OK Old schoolers

[+Renegade Knight]

The rating system you are thinking about gets complex when you start to try and factor in that different peole like different kinds of caches and so the ratings need to work for everone. Hence the suggestions of a netflix type system. Simpler ratings but more useful because it matches up people with similar taste and can actually suggest caches that I would (probabgly) enjoy.

I like the Netflix system too because it does match up people with similar tastes. I also like the award system that Jeremy said that they were working on. Each cacher would give an award to their favorite caches and then the site would compile the votes to generate a list of all the award winning caches in each area. This would be awesome if you were traveling. Plus there is no wasted time trying to sift through caches. One thing that I have learned is that no matter what caches people like most seem to agree on which ones are outstanding.

Both those systems would work. One would highlight the best of the best. The can't miss caches if you can only do one while you are in a new town. The other would give you more caches that you enjoy anywhere you may be.

 

Out of everthing proposed those two system seem to be the most workable in that they would be simple to use, and actually do something with universal appeal.

[vtmtnman]

So this is the old schooler's solution to keeping the sport great?The rating system,correct?

 

Nope. Take away the smileys, add a rating system, banish micros to Waymarking, I really don't care. I'll still be out there looking for caches.

 

It's been said in here before: If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.

Agreed.

[vtmtnman]

Re-read this entire thread.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

Snoogans raises good points here as well.

[+sbell111]

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

I'll bite. How?

Thats the question, now isn't it?

I too am waiting for an answer.

Personally, I think a rating system could work, however, others seems to think that plan would be easily corrupted.

 

Others think that turning it over to the apparent oligarchy that actually runs the sport (aka TPTB aka Groundspeak, Inc.) by way of creating a new cache type is the way to do it. Personally, I would have hoped that we as a community could at least come up with a possible solution as opposed to "running home to daddy".

 

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

Did you happen to notice this post?

[+egami]

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

 

 

Ummmm, get over yourself and enjoy what's out there already by taking responsibility for your own choices.

 

This is fine for cachers like you and I that just simply enjoy the game how it is...this doesn't address the topic at hand.

[+egami]

It's hard to remain interested in the topic when most of the "old school" whiners aren't throwing out ideas. I guess they are mostly satisfied with trolling occassional threads to resurrect their frustration every week or so.

[+sbell111]

Re-read this entire thread.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

I'm clearly a sub par cache hider.

Sorry you feel that way....Look, if you can tell me which books in my local library are from the Adventures at the Garbage Dumpster series, the Lamp Post Forever series or the Amazing Guardrails series I will be forever be in your debt. All I know is that they are all on the first floor of the library, and they are mixed together with some very good books on that floor.

Did you notice that most of the books on the second, third, and fourth floors are awesome? Perhaps you could read ALL of those and then come back to the ones on the first floor once you run out of the ones you know are going to be awesome. I assume that you don't expect to be able to wander into the library, grab the closest book to the door and enjoy the read.

 

Use the card catalog, for Pete's sake!

Edited May 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+egami]

Use the card catelog, for Pete's sake!

 

The arguement can be made that the card catalog is a bit insufficient.

 

Besides, how many people go to a card catalog for a book? Most people I know look to a review or some sort of independent reference.

[+sbell111]

2) Individually opening each cache listing, reading the info, bringing up the map. etc.

In the larger scheme of things, is that really that tough?

For me, who sits in front of a computer all day long, No. For someone who doesnt have that kind of time on their hands, I could see how it could be a problem.

The beauty of it is that you don't need to sit at your computer and read every cache page before heading out. You only ever need to concentrate on one cache page: the next one.

1. Dump your PQ into your PDA (I use Plucker, you're welcome to use whatever software you want.)
   
2. Pull up the cache page of the first cache that you might want to go after (for me this is the closest one, but you can choose however you want).
   
3. Take a quick read of the cache page. Does it look like a keeper? Does it look like a stinker?
   
4. If it's a stinker, Jot down a quick note to ignore that one (I use Cache Log Book for this and other hunt documentation), pull up the cache page for the next nearest cache and return to step 2.
   
5. If the cache looks like a keeper, go find it. (I record the results of my hunt in Cache Log Book.)
   

Edited May 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

Responses in Red

 

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

 

Back then:

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

Bigger caches/less micros True

Better maintained caches Not exactly true. There were poorly maintained caches then. Probably a higher percentage now simply because there are more old out there where the owners left the sport over time

Better quality of swag Not true from what I've seen. In fact in my area I've seen the opposite

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

More unique ideas for caches Not true. With time and more cachers, creativity has increased dramatically.

