Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Max and 99

Let’s talk some more about geocache quality (survey)

Recommended Posts

I haven't taken the survey yet. Any thoughts from those of you who have?

 

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2018/12/lets-talk-some-more-about-geocache-quality/

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't get enough info from the first one ?

11% of the survey was the introduction ?

Did seem to cover most of what others said earlier, so someone listened.  :)

 

There is a fun one for both the "help 'em out" and "NA that cache and never let 'em hide again" crowd.  :D

I know a couple people who don't have a means to take a pic of their cache locations, but currently have awesome hides with FPs..

"Unlimited favorite points" for PMs would be interesting, and can see some who'd do it.  Sheesh...

We've already seen (by threads) what happens when certain folks are "rewarded"...

Do like "Reviewer attention" (after all the threads on the subject)  asked about too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm in the process of responding to the survey now, and one of the options for question 6 is confusing. The question is "If more geocache finders took these steps, how helpful do you feel each would be to improving geocache quality?", and most of the options are of the type "do this thing". However, the second option is phrased as "do not do this thing", which means the "scoring" is completely opposite for that one option compared to the others. I could see that tripping up a lot of respondees, such that the result of that question may not be very useful or accurate.

 

Later on question 8, it's unfortunate to see that "Require finding a certain number of geocaches before hiding a cache" is an option. Whenever that idea has been thrown out in the forums in the past, the well-known issues with that idea are always pointed out and the better "Require waiting a certain period of time before hiding a cache" is suggested. It's disappointing to not see the latter in the survey.

 

I've added the two paragraphs above to my comments at the end of the survey.

 

I also agree with cerberus1 that it's nice to see that renaming NA to "Needs reviewer attention" is finally getting some attention. I think a lot of people logged an NRA on that issue a long time ago. :laughing:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

They didn't ask what I think should've been the very first question - do you consider cache quality to be a problem in your area? There's no point going to great lengths with algorithms, incentives and punishments to fix something that ain't broke.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting survey but I just hope they will compile the results and get a decision faster than the 5 months it tooks for the first one....

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Nice to see follow up, and that apparently they think they've got the resources to try some things.   Hope to be pleasantly surprised by future developments.

Like others, it would be nice to see SBA->NA->NRA  or however that may go.

 

The wording on the question on container size surprised me some;  wondered if maybe 2003 had called and wanted the website back  -> or maybe channeling  drat19  ;-)

 

Share this post


Link to post

Typical. Assume quality is a problem, then assume action by GS is the solution. Ask questions with a lot of useless ideas where the lowest anyone can rate them is "not important" so it's impossible to vote against any of the proposals. My prediction is that, like every other poll they've put out, the results will confirm that they should do what they want to do, armed with a survey that allows them to ignore all the practical points anyone's ever made against these ideas. My bet is that an average score of "not so important" will make them think an idea is important.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with dprovan.  The survey assumes that the cache quality "problem" is the actual problem, and proceeds from there.  If the "problem" is really a symptom of something deeper (and I think it is) then efforts aimed at solving the nominal problem that do not address the deeper problem will not be effective.

 

I filled out the extra comments with my suggestion of the single thing they could do to most improve cache quality, but I don't know how many of those notes they will read.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

my suggestion of the single thing they could do to most improve cache quality

 

Intriguing. Will you share it with us? 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The A-Team said:

I'm in the process of responding to the survey now, and one of the options for question 6 is confusing. The question is "If more geocache finders took these steps, how helpful do you feel each would be to improving geocache quality?", and most of the options are of the type "do this thing". However, the second option is phrased as "do not do this thing", which means the "scoring" is completely opposite for that one option compared to the others. I could see that tripping up a lot of respondees, such that the result of that question may not be very useful or accurate.

 

Later on question 8, it's unfortunate to see that "Require finding a certain number of geocaches before hiding a cache" is an option. Whenever that idea has been thrown out in the forums in the past, the well-known issues with that idea are always pointed out and the better "Require waiting a certain period of time before hiding a cache" is suggested. It's disappointing to not see the latter in the survey.

 

I've added the two paragraphs above to my comments at the end of the survey.

