Jump to content

Locationless Cache Requirements


Recommended Posts

I'll be adding this somewhere on the site shortly, but since the majority of locationless caches are posted from geocachers in the forums, it makes sense to post it here first.

 

Keep in mind that the spirit of the game is to use a GPS to find objects in the world. The critical pieces are coordinates and something semi-permanent that a person will find there. Locationless caches are in some ways a "reverse cache."

 

We're working on better ways to expand outside this realm, but it will be a while. Stick within these boundaries and you should be ok.

 

-------------------

 

Locationless caches:

 

1. Must be semi-permanent to permanent. For example, nothing that is mobile can be a locationless cache. Examples (nonexclusive) are cars, buses, helicopters, boats, etc. A local carnival cache is another example of a cache that would not be approved. If I mark coordinates at a location it should be there tomorrow.

 

Caches dubbed "scavenger hunt caches" will no longer be approved unless they meet the guidelines above.

 

2. Locationless caches must be novel, meaning of interest to someone else. Something you'd expect to find in coffee table book format. Good examples would be Burma Shave signs (americana), dinosaur sculptures of the world, mazes of the world. Bad examples are "manhole covers of the world" or "American flags on poles." The interest is in the uncommon, not the common. Views (cityscapes, etc), however spectacular, do not count as well.

 

3. Don't consider a locationless cache to be automatically approved. In fact, expect it not to be approved. The approvers will approve caches based on their interpretation of the rules.

 

4. Logging a locationless cache find requires (real) coordinates. No exceptions. Logs without coordinates will be deleted.

 

If you have a question whether a specific cache should be acceptable, ask in the forums.

 

There is no such thing as precident regarding caches of any kind. Indicating prior examples in the site are not a good argument since the rules were not in place at that time. Sometimes they do slip through the cracks, however. In this case notify the site and that cache will be archived.

 

--------------------

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

We discussed locationless caches today on the way to the Yorkshire Cache-Bash, and came to almost the same conclusion.

 

Hopefully this will mean we have some meaningful locationless caches to hunt in the times when "real" caches are thin on the ground.

 

alex.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kimrobin:

...Hopefully this will mean we have some meaningful locationless caches to hunt in the times when "real" caches are thin on the ground.

 

alex.


 

I raise my frosty (sorry American .. must be cold icon_biggrin.gif ) mug of Newcastle to you sir.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kimrobin:

...Hopefully this will mean we have some meaningful locationless caches to hunt in the times when "real" caches are thin on the ground.

 

alex.


 

I raise my frosty (sorry American .. must be cold icon_biggrin.gif ) mug of Newcastle to you sir.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

Link to comment

I'm all for that. We're glad to see some order to the Locationless arena. I'm glad you are holding the reins and not pulling back to hard. DaMama and I have found some very unique places and it has brought us to a new level of awareness of our immediate area. I believe these caches should have there own place but I will back you in what ever you decide. Thanks Jeremy.

 

...Cache Responsible & may all your birds be in view...

...Faithwalker & DaMama...

Link to comment

Thank you very much for finally establishing guidelines. Although I myself have submitted some locationless caches that weren't accepted (refused because they violate the rules above) I can honestly say it's a good thing you're doing it. I would like to propose one additional rule: a person can not use an already established cache to create a locationless cache, to count as a find, or subsequently create a virtual cache based on something they logged as a find on a locationless cache. For example, if I see a cache where the object is to locate a round house, & I've previously established a virtual cache with that type of house as the subject, or have logged onto that type cache as a visitor, it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a "find" on the locationless cache type.

 

WUHOO TEAMGWHO!

Link to comment

I think it would be really neat if the whole structure of locationless caches were changed - and kept separate from traditional geocaching. What I envision would be something that starts off as an approved categorical location (having gone through a fairly strict approval process) -- an example might be "waterfalls". If the category (what we now called a locationless cache) proved to be popular (when a particular threshhold of finds is reached) then each "find" would automatically become a virtual cache, belonging to the original finder, in a category of virtual caches called "waterfalls". Others could then find and log waterfalls that have been found and identified. If I were particularly interested, I could start specifically collecting finds of "waterfalls" virtual caches. I can imagine some really interesting categories, and could see interesting competitions starting and goals being set by players.

