Community conversation about geocache quality

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

But you still definitely log caches you haven't found.

 

Do you log caches, when you are out with other geocachers and you were not the one to find it? Do you log puzzle caches, when someone else solved it, but you happened to be with them when it was found, whether you are the one who found that or not, because you couldn't have found it without solving the puzzle? If you don't log it until you have solved it yourself, is it then fair to return and log it, if the other person found the cache and showed you where it was, as technically, you didn't find the cache?

[+Team DEMP]

1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

But you still definitely log caches you haven't found.

 

Do you log caches, when you are out with other geocachers and you were not the one to find it? Do you log puzzle caches, when someone else solved it, but you happened to be with them when it was found, whether you are the one who found that or not, because you couldn't have found it without solving the puzzle? If you don't log it until you have solved it yourself, is it then fair to return and log it, if the other person found the cache and showed you where it was, as technically, you didn't find the cache?

 

Not finding the cache and obviously not signing the log can't be a find. 

 

Being part of a group is a separate discussion, though as a group, not finding the cache and obviously not signing the log can't be a find. 

[+Goldenwattle]

4 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

 

Not finding the cache and obviously not signing the log can't be a find. 

 

Being part of a group is a separate discussion, though as a group, not finding the cache and obviously not signing the log can't be a find. 

To me it is no different. I am finished with this. I think this discussion has got silly, which is why I asked equally silly questions, but at least I attempted to answer those put to me, and not just dismiss them as unrelated, or a separate discussion.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Goldenwattle

[+MAS83]

1 minute ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

The two questions are unrelated,  The cacher in question did NOT find the cache.  Enough is said,  The other question is an entirely different question.

 

So the name in the log is Alpha Omega for you?

 

So let's say someone goes deep into the woods, puts his name in the log, along with 5 of his friends that are not present. By your logic, that is okay?

 

In case your reply is that everyone needs to sign their own name; would it then be okay, for him to take the log out of the woods, and have his 5 friends sign it there. Everyone is now in the log, and they signed it themselves. They didn't find it, but are in the log.

 

And yes, I think this are 2 sides of the same issue.

 

Someone not being in a logbook that no longer exists in the game of geocaching, is not as important to have actually been there. Doing the work and having a good time is what is important to me. If a log is there, I absolutely agree that is must be signed to count, but if the log is not present, I really see no harm to allow a find, especially if the cache is a long hike away.

 

I understand we probably will never agree on this, I just hope you will acknowledge different opinions, and be okay with people playing how they like to as long as they don't abuse/break the rules.

[+MAS83]

Just want to add this to expand on my last post:

If the CO has disabled the cache or archived it, then that is another matter, with some leeway for people logging DNF on the day you disable it. But I think it is up to each individual to decide for themselves how they feel about this issue and then act accordingly.

 

It all comes back to people have to stop trying to police how others are enjoying this game. Go geocaching how you want to do it, and ignore how others are doing it. Also if you don't want people to do it on your caches, that is fine by me. Each to their own.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

 

So the name in the log is Alpha Omega for you?

 

So let's say someone goes deep into the woods, puts his name in the log, along with 5 of his friends that are not present. By your logic, that is okay?

 

In case your reply is that everyone needs to sign their own name; would it then be okay, for him to take the log out of the woods, and have his 5 friends sign it there. Everyone is now in the log, and they signed it themselves. They didn't find it, but are in the log.

 

And yes, I think this are 2 sides of the same issue.

 

Someone not being in a logbook that no longer exists in the game of geocaching, is not as important to have actually been there. Doing the work and having a good time is what is important to me. If a log is there, I absolutely agree that is must be signed to count, but if the log is not present, I really see no harm to allow a find, especially if the cache is a long hike away.

 

I understand we probably will never agree on this, I just hope you will acknowledge different opinions, and be okay with people playing how they like to as long as they don't abuse/break the rules.

Well said, but I'm afraid that some will continue to believe there is no way to play this game, but 'their' way. Some people don't agree with flexibility, even though it is not harming the game and nothing is being abused. But hey, didn't I write "I am finished with this" discussion? Out of here.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Depends on the owner. A few do, yes, but I have given permission to log the cache, and I DO maintenance.  It was a long multicache and the person had found all the waypoints, which can take hours. They deserved to log it.  I replaced that cache once I was informed it had fallen from the tree and been mown. (In a sense they found the cache, but scattered about in small pieces. I think they cleaned it up. But no log.) That cache had been there less than a year, so the idea being pushed by some (I think it's a silly idea, even though I do maintain my caches) I would not have discovered this for some months, if not informed by the finder.  We will continue to disagree on this, and we can both choose what we are happy with.

