Jump to content

Why Use Other Geocaching Sites?


GeoBlank

Recommended Posts

....

 

Terracaching is a totaly differrent concept. First you have to have not just one sponser, but two in order to be accepted. If you are not a well known name it may be awhile before you are sponsered. Currently there is one person over there now that has been waiting six days for a sponsership. If one of your sponsers leaves or for some reason withdraws sponsership, you are back to step one. It's like belonging to a country club I guess. No riff raff allowed in there. I will say that they do have some good ideas however.

 

The only thing that both sites offer is types of caches that are no longer allowed on GC.com. Virtuals, (although GC.com still allows those in a very strict sense.) Locationless cache, (which really aren't caches at all.) and moving caches.

 

So once again why bother?

 

El Diablo

I recently decided to explore terracaching and was turned off the minute I realized that I had to be sponsored to be a member. I will stay with GC.com.

Link to comment
Why hasn't anyone come up with a cool idea for locationless caches? I could tick off 5 ideas on one hand that have some interesting implications for GPS.

 

Yeah. I get it. Some sites create features that have "more bran" or "low-fat" or whatever. But how different are they really? If they ever get popular they'll have the same growth issues as this site does.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am to read this. On the one hand, it's very cool that you can tick off five cool new ideas. That's great. On the other hand, I'm quite surprised and disappointed that you believe the issues this site faces are inevitable, and presumably unsolvable. (Apologies if I've misunderstood you.)

 

I don't know that any of the other sites have any answers, either, but I do know that belief that a solution is impossible tends to be self-fulfilling.

I think you misread that a bit. The growth issues this site faces, are the same ones any other site will face. There are only a few solutions out there. Take funding. You need money to pay for the growth (better equipment, staff, etc) This site uses permium memberships and product sales. Another site might have everyone be a member and product sales. A third site may obtain grants, but when those run out, and they seek funds to replace them they are going to be looking at a membership options. The only site that can work around that is the one that will get some kind of endowment where they can fund it off the interest alone. We can dream.

 

Part of those 5 ideas are GC.coms competetive advantage. As other sites do innovte and capture market share all sites will need some advantage. It won't be "One site to rule them all" in the end. Instead it will be "The one site that survived them all". Which in turn will spawn it's own competition.

Link to comment
With the growth of many local and regional web sites devoted to caching, and the fact that the activity is really a local one, I have been surprised not to see many local sites (or even individuals) doing their own listings. All have competent web masters who could probably implement it at least to the level to handle local volume. Supporting only the local cachers and visitors would seem to me to be a reliable way to spread the growth. It all depends if they have the desire or time.

 

Financially, the sport isn't big enough to financially support all the sites and infrastructure which it needs - typically this is a grassroots activity where people come and go, and so has no reliable formal base to draw on.

 

Of course, no one wants to have a distributed database or share listings, so it will never be nice and neat - which is what I suspect a lot (if not most) of cachers prefer.

This was the idea behind opencaching.com - several different listing nodes, regional or otherwise, where any node can get info from any other node. A listing node for a small country could probably run on a private web account without any problems. The project doesn't seem to be very active any more though.

Link to comment
Then there is a population of malcontents who use those sites either because they got themselves banned from here, or just have a bug up their nose about GC.COM.

 

The striking thing to me is that I see the same few names arguing and whining here that form the majority of active forum posters over there!

 

I have joined others out of curiosity, but never hunted one of their caches.

 

There are two Terracaches in Alabama, both ~100 miles away and placed by a geocaching friend, that I suppose I will eventually do, if for no other reasons than that they are his and they are there!

 

There are 2 Eartcaches in Alabama now, again both placed by a geocaching friend, and I will do those someday for the same reasons.

 

Since there are a total of 4 non-gc caches in Alabama and 1247 (and growing rapidly) geocaches I suspect gc.com will keep me busy!

 

Despite ~1100 finds there are still 256 unfound caches within 50 miles - this tells me that gc.com is all I will need for the forseeable future!

 

What I don't understand is why those who are constantly vocal about what's wrong with this place don't just go to another - instead of go there AND stay here and bellyache and try to justify the other sites.

 

Do Baptists go to Methodist churches to argue their differences and complain that things aren't being done the Baptist way? Why do it here?

Link to comment
On the other hand, I'm quite surprised and disappointed that you believe the issues this site faces are inevitable, and presumably unsolvable. (Apologies if I've misunderstood you.)

 

I don't know that any of the other sites have any answers, either, but I do know that belief that a solution is impossible tends to be self-fulfilling.

Others have already ticked off reasons why other sites would have the same growth issues. I don't discuss costs as a private company but recent stats have indicated that bandwidth has doubled consistently year to year. At one point last year a month tripled in comparison to the same month the previous year. Bandwidth costs money for web sites and it isn't peanuts.

 

Then there are the social issues like working with land managers and handling those issues. Then cache adoptions, then customer service via contact@whatever.com, etc. It's all growth issues and you have to have a thick skin and you need to be prepared to work for it.

