Its time for a cache rating system

[+edexter]

     For the longest time I’ve wished that geocaching had a rating system like other large listing services. If I want to buy something at Home Depot or Amazon every item has a score based on a five point rating scale by the users of the product. I can look at individual reviews or the aggregate score or the relative ratings at each point level.  I can see what peple liked and didn't like.  Geocaching has millions of caches, many tens of millions of finds and a single binary scoring system: fav point? Yes or No? That’s it. Dig down one level you can see the percentage of folks compared to the number of finds.

    The structure of the system is unbelievably crude. You “get” to award a favorite point to no more than one cache in ten. Though the apparent intention is to highlight "the good stuff", the information is largely negative since most caches have very few or no points at all. The caches with the highest absolute number are disproportionately tourist destinations or very old and provide little information other than “lots of people liked to go here”. I could create a better method of conveying information about the quality of a particular cache experience in ten minutes and I bet you could too. I think it’s time for geocaching to create a cache rating system that is useful to it’s users. What do you think?

edexter

[+lee737]

I don't agree.....

I think the FP system is a lot better than a 5* type one.....

for an example look no further than ALs..... some of them, I'm sorry - suck. And what scores do they have? -  4+/5..... Making FPs a reasonably precious resource means they are given out only when worthy.... I admit that this can fall over a bit in major tourist areas and mint tins can end up with 100+ FPs, but this limitation is well known.....

Edited May 14, 2023 by lee737
grammar

[+cerberus1]

I'd rather not thanks.  I already manually load single caches I'd do now...     

Some want to do a nondescript roadside hide every 500+" feet placed just because they can.  I'd rate each one a minus 3.

Like favorite points, we have our favorites, and I haven't met a single person that enjoys the hobby the same way I do.

Few in my area are into this hobby to such an extent that they'd be willing to tell another person "Your baby's ugly...".

Groundspeak has had a history of not allowing negatives on players, even when some really warranted it.

Not sure it's still around but there was already a site that supposedly "rates" geocaches.  Nothing stopping you from going there...

[+barefootjeff]

I agree completely with lee737 on this. The AL ratings are essentially meaningless, as are most 5-star product ratings I've looked at. Occasionally I've looked at book ratings after finishing a book, just to see what others thought of it, and usually half give it 5 stars, saying it's the best they've ever read, and the other half give it 1 star, saying it's a heap of rubbish.

 

My own taste in caches doesn't align well with the typical cacher, if there's even such a thing. One of the great things about this game is the broad diversity of interests it spans and what's an awesome cache for one player will be ho-hum for another. As Lee said, a mint tin in a tourist hotspot can get hundreds of FPs but is unlikely to get one from me, rather my most memorable finds are likely to just have a small handful of FPs from a small handful of finders.

[+Max and 99]

No thanks!

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, lee737 said:

Making FPs a reasonably precious resource means they are given out only when worthy...

Yep. One of the reasons i oppose suggestions that would hand out more FP (e.g., to any CO for each FP received by one of that CO's caches) is that it would change the meaning of FP.

 

 

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Not sure it's still around but there was already a site that supposedly "rates" geocaches.  Nothing stopping you from going there...

It's still there: http://gcvote.com/

 

 

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The AL ratings are essentially meaningless, as are most 5-star product ratings I've looked at.

Yep. I've actually bought products based on 1-star reviews, because the text of the review told me what I needed to know about the product. But the number of stars was meaningless to me. Fortunately, geocachers can already leave text comments for every cache they find.

 

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

My own taste in caches doesn't align well with the typical cacher, if there's even such a thing. One of the great things about this game is the broad diversity of interests it spans and what's an awesome cache for one player will be ho-hum for another.

One thing that I think would improve the Favorites system is for it to compare the caches to which I've awarded FP and to which others have awarded FP, and then to produce a list of caches that were enjoyed by people who also enjoyed the caches that I enjoyed.

[+MNTA]

How about %favorited but since not everyone gives out favorites even that is flawed.