 

I also agree with cerberus1 that it's nice to see that renaming NA to "Needs reviewer attention" is finally getting some attention. I think a lot of people logged an NRA on that issue a long time ago. :laughing:

 

The last statement in question 6 would have made more sense if the first word was "To" instead of "Do". Would have been easier to understand for sure, at least for me.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

I agree with dprovan.  The survey assumes that the cache quality "problem" is the actual problem, and proceeds from there.  If the "problem" is really a symptom of something deeper (and I think it is) then efforts aimed at solving the nominal problem that do not address the deeper problem will not be effective.

 

I filled out the extra comments with my suggestion of the single thing they could do to most improve cache quality, but I don't know how many of those notes they will read.

 

Completely agree! Cache quality is not the problem. The heavy promotion of geocaching as a game that can be scored via an app is the reason our hobby is where it is right now,, my opinion of course.

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

The heavy promotion of geocaching as a game that can be scored

 

Hmmm. That may have been the tipping point. When the pastime became a game. Scoring and competition became more important then the geocache.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Intriguing. Will you share it with us? 

 

Oh yes, of course. The single thing that Groundspeak can do is to focus on customer engagement and retention; that is, to grow their business not by trying to attract huge numbers of newcomers, but by changing things to keep cachers active and engaged for a longer time.

 

The vast majority of poor-quality caches in my area were hidden by newbies who abandoned caching after a year or so and left their caches out.  IMO, Groundspeak should focus on retaining and engaging those folks so they don't walk away.

 

I agree with others that statistics is the main driver for the other principal source of bad caches:  owners who hide more caches than they are willing to maintain.  Once again, if Groundspeak worked to develop other incentives besides numbers for cachers, that problem would be ameliorated as well.

 

That's the gist of what I wrote.

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

Everything is fine as it is. Don't fix what isn't broken 🙄

 

It's fine for people who like geocaching as a game, not a pastime.

 

That is, it's fine for people who don't care much for the geocache part of the pastime. For gamers it's more about  leaderboard style of play.  The geocache container becomes a means to an end,  a necessary annoyance (so it gets the least amount of effort put into it). The endgame is the smiley reward.

 

It's fine if people want to play a leaderboard kind of game, as long as it doesn't affect negatively on the enjoyment of other members, including cache owners who suffer from cut n paste logs by those playing the numbers game.

 

It currently dismisses those who want to have a more leisurely family-friendly type of pastime, which includes enjoyment at all stages of play including the final stage - the location, the container and its contents. Those people can't filter for caches that fit their style of play. 

 

I think the site can do both--it can appeal to a wider more inclusive audience. 

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar
  • Upvote 7
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 Mentoring is a good idea but I wonder how those people would be chosen?  Workshops would be great as well, especially if there's a template that hits the main points - particularly as it pertains to good containers and expected maintenance duties.

 

This would do little to nothing to address caches left to rot by old timers who CBA / think the guidelines don't apply to them.

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 Also, would the NRA be used by armchair loggers (the cache police) to target caches they feel shouldn't be out in the field any more?

 

no idea what you mean here at all. It does seem that you've decided everyone who uses this facility must be deserving of your sneering contempt :blink:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I took the survey and most of the questions...

Thanks for the well thought out reply.  Good read.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

It's fine for people who like geocaching as a game, not a pastime.

 

You continue to make this argument but it just doesn't hold water.  While the numbers game has certainly caused some issues, there are still ways for those not interested in numbers to enjoy caching.  To say so otherwise completely dismisses the efforts of those hiding the types of caches you desire.

 

20 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

That is, it's fine for people who don't care much for the geocache part of the pastime. For gamers it's more about  leaderboard style of play.  The geocache container becomes a means to an end,  a necessary annoyance (so it gets the least amount of effort put into it). The endgame is the smiley reward.

 

So EVERY cache hidden is all about the smiley?  Many certainly are but many are not as well. Is it hard to sort them out?  You bet but that doesn't mean they aren't out there.  You just have to put a little more effort into it.

 

22 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It's fine if people want to play a leaderboard kind of game, as long as it doesn't affect negatively on the enjoyment of other members, including cache owners who suffer from cut n paste logs by those playing the numbers game.

