Lame First Hides

[+DanOCan]

I guess I would like to see caching done my way - self-fish of course!

1. There is some reason to hide it here. An interesting place.

2. There should be lots of places where it could be - not just one.

3. The area should not be know for trash.

4. The cache should be a water proof container

5. Not Permanently over taken by muggles.

6. Something Clever about it and is the result of some thought.

7. Hey you won't believe what this guy did or where is one is.

 

1. No argument from me on that one. To me that is the single most important thing about hiding a cache.

2. I'll respectfully disagree. If a cache is in a good location I don't care if it is an obvious hide.

3. Yep. I've abandoned locations where I wanted to hide a cache because of litter.

4. Yep.

5. Yeah, I hate high visibility locations.

6. If you think about that location I am not so concerned about "clever".

7. I've been to Events where that topic of conversation has come up, and it's not always a good thing.

[+TrailGators]

But the thread is about SO MANY that were not well hidden and put in a NOTHING location

Tread carefully, Hermit. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest sprinkle of imagination be put into a cache hide are typically thrashed by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame. It ain't pretty.

Our day is coming! When the awards come out, many will be motivated to hide better caches, which is all we've been "asking for."

[Clan Riffster]

Now tell me which cache more people enjoyed based on that.

You weren't honestly expecting a non argumentative answer to that question, were you?

 

Most likely more people enjoyed cache A. You are confusing how many people enjoyed a cache with how much did the people who found the cache enjoyed it.

Not sure I agree with that. To date, every single cacher I've talked to, in person, about logs, has indicated that the length of their log is indicative of how much they enjoyed a particular cache. That's "every" as in 100%, and I've met a lot of cachers. Statistically, there is probably someone out there who types up 400 words of verse for caches they hate and saves the "TNLNSL" for those caches that inspired them the most, but in my opinion, based upon my observations, these folks would be the exception to the rule. While a long log cannot be seen as proof of a quality hide, a consistent string of lengthy logs could certainly be an indicator that a particular cache had a good degree of "Wow!".

 

Obviously, this wouldn't be helpful to those who prefer mindless repetition and balk at "Wow!".

 

When you place a cache do you place one wanting cachers to have difficulty finding it or wanting cachers to be able to find it pretty consistently and thus more often?

For my hides, I prefer to make them hard to get to, but fairly easy to find for those who survive the journey. My camo exists not to thwart cachers, but to keep the cache from being inadvertently found by muggles.

[Mushtang]

But the thread is about SO MANY that were not well hidden and put in a NOTHING location

Tread carefully, Hermit. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest sprinkle of imagination be put into a cache hide are typically thrashed by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame. It ain't pretty.

I don't believe this has ever happened, not even a single time.

 

Of course, you have a link to show me where someone has been thrashed for suggesting they use imagination right?

[+TrailGators]

I guess I would like to see caching done my way - self-fish of course!

1. There is some reason to hide it here. An interesting place.

2. There should be lots of places where it could be - not just one.

3. The area should not be know for trash.

4. The cache should be a water proof container

5. Not Permanently over taken by muggles.

6. Something Clever about it and is the result of some thought.

7. Hey you won't believe what this guy did or where is one is.

 

1. No argument from me on that one. To me that is the single most important thing about hiding a cache.

2. I'll respectfully disagree. If a cache is in a good location I don't care if it is an obvious hide.

3. Yep. I've abandoned locations where I wanted to hide a cache because of litter.

4. Yep.

5. Yeah, I hate high visibility locations.

6. If you think about that location I am not so concerned about "clever".

7. I've been to Events where that topic of conversation has come up, and it's not always a good thing.

Your preferences are spot on with mine, DanOCan.

[+KBI]

Yes, it is ok to do one like someone else has already done.

 

It sounds like you thought out what you want to do. That little bit of thought is what seperates the good caches from just another cache.

 

There is no reason to think that every single hider of every existing geocache did not give the very same thought to their hides. To assume otherwise is presumptuous, in my opinion. Maybe even snobbish.

Sorry you feel that way because that was not my intention.

 

As far as the reason to think that part, I know for a fact that at least one hider put much less thought into the at least one of his hides, because he told me so.

He had a film canister that he found in a seed cache. He said and I quote, "I threw around the first tree I saw when I walked out my door just so I could have more hides that you." So at least in the case of one hider and one cache it was not a presumption but an observe fact based reality the even the owner confirmed.

 

Once again I'm sorry if you were offended by my comment. It was not my intention.

No offense at all. I was agreeing with you.

[+Taoiseach]

I foiled one of Ottawa's ranking cachers on my very first one

[+TrailGators]

I foiled one of Ottawa's ranking cachers on my very first one

Good for you! Multis can be a lot of fun! It sounds like you are off to an awesome start!

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I guess this would be way off topic, but...

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=191005

[+softball29]

I've been reading this thread since it started and caught up with two pages worth tonight after work. Though there were several responses I wanted to post something about, I decided the best thing to do would be do one post as a general response to everything going on in the thread.

 

Judging the enjoyment factor of a cache is impossible to do.Not by amount of logs, not by word counts in a log or not by the amount of people who visit them.

 

I write longer logs for about everything I visit. That's just me. I have yet to leave a 3-4 word log. That doesn't always mean something good or bad. If I have something to write more about, I do. If not, I don't. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the cache.

 

Some caches require longer logs -- a good hike to the woods, digging for an hour before finding etc. An awesome multi-step will always get longer logs from me.

 

Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy something more. Just means there was more to write about. Let's be honest -- a LPC, a nano or whatever isn't always going to require lengthy logs. A lot of times they were a quick and clever hide, found and signed the log. That's it. When I leave, I still say "That was fun." Do I get more enjoyment out of certain caches over others? Absolutley. But of my 60+ finds (I'm still new), I have had a good time with each one and could probably tell you a story about each one if I went back and thought about it.

 

The one thing I can't understand -- the more I read the forums -- is that people don't seem to understand or don't want to accept that people play this game differently. Just because I don't play it the same way you do doesn't mean I'm not right or am doing it wrong. People jump to too many conclusions on this board, it seems. It's unfortunate, too, because this is a great hobby. But if too many "newbies" come on here and see discussions like this and think it's the norm, that type of stuff will chase more people away even moreso than too many LPCs.

 

Again, just my two cents, but every person is different. I'm just happy that there is something that gets me off my duff, away from the computer and outside, exercising and out on a hunt. In the end, I'm happy that I've spent several hours outside, even if it's a day of finding 10 micros or nanos.

