Jump to content

Makeing Geocaching Better


Recommended Posts

OK, here's my serious suggestion, and one that's been brought up several times.

 

Cache rating system.

 

A simple 1-10 rating is all we need. If www.imdb.com can do it without getting into all of the details/genres/etc, we can do it to. No need to worry about the type, hike, view, etc; just 1-10. The best will rise to the top, even if you personally don't agree with that '10' in your area.

 

This will:

 

#1. Allow me to put lower rated caches at a lower priority to visit if I choose.

#2. More importantly, some people *may* think before putting another breath strip container under another bench because they may care about getting a reputation for have 100 caches with a overall rating of '3'.

 

I think the #2 effect could have an important impact on the overall quality of caches, and better Geocaching overall.

Link to comment

I really like the idea of limiting hides to one per month per person. It would do wonders for the quality of hides. The cache polluters would be put out of business once and for all! I have no objection to the occasional parking lot micro but it is the habit of the numbers-obsessed cache-bagging crowd to hide these things in droves. It's getting harder and harder to find the good caches in their sea of crap. They're a drag on the system. I think that virtuals and maybe even locationless could prosper under such a system without any somewhat arbitrary "wow-factor" rules. It wouldn't hurt the game too badly to have a few ordinary fire hydrants waypointed but I don't think that too many people are interested in having every fire hydrant in the city be a virtual cache. Great idea! If only TPTB would hear this plea...

Link to comment
I really like the idea of limiting hides to one per month per person. It would do wonders for the quality of hides. The cache polluters would be put out of business once and for all! I have no objection to the occasional parking lot micro but it is the habit of the numbers-obsessed cache-bagging crowd to hide these things in droves. It's getting harder and harder to find the good caches in their sea of crap. They're a drag on the system. I think that virtuals and maybe even locationless could prosper under such a system without any somewhat arbitrary "wow-factor" rules. It wouldn't hurt the game too badly to have a few ordinary fire hydrants waypointed but I don't think that too many people are interested in having every fire hydrant in the city be a virtual cache. Great idea! If only TPTB would hear this plea...

Maybe in your area, but anyone that has more then a few hides puts a tremendous amount of time and thought into their hides. I think there's more of an issue with someone that has done one or two, in which case your limit/month wouldn't mean anything.

Link to comment

How about limiting the number of caches owned by a given cacher? We have several around these parts that have near 100 hides. When we got started last year, most of the good spots were taken - by the same few people. Newbies need a place to hide caches too! Not to mention, how does that one person maitain 100 caches?

 

Edit: maintain, where is that spellcheck thing?

Edited by Two Geeks and a GPS
Link to comment

I see a problem with the suggestion to limit submissions to once a month...

 

The presumption is that if folks hide fewer caches, they will take more time designing them. A nice idea, but not one that I've seen any reason to accept will happen. I really don't believe that the most cachers set out to hide lame caches. In my opinion, the vast majority create submissions that they feel have some appeal, some value.

 

I think a better approach would be to try and educate other cachers by hiding the best caches you can as examples of what can be done. Raise the bar, and give them something to shoot for.

Link to comment

Since nobody can spell and people on average are average then perhaps they should just fix the language. Why make countless generations into bad spellers just because we have rules that make words like ghoti into "Fish" by how they are used. (couGH + mOTIon)

 

Edit: dadgum spelling, and I'm still not sure that's the right "Since".

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Since nobody can spell and people on average are average then perhaps they should just fix the language. Why make countless generations into bad spellers just because we have rules that make words like ghoti into "Fish" by how they are used. (couGH + mOTIon)

 

Edit: dadgum spelling, and I'm still not sure that's the right "Since".

looks good to me. maybe G.B. Shaw was ahead of his time. :D

Link to comment
The presumption is that if folks hide fewer caches, they will take more time designing them. A nice idea, but not one that I've seen any reason to accept will happen. I really don't believe that the most cachers set out to hide lame caches. In my opinion, the vast majority create submissions that they feel have some appeal, some value.

I was not presuming anything of the sort. People have varying opinions about what is "lame" and what is "good". The idea here is that the game should not be dominated by persons who will hide large numbers of caches of a particular type that appeals to them. I believe that there is a tiny minority of cachers who play mainly for numbers (and even fewer that will admit to it) but I have seen that it often happens that these people will hide large quatities of the types of caches that don't appeal to everyone else. Why should their brand of geocaching dominate the game? I have little doubt that there would be a lot less complaints about lame urban micros if there were not so many of them being hidden by a few persons who scatter them around carelessly because their idea of "appeal" and "value" is a point in the game.

Link to comment

I was not presuming anything of the sort. People have varying opinions about what is "lame" and what is "good". The idea here is that the game should not be dominated by persons who will hide large numbers of caches of a particular type that appeals to them. I believe that there is a tiny minority of cachers who play mainly for numbers (and even fewer that will admit to it) but I have seen that it often happens that these people will hide large quatities of the types of caches that don't appeal to everyone else. Why should their brand of geocaching dominate the game? I have little doubt that there would be a lot less complaints about lame urban micros if there were not so many of them being hidden by a few persons who scatter them around carelessly because their idea of "appeal" and "value" is a point in the game.

