Plus a point for favorites; minus a point for lame?

[+Rathergohiking]

Now that we have “favorites” where we can flag a cache as a favorite for every ten finds, how about having the flip side - negative points for least favorites (aka “LAME CACHES”). Each lame cache would score a minus 1, the flip side of favorites which currently score a plus 1. Unlike favorites, I would recommend not showing who voted a lame point for the cache online.

 

That system would help readily identify the proliferation of lame caches out there even better, in my opinion. This might even convince the hiders of lame caches to archive them at a faster rate than normal. With the exponential increase of new hides, creating more competition to make good hides would be good for the game, in my opinion. Just a thought and would like to open up a thread on this subject. Kind of like a turnover ratio in football – winners generally have a plus number and losers generally have a negative number.

[+mpilchfamily]

I can see the point to favorites. Encouraging people to find new and innovative ways to create a cache. But creating a system that will discourage people from creating a cache or basically shame them into archiving a cache is counter productive here. Is that the sort of message we want to send to new caches? I can see this targeting certain kinds of caches just because some people feel that a LPC, for example, is lame since there are so many of them.

[+Ecylram]

Repeat my response in the other thread...

 

My vote would be 'no' on this idea. If it ever were to implemented I'd want the names shown. There's useful information if a cache gets a negative vote from "rathergohiking" or if it is from "wheelchairphil".

[+Ecylram]

I can see the point to favorites. Encouraging people to find new and innovative ways to create a cache. But creating a system that will discourage people from creating a cache or basically shame them into archiving a cache is counter productive here. Is that the sort of message we want to send to new caches? I can see this targeting certain kinds of caches just because some people feel that a LPC, for example, is lame since there are so many of them.

 

I'd favorite this post if that was possible. Well said.

[+Mom-n-Andy]

If I were a relatively new geocache hider, and someone rated my cache "lame", I'd probably pull the cache and not hide any more. There's no need to be mean to anyone. The accepted way to deal with a lame cache is just to log "TFTC."

[GOF and Bacall]

No reason to be nasty.

[+Harry Dolphin]

No reason to be nasty.

 

+1 No reason to be nasty.

[+narcissa]

I don't see any benefits to a system that penalizes cache owners because their cache wasn't to your personal taste.

[+SwineFlew]

Some people need to grow thick skin. <_<

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

I vote that this idea is lame.

[+hydnsek]

I can see the point to favorites. Encouraging people to find new and innovative ways to create a cache. But creating a system that will discourage people from creating a cache or basically shame them into archiving a cache is counter productive here. Is that the sort of message we want to send to new caches? I can see this targeting certain kinds of caches just because some people feel that a LPC, for example, is lame since there are so many of them.

 

I'd favorite this post if that was possible. Well said.

+1

[+t4e]

this idea gets a NO vote from me too

 

having 0 votes as Favorite tells enough about the hide, is pretty much the same as seeing negative points

 

besides, there's enough people out there that would place a negative vote on a cache just in spite, or for some grudge they have with the CO, or even worse to reduce the Favorite points on another cache

 

most establishments concentrate on positives, and GC is no exception

[+Rathergohiking]

Sounds like you guys are for "don't kiss, don't tell" with regards to lame caches. In my opinion, they are causing an exponential increase in the number of hides and are destroying geoaching. I've met several newbies that have gotten turned off quickly after finding a LPC or a nano on an electric box - not a challenge. I would be very open to having your caching name on the cache page just like favorites if that was what it took to get the "negative option". I believe the lame cache option should be viewed as educational, not mean spirited. I think a lot of hiders don't realize they are hiding lame caches. Lame caches come in many shapes and sizes - bad containers, unsafe area, etc. Once hiders catch on to what lame caches are, cache quality would improve. If this option causes less hides, that would probably be a good thing because quality would improve with competition. Looks like my opinion is in the minority here, so be it. That said, I do like the new favorites option. I just wish there was a better to reduce lame caches and improve overall cache quality. Favorites is a good first step.

Edited January 19, 2011 by rathergohiking

[+baloo&bd]

Please define lame.