[+sbell111]

It would be kinda neat to have some sort of rating system of caches in place. ...

I like the idea but many don't. The only rating system we have is average log length (assumming someone didn't get attacked by a dog - which happens all the time ) or which caches make must-do lists.

That is not correct.

 

The terrain/difficulty ratings are 'ratings systems'. The logs themselves (regardless of length), are also ratings.

Sbell, you know darn well what I meant. I'm talking within those categories which caches were enjoyed the most.

You stated, quite simply, that the only current ratings system is 'average log length'. Many people wouldn't call this a rating, at all. Other criterion that we have, could be called a ratings system.

That is the only one that I've been able to find besides the must-do lists. It is a GSAK macro that orders caches by average log length. Ordering in my mind is a form of rating. Also a high average log length is a strong "indicator" that a cache was highly enjoyed.

GSAK will likely allow you to order your caches by cache name. This, however, also isn't a form of rating.

[+TeamGumbo]

Good grief.

[+sbell111]

For a ratings system to work, you need enough criteria to make it meaningful to all the different cachers out there. The problem is, as you add more and more criterion, the system collapses under it's own weight. People prefer not to answer long surveys and will either skip it or simply click through with random (or otherwise meaningless) answers.

... It doesn't have to be a long system or survey with a lot of criteria. Just 5 stars - click on the number of stars you wish to give to that cache. Simple. People can read them/use them or not. Simple.

It may be simple, but it won't work. There are still too many reasons that people like or dislike a cache.

 

The simple fact is, if people would use the tools already available to them, they could do a pretty fine job of maximizing their enjoyment. Given that they fail to properly use the tools that they already have, why should I believe that adding more tools would help them?

[+sbell111]

If the newest Grisham novel get's great reviews, I still won't buy it because I've learned that, even though I often enjoy legal mysteries, I hate Grisham's work.

You're wrong! I like Grisham novels, so therefore you must not be reading properly!

 

(For those that may think I've gone off topic, I haven't. I've only illustrated a point about how some people sound when discussing what caches are good or not.)

If you use the ratings properly you should be able to tell me Grisham book (cache) that people enjoyed the most. This is what is helpful!

If you use the tools that you already have properly, you should be able to avoid the bulk of the caches that you don't enjoy.

[+sbell111]

Most likely more people enjoyed cache A. You are confusing how many people enjoyed a cache with how much did the people who found the cache enjoyed it.

Not sure I agree with that. To date, every single cacher I've talked to, in person, about logs, has indicated that the length of their log is indicative of how much they enjoyed a particular cache. That's "every" as in 100%, and I've met a lot of cachers. ...

I had a long, drawn out paragraph where I examined your statement and explained while I believed that what it actually states might be true but that I didn't believe that what it implied was true, at all. I decided to let it go. People can form their own opinions about it.

When you place a cache do you place one wanting cachers to have difficulty finding it or wanting cachers to be able to find it pretty consistently and thus more often?

For my hides, I prefer to make them hard to get to, but fairly easy to find for those who survive the journey. My camo exists not to thwart cachers, but to keep the cache from being inadvertently found by muggles.

This is why a definition of 'good cache' will never be possible beyond "a good cache is one that performs as planned by the cache owner". Edited April 15, 2008 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

It would be kinda neat to have some sort of rating system of caches in place. ...

I like the idea but many don't. The only rating system we have is average log length (assumming someone didn't get attacked by a dog - which happens all the time ) or which caches make must-do lists.

That is not correct.

 

The terrain/difficulty ratings are 'ratings systems'. The logs themselves (regardless of length), are also ratings.

Sbell, you know darn well what I meant. I'm talking within those categories which caches were enjoyed the most.

You stated, quite simply, that the only current ratings system is 'average log length'. Many people wouldn't call this a rating, at all. Other criterion that we have, could be called a ratings system.

That is the only one that I've been able to find besides the must-do lists. It is a GSAK macro that orders caches by average log length. Ordering in my mind is a form of rating. Also a high average log length is a strong "indicator" that a cache was highly enjoyed.

GSAK will likely allow you to order your caches by cache name. This, however, also isn't a form of rating.

• Ordered by Name: not an indicator of how well someone enjoyed a cache.
  
• Ordered by Difficulty: not an indicator of how well someone enjoyed a cache.
  
• Ordered by Terrain: Not an indicator of how well someone enjoyed a cache.
  
• Ordered by Average Log Length: a strong indicator of how well finders enjoyed the cache--on average.
  

I'm not sure if there has ever been a time when someone brings up the idea of a star-based ratings scheme that someone hasn't said something to the effect of "just look at the logs." Well, now, all of a sudden the logs aren't a good indicator of how well the cache was enjoyed?

 

Just to head off a tangent, sure, "TFTC" is thanking the owner for the hide and so is "Thanks for the cache!" The person who put in more effort to write their log tends to indicate how well the cache was enjoyed. The more they enjoy it, the more they have to say. It could be an enjoyed cache is one that is memorable.

 

Second, the reason the log size is averaged is because of extraordinary events that may happen on individual hunts or cachers who are more or less verbose than others.

 

The beauty of a log-based ratings scheme is the data is already there and folks don't have to do anything they're not already doing.

 

The drawback is if the scheme goes mainstream then folks will try to game the system.

[+sbell111]

I'll have a go.

I guess I would like to see caching done my way - self-fish of course!

 

1. There is some reason to hide it here. An interesting place.

Each cache owner has a specific reason for hiding each cache in each spot. There are many, many perfectly fine resons to hide a cache in a particular spot.

2. There should be lots of places where it could be - not just one.

I disagree. There may be multiple hiding spots. There may be only one hiding spot. Heck, the cache may not even be 'hidden', at all. All are viable alternatives.

3. The area should not be know for trash.

Locations like that sound like a very good spot for a CITO cache.

4. The cache should be a water proof container

The cache's waterproofedness should match the hide location. Some spots would require no waterproofing, at all. In fact, I can think of a couple good ideas for a cache that would require no container, at all (in the traditional sense).

5. Not Permanently over taken by muggles.

Some of the most fun caches that I've ever found have been in areas with a high concentration of muggles.

6. Something Clever about it and is the result of some thought.

Lots of fun caches are just like other caches. I doubt that you could ever find concensus on what clever enough is or how much thought is required. If the cache owner would like to find a cache like his, it's a good cache.

