Jump to content

Highly Detailed Multi Level Convoluted Algorithm


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

How about creating a new way to rate caches? :lol:

 

Long hikes would get high ratings, short hikes would get low ones. Cleverly hidden caches would score high, caches in plain sight (or under an unnatural rock pile) would score low.

 

Wait, you mean some people are physically unable to go on long hike and they appreciate park'n'grabs? Some people don't want to spent more than 5 minutes looking for a cleverly-disguised container? :P

 

It's an outrage! There must be some way of rating every cache based on the same criteria! :D Surely no one would rate a cache low because they don't like the hider. :P People wouldn't think of giving a low rating just because they had to hike more than 500 feet from their car. :D

 

Let's face it, not everyone uses the same rating system. That's why cache logs are so important. Written logs give much more insight to why someone liked or didn't like the cache. Using a number system, point value, or different smilies doesn't give enough information about the experience different people had.

 

My kids can't do long hikes, yet some people only do caches with long hikes involved. I would tend to rate a cache low if I couldn't find close parking. Others consider that part of the challenge.

 

How about we leave ratings out of it and use the incredibly complex convoluted English language and write about our experiences in finding caches?

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment

We don't do the really difficult ones for various reasons, but the logs describing the hunt really help, and we rely on them.

When we first started, I used to print off the caches we wanted to do, but wised up that we were missing alot of info (i.e. cache condition, road conditions, etc) by doing it this way.

So now we have a list of cache names and GC# and I get the print off right before we go!

 

If anything this has also taught us to be more forthcoming in our cache logs.

 

:lol:

Link to comment
How about creating a new way to rate caches? ... Let's face it, not everyone uses the same rating system.

One thing I have observed regularly is that experienced hikers/outdoorspeople have a tendency to underestimate the terrain ratings on their caches, while people less experienced with "being outdoors" tend to overestimate their terrain ratings. And people seem to universally overestimate the difficulty rating ... it is very rare indeed to find a cache that deserves even 3 difficulty stars. Of my approximately 1300 finds, I would say there have been fewer than a half dozen that warranted 3 (or more) difficulty stars.

Edited by Bassoon Pilot
Link to comment
How about creating a new way to rate caches? ... Let's face it, not everyone uses the same rating system.

One thing I have observed regularly is that experienced hikers/outdoorspeople have a tendency to underestimate the terrain ratings on their caches, while people less experienced with "being outdoors" tend to overestimate their terrain ratings. And people seem to universally overestimate the difficulty rating ... it is very rare indeed to find a cache that deserves even 3 difficulty stars. Of my approximately 1300 finds, I would say there have been fewer than a half dozen that warranted 3 (or more) difficulty stars.

Shocking to say, but I've got to agree with you on this one. My uncle in Tucson is an avid hiker/runner, and when I go to visit, I like for him to show me the sights. However, when I ask for a nice, easy, short walk (my idea of maybe a "2" terrain), we end up on a 20 mile death march across the desert floor and over the next mountain peak. His normal walking pace is a good sprint for me and my flatlander legs anyway. His terrain rating system would go to "11"! :lol:

Edited by Sparky-Watts
Link to comment

...how about more metrics the cache hider can use to further describe the cache.

 

e.g. distance from parking to cache and vertical rise for example.

 

at least, that's what I use to judge if I hike is good for me. I read the guides, but only after I look at the statistics -- how long is the hike, what's the vertical rise. That way I can choose a hike according to who is coming, and what my personal abilities are. Sometimes pushing the limit, sometimes easing back. Also, it lets me compare it easily to other hikes.

 

Of course... Can you trust everyone to put in the right information in the first place, noticed a post earlier in the day about someone placing 35 purposefully mis-rated caches...

Link to comment

How about we wait for the full moon, thrown green tea leaves into the air (facing East) turn in a circle while standing on one foot then howl at the moon?

 

In all honesty though, what is the value of rating the cache other than to give a generalized idea of what getting to the the cache is like? Each individual is really gonna have their own opinion as to how easy or difficulty a cache is. u kno?