Less research required to find the "good" caches True and a key issue, at least for me

 

Is that an accurate assessment?

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

You know, its starting to feel like the Twilight Zone.

 

Right now, a cache listing has basically 2 numbers (Difficulty and Terrain) and a cache type (Micro, Regular, Virtual, etc.)

These are options that are available for filtering through drop down menus or radio buttons with a pocket query.

 

All people are suggesting is adding a few more numbers for each cache listing to make for better, more granular filtering.

 

Why do people treat this suggestion like I asked them to kick their grandmother in the groin?

[+Totem Clan]

The beauty of it is that you don't need to sit at your computer and read every cache page before heading out. You only ever need to concentrate on one cache page: the next one.

1. Dump your PQ into your PDA (I use Plucker, you're welcome to use whatever software you want.)
   
2. Pull up the cache page of the first cache that you might want to go after (for me this is the closest one, but you can choose however you want).
   
3. Take a quick read of the cache page. Does it look like a keeper? Does it look like a stinker?
   
4. If it's a stinker, Jot down a quick note to ignore that one (I use Cache Log Book for this and other hunt documentation), pull up the cache page for the next nearest cache and return to step 2.
   
5. If the cache looks like a keeper, go find it. (I record the results of my hunt in Cache Log Book.)
   

What if you don't have a PDA?

 

I understand what your saying, but not everyone has the tools you do. I personally use GSAK. That fact that I'm retired (thank you Uncle Sam) means I have the time to sort through the caches. This is not the case for a lot of very busy cachers who would like to be able to get quality cache at the end of a long day. The last thing they want is to have to buy more tools like a PDA, or spend time sorting by hand or with software.

All these folks are saying is it would be nice if GC.com had some way of helping them find a cache that they would like, without a lot of extra time and effort.

[+egami]

The beauty of it is that you don't need to sit at your computer and read every cache page before heading out. You only ever need to concentrate on one cache page: the next one.

1. Dump your PQ into your PDA (I use Plucker, you're welcome to use whatever software you want.)
   
2. Pull up the cache page of the first cache that you might want to go after (for me this is the closest one, but you can choose however you want).
   
3. Take a quick read of the cache page. Does it look like a keeper? Does it look like a stinker?
   
4. If it's a stinker, Jot down a quick note to ignore that one (I use Cache Log Book for this and other hunt documentation), pull up the cache page for the next nearest cache and return to step 2.
   
5. If the cache looks like a keeper, go find it. (I record the results of my hunt in Cache Log Book.)
   

What if you don't have a PDA?

 

I understand what your saying, but not everyone has the tools you do. I personally use GSAK. That fact that I'm retired (thank you Uncle Sam) means I have the time to sort through the caches. This is not the case for a lot of very busy cachers who would like to be able to get quality cache at the end of a long day. The last thing they want is to have to buy more tools like a PDA, or spend time sorting by hand or with software.

All these folks are saying is it would be nice if GC.com had some way of helping them find a cache that they would like, without a lot of extra time and effort.

 

At the end of the day....not even this method truly satisfies the request of "old school" people for detecting high quality caches.

[+sbell111]

Use the card catelog, for Pete's sake!

The arguement can be made that the card catalog is a bit insufficient.

PQs and GSAK can be used to greatly reduce the percentage of caches that you don't like and greatly increase the percentage of caches that you will like.

Besides, how many people go to a card catalog for a book? Most people I know look to a review or some sort of independent reference.

Did you notice Snoogan's prior post regarding 'Caches hidden by...' and 'Caches found by ...'? How about TrailBlazer's bookmark list? Many groups and many individuals keep these lists. If you really want a recommendation, ask for it. Many people email local cachers for recommendations when they are about to visit a new area.

 

The solutions you ask for are already available to you.

Edited May 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+Totem Clan]

 

At the end of the day....not even this method truly satisfies the request of "old school" people for detecting high quality caches.

Unfortuanly that is too true.

 

And that is one reason it is so hard to get any changes made.

 

Also if a change is made and doesn't work, thing about the backlash that would occur when the change is removed.

[+sbell111]

You know, its starting to feel like the Twilight Zone.

 

Right now, a cache listing has basically 2 numbers (Difficulty and Terrain) and a cache type (Micro, Regular, Virtual, etc.)