7. Hey you won't believe what this guy did or where is one is.

Huh? Edited April 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

• Ordered by Name: not an indicator of how well someone enjoyed a cache.
  
• Ordered by Difficulty: not an indicator of how well someone enjoyed a cache.
  
• Ordered by Terrain: Not an indicator of how well someone enjoyed a cache.
  
• Ordered by Average Log Length: a strong indicator of how well finders enjoyed the cache--on average.
  

I'm not sure if there has ever been a time when someone brings up the idea of a star-based ratings scheme that someone hasn't said something to the effect of "just look at the logs." Well, now, all of a sudden the logs aren't a good indicator of how well the cache was enjoyed?

I suspect that you missed the part of the thread where this was discussed, so I'll try to recap.

 

There is a difference between the looking at the logs to see what was said about the cache and looking at them to see how long they are.

 

If you go back and read the discussion of log length, you will note that there are plenty of reasons that individual cachers may or may not write long or short logs. Some of these reasons for long logs relate positively to cache quality, some relate negatively to cache quality, and some make no statement toward cache quality.

... The beauty of a log-based ratings scheme is the data is already there and folks don't have to do anything they're not already doing.

 

The drawback is if the scheme goes mainstream then folks will try to game the system.

What system?

 

You think that if people find out that CoyoteRed is choosing caches by average log length that they will start writing long logs for caches that they hate and tiny logs for caches that they love? Certainly, you don't believe that people are that interested in what you do.

Edited April 15, 2008 by sbell111

[Trinity's Crew]

My longest logs tend to be inspired by the situation, not the actual cache. I tend to write more if I am caching with friends, or someone new to the game. I also tend to write more if I encountered a problem or a humorous situation while seeking the cache. Many times the cache itself has little to do with the length of my log.

[Mushtang]

But the thread is about SO MANY that were not well hidden and put in a NOTHING location

Tread carefully, Hermit. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest sprinkle of imagination be put into a cache hide are typically thrashed by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame. It ain't pretty.

I don't believe this has ever happened, not even a single time.

 

Of course, you have a link to show me where someone has been thrashed for suggesting they use imagination right?

[crickets]

 

Really? Not one?

 

Well then, instead of showing me where someone was thrashed for suggesting imagination be used, how about just show me where someone politely suggested otherwise. Can you show me a single post where imagination was suggested and someone else came along, and in any way whatsoever, disagreed with using imagination when placing a cache?

 

It seems like a pretty cowardly thing to do, insulting a group of us like that without being able to back up your claim.

 

[crickets]

[+Totem Clan]

My longest log of all was on a DNF. It was on a cache in Alaska where I ended up with the fingers on one hand on the verge of frostbite and a huge bruise on my hip, just because I didn't approach the hunt with the normal caution I would give to an early spring hunts because it was in a park in town. It was a large park, granted, but still it was in town. What could go wrong? It made for a nice long log. The cache itself was a rather uninspired candy tin under a tree root. It was not a bad cache at all mind you. However based solely on length of the log, it should have been the best cache I ever found.

The longest "Found It" log for me was on a ammo can in the woods just off a hiking trail near here. The cache again was not a "WOW" cache. It was nice. In fact it is enjoyable. At least now. The reason the log was so long for this one was because the parking coords and the directions for approaching the cache were all fouled up. In fact the rangers in the park where it is were not happy about the fact that it told cacher to cross the creek at a dangerous crossing that was not even part of the trail system for the park. After finding the correct crossing, I went up the wrong hill and added to the adventure. After we finally found the cache and got back to the car, we realized we had forgot to drop off a TB like we had planned. This made for an interesting hunt and a long log but the cache is not the best I've ever done. In fact I've now adopted the cache and correct the problems with the listing and updated the coords and so on. It is, as I strive to do with all my caches, a very nice cache. However, even though it has my longest log, I would never think it was my favorite cache. In fact it's not even my favorite hide.

 

Wow! That's a long post. All that just to say that while log length can often help judge a cache, it is by no means an accurate way to judge a cache. Any system based on log length will not work for every cache because there too many variables.

[+sbell111]

I think the longest post I ever made was on a DNF where I had to practically combat a 'mad' dog.

 

The cache was a match holder in a tree in a neighborhood park (think swings, not hiking trails).

[+Flatouts]

Wow a lot of opinions here on this issue/thread...

 

I create lame caches in a lame urban area that only allows and likes lame caches is that so bad, I'm just trying to blend in...

 

Proof: Look at my caches and see the comments on the ones that aren't multi or puzzles (folks around these here parts don't do those sorts)... Okay you can look at the few comments on those too...

 

A hide is a hide - somebody thought it would be good or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. Most are probably done by folks that learn by example - so therefore you probably are only seeing a reflection of the area.

 

Me I'm a rebel of sorts - I found out through reading these here threads that people seem to hate micros but if you look at their stats (not all just the leading complainers) that the bulk of their numbers come from "micros" - hum.

 

I've seen at least one poll where micro's in the woods won out against ammocans? Hum

 

I've seen a bunch of threads on creative (you guest it) Micros with all sorts of praise from the very folks on this thread.

 

If you take all that into consideration there is apt to be a wide range of micros created.

 

People who like em will make more and people who prefer ammocans will make more hides like that.

 

What makes this game/sport (again difference of opinion) fun is the wide range and verity. To me it's all good.

 

It's also quite addicting...

 

I think everyone is right in their own way and truly appreciate their opinions that they express.

 

I am also really glad that GS doesn't limit the creativity any more than it already has to.

 

It takes a lot on the behalf of others who volunteer their time to make this work and I really really appreciate their efforts too.

 

The truth is it's up to you to do the ones you prefer and not do the ones you don't...

(This reminds me of folks complaining about TV programs - they could just change the channel and it would be a lot easier than having what they don't like removed from the network - JMHO)

 

I still feel bad for puzzles and multi stages - they seem to be the most disliked - yet usually are more challenging and fun... weird huh.

 

Anyway what do I know I'm just another newbie...

 

Hey if something bugs you on here then you probably should be out caching anyway...

 

Thank you ALL for helping us newbies grow and learn by your experience and example!

 

Vince (of the Flatouts)

Cache On!

Edited April 15, 2008 by Flatouts

[GPS-Hermit]

But the thread is about SO MANY that were not well hidden and put in a NOTHING location

Tread carefully, Hermit. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest sprinkle of imagination be put into a cache hide are typically thrashed by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame. It ain't pretty.

