An idea for an easier way to filter for caches we like.

[+traildad]

While in the discussion in Geocaching Topics, "Spew Be Gone!, The obliteration of lame micros" I brought up an idea I had on how to help figure out if a cache is one we want to go out and hunt. Sometimes it can be difficult to tell what to expect when looking at a cache page. Will it have a wonderful view or will it be stuck to a transformer box behind a business. I believe that there is a place for all kinds of caches and a place for all kinds of cache hunters. Rather than trying to have everyone hide only caches that meet the ideals of the mythically perfect cache, we should have a way to better understand what kind of cache hide is listed.

 

My suggestion was to have every hider choose from a list of reasons why they chose the spot to hide the cache. We could make this part of the cache submission just like choosing the cache type or difficulty rating. The cache hider is the best one to explain what if anything is the reason that spot was used. It could be a very scenic view or a historical location. It could be they wanted to put out an easy just for the numbers micro. There are a lot of different reasons people choose a location. Other people might choose a spot simply because it is easy to get to and others just because it was there and the container fit. They are all ok as long as I have a way to figure this out ahead of time and choose to hunt the kind I like.

 

After some people responded I also suggested that finders could check a box on the same list showing what they thought was good about the location. If they didn't like anything about the location they could check the box "Chance for another smiley" If the hider and the finders box choices tended to agree, you could assume the description was accurate.

 

I also posted a partial list of what might be some of the reasons to check as to why the spot was chosen.

1. Easy numbers find

2. Historical location

3. Scenic area

4. Easy to get to

5. Hard to get to

6. Close to work

7. Close to home

8. Nice local park

9. Memorial

10. Handicap accessible

11. Personal reason

12. Other (with room to explain)

13. No special reason

14. Chance for another smiley

15. Event cache

16. Special local area

17. Requires special skills or equipment

18. Cache container fell out of my pocket

 

If you didn't want to hunt for a "easy numbers find" you would set you pocket query to exclude them. If you wanted a fast find you might choose "easy to get to". A pocket query set to include scenic view, large cache and hard to get to would yield a limited type of cache.

 

This would allow us to get away from the idea of the good cache hide and the bad cache hide. It should be about hunting for what ever kind of cache we happen to like, not trying to make everyone hide what we like. Of course no system will work perfectly for all cachers all the time. This could also be easily added to caches that are already in place. If the hider was no longer active at least future finders could pick a reason.

 

So go ahead and do your worst and tell us why it won't work and I will do my best to see the other side.

[+Miragee]

I was just getting ready to post this in that other thread.

 

In my opinion this whole discussion should be about how to more easily filter out caches we don't want to look for. It should not be about how to convince everyone to only hide caches we want to look for.

As traildad suggested, and as I have suggested in past discussions like this, a very simple addition to the form when you submit a cache, might help with the filtering, and might make some people think for a second about the "location" they chose.

 

 

This is incorporated on Waymarking and you must make a choice before your submission will go through. The first time I attempted to submit a WiFi Waymark, I realized I needed an IT education before I could answer all the required choices correctly . . . (That was changed after I inquired about what all of them meant . . . )

 

The choices in the drop down list could be something like this:

• Historical
  
• Scenic
  
• Nice hike
  
• City Park
  
• Favorite Store/Eating Place/Coffee Shop
  
• One for the numbers
  

Seems like if it can be implemented on Waymarking, by the individual Category owners when they set up the criteria for their Waymarks, it could be done globally on this site. In Pocket Queries cachers would choose to get only those caches they are interested in, just like you can choose to get only Traditional Cache, Virtual Cache, Event Cache, Letterbox Hybrid, and Earthcache now, and not get the "Unknown" caches in your PQs.

 

Before a trip, the "Caches Along A Route" PQ might only include those caches listed as being in Historic locations, or Scenic overlooks, or on Nice Hikes, or all of those. Before a "Numbers Run" with other cachers, the PQs could request only those caches listed as being "One for the numbers."

 

It would work much better than the Attributes and would solve the filtering problem requested by many cachers. If a cache owner incorrectly listed their cache (one of the negatives being brought up about this idea), that could be changed through cacher's feedback to the Cache Owner, or through a log like "Needs Maintenance."

[+Kit Fox]

Jeremy,

 

Please consider this idea. As long time premium member, i'd happily pay more for this feature alone.

 

There is a great multitude of cachers that are getting geocacher burn-out, because of the time wasted avoiding caches that don't meet the "language of location" concept. Any improvement would be appreciated.

[+The Leprechauns]

This idea overlaps cache attributes. I am in favor of expanding the functionality of the existing voluntary attributes system, and fixing the bugs in how attribute-based pocket queries currently function (or don't function).

 

I am in favor of a ratings system which tells you that if you liked cache X, you may also be interested in caches A, B and C. Jeremy has spoken highly of that option, and Coyote Red has done a terrific job of explaining it. I am also supportive of a rating system based on letting each member have a limited number of votes for their top X percent of favorite caches found, so you could filter for caches named on Y number of favorites lists.

 

I am opposed to additional mandatory steps / roadblocks / hurdles that must be cleared in order to get a cache published on this site. It would be terrific if the cache reporting form and the listing guidelines could be made simpler, rather than more complex. Renegade Knight always does the best job of expressing this philosophy.

 

As I'm often fond of doing, I note the following: whenever you have Signal the Frog's cheerleaders agreeing with loyal and respectful opposition like Coyote Red and Renegade Knight, it's probably worth a closer look at whatever it is that they are in agreement about.

Edited September 9, 2007 by The Leprechauns

[Dinoprophet]

The choices in the drop down list could be something like this:

• Historical
  
• Scenic
  
• Nice hike
  
• City Park
  
• Favorite Store/Eating Place/Coffee Shop
  
• One for the numbers
  

 

I'm torn between a dropdown, because it's easy, and attribute-like checkboxes, because there can be multiple answers. What if it's a great hike to a scenic spot? Or a historic restaurant?

 

I think "physical challenge" might be another category. For example, a tree climb that is tough but may not necessarily require special equipment. I realize it's also one that's likely to be abused, the way people tend to overdo the D/T ratings. Similarly, a "brainteaser" category might be good for those that take some thought to find or open (again, likely to be abused -- I could see someone applying it to a needle-in-a-haystack type. Which might be another category, now that I say it).

 

Or are these a little beyond scope? I realize these aren't exactly "Location Types"; I've been thinking more along the lines of "Reason for the cache".

[+BlueDeuce]

...

Edited September 10, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[Dinoprophet]

This idea overlaps cache attributes. I am in favor of expanding the functionality of the existing voluntary attributes system, and fixing the bugs in how attribute-based pocket queries currently function (or don't function).

I can agree with this. Making them new attributes would probably work, and be the easiest to implement. One thing though: are there plans to expand or remove the limit on attributes? I find I can't include all that I want on my caches as it is.

 

I am in favor of a ratings system which tells you that if you liked cache X, you may also be interested in caches A, B and C. Jeremy has spoken highly of that option, and Coyote Red has done a terrific job of explaining it. I am also supportive of a rating system based on letting each member have a limited number of votes for their top X percent of favorite caches found, so you could filter for caches named on Y number of favorites lists.