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah:

quote:
Sorry, It's really not appropriate to catalog places where people likely lost their lives


 

I am very curious to know where that quote came from, James, and who wrote it, as it isn't in Jeremy's original post to this thread and there is no name on it.

 

Who are you quoting and where was the original written statement from?

----------

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

"I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations."

GeoGadgets Team Website

Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite

 

It's not whether or not you pick your nose that matters, but where you put the booger...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah:

Sorry,

It's really not appropriate to catalog places where people likely lost their lives

 

 


 

One of the caches you listed is my 'Memorials - The Fallen'. The point of the cache is not that it's cool to find places where people have died, but to allow more people to be aware of the tragedies that have occured, not just in this country but all over the world. It is a way of educating people about parts of history that otherwise might not be told. Especially in the case of local history. As the saying goes those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. It's my feeling that if the event was significant enough to warrent a memorial, then it is significant enough to share that part of history with everyone.

 

If you REALLY feel that a cache like this should be archived, do you also feel that the memorials should be torn down? After all, they only serve to bring people to places where people lost their lives, don't they?

 

You can't seriously be abdicating that we remove caches like the POW/MIA rememberance cache, are you? If you are, do you want the whole world to forget that people actually do die in this world and sometimes for reasons that are not what people would call natural causes? Are we supposed to just turn a blind eye to the tragedy in this world instead of learn from it? Grrr... you really hit a nerve on this one.

 

OK, after reading KD7MXI's unapproved cache I calmed down a bit. I can see why he posted the message now. But that still doesn't change the fact that some places where people died (or even are just related to deaths as are some of the caches he pointed out) should be acceptable as caches. A blanket ban on anything that remotely deals with death would be stupid IMHO. As I said, if it's acceptable to place a memorial or whatever there, then I don't see a problem with a cache. I'll step down from my soapbox now...

 

[This message was edited by Gloom on May 18, 2002 at 08:50 PM.]

Link to comment

I'm going to crawl out on a limb here and make a statement. Locationless caches are bogus. They are not keeping within the spirit of the game as I believe it was intended.

 

I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but someone needs to say it. The next thing we will be logging is dates on the coins in our pockets or four leaf clovers, even road kill. I mean...where does it end?

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

Everyone has an opinion around here. The caches I listed are very much what Jeremy says won't be allowed, but are.

 

Now as far as memorials that's not Jeremy's idea at all. I've hit a few virtual memorial caches and enjoy reading about what occurred. It's not a bad way to learn a little local history. Plus we get to enjoy the game even more this way.

 

Don't want to go see a memorial, don't go. Simple, allow the rest of us to enjoy ourselves.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by El Diablo:

I'm going to crawl out on a limb here and make a statement. Locationless caches are bogus.


 

This topic has been gone over many times in other discussions. Locationless caches are here, whether everyone likes it or not. True they are not a traditional geocaching activity, in fact they are the reverse of it (as Jeremy points out), but they are an activity closely related (sort of like letterboxing) that uses a GPS.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The GeoGadgets Team:

....I am very curious to know where that quote came from, James, and who wrote it, as it isn't in Jeremy's original post to this thread and there is no name on it.

 

Who are you quoting and where was the original written statement from?

...


 

Red ... that was from the response to one of his caches ... a note from the person that turned down the cache ... you can read it by going to this link

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

Link to comment

Gloom,

Locationless caches may be here, but they do not require a gps. Virtual caches require a gps....I have no problem with those. Letter boxing dosen't require a gps but they are still caches placed by people.....just a different mode of finding them. As far as to let it go, that it has been discussed many times. Maybe.....but this is the first time I've discussed it. Just to make one point clear...I don't have a problem with people looking for locationless caches, I don't care if they log them. I just think we are getting outside of true geocaching.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gloom:

quote:
Originally posted by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah:

Sorry,

It's really not appropriate to catalog places where people likely lost their lives

 

 


 

One of the caches you listed is my 'Memorials - The Fallen'. The point of the cache is not that it's cool to find places where people have died, but to allow more people to be aware of the tragedies that have occured, not just in this country but all over the world. It is a way of educating people about parts of history that otherwise might not be told. Especially in the case of local history. As the saying goes those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. It's my feeling that if the event was significant enough to warrent a memorial, then it is significant enough to share that part of history with everyone.

