Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Rock Chalk

Community conversation about geocache quality

Recommended Posts

A good quality cache has these characteristics, maybe others but these are the ones that make it a good experience for me.

1. Easy parking, not a shoulder on a busy road.

2. Accurate coordinates, ie, within 15 feet.

3. A clean, maintained container that is water proof.

4. If not obvious, trailhead coordinates.

5. Relatively few muggles around while searching.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's getting tougher:

 

Quote

Suggesting a requirement of at least 100 finds before being allowed to place a cache. Maybe include at least one of each type.

 

For my hypothetical new cacher in Glen Innes (NSW, Australia, population 5000), the distance he or she would have to travel for each non-traditional cache type is:

  • Multi - 63km
  • Mystery - 36km
  • Earthcache - 3km (the area does seem to be blessed with quite a few ECs)
  • LBH - 63km
  • Event - 183km
  • Webcam - 957km
  • Wherigo - 83km
  • Virtual - 104km

These are straight line distances and out there the choice of sealed roads is pretty much limited to just the Gwydir Highway and New England Highway so there'd be a lot more driving than the numbers suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It's getting tougher:

 

 

For my hypothetical new cacher in Glen Innes (NSW, Australia, population 5000), the distance he or she would have to travel for each non-traditional cache type is:

  • Multi - 63km
  • Mystery - 36km
  • Earthcache - 3km (the area does seem to be blessed with quite a few ECs)
  • LBH - 63km
  • Event - 183km
  • Webcam - 957km
  • Wherigo - 83km
  • Virtual - 104km

These are straight line distances and out there the choice of sealed roads is pretty much limited to just the Gwydir Highway and New England Highway so there'd be a lot more driving than the numbers suggest.

Wow! Not an easy task.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Wow! Not an easy task.

 

For someone in Bourke (a medium-sized town in Central NSW), it's a whole lot tougher:

  • Multi - 158km
  • Mystery - 157km
  • Earthcache - 148km
  • LBH - 493km
  • Event - 581km
  • Webcam - 787km
  • Wherigo - 597km
  • Virtual - 392km

There are only 49 caches of any type within a 100km radius of there.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/22/2018 at 12:05 AM, RiddleyWalker said:

I really hate finding a cache filled with utter junk. I always clean them out, and leave either nothing, or replace with some quality stuff (not expensive, just what you, or a kid might like to find).

I have removed broken plastic cutlery, business cards, chewing gum, religious artefacts, golf balls (really? you think that's good ?), bottle tops that have clearly just been picked up from the ground, receipts for various junk, ticket stubs; well you get the picture and I am sure many of you do the same.

I'll agree that some of that is utter junk. I would CITO broken plastic cutlery, chewing gum or other food, receipts, ticket stubs, expired coupons and other trash.

 

But the only thing I trade for is personal signature items left by other geocachers, and sometimes that includes personal "business cards" and things made from bottle tops. And I've paid good money for used golf balls in the past, so I don't consider them trash when they're in a cache. And I haven't seen many religious artifacts in caches, but I wouldn't consider them trash either.

 

One of the comments I've heard/read from cache owners who no longer bother stocking their swag-sized caches with trade items is that they're tired of trade items just vanishing. I wonder how much of that is people trading down, and how much of that is people just taking stuff they consider to be "utter junk".

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

One of the comments I've heard/read from cache owners who no longer bother stocking their swag-sized caches with trade items is that they're tired of trade items just vanishing. I wonder how much of that is people trading down, and how much of that is people just taking stuff they consider to be "utter junk".

 

A friend of mine left six rare cardboard milk-bottle tops in a high-terrain cache,  knowing I was looking for more for a project (in his area, thinking no one would show before me).

Darn if someone didn't get there that evening, and said he "... and removed all the junk too.".

Next morning I find they are indeed missing.  Those cardboard discs were worth around six bucks each.  Figures...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Also, when a DNF is logged and cache has no activity over 3 months or 1 year, it should require validation by cache owner.

 

Sigh. On one of my caches (GC664DZ), the last cacher log was a DNF in May 2017, but it said "The geocaching app decided not to cache the images... spent 10 minutes bush-bashing around WP1... now that I can finally look at the pictures I can see that I wasn't searching in the right spot. Lovely area and I will be back one day to explore more :-)". My cache description has always said you'll likely have no mobile reception here so come prepared with everything you need, so I don't know how a visit from me was supposed to fix that. And yes, I have visited that cache and logged OMs a couple of times since (October 2017 and February 2018), not because of the DNF but just as routine post-school-holidays checks as the reserve often has people illegally camping there at those times. Not all caches are easy to find (that's why we have D/T ratings), not all caches get lots of visits, and not all DNFs indicate a problem that needs a CO response.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Sigh.