You might note that size and cache type is not the same thing.

These are options that are available for filtering through drop down menus or radio buttons with a pocket query.

All people are suggesting is adding a few more numbers for each cache listing to make for better, more granular filtering.

 

Why do people treat this suggestion like I asked them to kick their grandmother in the groin?

You might also note that this is not the first time these suggestions have been made. Several posters have tried to explain to you why your ideas may not work as you envision them. You might do a quick forum search to find more discussion on these issues.

[+egami]

Use the card catelog, for Pete's sake!

The arguement can be made that the card catalog is a bit insufficient.

PQs and GSAK can be used to greatly reduce the percentage of caches that you don't like and greatly increase the percentage of caches that you will like.

Besides, how many people go to a card catalog for a book? Most people I know look to a review or some sort of independent reference.

Did you notice Snoogan's prior post regarding 'Caches hidden by...' and 'Caches found by ...'? How about TrailBlazer's bookmark list? Many groups and many individuals keep these lists. If you really want a recommendation, ask for it. Many people email local cachers for recommendations when they are about to visit a new area.

 

The solutions you ask for are already available to you.

 

Ok, so let's get this straight...

 

I can use a combo of:

 

- PQ

- GSAK

- Bookmarks

- Personally searching "Cache's hidden by"

- Personally searching "Cache's found by"

 

Sounds like an incredible amount of manual labor to still have a "hit and miss" shot at getting good caches?

 

That's not a "solution". That's a "headache".

 

That's why I like my suggestion better.

Edited May 17, 2007 by egami

[+sbell111]

The beauty of it is that you don't need to sit at your computer and read every cache page before heading out. You only ever need to concentrate on one cache page: the next one.

1. Dump your PQ into your PDA (I use Plucker, you're welcome to use whatever software you want.)
   
2. Pull up the cache page of the first cache that you might want to go after (for me this is the closest one, but you can choose however you want).
   
3. Take a quick read of the cache page. Does it look like a keeper? Does it look like a stinker?
   
4. If it's a stinker, Jot down a quick note to ignore that one (I use Cache Log Book for this and other hunt documentation), pull up the cache page for the next nearest cache and return to step 2.
   
5. If the cache looks like a keeper, go find it. (I record the results of my hunt in Cache Log Book.)
   

What if you don't have a PDA?

 

I understand what your saying, but not everyone has the tools you do. I personally use GSAK. That fact that I'm retired (thank you Uncle Sam) means I have the time to sort through the caches. This is not the case for a lot of very busy cachers who would like to be able to get quality cache at the end of a long day. The last thing they want is to have to buy more tools like a PDA, or spend time sorting by hand or with software.

All these folks are saying is it would be nice if GC.com had some way of helping them find a cache that they would like, without a lot of extra time and effort.

Most of us who are now paperless remember how it was before we started filling our PDAs with caches. We basically had two choices: print the pages or go out with nothing but the coords in our GPSr. If a cacher prints the pages, he can easily follow my steps above. If he goes out with nothing but the coords and doesn't even review the cache page before he leaves home, he get's what he deserves if he doesn't make the find or doesn't enjoy the experience.

[+Totem Clan]

PQs and GSAK can be used to greatly reduce the percentage of caches that you don't like and greatly increase the percentage of caches that you will like.

 

Did you notice Snoogan's prior post regarding 'Caches hidden by...' and 'Caches found by ...'? How about TrailBlazer's bookmark list? Many groups and many individuals keep these lists. If you really want a recommendation, ask for it. Many people email local cachers for recommendations when they are about to visit a new area.

 

The solutions you ask for are already available to you.

I agree with you about using the methods/tools your reference, the problem is many that cachers never come in to the forums or ever hear about them. That's why folks want a better "card catalogue" in the library.

[vtmtnman]

It's hard to remain interested in the topic when most of the "old school" whiners aren't throwing out ideas. I guess they are mostly satisfied with trolling occassional threads to resurrect their frustration every week or so.

They have aired said grievances against the new wave of cachers,and at least one suggestion has been made with the rating system.Also,Trailgators pimped his other thread from over in GC.com website about the better filtering of caches.

 

But yes,you have a point.All I'm seeing here is the continuance of other arguments,especially the trailgators/sbell "I hate lame caches/just filter them/I can't filter them/yes you can/no you can't,gc.com should revise the system" debate,and whatnot.