 

Did the cacher ask if he could log it as a find? Did he ask on his public log if he could have a smiley? Did you announce on a public log that you granted this cacher a smiley?

On those special occasions, and when a finder asks, it should be handled discretely. 

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Do you log caches, when you are out with other geocachers and you were not the one to find it?

 

The cache is there. I hope everyone was able to see the cache and pass around the logbook to sign it. If I didn't see the cache and sign the log I would log it as a note, not as a find. Personally, I prefer the huckle buckle method of finding as a group. If the cache is not there the group is supposed to log DNFs (and maybe an NM or NA depending on the previous logs). 

 

 

 

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

10 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Did the cacher ask if he could log it as a find? Did he ask on his public log if he could have a smiley? Did you announce on a public log that you granted this cacher a smiley?

On those special occasions, and when a finder asks, it should be handled discretely. 

He didn't ask, but I was pleased to offer that he log.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, MAS83 said:

It all comes back to people have to stop trying to police how others are enjoying this game. Go geocaching how you want to do it, and ignore how others are doing it.

 

As a cache owner I don't want people to ask me if they can count their DNF as a find. It would put me in an awkward position. If that happened, I might say "Do what you believe in your heart is the right thing." They can do what they want. And I don't have to be a cache owner.

 

[+colleda]

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Depends on the owner. A few do, yes, but I have given permission to log the cache, and I DO maintenance.  It was a long multicache and the person had found all the waypoints, which can take hours. They deserved to log it.  I replaced that cache once I was informed it had fallen from the tree and been mown. (In a sense they found the cache, but scattered about in small pieces. I think they cleaned it up. But no log.) That cache had been there less than a year, so the idea being pushed by some (I think it's a silly idea, even though I do maintain my caches) I would not have discovered this for some months, if not informed by the finder.  We will continue to disagree on this, and we can both choose what we are happy with.

There are mystery caches I've spent many hours trying unsuccesfully to solve. How do I know when I've tried long enough to claim a find? Do I not deserve it after all that time spent?

[+Team Christiansen]

4 hours ago, MAS83 said:

If two geocachers are out geocaching together, should only the person who ACTUALLY find the cache be the only one to sign it? Technically the other didn't find it, his friend did?

 

They both found it. The one you say "ACTUALLY" found it, only found it first between the two. The second one found it as well, whether the friend pointed where it was or just handed it to him. To say otherwise is to insist on a silly game of semantics.

 

But back to the issue of not finding the cache with the owner granting permission to log a Found it, we simply have to decide whether:

• Didn't find it = Didn't find it, or 
• When the cache is missing and CO gives permission, Didn't find it = Found it.

If the second option is to be insisted upon, to maintain integrity, we will need to rename the log options. Maybe "Found it" should be changed to "Participation point for effort" or "Found location."

Or we can just be honest and log Didn't find it when we do not find the cache and log Found it when we actually Found it ("it" being the cache, not the location).

Edited June 28, 2018 by Team Christiansen

[+Team Microdot]

7 hours ago, MAS83 said:

 

I will ask you the same question I asked earlier.

 

If two geocachers are out geocaching together, should only the person who ACTUALLY find the cache be the only one to sign it? Technically the other didn't find it, his friend did?

 

Resorting to semantics will never alter the fact that if there's no cache to be found NOBODY can find it.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, colleda said:

There are mystery caches I've spent many hours trying unsuccesfully to solve. How do I know when I've tried long enough to claim a find? Do I not deserve it after all that time spent?

They found GZ too. But I suspect you understood that.

[+Team Microdot]

6 hours ago, MAS83 said:

Go geocaching how you want to do it, and ignore how others are doing it.

 

Sounds like a solid basis for friendly community building

[+MartyBartfast]

11 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Or you could all just stick to the facts just accept that somebody you don't event know might have logged an iffy find on a cache you will probably never visit.

 

Unsurprisingly, nobody will die.

 

And then just get on with your lives life.

 

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

11 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Or you could all just stick to the facts just accept that somebody you don't event know might have logged an iffy find on a cache you will probably never visit.

 

Unsurprisingly, nobody will die.

 

And then just get on with your lives life.

 

 

Ha - I see what you did there - that's really clever.

 

Perhaps you should print this out and stick it above your computer and then, whenever you wish to expess a viewpoint in a discussion on here, follow your own general advice.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

19 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

To some people it's clearly important enough to falsify their find history...