 

How about this:

 

DHTLYC - Don't Have to Leave Your Car :D

DOI - Doi..very easy :lol:

NWOWIFIA - Nice Walk Oh Wait I Found It Already :lol:

TWF - That Was Fun ;)

TWNF - That Was Not Fun :lol:

TWRNF - That Was Really Not Fun :lol:

Skull and Crossbones - Attempt At Your Own Risk (most likely death) :(

Link to comment
That convoluted post confused me.

 

 

But seriously, it did.  Our you advocating that we screw the GC.com rating system and describe caches in our log better?  Or are you advocating the other way around, to make a better rating system?

I am not talking about rating your own caches. Some people have suggested that finders rate each cache they visit.

 

Because people have different expectations of what a "good" cache is, you might have one person score it high and another score it low:

 

The first cacher scored it high because the sun was shining, the birds were singing, they saw a deer drinking from a brook along the way, and felt like they were in "The Sound of Music". He would probably rate it a 9 or a 10.

 

The other finder went on a rainy day with the wrong shoes, 2 kids, and a Magellan GPS. He probably spent 30 minutes looking under rocks 100 feet from the cache and when he finally found it, the hampster left by the Leprechauns would likely be dead and he would rate the cache a 2 or a 1.

 

The rating system would not tell anyone why the cache was rated the way it was.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
The rating system would not tell anyone why the cache was rated the way it was.[/color]

So, what's your point? Please, leave it up to us pros when it comes to filling the forums with worthless drivel, ok? :lol:

WHat are you talking about? I have more posts than you, so that means you haven't posted nearly as much useless drivel as I have :lol:

 

 

 

 

Wait a minute... :lol:

Link to comment
The rating system would not tell anyone why the cache was rated the way it was.[/color]

So, what's your point? Please, leave it up to us pros when it comes to filling the forums with worthless drivel, ok? :lol:

WHat are you talking about? I have more posts than you, so that means you haven't posted nearly as much useless drivel as I have :lol:

 

 

 

 

Wait a minute... :lol:

:lol:

Link to comment

Why don't we make a rule that defines the minimum required verbosity of a Find log as a certain percentage of the total verbiage of the Finder's contributions to the forum? We ought to penalize those folks who waste all their creative energy on the forums, and only sign their logs with TNLNSL.

 

Seriously now, Saxman, I'm with you.

 

Anyone who isn't ought to campaign for the introduction of yet another rating parameter (analphabet and dyslexic-friendliness), where Language Replacement Devices would not be frowned upon.

Link to comment

Funny you should mention that.

 

One rating idea was to rate caches in catagories. You only rate when you get the urge. Catagories could be whatever you want but they could include Hike, Scenery, Technical Hide or whatever.

 

It ends up being complex but it also lets you search out caches based on what you like and only rate them based on things you care about.

 

The KISS principal still applies though and this isn't an easy system.

Link to comment
An interesting way of "rating" caches would be to have the user fill out a survey similar to the one on clayjar's site and then have a rating... calculated... from it... Right, we build a big wooden badger...

Badger badger badger badger

Mushroom mushroom

Argh! Snake

badger badger badger badger

 

Why don't we make a rule that defines the minimum required verbosity of a Find log as a certain percentage of the total verbiage of the Finder's contributions to the forum? We ought to penalize those folks who waste all their creative energy on the forums, and only sign their logs with TNLNSL.

I don't sign with TNLNSL, so your theory is all washed up :lol:

Link to comment

I find reading responses like TNLN to be a total waste of time. I would like to know how the cacher felt about the cache and if he had problems, or suggestions. I guess that is why I enjiy reading Renegade Knights logs. I assume he went to a creative writing class in college or has the urge to write the great american novel. Each of his logs make you think he was on the quest for the holy grail. All a lot of fun to read. :lol:

Link to comment

Great topic Sax. Tells me I ought to spend more time filling out the log and signing the book. I guess that means I need to bring rope to tie up and gag my kids while I take this extra time ... just kidding, they love to explore while I am writing. :):):):lol:

 

As for my "Firefighter Cross" cache I keep wondering if my rating is set right but with only two finds on this somewhat remote cache I will have to wait longer for more input. :)

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...