Jump to content

Cache Popularity


Team Noltex
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

It occurred to me the other day after logging a rather ho-hum cache that it would be nice to have some way of identifying caches that have a lot of finds, since often the more popular caches are ones that are well done/ unique/ elegantly executed and/or are in some fabulous location. Is there any way to sort caches by number of finds? What are the caches that you know of that have huge numbers of finders?

Link to comment

I've found the opposite to be true, often. Well-done caches (and this is of course very subjective) in my opinion have puzzles to solve, or are in scenic locations (often involving a good hike), or are hidden well (and thus would tend to get some DNFs along the way). All of these types of caches would tend to have fewer finds, I would think, than easy-to-get-to, easy-to-find city park caches. I'm not saying that city park caches cannot be good caches, but the caches that I have found memorable tended to be of the types listed above.

 

If I want to find well-done caches, I tend to ask other cachers, read the logs for comments, look for caches hidden by people that I know by experience to be good hiders, etc. This takes a bit of work.

 

I do both "planned-out" caching days, looking for a few good caches (or even one!), and also there are times when I just go out and find caches and get potluck (mostly what I have done this past month). Most people do put at least a little bit of effort into hiding caches, so I haven't seen too many truly bad caches.

 

Just my two cents worth....

Link to comment

:D Ohmygoodness! I just came in to take a break from working in the yard. I want to go cachining :D

 

It looks like there's a bunch of you are sitting around your computers today.... sharing thoughts. :D

 

Anybody want to come over and do yardwork? :D

 

EDIT: See... I'm so frustrated I spelled caching wrong.

 

I want to go outside and play with my GARMIN :DLEATHERMAN!

 

Uh, oh... I better run and hide now! :D

Edited by Wienerdog
Link to comment
A better measure of ho hum vs. don't miss would be an average log length stat. Not that numbers mean anything...

 

But these meaningless numbers would directly correspond to longer logs = better caches.

 

That's often true, unless its a log by TravisL. His logs are so long they would always throw off the average! But always entertaining. :D I think you're right though. The length of my own logs are many times directly related to my level of excitement about the cache.

 

I'm sure it couldn't be done without hurting a lot of feelings, but a rating system for caches might be interesting. When you log the find you could rate it from 1 to 5 stars with the rating being a running average of the total. The quality of caches placed might come up but the downside is that it might scare people off.

Link to comment
I started this thread with my idea for rating caches.  There were no negative, just two levels of good and one for "needs attention".  Sadly, most couldn't be bothered to read it fully and attacked the idea on grounds that I wasn't even talking about.  Pretty typical.

Crimiinal... I apologize for not staying on topic in this thread.

 

EDIT! Okay... I see. You are talking about that other thread. I had to come back and edit this. I got confused. You sounded upset and I just wanted to make things better. :D

 

I think I'm tired from all the yardwork and need to hit the sack. Sheesh! Here I go again. Not staying on topic.

 

Well everyone knows I did yard work today and didn't cache :D See what happens to me when I don't. I get all crazy.

 

I think I better go now...........

Edited by Wienerdog
Link to comment
I started this thread with my idea for rating caches. There were no negative, just two levels of good and one for "needs attention". Sadly, most couldn't be bothered to read it fully and attacked the idea on grounds that I wasn't even talking about. Pretty typical.

If 'most' includes me here, I believe the misunderstanding must be on your part, or mutual at best. I may be wrong, but believe my comments were to the point.

What you mean with 'typical' here escapes me entirely, but it is certainly not to the point.

 

FWIW, I very much agree with what you said in your earlier message in this thread. I therefore hope we'll be able to build a system like Skydiver's here.

Link to comment
I started this thread with my idea for rating caches. There were no negative, just two levels of good and one for "needs attention". Sadly, most couldn't be bothered to read it fully and attacked the idea on grounds that I wasn't even talking about. Pretty typical.

Yes it is typical. Any rating suggestion, be it an individual rating by log, or by cumulative averaging, seems to produce some pretty emotional responses without actually getting to the real context of the intended suggestion. I can think of a couple of other subjects off-hand that result in the same.

Link to comment

No, Shunra, not you. We already hashed that out. There were a few responses that had me wondering if the person posting had even read my idea. There is always the very believable possibility that I failed to sufficiently express my thoughts, that happens often. :D

 

My method would not be cumulative, there would be no score, no total, no points.

 

If you liked the cache, you select the normal smiley face we use now. :D

 

If the cache needed attention (wet log, no pencil, whatever) you select a neutral face. :D

 

If the cache was clearly one of the better if not the best you’ve done you select the ecstatic face. :D

 

This was only suggested to give potential hunters of caches in an area an at-a-glance view of how others felt about it, and if there were any outstanding issues with the cache.

 

I am not in favor of attempting to create any sort of cumulative rating that would display a score on the cache or search page. There are FAR too many variables and the ratings would be too subjective to be useful.

Link to comment
No, Shunra, not you. We already hashed that out. There were a few responses that had me wondering if the person posting had even read my idea. There is always the very believable possibility that I failed to sufficiently express my thoughts, that happens often. :D

Criminal, did you see the recent thread about Skydiver's system? I think this would achieve pretty much what you want, without the concerns that I and others have raised.

 

Bullmoose and I are willing to contribute to it. I'm not much of a programmer, unfortunately, but my son is, and he's willing to help set up something similar. We could start it with the Olympic side of Puget Sound (which is where you, Bullmoose and myself are), and expand it to the Cascade side if we have anought resources, perhaps with contributions from people over there.

