Record for Planting Geocaches?

[Guest Anton]

0

 

[This message has been edited by Anton (edited 09 May 2001).]

[Guest Uplink]

Myself, I don't think there should be a record kept for "most" caches. It might encourage too many ill-concieved ideas. Maybe a "best" cache award or rating would be something to shoot for...

[Guest swangner]

If I had to guess, I'd say cache ninja, in the Brooklyn area. I'd guess he has at least a dozen out there.

[Guest cache_ninja]

heh. i think ive got around 27 caches at the moment(acK!) but actually not too many in brooklyn, just 3. but ive covered all boros.

i guess i'm gonna keep hiding them till someone gives me something to look for somewhat nearby...

 

c/n

 

ps yeah a "record" is bad idea, ive seen a few half-assed caches already, might encourage more. then again, for me, its not about whats in the cache, its the process of getting there-but its always nice when someone took the time make the cache contents/location good/interesting etc.

 

[This message has been edited by cache_ninja (edited 30 April 2001).]

[Guest jeremy]

I personally do not like the scoring of caches, either hiding or seeking. You could go to 10 different caches and score them differently based on location, terrain, cunning, etc.

 

However, I do not object to possibly voting for the 10 *best* caches, meaning ones that have been hidden with such cunning and genious to be considered legendary. Not only would it encourage folks to put great thought into a cache, but also encourage folks to actually make it a true adventure and travel thousands of miles to seek it out.

 

I'll have to think on this...

 

Jeremy

[Guest Anton]

0

 

[This message has been edited by Anton (edited 09 May 2001).]

[Guest tnunnery]

I agree with Uplink. "Most caches" is not necessarily a good thing for people to strive for. Remember the discussion about "titles" for users based on the number of posts they have made to the forum? There is a good reason Jeremy did away with that. I definitely think awarding the "Supreme GeoCache Placer Dude" title is a a step in the wrong direction. Now, a "Top Ten Caches" list is a *great* idea. Personally, I want to be able to go to a cache and see that the placer put actual thought into it and was creative both with placement, difficulty, environment chosen, cache contents and even the cache container itself. Ingenuity, creativity and planning deserve to be rewarded.

[Guest JIntorcio]

How about a rating system whereby cache finders could rate the "quality" of the cache? The caches with the highest finder ratings could then be held up as superior examples. Maybe even multiple rating scales would work: appropriateness for children, uniqueness, view, remoteness, etc.

[Guest 300mag]

I also agree a listing of the best 10 or so caches would be a lot better.Some caches offer unique views of areas or are very challenging.I think the more challenging the more fun it is.People could look at these "BEST" caches and see the logs and decide if there interessted in visiting them.Or even better use these as reference and make there own "BEST" cache.

[Guest 300mag]

I also agree a listing of the best 10 or so caches would be a lot better.Some caches offer unique views of areas or are very challenging.I think the more challenging the more fun it is.People could look at these "BEST" caches and see the logs and decide if there interessted in visiting them.Or even better use these as reference and make there own "BEST" cache.

[Guest cache_ninja]

yeah mabye there could be different rating categories for each cache, or just an overal category..

 

i.e. view, location, contents, etc etc

 

i dunno, but really the notes are good enough, why make more work for jeremy? if you are interestedin going to a cache read the logs on the url if people think its especially nice, they'll say so there...

[Guest Anton]

0

 

[This message has been edited by Anton (edited 09 May 2001).]

[Guest Eoghan]

I've always liked the idea of having a rating scale for quality when you log a cache. Once you start to get quite a few logs for a particular cache the overall score for the cache starts to even out the disgruntled and the overzealous and you could get a pretty good impression of most peoples experience in locating the cache. Something simple like a 1 to 10 scale using radio buttons (similar to the website hotornot.com) at the bottom of the log page might work well. The caches with the highest scores (after some minimum number of ratings) could be listed under some kind of Peoples Favorites list. And at least for me, I'd rather see people competing for the title of "Coolest Cache" rather than "Greatest Number of Plastic Boxes Left in the Woods".

I also like the idea of using the same sort of feedback for the difficulty and terrain ratings so that the ratings start to reflect an average across the spectrum from newbies to oldtimers.

[Guest Silver]

The day I find a cache, it is always a 10!

 

And who would want to hurt a cache owners feelings by rating it a "2"?

 

Silver

[Guest nemesis]

Just steering back on topic (sort of). I agree with Uplink. It would be unwise to keep track of the stashers who have placed the greatest number of stashes. Human nature dictates that some moron will always try to top the current maximum (it would take only one). Consider how easy it would be to place 50 logbook only stashes in a local forest over a weekend (you could put them really close together), this would defeat the whole spirit of geocaching.