 

I just want to do what's best to keep the sport great.That's it.If someone ever hit the ignore button for me I would take that personally.I want folks to say (We wanted our 100/500/1000th cache to be a vtmtnman cache."I'm not looking to be the squrriel master cacher of the year.Just not to be looked at as I'm killing the sport.

 

Yet again,the purpose of this thread.Air grivences,listen,learn,make better,don't repeat mistakes.

Simple enough.

[+sbell111]

At the end of the day....not even this method truly satisfies the request of "old school" people for detecting high quality caches.

Unfortuanly that is too true.

 

And that is one reason it is so hard to get any changes made.

 

Also if a change is made and doesn't work, thing about the backlash that would occur when the change is removed.

Agreed.

 

I'm reminded of a news story that I heard just a few days ago. A politician who will go nameless used to often speak out against the 'temporary' tax cuts. Recently, however, he came out in favor of extending them. When he was asked why he 'flip-flopped', he stated that if they were ended, they would effectively raise taxes on the affected citizens. I guess temporary must mean something completely different in our nation's capitol.

[+egami]

PQs and GSAK can be used to greatly reduce the percentage of caches that you don't like and greatly increase the percentage of caches that you will like.

 

Did you notice Snoogan's prior post regarding 'Caches hidden by...' and 'Caches found by ...'? How about TrailBlazer's bookmark list? Many groups and many individuals keep these lists. If you really want a recommendation, ask for it. Many people email local cachers for recommendations when they are about to visit a new area.

 

The solutions you ask for are already available to you.

I agree with you about using the methods/tools your reference, the problem is many that cachers never come in to the forums or ever hear about them. That's why folks want a better "card catalogue" in the library.

 

Exactly my point.

 

Because, in general, sbell and I generally agree on this topic...at least in terms of going out and enjoying the game and checking out other books. I am on the same page there, but I can also see that the "old school" cachers don't have a good way to limit caches to the truly higher caliber caches.

[+briansnat]

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

 

I'll bite. How?

Thats the question, now isn't it?

I too am waiting for an answer.

Personally, I think a rating system could work, however, others seems to think that plan would be easily corrupted.

 

Others think that turning it over to the apparent oligarchy that actually runs the sport (aka TPTB aka Groundspeak, Inc.) by way of creating a new cache type is the way to do it. Personally, I would have hoped that we as a community could at least come up with a possible solution as opposed to "running home to daddy".

 

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

 

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

 

It can look like this

[vtmtnman]

The beauty of it is that you don't need to sit at your computer and read every cache page before heading out. You only ever need to concentrate on one cache page: the next one.

1. Dump your PQ into your PDA (I use Plucker, you're welcome to use whatever software you want.)
   
2. Pull up the cache page of the first cache that you might want to go after (for me this is the closest one, but you can choose however you want).
   
3. Take a quick read of the cache page. Does it look like a keeper? Does it look like a stinker?
   
4. If it's a stinker, Jot down a quick note to ignore that one (I use Cache Log Book for this and other hunt documentation), pull up the cache page for the next nearest cache and return to step 2.
   
5. If the cache looks like a keeper, go find it. (I record the results of my hunt in Cache Log Book.)
   

What if you don't have a PDA?

 

I understand what your saying, but not everyone has the tools you do. I personally use GSAK. That fact that I'm retired (thank you Uncle Sam) means I have the time to sort through the caches. This is not the case for a lot of very busy cachers who would like to be able to get quality cache at the end of a long day. The last thing they want is to have to buy more tools like a PDA, or spend time sorting by hand or with software.

All these folks are saying is it would be nice if GC.com had some way of helping them find a cache that they would like, without a lot of extra time and effort.

Most of us who are now paperless remember how it was before we started filling our PDAs with caches. We basically had two choices: print the pages or go out with nothing but the coords in our GPSr. If a cacher prints the pages, he can easily follow my steps above. If he goes out with nothing but the coords and doesn't even review the cache page before he leaves home, he get's what he deserves if he doesn't make the find or doesn't enjoy the experience.

Exactly.

[+wandererrob]

So this is the old schooler's solution to keeping the sport great?The rating system,correct?

 

Eh, maybe a new school way of getting back to old school caching for those looking to do so. The tools do exist, as mentioned a few times here, to sort through for what you want to find. But it does take a bit of effort.

 

I guess like others I miss the days of just loading up and going. But those days are gone. Times change, methods change.

