Terracaching Sponsorship

[*mouse*]

Hi!

I've registered on Terracaching.com this morning but have just realised that I need a couple of sponsors before I can view the listings.

Is there anyone out there who is already a member of TC who would be willing to sponsor me?

Thanks!

Ali

[Just Roger]

Done. 1 down, 1 to go

[keehotee]

Looks like you've got all you need now - but I've added mine to the list anyway......

[markandlynn]

All sorted.
It helps to have a spare sponsor :socool:

[*mouse*]

Thanks everyone!

[SidAndBob]

Did you just get lucky or did someone prompt you? ;)
After 2 years of waiting I finally got my first ever notification of a new Terracache on Tuesday.... and it can't be too far from you either.:socool:

[*mouse*]

Far enough though! 20 miles to my nearest terracache and 32 miles to the nearest navicache :ohmy:

[wolfshead57]

Thought I would give this a bash a well, but I need a couple of sponsors you lovely people you.

[amberel]

Thought I would give this a bash a well, but I need a couple of sponsors you lovely people you.
If you don't get the necessary pair, send me an email and I'll do it straight away, but if you can get someone else it's probably better as I don't plan to use the site - I just had to join to find out about it.

Rgds, Andy

[Bill D (wwh)]

Thought I would give this a bash a well, but I need a couple of sponsors you lovely people you.
I'd happily sponsor you too, but as far as I know it's only possible to sponsor people who're showing in my Users Recently Needing Sponsorship panel, and no-one ever seems to show up there... :(

I understand TC are working on changing that though, but I don't know when the change will be implemented.

[Icenians]

You haven't appeared in my list either. I think they've made a change so that you appear in local users lists rather than everyones.

You should go to the sponsorship forum and introduce yourself to get sponsorship if you don't know anyone.

Kev

[wolfshead57]

Hi

I have posted on the sponsorship forum under TOON/N.E. England.

[Lord Darcy]

Please make sure you've entered your home coordinates in your profile, as this is what tells the system which members are local to you, and who should be alerted to your need for sponsors.

Cheers,

[ivanidea]

What is the point of sponsorship if you can ask any stranger to 'vouch' for you?

When this requirement is removed, or I personally know a couple of members of TC, I will consider joining.

If TC are serious about becoming larger, then I suggest they look at their joining method. There are plenty of ways to validate users to prevent bots joining.

Ivan

[rufty tufty boys]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the system of Sponsors have more to do with the checking of caches rather than cachers. Removes the need for one or two people to validate the volume of caches set in the UK every week.

The main problem I have is a bit chicken and egg - no nearby caches; but I'm not a prolific setter. Not sure if any of the Wiltshire cachers are even looking at this site.

[The Hornet]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the system of Sponsors have more to do with the checking of caches rather than cachers. Removes the need for one or two people to validate the volume of caches set in the UK every week.

The main problem I have is a bit chicken and egg - no nearby caches; but I'm not a prolific setter. Not sure if any of the Wiltshire cachers are even looking at this site.
I've said this elsewhere but I'll repeat it anyway.

I think a major obstacle to more caches being placed on Terracaching is their policy of not allowing cross posting. I have a number of caches on GC I'd be happy to add to Terracaching but I don't want to do so when the practice is discouraged.

Sure, I could archive them from GC but I live in a bit of a cache desert here in Herefordshire and I've been trying to promote geocaching by placing a number of caches here to try and attract cachers. Removing them from the biggest caching listing service wouldn't help IMHO.

[Bill D (wwh)]

rufty tufty boys wrote:
Not sure if any of the Wiltshire cachers are even looking at this site.I'm a Wiltshire cacher and I'm looking, but the nearest TC cache to me (and probably to you) is a virtual at Stonehenge where you have to post a pic of yourself at the Stones dressed as a Druid to log it... Hmm... :ph34r:

[Bill D (wwh)]

I've said this elsewhere but I'll repeat it anyway.