 

The top favorited cache in the US is GC8NEAT  6416 favorites but only 19% favorited.

[+lee737]

45 minutes ago, niraD said:

One thing that I think would improve the Favorites system is for it to compare the caches to which I've awarded FP and to which others have awarded FP, and then to produce a list of caches that were enjoyed by people who also enjoyed the caches that I enjoyed.

Sounds interesting..... I'd like to see that too.

[+lee737]

12 minutes ago, MNTA said:

How about %favorited but since not everyone gives out favorites even that is flawed.

 

The top favorited cache in the US is GC8NEAT  6416 favorites but only 19% favorited.

I wonder why people bother to give HQ favourite points!?  what a waste....

Where I come from, 19% FPs is probably a pretty good cache to be honest.... 

[+barefootjeff]

51 minutes ago, MNTA said:

How about %favorited but since not everyone gives out favorites even that is flawed.

 

The top favorited cache in the US is GC8NEAT  6416 favorites but only 19% favorited.

 

Yes, if assessing a cache I'll look at the percentage FP rather than the raw number of FPs. Even though there'll always be some finders who don't give FPs (especially new premium members who exclusively use their phone and have never visited the website, as they don't seem to know FPs even exist or what they're for) and some whose tastes are different from the cache's target audience, it's still a good guide.

 

HQ's benchmark for a good cache, going by what they've used in promotions (including the current one) and in numerous blog posts, is 10+ FPs, but in places where there are few active cachers, it's difficult for anything that's not a quick P&G on a main road or in a town centre to get 10 finders, let alone 10 FPs. Even worse are the recently-introduced FP indicators in the app, which highlight the top 10% of FP counts in an area. In my region the cut-off for that appears to be 19 FPs but, with few exceptions, they're all old caches, many of which have inactive owners and may have once been popular but have now fallen into disrepair. It's almost impossible for a cache less than five years old to get one, no matter how good it is.

Edited May 15, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+niraD]

51 minutes ago, MNTA said:

How about %favorited but since not everyone gives out favorites even that is flawed.

The percentage of FP is definitely more useful than the raw number of FP.

 

I've also been able to narrow down a search to a relatively rare cache category (e.g., EarthCaches or LBH caches or multi-caches, possibly limited further based on terrain/difficulty ratings), and then sort that list based on the raw number of FP. But without narrowing down the search first, the raw number of FP just tells me the quick P&G caches at busy tourist spots.

[hsiale]

8 hours ago, edexter said:

 If I want to buy something at Home Depot or Amazon every item has a score based on a five point rating scale

If you want to actually pay me for finding my caches like you pay for things you get off Home Depot or Amazon, I am completely happy with you scoring my caches based on a five point rating scale.

[+MartyBartfast]

6 hours ago, niraD said:

 

9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Not sure it's still around but there was already a site that supposedly "rates" geocaches.  Nothing stopping you from going there...

It's still there: http://gcvote.com/

 

Looks like it might not, that page now gives:

 

Quote

GCVote is currently broken and may never be fixed. Sorry.

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

Adventure Labs voting should guarantee we never get a 1-5 voting system for geocaches.

 

I've been active on Goodreads, a book rating site, for a long time. Some years ago, in response to requests for the ability to give half-star ratings, they explained why they would never add that feature. Not only do most users rate either 5 stars (liked it) or 1 star (disliked it) but a study had shown adding more rating options (half stars or 1-10 scale instead of 1-5) decreased people's willingness to leave any rating at all because it made the choice more complicated.

 

Geocaching is especially difficult to have a rating system because it has so much variability. Customer experiences at a business will/should mostly be consistent over time among the vast majority of customers (and if they're not that's it's own problem). Two people reading a book a decade apart are reading the exact same content.

 

But a geocache can have maintaince issues and change containers. Details are all easily editable. Access and scenery can change seasonally, often drastically. What people want out of geocaching probably also varies more between individuals than with a business. 