[+egami]

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

 

It can look like this

 

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?

[vtmtnman]

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

 

I'll bite. How?

Thats the question, now isn't it?

I too am waiting for an answer.

Personally, I think a rating system could work, however, others seems to think that plan would be easily corrupted.

 

Others think that turning it over to the apparent oligarchy that actually runs the sport (aka TPTB aka Groundspeak, Inc.) by way of creating a new cache type is the way to do it. Personally, I would have hoped that we as a community could at least come up with a possible solution as opposed to "running home to daddy".

 

Does anyone have a 3rd possible solution?

 

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

 

It can look like this

[+Totem Clan]

The beauty of it is that you don't need to sit at your computer and read every cache page before heading out. You only ever need to concentrate on one cache page: the next one.

1. Dump your PQ into your PDA (I use Plucker, you're welcome to use whatever software you want.)
   
2. Pull up the cache page of the first cache that you might want to go after (for me this is the closest one, but you can choose however you want).
   
3. Take a quick read of the cache page. Does it look like a keeper? Does it look like a stinker?
   
4. If it's a stinker, Jot down a quick note to ignore that one (I use Cache Log Book for this and other hunt documentation), pull up the cache page for the next nearest cache and return to step 2.
   
5. If the cache looks like a keeper, go find it. (I record the results of my hunt in Cache Log Book.)
   

What if you don't have a PDA?

 

I understand what your saying, but not everyone has the tools you do. I personally use GSAK. That fact that I'm retired (thank you Uncle Sam) means I have the time to sort through the caches. This is not the case for a lot of very busy cachers who would like to be able to get quality cache at the end of a long day. The last thing they want is to have to buy more tools like a PDA, or spend time sorting by hand or with software.

All these folks are saying is it would be nice if GC.com had some way of helping them find a cache that they would like, without a lot of extra time and effort.

Most of us who are now paperless remember how it was before we started filling our PDAs with caches. We basically had two choices: print the pages or go out with nothing but the coords in our GPSr. If a cacher prints the pages, he can easily follow my steps above. If he goes out with nothing but the coords and doesn't even review the cache page before he leaves home, he get's what he deserves if he doesn't make the find or doesn't enjoy the experience.

I agree with you about doing the research, but you missed an important part of my post. All folks want is a better, qicker way to sort cahces that they would like and they have a right to ask for it.

 

For me the current system works great. My answer would be to use the PQ on your day off and just keep the list handy for that quick after work cache.

[+brdad]

The problem with ratings is many cachers would rate a cache on their experience, not the quality of the actual cache. I've had a great time finding some pretty lame caches, and a few not-so-fun times finding some great caches. I am with the crowd that feels that education is the best tool. It doesn't always work, but I don't know of a way it could hurt. I have an article on our local site entitled Anatomy of a Great Cache Hide which I push when I can. Most that read it like it, but there are a few that seem to read the title and assume it's anti-micro and talk it down.

 

As far as what has changed since the old days - Back then, a caches were never (or at least very rarely), placed for the sole purpose of placing them. They had either some hide or location value, and often both. Some were pretty basic and hidden just to help populate an area with a cache. Nowadays there is a third cache value - a numbers value - caches that have no value other than to increase your count. As stated in other posts, there is no way to filer these out. At least until there is either an attribute or a cache type "numbers only cache".

 

When the Virtual cache explosion came, it was required that you prove that the place was worthy of placing a virtual cache there. Even that didn't save their existance on gc.com. Regular caches don't need to meet that criteria, but as much as I hate more rules sometimes I think it'd be a good idea.

Edited May 17, 2007 by brdad

[+briansnat]

It's hard to remain interested in the topic when most of the "old school" whiners aren't throwing out ideas. I guess they are mostly satisfied with trolling occassional threads to resurrect their frustration every week or so.

 

It's hard to do this when every time you throw out an idea you get tired responses like "How dare you try to dictate to us how to cache" and others along those lines.

 

Just watch, here is a suggestion:

 

When you go to hide a cache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the cache, then find a better spot.

[+egami]

The problem with ratings is many cachers would rate a cache on their experience, not the quality of the actual cache. I've had a great time finding some pretty lame caches, and a few not-so-fun times finding some great caches. I am with the crowd that feels that education is the best tool. It doesn't always work, but I don't know of a way it could hurt. I have an article on our local site entitled Anatomy of a Great Cache Hide which I push when I can. Most that read it like it, but there are a few that seem to read the title and assume it's anti-micro and talk it down.

