Jump to content

More Stringent Cache Review of New Cachers


hostanut

Recommended Posts

Now that Groundspeak has included "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one." in the Placement Guidelines......

 

I would like to suggest that Reviewer give a more stringent review of caches submitted by cachers that have found less than 20 caches.

 

Let me start with 3 examples of caches that have been published in my area within the last 5 days:

 

GC65281 On All Fours....CO has 0 finds.......coords led to middle of grassy area......coords have been updated about 101ft

 

GC659FD Sunshire.......CO has 2 finds.......Google maps shows coords on shoulder of dual highway.....cache was found 295 ft away from listed coords......I suspected the cache was a skirt lifter (it was)

 

GC65BB7 Junk in the Trunk.....CO has 3 finds......Google maps shows coords in middle of parking lot.....no place to hide a small container within 50 ft.

 

Reviewers being required to do more due diligence on these caches could have prevented problems. In these 3 cases, just looking at Google maps could have led the reviewer to ask for more info about where the cache was hidden. More questions being asked of these inexperienced and unproven cache hiders could lessen the amount of bad coords.

 

Listing Guidelines include "Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

 

Reviewers should be helping ensure that new hiders are getting accurate coords.

 

I don't expect to find caches where my gpsr says 0 ft but I do expect listed coords NOT to be off by over 100 ft.

Link to comment

You are assuming that the dialogue about the accuracy of the coordinates did not take place pre-publication. In the first of your cited examples that I checked, the reviewer did exactly as you are suggesting.

 

I probably put half a dozen caches "on hold" each week due to hinky coordinates.

Link to comment

I'm NOT assuming that a dialogue about the accuracy of the coordinates did not take place pre-publication.

 

But it appears that if a dialogue took place.....that dialogue wasn't thorough enough.

 

I would guess that a hider would say "cache hidden in shrubs" or "light pole cache"....yes Google Maps can show the coords at the wrong shrub or wrong light pole.....but when Google Maps show the coords over ft away from a place described by the hider, something must be hinky.

 

Please don't take this as an attack on Reviewers......it's just questioning the process and wanting to come up with a way to avoid caches being found over 100 ft from the listed coords.

 

I understand that even experienced cache hiders can have bad coords.....I have a friend who is an experienced cachers who transposed 2 numbers when a cache was submitted....coords were over 200 ft off.

 

My experience has been that NEW/INEXPERIENCED HIDERS have the greatest number of bad coords. I only listed 3 examples.

Link to comment

The dialogue I read was very detailed and specifically questioned the exact same issue that you summarized, and more so.

 

But when a reviewer receives a plausible answer, like they planted flowers there so it isn't an open grassy area anymore, there is not much one can do short of visiting the area. That's what FTF hounds are for!

 

By the way, bad coordinates are not limited to newbies. I'm working now with one of my home region's most veteran geocachers. For some reason, it's taken him four tries to get the coordinates right, and I'm still not convinced. He says it's a new urban parklet; Google Street view shows an overgrown vacant lot between two businesses. At what point do I just give in and publish? I need to move on to the next cache review.

Link to comment

The dialogue I read was very detailed and specifically questioned the exact same issue that you summarized, and more so.

 

But when a reviewer receives a plausible answer, like they planted flowers there so it isn't an open grassy area anymore, there is not much one can do short of visiting the area. That's what FTF hounds are for!

 

By the way, bad coordinates are not limited to newbies. I'm working now with one of my home region's most veteran geocachers. For some reason, it's taken him four tries to get the coordinates right, and I'm still not convinced. He says it's a new urban parklet; Google Street view shows an overgrown vacant lot between two businesses. At what point do I just give in and publish? I need to move on to the next cache review.

To be fair, Google Street view can be fairly out of date sometimes. It took them two years before my house finally showed up.

Link to comment

The dialogue I read was very detailed and specifically questioned the exact same issue that you summarized, and more so.

 

But when a reviewer receives a plausible answer, like they planted flowers there so it isn't an open grassy area anymore, there is not much one can do short of visiting the area. That's what FTF hounds are for!

