Jump to content

Truth In Advertising


Recommended Posts

Premises:

> No one can agree on what is a "lame cache".

> Many cachers have exhausted all the caches close-by to their homes and travel many miles to seek a cache.

> It stinks to travel a hundred miles and be disappointed by finding a cache is not one you would have sought if you had a better grasp of its true nature.

 

Therefore I propose that we facilitate the labelling of caches by the cache owners so that seekers could more readily make up their own minds what is "lame" and what is not before setting out on the trek.

 

A cache owner CAN take the initiative and label their cache in the short description, but many don't. Even if they do, there is no mechanical way to filter based on the narrative.

 

Would a series of check boxes be appropriate?

 

Example:

 

x Cache is at a Point of Interest (out of ordinary location, nice view, wierd sign, etc)

 

x Cache is a unique container (not an ammo box, tupperware, film can, or breath strip box)

 

x Cache is uniquely hidden (not in a hollow tree, under a pile of sticks, or attached to a sign)

 

Any more you can think of?

 

I'm not saying that a cache should be disallowed if it has none of these attributes. Some people find "lame" caches "fun", therefore they are a legitimate subset of the caching sport. I'm only suggesting that we could use some help in identifying the ones we like, personally.

 

With a series of check boxes and appropriate code in the search engine, seekers could more easily filter out the "stop signs i have run lately" series and "local kiddie park just like every other local kiddie park" caches without travelling a hundred miles to discover that the cache is not what they expected.

Link to comment

We really don't need any more check boxes, icons, logos, etc. etc. cluttering up the cache pages...there's too many already. One of the things I learned early on about caching is that you go out and find the cache, and some of them are going to be good, and some are going to be not so good, but, hey, that's just like life, you don't get a winner every time you scratch off a lottery ticket either.

Link to comment

In all honesty I have rarely come across a cache where I didn't know what to expect in terms of location and type etc. I can usually tell or get a strong suspicion from a cache page if it is a lampost micro, or a simple town park hide, or a tough hike etc. What I can't always tell, but sometimes can from logs if I look at them, is if the cache is in poor shape and needs maintenance. Unfortunately I doubt that we can cure absent owners. So, while I don't really care if there are additional check boxes and such, I don't know that they are needed. Plus angst is as angst does. I am not about to drive a hundred miles to log a lampost. I'll save that for when I am in the area or for snow caching or something. But I will happily drive a hundred miles for a good hike. That is why I read the cache pages and such. If a page is ambiguous, I don't drive for it or I wait until I am driving that way for something else so that even if the cache is not all that impressive I still had fun. :blink:

Link to comment

I placed my first cache recently and, although it might be considered lame, it is the only easily-accessible one for several miles out in this rural area. I bought brand new items to stock it with, so I'm hoping people won't be disappointed . . . and I said it is a "cache and dash." :blink:

Link to comment

What if it could be added to the page were we log our finds. A simple 1to5 star (or smiles) rating by the finders might be nice. The cache itself could have an overal average star rating by all the finders like some electronic store web sites have to help you choose a product. I know that might mean one extra click of the mouse before you submit your find but if you can't handle it don't waste the energy. It could be opptional.

 

Just a thought!

Link to comment

"What if it could be added to the page were we log our finds. A simple 1to5 star (or smiles) rating by the finders might be nice. The cache itself could have an overal average star rating by all the finders like some electronic store web sites have to help you choose a product. I know that might mean one extra click of the mouse before you submit your find but if you can't handle it don't waste the energy. It could be opptional."

 

That sounds like you are talking about ranking caches by "quality" and I don't think that is what the OP was talking about.

 

I don't like the idea of cache ranking either. All of these things just get us further and further away from the basic ideas of caching....let's just try to keep it as simple as we can: Put the coords in your GPS, go look for the cache, have fun.

Link to comment
I don't like the idea of cache ranking either. All of these things just get us further and further away from the basic ideas of caching....let's just try to keep it as simple as we can: Put the coords in your GPS, go look for the cache, have fun.

Well said, we don't need more rules and regulations. Most people are content to go out and have fun searching for the cache. If I don't like the cache, it's not going to ruin my day and make me want to create new ways to rate future caches. If I really have a problem with a cache because of safety concerns or other issues, I will e-mail the owner with my concerns. Edited by TahoeJoe
Link to comment

The key word I want to stress is OPPTIONAL. Some people might like to see a rating by finders on a cache so you know what to expect when traviling a long distance to find a cache. I agree its all in the hunt but it might be nice to have a quick way to judge without reading the logs. It might even get people to read more of the logs if the cache gets an extra high rating. Again opptional. Don't like it don't use it.

Link to comment
Carleenp gave a pretty good summary.

 

Probably the only difference is that I'd drive 100 miles for a destination cache, but I'd also do it for a cache day of urban caches as well. Generally I know my caching territory well enough to where I know what I'm getting into.

Actually I doubt we differ much at all. I might not drive 100 miles for a single lampost cache, but would drive that for a full day of caches regardless of the type. I save areas for that type of thing. If I saw from the cache pages that all or most would be urban I would expect that and plan to also hit the urban brewpub, restaurant and shopping and such too. It would end up to be a fun day! :blink:

Link to comment

What about the fun of NOT knowing whether it is an ammo box or whether there is a great view associated with the cache?