 

I heard that - when I started this game - it took me to wonderful places and the cache were hidden and I usually spent 15 to twenty minutes finding them and was impressed with all of them. Each one was different but each one had a location worth going to and even the drive to them was interesting. I had to be careful with my approach and figure my route or maybe even try several times to get started right. Now there are so many that I can't even imagine why they would bother - it is as if they just don't care about the game. It is a hunting game but they don't hide it, location is not important, If you have seen one you seen them all. I spend over an hour now weeding thru caches that don't fit the game. I am not talking about mini's in general or LPC's they are easy to weed out. I am bothered by taking an ammo box putting it on the ground in plain veiw under a pine tree that can be seen 75 feet away and calling it a hide. Having only one possible place it could be. If the hide is lame and the location is Nothing, I wish I had not gone at all. I started this thread to see if the community is bothered by the lame caches and has suggestions on how to make it better. I am getting - just because you don't like doesn't mean I don't. I would like to hear from those who haven't yet responded if you see this as a growthing problem for the sport. Do you want or not want a good hide and location. Helping first hiders all we can to achieve this goal is only important if that is what the community wants or is this game so different now lots of people want to go to the cache but not hunt for it. I don't agree that 1/1 means it will be SO easy it is no fun at all. I do not accept that a cache can't be TOO easy. It is the TOO easy and no location I am referring too . Since it hard to tell from the logs unless they go out of there way to say this one is great, I brought it up here because enjoyment in the game is decreasing for me and I think it is a shame. Answer the question - yes or no - I like it this way or I'd like to see better placed caches as a rule.

[+TrailGators]

If the newest Grisham novel get's great reviews, I still won't buy it because I've learned that, even though I often enjoy legal mysteries, I hate Grisham's work.

You're wrong! I like Grisham novels, so therefore you must not be reading properly!

 

(For those that may think I've gone off topic, I haven't. I've only illustrated a point about how some people sound when discussing what caches are good or not.)

If you use the ratings properly you should be able to tell me Grisham book (cache) that people enjoyed the most. This is what is helpful!

If you use the tools that you already have properly, you should be able to avoid the bulk of the caches that you don't enjoy.

Why don't you elaborate on easy ways to segregate 1/1s that I would and would not enjoy. You've shot down everything I've mentioned already.

 

Hardly anyone here seems to understand how averages work except CR and a couple of others. Longer logs is only an "indicator." Many people write longer logs on caches that they really enjoyed. They don't write TFTC or TLLN. Look at the logs on the SD Consensus Favorites and see how many short logs therre are compared to longer logs. Do the same thing for a run-of-mill urban micro. You'll notice a difference. This is what I'm talking about.

Edited April 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

It would be kinda neat to have some sort of rating system of caches in place. ...

I like the idea but many don't. The only rating system we have is average log length (assumming someone didn't get attacked by a dog - which happens all the time ) or which caches make must-do lists.

That is not correct.

 

The terrain/difficulty ratings are 'ratings systems'. The logs themselves (regardless of length), are also ratings.

Sbell, you know darn well what I meant. I'm talking within those categories which caches were enjoyed the most.

You stated, quite simply, that the only current ratings system is 'average log length'. Many people wouldn't call this a rating, at all. Other criterion that we have, could be called a ratings system.

That is the only one that I've been able to find besides the must-do lists. It is a GSAK macro that orders caches by average log length. Ordering in my mind is a form of rating. Also a high average log length is a strong "indicator" that a cache was highly enjoyed.

GSAK will likely allow you to order your caches by cache name. This, however, also isn't a form of rating.

• Ordered by Name: not an indicator of how well someone enjoyed a cache.
  
• Ordered by Difficulty: not an indicator of how well someone enjoyed a cache.
  
• Ordered by Terrain: Not an indicator of how well someone enjoyed a cache.
  
• Ordered by Average Log Length: a strong indicator of how well finders enjoyed the cache--on average.
  

I'm not sure if there has ever been a time when someone brings up the idea of a star-based ratings scheme that someone hasn't said something to the effect of "just look at the logs." Well, now, all of a sudden the logs aren't a good indicator of how well the cache was enjoyed?

 

Just to head off a tangent, sure, "TFTC" is thanking the owner for the hide and so is "Thanks for the cache!" The person who put in more effort to write their log tends to indicate how well the cache was enjoyed. The more they enjoy it, the more they have to say. It could be an enjoyed cache is one that is memorable.

 

Second, the reason the log size is averaged is because of extraordinary events that may happen on individual hunts or cachers who are more or less verbose than others.

 

The beauty of a log-based ratings scheme is the data is already there and folks don't have to do anything they're not already doing.

 

The drawback is if the scheme goes mainstream then folks will try to game the system.

I'm glad you noticed that CR. These guys want it both ways. First they tell us that there are ways to segregate out caches we will and won't like and then they tell us that those ways won't would. They can't have it both ways.

 

At least you understand some of the indicators that show a higher likelihood that people enjoyed a particular cache more than another given the same basic cache category (type, size, terrain and difficulty). They don't want to admit that large percentages of people enjoy certain caches more than others.

 

Anyhow, I think many of us prefer to find caches that had a consensus higher enjoyment level than a Wal-Mart LPC type.

Edited April 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

I'm glad you noticed that CR. These guys want it both ways.

I know I'm not in any group that you think wants it both ways.

 

If you've come up with a way that will help you find caches you like, and it works, and you're happier, I say go for it! Use it every time you go caching!!!! Hooray! Hopefully this will reduce the number of comments you leave in posts that bash one type of hide or another. If you can avoid the ones you don't like, I'm happy for you.

 

First they tell us that there are ways to segregate out caches we will and won't like and then they tell us that those ways won't would.

What?

[GPS-Hermit]

If the newest Grisham novel get's great reviews, I still won't buy it because I've learned that, even though I often enjoy legal mysteries, I hate Grisham's work.

You're wrong! I like Grisham novels, so therefore you must not be reading properly!

 

(For those that may think I've gone off topic, I haven't. I've only illustrated a point about how some people sound when discussing what caches are good or not.)

If you use the ratings properly you should be able to tell me Grisham book (cache) that people enjoyed the most. This is what is helpful!

If you use the tools that you already have properly, you should be able to avoid the bulk of the caches that you don't enjoy.

Why don't you elaborate on easy ways to segregate 1/1s that I would and would not enjoy. You've shot down everything I've mentioned already.