 

By the way, bad coordinates are not limited to newbies. I'm working now with one of my home region's most veteran geocachers. For some reason, it's taken him four tries to get the coordinates right, and I'm still not convinced. He says it's a new urban parklet; Google Street view shows an overgrown vacant lot between two businesses. At what point do I just give in and publish? I need to move on to the next cache review.

I would never look at Google Earth and say that what I see is correct.

Those images can be up to five years old. It is a big misconeption that the images are current. Today there may be homes or a business where a field or woods once stood. I once made a hide at a culdesac. Google Earth showed a farm field. Two months latter image was updated to show the road.

The Feds do not want current images on Google or other such map services.

That would be a big security issue at this time.

Link to comment

Isn't this an issue about co ordinates? Mobile phones used to set cache locations are an issue as far as I am concerned. They are inaccurate when you have very few towers in contact with the phone. GPS data can be bad as well, but I would use GPS data over mobile phone data any day. So maybe it could be a case of newbies using a mobile phone rather than a GPS to set the cache. Perhaps a bit of suggestive education about the right gear to set a cache is needed rather than restriction.

It is only a suggestion, so please, no carpe jugulum, I want my throat in tact and not ripped out!

Also, embrace the day or carpe diem and happy caching!

Link to comment

Now that Groundspeak has included "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one." in the Placement Guidelines......

 

I would like to suggest that Reviewer give a more stringent review of caches submitted by cachers that have found less than 20 caches.

 

 

Using a fixed number of caches found as a criteria for reviewers to give more scrutiny on a cache submission would effectively make it more difficult for new caches to be placed in areas which could use more geocaches, but have little impact on areas already densely populated with caches.

 

Consider two new geocachers.

 

Cacher A lives in an area already densely populated with caches. After two days playing the game they've accumulated 35 finds because they went out and did a power trail and found 35 caches placed such that they'd be easy to find (each one is 528' from the next and has a pile of rocks as a beacon). Because they're so easy to find, accurate coordinates aren't really necessary. Cacher A never has to worry about additional reviewer scrutiny since they easily surpassed the minimum number of finds and they're free to hide a lot more caches, which, of course makes it easy for the next new cacher to come along.

 

Cacher B lives in a country with less than 20 caches in the entire country. Lest you think this unusual, there are currently 87 countries/territories in which there are fewer than 20 caches. Unless cacher B is able to travel beyond it's country borders it's unlikely that they'll achieve 20 finds, and then they'll undergo additional scrutiny when trying to place a cache because of that criteria. The proposal would effectively make it more difficult to hide a cache in places which could use more geocaches.

 

 

 

Link to comment

I would use GPS data over mobile phone data any day.

 

I would generally favour GPS over cell triangulation data also - with one major exception.

 

In my experience, in a city environment with narrowly spaced high-rise buildings, cell triangulation wins.

 

+1

 

I work in an urban area with lots of skyscrapers. I've found both my mobile phone and Google Earth to be more accurate than my GPSr, and sometimes by hundereds of feet!

 

Back on topic, I don't see any harm in giving more scrutiny to cachers with fewer finds, but I also suspect that many reviewers already do exactly that, and I suspect many reviewers also give more scrutiny to cachers with fewer hides.

 

Austin

Link to comment

By the way, bad coordinates are not limited to newbies. I'm working now with one of my home region's most veteran geocachers. For some reason, it's taken him four tries to get the coordinates right, and I'm still not convinced. He says it's a new urban parklet; Google Street view shows an overgrown vacant lot between two businesses. At what point do I just give in and publish? I need to move on to the next cache review.

 

Yep. I am pretty meticulous when I hide a cache and I've messed up a few times even knowing the process.

Link to comment
Mobile phones used to set cache locations are an issue as far as I am concerned. They are inaccurate when you have very few towers in contact with the phone. GPS data can be bad as well, but I would use GPS data over mobile phone data any day.
Well, yeah, when my phones have been using non-GPS location services (cell tower triangulation, wifi networks), they have been pretty inaccurate. But when using GPS, they've been fine, and haven't differed significantly from my dedicated handheld GPS receivers.
Link to comment

Now that Groundspeak has included "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one." in the Placement Guidelines......

