[FEATURE] Promoting quality caches

[+sturej]

The number of quality caches seems to be decreasing, despite the fact that the number of geocaches (and geocachers) is steadily growing. Too many caches today are micros with just a few lines of description on the webpage, no stash note, and sometimes a wet logbook. There is no simple way, as I see, to persuade our fellow geocachers to put some more effort in creating and maintaining their caches. There is, however, a voluntary way that I think will work. As a spin-off it will also generate a significant income to Groundspeak.

 

Here is how:

 

1. Introduce a new cache attribute, "quality cache". When submitting a cache for review, put a checkmark either in the box "quality" or in the box "economy". In order to get a "quality cache" approved by the reviewer, you also have to submit a fee of USD 10 to Groundspeak. (The "economy cache" is free).

 

2. For each year your cache is active, Groundspeak will pay back USD 1 to your account. After 10 years, your "investment" is paid back in full. When the cache is archived for any reason (even at your own request), you will not get any more paybacks. Groundspeak will keep the amount that represents the residual value of the cache.

 

3. Existing (economy) caches can be upgraded to quality caches by paying the residual value to Groundspeak (i.e. USD 5 for a 5 year old cache). It is not possible to get any money back by "downgrading" quality caches to economy caches.

 

4. Money that is deposited every year on your account at Groundspeak might be used at will for your Premium membership fee, for placing new quality caches, or paid back to you.

 

In this way, cache owners will get an incentive to keep their caches alive for a longer time.

 

Comments are welcome! Perhaps there is an even better way of promoting the quality of our caches?

 

/sturej, Sweden (active since 2005)

[Pup Patrol]

 

 

 

B.

[+kantear]

i don't agree ... while gs might be running on a skin-and-bones budget ... it would become an antitrust issue, as it is the "premium listing' is somewhat of one except for the fact that the posters are the ones who decide.

 

actually that's what i think the favorite points are meant to do. ... but then again ... back to premium features.

[+Isonzo Karst]

So the owners of "quality caches" pay, and the owners of not quality caches get a free service? and you think this will drive creation of quality caches? Seems backwards. Let me see, I can have this service for free, or I can pay $10 for it. Hmm, not that hard a choice.

 

I think a far simpler solution would be to charge $1 for listing any cache. That modest fee would tend to slow down a lot of caches that are just casually placed. I don't seriously expect this to happen; a fee for listing would simply drive business to competing websites.

 

Favorites were supposed to drive quality, and might yet, but they need to be incorporated into Pocket Queries to be a bit more effective.

[ZeMartelo]

This doesnt solve the underlying problem of what is a 'quality' cache!

Based on the Op proposal if I put a nano in a lamppost and pay the $10 then it will automatically become a 'quality' cache?

 

I believe that the favorite points feature covers this issue nicely, but Im starting to notice a trend of cache owner putting out caches and asking for people to give favorite points for their caches...

I think the best indication is to look at the logs.

Good caches generally attract more interesting logs and thats the ones that I am interested the most.

[+L0ne.R]

Currently the Favorite vote is doing a decent job of pointing out some decent caches. It's not perfect but it's good.

After that our other option is the cache log. Write glowing reports on the good caches, let the CO know what you appreciate about their cache. Write honest critiques/feedback on the poor-quality caches (being careful not to offend, which is so hard to do sometimes). Good critique/feedback will hopefully motivate the CO to produce better hides, if not at least you're warning future finders about the quality.

[kanchan]

Makes no sense to me. Maybe I misunderstood the request here? Sounds like anyone could just *buy* the quality logo for $10 regardless of the actual quality of the cache? I rather take the favorite point into account. I'd also like to point out that some COs might not even archive caches when it is actually needed to collect their *investment*.

[+Markwell]

So if I get 60 free film cans from the local Walgreens, and rip a paper into sixty tiny parts and put one of the film cans under a lamp post in the Walgreens parking lot 50 feet from my home, all I have to do is pay $10 for this otherwise free cache to be listed as a "quality" cache. The sixty film cans are to make it so that every two months when the cache is stolen, I can replace it. Then after 10 years, Groundspeak will give me my ten dollars back? Sorry, too many ways to work the system.

 

In the end Longevity ≠ Quality, just like Quality cannot be determined solely by...

*Container Size

*How many finds a user account has

*How many accounts have logged a find on the cache

*Other hides by the same account

*Premium Member Only status

 

The Favorites system is one way (if used frequently and well) to TRY and encourage placing good caches. GONIL (Chicago area) also does a Cache of the Month nomination and vote. I would also suggest that finders be more honest in their dislike of a cache in the logs, regardless of the repercussions from the owner (if the cache location is distasteful and the container is ill-maintained, etc, say so in the logs).

 

But the absolute BEST way to encourage better cache placements is to place better caches - lead by example. People will emulate what they find out there and what they like. If all they find are caches at a light pole, then that's what they'll place. Consider what this cacher just recently said in his thread:

I have some geocaches that I placed that are pretty basic. They were the simple P&G's that many hide. Since then I have seen some better ones and I like some of the ideas that I have seen...

