If your cache was lame, would you want to know?

[+Bloencustoms]

As it stands, if there is a cache that has some real problems associated with it, there is an option to reccomend it's archival. Occasionally you might encounter a cache that meets all the guidelines, but really is just lame. There has been a lot of talk about a cache rating system to anonymously express this lameness. What if the rating system were implemented, with the stipulation that a cache can only get so many "black marks" before it is automatically archived? This might be a way to deal with the impending density problems, and would cull the bad caches out of the system.

 

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

[+Stunod]

It could also be easily abused. I don't like the idea.

 

[+seneca]

I understand your concerns, but I think that’s a place where we don’t want do go. My opinion may be tainted by the fact that I live in an area where the vast majority of our caches are worth visiting, and I cannot recall ever visiting one that I would label “lame” to the extent that I would support archiving it. But then again, I’m easy to please. I have a feeling that others might not be so easy to please, and we would run the risk of creating a lot of ill will and animosity, not to mention disappointed cachers (like the young child who hides his first, but less than exemplary cache only to find that the old pro's find it to be lame and have it archived.)

 

It may help if you give an example description of the cache that you would vote to have archived because of its lameness.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

[+Kealia]

I would not like to see this, sorry.

 

I think the idea of a 'lame' cache is really subjective.

Here's why:

My wife and I hike a fair amount and LOVE the mile+ hikes through the Redwoods here to find a cache. Our 5-year old daughter is also a great hiker and loves these as well.

I know another family of cachers whose 5-year old daughter is good for only about 10 minutes of hiking before she gets bored, etc. so they like the 'park and grab' variety of caches much better.

While I might think that one of those would be lame (although I would never come out and say it) they would love it.

 

One more example:

I drove to a cache that I had in my GPS with no other data (PQ, description, etc.) and found out that it was located on a residential street in the ivy in someone's front yard. I had no interest in doing that type of cache since it didn't seem like much fun to me but MANY others have lof=gged it because they thought it was fun.

 

In my opinion, it's just to subjective to rate although I do see the reasoning that drives this question.

[+JoGPS]

Every cache does not need to be the greatest that’s ever been placed, In my on opinion I have lame and good caches .

 

If you believe if there are a lot of lame caches in your area the only real way to raise the quality of caches is for YOU to place them and let other see the difference ………JOE

[+Ashandes]

I welcome feedback and constructive criticism but find the idea of archiving caches based on some kind of subjective "lameness" rating ridiculous.

 

________________________

What is caches precious?

[+woof n lulu]

I agree with Stunods...to easy to abuse...whats to keep someone from voting numerous times cuz they want to place THEIR cache in a particular spot already occupied by what they deem is not as good as theirs?

Too many judgements made by too many people will just backfire in the long run....that is why there are cache approvers...if you have an issue contact one of them...

[+briansnat]

I own a lot of lame caches. I know they are lame and I placed them specifically to be lame. Oddly enough in many cases, the lamer my caches are, the more popular they are, but that's a horse in a different garage.

 

Anyway, there are a lot of poor caches out there, but I don't see the benefit of the system you propose and I can see it creating more problems than it will solve.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

[Trogdor!]

Originally posted by Bloencustoms:

Occasionally you might encounter a cache that meets all the guidelines, but really is just lame.

 

So you want to be able to vote someone else's cache out because it dosen't live up to your expectations?? Dang. Be very careful what you wish for. You may not want me to be judging your caches.

 

This might be a way to deal with the impending density problems, and would cull the bad caches out of the system.

 

Now for my Justin Wilson impression: Well, we all know dat da Big Easy has gotta density problem, but dat's cause dere's only two kinda of cars down dere, those what can make it over da bridge and those what can't. All you folks with cars dat can't make it over da bridge are kinda stuck hiding all of yo caches in the same part of the swamp. This was said in total humor and not ment to offend anyone.

 

The only bad caches are the ones I can't find!!

 

When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

[Micqn]

yes

 

pLAyS WitH maTCHeS

[+Newenglandah]

Hell Yeah I would want to know, just because I think a spot and cache is cool, doesn't mean others will think so, and I wouldn't want to waste other peoples time to disappoint them... Plus if I hear that people don't like it I can go change it up a bit!!!

 

NOSEEUMS--High Protein Low Calorie unpacked trail snacks!!!!

See You In the Woods!!!