I like that too. Can there be both?

 

I am opposed to additional mandatory steps / roadblocks / hurdles that must be cleared in order to get a cache published on this site. It would be terrific if the cache reporting form and the listing guidelines could be made simpler, rather than more complex. Renegade Knight always does the best job of expressing this philosophy.

I can agree with this also. It would be nice if everyone did it, but like attributes, I don't think it needs to be mandatory. Hiders should realize that people may be overlooking their caches if they don't use it.

 

As I'm often fond of doing, I note the following: whenever you have Signal the Frog's cheerleaders agreeing with loyal and respectful opposition like Coyote Red and Renegade Knight, it's probably worth a closer look at whatever it is that they are in agreement about.

Yes, I think it does deserve more discussion.

[+TrailGators]

This idea overlaps cache attributes. I am in favor of expanding the functionality of the existing voluntary attributes system, and fixing the bugs in how attribute-based pocket queries currently function (or don't function).

 

I am in favor of a ratings system which tells you that if you liked cache X, you may also be interested in caches A, B and C. Jeremy has spoken highly of that option, and Coyote Red has done a terrific job of explaining it. I am also supportive of a rating system based on letting each member have a limited number of votes for their top X percent of favorite caches found, so you could filter for caches named on Y number of favorites lists.

 

I am opposed to additional mandatory steps / roadblocks / hurdles that must be cleared in order to get a cache published on this site. It would be terrific if the cache reporting form and the listing guidelines could be made simpler, rather than more complex. Renegade Knight always does the best job of expressing this philosophy.

 

As I'm often fond of doing, I note the following: whenever you have Signal the Frog's cheerleaders agreeing with loyal and respectful opposition like Coyote Red and Renegade Knight, it's probably worth a closer look at whatever it is that they are in agreement about.

This sums up my feelings as well but keep the ideas coming!

[+cache_test_dummies]

Given the large number of existing caches (many of which, I believe, would likely never get updated with your 'reason' information), I question whether such a feature would, in practice, actually serve the intended purpose of providing a way to filter out specific types of caches.

 

For example, filtering out 'Easy number find' caches would eliminate only those caches whose owners had specifically labeled their caches that way. There are bound to be plenty of unlabeled 'easy number find' caches that would make it through the filter.

[Mushtang]

Someday we're going to be able to filter a PQ for caches that are:

 

Regular Sized

Traditional Type

Has Scenic View

On Trail Between 1-5 Miles

Below Knee Level

Under Pile of Sticks

North Side Of Tree

Ammo Can

Green Painted Camo

 

And all caches will be changed to a difficulty 1

[+traildad]

For example, filtering out 'Easy number find' caches would eliminate only those caches whose owners had specifically labeled their caches that way. There are bound to be plenty of unlabeled 'easy number find' caches that would make it through the filter.

This would be solved at the found it log end. If you had to, or had a chance to, choose a label when you find or decide not to find the cache you would be able to fill in the blanks. If someone goes out for a unlabeled cache and sees that it is in some plants next to a ditch along side a busy road they can choose a category that fits it. Even if they walk away they can log a note and choose a category.

 

As I have said there is no way any system is going to be all things to all people. Hopefully we can come up with an improvement that is about choosing what we like and not about telling people their cache is lame.

[+traildad]

The choices in the drop down list could be something like this:

• Historical
  
• Scenic
  
• Nice hike
  
• City Park
  
• Favorite Store/Eating Place/Coffee Shop
  
• One for the numbers
  

 

I'm torn between a dropdown, because it's easy, and attribute-like checkboxes, because there can be multiple answers. What if it's a great hike to a scenic spot? Or a historic restaurant?

 

I think "physical challenge" might be another category. For example, a tree climb that is tough but may not necessarily require special equipment. I realize it's also one that's likely to be abused, the way people tend to overdo the D/T ratings. Similarly, a "brainteaser" category might be good for those that take some thought to find or open (again, likely to be abused -- I could see someone applying it to a needle-in-a-haystack type. Which might be another category, now that I say it).

 

Or are these a little beyond scope? I realize these aren't exactly "Location Types"; I've been thinking more along the lines of "Reason for the cache".

 

From my end I don't see anything wrong with allowing multiple choices. A long hike to a scenic historical spot or an easy scenic spot. Maybe you could choose up to three in order of importance to the hider. I think physical challenge and needle in a haystack both would be good to include. It isn't just about what the location is like but what the hide is meant to be. If they chose that spot because it was just right for a needle in a hay stack hunt it might not matter to them if there was a nice view or not.

[+cache_test_dummies]

This would be solved at the found it log end. If you had to, or had a chance to, choose a label when you find or decide not to find the cache you would be able to fill in the blanks. If someone goes out for a unlabeled cache and sees that it is in some plants next to a ditch along side a busy road they can choose a category that fits it. Even if they walk away they can log a note and choose a category.

If any finder can choose a label for an otherwise-unlabled cache, then you are essentially talking about a rating system, since different people would label the cache differently, based on their own subjectivity. And this introduces an interesting complexity in that some labels would be assigned by the cache owners themselves, and some labels would be assigned by random finders (or seekers, as the case may be). I'll have to give some thought to how this situation might compare with other rating system proposals that I've seen in the forums.

 

As I have said there is no way any system is going to be all things to all people. Hopefully we can come up with an improvement that is about choosing what we like and not about telling people their cache is lame.

I understand. I'm not trying to be unfairly critical, I'm just trying to think through your suggestion, especially in light of Lep's post.

[+Renegade Knight]

...12. Other (with room to explain)...

 

12. Other (See Cache Page)

 

Is how I'd normally fill out the box.

 

Here are my caches and why they were placed You should notice the reasons why I placed the caches seldom if ever fit a check box. The reasons you may seek any one of them, may fit any of several of your own ideas on what a cache is and hit a few mental check boxes. But since I didn't place them wiht that in mind I may miss the boat on rating them and why I'd go for #12.

 

Mutiny on the Lady Face Falls Trail - I didn't make it to Lady Face Falls because, my family mutinied.Others moved it there later.

Pocatello Travel Bug Hotel & Emporium - Easy TB Hotel for moving TB's.

Fall River Hydro - To Illustrate an abuse of eminent domain.

Devil's Corral Found: - I like this spot. This may actually fit a catagory.

The Denizen Returns - Rest Stop Cache replacing on that made fun of the world.

The Two Trip UMC - To see how many would have to make two trips to the cache.

Zoo Poky - I needed a place to put a birdhouse cache.

Joint Venture at Crater Rings - An experiment to see if I could place a cache without actually placing a cache. One of my best.

State Source BG-87 - A nice spot people may not know about.

TRAVELERS BLUES V - Adopted, then moved. Leg Stretch for travelers.

Three Springs Found: Brutal but short hike.

Everything I Hate About Micros - Intended to illustrate everything I hate about micros. It didn't work.

Geocaching 201 - An Event about placing caches so they don't get called in. This event didn't work out so well.