 

If I hike a mile to a cache and it is a ammo box under a pile of sticks or a log, to me that's lame. If I find a cache hidden in a pine tree anywhere, I find that lame. A micro in the woods that takes some effort I love. A micro blinky hidden downtown in a high traffic area I find a challenge. I find power trails placed at 528 ft apart is lame, those placed a mile apart can be kinda fun.

 

Define lame. This is why the idea is not well thought out.

[+mpilchfamily]

All these things you attribute to a lame cache can be corrected through cache logs. If the container is crap log an NM. You can always state your concerns in the log and as a cache note or NA note to inform the CO and reviewers of a problem.

 

Last week a new cache was posted near me. I wasn't able t make FTF but was STF. Both the FTF and i noted problems with the cache in our log. On top of that i posted a NA so that the reviewer would be aware of the problems and the cache was archived soon after. The cache in question had 2 major issues. The lesser of the 2 was the use of an Altoids tin as a container. The main problem was it was placed in a tree on the edge of someone's property. Sitting a mere 40ft from the property owners house. Worst yet the only way to get into the middle of the pine it was in was to cross into the persons yard. You had to step into a brick lined flower bed to reach it. If these things are not brought to the reviewers attention then nothing will be done. You could also take proactive steps by contacting a CO and politely recommending they try a better container. By not doing your part to inform the CO and reviewer of problems you are contributing to the bad quality of the caches.

 

As for lamp posts, guard rails, sign post, ect. you can pick those out pretty quickly in the logs and on the map with sat view. If you don't like those kinds of caches then don't visit them. But there are allot of people who enjoy a quick C&D and don't find them lame. Caching offers a wide range of cache types to help cover the wide range of interests in the game.

 

IMHO the only caches that are destroying the game are those that break the rules and bring bad press to the game. Anyone getting discouraged by the large number of C&Ds needs to widen there search parameters and be shown different types of caches. But caching isn't for everyone. We find it a fun hobby but not everyone sees it the way we do. many of us don't see the so called "lame caches" as lame.

 

May have said to much here. oh well.

[+Rathergohiking]

I guess the definition "lame" is in the eye of the beholder. Just like "favorites" is. For example, I view just about any cache in a film canister as lame. Caches that are not watertight are lame. Caches in high muggle areas are lame. In my opinion, an ammo can under a pine tree a mile into the woods is great. We all have different perspectives. That's why a "favorite" cache may be a "lame" cache for someone else. I've seen some caches that have 5 "favorites" that I consider lame. On the flip side, there are lot of caches with no "favorites" that I consider great.

 

It looks like there is no balance here.

[knowschad]

Some people need to grow thick skin. <_<

I vote this answer is lame.

[knowschad]

Long before the favorites concept was put in place, there were a great many discussions about various methods. There have also been various methods put in place, eg: GCVote and certain other listing services. None of them are perfect, but I personally think that what Groundspeak ended up putting in place is pretty good.

 

Negative votes have a few problems, not the least is the probability of it being used as a weapon against an individual. Its kind of hard to attack another cacher by not voting for his caches, quite another to cast negative votes on his caches.

 

And then there is the issue of how you deal with plusses and minuses... do they cancel each other out? So, say a cache gets a whopping 10 positive votes... that means that 10 people thought it was above ordinary. But what if it also gets 10 negative votes? Ten people thought it was really "lame". So, it now sits there with a value of zero. What does that tell you about the cache?

 

I also don't believe that negative votes would stop the lame hides any more than a negative community attitude towards them has helped. Most of those cachers know who they are. They just don't care. And they won't care about your negative votes, either.

[+Chrysalides]

And then there is the issue of how you deal with plusses and minuses... do they cancel each other out? So, say a cache gets a whopping 10 positive votes... that means that 10 people thought it was above ordinary. But what if it also gets 10 negative votes? Ten people thought it was really "lame". So, it now sits there with a value of zero. What does that tell you about the cache?

First off, let me say I agree with you, that having a "lame" vote is not a good idea.

 

But as for how negative votes are counted, I like the Amazon way of doing it. Instead of canceling out a positive vote, you can show "10 out of 20 people like this cache".