 

While we all enjoy great logs, I've gotten some TFTCs on my caches from cachers who AREN'T playing the numbers game.  Crappy logs aren't restricted to numbers cachers.  I don't "suffer" when I get a crappy log.  It doesn't physically hurt me and while I certainly don't enjoy them, I'm not going to give them a hard time for the way in which they choose to log.  COs can't control what cachers write in their logs so you learn how to deal with it.

 

27 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It currently dismisses those who want to have a more leisurely family-friendly type of pastime, which includes enjoyment at all stages of play including the final stage - the location, the container and its contents. Those people can't filter for caches that fit their style of play. 

 

You're correct that you can't filter for them but you're saying that this game is completely ignoring these cachers.  It's not casting these types of cachers aside.  There's just currently no easy way to find the caches you desire as it currently stands.  That does NOT mean that those caches aren't out there.  It seems to me that you're more upset that you can't easily find them rather than that they're not out there.  That's a site function issue, not an actual geocaching issue.

 

Do you honestly believe that this survey is going to make it easier for you to find the types of caches you desire?  Is it going to curtail hides geared toward number seekers?  Is it going to change logging habits?  I see an attempt to figure out how to improve overall cache quality, even though many of these questions seem to miss the mark. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

This would do little to nothing to address caches left to rot by old timers who CBA / think the guidelines don't apply to them.

 

 

True.  I think the possible NRA log or old NM/NA style could address the issues these types of COs create.  I would have hoped that the CHS would have caught many of them, but it appears that's not the local case based on what I see in my area.

 

13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

no idea what you mean here at all. It does seem that you've decided everyone who uses this facility must be deserving of your sneering contempt

 

Sneering contempt?  That's what you got out of it?  Just because I don't do it that way doesn't mean others can't do it that way.  I'm not a my way or the highway type of guy.  I would encourage an actual visit to verify the state of the cache before submitting a log like that (because that's what makes me feel comfortable about filing that type of log), but I'm not saying that they can't do it they way they want to.  I just think that there's the possibility that this type of log could be abused and used in ways in which it might not be intended.  NM logs are one thing (no immediate reviewer intervention, time for a CO to address the issue, but a flag for reviewer to note and possibly take future action) but a NRA log could, theoretically, skip all three points and either lead to no action (if the reviewer feels that's the way it should go) or immediate disablement and then archival if no action by the CO.  In some cases that's certainly not a bad thing but in other cases it could be, depending on the intent of the one filing the log.  Added to that is the extra workload of the reviewers to address the NRA logs that might initially be better off as NM logs.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Sneering contempt?  That's what you got out of it?

 

Yes - the moment you used the derogatory term the cache police.

 

I tend to stop listening to what anyone who uses that term has to say because beyond that they really aren't worth my time.

 

5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I just think that there's the possibility that this type of log could be abused and used in ways in which it might not be intended.

 

I think that would be short lived.

 

Serial abusers - if any ever existed - would very quickly go on the ignore list.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Yes - the moment you used the derogatory term the cache police.

 

I understand how some see that as derogatory but I don't use it that way.  Every person who files a NM or NA log, regardless of how it's done, is policing the status of a cache.  Isn't that what we're supposed to do?  Make sure that the owner of the cache we found is abiding by the guidelines set forth by GS?  The same goes for an OM log, but that's more in line with internal affairs.

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW, I voted to do away with the NA and not bother adding another layer with NRA.  I believe such nuance will either be lost on most users (particularly noobs), or ignored by more seasoned users (e.g. number folks, and those doing mass GSAK logging and cut/paste type thing).

 

I believe making better/full use of the CHS is probably the best way forward, as far as clearing out the missing/ill maintained caches out there.  Probably some tweaks could be made to the CHS to pick up on some issues that would speed up the process and bring such Listings to the attention of a Reviewer, without the need for NA's or NRA's.

 

My 0.02.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
22 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Yes - the moment you used the derogatory term the cache police.

 

I understand how some see that as derogatory but I don't use it that way.

 

It contributes toward the breeding of a culture that I find distasteful and negative in every way.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

There's just currently no easy way to find the caches you desire as it currently stands.  That does NOT mean that those caches aren't out there.

