Jump to content

Quality vs Crappy Caches


Guzzi Riders
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

every 'crappy' cache you have come across was considered a 'great idea' by the cache owner!

Not necessarily. From my experience, speaking with owners of poorly chosen cache containers, it seems that the majority recognized, from the time of placement, that there would likely be maintenance issues in the near future. At that point the justifications varied, swinging from folks who did not care that there container sucked, figuring other folks would fix them as needed, allowing them to hide more crappy caches, to the folks who utilize economics as an excuse, stating that the crappy container was all they could afford, ignoring the fact that they'll spend way more money on gas for maintenance visits than they would in purchasing quality containers in the first place, to those who cite environmental concerns, claiming that, by using a crappy container, they are keeping it from a landfill, ignoring the fact that, once abandoned, it is still trash, or once archived and retrieved, it's still trash.

 

Just because someone uses a crappy container doesn't mean they thought it was a great idea.

Link to comment

If there ever was a system for voting off a cache, I would guarantee that many caches would taken down no sooner then they were published. IMO many geocachers with over 500 finds, premium or not, would vote a cache down simply because it was a LPC or GRC.

Heck, with all of these geocaching "societies" and "associations" I would see great abuse of such a system coming from them. I know for a fact that many of my caches would already be taken down. Simply because many people in my area don't own a boat, and I only own hydrocaches.

Link to comment

I agree with the people posting that this is not a good idea for all the reasons they have stated. Another thing to think about is that the "crappy" caches in your opinion may be the ones that help people get started caching in the first place. When my daughters and I started we were advised to look for easy finds initially. By looking for easy ones, we were able to find them (most of the time) which helped keep the kids interested initially. It would have really been terrible to search for a bunch and not find any. We did DNF a bunch early on even 1/1's. Once we got a bit better we went back and searched angain to make the find. We often chuckled about it asked ourselves "how did we miss this the first time" :laughing:

 

As we got better we tried harder hides. We got some, we DNF'ed some. It is all about the search and spending time with my girls. Even now we will be driving somewhere and I will say there is a cache around here and if we have time we will try and track it down. They even enjoy getting some LPH's especailly when they are in a busy area and they have to use stealth to grab it.

Link to comment

Don't look for Micros with less than 5 Favorites and one will avoid most "crappy caches" the OP describes.

 

I cringe whenever people start judging a cache by how many favorite points it has. There are TONS of great ones out there with fewer than five favorite points. I reward especially good ones with an FP, but not every one. I have plenty of caches that people enjoy and make positive comments about yet none of mine has five FPs. Conversely, I've seen numerous caches in poor shape or in "crappy" locations that have a lot of FPs. I don't think any cache should be judged by FPs. Often the point is awarded because of one certain aspect - location, container type or "cache-manship", camo, the person awarding it is the FTF or it's their first find, etc...so it isn't always because it's an all-around great cache.

Link to comment

There is a guy around here who hides these tiny 1/2" x 1/2" magnet 'caches', on road signs, at gas stations...conspicuous, sometimes high muggle areas. I think they are pretty crappy, but some have a number of favorite points and quite a few positive logs. I don't really get that, but clearly not all cachers enjoy the same things and have the same definition of a good/crappy cache.

 

To each his own... though I think a "rate this cache" feature might be nice, but again, there are varying definitions of what is good. Reading the logs can often be helpful and others often post issues with the container or location that helps me avoid it. If the log has lots of "TFTC" only posts, then it probably wasn't a very memorable find for anyone, and wouldn't be for me either.

Link to comment

IMO many geocachers with over 500 finds, premium or not, would vote a cache down simply because it was a LPC or GRC.

You say that like it's a bad thing... :lol:

 

Seriously though...

 

Another thing to think about is that the "crappy" caches in your opinion may be the ones that help people get started caching in the first place.

Lots of folks confuse easy with crappy. They are not the same thing, in my opinion. For the Riffster Clan, a crappy cache starts with a mundane location. From there, it uses a container which is unable to protect its contents. To make the crappy cache trifecta, it should also have a lame write up, but that's not necessary in making a crappy cache. None of these aspects has anything to do with the D/T rating. A couple examples, from my own cache finds: First, a nano centrifuge tube pushed into a grassy field. The location was boring. The log was damp, because the container was inadequate for the environment. The cache page was a bloated rave about how clever the hider was. It had a very high D/T rating. Second was a well stocked ammo can, chained to an antique tractor, in front of a museum. The location was kewl. The container was great. Even the write up was good. If memory serves, it was a 1/1.