Link to comment
What I don't understand is why those who are constantly vocal about what's wrong with this place don't just go to another - instead of go there AND stay here and bellyache and try to justify the other sites.

TAR, have you been hanging out with Mopar?

 

:ph34r:

 

Oh yea, aren't "Earthcaches" listed on GC.com? Or is there another website I don't know about?

 

sd

Link to comment
Navicache dosen't really offer anything unique. They pretty much just cross post caches that are listed on GC.com, so why bother?

 

I use GC and some "others".

 

Competition, as has been said previously, is good. It's one of the reasons I run both Windows and Linux boxes. Horses for courses.

 

As noted here, there are a few differences at NC:

  • less cache density makes it less useful to me, but I still use it. My caches are currently listed there (and on my personal website).
  • exposure of database by xml; shares with The Map Aggregator Which Must Not Be Named. :-)
  • some kinds of caches easier/faster to get approved
  • ability of non-subscribers to get .gpx downloads, although they are not populated for GSAK.
  • less commercial in feel?
  • more tolerant of other sources of information, and (arguably) less tightly wound

GC is the 500lb gorilla because of the raw numbers, the intuitive domain name, etc. The pocket queries are worth the price of admission to me.

 

I would also probably do the TC thing, but the "two sponsors" thing seems like to much of a secret club handshake to me. I'm all about the free flow of information.

Edited by fratermus
Link to comment

The sponsors idea is turning a lot of people off TC.

 

However, the idea behind it is that the community stays active and involved, in a self-policing way. If your sponsors drop out, you get a chance to find new sponsors - you drop sponsorship for people who aren't behaving or aren't participating. A different approach to the reviewers here, and one which appears to be eliminating the problem with people whining about reviewer actions.

 

No terracaches near me, so no real interest in going there right now.

Link to comment
If Jeremy felt that the issues are "presumably unsolvable" then why is he introducing new features to deal with the growth issues, like an ignore list, and devoting programming resources to a new game that will replace virtual and locationless caches?

 

Is there a thread on this somewhere? This is the first Ive heard of it. (Unless you mean the vague rumors of the last 2 years which has mentioned the return of locationless caches....those Ive heard)

Link to comment
That's pretty funny. I went out with some other geocachers recently and they found a cache that was listed on another web site. It was less than 10 feet away from a cache hidden 2 years prior to theirs. I kid you not. And it was a lousy cache to boot. Not that I'm biased.

I'm glad that I didn't base my opinion of any caching site on one experience alone! :ph34r:

 

I am happy to be active on both sites! I know firsthand that the sponsorship thing on terracaching.com shouldn't be as initimidating as it sounds, as someone else already noted. As long as you identify the general area you are from, anyone is likely to get sponsorship right away. Myself, and about a dozen others I know would all gladly sponsor Jeremy if he was curious.

 

I just wish that everyone could get along when it comes to tc.com and gc.com. MOST cachers don't have a problem, but it is apparent on BOTH sites that there are a few outspoken individuals. I would tell them quite simply, "If you don't like that site, then don't go there!" I don't want to hear about it, and seeing threads that are doing just that, on either site, reflects poorly on that site. If you have a gripe with GC.com, post it there. If you have a gripe with TC.Com, post it there!

 

Just thought I would throw in my .002 cents worth.

(scottO on terracaching.com/OConnellz on geocaching.com)

Link to comment

Being new to this I signed up on both the other sites as well as this one. Hey I just wanted to find caches I didn't care who listed them. One site only had a couple caches within 100 miles of my location and the other took 1 day to get sponsorship, to find out they had no caches within a 3 1/2 hours drive.

This is the site for me! And the cost of the premium membership is nothing compared to the enjoyment I get out of it. I would pay to support this site even without the extras I get with premium membership. Thanks to all who put in the effort to make this site what it is.

Link to comment
I am curious who uses other geocaching sites and why?

I use terracaching.com in addition to geocaching.com. At terracaching.com I enjoy the ability to rate caches for quality, search for caches based on quality ratings, participate in the friendly competition of the point system based on relative difficulty and test out cache ideas that wouldn't get approved at geocaching.com. I love the sense of community that exists because of the sponsorship model and the fact that the cache approvers are people who choose to work with you (since they're your sponsors) instead of an arbitrary person assigned to oversee folks like here.

 

I use geocaching.com because there's a lot of caches listed here. In my area, however, that's not a reason to not use terracaching.com, as numbers are rapidly increasing!

Link to comment
I just wish that everyone could get along when it comes to tc.com and gc.com. MOST cachers don't have a problem, but it is apparent on BOTH sites that there are a few outspoken individuals. I would tell them quite simply, "If you don't like that site, then don't go there!" I don't want to hear about it, and seeing threads that are doing just that, on either site, reflects poorly on that site. If you have a gripe with GC.com, post it there. If you have a gripe with TC.Com, post it there!

