OK Old schoolers

[vtmtnman]

Can we take a moment and summarize about what we have learned about the good old days?

 

Back then:

Fewer caches (obviously)

Fewer cachers (not that more cachers is a bad thing)

Bigger caches/less micros

Better maintained caches

Better quality of swag

More inspired caches (more scenic/historically significant/out of the way/place you might not have went to)

More unique ideas for caches

Less research required to find the "good" caches

 

Is that an accurate assessment?

Purdy much.

[vtmtnman]

...I think this may hit on what I am most interested in learning from the oldies. How is it that you like to play that you cant do or that has beocme difficult to do?

 

In the days of old when chachers were bold

And cache sprawl was not invented.

...

Nevermind.

 

Back in "the day" most caches were in cool spots and all those spots had not yet filled up.

You could load your GPS and be reasaonbly assured that any cache you found was giong to be nice in some aspect.

 

You didn't have to filter out the micro's, pay attention to what caches were in parks (they all were) and things like that.

 

This is a general rule. There were exaceptions, but the exceptions were not the vast majority of the caches that were out there.

 

Someone mentioned better maintained caches. Ha! That's not something that I've seen a lot of difference in. We didn't know that cookie tins sucked yet. Glad ware was still viable etc. Old school havent' been any better at maintaining their caches than noobs. Thats my observation. YMMV.

RK I checked out your first logged find a while ago...that one looked pretty cool.In fact alot of you old schoolers I've done that to just to see what kinds of caches you guys were doing back then.Some impressive,some ho hum.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I liked this idea at one time, but the more I think about it the more I don't like it. It's totally subjective and I think most people would tend to rate things higher out of courtesy and wanting to avoid offending a cache owner versus being plain honest...even if it were totally anonymous.

I agree with egami.You see it in everything else.Oh that's my buddy's cache,I'll hook him up and so on.

Funny how some noobs come around to old school thinking. It just takes them 500 grievences or so to get there.

 

Just to explain. That wasn't an attack, ad nausium or ad homium it was humor, and had a point burried in it (that being someone complaning about whining and wanting to see solutions isn't proposing solutions in thier own complaining/whining/grievences). Sometimes I'm probably too subtle.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Can we take a moment and summarize about what we have learned about the good old days?

 

Back then:

Fewer caches (obviously)

Fewer cachers (not that more cachers is a bad thing)

Bigger caches/less micros

Better maintained caches

Better quality of swag

More inspired caches (more scenic/historically significant/out of the way/place you might not have went to)

More unique ideas for caches

Less research required to find the "good" caches

 

Is that an accurate assessment?

Purdy much.

OK. So now we know what we are shooting for when compiling a list of what needs fixing:

 

Well we can't reduce the number of caches or cachers and I doubt anyone really wants to. Might as well cross those ones off the list.

 

Big vs small caches seems to be a matter of taste more than anything else. I filter for bigger caches mainly because my kids like the swag aspect of geocaching. its easy enough to filter so that one might as well go off the list too.

 

Better maintained caches/quality of swag - I have hidden no caches so I cannot really speak on this issue. I kinda imagined that once I left a cache out there, it was up to the cachers who found it as to what quality of swag will be in it and/or how well it will be maintained (I gather this means sealed from the elements, re-hidden properly, not filled with trash, etc.) Is it expected that the hider of the cache keep checking up on his own caches? If so, how often? Who has the time? Wouldnt you prefer to be out geocaching then keeping track of your own hides? Maybe thats just me...

 

More later

Edited May 16, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[vtmtnman]

Can we take a moment and summarize about what we have learned about the good old days?

 

Back then:

Fewer caches (obviously)

Fewer cachers (not that more cachers is a bad thing)

Bigger caches/less micros

Better maintained caches

Better quality of swag

More inspired caches (more scenic/historically significant/out of the way/place you might not have went to)

More unique ideas for caches

Less research required to find the "good" caches

 

Is that an accurate assessment?

Purdy much.

OK. So now we know what we are shooting for when compiling a list of what needs fixing:

 

Well we can't reduce the number of caches or cachers and I doubt anyone really wants to. Might as well cross those ones off the list.

 

Big vs small caches seems to be a matter of taste more than anything else. I filter for bigger caches mainly because my kids like the swag aspect of geocaching. its easy enough to filter so that one might as well go off the list too.

 

Better maintained caches/quality of swag - I have hidden no caches so I cannot really speak on this issue. I kinda imagined that once I left a cache out there, it was up to the cachers who found it as to what quality of swag was in it and/or how well it was maintained (I gather this means sealed from the elements, re-hidden properly, not filled with trash, etc.) Is it expected that the hider of the cache keep checking up on his own caches? If so, how often? Who has the time? Wouldnt you prefer to be out geocaching then keeping track of your own hides? Maybe thats just me...

 

More later

Well I think there's a certain aspect of the sport for cache hiding.You have to be able to maintain your caches,and so on.I half dread returning home and looking in mine.I started it out with lots of fishing stuff...I plan on seeing bottle caps and Mctoys*GROAN*...however from only getting found it emails,I'm looking forward to reading the log.You also get the satisfaction of contributing to the sport.

[+Renegade Knight]

...OK. So now we know what we are shooting for when compiling a list of what needs fixing:

 

Well we can't reduce the number of caches or cachers and I doubt anyone really wants to. Might as well cross those ones off the list.

 

Big vs small caches seems to be a matter of taste more than anything else. I filter for bigger caches mainly because my kids like the swag aspect of geocaching. its easy enough to filter so that one might as well go off the list too.

 

Better maintained caches/quality of swag - I have hidden no caches so I cannot really speak on this issue. I kinda imagined that once I left a cache out there, it was up to the cachers who found it as to what quality of swag was in it and/or how well it was maintained (I gather this means sealed from the elements, re-hidden properly, not filled with trash, etc.) Is it expected that the hider of the cache keep checking up on his own caches? If so, how often? Who has the time? Wouldnt you prefer to be out geocaching then keeping track of your own hides? Maybe thats just me...

 

More later

 

Lets look at that.

More caches/cachers. True enough. Can't fix it, why would you?

 

Big vs. Small. Well...that can be fixed. All other things being the same most peole would rather have a chance to see some swag than not. That means bigger than micro where you can. Not worth a rule but worth some good example setting and peer pressure.