[+Mausebiber]

Open Project-GC and filter for favorite points.  You can apply filter for any state or region

Top Favorite Caches (%)      https://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopFavPct

Top Favorite Caches  https://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopFav

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

13 hours ago, lee737 said:

for an example look no further than ALs..... some of them, I'm sorry - suck. And what scores do they have? -  4+/5....

If they could be given anonymously I think the scores would be more honest.

[+Goldenwattle]

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Occasionally I've looked at book ratings after finishing a book, just to see what others thought of it, and usually half give it 5 stars, saying it's the best they've ever read, and the other half give it 1 star, saying it's a heap of rubbish.

I belong to Goodreads, and I haven't seen that. All scores are used.

[+Goldenwattle]

8 hours ago, niraD said:

The percentage of FP is definitely more useful than the raw number of FP.

I strongly agree with this, and that's what I want to look at. Numbers are meaningless.

[+barefootjeff]

11 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Open Project-GC and filter for favorite points.  You can apply filter for any state or region

Top Favorite Caches (%)      https://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopFavPct

Top Favorite Caches  https://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopFav

 

 

There's a caveat there, that Project GC's Top Favourite (%) excludes caches with less than 10 FPs. Maybe that's not a problem in places with a lot of caching activity, but around here even some pretty awesome caches can go many years without getting 10 finders, let alone 10 FPs. One of my all-time favourites, GC6T5PZ, published in 2016, still only has 5 FPs from 7 finds and won't appear in Project GC's Top Favourite (%) list.

[+Goldenwattle]

Travelling, I have seen some very ordinary caches, with favourite points. Some places have more finds than others, so that even the really boring, mundane, nothing special caches gets more favourite points than a brilliant cache where there are not many finders. Numbers mean nothing, but percentage does.

[+Mudfrog]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

There's a caveat there, that Project GC's Top Favourite (%) excludes caches with less than 10 FPs. Maybe that's not a problem in places with a lot of caching activity, but around here even some pretty awesome caches can go many years without getting 10 finders, let alone 10 FPs. One of my all-time favourites, GC6T5PZ, published in 2016, still only has 5 FPs from 7 finds and won't appear in Project GC's Top Favourite (%) list.

 

Another good reason why it would be nice to have a favorite point percentage display on cache pages.

[+cerberus1]

Maybe it's just me, but I haven't looked at how many "favorite" points a cache has in years...

We stopped considering them when LPC and guard rails started receiving FPs.  I haven't done an AL yet, and don't plan to.

Just going to a cache in the woods a half mile or better often means I've shot someone's plans on a "lonely" cache. 

 - And get emails about it too...   

I've been ill so I probably can't do 4+T caches yet, and now I'll give a FP just because a cache in green on the map tempted me to go outside.

[+hzoi]

17 hours ago, lee737 said:

look no further than ALs..... some of them, I'm sorry - suck. And what scores do they have? -  4+/5..... Making FPs a reasonably precious resource means they are given out only when worthy.

 

i  mostly agree with this. Except for the last part about "only when worthy," because even the most boring guardrail and LPC caches out there somehow have managed to garner a favorite point or two. Why? Often, it's a token from either a buddy of the CO's and/or a thank you from the FTF.

 

But I digress. Limiting FPs to 1 for every 10 finds does tend to keep many points from going to caches that, objectively, should not be in anyone's top 10%.

 

I have given out about two thirds of the favorite points I've earned over the past 16 years. I've not bothered to take them from the archived caches I awarded, because they're still my favorites. Plus, I've got over 400 in reserve, so it's not like I need them back.

[+niraD]

43 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Why? Often, it's a token from either a buddy of the CO's and/or a thank you from the FTF.

Yep. People award FP for all sorts of reasons: it's a buddy's cache, or they were FTF, or it's a new (to them) hide style, or the weather was nice, or they had a great conversation with a friend on the way to the cache, or any number of other reasons. That's part of why I'd like a "you may also enjoy" feature that takes into account the FPs I have awarded and how they correlate with the FPs others have awarded.