Edited January 19, 2011 by Chrysalides

[+Sol seaker]

I don't see any benefits to a system that penalizes cache owners because their cache wasn't to your personal taste.

 

+1

[+narcissa]

In my opinion, they are causing an exponential increase in the number of hides and are destroying geoaching.

 

I thought smart phones and souvenirs were destroying geocaching. I'm so confused!

[AZcachemeister]

I've been on about this before, but here goes again.

 

I have found hundreds/thousands of caches that are perfectly decent (no need to call them lame) that I wouldn't necessarily consider for my favorites list.

 

I have also found hundreds/thousands of caches that I (nor any other sane person) would ever consider to be worth favoriting.

 

So, the average caches and the truly lame caches get no favorite points and are lumped together?

 

How fair is that?

[AZcachemeister]

I don't see any benefits to a system that penalizes cache owners because their cache wasn't to your personal taste.

 

And where is the benifit to a system that praises cache owners just because their cache IS to YOUR personal taste (that I may or may not agree with)?

 

The door swings both ways.

[+mpilchfamily]

I've been on about this before, but here goes again.

 

I have found hundreds/thousands of caches that are perfectly decent (no need to call them lame) that I wouldn't necessarily consider for my favorites list.

 

I have also found hundreds/thousands of caches that I (nor any other sane person) would ever consider to be worth favoriting.

 

So, the average caches and the truly lame caches get no favorite points and are lumped together?

 

How fair is that?

An absent of favorite marks in not a negative mark on the cache. What defines these caches are the comments left by those who have found the cache. I for one like to read through the recent logs to get an idea of what to expect from the cache. Often i'll go out to a cache with a string of DNFs or bad comments to confirm there claims. Often there will be a string of DNFs and complaints yet no one has logged an NM of NA on the cache. I have no problem logging a NM or NA cause it helps to get rid of these bad caches.

[+narcissa]

I don't see any benefits to a system that penalizes cache owners because their cache wasn't to your personal taste.

 

And where is the benifit to a system that praises cache owners just because their cache IS to YOUR personal taste (that I may or may not agree with)?

 

The door swings both ways.

 

Well, it's already given you fodder for a couple of ALR "challenge" cache ideas, hasn't it?

[+Castle Mischief]

Sounds like a formula for drama. No thanks.

[+t4e]

I've met several newbies that have gotten turned off quickly after finding a LPC or a nano on an electric box - not a challenge.

 

baloney, anyone seriously interested in a hobby will not quit on first impression, those you speak of where never meant to be cachers

[+narcissa]

Sounds like a formula for drama. No thanks.

 

I propose the following log entry to accompany "LAME" points:

 

Dear hapless cache owner,

I chose to search for your cache despite the cache description, general map location, and recent logs that probably should have told me I wouldn't like it. Now I'm going to rank your cache "LAME, THUMBS DOWN" when I probably should have just not put it into my GPS in the first place.

Sincerely,

Angry Cacher

[+tozainamboku]

And then there is the issue of how you deal with plusses and minuses... do they cancel each other out? So, say a cache gets a whopping 10 positive votes... that means that 10 people thought it was above ordinary. But what if it also gets 10 negative votes? Ten people thought it was really "lame". So, it now sits there with a value of zero. What does that tell you about the cache?

First off, let me say I agree with you, that having a "lame" vote is not a good idea.

 

But as for how negative votes are counted, I like the Amazon way of doing it. Instead of canceling out a positive vote, you can show "10 out of 20 people like this cache".

The problem is they already plan to do something like this with showing the ratio of favorites to finders (or perhap to premium member finders). Since the absence of a vote only means a cache is not in someone's top 10% the ratio doesn't tell you much. Did the people who didn't vote think the cache was lame - or did they like the cache but it just didn't make their top 10%. Not that I think this matters much (more below).

 

I've been on about this before, but here goes again.

 

I have found hundreds/thousands of caches that are perfectly decent (no need to call them lame) that I wouldn't necessarily consider for my favorites list.

