How to Promote Quality Caches is the Question

[+edexter]

     The Game does a fine job of promoting the Quantity of caches but ignores the Quality of Caches.  We all know of local cachers who consistently place "pretty good caches" and who diligently maintain them but get no recognition from The Game.  Fav Points, based on the total number of them are sortable and identify caches with the most "votes" but ignore the % of Fav Points.  A 10 year old cache with 200 finds and 10 fav points comes higher in the sort than a new cache with 10 finds but three fav points.  The Most Favs lists are dominated by older caches making it even harder to identify the "new good stuff".  

     I believe The Game needs to focus some attention on how to highlight the "pretty good caches" out there.  We don't need a complex formula or a detailed survey form to do this.   A simple way to anonymously record what your opinion of a cache is might be a check box asking  "Do you consider this a pretty good cache?" which is recorded at the time of a find and separated from the log.   Then add add up the PGC numbers and publish it in a sortable form.   Right now, if you publish a "pretty good cache" it is in effect rated on two scales (Finds, that is popularity, and Fav Points) which obscures its Quality for the reasons noted above.  I see many efforts to encourage finding caches, but none to place High Quality caches.  In other words, The Game incentivizes finds, but not placements, and the general level of caches, at least as reported by the number of Fav Pts is pretty low.  

   Now I realize that anything that is measured can be gamed...but recording whether you thought a cache was "pretty good" is straightforward.  Coming up with some incentive for folks to hide "pretty good caches" is something The Game needs to consider as important and worthwhile.  What do you think?

 

Edited June 30 by edexter
clarity

[+Bear and Ragged]

A great cache?

Write a great log!

 

Fav Points?

Read a lot of the logs of the FTFs. "FTF, have a FP" Does that really tell anyone if it's a great cache or not? Not really.

Problem with the part of writing a great log, who reads logs these days, and does the app encourage cachers to read the logs?

 

Great logs might benefit from fellow cachers marking them as a "Great Story"

 

 

[+lee737]

I think the FP system does the job really nicely, and does correlate well with 'pretty good' and 'great' caches.... it also doesn't get gamed, as only paying members get them to give out, and they are then in rather limited supply. 

Voting systems, where the votes aren't limited, seem a bit like our AL ratings. I don't do them now, but how many rubbish ALs had scores over 4/5..... a bunch!

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, edexter said:

A simple way to anonymously record what your opinion of a cache is might be a check box asking  "Do you consider this a pretty good cache?" which is recorded at the time of a find and separated from the log.   Then add add up the PGC numbers and publish it in a sortable form. 

 

If there was a separate "pretty good cache" checkbox, with no limit on how many I could check it on, where would I draw the line? I'm struggling to think of any caches I've done this year that weren't "pretty good", if that means it provided a bit of fun outdoors and the cache itself was in good condition. Where I live, caches are sparse and new ones close to home are a rare treat, so I'm easily pleased whenever I get the chance to go out and do some caching. As long as I can get to GZ and find the cache without attracting undue attention from onlookers, and the log is dry with room for me to sign, I'm happy and would consider the cache "pretty good", in that it's better than having no cache there at all.

 

Also any such new checkbox wouldn't apply retrospectively so the "pretty good cache" percentage would only really be meaningful on new caches published after its introduction.

 

I'm always running short of FPs, so there's a bit of a gap where a cache is better than average but not quite at the point where it'll get an FP from me, but other finders generally fill that gap so such caches still have reasonable FP percentages. Overall I think the FP system works pretty well to indicate good caches, but where it's lacking is in the tools for searching for them. Around here at least, the caches with the highest FP counts are typically old caches in tourist hotspots, so the website search tools and the app's FP indicator aren't of much help in identifying those awesome off-the-beaten-track caches that have high percentage FPs but low find counts.

 

But I'm not a typical cacher, as these days most aren't interested in those sorts of hides. Back in February, I placed a cache (GCB3489) at a scenic cliff-top spot close to the Great North Walk in the Watagan Mountains, with a regular-sized themed novelty container. It had two people claim joint FTF five days after publication but nothing since then. That's probably not surprising, as the cache is called Quite Ridiculous and GZ is either a ridiculously long hike or a ridiculously steep climb from the nearest parking, and both those parking spots are a ridiculously long drive from anywhere. I'm biased I know, but I reckon it's a pretty cool cache at a pretty cool spot and, if someone else had placed it, I'd have been out there in a dash. That's how it played out on GC9QR5W which one of my friends placed in April 2022 at a series of nice waterfalls. I dashed out the following day, hoping to get FTF, but I needn't have hurried as it was another 6 months before the next finder came along. It now has 5 FPs from 6 finds so I doubt it'll ever get an FP indicator in the app or feature in anyone's search for highly favourited caches.