 

Better maintained...What exactly does that mean? Some people think I need to be able to get to my cache in a week and fix it as the slightest mention of a soggy log. I don't agree. It's a cache, not the ER. I haven't been down to visit my mom in a couple of years and that's much higher on my list than any one cache in any condition. For that matter my rig needs a lot of work, most of it I have to do myself. that's higher on my list. My son is about to get his DL. That's higher on my list. My wife wants to go camping, that's higher on my list. Sometimes I think people forget that it's a stupid box full of cheap swag and that it's good enough that they will get to it anytime in the next year. Oh I can get to most all of my cache in less than a week. I just won't due to real life. I'm liberal on cache maintance. If there is a container. I'll deal.

[+Cornerstone4]

The only way that I can get respect as a noob is to place AS MANY caches and find as many caches as I can. There are little rewards for placing an excellent cache.

 

I don't agree with this.

 

There is a local cacher that doesn't have enough time to participate. However, the few caches she has placed have been very creative, and she got a ton of great feedback. I always look forward to her hides.

 

There is also another cacher that has proven herself to be very adept at camoflage. Not a huge numbers person, but what she puts out is quality stuff.

 

One of my best buds that I introduced to caching fell in love with skirt-lifters, guard rail, and fence cap hides! To my chagrine, he quickly had nearly 100 of those types of hides out! I took a lot of flak from some of the other locals for the proliferation of "lame" hides. I talked to him about them, and tried to get him to raise the bar a bit, but he told me to read the logs on his caches...sure enough, many of them had glowing logs from other new cachers! He told me that he thought he was doing the game a service by putting out easy finds to help folks get a start in the game before they graduate to difficult hides...I told him I thought he was just encouraging more folks to put out caches like that...

 

We still don't agree, but he's still my bud!

[vtmtnman]

Can we take a moment and summarize about what we have learned about the good old days?

 

Back then:

Fewer caches (obviously)

Fewer cachers (not that more cachers is a bad thing)

Bigger caches/less micros

Better maintained caches

Better quality of swag

More inspired caches (more scenic/historically significant/out of the way/place you might not have went to)

More unique ideas for caches

Less research required to find the "good" caches

 

Is that an accurate assessment?

Purdy much.

OK. So now we know what we are shooting for when compiling a list of what needs fixing:

 

Well we can't reduce the number of caches or cachers and I doubt anyone really wants to. Might as well cross those ones off the list.

 

Big vs small caches seems to be a matter of taste more than anything else. I filter for bigger caches mainly because my kids like the swag aspect of geocaching. its easy enough to filter so that one might as well go off the list too.

 

Better maintained caches/quality of swag - I have hidden no caches so I cannot really speak on this issue. I kinda imagined that once I left a cache out there, it was up to the cachers who found it as to what quality of swag will be in it and/or how well it will be maintained (I gather this means sealed from the elements, re-hidden properly, not filled with trash, etc.) Is it expected that the hider of the cache keep checking up on his own caches? If so, how often? Who has the time? Wouldnt you prefer to be out geocaching then keeping track of your own hides? Maybe thats just me...

 

More later

Actually,no,it's up to the owner for maintanence.Out here in the sand box,it's a different story.Troops rotate in and out,place a cache,leave and it gets left here.THAT is the only case of the cachers doing maintanence on caches they don't own.I have them all bookmarked on my FOB so I can keep an eye on them till I leave.I hope someone would do the same,but I doubt it.

[+egami]

I still think a higher standard cache type is a win-win. It's searchable. People can limit themselves to it if they want. It might inspire people that haven't really harbored that "old school" appreciation. It's a minor change programatically...in theory, it shouldn't require any if they built the software right.

[+egami]

...I liked this idea at one time, but the more I think about it the more I don't like it. It's totally subjective and I think most people would tend to rate things higher out of courtesy and wanting to avoid offending a cache owner versus being plain honest...even if it were totally anonymous.

I agree with egami.You see it in everything else.Oh that's my buddy's cache,I'll hook him up and so on.

Funny how some noobs come around to old school thinking. It just takes them 500 grievences or so to get there.

 

Just to explain. That wasn't an attack, ad nausium or ad homium it was humor, and had a point burried in it (that being someone complaning about whining and wanting to see solutions isn't proposing solutions in thier own complaining/whining/grievences). Sometimes I'm probably too subtle.

 

You know...actually, I wish I would have came to that thinking via an old school individual offering up ideas versus on my own simply because I am tired of hearing whine session 501, 502, 503...

 

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Actually,no,it's up to the owner for maintanence.Out here in the sand box,it's a different story.Troops rotate in and out,place a cache,leave and it gets left here.THAT is the only case of the cachers doing maintanence on caches they don't own.I have them all bookmarked on my FOB so I can keep an eye on them till I leave.I hope someone would do the same,but I doubt it.

I guess there's always something to learn. Personally, I make sure I have at least both monkeys check the positioning of the found cache before it is moved so we can make sure it gets back in the right place.

I check to make sure the cache and any baggies opened are sealed before the cache is replaced.

I go through the cache contents and anything deemed trash is removed.

I carry paper towels to help dry out caches in the event a previous cacher didnt take as much care as we do in sealing the cache.

 

These things only seemed a proper level of respect for the hider and for the game.

[+sbell111]

Now there are thousands of caches to choose from. Some people don't wish to use PQs to filter out some caches that they are likely to not enjoy.

Explain to me how I can use a PQ to filter out caches I don't like. Filtering micros won't work, because I don't have a problem with micros. Filtering out low terrain/difficulty caches won't work because I don't have a problem with them. What I dislike are caches hidden for no reason other than to hide a cache. Which setting on the PQ can I use to filter those?

I've explained it in other threads(that you have participated in), but I don't mind touching on it (very) briefly, so here goes:

 

It's not really about filtering out the ones you don't like. It's about filtering in the ones that you are pretty darn sure that you will like. As stated in the other threads, one way to do this is to set up multiple PQs to get the ones you'll like and not get ones that you would tend not to. It's OK that some good ones are not sorted in because you are still left with tons of caches that you will likely like.

It might be OK with you, but I don't want to miss any good caches.