I agree. Something I have noticed is that alternate sites do pick up some people who are unhappy with GC.com and then they throw in jabs in their posts on the other site's forums. That is a turn off for me, even though I am sure the alternate site itself does not wish to be viewed as a haven for malcontents. In the end it is not very good for any site. It is better to complain at the site the complaint is relevant to or simply go enjoy the site(s) that is chosen.

 

I do have one question though. When I registered at TC, the main forums could not be read until I had sponsors. That would make it hard for anyone who had concerns about the site or sponsorship to post in anything but the limited forum for seeking sponsors. Generally being able to post and read all the forums could help people address TC concerns at TC instead of here. Has that changed? Hmmm, actually I guess I should follow my own advice and post this on the TC forums huh?!?! :blink:

Link to comment

Others have already ticked off reasons why other sites would have the same growth issues. I don't discuss costs as a private company but recent stats have indicated that bandwidth has doubled consistently year to year. At one point last year a month tripled in comparison to the same month the previous year. Bandwidth costs money for web sites and it isn't peanuts.

 

Then there are the social issues like working with land managers and handling those issues. Then cache adoptions, then customer service via contact@whatever.com, etc. It's all growth issues and you have to have a thick skin and you need to be prepared to work for it.

I agree the financial growth issues are likely to be similar at other sites. It's clear to me you've put a great deal of time and money into your site, and much good effort. I think I've mostly said that while I may not agree with everything here, that there were lots of good things to be said about your site. I was more talking about the social issues. My opinion is that many of those problems are of your own making. (Although human nature being what it is, no doubt many of them are not.) I do agree that y'all have done a lot of good working with land managers behind the scenes. I think you probably don't get enough credit for that.

 

Look, I've paid my premium membership here a couple of times now, and bought one as a gift for my brother-in-law. I've purchased some stuff from your store, and tried to hide a few and find a few and generally have a good time. And for quite a while I did. The membership doesn't make me anything special - I just wanted to point out that I'm not here to make a negative contribution, which is the implication some people here make whenever anyone complains. I don't particularly enjoy arguments - actually I intensely dislike arguments. So I'm not here for that, either.

 

I really just want to play this game. But I've noticed that the direction caching is going in my area isn't particularly enjoyable for me, and that frustrates me. I believe this site could do something about it. Whether that's true or not, what is true is that trying to express my concerns about it has proven to be astoundingly frustrating. I've tried to bring up what I perceive to be problems because I do like this game, and do care about what happens. Some others have raised similar concerns, but it doesn't really seem to accomplish much other than to annoy people.

 

I'd hoped that the changes such as ignore lists and favorites lists indicated that maybe other changes would be coming that might address some of my concerns. Now, I dunno. Since most don't seem to think these things are problems, I think I'm just wasting my time and yours. My apologies - that was never my intention.

Link to comment
Why is it that the majority of cachers think that "it's one site...or the other". I find that caching on more than one site does not make me a mal-content, just someone who enjoys caching...PERIOD!

I don't think it is a majority. In fact, most don't read any forums regardless of the site and I doubt many think it is "one site or another." Unfortunately the few "malcontents" can turn people off who lurk in forums, whether they are here or elsewhere.

 

Also, don't get me wrong here: "malcontent" to me does not necessarily mean a person who disagrees. The name is meant for those who constantly disagree in a mean, flaming, or snide manner. That is usually quite apparent and also often a turn off to the reader. People who complain or disagree in a respectful and polite manner, even if they can't help but throw in sarcasm at times, are different. Be careful when judging there too, because once you know a person from their posting history you can tell the difference! Often there is much room for disagreement on topics and the people who know how to politely argue quickly can be separated from those who appear to simply want to fan flames for entertainment. I highly respect the former, even in disagreement, and ignore the later. Over time it becomes apparent who really cares about the sport and disagrees because their views are in line with their personal concerns (whether people agree or not) and those who just seem to want to stir up trouble.

 

So, I don't think a majority feel that way, but some will make it seem that way either innocently or because they really are "malcontents." In the end, it is best that the majority be happy wherever they cache and post in forums, whether on one site or several. So whatever site(s) you use, aim to be nice, even in disagreement. That can go along way toward happy caching for all! :blink:

 

Hmmm I guess that sounded sappy at the end, but I am sincere and do like to avoid angst! :o

 

Edit: Yes, I think many/most just enjoy caching period! That is the best! :blink:

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
I am curious who uses other geocaching sites and why?

 

I do. I like using other sites because they are different, have different rules and have a different caching experience.

 

I have found everything I need right here

 

Then you have no need for any other site :blink:

 

and wondering if supporting one primary site will help keep consistency and longevity in the hobby.

 

One site will promote a lack of innovation. Competition is good. When is the last time you saw competition make a site worse?

 

(I specifically did not mention those other sites in case people do not use them... why advertise)

 

What difference does it make? There are other threads with the names of other sites in the title. LOL. There is no need for secrecy.

 

I realize the internet is a big place but I would prefer all caches in my area to be available in one spot.  Also to upload the same cache into multiple systems seems kind of silly.