 

Hardly anyone here seems to understand how averages work except CR and a couple of others. Longer logs is only an "indicator." Many people write longer logs on caches that they really enjoyed. They don't write TFTC or TLLN. Look at the logs on the SD Consensus Favorites and see how many short logs therre are compared to longer logs. Do the same thing for a run-of-mill urban micro. You'll notice a difference. This is what I'm talking about.

 

I have found of those things we have availble to us - long logs are going to be a much better indicator than anything else - as a minimum that person chose to have something to say about this cache. Reading the long logs will produce exceptions of course - but in general if there are lots of long logs it is a long way from Lame.

Edited April 15, 2008 by GPS-Hermit

[+tozainamboku]

I heard that - when I started this game - it took me to wonderful places and the cache were hidden and I usually spent 15 to twenty minutes finding them and was impressed with all of them. Each one was different but each one had a location worth going to and even the drive to them was interesting. I had to be careful with my approach and figure my route or maybe even try several times to get started right. Now there are so many that I can't even imagine why they would bother - it is as if they just don't care about the game. It is a hunting game but they don't hide it, location is not important, If you have seen one you seen them all. I spend over an hour now weeding thru caches that don't fit the game. I am not talking about mini's in general or LPC's they are easy to weed out. I am bothered by taking an ammo box putting it on the ground in plain veiw under a pine tree that can be seen 75 feet away and calling it a hide. Having only one possible place it could be. If the hide is lame and the location is Nothing, I wish I had not gone at all. I started this thread to see if the community is bothered by the lame caches and has suggestions on how to make it better. I am getting - just because you don't like doesn't mean I don't. I would like to hear from those who haven't yet responded if you see this as a growthing problem for the sport. Do you want or not want a good hide and location. Helping first hiders all we can to achieve this goal is only important if that is what the community wants or is this game so different now lots of people want to go to the cache but not hunt for it. I don't agree that 1/1 means it will be SO easy it is no fun at all. I do not accept that a cache can't be TOO easy. It is the TOO easy and no location I am referring too . Since it hard to tell from the logs unless they go out of there way to say this one is great, I brought it up here because enjoyment in the game is decreasing for me and I think it is a shame. Answer the question - yes or no - I like it this way or I'd like to see better placed caches as a rule.

The game has change since 02. The early adopters of geocaching were people who already owned a GPS. Generally they were more outdoors types - hunters, fishermen, hikers, mountain bikers. Caches tended to be hidden away from urban areas. Even when they were hidden in urban areas they were hidden in interesting places. Again, just the type of people who were early adopters. They were more interested in going to new places and making discoveries about what was already there. Hiding a cache was just a way to share their discoveries with others.

 

As geocaching got some press coverage a new type of person became interested. The game was a high tech treasure hunt and caches could be hidden anyplace - even in the Wal*Mart parking lot. The act of finding a cache became more important than the cache being in a neat location. Many of the new cachers prefered quick park and grabs around town to long hikes. Some were older people, other were families with small children. Geocaching has grown by being accessible to more people. All the while, there are many new cachers who come from the same demographic as the early adopters. It's simply a matter of a different proportion of each type with it now favoring the newer urban style cache. I would also point out that many urban style cachers get introduced to hiking and outdoors through caching and while they continue to enjoy urban hides they end up doing hikes as well.

 

So the question is for those in the old school - are there ways to filter caches to filter out the hides that are typical of the new urban cacher? Are there ways to find the caches that get met out to the wilderness or take me to a new place I wouldn't have been to otherwise? Various methods have been suggested. None are perfect. For now the best advice is to try to find the methods that work best for you. Perhaps if we begin by accepting that some people have a fundamentally different view of geocaching, we can come up with some method where both sides can enjoy the kinds of caches they like.

[+TrailGators]

I heard that - when I started this game - it took me to wonderful places and the cache were hidden and I usually spent 15 to twenty minutes finding them and was impressed with all of them. Each one was different but each one had a location worth going to and even the drive to them was interesting. I had to be careful with my approach and figure my route or maybe even try several times to get started right. Now there are so many that I can't even imagine why they would bother - it is as if they just don't care about the game. It is a hunting game but they don't hide it, location is not important, If you have seen one you seen them all. I spend over an hour now weeding thru caches that don't fit the game. I am not talking about mini's in general or LPC's they are easy to weed out. I am bothered by taking an ammo box putting it on the ground in plain veiw under a pine tree that can be seen 75 feet away and calling it a hide. Having only one possible place it could be. If the hide is lame and the location is Nothing, I wish I had not gone at all. I started this thread to see if the community is bothered by the lame caches and has suggestions on how to make it better. I am getting - just because you don't like doesn't mean I don't. I would like to hear from those who haven't yet responded if you see this as a growthing problem for the sport. Do you want or not want a good hide and location. Helping first hiders all we can to achieve this goal is only important if that is what the community wants or is this game so different now lots of people want to go to the cache but not hunt for it. I don't agree that 1/1 means it will be SO easy it is no fun at all. I do not accept that a cache can't be TOO easy. It is the TOO easy and no location I am referring too . Since it hard to tell from the logs unless they go out of there way to say this one is great, I brought it up here because enjoyment in the game is decreasing for me and I think it is a shame. Answer the question - yes or no - I like it this way or I'd like to see better placed caches as a rule.

The game has change since 02. The early adopters of geocaching were people who already owned a GPS. Generally they were more outdoors types - hunters, fishermen, hikers, mountain bikers. Caches tended to be hidden away from urban areas. Even when they were hidden in urban areas they were hidden in interesting places. Again, just the type of people who were early adopters. They were more interested in going to new places and making discoveries about what was already there. Hiding a cache was just a way to share their discoveries with others.

 

As geocaching got some press coverage a new type of person became interested. The game was a high tech treasure hunt and caches could be hidden anyplace - even in the Wal*Mart parking lot. The act of finding a cache became more important than the cache being in a neat location. Many of the new cachers prefered quick park and grabs around town to long hikes. Some were older people, other were families with small children. Geocaching has grown by being accessible to more people. All the while, there are many new cachers who come from the same demographic as the early adopters. It's simply a matter of a different proportion of each type with it now favoring the newer urban style cache. I would also point out that many urban style cachers get introduced to hiking and outdoors through caching and while they continue to enjoy urban hides they end up doing hikes as well.