 

This is a good point regarding education, but I think you are leaving out an important factor in the equation: subjectivity.

 

This problem seems to me to be inherent in both solutions because the vast majority of cachers I know, and I suspect this represents the overall trend, aren't really the "high standard" cachers that some of these old school complainers are.

 

And, also, it seems to me there is already a tremendous amount of education, but that may be my misperception.

[+Totem Clan]

So this is the old schooler's solution to keeping the sport great?The rating system,correct?

 

Eh, maybe a new school way of getting back to old school caching for those looking to do so. The tools do exist, as mentioned a few times here, to sort through for what you want to find. But it does take a bit of effort.

 

I guess like others I miss the days of just loading up and going. But those days are gone. Times change, methods change.

I couldn't agree more.

 

I'm an "Old" Army man myself. I was talking to some young troops at an air show recently. I was amazed at the things they don't teach them anymore, but I was even more amazed by the things that they could do with their new "toys."

 

Times do change.

[+egami]

It's hard to remain interested in the topic when most of the "old school" whiners aren't throwing out ideas. I guess they are mostly satisfied with trolling occassional threads to resurrect their frustration every week or so.

 

It's hard to do this when every time you throw out an idea you get tired responses like "How dare you try to dictate to us how to cache" and others along those lines.

 

Just watch, here is a suggestion:

 

When you go to hide a cache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the cache, then find a better spot.

 

Well, I understand that...and it's a legitimate issue, but at the end of the day I would think getting chastised for complaining about it would start to wear on you some.

 

I was looking for a more functional solution I guess...are you implying the standards for all caches should just be raised?

[vtmtnman]

The problem with ratings is many cachers would rate a cache on their experience, not the quality of the actual cache. I've had a great time finding some pretty lame caches, and a few not-so-fun times finding some great caches. I am with the crowd that feels that education is the best tool. It doesn't always work, but I don't know of a way it could hurt. I have an article on our local site entitled Anatomy of a Great Cache Hide which I push when I can. Most that read it like it, but there are a few that seem to read the title and assume it's anti-micro and talk it down.

 

As far as what has changed since the old days - Back then, a caches were never (or at least very rarely), placed for the sole purpose of placing them. They had either some hide or location value, and often both. Some were pretty basic and hidden just to help populate an area with a cache. Nowadays there is a third cache value - a numbers value - caches that have no value other than to increase your count. As stated in other posts, there is no way to filer these out. At least until there is either an attribute or a cache type "numbers only cache".

 

When the Virtual cache explosion came, it was required that you prove that the place was worthy of placing a virtual cache there. Even that didn't save their existance on gc.com. Regular caches don't need to meet that criteria, but as much as I hate more rules sometimes I think it'd be a good idea.

Great artice.Everyone should read that.

[+Totem Clan]

 

 

When you go to hide a cache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the cache, then find a better spot.

Am not even "old school" and I have to agree with that. As I've said before, and have been ignored for saying before, we all need to think before we hide.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+briansnat]

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

 

It can look like this

 

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?

 

My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

You know, its starting to feel like the Twilight Zone.

 

Right now, a cache listing has basically 2 numbers (Difficulty and Terrain) and a cache type (Micro, Regular, Virtual, etc.)

You might note that size and cache type is not the same thing.

These are options that are available for filtering through drop down menus or radio buttons with a pocket query.

All people are suggesting is adding a few more numbers for each cache listing to make for better, more granular filtering.

 

Why do people treat this suggestion like I asked them to kick their grandmother in the groin?

You might also note that this is not the first time these suggestions have been made. Several posters have tried to explain to you why your ideas may not work as you envision them. You might do a quick forum search to find more discussion on these issues.

I appreciate your reply and have noticed that this topic has been prought up many times. I agree that these ideas may not work, but I think logic suggests that there is a better probability of finding the caches you want with more filterable choices.

 

Take for example buying a used car at one of those online used car sites. Imagine you could only filter by year and body style(van, suv, truck, etc.). I gather you end up with tons of hits and then have to search through each individual listing to see its the car for you.

 

But now we add in make, model, color, transmission type, milage. Now, you can filter to a more granular level and get hits which more closely match your desired used car.

 

"But, no. That may work with cars but not caches"...so the arguement goes. Why? The main reason being that the data this filtering is based on would be inaccurate. Why?