 

There is room in this hobby for easy caches.

 

There is no room for crappy caches.

 

I cringe whenever people start judging a cache by how many favorite points it has.

No need to cringe. For some folks, judging a cache by favorite points, (with a bit more added to the equation), works very well. For my personal caching aesthetics, when I see a cache with at least 10 finds, and at least a 30% favorite point ratio, I know I've found a good cache to hunt. 50% = great cache. 70% = awesome cache. To date, I have yet to find even one exception to this. Granted, the system is imperfect, but by focusing on percentages, rather than total number of points, the data can be helpful.

 

I will agree that, if someone's caching preferences leans toward soggy log film cans in uninspired locations, the favorite points system probably won't help them.

Link to comment

every 'crappy' cache you have come across was considered a 'great idea' by the cache owner!

Not necessarily. From my experience, speaking with owners of poorly chosen cache containers, it seems that the majority recognized, from the time of placement, that there would likely be maintenance issues in the near future. At that point the justifications varied, swinging from folks who did not care that there container sucked, figuring other folks would fix them as needed, allowing them to hide more crappy caches, to the folks who utilize economics as an excuse, stating that the crappy container was all they could afford, ignoring the fact that they'll spend way more money on gas for maintenance visits than they would in purchasing quality containers in the first place, to those who cite environmental concerns, claiming that, by using a crappy container, they are keeping it from a landfill, ignoring the fact that, once abandoned, it is still trash, or once archived and retrieved, it's still trash.

 

Just because someone uses a crappy container doesn't mean they thought it was a great idea.

 

I've seen people admit right on their cache page that it was a crappy cache.

Link to comment

I've seen people admit right on their cache page that it was a crappy cache.

Often this is done humorously or as protest against opinionated individuals who call any cache they don't like "crappy" or "lame".

 

Other times it is done semi-apologetically because the hider didn't have a decent container or didn't take the time to find a better spot. I say semi-apologetically because one wonders why bother placing a cache you have to apologize for, but we may never be able to fathom all the reasons why someone feels compelled to hide a cache.

Link to comment

I've seen people admit right on their cache page that it was a crappy cache.

 

Yup, and it often reads something like:

This is a crappy hide, but the area was free for a cache.

 

Many people seem to be under the impression that if the map is empty of a cache, then a cache needs to be placed there.

Link to comment

I've seen people admit right on their cache page that it was a crappy cache.

 

Yup, and it often reads something like:

This is a crappy hide, but the area was free for a cache.

 

Many people seem to be under the impression that if the map is empty of a cache, then a cache needs to be placed there.

 

Many people are WRONG!!

Link to comment

As it is, the site only allows two states of 'perceived finder quality'.

 

Excellent!

and

Not rated.

 

Everyone screams 'THERE WOULD BE ABUSE!'

 

Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches, regardless of true quality?

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

 

I would not be in favor of an automated system to remove caches below a certain 'perceived finder quality', but I do think seekers deserve to know what the community thinks about a cache they might be considering going to find.

 

Groundspeak 'talks the talk' about 'focusing on quality', but they don't seem interested in 'walking the walk'.

 

These days, I doubt 'quality' even exists in their vocabulary.

 

But, it's OK...more caches for me to find!!

Link to comment

As it is, the site only allows two states of 'perceived finder quality'.

 

Excellent!

and

Not rated.

 

Everyone screams 'THERE WOULD BE ABUSE!'

 

Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches, regardless of true quality?

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

 

I would not be in favor of an automated system to remove caches below a certain 'perceived finder quality', but I do think seekers deserve to know what the community thinks about a cache they might be considering going to find.

 

Groundspeak 'talks the talk' about 'focusing on quality', but they don't seem interested in 'walking the walk'.

 

These days, I doubt 'quality' even exists in their vocabulary.

 

But, it's OK...more caches for me to find!!

A lot of people think that a rating system could cause more abuse. Just because Groundspeak hasn't implemented a rating system doesn't automatically paint them as fiendish money grabbers who don't care about quality or geocaching.