 

I really believe it's not much of an issue.     Save the Tums for the 10th.    :)

Poster also mentioned caches outside of 10' are low quality, so not familiar with GPS basics either.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/24/2018 at 12:36 PM, barefootjeff said:

A minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache (100 seems a popular choice, but higher numbers, maybe 500, have support as well). That's all well and good if you live in a big American or European city where there are thousands of caches close at hand to chose from, but what about the rest of the planet? Even here in Australia, caches are thin on the ground once you get away from the larger cities. Take for example Glen Innes in northern NSW, a medium-sized country town with a population of 5000, where there are only 78 caches within an 80km (50 mile) radius. And there are whole countries, like Fiji for example, where there are far less than a hundred caches to be found. It's even tougher for a basic member using only the official app, with its restriction to just traditionals with D and T of 1.5 or less, and even in the well-populated area on the NSW Central Coast where I live, there are only 25 such eligible caches to be had within 10km of home. Introducing this proposal would effectively kill off caching in many parts of the world.

I am one who suggested 500. (I know personally that I did not feel I had found enough caches to have the necessary experience to place one until I had found more than 600 caches.) But I also suggested there should be exceptions allowed for this in areas with no or few caches, or no new caches might be placed.. Most people though who cache, I would speculate, would live in cities with many caches to find and learn from before the need to place their own cache. What is the need to rush to place a cache where there are already many? I know some people's first cache after only finding a few caches can be very good; in fact better than the average cache, but those examples are rare and from my experience people who place caches after only a few finds are likely to have coordinates that are not accurate, place mintie tins (and then call them 'smalls'), or other substandard caches.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I am one who suggested 500. (I know personally that I did not feel I had found enough caches to have the necessary experience to place one until I had found more than 600 caches.) But I also suggested there should be exceptions allowed for this in areas with no or few caches, or no new caches might be placed.. Most people though who cache, I would speculate, would live in cities with many caches to find and learn from before the need to place their own cache. What is the need to rush to place a cache where there are already many? I know some people's first cache after only finding a few caches can be very good; in fact better than the average cache, but those examples are rare and from my experience people who place caches after only a few finds are likely to have coordinates that are not accurate, place mintie tins (and then call them 'smalls'), or other substandard caches.

 

The first population page I found shows that about 65% of Australians live in the capital cities, but it also lumped the Central Coast where I live as part of Greater Sydney even though this is very much a regional area dominated by bushland rather than houses. Indeed, of the 181 caches within 10km of home, only 27 are D/T 1.5 or less traditionals (two of which are PMO), with the majority being multis, mysteries and higher D/T bushland hides. Most of my early finds in 2013 were bushland caches, mainly because that's what most of the caches around here are, and the most common containers were (and are) Sistemas and ammo cans. Many of those early finds are still going strong.

 

I hid my first cache after about 24 finds (GC4CAXV), a 400ml Sistema (listed correctly as a small) in what was at the time a nice bushland reserve with a bit of interesting history from a recent intense storm. It didn't get any FPs but it got 53 finds with no DNFs, NMs or disparaging logs, until I voluntarily archived it a couple of years later after someone dumped a trailer-load of rubbish in the reserve, prompting copycats, and, in the final ironic twist, my cache which was all about fallen trees had a tree fall right on top of it. I learnt a lot from that first hide, though, and I hope that shows in my later hides, all of which have attracted FPs and none of which have yet to get an NM or, heaven forbid, an NA.

 

It took me almost a year to reach 100 finds and three years to reach 500. At around the 400 find mark I hid a mystery cache that went on to win the regional cache of the year in its category and for a couple of years was sitting on 100% FPs (currently it's at 82% from 23 finds). Without wishing to sound immodest, I very much doubt I'd have come up with a cache like that without having had the experience and feedback from my earlier hides.