 

I disagree.  For me,  the number of finds I have doesn't matter.  That means that I'm not going to strive to find as many as caches as possible so that I have a high number on my profile page.  It also means that if there is one cache in ten years that resulted in a +1 on my find count, that's not got bother me either.  To me, geocaching is just a silly game or hobby if you will.  It really isn't the end of the world if a user profiles stats are not 100% accurate.  

[+Team Microdot]

32 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

18 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

To some people it's clearly important enough to falsify their find history...

 

I disagree.  For me,  the number of finds I have doesn't matter.  That means that I'm not going to strive to find as many as caches as possible so that I have a high number on my profile page.  It also means that if there is one cache in ten years that resulted in a +1 on my find count, that's not got bother me either.  To me, geocaching is just a silly game or hobby if you will.  It really isn't the end of the world if a user profiles stats are not 100% accurate.  

 

I'll apologise in advance for this facetiouness but then obviously this just means you're outside the set of some people. That's why I said some people rather than everyone.

 

And the subject we're discussing here is a single cache. Overall find count has no significance.

 

We're talking about how silly it is that in this silly game or hobby some people class a found it log and a smiley face on a single cache they never found as important enough that they will log that found it (that actually wasn't) - and fight for it above all other components of the experience they had.

 

I also believe that the context in which I made that response was someone else saying that, for them, the cache itself wasn't the most important aspect of the overall experience. Perhaps they were thinking that the journey was most important, or the location, or one of a never-ending list of experiential components that the CO wanted the 'finder' to enjoy, and that if they'd had those more important parts of the experience that then not allowing them to post a false found it log was somehow punishing them. I personally can't see how it can be classed as a punishment. If they've had all the important parts of the experience, not having the unimportant find on a cache that isn't there to be found shouldn't matter to them one jot.

 

The mystery is then why someone, having had all the important parts of the experience the CO wanted them to have, doesn't just stick to the facts, rejoice in having had that fantastic experience and happily forget about the smiley on the cache they never found. It seems that having undergone the trial of getting to GZ they are entitled to the find?

 

It seems contradictory to claim the more important and more enjoyable aspects of the experience as a trial, a labour, an expense only when a smiley isn't had at the end - because the cache wasn't there to be found.

 

#BabyWithTheBathWater

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Team Microdot
typo

[+MAS83]

6 hours ago, colleda said:

There are mystery caches I've spent many hours trying unsuccesfully to solve. How do I know when I've tried long enough to claim a find? Do I not deserve it after all that time spent?

 

There is a difference to having the final coordinates and go out and the cache is missing, and just giving up without the final coordinates.

 

If the cache is there, I don't offer DNFs to log a Found It.

[+MAS83]

5 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

They both found it. The one you say "ACTUALLY" found it, only found it first between the two. The second one found it as well, whether the friend pointed where it was or just handed it to him. To say otherwise is to insist on a silly game of semantics.

 

That is how I feel about denying someone the Smiley, because the cache was muggled, and they just happened to be the first one there after that. Insisting on that Found It requiring you to sign something that is not there, and disregarding the effort put in by the geocacher IS a silly game of semantics to me.

[+MAS83]

Also just realized that this whole discussion is probably Off Topic, and since we will probably never agree, I will stop discussing the etiquette on how to handle DNFs in this thread.

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

 

That is how I feel about denying someone the Smiley, because the cache was muggled, and they just happened to be the first one there after that. Insisting on that Found It requiring you to sign something that is not there, and disregarding the effort put in by the geocacher IS a silly game of semantics to me.

 

Your logic is completely backwards.

 

1. The cache was there to be found and they didn't find it = DNF
2. The cache was not there to be found  and they didn't find it = FOUND

Makes no sense.

 

As long as the cache remains enabled there will ALWAYS be someone there who is the first one there after it's been muggled - it's just one of the risks of the game and, I have to say part of what MAKES it a game.

 

Remove what MAKES a game a game and you no longer have a game at all. You have nothing better than a process which has exactly the same outcome whatever happens and that isn't a game.

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

14 hours ago, MAS83 said:

And who are they hurting? I really don't care about couchloggers.

 

What you're saying is "I don't care that some people lack integrity."

[Keystone]

19 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

Also just realized that this whole discussion is probably Off Topic, and since we will probably never agree, I will stop discussing the etiquette on how to handle DNFs in this thread.

I agree!  Debates about what constitutes a find and what constitutes a DNF are only tangentially related to the subject of geocache quality.  I'm declaring an end to that tangent.  Future replies of this nature will be hidden from view, so that the thread can get back on topic.