 

I would like to suggest that Reviewer give a more stringent review of caches submitted by cachers that have found less than 20 caches.

 

 

Using a fixed number of caches found as a criteria for reviewers to give more scrutiny on a cache submission would effectively make it more difficult for new caches to be placed in areas which could use more geocaches, but have little impact on areas already densely populated with caches.

 

Consider two new geocachers.

 

Cacher A lives in an area already densely populated with caches. After two days playing the game they've accumulated 35 finds because they went out and did a power trail and found 35 caches placed such that they'd be easy to find (each one is 528' from the next and has a pile of rocks as a beacon). Because they're so easy to find, accurate coordinates aren't really necessary. Cacher A never has to worry about additional reviewer scrutiny since they easily surpassed the minimum number of finds and they're free to hide a lot more caches, which, of course makes it easy for the next new cacher to come along.

 

Cacher B lives in a country with less than 20 caches in the entire country. Lest you think this unusual, there are currently 87 countries/territories in which there are fewer than 20 caches. Unless cacher B is able to travel beyond it's country borders it's unlikely that they'll achieve 20 finds, and then they'll undergo additional scrutiny when trying to place a cache because of that criteria. The proposal would effectively make it more difficult to hide a cache in places which could use more geocaches.

 

Well said. You've proven that mere numbers do not establish competency - although they may help in the absence of a better standard.

 

What about a short, online quiz before placing caches? That would help. Just a minor little hurdle to help eliminate some of the wanna-bes. For example, when you rent a sailboat at the lake, they want to know if you know what you're doing. Every prospective renter thinks they do and says they do. So they ask two questions, one of which is "How do you sail into the direction of the wind?" In 15 seconds, they've eliminated the pretenders who can't answer that.

Link to comment

The dialogue I read was very detailed and specifically questioned the exact same issue that you summarized, and more so.

 

But when a reviewer receives a plausible answer, like they planted flowers there so it isn't an open grassy area anymore, there is not much one can do short of visiting the area. That's what FTF hounds are for!

 

By the way, bad coordinates are not limited to newbies. I'm working now with one of my home region's most veteran geocachers. For some reason, it's taken him four tries to get the coordinates right, and I'm still not convinced. He says it's a new urban parklet; Google Street view shows an overgrown vacant lot between two businesses. At what point do I just give in and publish? I need to move on to the next cache review.

I would never look at Google Earth and say that what I see is correct.

Those images can be up to five years old. It is a big misconeption that the images are current. Today there may be homes or a business where a field or woods once stood. I once made a hide at a culdesac. Google Earth showed a farm field. Two months latter image was updated to show the road.

The Feds do not want current images on Google or other such map services.

That would be a big security issue at this time.

 

I don't know how often Google Earth images are updated, but Street View images can be dated. When looking at Street View, there is an "Image capture" note in the bottom right corner that shows what month/year the image was taken. Some images I've come across are only a few months old, while some are several years old. I often will check Google Earth and Street View when heading to caches in unfamiliar territory. It seems especially helpful to scout potential parking options.

Link to comment

What about a short, online quiz before placing caches? That would help.

 

Oh, you mean like the checkbox that you have to check that says "I've read the cache placement guidelines and agree to them."? :)

 

There's no fool-proof system. Occasionally, bad cache listings get through. As others have said ... that's what FTF hounds are for. :)

Link to comment

What about a short, online quiz before placing caches? That would help.

 

Oh, you mean like the checkbox that you have to check that says "I've read the cache placement guidelines and agree to them."? :)

 

Not sure how much of a difference it would make, but perhaps expanding the text for that checkbox to be more explicit would help. For example, "I've read the cache placement guidelines (ie, cache permanence, maintenance requirements, land permissions, etc) and agree to abide by them." That extra info might stir some thoughts in the CO's heads, instead of being just a rubber-stamp.

 

Or it might have no effect at all. <_<

Link to comment

The dialogue I read was very detailed and specifically questioned the exact same issue that you summarized, and more so.

 

But when a reviewer receives a plausible answer, like they planted flowers there so it isn't an open grassy area anymore, there is not much one can do short of visiting the area. That's what FTF hounds are for!

