Dear Mr Irish..

[+The Lil Otter]

Dear Mr Irish,

 

I have loved this sport since the moment I heard of it.. have always promoted it in the best light.. have always mentored anyone that even had the remotest interest in it.. have traveled countless miles thanks to other geocachers setting out to show off special spots within their area by placing caches... blah.. blah.. blah.. etc.. etc.. etc..

 

I have a passion for this sport because it provides me with the sense of adventure, providing me safe spots to travel to.. my counts show that I am here to stay..

 

I'll get to the point..

 

I again took another extended (1-2 months) geo-trek from Wisconsin down to Florida and back.. almost a year apart.. so I can verify the changes going on.

 

My Mindset prior to this trip...

I was very excited to see that there were so many new geocaches set out within the 12 cities that I'd be traveling near or through once more.. I was so amazed last year on all the historicals and cool places/parks/trails/forests/preserves that I've seen that I was so thankful that others again would make this newest trip more memorable with their own GEMS and Interesting locations.

 

I'll be blunt.. I blew off Nashville because of their reputation of lackluster caches, so the couple caches I did on my way down was just to break up the trip.. and those that I did were not of real value except to pump up numbers.. I also noted in a few logs that CCCooper was in town.. I did not wish to be known for coming to major cities to gather just NUMBERS.. so I drove all night straight down into Florida and planned to enjoy the sites..

 

I began noticing the few virtuals that were left.. REMAINED very interesting.. I also noticed that micros were becoming the normal replacement for historical virtual hiding.. so seeing the HUNDREDS of listed micros really got me excited.. I LOVE learning the history and culture of a city through other geocacher's placements.. My only commitment upon this journey was to be there for a CITO event in Jacksonville, FL.. and to meet other geocachers within the areas that I was caching in. So... to make a long story short...

 

I found myself within the city of Jacksonville for close to a week.. excited again to think that I'd be able to see more amazing places through the eyes of other geocachers.. I realize now that parking lot / mall / street corner / backs of restaurants / etc are now the normal hiding spots..

 

I didn't come all the way down to Florida to see a Walmart/Winn-Dixie/mini mall parking lot or light post.. or to hunt on the side of the road on a guardrail.. or to put myself into bad situations.. (IF I can go there.. any family with kids should feel safe)

 

How can we allow hunting to go on in TRAFFIC... a parking lot is with constant traffic.. on Private property.. most times WITHOUT permissions.. hidden in the only spot to search within a 100ft radius??? There is no challenge to hunting these down.. there is no reason to be there except to lift up the light post cover to sign a log..

 

Geocaching to me is about the Adventure.. the memories.. the historicals.. the hikes, the challenge, the amazing/fun lil things that others share in their own back "yards".. favorite parks.. fishing spots.. childhood memories.. all those things plus the hunt.. makes it all worth the time and attention that I put towards this sport.

 

After the time spent in Jacksonville and the few I did in Nashville proved to me that geocaching is REALLY changing into just numbers... because why would anyone wish to show off a lightpost.. traffic sign.. back of a gas station near their dumpster.. or any of the other ODD places that micros now thrive at???

It's because of the numbers.. the boosting of counts.. nothing more..

 

Granted there were some creative containers... or tricky placements..

 

I'm not bashing Jacksonville or their people.. just they don't know how amazing this sport can be when they venture past the clutter of hunting in parking lots of malls or on the street corners... if they run out of interesting locations.. perhaps they should venture outside of the city and enjoy.

 

But all in all.. I'd call it Geo-SPAM.. you know.. the junk mail-type stuff that just clutters up and is of no value.

 

MY WISH.... as a geo-adventuring traveler...

 

Could you PLEASE re-rate these type of caches into a special category that those that enjoy just number count boosting hides that you just drive up to.. can then do a special search so that they don't waste their time on hunting the micro caches that those that actually put in an effort to show off special/interesting/historical/etc caches within their city.. and those of us that enjoy it the other way can do the same search and have those caches show up and ignore the rest.

 

I sat in my van in the wee hours of one of my last night in FL doing pda searches on words like Histor (y) (ic) (ical) and Trail, hoping to get the bad taste out of my mouth and the parking lot mini-mall dust off of my mind..

 

I'd love to see Geocaching.com add a HISTORICAL/SPECIAL INTEREST label (box to check) to those caches that actually can add to a traveler's sense of the location.. because if I just now IGNORE all micro city hunts.. I'll MISS out on all the history/special interest/monument/small park/bike trail within that area... also because of the ENFORCED placement of a container at a historical site that could have shown brightly as just a virtual.

 

I'd also like to see Geocaching.com stop accepting "HIDES" for a while until they can get a handle on how our sport is being abused. Most of these micros are placed without permissions.. I, as a geocacher, wish to feel comfortable within a strange city without having to deal with confused owners of properity, security guards, mall managers, police etc.. STEALTH means to be sneaky around not giving away the hiding spot to strangers.. NOT to sneak around to not be caught on surveillance cameras etc..

 

If I wouldn't have just driven past Nashville... I'm sure I'd be using their name instead of Jacksonville... I'll be having to attaint a Nashville event come July... hopefully.. those geo-SPAM containers can be cleaned up and labeled by then and I'll ACTUALLY get the feel of a city without having to wade through all the parking lots...

 

A side note.. I will be returning to Atlanta because I truly enjoyed the few caches that I did that surrounded the Civil War and their city's history.. and I was AMAZED at all the multi caches that showed up.. but I hit rain and decided it wasn't any fun anymore and headed back home..

 

If Geocaching.com can't help me (or any other cacher that enjoys traveling for the adventures) I'll figure out a way to just ignore all the newer caches at the expense of losing out on their talents.. but atleast I'll be guarenteed that it won't be a parking lot placement (sighs)..

 

~The Lil Otter

[+Snoogans]

Wow! Loooooooooong. I pulled the ejection seat about 5 paragraphs from the end.

 

My reply:

 

Someone took the time to leave a cache for you to hunt. Make a comment on the page if you didn't like it or it's dangerous. DON'T log it if it's just about the numbers.

 

While I somewhat agree, YOUR AESTHETIC SENSE SHOULD NOT DICTATE TO OTHERS. I'm sure that some people like the caches you just ran down. One person's trash is another's treasure. Who are we to judge?

 

I predict this thread will become a flame fest.

 

My favorite parting shot of late:

 

"Everyone plays their own game. There is no sense in trying to police another's mindset as long as it falls within the general parameters of the game." Me (quoting myself from the poll that I posted on 10/23/03.)

 

Sn gans

Edited April 28, 2004 by Snoogans

[+bigredmed]

Lil Otter,

 

Good points.

 

We have a wave phenomenon happening here.

 

The alternatives to the trad in the woods come online, get a few good caches online, then they start to get a little over done. We go from really unique sites to just sites, then to just anywhere. Then the wave crashes with calls to ban "type X" caches. Then after the ban, the few good ones that were grandfathered become a rallying cry for a revival of the class. This was the trend for LC's, and VC's and now for micros and to some extent, multis.