 

A basic member on the Central Coast would have to make many trips to Sydney or Newcastle to get even 100 finds under their belt, as there just aren't enough caches available to them locally. Yet if HQ did implement that for "city" cachers, it'd probably follow the Australian Bureau of Statistics and include the Central Coast as part of Greater Sydney. Caching is already enough in the doldrums here; doing that would kill it stone dead.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

A minimum number of finds before hiding your own has merit though I think that 500 finds is probably a bit high ,not because I have myself not reached that number but because  from my experience you know a good cache after around 100 particularly if you have finds in different states or countries.

I have around 20 caches in my local area(country Western Australia) which have seen a steady decline in finds over time with the first hide in 2013.

Since the first hide it has become apparent that easily accessible caches .ie on the highway or close to town, get found the most which shows cachers are time poor and seek quick finds.I have no real problem with this unless caches are only just above street rubbish.

It has become apparent to me that geocaching is stagnating to some degree hence Groundspeak initiating this thread about cache quality which is at the heart of a good caching experience whether you are just starting or a veteran cacher.I, mean it would quickly lose its appeal if you were continually extracting soggy log sheets from poorly thought out locations or containers.

Power trails are also questionable.All they do is contribute to a quantity over quality mentality usually with no relativity or meaning to where they are placed.

I do agree with some comments that reviewers give CO,s too much latitude with maintaining caches that are clearly in need of help,maybe this is because of Groundspeak guidelines.

There are a few factors that affect a cachers experience,namely

1.accurate coords.

2.informative cache page description

3.good location

4.appropriate container.

I believe these are the most important cache attributes that will lead me to the cache

In short cache quality needs to improve to continue to attract new  cachers or the pursuit may continue to decline

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The community should return to the roots. When we started several years ago, we helped each other. We brought spare logs, we helped dry or replace wet log sheets or made repairs to the container itself. .

1

 

Whenever I see this type of statement, the poster's stats shows hundreds of hides and multiple red wrenches. 

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Whenever I see this type of statement, the poster's states shows hundreds of hides and multiple red wrenches. 

 

And whenever I see that someone recommends leaving caches without care, the poster have already found all of them.

 

Nowadays, when a geocacher breaks the cache intentionally to get it logged (because do not understand the way it should be opened) I see no effort to fix the damage.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, wandillup wanderer said:

A minimum number of finds before hiding your own has merit though I think that 500 finds is probably a bit high ,not because I have myself not reached that number but because  from my experience you know a good cache after around 100 particularly if you have finds in different states or countries.

 

For someone that lives in an area with a power trail or two finding 100 or even 500 caches might not provide much experience if they're basically finding cookie cutter hides, all intended to be easy to find placed by the same CO.  I'd contend that finding 20 different caches by 20 different COs hidden in different areas would provide more "experience" because they're more likely going to encounter a greater variety of types of contains, styles of hiding, and levels of difficulty.   IMHO, simply using a specific number of finds just isn't practical when you consider that geocaching is a globally played game.  For those that live in the top 20 or so countries with the most amount of caches, finding 100 caches is relatively easy, but it quickly becomes a lot more difficult the further down the list you go, and those are places that could actually benefit from more hides.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'd contend that finding 20 different caches by 20 different COs hidden in different areas would provide more "experience" because they're more likely going to encounter a greater variety of types of contains, styles of hiding, and levels of difficulty.

Even half a dozen varied caches would provide more useful experience than hundreds of fungible film canisters along a rural highway.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be interesting if you were to find an algorithmically determined variety of a handful of cache properties (not a specific list, but various D's, T's, Owners, Types, etc), which could be flexible enough across most any region. And, there could be the exception that you could contact a local reviewer (or HQ) to do a manual review and decide whether to lift the placement limitation if there is in fact fewer than a handful of relatively nearby caches to find. I'd expect that to be rare if the limitation is not too significant. ie, certainly in the range of 20-ish caches.

 

Note I say it would be interesting, not fool-proof ;P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The first several caches I found were ammo cans in parks. My first DNF was a micro.

 

While I was predisposed to seek caches in certain areas, this was also just before powertrails got free reign and urban micros weren't common. The way my caching experience shaped my sense of what geocaching is.

 

Cachers who start out out finding LPCs, GRIMs, or film cans tossed in a bush get a different baseline.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Favorite points were a good way to help point out quality, but those who value quality have fewer finds thus fewer rewards to hand out. Maybe we need some kind of short, simple optional voting system with results that can be sought via PQ based on percentage of votes. Such as:

 

1. Were the cache container & log in good shape?

 

2. Did the cache have good swag?

 

3. Was the cache container creative?

 

4. Was the cache scenic?

 

5. Was the cache educational?

 

All questions Yes or No. Voting only if you log a Find.