 

If you REALLY feel that a cache like this should be archived, do you also feel that the memorials should be torn down? After all, they only serve to bring people to places where people lost their lives, don't they?

 

You can't seriously be abdicating that we remove caches like the POW/MIA rememberance cache, are you? If you are, do you want the whole world to forget that people actually do die in this world and sometimes for reasons that are not what people would call natural causes? Are we supposed to just turn a blind eye to the tragedy in this world instead of learn from it? Grrr... you really hit a nerve on this one.

 

OK, after reading KD7MXI's unapproved cache I calmed down a bit. I can see why he posted the message now. But that still doesn't change the fact that some places where people died (or even are just related to deaths as are some of the caches he pointed out) should be acceptable as caches. A blanket ban on anything that remotely deals with death would be stupid IMHO. As I said, if it's acceptable to place a memorial or whatever there, then I don't see a problem with a cache. I'll step down from my soapbox now...

 

[This message was edited by Gloom on May 18, 2002 at 08:50 PM.]


 

I agree memorials may have some merit. But lets post coords to an actual memorial you are aware of and get people to go there.

 

That is what I believe is the spirit of the game and what Jeremy was talking about.

 

Smoochnme

 

goldfish.gif

"When we are learning to face, the path at our pace. All our choices are worthwhile"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by smoochnme:

 

I agree memorials may have some merit. But lets post coords to an actual memorial you are aware of and get people to go there.


 

But can't you see, that's exactly what's happening. People post coordinates to memorials (for example, or whatever the cache is about). That way other people have a list of memorials that they can go to if they choose to. For example, if someone posts a log about a memorial that I'm not aware of, then I can go find it if I so choose and it's in an area that I can get to. Otherwise I might not ever know that it's there. It gives people a chance to share knowledge that may not otherwise be shared. You can't say that people who post logs for a cache like this are going to make a cache of it themselves if they don't have the opportunity to log this one. If they wanted to do that, then they could still make their own cache of it.

 

Since I've stayed out of this dicussion up until now, and I've been sort of sucked in, here's my take on it. I agree that the locationless caches aren't purely "geocaching" as it was originally defined, but everything grows and changes. For me, my interest in this sport is being able to go to and find interesting locations that I otherwise might not know about. Locationless caches are just another way for me to do that. I do agree that locationless caches should probably be put in another category from geocaching, but for now that's all we have. I have neither the time, resources, or knowledge to make a website dedicated soley to locationless caches, so until someone does or Jeremy splits geocaching.com into seperate activities (locationless, virtual, etc) then we have to deal with what we are given. A lot of people like locationless caches and a lot don't. For those that don't all I can say is, ignore them. For those that do, let's try to find a way keep this from interfering with the traditional style caches.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah:

quote:
Sorry,

It's really not appropriate to catalog places where people likely lost their lives


 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=21405

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=17345

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=20866

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=20545

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=22173

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=21166

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=22364

 

welcome to MY world!!!

------------------------------------------------------------

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CacheAcrossAmerica

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

 

Hmmm... Reviewed them all. While not all are my cup of tea, I don't agree with a single one of your reccommendations. Most of the ones you reccomend involve graves, one shiprecks, which can double as a grave, and the last, mine has nothing to do with graves, or the dead and doesn't seem to fit your theme of dislike. Oh well to each their own. Perhaps you won't be doing these locationless caches? Didn't think so. Utah has plenty of traditional caches. Here in Idaho some of us are running out of caches to go find. Locationless give us some challenge and a quest to go find something. Which was the entire point of geocaching and 100% within the spirit of the game. While I do not yet own a digital camera, I am about to run out of local caches and I'm looking foward to the challenge presented by these caches. I even know of a shipwreck that probably has not been logged.

Link to comment

Thank you, Jeremy. Although I support "locationless" caches, I wholeheartedly agree that most have been getting very lame. We need these rules to clarify what is and isn't acceptable. The rules you've created are fair and reasonable. Again, thanks! Keep up the terrific work!