 

I would suspect that this could be aborted by some effort on the part of the approvers and of local cachers.

 

I agree with your rating idea. Rating the area as to its historic, environmental, or scenic appeal would be a big step. (You would get a 3 variable rating, terrain, difficulty, and environment.)

Edited April 27, 2004 by bigredmed

[+SeaTrout]

Hello Lil Otter,

I am in East Central Fla. Last year,when you flew through here,I was amazed at all of the caches that you did in this area.I even checked the logbooks in my caches to make sure that you were not logging bogus finds .

With your 2300+ finds I think that you have seen your share of caches.

I myself agree with you,that Urban Micros are not what I enjoy. The game is definately different for each cacher and locals here seem to enjoy Urban Micros. I would prefer

long hikes out in the wilderness(even if it were only for a vert). If I were able to travel long distances to cache,I would definately look for states that had more wilderness caches.

Jeremy you are doing an outstanding job,with the growth and scope of the game.

 

Seatrout

[+Team GPSaxophone]

With 50,000+ caches hidden out there, it doesn't make sense to have the approvers do the extra work of contacting every owner to get them to change the cache pages.

 

When I see that I'm close to a cache, I look it up in my PDA. If it doesn't look interesting, I don't stop. When travelling to a "virgin" city, you have many caches to search for. Spend a little time selecting the few you want to do instead of worrying about the numbers.

[+pstar]

One person's cache is another one's treasure...or something like that.

[+wimseyguy]

Hmm, I'm not even sure where to start with a reply so I'll just dive right in and thrash aroud a bit. Having just returned from Nashville I'll agree with you that some of its reputation is well deserved. The proliferation of lightpole covers and guardrails is a bit mind numbing. However we decided before this trek that this trip was all about the numbers.

That's not my normal caching MO but it was a fun change of pace. Now in defense of Nashville we also found some of the most clever challanging hides I have ever seen. Urban caching, especially at night as a group provided a certain thrill I hadn't experienced before while caching.

Not all cachers live in lush green areas so they use what they have at hand. Urban caching can be done well and safely. I think your rant is more against lame overpopulation than anything else. That issue cannot be resolved by rankings, stats or stars/numbers. The only way to really get the info you are asking for is by reading the logs of previous visitors. Lots of brief uninspiring logs=uninspired hides.

 

I'll use my business (restaurants) for comparison. There are far too few individual creative places to eat out there, but so many chain cookie cutter franchise locations that it doesn't matter what city you are in-it all looks the same. Will that ever change-NO, but I try to vote with my $$ whenever possible.

 

I do think it is the responsibility of the experienced cachers to let the newer players know that there are quality control concern issues at hand. Otherwise the quality hides will become the very small minority, just like the corner cafe has become.

How to enfore this ; I really can't say.

[+carleenp]

I have mixed feelings on this. Sure, I prefer the nice hikes, great views, historical sites, tricky hides etc. Those are always the caches that I appreciate most. But I would not feel comfortable suggesting that other types of caches, such as what many would call “lame” micros be scrutinized based on a subjective feeling of worth. People have different reasons for caching. Some are in it for the numbers and some for specific experiences. Sometimes finding a bunch of urban micros can be a fun experience. Deciding to hit a bunch of urban micros in one day could be fun if you are simply in the mindset to drive around and grab some caches. I have had times where I enjoyed just driving around, listening to the radio and finding caches. I learned about new areas of the town and saw various things on the way. So there is a standard micro on a post, but hey there could be an interesting store or park or museum spotted on the way that I stop at on a whim. That can be just as fun a scenic hike for me. Some are well hidden. I remember a parking garage cache in Ft. Collins that took me a long time to find and I had fun searching for it. I think the key is to have the mindset that you will make it fun even if the caches themselves disappoint. Other ways to increase enjoyment in urban areas is to make it harder. Look at night or in the snow etc.

 

Anyway, I don’t feel that one is better than the other, they are just different. If the sport brings enjoyment, that is what is important to me. Obviously problems arise for some when people put out caches that have little thought put into them, but for those that have problems, there are those that are happy to find those caches. I admit, however, that I could get frustrated if I was looking for unique caches among a list from a pocket query that contained a huge number of urban micros. I suppose my solution would be to sort micros out of the query, and maybe sort for greater than 2/2 difficulty. I could miss a unique cache doing that, but it would help. I suppose some kind of check box that helped sort them would be nice if it would work. My fear though is that people would rate that differently, so some would check the box on caches that others might still think had little value. So I question if it would work. Maybe if it was very narrow by having different categories such as historical, scenic, park etc.? I just don't know.

 

BTW, I am addressing urban micros v. other types of caches in general, not caches that need maintenance. That is a whole other subject and with those I figure that is what the should be archived notes are for, or put in the online log that there are issues to let the owner know.

 

Another idea. Visit a rural area and just skip the city. For example, I know that rural Nebraska has some very nice caches. I have been looking at a trip to the black hills too and there seem to be some really nice caches there. I also found wonderful caches in rural Colorado. Of course that doesn't solve the problem of wanting to find some caches of the type you are seeking in cities though.

 

Finally, someone suggested that this thread would become flames. Please don’t. Lil Otter has some valid points that many share. I don’t completely agree with all her points or suggested solution, but I agree with some and understand and respect her concerns.

 

Oh, and Lil Otter, if you come to Nashville over July 4th weekend, I look forward to meeting you!

 

[+SeventhSon]

My favorite parting shot of late:

 

"Everyone plays their own game. There is no sense in trying to police another's mindset as long as it falls within the general parameters of the game." Me (quoting myself from the poll that I posted on 10/23/04.)

 

Sn gans

You can see into the future!! I guess polls will be back by October

 

To some, it's not about where, it's about how. I'm really not into this for the scenery or history, although they are a great bonus. My best hunts are the DNF's. I know it's there, and it irritates the heck outta me because I can't find it. I'm so mad I wanna smack something. And when I give up and get in my truck and head out, I look in the rearview mirror, half expecting the cache to be in the middle of the road sticking its tongue out at me and doing the famous "Fooled Ya" dance. I know this hunt will be a challenge when I return. And I always return.

 

So be it a light post or park bench or a landfill, if it's challenging, I'm a happy cacher.

 

"Ask not what cachin' can do for you, ask what you can do for cachin'"

 

7

[+Snoogans]

My favorite parting shot of late:

 

"Everyone plays their own game. There is no sense in trying to police another's mindset as long as it falls within the general parameters of the game." Me (quoting myself from the poll that I posted on 10/23/04.)

 

Sn   gans

You can see into the future!! I guess polls will be back by October

 

DOH! Thanks, I fixed it.

[+zoltig]

I think she is bringing up some valid points. Not that it will change, but maybe some concerns to keep this sport/game in check. Obviously she has the numbers to back up her observations. So she has seen, and I'll borrow from wimseyguy,"quality control concern issues at hand."

This forum is a good place to bring up a healthy and non flaming discussion about her concerns and the next cacher who places a cache that has read this may ask themselves: "Is this really a well thought out cache, or can I maybe place something better?"