I come to the issue from the point of view that there isn't enough time to find every geocache. Why not start with the ones that you'll like? By the time your done with ALL of those, there will likely be more hidden that you will likely like and you can go find those. If there isn't you can take another look at the remainder to cull out some pearls. After all, those caches weren't archived just because you didn't look for them on the first go around.

[+sbell111]

You teach cachers, by hiding great caches, in great locations. If new cachers see nothing but a bunch of parking lot hides, they will most likely emulate the norm. If your area is filled with great caches, in great locations, a good portion of new caches should follow the norm.

 

Exactly. It's said that people hide what they like. I think they hide wht they find.

 

Here is a real scenario, two states separated by a river. Most of the caches on one side of that river are hiking caches, placed in scenic spots. Parking lot hides are extremely rare. On the other side of that river the parking lot hides make up a good portion of the caches.

 

I don't think it's statistically possible that mostly people who like hiking caches live on one side of the river and those who like park n grabs live on the other. What is more likely is that the early hiders on each side of the river had different styles and subsequent cachers emulated that.

I think you are missing an important part of the puzzle. I believe that those cachers who found a parking lot cache and then hid one, made the hide because they enjoyed the cache that they found. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all. If they didn't like parking lot caches and that is all they thought the game was, they wouldn't hide one. They'd simply quit playing.

 

People like to use the 'people hide what they found' argument as if it isn't naturaly and appropriate to do so.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You know...actually, I wish I would have came to that thinking via an old school individual offering up ideas versus on my own simply because I am tired of hearing whine session 501, 502, 503...

 

I thought you did come around on cache ratings on your own. I still like ratings, just recognize that certain problems get in the way and would stop most proposed rating systems from working. (not all, just most).

[+egami]

I come to the issue from the point of view that there isn't enough time to find every geocache. Why not start with the ones that you'll like? By the time your done with ALL of those, there will likely be more hidden that you will likely like and you can go find those. If there isn't you can take another look at the remainder to cull out some pearls. After all, those caches weren't archived just because you didn't look for them on the first go around.

 

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

I come to the issue from the point of view that there isn't enough time to find every geocache. Why not start with the ones that you'll like? By the time your done with ALL of those, there will likely be more hidden that you will likely like and you can go find those. If there isn't you can take another look at the remainder to cull out some pearls. After all, those caches weren't archived just because you didn't look for them on the first go around.

 

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact.

Ultimately, that is the question that needs solving.

How can caches be further filtered so that people can easily and without additional research extract the types of caches they like?

And, based on an opinion I do not share but has been voiced a few times, any method of rating caches will end up flawed, skewed, or in some other way useless. So, in answering the above question, any rating system cannot be utilized.

[+Totem Clan]

...OK. So now we know what we are shooting for when compiling a list of what needs fixing:

 

Well we can't reduce the number of caches or cachers and I doubt anyone really wants to. Might as well cross those ones off the list.

 

Big vs small caches seems to be a matter of taste more than anything else. I filter for bigger caches mainly because my kids like the swag aspect of geocaching. its easy enough to filter so that one might as well go off the list too.

 

Better maintained caches/quality of swag - I have hidden no caches so I cannot really speak on this issue. I kinda imagined that once I left a cache out there, it was up to the cachers who found it as to what quality of swag was in it and/or how well it was maintained (I gather this means sealed from the elements, re-hidden properly, not filled with trash, etc.) Is it expected that the hider of the cache keep checking up on his own caches? If so, how often? Who has the time? Wouldn't you prefer to be out geocaching then keeping track of your own hides? Maybe that's just me...

 

More later

 

Lets look at that.

More caches/cachers. True enough. Can't fix it, why would you?

 

Big vs. Small. Well...that can be fixed. All other things being the same most people would rather have a chance to see some swag than not. That means bigger than micro where you can. Not worth a rule but worth some good example setting and peer pressure.

 

Better maintained...What exactly does that mean? Some people think I need to be able to get to my cache in a week and fix it as the slightest mention of a soggy log. I don't agree. It's a cache, not the ER. I haven't been down to visit my mom in a couple of years and that's much higher on my list than any one cache in any condition. For that matter my rig needs a lot of work, most of it I have to do myself. that's higher on my list. My son is about to get his DL. That's higher on my list. My wife wants to go camping, that's higher on my list. Sometimes I think people forget that it's a stupid box full of cheap swag and that it's good enough that they will get to it anytime in the next year. Oh I can get to most all of my cache in less than a week. I just won't due to real life. I'm liberal on cache maintenance. If there is a container. I'll deal.

Reading this made me think about where many of the complaints about this sport comes from.

 

Many cachers think that the sport own them something. That all the cache are there for them. If for some reason the cache is not up their standards they feel they are being cheated.

Maybe they haven't thought that the owner may have some very real reason for not being able to care for the cache at that time. Instead of complaining, help the owner.

Maybe the owner hid the type of cache he likes, if you don't like it don't take it as a personal slap in the face.

I could go on and on, but I think you all get the point. I will admit I have been guilty of this before, as have all of us, if we'll be honest. However taking that to the point of complaining about the cache or cacher, or caching in general, because of it is selfish.

 

This is one of those "POP" moments. Let's all pull our heads out and realize the caching world does not revolve around any one of us. You do your best, and hope that others will too.

[+Gator Man]

I've quickly scanned all the above posts, and now here is my response on the change in the game. I did an analysis of my finds when I reached somewhere around 1300 finds. Of the first 325 finds, less than 10% were micros. Od the next 325, 44% were micros or nanos. The next 325 were about the same. The last 325 were around 70% micros, nanos or picos.

 

When I lived in CT, (where I started caching) it was not unusual to walk 2, 3, 4 or 5 miles in the woods for one or two caches. The ones I put out like that in FL get two or three visits from the hardcore cachers, then sit idle for months on end. Granted, in FL you only want to do that kind in the cool months, though. I have several large Natural Areas and a large State Park (over 25,000 acres among all of them) near me that allow geocaching, but all the caches placed that require long hikes are the ones least visited. Seems the current generation of cachers would rather lift a lamp post skirt or find a public telephone magnetic strip, than break a sweat for a cache in the woods.