 

Just stick with one site and then everything is all in one spot. The largest site other than here doesn't allow cross posted caches. You post the listing there and nowhere else. Cross posting caches would indeed make things pointless.

 

Just wondering your thoughts.

 

You have them, thanks for asking.

Link to comment
The only thing that both sites offer is types of caches that are no longer allowed on GC.com. Virtuals, (although GC.com still allows those in a very strict sense.) Locationless cache, (which really aren't caches at all.) and moving caches.

 

So once again why bother?

 

El Diablo

I like Terracaching.com because of what they don't offer --> Thoughtlessly lame parking lot micros and other crappy caches. Almost all of the terracaches in my area of the Northwest get you out of town and away from it all where I like it. If you hide a crappy cache on that site it will last about a month before it is automatically archived by their system based on the voting opinions of the people who have found it. They even have a link on their cache pages to "Find Nearby Geocaches" so you can stay active on both sites.

 

I don't understand the complaints about their sponsorship system. Your sponsors are just the approvers of the caches you hide, nothing more. Somebody has to approve new hides and in their system it is the people who are sponsoring you. What is the big turnoff about that? I was originally sponsored by someone I didn't even know but as our area grew in membership I picked up a local sponsor who knows our area better and is better equipped to approve my hides.

 

I once thought GC.com was all I would ever need but I was wrong. There are close to 100 TC's within 100 miles of Spokane so having caches to find is not a problem here.

 

If you have a competitive bone in your body you are really missing out on something.

Link to comment
The only thing that both sites offer is types of caches that are no longer allowed on GC.com. Virtuals, (although GC.com still allows those in a very strict sense.) Locationless cache, (which really aren't caches at all.) and moving caches.

 

So once again why bother?

 

El Diablo

I like Terracaching.com because of what they don't offer --> Thoughtlessly lame parking lot micros and other crappy caches. Almost all of the terracaches in my area of the Northwest get you out of town and away from it all where I like it. If you hide a crappy cache on that site it will last about a month before it is automatically archived by their system based on the voting opinions of the people who have found it. They even have a link on their cache pages to "Find Nearby Geocaches" so you can stay active on both sites.

 

I don't understand the complaints about their sponsorship system. Your sponsors are just the approvers of the caches you hide, nothing more. Somebody has to approve new hides and in their system it is the people who are sponsoring you. What is the big turnoff about that? I was originally sponsored by someone I didn't even know but as our area grew in membership I picked up a local sponsor who knows our area better and is better equipped to approve my hides.

 

I once thought GC.com was all I would ever need but I was wrong. There are close to 100 TC's within 100 miles of Spokane so having caches to find is not a problem here.

 

If you have a competitive bone in your body you are really missing out on something.

Nothing wrong with a little competition.. In a few more years, I will be competing with the RV cachers for them highway caches.

 

TC caters to a specific group of folks and hiking styles. We do not have very many well groomed hiking trails out here in the desert, the hils are tough and forbidding. Here in Las Vegas, we have some darned good creative urban caches placed (none by me I will add).

 

As much as I enjoyed my short experience with Terracaching, the parts that turned me off were the highly skewed point system and the exclusiveness. I could add the "better than thou" attitudes, but that's only prevolant in thier forums.

 

OK, my button was pushed, and I am all better now.

Link to comment
I am curious who uses other geocaching sites and why?

No need to ask why here.

 

I'm a geocacher. If something is hidden, I want to find it. Who gives a flip where it's listed.

 

Conversely, if I want to hide a cache that wouldn't get approved for one of the more arbitrary reasons that THIS site chooses not to list for than someone else will list it.

 

I like it here. I like the other sites too. I'm a geocacher, not a geocaching.com cacher.

 

Notice my sig line...... :lol:

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
I don't discuss costs as a private company but recent stats have indicated that bandwidth has doubled consistently year to year. At one point last year a month tripled in comparison to the same month the previous year. Bandwidth costs money for web sites and it isn't peanuts.

Jeremy, I have just done a 'List nearest caches'. The page that comes back, excluding pictures (that can be cached up by the browser) is a whopping 56K's worth of data. 55204 bytes, just to show a list of 20 items. This is very poor.

 

Examining the source, there's a fair bit of , not displayable, bandwidth sapping crud..... I can't believe you need 30 lines or so of random chars, just to store a view state!.....

 

56K, Though this is quick using broadband, using a modem this is about 10 seconds to download.

 

or, if Using GPRS (mobile phone) while out in the field, then this takes 20 seconds, (and is charged by the byte).

 

If everyone who uses GC.com is pulling 56K each time they query a list of caches, I am not surprised you are having a large bandwidth bill. If you coded this page more efficiently, you should be able to at least halve the about of data coming over the line, saving you money on bandwidth costs, and saving us the pain of using GC.com over a non-broadband connection.

 

Tony.

Link to comment

No need to ask why here.

 

I'm a geocacher. If something is hidden, I want to find it. Who gives a flip where it's listed.