 

25021_1200.gif

Link to comment

Although I have in general Not supported locationaless where the coordinates come last, I agree with Web-ling here. I can live with the steps taken and would be willing to participate in them if they are unique.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

Thank you, Jeremy. Although I support "locationless" caches, I wholeheartedly agree that most have been getting very lame. We need these rules to clarify what is and isn't acceptable. The rules you've created are fair and reasonable. Again, thanks! Keep up the terrific work!

 


 

2573_200.jpg

Link to comment

I have no problems with documenting any kind of wreck, whether train, boat, or plane. As long as you keep the locationless cache as a statement of fact and not a political/religious/commercial/(insert controversial topic) statement, then there should be no problems with it.

 

My opinion is that if it exists and is of novel interest, then it should be considered (as outlined in the rules above). We just need to make sure that one locationless cache hasn't been done already.

 

Wreckchasing is an activity that has been around for a while. Finding a plane wreck (or sunken vessel) is facinating to me. And seeing wreckage has a profound impact on your perception of reality. I don't find it inappropriate if done in good taste.

 

For those keeping score, locationless caches will be removed from the "find" count on the site and in its own category, as all the counts will be separated out. I just need to sort out the most efficient way of doing this without affecting the database too much.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

Seneca is on the right wavelength. Locationless caches (and virtuals) will continue to be separated from Geocaching in its purist form. We're working on a framework to make this happen, but will take some time. Once we get more concrete plans we'll let you folks know.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by El Diablo:

 

I'm going to crawl out on a limb here and make a statement. Locationless caches are bogus. They are not keeping within the spirit of the game as I believe it was intended.


 

That limb you've crawled out on has a lot of company. Have you read any of the previous discussion threads on this topic?

 

quote:

I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but someone needs to say it. The next thing we will be logging is dates on the coins in our pockets or four leaf clovers, even road kill. I mean...where does it end?


 

This is EXACTLY the reason for the new requirements that have been added. None of the examples you just listed meet those requirements.

 

Your comments make me wonder if you even read the original post that started this thread. icon_confused.gif

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by El Diablo:

 

I'm going to crawl out on a limb here and make a statement. Locationless caches are bogus. They are not keeping within the spirit of the game as I believe it was intended.


 

That limb you've crawled out on has a lot of company. Have you read any of the previous discussion threads on this topic?

 

quote:

I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but someone needs to say it. The next thing we will be logging is dates on the coins in our pockets or four leaf clovers, even road kill. I mean...where does it end?


 

This is EXACTLY the reason for the new requirements that have been added. None of the examples you just listed meet those requirements.

 

Your comments make me wonder if you even read the original post that started this thread. icon_confused.gif

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

... I would like to propose one additional rule: a person can not use an already established cache to create a locationless cache, to count as a find, or subsequently create a virtual cache based on something they logged as a find on a locationless cache. ...


 

I agree to some extent that someone shouldn't be able to claim an already established cache as a locationless find ... No one should be able to claim two finds for a single location. But if the individual used the subject of an existing cache (that the individual had not claimed a find for in the past, nor will in the future) as a locationless find, then I have no problem with the claim. The rest of your statement doesn't really make sense; neither does it appear to be "fair."

 

Many locationless caches specify that a specific location can be logged only once, yet the location one has selected might be of significant local interest.

 

Creating a new virtual cache for a site already claimed as a locationless cache allows all other cachers to claim a legitimate find for their local landmark/treasure. In my opinion, that is "fair" to all.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on May 19, 2002 at 11:46 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by El Diablo:

I'm going to crawl out on a limb here and make a statement. ... I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but someone needs to say it. The next thing we will be logging is dates on the coins in our pockets or four leaf clovers ... I mean...where does it end?


 

Yeah, you're so right! The next thing ya know, people will start tracking the serial numbers on dollar bills, and attaching tags to trinkets to see how far they travel. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by El Diablo:

I'm going to crawl out on a limb here and make a statement. ... I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but someone needs to say it. The next thing we will be logging is dates on the coins in our pockets or four leaf clovers ... I mean...where does it end?


 

Yeah, you're so right! The next thing ya know, people will start tracking the serial numbers on dollar bills, and attaching tags to trinkets to see how far they travel. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

I have only done a couple of these caches. But I think if is a thing that is in place and I can go there and log something and take a picture then it is ok.

 

If going to a cache like this takes me and my family to something I would not normaly go to and I learn something or am introduced to an sight that is interesting I have no problem with locationless caches.