 

I have also found hundreds/thousands of caches that I (nor any other sane person) would ever consider to be worth favoriting.

 

So, the average caches and the truly lame caches get no favorite points and are lumped together?

 

How fair is that?

This depends on what you want to use the favorites for. It makes most sense to me to use it to find caches that are highly recommended by other cachers. Particularly when traveling and you only have time to find a few caches, you might want to select some of the "not to miss" caches in that area. What better way then to see what caches get recommended most often. If you have some particular type of caches you particularly like, you can filter on other attributes as well. The favorite count is just one more item to look at. In addition some people might avoid certain caches because the find most are lame. But they don't like it when it has been suggested that by avoiding all 1/1 micros they can avoid these caches. We usually get the argument that every once and awhile one of these caches stand out. It may take you to a cool location or the hider may have done a amazing camouflage job. The favorites give you the opportunity to look at caches you would otherwise filter out to find ones that got a lot of recommendations. These exceptional cache that you thought you were going to miss are likely to be on a number of favorites lists.

 

Some people seem to want every cache to be ranked from best to worse. They can either start with the best and work they way down till geocaching is no longer fun. Or the can calibrate what "score" in there area is the cut-off point at which caches are no longer fun and just avoid any caches that don't make this cut off. Its clear that favorites don't work for this. People like the OP, have already stated there are caches with 5 favorites that he thinks are lame and others with 0 favorites he finds to be "great" (But I assume not in his top 10$ since he didn't for for them). I'm not sure how he could expect any ranking system to sort the caches in his preferred order. It should be clear that there is a great deal of individual preference in caching. It is hard to convince people however that there isn't some minimum cache quality below which every one agrees the cache is lame.

[+WRASTRO]

Now that we have "favorites" where we can flag a cache as a favorite for every ten finds, how about having the flip side - negative points for least favorites (aka "LAME CACHES"). Each lame cache would score a minus 1, the flip side of favorites which currently score a plus 1. Unlike favorites, I would recommend not showing who voted a lame point for the cache online.

 

That system would help readily identify the proliferation of lame caches out there even better, in my opinion. This might even convince the hiders of lame caches to archive them at a faster rate than normal. With the exponential increase of new hides, creating more competition to make good hides would be good for the game, in my opinion. Just a thought and would like to open up a thread on this subject. Kind of like a turnover ratio in football – winners generally have a plus number and losers generally have a negative number.

 

-1

 

I am undecided about the favorites concept but have a clear and well formed opinion regarding the possibility of a "lame cache" vote. Why focus on the negative aspects of the game? The logs on poor caches should be all we need. The favorites at least tell the caching world that someone liked the cache.

[AZcachemeister]

And then there is the issue of how you deal with plusses and minuses... do they cancel each other out? So, say a cache gets a whopping 10 positive votes... that means that 10 people thought it was above ordinary. But what if it also gets 10 negative votes? Ten people thought it was really "lame". So, it now sits there with a value of zero. What does that tell you about the cache?

First off, let me say I agree with you, that having a "lame" vote is not a good idea.

 

But as for how negative votes are counted, I like the Amazon way of doing it. Instead of canceling out a positive vote, you can show "10 out of 20 people like this cache".

The problem is they already plan to do something like this with showing the ratio of favorites to finders (or perhap to premium member finders). Since the absence of a vote only means a cache is not in someone's top 10% the ratio doesn't tell you much. Did the people who didn't vote think the cache was lame - or did they like the cache but it just didn't make their top 10%. Not that I think this matters much (more below).

 

I've been on about this before, but here goes again.

 

I have found hundreds/thousands of caches that are perfectly decent (no need to call them lame) that I wouldn't necessarily consider for my favorites list.

 

I have also found hundreds/thousands of caches that I (nor any other sane person) would ever consider to be worth favoriting.

 

So, the average caches and the truly lame caches get no favorite points and are lumped together?

 

How fair is that?