[+TEAM 360]

I'd also like to see Geocaching.com stop accepting "HIDES" for a while until they can get a handle on how our sport is being abused.

[+TeamK-9]

Lil Otter, I think you made many great points that had to be said, but sadly, I can't fully comprehend your pain as much as I'd like because I'm new, and there are still hundreds of normal sized caches in my area that remain unfound.

 

But I do notice what you're talking about. In planning a trip to South Carolina, I did a quick look at some caches close to where I'd be. Most of the caches looked like they had just been thrown down in the woods. The cache pages simply said what they had in them, and there wasn't much over a 1/1 or a 2/1 (I'm used to like 3.5/3.5)

 

And sadly, I notice that in large urban areas, caching may be coming to this type of thing, but in areas like mine, it is growing, and still being nice, well thought out caches.

 

And so I invite you people to maybe come to Pennsylvania. We're not a cache-dense, stat-building place, but you'll find caches with stuff that meant something to someone...

 

I'd also like to see Geocaching.com stop accepting "HIDES" for a while until they can get a handle on how our sport is being abused.

I really can't agree with that though....

Edited April 28, 2004 by TeamK-9

[+drat19]

I've been a vocal critic of the caching style to which Lil Otter is referring, so needless to say I support her comments 100%. I'd like to add a few points:

 

(1) We've had some discussions on here where folks have said "If you don't like micros, don't hunt for 'em". NO! It is possible to hide a micro in a challenging way in an interesting location where the cacher doesn't risk scrutiny of local security/police/concerned citizens.

 

(2) We've had some discussions on here where folks have said "If you don't like 1/1 caches, don't hunt for 'em". NO! I welcome 1/1's if they take me to a wonderful or interesting location I wouldn't have otherwise visited if not for caching. The "easy find/stat" is nice, but the location is what I'll remember and tell people about.

 

(3) We've had some discussions where SPECIFIC CACHERS who are dominant hiders in their areas of the types of caches to which Lil Otter refers have said, "If you don't like MY caches, don't hunt for 'em". NO! Like Lil Otter, I too am a traveling cacher...I have finds in 21 states/provinces and I travel all over the country for my job and cache wherever/whenever I can. I don't necessarily know who the dominant hiders of sub-par caches are in a given area, until I get there and realize I've just wasted x hours cranking stats but only visiting parking lots and road guardrails in those towns instead of somewhere interesting.

 

(4) I have stated before and will state again: When dominant hiders of what many folks agree are sub-par caches saturate an area, and when they set an example to newcomers to our great sport that "this is how it's done" and so the newcomers PERPETUATE the style and the sore FESTERS, instead of doing the SERVICE they intend for "just numbers" cachers (and I'm the first to admit that I love my stats, but NOT when it means dodging police or trash dumpsters), they are doing a DISSERVICE to the hiders of GOOD caches (and "GOOD" might mean strenuous hikes or it might mean a 1/1 micro that's in a NICE or INTERESTING location (sorry, a Wal-Mart parking lot under a lamppost next to the dumpster is NEVER interesting, EVER)) in those areas. How do the hiders of THOUGHTFUL caches in Nashville, Mobile, Jacksonville, and other metro areas with this reputation, feel when they're lumped in as being part of a community with that less-than-stellar reputation? How do those thoughtful-cache-hiders, who have taken the time and effort to hide a good cache in a good location, feel when traveling cachers like Lil Otter or myself have learned (CORRECTLY, through research and asking MULTIPLE people who are respected (and respected NOT JUST because of their stats)) about the area's reputation based on the dominant hiders' habits, and choose to let that area pass during the road trip?

 

So how to work to rectify the issue (for those like me who perceive it to be "an issue")? Well, since it's true that there are some people who say "One person's trash is another's treasure", and OK, I'm willing to respect that even though I don't agree with it, then the short term solution is some variation of Lil Otter's suggestion about cache ratings (I'm not smart enough to have "the" solution to exactly how to implement that..."some variation" is the best I can do).

 

Meanwhile, we need to work to EDUCATE our newcomers to identify the characteristics of what THEY think makes a "good" cache. That means encouraging them to look for a good cross-section of types and locations of caches before making their first hides (because if they live in a "dominated by lamppost/dumpster caches" area and that's all they find before making a hide, then that becomes the "standard"). And, sorry to say this, we also need to work CONSTRUCTIVELY with the hiders of what I'm calling "sub-par" caches on this thread, to help them understand what many see as the shortcomings of those caches, and how those caches are being PERCEIVED by others, and the effect a LARGE NUMBER of those caches may be having on a local area's reputation. Let's face it, "onesie-twosie" less-than-stellar caches are just "dings" (I've hidden a few myself!), but 50? 100? Think about it.

 

I'll make one other point: "Caching for numbers" and caring about cache quality are NOT mutually exclusive. It is possible to enjoy the "stats" aspect of our game and still get great enjoyment from visiting wonderful or interesting areas, and a distinct LACK of enjoyment from an endless stream of Wal-Mart parking lots and road guardrails. By the same token, those who are hiding "just for stats players" with no regard for cache/location QUALITY are missing that point.

 

That's what I have for now.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

Edited April 28, 2004 by drat19

[+Red Clover]

I'll play devils advocate for just one second. I, as an able bodied female, prefer the hikes, memories, and difficulties that can arise from a good hide in an urban location. However, there are (believe it or not) many people that cache that are in some way physically handicapped. That which some of us consider "lame" is still a challenge for them. Be it from a wheelchair, w/ leg braces, back problems etc. So, regardless of (the collective) our opinion of these caches they do fill a need with in the community both for the handicapped and for those that are all about the numbers.

 

I was born and raised in Jacksonville FL and plan to go down there in the next few weeks to see my dad and siblings. I am disheartened to hear that most of the caches are light pole variety but not really surprised. But I'll go to them none the less. I live in Po-dunk GA and my nearest cache is well over 30 miles away. So I'm looking forward to a productive day or two, though I'm sure I'll filter my searches to include both the light pole and neighborhood park varieties.

[+drat19]

I'll play devils advocate for just one second. I, as an able bodied female, prefer the hikes, memories, and difficulties that can arise from a good hide in an urban location. However, there are (believe it or not) many people that cache that are in some way physically handicapped. That which some of us consider "lame" is still a challenge for them. Be it from a wheelchair, w/ leg braces, back problems etc. So, regardless of (the collective) our opinion of these caches they do fill a need with in the community both for the handicapped and for those that are all about the numbers.

I think this is a legitimate counterpoint. I happen to know for a fact that in one or more of the cities I named in my post above, many of those "lame" caches have been placed by folks who are mobility-challenged, and I agree they should be included in our great game (seriously, not patronizing).

 

That's where Lil Otter's point about cache rating/qualifying comes in. If we can't (or shouldn't) eliminate those caches, then we should at least be able to filter them somehow (and maybe the 0.1 mile rule needs to be adjusted when near one of "those" caches?).