[+edexter]

I find the % of Fav Points much more relevant than the total number of fav points and it would be simple to show both.  Using a five point scale to indicate how much you liked something would probably actually be worse.  I use Fav pts as a screening tool when I cache in unfamilar areas.  If a cache has a high % of Fav pts, I look at it in detail.  A scale based on objective factors would be more helpful for screening.  Factors that I consider relevent relate to size, placement, cache container quality, the cache page, the envoronmental beauty, and the trail, and maintenance.  If I were to rate a cache based on my preferances (You have your own and they will differ from mine) a lowly rated cache would be a micro, placed above pavement, with a wet log (non waterproof container), with a five word cache page description, by the side of the road, by a CO who doesn't do maintenance.  I would rate that a zero on every scale and it describes about 20% of all caches placed in my area.  A highly rated cache for me would be a small to regular sized container (room for log book and pencil) placed in woods by water, that is waterproof and of sturdy design, accurately described on a cache page that contains useful information related to the cache and area (parking, trailhead), that offers a hike of at least a half mile in a beautiful area, that the CO regularly maintains.  The idea would be to have your subjective view tied to some objective criteria.  My experience matches barefootjeff:  caches with 5 fav pts with 10 finds are hidden from view (and those are more likely to be the ones I'd look for).  Locally, the cache placer and the d/t rating, are more useful screening tools than the FP total.  But on my travels, I don't know who places "my kind of caches" and it sure would be nice to have a better rating system, if I'm going to drive an hour or two.

Edited May 15, 2023 by edexter

[+baer2006]

5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

If they could be given anonymously I think the scores would be more honest.

They are given anonymously. There is no way an AL owner can see who awarded how many stars.

 

I've read and heard a lot of statements from cachers saying they give every AL, even the most mundane one, 5 stars except when there are really serious technical flaws.

[+TheLimeCat]

14 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

They are given anonymously. There is no way an AL owner can see who awarded how many stars.

 

I've read and heard a lot of statements from cachers saying they give every AL, even the most mundane one, 5 stars except when there are really serious technical flaws.

The problem is that geocaching has a limited pool of users and caches in most areas are often found only a few times a month. It would be very easy for an AL or cache owner to see when the rating suddenly increases or decreases when a single find comes in. It's tough to remain anonymous in those circumstances, even if the rating isn't technically attributed to you.

[Keystone]

55 minutes ago, edexter said:

I find the % of Fav Points much more relevant than the total number of fav points and it would be simple to show both. 

If you are talking about live, real-time data on Geocaching.com, no, it would not be simple to show both.

 

If you are interested in sorting caches by Favorite Point Percentage or, even better, by Wilson Score, that data is available for free on Project-GC.com in static daily snapshot form, which ought to be sufficient for planning purposes.

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, TheLimeCat said:

The problem is that geocaching has a limited pool of users and caches in most areas are often found only a few times a month. It would be very easy for an AL or cache owner to see when the rating suddenly increases or decreases when a single find comes in. It's tough to remain anonymous in those circumstances, even if the rating isn't technically attributed to you.

If you complete an AL and only leave a rating, but no review, the ALO has no idea that you did their AL. And even if they do (e.g. because you logged the AL's bonus cache), so what? Do you think the ALO is going to contact you like "Hey, I think you gave me a low rating! Please give me more stars. And if not, %*&§ you!!!" ?

 

My point is, every AL player nowadays could leave honest, balanced ratings, but most cachers choose not to. And I'm pretty sure it's not because they fear the wrath of the owners.

[+lee737]

5 hours ago, hzoi said:

i  mostly agree with this. Except for the last part about "only when worthy," because even the most boring guardrail and LPC caches out there somehow have managed to garner a favorite point or two. Why? Often, it's a token from either a buddy of the CO's and/or a thank you from the FTF.

For the most part, FPs do tend to cluster on the better caches. Better locations and/or better containers. There will be outliers, there always is, but on the whole, FPs are a reasonable, quick way to sort caches out by quality. There are limitations of course.

