would it be tacky if . . . .?

[Guest Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VentureForth:

That looks like a commercial cache to me. How do we know he doesn't own the diner? Or the nail salon?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn95630:

I asume Bassoonpilot was asking why did the cache hider bother to post this cache. The bigger question is why did Bassoonpilot even bother to go drive by the cache location.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DisQuoi:

It seems that Gwho has placed several similar caches in addition to some multi-caches in the area. In fact, BassoonPilot has logged most of them, thanking Gwho for the adventure etc. In this case, give him the benefit of the doubt. He's very clear in his descriptions. If you don't like virtual caches, why bother going to them?

---

Actually, the idea of the cache is much better then the implementation. The diner is quite (in)famous and historical. You can read about it here. It also fits well in the cache hiders theme of using locations highlighted in Wierd NJ magazine. I have enjoyed that mag for years, and before geocaching, it was the basis of many of my weekend daytrips. It's practically an almanac of great places to place a cache in NJ. Like BassoonPilot mentioned in his log though, I could think of 100 better ways to verify that someone actually went to this spot. Anyone can look up the name/address of "the nail salon down the street" on the internet. How about using the brand name of the cash register?

 

[This message has been edited by Mopar (edited 05 February 2002).]

[Guest BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DisQuoi:

Are you sure you want to leave a log like that? It seemed a bit agressive. The other logs gave me impression that it isn't all that bad. Perhaps your concerns would be better shared in an email directly to the owner.

---

 

Perhaps it does seem a bit agressive, but I have done what you suggest on a regular basis with this placer, concerning several of his caches. It's become excessive.

 

To his credit, he does correct the problems after they have been brought to his attention . . .

[Guest Rich in NEPA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mopar:

That ignore button idea is sounding better and better.

---

 

I'll say this much ... if the ?Ignore Button? concept is ever implemented, it should also come with a notation on the cache page that says: ?X ignoring this cache.?

 

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

~Rich in NEPA~

 

====================================================================

? A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ?

====================================================================

[Guest whidbeywalk]

Ok. Time for my 2 cents on the ignore button issue.

 

First, I can see multiple uses for such a filter. Filtering out sub-par caches seems to be getting a lot of talk here, and I would consider using an ignore button to filter them out if there were caches of low quality in my area. However, since that is not currently a problem for my area, I would use it in a different manner. I would ignore caches I can?t reach because I don?t have a boat or that are close by but require a long drive or expensive ferry ride.

 

Secondly, since a majority of cachers don?t read these forums, I would bet that if an ignore feature were implemented on the site it would not provide an accurate assessment of the cache quality. For example, Alvin and Beth, a retired couple, decide that they are not going to attempt to find the local cache that requires a scramble down a cliff and climb up a safe but daunting ladder, so they chose to ignore the cache since it exceeds there abilities. By posting a ?x ignoring this cache? on this cache page would be more a reflection on the abilities or taste of some of the local cachers as apposed to the quality of the cache.

 

I hate to see the spread of trash caches, and think that they do pose a threat to the long-term acceptability of geocaching, but an ignore button won?t solve that problem

[Guest BassoonPilot]

etter if it asked what was the price of a cheeseburger?

 

Of course! Because then there would have been a purpose behind the visit.

[Guest BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glenn95630:

I asume Bassoonpilot was asking why did the cache hider bother to post this cache. The bigger question is why did Bassoonpilot even bother to go drive by the cache location.

---

 

No . . . Why bother using an unrelated business establishment on a different street, having neither historical value nor a Weird NJ connection.

 

I drove past because it was on practically a straight line between the previous cache I had visited and home . . . and I would have stopped for a snack, if the search for the item needed to complete the hunt hadn't required a left turn across a busy thoroughfare away from the diner, at an intersection 100 feet short of the right turn into the diner's parking lot.

 

Would you have liked it better if it asked what was the price of a cheeseburger?

 

Of course! Because then there would have been a purpose behind the visit.

[Guest Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

I'll say this much ... if the ?Ignore Button? concept is ever implemented, it should also come with a notation on the cache page that says: ?X ignoring this cache.?