 

Thoughts?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Favorite points were a good way to help point out quality, but those who value quality have fewer finds thus fewer rewards to hand out. Maybe we need some kind of short, simple optional voting system with results that can be sought via PQ based on percentage of votes. Such as:

 

1. Were the cache container & log in good shape?

 

2. Did the cache have good swag?

 

3. Was the cache container creative?

 

4. Was the cache scenic?

 

5. Was the cache educational?

 

All questions Yes or No. Voting only if you log a Find.

 

Thoughts?

1

 

Yes. A short survey that includes some examples of quality is a great idea. These 2 would suffice for me:

 

1. Were the cache container & log in good shape? Yes--Meh--No

2. Did you enjoy the location? Yes--Meh--No

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Favorite points were a good way to help point out quality, but those who value quality have fewer finds thus fewer rewards to hand out.

 

Sometimes I go to find a bunch of low quality caches on purpose to get more favorites for high guality caches.  For the same reason I sometimes avoid finding too many top favorited caches in a row. This is so complicated :)

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Favorite points were a good way to help point out quality, but those who value quality have fewer finds thus fewer rewards to hand out. Maybe we need some kind of short, simple optional voting system with results that can be sought via PQ based on percentage of votes. Such as:

 

1. Were the cache container & log in good shape?

 

2. Did the cache have good swag?

 

3. Was the cache container creative?

 

4. Was the cache scenic?

 

5. Was the cache educational?

 

All questions Yes or No. Voting only if you log a Find.

 

Thoughts?

 

For me, the journey to the cache is a greater factor than any of those. A scenic view at a car park wouldn't get an FP from me, but the same view that took me several hours of hiking through forest and rocky outcrops to reach would. Likewise for a creative puzzle cache that took days or weeks of logically nutting everything out, or a multi that took me on an unexpected and memorable journey.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Favorite points were a good way to help point out quality, but those who value quality have fewer finds thus fewer rewards to hand out. Maybe we need some kind of short, simple optional voting system with results that can be sought via PQ based on percentage of votes. Such as:

 

1. Were the cache container & log in good shape?

 

2. Did the cache have good swag?

 

3. Was the cache container creative?

 

4. Was the cache scenic?

 

5. Was the cache educational?

 

All questions Yes or No. Voting only if you log a Find.

 

Thoughts?

The more complicated the questionnaire, the less likely it is to produce relevant data. People are more likely to skip the questionnaire entirely, or to complete it without giving the individual questions much thought.

 

Ultimately, as a cache seeker, all I really care about is whether this is the type of cache I'm likely to enjoy. A referral system doesn't need a complicated questionnaire to figure that out. All it needs is a simple good (thumbs up) or bad (thumbs down) system. Or maybe a good-meh-bad system. The current Favorites system could work, since it's a good-meh system with a limited number of good votes.

 

What's missing is the part of the referral system that correlates my Favorites votes with those of other members, and recommends caches that were enjoyed by people with similar preferences to my own.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, niraD said:

What's missing is the part of the referral system that correlates my Favorites votes with those of other members, and recommends caches that were enjoyed by people with similar preferences to my own.

 

This is very good note. If you prefer diorama caches you should compare your favorite profile to other similar favorited profiles to find more diorama caches. The information is already there, it just needs to be processed and suggestions placed on your dashboard.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Favorite points were a good way to help point out quality, but those who value quality have fewer finds thus fewer rewards to hand out. Maybe we need some kind of short, simple optional voting system with results that can be sought via PQ based on percentage of votes. Such as:

 

1. Were the cache container & log in good shape?

 

2. Did the cache have good swag?

 

3. Was the cache container creative?

 

4. Was the cache scenic?

 

5. Was the cache educational?

 

All questions Yes or No. Voting only if you log a Find.

 

Thoughts?

Sorry, but I think these  questions are too subjective and open to abuse.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Sorry, but I think these  questions are too subjective and open to abuse.

 

 

 

What I've learned from geocaching...everything is open to abuse. 

We wouldn't have any tools if those tools had to be tamper proof. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Whenever I see this type of statement, the poster's stats shows hundreds of hides and multiple red wrenches.