[+Bear and Ragged]

A good cache should get good logs...

You do write a good log on the good caches that you find?

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

even the most boring guardrail and LPC caches out there somehow have managed to garner a favorite point or two. Why? Often, it's a token from either a buddy of the CO's and/or a thank you from the FTF.

I see FPs as a combination of both "I think this cache is worthy of my FP as an indication to others" [for whatever reason], and "I'm marking this to remember the experience which I had that no one else may ever have". There may be others of course, but I believe those are the two biggest uses, and given their dramatically different implications, the value of the FP score is generally not as helpful... But I do think more FPs are given knowing the public perspective than purely for personal records.

 

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

If you are interested in sorting caches by Favorite Point Percentage or, even better, by Wilson Score, that data is available for free on Project-GC.com in static daily snapshot form, which ought to be sufficient for planning purposes.

I was just about to mention the Wilson score - https://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopFavWilson is one tool for it.

 

[+colleda]

38 minutes ago, lee737 said:

For the most part, FPs do tend to cluster on the better caches. Better locations and/or better containers. There will be outliers, there always is, but on the whole, FPs are a reasonable, quick way to sort caches out by quality. There are limitations of course.

Limitations could include, say, a good, favorited, cache goes missing and someone dumps a pill bottle throwdown. Hmm. Next finder is left wondering how the high %  FP was achieved and thinks what a time waster that cache was.

[+lee737]

21 minutes ago, colleda said:

Limitations could include, say, a good, favorited, cache goes missing and someone dumps a pill bottle throwdown. Hmm. Next finder is left wondering how the high %  FP was achieved and thinks what a time waster that cache was.

Exactly. This can't be avoided with any rating system though.... or any great cache can soon become less great if not designed to cope with the elements, and not maintained.....

[+TheLimeCat]

2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

If you complete an AL and only leave a rating, but no review, the ALO has no idea that you did their AL. And even if they do (e.g. because you logged the AL's bonus cache), so what? Do you think the ALO is going to contact you like "Hey, I think you gave me a low rating! Please give me more stars. And if not, %*&§ you!!!" ?

 

My point is, every AL player nowadays could leave honest, balanced ratings, but most cachers choose not to. And I'm pretty sure it's not because they fear the wrath of the owners.

I don't leave negative ratings specifically because I know many of the AL owners in my area. I'm not rating them incorrectly, I just don't log or rate them at all. I've found terrible caches and terrible ALs, but I choose my words carefully when describing the experience. Often, I'll see that person at the next event I attend, or they'll find one of my caches, or I'll see them in the field, etc.. They're probably not going to tell me how offended they were by my failure to fawn over their cache or AL, but they'll probably think about it and I don't need to stir up thinly veiled hostility with a couple little stars. In a log, you can soften the blow with a diplomatic choice of words. Not so with a 1 star rating. I can't think of another reason why a person would leave an inaccurate or dishonest rating.

Edited May 15, 2023 by TheLimeCat

[+MNTA]

The cache example I use for this is GC12 1853 favorites or 52% favorited. It is an unremarkable hike in the woods to an unremarkable location but a tourist draw. When I found gc12 it was a 5 gallon bucket full of smelly/slimey water. Was I glad to find it yes but there are far better caches out there. At least GC17 is a beautiful hike with a spectacular view if the weather cooperates.

 

[+lee737]

8 minutes ago, MNTA said:

The cache example I use for this is GC12 1853 favorites or 52% favorited. It is an unremarkable hike in the woods to an unremarkable location but a tourist draw. When I found gc12 it was a 5 gallon bucket full of smelly/slimey water. Was I glad to find it yes but there are far better caches out there. At least GC17 is a beautiful hike with a spectacular view if the weather cooperates.

 

Yep - other common outliers are the very old caches..... I only ever give them FPs if they are well maintained.... very rare.