 

I'm not complaining, just stating the facts as I see them. Personally, I've always done all kinds of caches, and enjoy the thrill of the hunt no matter where it is, but the long nature-hike types hold a special place in my book!

[+egami]

I come to the issue from the point of view that there isn't enough time to find every geocache. Why not start with the ones that you'll like? By the time your done with ALL of those, there will likely be more hidden that you will likely like and you can go find those. If there isn't you can take another look at the remainder to cull out some pearls. After all, those caches weren't archived just because you didn't look for them on the first go around.

 

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact.

Ultimately, that is the question that needs solving.

How can caches be further filtered so that people can easily and without additional research extract the types of caches they like?

And, based on an opinion I do not share but has been voiced a few times, any method of rating caches will end up flawed, skewed, or in some other way useless. So, in answering the above question, any rating system cannot be utilized.

 

Well, I don't mean to be too negative toward a rating system...like I said, I was in that camp myself, but the more I thought about it as it applied to existing systems, and in relation to the subjectivity of caching perception, it just didn't seem viable for this particular issue that has been brought up.

 

That's why I like the idea of new cache type with simply a higher standard:

 

- It would be searchable by type

- It might inspire newer cachers to get more back to grass roots caching

- It would allow 'old school' people to focus on these caches

- It would flow right along with mainstream cachers just fine that have a lower standard anyway

 

I really don't see a negative side to it.

Edited May 16, 2007 by egami

[+welch]

 

Better maintained caches/quality of swag - I have hidden no caches so I cannot really speak on this issue. I kinda imagined that once I left a cache out there, it was up to the cachers who found it as to what quality of swag will be in it and/or how well it will be maintained (I gather this means sealed from the elements, re-hidden properly, not filled with trash, etc.) Is it expected that the hider of the cache keep checking up on his own caches? If so, how often? Who has the time? Wouldnt you prefer to be out geocaching then keeping track of your own hides? Maybe thats just me...

 

More later

Actually,no,it's up to the owner for maintanence.Out here in the sand box,it's a different story.Troops rotate in and out,place a cache,leave and it gets left here.THAT is the only case of the cachers doing maintanence on caches they don't own.I have them all bookmarked on my FOB so I can keep an eye on them till I leave.I hope someone would do the same,but I doubt it.

 

I think cache maintenance, and cache swag are related but different things.

To me cache maintenance is making sure the box has a logbook/pencil/stashnote, and isn't damaged, leaking, or missing (checking DNF), and of course answering emails / responding to complaints. This is something the cache owner is supposed to do.

Cache swag on the other hand, is what sort of trinkets are in the cache. That IMO is 'up to the people that find it', if visitors want to steal all the good theings, or trade them out for rocks, rusty bottle caps, dirty golf balls they found on the way to the cache, so be it. I don't see it as an obligation of the cache owner to go restock the mini walmart to be pillaged again if it gets depleted. If they want to, they can, but I don't think they have to.

[+tozainamboku]

Can we take a moment and summarize about what we have learned about the good old days?

 

Back then:

Fewer caches (obviously)

Fewer cachers (not that more cachers is a bad thing)

Bigger caches/less micros

Better maintained caches

Better quality of swag

More inspired caches (more scenic/historically significant/out of the way/place you might not have went to)

More unique ideas for caches

Less research required to find the "good" caches

 

Is that an accurate assessment?

Purdy much.

I disagree on at least a few of these points.

Fewer caches (obviously) - True

Fewer cachers (not that more cachers is a bad thing) -True

Bigger caches/less micros - Partly true. There was no such thing as a small cache then. So what today is called small was either a micro, or more likely a regular. You need to count small caches plus regulars against micros to see the change. There were no Mr. Magnetos for sale and few people knew what a bison tube was. Plenty of people found other micro containers or made their own, but certainly the availability of micro containers has gone up and you see them more often.

Better maintained caches - False. Many of the first caches I found where in cracked leaky tupperware. Often they were filled with water and the logs soaked. In the early days, people experimented with different kinds of containers and some didn't work well. I actually think caches are better maintained today.

Better quality of swag - False. At least by the time I started caches often had the same junk you find today. Only the increase in the number of log-only micros means that you might find more caches that don't have any swag.

More inspired caches (more scenic/historically significant/out of the way/place you might not have went to) - Clearly False. There are more inspired caches today. I think you mean a higher percentage of inspired caches. I'm not sure if this is true or not. Inspired here is subjective. There may be people who think a lamp post in the Wal*Mart parking lot is an inspired location. (The first person who hid an LPC was certainly inspired).

More unique ideas for caches - Again clearly false. I'm always amazed that I still find unique caches. Of course there are more caches that copy ideas that I've already seen. Sometimes it's a newbie who came up with the same idea by themselves, but often it is someone hiding a cache like what they have seen. This should be expected. If something works, it will be copied.

Less research required to find the "good" caches - Perhaps. When there were fewer caches you either looked for every cache or you read the description and decided whether or not that cache was worth finding. Now you have to be selective and when you select you have to look at far more caches to select from. Of course if you want to select from everything it takes more time. If the percentage of "good" caches is lower then just a random selection is no longer as good as finding everything used to be. If you don't want to miss out on that possibly gem you can't just filter out all micros or 1/1s either. But we do have bookmark lists that can be used to recommend caches, as well as tools like PQs and Google Maps to help.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

I come to the issue from the point of view that there isn't enough time to find every geocache. Why not start with the ones that you'll like? By the time your done with ALL of those, there will likely be more hidden that you will likely like and you can go find those. If there isn't you can take another look at the remainder to cull out some pearls. After all, those caches weren't archived just because you didn't look for them on the first go around.

 

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact.

Ultimately, that is the question that needs solving.

How can caches be further filtered so that people can easily and without additional research extract the types of caches they like?

And, based on an opinion I do not share but has been voiced a few times, any method of rating caches will end up flawed, skewed, or in some other way useless. So, in answering the above question, any rating system cannot be utilized.

 

Well, I don't mean to be too negative toward a rating system...like I said, I was in that camp myself, but the more I thought about it as it applied to existing systems, and in relation to the subjectivity of caching perception, it just didn't seem viable for this particular issue that has been brought up.