Natureboy1376

[+GeoGryffindor]

I know I would want to know.

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

 

[+sbell111]

Would I like to know if others think my cache is lame? Of course I would. There is already a method to share this information. Put it in the log.

 

Do I think that some kind of lameness rating should be initiated. Of course not. I don't see how any good could come from such a rating We all like different types of caches. Dissatisfaction with a cache is not reason to have it archived.

[SLCDave]

Calling a cache "Lame" is too subjective. This being said, drop me a note and tell me if my caches are lame. At that point, I'll archive all mine and quit the game.

 

"I'm 35 Years old, I am divorced, and I live in van down by the river!" - Matt Foley

[+Bloencustoms]

Easy there guys. I never said that there are any lame caches in my area, and did not have any particular cache(s) in mind when I posted this. In fact, the only one I thought was lame was my own virt, which is now archived. To better illustrate the point about differing opinions about the quality of a cache, a local cacher offered to adopt it when he saw it was archived. I guess he and I had differing opinions on that one. Nowhere in my first post did I say that I thought the cache rating system was a good idea, only that it might reduce density, which several people have complained about. If you are going to remove caches, you might as well remove the ones that most people gave poor marks to.

 

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

[+ShaneN4Girls]

The question of "Is a cache lame or not?" should be decided by the question "Why do you cache?"

 

jmho

 

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."- Jim Elliot

[4x4van]

Two answers to the question(s?): 1. An easy way to rate a cache when logging a find would be kinda neat, actually. Simply a button or field on the page when you log a find that allows the finder to give his admittedly subjective rating/opinion, perhaps on a scale of 1-10, along with a running average of those ratings showing up on the cache page. If the cache is consistently getting low marks, then the cache owner may decide to archive it. Although I suppose the logs can give the same info.

I have made up a small notebook/form that I use for my own record when I cache that has spaces for many different types of information, including cache name and #, coords listed, coords found, elev, hike distance, elev. change, trades, notes, and yes, even an overall rating of the cache. But since it is my own subjective opinion, that rating is only valuable to me, no one else.

 

2. So, for many of the reasons stated above in previous posts, it should be up to the owner whether or not to archive, not the number of subjective "lame" scores.

 

We don't stop playing because we grow old...we grow old because we stop playing!

[+Team Og Rof A Klaw]

Amazon lets readers rate their books. So why couldn't Groundspeak let cachers rate the caches?

 

I don't think caches should be killed for lousy ratings, though.

 

____________________________

- Team Og Rof A Klaw

All who wander are not lost.

[opie744]

I've done easy cache's that I thought were great because of the area or some kind of cool attraction. We've also done cache's so hard that it caused it to be lame, putting all that work into it and you're thinking this better be good at the end, its not. For us thats lame. If its a more involved cache' I like things to tie together. At the end of a long hard one we loved, we ended up in a ghost town with all of the history. That we thought was cool.

On another note, I also like ones that end with birds and nature stuff, most probably think thats lame too.

[+lostinjersey]

should there be a rating system? sure, I like the comment about the amazon.com books comparison. abuses? limit a user to rate it only once as part of a log. unless they log it more then once, they cant vote more then once.

 

archiveing because of "lameness"? bad idea. too arbitrary.

 

this is similar in concept though to the "ignore" button once proposed (i'm too lazy now to markwell). basically just as you can see how many are watching, you can see how manya re ignoring, an indicator of whether or not folks think it's worth seeking. same issues arise here I think...

 

summation: I think it's a worthwhile idea but its so fraught with issues i doubt it would work...

[+DustyJacket]

I would not like to see any "rating" system, nor automatic disabling or such.

 

It is way too open for abuse.

 

On the other hand, I read the logs of people who search for my caches. If I see a trend that they are lousy, then I'll pull them.

 

DustyJacket

Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case...

[+cachew nut]

I would want to know, but it's easy enough to just say so in the logs. I'm always interested in the logs that say how good a cache is, I think it would be equally interesting to know if any were lame as well. There's no shortage of people who are willing to give their opinions.

 

[+Team Cacheopeia]

I'd like to see a rating system for the exact opposite reason that listed here. There are tons of caches in the Houston area, and I'd love to know which are the AWESOME ones quickly and easily by viewing cacher ratings.

 

Case in point: A Bridge Too Far by Geowyz was chosen by a regional group as a cache of the month. This placed it high on my list of caches to do, and it was *so* fun! I'm glad I had the word of mouth to make it a priority.