 

-Dave R. in Biloxi

[C5B]

You made some excellent points in your long post. For the most part, I agree with your sentiments, althought not quite exactly. My concern with geocaching is the infiltration of really crappy caches ... bad locations, poorly planned, etc. I know the topic has been hashed to death in these forums, so I'll move on to my point.

 

I'd like to offer a possible solution to the problem, and hopefully the admins will consider my suggestion.

 

I think a simple rating system should be added. When a cacher logs a visit, how about selecting a rating value 1-10 stars or something to rate the cache. Ratings are then averaged to show the cache's "average rating". Throw in some auditing so the rating system can't be abused, and then we're all happy! Through the rating system, you'd be able to identify the crappy caches from the good ones ... if you're a cacher that likes crappy caches, then only go hit the lower rated caches. In your case, Lil Otter, go hit the 8-10 star caches.

 

Everyone's thoughts on this? Admins?

 

--c5b

www.snowjournal.com

[+Teach2Learn]

c5b stated:

I'd like to offer a possible solution to the problem, and hopefully the admins will consider my suggestion.

 

I think a simple rating system should be added. When a cacher logs a visit, how about selecting a rating value 1-10 stars or something to rate the cache. Ratings are then averaged to show the cache's "average rating". Throw in some auditing so the rating system can't be abused, and then we're all happy! Through the rating system, you'd be able to identify the crappy caches from the good ones ...

 

I too often lurk on these boards and am speaking up now because I feel this suggestion deserves support. Although not a permanent solution, it would at least partially address some of Lil Otter's and countless others' concerns. It wouldn't have to be a requirement, just an option similar to those websites with items for sale or forums where threads are rated. I think this idea has been raised before and don't believe it would be an overwhelming feat for the admins.

[+Snoogans]

c5b stated:

I'd like to offer a possible solution to the problem, and hopefully the admins will consider my suggestion.

 

I think a simple rating system should be added. When a cacher logs a visit, how about selecting a rating value 1-10 stars or something to rate the cache. Ratings are then averaged to show the cache's "average rating". Throw in some auditing so the rating system can't be abused, and then we're all happy! Through the rating system, you'd be able to identify the crappy caches from the good ones ...

 

I too often lurk on these boards and am speaking up now because I feel this suggestion deserves support. Although not a permanent solution, it would at least partially address some of Lil Otter's and countless others' concerns. It wouldn't have to be a requirement, just an option similar to those websites with items for sale or forums where threads are rated. I think this idea has been raised before and don't believe it would be an overwhelming feat for the admins.

Let me try again..... I'll draw a mental picture:

 

Person "A" goes to cache #1 and loves it.

 

Person "B" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Person "C" goes to cache #1 and doesn't give a hoot either way.

 

Person "D" goes to cache #1 and loves it forever because it is their first ever find.

 

Person "E" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Who's right? This isn't Amazon.com.....

 

How about this:

 

Person "A" goes to cache #1 and loves it.

 

Person "B" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Person "C" goes to cache #1 and doesn't give a hoot either way.

 

Person "D" goes to cache #1 and loves it forever because it is their first ever find.

 

Person "E" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Person "F" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Person "G" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Approver "A" decides to archive it for lameness.....

 

YIPPY! MOB RULES! Let's burn some books.

Edited April 28, 2004 by Snoogans

[+drat19]

Person "A" goes to cache #1 and loves it.

Person "B" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

Person "C" goes to cache #1 and doesn't give a hoot either way.

Person "D" goes to cache #1 and loves it forever because it is their first ever find.

Person "E" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Who's right? This isn't Amazon.com.....

 

How about this:

 

Person "A" goes to cache #1 and loves it.

Person "B" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

Person "C" goes to cache #1 and doesn't give a hoot either way.

Person "D" goes to cache #1 and loves it forever because it is their first ever find.

Person "E" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

Person "F" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

Person "G" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

Approver "A" decides to archive it for lameness.....

 

YIPPY! MOB RULES! Let's burn some books.

OK, valid counterpoint.

 

Then what about the suggestion about including a category for "Historical/Local Interest" qualification (made BY THE HIDER)?

 

-Dave R.

[+Teach2Learn]

Snoogans, my admittedly less than poetic reply: "I understand that some will love, some will hate, but I still see value when others rate."

 

Otherwise those sites, amazon, barnesandnoble, zdnet, epinions, and others wouldn't use them. I'm not saying these forums should become mirror images, just imitate what could be of value. I'm not trying to claim it would create a perfect system. I'm finally prepping to hide my first caches (traditional) and although the log replies would be most helpful, I believe the ratings would also serve a purpose in my desire to further geocaching.

 

Love books, so please don't burn'em.

[+bons]

While I'm not for a rating system, I wouldn't mind a top 1% of caches. I wouldn't care if they were selected by local groups, approvers, overall opinion, or every cacher gets to vote for 1 cache out of every 100 finds.

 

Some way of identifying those "do not miss this cache" caches would be nice, especially for travellers.

 

And that would probably do more for encouraging people to make better caches than anything else I could think of.

[+Snoogans]

Snoogans, my admittedly less than poetic reply: "I understand that some will love, some will hate, but I still see value when others rate."

 

Otherwise those sites, amazon, barnesandnoble, zdnet, epinions, and others wouldn't use them. I'm not saying these forums should become mirror images, just imitate what could be of value. I'm not trying to claim it would create a perfect system. I'm finally prepping to hide my first caches (traditional) and although the log replies would be most helpful, I believe the ratings would also serve a purpose in my desire to further geocaching.

 

Love books, so please don't burn'em.

OK

 

Cache hider "A" is a very bright 9 year old (you don't actually know this at the time) who hides 3 caches within the rules and they are approved. The caches are filled with much loved, but still used and partly broken toys. None of the hides are exceptional and neither are the locations.

 

His ratings consequently suck and the comments on his cache pages are sometimes rude, or even elitist.

 

How does this make a kid feel who only wanted to join in this new fun hobby?

 

Are we going to buy a product from his cache? Ummmm, No. Then why rate it?

 

"Failure is a hard pill to swallow until you realize the only failure you can really have in this sport is the failure to enjoy yourself." TotemLake 4/26/04

[+Teach2Learn]

Per your 9-year-old example, I sadly agree that some of the ratings would be worthless, but my persistent Pollyanna optimism causes me to believe that most who would take the time to rate (an option, not a requirement for those logging finds) would represent a better standard of geocacher and in the long run outweigh the worthless.

 

If nothing else, perhaps bons idea would at least treat some of the symptoms of poor hides even if it doesn't heal the disease.

 

Edited for typo and clarification

Edited April 28, 2004 by Teach2Learn

[+Snoogans]

Per your 9-year-old example, I sadly agree that some of the ratings would be worthless, but my persistent Pollyanna optimism causes me to believe that most who would take the time to rate (an option, not a requirement for those logging finds) would represent a better standard of geocacher and in the long run outweigh the worthless.

 

If nothing else, perhaps bons idea would at least treat some of the symptoms of poor hides even if it doesn't heal the disease.

 

Edited for typo and clarification

Ahhhh, but that rating system is already in place. You have but to read the logs.