 

That's why I like the idea of new cache type with simply a higher standard:

 

- It would be searchable by type

- It might inspire newer cachers to get more back to grass roots caching

- It would allow 'old school' people to focus on these caches

- It would flow right along with mainstream cachers just fine that have a lower standard anyway

 

I really don't see a negative side to it.

My only question is, who decides if a cache meets the standard for this new type? And what are these criteria for this new higher standard? and while were at it, who decides what this criteria should be for this higher standard? Isnt all that subjective?

 

Oh wait! I just came up with a non-subjective measurement:

 

Distance from nearest dumpster

[+sbell111]

I come to the issue from the point of view that there isn't enough time to find every geocache. Why not start with the ones that you'll like? By the time your done with ALL of those, there will likely be more hidden that you will likely like and you can go find those. If there isn't you can take another look at the remainder to cull out some pearls. After all, those caches weren't archived just because you didn't look for them on the first go around.

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact.

That's not exactly true. For instance, many people don't like urban caches in uninspired locations. With a few PQs, you can eliminate most of those. Sure, you'll leave a few lamers in and you'll filter out some good ones, but you'll be left with a good sized target population with a fairly low number of lamers.

 

I'm reminded of those cachers who merely want to go back to that fictional time when most caches were large-sized and required a hike. Strangely, with one PQ I can simulate those golden years.

[+egami]

I come to the issue from the point of view that there isn't enough time to find every geocache. Why not start with the ones that you'll like? By the time your done with ALL of those, there will likely be more hidden that you will likely like and you can go find those. If there isn't you can take another look at the remainder to cull out some pearls. After all, those caches weren't archived just because you didn't look for them on the first go around.

 

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact.

Ultimately, that is the question that needs solving.

How can caches be further filtered so that people can easily and without additional research extract the types of caches they like?

And, based on an opinion I do not share but has been voiced a few times, any method of rating caches will end up flawed, skewed, or in some other way useless. So, in answering the above question, any rating system cannot be utilized.

 

Well, I don't mean to be too negative toward a rating system...like I said, I was in that camp myself, but the more I thought about it as it applied to existing systems, and in relation to the subjectivity of caching perception, it just didn't seem viable for this particular issue that has been brought up.

 

That's why I like the idea of new cache type with simply a higher standard:

 

- It would be searchable by type

- It might inspire newer cachers to get more back to grass roots caching

- It would allow 'old school' people to focus on these caches

- It would flow right along with mainstream cachers just fine that have a lower standard anyway

 

I really don't see a negative side to it.

My only question is, who decides if a cache meets the standard for this new type? And what are these criteria for this new higher standard? and while were at it, who decides what this criteria should be for this higher standard? Isnt all that subjective?

 

Oh wait! I just came up with a non-subjective measurement:

 

Distance from nearest dumpster

 

Just as TPTB do now with regular cache standards they'd limit the new standards to some sort of committee or subset group. That way the subjectivity is limited to within the scope of the goal. Whereas an open rating systems subjectivity is exposed to the entire populous which may largely not have that high of a standard.

 

Subjectivity, in and of itself, isn't the problem so much as to whose subjectivity affects the outcome.

Edited May 16, 2007 by egami

[+Totem Clan]

That's not exactly true. For instance, many people don't like urban caches in uninspired locations. With a few PQs, you can eliminate most of those. Sure, you'll leave a few lamers in and you'll filter out some good ones, but you'll be left with a good sized target population with a fairly low number of lamers.

 

I'm reminded of those cachers who merely want to go back to that fictional time when most caches were large-sized and required a hike. Strangely, with one PQ I can simulate those golden years.

Not knocking your idea, but I don't see how? It's just that I don't understand it.

 

I've heard you say this many times but I still don't see how and I've tried to. I guess I don't know how you are sorting them via a PQ.

Could you please tell us exactly how to set up thees PQs and show us an example?

[+egami]

I come to the issue from the point of view that there isn't enough time to find every geocache. Why not start with the ones that you'll like? By the time your done with ALL of those, there will likely be more hidden that you will likely like and you can go find those. If there isn't you can take another look at the remainder to cull out some pearls. After all, those caches weren't archived just because you didn't look for them on the first go around.

But one of his main issues seems to be that there isn't a reliable way to seperate these out ahead of time....then it's a perceived waste of time after the fact.

That's not exactly true. For instance, many people don't like urban caches in uninspired locations. With a few PQs, you can eliminate most of those. Sure, you'll leave a few lamers in and you'll filter out some good ones, but you'll be left with a good sized target population with a fairly low number of lamers.

 

I'm reminded of those cachers who merely want to go back to that fictional time when most caches were large-sized and required a hike. Strangely, with one PQ I can simulate those golden years.

 

From strictly an "old school", higher caching standards, point of view though it is absolutely true.

 

I agree that it's avoidable somewhat, but I can see brian's issue in this regard as well.

[+Miragee]

That's not exactly true. For instance, many people don't like urban caches in uninspired locations. With a few PQs, you can eliminate most of those. Sure, you'll leave a few lamers in and you'll filter out some good ones, but you'll be left with a good sized target population with a fairly low number of lamers.

 

I'm reminded of those cachers who merely want to go back to that fictional time when most caches were large-sized and required a hike. Strangely, with one PQ I can simulate those golden years.

Not knocking your idea, but I don't see how? It's just that I don't understand it.

 

I've heard you say this many times but I still don't see how and I've tried to. I guess I don't know how you are sorting them via a PQ.

Could you please tell us exactly how to set up thees PQs and show us an example?

Just get a PQ for Regular- and Large-sized caches with a Difficulty rating of 1 and above, with a Terrain rating of 2.5 and above. That is just about the opposite of what I do when I'm traveling . . . I get all-size caches with a Difficulty rating of 2.5 and below, with a Terrain rating of 2 and below.

 

If you use GSAK, you can do those filters within the database of all caches.

[+sbell111]

That's not exactly true. For instance, many people don't like urban caches in uninspired locations. With a few PQs, you can eliminate most of those. Sure, you'll leave a few lamers in and you'll filter out some good ones, but you'll be left with a good sized target population with a fairly low number of lamers.

 

I'm reminded of those cachers who merely want to go back to that fictional time when most caches were large-sized and required a hike. Strangely, with one PQ I can simulate those golden years.