Where's Waldo A puzzle cache illustrating an eclectic set of interesting tid bits about the town I'm in. Dead businesses, Ghosts in parks, Architectural History etc. But you only needed one tidbit to find the cache, probably hits several categories if you really want to stuff this one in the box.

Blackwater - A unique history to this one, that can't be published. The spot is both good and bad. It's by a sewage lagoon, and yet...is without a doubt one of the best urban locations this town has to offer..

Hindsight - Serendipity in caching finding. It didn't work.

The Joe Camel Edition - A nice pond.

King Of The Hill - A concept cache, LTF is king and owns the cache, literally. It didn't work.

Roughshod - Just to toss one out, the only ugly house in the area though.

Seargent Vector Goes Rappin - A most excellent urban cache that didn't survive mostly because I was making fun of the Cache Maggot. Naturally the cache was stolen.

Occurrence - An even cache and failed attempt to find a location where hikers used to hike up into the hills and mark their names on the rocks.

Besmirch - The first LAME Cache in the town. Opened up the floodgates for other lame caches.

Massacre Rocks - I liked the rocks.

Portneuf Greenway Junkyard - Illustrating the contrast between a trail and the junkyard 200' away.

Travelers Blues - DotE - A dead leg stretch.

Squirrel Stash Cache II - Winter Friendly Find since I couldn't find anything else because they weren't winter friendly.

Travelers Blues VI - Adopted Leg Stretch.

Redneck Mothership - Intended to be a different spin on a LPC. It didn't live long enough to see if the spin worked.

A Comparative Study of Idaho Rock Piles #1 - An ugly rock pile example. (I haven't figured out Access to the Good Rock Pile location yet...)

Travelers Blues VIII - An adopted leg stretch.

The Saddle - Another that fits nicely in a category. Place for the view into two valleys.

Vector - Breeder Cache Experiment. It worked.

Red Cave - Placed at where there used to be a cave that is long gone.

Buffoons Politically Correct Webcam Extraordinaire - A cache making fun of a now banned forum poster for having strong opinions on what cache owner can place. Still fitting in many ways.

Squirrel Stash Cache - stuffed in a tree in a park just to get rid of some Orgami.

AO7734 Graveyard - I wanted a crapware cache. The burnt out hill fit the theme.

Below I Level - I loved the irony of a neglected, poorly placed park, dedicated to a person who loved maintaining the grounds and making them enjoyable by all.

My Private Idaho - Rainbow Road - Fit the theme of "Rainbow".

My Private Idaho - Denizen Of The Empire - The spot was open.

American Falls - The real spot had warning signs all over it, this was the next best thing.

My Private Idaho - A concept cache with "ALR" It helped teach me ALR sucks.

Seismograph Station - Placed entirely as a clue, but in a location often used for benchmarks so it sort of fit the theme..kinda.

Parting Shot - A brutally difficult cache. Intended to be exactly that. It worked too well.

My Private Idaho - Joe Camel Edition - The kind of spot Joe Camel would relax at. It fit the theme.

Conspicuous Consumption - A example of conspicuous consumption.

Epicenter 1 - A clue for a cache I adopted out. ALR applies.

Indian Creek - An interesting spot on a part time creek.

The Cannibals Among Us - A concept for a locationless. It didn't work.

Curse's Revenge - A concept for a moving cache to highlight the evil hiding methods of local cachers. It didn't work.

Curses Revenge II - a brutal hard hide that didn't move and it did work. It was in the ROW of the road, Probably within the ROW of the RR (the Access was within the RR Right of way) and well worth the visit because inter spaced among the graffiti were petroglyphs, BUT I didn't tell you about the petroglyphs. You had to find them on your own. All I cared about was the Vesicular Basalt for the hide. Everything else was a bonus.

Epicenter - Now adopted out. A place you could hide a 5 gallon bucket.

Huck Fins Thorny Island - While looking for a location for the Cache lated placed at the Zoo I fought my way through the thorns that defended the center of this island. The thorns, the creek the blood price paid and I had to place a cache there. Urban caching at it's best.

The Quad - A Wed cam cache to introduce it to the locals.

Splitting The Difference - Placed too close to two other caches just to show that 200' can make all the difference. One cache is by the road, the other behind the pound, this one in a rock crack that you climb up into and you are screened from traffic, the park and the world while you make your find. Naturally it's not listed on this site (the other two caches are too close.) and so it gets no finds. People choose lame caches on GC.com over good caches on Navicache.

Urban Glade: Placed because Deer liked this goofball spot right next to the interstate. For some reason the spot just worked.

Fishing The Island. You can't get a boat in the river, you can't jump across, but you can use a magnet on a fishing pole if you can cast accurately enough...The island fit the idea for a retrieval method.

 

Some locations fit a theme. Some fit the hiding method I have in mind. Yes, Location, Location, Location, but not aways for cookie cutter checkbox, dropdown menu reasons.

[+traildad]

]If any finder can choose a label for an otherwise-unlabled cache, then you are essentially talking about a rating system, since different people would label the cache differently, based on their own subjectivity. And this introduces an interesting complexity in that some labels would be assigned by the cache owners themselves, and some labels would be assigned by random finders (or seekers, as the case may be). I'll have to give some thought to how this situation might compare with other rating system proposals that I've seen in the forums.

They could set it up so a finder could choose a label with every find on all caches. This would allow a comparison of the hiders label with the finders label. This could help to highlight hiders that don't label their own caches well.

 

I understand. I'm not trying to be unfairly critical, I'm just trying to think through your suggestion, especially in light of Lep's post.

I didn't mean to suggest that this is what you were doing. This started out in the spew be gone discussion and a lot of people have that leaning. It just seems that an award system has winners and losers. A "what I like best filter" does not.

[+traildad]

 

12. Other (See Cache Page)

 

Is how I'd normally fill out the box.

 

Here are my caches and why they were placed You should notice the reasons why I placed the caches seldom if ever fit a check box. The reasons you may seek any one of them, may fit any of several of your own ideas on what a cache is and hit a few mental check boxes. But since I didn't place them wiht that in mind I may miss the boat on rating them and why I'd go for #12.

 

Mutiny on the Lady Face Falls Trail - I didn't make it to Lady Face Falls because, my family mutinied.Others moved it there later.

I guess you didn't pick the spot so you could only pick a label as a finder

Pocatello Travel Bug Hotel & Emporium - Easy TB Hotel for moving TB's.

Sounds like a #4

Fall River Hydro - To Illustrate an abuse of eminent domain.

Sounds like a #19. (Political statement)

Devil's Corral Found: - I like this spot. This may actually fit a catagory.

Maybe #3

The Denizen Returns - Rest Stop Cache replacing on that made fun of the world.

Maybe a #1 or #4 or#13.

The Two Trip UMC - To see how many would have to make two trips to the cache.

Maybe a #12. I would like that info before I decided to hunt a cache.

Zoo Poky - I needed a place to put a birdhouse cache.

#20 because the container fit the location.

Joint Venture at Crater Rings - An experiment to see if I could place a cache without actually placing a cache. One of my best.

Ah but why did you choose this as the spot to try it?

State Source BG-87 - A nice spot people may not know about.