 

I currently have 17 stashes in New Zealand, there are only 32 in total (I am still writing the long description sections for the last five, I will submit them soon). I am not trying to break any records, but instead, I am populating the New Zealand with stashes. This will ensure that new geocaches will have something to find in their area. When I first started, there was no stash nearby, and only a few in the whole country.

 

I have tried to place caches with a range of difficulties and sizes, etc. Additionally, I have tried to place my stashes at least an hours drive from one another and half an hour from those of other stashers. Maybe this might me a worthwhile topic to discuss, it would be a pity to the have ten stashes on one hilltop surrounded for thousands of kilometres by a wasteland devoid of stashes. Maybe we should have some guidelines as to the minimum distance allowed between stashes.

 

I agree with Jeremy et al. Scoring would be highly variable and could be demotive, that is, you would not want to search for a stash with a low rating (maybe the rather was having a bad day that day?). As Cache Ninja mentioned, all of this information (and more) is contained in the stash logs already.

 

Listing the top ten (or 100 or top 10%) stashes would be great, however, how do you decide which are the best? If a cache has not been found yet, how is it to be rated? What of a cache that has been found 100 times, is it better than the others? A rating scale would not work well in discriminating caches with a low number of finds. Maybe a committee could decide, but this would be time consuming. Maybe someone else will come up with some good ideas?

 

But I digress? I will watch with interest for any new developments.

 

Cheers,

Donovan Govan.

[Guest kbraband]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver:

The day I find a cache, it is always a 10!

And who would want to hurt a cache owners feelings by rating it a "2"?

Silver

---

I agree. If someone goes to the trouble of thinking up a hiding spot and creating the cache, I'm not going to diss him/her, even if I think some other cache was better. I'm going to thank him/her for the effort. If I think a cache was particularly well done, I'll express that at the web site.

[Guest Anton]

0

 

[This message has been edited by Anton (edited 09 May 2001).]

[Guest Nemesis]

Yes, I agree with Anton. I think my original suggestion of setting minimum distances between adjacent stashes was a bit too simplistic (I intended it to exclude urban stashes however). This minimum distance depends on the environment in which a stash is placed, that is, stashes can still be placed too close together in an urban environment. Maybe we should add a caution to the guidelines for new geocaches to avoid placing their stashes too close to those of others or themselves (as a matter of courtesy; without naming any specific distance).

 

Oops, a typo, the rather on my previous post should read rater.

 

Maybe I should start a new topic to avoid clogging up this discussion?

 

Thanks,

Donovan Govan.

[Guest Eoghan]

Seems like the response to rating caches is mixed and Jeremy's not too fond of it so we're not likely to see it on the site. But I figured I'd throw in another 2 cents or so. I haven't found any that I'd give a '2' to but I _have_ abandoned a search where the cache was placed in what was basically a garbage/runoff ditch full of poison ivy. Some caches are well thought out, cleverly placed, carefully crafted, and full of interesting items. Some are placed in a flurry of excitement by people who just whipped their GPS out of the box the day before. Some caches, for lack of a more polite term that might spare feelings, simply suck. Finding one is always fun but the experience does vary.

I do think that it'd be hard to get a good estimate of people's perceptions from a few posts, but after about 15 or so logs I would bet that the overall score changed only very slightly no matter how many more people found it. (Particularly if the scores were weighted according to total number found to weed out the '10' score for every cacher's first find) I personally would like to get that kind of feedback about the caches I put out. Knowing I had a '8' or '9' out there would feel pretty good, but then again, maybe I'm just vain.

[Guest Eoghan]

Seems like the response to rating caches is mixed and Jeremy's not too fond of it so we're not likely to see it on the site. But I figured I'd throw in another 2 cents or so. I haven't found any that I'd give a '2' to but I _have_ abandoned a search where the cache was placed in what was basically a garbage/runoff ditch full of poison ivy. Some caches are well thought out, cleverly placed, carefully crafted, and full of interesting items. Some are placed in a flurry of excitement by people who just whipped their GPS out of the box the day before. Some caches, for lack of a more polite term that might spare feelings, simply suck. Finding one is always fun but the experience does vary.

I do think that it'd be hard to get a good estimate of people's perceptions from a few posts, but after about 15 or so logs I would bet that the overall score changed only very slightly no matter how many more people found it. (Particularly if the scores were weighted according to total number found to weed out the '10' score for every cacher's first find) I personally would like to get that kind of feedback about the caches I put out. Knowing I had a '8' or '9' out there would feel pretty good, but then again, maybe I'm just vain.