I don't understand this. What is a 'red wrench'? Never heard that term before.

 

Added: I just realised you mean spanner. I actually thought you were referring to a bird, so that's why I was confused. Language differences, that's all :)

Edited by Goldenwattle
Language difference and suddenly got it.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't understand this. What is a 'red wrench'? Never heard that term before.

 

Added: I just realised you mean spanner. I actually thought you were referring to a bird, so that's why I was confused. Language differences, that's all :)

Red wrench = Needs Maintenance.

Is that what a spanner is too? That's a new word to me.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Red wrench = Needs Maintenance.

Is that what a spanner is too? That's a new word to me.

Red spanner = Needs Maintenance

Spanner and wrench is basically the same by my understanding. The word wrench  is used in the US, while spanner is used in most if not all the other English speaking countries. I think sometimes both words are used to give a more specific meaning to a tool in different parts of the world, but not necessarily the same word meaning.

Share this post


Link to post

(definitely OT) "most if not all" the other English speaking countries? I'm Canadian, also never heard "spanner" before :laughing: and that includes films and tv, both domestic and foreign. Ah well, you learn something new every day ;)

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

(definitely OT) "most if not all" the other English speaking countries? I'm Canadian, also never heard "spanner" before :laughing: and that includes films and tv, both domestic and foreign. Ah well, you learn something new every day ;)

 

Well waddya know?

 

From wikipedia:

 

A wrench is a tool used to provide grip and mechanical advantage in applying torque to turn objects—usually rotary fasteners, such as nuts and bolts—or keep them from turning. In Commonwealth English (excluding Canada), spanner is the standard term.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, niraD said:

The more complicated the questionnaire, the less likely it is to produce relevant data. People are more likely to skip the questionnaire entirely, or to complete it without giving the individual questions much thought.

 

Ultimately, as a cache seeker, all I really care about is whether this is the type of cache I'm likely to enjoy. A referral system doesn't need a complicated questionnaire to figure that out. All it needs is a simple good (thumbs up) or bad (thumbs down) system. Or maybe a good-meh-bad system. The current Favorites system could work, since it's a good-meh system with a limited number of good votes.

 

What's missing is the part of the referral system that correlates my Favorites votes with those of other members, and recommends caches that were enjoyed by people with similar preferences to my own.

 

In the insight thread I suggested:

 

 Maybe consider a further "rating" system?   Favourite points are OK, but they only point of the best.    It might help if cachers can grade the caches they find some way, so indicate which are good (but not top 10% good to give a FP), and which are below expectations.    Though I can see this could possibly cause bad feelings for COs if they get poor reviews.   

 

I've thought about it a bit more, and perhaps only make the data visible in increments, e.g. every 5 or 10 logs the ratings get updated.   So the CO can't see Cacher X gave them a "thumbs down", but they can see a total.   

 

Today I use favourites for the "wow" caches.    I seek out quality ones, so I can only use the points for those.   There are lots of others which I consider good, which I will say are good in the logs.   Then there are the few I think are really poor.   This gets tricky, I try to say in my logs what I didn't like without offending.   A somewhat anonymous rating system might help too.     

 

Again I am in two minds about it, but if there are caches which most cachers think are poor, it would be good to be able to record that for 2 reasons.

1.   It might motivate the CO to improve (or remove) it.

2.   Easier for other cachers to avoid it, if they wish

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 4:19 AM, SpiderFinder said:

There is no such thing as "high" or "low" quality! You either have "quality" or "no quality". Simply defined: "Quality is conformance to requirements". Something cannot conform to requirements (specification) less or more. So, either you conform to specification or you don't conform to specification. The question is now: What are the specifications (requirements) for a cache? For example, the contents must be dry. If you arrive at a cache and the contents are dry - you have quality. If it is moist or wet - you have no quality. You cannot have half quality.

I had a situation where a container finally failed and the contents became wet.    At that time life decided to throw me a curve ball and It took me about three weeks to finally replace the container.   Meanwhile the wet cache was found an additional four times.    Was this a cache of low quality?   Did it make me a bad cache owner?   Those 5 people  may think so but then again they don't know the whole story.

 

I've found my share of dry guard rail caches that I wouldn't necessarily consider to be quality hides.     On the flip side I've found really interesting caches that I thought were quality hides even thought they were soaking wet.

 

There are three things I consider when "ranking" a cache. 