I think a major obstacle to more caches being placed on Terracaching is their policy of not allowing cross posting. I have a number of caches on GC I'd be happy to add to Terracaching but I don't want to do so when the practice is discouraged.

Sure, I could archive them from GC but I live in a bit of a cache desert here in Herefordshire and I've been trying to promote geocaching by placing a number of caches here to try and attract cachers. Removing them from the biggest caching listing service wouldn't help IMHO.
Yes, I agree. I'd be quite happy to crosslist mine, but TC disapprove of that (though it does happen anyway) so I'm not going to. And though I'm not in a cache desert it just wouldn't feel right to me to archive them on GC and move them over.

[Alan White]

I'm a Wiltshire cacher and I'm looking, but the nearest TC cache to me (and probably to you) is a virtual at Stonehenge where you have to post a pic of yourself at the Stones dressed as a Druid to log it... Hmm... :ph34r:
It's also one of the five nearest caches to me - in Bracknell :) - which says a lot about the cache density on TC.

From a quick count on the map there are only 21 terracaches in the whole of the south of England. Of course, I can't see any of the details...

[Alan White]

I think a major obstacle to more caches being placed on Terracaching is their policy of not allowing cross posting.
No doubt, though I think the biggest obstacle is not allowing people to join the site :confused:. No members=no caches.

But we do need to remember that TC don't actually want many cachers/caches. As it says on the home page
TerraCaching.com does not have as many cache listings as other geocaching sites, which is exactly the point.

I could understand that approach if the site listed only "quality" caches (the 5/5s of GC.com. if you will), but I doubt that many people would think that a virtual at Stonehenge is a "quality" cache :).

[amberel]

It's also one of the five nearest caches to me - in Bracknell :) - which says a lot about the cache density on TC.

From a quick count on the map there are only 21 terracaches in the whole of the south of England. Of course, I can't see any of the details...
I've just checked out the South East, a rather vaguely defined area which I've taken as south of Cambridge and east of Southampton.

There are 13 caches in total.

Nine of these are virtual.
One is a virtual webcam.
One is micro that moves about from one GC cache to another.
One is a micro for which no location is published, i.e you find it by description, without a GPS.
And one is an ordinary small cache.

One of these caches has had 2 visits, the rest have less, despite being around for 1 or 2 years.

Quality is highly subjective, of course, but based on the cache pages I would say that one of the caches was about GC average, the rest were below GC average, mostly well below. This rating takes into account my belief that a virtual needs some extra pizazz to make up for the fact that there isn't a cache.

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

Interesting. Thanks, Andy.

Nothing there to encourage anyone to join TC, I would have thought. The problem isn't the lack of caches (since, as has been pointed out, at one time there were few caches on GC.com) so much as the "quality". Yes, it's subjective but I doubt that that list would meet many cacher's definition of the quality caches that TC claims to have.

So TC isn't living up to its own ideal to "actively encourages a focus on the quality, not quantity, of caches that members post".

Well, maybe the last bit :D.

[*mouse*]

The problem for me is nothing to do with TC itself..... it's just that the cost of petrol at the moment means I can't justify making a 40 mile round trip for a cache regardless of where it's listed :(. And that's the closest TC cache to me - to do the next closest would be 80 miles!

The only way I'm gonna find a TC cache is if I'm in the area anyway looking for GC ones.

[fraggle69]

How's about trying out the locationless caches?

[esim]

Signed up and immediately got three sponsors. :socool:
I like the idea of quality over quantity, however with the sparse coverage of caches it's not really much use. I'll leave judgement on the quality till I've tried a couple.

[Icenians]

I think maybe it's worth explaining a little about the idea of quality on TC as some people seem to have got the wrong idea.

On TC quality isn't decided by one type of cache across the whole world, it isn't determined by how hard the cache is, or how many visits it gets, etc. Quality in TC is determined by the cachers that vote on them and linked to those in the area around each cache. This is all done via rating a cache and finding a cache. Anyone can rate a cache but a finders rating on a cache carries more wieght.