Not knocking your idea, but I don't see how? It's just that I don't understand it.

 

I've heard you say this many times but I still don't see how and I've tried to. I guess I don't know how you are sorting them via a PQ.

Could you please tell us exactly how to set up thees PQs and show us an example?

linkerooski

[+CheshireFrog]

I just get tired of hearing some of the "old school" complain to no end...there are some individuals that 80% of the replies I've read from them are constant loathing about how the sport has declined.

 

Back when I first started we were had to walk to the cache backwards, through knee-high snow, uphill, both ways, holding our GPSr's upside down. Back then men were men, women were beautiful and children were well behaved. All caches were the size of Volkswagen Beetles and were stocked with gold and jewels, and the average FTF prize was a new house. Cachers were courteous and we all knew not only each others first names, but addresses, birthdays and shoe sizes as well.

 

You punks have ruined everything.

[+egami]

Just get a PQ for Regular- and Large-sized caches with a Difficulty rating of 1 and above, with a Terrain rating of 2.5 and above. That is just about the opposite of what I do when I'm traveling . . . I get all-size caches with a Difficulty rating of 2.5 and below, with a Terrain rating of 2 and below.

 

If you use GSAK, you can do those filters within the database of all caches.

 

This PQ would likely miss the original cache and the current oldest published cache the Moose Mob spoke of in the other thread...then again, Moose Mob made an intriguing point about those two caches.

[+egami]

I just get tired of hearing some of the "old school" complain to no end...there are some individuals that 80% of the replies I've read from them are constant loathing about how the sport has declined.

 

Back when I first started we were had to walk to the cache backwards, through knee-high snow, uphill, both ways, holding our GPSr's upside down. Back then men were men, women were beautiful and children were well behaved. All caches were the size of Volkswagen Beetles and were stocked with gold and jewels, and the average FTF prize was a new house. Cachers were courteous and we all knew not only each others first names, but addresses, birthdays and shoe sizes as well.

 

You punks have ruined everything.

 

I'll think of you when I run over the next toad with my truck...

 

[+TrailGators]

The only way that I can get respect as a noob is to place AS MANY caches and find as many caches as I can. There are little rewards for placing an excellent cache.

 

I don't agree with this.

 

There is a local cacher that doesn't have enough time to participate. However, the few caches she has placed have been very creative, and she got a ton of great feedback. I always look forward to her hides.

 

There is also another cacher that has proven herself to be very adept at camoflage. Not a huge numbers person, but what she puts out is quality stuff.

 

One of my best buds that I introduced to caching fell in love with skirt-lifters, guard rail, and fence cap hides! To my chagrine, he quickly had nearly 100 of those types of hides out! I took a lot of flak from some of the other locals for the proliferation of "lame" hides. I talked to him about them, and tried to get him to raise the bar a bit, but he told me to read the logs on his caches...sure enough, many of them had glowing logs from other new cachers! He told me that he thought he was doing the game a service by putting out easy finds to help folks get a start in the game before they graduate to difficult hides...I told him I thought he was just encouraging more folks to put out caches like that...

 

We still don't agree, but he's still my bud!

Hey, C4 can you please email you bud's name? I am compiling a pretty large ignore list. I hope that my proposed solution for some of the new generation issues happens someday! Edited May 16, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Totem Clan]

linkerooski

Ok I misunderstood what you were saying. That is not just using PQs. You have to futher filter the PQs. That where the misunderstanding was.

 

So seeing that I would have to say that, except for spending time on researching the caches one by one after running some PQs, there is no way to filter out the bad caches from the good.

 

Also the above system will filter out only LPCs in shopping areas. What about LPCs in residential neighborhoods? And yes I have seen them.

 

Although I don't fully agree with it. I can certainly see brainsnat's point. It could be very frustrating wading through what you don't like to find what you do.

[+sbell111]

linkerooski

Ok I misunderstood what you were saying. That is not just using PQs. You have to futher filter the PQs. That where the misunderstanding was.

 

So seeing that I would have to say that, except for spending time on researching the caches one by one after running some PQs, there is no way to filter out the bad caches from the good.

 

Also the above system will filter out only LPCs in shopping areas. What about LPCs in residential neighborhoods? And yes I have seen them.

 

Although I don't fully agree with it. I can certainly see brainsnat's point. It could be very frustrating wading through what you don't like to find what you do.

I think you misread my linked post. The initial PQs are ready to hunt. Further sorting of the remainder is only necessary if you ever run out of caches in those initial PQs. Edited May 16, 2007 by sbell111

[+Miragee]

The only way that I can get respect as a noob is to place AS MANY caches and find as many caches as I can. There are little rewards for placing an excellent cache.

I don't agree with this.

 

There is a local cacher that doesn't have enough time to participate. However, the few caches she has placed have been very creative, and she got a ton of great feedback. I always look forward to her hides.

 

There is also another cacher that has proven herself to be very adept at camoflage. Not a huge numbers person, but what she puts out is quality stuff.

 

One of my best buds that I introduced to caching fell in love with skirt-lifters, guard rail, and fence cap hides! To my chagrine, he quickly had nearly 100 of those types of hides out! I took a lot of flak from some of the other locals for the proliferation of "lame" hides. I talked to him about them, and tried to get him to raise the bar a bit, but he told me to read the logs on his caches...sure enough, many of them had glowing logs from other new cachers! He told me that he thought he was doing the game a service by putting out easy finds to help folks get a start in the game before they graduate to difficult hides...I told him I thought he was just encouraging more folks to put out caches like that...

 

We still don't agree, but he's still my bud!

You know, C4, that guy has a point. If all the caches up in your area were as creative as yours, including "Tower of Power," newbies would never find any caches and they would take up golf, or paintball, or . . .

[+wavector]

Two distinctly different types of players seem to be emerging: Type#1 Those who feel any cache is a good cache and Type#2 those who think every cache should be a good cache. To co-exist and for the game to flourish, GC.com has got to find better ways for these two camps to participate in the same game. The core of Geocaching (and the group responsible for it's creation) is Type #2 and the danger is losing them IMO.

 

What I would be interested in is hearing solutions.

 

The solution in my opinion is straightforward, eliminate the Found count from cache pages and eliminate the Stats box from the main profile page. Numbers really serve no purpose, none at all and the emphasis on numbers has impacted the game in a very negative way, that is my opinion.