You were not the only, nor the first, in this thread to suggest a minimum time between cache hides.

 

If your goal is to have a greater variety, then target that with your new rules and not the number of caches hidden by any single person. I don't hide a particular type of cache; instead, I hide a little of everything. The 1 cache per month rule would limit my ability to provide variety, if I wished to hide caches more often than the standard.

 

Regardless, the suggestion would require further rules or guidelines for the reviewers to manage. And we've seen how popular such regulation is currently...

Link to comment

Maybe in your area, but anyone that has more then a few hides puts a tremendous amount of time and thought into their hides.

I wish this were true, but it's not. For one thing, if you spend a tremendous amount of time on your caches you simply won't be able to plant a large number of them. The two things contradict each other.

 

I don't have any problem with new people doing their best at a their first cache and not doing so well. It's a learning curve, and they will get better with time. It's the people that just toss caches out on nearly a daily basis, that don't care about the quality, just the numbers that bother me. I also don't think these people wake up and say "I think I'll go hide a lame cache today", rather I think they say " I'm gonna hide a cache again today" and that's as much thought as they put into it. The once a month limit might not make them put out better caches, but it will sure put a damper on all the lame ones they do.

Link to comment
The once a month limit might not make them put out better caches, but it will sure put a damper on all the lame ones they do.

Wouldn't that be a hoot!? Instead of planting 50 micros a month, it might give them time to save up and actually come up with enough pennies to supply swag for a nice traditional cache once in a while.

Edited by PandyBat
Link to comment

My list of things... First of all, we need to have better guidelines... for everything... Not more of them, just better explained.. For instance, cache ratings.. The little quiz we can use to rate a cache needs way more than 5 questions or whatever it has, because it's not usefull if you try to think out of the box...

 

Second.. I do like the idea of limiting how often we place... The problems that come from alot of caches do hurt the sport. If you have 100 caches placed, how do you maintain that? Say you live in moderate climate/mild winters... Nashville, TN for instance, since I know they got no snow this winter... You live in Nashville, you have 100 caches, you can only cache on the weekends, and you don't go out when it rains or on holidays.. (Think of that as the hybrid of the average cacher)... Say you got 40 good weekends out of the year... That's 80 days of caching.. You couldn't visit one cache a day and see them all in a year. So if you have to visit three a day of your own to check them each twice a year, you're only hiding, not caching at all, or you end up neglecting things... The other thing is that it makes it hard for new people to get in the sport. Especially if you're in a highly saturated area. If you can't hide a cache because you can't find a spot, then why would you want to stay in the sport.

 

Third... I wish there were a way to mandate that if you go to a cache and admit that you left something like a broken toy or calculator missing buttons, etc, whether by you dropping it there or by you showing up and finding it in the box, that you get suspended or something... If we were given massive reason to keep up caches, maybe it'd be a little better? I'm so tired of hearing someone say that they went to a cache and there was crap in it and then you ask what they did about it and they're like.. oh, I left it there.. DUH, take it out if it's broken, throw it away.. If there's mold, trash can... etc... It's not that hard to take out crap and add a thing or two of your own to help a cache out.

 

Then there's the matter of the forums...

You know, you can only go around looking at the same old posts because you know you'll get flamed for bringing the topic back for so long.. Someone used to use a pocket knife as a signature item. Should we keep referring new people to that post? Beat the dead horse until it's glue for all I care. The people, the sport, the rules, change all the time, so do the answers to questions. Don't degrade people and make them feel stupid because they asked a question that was asked 17 months ago by someone who's not been in the forum since. Answers are spawned by insight, insight changes with experience, experience changes with every breath we take. Don't make people feel stupid because their grammar or spelling or whatever wasn't perfect. They're not dictionaries and grammar reference books, and guess what, NEITHER ARE YOU.

 

Mainly everything I mentioned boils down to people needing common sense and to lighten up and be a little more respectful of each other and the sport.

Link to comment

My 2nd reply in these here forums. Here are my 2-bit responses:

 

1) Forums: There's a LOT of stuff written here. This little face sums it up: :lol: There's no way I can read all of it - I'd rather be outside!

 

2) Rules: I haven't hidden a cache yet, but I will. Oh yes. It'll rate 1 on terrain, and 5 on difficulty. Still thinking about details. Maybe a ... nevermind. No clues. Not yet. Give me a few more months, and it'll be worth it. :lol: (Note - This is how I'm gonna hide *my* cache, and I don't care how you hide yours; it's a matter of personal pride - don't force people into rules, maybe a little friendly competition.)

 

3) Rulebook: As for a guidebook/list of rules, how 'bout making a bigger FAQ section? (Like Aliens - I read about them once? forgot where)

 

4) Suggestion: Lastly, I've been putting the words "bike friendly" into all the (both) caches I find that are just that - in case there's a search feature that'll let someone look for those words. If anyone else would care to do that, I for one would appreciate it. (eg, You're allowed to take bikes on trails, repelling equipmnt. not req'd).

 

That's all I have to whine about. :lol:

 

"Hookt on fonix werkt 4 mee."

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...