 

By the way, bad coordinates are not limited to newbies. I'm working now with one of my home region's most veteran geocachers. For some reason, it's taken him four tries to get the coordinates right, and I'm still not convinced. He says it's a new urban parklet; Google Street view shows an overgrown vacant lot between two businesses. At what point do I just give in and publish? I need to move on to the next cache review.

I would never look at Google Earth and say that what I see is correct.

Those images can be up to five years old. It is a big misconeption that the images are current. Today there may be homes or a business where a field or woods once stood. I once made a hide at a culdesac. Google Earth showed a farm field. Two months latter image was updated to show the road.

The Feds do not want current images on Google or other such map services.

That would be a big security issue at this time.

 

I don't know how often Google Earth images are updated, but Street View images can be dated. When looking at Street View, there is an "Image capture" note in the bottom right corner that shows what month/year the image was taken. Some images I've come across are only a few months old, while some are several years old. I often will check Google Earth and Street View when heading to caches in unfamiliar territory. It seems especially helpful to scout potential parking options.

 

From the google.com site: https://support.google.com/maps/answer/2789536?hl=en

 

"Google Maps uses the same satellite information as Google Earth. Most of the images are about 1 to 3 years old."

 

Google has been using a mechanism for awhile now where, when viewing Satellite view the images may be coming from snapshots over a long period of time. For areas which have a lot of cloud cover, you might get one tile on the ap from a snapshot in May and on another part of the map it may use an image taken in April. It uses some sort algorithm to determine which image for each tile is the best and then stitches them together to show the entire map. That's done at multiple zoom levels.

 

 

 

Link to comment

From the google.com site: https://support.google.com/maps/answer/2789536?hl=en

 

"Google Maps uses the same satellite information as Google Earth. Most of the images are about 1 to 3 years old."

 

While this may be generally true, there are situations where the two are clearly out of sync, even at the same zoom level. My experience suggests that GM is usually updated before GE, and GM may contain seasonal updates not conducted on GE. For example, in areas where there are many high resolution layers available, Maps may use a winter view in winter, a spring view in spring and summer, and a fall view in autumn. I have not seen that behavior with Google Earth.

Link to comment

What about a short, online quiz before placing caches? That would help.

 

Oh, you mean like the checkbox that you have to check that says "I've read the cache placement guidelines and agree to them."? :)

 

Not sure how much of a difference it would make, but perhaps expanding the text for that checkbox to be more explicit would help. For example, "I've read the cache placement guidelines (ie, cache permanence, maintenance requirements, land permissions, etc) and agree to abide by them." That extra info might stir some thoughts in the CO's heads, instead of being just a rubber-stamp.

 

Or it might have no effect at all. dry.gif

 

I suspect the latter. The longer you make the statement, the easier it is for people's eyes to glaze over and just mindlessly check the box.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm an educator, and I think education is the solution to everything. But in this case, I don't think there's any good way to "ensure" that new cachers know what they're doing other than by letting them do it and evaluating the results. I suspect that the number of new cachers who screw up is relatively small in comparison with the number of new cachers who get it right ... and a large percentage of those who don't get it right the first time will get it right in future placements. (Take it from a cacher who screwed up his first hide.)

 

My dear old country patent attorney friend has a saying: bad cases make bad law. I think that's the case here.

 

Of course ... your mileage may vary.

Link to comment

What about a short, online quiz before placing caches? That would help.

 

Oh, you mean like the checkbox that you have to check that says "I've read the cache placement guidelines and agree to them."? :)

 

Not sure how much of a difference it would make, but perhaps expanding the text for that checkbox to be more explicit would help. For example, "I've read the cache placement guidelines (ie, cache permanence, maintenance requirements, land permissions, etc) and agree to abide by them." That extra info might stir some thoughts in the CO's heads, instead of being just a rubber-stamp.

 

Or it might have no effect at all. dry.gif

 

I suspect the latter. The longer you make the statement, the easier it is for people's eyes to glaze over and just mindlessly check the box.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm an educator, and I think education is the solution to everything. But in this case, I don't think there's any good way to "ensure" that new cachers know what they're doing other than by letting them do it and evaluating the results.