 

gm100guy

http://members.rogers.com/gm100guy/cachepage.htm

GM1002.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

I have no problems

For those keeping score, locationless caches will be removed from the "find" count on the site and in its own category, as all the counts will be separated out. I just need to sort out the most efficient way of doing this without affecting the database too much.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location


 

I'm glad you are removing them from the find count. I logged a couple when I first saw them but quickly realized this wasn't the way I wanted to pad my counts. The dilema was that some of the locationless caches are kind of interesting and I was thinking of setting up a new account just to log those finds. This will let me hunt them if I want but still keep the counts real icon_smile.gif

 

Rusty...

 

MIGO_Logo88x31.gif

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

I have no problems

For those keeping score, locationless caches will be removed from the "find" count on the site and in its own category, as all the counts will be separated out. I just need to sort out the most efficient way of doing this without affecting the database too much.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location


 

I'm glad you are removing them from the find count. I logged a couple when I first saw them but quickly realized this wasn't the way I wanted to pad my counts. The dilema was that some of the locationless caches are kind of interesting and I was thinking of setting up a new account just to log those finds. This will let me hunt them if I want but still keep the counts real icon_smile.gif

 

Rusty...

 

MIGO_Logo88x31.gif

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Link to comment

I agree. I think they are fine, even interestinfg to see, but are not the same animal, and thus they should have they're own, seperate, find count. To this point, they have been used mostly to pad find counts. (We are all a legend in our on mind, aren't we) and so if they are seperated out, "locationless" itself will become a more valid catagory.

 

2573_200.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by EraSeek:

I agree. I think they are fine, even interestinfg to see, but are not the same animal, and thus they should have they're own, seperate, find count. To this point, they have been used mostly to pad find counts.


 

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but much the same has been said about virtual caches. It could even be extended to 1/1 caches. "They're just too easy." "People just do them to pad their counts." "REAL MEN don't DO 1/1 (alternate: virtual) caches."

Somebody is always going to be unhappy.

 

I agree many locationless caches have been inordinately indiscriminate. But times, they are a-changin'.

Link to comment

Thanks for the direction, Jeremy. While many people believe that rues are bad, we must realize that in all activities, rules and limits must be set. Absent these limits, the activity will lose the thing that makes it fun.

 

BP is right. The idea that people do locationless caches just to pad there number is unfair.

 

It is true that many locationless caches are found locally and that some take very little research. Some, however, take alot of research and quite a bit of time to access. For instance, I paused and JoGPS beat me to Castle Gwynn. I've located another castle and will drive the 80 miles to it when I get a chance. This certainly cannot be considered to be padding my numbers. I feel much more guilty after driving around town to find micros scattered about like eggs on easter morning.

Link to comment

I think before people start levelling accusations of "find padding", there are a few other factors that need to be taken into account.

 

If I were lucky enough to live in certain parts of Washington state I could find that I have 475 caches within 50 miles of my front door. But I live in the north of England and don't have that luxury. There are 75 caches within 50 miles of my house, so there are times when it just isn't practical to go and do a traditional cache.

 

The nearest cache on my home page would take a minimum of two and a half hours to do, so for the last couple of weekends we have been having fun doing locationless caches. Find an American flag on a pole? No problem. Well not for US residents anyway, but try finding one in the UK. Took us two weeks to do that one.

 

So for some people, locationless caches are “find pads”, maybe so. But for plenty of others they are a legitimate substitute for "traditional" caching.

 

Maybe if we are going to get picky about numbers we shouldn't just think of high score. What about averages. Total finds divided by the number of caches available in a local radius. That would sure suit me just fine. I'd be right up there. But for now, I'll stick with the locationless ones and resign myself to the fact that there are those who will see me as a "second class" geocacher.

 

Alex.

Link to comment

Points don't matter.

 

Really.

 

Points don't matter. Unless we employ a statistician it will never be fair. I'll continue to say that Geocaching is not a competition but a pasttime. If folks want to get into friendly competition that is fine, but the site was designed to keep competition a nonissue.

 

I'm separating out the scores because it is more informative than a basic hit count. You can see what interests a particular geocacher, not how "fair" their count is.