Basically the idea is that over time an areas cachers determine what is a quality cache or not. If the south east all like quick miros and the majority rate them highly then these caches get a high score. The ones that are rated low get a reduced score. This only works over time and with people setting enough caches for the maths to have an effect. If a cache sits at a low score for too long it is archived by the system although the cacher would normally weed the cache out themselves before it got too low as this can effect their own scores.

The reason we are seeing a number of virtuals etc on TC is that many are set either by Americans on holiday to try and encourage Terracaching in the UK or because people like them.

Another scoring area on TC is the TPS score on a cache. This score is based on how long the cache has been in play, how many times it's been found, and the scores of other caches in the area. Each cacher also has a score which is basically the sum of scores of all the caches you own and all the caches you've found. The cache score goes up over time but is reduced by the number of finds on it. So when a cache is found it TPS score drops as does all the finders and the owners score. It then starts to build again until the next find. This means that to own a really high score cache you need to set one that won't be found too often.

The example used above of a virtual of stonehenge is a good one. People not wanting to look a complete pratt, sorry Sandvika ;) will avoid it as you have to dress as a druid and have your photo taken. Quality on this cache is not 'I don't think it's quality so the whole site is rubbish' but rather down to the finders idea of quality.

There also seems to be a perception that the site is not growing. Again this is wrong as we have a steadily growing number of caches, and no, they are not all virtuals.

To join doesn't mean elitism or grovelling for sponsors It means signing up and within the site your ID is published first to local TCers for sponsorship and later, if sponsorship wasn't found locally, in ever increasing circles. Most people get sponsored within an hour or so.

Another misconception is that your sponsor vouches for you. I notice this mostly from non members so I'm really not sure how they know this. It isn't the case. The cache approval system at TC is different from GC, your sponsors are you approvers. Without the sponsorship approach that wouldn't work. This allows anyone to become a sponsor.

What TC really needs is people to take the plunge and join and place a couple of caches. Yes it might take some time for cachers to come and get them but hey, it'll be a lot quicker if all the people that sign up and moan actually placed a cache or two.

TC is not an elitist caching site. It's simply an alternative to GC and Navicache. It's not the same as it allows for imagination and artist license, it allows the number people to go beyond the one cache one point approach, it allows people to rate caches, etc.

It seems to me that many of these functions are what people regularly cry out for on GC. They want a cache listing site they control, that allows rating, etc. It already exists.

[Alan White]

I've said everything I need to say about TC so I won't repeat my comments on elitism and quality.

But if the site is growing how come the number of caches seems to be reducing? The 21 I mentioned above seems to have gone down to 4, and there are only 22 in all of England, Wales & Scotland.

[Icenians]

I've said everything I need to say about TC so I won't repeat my comments on elitism and quality.

If the site is growing how come the number of caches seems to be reducing? The 21 I mentioned above seems to have gone down to 4, and there are only 22 in all of England, Wales & Scotland.

Not sure which TC you're looking at then. There are currently 136 in the UK, there were a few more a couple of weeks ago but they have been archived. 44 of those this year. This quite clearly shows growth.

There should be another tomorrow as I've just set a new one.

Devon and Cornwall are very active areas. I'm doing my best in Norfolk although as I'm on the road a lot I don't get to set as many as I would like.

Kent has a keen new TCer who has placed 2 in the last couple of weeks, both look interesting. He is also planning another which will definatly get a visit from me :)

I don't mean to be rude Alan but you come across as one of those people who complain loudly about a book only to find, when questioned, that you haven't actually read it!

[amberel]

Not sure which TC you're looking at then. There are currently 136 in the UK, there were a few more a couple of weeks ago but they have been archived. 44 of those this year. This quite clearly shows growth.The problem Alan had is possibly the same as mine - I find it very difficult to find my way round the TC site. I've never managed to work out how to get a list of caches, all I can see is the map, which is slow and cumbersome to use.