#16

TRAVELERS BLUES V - Adopted, then moved. Leg Stretch for travelers.

#21 A nice walk.

Three Springs Found: Brutal but short hike.

#5

Everything I Hate About Micros - Intended to illustrate everything I hate about micros. It didn't work.

#11 or #12 or #19

Geocaching 201 - An Event about placing caches so they don't get called in. This event didn't work out so well.

#15

Where's Waldo A puzzle cache illustrating an eclectic set of interesting tid bits about the town I'm in. Dead businesses, Ghosts in parks, Architectural History etc. But you only needed one tidbit to find the cache, probably hits several categories if you really want to stuff this one in the box.

#16

Blackwater - A unique history to this one, that can't be published. The spot is both good and bad. It's by a sewage lagoon, and yet...is without a doubt one of the best urban locations this town has to offer..

#2 or #16

Hindsight - Serendipity in caching finding. It didn't work.

#22 Special theme hunt.

The Joe Camel Edition - A nice pond.

#3 or #8 or #16

King Of The Hill - A concept cache, LTF is king and owns the cache, literally. It didn't work.

#22 again

Roughshod - Just to toss one out, the only ugly house in the area though.

#13 or #14

Seargent Vector Goes Rappin - A most excellent urban cache that didn't survive mostly because I was making fun of the Cache Maggot. Naturally the cache was stolen.

#11

Occurrence - An even cache and failed attempt to find a location where hikers used to hike up into the hills and mark their names on the rocks.

Typo? Event cache? If so, #15

Besmirch - The first LAME Cache in the town. Opened up the floodgates for other lame caches.

#1 or #4

Massacre Rocks - I liked the rocks.

#16

Portneuf Greenway Junkyard - Illustrating the contrast between a trail and the junkyard 200' away.

#12 or #16

Travelers Blues - DotE - A dead leg stretch.

#21

Squirrel Stash Cache II - Winter Friendly Find since I couldn't find anything else because they weren't winter friendly.

#4

Travelers Blues VI - Adopted Leg Stretch.

#21

Redneck Mothership - Intended to be a different spin on a LPC. It didn't live long enough to see if the spin worked.

#14

A Comparative Study of Idaho Rock Piles #1 - An ugly rock pile example. (I haven't figured out Access to the Good Rock Pile location yet...)

#16

Travelers Blues VIII - An adopted leg stretch.

#21

The Saddle - Another that fits nicely in a category. Place for the view into two valleys.

#3

Vector - Breeder Cache Experiment. It worked.

Ok but why this spot and not another.

Red Cave - Placed at where there used to be a cave that is long gone.

#16

Buffoons Politically Correct Webcam Extraordinaire - A cache making fun of a now banned forum poster for having strong opinions on what cache owner can place. Still fitting in many ways.

#19

Squirrel Stash Cache - stuffed in a tree in a park just to get rid of some Orgami.

#20

AO7734 Graveyard - I wanted a crapware cache. The burnt out hill fit the theme.

#22

Below I Level - I loved the irony of a neglected, poorly placed park, dedicated to a person who loved maintaining the grounds and making them enjoyable by all.

#16 or #19

My Private Idaho - Rainbow Road - Fit the theme of "Rainbow".

#22

My Private Idaho - Denizen Of The Empire - The spot was open.

#13

American Falls - The real spot had warning signs all over it, this was the next best thing.

#12

My Private Idaho - A concept cache with "ALR" It helped teach me ALR sucks.

But why in this spot.

Seismograph Station - Placed entirely as a clue, but in a location often used for benchmarks so it sort of fit the theme..kinda.

#22

Parting Shot - A brutally difficult cache. Intended to be exactly that. It worked too well.

#23 Hard to do

My Private Idaho - Joe Camel Edition - The kind of spot Joe Camel would relax at. It fit the theme.

#22

Conspicuous Consumption - A example of conspicuous consumption.

#19

Epicenter 1 - A clue for a cache I adopted out. ALR applies.

#12 or maybe #22 if ALR could be considered a theme.

Indian Creek - An interesting spot on a part time creek.

#16

The Cannibals Among Us - A concept for a locationless. It didn't work.

#22

Curse's Revenge - A concept for a moving cache to highlight the evil hiding methods of local cachers. It didn't work.

#22

Curses Revenge II - a brutal hard hide that didn't move and it did work. It was in the ROW of the road, Probably within the ROW of the RR (the Access was within the RR Right of way) and well worth the visit because inter spaced among the graffiti were petroglyphs, BUT I didn't tell you about the petroglyphs. You had to find them on your own. All I cared about was the Vesicular Basalt for the hide. Everything else was a bonus.

#2

Epicenter - Now adopted out. A place you could hide a 5 gallon bucket.

#20

Huck Fins Thorny Island - While looking for a location for the Cache lated placed at the Zoo I fought my way through the thorns that defended the center of this island. The thorns, the creek the blood price paid and I had to place a cache there. Urban caching at it's best.

#5 or #16

The Quad - A Wed cam cache to introduce it to the locals.

#22

Splitting The Difference - Placed too close to two other caches just to show that 200' can make all the difference. One cache is by the road, the other behind the pound, this one in a rock crack that you climb up into and you are screened from traffic, the park and the world while you make your find. Naturally it's not listed on this site (the other two caches are too close.) and so it gets no finds. People choose lame caches on GC.com over good caches on Navicache.

#22

Urban Glade: Placed because Deer liked this goofball spot right next to the interstate. For some reason the spot just worked.

#16

Fishing The Island. You can't get a boat in the river, you can't jump across, but you can use a magnet on a fishing pole if you can cast accurately enough...The island fit the idea for a retrieval method.

#17

 

Some locations fit a theme. Some fit the hiding method I have in mind. Yes, Location, Location, Location, but not aways for cookie cutter checkbox, dropdown menu reasons.

Of course an idea is a lot more or less likely to work if someone has a preconceived notion that it will or won't work. I think I have shown that these caches could use something other than the #12 reason. No one is trying to stuff things into a box. Pick the top 3 best fitting reasons and it would help.

 

With finders getting to pick a label as well, there would still be info to help filter the list.

[+TrailGators]

Of course an idea is a lot more or less likely to work if someone has a preconceived notion that it will or won't work. I think I have shown that these caches could use something other than the #12 reason. No one is trying to stuff things into a box. Pick the top 3 best fitting reasons and it would help.

 

With finders getting to pick a label as well, there would still be info to help filter the list.

First of all, I don't have any preconconceived notions. I am keeping an open mind. But I do have a question. How is your idea different that requiring that people fill out cache attributes (and adding a few more) before they submit a cache?

[+Miragee]

Of course an idea is a lot more or less likely to work if someone has a preconceived notion that it will or won't work. I think I have shown that these caches could use something other than the #12 reason. No one is trying to stuff things into a box. Pick the top 3 best fitting reasons and it would help.

 

With finders getting to pick a label as well, there would still be info to help filter the list.

First of all, I don't have any preconconceived notions. I am keeping an open mind. But I do have a question. How is your idea different that requiring that people fill out cache attributes (and adding a few more) before they submit a cache?