---

That would be great on the surface, but too open for abuse. What if you were to start ignoring one particular hiders caches? He see's that. Now he may not be the type to go PLUNDER your caches (or maybe he IS), but he may just put all your caches on his ignore just to get even. Maybe even make a few phoney logins and put your cache on ignore with THOSE too. Now some new or visiting cacher goes looking for some caches in your area to find. The ones you placed looked good on the page, but he sees 4 people ignoring it. He probably isn't gonna go thru the trouble of emailing you and all the people that found it to get another opinion. He's just gonna skip over it. Maybe even add it to HIS ignore list while he's at it.

No, if the ignore button ever is implemented, it should at the very least be anonymous like the watch list is. Limiting it to my cache page would be even better. I'm looking for some way to be able to hide certain caches from my local list. I'm not looking for some subtle way of publicly criticizing someone's cache.

[Guest Rich in NEPA]

Mopar, tell me what isn't open to abuse? Simply having someone annymously removing your caches would create more havoc than going through the effort of creating phoney logins to stack the ?ignore? list.

 

People checking out cache reports DO read the cache logs (at least I know that I do), and if there are enough positive comments they would either 1.) tend to offset the negative stigma of an ?X ignoring this cache? notice, or 2.) generate curiousity as to why so many are ignorning it. Otherwise, in the absence of positive comments, maybe there is a good reason people desire to ignore my cache, and I, for one, would be wondering why.

 

Anyway, I think we both know that we were being mostly fecitious with our original remarks about an ?Ignore Button.?

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

[This message has been edited by Rich in NEPA (edited 05 February 2002).]

[Guest VentureForth]

I still affirm that a finder's rating attached to the log is the way to go, with an average posted at the top of the site. That way, no one is anonymous (well any more than they are already), and there is a precedence set for the rating. People can vote high for caches that are well constructed that they can't find, and vote low for found caches that are a piece of cake - or just stupid.

 

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

VentureForth out to the wild, wet forest...

[Guest madphatboy2]

Maybe if jeremy is reading this he can drop a line to let up know if this is a possibility. Just my .02.

 

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

MPB2

[Guest YaesuMan]

I am not sure what everyone thinks is so wrong with thehamradiogeocachers caches (well the shoe thing does sound dumb) but I went and found them

and they were pretty fun.

I dunno, maybe cuz i'm new I can't tell a cool cache when I see it...

[Guest gwho]

I agree so much with this concept. I even suggested something along these lines a while back. I also think it should be required to state the total distance to hike to get to the cache. Some people can't (or have no interest in a) walk that great a distance, and the star ratings could mean difficult terrain or a good distance or neither.

 

William

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

Getting back to the original topic from which sprang this topic -

 

The PURPOSE of an "ignore button" was that as caching grows, we are all bound to see some caches pop up that we have no interest in seeking. They may be too difficult for us (level 5s) too far away, (although these would not be a problem, since they would not be high enough on out local list to be a bother)or they may suck. (In our own opinion, of course)

 

For whatever reason, I would simply like to have as many options to customize my personal cache "shopping list" as possible.

 

Other possible options:

 

search by difficulty or terrain rating

search by number of times found (high or low)

search by type of cache

search by age of cache

search by time since LAST visit

 

See what I am getting at?

 

This makes it a lot easier to tailor one's cache hunting to their own preference.

 

Perhaps it is time for another new thread.

 

---

[Guest gwho]

e, and the star ratings could mean difficult terrain or a good distance or neither.

 

William

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

Getting back to the original topic from which sprang this topic -

 

The PURPOSE of an "ignore button" was that as caching grows, we are all bound to see some caches pop up that we have no interest in seeking. They may be too difficult for us (level 5s) too far away, (although these would not be a problem, since they would not be high enough on out local list to be a bother)or they may suck. (In our own opinion, of course)

 

For whatever reason, I would simply like to have as many options to customize my personal cache "shopping list" as possible.

 

Other possible options:

 

search by difficulty or terrain rating

search by number of times found (high or low)

search by type of cache

search by age of cache

search by time since LAST visit

 

See what I am getting at?

 

This makes it a lot easier to tailor one's cache hunting to their own preference.

 

Perhaps it is time for another new thread.

 

---

[Guest gwho]

this presumes there are numerous other caches nearby, as is the case here in Northern NJ. if not, well then this doesnt apply then I guess)

 

GWho

[Guest gwho]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan2:

Last thing we need is a "Cache Squad" telling people that what's good for them has got to be good for you. Slippery slope!