[+justintim1999]

18 hours ago, MAS83 said:

 

I am pretty sure that people that doesn't care that their caches are in poor condition, doesn't care about an arbitrary score either.

True but at least I have a quick way to see what I may be up against.  Besides I think most cache owners would take pride in having a favorable owner score. 

[+schmittfamily]

So back on cache quality....

 

One question I have is what do cachers do now to select which caches they search for?

 

I consider us to be pretty selective cachers - we definitely have smileys intermixed with unfound caches all over our map.

We use cache type, favorite points, cache description, and recent logs as our filters when deciding what to look for.

I am not sure I would use an "Owner Score" as a filter.

I don't see how an algorithm attaching a score to an owner would say more about the quality of a particular cache than the current tools we have.

 

[+cerberus1]

9 minutes ago, schmittfamily said:

So back on cache quality....

One question I have is what do cachers do now to select which caches they search for?

 

I used to go strictly by terrain, as most seemed a bit better in condition simply because they aren't accessed often. 

Never looked at favorite points, as many we see are simply for the FTF, fun they had with others in a group (not really having anything to do with the cache itself...), or a friend of the CO.

 - Turned out I was missing out on many good caches because some COs didn't feel the terrain on a trail, no matter what type, were higher than 2. 

 

Now I look at maps, and concentrate on what's in a large patch of green. 

I look at caches singly, reading all descriptions and logs, and pick which I'll do from the batch I looked into. The caches I head to now don't have issues in logs, so "hoping" that they're in decent shape when I get there too.

 - Many realize that most cachers rarely mention issues, and even rarer to see an action log (NM,NA), so sometimes I'm surprised, but the majority have had far less issues than when we did urban, roadside, and similar placed "just because they can". 

[+coachstahly]

On 6/26/2018 at 6:35 PM, L0ne.R said:

When planning a geocaching trip to parts unknown, I really want a way to filter for cache owners who are still playing (logged into the site in the last year), have been hiding caches for more than 1 year (this way I hopefully filter out those fly by night cachers), and those who have never received a reviewer disable or archival. I wonder if a third party app could do this?

 

I wish there was a way to filter for hiders whose posted coordinates, posted sizes and D/T ratings are accurate. And for those hiders who respond quickly to problems. 

 

Just because they're still playing does NOT guarantee that you'll find the type of cache you want to find - a small, well-maintained cache.  There's no guarantee it will be what you desire, just because they're still playing.  Although it infrequently happens, I've found a couple well done caches placed by first time hiders who haven't been playing much more than 3 months.  One year of hiding or more does NOT guarantee that you'll find the type of cache you desire.  Eliminating anyone who has had a cache disabled or archived by a reviewer also possibly eliminates hides that might be the type of cache you want to find.  It might be that they placed a cache in another state but for various reasons, might have been unable to maintain it and let the reviewer archive it, but the caches they own close to home are in great shape.  Coordinates accurate?  What level of accuracy are you looking for?  D/T is somewhat subjective, depending on your location around the world and what some might consider an accurate D/T rating, others would consider wrongly rated.  Do they armchair their OM logs or actually go out and do OM?  Define "quickly".

 

There's no such thing as a guarantee when it comes to geocaching, but it appears that's what you're asking for.  In a perfect world, caches are sized appropriately, coords are good, maintenance is perfunctory and perpetual, D/T ratings are the same across the world, hiders who have hidden longer have "better" caches.  Problem is, we don't live in a perfect world so this is a pipe dream.  The ONLY time some of these things come into play is when a new cache is placed, but even then, there's no guarantee that their coords are good, the D/T ratings are accurate, or any other variety of things that might turn the experience in either direction - toward the positive or toward the negative.  For me, that's half the fun of geocaching - you are never quite sure what you're going to get.  I filter out caches I want to find when traveling and hope for the best but understand that not every cache I find will be to my liking.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

True but at least I have a quick way to see what I may be up against.  Besides I think most cache owners would take pride in having a favorable owner score. 

 

True. 

And unfortunately if it's visible then someone will want to make it a competition and many will game the system to up that score.