On the Waymarking Site, the limiting questions completely prevent the Waymark submission from going through until the question/s is/are answered, presumably correctly.

 

Cache submissions can go through without choosing a single attribute.

 

If someone has to answer a simple question about the reason for the location for their new cache, they might give that location a tiny bit of thought and perhaps realize the back alley near the dumpster wasn't such a good spot after all . . .

 

Since it works very well for Categories at Waymarking.com, some of which have several "limiting questions," I don't know why one extra question on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" form could not work on GC.com.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think I have shown that these caches could use something other than the #12 reason. No one is trying to stuff things into a box. Pick the top 3 best fitting reasons and it would help.

 

With finders getting to pick a label as well, there would still be info to help filter the list.

 

Good job. You as a finder, don't have a preconceived notion about the cache. As the hider, I do. All the notions behind why I hid it. It's like reading something you wrote. You know what it says, you you tend to miss some of the dumb mistakes.

 

That said, you did mis-rate one cache. It's the only one I spot checked. Curses Revenge 2. Because of the Petroglyphs it would be archaeological, though pre-historical could cover it. Most of what people call history is from recorded history. The nuance becomes important if you are going to filter these to find the caches of interest.

 

However, it should not have been rated at all. The petroglyph's were a surprise bonus. Locals know about them. Non locals don't. Advertising of these kind of archaeological resources is frowned upon by the stewards of our lands. I have seen the BLM shut down caches that mentioned nearby petroglyphs because they don't want to advertise them. That's their policy.

 

While this is one example it's an example of why finders should not be able to short circuit some of the things a cache owner does.

 

That aside, after the fact filters, if used (that being the key point) by finders would work so long as all the finders agreed on the meanings, and there were enough variations to do the job as well as it needs to be done. But I still would not want you to short circuit my cache and would want "Veto" power so to speak.

[+traildad]

First of all, I don't have any preconceived notions. I am keeping an open mind. But I do have a question. How is your idea different that requiring that people fill out cache attributes (and adding a few more) before they submit a cache?

Well it is mostly different in how it would be implemented. There wouldn't be a positive and a negative of each attribute. For example a 24/7 attribute or a 24/7 with a red slash through it. They wouldn't be used to tell you what you could or could not do, or what was available in the area like parking or drinking water. I see it as a separate system. My desire is to get an insight into what kind of cache the hider was trying to create. I am not much on needle in a hay stack caches. I don't want to look for a cache under a rock in a field full of rocks. If someone did a memorial cache the location might be bland but the reason behind the hide very meaningful. If a bland location with meaning works for you then great. If the top three could be picked it might be a memorial cache, fast find, drive up. If you were looking for any of those three kinds of caches that day you might choose to hunt for it. If it was your experience that memorial caches were not inspiring you could choose to filter these caches out of your list.

 

It is my thought to have a system that allows people to find what they like to find. I would like to see us stay away from anything that says one cache is better than another cache even by inference. Giving out awards to the "good" caches means if yours didn't get an award it is "bad". Filtering for 5 star caches means if yours is a 1 star cache it is "bad". If we're all supposed to play the game our own way then there really is no good or bad caches.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

It is my thought to have a system that allows people to find what they like to find. I would like to see us stay away from anything that says one cache is better than another cache even by inference. Giving out awards to the "good" caches means if yours didn't get an award it is "bad". Filtering for 5 star caches means if yours is a 1 star cache it is "bad". If we're all supposed to play the game our own way then there really is no good or bad caches.

This is my thought as well. If cache owners answered a single additional question on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings," it would make planning for a cache outing, or a long road trip, to search for "preferred" cache types much easier.

 

On the PQ form, there could be an additional box that would pull caches from those types, such as this:

 

 

As I see it, this is a completely different idea from "Attributes."

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

It is my thought to have a system that allows people to find what they like to find. I would like to see us stay away from anything that says one cache is better than another cache even by inference. Giving out awards to the "good" caches means if yours didn't get an award it is "bad". Filtering for 5 star caches means if yours is a 1 star cache it is "bad". If we're all supposed to play the game our own way then there really is no good or bad caches.

This is my thought as well. If cache owners answered a single additional question on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings," it would make planning for a cache outing, or a long road trip, to search for "preferred" cache types much easier.

 

On the PQ form, there could be an additional box that would pull caches from those types, such as this:

 

 

As I see it, this is a completely different idea from "Attributes."

I don't think it's completely different. They are basically new attributes or characteristics of the cache. What do you think an attribute is? Anyhow, Ambrosia brought up a good point in the other thread about people wanting to keep the cache location a secret, so it is a surprise. Also I would love it if everyone checked "Lamp post" but that gives away the location, so I'm thinking that most people won't like to check that box. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I like the idea but I see some issues. Also would you add a new section to PQs to sort for these hide attributes/characteristics or whatever they will be called? Will they be shown on every cache page? I can't imagine Groundspeak putting "Dumpster" on cache pages. I would think they want to present things in a postive light.

[+traildad]

 

However, it should not have been rated at all. The petroglyph's were a surprise bonus. Locals know about them. Non locals don't. Advertising of these kind of archaeological resources is frowned upon by the stewards of our lands. I have seen the BLM shut down caches that mentioned nearby petroglyphs because they don't want to advertise them. That's their policy.

 

While this is one example it's an example of why finders should not be able to short circuit some of the things a cache owner does.

 

That aside, after the fact filters, if used (that being the key point) by finders would work so long as all the finders agreed on the meanings, and there were enough variations to do the job as well as it needs to be done. But I still would not want you to short circuit my cache and would want "Veto" power so to speak.

As was mentioned in the "spew be gone" thread, there might be a need for a surprise or secret label. If you are not impressed with the hiders secret, you could choose to avoid them in the future.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

It is my thought to have a system that allows people to find what they like to find. I would like to see us stay away from anything that says one cache is better than another cache even by inference. Giving out awards to the "good" caches means if yours didn't get an award it is "bad". Filtering for 5 star caches means if yours is a 1 star cache it is "bad". If we're all supposed to play the game our own way then there really is no good or bad caches.

This is my thought as well. If cache owners answered a single additional question on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings," it would make planning for a cache outing, or a long road trip, to search for "preferred" cache types much easier.

 

On the PQ form, there could be an additional box that would pull caches from those types, such as this:

 

 

As I see it, this is a completely different idea from "Attributes."

I don't think it's completely different. They are basically new attributes or characteristics of the cache. What do you think an attribute is? Anyhow, Ambrosia brought up a good point in the other thread about people wanting to keep the cache location a secret, so it is a surprise. Also I would love it if everyone checked "Lamp post" but that gives away the location, so I'm thinking that most people won't like to check that box. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I like the idea but I see some issues. Also would you add a new section to PQs to sort for these hide attributes/characteristics or whatever they will be called? Will they be shown on every cache page? I can't imagine Groundspeak putting "Dumpster" on cache pages. I would think they want to present things in a postive light.

Uh . . . of course I'm kidding about the Lamp Post and Dumpster and Loading Dock . . . sheesh . . . It was just a rough idea of some of the possible options that would be on the new PQ form after the "Cache Location" question was incorporated into the new "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" form.