[+barefootjeff]

15 hours ago, edexter said:

A highly rated cache for me would be a small to regular sized container (room for log book and pencil) placed in woods by water, that is waterproof and of sturdy design, accurately described on a cache page that contains useful information related to the cache and area (parking, trailhead), that offers a hike of at least a half mile in a beautiful area, that the CO regularly maintains.

 

9 hours ago, lee737 said:

Yep - other common outliers are the very old caches..... I only ever give them FPs if they are well maintained.... very rare.

 

I'd like to think my hides would tick most of edexter's boxes except perhaps the regular maintenance one. My goal when designing a cache is for it to be maintenance-free across its lifetime and so far I've done reasonably well, with well over half my hides still the original container and logbook and remaining in good condition with their contents clean and dry. Sometimes I've failed, usually when what I thought was a snug dry rock hollow becomes a subterranean watercourse in heavy rain, but even then I try to come up with a permanent solution rather than do a temporary like-for-like replacement that will fail again during the next downpour. My oldest active hide, placed in March 2014, is still the original container and logbook with heaps of room left for at least another nine years of finds, with the only maintenance I've done being the replacement of a missing pencil in 2017. Ideally I'd like to be the invisible CO, doing routine checks for my own peace of mind at a frequency dependent on the cache and its remoteness, but never needing to fix anything or fill the cache page with OMs.

 

If I see a cache that has an extraordinary number of OM logs compared to finds, my immediate thought is that it wasn't very well thought out and is likely to be frequently problematic. Yes, a micro (or worse, a nano) in a popular area will need a lot of maintenance just to replace logs and perhaps manage wear and tear on the container and its seal, but something in a more remote spot, particularly if its hiding place protects it from the elements, should be almost set and forget. Indeed many of the oldest caches around here are just that, sturdy containers tucked under rock overhangs or in caves that are just as good now as the day they were placed. One of the caches I adopted, which dates from 2005, is like that, it being an ammo can under a dry ledge with a huge logbook inside, still only half-full after 214 finds. The only maintenance I've had to do since taking over in 2018 was to mark as missing some trackables listed in the inventory but not in the cache.

 

I admit I'm fortunate to live in an area dominated by ancient sandstone ridges with heaps of nice protected scenic hiding places for caches, and remember lee737 telling me that, in his region, the bushland is mostly just trees, undergrowth and dirt so just about every cache is exposed to the weather, but he's refined his own techniques for dealing with that and I'm sure some of his more recent hides will outlast mine. Making a non-urban cache essentially maintenance-free isn't really that hard if you design it properly to suit its environment, so I guess what I'm saying is don't be too quick to negatively rate a cache just because the owner hasn't logged any OMs.

[+fuzziebear3]

To me, they are 'favorite points', not 'recommendation points'.   I give favorite points to caches that I liked and found to be a favorite, which may or may not recommend them to someone else.  I give them very sparingly, and if something annoys me along the way, it is likely that you will lose any chance at a favorite.  For example, a decent cache, but no safe parking.

 

In general, my favorites require:  Good parking; good coordinates; a nice path to get there, probably a small hike; a clean container big enough to hold a travel bug.  Also, a nice cache page is great, a helpful hint if needed, a view is always an added bonus.   Pretty much roadside micro p&g's are out of luck.

 

Yep, that's my preference, and the way I play.  Those are my favorites.

 

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

For example, a decent cache, but no safe parking.

 

In general, my favorites require:  Good parking

I find your emphasis on parking interesting, mainly because I've seen complaints about the lack of parking for caches along a roadside multi-use trail. Those complaining were upset that there was no safe parking at the cache site, that they weren't P&G caches. Which was true, because there was no stopping or parking allowed on the 2-lane road. But the multi-use trail next to the road provided a nice walk (or jog, or bike ride, or whatever) from multiple safe parking locations.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 5/15/2023 at 1:26 PM, TheLimeCat said:

It would be very easy for an AL or cache owner to see when the rating suddenly increases or decreases when a single find comes in. It's tough to remain anonymous in those circumstances, even if the rating isn't technically attributed to you.