Link to comment

 

If you liked the cache, you select the normal smiley face we use now. :D

 

If the cache needed attention (wet log, no pencil, whatever) you select a neutral face. :D

 

If the cache was clearly one of the better if not the best you’ve done you select the ecstatic face. :D

 

This was only suggested to give potential hunters of caches in an area an at-a-glance view of how others felt about it, and if there were any outstanding issues with the cache.

Love it. We already have smilies for found its...why not different kinds of smilies?

Link to comment
My method would not be cumulative, there would be no score, no total, no points. 

 

If you liked the cache, you select the normal smiley face we use now.  :D

 

If the cache needed attention (wet log, no pencil, whatever) you select a neutral face.  :D

 

If the cache was clearly one of the better if not the best you’ve done you select the ecstatic face.  :D

 

There is this thread that has a rating system too. But I like yours better. Just what the finder thought and that's it. Nice and simple. You have my vote on it.

Link to comment
That's often true, unless its a log by TravisL. His logs are so long they would always throw off the average! But always entertaining. B)

It's probably typical, but not guaranteed, that a log where I write "After 20 minutes of searching, I found the cache where I should have looked in the first place. TNLN. Strange place for a cache" would be one I enjoyed a lot less than one where I describe my trip to the cache, compare folks I met along the way to Lindsey Lohan and Meat Loaf, establish an internal recurring theme of things that rhyme with 'enchilada', and announce proudly that the container -- which in no small way reminds me of an adventure incurred in third grade -- was full of so much neat stuff I could hardly leave zero, much less nothing.

 

But yeah, for caches that I don't attempt, I can see the average getting thrown off a bit.

Link to comment
... establish an internal recurring theme of things that rhyme with 'enchilada' ...

Intifada?

It's a good thing I had a

Chips and enchilada

And I'm glad I brought some agua

'cause when hunting for a cache you've gotta

 

Look in every spot that a

Cacher might have hid a

Cheap tupperware containa

or you're a peronna non grata

 

(For some reason, the set of lyrics Eminem's 'Lose Yourself' are now running through my head, and since there's no way I'm skilled enough to come close to his mastery of internal rhythm and rhyming without completely copying him, I think I'll stop here, for the mental safety of everyone involved.)

Link to comment
... establish an internal recurring theme of things that rhyme with 'enchilada' ...

Intifada?

It's a good thing I had a

Chips and enchilada

And I'm glad I brought some agua

'cause when hunting for a cache you've gotta

 

Look in every spot that a

Cacher might have hid a

Cheap tupperware containa

or you're a peronna non grata

 

(For some reason, the set of lyrics Eminem's 'Lose Yourself' are now running through my head, and since there's no way I'm skilled enough to come close to his mastery of internal rhythm and rhyming without completely copying him, I think I'll stop here, for the mental safety of everyone involved.)

B)B):(

Link to comment
...since often the more popular caches are ones that are well done/ unique/ elegantly executed and/or are in some fabulous location. Is there any way to sort caches by number of finds?  What are the caches that you know of that have huge numbers of finders?

 

To bring this topic back around to something remotely resembling a thread, what are the caches you've seen with the most logs? I'm talkin' hundreds!

 

You're doing yourself an injustice if you think that the caches with the most finds are indicative of a good geocaching experience.

Link to comment
...since often the more popular caches are ones that are well done/ unique/ elegantly executed and/or are in some fabulous location. Is there any way to sort caches by number of finds?  What are the caches that you know of that have huge numbers of finders?

 

To bring this topic back around to something remotely resembling a thread, what are the caches you've seen with the most logs? I'm talkin' hundreds!

 

You're doing yourself an injustice if you think that the caches with the most finds are indicative of a good geocaching experience.

Yes, but he was asking about popular caches, not about worthwhile caches.

 

(I wonder what for, though. Perhaps he's an antropologist, making a study of lowest common denominators in specific areas?) :mad:

Link to comment

If you look at different cacher's top 10 lists, you may notice that they are not exactly the same. In fact, they seldom even have caches in common. Why? Because everyone has a different idea of what makes a good cache. My favorites are going to be differentl than yours. Yours are going to be different than everyone elses. My goal in starting this thread was just to get another perspective on what goes into a making a good cache. Caches with lots of finds, if nothing else, frequently indicates longevity or at least something that keeps bringing in geocachers, whether it be location, ease of finding, cool cache container, whatever.

 

I've been to great caches, good caches, ho-hum caches and really not very good caches and there is no correlation with number of finds. However, there is likely something about caches with large numbers of finders that they share in common. What is it? I have a cache that I put out 2 1/2 months ago that already has 80 logs, probably due to location. Or is it something else?

 

All that, and basically I'm just curious.

Link to comment

Location is a key element for sure. I had a cache that was an altoids tin with a magnet inside; the whole thing was stuck to a pole in a parking lot right off I5. You didn't even have to get out of the car to log it; you just reached out the window and pulled into the car. I called it the "World's Easiest Geocache".

 

Anyhow, it got tons of visitors in a very short time. Popular? Not really. It was supposed to be funny, and most saw the humor. Now there are bunches of super easy caches if you like that sort.

 

A definition of popularity is difficult to pin down, no?

Link to comment
I have a cache that I put out 2 1/2 months ago that already has 80 logs, probably due to location. Or is it something else?

 

Take away the twenty some notes logged on your cache and the fact that travel bug hotels always receive more visits tempers your wonderment on the number of visits to it.

 

pop·u·lar [ adj.] Widely liked or appreciated.

 

Human nature dictates that the easiest caches will nearly always get the most visits. This has nothing to do with the definition of "popular".

 

Locationless caches are bound to get high numbers of logs because they are oppurtunistic, you don't have to spend time hunting them, more times than not, they find you. :ph34r:

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...