The problem I see today is that many new cachers feel they have to build up numbers quickly and the result is a lot of caches that are placed without any forethought. If newcomers saw the default was an activity without an emphasis on numbers they would be able to worry about quality rather than quantity. Removing a cachers Found count from cache pages and the Stats box from the main profile page would go a long way towards creating better caches, again, my opinion.

If that Found count wasn't hanging out there on every cache log like it actually meant something then it would really decrease the emphasis on the numbers, removing the Stats box would create a situation where you wouldn't see someone's numbers unless you wanted to.

You cannot force anyone to look at a profile so sticking the Found count back in the geocachers pants would be a big improvement over the current method of keeping it out all the time.

[+Totem Clan]

linkerooski

Ok I misunderstood what you were saying. That is not just using PQs. You have to futher filter the PQs. That where the misunderstanding was.

 

So seeing that I would have to say that, except for spending time on researching the caches one by one after running some PQs, there is no way to filter out the bad caches from the good.

 

Also the above system will filter out only LPCs in shopping areas. What about LPCs in residential neighborhoods? And yes I have seen them.

 

Although I don't fully agree with it. I can certainly see brainsnat's point. It could be very frustrating wading through what you don't like to find what you do.

I think you misread my linked post. The initial PQs are ready to hunt. Further sorting of the remainder is only necessary if you ever run out of caches in those initial PQs.

I would in a hurry. In fact I already have.

 

I do like the system though. I just thought you were saying there was someway to "auto sort out" all "lame caches" via PQs

[+egami]

The solution in my opinion is straightforward, eliminate the Found count from cache pages and eliminate the Stats box from the main profile page. Numbers really serve no purpose, none at all and the emphasis on numbers has impacted the game in a very negative way, that is my opinion.

The problem I see today is that many new cachers feel they have to build up numbers quickly and the result is a lot of caches that are placed without any forethought. If newcomers saw the default was an activity without an emphasis on numbers they would be able to worry about quality rather than quantity. Removing a cachers Found count from cache pages and the Stats box from the main profile page would go a long way towards creating better caches, again, my opinion.

If that Found count wasn't hanging out there on every cache log like it actually meant something then it would really decrease the emphasis on the numbers, removing the Stats box would create a situation where you wouldn't see someone's numbers unless you wanted to.

You cannot force anyone to look at a profile so sticking the Found count back in the geocachers pants would be a big improvement over the current method of keeping it out all the time.

 

Ok, now bear with me here...I see your point, but do you really, truly think that with the number of people in the game now, and the vast difference in peronalities, that this would have honestly played any significant role in the actual overall integrity of the game and the quality of caches?

 

I would think that just the sheer volume of people playing would've contributed to the current problem outside of any perception that the numbers themselves are responsible....and I am not trying to negate your point, because your concern for numbers I think is valid, I am just not sure that it's the ultimate solution to the actual integrity of the game and quality of the caches.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Just as TPTB do now with regular cache standards they'd limit the new standards to some sort of committee or subset group. That way the subjectivity is limited to within the scope of the goal. Whereas an open rating systems subjectivity is exposed to the entire populous which may largely not have that high of a standard.

 

Subjectivity, in and of itself, isn't the problem so much as to whose subjectivity affects the outcome.

There are standards right now?

[+tozainamboku]

I believe TrailGators has also proposed a Waymarking like scheme. A group of cachers can create a category for caches they like (or dislike). Then caches could be nominated to be put into that group (Dumpster caches, for example). Premium members could then do a pocket query to include the groups they like or exclude the groups they dislike. We already have something like this. It's called Bookmark Lists. Any premium member can create a bookmark list. TrailGators has one called San Diego's Consensus Favorites. If more people got together with like minded cachers and created lists like this for different regions there would be a way to find the "gems" and to ignore the crap. There have been suggestions made on ways to make finding these bookmark lists easier and to allow filters to be set up based on how many lists a particular cache appears in. One idea was to allow each premium member to designate one list as their "favorites" list and to have an indication on the search page of caches that appear on some number of people's favorites lists.

 

A recent topic on bringing back virtuals is also instructive on the difficultly of trying to define "good" vs. "lame" caches. Several people complained that Waymarking is so full of lame, unispired location that they can't find the "Wow" places they claim to find in virtual caches. When it is pointed out that it is easy to select the Waymarking categories that are interesting to them and filter out all the other ones, they point out that they have no objection going to a McDonald's restaurant if it happens to have a unique motif or be at an historic location, or to visit a state historic marker if it marked some historic event that they hadn't realized took place at that particular location or if there is also some interesting artifact at that location and not just a marker. Here too, we have cachers who have no objection to urban micros, even ones hidden in lamp posts in a parking lot, if there is something unique about the location (some reason to visit beside the cache). Creating Waymarking (and cache) categories that are descriptive yet still capture "wowness" is very difficult, but I'm sure that some creative cacher could do this.

[+egami]

Just as TPTB do now with regular cache standards they'd limit the new standards to some sort of committee or subset group. That way the subjectivity is limited to within the scope of the goal. Whereas an open rating systems subjectivity is exposed to the entire populous which may largely not have that high of a standard.

 

Subjectivity, in and of itself, isn't the problem so much as to whose subjectivity affects the outcome.

There are standards right now?

 

For regular caches. You'd have to establish the group to determine what the new category cache standards would be.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Just as TPTB do now with regular cache standards they'd limit the new standards to some sort of committee or subset group. That way the subjectivity is limited to within the scope of the goal. Whereas an open rating systems subjectivity is exposed to the entire populous which may largely not have that high of a standard.

 

Subjectivity, in and of itself, isn't the problem so much as to whose subjectivity affects the outcome.

There are standards right now?

 

For regular caches. You'd have to establish the group to determine what the new category cache standards would be.

Actually, I had never read the current guidelines for placing a cache..until just now. Who are the group that established those guidelines and how does one become a member?

[+egami]

Just as TPTB do now with regular cache standards they'd limit the new standards to some sort of committee or subset group. That way the subjectivity is limited to within the scope of the goal. Whereas an open rating systems subjectivity is exposed to the entire populous which may largely not have that high of a standard.