 

Container - Solid or unique container

Presentation-  Camo or how the cache was hidden 

Location-  Unique area or location

 

If a cache has one of the three it's a good cache.   If it has two it's a great cache.   If it has all three it's exceptional. 

 

Maybe we should be focusing on cache owner quality  instead of cache hide quality.     

 

     

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

Today I use favourites for the "wow" caches.    I seek out quality ones, so I can only use the points for those.   There are lots of others which I consider good, which I will say are good in the logs.   Then there are the few I think are really poor.   This gets tricky, I try to say in my logs what I didn't like without offending.   A somewhat anonymous rating system might help too. 

I do this too. Having a more flexible rating system would be nice. There was a local geocacher that rated all his finds (for a few years at least) on a scale from 1-5 and kept bookmark lists for caches he rated 4, 4.5 and 5 on this scale. I found his lists super helpful, especially since we had a similar caching style (both like long remote hikes and climbs). Tools like this, being able to identify another cacher who shares your taste in geocaches and then go after ones that that cacher has favorably rated is really awesome. but the site isn't geared towards this as it is now (although it can be done).

 

I dabble with 3rd party extensions such as GCvote which does allow you to rate geocaches on a 5-star scale. However, unless it is widely used by your community, it doesn't offer that much help.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

There are three things I consider when "ranking" a cache. 

 

Container - Solid or unique container

Presentation-  Camo or how the cache was hidden 

Location-  Unique area or location

 

I might split Location into the area where cache is located and the route one takes to get there.   It's great when the final destination is unique and/or interesting in some way but sometimes the journey can be exceptional as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I might split Location into the area where cache is located and the route one takes to get there.   It's great when the final destination is unique and/or interesting in some way but sometimes the journey can be exceptional as well.

Absolutely. 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 12:34 PM, GoodSamNurse said:

A good quality geocache is one that is airtight and watertight such as a top of the line Lock & Lock , or the favored ammo can. It is even good quality if it's in a small pill bottle wrapped in a baggie. Anything that you open up and you don't see mold mildew and water is good quality. If Groundspeak is looking to improve the quality of geocaches out there , a CO rating system can be developed such as in what eBay asks you to do. Rate the seller, rate the CO. Coordinates should be good and a decent hint should be provided in remote areas especially. just a thought. Co's are supposed to do maintenance,  so if your geocache was once high quality and irresponsible geocachers or muggles turned it into poor quality,  then the CO must get out there to make it high quality again. 

This kind of coincides with something I noticed recently.    I was checking out a band page on facebook and  noticed a little sidebar that indicated how fast the owner(s) responded to inquires.    I wonder how or if something like that could play into cache ownership?    

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 12:34 PM, GoodSamNurse said:

 If Groundspeak is looking to improve the quality of geocaches out there , a CO rating system can be developed such as in what eBay asks you to do. Rate the seller, rate the CO. Coordinates should be good and a decent hint should be provided in remote areas especially. just a thought.

 

Co's are supposed to do maintenance,  so if your geocache was once high quality and irresponsible geocachers or muggles turned it into poor quality,  then the CO must get out there to make it high quality again. 

33 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

This kind of coincides with something I noticed recently.    I was checking out a band page on facebook and  noticed a little sidebar that indicated how fast the owner(s) responded to inquires.    I wonder how or if something like that could play into cache ownership?    

 

The site (seems to me...)  has always been against the idea of folks to "downvote", or create any actions pointing negatives about others.

-  I don't see them "rating" people any time soon.

 

We have actions already in place that keeps track of a cache's condition.    When issues happen, (hopefully) someone places a NM and it gets fixed.

"How fast an owner responds" when sitting at a pc or phone on "faceboook" is just a bit different than walking a couple miles, to then climb 40' up a tree for a cache fix, don't you think?

 

I'm completely against a cache "quality" rating as well, because of the odd responsibilities some want to tack on and impose on others.

I personally feel this thinking contrary to reality started when Trackables became part of cache maintenance (when it was a suggestion earlier).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

The site (seems to me...)  has always been against the idea of folks to "downvote", or create any actions pointing negatives about others.

-  I don't see them "rating" people any time soon.

 

We have actions already in place that keeps track of a cache's condition.    When issues happen, (hopefully) someone places a NM and it gets fixed.

"How fast an owner responds" when sitting at a pc or phone on "faceboook" is just a bit different than walking a couple miles, to then climb 40' up a tree for a cache fix, don't you think?