Link to comment
Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches, regardless of true quality?

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

Which is the worse abuse: friends teaming up to award favorite points (which I've never heard of happening; it's more one or two points for FTF or from friends), or friends teaming up to award crappy cache razzies?

 

I'd much rather have a positive-only system susceptible to "abuse" than one that can be abused with negative points - which definitely are more hurtful than abusive positive points.

 

EDIT: P.S. There is an extension you can add to your browser to rate caches. http://gcvote.com/index.php

Edited by TriciaG
Link to comment

Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches?

No. Not really. For it to matter, you would need to have a butt load of friends willing to give a favorite point to a crappy cache. While there might be a handful of folks on the planet willing to do so, I've never heard of one.

 

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

Maybe? Again, I've never heard of such a thing, but I suppose, technically, it's possible? Assume for argument's sake that BillyBobNosePicker awards a favorite point to a cache he gets FTF on. If the cache sucks, that's probably the only point it will get, unless the owner is friends with the hypothetical folks mentioned above.

Link to comment
Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches, regardless of true quality?

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

Yes, people award Favorites points for all sorts of reasons. Some I agree with. Some I disagree with. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree with the reasons why I award Favorites points.

 

Switching to a 5-star rating system isn't going to change that.

 

IMHO, what would improve the system is a mechanism to correlate the preferences of different users, so it could show me caches that were enjoyed by people with preferences similar to my own, ignoring the Favorites (or ratings) of people with preferences that differ significantly from my own. But such a system doesn't need 5-star ratings. A simple like–dislike rating system is all it needs (and is the kind of rating system YouTube switched to several years ago, after having used a 5-star rating system previously).

 

But if you want a 5-star rating system, then as others have already suggested, try GCVote.

Link to comment

IMHO, what would improve the system is a mechanism to correlate the preferences of different users, so it could show me caches that were enjoyed by people with preferences similar to my own, ignoring the Favorites (or ratings) of people with preferences that differ significantly from my own.

Interesting idea. "People that have given favorite points to this cache also gave favorite points to these caches."

Link to comment
Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches, regardless of true quality?

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

Yes, people award Favorites points for all sorts of reasons. Some I agree with. Some I disagree with. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree with the reasons why I award Favorites points.

 

Switching to a 5-star rating system isn't going to change that.

 

IMHO, what would improve the system is a mechanism to correlate the preferences of different users, so it could show me caches that were enjoyed by people with preferences similar to my own, ignoring the Favorites (or ratings) of people with preferences that differ significantly from my own. But such a system doesn't need 5-star ratings. A simple like–dislike rating system is all it needs (and is the kind of rating system YouTube switched to several years ago, after having used a 5-star rating system previously).

 

But if you want a 5-star rating system, then as others have already suggested, try GCVote.

 

I don't know......I've always likes the 5 star concept.

The CO still sets the Terr and Diff but when the cache is logged its rated 1-5 by the finder.

Link to comment

[green] There is an easy way to tell an "ordinary" cache - lots of visits and no favorites. If you want to avoid crappy caches then just visit the ones with favs, and avoid the ones that need maintenance.

 

I recently did a power trail of 101 caches. Worst caching experience I have ever had. Lack of maintenance, maintenance resulting in cache descriptions being inaccurate, nowhere to park so car has to stay two thirds into the the 100km/h lane. Needless to say, no favorites. And lots of comments, and lots of needs maintenance.

Link to comment

I recently did a power trail of 101 caches. Worst caching experience I have ever had. Lack of maintenance, maintenance resulting in cache descriptions being inaccurate, nowhere to park so car has to stay two thirds into the the 100km/h lane. Needless to say, no favorites. And lots of comments, and lots of needs maintenance.

 

If it was such an unpleasant experience, why didn't you pull the plug after the first 10 and go somewhere else to find caches? :unsure:

 

If you aren't having FUN, you are doing it wrong.

Link to comment

As it is, the site only allows two states of 'perceived finder quality'.

 

Excellent!

and

Not rated.

 

Everyone screams 'THERE WOULD BE ABUSE!'

 

Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches, regardless of true quality?