 

So the question is for those in the old school - are there ways to filter caches to filter out the hides that are typical of the new urban cacher? Are there ways to find the caches that get met out to the wilderness or take me to a new place I wouldn't have been to otherwise? Various methods have been suggested. None are perfect. For now the best advice is to try to find the methods that work best for you. Perhaps if we begin by accepting that some people have a fundamentally different view of geocaching, we can come up with some method where both sides can enjoy the kinds of caches they like.

 

Toz, it will be nice when we will be able to have the urban cachers show us what they've got! The upcoming awards idea should help immensely! Edited April 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

Hardly anyone here seems to understand how averages work except CR and a couple of others. Longer logs is only an "indicator."

I was actually going to respond to CR that average is the wrong statistic here. There are so many other variables in the length of a log than how much a person enjoyed the cache. A log with 100 words doesn't mean that a cache is 10 times more enjoyable than cache with 10 words. It makes no sense at all to use average length to tell how likely you are to enjoy a cache. If you are right that enjoyability is the major factor in determining log length - which I'm not convinced is the case - you might argue for using the median log length. Essential set your threshold - let say 20 words or more. Look for any cache where more than 50% of the logs are 20 words or more. With averages you could have a cache with 20 TFTC logs and one log with 400 words. Would this be a cache you'd enjoyed? (The 400 word log was by sbell111 ) The average would be 20. The median would be 1.

[+sbell111]

But the thread is about SO MANY that were not well hidden and put in a NOTHING location

Tread carefully, Hermit. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest sprinkle of imagination be put into a cache hide are typically thrashed by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame. It ain't pretty.

 

I heard that - when I started this game - it took me to wonderful places and the cache were hidden and I usually spent 15 to twenty minutes finding them and was impressed with all of them. Each one was different but each one had a location worth going to and even the drive to them was interesting. I had to be careful with my approach and figure my route or maybe even try several times to get started right. Now there are so many that I can't even imagine why they would bother - it is as if they just don't care about the game. It is a hunting game but they don't hide it, location is not important, If you have seen one you seen them all. I spend over an hour now weeding thru caches that don't fit the game. I am not talking about mini's in general or LPC's they are easy to weed out. I am bothered by taking an ammo box putting it on the ground in plain veiw under a pine tree that can be seen 75 feet away and calling it a hide. Having only one possible place it could be. If the hide is lame and the location is Nothing, I wish I had not gone at all. I started this thread to see if the community is bothered by the lame caches and has suggestions on how to make it better. I am getting - just because you don't like doesn't mean I don't. I would like to hear from those who haven't yet responded if you see this as a growthing problem for the sport. Do you want or not want a good hide and location. Helping first hiders all we can to achieve this goal is only important if that is what the community wants or is this game so different now lots of people want to go to the cache but not hunt for it. I don't agree that 1/1 means it will be SO easy it is no fun at all. I do not accept that a cache can't be TOO easy. It is the TOO easy and no location I am referring too . Since it hard to tell from the logs unless they go out of there way to say this one is great, I brought it up here because enjoyment in the game is decreasing for me and I think it is a shame. Answer the question - yes or no - I like it this way or I'd like to see better placed caches as a rule.

What you complain about has been complained about since before you became a member.

 

The game isn't changing as much as our memories are. There are more caches to choose from. That's all.

[+sbell111]

Hardly anyone here seems to understand how averages work except CR and a couple of others. Longer logs is only an "indicator."

I was actually going to respond to CR that average is the wrong statistic here. There are so many other variables in the length of a log than how much a person enjoyed the cache. A log with 100 words doesn't mean that a cache is 10 times more enjoyable than cache with 10 words. It makes no sense at all to use average length to tell how likely you are to enjoy a cache. If you are right that enjoyability is the major factor in determining log length - which I'm not convinced is the case - you might argue for using the median log length. Essential set your threshold - let say 20 words or more. Look for any cache where more than 50% of the logs are 20 words or more. With averages you could have a cache with 20 TFTC logs and one log with 400 words. Would this be a cache you'd enjoyed? (The 400 word log was by sbell111 ) The average would be 20. The median would be 1.

Even if it was a good indicator of level of enjoyment, you would still have no clue whether those cachers like the same thing that you do.

[+KBI]

I'm just asking some questions in a discussion forum.

 

Let's try one more time with one of the questions I asked:

Should I use the number of logs on a cache to tell me which ones that I will have a high likelihood of enjoying?

Frustrating, ain't it?

[+TrailGators]

Hardly anyone here seems to understand how averages work except CR and a couple of others. Longer logs is only an "indicator."

I was actually going to respond to CR that average is the wrong statistic here. There are so many other variables in the length of a log than how much a person enjoyed the cache. A log with 100 words doesn't mean that a cache is 10 times more enjoyable than cache with 10 words. It makes no sense at all to use average length to tell how likely you are to enjoy a cache. If you are right that enjoyability is the major factor in determining log length - which I'm not convinced is the case - you might argue for using the median log length. Essential set your threshold - let say 20 words or more. Look for any cache where more than 50% of the logs are 20 words or more. With averages you could have a cache with 20 TFTC logs and one log with 400 words. Would this be a cache you'd enjoyed? (The 400 word log was by sbell111 ) The average would be 20. The median would be 1.

Even if it was a good indicator of level of enjoyment, you would still have no clue whether those cachers like the same thing that you do.

If 10 people at an event rave about a cache the chances are that I'm probably going to like it. It's the same thing with logs. So we are looking for indicators that reveal a highly likelihood that we will enjoy a cache. You need to quit using black-and-white thinking and start using probability.

[+TrailGators]

I'm just asking some questions in a discussion forum.

 

Let's try one more time with one of the questions I asked:

Should I use the number of logs on a cache to tell me which ones that I will have a high likelihood of enjoying?

Frustrating, ain't it?

Yes and it wasn't even a loaded question like some of the ones I refuse to answer...

[+sbell111]

Hardly anyone here seems to understand how averages work except CR and a couple of others. Longer logs is only an "indicator."

I was actually going to respond to CR that average is the wrong statistic here. There are so many other variables in the length of a log than how much a person enjoyed the cache. A log with 100 words doesn't mean that a cache is 10 times more enjoyable than cache with 10 words. It makes no sense at all to use average length to tell how likely you are to enjoy a cache. If you are right that enjoyability is the major factor in determining log length - which I'm not convinced is the case - you might argue for using the median log length. Essential set your threshold - let say 20 words or more. Look for any cache where more than 50% of the logs are 20 words or more. With averages you could have a cache with 20 TFTC logs and one log with 400 words. Would this be a cache you'd enjoyed? (The 400 word log was by sbell111 ) The average would be 20. The median would be 1.