I'd like it have owner filtering options. Perhaps:

• Filter for owners who never got an NAs. (or no more than 1 NA) 
• Filter for owners with less than 2 NMs
• Filter for owners who have logged in in the last year
• Filter out owners who have had caches archived by a reviewer
• Filter out owners who have not responded to reviewer disables

 

 

[+Distu]

bonjour

 

une cache de qualité pour moi c'est avant tout une cache en bon état , bien sur si en plus elle est située sur un site qui vaut le coup d'oeil ( mais tout le monde ne peut pas habiter sur le littoral ou souvent les paysages sont magnifiques avec une fréquentation importante pourvoyeuse de PF)

 

une cache de mauvaise qualité c'est l'inverse , combien de fois on tombe sur des caches dont le logbook est trempé avec des commentaires qui pourtant le signalent, et que dire d'une série de DNF sans que le propriétaire bouge ses fesses pour voir ce qu'il en est

 

oui il devrait y avoir l'inverse des PF pour les propriétaires peu scrupuleux

 

pour moi l'important c'est la MAINTENANCE , dans la région ou je suis il y en a un qui arrose tout le coin mais il ne bouge pas si il y a un problème à quoi bon avoir 5 à 600 caches si on les laisse à l'abandon

[+coachstahly]

On 6/26/2018 at 11:18 AM, justintim1999 said:

Container - Solid or unique container

Presentation-  Camo or how the cache was hidden 

Location-  Unique area or location

 

I have a triangle puzzle that has a camoed triangular container hidden in a city park.  The park itself isn't really that great a park and it's really not much more than a pocket park with a small playground.  It's just another run of the mill city park.  However, it is triangular and fits the cache concept perfectly.  There's nothing unique about it other than the fact that it's triangular.  There would be very little reason to visit this park on its own merits.  It just so happened that I came upon it as I was driving through the area, which is a working class, urban area with its fair share of abandoned factories and strip malls and the occasional abandoned house.  It's not unsafe, but it's certainly NOT a place I'd tell a visitor to go see because it's a can't miss experience.

 

It's all so subjective.  The container isn't a watertight container, but does have clips to help secure it against the elements.  It's hidden inside the park sign, so is somewhat protected from some elements, and attached with velcro.  It's painted brown (rather than the pink it was originally) to match the wood as closely as I could manage.  The park isn't really a great park, nor is the location.  On their own merits, all three come up a bit lacking when quantified based on the list above.  Placing this container someplace else doesn't really merit the quality cache description, as described by most everyone here.  The puzzle isn't anything great on its own merit.  The park, with a regular cache, wouldn't really be a unique area either.  Taken altogether, though, they at least offer up some semblance of quality, IMO.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, schmittfamily said:

So back on cache quality....

 

One question I have is what do cachers do now to select which caches they search for?

 

 

1

 

I use to use PQs extensively. Filtering using multiple attributes. 

I also used Fav votes. 

But gradually over the years the filtering wasn't working for me. The caches were mostly unmaintained messes, often throwdowns. You can't filter those out. 

I'd look for caches along trails but most of those were power style caches (pill bottles mostly). 

Favorite points are given to the caches I like -- a dry swag size cache in a nice spot like a forest or by a water feature. 

 

So then I drastically reduced my geocaching but every once in a while I'd be in an area and wonder if there was anything worthwhile nearby. 

I fire up the app, filter for what I like, and read the first 5-10 then usually quit. First, 8 out 10 are actually micros (I filter out micros and other). 7 out of 10 there's something wrong with cache (it's missing, it's a throwdown, it's wet, it's moldy, it's broken, it's in a field of nettles or poison ivy, it's in a dumpy area).

 

Now when I'm out driving and I pass on old cemetery I may stop and check the app to see if there's something there worth looking for. I lucked out last month and found a good one, worth recommending to other by giving it a favourite vote. An authentic Lock & Lock, sandwich size, nice classic hide, logbook not logsheet, decent swag in the cache and everything was in good shape and to top things off there was a pen and pencil in the cache. I want to filter for more of these kinds of caches. 

 

[+thebruce0]

16 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

• Filter for owners who never got an NAs. (or no more than 1 NA) 
• Filter for owners with less than 2 NMs
• Filter for owners who have logged in in the last year
• Filter out owners who have had caches archived by a reviewer
• Filter out owners who have not responded to reviewer disables

• I was going to say what about legitimate unexpected and unavoidable circumstances prompting a NA? But you give  a bit of leeway for that with 1 allowance. Still, those can happen to anyone any time (that is, it has zero bearing on owner or cache quality)
• NM can certainly and legitimately be relevant to the cache and not an owner error. More relevant might be no NM followed by non-owner disable or NA.
• We all know last login date doesn't necessarily prove owner activity or attention
• That's a good one
• Also a good one

 

Maybe we should have a personalized, customizable filter algorithm where we can weigh certain career habits of a cache owner differently. Then like a PQ, it can be calculated periodically, and shown sort of like favourite points, whenever we view a cache. Then we know the 'score' for an owner or cache is very fine-tuned to our own preference, and isn't forced on everyone else who may value or dislike different things. That score would also be private but completely relevant, so not gameable and not publicly derogatory. Some owners might score higher for some cachers, and very low for others.