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

 

I would not be in favor of an automated system to remove caches below a certain 'perceived finder quality', but I do think seekers deserve to know what the community thinks about a cache they might be considering going to find.

 

Groundspeak 'talks the talk' about 'focusing on quality', but they don't seem interested in 'walking the walk'.

 

These days, I doubt 'quality' even exists in their vocabulary.

 

But, it's OK...more caches for me to find!!

A lot of people think that a rating system could cause more abuse. Just because Groundspeak hasn't implemented a rating system doesn't automatically paint them as fiendish money grabbers who don't care about quality or geocaching.

 

They don't.

They just want to sell memberships and apps.

After all, they are 'just a listing service'.

Link to comment
Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches, regardless of true quality?

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

Which is the worse abuse: friends teaming up to award favorite points (which I've never heard of happening; it's more one or two points for FTF or from friends), or friends teaming up to award crappy cache razzies?

 

I'd much rather have a positive-only system susceptible to "abuse" than one that can be abused with negative points - which definitely are more hurtful than abusive positive points.

 

EDIT: P.S. There is an extension you can add to your browser to rate caches. http://gcvote.com/index.php

 

In the same way that you would need a large number of compatriots to skew the favorites, you would need a large number of them to skew a full-on rating system negatively.

I have tried GCVote, not enough participants to be helpful

Link to comment

Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches?

No. Not really. For it to matter, you would need to have a butt load of friends willing to give a favorite point to a crappy cache. While there might be a handful of folks on the planet willing to do so, I've never heard of one.

 

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

Maybe? Again, I've never heard of such a thing, but I suppose, technically, it's possible? Assume for argument's sake that BillyBobNosePicker awards a favorite point to a cache he gets FTF on. If the cache sucks, that's probably the only point it will get, unless the owner is friends with the hypothetical folks mentioned above.

 

So, for it to matter, you would also need a butt-load of cachers to give a false negative rating to any particular cache. Yes?

 

And therefore, if BillyBob is mad at SallySue, his sole negative rating on her cache will be overwhelmed by the true ratings of others.

Link to comment

As it is, the site only allows two states of 'perceived finder quality'.

 

Excellent!

and

Not rated.

 

Everyone screams 'THERE WOULD BE ABUSE!'

 

Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches, regardless of true quality?

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

 

I would not be in favor of an automated system to remove caches below a certain 'perceived finder quality', but I do think seekers deserve to know what the community thinks about a cache they might be considering going to find.

 

Groundspeak 'talks the talk' about 'focusing on quality', but they don't seem interested in 'walking the walk'.

 

These days, I doubt 'quality' even exists in their vocabulary.

 

But, it's OK...more caches for me to find!!

A lot of people think that a rating system could cause more abuse. Just because Groundspeak hasn't implemented a rating system doesn't automatically paint them as fiendish money grabbers who don't care about quality or geocaching.

 

They don't.

They just want to sell memberships and apps.

After all, they are 'just a listing service'.

Ah, thank you for adjusting my understanding of Groundspeak. All these years of observation of the company, along with multiple conversations with the owners, obviously gave me the wrong impression that they actually enjoy caching and want to do what's right for the community and the sport.

Link to comment

As it is, the site only allows two states of 'perceived finder quality'.

 

Excellent!

and

Not rated.

 

Initially I had thought that this was a dumb system, I wanted a 1-10 (or whatever) rating system. But shortly after the favorites system was released I realized it was a better system. The top caches DO rise to the top of the list. A 1-10 rating system would make it harder to find the truly best caches, as many would tend to average out to a 7-9, and be indistinguishable from the mediocre caches.

 

Groundspeak 'talks the talk' about 'focusing on quality', but they don't seem interested in 'walking the walk'.

 

These days, I doubt 'quality' even exists in their vocabulary.

 

But, it's OK...more caches for me to find!!

 

Groundspeak is a listing service. While they can do things to encourage quality, if there are a lot of crap caches around, then look around to your fellow cachers. They are the ones hiding them.

Link to comment

Wherigo carts in California

 

Note RATINGS on carts as stars under the small cart image - many with no stars, ie no ratings and a few carts with no image

4stars.gif

 

Periodically the idea of ratings arises and I point out that there is a 1 - 5 rating system on the Wherigo site for Wherigo carts. Just an FYI on the 1 - 5 system in action.