 

I'm completely against a cache "quality" rating as well, because of the odd responsibilities some want to tack on and impose on others.

I personally feel this thinking contrary to reality started when Trackables became part of cache maintenance (when it was a suggestion earlier).

 

 

 

 

I see what your saying.   I was thinking more along the lines of a CHS for cache owners.   Not something people would vote up or down but a number based on the cache owners own actions or lack of.    Sometimes I'll  look at how many owners maintenance logs were posted on a cache.  Maybe look through the logs to see if the owners active in responding to issues.    Just thought a single number to look at would save me some time.

 

In a numbers game having a high owner score may be a number that would actually mean something.   

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

In a numbers game having a high owner score may be a number that would actually mean something.   

 

I know for fact I'm not the only one who doesn't consider this hobby a "numbers game"...

I'd hope you're reasonable enough to realize that rating people would soon become questionable under the TOU.

 

Many of us have seen examples of "cache of the week" that don't conform to guidelines.  "High scorer".   Yeah, that means something all right...   :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Many of us have seen examples of "cache of the week" that don't conform to guidelines.  

 

Yes.  That has always made me wonder.  Why highlight caches that violate guidelines???

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I see what your saying.   I was thinking more along the lines of a CHS for cache owners.   Not something people would vote up or down but a number based on the cache owners own actions or lack of.    Sometimes I'll  look at how many owners maintenance logs were posted on a cache.  Maybe look through the logs to see if the owners active in responding to issues.    Just thought a single number to look at would save me some time.

 

In a numbers game having a high owner score may be a number that would actually mean something.   

 

I wonder how such a scheme would rate me. None of my caches have ever had an NM or NA so my response to those is unknown. If I respond to a DNF is usually direct to the DNFer rather than on the cache page, offering them an extra hint if they'd like. My caches mostly get few finds so I only log an OM when I visit them if I did anything or something's changed around GZ, and my more remote hides in particular use robust containers placed in dry locations (typically inside wind-eroded rock cavities) so they don't get visited often.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I see what your saying.   I was thinking more along the lines of a CHS for cache owners.   Not something people would vote up or down but a number based on the cache owners own actions or lack of.    Sometimes I'll  look at how many owners maintenance logs were posted on a cache.  Maybe look through the logs to see if the owners active in responding to issues.    Just thought a single number to look at would save me some time.

 

In a numbers game having a high owner score may be a number that would actually mean something.   

 

It would have to be hidden otherwise it will get abused by the stats seekers.

It may still end up abused by cache owners who are active but never intend to go back to their caches. I've seen a few post OMs to ward off reviewer archival. Eventually, their cache still ends up archived by a reviewer but instead of taking one month it may take 6 months to a year. 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

Yes.  That has always made me wonder.  Why highlight caches that violate guidelines???

 

Good question, yet in their blog Groundspeak has highlighted caches that violate guidelines.

Example: Cache of the Week  GCH52C. See my 2013 (5 years ago) comments at the bottom of the page. I looked at the cache description just now and it still hasn't changed. 

Here's the owner's OM in 2015:

 

reg_user.gifMember

2.png41

Owner Maintenance Owner Maintenance
08/31/2015

The cache does not need maintenance it no longer has an official container, read cache description for how to confirm that you have successfully found this cache.

 

And they've highlighted cachers who admit to 3 cache monte and leap frogging.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Good question, yet in their blog Groundspeak has highlighted caches that violate guidelines.

Example: Cache of the Week  GCH52C. See my 2013 (5 years ago) comments at the bottom of the page. I looked at the cache description just now and it still hasn't changed. 

Here's the owner's OM in 2015:

 

reg_user.gifMember

2.png41

Owner Maintenance Owner Maintenance
08/31/2015

The cache does not need maintenance it no longer has an official container, read cache description for how to confirm that you have successfully found this cache.

 

And they've highlighted cachers who admit to 3 cache monte and leap frogging.

 

And here a reviewer threatens to archive a letterbox cache because it does not have a rubber stamp. :lol: There were non rubber stamps but the guideline states that it must be a rubber made one.


 

Quote

 

A Letterbox Hybrid container must contain:

  • A rubber stamp

 

 

 

 

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, arisoft said:

And here a reviewer threatens to archive a letterbox cache because it does not have a rubber stamp. :lol: There were non rubber stamps but the guideline states that it must be a rubber made one.