 

As already stated, the single, additional, limiting question would be required, just as the "Nickname" and "Cache Coordinates" are. Without filling those blanks in, the cache submission will not go through. Without answering the new "Cache Location Type" question, the new cache submission will not go through. This is the way it is on some Waymarking Categories. Without answering the required questions, the Waymark submission will not go through.

 

New cache submissions can go through without choosing any Attributes. This idea is different from Attributes.

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

It is my thought to have a system that allows people to find what they like to find. I would like to see us stay away from anything that says one cache is better than another cache even by inference. Giving out awards to the "good" caches means if yours didn't get an award it is "bad". Filtering for 5 star caches means if yours is a 1 star cache it is "bad". If we're all supposed to play the game our own way then there really is no good or bad caches.

This is my thought as well. If cache owners answered a single additional question on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings," it would make planning for a cache outing, or a long road trip, to search for "preferred" cache types much easier.

 

On the PQ form, there could be an additional box that would pull caches from those types, such as this:

 

 

As I see it, this is a completely different idea from "Attributes."

I don't think it's completely different. They are basically new attributes or characteristics of the cache. What do you think an attribute is? Anyhow, Ambrosia brought up a good point in the other thread about people wanting to keep the cache location a secret, so it is a surprise. Also I would love it if everyone checked "Lamp post" but that gives away the location, so I'm thinking that most people won't like to check that box. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I like the idea but I see some issues. Also would you add a new section to PQs to sort for these hide attributes/characteristics or whatever they will be called? Will they be shown on every cache page? I can't imagine Groundspeak putting "Dumpster" on cache pages. I would think they want to present things in a postive light.

Uh . . . of course I'm kidding about the Lamp Post and Dumpster and Loading Dock . . . sheesh . . . It was just a rough idea of some of the possible options that would be on the new PQ form after the "Cache Location" question was incorporated into the new "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" form.

 

As already stated, the single, additional, limiting question would be required, just as the "Nickname" and "Cache Coordinates" are. Without filling those blanks in, the cache submission will not go through. Without answering the new "Cache Location Type" question, the new cache submission will not go through. This is the way it is on some Waymarking Categories. Without answering the required questions, the Waymark submission will not go through.

 

New cache submissions can go through without choosing any Attributes. This idea is different from Attributes.

Sorry but you never said you were kidding and I don't read minds.... Instead of kidding why don't you draw up some questions that could actually be used to help people identify LUMs or other types of caches that are presently difficult to identify and filter out, which is the point of this. It's hard for me to agree with something without seeing anything concrete first.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

For example, filtering out 'Easy number find' caches would eliminate only those caches whose owners had specifically labeled their caches that way. There are bound to be plenty of unlabeled 'easy number find' caches that would make it through the filter.

This would be solved at the found it log end. If you had to, or had a chance to, choose a label when you find or decide not to find the cache you would be able to fill in the blanks. If someone goes out for a unlabeled cache and sees that it is in some plants next to a ditch along side a busy road they can choose a category that fits it. Even if they walk away they can log a note and choose a category.

 

As I have said there is no way any system is going to be all things to all people. Hopefully we can come up with an improvement that is about choosing what we like and not about telling people their cache is lame.

 

Im curious. If you have finders rate the cache, how will the system account for false reviews by finders? For instance, there is a cacher in my area who wanted to be the top cacher and sought every cache, yet hates all urban caches no matter how well done. He would automatically rate every urban cache a "for the numbers" rating. How would the system account for caches in nice scenic parks that are rather disgusting pickle parks with used paraphenelia associated with it?

 

(Im not trying to discourage your efforts. I am thinking of caches that might be exceptions to your labels.)

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

<snip>

 

It is my thought to have a system that allows people to find what they like to find. I would like to see us stay away from anything that says one cache is better than another cache even by inference. Giving out awards to the "good" caches means if yours didn't get an award it is "bad". Filtering for 5 star caches means if yours is a 1 star cache it is "bad". If we're all supposed to play the game our own way then there really is no good or bad caches.

This is my thought as well. If cache owners answered a single additional question on the "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings," it would make planning for a cache outing, or a long road trip, to search for "preferred" cache types much easier.

 

On the PQ form, there could be an additional box that would pull caches from those types, such as this:

 

 

As I see it, this is a completely different idea from "Attributes."

I don't think it's completely different. They are basically new attributes or characteristics of the cache. What do you think an attribute is? Anyhow, Ambrosia brought up a good point in the other thread about people wanting to keep the cache location a secret, so it is a surprise. Also I would love it if everyone checked "Lamp post" but that gives away the location, so I'm thinking that most people won't like to check that box. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I like the idea but I see some issues. Also would you add a new section to PQs to sort for these hide attributes/characteristics or whatever they will be called? Will they be shown on every cache page? I can't imagine Groundspeak putting "Dumpster" on cache pages. I would think they want to present things in a postive light.

 

If finders rate the cache, then any surprise element I might have intended for my cache is eliminated. How would the system take that into account? In some caches I prefer to have the visual effect/ interesting aspect to the location kept a surprise to those who visit. If finders start labeling the cache, then that surprise is removed, and my cache degraded from its original intention as a result.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

As already stated, the single, additional, limiting question would be required, just as the "Nickname" and "Cache Coordinates" are. Without filling those blanks in, the cache submission will not go through. Without answering the new "Cache Location Type" question, the new cache submission will not go through. This is the way it is on some Waymarking Categories. Without answering the required questions, the Waymark submission will not go through.

 

New cache submissions can go through without choosing any Attributes. This idea is different from Attributes.

 

One of the complaints about Waymarking is that the thrill of the surprise is gone, hence the WOW category. I would be disappointed if every cache had to be that spelled out.

[+traildad]

If finders rate the cache, then any surprise element I might have intended for my cache is eliminated. How would the system take that into account? In some caches I prefer to have the visual effect/ interesting aspect to the location kept a surprise to those who visit. If finders start labeling the cache, then that surprise is removed, and my cache degraded from its original intention as a result.

We could have surprise or secret as a label. If you don't like a hiders surprises you could avoid them in the future. If someone goes to the trouble to do some kind of surprise, it is likely to be more than a "put it in the weeds along side the road" type of cache anyway. Or it could use the theme label. The theme could be "surprise" and the nature of the theme wouldn't necessarily need to be revealed

 

Edited to say: I was also wondering how you deal with this problem when a finder logs a find and tells what a great surprise cache it was?

Edited September 11, 2007 by traildad

[+traildad]

 

Im curious. If you have finders rate the cache, how will the system account for false reviews by finders? For instance, there is a cacher in my area who wanted to be the top cacher and sought every cache, yet hates all urban caches no matter how well done. He would automatically rate every urban cache a "for the numbers" rating. How would the system account for caches in nice scenic parks that are rather disgusting pickle parks with used paraphenelia associated with it?

 

(Im not trying to discourage your efforts. I am thinking of caches that might be exceptions to your labels.)

I hadn't really considered that, but off the top of my head I would guess that you would deal with it much the same as when a finder lies in their log. I suppose if you delete the log it would delete the review.