 

Whatever criteria you would add is too subjective - Well, isnt "Difficutly" and "Terrain" subjective too? I kinda like the absolute measurements, like found at handicaching.com distance(from parking, I guess) grade of slope, etc.)

 

People could fudge the numbers - Well, if you cant trust your fellow cachers, how can you believe what you read when you examine each individual listing?

[vtmtnman]

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

 

It can look like this

 

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?

 

My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

Brainsnat does make a good point there.

[+egami]

Yeah, add an attribute for "The sole purpose of this cache is to increment my hide count and your find count'

 

It can look like this

 

brian, in all seriousness, what would your preference be?

 

My preference would be that when we try to urge our fellow geocachers to try to raise the bar a bit with their hides we aren't accused of being elitists, geocaching thought police, selfish, dictators, control freaks or lazy.

 

Ok, I understand that utopian view, but it's not practical...I should of asked what your "solution" was I suppose.

[+egami]

 

 

When you go to hide a cache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the cache, then find a better spot.

Am not even "old school" and I have to agree with that. As I've said before, and have been ignored for saying before, we all need to think before we hide.

 

Agreed. Same boat here, which is why I can relate to the "old school" concern depsite the fact that personally I am not as selective.

 

We need a campaign slogan: Friends don't let friends hide crappy caches.

[+wandererrob]

When you go to hide a cache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the cache, then find a better spot.

Am not even "old school" and I have to agree with that. As I've said before, and have been ignored for saying before, we all need to think before we hide.

 

I think you 2 may have just summed up how to improve the quality of caches. Combine that with some degree of mentoring as folks have suggested earlier and over time, you might see some changes.

[+Sommers]

You know what's funny is that people who started 7 years ago consider themselves "old schoolers." I'm reminded of the time I told an older person about Geocaching....and she said "Oh, we used to do something like that in England, of course we didn't have GPS...we called it letterboxing..." then went on to describe how they did it...so before you "old schoolers" complain TOO much (don't get me wrong there are some bad caches out there) remeber that I'm sure original "Letterboxers" may not like the dirrection THEIR sport has gone...As I have said before...I'm sure that the original football players would look at their sport today and barely recognize it..

That being said I really have to compliment the area cachers here in Western Mass....I can't think of one that hasn't had some thought put in/taken me to an area that i hadn't known about/or been unique in someway...keep up the good work...

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

The problem with ratings is many cachers would rate a cache on their experience, not the quality of the actual cache. I've had a great time finding some pretty lame caches, and a few not-so-fun times finding some great caches.

This is brought up many times and makes me feel like I am not getting the point across.

 

Although a possible option, I would not suggest having "overall experience" or "how great of a time you had" as a rating for a cache. It is far too subjective.

But a "lame" cache that required me to hike 2.5 miles into the woods and a "great" cache that required me to hike 2.5 miles into the woods both required that same hiking distance. I have seen some mention that the farther you have to hike for a cache, the better quality the cache at the end tends to be. I would also imagine after hiking that far, you might just end up in a more scenic spot then driving behind walmart.

 

If some people want to cache based on the hiking distance, why shouldnt they be able to sort by that?

Edited May 17, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+egami]

When you go to hide a cache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the cache, then find a better spot.

Am not even "old school" and I have to agree with that. As I've said before, and have been ignored for saying before, we all need to think before we hide.

 

I think you 2 may have just summed up how to improve the quality of caches. Combine that with some degree of mentoring as folks have suggested earlier and over time, you might see some changes.

 

Is there not already a tremendous amount of this though...that's why I don't see this as the "solution" there is a lot of this going on now and what's happening is that most people mentoring are the ones that don't have the higher standard.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

No ratings system will work for everyone. Every cache experience is subjective.

That is exactly why a less subjective system would be great.

 

Again, I say look at Handicaching dot com vs here. Let's say I am a world class stair climber and a cache requires me to climb 100 steps to reach. I might rate this as a terrain 1 but someone in a wheelchair might rate this as a terrain 5. Very subjective.

On Handicaching.com, you have more objective ratings (road surface, slope, distance to cache, etc.) These ratings are not really open to personal interpretation.

Sorry, but handicaching is extremely subjective and TOTALLY open to personal interpretation!

 

I am handicapped and don't use handicaching.com because I can't figure out how to rate things there in a useful manner!