This depends on what you want to use the favorites for. It makes most sense to me to use it to find caches that are highly recommended by other cachers. Particularly when traveling and you only have time to find a few caches, you might want to select some of the "not to miss" caches in that area. What better way then to see what caches get recommended most often. If you have some particular type of caches you particularly like, you can filter on other attributes as well. The favorite count is just one more item to look at. In addition some people might avoid certain caches because the find most are lame. But they don't like it when it has been suggested that by avoiding all 1/1 micros they can avoid these caches. We usually get the argument that every once and awhile one of these caches stand out. It may take you to a cool location or the hider may have done a amazing camouflage job. The favorites give you the opportunity to look at caches you would otherwise filter out to find ones that got a lot of recommendations. These exceptional cache that you thought you were going to miss are likely to be on a number of favorites lists.

 

Some people seem to want every cache to be ranked from best to worse. They can either start with the best and work they way down till geocaching is no longer fun. Or the can calibrate what "score" in there area is the cut-off point at which caches are no longer fun and just avoid any caches that don't make this cut off. Its clear that favorites don't work for this. People like the OP, have already stated there are caches with 5 favorites that he thinks are lame and others with 0 favorites he finds to be "great" (But I assume not in his top 10$ since he didn't for for them). I'm not sure how he could expect any ranking system to sort the caches in his preferred order. It should be clear that there is a great deal of individual preference in caching. It is hard to convince people however that there isn't some minimum cache quality below which every one agrees the cache is lame.

 

It's all about available data, and how it is analyzed, or can be analyzed.

 

The favorites system only provides a limited view of the potential data.

X number of finders favorited this cache...but what did those who did not favorite it think?

Was it really pointless, or perhaps pretty good, but just not top-notch?

While the favorites system will certainly point out the best caches, the 'still pretty good, but not the best I ever saw' caches will likely be left out.

[+Castle Mischief]

Sounds like a formula for drama. No thanks.

 

I propose the following log entry to accompany "LAME" points:

 

Dear hapless cache owner,

I chose to search for your cache despite the cache description, general map location, and recent logs that probably should have told me I wouldn't like it. Now I'm going to rank your cache "LAME, THUMBS DOWN" when I probably should have just not put it into my GPS in the first place.

Sincerely,

Angry Cacher

 

Replace "I" with the Royal "We" and I think you'll have the tone just right.

[+jon.hemlock.Chantal]

Now that we have "favorites" where we can flag a cache as a favorite for every ten finds, how about having the flip side - negative points for least favorites (aka "LAME CACHES"). Each lame cache would score a minus 1, the flip side of favorites which currently score a plus 1. Unlike favorites, I would recommend not showing who voted a lame point for the cache online.

 

That system would help readily identify the proliferation of lame caches out there even better, in my opinion. This might even convince the hiders of lame caches to archive them at a faster rate than normal. With the exponential increase of new hides, creating more competition to make good hides would be good for the game, in my opinion. Just a thought and would like to open up a thread on this subject. Kind of like a turnover ratio in football winners generally have a plus number and losers generally have a negative number.

 

 

-1

 

I am undecided about the favorites concept but have a clear and well formed opinion regarding the possibility of a "lame cache" vote. Why focus on the negative aspects of the game? The logs on poor caches should be all we need. The favorites at least tell the caching world that someone liked the cache.

+1

Why focus on the negative aspects of the game?

Edited January 19, 2011 by jon.hemlock.Chantal

[+addisonbr]

And then there is the issue of how you deal with plusses and minuses... do they cancel each other out? So, say a cache gets a whopping 10 positive votes... that means that 10 people thought it was above ordinary. But what if it also gets 10 negative votes? Ten people thought it was really "lame". So, it now sits there with a value of zero. What does that tell you about the cache?

I've seen a number of systems that feature only positive or negative voting. The ones that seem to work best don't net them, but simply report both numbers. It's useful. I don't think this is really a fatal flaw for negative voting. But...

 

Negative votes have a few problems, not the least is the probability of it being used as a weapon against an individual. Its kind of hard to attack another cacher by not voting for his caches, quite another to cast negative votes on his caches.

This might be.

Edited January 19, 2011 by addisonbr

[+addisonbr]

baloney, anyone seriously interested in a hobby will not quit on first impression, those you speak of where never meant to be cachers

I'll respectfully disagree with this.