 

That's why I don't have a top 10 list of geocachers based on finds. Or any other top 10 list (with exception of Travel Bugs, which is just plain interesting).

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

I totally agree.

 

It bugs me a little bit that people are so concerned with the find count of other cachers. As Kimrobin pointed out, you will never be able to compare one person's finds to the finds of another because of variations in caches from one location to the next.

 

Why is it that when a poll is conducted related to find counts, the vast majority say that it is not about the counts. As soon as people start going after caches that individuals don't like, they must be padding their numbers.

 

I play the game to have fun. It gets me off my butt and out of the house. The only people that I want to care about whether my finds are appropriate are the owners of the caches I log.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

I totally agree.

 

It bugs me a little bit that people are so concerned with the find count of other cachers. As Kimrobin pointed out, you will never be able to compare one person's finds to the finds of another because of variations in caches from one location to the next.


 

That's not really true. If somebody has managed to log 1,000 finds (to the satisfaction of the respective cache owners), they've logged 1,000 finds. If someone else has logged 10, they've logged 10. The way I was taught math, those numbers can be compared directly.

 

Be fair. Just as those with few caches near their home bases don't want their achievements minimized, don't minimize the achievements of those who have managed to attain a high number of finds.

 

Incidentally, I support the idea of separating finds by category.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on May 20, 2002 at 02:09 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

The find numbers cannot be compared as simply as you wish.

 

If player one finds 200 5/5s and player 2 finds 201 1/1s are you saying those numbers can (or should be) compared to one another?

 

The find counts will always be apples and oranges.


 

Of course not ... the only comparison that can be made is that player two went in search of one more cache. I thought nobody wanted to be "competitive," so the comparison must be kept simple. But if you wish to undertake creating a complete and objective stats page, I'm sure many of us will lend you moral support. icon_wink.gif

 

But your question brings up more questions:

 

Are there even 200 5/5 caches?

 

Are cache ratings objective, and consistently applied?

 

How many 5/5's (4/4's, etc.)are overrated? How many 1/1's (2/2's, etc.)are underrated?

 

I have in fact done 4.5/4.5 caches that were no longer/difficult/challenging than 2.5/2.5, and vice versa.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

The find numbers cannot be compared as simply as you wish.

 

If player one finds 200 5/5s and player 2 finds 201 1/1s are you saying those numbers can (or should be) compared to one another?

 

The find counts will always be apples and oranges.


 

Of course not ... the only comparison that can be made is that player two went in search of one more cache. I thought nobody wanted to be "competitive," so the comparison must be kept simple. But if you wish to undertake creating a complete and objective stats page, I'm sure many of us will lend you moral support. icon_wink.gif

 

But your question brings up more questions:

 

Are there even 200 5/5 caches?

 

Are cache ratings objective, and consistently applied?

 

How many 5/5's (4/4's, etc.)are overrated? How many 1/1's (2/2's, etc.)are underrated?

 

I have in fact done 4.5/4.5 caches that were no longer/difficult/challenging than 2.5/2.5, and vice versa.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

 

It bugs me a little bit that people are so concerned with the find count of other cachers. As Kimrobin pointed out, you will never be able to compare one person's finds to the finds of another because of variations in caches from one location to the next.

 

Why is it that when a poll is conducted related to find counts, the vast majority say that it is not about the counts. As soon as people start going after caches that individuals don't like, they must be padding their numbers.


 

I couldn't agree more. There sure seems to be a lot of inconsistency in what people say is important to them, and what really SEEMS to be.

 

If it's really so important to everyone that we show the numbers, I'd like to see the whole thing broken down:

 

- Overall number of TOTAL finds

- Totals for each "type"

- Totals for each difficulty and terrain rating

- Number of caches within a 60 mile radius of the user's home zipcode.

 

(And even those breakdowns still don't make the comparisons "fair"...but it gives us a little better picture than the simple lump sum comparison does.)

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

....Points don't matter. Unless we employ a statistician it will never be fair. I'll continue to say that Geocaching is not a competition but a pasttime. If folks want to get into friendly competition that is fine, but the site was designed to keep competition a nonissue.

 

I'm separating out the scores because it is more informative than a basic hit count. You can see what interests a particular geocacher, not how "fair" their count is.....


 

Works for me!

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...