 

TN/LN/SL in the online log = Ho-hum to lame, or the finder doesn't like to spend time on the computer. Put a bunch of those on one cache and you get the picture.

 

MOST people will try to say something nice or nothing at all. Take a look at a few of my finds. I am very verbose about exceptional finds. I never blast a lame cache.

 

As for the top 1%, many cachers already post these caches on their profiles, or on their local forum threads. Take a look at bthomas' profile. Given his stats, I am extremely honored to have a cache on his 1% list.

 

Sn gans

[MOCKBA]

Paying newbies and TB-friendly roadside 1/1's are Groundspeak's bread and butter. Why would gc.com ever embrace elitist caches, and risk alienating the throngs, when they've got this business model?

Groundspeak may crack down on virts, or too-small-for-a-TB micros, but lame trads are sacrosanct.

But even if the policies are changed .... say, www.geocaching.ru doesn't allow *any* big city caches for fear of the micro quagmire, and limits cache density by 5 mile (not 0.5! not 0.1!), and rates "interest level" instead of "terrain level" ... and they still got lame caches, and total predominance of a single not-to-creative cache type ("count spires or cupolas on a village church"), and of course plenty of disaffected cachers unhappy about their restrictions.

Top 1% designation might work though. Not banning any cr*p, but giving the elitist their elistist peer recognition.

[+The Lil Otter]

I would just like to know in a VERY CLEAR way what type of cache it is.. so then I could download the waypoints in the usual fashion without having to do hours of intense cache page and log reading prior to my explorations.. I, in no way, called them "lame" they are just not historical/visual/amazing/cool spot/ for an out of towner to wish to head to other than the fact that it is an easy find within 10-100 feet from the car in a very predictable spot in a mall/parking lot/street sign or street corner and it adds nothing but a notch to someone's geo-belt of finds.. I enjoy soaking up the culture/history of an area I'm geocaching in.. it's hard to wade through 500+ geocaches within a 20-50 mile area of a city to find out which geocaches are just put out in parking lots/street signs etc.

 

As I said before.. I've been to Nashville and the Jacksonville area one year ago.. a lot has changed as far as where they are hidden.. I didn't realize this fact until I was hanging out in Jacksonville prior to the CITO event. I had no knowledge of these types of massive campaigns to seed areas until this trip.. I've always asked myself "Why did he/she wish to bring me here?" I still don't have a clue on so many of them.. (grins)

 

It's not my cup of tea.. but as with what happened to historical Virtuals.. should be also considered for these types of hides.. but atleast with a historical.. you could weed them out and not have them downloaded if you so wished.. NOTHING now can help the situation for those that do not want the urban parking lot hide finds.. oh.. and these places are NOT public property.. permissions never saught on most of them.. ask me how I know?? Well I have a wonderful picture of the National Security - Intelligence Agency auto that parked next to me at several of the caches... and it took me atleast an hour to explain my actions and why I was at those areas.. the police were also involved to do a lic/auto search.

 

I never asked for each cache to be rated by the public.. What would be better is that there could be a private "archive" button on each cache page so that after 5-10 responses on that button.. perhaps the local admin could then read the private comments done there and make a judgement call. And I would not be the one hitting that button on any of these type of caches unless there is a true danger present.. I just don't wish to do them anymore and am requesting a way to filter them out..

 

~The Lil Otter

[+Quest Master]

The best solution I have heard is to limit the number of caches any one person can hide. It could be a fixed limit such as x number of hides or a dynamic limit such as x hides per month.

 

I believe that this would improve the quality of hides dramatically. I have observed time and time again that it is primarily the numbers-obsessed cache-bagging crowd who hide too many of the lame roadside micros that so many are complaining about. I believe that there are relatively few of these people and even less that will actually admit to it. They hide way more than their share and impose their brand of geocaching on the rest of us by flooding the listings with their junk hides. Why should anybody be allowed to dominate the game by the shear number of caches they hide? Why should they be permitted to hide an unmaintainable quantitiy of caches? It's getting harder and harder to find the good ones in their sea of crap. It's a problem that needs to be addressed! The game will be better if and when these cache polluters are put out of business.

[+shunra]

The best solution I have heard is to limit the number of caches any one person can hide.  It could be a fixed limit such as x number of hides or a dynamic limit such as x hides per month.

It sounds to me that we all recognize the problem raised by Lil Otter, but are not sure whether something can be done about it, or should be done about it, and if so, what.

 

Questmaster's ideas crossed my mind as well. It looks like the best way to increase quality and decrease density of lame caches without having to condemn a certain type of caches as lame, and without getting into a rating system or PQ parameters in addition to the Difficulty and Terrain parameters we already have, which in practice are subjective and almost meaningless. On the basis of QM's idea, I am suggesting the following for discussion:

 

1 - Changing the 0.1 mile rule to a 0.3 mile rule.

 

2 - Adding a 0.5 mile rule for caches placed by the same owner.

 

3 - Reinstitution of virtuals, but they need to be at least 1 mile from the next virtual, and at least 0.3 mile from the next cache.

 

4 - Less tolerance for caches which are 'temporarily inactive' for more than a few weeks without a clearly and publicly stated reason, or otherwise ill-maintained. They need to be archived and/or trashed out (according to the existing practices, no changes needed here), and their location should be made avbailable for hides by more committed cachers.

 

5 - Caches that are grandfathered in do not need to comply with rules 1, 2, and 3, but the bad ones among them will automatically get removed over time.

 

Is there anything that these suggestions would NOT solve?

Edited April 28, 2004 by Shunra

[+fizzymagic]

I should know better than to write this. But what the heck. I predicted this trend about a year ago, during the height of the "vacation cache" wars. Bottom line: the guidelines strongly encourage lame urban micros.

 

Why do I say this? Look at the incredible emphasis on "maintaining" your caches. The overall impression one receives is that you should be able to get to your cache within a day or so if any problems are reported. Hence, lame caches that are easy for the owner to check on if anything goes wrong.

 

Changing the distance between caches is not going to solve any problems. Making the approvers' lives more difficult by having them try to evaluate the lameness of caches is, likewise, not going to solve any problems.

 

I recently drove from Chicago to Montana, and, believe me, there are not very many caches along that route except in the big cities. There are still plenty of places with interesting things to see and do that don't have caches. For example, I was stunned to see that there is no cache anywhere near the Official Hormel Spam Museum. Why wasn't there? I don't know, but I suspect that the threatening "vacation cache" rules have something to do with it.

 

The present virtual cache rules aren't helpful, either. The emphasis is on the interest of the final point, not the interest of the journey getting there. A virtual that is a lot of fun to get to, but doesn't have an object at its end that is worthy of a coffee-table book is rejected. These rules strongly favor placing lame microcaches in illegal places.

 

In short, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for things to get better.

 

 

(clicked edit instead of quote, nothing changed)

Edited April 28, 2004 by CO Admin

[CoyoteRed]

I find it kind of sad and funny at the same time that people are blasting a local caching style without understanding the style. On top of that adding rules to prevent this style. I'm sure the guys down in Jax will all appreciate that, NOT! PaintFiction and The Federation are two prominent hiders of this style and they do it for a reason. And believe me, these are not drive and dump caches.

