Orphan Caches

[+GDad Souter]

Having discussed the issue of Orphan Caches on General Discussions it was suggested by one of the Reviewers that I also post on Features Discussion. As a newbie, I would certainly be interested to hear what other Cachers think.

 

Basically, when assessing Caches for my family, including my toddler GDaughter, I take great care in trying to find Caches which will give a good experience and keep the little ones safe. As part of this, I try to avoid Caches that have been abandoned by their owners. Not only is the Cache likely to be a soggy mess, but the Cache page is likely to be out of date and any new hazards gone unreported.

 

The information about a CO is available, although the date last visited is probably misleading if they are using an app, but it takes time to trawl through their profile, previous logs, disabled Caches etc. to get a full picture. I am told that Reviewers have access to a complex algorithm to help them weed out delinquent COs etc. I just wondered if GS could use the data they have to display a CO rating on the Cache page, right up there with Favourites, Attributes etc. It could be as basic as providing information as to whether the CO is active or not, or it could could be a rating system as used by sellers on eBay. Either way, it could be used to filter out Caches owned by COs who have gone walkabout.

 

Reviewers are already aware of which COs are ignoring NMs, for example, but this information is not being made readily available to members of the Geocaching website, and Reviewers are understandably lagging behind in trying to sort them out. I understand a lot of Cachers like these old Caches for use in Challenges etc. and I am not suggesting they be archived unless they fall apart or go missing. I am just asking for a way to identify these Caches so I can avoid them.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

It would be possible to compute a metric based on NM's and OM's. The obvious one is if the last owner post is a NM, it's a strike against them. If it is an OM, it clears the strike.

 

However, there is a time issue with this. If a diligent CO does maintenance once a month, and a number of their caches get NM's just after their monthly maintenance run, it would show them as being a 'delinquent' CO. So, maybe we have to wait a month or two before we count the NM against them. If the CO places a lot of caches in areas that are inaccessible for a large portion of the year, we may have to increase the wait period to six months. If we wait six months, will that really meet your needs?

 

Another thing to consider it how the metric is displayed. I would think it would need to look something like <NM's>/<total active caches. It shouldn't be a percentage. A cacher that only has two caches, and one has a NM would be at 50%. Someone with 100 caches, and fifteen NM's would be be 15%.

 

Also, how do you account for archived caches? Should a CO be 'charged' for their past NM's?

 

Another thing, from a social perspective, is that anytime you add a metric, there will be people that will 'game' that metric. The classic geocaching example is throwdown containers. Gotta get that smiley. So, how easy is it to 'game' this new metric. A CO can place an OM (without doing any actual maintenance) to get rid of the strike at any time. So, other cachers add another NM, the CO places another non-maintained OM, until someone gets fed up, places a NA, and a reviewer gets involved. Or maybe they just archive the cache whenever a NM is placed. Gotta maintain that perfect record of no strikes.

[+cerberus1]

I just wondered if GS could use the data they have to display a CO rating on the Cache page, right up there with Favourites, Attributes etc. It could be as basic as providing information as to whether the CO is active or not, or it could could be a rating system as used by sellers on eBay.

Asking for the ability to apply a negative rating on a person isn't gonna happen.

It'd probably first have to start with the ability to apply a negative rating on caches (and that hasn't happened either).

[+hzoi]

I realize that you are requesting a feature, but there are a couple ways I screen for this now through pocket queries:

 

- filter out caches with "needs maintenance" attributes

- filter out caches that have a last found date earlier than, say, a couple months ago

- load PQs in GSAK and screen out those that have too many red boxes in the little stoplight meter on the left

[+Team DEMP]

Not the same approach, but maybe something that could provide guidance, is Project GC's Wilson score rating. I'm a paid subscriber so not sure what happens for a non-paid sub but try this - Project GC

 

This shows a cache rating within a few miles of a town near me and then for Difficutly/Terrain < 3. If it works for you, can you adjust the filter near the top portion of the page to your local area. It's not about a cache owner per say but individual caches using their algorithm.

 

Worth a shot to see if it gives another approach to finding worthy caches to look into.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Team DEMP

[+Harry Dolphin]

I realize that you are requesting a feature, but there are a couple ways I screen for this now through pocket queries:

 

- filter out caches with "needs maintenance" attributes

- filter out caches that have a last found date earlier than, say, a couple months ago

- load PQs in GSAK and screen out those that have too many red boxes in the little stoplight meter on the left

 

I do 1st & 3rd. GASK is good for this. But I do enjoy finding lonely caches; so not 2nd. I've found eleven this year that had not been found in more than two years! Two of them had not been found in our years! True. Three of them have missing owners...

[+hzoi]

I realize that you are requesting a feature, but there are a couple ways I screen for this now through pocket queries:

 

- filter out caches with "needs maintenance" attributes

- filter out caches that have a last found date earlier than, say, a couple months ago

- load PQs in GSAK and screen out those that have too many red boxes in the little stoplight meter on the left

 

I do 1st & 3rd. GASK is good for this. But I do enjoy finding lonely caches; so not 2nd. I've found eleven this year that had not been found in more than two years! Two of them had not been found in our years! True. Three of them have missing owners...

 

I hear you. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a lonely cache, sometimes not. Two of my favorite finds are ones that were unfound for over three years and over five years respectively. When I do screen, I use one or more of the above.