 

If a CO is offended by me disliking their geocache or AL then none of their placements are worth seeking. 

[+CacheTeddy]

If a cache was great 10 years ago, today it can be a simple can. For me only the favorite points from the last 12 months are really of interest. That would help me to identify which caches are still special.
 

[+Goldenwattle]

On 5/15/2023 at 7:07 PM, baer2006 said:

They are given anonymously. There is no way an AL owner can see who awarded how many stars.

I though they would be seen along with the review. If they are not seen by the CO, I might be harder with some scoring.

[+fuzziebear3]

On 5/16/2023 at 1:17 PM, niraD said:

I find your emphasis on parking interesting, mainly because I've seen complaints about the lack of parking for caches along a roadside multi-use trail. Those complaining were upset that there was no safe parking at the cache site, that they weren't P&G caches. Which was true, because there was no stopping or parking allowed on the 2-lane road. But the multi-use trail next to the road provided a nice walk (or jog, or bike ride, or whatever) from multiple safe parking locations.

 

If it is on a bike path or such, and there is a trailhead, that is good parking.   If it is on a roadside bridge guardrail on a country road, that is not good parking.  I don't want to worry while I am searching that my parking is in the way or illegal.

 

[+GoodSamNurse]

I would love to see a maintenance rating for each CO, but with every suggestion I would have, there is a flaw to it that makes a cache owner feel like they are wasting there time putting hides out just to feel unappreciated. For example, if technology could calculate the DNF's a CO has and translate it into a number that would reflect the amount of maintenance they do,  that could be very helpful. It is incredibly frustrating to set out on a trail where you think you're going to get 10 finds and you only find 3, and there were DNF's that went unchecked.  I think there should be some accountability. I don't think a CO should be allowed to keep publishing caches when they have a low maintenance rating. This system would be flawed however because of all the variables in this game, such as DT ratings for example. A cache may have lots of DNF's simply because it's difficult to find. Maybe if a DT rating is 2/2 or below, it should automatically be open to a rating system to reflect your ability to maintain a cache properly. 

 

Another variable of this game that I don't understand is the lonely cache challenges that people like to do. Some have said that it is the excitement of not knowing what condition a cache is going to be found in after going 3 years without being found, but the CO rule is that you must maintain your cache twice a year, so why would any cache ever be lonely? This makes no sense. I have been told that just because a CO doesn't document their maintenance doesn't mean that they haven't maintained it, but that same person will thrill in finding a lonely cache. It makes no sense. This game has too many variables with people making up their own rules and challenges. I feel that every cache must be documented as visited and in decent condition at least twice a year, either by a finder or the CO. 

 

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, GoodSamNurse said:

but the CO rule is that you must maintain your cache twice a year

Say what now?

[+A J Pombo]

2 hours ago, GoodSamNurse said:

I feel that every cache must be documented as visited and in decent condition at least twice a year, either by a finder or the CO. 

 

 

Yes, I agree with you, but we don't live in a perfect world... geocaching is not a perfect game, it's just an excuse to go out for a walk...

[+fizzymagic]

3 hours ago, GoodSamNurse said:

the CO rule is that you must maintain your cache twice a year, so why would any cache ever be lonely?

Where, exactly, is this "rule" documented?

 

It doesn't exist.

 

A well-placed, suitable container can last a long time in perfect condition.  I have 4 caches (all ammo cans) that I hid in 2002 or 2003 and have never revisited,  Finders report that they are in perfect shape.  Given that I am now 20+ years older, I may never visit them again, as they are all quite difficult to get to.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, GoodSamNurse said:

For example, if technology could calculate the DNF's a CO has and translate it into a number that would reflect the amount of maintenance they do,  that could be very helpful. It is incredibly frustrating to set out on a trail where you think you're going to get 10 finds and you only find 3, and there were DNF's that went unchecked.  I think there should be some accountability. I don't think a CO should be allowed to keep publishing caches when they have a low maintenance rating. This system would be flawed however because of all the variables in this game, such as DT ratings for example. A cache may have lots of DNF's simply because it's difficult to find. Maybe if a DT rating is 2/2 or below, it should automatically be open to a rating system to reflect your ability to maintain a cache properly.