I guess the online tutorials explaining how to make a letterbox stamp using an art gum eraser or a linoleum block are just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Good question, yet in their blog Groundspeak has highlighted caches that violate guidelines.

Example: Cache of the Week  GCH52C. See my 2013 (5 years ago) comments at the bottom of the page. I looked at the cache description just now and it still hasn't changed. 

Here's the owner's OM in 2015:

 

reg_user.gifMember

2.png41

Owner Maintenance Owner Maintenance
08/31/2015

The cache does not need maintenance it no longer has an official container, read cache description for how to confirm that you have successfully found this cache.

 

And they've highlighted cachers who admit to 3 cache monte and leap frogging.

I had a look at that. How would that one rate as D5? Looks closer to a D1 to me.

I found one similar last year in NZ. The cache kept getting muggled or losing its log so the CO said finders had to contact him/her with a description of the hide and he/she would allow a find. A reviewer got on to it and it now has a log book.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, colleda said:

I had a look at that. How would that one rate as D5? Looks closer to a D1 to me.

I found one similar last year in NZ. The cache kept getting muggled or losing its log so the CO said finders had to contact him/her with a description of the hide and he/she would allow a find. A reviewer got on to it and it now has a log book.

Maybe a D2, as it might be tricky to see the number.

I solved a puzzle cache in Iceland, but when I got to GZ the cache was missing. The CO, rather than replace the cache, started allowing finders to describe what they found and log the cache. I was allowed to log. The cache no longer exists, as a reviewer spotted this not long after I logged it and archived the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Maybe a D2, as it might be tricky to see the number.

I solved a puzzle cache in Iceland, but when I got to GZ the cache was missing. The CO, rather than replace the cache, started allowing finders to describe what they found and log the cache. I was allowed to log. The cache no longer exists, as a reviewer spotted this not long after I logged it and archived the cache.

 

So why did you log a find when you didn't find anything? 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

So why did you log a find when you didn't find anything? 

Because I had gone to the effort to solve the puzzle, walked up the hill in freezing, windy weather (it wasn't summer in Iceland) and because I noticed the CO was letting others log it, so I thought if they are logging it, so will I. Plus I was not able to return, and Iceland doesn't have many geocaches.

 

I have told finders of my caches, who have logged DNFs and who I believe looked for it, and then after I have checked the cache is truly missing (and then replaced), that they are free to log. It wasn't their fault they found it missing, and they were considerate enough to log a DNF, when many don't. Those who don't log DNFs don't get this consideration, even if I find out later they tried to find it, but it was missing.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Altered a small section of text to make it clearer for understanding.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Because I had gone to the effort to solve the puzzle, walked up the hill in freezing, windy weather (it wasn't summer in Iceland)...

Tough luck, but you still haven't found the cache. I have solved many difficult puzzles, where I ended up with a very annoying DNF in the field. Sometimes after a very exhausting physical experience. But it was still a DNF, as I did not find the cache.

 

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

...and because I noticed the CO was letting others log it, so I thought if they are logging it, so will I.

Just because others don't understand the meaning of "found it" vs. "DNF", so will I? Ok, it's a sure sign, that your "Found it = DNF" type log will not be deleted. But it still doesn't feel right to me to log a find.

 

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Plus I was not able to return, and Iceland doesn't have many geocaches.

I've seen that "excuse" numerous times when people log a DNF as find. I think it's ridiculous to derive a right to log a DNF as a find from the distance between the cache and your home zone.

 

Anyway, to connect all this to the thread topic ;) ... a very basic requirement for a quality cache is that there is actually a cache to be found. And to achieve this, honest logs (i.e. log DNF, NM, NA when it's appropriate) are important. Others may see it differently, but for me the goal of a cache hunt is not to get the "smiley" by all means, but to find the cache. Usually I don't read the logs before I start searching. But if I don't find anything, and run out of ideas, I look into the previous logs to see if there are any subtle hints (or not so subtle ones, like better coordinates 20m off the listed ones). And when I then find out that the cache has been missing for several months, and everyone just logs a find because "the owner gives permission" or "everyone else did so", I'm definitely not amused!  It's perfectly ok for me, if the CO, when verifying after a DNF or NM that the cache is actually missing, allows the DNF/NM logger(s) a "find". But after that, the listing must be disabled until the cache is replaced.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×