But that feature would be a pipe dream...

 

[+cerberus1]

27 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I'd like it have owner filtering options. Perhaps:

• Filter for owners who never got an NAs. (or no more than 1 NA) 
• Filter for owners with less than 2 NMs
• Filter for owners who have logged in in the last year
• Filter out owners who have had caches archived by a reviewer
• Filter out owners who have not responded to reviewer disables

 

Don't you think "2 NMs" is stretching a bit ?

Heck, I had a NM once because I didn't have a pencil in a cache.  The folks before that guy stole them all  (and the sharpeners as well).

One, a NM by someone who said they went "with an experienced cacher" and couldn't find it.

 - Neither used their GPS, as that "experienced finder" found it two years before it was moved 300'.  Sheesh...

If folks used action logs, many 1.5/1.5 would get hit just because there's many more people accessing that D/T rating.

 

You don't think it's possible for an owner to never log ?

Edited June 28, 2018 by cerberus1
addification ;)

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, schmittfamily said:

One question I have is what do cachers do now to select which caches they search for?

Sometimes, I'm fairly omnivorous, especially when I'm near one of my blast zones, or when I was maintaining a streak, or when I'm doing some impromptu geocaching on a trip.

 

Other times, I use PQs and/or the search function to identify caches that are likely to be more interesting.

 

If I'm planning a trip, then I often search for puzzle caches in advance. The ones I solve before the trip go on my list of caches I plan to seek. I also seek out caches with lots of Favorites, and especially non-traditional types.

[+L0ne.R]

26 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Don't you think "2 NMs" is stretching a bit ?

 

 I should have been more clear. I want to filter for cache owners who have no more then 2 uncleared NMs on their list of cache hides. Stringent? Yes. But I'd like the option to filter by number of NMs in a hider's current active caches.   If I find it gives me too few caches to choose from I'll up it to 3 NMs. 

[+cerberus1]

16 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I should have been more clear. I want to filter for cache owners who have no more then 2 uncleared NMs on their list of cache hides. Stringent? Yes. But I'd like the option to filter by number of NMs in a hider's current active caches.   If I find it gives me too few caches to choose from I'll up it to 3 NMs. 

 

Uncleared I could see maybe.  I do believe though, that your expectations are unrealistic. 

We see caches in popular parks with low D/T ratings receive more NM logs than others simply because they're accessed more than similar caches miles around them.   Simple math.

 - They're the first that new people find, and the only ones that the free app allows. 

A lot of cleared NMs really isn't a "slight" on that CO.    He's introducing new members to the hobby and contributing a lot, really.

Edited June 28, 2018 by cerberus1

[+cerberus1]

Preview went odd on me...

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by cerberus1

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I should have been more clear. I want to filter for cache owners who have no more then 2 uncleared NMs on their list of cache hides. Stringent? Yes. But I'd like the option to filter by number of NMs in a hider's current active caches.   If I find it gives me too few caches to choose from I'll up it to 3 NMs. 

 

Uncleared I could see maybe.  I do believe though, that your expectations are unrealistic. 

We see caches in popular parks with low D/T ratings receive more NM logs than others simply because they're accessed more than similar caches miles around them.   Simple math.

 - They're the first that new people find, and the only ones that the free app allows. 

A lot of cleared NMs really isn't a "slight" on that CO.    He's introducing new members to the hobby and contributing a lot, really.

 

Another two aspects that can help towards the intent of this filter - how about a percentage of active NM on a hider's caches. If they only have 3 caches, 1 NM might be enough. If they have 300, 2 might not be nearly enough.

Also as mentioned earlier, take it to the next state of needing repair - since 5 caches could all get a NM in a day, that could remove all that CO's caches before they even have a chance to address them. Rather, it should only consider unaddressed active NM after a certain amount of time like a week or two to a month (tho by then it should move to reviewer attention)

Edited June 28, 2018 by thebruce0

[+cerberus1]

From Insights...

This forum has a number of discussions on the quality of various kinds of containers. Can we get those into the Help Center in some manner? So, what if portions of the Help Center were 'user manageable'? What if the section on cache containers had a link to a wiki site devoted to pros and cons of cache containers. HQ would be the initial contributors, but could designate others to be able to create and edit content.

 

The site already has similar in the Help Center, though if you notice it's their stuff from shop.   

 

We all have probably seen examples of a container that's a piece of carp in FLA, but may be a standard in AZ.