[4wheelin_fool]

The entire point in a negative rating system is so that the finders don't have to read any logs. Is it the numbers finders trying to avoid the numbers hiders? Hmm.

Edited January 19, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+DiscipleGeek]

If we did have a "lame caches" vote, I'd prefer that it was a separate number than the favorites vote instead of it being a -1. Could even possibly lower the ratio at which people get lame cache votes. Like 100 to 1

[+Keith Watson]

Good question. Seeing as both would be based on a suggestive opinion neither is that much different from the other excluding the obvious one being a plus and one being a minus. I would have to agree with some earlier posts that a "negative" is usually not something you want being used. You want people to have a positive experience or at the least a neutral one. It also opens the door for personal grudges which is never a good thing to allow. I have had to deal with people taking out personal issues on my caches in the past. The last thing I would like to see is another way for someone to put down others.

[+sbell111]

baloney, anyone seriously interested in a hobby will not quit on first impression, those you speak of where never meant to be cachers

I'll respectfully disagree with this.

Me, too.

 

If my initial trial of the game left me with a bad taste in my mouth, I would have dropped it like a hot potato. I can't imagine anyone continuing a hobby that they didn't enjoy early on. Well, maybe golf...

Edited January 19, 2011 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

The entire point in a negative rating system is so that the finders don't have to read any logs. Is it the numbers finders trying to avoid the numbers hiders? Hmm.

Couldn't these non-readers be satisfied by simply sticking to the highly favorited caches?

 

After all, you don't really need to identify lame caches if you can identify good caches, right?

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd say you were correct.

 

I'd also like to mention a study involving rhesus monkeys. The primates were divided into 2 groups. One group was was only given punishment when they performed a task incorrectly, with no reward. The second group was only rewarded when they did something correct, without any negative reinforcement. The first group learned very slowly, and some had below average intelligence. The second group learned tasks much quicker, and were much smarter. Although we are not monkeys, this is only a game and the intent should be to keep it as light as possible.

[+Castle Mischief]

Although we are not monkeys...

 

Says you.

[+aka Momster]

I guess the definition "lame" is in the eye of the beholder. Just like "favorites" is. For example, I view just about any cache in a film canister as lame. Caches that are not watertight are lame. Caches in high muggle areas are lame. In my opinion, an ammo can under a pine tree a mile into the woods is great. We all have different perspectives. That's why a "favorite" cache may be a "lame" cache for someone else. I've seen some caches that have 5 "favorites" that I consider lame. On the flip side, there are lot of caches with no "favorites" that I consider great.

 

It looks like there is no balance here.

 

(Bolded section) If so, then why haven't you given them a favorite vote? Some hides I was the first to vote for quickly gained five or more additional votes.

[+t4e]

baloney, anyone seriously interested in a hobby will not quit on first impression, those you speak of where never meant to be cachers

I'll respectfully disagree with this.

Me, too.

 

If my initial trial of the game left me with a bad taste in my mouth, I would have dropped it like a hot potato. I can't imagine anyone continuing a hobby that they didn't enjoy early on. Well, maybe golf...

 

you're both most certainly entitled to disagree, however you say that after over 700 finds and 1600 respectiveley

 

we become judgmental and accustomed to the term "lame" hide after we have some experience and basis of comparison a well as developing certain likes and dislikes

on the first few finds, if you go alone any hide is "amazing", if you go accompanied by an experienced cacher that happens to say "ooh this is lame/easy etc" than you're being influenced

 

the very first cache i found searching on my own if i was to go for it now i would say its a lame hide

at the time i was in awe, i searched for the darn thing for more than an hour in a sea of bikes not having a clue what to expect, only to find a film container under an abandoned bike lock, for which someone lost the key, wrapped around a pole

thinking back now i'm surprised i didn't get arrested, i looked at virtually hundreds of bikes thinking that it may be hidden on one of them

[+Isonzo Karst]

Sounds like you guys are for "don't kiss, don't tell" with regards to lame caches.