 

A few years ago I was at a technical conference and the keynote speaker said:

 

"As a programmer if a program should be written as a solution to a technical issue and the answer will always be yes."

 

He then went on to describe some technical issues and existing solutions that advocated that addressed the issue.

 

When the topic of taking a quiz before being able to submit a cache listing has come up in the past, many have argued against it because they didn't like the idea of a test in general. As I see it, the purpose of a quiz isn't to ensure that the new cache submitters answer all the questions correctly, but to educate users before placing a cache.

Link to comment
As I see it, the purpose of a quiz isn't to ensure that the new cache submitters answer all the questions correctly, but to educate users before placing a cache.
Pretty much. If new cache owners fail the test, then they can just retake it until they pass it. I wouldn't expect anyone to need more than a few attempts to get 10 of 10 answers correct. In the meantime, they've been introduced to a number of basic concepts that are important to cache ownership.
Link to comment
As I see it, the purpose of a quiz isn't to ensure that the new cache submitters answer all the questions correctly, but to educate users before placing a cache.
Pretty much. If new cache owners fail the test, then they can just retake it until they pass it. I wouldn't expect anyone to need more than a few attempts to get 10 of 10 answers correct. In the meantime, they've been introduced to a number of basic concepts that are important to cache ownership.

 

So, let's run with this.

 

A newbie places a cache out there and creates the listing for it ... but somewhere along the way, being a newbie, they encounter the quiz that's supposed to either educate them about cache placement or confirm that they've already been educated about cache placement. Suppose that during that process, they learn that their cache placement is already invalid, because of something they just learned.

 

Which seems more likely: the newbie stops the cache listing process and goes back out to the cache site to "fix" the problem (whatever it was), or the newbie just clicks "OK" and lists the bad cache anyways? I honestly don't know which result would be more likely.

Link to comment

What about a short, online quiz before placing caches? That would help.

 

Oh, you mean like the checkbox that you have to check that says "I've read the cache placement guidelines and agree to them."? :)

 

There's no fool-proof system. Occasionally, bad cache listings get through. As others have said ... that's what FTF hounds are for. :)

 

No,,, maybe something like actually taking an online quiz where the person submits answers before they can even move to the cache submit page. If they fail, oh well. :lol:

Link to comment
As I see it, the purpose of a quiz isn't to ensure that the new cache submitters answer all the questions correctly, but to educate users before placing a cache.
Pretty much. If new cache owners fail the test, then they can just retake it until they pass it. I wouldn't expect anyone to need more than a few attempts to get 10 of 10 answers correct. In the meantime, they've been introduced to a number of basic concepts that are important to cache ownership.

 

So, let's run with this.

 

A newbie places a cache out there and creates the listing for it ... but somewhere along the way, being a newbie, they encounter the quiz that's supposed to either educate them about cache placement or confirm that they've already been educated about cache placement. Suppose that during that process, they learn that their cache placement is already invalid, because of something they just learned.

 

Which seems more likely: the newbie stops the cache listing process and goes back out to the cache site to "fix" the problem (whatever it was), or the newbie just clicks "OK" and lists the bad cache anyways? I honestly don't know which result would be more likely.

 

The bolded part may not happen with the quiz, but it cannot happen without it.

Link to comment

Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the game to simply contact the cache owners and voice your concerns rather than drag newbies into the Forum where you could actually put them on the hot plate and rather than encourage them put them off being part of the game. You and I were both newbies once! Would you have been happy reading about one of your first cache hides in such a way! I know I wouldn't have been.

Link to comment

I found the first cache listing (can't find the other 2, were they re-tracted?). I noticed that the CO started Saturday, 26 September 2015, then placed their cache 10/13/2015. Less than a month later.

A wait period of 3 months (maybe 2 months) might help. Give people time to get use to the game, learn how to use the app, hopefully figure out how to get good coordinates. I think hiders should show some interest in the game i.e. some participation and some staying power. They need to get past the honeymoon phase. It will be interesting to see if this CO monitors the cache 3 months from now.