Some states even have differing weather conditions within, with some extreme at times (NH is one). 

I don't know how HQ would be able to accomplish a "what works good here..." thing by state/country. 

Doubtful HQ would consider allowing a wiki-like changeable content, as it'd simply be one's opinion.

 - There was a thread here once with someone saying altoids containers were awesome.   

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

48 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Another two aspects that can help towards the intent of this filter - how about a percentage of active NM on a hider's caches. If they only have 3 caches, 1 NM might be enough. If they have 300, 2 might not be nearly enough.

Also as mentioned earlier, take it to the next state of needing repair - since 5 caches could all get a NM in a day, that could remove all that CO's caches before they even have a chance to address them. Rather, it should only consider unaddressed active NM after a certain amount of time like a week or two to a month (tho by then it should move to reviewer attention)

 

All of that sounds good to me. Make it so GC HQ.

 

[+schmittfamily]

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

• Filter for owners who never got an NAs. (or no more than 1 NA) 
• Filter for owners with less than 2 NMs
• Filter for owners who have logged in in the last year
• Filter out owners who have had caches archived by a reviewer
• Filter out owners who have not responded to reviewer disables

 

 

 

We have a trip coming up this weekend so I manually tried your filters against the list we came up with for the weekend.

 

One of the caches on our list is a webcam cache with 180+ favorite points.   

It would have been filtered out by this list because the owner appears to be a reviewer and has disabled/archived a few of their caches with their reviewer account.

 

Another two are a pair of traditional caches at the same exit along the highway with 110+ and 260+ favorite points.

They would have been filtered because the owner hasn't been on since March.   In that time they have one cache with a NM due to the trackable inventory being wrong and another NM from a cacher with 1 find saying a cache was too hard. 

 

We have a few clumps of challenge caches on this list.

They also would be filtered because of a couple NM logs on unrelated caches from 2015 after a flood hit the area.

 

A couple unknowns would have been filtered because the cache owner has a habit of letting their event caches get archived by Groundspeak HQ.

 

[+MAS83]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

True but at least I have a quick way to see what I may be up against.  Besides I think most cache owners would take pride in having a favorable owner score. 

 

I agree that owners who care about their hides being in good shape will take pride in their score, but they are not the problem. A score system will have 0 impact on them, or the people who visits their caches.

 

It's the "bad" caches and their owners that is the problem, and I don't see how a score system is going to do anything. What you are suggesting, as I read it, is to have the option it to filter out bad caches and/or owners when your are doing pocket queries? I must admit, I don't use PQs as I use my phone for caching, so not sure if this applies, but can't you filter on Disabled and FP?

 

But anyways, I am all for you having the power to filter out caches you don't want, and I would like for you to have as many filters available to your disposal, but a cache score/owner score adds nothing a proper filter system can't handle, without all the negativity a score system would bring.

 

What scares me is that a lot of people in both of these threads seems very determined to split the community into separate little factions, I prefer unity and make geocaching appealing to a wide audience as possible, and then provide the tools for each and every geocacher to play it their way.

[+MAS83]

6 hours ago, schmittfamily said:

So back on cache quality....

 

One question I have is what do cachers do now to select which caches they search for?

 

I consider us to be pretty selective cachers - we definitely have smileys intermixed with unfound caches all over our map.

We use cache type, favorite points, cache description, and recent logs as our filters when deciding what to look for.

I am not sure I would use an "Owner Score" as a filter.

I don't see how an algorithm attaching a score to an owner would say more about the quality of a particular cache than the current tools we have.

 

 

This is an interesting feedback for me, as I filter out nothing, I don't even put caches on ignore, I want to know about every cache in my area.

 

So to have someone who actually filters out certain caches bring in a fresh view is nice.

 

Are there any filters you would like to add, to better find the caches you want to see?

[+MAS83]

6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I used to go strictly by terrain, as most seemed a bit better in condition simply because they aren't accessed often. 

Never looked at favorite points, as many we see are simply for the FTF, fun they had with others in a group (not really having anything to do with the cache itself...), or a friend of the CO.

 - Turned out I was missing out on many good caches because some COs didn't feel the terrain on a trail, no matter what type, were higher than 2. 

 

Now I look at maps, and concentrate on what's in a large patch of green. 

I look at caches singly, reading all descriptions and logs, and pick which I'll do from the batch I looked into. The caches I head to now don't have issues in logs, so "hoping" that they're in decent shape when I get there too.