 

How do I and others like me find them? Spend hours wading through cache listings in cache dense areas. Spend my limited leisure time to drive miles and spend gas money on a swag size cache with nothing in the logs and  photo gallery that say anything about the condition of the cache, but it has double digit favorite points, and the last log says "Cool".  Only to find this when I complete the multi:

 

2128466129_moldydollarstorecontainer.jpg.efd0d6313a5901ac2f27910c09ec36db.jpg

 

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Only to find this when I complete the multi:

It's funny how folks have different standards on this issue.  It wouldn't bother me one iota to find a cache in this condition, nor would I be compelled to say much about it, let alone post an NM.   To me, it looks like the container is in reasonably serviceable condition.  The gross moldy thing on top, looks like a signature card of some sort, and there appears to be a cache note underneath that.  The yellow thing at the bottom looks like a rite in rain type of log that is fairly common in my area.  Judging from your photo, a little "light maintenance" might be all that is needed (e.g. remove wet disgusting bits).

Share this post


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

How do I and others like me find them? Spend hours wading through cache listings in cache dense areas. Spend my limited leisure time to drive miles and spend gas money on a swag size cache with logs and photo gallery don't say anything about the condition of the cache, but it has double digit favorite points, and the last log says "Cool".  Only to find this when I complete the multi:

 

 

So you're saying you want a guarantee that the caches you find are in good shape?  Isn't that what this boils down to?  While that would be awesome, it's also unrealistic.  While it's certainly something to strive for, even in the "good ole' days" before power trails it was never something that happened.  Nostalgia is great but it usually only recalls the positive aspects of whatever it is you're reminiscing about.  It hardly ever remembers the negative aspects, yet those things were certainly there.

 

This survey, and anything that might come of it, won't guarantee anything.  It will help but it won't completely eliminate problems.  It won't result in an influx of well maintained swag sized caches that are always well stocked, well maintained, and devoid of cut and paste logs that don't do anything to describe the condition of the cache.  It won't help you filter the specific type of cache experience you're looking for.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, meltdiceburg said:

I'm no great environmentalist but the amount of pollution we must be pushing out driving out to replace logbooks on millions of caches must be staggering.

 

This argument holds no water and certainly isn't an excuse of any sort because it's laughably simple to fix this by only placing caches within a radius where they can be easily maintained in an environmentally friendly manner.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think one of the biggest issues is player churn. Groundspeak seems to only care about getting new players aboard. While I can understand the demand for a constant stream of revenue, what is the incentive to keep those players around longer than a year or two? Ford and GM would have gone out of business quickly if they didn't understand the basic maxim of car sales: you're not looking to sell a customer one car. You're looking to sell them a new car every three years. Right now, Groundspeak is selling customers one car and then writing them off as future customers.

 

Another issue is that Geocaching, to recent players, is really "just another app". If you're looking for a new game to play on your phone, you go to the app store, search around until you find something that seems interesting, download it, play it until you're bored with it and then delete it and go looking for a new app. There doesn't seem to be that inherent hook anymore. Early adopters and long time players began and continue to go caching because the game hooked them. That's not to say that everyone who went out caching in 2000, 2001, 2006, 2012, etc is still playing. There has always been (and always will be) flash in the pan players but I find it difficult to believe the rate of retention for new players today is anything but disheartening. Geocaching needs to find a way make their app stand out and to hook more new players for long term play.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

 

2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

This argument holds no water and certainly isn't an excuse of any sort because it's laughably simple to fix this by only placing caches within a radius where they can be easily maintained in an environmentally friendly manner.

 

Like I said, it's an issue Groundspeak need to be thinking about when there's millions of caches. Any use of a car is not environmentally friendly, even a 5 mile drive x 1 million is 5 million miles driven - it's sad you think it's a laughing matter.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, meltdiceburg said:

Like I said, it's an issue Groundspeak need to be thinking about when there's millions of caches. Any use of a car is not environmentally friendly, even a 5 mile drive x 1 million is 5 million miles driven - it's sad you think it's a laughing matter. 

 

Looks like they are thinking about it.