 

Conversely, if I want to hide a cache that wouldn't get approved for one of the more arbitrary reasons that THIS site chooses not to list for than someone else will list it.

 

I like it here. I like the other sites too. I'm a geocacher, not a geocaching.com cacher.

 

Notice my sig line...... :lol:

Right on Snoogans. This is simply a game. There is cool stuff here. There is cool stuff on gpsgames.org and there is cool stuff on terracaching.com. And I think there is more than one casino in Vegas. ojc

Link to comment

After reading this thread, I went and got myself sponsored on Terracaching to check it out. I think it fits a niche, but with only 2 Terracaches within about 100 miles of me, I don't think I'm going to be very active for a while. Of course, I'm only in this area for another 6 months, so we'll see what's what when I get back to Oregon.

 

For myself, I don't mind the parking lot/roadside caches. I like to get out in the fresh air and do the hiking caches a lot, but when I want to pick my daughter up from school and go out and do something quick until my wife gets off work, a quick city park or something more 'urban' comes in handy. Not every cache needs to be a three hour scramble up a cliff face . . .

Link to comment
Notice my sig line...... :P

B) Oh, I get it... You're one of those people who drives an SUV that's 300 times bigger than you need B):lol:

 

Back on topic:

I'm a geocacher. If something is hidden, I want to find it. Who gives a flip where it's listed.

I'm a fairly active member both here and on TC.com... There aren't too many nearby caches on TC, but GC was like that once, too. Someone has to hide caches for others to find, they don't just magically appear. TC also has a scoring system to ensure cache and cacher quality, which is nice - no film-canister-in-the-bush-beside-McD's micros!

 

That said, I also have to say this: There is nothing wrong with GC.com for most cachers, however, some people prefer other features that GC can't offer (yet). I like GC.com for the quantity of caches near my house (most of them aren't too bad).

 

Happy Caching (On whatever site you choose!)

Jeff

Link to comment
Not every cache needs to be a three hour scramble up a cliff face . . .

I agree completely! I think that a quality cache is one of two things:

1. entertaining or challenging hunt

2. takes you to a cool spot.

 

On both sites, I have a total of 5 caches listed, 3 of which are 'urban' (this IS Montana). But all 5 take you someplace that most people will enjoy, and/or make the trip enjoyable or worth it.

 

I just don't really want to place any more offset caches on gc.com, due to the painstaking process I have had to go through with our approver in the past.

Link to comment

I am on another site because they aren't as uptight about virtuals, and I wanted to post my game/virtual that I had worked pretty hard on putting together.

 

Obviously, GC.com has a heck of a lot more participants and caches.

 

If this site weren't so inexplicably rigid in its rules, I doubt very many people would be at the other sites.

 

I do like the rating system at TC...just wish they had more caches in my area.

Link to comment
I am curious who uses other geocaching sites and why?

I think a better question is... Why not?

 

Competition is a good thing.

 

I buy T because they've got quality cars, not for any other reason. I'll

consider F again the day they can compete with T on the things that

matter to me. But I know that if F disappears completely, T won't need to

try as hard to keep my business.

 

I mean look at what happened when Linux finally got big enough to compete.

We jumped the from the poorly written reused-code-from-window3.0 torture

that is windows 98 to the rather pleasant windows 2000.

 

So be grateful and secure in the knowledge that there's someone out there

keeping geocaching.com on their toes. Because even with the best of

intentions, a few years with no competition and this place would stagnate.

 

And as long as this site continues to be good, they'll continue to be the

biggest, most successful competitor.

Link to comment

Looked at TC, found 3TC and 25GC caches on Saturday (4/2)- one TC was very unique that would not have been approved at GC, the log was writing grafitti on a wall & taking a picture of it to send to the owner as proof - GREAT STUFF!

 

I do like the rating system that allows the system to automatically archive a cache that runs negative ratings/posts over a period of time - it seems it will keep cache quality up and automatically eliminate unmaintained or poor caches - this is a good thing, right?

 

Worked for a coupla decades for a monopoly company (PBI) that held a 93% market share for decades . . . it changed nothing until competition gave them a wake up call. It did not move fast enough and has suffered. GC can certainly avoid this - GC should avoid this & I certainly hope that it does!

 

It is not the growth issues related to band width that will drive people to shop around, but attitudes of apathy and insensitivity to the users desires for the site, for fairplay and diminished negativity. These cost nothing to maintain at peak elevations.

Link to comment
Looked at TC, found 3TC and 25GC caches on Saturday (4/2)- one TC was very unique that would not have been approved at GC, the log was writing grafitti on a wall & taking a picture of it to send to the owner as proof - GREAT STUFF!

 

For those of you getting ready to jump GA, This cache is on university property and the grafitti is permitted by the university. In fact they have signs that tell you where you're allowed to express yourself.

Link to comment

I recently started using Terracaching in addition to this site. I don't ever see it taking the place of this site however.