 - Many realize that most cachers rarely mention issues, and even rarer to see an action log (NM,NA), so sometimes I'm surprised, but the majority have had far less issues than when we did urban, roadside, and similar placed "just because they can". 

 

That is good feedback, are there any filters you would like to see added to the site?

 

I would think a better integration of the NM system would help. So when you make a NM you can select from a wider range of options, and then people can filter caches that have certain NM logs (like wet log), without a following OM log to indicate it has been fixed.

 

That way people can decide what kind of NM they are okay with (full log, damp log etc), and filter out the ones they are not okay with (wet log, broken container etc.)

 

That also gives the helpful players that wants to give back to the community a chance to filter all caches that needs a new log, and then go out and service those caches for the CO.

[+MAS83]

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

• I was going to say what about legitimate unexpected and unavoidable circumstances prompting a NA? But you give  a bit of leeway for that with 1 allowance. Still, those can happen to anyone any time (that is, it has zero bearing on owner or cache quality)
• NM can certainly and legitimately be relevant to the cache and not an owner error. More relevant might be no NM followed by non-owner disable or NA.
• We all know last login date doesn't necessarily prove owner activity or attention
• That's a good one
• Also a good one

 

Maybe we should have a personalized, customizable filter algorithm where we can weigh certain career habits of a cache owner differently. Then like a PQ, it can be calculated periodically, and shown sort of like favourite points, whenever we view a cache. Then we know the 'score' for an owner or cache is very fine-tuned to our own preference, and isn't forced on everyone else who may value or dislike different things. That score would also be private but completely relevant, so not gameable and not publicly derogatory. Some owners might score higher for some cachers, and very low for others.

But that feature would be a pipe dream...

 

 

 

As long as it is personal I am up for anything. I just don't want the game to change for me, because someone else doesn't like something. But I think just giving people LOADS of different filters to play with is the best approach. It is easy, all the control is in the hands of each individual geocacher, and their choices/preferences have no influence over others.

 

I personally find as much as possible, and sometimes I had little expectations for a cache I was about to visit, due to several factors that would have made me filter out the cache if I were filtering out caches to begin with, and then found something good. Either a nice location, a funny little cache that brought a smile on my face or just something that made me remember that cache. And for that reason I will never filter out anything, but I would very much like the option for others to do it. Geocaching is a great way to get out and have fun, and if we can give people the tools to maximize their fun and get out more, that is a win in my book.

 

[+cerberus1]

7 minutes ago, MAS83 said:

 

That is good feedback, are there any filters you would like to see added to the site?

I would think a better integration of the NM system would help. So when you make a NM you can select from a wider range of options, and then people can filter caches that have certain NM logs (like wet log), without a following OM log to indicate it has been fixed.

That way people can decide what kind of NM they are okay with (full log, damp log etc), and filter out the ones they are not okay with (wet log, broken container etc.)

That also gives the helpful players that wants to give back to the community a chance to filter all caches that needs a new log, and then go out and service those caches for the CO.

 

No.

Since I read all the cache pages of those I'll do  anyway, I've no need of a "NM finder". 

If I come upon a cache that may need a new log until the CO can maintain it himself, I add a RIR strip.

I don't and wouldn't head to caches just to fix someone else's hide, contributing to the issues that created this, and the Insights thread. 

 

[+MAS83]

5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Don't you think "2 NMs" is stretching a bit ?

Heck, I had a NM once because I didn't have a pencil in a cache.  The folks before that guy stole them all  (and the sharpeners as well).

One, a NM by someone who said they went "with an experienced cacher" and couldn't find it.

 - Neither used their GPS, as that "experienced finder" found it two years before it was moved 300'.  Sheesh...

If folks used action logs, many 1.5/1.5 would get hit just because there's many more people accessing that D/T rating.

 

You don't think it's possible for an owner to never log ?

 

I think he is just using examples. A filter with predetermined values is not much of a filter to begin with.

 

The filter would be something like: "COs with X numbers of NM". Then each geocacher can add their own value for X.

[+MAS83]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Another two aspects that can help towards the intent of this filter - how about a percentage of active NM on a hider's caches. If they only have 3 caches, 1 NM might be enough. If they have 300, 2 might not be nearly enough.

Also as mentioned earlier, take it to the next state of needing repair - since 5 caches could all get a NM in a day, that could remove all that CO's caches before they even have a chance to address them. Rather, it should only consider unaddressed active NM after a certain amount of time like a week or two to a month (tho by then it should move to reviewer attention)

 

That's a good catch. I also like the idea of a filter to determine how long a NM log needs to be active before counting as a NM log. For someone 3 days might be enough, for others 2 weeks.