[+edexter]

lee737 wrote:  "I think the FP system does the job really nicely, and does correlate well with 'pretty good' and 'great' caches.... it also doesn't get gamed, as only paying members get them to give out, and they are then in rather limited supply."   I find that the absolute number of fav pts a caches has is very little help as it is highly skewed towards older caches.  For instance sorting the roughly 900 active caches on Cape Cod, the top 10% of caches had between 415 and 36 Fav Pts, the average placement was 2012, and there were none placed in the past three years.  Without the ability to sort by Fav Pt percentages it's not helpful unless you are a newbie.   The AL rating system is total unhelpful as you noted.  

barefootjeff noted:  Two issues that I believe attempting to promote Quality caches would address:  1, The Only Game in Town Problem (there are so few caches anything will do: " I'm happy and would consider the cache "pretty good", in that it's better than having no cache there at all."  2.  Quality is Not Recognized :   "It now has 5 FPs from 6 finds so I doubt it'll ever get an FP indicator in the app or feature in anyone's search for highly favourited caches".  Too few finds to be recognized by an absolute score but with an 83% Fav Point % obviously a "pretty good cache".  

To use an analogy from the from the world of finance:  "Gresham's Law states that "bad money drives out good money". This means that when two forms of currency with the same face value are in circulation, the one with the lower intrinsic value (the "bad" money) will be used for transactions, while the one with the higher intrinsic value (the "good" money) will be saved or taken out of circulation".  This applies to The Game, since all finds count for the same smilie value, and you can't readily tell the good from the bad without a scorecard until you go find it yourself.  The Old Good are recognized by the fav point, which in effect hides the new good stuff,  effectively "taking them out of circulation" as they are unrecognized.  I for one would appreciate a system that highlighted the best stuff, but see no way for that to happen unless Quality is promoted. 

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, edexter said:

lee737 wrote:

 

you know there's a quote function on the boards, right?

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, edexter said:

This applies to The Game, since all finds count for the same smilie value

This assumes that the only value for a cache is to increment one's smiley count. Certainly some people play that way, but not all of us do.

[+Snoogans]

On 6/30/2025 at 3:07 PM, edexter said:

     The Game does a fine job of promoting the Quantity of caches but ignores the Quality of Caches.  We all know of local cachers who consistently place "pretty good caches" and who diligently maintain them but get no recognition from The Game.  Fav Points, based on the total number of them are sortable and identify caches with the most "votes" but ignore the % of Fav Points.  A 10 year old cache with 200 finds and 10 fav points comes higher in the sort than a new cache with 10 finds but three fav points.  The Most Favs lists are dominated by older caches making it even harder to identify the "new good stuff".  

     I believe The Game needs to focus some attention on how to highlight the "pretty good caches" out there.  We don't need a complex formula or a detailed survey form to do this.   A simple way to anonymously record what your opinion of a cache is might be a check box asking  "Do you consider this a pretty good cache?" which is recorded at the time of a find and separated from the log.   Then add add up the PGC numbers and publish it in a sortable form.   Right now, if you publish a "pretty good cache" it is in effect rated on two scales (Finds, that is popularity, and Fav Points) which obscures its Quality for the reasons noted above.  I see many efforts to encourage finding caches, but none to place High Quality caches.  In other words, The Game incentivizes finds, but not placements, and the general level of caches, at least as reported by the number of Fav Pts is pretty low.  

   Now I realize that anything that is measured can be gamed...but recording whether you thought a cache was "pretty good" is straightforward.  Coming up with some incentive for folks to hide "pretty good caches" is something The Game needs to consider as important and worthwhile.  What do you think?

 

By the number of favorite points you're sporting on your profile, I have no doubt you have high standards for yourself and that's highly commendable, but you should really endeavor to manage your expectations of others.

Geocaching is a highly subjective all volunteer activity.

May I direct you to this thread that may help a little with management of expectation. 

[+lee737]

2 hours ago, edexter said:

To use an analogy from the from the world of finance:  "Gresham's Law states that "bad money drives out good money". This means that when two forms of currency with the same face value are in circulation, the one with the lower intrinsic value (the "bad" money) will be used for transactions, while the one with the higher intrinsic value (the "good" money) will be saved or taken out of circulation".  This applies to The Game, since all finds count for the same smilie value, and you can't readily tell the good from the bad without a scorecard until you go find it yourself.  The Old Good are recognized by the fav point, which in effect hides the new good stuff,  effectively "taking them out of circulation" as they are unrecognized.  I for one would appreciate a system that highlighted the best stuff, but see no way for that to happen unless Quality is promoted. 

 

But until the new caches have been found a bit, nobody will be clicking the 'pretty good cache' button anyway... so how much better off would you be? And this system would have so much interference from people default clicking it for almost anything, that I suspect it would not be very discriminative between 'pretty good' and bad/average caches.

and - as far as finance analogy goes, I'm a scientist, so you lost me!