Even if it was a good indicator of level of enjoyment, you would still have no clue whether those cachers like the same thing that you do.

If 10 people at an event rave about a cache the chances are that I'm probably going to like it. It's the same thing with logs. So we are looking for indicators that reveal a highly likelihood that we will enjoy a cache. You need to quit using black-and-white thinking and start using probability.

Actually, it seems like you are the one using black and white thinking since you make the leap that you will like the same things as some random cachers. Alternatively, I realize that 'good cache' means different things to different people. Some of them would lead me to caches I love, others would not. Edited April 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+Totem Clan]

Once again, I think the truth lies in the middle ground.

 

There are so many human variables that log length and/or the number of logs will not work as an accurate and reliable way of judging/rating caches on it's own. So those of you saying it won't work are correct.

By the same token, the number of logs and the average/median length of the logs can be used as a general guide to help located caches that might be of interest. So those claiming it will work are correct.

 

What neither side is considering is that this is not a yes or no question. As with so many other issues in caching the human factor makes a black and white decision impossible.

[+sbell111]

Even if it was a good indicator of level of enjoyment, you would still have no clue whether those cachers like the same thing that you do.

If 10 people at an event rave about a cache the chances are that I'm probably going to like it. It's the same thing with logs. So we are looking for indicators that reveal a highly likelihood that we will enjoy a cache. You need to quit using black-and-white thinking and start using probability.

Actually, it seems like you are the one using black and white thinking since you make the leap that you will like the same things as some random cachers. Alternatively, I realize that 'good cache' means different things to different people. Some of them would lead me to caches I love, others would not.

It should also be noted that each of us might not even like the same caches teh same amount from day to day.

[+KBI]

One filter will not work for everyone. Something (like a high number of logs) that indicates someone else is enjoying a cache will not necessarily show that you would. For this reason I would also disagree that a cache with longer logs (I assume that's what you meant to say) would mean everyone will enjoy it either. It might mean that YOU would enjoy it more, and it might mean that I would enjoy it more, but the guy that only ever caches on his lunch hour may have no use for such a thing.

 

Go compare your list above to the one I posted, and you'll see that I've shown that the opposite CAN be true for everything you assumed. To say that X indicates a good cache, and Y indicates a bad cache is ridiculous, unless you add "for me", or "for the people that like X and dislike Y".

 

Would you agree?

The opposite conclusion can occur if you use variables with convulated data like using the number of logs. Easy caches get a lot more logs than difficult caches. Older caches have a lot more logs than newer caches. The point is that there are many reasons why a particular cache may have more logs than just enjoyment. So there is no accurate way to gauge enjoyment by using this metric by itself.

 

Let's take two 1/1s:

1) Cache A: 100 logs. Average log length = 6 words. % of logs more than 30 words = 0%.

2) Cache B: 30 logs. Average log length = 100 words. % of logs more than 30 words = 50%.

 

Now tell me which cache more people enjoyed based on that. Do you see other metrics that may be more useful to gauging enjoyment than the number of logs?

A cacher who cares litle about numbers, who takes his time and savors each cache experience, and who prefers doing fewer finds which require more time and effort is likely to spend more time at writing up each of his very wordy logs.

 

This cacher will have enjoyed the hobby a great deal.

 

Another cacher, one who loves running up his find count, who races from one hide to the next, who doesn't really care how creative, challenging, beautiful or amazing each hide is, and who has dozens - if not hundreds - of finds to log at the end of each caching day is likely to spend very little time writing up each of his very short logs.

 

This cacher will have ALSO enjoyed the hobby a great deal.

 

You are therefore correct, TG: The fact that you might find yourself squarely in one category does not provide any basis to conclude that those in the other category ar enjoying Geocaching any less than you.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

[+TrailGators]

One filter will not work for everyone. Something (like a high number of logs) that indicates someone else is enjoying a cache will not necessarily show that you would. For this reason I would also disagree that a cache with longer logs (I assume that's what you meant to say) would mean everyone will enjoy it either. It might mean that YOU would enjoy it more, and it might mean that I would enjoy it more, but the guy that only ever caches on his lunch hour may have no use for such a thing.

 

Go compare your list above to the one I posted, and you'll see that I've shown that the opposite CAN be true for everything you assumed. To say that X indicates a good cache, and Y indicates a bad cache is ridiculous, unless you add "for me", or "for the people that like X and dislike Y".

 

Would you agree?

The opposite conclusion can occur if you use variables with convulated data like using the number of logs. Easy caches get a lot more logs than difficult caches. Older caches have a lot more logs than newer caches. The point is that there are many reasons why a particular cache may have more logs than just enjoyment. So there is no accurate way to gauge enjoyment by using this metric by itself.

 

Let's take two 1/1s:

1) Cache A: 100 logs. Average log length = 6 words. % of logs more than 30 words = 0%.

2) Cache B: 30 logs. Average log length = 100 words. % of logs more than 30 words = 50%.

 

Now tell me which cache more people enjoyed based on that. Do you see other metrics that may be more useful to gauging enjoyment than the number of logs?

A cacher who cares litle about numbers, who takes his time and savors each cache experience, and who prefers doing fewer finds which require more time and effort is likely to spend more time at writing up each of his very wordy logs.

 

This cacher will have enjoyed the hobby a great deal.

 

Another cacher, one who loves running up his find count, who races from one hide to the next, who doesn't really care how creative, challenging, beautiful or amazing each hide is, and who has dozens - if not hundreds - of finds to log at the end of each caching day is likely to spend very little time writing up each of his very short logs.

 

This cacher will have ALSO enjoyed the hobby a great deal.

 

You are therefore correct, TG: The fact that you might find yourself squarely in one category does not provide any basis to conclude that those in the other category ar enjoying Geocaching any less than you.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

My longest logs tend to be inspired by the situation, not the actual cache. I tend to write more if I am caching with friends, or someone new to the game. I also tend to write more if I encountered a problem or a humorous situation while seeking the cache. Many times the cache itself has little to do with the length of my log.

 

Building on this. Did you enjoy the cache? I mean a "crappy" cache with good friends is fun. A DNF with friends is fun. The cache hunt was fun even if you never found it counds as a fun cache.

 

Overall I agree with TG that the longer the logs on average would be an indicator. How much? Who knows.