 

Haven't you ever found a cache and then went "Wow! I didn't expect such an awesome view!" or "What a cool container! I thought it would be an altoids tin!"

 

Doesn't the mystery make it more fun?

Link to comment
What about the fun of NOT knowing whether it is an ammo box or whether there is a great view associated with the cache?

 

Haven't you ever found a cache and then went "Wow! I didn't expect such an awesome view!" or "What a cool container! I thought it would be an altoids tin!"

 

Doesn't the mystery make it more fun?

Great point! Normally I know what to expect from cache pages, but I can be surprised at times. I remember doing a very hard hike over a boulder field after a 5 mile straight uphill hike for a cache. I figured the difficulty was the value (and that was enough for me) until I got to the ridge and saw a wonderful frozen lake and view for miles below from the top. I also remember what would have appeared to be a "lame" micro from a cache page that took me to a fascinating spot with a great view. Then, I remember the "lame virtual." I went there largely because the logs tended to have weird and possibly negative comments. I was curious! It turned out to be rather odd and scary, and yes, "lame" in a sense. Yet, I still remember it and tell funny stories about it. It actually in hindsight is one of my favorite caches because of that even though I would hate to inflict the experience on others! :blink:

 

Of course there are also the negative surprises. A cache can sound great from the page and logs, yet not measure up. But angst is as angst does. I still have fun!

Link to comment

I agree regarding perspective. A family with a couple of pre-teens may find a quarter-mile hike to an ammo can on flat terrain quite fun, while a flat-pack wedged in some rocks at the top of a cliff would be undesirable (not to mention, dangerous). A die-hard hiker may not be interested in a micro in the local park, but a wheelchair cacher may find this perfect. There are hundreds of types and styles for caches. Almost all are appealing to one group or another. That is what makes this game work for so many people.

Link to comment

if you are looking for rated caches, there are other sites that will accomodate you. the nice thing about geocaching.com is the HUGE variety that you have available to you. the best filter here is a bit of research.

usually i find for myself, that if i read through enough of the cache log, or check over the map (if it's an area i'm familiar with) i'll generally be spot on about my enjoyment of the cache find. the other nice thing is to just filter by cache size. (personally don't like micros. oh well.)

that alone keeps me from wondering what exactly the point of the parking lot was.

keep poking around, you may just find what you're looking for..

Link to comment

Thanks.

 

All very good points.

 

My idea (probably about the 4000th to suggest it anyway) would only be for the limited usefulness of people who do not have the time to sit down and study cache pages and get "gut feelings" about which ones meet their desires, but would rather have a mechanical filter to sort them out for them.

 

fictional ferinstance:

I just got called out to go to Chicago. I will have a half hour on my lunch break tomorrow and I have only a few minutes to search the site whilst the wife packs my bags.

 

click, click, theres the best pick... still a crap-shoot, understood.

 

OP(P)TIONAL is still the watchword. I am not suggesting any more "rules", just a few new "tools"

 

As to ratings, that is a different subject. I thought about that yesterday and have an idea about that... new topic coming up.

Link to comment

Wish we had a check boxes for cachers by login name that seem to complain all the time about lame cache, that way we would not have to listen to them, and they would not be able to find my lame caches or see the cache pages that I am very proud of ……… JOE

 

There are no lame caches, someone have fun hiding it and someone have fun finding it

Link to comment
Wish we had a check boxes for cachers by login name that seem to complain all the time about lame cache, that way we would not have to listen to them, and they would not be able to find my lame caches or see the cache pages that I am very proud of ……… JOE

 

There are no lame caches, someone have fun hiding it and someone have fun finding it

Absolutely!

 

And the present "ignore" feature (unfortunately only available one cache page at a time) is very nice for those you have decided won't be fun for you- without in any way spoiling the fun for those for whom they will be fun.

 

And my proposal might save you a little time and effort when you are planning your caching day and want to zero-in on a few criteria that are special to YOU that perhaps are not that easy to zero-in on now.

Link to comment

Here is truth in advertising for a "lame micro" in my area, copied direct from the cache page.

 

A micro behind a grocery store. If you have time to find only one cache, "Something Fishy" is a better find and only a mile or two away. You might even consider picking up some sort of refreshments in the shopping center and enjoying them at the picnic table in the park where "Something Fishy" is placed.
Link to comment

The only problem with is that I like ambiguity when I place a cache, mostly because it is unique in the hide or container or both so by checking a few boxes I might as welll say it is the hallow log next to the tree.

I think things like CACHE IS A MICRO IN A PILE OF ROCKS would be more useful. But I ahve to admint even if I don't like the cache and feel it is lame I'll still hunt for it.

cheers

Link to comment

When placing a cache, I try to give the finder some oblique hints as to the size, nature, and location of the cache ... hints that s/he may not understand fully until arriving at the site, but that will be helpful once there. I'll conceal hints anywhere -- even in the title. And I'll also include specific pointers, like "keep your feet on the ground." These will be put directly in the cache description when I want to instruct the finder quite specifically (e.g. what not to do... as in "do not climb on or in anything you see around here"); it will be in the encrypted-hint when it is a clue.

 

I, too, believe that the web-site itself doesn't need any more options. But note that there are web-sites that can automatically generate HTML for putting symbols and icons in your description.

Edited by HIPS-meister
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...