Most carts are unrated, rated carts are usually 4, 4.5 or 5. If you look at the carts in California, the range is 3.5 to 5.

 

Admittedly, the Wherigo rating system isn't quite analogous to a similar notion of rating caches on Geocaching.com - it suffers because a cart logger gets no stat for logging a cart on Wherigo, so after doing it a couple of times (or even just once), many don't bother to log or to rate. They'll log the find on Geocaching.com, but not the cart. And, any cache owner who has gone to the trouble of cart creation has more effort into a cache than 99.99% of traditional cache owners.

 

Even so, I don't see ratings below 3 on Wherigo - I'm sure there are some, but it's mostly not what happens.

 

Checked a few European states, to see if there was much difference - in Nordrhein-Westfalen, nearly all carts are rated, with no rating below 4.

Link to comment

Checked a few European states, to see if there was much difference - in Nordrhein-Westfalen, nearly all carts are rated, with no rating below 4.

 

Most of those caches however also have many FPs, see e.g.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=0544fa55-772d-4e5c-96a9-36a51ebcf5c9&u=Team+Eifelyeti

 

What is true is that also on GCVote (where very badly rated caches exist) almost all Wherigos have ratings above average.

Link to comment

I recently did a power trail of 101 caches. Worst caching experience I have ever had. Lack of maintenance, maintenance resulting in cache descriptions being inaccurate, nowhere to park so car has to stay two thirds into the the 100km/h lane. Needless to say, no favorites. And lots of comments, and lots of needs maintenance.

 

If it was such an unpleasant experience, why didn't you pull the plug after the first 10 and go somewhere else to find caches? :unsure:

 

If you aren't having FUN, you are doing it wrong.

I can't speak for Seagnoid, but I can explain why I did something similar; Many, many moons ago, in a different geocache related forum, I was posting joyful comments regarding my most favorite guideline, ever, "Don't hide some piece of crap every 600', just because you can". Another poster to that thread mentioned a power trail, (36 caches), in Central Florida that was to blame for that guideline. I should note that I have no idea if the power trail in question actually was the straw to that camel. In celebration of that guideline, a friend and I drove over to the power trail and commenced hunting them. After the first two or three, we both decided this really sucked. Micros, in uninspired locations, with copy/paste cache pages. Absolutely nothing original to offer. Watching paint dry would've been more stimulating.

 

We may, in fact, have been "doing it wrong".

 

However, we decided to stick it out, battling mundania.

 

after all, we were there to celebrate our favorite guideline.

 

RIP, Favorite Guideline... :(

Link to comment

I recently did a power trail of 101 caches. Worst caching experience I have ever had. Lack of maintenance, maintenance resulting in cache descriptions being inaccurate, nowhere to park so car has to stay two thirds into the the 100km/h lane. Needless to say, no favorites. And lots of comments, and lots of needs maintenance.

 

If it was such an unpleasant experience, why didn't you pull the plug after the first 10 and go somewhere else to find caches? :unsure:

 

If you aren't having FUN, you are doing it wrong.

I can't speak for Seagnoid, but I can explain why I did something similar; Many, many moons ago, in a different geocache related forum, I was posting joyful comments regarding my most favorite guideline, ever, "Don't hide some piece of crap every 600', just because you can". Another poster to that thread mentioned a power trail, (36 caches), in Central Florida that was to blame for that guideline. I should note that I have no idea if the power trail in question actually was the straw to that camel. In celebration of that guideline, a friend and I drove over to the power trail and commenced hunting them. After the first two or three, we both decided this really sucked. Micros, in uninspired locations, with copy/paste cache pages. Absolutely nothing original to offer. Watching paint dry would've been more stimulating.

 

We may, in fact, have been "doing it wrong".

 

However, we decided to stick it out, battling mundania.

 

after all, we were there to celebrate our favorite guideline.

 

RIP, Favorite Guideline... :(

 

According to one CO in my area, WE ought to be doing the maintenance on so-called "Power Trails" - including, but not limited to, throwdowns.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure a mail to the Reviewer would send a reminder of the actual cache maintenance guidelines to the CO (in case he forgot or was misled), with maybe a disable to help the learning process sink in.