 

Alan2

---

 

I think the concept is good but has a negative focus, and is fundamental flawed. People could ignore it for any n8umber of reasons. I for one recently established a 3 part cache hunt each of which is a 3-6 mile hike. I know full well people would click ignore if reallllly long hikes aren't their bag. I wouldn't know why though, only they would.

 

Perhaps a better idea is for those who successfully find the cache to be able to rate it. i.e How fun was this cache hunt? How challenging was it to get there? To find it once you got there? This would be much more fair to everyone, eliminate anoynmous comments, and be more informative then simply making an "ignore" button. Besides if other caches in your area are getting visited, and yours isn't, thats a big clue you're being ignored. (this presumes there are numerous other caches nearby, as is the case here in Northern NJ. if not, well then this doesnt apply then I guess)

 

GWho

[Guest madphatboy2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by YaesuMan:

I am not sure what everyone thinks is so wrong with thehamradiogeocachers caches (well the shoe thing does sound dumb) but I went and found them

and they were pretty fun.

I dunno, maybe cuz i'm new I can't tell a cool cache when I see it...

---

 

I have done some of his caches as well. MOST are decent. The one that I had a problem with was the sneaker cache. That and a few other ones were what I was trying to have archived. Since then, he has put a little more thought into his caches. I went to one on thursday that was pretty good.

 

 

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

MPB2

 

I wander from here to there looking for. . .my mind? And then I find it in the cache.

[Guest tedoca]

Deja vu?

[Guest crusso]

I would like to be able to "Ignore" certain caches only for the reason that I routinely search for caches w/in 100 miles of my house. I print out the ones I am interested in & have been working out in a sort of spiral pattern. I hate to have to go through like 30 pages to find the next cache I want to print out. If I could "ignore" the ones I am not interested in or have already printed, I could do it more efficiently. No one else would have to know or be notified of what caches I ignore. It would simply be useful for me in viewing the listings.

 

2nd. I think that anyone who actually finds a cache should be able to rate the cache on a 1-10 scale which is unremovable by the cache owner. As each score is placed it should be averaged with the other scores so that the more cachers find a cache the more accurate a reflection the score becomes. If 10 people give the cache an 8 & one tries to flame it with a 1, the average is really not lowered at all. This seems to me to be a safe method of determining wether a cache is good or poor quality. If a cache has had 20 finds with an overall average of let's say 3, I would know it wasn't a cache I would be interested in.

[Guest BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crusso:

... I think that anyone who actually finds a cache should be able to rate the cache on a 1-10 scale which is unremovable by the cache owner. As each score is placed it should be averaged with the other scores so that the more cachers find a cache the more accurate a reflection the score becomes. If 10 people give the cache an 8 & one tries to flame it with a 1, the average is really not lowered at all.

---

 

I think this would be too open to abuse. What would prevent people from rating a cache multiple times? What would prevent people from rating the cache under different user names? What would prevent the owner from rating his/her own cache, perhaps using all the methods mentioned above?

[Guest JamieZ]

Ummm.. nothing. But this whole activity is based on people being honest.

 

How're we to know you actually have 255 finds? Maybe you've padded that a little.

 

Of course that's sarcasm, but what I mean is that if people wanna mess with the system, it's pretty easy to do already. I think most people don't, so for the most part, I'd trust user ratings to be fairly representative of peoples thoughts.

 

Jamie

[Guest VentureForth]

ould also only allow a cache to be rated if it were found, and only once per ID.

 

I don't see why this wouldn't be implemented except for the fact that there could be no 'retro' voting.

 

"From here on out, you can vote..."

 

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

VentureForth out to the wild, wet forest...

[Guest VentureForth]

You could also only allow a cache to be rated if it were found, and only once per ID.

 

I don't see why this wouldn't be implemented except for the fact that there could be no 'retro' voting.

 

"From here on out, you can vote..."

 

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

VentureForth out to the wild, wet forest...

[Guest BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JamieZ:

Ummm.. nothing. But this whole activity is based on people being honest.

 

How're we to know you actually have 255 finds? Maybe you've padded that a little.

 

Of course that's sarcasm, but what I mean is that if people wanna mess with the system, it's pretty easy to do already. I think most people don't, so for the most part, I'd trust user ratings to be fairly representative of peoples thoughts.