 

Perhaps now they'll add limiting placement radius to the list to improve the green factor 👍

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

It's funny how folks have different standards on this issue.  It wouldn't bother me one iota to find a cache in this condition, nor would I be compelled to say much about it, let alone post an NM.   To me, it looks like the container is in reasonably serviceable condition.  The gross moldy thing on top, looks like a signature card of some sort, and there appears to be a cache note underneath that.  The yellow thing at the bottom looks like a rite in rain type of log that is fairly common in my area.  Judging from your photo, a little "light maintenance" might be all that is needed (e.g. remove wet disgusting bits).

 

A container in nice condition makes it fun for me and fun for you.

It's fair, equitable and appealing to a wider audience. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

It's funny how folks have different standards on this issue.  It wouldn't bother me one iota to find a cache in this condition, nor would I be compelled to say much about it, let alone post an NM.   To me, it looks like the container is in reasonably serviceable condition.

 

Than I reckon you've failed to notice the tape holding the smashed-up lid together or the guideline contravening plastic bag that the whole stinking box of mould spores was probably wrapped in BECAUSE it is junk.

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

I just took the survey, and I am including my comments here. I do not think that the options given in the survey will actually help the game/pastime or whatever you term Geocaching. Likewise, I am certain that I do not need to like EVERY single cache that is released- I get to CHOOSE which caches I will look for. So of course my comments are more about inclusion rather than the exclusion options listed in the survey.

 

Comments:

Personally I believe that limiting the creation of caches will actually HURT Geocaching. The more exclusive it is the less new folks will want to participate, and the less 'ordinary' folks will want to put up with the biased rules.

Depending on the situation even a bison tube or film canister at the base of a sign is a great cache. Trying to limit or remove the 'easy beginner' caches will be detrimental to the game. And many of your proposals will do just THAT! Beginners often place easy caches when they begin and then improve and expand as they gain experience- this is a NECESSARY step in their learning curve. If you remove their ability to do this, you again are killing the game.

Forcing the CO's to have a certain number of finds will eliminate many of the Geotours, Geotrails, and Geoarts. Often a group will create an identity so they can jointly maintain these types of caches. Also towns and park managers will put out caches  to promote their area. None of these CO's would have any finds. 

Unfortunately Geocaching is progressing in the WRONG direction. The App is harder to maneuver around and the cords are now bouncing more than ever. The new map on the desktop has so many issues and much less adaptability than the old list. Let's face it if I wanted to look at a map, I'd click on the VIEW MAP option! 

Now ways you CAN improve the Geocaching game. Love souvenirs- offer them for more dates/events (GIFF, Leap Day, Canada Day), sheer number finds challenges (the mythical beast challenge), Cooperation challenges (with help from the Friend's League- why have it if you are not going to use it!).

A HUGE improvement would be to expand the filter/sort functions rather than removing them. Several folks have challenge caches which require a certain number or type of attribute- Create a function to filter for this and other such items.

Also why not create a NEW type of cache? How about a History cache much like an earthcache? You would need to go to the place of an historical event, answer questions, and generally LEARN to get the smile.

The big take away do NOT do anything to limit the folks in Geocaching. I know several who greatly reduced, or stopped caching, after the virtuals were removed. They felt that you were picking and choosing (and not in a good way) those you wished to remain in the game. You should be EXPANDING the ways folks can play the game not hindering them. 

The more you limit the game the faster folks will get bored or give up and stop playing. You need them to not only play but to bring others in as well!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Than I reckon you've failed to notice the tape holding the smashed-up lid together or the guideline contravening plastic bag that the whole stinking box of mould spores was probably wrapped in BECAUSE it is junk.

 

I respect your right to draw the wrong conclusions based on incomplete information. 

Share this post


Link to post

The big problem I see here is that "improving cache quality" means two entirely different things that no one's distinguishing. On the one hand, improving cache quality means getting rid of junky or missing caches. That's what the CHS is supposed to fix, and what I see most people complaining about. L0ne.R posted a picture.

 

But cache quality is also used as a synonym for "more caches with qualities I like". This poll seems more focused on this side, asking how important people consider location and accurate terrain ratings and such. Is that really the problem we want to solve? Are parking coordinates really that important?