 

Yeah. I get it. Some sites create features that have "more bran" or "low-fat" or whatever. But how different are they really? If they ever get popular they'll have the same growth issues as this site does.

 

That may be true but for now, it's very interesting to be able to get a taste of what geocaching was like 3 or 4 years ago. For those of us who started caching in the last two years, we haven't had the opportunity to experience how things were when this whole thing began. I also like the competitive aspect of that site. While there is no substitute for GC.com, it's nice to know there are options.

Link to comment
They'll list anything... in no time at all.

My experiences with time from posting to time of listing.

GC, anywhere from 2-3 hours to 2-3 days

Navicache 5 minutes to 25 minutes ( and the longets time was on New Years Eve at around 7 PM!)

GpsGames.org, prety much instantly.

Link to comment

If there's one thing that is particularly attractive about the other sites, it's that they are quite level-handed about the cache listing process. The Achilles heel of GC is the approver system. Under the present system an approver has godlike powers... and some approvers are sticklers to red-tape issues like, "no, your home-coords are 105 miles from the cache instead of 100," or "this stage is 510 feet instead of 528." (I kid you not.) And the problem is, of course, there's nothing you can do about it. Gods are gods and you are not.

 

To be fair, it is easy to understand this "stickler" approach as a natural response from someone who wants to do a good job; who is faced with literally hundreds of new applications every day; and who physically cannot go and inspect any of these caches. (Some approvers live a thousand miles away from their areas of responsibility.) As the popularity of the sport grows, the strain upon the manual approver system is only going to get worse. And the pressure on the game to splinter into a hundred different rival, even regional factions is going to grow.

 

Everyone concerned is basically stuck in the middle. The root cause of the problem, as I see it, is "success." The present system started out when geocaching was an isolated geek-hobby. As it entered mainstream, the workload on all fronts shot way up. And now, as it starts to become popular... :( Fellas, it's gonna crash hard.

 

Let these decisions be made, instead, by the local visitors themselves. They know a good cache from a bad one; they know if the cache is or is not being maintained. Let the computer do the paperwork. Let the computer count the chads.

 

A peer-ranking system, call it a Survivor system, would allow the participants themselves determine the survival of a particular cache and the standing of a particular setter. The more positive ratings a cache gets, the more likely it is to survive in the list. Negative votes eventually cause the cache to be de-selected. Cache placers who get high rankings get nice gold stars.

 

The concept is a familiar one. Forum/blog software, including the software which runs this site, has that kind of capability as a standard feature. Heck, look at eBay and its "positive and negative feedback."

 

Lord knows I'm not bashing reviewers. Let's hear it for hard-working volunteers! But let's not kid ourselves: if the present volume doubles, and doubles again... there's gonna be a lot of water belowdecks. We need to put our collective heads together now. When I look at eBay, what I see there is working.

 

What do you people think?

Link to comment

HIPS-meister makes some good points.

 

We have had other threads that have touched on related topics.

 

There were few (if any) local caching groups when the GC site was established. Now there are many local clubs with some real experienced cachers involved. Many approvers belong to one or more of them. Back in the day when the locals were few and local clubs were even fewer, it reasonably fell onto the approvers to hold the line on cache quality.

 

With the advent of the wide spread local clubs, we have a cohort of people who could be asked to go check out a geocache for an approver and the approver could count on getting some experienced opinion from the ground level.

 

A leg maybe only 510 feet apart on mapquest, but be a quarter mile further apart on the trail. This kind of issue could be resolved rather quickly by using some of the experienced members of the local clubs to scope things out. We have an older gent that belongs to our club that has FTF on nearly every cache. He is a good cacher and his opinion means something. He would be an example of the kind of people that could be recruited to this mission.

 

HIPs is right, the game is getting more popular and more mainstream. We need to be sure that th sport grows in the most advantageous manner. One of the things we need to do is to evolve the listing process as well.

Link to comment
Looked at TC, found 3TC and 25GC caches on Saturday (4/2)- one TC was very unique that would not have been approved at GC, the log was writing grafitti on a wall & taking a picture of it to send to the owner as proof - GREAT STUFF!

 

For those of you getting ready to jump GA, This cache is on university property and the grafitti is permitted by the university. In fact they have signs that tell you where you're allowed to express yourself.

That was conveniently left out by the OP. :( Sounds like a unique and cool cache. :(

 

--RuffRidr

Edited by RuffRidr
Link to comment

I'm gonna repeat myself just to be sure: I'm not bashing anyone. Not reviewers, not Jeremy, not the tech team! No, the process itself is what we need to look at. As volume grows, the computers can always keep up. But the humans can't.

 

The eBay system is basically a de-centralized, peer review process. Auctions that don't keep up are naturally and quickly "voted off the island." Authority to maintain the system is vested in the participants. While super-powered investigators and administrators are still required, the system is such that they can operate in the background and do not have to intervene constantly "just in order to keep the quality high." They are able to employ "management by exception," and our gods should be able to do the same. Right now they cannot: a privileged reviewer must be personally involved in every single transaction, and that's simply not sustainable despite everyone's best efforts.

