| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Moe the Sleaze
Geocacher
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1134
Location: Champlin, MN
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:40 am Post subject: Interesting thread on gc.com forums |
 |
|
I know many of you never visit the gc.com forums. There is  an interesting hot thread, started by The Lil Otter, going now about about cache quality/density. I though some of you might be interested in reading this.
_________________
"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kitch
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 1286
Location: SSP,MN
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I saw that thread this am and .... I just had to quote this guy!!!
| Quote: |
| Wow! Loooooooooong. I pulled the ejection seat about 5 paragraphs from the end. |
Now because of you I gotta go read the whole thing! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
How about this:
Person "A" goes to cache #1 and loves it.
Person "B" goes to cache #1 and hates it.
Person "C" goes to cache #1 and doesn't give a hoot either way.
Person "D" goes to cache #1 and loves it forever because it is their first ever find.
Person "E" goes to cache #1 and hates it.
Person "F" goes to cache #1 and hates it.
Person "G" goes to cache #1 and hates it.
Approver "A" decides to archive it for lameness.....
YIPPY! MOB RULES! Let's burn some books. |
Wow, I wasn't aware that we needed to archive the caches when they are rated low... I know going out that I am *more often than not* going to run into caches that I deem unacceptable just by the hider. What happens if I go by some of the thread's suggestions to "ignore that hider" or "ignore micros" and miss out on a truly good micro hidden by that particular hider?
I really think a rating system would be useful. Default everyone to not participate and not see the ratings. The people that think it would be useful can enable it and vote as they wish. Looks like a solution to me.
| Quote: |
| The current way is still the best. Read the logs. |
This particular person is usually 30 to 40 caches behind on his logging because he writes mini-epics and can't type (his words not mine). Perhaps in CT, where people are different, you can base a cache's worth on the logs. Here, where people write "TNLNSL" as every single log I really don't know how that would be of much use.
As far as adding a "historically significant" flag. Nah. No thanks. That seems like it would just encourage the behavior of waypointing and hiding a micro at every roadside stop that has a sign and a bush. That goes completely against what we should be trying to do here.
This particular response is what I believe to be a great start:
| Quote: |
It sounds to me that we all recognize the problem raised by Lil Otter, but are not sure whether something can be done about it, or should be done about it, and if so, what.
Questmaster's ideas crossed my mind as well. It looks like the best way to increase quality and decrease density of lame caches without having to condemn a certain type of caches as lame, and without getting into a rating system or PQ parameters in addition to the Difficulty and Terrain parameters we already have, which in practice are subjective and almost meaningless. On the basis of QM's idea, I am suggesting the following for discussion:
1 - Changing the 0.1 mile rule to a 0.3 mile rule.
2 - Adding a 0.5 mile rule for caches placed by the same owner.
3 - Reinstitution of virtuals, but they need to be at least 1 mile from the next virtual, and at least 0.3 mile from the next cache.
4 - Less tolerance for caches which are 'temporarily inactive' for more than a few weeks without a clearly and publicly stated reason, or otherwise ill-maintained. They need to be archived and/or trashed out (according to the existing practices, no changes needed here), and their location should be made avbailable for hides by more committed cachers.
5 - Caches that are grandfathered in do not need to comply with rules 1, 2, and 3, but the bad ones among them will automatically get removed over time. |
There is definitly a limit as to which someone can possibly maintain caches. I know that I am unable to maintain much more than 20. That's me. I have already limited myself to 20. It took me over a month to get off my lazy butt and fix one of my caches. It was getting annoying that animals kept kicking it out of its hiding spot. I probably should have taken it out but I hope that what I have done will keep the animals from having their way w/the cache.
I see plenty of caches that are in need of repair and the cache hider is now either inactive or not interested in maintaining the cache (for whatever reason). Should it really become the group's responsibility to care for them? Should it really be up to the group to remove archived caches? You put them out there you should have to go and pick them up. Don't be littering just because you can't care for what you placed.
Perhaps I am just annoyed because if something is reported on one of my caches as wrong I run out at my next available second to check on it. I suppose when you only have 13 it is still possible.
I think that we need some sort of policing. I would prefer to police myself. I don't think it should be up to WWJD and his cronies to tell me what I should and shouldn't do but I don't think that we should be leaving a container in every tree, lamppost, and crack in a wall just because a logbook will fit there.
While everyone has differences in their opinions of what a "good cache" is we really need to wonder if the caches we are placing are overkill, if we can care for them, or if when the person finds the cache they are pleased that you brought them there or gave them a good search (through a puzzle or through the actual hide).
Just my .02,
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2352
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I might as well retire right now. Dam.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hardware
Geocacher
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 157
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
while the aforementioned thread lasts far too long, i would agree that additional ratings would be helpful.
i'm not going to think too long or hard about this, but it would be nice if the cache owner could specify if the cache is any combination of the following:
a) in a park
b) along a parkway
c) in an urban environment
d) at a point of historical interest
e) a cache and dash hide
this, of course, would take additional effort by the powers that be, and we all know how little interest said powers exert. but it would be nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hardware wrote: |
| this, of course, would take additional effort by the powers that be, and we all know how little interest said powers exert. but it would be nice. |
That eliminates a lot of possibilities for puzzle-type hides. By eliminating the possible places that it could be you would be even less likely to fully solve the puzzle before heading out.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hardware
Geocacher
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 157
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i'm not sure how puzzle hides would be eliminated. if i have to solve a puzzle first, how does it matter if the final destination is in an urban setting or a park?