[Guest Scout]

highest average score, with a threshold of some minimum number of finds before a new cache is eligible for ranking.

 

I expect the popularity of the sport would be enhanced if quality caches are easily identified for new seekers to try. And the quality of caches as a whole would go up if the better ones are held up for hiders to learn from.

[Guest tnunnery]

Scout hit the nail on the head on all counts. This sounds like the ideal setup for rating caches.

[Guest Buxley]

There's some great ideas in this forum topic. I like the idea of keeping the scores people give to individual caches private so that Jeremy can just see them and use them how he wishes to build a "top ten" list if he wants.

 

Unfortunately, there are some caches out there that are, for one reason or another, a "2". I just wouldn't want to tell the person who placed it that. Generally, if a cache is on the low-end of the scale you can tell by the logs of the people that have found it.

 

Hmm. There's another idea for a "top ten" list. How about a top 10 (or top 50?) greatest logs of all time? There are some great stories of adventures had while seeking out a cache. Having some of the best ones gathered together in one place (with a link to the original cache page) would be fun! Those of us stuck at home for whatever reason could then go geocaching vicariously... =)

 

Cache on!

 

-Buxley

[Guest Markwell]

I agree with Buxley that there are some caches that are on the low end of the scale. But why publish those on the top ten list?

 

Here's my scenario:

 

When a seeker logs a find, he also rates it 1-10. No further description of what 1-10 means.

 

The data is collected by jeremy's awesome computer. Once the site has had 10 visits (I chose that arbitrarily) the average of the ratings would be calculated.

 

Caches that rated 6.99 or less would have no designation. The caches that averaged 7-7.99 could have a listing of "better than average" cache, 8-8.99 could be an "excellent" cache, and 9-10 could be "cream of the crop".

 

In this way, the elite caches are awarded by the visitors, and the "sucky" caches (as Eoghan called them) would be spared their feelings - they wouldn't know if they were rated a 2 or a 6.99.

[Guest Eoghan]

hmm. top ten list. Surprised I haven't seen one of these pop up yet, I kinda expect that as a hobby grows there start to be humor spinoffs. Maybe it's time for a geocacher's top ten pickup lines list.

• 10. Is that a GPS in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
• 9. Your coordinates or mine?
• 8. How about you get the horizontal position, and I'll give you the vertical.
• etc. etc.

[Guest bob_renner]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eoghan:

...10. Is that a GPS in your pocket or are you just happy to see me...

---

Guess I better get rid of my eTrex and get a StreetPilot!

 

Bob

[Guest jeremy]

0

 

Interesting idea about a 1-10 scoring. I'd definitely hate to see reviews go the way of AmIhotornot.com and make people feel pretty crappy about a badly rated cache.

 

My inital thought was to have people rate only one cache they considered the best cache they ever found. They could change their mind, of course, but it would make people think long and hard about what cache was best. This idea is better. I'll see what I can do.

 

I just need to make sure my averaging ignores caches without ratings. I'll probably make old cache logs rate at 0 and ignore them when computing cream of the crop, etc. scores.

 

I'll have to go and get my old Statistics books from college too. I always hate seeing vote results when they don't take the upper and lower scores to get a statistical average.

 

Jeremy

[Guest Scout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy:

I'd definitely hate to see reviews go the way of AmIhotornot.com and make people feel pretty crappy about a badly rated cache.

---

 

Keep each reviewer's rating private and only highlight the top ten caches in each ZIP code, state, or country. That way, no one will know whose cache is rated at the bottom, or even whether their cache just missed the top ten or ranked dead last. That ought to promote the good caches without picking on the bad.

[Guest wtmrn]

Top ten list sounds ok, would like to see a most found ranking list. I agree a most planted list would encourage quantity over quality.

wtmrn

[Guest bunkerdave]

I am going to commit a breach of etiquette and ask if there is a record for the most caches found in a day (midnite to midnite, not 24 hr. period) I did five once, and four another time, but I know for a fact that is not even close to a record. What are everyone's thoughts on tracking something like that? I have no preference one way or another, and given the general feeling of everyone's opinions on tracking other things, I suspect this one might not go over so well. Nevertheless, I just thought I'd "set it out on the porch, see if the cat licks it up."

 

[This message has been edited by bunkerdave (edited 18 May 2001).]

[Guest Road Kill]

To Bunkerdave. It may not be a record but I managed to impress myself with a 10 cache hunt in Chicago. If you're interested in this kind of stuff follow the adventure in Geocaching.com by doing "Seek a Cache" with a zipcode of 60061 and start with "High and Dry". From there I tell of the find (or not)and where I went to next. Just click on "Back" to return to the list and select the next cache named.