 

I don't think I understand the question about the pickle park.

[+traildad]

However, it should not have been rated at all. The petroglyph's were a surprise bonus. Locals know about them. Non locals don't. Advertising of these kind of archaeological resources is frowned upon by the stewards of our lands. I have seen the BLM shut down caches that mentioned nearby petroglyphs because they don't want to advertise them. That's their policy.

 

While this is one example it's an example of why finders should not be able to short circuit some of the things a cache owner does.

How do you deal with this issue in finder logs?

[+Renegade Knight]

...How do you deal with this issue in finder logs?

One at a time when it comes up. On this cache it was a non issue (but it's been a few years since the acces was posted no tresspassing and the cache was archived) finder were more annoyed they could not find the cache. It was not placed adjacent to any petroglyphs. You had to be looking for them.

[+sbell111]

The way I see it, this idea will not work because it is trying to do two things. On one hand, it is trying to identify the locations that caches are hidden in. That's not that big of a deal, except that it is based on the cache hiders opinion and may not be shared by finders ('historic' is the perfect example). On the other hand, it is trying to require a cache hider to defend the reasons for the hide. This is not necessary and pointless. The only valid reason for hiding a cache is 'because I wanted to and would like to find a cache like this'.

 

It also appears that these location-based issues would be better handled through the use of attributes. I don't see the point in making it more complicated to fill out the submittal form and I'm not in favor of finders having any say in 'the reason that a cache was hidden', nor do I believe that a finder would often be able to identify the location better than the hider.

[+Miragee]

If finders rate the cache, then any surprise element I might have intended for my cache is eliminated. How would the system take that into account? In some caches I prefer to have the visual effect/ interesting aspect to the location kept a surprise to those who visit. If finders start labeling the cache, then that surprise is removed, and my cache degraded from its original intention as a result.

We could have surprise or secret as a label. If you don't like a hiders surprises you could avoid them in the future. If someone goes to the trouble to do some kind of surprise, it is likely to be more than a "put it in the weeds along side the road" type of cache anyway. Or it could use the theme label. The theme could be "surprise" and the nature of the theme wouldn't necessarily need to be revealed

 

<snip>

That is true . . . the main reason I would like to see one simple question added to the New Cache Submission Form is to make the hider think about their chosen location. How many cachers actually read this page? Perhaps this section of the submission form could repeat this:

Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way.

The big reward for geocachers, other than finding the cache itself, is the location.

A prime camping spot, great viewpoint, unusual location, etc. are all good places to hide a cache.

As I said, if the selections are broad, and also include a "secret" option, it shouldn't give away any surprise, but will serve the purpose of making the hider think. If they still want to submit the coordinates for a film canister placed on the loading dock of the Costco . . . so be it.

 

Edit for typo

Edited September 11, 2007 by Miragee

[+Renegade Knight]

.... Loading Dock ...

 

I like those caches because I learned a professional lesson the hard way when designing one. Never actually seen one though. Oh, and most of them are designed wrong.

[4wheelin_fool]

Actually, if the goal is to sidestep "spew"- just have a surcharge of $1 to hide a cache. Although there would be a few resistant strains at first, the majority of "spew" would dry up. Next, require that all the finders rate the cache in a basic way. If the cache rates a '8.5' or more, you get your money back. If it rates lower, then the proceeds get donated to some charity, like handicapped chinldren.

[+wesleykey]

Actually, if the goal is to sidestep "spew"- just have a surcharge of $1 to hide a cache.

 

I'll go on and start collecting for this effort. Just paypal the funds to me....

[+Yamar]

There will never be consensus for things like this though. Everyone has different opinions, which is why you should only listen to the people you have similar interests in.

 

I actually wrote up a series of recommendations a while ago on this topic:

 

http://www.geoqo.org/wiki/index.php/How_to..._good_geocaches

 

It contains a lot of advice for people who are sick of finding caches they don't like.

[+TrailGators]

There will never be consensus for things like this though. Everyone has different opinions, which is why you should only listen to the people you have similar interests in.

 

I actually wrote up a series of recommendations a while ago on this topic:

 

http://www.geoqo.org/wiki/index.php/How_to..._good_geocaches

 

It contains a lot of advice for people who are sick of finding caches they don't like.

Interesting! I'll have to try it out. I'm a combo of a 1 and a 3. Edited September 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Yamar]

Interesting! I'll have to try it out. I'm a combo of a 1 and a 3.

 

What took me a long time to realize is that I change. Sometimes, to be honest and I can't believe I'm going to say this, but a micro under a lamp post is just fine. But only when I'm brain dead and tired. However, after I've just lived through a political meeting about a technical topic for work, those are often more satisfying than failing to find a difficult cache that I'd normally prefer. Now, if I could just avoid the lame meetings in the first place...

[+TrailGators]

Interesting! I'll have to try it out. I'm a combo of a 1 and a 3.

 

What took me a long time to realize is that I change. Sometimes, to be honest and I can't believe I'm going to say this, but a micro under a lamp post is just fine. But only when I'm brain dead and tired. However, after I've just lived through a political meeting about a technical topic for work, those are often more satisfying than failing to find a difficult cache that I'd normally prefer. Now, if I could just avoid the lame meetings in the first place...

I hate meetings!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Actually, if the goal is to sidestep "spew"- just have a surcharge of $1 to hide a cache. Although there would be a few resistant strains at first, the majority of "spew" would dry up. Next, require that all the finders rate the cache in a basic way. If the cache rates a '8.5' or more, you get your money back. If it rates lower, then the proceeds get donated to some charity, like handicapped chinldren.

 

Many good cache hiders wouldnt bother posting new caches any more. Throwing out the baby with the bath water here.

[+traildad]

On the other hand, it is trying to require a cache hider to defend the reasons for the hide. This is not necessary and pointless. '.

Are you making things up as you go along? Where did anyone suggest that a hider would need to "defend" the reasons for the hide?

The only valid reason for hiding a cache is 'because I wanted to and would like to find a cache like this

The only reason to hide a puzzle is because I want to, the only reason to hide a historical cache is because I want to, the only reason to hide a park and grab is because I want to.... Clearly people hide caches because they want to.

It also appears that these location-based issues would be better handled through the use of attributes. I don't see the point in making it more complicated to fill out the submittal form and I'm not in favor of finders having any say in 'the reason that a cache was hidden', nor do I believe that a finder would often be able to identify the location better than the hider.

A finder simply has a different point of view. Doesn't mean they are more or less right.

 

Has anyone ever seen a movie, or read a book. Was it a thriller or a romantic comedy? No way it was just because the production company wanted to make a movie. It is probably a waste of time to put these labels on them because the writer will often give it the wrong label just because.

 

If someone says this book is a murder mystery, it gives you an idea what the book is about. It doesn't give away the ending. If you are not in the mood for a murder mystery, it is easy to skip that section in the book store.

 

Does anyone suggest that they should not have these labels and instead you just go in and say I would like to buy a book and they hand you one that someone you agree with thought was good? I bet even the netflix system recommends a film based on the idea that if you like action movies you will like the newest action movie. I doubt that it searches the script for words like "shoot him" or "kill them".