 

There are a lot of run-of-the-mill caches in my area, but there are a lot of wonderful caches, too. This questions in this poll all seem to suggest more rules, more restrictions, more attempts by GS to solve the "problem". It's the wonderful caches that will suffer from that, not the run-of-the-mill caches. Wonderful caches are planted by COs that enjoy planting caches. People seem to forget that the more hoops COs have to jump through, the less they'll enjoy it.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

That is, it's fine for people who don't care much for the geocache part of the pastime. For gamers it's more about  leaderboard style of play.  The geocache container becomes a means to an end,  a necessary annoyance (so it gets the least amount of effort put into it). The endgame is the smiley reward.

 

So EVERY cache hidden is all about the smiley?  Many certainly are but many are not as well. Is it hard to sort them out?  You bet but that doesn't mean they aren't out there.  You just have to put a little more effort into it.

 

As the number of leaderboard cacher grows, and there is a steady supply of cache owners willing to cater to them,  placing a quantity of caches rather than quality, it takes more than a little effort for the "pastime" geocacher that is looking for quality  to get enjoyment out of the game.  Yes, there are quality caches out there, but why should the type of players that wants to focus on quality have to work much harder to find the caches they want?

 

Look at it from the perspective of the two types of geocacher described.

 

The leaderboard style of player (and assuming number are the primary criteria) does not discriminate on caches based on quality.   For someone that is purely about the numbers, every cache hidden is a potential "point".  They don't have to put in any additional effort because they don't have to be selective in the types of caches they seek.  Even if they *did* filter out high D/T caches, the sheer number of caches placed for no other reason than to provide a point for numbers seekers will keep them busy for a long time.    They'll be happy as clams as long as there are lots of caches to be found.   It's easy for leaderboard style players to claim that  there isn't a quality problem because for them, it's not a problem.

 

Now consider the "pastime" player, someone who doesn't make having a high find count a priority.     Large areas of real estate have become completely saturated with caches which were placed to cater to leaderboard caches to the point that if one is seeking quality containers they've become places where one can't play the game if their focus is all about quality.  In cache dense areas, there isn't a reliable way to filter out power trails or caches that are part of "a series" from pocket queries (and no way to avoid them being sent in Notifications).  Even if lots of "pastime" players tried to put out more quality caches, they're not going to make a dent in areas saturated with caches created for numbers seekers.  Pastime players consider quality to be an issue, because they actually discriminate on what is becoming more and more the minority of the cache they want to find.  

 

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

have I missed something?

 

there seem to be a few posts deleted ?

 

this is one -  [QUOTED POST REMOVED BY MODERATOR]

 

Edited by Keystone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone can delete their posts.

 

Or a moderator. :)

Edited by Max and 99

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

  Also, would the NRA be used by armchair loggers (the cache police) to target caches they feel shouldn't be out in the field any more?  Not sure how I feel about that possibility.

 

I am sure the reviewers know about there local caching police and where their arm chairs are located.

same old issue, this is why a block feature would be useful to CO's 

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

have I missed something?

 

there seem to be a few posts deleted ?

 

this is one -  [QUOTED POST REMOVED BY MODERATOR]

 

 

Posts that do not comply with the Forum Guidelines are subject to removal by a Moderator.  See the Forum Guidelines.

 

The thread should discuss the Survey questions at a high level.  Discussion participants should avoid calling out specific examples (caches or cache owners) in order to keep the discussion relevant and interesting to all participants.  Thanks!

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

Following up on NYPaddleCacher's post, I agree that there two styles of play. However, a cacher may be one style today, and another tomorrow.

 

It has to do with why they are going geocaching today. When I'm with the grandkids, I want to find large containers with good swag. If I am doing a reward trail, I want great containers, great locations, and well maintained caches. If I am trying for a challenge like the 365/366 day challenge, pretty much any cache will do. Searching for caches to complete a Jasmer challenge is another kind of search. If I am traveling across the country, I may seek out Virtual and Earthcaches. In other words, what is a quality cache candidate to me could change daily, or even hourly.