 

The style refered to above is called "High Risk Micros." The point is not to take you to some obscure historical site, some oddity, or on a long hike. They are specifically placed in a urban setting and in the open for the challenge of you being able to find them without getting busted! That's the whole point!

 

Last summer we went through Jax, but only spent a couple or three days there. We thoroughly enjoyed most of the caches--and we weren't selective! I get the references about security cameras. The rest of our journey took us through St. Augustine, down through and around DeBary and Deland, over and up through Daytona and back to Jax. Sure there were some lame caches, but nothing like what Lil Otter says. Why? Because I get the point of the high risk micros that the locals like to put out. We very much enjoyed our vacation though north eastern Floirida and I particularly enjoyed the high risk micros.

 

Granted there are lame caches in Jax, just like anywhere you go, but if you're caching there, expect to be hunting caches where you are exposed and put in odd situations. So, look over your shoulder and don't get caught!

[+CO Admin]

<SNIP>.

I recently drove from Chicago to Montana, and, believe me, there are not very many caches along that route except in the big cities. There are still plenty of places with interesting things to see and do that don't have caches. For example, I was stunned to see that there is no cache anywhere near the Official Hormel Spam Museum. Why wasn't there? I don't know, but I suspect that the threatening "vacation cache" rules have something to do with it.

<SNIP>

I guess I need a definition of near. Both of these caches are within 1.5 miles of the Spam museum

 

GCH7XH

GCH7XP

 

I would think that on a road trip 1.5 miles would be considered near.

 

(Gosh I feel just like Mopar)

[+briansnat]

Although I supported the crackdown on lame virtuals, the end result is the explosion of lame micros. There is a segment of the geocaching population that place caches simply because the want to jack up their hide counts. Before the crackdown, they would waypoint flagpoles, fenceposts, manhole covers and any roadside marker, no matter how mundane. Now they just put a slip of paper in a film canister and toss it in the bushes outside McDonalds.

 

I realize that there is a segment of the geocaching population that loves these caches. I remember the thread complaining about the guy who hid 35 micros on his 35th birthday. Some people thought that was wonderful, but like some others here caches like that aren't my cup of beer. Many of us prefer caches that bring us to a place of historic, or scenic interest, or are otherwise unique. The dumpster behind the Walmart doesn't qualify. So in spirit, I'm with Li'l Otter on this subject, but I don't agree with her proposed moratorium on cache placement because it will penalize the thousands of geocachers who place well thought out caches.

 

The historic interest icon may be an option. I'd would like to see the cache page submssion form incorporate icons the similar to The Selector (Perhaps an historic interest icon can be added to this program as a temporary solution). The problem with this is that there is nothing to keep people from abusing it to to draw people to their caches. You can easily push the historic interest envelope (site of the first 7-Eleven, Justin Timberlake's high school, etc...).

 

Short of the historic/scenic/special interest icon the best way to separate interesting caches from those that some of us consider to be lame is to read the cache page and logs. If it is an historic site, that is usually mentioned on the cache page. If it is a lame cache, you can usually tell that from the logs.

 

Thankfully, the proliferation of lame micros is not an issue in my area (yet). Most caches here are reasonably well thought out and placed in reasonably interesting areas. The attack of the Walmart micros has yet to invade NJ.

Edited April 28, 2004 by briansnat

[+New England n00b]

Perhaps what is needed is more 'for shame!' in logs, a la DPM.

 

Or a hider rating, kinda like ebay rating. Each FINDER only get to rate the hider. Then the hiders rating is displayed on all their hidden caches. A low rating = DPM Hero eXtreme, a high rating = cool cacher?

 

Just thoughts, nothing more.

 

*edit, actually, that's a pretty bad idea. nevermind, please.

Edited April 28, 2004 by New England n00b

[+briansnat]

Perhaps what is needed is more 'for shame!' in logs, a la DPM.

 

I don't think bashing caches in the logs is the answer either. A simple "thanks for the cache" or "TNLNSL" gets the message across to other geocachers that the cache isn't much crow about. Besides, a lot of these caches are placed by newbies who don't know any better, because they are they type of caches they found and think is the norm. A polite and carefully worded e-mail to the owner is a much better route.

 

If you live in one of the areas where these caches are in the majority, another solution is to start placing quality caches of your own. Since many geocacher's hides tend to emulate the kind of caches they've found, perhaps the placement of quality caches will encourage others to do the same.

Edited April 28, 2004 by briansnat

[+New England n00b]

Agreed, posted before I thought about it. That and it's past my 3rd shift bedtime make for a bad posting combo.

[+geospotter]

I think that the best way to solve this issue is to let them hide the caches, but give seekers a way to filter the types of caches they want to seek.

 

This could be easily accomplished on the cache listing entry page by giving a few boxes to check off similar to the many online surveys that we've all seen - "Check all that apply" sort of check boxes.

 

Come up with a good group of check boxes and give everyone (or maybe just Premium Members) the ability to select caches based on them, and everyone's happy.

 

Some examples could be "historical", "hike required", "wheelchair accessible", etc.

 

Personally, I'm not at all interested in dumpster caches, but currently I have no way to selectively ignore them. This just leads to disappointment for me, and apparently others.

 

So rather than argue whether caches should be hidden, why not try to come up with a solution. Any suggestions for the checkboxes? Other ideas?

Edited April 28, 2004 by geospotter

[+briansnat]

So rather than argue whether caches should be hidden, why not try to come up with a solution. Any suggestions for the checkboxes? Other ideas?

 

As I mentioned in my earlier post, if Geocaching.com would incorporate something like this on thier hide a cache page, that would help.

[+drat19]

The style refered to above is called "High Risk Micros." The point is not to take you to some obscure historical site, some oddity, or on a long hike. They are specifically placed in a urban setting and in the open for the challenge of you being able to find them without getting busted! That's the whole point!

OK fine, I see your point and "get" the point of these types of urban micros. I can also see where this sort of challenge might be fun for some cachers, seriously.

 

Now, suppose I'm NOT one of those people. Suppose I DON'T carry a law enforcement or retired-law-enforcement or other "official" ID, and thus if questioned by local authorities for my suspicious activities here in post-9/11 America, have only my Geocaching printout and/or a Geocaching brochure (from Geocacher-U.com) to back up my story. Suppose I am a 6'3", 305 lb, 40-yr-old male driving a car with out-of-state tags (pardon the assumption here, but it's my experience that it's easier for some folks to "sell their story" based on just appearances than others) (this is also why it's often tough for me to hunt for caches placed near children's playgrounds, since my appearance also happens to fit the demograhic profile of someone up to no good at one of those areas as well - but that's a subject for another thread, another time).

 

The "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt for 'em" argument doesn't hold water here, because if I'm from out-of-town, I don't know this is the type of cache I've targeted until I've invested x minutes (or longer) to get there. (Plus, I also don't know if this is one of your intentional "don't get caught" challenges, or if it is in fact a "drive and drop" lame cache.)