 

On the other hand, my first find was hidden in a gnat-infested rubble heap next to another rubble heap that was smoldering when we approached. The cache hadn't been updated in awhile. The owner hasn't responded to posts about its disrepair, and yet it's not really worth adopting because it's a pretty lousy find. It would be nice if people could be warned ahead of time (and ratings would be even easier than log reading).

 

But no, I wouldn't like to see the ability to automatically archive a cache based on ratings.

 

Jaime and Jason

Team Cacheopeia

 

image ©scienceandart.com -- used with permission

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm with Brian on this one. I have placed lame caches with lameness in mind. One of them is the most visited cache I own. Go Figure.

[+BullDogBob&Double00]

Lame or not I would just like to see more caches in my area. I just placed one that in my opinion was lame but it's another cache in my area to find.

 

"Never rely on the glory of the morning, nor the smiles of your mother-in-law"

[+Kealia]

Curious to see what happens.

 

I'm about to place a 'lame cache' tomorrow. It will be a 1/2 and cachers will be able to park within 150 feet of it. It's about .2/mile off the highway and could be picked up quickly by commuters as well as locals or cachers heading into/out of the area.

 

I'm doing it because I know of a lot of local cachers that cache with small kids so these are the best for them.

 

I'm curious to see how many hits it gets compared to my others....

[+New England n00b]

I'd rather just have people email me with an honest opinion - in Kealia's example that might be a lame cache for an avid, professional hiker, but it could be the cache-o-joy for the kids, as he suggested.

 

If there was something wrong with a cache I placed, I'd rather recieve the opinion directly and act accordingly.

 

If Kealia got an email stating that the cache was too easy, he could ignore it because the finder did not understand the target audience...

 

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

Don't hurt me. I'm new here.

[+Cacheola Crew]

Lame is so subjective but there are some caches that are hidden in such a way that they are just too easy to find. This increases the risk that they are found by non-geocachers, which increases the risk that they are plundered, and in turn could increase the risk that those same plunderers get the web address and now are able to find and plunder other caches.

 

The original question was though, would you want to know. I think I would. I've seen some caches locally that people have written in the logs in a nice way, that the cache might be "less than ideal". Problem is the owner has to be able to recognize what the person is trying to say.

 

J.O.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geocaching-HamptonRoadsVA/join

 

"You have brains in your head; You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself any direction you choose.

You're on your own. And you know what you know.

And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...."

Dr. Seuss

[Captain Chaoss]

I read all the logs on my caches ( doesn't everyone ? ) I believe your able to get a good over-all impression of the quality of your cache in this way.

 

If someone wants to complain about my cache, I would certainy listen. If I have a complaint, I review others logs to see if I goofed up. Most every problem has been my oversight.

 

The one real problem was a cache placed in an area marked by NO TRESSPASSING. The owner never replied, so I inquired by way of a posted message. Many former finders told me the only "legal" approach was through heavy briars.

The cache was wet, moldy, and hidden amongst trash.

 

Since I'm not concerned with numbers or getting every single cache, I let that one go.

 

Two roads diverged in the woods and I,

I took the one less traveled,

and that is how I found the cache.

[SLCDave]

Bloencustoms, I hope you saw the at the top of my post, to know I wasn't serious. Both of mine can be considered lame, as they are both of the "park and grab" variety. That being said, I KNOW there are people that must think they are lame. I have fun placing them, and I think that there are people that have fun finding them. Many of my finds are ones I can find after work, and my hidden ones qualify in that category. I think anyone that would call a cache lame should consider not hunting anything rated lower than a 2.5/2.5, so they wouldn't encounter so many "lame caches". If someone wants to tell me mine are lame, let them tell me. I won't cry too long or hard.

 

"I'm 35 Years old, I am divorced, and I live in van down by the river!" - Matt Foley

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

By lame do you mean that the initial contents of the cache were of sub-quality (broken McToys?) or that the cache was too easy to get to and find? Or maybe that it was hidden in a poor area, such as an unauthorized landfill?

 

Anyways, if one of my caches goes lame, just shoot it and put it out of it's misery!

 

John

 

*******************************************************

It's hard to remember that your primary objective is to drain the swamp, when you're up to your a$$ in alligators.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

how about caches that are supposed to be lame, like New Mexico's Lamest Geocache?

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness