Most found caches (because "it is all about the numbers")

[+MSwahoo & the Cache Hound Posse]

I started this topic today and it seems like it may be good idea to put the most found caches all time and for the week or month on the main page and on each each state (and country) and/or maybe add this search criteria to PQ's. When I travel I try to find popular caches(most smileys ) that indicates to me that it is worth the time to hunt.

 

Do the GC.com code monkeys and hamsters (that power the servers) have the ability to add this feature??

[+Lil Devil]

I don't think the number of logs a cache has is related to it's quality.

 

I do think the average length of those logs is a closer relationship to quality.

 

Lame cache: SL TFTC

 

Excellent cache: multiple paragraphs that go on and on telling what a great time they had.

 

A better idea would be to have a special type of bookmark list that is a favorites list. Any cache that is on more than X favorites list would get a special icon on the search page. Or you could run PQs for caches that are on at least X favorites lists.

[+Jamie Z]

I do think the average length of those logs is a closer relationship to quality.

 

Lame cache: SL TFTC

 

Excellent cache: multiple paragraphs that go on and on telling what a great time they had.

LD,

 

You just gave me an idea.

 

Jamie

[+TrailGators]

I don't think the number of logs a cache has is related to it's quality. I do think the average length of those logs is a closer relationship to quality. Lame cache: SL TFTC

 

Excellent cache: multiple paragraphs that go on and on telling what a great time they had. A better idea would be to have a special type of bookmark list that is a favorites list. Any cache that is on more than X favorites list would get a special icon on the search page. Or you could run PQs for caches that are on at least X favorites lists.

 

I agree. If all you did was count the number of logs, all you'll end up with is a bunch of super easy lamp post micros......

 

I really wish they would do the favorites thing!

Edited November 29, 2006 by TrailGators

[+cache_test_dummies]

I do think the average length of those logs is a closer relationship to quality.

Generally speaking, that's probably true. Possible exceptions would include liar's caches and caches with recurring issues, both of which tend to have longer logs.

[+sTeamTraen]

Generally speaking, that's probably true. Possible exceptions would include liar's caches and caches with recurring issues, both of which tend to have longer logs.

 

1. What's a "liar's cache" ?

 

2. For the "recurring issues", I think that would be less of a problem if - as suggested in the GSAK forum thread - the count was limited to finds and DNFs.

[+MSwahoo & the Cache Hound Posse]

I don't think the number of logs a cache has is related to it's quality.

 

I do think the average length of those logs is a closer relationship to quality.

 

Lame cache: SL TFTC

 

Excellent cache: multiple paragraphs that go on and on telling what a great time they had.

 

A better idea would be to have a special type of bookmark list that is a favorites list. Any cache that is on more than X favorites list would get a special icon on the search page. Or you could run PQs for caches that are on at least X favorites lists.

 

I agree that log length is also a good indicator of cache quality but I do think number of visits maybe a good indicator. So maybe a function of both number of logs and log length may be the better indicator of cache quality.

[+BlueDeuce]

1. What's a "liar's cache" ?

 

The Gauntlet

 

The purpose of the cache is to describe your cache hunt well beyond the actual experience.

[+BlueDeuce]

I agree that log length is also a good indicator of cache quality but I do think number of visits maybe a good indicator. So maybe a function of both number of logs and log length may be the better indicator of cache quality.

 

The best cache in my area placed in Oct 2001 has 132 visits. The cache placed at the entrance in August of 2005 has 82 visits. It’s just more accessible to more cachers, not better.

 

The 2001 cache has maybe a couple lines more for each log than your average log entry.

 

Personally I think someone should determine if log entry statistical data is an accurate cache rating system before having people develop their systems.

[+MissJenn]

I do think the average length of those logs is a closer relationship to quality.

I thought size didn't matter ...

[+_BBQ_]

A better idea would be to have a special type of bookmark list that is a favorites list. Any cache that is on more than X favorites list would get a special icon on the search page. Or you could run PQs for caches that are on at least X favorites lists.

 

I had posted a while back about a PQ option for searching an area for bookmark lists. Not much ever came of the post, but it still seems like a good idea. When I travel, I always end up going cache-by-cache looking for them. Especially, when I don't have a lot of time to cache, I'm always looking to maximize the fun.

 

It be great if you could filter PQs by caches on bookmarks. It may also be a good idea to allow a search for key words in bookmark lists. I'd use that to filter out bookmarks like "caches along I-95". Words like "Favorites" or "Memorable" would obviously produce a lot of great caching results.

 

_BBQ_

[+Glenn]

I started this topic today and it seems like it may be good idea to put the most found caches all time and for the week or month on the main page and on each each state (and country) and/or maybe add this search criteria to PQ's. When I travel I try to find popular caches(most smileys ) that indicates to me that it is worth the time to hunt.

 

Do the GC.com code monkeys and hamsters (that power the servers) have the ability to add this feature??

The problem with stats like this that it will cause more admin work for Groundspeak. For the stats to mean anything they will have to be monitored to make sure no one is cheating. I'm sure there are plenty of dishonest people who would love to see their cache listed on the main page.

[+Jamie Z]

I do think number of visits maybe a good indicator.

I think in general, it's just the opposite (depending, of course, on what you think is a good cache). Around here, the caches that get hit most often are those caches that are right off the street, in the parking lot of a mall, or some other such very easy to access spot. Caches which require a good walk, paddle, or climb do get hit, and they are popular, but the rate of finds on those more interesting caches is substantially lower than the so-called lame caches.

 

My best finds ever are on caches which only get found once every couple of months or less.

 

Jamie

[+altosaxplayer]

Ranger Fox out of North Carolina never writes a copy and paste log and prides himself on that. He just came to my area and did around 250 caches in a 3 day period. Not a single one of his logs was shorter than a paragraph long. That didn't include the GC number, time found, number of the day, number of the trip, the first cache of the day, the last cache of the day, the next cache in the line, and it goes on.