 

Fun on a cache will always come down to Yes or No. Nothing more ever. People can complicate the heck out of why they did or didn't have fun, but the simple truth is that "Yes they had fun" or "No they didn't".

[+sbell111]

... You are therefore correct, TG: The fact that you might find yourself squarely in one category does not provide any basis to conclude that those in the other category ar enjoying Geocaching any less than you.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

Ummm, weren't you the person who was looking for ways to prove whether a cache was a success? Edited April 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+KBI]

But the thread is about SO MANY that were not well hidden and put in a NOTHING location

Tread carefully, Hermit. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest sprinkle of imagination be put into a cache hide are typically thrashed by the Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame. It ain't pretty.

... and it ain't true, either.

 

A defense of lameness does not automatically imply an opposition to greatness. Your strawman is a common, if mystifying, misinterpretation of the arguments of us Staunch Defenders.

 

You can prove me wrong by quoting a single post in which someone - anyone - has made a statement in clear oppposition to the placement of creative, inspired, challenging, beautiful or otherwise great cache hides.

[+Renegade Knight]

...That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

 

Maybe reverse it. Longer logs may not indicate more people had fun, but the caches with the least long logs of all. can all vie for least fun overall?

 

People complicat the decision on fun. "Lame LPC's" with a car full of friends all laughing about how lame it is in in fact people having fun. Yes if you were by yourself maybe you would groan. But it's urban maybe families get out more or you drag your caching friends on a lunch expeiditon. Who cares. Fun is fun.

[+TrailGators]

... You are therefore correct, TG: The fact that you might find yourself squarely in one category does not provide any basis to conclude that those in the other category ar enjoying Geocaching any less than you.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

Ummm, weren't you the person who was looking for ways to prove whether a cache was a success?

Have you read anything I've written? Caches that are more successful (wheat) are the ones that get the higher average praise.

[+TrailGators]

...That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

 

Maybe reverse it. Longer logs may not indicate more people had fun, but the caches with the least long logs of all. can all vie for least fun overall?

 

People complicat the decision on fun. "Lame LPC's" with a car full of friends all laughing about how lame it is in in fact people having fun. Yes if you were by yourself maybe you would groan. But it's urban maybe families get out more or you drag your caching friends on a lunch expeiditon. Who cares. Fun is fun.

I agree that the converse is true.

 

I agree that caches can be more fun with a group as long as the group isn't too large. The better caches (raved about) remain more fun even under those conditions.

[+KBI]

The one thing I can't understand -- the more I read the forums -- is that people don't seem to understand or don't want to accept that people play this game differently. Just because I don't play it the same way you do doesn't mean I'm not right or am doing it wrong. People jump to too many conclusions on this board, it seems. It's unfortunate, too, because this is a great hobby. But if too many "newbies" come on here and see discussions like this and think it's the norm, that type of stuff will chase more people away even moreso than too many LPCs.

 

Again, just my two cents, but every person is different. I'm just happy that there is something that gets me off my duff, away from the computer and outside, exercising and out on a hunt. In the end, I'm happy that I've spent several hours outside, even if it's a day of finding 10 micros or nanos.

Tread carefully, Softball. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest, easiest and simplest caches are just as enjoyable (to some) and therefore worthy of existence as any other hide are typically thrashed by the Complainers. It ain't pretty.

[+TrailGators]

The one thing I can't understand -- the more I read the forums -- is that people don't seem to understand or don't want to accept that people play this game differently. Just because I don't play it the same way you do doesn't mean I'm not right or am doing it wrong. People jump to too many conclusions on this board, it seems. It's unfortunate, too, because this is a great hobby. But if too many "newbies" come on here and see discussions like this and think it's the norm, that type of stuff will chase more people away even moreso than too many LPCs.

 

Again, just my two cents, but every person is different. I'm just happy that there is something that gets me off my duff, away from the computer and outside, exercising and out on a hunt. In the end, I'm happy that I've spent several hours outside, even if it's a day of finding 10 micros or nanos.

Tread carefully, Softball. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest, easiest and simplest caches are just as enjoyable (to some) and therefore worthy of existence as any other hide are typically thrashed by the Complainers. It ain't pretty.

Nobody ever said anything about getting rid of any caches.

 

Care to provide a quote?

 

<sound of crickets>

[+KBI]

One filter will not work for everyone. Something (like a high number of logs) that indicates someone else is enjoying a cache will not necessarily show that you would. For this reason I would also disagree that a cache with longer logs (I assume that's what you meant to say) would mean everyone will enjoy it either. It might mean that YOU would enjoy it more, and it might mean that I would enjoy it more, but the guy that only ever caches on his lunch hour may have no use for such a thing.

 

Go compare your list above to the one I posted, and you'll see that I've shown that the opposite CAN be true for everything you assumed. To say that X indicates a good cache, and Y indicates a bad cache is ridiculous, unless you add "for me", or "for the people that like X and dislike Y".

 

Would you agree?

The opposite conclusion can occur if you use variables with convulated data like using the number of logs. Easy caches get a lot more logs than difficult caches. Older caches have a lot more logs than newer caches. The point is that there are many reasons why a particular cache may have more logs than just enjoyment. So there is no accurate way to gauge enjoyment by using this metric by itself.

 

Let's take two 1/1s:

1) Cache A: 100 logs. Average log length = 6 words. % of logs more than 30 words = 0%.

2) Cache B: 30 logs. Average log length = 100 words. % of logs more than 30 words = 50%.

 

Now tell me which cache more people enjoyed based on that. Do you see other metrics that may be more useful to gauging enjoyment than the number of logs?

A cacher who cares litle about numbers, who takes his time and savors each cache experience, and who prefers doing fewer finds which require more time and effort is likely to spend more time at writing up each of his very wordy logs.

 

This cacher will have enjoyed the hobby a great deal.

 

Another cacher, one who loves running up his find count, who races from one hide to the next, who doesn't really care how creative, challenging, beautiful or amazing each hide is, and who has dozens - if not hundreds - of finds to log at the end of each caching day is likely to spend very little time writing up each of his very short logs.

 

This cacher will have ALSO enjoyed the hobby a great deal.

 

You are therefore correct, TG: The fact that you might find yourself squarely in one category does not provide any basis to conclude that those in the other category ar enjoying Geocaching any less than you.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

TG dodges yet another plain, reasonable, and very NON-"loaded" question.

 

I give up.

 

You clearly want only to gripe, while obviously having no interest in defending your complaints about the way other people exercise their personal prefrences.