 

Wouldn't it be better if we could categorize these types of caches in order to filter them out of our searches/targeting? I know, that could also be "giving away the secret", so maybe those categories could be vague in some way, but can you see where a traveling cacher, after investing x minutes/hours driving to these locations in a given city because the area has become saturated with them, might become disillusioned (especially when newcomers spread the style, perhaps less thoughtfully than the "intentional challengers", because they see that as the "local standard")?

 

-Dave R.

[+geospotter]

So rather than argue whether caches should be hidden, why not try to come up with a solution. Any suggestions for the checkboxes? Other ideas?

 

As I mentioned in my earlier post, if Geocaching.com would incorporate something like this on thier hide a cache page, that would help.

I agree Brian, but we still need a way to use those icons in a selection process.

 

Jeremy, looking for Premium Member benefits? I think we just found one.

Edited April 28, 2004 by geospotter

[+Mopar]

Is this a problem? I dunno. (I lean toward siding with CR here)

 

If it is, can you fix it? I doubt it.

 

Ratings won't work. People are pointing to other sites like amazon and epinions or c/net's download.com. I guess they see the ratings, but never actually tried to use them to evaluate a product. First, like was pointed out, most caches aren't "lemons", they just appeal to different types. One person hates it, the next loves it. Rating is in the middle. One person has a bad experience (I remember a discussion about someone wanting a cache archived because he saw a rattlesnake, got scared, and fell down the hill) so they rate it a 1. Next person saw a bald eagle feeding it's young while they poured water out of the soggy cache, so they rate it a 10. Rating is in the middle. Given enough time and finds, most caches will all end up in the same middle range.

 

Limiting number of hides or distance by a user won't work. People will create new accounts to get around it. People will create new hiding/logging styles to get around it. (Here's my 10 stage micro-multi city tour. It's technically 1 hide. Here are all 10 waypoints in the cache description. Log a find for each stage you find.)

 

Interesting/historical location tag. This would could be a cache attribute, and is something TPTB have stated many times is in the works. Pretty much the same idea as 9key's Selector, only coded into the site. Nice idea, but still not helpful. It won't do anything for most of the current caches. I'm sure in an area like Nashville, almost every lamppost is near something historical or interesting. Also, what I find interesting may be something you find totally boring. In the end, only marginally useful in the context of this discussion.

 

The current way is still the best. Read the logs.

[+bons]

Unfortunately there's a problem with "read the logs".

 

I'm not a slow reader but even I don't want to read the last 5 logs on every cache in a town in an effort to find the gems there, especially if whatever work I've done becomes useless to the next cacher who visits that town a month later.

 

Now there are people and local groups that have 1% lists such as the above comment:

As for the top 1%, many cachers already post these caches on their profiles, or on their local forum threads. Take a look at bthomas' profile. Given his stats, I am extremely honored to have a cache on his 1% list.

My problem is simple: How would I have known to click on bthomas's profile if I was traveling through Snoogan's area? How many people here knew that the 1% list was kept there?

 

I don't have a solution. I'd like a way to find the gems. Other people want a way to find just the historic stuff. Other people just want to find the evil hides. But reading the logs seems like an extremely time consuming solution for the puirpose of finding that needle in that haystack.

[+Mastifflover]

I don't think any kind of a rating system would work. With all of the new cachers starting out like myself you wouldn't get accurate ratings because I like to find all of them. Unless the cache was really, really bad I would give it a decent rating just because someone took some effort to hide a cache for me to find. Maybe it's because I'm not burned out or I am still in that exited noob stage in that every cache is cool to me. This past weekend I attended a CITO event and then did some caching in the city. I knew that I would be hunting micros all day and was not dissapointed that only a few of them were in a really cool spot. The following day I went on a hike and did a level 4/4 cache and was just as satisfied. Maybe I am part of the problem but I enjoy the variety and would not like to see additional placement rules or restrictions.

[C5B]

c5b stated:

I'd like to offer a possible solution to the problem, and hopefully the admins will consider my suggestion.

 

I think a simple rating system should be added. When a cacher logs a visit, how about selecting a rating value 1-10 stars or something to rate the cache. Ratings are then averaged to show the cache's "average rating". Throw in some auditing so the rating system can't be abused, and then we're all happy! Through the rating system, you'd be able to identify the crappy caches from the good ones ...

 

I too often lurk on these boards and am speaking up now because I feel this suggestion deserves support. Although not a permanent solution, it would at least partially address some of Lil Otter's and countless others' concerns. It wouldn't have to be a requirement, just an option similar to those websites with items for sale or forums where threads are rated. I think this idea has been raised before and don't believe it would be an overwhelming feat for the admins.

Let me try again..... I'll draw a mental picture:

 

Person "A" goes to cache #1 and loves it.

 

Person "B" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Person "C" goes to cache #1 and doesn't give a hoot either way.

 

Person "D" goes to cache #1 and loves it forever because it is their first ever find.

 

Person "E" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Who's right? This isn't Amazon.com.....

 

How about this:

 

Person "A" goes to cache #1 and loves it.

 

Person "B" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Person "C" goes to cache #1 and doesn't give a hoot either way.

 

Person "D" goes to cache #1 and loves it forever because it is their first ever find.

 

Person "E" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Person "F" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Person "G" goes to cache #1 and hates it.

 

Approver "A" decides to archive it for lameness.....

 

YIPPY! MOB RULES! Let's burn some books.

Snoogans... thanks for the reply. You do indeed have a valid point, but I don't think the discussion should stop with just this... there are solutions to these concerns!

 

For example, if a ratings system were implemented, it would probably be a good idea to not allow anyone to rate caches until they have reached a minimum number of finds ... perhaps 10. Maybe there could be a way to disable or enable the ratings system in your account preferences, that way cachers like yourself could easily opt out of the ratings system if desired. Nobody said anything about archiving caches, so I don't think the admins should archive caches simply for a low average rating!

 

If 10 people like the cache, and 10 people hate it, then it's average rating will be in the middle somewhere, which is fine, because that's probably going to be an accurate over-all rating of the cache. Additionally, a cache's average rating shouldn't be displayed until a certain number of rating votes have been logged so that the rating is fair and accurate.

 

If little Timmy hides a cache full of broken toys, well... he might get a few bad ratings... and not to be harsh to little Timmy, but that's the whole point of the ratings system. It would encourage "cache excellence" and would encourage cache maintainers to be a bit more attentive to their caches. Additionally, little Timmy's parents should have done a better job at directing him in his cache endeavor!

 

Anyway, it's just my $0.02 and I'm not trying to make any enemies here We all love the game/sport/hobby and obviously care about it's future, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

--c5b

www.snowjournal.com

[C5B]

... just one additional thought to go with my last post ... I think also that each rating should have a lifetime ... maybe 30 days. This is because caches change over time ... they either start out good, and go bad ... or start out bad, and then with careful maintenance by the cache owner, become good. So, for a cache's average rating to be able to change over time to reflect the current status of the cache, each person's rating vote should expire after a limited period of time. This way, the ratings are dynamic and can change as the cache changes, in either direction, good or bad.