[+edexter]

Well, if you are a scientist, then you understand statistical distributions and the null hypothesis.  Your null hypothesis here is "people can't distinguish the good from the bad" .  An associated one is "promoting Quality won't have any effect".  The Fav Points refute, both but since they focus on the absolute number (quantity) not the % (relative Quality), they are mainly  good for identifying older caches.  Simply changing to a % based system with no minimum would allow good new caches to be noticed.  Using a broader base than the "1 in 10" FP standard would identify "pretty good caches" much more quickly.  

[+edexter]

Snoogans;  I get it.  Different folks have different reasons for playing the game.  We all enjoy certain aspects of it more than others.  I think that getting feedback from folks who find caches as to their Quality would be more helpful than not and that a standard of "that was a pretty good cache" would be useful information for everyone.   It's as about as inclusive as you can get.  All I am saying here is it would be helpful to have a percentage based metric to identify Quality when I sit down to decide where to go caching today.  

[+lee737]

4 hours ago, edexter said:

 Simply changing to a % based system with no minimum would allow good new caches to be noticed.  

I suppose you also expect HQ to implement a search criteria to allow for filtering of the new 'pretty-good points', or even the percentage of same. They haven't even added that for their own FP system, so I wouldn't start holding my breath waiting!

[+edexter]

Yeah, I know.  I have low expectations.  Just posting the FP% along with the FP would help as it could be sorted in GSAK.  As I've said, The Game does a lot to promote Quanity but  ignores Quality except for Fav Points.   It seems odd to me.  Just invert the question:  What would you do if you wanted to avoid Quality?  How would you keep the average cache from being better?  How would you make the good new stuff harder to notice?  

 

[+edexter]

On 7/1/2025 at 4:30 PM, niraD said:

On 7/1/2025 at 3:07 PM, edexter said:

This applies to The Game, since all finds count for the same smilie value

This assumes that the only value for a cache is to increment one's smiley count. Certainly some people play that way, but not all of us do.

nairD:  I'm not assuming that:  in fact I am assuming the opposite:  The Game structure "counts all finds as the same value:  one smilie."  It ignores what folks who play for other reasons experience as their is no metric (aside from a favorite point) to recognize the experience you had while caching.  I would like The Game to consider ways to recognize more of the experience than just a "find" .  The folks who want a high point count are well served by the current system as they can tell where all the caches are already.  The folks who cache for the walk, the scenic view, the being outdoors in nature, the history of the area, whatever it is you enjoy besides "the find", are not.  I'm much more interested in what you thought about the experience.  The Game would benefit by finding ways to highlight "the good stuff", especially the expirience of people who enjoy some caches more than others.   

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, edexter said:

All I am saying here is it would be helpful to have a percentage based metric to identify Quality when I sit down to decide where to go caching today.

 

Even FPs can go a bit wonky sometimes. One of mine (GC9ZM7G), published in September 2022, is at what I think is a pretty impressive rock pinnacle on Alum Mountain near Bulahdelah on the New South Wales Mid North Coast. The cache itself is a Duratech ABS instrument case with a 160-page spiral-bound stone-paper logbook and a pencil.

 

 

The first 8 finders, spread over 6 months, all gave it FPs but none of the next 13 did. Since then, it's had another 9 finders, 3 of whom gave it FPs. It got to the point where I did the 2 hour drive and hike up the mountain to check on it, wondering if the container had been damaged (or even replaced with a rusty mint tin throwdown) or rehidden incorrectly, but everything was fine apart from a broken pencil, which I replaced. Trying to determine whether this is a pretty good cache or not just from the pattern of FPs would be difficult. You'd really need to read those logs to get a picture of what to expect, but some of those just say "Found it", "Candace 25.6 24" and "Tftc" so they aren't very helpful. I guess those finders probably would have preferred it to have been a micro in the car park so they wouldn't have had to do the long steep climb up the mountain.

 

The only explanation I can think of is that those early finders all went there with that cache as their primary target, whereas the later ones look to have been mostly passing through on their way along the highway, stopped for a break in Bulahdelah and did the hike up the mountain to stretch their legs before continuing on their journey. The cache was probably an afterthought, logged on their phone in the field and then forgotten about by the time they'd returned to their car and hit the road again.

 

Weather permitting, I'm planning to drive up there tomorrow to do a routine check on the cache and then head across to Hawks Nest for lunch. There are 8 caches around there so I'll just load them onto my GPSr before leaving home and decide which ones I want to do when I get there. Some might be awesome, some pretty good, some mundane or maybe even in the "wish I hadn't bothered" category, but it's somewhere I haven't been before and part of the fun for me is finding out when I get there what it's like.