will be hard to monitor the quality of caches, maybe if you find 100 you can hide 2 and and 200, hide 6 by a 1000 you can have say 30 or something like that, also its to easy to archive a cache if you have to have a valid reason to the publisher etc was if a daft place to start with, did the cacher think in the long term when hiding it. Quote Link to comment
+Red Duster Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I wondered about having a required field on the cache page where the cache setter was required to state the reason for setting the cache - its raison d'etre, or mission statement. Reviewers could then decline to publish caches where the reason was, for example, "because there isn't another cache within 0.1 miles". But I guess people could just make up a plausible sounding reason that bore no relation to the actual cache. But at least it might make people think. I hope there are no requirements one the reviewers to subjectively make decisions on quality. I get in enough trouble with caches which are objectively in SSSI's Andy Red Duster Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk Geocaching.com Knowledge Books Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Right at the end Jeremy stated that in 2012 the focus would be on quality over quantity. Isn't that what they said last year too? Do you know what they actually did about it last year? It's a waste of time to pay lip service to quality and do nothing practical about it. Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 ... I get in enough trouble with caches which are objectively in SSSI's Andy Red Duster Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk Geocaching.com Knowledge Books Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+drsolly Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Right at the end Jeremy stated that in 2012 the focus would be on quality over quantity. Isn't that what they said last year too? Do you know what they actually did about it last year? It's a waste of time to pay lip service to quality and do nothing practical about it. Rgds, Andy Well, for example, they introduced challenges, which led to several high quality challenges such as my Amersham Station series. I'm hoping that this year, they introduce "Armchair caches", which will eliminate the need for all that messy walking around and getting covered in mud. Quote Link to comment
+Cardinal Red Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I'm hoping that this year, they introduce "Armchair caches", which will eliminate the need for all that messy walking around and getting covered in mud. Can we have the option to interact with virtual dogs of randomly assigned sizes and temperaments while Armchair logging caches? Just to make it interesting. As for Jeremy, he has mostly lost sight of the original qualities that drew me to Geocaching, and seems to be working much harder to increase quantity. It's easy to shoot off "customer service" soundbites. View them as having the same life expectancy as campaign promises. It's impossible to make everyone here happy, but just like a politician, he hopes even the jaded among us will believe him for a little while. Quote Link to comment
+The Kentish Roses Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Surely film pots have their place? What's the difference between them and a magnetic nano stuck to a lamp post? I don't have a big problem with them. The one thing I would like to see change is peoples' attitudes towards swaps. Since caching really took off I've noticed that the rule of "replace anything taken with something of equal or greater value" seems to have died a death. So many "regular" sized caches where I would expect to find some good swaps for the kids contain tat out of crackers, pine cones etc etc. Apart from getting me out and about with the family I really liked the idea of the kids walking away with some toys, but I've not come across any decent swag for ages. Toy cars, parrachuting men, marbles, packs of rubbers etc don't cost the earth, I just wish more people took decent swaps out with them. The way the swag is going now a days, I have no issue with film pots, they contain the same amount of quality swaps as many of the regular sized caches out there! Edited January 8, 2012 by The Kentish Roses Quote Link to comment
team tisri Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I agree with Mellers that you must of found at least 100 before you can hide one, and film pots do have there place in the caching world, if you ban them then what about key boxes ? there just flat film pots surely, it will be hard to monitor the quality of caches, maybe if you find 100 you can hide 2 and and 200, hide 6 by a 1000 you can have say 30 or something like that, also its to easy to archive a cache if you have to have a valid reason to the publisher etc was if a daft place to start with, did the cacher think in the long term when hiding it. This idea of a certain number of finds before hides are allowed keeps coming up and doesn't work now any more than it did the last time. How is someone who has found 100 film pots behind signs any better placed to hide a quality cache than someone who has found 50 well thought out caches of a variety of types and sizes? Allowing a cache to be archived for "a valid reason" requires too much of the reviewers. It's one thing to allow a cache to be proposed for archiving because it's not being looked after but unless we can determine who makes the final call it won't go anywhere. And for a reviewer to make the final call means they have to make a judgement based on little more than he-said-she-said. The last thing we need is to have casual cachers who have grown used to it being a numbers game based on film pots behind signs wanting the 8-stage multi leading to an ammo box in the woods archived because it seems like too much effort for them to bother with and they would rather have the space cleared for some more film pots to be thrown down. Quote Link to comment
+maxkim Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 If it's not possible to monitor quality, perhaps the emphasis will be more on limiting quantities. Perhaps hiding caches will be limited, so that you're only allowed to hide one for every 50 or 100 you find and not allowed to hide any until you've found 100 (or 200). Perhaps they'll limiting the hiding to premium members only or to those who've been members for at least a year... Or how about increasing the saturation radius to 0.2m Not necessarily good ways to implement anything, but it's a way of limiting quantity, if that's what they're after. That should work...Max 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.