 

--c5b

[CoyoteRed]

I know I've been asked more than a few times, "I'm coming to the Charleston area, what are some good caches to do?"

 

I got to thinking and this addresses a different issue than what LO is talking about, but would serve the out-of-towners very well.

 

What about a private list of the caches you liked. It can be any number of caches, but no one other than you can see this list. It's mainly a conveniece thing to help you weed out the caches you didn't like.

 

Of that list, you can pick 10% of your total finds to be your favored caches, and then 1% to be your most favored. Not only would these caches show up in your profile, but you can filter on them. "Show me only the caches that have more than 3 Favored Cache recommendations." or "Show me only the caches that have Most Favored status."

 

This would produce a list of caches that somebody liked enough to put them on their list. While it doesn't mean it will be your cup of tea, it certainly would weed out the lower 90 percentile and let you go after the cream of the crop.

 

[EDIT: Before Fizzy points out the flaw in my logic and math skills, I understand that if you filter on those caches that have 10% flags it would return more than 10%. Not everyone would be picking the same 10%. Filtering on caches with more than one 10% flag would narrow the list down to the better caches in the area, I would think.]

 

Granted, this does bias towards the established caches, but it would only mean that time or quality is needed to garner status.

Edited April 28, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+Mopar]

Unfortunately there's a problem with "read the logs".

 

I'm not a slow reader but even I don't want to read the last 5 logs on every cache in a town in an effort to find the gems there, especially if whatever work I've done becomes useless to the next cacher who visits that town a month later.

 

Now there are people and local groups that have 1% lists such as the above comment:

As for the top 1%, many cachers already post these caches on their profiles, or on their local forum threads. Take a look at bthomas' profile. Given his stats, I am extremely honored to have a cache on his 1% list.

My problem is simple: How would I have known to click on bthomas's profile if I was traveling through Snoogan's area? How many people here knew that the 1% list was kept there?

 

I don't have a solution. I'd like a way to find the gems. Other people want a way to find just the historic stuff. Other people just want to find the evil hides. But reading the logs seems like an extremely time consuming solution for the puirpose of finding that needle in that haystack.

Unless you live in a tourist area, the visiting cacher still isn't that common a scenario. Not to get personal, but since I don't know bthomas, even if I did find a link to his top 1%, it's still useless info to me. I have no idea what he likes. Are they his top caches because they are evil urban hides, or because they involved a 1000ft free-climb, or because they had nice playgrounds for his kids? I dunno. I'm I'm coming to his town looking to bag 40 caches in the 5hrs I have free, and all his favorite caches are 5 mile hikes, it hasn't helped me.

 

Other ways that have worked for me, and others when traveling, is post to the regional forum, or contact some local cachers. If I was going to be caching in Nebraska, I might email Bons and Carleen, telling them what type of caches I'm interested in doing, and asking for suggestions of caches and hiders that match my style.

Some things just need a human touch, be it reading logs, or discussing it with locals. You're never going to accurately automate something this personal.

Edited April 28, 2004 by Mopar

[+Quest Master]

Limiting number of hides or distance by a user won't work. People will create new accounts to get around it. People will create new hiding/logging styles to get around it. (Here's my 10 stage micro-multi city tour. It's technically 1 hide. Here are all 10 waypoints in the cache description. Log a find for each stage you find.)

I beg to differ. It will work.

 

Creating "sock puppet" accounts is already against the rules of the site. They will be caught eventually if they try to skate around hide limits by creating extra accounts.

 

As for creating new hiding/logging styles, the example you cited wouldn't matter to anyone except the rules and stats obsessed since it would occupy only one spot in the listings. I wouldn't care if somebody logged it 10 or 100 or 1000 times. I suppose that it might already be possible to create such a cache and, as a matter of fact, it would be a great service to everyone if the hiders of mass amounts of junk micros would consolidate them into "cache-series" such as this. I would know to avoid such a "cache" like the plague while the cache-bagging crowd could have their "fun" pumping up their numbers.

[+Mopar]

I beg to differ. It will work.

 

Creating "sock puppet" accounts is already against the rules of the site. They will be caught eventually if they try to skate around hide limits by creating extra accounts.

Some will get caught, some won't. Some will get caught after they've had 10 hides listed, then what?

Some will get caught, and get pissed and go off the deep end until they get reinstated.

As for creating new hiding/logging styles, the example you cited wouldn't matter to anyone except the rules and stats obsessed since it would occupy only one spot in the listings.  I wouldn't care if somebody logged it 10 or 100 or 1000 times.  I suppose that it might already be possible to create such a cache and, as a matter of fact, it would be a great service to everyone if the hiders of mass amounts of junk micros would consolidate them into "cache-series" such as this.  I would know to avoid such a "cache" like the plague while the cache-bagging crowd could have their "fun" pumping up their numbers.

So it's only one listing? So what? What's the difference if it's one page or 10 pages? It's STILL 10 <insert cache-type you consider lame here> caches hidden in your area, taking up spots someone could have hidden 10 decent <insert cache-type you enjoy here> caches.

[+Salvelinus]

The best solution I have heard is to limit the number of caches any one person can hide.  It could be a fixed limit such as x number of hides or a dynamic limit such as x hides per month.

Although there are many issues being discussed in this thread, which I'm sure the admins paying attention to, I wanted to comment on Quest Masters idea of limiting hides. This would be a simple solution to several problems raised here and one I think most cachers would accept.

 

It has always amazed me how cachers with high numbers of hides can possibly properly maintain that load of caches. After paying attention to some of these caches and hearing comments from other cachers, it turns out they really don't maintain them very well...if at all. These types of caches can easily fit the guidelines and the Approvers cannot deny these even if they wanted to...and I'm sure some approvers really would like to! Limiting hide numbers would still allow them to exists, but not be overwhelming.

 

Another problem with cachers with exceptionally high numbers of hides is the fact that other cachers feel limited about where they can hide a cache. I have heard this from several cachers who cache near prolific hiders. They feel that if a cache is already in a park, that is "the" cache for that park. They realize some parks can handle multiple caches but these prolific hiders tend to cover that with their own caches as well!

 

I'm also seeing series of parking lot type caches centered around Dept store, Coffee shop and bookstore chains. I don't have a problem with telling people where you like to shop, drink coffee or by books, but I don't think GC.com is the place to do it. In my opinion these are commercial caches and should not be allowed to exist at all.

 

I think it has already been well pointed in this thread the problems raised by prolific cache hiders. To me, sometimes I feel this sport is being loved to death. So here is my (proposed) solution:

 

Limit cachers to 50 "owned" hides. Cachers currently over that number can keep the ones they have already placed, but cannot be approved for any new ones until they are down to 49. Multi-caches would be counted as one.

 

Seems simple enough to incorporate...why not try it?

 

Why 50? Becuase it seems like a reasonable number someone can realistically maintain. I personally feel stretched thin maintaining 10! It also seems like a reasonable number if you want to place caches in series...like a cache in every state!

 

What do you think?

 

Salvelinus