as i noted, i didn't put a lot of thought into it, but if there's a need to add:
f) puzzle
then so be it. that would be helpful when scouting out caches along a road trip. i'd like to be able to filter puzzles out of my cache search, because chances are the puzzle is going to drive me crazy trying to solve it.
if this was ever to be implemented, i'm sure a lot more thought would be put into the various categories that would be included.
whether there are 5 or 15, i'd like to be able to limit my some of my searches by eliminating some or most of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hardware wrote: |
| i'm not sure how puzzle hides would be eliminated. if i have to solve a puzzle first, how does it matter if the final destination is in an urban setting or a park? |
I guess I was looking more at "along a highway" and "in a park" as possible hide locations to narrow the puzzle down to.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hardware
Geocacher
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 157
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
implementing such a system could be a double-edged sword. but i'm assuming that the knowledge that a puzzle cache is hidden in a park, in an urban area or next to a Dumpster (trademarked name) wouldn't change my ability to solve the puzzle.
bottom line: everybody would find a flaw with such a system, as they do now with geocaching.com. i'll just have to stick to my traditional search methods, because this is mostly wishful thinking anyway.
back to the more mundane rituals of the day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hardware wrote: |
| bottom line: everybody would find a flaw with such a system, as they do now with geocaching.com. i'll just have to stick to my traditional search methods, because this is mostly wishful thinking anyway. |
Very little matters with what "everybody" finds flaws in. Jod and his cronies make the final descision on what gets implemented and how they are implemented.
It's commonly said that "it is his site, he can do as he wishes." He wished that Virtuals be gone (for the reasons that rickrich has mentioned on numerous occasions) and they were. On the 7th day he rested.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickrich
Geocacher
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I) I don't think we have much of a problem up here with people hiding micro caches on private property like parking lots. Once in a while we get them. Sometimes you have to get a multistage clue off a sign in a parking lot. I don't think this is terrible. By and large MN caches at least take you to a park, trail, or water body, some of them more interesting than others.
2) I've said this many times. There needs to be a collabrative rating system, like you see on amazon.com and other sites. The rating that *you* see for a cache must be based on the ratings given by the group of cachers that generally share your opinions about other caches you have mutually found before. Any other type of rating system is not going to function very well.
3) Collabrative ratings will never happen as long as gc.com holds a monopoly on the cache database. Jeremy isn't up to the task of implementing such a system, and those of us that could are not allowed access to the database according to the TOS.
4) IMHO, the only reason to ever deny a cache listing is because it "hurts" someone, in the libertarian sense of the word "hurt". All other reasons are too subjective. Placing a micro on private property hurts the property owner. Placing an ammo box in a filthy but public area doesn't hurt anyone, even if some cache hunters hate to find those.
-Rick
P.S. It looks to me like many people, led by the clueless but loud Mopar, don't understand what a collabrative rating system is. It is not the "reviews" that you see at the end of product descriptions on amazon. It is the "recommendations" that the site will automatically generate for you based on your answers as to what genre of books you enjoy, and whether you liked a book or not.
You get to this system on amazon by clicking Books -> Book Recomendations -> Your Recommendations -> Improve your Recomendations. That is a collabrative rating system. And it works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2004 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rickrich wrote: |
| P.S. It looks to me like many people, led by the clueless but loud Mopar, don't understand what a collabrative rating system is. It is not the "reviews" that you see at the end of product descriptions on amazon. It is the "recommendations" that the site will automatically generate for you based on your answers as to what genre of books you enjoy, and whether you liked a book or not. |
As with many online communities they are of a single mind with multiple personalities. Sadly, they are all of the idea that it is Jod's site and he can do as he pleases. This is the single thing that causes geocaching.com to continue its stranglehold.
If only I had the web development skills that some others do. Towlebooth? 
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickrich
Geocacher
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| King Boreas wrote: |
| I might as well retire right now. Dam.... |
KB knows I'm not his #1 fan. But I would not have him remove any of his caches. There are some people that love his style. I absolutely love some of his hides. I absolutely hate some of his hides. If it weren't for KB, some places wouldn't have any hides at all.
The best thing we could do for KB is to put together a "Guide to KB caches" web page. Sort them out into a few categories. Such as:
- Bring the whole family
- Armpits of America's Parks (CITO opportunities)
- Honor our Veterans
- Like to get wet and dirty?
- I didn't know this was here!
- How far can you throw a cache?
-Rick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2352
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've felt crappy all day.
Thanks for the chuckle Rick. .. and I mean it.
(Actually that's a great idea) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rickrich wrote: |
| KB knows I'm not his #1 fan. But I would not have him remove any of his caches. There are some people that love his style. I absolutely love some of his hides. I absolutely hate some of his hides. If it weren't for KB, some places wouldn't have any hides at all. |
Exactly. We have little over 1300 caches in the state now... If 460 of them were gone we'd really have very few to hunt  Moe wouldn't be at 1000 and RJ and MN might only be biting on the heels of 500.
| Quote: |
The best thing we could do for KB is to put together a "Guide to KB caches" web page. Sort them out into a few categories. Such as:
|
I think that could be done for all caches  We should leave them in the rest stops at the borders and as a PDF online. People could get the grand tour of Minnesota caches in an easy to use booklet!
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