 

You're apparently assuming that "you guys" are finding lame caches.

I can't speak for all the guys, but it's been a couple of years since I last found something I'd characterize as lame.

 

I couldn't "lama" a cache without finding it, and I'm unlikely to be finding it because it's not going to be in my gps.

 

There's a wonderful tool on this site for Premium Members, Pocket Queries. Combine that with map reading, and there you are, finding pleasant enough stuff.

 

I could wish that more containers were dry, and properly rated to size, but I'm finding caches on wooded trails, the sort of thing I enjoy.

 

My condolences to those who actively seek roadside caches, or caches in shopping malls, but want them to have some interesting quality. I honestly don't know how you'd filter for that.

Over time, maybe Favorites will help. I don't think "laming" will.

[+DiscipleGeek]

I'd say you were correct.

 

I'd also like to mention a study involving rhesus monkeys. The primates were divided into 2 groups. One group was was only given punishment when they performed a task incorrectly, with no reward. The second group was only rewarded when they did something correct, without any negative reinforcement. The first group learned very slowly, and some had below average intelligence. The second group learned tasks much quicker, and were much smarter. Although we are not monkeys, this is only a game and the intent should be to keep it as light as possible.

 

The problem with this study is that it's missing another group... one that is both rewarded AND punished.

[+sbell111]

baloney, anyone seriously interested in a hobby will not quit on first impression, those you speak of where never meant to be cachers

I'll respectfully disagree with this.

Me, too.

 

If my initial trial of the game left me with a bad taste in my mouth, I would have dropped it like a hot potato. I can't imagine anyone continuing a hobby that they didn't enjoy early on. Well, maybe golf...

 

you're both most certainly entitled to disagree, however you say that after over 700 finds and 1600 respectiveley

 

we become judgmental and accustomed to the term "lame" hide after we have some experience and basis of comparison a well as developing certain likes and dislikes

on the first few finds, if you go alone any hide is "amazing", if you go accompanied by an experienced cacher that happens to say "ooh this is lame/easy etc" than you're being influenced

 

the very first cache i found searching on my own if i was to go for it now i would say its a lame hide

at the time i was in awe, i searched for the darn thing for more than an hour in a sea of bikes not having a clue what to expect, only to find a film container under an abandoned bike lock, for which someone lost the key, wrapped around a pole

thinking back now i'm surprised i didn't get arrested, i looked at virtually hundreds of bikes thinking that it may be hidden on one of them

Your post doesn't disagree with mine, at all. You enjoyed your first cache hunt and therefore continued to play the game. The fact that you have later become jaded to these kinds of hides doesn't change your initial experience, at all. Edited January 20, 2011 by sbell111

[+addisonbr]

on the first few finds, if you go alone any hide is "amazing", if you go accompanied by an experienced cacher that happens to say "ooh this is lame/easy etc" than you're being influenced

I believe there are a number of people for whom *not* any hide is amazing, even from the very beginning (even without being influenced by the opinions of experienced cachers).

[+TerraViators]

It's okay to lavish people with everything you love about their cache, but a negative perception is not? Just like the soccer games for kids that don't keep score. Everyone's a winner.

[+Don_J]

I can see the point to favorites. Encouraging people to find new and innovative ways to create a cache. But creating a system that will discourage people from creating a cache or basically shame them into archiving a cache is counter productive here. Is that the sort of message we want to send to new caches? I can see this targeting certain kinds of caches just because some people feel that a LPC, for example, is lame since there are so many of them.

 

Some while ago, a group of us took an eight mile walking geocaching tour of downtown Los Angeles, China Town and Japan Town. I saw parts of this area that I never knew about, even though I have lived in the area for 45 years. It was quite an educational experience, (Especially watch Toz eating the octopus balls). A few months later, a young lad that lives in a much more rural area visited the area and used GCVote to place the lowest vote on all the same caches. His logs complained about urban micros, (what do you expect in downtown LA?). The caches are basic urban hides, but if you do a 360, you'll see why they were placed.

 

I really think it would be bad to inject negativity into the favorite system. Most people know if I put TFTC, it's not a good cache.