 

Subjectivity, in and of itself, isn't the problem so much as to whose subjectivity affects the outcome.

There are standards right now?

 

For regular caches. You'd have to establish the group to determine what the new category cache standards would be.

Actually, I had never read the current guidelines for placing a cache..until just now. Who are the group that established those guidelines and how does one become a member?

 

I would have to default that question to someone with more knowledge...my answer is TPTB.

 

What I am proposing for the initial development of my proposed standards would be a small subset of the "old school" cachers that see this as a major issue.

 

I don't think it's a permanent committee or anything that is in place now though.

Edited May 16, 2007 by egami

[Clan Riffster]

I'm certainly not "old school", as I've only played this game a couple years, so I'm not sure how valid my observations are, but since you asked;

The "problems" I see in some caches has little to do with the cache itself, and much to do with the cache hider. As this game has drifted into the mainstream, more people are playing. This overall increase includes an increase in folks who are creatively challenged. Many good folks utterly lacking in imagination are now hiding geocaches, bringing us to such interesting locations as a Wally World parking lot or a Burger King dumpster. Not that the game didn't have the occasional dullard in its early days. I'm sure they were there. Now there's just more of them.

 

The "Ignore" button is your friend.

[+StarBrand]

....

Actually, I had never read the current guidelines for placing a cache..until just now. Who are the group that established those guidelines and how does one become a member?

A group of the reviewers in concert with a few select folks at HQ. Also, I am quite sure that Jeremy has the final say on the current version.

 

And the only way to be a member is to be invited. After you show longevity, dedication, knowledge of the guidelines. Participation in local groups. Dropping by the forums. Found a few hundred caches. Get noticed (in a good way). And then only a select few participate.

 

Keep in mind that all of them read the forums and become aware of current "feelings" toward different issues. I am certain that influences the final work.

[+egami]

I'm certainly not "old school", as I've only played this game a couple years, so I'm not sure how valid my observations are, but since you asked;

The "problems" I see in some caches has little to do with the cache itself, and much to do with the cache hider. As this game has drifted into the mainstream, more people are playing. This overall increase includes an increase in folks who are creatively challenged. Many good folks utterly lacking in imagination are now hiding geocaches, bringing us to such interesting locations as a Wally World parking lot or a Burger King dumpster. Not that the game didn't have the occasional dullard in its early days. I'm sure they were there. Now there's just more of them.

 

The "Ignore" button is your friend.

 

I think most of what's been said so far agrees with that...the issue is the cache owner. That's why I suggested my solution. The only way to somewhat control the integrity of caches is through the cache requirements and the review process.

[+Snoogans]

Re-read this entire thread.

 

The issue isn't that the game has gotten better or worse, but so diverse, with all of the new players and methods, that it will never be everything that everyone wants.

 

For example, the more I cache, the more I realize that I like the idea of the micro. I trade rarely, outside of coins, due to the frustration of the junk in caches around here. Obviously, a lot of people also detest micros and love heading out into the woods for a big ammo can hunt. I like this, too, but I'm a bit short of big, fat forests to cache in, so I enjoy my method.

 

I've said this before -- Geocaching.com is more or less a library now. You don't read all the books in a library. You find something that works, and go for it. The issue is really ensuring that everyone finds what they're looking for, or helps them discover something they weren't.

 

Dude, you complete me...Snif.......Right ON! I stopped reading right there.

 

 

Geocaching Dot Com is the 800 pound gorilla of cache listing services. It got that way because it was the first and the best and it continually improves. It has control over the lion's share of the listings, but it can't control what people want.

 

 

Most people want diversity and choice. Outspoken minorities want to police other's minds to reduce the choices the rest of us have for their own selfish reasons, but they tryyy to make it sound like it's for the greater good. They all have their scapegoats, whipping boys, and red headed stepchildren to trot out as examples of whyyy they know what's better for the sport and what isn't.

 

 

When I see folks on the "I hate this or that type of hide" kick, I sometimes picture piles of burning books from old news footage.

 

 

Beware of the geocaching thought police trying to help you decide what to like.

 

 

Every cache that is hidden within the guidelines has merit. First, it is someone's contribution back to the caching community. Second, it is one more subjective smiley for folks that want that reward. Third, it is one more reason to step away from your computer, or to get off the couch and get the heck outside. Aesthetics don't enter into the equation. What I like or you like is for no one else to decide.

[+CheshireFrog]

When I see folks on the "I hate this or that type of hide" kick, I sometimes picture piles of burning books from old news footage.

 

Beware of the geocaching thought police trying to help you decide what to like.

 

Every cache that is hidden within the guidelines has merit. First, it is someone's contribution back to the caching community. Second, it is one more subjective smiley for folks that want that reward. Third, it is one more reason to step away from your computer, or to get off the couch and get the heck outside. Aesthetics don't enter into the equation. What I like or you like is for no one else to decide.

 

What he said.

[+TrailGators]

Re-read this entire thread.

 

The issue isn't that the game has gotten better or worse, but so diverse, with all of the new players and methods, that it will never be everything that everyone wants.

 

For example, the more I cache, the more I realize that I like the idea of the micro. I trade rarely, outside of coins, due to the frustration of the junk in caches around here. Obviously, a lot of people also detest micros and love heading out into the woods for a big ammo can hunt. I like this, too, but I'm a bit short of big, fat forests to cache in, so I enjoy my method.

 

I've said this before -- Geocaching.com is more or less a library now. You don't read all the books in a library. You find something that works, and go for it. The issue is really ensuring that everyone finds what they're looking for, or helps them discover something they weren't.

 

Aesthetics don't enter into the equation. What I like or you like is for no one else to decide.

 

Who's deciding anything? I think a lot of you guys put words in people's mouths that were never said to make some kind of case. Using the analogy, I think many of us just want a list of the action/adventure/thriller/etc. books and we don't want to have to open up every book in the library to figure out which book is which. Some of you like any book. That's fine! Read the entire series of Adventures at the Garbage Dumpster. I don't care what you read! But let's try make it easier for others to avoid the books they don't want to read! Edited May 16, 2007 by TrailGators

[+CheshireFrog]

I don't care what you read! But let's try make it easier for others to avoid the books they don't want to read!

 

I'll bite. How?