 

We are all in this together. Each person ... cache-owners, cache-seekers, the site sysops, and the present cadre of reviewers ... is a stakeholder in the game. As the system grows, it will not simply grow linearly; it will explode. And if it explodes, in the present architecture, it will break and splinter. (And cause poor Jeremy to experience self-inflicted Male Pattern Baldness!) So we need to look at the coming storms and think up pro-active solutions that take selected-humans out of the loop. A fundamentally different quality-control system is needed... very soon.

Edited by HIPS-meister
Link to comment
A peer-ranking system, call it a Survivor system, would allow the participants themselves determine the survival of a particular cache and the standing of a particular setter. The more positive ratings a cache gets, the more likely it is to survive in the list. Negative votes eventually cause the cache to be de-selected. Cache placers who get high rankings get nice gold stars.

 

What do you people think?

I don't think this system will ever be implemented here. No one wants to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. A system like this would cause a LOT of caches to go away due to, well them being not star worthy. People who don't want their caches to disappear will rally against a system like this.

 

--RuffRidr

Link to comment
A peer-ranking system, call it a Survivor system, would allow the participants themselves determine the survival of a particular cache and the standing of a particular setter.  The more positive ratings a cache gets, the more likely it is to survive in the list.  Negative votes eventually cause the cache to be de-selected.  Cache placers who get high rankings get nice gold stars.

 

What do you people think?

I don't think this system will ever be implemented here. No one wants to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. A system like this would cause a LOT of caches to go away due to, well them being not star worthy. People who don't want their caches to disappear will rally against a system like this.

 

--RuffRidr

I don't think such a system fits the philosophy of this site or many/most of its users. I am quite happy with this site how it is and think it would be silly to try to turn it on its head and make it into something else. If something else is wanted, then that is what alternate sites are for. So those who want ratings and competition might feel happier at TC. That is fine. Others might like different aspects of several sites. That if fine too. But it seems off to me to suggest sweeping changes to any given site when they were set up as they are for a reason. For example, it would be pretty silly of me to go over to the TC forums and suggest that they dump their whole system and go to regular find counts and set approvers. I think suggesting that this site change to something like what TC does is equally problematic.

Link to comment
I don't think this system will ever be implemented here.  No one wants to tell the emperor that he has no clothes.  A system like this would cause a LOT of caches to go away due to, well them being not star worthy.  People who don't want their caches to disappear will rally against a system like this.

That's an interesting assertion. I can't speak to it either way so I won't. But I will say that we have to do something. And I'll observe that the existing supply of logs (found/notfound) already serves as a simple kind of QC-feedback system. Already, when looking at a cache as a potential candidate to search for (and I don't simply take the Pokemon approach, "gotta get 'em all..."), the basis of my information is logs. So already, the basis of my decision is "peer-review."

 

The first objective I would propose is that we need to find a technical way to "get the reviewer out of the loop." Having to personally approve each and every record that goes live in the database is unsustainable.

 

The second objective is to enable cachers to select, for themselves, caches of predictable quality (as seen by them), and to close-the-loop so that those cachers can submit feedback and peer-review concerning the caches they have sought.

 

The objective is not to alienate nor to exclude existing participants, but rather to adjust the system so that it is more self-maintaining and does not swamp the few volunteers who are caught in a critical-path. I believe that a properly-conceived system could do this, and do it more effectively than what we have now... by virtue of the improved process alone.

 

I think it's quite reasonable, not to mention politic, to assume that folks who place caches, as those who find them and those who now review them, all have the best interests of the game at heart; that they do not operate from selfish or ulterior motives. Let's assume that for starters. And then, let's look at the process and see how we can possibly improve it.

 

One alternative of course is "just go off and find another site." Yes, and in a years' time we could have 100 different geocaching-related sites and the sport suddenly has no central point-of-contact. Now it has cardiac fibrillation... every muscle pulling on its own, no one pulling together. It's an alternative "of course," but can we do better?

Edited by HIPS-meister
Link to comment
...The eBay system is basically a de-centralized, peer review process. Auctions that don't keep up are naturally and quickly "voted off the island." Authority to maintain the system is vested in the participants. While super-powered investigators and administrators are still required, the system is such that they can operate in the background and do not have to intervene constantly "just in order to keep the quality high." They are able to employ "management by exception," and our gods should be able to do the same. Right now they cannot: a privileged reviewer must be personally involved in every single transaction, and that's simply not sustainable despite everyone's best efforts.

 

... As the system grows, it will not simply grow linearly; it will explode. And if it explodes, in the present architecture, it will break and splinter. (And cause poor Jeremy to experience self-inflicted Male Pattern Baldness!) So we need to look at the coming storms and think up pro-active solutions that take selected-humans out of the loop. A fundamentally different quality-control system is needed... very soon.

Your post tickled me tremendously. First, this game has seen so much growth in such large spurts that I don't fear of this growth breaking and splintering the game. The site may need periodic improvements, but I trust Jeremy to do what he does.

 

I also don't see the reviewers as being involved with every single transaction. The approvers approve (or deny) the cache initially. After that, however, they are pretty uninvolved unless there is a problem reported with a specific cache. Interestingly, this is the same model that eBay uses.

 

Just like eBay, there has always been a mechanism in place to rate the quality of caches. It is the online logs.

Link to comment
If there's one thing that is particularly attractive about the other sites, it's that they are quite level-handed about the cache listing process. The Achilles heel of GC is the approver system. Under the present system an approver has godlike powers... and some approvers are sticklers to red-tape issues like, "no, your home-coords are 105 miles from the cache instead of 100," or "this stage is 510 feet instead of 528." (I kid you not.) And the problem is, of course, there's nothing you can do about it. Gods are gods and you are not.

 

To be fair, it is easy to understand this "stickler" approach as a natural response from someone who wants to do a good job; who is faced with literally hundreds of new applications every day; and who physically cannot go and inspect any of these caches. (Some approvers live a thousand miles away from their areas of responsibility.) As the popularity of the sport grows, the strain upon the manual approver system is only going to get worse. And the pressure on the game to splinter into a hundred different rival, even regional factions is going to grow.

 

Everyone concerned is basically stuck in the middle. The root cause of the problem, as I see it, is "success." The present system started out when geocaching was an isolated geek-hobby. As it entered mainstream, the workload on all fronts shot way up. And now, as it starts to become popular... :( Fellas, it's gonna crash hard.

 

Let these decisions be made, instead, by the local visitors themselves. They know a good cache from a bad one; they know if the cache is or is not being maintained. Let the computer do the paperwork. Let the computer count the chads.

 

A peer-ranking system, call it a Survivor system, would allow the participants themselves determine the survival of a particular cache and the standing of a particular setter. The more positive ratings a cache gets, the more likely it is to survive in the list. Negative votes eventually cause the cache to be de-selected. Cache placers who get high rankings get nice gold stars.

 

The concept is a familiar one. Forum/blog software, including the software which runs this site, has that kind of capability as a standard feature. Heck, look at eBay and its "positive and negative feedback."

 

Lord knows I'm not bashing reviewers. Let's hear it for hard-working volunteers! But let's not kid ourselves: if the present volume doubles, and doubles again... there's gonna be a lot of water belowdecks. We need to put our collective heads together now. When I look at eBay, what I see there is working.

 

What do you people think?

You paint with a very broad brush here. The vast majority of the volunteer reviewers live within a few hours' drive of the caches they review. There are at most a half dozen -- not even 10% of the total -- who review caches at a great distance from home. If and when places like Alaska, Bolivia or Japan have enough new cache hiding activity, I'm sure that local volunteers for those areas can be added as well.

 

For the rest of us, reviewing caches in our home country or home state, we can review and list a cache on a Wednesday and find it the next weekend. We personally know many of the people hiding caches in our assigned territory. Many of us are officers in our local geocaching organizations. If there is a problem with a cache, I can count on an e-mail, instant message or phone call from another geocacher. Usually it's someone that I've cached with in the past.

 

And if I were *ever* faced with "literally hundreds" of new cache submissions every day, I'd have quit a long time ago. When my review volume approached 100 caches in a *week* I asked for help and a second reviewer was added for the eastern part of my original territory, so that a good service level could be maintained.

 

It's not that bad here, folks. Rather than the review process here being an "achilles heel," I instead regard it as a competitive advantage. In dealing with land managers to get them to allow geocaching, or to develop a user-friendly permit system, explaining the review process is extremely helpful in demonstrating that this is a responsible activity rather than a rogue underground activity. Coincidentally, I spent a half hour on the phone yesterday with a national magazine reporter discussing this very subject.

 

No system is perfect, which is why there are several layers of appeal processes in effect here. And, one could just as easily shoot arrows at the cache listing procedures in effect at other listing sites, but I will leave that to others who have less of a vested interest in the process here.

Link to comment
No system is perfect, which is why there are several layers of appeal processes in effect here.

But impression is different. I was just speaking with some cachers last night and they were mentioning putting their cache through several changes to accomodate the review process to no avail.

 

No, I don't know the particulars. I'm just relaying the perception and I'm not talking about malcontents, either.

Link to comment
If and when places like Alaska, Bolivia or Japan have enough new cache hiding activity, I'm sure that local volunteers for those areas can be added as well.

How about British Columbia? There is a tremendous about of cache hiding activity in BC and yet the closest Canadian reviewer is 3000 miles away and, in my experience, caches in the Vancouver area are usually approved by US-based approvers several hundred to a few thousand miles away. I'm not complaining about those approvers as, by and large they have done an admirable job of approving our local caches, but they are hardly familiar with the area or the differences in regulations and/or policies concerning use of public lands.

 

What is the threshold for "new cache hiding activity" that must be reached before a local volunteer is recruited?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...