 

Jamie

---

 

I suppose. But you check people's logs, or you ask them a question about a particular cache to verify they actually did it. If the ratings were anonymous, there would be no accountability. And with no accountability, people sometimes aren't as forthright.

 

I would hope that wouldn't happen.

[Guest BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VentureForth:

You could also only allow a cache to be rated if it were found, and only once per ID.

---

 

But you know, there are all those seemingly abandoned caches out there . . . caches where several people have posted "couldn't find" logs, perhaps over the course of many months, and yet the cache owner has neither made an "informational post" regarding the condition of the cache nor archived the cache.

 

Caches like that need to be rated too, so I suppose one would need the ability to rate a cache "found" or "unable to find."

[Guest Steak N Eggs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crusso:

This seems to me to be a safe method of determining wether a cache is good or poor quality. If a cache has had 20 finds with an overall average of let's say 3, I would know it wasn't a cache I would be interested in.

---

Hypothetically speaking, Lets just say that YOU liked short hikes to your "target" and this cache had a short hike. 18 of the 20 that "RATED" this cache JUST HAPPEN to like LONG hikes and gave this one a low rating because of that. Do you think that what you propose would still be an adequate system of judging? 18 out of 20 is far fetched yes, but it is possible that a GREAT cache can get a LOW rating. The only way to tell is to go hunt for it yourself. Out of my meager 30 finds I have only been dissipointed a couple of times, and I also know that I am no expert.Which brings up another point, who am I to decide what is a good cache and what is not? And yes, I would only be one of few to "RATE" but would be another variable to "mess" with the results.....

 

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

"MY gps said it's RIGHT HERE!"

http://www.geogadgets.com

 

[This message has been edited by Steak N Eggs (edited 19 February 2002).]

[Guest RedwoodRed]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

But you know, there are all those seemingly abandoned caches out there . . . caches where several people have posted "couldn't find" logs, perhaps over the course of many months, and yet the cache owner has neither made an "informational post" regarding the condition of the cache nor archived the cache.

 

Caches like that need to be rated too, so I suppose one would need the ability to rate a cache "found" or "unable to find."

---

 

Gosh, how topical.

I was considering a visit to a relative's house in the next few weeks and decided to look up caches in their zip code. How disappointing! Evidently, folks in this area either don't take geocaching seriously, or they haven't found many caches and therefor know little or nothing about placing them.

 

One group has placed numerous caches within a major National Park, and none of them have been found. When the Park Rangers are questioned by cache hunters, they are told that all GC's within the park will be treated as trash and disposed of as such. Though a few folks have attempted these and posted them as missing, the owner has never archived them or even commented on their condition.

 

Another cache-placer put out five geocaches himself, of which he logged three of them as finds! Not to mention that most of them are in containers and with contents not suited to the terrain (coffee cans?) and have been damaged by animals. When a finder comments on the condition of the cache, the owner visits it, logs it as a find, and just "patches the holes".

 

A few of the caches within 100 miles of the zip code I entered seem decent enough, but a good 50% of them are virtual drive-up/drive-off's.

 

I haven't reconsidered my trip to visit relatives, but the geocaching element of attraction (for me) is no longer there. How could your voting system work in an area where the blind are obviously leading the blind?

 

I know, another b!tchy post by a geocacher who to some seems to have a superior attitude... and who wishes others would take this wonderful and fun sport a bit more seriously.

----------

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

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

GeoGadgets Team Website

Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite

 

[This message has been edited by RedwoodRed (edited 19 February 2002).]

[Guest madphatboy2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedwoodRed:

I know, another b!tchy post by a geocacher who to some seems to have a superior attitude... and who wishes others would take this wonderful and fun sport a bit more seriously.

---

Sorry red, I didn't mean to be so "b!tchy".

 

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

MPB2

 

I wander from here to there looking for. . .my mind? And then I find it in the cache.

 

[This message has been edited by madphatboy2 (edited 19 February 2002).]

[Guest madphatboy2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedwoodRed:

I know, another b!tchy post by a geocacher who to some seems to have a superior attitude... and who wishes others would take this wonderful and fun sport a bit more seriously.

---

Sorry red, I didn't mean to be so "b!tchy".

 

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

MPB2

 

I wander from here to there looking for. . .my mind? And then I find it in the cache.

 

[This message has been edited by madphatboy2 (edited 19 February 2002).]

[Guest madphatboy2]

ted 19 February 2002).]