 

Really just inspires me to go back and find the original and publicly shame the 'thrower-downer' (who has a 20000+ count) in my Found It log.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

I'm pretty sure a mail to the Reviewer would send a reminder of the actual cache maintenance guidelines to the CO (in case he forgot or was misled), with maybe a disable to help the learning process sink in.

 

Really just inspires me to go back and find the original and publicly shame the 'thrower-downer' (who has a 20000+ count) in my Found It log.

 

So, I went down today and found the original cache. Here's the text of my log. I realize I may have overdone it and should have let it go...but this one just really "stuck in my craw":

 

DISCLAIMER: This entire log was written by a person with a pretty hefty OCD streak mixed in with a healthy dose of "stickler". As such, it's not intended to be rude or condescending...I'm not a jerk! I swear!

 

So, I've got this cache on a bookmark list for all my DNFs and it's set up to ping me whenever someone writes a log. When I got the 'Found It' notification, I was happy to see this cache was still around since it had a number of DNFs since the last find. When I read the log, however, I was disappointed, particularly when I saw it was written by someone with over 20,000 finds. It struck me primarily because I recently logged three DNFs on the same cache by this CO. I made numerous trips to a very unpleasant site just so I could finally earn that smilie. Sure, I could have put in a new cache because I wanted the smilie and the +1, but I would have rather made the find and truly earned it...which I finally did yesterday. I wouldn't have made that previous comment if the person logging it had contacted the CO and verified it was missing. Instead, it was a case of begging forgiveness rather than asking permission.

 

Fast forward to noon-ish today. I was bound and determined to prove the original cache was still in place. Going on my knowledge of the other caches on this so-called "power trail" (which is not what I would really call this string of 15+ caches on a walking trail...but that's neither here nor there), I knew what to look for. I had DNFed this back in March, but I gave it a stronger effort this time and was quickly rewarded for it. The last find mentioned the log was soaked...and that's exactly what I found...a soaked log. Completely unsignable. Fortunately, I had parked on the nearby road about 100 feet away, so I rushed over and grabbed a sheet of scrap paper, some baggies and did some emergency field maintenance on this cache. I snapped some pictures, signed my new log, bagged the old, wet log and the new dry one separately, snapped the lid back on and put it all back where it has always been. I looked around for the throwdown, thinking perhaps to use it as a throwdown on my next DNF (kidding!), but didn't see it anywhere. I found that a bit funny...but now folks know THE ORIGINAL CACHE IS STILL THERE and that it is a BROWN FILM CANISTER ZIP-TIED TO A SMALL TREE just behind a fallen tree about 15-20 feet from the walking path.

 

So, to respond to the previous 'Note': yes it is a throwdown, no matter how fancy the replacement container is. See here: (http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427)

 

And I could also post a link to the guidelines about maintenance, but I get the sense from everyone that this sort of practice is considered acceptable, which is disappointing to me and not in the true spirit of the "game", in my opinion.

 

So again, I did not write all that to be rude or "high and mighty". Just wanted future cachers to come here armed with the info...and you can decide which one you are comfortable claiming as a find: the original or the throwdown.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure a mail to the Reviewer would send a reminder of the actual cache maintenance guidelines to the CO (in case he forgot or was misled), with maybe a disable to help the learning process sink in.

 

Sounds great in theory but I can't see reviewers wanting to play referee in disputes like this. And disabling a cache isn't much of a learning process if the owner can just enable it again.

Link to comment

As it is, the site only allows two states of 'perceived finder quality'.

 

Excellent!

and

Not rated.

 

Everyone screams 'THERE WOULD BE ABUSE!'

 

Do you think there is not already 'abuse' by users favoring their friends caches, regardless of true quality?

Are there not users favoring caches merely because they got an FTF out of it?

 

I would not be in favor of an automated system to remove caches below a certain 'perceived finder quality', but I do think seekers deserve to know what the community thinks about a cache they might be considering going to find.

 

Groundspeak 'talks the talk' about 'focusing on quality', but they don't seem interested in 'walking the walk'.

 

These days, I doubt 'quality' even exists in their vocabulary.

 

But, it's OK...more caches for me to find!!

A lot of people think that a rating system could cause more abuse. Just because Groundspeak hasn't implemented a rating system doesn't automatically paint them as fiendish money grabbers who don't care about quality or geocaching.

 

Perception is reality.

 

Doing things to increase the overall quality of caches in general, and maintaining the cashflow are diametrically opposed goals.

 

I refer you to the 'Intro app' thread.

Providing an 'Intro app' that does nothing to instruct new users, but certainly has the option to upgrade to premium prominently placed.

 

I don't actually expect Groundspeak to do anything to improve the overall quality of caches.

I just want the tools to separate the wheat from the chaff.

And I want the option to decide what grade of wheat is acceptable for my flour.

The limitations of the favorite system does not make that possible.

 

So, they are just a listing service.

Getting more listings will satisfy more 'subscribers'.

Getting more people to subscribe is a good thing for them, regardless of their comprehension of the guidelines or any other details about the activity.

Link to comment

Perception is reality.

Not the way I perceive reality.

Doing things to increase the overall quality of caches in general, and maintaining the cashflow are diametrically opposed goals.

Ever since Baskin Robbins started selling soft-serve in their stores, I am certain that they are motivated by money and have no concern over the quality of the ice cream they sell :mmraspberry:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I'm pretty sure a mail to the Reviewer would send a reminder of the actual cache maintenance guidelines to the CO (in case he forgot or was misled), with maybe a disable to help the learning process sink in.

 

Really just inspires me to go back and find the original and publicly shame the 'thrower-downer' (who has a 20000+ count) in my Found It log.

 

So, I went down today and found the original cache. Here's the text of my log. I realize I may have overdone it and should have let it go...but this one just really "stuck in my craw":

 

DISCLAIMER: This entire log was written by a person with a pretty hefty OCD streak mixed in with a healthy dose of "stickler". As such, it's not intended to be rude or condescending...I'm not a jerk! I swear!

 

So, I've got this cache on a bookmark list for all my DNFs and it's set up to ping me whenever someone writes a log. When I got the 'Found It' notification, I was happy to see this cache was still around since it had a number of DNFs since the last find. When I read the log, however, I was disappointed, particularly when I saw it was written by someone with over 20,000 finds. It struck me primarily because I recently logged three DNFs on the same cache by this CO. I made numerous trips to a very unpleasant site just so I could finally earn that smilie. Sure, I could have put in a new cache because I wanted the smilie and the +1, but I would have rather made the find and truly earned it...which I finally did yesterday. I wouldn't have made that previous comment if the person logging it had contacted the CO and verified it was missing. Instead, it was a case of begging forgiveness rather than asking permission.

 

Fast forward to noon-ish today. I was bound and determined to prove the original cache was still in place. Going on my knowledge of the other caches on this so-called "power trail" (which is not what I would really call this string of 15+ caches on a walking trail...but that's neither here nor there), I knew what to look for. I had DNFed this back in March, but I gave it a stronger effort this time and was quickly rewarded for it. The last find mentioned the log was soaked...and that's exactly what I found...a soaked log. Completely unsignable. Fortunately, I had parked on the nearby road about 100 feet away, so I rushed over and grabbed a sheet of scrap paper, some baggies and did some emergency field maintenance on this cache. I snapped some pictures, signed my new log, bagged the old, wet log and the new dry one separately, snapped the lid back on and put it all back where it has always been. I looked around for the throwdown, thinking perhaps to use it as a throwdown on my next DNF (kidding!), but didn't see it anywhere. I found that a bit funny...but now folks know THE ORIGINAL CACHE IS STILL THERE and that it is a BROWN FILM CANISTER ZIP-TIED TO A SMALL TREE just behind a fallen tree about 15-20 feet from the walking path.

 

So, to respond to the previous 'Note': yes it is a throwdown, no matter how fancy the replacement container is. See here: (http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427)

 

And I could also post a link to the guidelines about maintenance, but I get the sense from everyone that this sort of practice is considered acceptable, which is disappointing to me and not in the true spirit of the "game", in my opinion.

 

So again, I did not write all that to be rude or "high and mighty". Just wanted future cachers to come here armed with the info...and you can decide which one you are comfortable claiming as a find: the original or the throwdown.

 

I remember taking a peak at that when you posted it, but forgot to comment. So I went back today, and all the stuff is gone. Your note quoted above, the cache owner thanking the throwdowner for the throwdown, the throwdowner smarting off about placing the throwdown, etc. Obviously you're right and they're wrong, but I don't know that you should have gone to such great lengths to show them they're wrong, no matter how annoying their wrongness was. :)

Link to comment

I recently did a power trail of 101 caches. Worst caching experience I have ever had. Lack of maintenance, maintenance resulting in cache descriptions being inaccurate, nowhere to park so car has to stay two thirds into the the 100km/h lane. Needless to say, no favorites. And lots of comments, and lots of needs maintenance.

 

If it was such an unpleasant experience, why didn't you pull the plug after the first 10 and go somewhere else to find caches? :unsure:

 

If you aren't having FUN, you are doing it wrong.

You obviously don't understand the phenomena known as "GeOCD"

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure a mail to the Reviewer would send a reminder of the actual cache maintenance guidelines to the CO (in case he forgot or was misled), with maybe a disable to help the learning process sink in.

 

Really just inspires me to go back and find the original and publicly shame the 'thrower-downer' (who has a 20000+ count) in my Found It log.

 

So, I went down today and found the original cache. Here's the text of my log. I realize I may have overdone it and should have let it go...but this one just really "stuck in my craw":

 

DISCLAIMER: This entire log was written by a person with a pretty hefty OCD streak mixed in with a healthy dose of "stickler". As such, it's not intended to be rude or condescending...I'm not a jerk! I swear!

 

So, I've got this cache on a bookmark list for all my DNFs and it's set up to ping me whenever someone writes a log. When I got the 'Found It' notification, I was happy to see this cache was still around since it had a number of DNFs since the last find. When I read the log, however, I was disappointed, particularly when I saw it was written by someone with over 20,000 finds. It struck me primarily because I recently logged three DNFs on the same cache by this CO. I made numerous trips to a very unpleasant site just so I could finally earn that smilie. Sure, I could have put in a new cache because I wanted the smilie and the +1, but I would have rather made the find and truly earned it...which I finally did yesterday. I wouldn't have made that previous comment if the person logging it had contacted the CO and verified it was missing. Instead, it was a case of begging forgiveness rather than asking permission.

 

Fast forward to noon-ish today. I was bound and determined to prove the original cache was still in place. Going on my knowledge of the other caches on this so-called "power trail" (which is not what I would really call this string of 15+ caches on a walking trail...but that's neither here nor there), I knew what to look for. I had DNFed this back in March, but I gave it a stronger effort this time and was quickly rewarded for it. The last find mentioned the log was soaked...and that's exactly what I found...a soaked log. Completely unsignable. Fortunately, I had parked on the nearby road about 100 feet away, so I rushed over and grabbed a sheet of scrap paper, some baggies and did some emergency field maintenance on this cache. I snapped some pictures, signed my new log, bagged the old, wet log and the new dry one separately, snapped the lid back on and put it all back where it has always been. I looked around for the throwdown, thinking perhaps to use it as a throwdown on my next DNF (kidding!), but didn't see it anywhere. I found that a bit funny...but now folks know THE ORIGINAL CACHE IS STILL THERE and that it is a BROWN FILM CANISTER ZIP-TIED TO A SMALL TREE just behind a fallen tree about 15-20 feet from the walking path.

 

So, to respond to the previous 'Note': yes it is a throwdown, no matter how fancy the replacement container is. See here: (http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427)

 

And I could also post a link to the guidelines about maintenance, but I get the sense from everyone that this sort of practice is considered acceptable, which is disappointing to me and not in the true spirit of the "game", in my opinion.

 

So again, I did not write all that to be rude or "high and mighty". Just wanted future cachers to come here armed with the info...and you can decide which one you are comfortable claiming as a find: the original or the throwdown.

 

I remember taking a peak at that when you posted it, but forgot to comment. So I went back today, and all the stuff is gone. Your note quoted above, the cache owner thanking the throwdowner for the throwdown, the throwdowner smarting off about placing the throwdown, etc. Obviously you're right and they're wrong, but I don't know that you should have gone to such great lengths to show them they're wrong, no matter how annoying their wrongness was. :)

 

No...it's all still there. The bogus found it logs, notes and all.

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...