[+doug_hollyNKC]

This topic has been one of the issues I aim for when placing a cache. I kind of wish at the bottom of the publish cache form the simple question would be asked

 

"Why are you bringing people here?"

 

If a CO can't come up with nothing better than "I think it's a neat concrete parking lot" or "we need more caches in the area", then that cache shouldn't be published.

 

A response of "it's a great park" or "it's a great view" or "it's a historical place" would be a much better answer.

[+eurofocus]

We're planning out first cache placement so we'll definitely keep this in mind when deciding an area. Urban finds are fun, and in my area so far... they're all in parks or areas of historical significance which is nice. Of course, having cool swag inside is a plus to attract more cachers to the location.

[+Mallah]

 

Favorites were supposed to drive quality, and might yet,

The problem with this system is the fact you have to find 10 before you get one to give away? Not sure what the thinking is behind that but I find myself witholding giving a fav point away on that basis. As premium members it would make more sense to let us give a fav point to any cache we come across that warrants it, not to have to go find 10 more first!

[+edscott]

 

Favorites were supposed to drive quality, and might yet,

The problem with this system is the fact you have to find 10 before you get one to give away? Not sure what the thinking is behind that but I find myself witholding giving a fav point away on that basis. As premium members it would make more sense to let us give a fav point to any cache we come across that warrants it, not to have to go find 10 more first!

 

I think a top 10% is more than adequate based on what is out there today. I normally use about half of my allotted points locally, but when I go into a new area where I've not already cherry picked out the best ones I'll often go into my excess points.

[+L0ne.R]

This topic has been one of the issues I aim for when placing a cache. I kind of wish at the bottom of the publish cache form the simple question would be asked

 

"Why are you bringing people here?"

 

If a CO can't come up with nothing better than "I think it's a neat concrete parking lot" or "we need more caches in the area", then that cache shouldn't be published.

 

A response of "it's a great park" or "it's a great view" or "it's a historical place" would be a much better answer.

 

Rather then prevent it from being published, I'd like to see that "Why are you bringing people here?" text box in the cache description. If I read "We need more caches in the area" I know I can go ahead and ignore it or at least wait for the geo-guinea pigs to go out and try it and post their comments.

[+Frank Broughton]

I would also suggest that finders be more honest in their dislike of a cache in the logs, regardless of the repercussions from the owner (if the cache location is distasteful and the container is ill-maintained, etc, say so in the logs).

 

I agree, I do that - I am the "bad guy" but if it helps in the long run, I do not mind being the "bad guy." If you ever see a random poem on trees in your cache log from me, be it known the cache stunk IMO!

 

But the absolute BEST way to encourage better cache placements is to place better caches - lead by example. People will emulate what they find out there and what they like. If all they find are caches at a light pole, then that's what they'll place. Consider what this cacher just recently said in his thread:

I have some geocaches that I placed that are pretty basic. They were the simple P&G's that many hide. Since then I have seen some better ones and I like some of the ideas that I have seen...

 

So true - I am trying to lead by never placing a non waterproof container, some in the area have noticed and commented as so. I try to leave suttle reminders to new cachers on their placement logs after I find their cache. Notes like: you many want to consider a lock -n lock type container for this placement so in the spring after our winter it will still be ready to go.

 

Lead by example, what a novel idea.

 

Edit: Okay my 1,000th post I retire! haha)

Edited January 10, 2012 by Frank Broughton

[+Markwell]

I like to avoid conflict when I can, so maybe I'm a little hypocritical when it comes to "honest" logs. Here's one of my logs on a particular cache that really made me wonder why I was there: "Found, retrieved, signed and replaced the cache in less than 45 seconds. Only signature in the book was XXXXX". Another: "I'd suggest labeling this one correctly so that people can exclude it from their searches if they so desire."

 

But hopefully those type of logs - succinctly informative, but hopefully not inflammatory - will get the point across to others. Unfortunately, so many times people don't go out of the house reading some of the previous logs. They hunt spur-of-the-moment. That's why I pre-weed a whole lot of stuff before they even get into my GPS.

 

Choose the criteria you like, search for those. Sure you may miss some great caches, but you'll likely enjoy the ones you do find.

 

Okay my 1,000th post I retire! haha

Newbies I guess I've retired 8 times.

[+chillypenguin]

Just have a system to rate caches (1 to 5) when logging them. Once there have been a few logs it will soon average out, so that you can see the good ones.

 

Favourite points are all well and good. But you you can only rate 1 in 10.

[+L0ne.R]

Just have a system to rate caches (1 to 5) when logging them. Once there have been a few logs it will soon average out, so that you can see the good ones.

 

Favourite points are all well and good. But you you can only rate 1 in 10.

 

That's where GCVote comes in. It's a greasemonkey app. Popular in Europe but also gets used in North America.