 

Across the 48 active caches I've hidden (excluding the three I adopted as they have past history), there have been 59 DNFs logged but with only one of them was the cache missing (I subsequently found it a month later hidden inside a hollow tree base some 50 metres from GZ). For the other 58, they were just searchers who, for all manner of reasons, didn't succeed in finding the cache that time. One of them in particular, GC5H5G2 (hidden in 2014 and still the original container and original logbook), has had 15 DNFs from 86 finds. I've rated it D2 and it really shouldn't be that hard, except the hiding place is low down and people either don't see it or just dismiss it and start expanding their search in ever-increasing circles until they finally give up and log a DNF. I've tried to make the hint as explicit as I can without giving it away completely, but it still occasionally gets DNFs. A few times it's even had two DNFs in a row but it's never been missing.

 

It's much the same story with DNFs I've logged, with something like 90% of those just being my ineptitude at finding caches rather than any problem with the cache. A lot of the time I've gone back a second time better prepared and converted the DNF into a find. When I log a DNF, it doesn't mean I think the cache is missing or that I want the owner to check on it, it just means my attempt at getting my name in the logbook failed on that occasion, often because I had some preconceived idea of what I was looking for which turned out to be wrong. If I do want the owner to do a check, because I think there's enough evidence to warrant that, I'll log an NM/OAR.

 

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, GoodSamNurse said:

I feel that every cache must be documented as visited and in decent condition at least twice a year, either by a finder or the CO. 

 

What about the more remote high-terrain caches that require a lot of time and effort to get to? For example, there's the terrain 4.5 cache I did with a group of friends in 2019 for my 1000th find. Getting there and back was a full-day hike (the CO camped overnight at GZ when placing it) with rugged and often trackless terrain to traverse, including a deep gully to cross and a series of cliff lines to ascend.

 

 

In the four years since then, that cache has only had one more finder. It's a rugged thick-walled plastic container hidden under a rock ledge on the edge of a cliff where it's not going to degrade or disappear of its own accord. If you forced the CO to visit it (and all the other high-terrain caches he specialises in) at least twice a year, I'm sure he'd just archive them all.

 

Although none of my own hides are quite as remote, many still require a fair bit of time and effort to get to. I design them to not require constant maintenance by using rugged containers, good-sized logbooks (yes books, not scraps of paper) and hiding places that protect them from the elements and inquisitive muggles. Here's an example of a cache I placed in 2017 (GC752YF), using a stainless steel cookpot concealed in the back of a dry sandstone cave atop a ridge. These photos are from my visit a few months ago, with everything still pristine after six years:

 

 

Getting to it is a 12km return hike with some fairly steep elevation changes along the way. It's only had two finds in the last three years, and neither the container nor the 160-page logbook is likely to need maintenance in my lifetime. Even the pencil will likely outlast me.

 

It's a similar story with my most recent hide (GCAEX05). That one is a 16km return hike to a remote series of waterfalls, cascades and pools, with the cache in an elevated spot above the falls in a wind-eroded sandstone cave. For that I used a Duratech ABS instrument cache, my go-to rugged waterproof container these days:

 

 

Its 96-page logbook is unlikely to fill up, as the cache will probably struggle to ever reach a double-digit find count (FTF only just went off a week after publication). If someone reports a problem I'll happily go out and check on it, but otherwise I'm sure it will survive quite well without me nursemaiding it and, like the stainless steel cookpot, will likely outlast me.

 

I doubt it's caches like these that are causing all the anguish behind the recent calls for mandatory yearly or twice-yearly CO visits, yet it's the caches like these that will end up archived as a result.

Edited October 18, 2023 by barefootjeff