 

It's a shame that the CO sent people to this flower bed at Halloway Hall. No hint either. Took the CO 3 days to update the coordinates which appear to be in the bushes 101.1 feet away, maybe the bushes where the person in photo is walking. I wonder if anyone stepped through the flower bed, (they may have assumed the CO has permission to plant there).

 

57ca1442-136a-4c0e-8a08-676183ebf826_l.jpg

 

colleda user_popup.png

Perhaps a question to be answered before submitting for review. i.e. "How did you determine the coordinates for this cache?"<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">I almost always include in the reviewer note how I obtained coordinates. e.g Make of GPS device, Averaging, number of days, and weather conditions.

 

This suggestion might help. I would add:

  • Smart phone - make and model
  • App used to obtain coordinates

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I never meant this to deterirate into a discussion about how many finds constitutes a cachers being experienced or qualified for hiding caches......I only used Groundspeaks statement.

 

Education should be the best solution. How to Get Accurate Coordinates ( http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=673 ) is already on gc.com but I'm guessing that many newbies have NOT read it.

 

Googles Maps (and other maps) might not be useful in many situations but are a tool that could be used in some situations to continue a conversation with a newbie about cache placement)

 

I sure all newbies want to have good coords and most will try to learn.

 

In 2 of my examples (after DNFs/NA were posted), the CO came back with:

-"I moved it closer to the original coordinates. Sorry for the misconception."

This makes me wonder what they meant by closer....there was no hiding spot within 50 ft of listed coords.

-"sorry about coordinates, will try to fix, meanwhile, we'll give a hint....."

 

I know that several other experienced caches and I have tried contacting a particular new cacher about several things including bad coords, logging a find on their own cache, claiming FTF when they were 3rd or 4th to find, caches they hid that became archived before they were ever found (nobody was able to find them). With few exceptions we received NO reply or give me a break.

 

Not all newbies are bad, not all experienced cachers are good but my experience has been that there are a larger number of new cachers in the recent past that have had lousy coords.

Link to comment

I found the first cache listing (can't find the other 2, were they re-tracted?). I noticed that the CO started Saturday, 26 September 2015, then placed their cache 10/13/2015. Less than a month later.

A wait period of 3 months (maybe 2 months) might help. Give people time to get use to the game, learn how to use the app, hopefully figure out how to get good coordinates. I think hiders should show some interest in the game i.e. some participation and some staying power. They need to get past the honeymoon phase. It will be interesting to see if this CO monitors the cache 3 months from now.

 

All three caches have active cache listings and can be found using the GC Codes and coord.info links.

 

Besides the first one you noted, the other two CO's had accounts that were less than a week old. I agree that a time requirement might be more effective than sheer find count. I recall it's been mentioned before in other thread(s).

Link to comment

Looking at the account of a (formerly) local cacher. Member from late 2012 through early 2015. Currently inactive.

Six caches found. Well, two of her own. Those are two of the four finds listed on her account. The other two must have been duplicates, or deleted. Forty-two caches hidden in 2014. All archived. Never maintained. All micros in shopping malls/business parking lots. Some lasted two weeks. A few almost made it one year!

So, not a 'new' cacher, but not a dedicated cacher. But certainly not the type of cacher who should be hiding forty-two caches.

Link to comment

Based on clear trends in history and the declared intent of Groundspeak, I think there should be a question mark at the end of this subject, and the bottom line answer is: No.

 

As one of the more senior and experienced caches in your area, perhaps you could provide some guidance and mentoring to these new players. Eight years ago, when I hid our first cache that turned out to be terrible, the other local cachers were kind enough to do that for me rather than call me out in the forums and expect Groundspeak to change the rules.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

Based on clear trends in history and the declared intent of Groundspeak, I think there should be a question mark at the end of this subject, and the bottom line answer is: No.

 

As one of the more senior and experienced caches in your area, perhaps you could provide some guidance and mentoring to these new players. Eight years ago, when I hid our first cache that turned out to be terrible, the other local cachers were kind enough to do that for me rather than call me out in the forums and expect Groundspeak to change the rules.

 

Nicely said.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...