 

Wheelchair accessible? What's that? A manual chair? An electric one? Can the subject use his arms? If so can he bump up over a 2" obstacle? A 4" one? Can he use his legs at all to stand up?

 

I can do things in a wheelchair most can't do - If I can get to it is it wheelchair accessible? Sure - I did it... but could you?

 

Totally subjective.

 

When you get 'wheelchair accessible' worked out we'll move on to other reasons why this ratings business doesn't work.

[+egami]

No ratings system will work for everyone. Every cache experience is subjective.

That is exactly why a less subjective system would be great.

 

Again, I say look at Handicaching dot com vs here. Let's say I am a world class stair climber and a cache requires me to climb 100 steps to reach. I might rate this as a terrain 1 but someone in a wheelchair might rate this as a terrain 5. Very subjective.

On Handicaching.com, you have more objective ratings (road surface, slope, distance to cache, etc.) These ratings are not really open to personal interpretation.

Sorry, but handicaching is extremely subjective and TOTALLY open to personal interpretation!

 

I am handicapped and don't use handicaching.com because I can't figure out how to rate things there in a useful manner!

 

Wheelchair accessible? What's that? A manual chair? An electric one? Can the subject use his arms? If so can he bump up over a 2" obstacle? A 4" one? Can he use his legs at all to stand up?

 

I can do things in a wheelchair most can't do - If I can get to it is it wheelchair accessible? Sure - I did it... but could you?

 

Totally subjective.

 

When you get 'wheelchair accessible' worked out we'll move on to other reasons why this ratings business doesn't work.

 

Exactly...

[+sbell111]

Use the card catelog, for Pete's sake!

The arguement can be made that the card catalog is a bit insufficient.

PQs and GSAK can be used to greatly reduce the percentage of caches that you don't like and greatly increase the percentage of caches that you will like.

Besides, how many people go to a card catalog for a book? Most people I know look to a review or some sort of independent reference.

Did you notice Snoogan's prior post regarding 'Caches hidden by...' and 'Caches found by ...'? How about TrailBlazer's bookmark list? Many groups and many individuals keep these lists. If you really want a recommendation, ask for it. Many people email local cachers for recommendations when they are about to visit a new area.

 

The solutions you ask for are already available to you.

Ok, so let's get this straight...

 

I can use a combo of:

 

- PQ

- GSAK

- Bookmarks

- Personally searching "Cache's hidden by"

- Personally searching "Cache's found by"

I don't think that you quite understand my post.

• With PQs you can be pretty darn sure that you'll like the results.
  
• By adding GSAK, you can easily drill down deeper. You can even ignore caches placed by individual cachers as TrailBlazers suggests. (you can automate this step using macros)
  
• I suggested bookmarks and hidden/found because someone requested recommendations as a solution.
  

[+sbell111]

I agree with you about doing the research, but you missed an important part of my post. All folks want is a better, qicker way to sort cahces that they would like and they have a right to ask for it.

 

For me the current system works great. My answer would be to use the PQ on your day off and just keep the list handy for that quick after work cache.

I completely agree.

 

By automating the PQ and GSAK process on the front end, all that remains is to take a cusory look at the cache page just prior to hitting 'GOTO'.

Edited May 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+egami]

I don't think that you quite understand my post.

• With PQs you can be pretty darn sure that you'll like the results.
  
• By adding GSAK, you can easily drill down deeper. You can even ignore caches placed by individual cachers as TrailBlazers suggests. (you can automate this step using macros)
  
• I suggested bookmarks and hidden/found because someone requested recommendations as a solution.
  

 

I completely understand your point...and, I don't disagree with your perception, I just don't see it as a viable solution because I think it needs to be easier.

 

My point is it shouldn't require that much work. It should be inherent in the database as an attribute not a collection of attributes that are hit and miss.

[+sbell111]

It's hard to remain interested in the topic when most of the "old school" whiners aren't throwing out ideas. I guess they are mostly satisfied with trolling occassional threads to resurrect their frustration every week or so.

 

It's hard to do this when every time you throw out an idea you get tired responses like "How dare you try to dictate to us how to cache" and others along those lines.

 

Just watch, here is a suggestion:

 

When you go to hide a cache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the cache, then find a better spot.

I guess that I'm an 'Old Schooler', also so I better give my official suggestion. Here it is:

 

As a hider, hide what you would like to find.

As a seeker, use the tools that are available to you to maximize the percentage of caches that you will likely like.