[Mushtang]

On the other hand, it is trying to require a cache hider to defend the reasons for the hide. This is not necessary and pointless. '.

Are you making things up as you go along? Where did anyone suggest that a hider would need to "defend" the reasons for the hide?

First post in this thread. Second paragraph, first sentence.

 

The idea presented clearly is asking hiders to support or maintain their reasons for hiding a cache.

[+Kit Fox]

On the other hand, it is trying to require a cache hider to defend the reasons for the hide. This is not necessary and pointless. '.

Are you making things up as you go along? Where did anyone suggest that a hider would need to "defend" the reasons for the hide?

First post in this thread. Second paragraph, first sentence.

 

The idea presented clearly is asking hiders to support or maintain their reasons for hiding a cache.

 

My suggestion was to have every hider choose from a list of reasons why they chose the spot to hide the cache. We could make this part of the cache submission just like choosing the cache type or difficulty rating. The cache hider is the best one to explain what if anything is the reason that spot was used.

 

I don't see where he wants cachers to "defend" there hiding spot, but he does want them to give a reason for their spot to help others filter them in/out. Why would anyone be defensive about the spot they chose for a cache, unless it fails to be published?

[Mushtang]

On the other hand, it is trying to require a cache hider to defend the reasons for the hide. This is not necessary and pointless. '.

Are you making things up as you go along? Where did anyone suggest that a hider would need to "defend" the reasons for the hide?

First post in this thread. Second paragraph, first sentence.

 

The idea presented clearly is asking hiders to support or maintain their reasons for hiding a cache.

 

My suggestion was to have every hider choose from a list of reasons why they chose the spot to hide the cache. We could make this part of the cache submission just like choosing the cache type or difficulty rating. The cache hider is the best one to explain what if anything is the reason that spot was used.

 

I don't see where he wants cachers to "defend" there hiding spot, but he does want them to give a reason for their spot to help others filter them in/out. Why would anyone be defensive about the spot they chose for a cache, unless it fails to be published?

I suppose it depends on how negative you feel about the word "defend". Being "defensive about the spot" certainly sounds negative.

 

"Giving a reason why you've chosen a spot" may sound more positive, but it's still supporting or maintaining a reason for hiding a cache, is it not?

 

No matter how you say it, it's still defending your reasons for selecting the location.

[+Miragee]

On the other hand, it is trying to require a cache hider to defend the reasons for the hide. This is not necessary and pointless. '.

Are you making things up as you go along? Where did anyone suggest that a hider would need to "defend" the reasons for the hide?

First post in this thread. Second paragraph, first sentence.

 

The idea presented clearly is asking hiders to support or maintain their reasons for hiding a cache.

 

My suggestion was to have every hider choose from a list of reasons why they chose the spot to hide the cache. We could make this part of the cache submission just like choosing the cache type or difficulty rating. The cache hider is the best one to explain what if anything is the reason that spot was used.

 

I don't see where he wants cachers to "defend" there hiding spot, but he does want them to give a reason for their spot to help others filter them in/out. Why would anyone be defensive about the spot they chose for a cache, unless it fails to be published?

I suppose it depends on how negative you feel about the word "defend". Being "defensive about the spot" certainly sounds negative.

 

"Giving a reason why you've chosen a spot" may sound more positive, but it's still supporting or maintaining a reason for hiding a cache, is it not?

 

No matter how you say it, it's still defending your reasons for selecting the location.

I don't see how merely choosing a "location type" from a "Drop down" list has anything to do with "defending" the location.

 

On Waymarking, when extra, limiting-questions are required, I don't think the Category Owner is "Defending" their Waymark type/location. They are merely requesting additional information about that particular Category.

 

If the single, additional, logical, question about "Location Type" had always been included on the new cache submission form, would anyone have a problem with it?

 

What is wrong with asking a wide, generic question about whether a cache is Urban, Park, Hike, Forest, Highway Reststop, Historic Location, (add other suggestions here), Surprise?

[+Renegade Knight]

Interesting! I'll have to try it out. I'm a combo of a 1 and a 3.

 

What took me a long time to realize is that I change. Sometimes, to be honest and I can't believe I'm going to say this, but a micro under a lamp post is just fine. But only when I'm brain dead and tired. However, after I've just lived through a political meeting about a technical topic for work, those are often more satisfying than failing to find a difficult cache that I'd normally prefer. Now, if I could just avoid the lame meetings in the first place...

I enjoy them after a long hard day of caching where we were racking up some serious skunks. They have other times they are nice as well. I generally don't like micro's but most all have a time and place.

[+TrailGators]

What is wrong with asking a wide, generic question about whether a cache is Urban, Park, Hike, Forest, Highway, Reststop, Historic Location, (add other suggestions here), Surprise?

I think everyone knows which caches are in parks (higher terrain and greenspot on map) and which caches are urbans. They also know which caches are right on a highway/reststop. So you don't need to ask them that. People don't know historic locations unless it is written in the cache description so that is useful. I still think that should be added to the attributes. So I don't see where the questions you are asking are really giving us any new information. The checklist could work but IMHO think you need different items in the list than stuff that is already listed (or should be listed) in attributes or stuff that we can easily figure out without the list.

 

A similar idea would be to just have a simple text box that the user types in the reason(s) that he/she hid the cache in the spot he/she chose. Then that info could be included on the cache page. This would be simple and would give us more info about each cache. If someone doesn't provide an interesting reason then you can skip that cache.

Edited September 12, 2007 by TrailGators

[4wheelin_fool]

Actually, if the goal is to sidestep "spew"- just have a surcharge of $1 to hide a cache. Although there would be a few resistant strains at first, the majority of "spew" would dry up. Next, require that all the finders rate the cache in a basic way. If the cache rates a '8.5' or more, you get your money back. If it rates lower, then the proceeds get donated to some charity, like handicapped chinldren.

 

Many good cache hiders wouldnt bother posting new caches any more. Throwing out the baby with the bath water here.

 

It really depends on how it was implemented, and the perception of it. If it was done early on, it may have worked well.

 

There are good ideas that dont work because they implemented too quickly. There are bad ideas that find a way to work sometimes if someone really wants them to work.

 

The suggestion that Traildad made would work work well, if the form that each cache hider filled out asking why they chose the hiding spot resulted in an icon change. Currently there is only 1 icon for a traditional cache on every profile page which is misleading. Micros really are not caches at all, as they have no trade items. An icon for a micro find should just be a log sheet. If it was a historical micro it could have a H behind it. If it was a micro in a parking lot or rest stop, it could have a picture of a car, meaning you could drive right up to it, or just a # symbol meaning it was a numbers cache. A micro in a nice park could have a leaf behind it.

 

I dont really mind finding "numbers" caches. They are fun if done at night and with a bunch of other people, or they are good after a rough DNF. But if I went during the day by myself, I would feel they are mostly a waste of time. I can see how finding a multitude of them could lead to burnout. They should be more easily identified.

 

If Dave Ulmer had hidden a 35mm film can with only a log sheet, I really don't think we would even be here discussing this...

Edited September 12, 2007 by 4wheelin_fool