 

Each reason has specific search criteria, some easier to do than others. I would like to see GS make finding relevant caches easier. Most of these searches are straight-forward, the problem is more with the data I am searching, with the biggest issue being inconsistent application of attributes. I would like to see crowd-sourced attributes. Allow for attribute corrections to be 'suggested' by loggers. If enough people suggest that the cache description should have the 'restroom nearby' attribute, then it would be added to the cache description. It should also work for removing attributes. A few new attributes would be useful, such as a power trail attribute. There are also some that could probably be eliminated.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

...this is why a block feature would be useful to CO's 

 

Thank goodness this wasn't touted as a suggestion in the survey.. anything which gives CO's the ability to make their caches *exclusive*  only those folk they like would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

Back on topic..

 

I completed the survey last night and while I thought that some of the questions were pertinent to improving cache quality I found others quite bizarre.  Unlimited Favourite Points for example.  I'm not sure how that might help with cache quality.  I am by no means a prolific cacher.. in fact this year I am on target to have my poorest tally since 2010 :(   but I do have 116 FP's in the bank for when I find caches which are deserving... and I'm not stingy with them either.  The only thing having an unlimited number of FP's would encourage is folk handing them out willy nilly just because the can.

The thing about FP's is they don't automatically indicate quality.  One man's meat is another man's poison.. and after finding a cache with 100's of FP's which turned out to be a magnetic nano hidden behind a green box which was stuffed with rubbish and dirty cobwebs I decided that was the last time I would seek a cache just because of it's FP reputation.  On paper it looked like the *must do* cache in that particular city.. in reality it was a big disappointment.

I quite like the idea of non-premium cachers being able to award FP's though.

I also like the suggestion that hiders would need to sort any issues with their current caches before they can place more..  but not in an automated way.  There can be many legitimate reasons why a cache is disabled which the CO has no control over so it would be unfair if they were suspended from hiding because of it.  But if the issues are genuine maintenance issues.. lots of NM's because the cache is in a poor state / long term disabled after a string of DNF's.. those issues should be sorted before any more caches are placed.

Giving status to those deemed to be *quality* hiders?  Really?  This was by far the worst suggestion put forward.  Who is going to judge which hiders deserve recognition?  The FP system is already flawed.. the automated virtual rewards offered last year was poorly implemented.  A recipe for disaster IMHO.


 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

...It currently dismisses those who want to have a more leisurely family-friendly type of pastime, which includes enjoyment at all stages of play including the final stage - the location, the container and its contents. Those people can't filter for caches that fit their style of play. 

I think the site can do both--it can appeal to a wider more inclusive audience. 

 

Assuming the subject is still "quality"...

I "filter out" my style of play whenever I have time to head out. 

Started going by terrain years ago.  We noticed most cache issues in our area seemed to be urban, or less than a 1/4 mile from parking, so upping terrain fit.

Instead of pqs , gpx, and any other new function to find caches that I'd never do, I read cache pages, look at pics, check for trackables, and scan a few logs before I'd add that cache to my GPSr.

Takes a few minutes...

On trail, we guesstimated for one year that I passed around 600 caches to find others. 

 

I kinda feel bad things are so miserable (by posts...) in your area,  but I don't see how the site can "filter" caches the way you'd like.

 - There's simply going to be great caches with some part of your wish list missing.   :)

You want caches you'd like.   A little homework takes a few minutes.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, cerberus1 said:

You want caches you'd like.   A little homework takes a few minutes.

 

This.

 

YOu could argue that this doesn't improve the geocaching experience overall as sub-par caches can still be placed, buuuut... if the majority opinion of a 'good' cache is the style that's most filtered for finding, then the sub-par ones won't be found as much, won't be as 'popular', and over  alonger period of time the quality landscape will shift.

 

..in an ideal world.
It's more like a passive aggression action to "improve the geocaching experience" :P (imo, that's better wording than "improve geocache quality")

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

It should also work for removing attributes.

 

This will rile the challenge cache seekers. Some COs add irrelevant/excessive/unnecessary attributes so finders can collect them to meet challenge requirements. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

if the majority opinion of a 'good' cache is the style that's most filtered for finding, then the sub-par ones won't be found as much, won't be as 'popular', and over  alonger period of time the quality landscape will shift.

 

I would hope that number of finds or "popularity" doesn't become a measure of cache quality. The ones that get the most finds are the urban P&G micros in tourist hotspots, whereas the ones that get the fewest finds tend to be the more challenging and, for me at least, rewarding ones.

  • Upvote 6

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 5

×