Using the map this evening, as far as I can see there are now only 3 caches within 80 miles of me. The upside (for me) is that they all appear to be physical caches. Of those three, one looks very good but really requires me to find someone else to accompany me, and another one looks OK. The third doesn't really interest me.

I will certainly try to get to the first one. The snag with the second one is that, while it looks OK, there are hundreds and hundreds of GC caches that look as good or better and which are much nearer to me. It's not worth a trip just for that, but I will keep in mind where it is and hope to visit if I am in the area.

But this is message really is about techniques for finding a way round the TC site rather about the caches it turns up - there must be a better way than the way I'm doing it.

Edited to say I've just gone back and this time it's showing 6 caches within 80 miles, but I've no idea what I've done to get the extra three - it's the same scale map and the same area as before. So I've absolutely no idea if there are any more that aren't showing for some reason.

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

To see the caches within 100 miles of your home location just got to the todo list menu item at the top of every TC page. That will give you a complete list of you're nearest caches that you haven't yet found.

If you want to see a list for the whole country, go to the bottom of that todo list and select the country, or state in the US, you wish to see.

The map doesn't show all the caches at as you zoom out. You need to zoom in to find them all.

I typically pick an area with the map, select one cache in that area and then go to nearest TC's on the cache page to get a list of all the caches within 100 miles of that one.

[Icenians]

I find 14 within 80 miles of your nearst one. Of course that would be 80 miles in a straight line so take the distances with a pinch of salt.

[Alan White]

Not sure which TC you're looking at thenwww.terracaching.com (https://www.terracaching.com), using the map which seems to be the only way that non-members can actually see anything at all (not that that's very much).

This morning the map is indeed showing more caches, even at the same zoom levels as I was using last night. Clearly something is broken at TC.


I don't mean to be rude Alan but you come across as one of those people who complain loudly about a book only to find, when questioned, that you haven't actually read it!I can only comment as I find. The only way I can see of looking for TCs is on the map and that's clearly broken. I can't see much in the way of detail and I can't join the site because of its policies of requiring sponsorship, being against family caching and preventing cross-listing. In short, Terracaching seems to do all it can to discourage potential members.

As I've said many times before, I'd love there to be a viable competitor to Groundspeak. Terracaching doesn't give the impression that it wants to be it.

[martybartfast]

www.terracaching.com (https://www.terracaching.com), using the map which seems to be the only way that non-members can actually see anything at all (not that that's very much).

This morning the map is indeed showing more caches, even at the same zoom levels as I was using last night. Clearly something is broken at TC.



There is something wrong with the map, I just went to look for caches close to me and there was a cache along the south coast round Dorset way, I came out of the maps, and went back less than 5 minutes later and that one wasn't showing any more at any zoom level. I also find the warning box on the map "not all caches are displayed at most zoom levels" a bit disconcerting.

BTW my nearest is about 40 miles away :confused:

[Icenians]

I have to say and I have said this before, it amazes me the number of people that seem to think a listing site should come fully populated with caches on everyones doorstep! Real people need to go out and actually place caches not matter which listing site you use.

I'm not particularly bothered whether people join TC or not. I have a problem with people broadcasting opinions based on incorrect information that is basically incorrect.

I'll go back under my TC rock and continue enjoying the game.

[Icenians]

I can only comment as I find.

No, you are reading the dust jacket and the first page. From that information you are making judgments on the quality and growth of TC. Unfortunately you are coming to a conclusion with half the information and broadcasting this as knowledgable fact.

While I agree TC may not be for you, it isn't right that you make statements that are not based on the correct information.

[Wadders]

Yes, I agree. I'd be quite happy to crosslist mine, but TC disapprove of that (though it does happen anyway) so I'm not going to. And though I'm not in a cache desert it just wouldn't feel right to me to archive them on GC and move them over.

That is my thing as well, i would be quite happy if i could crosslist, i think you would see a serious increase in numbers then.:)

[markandlynn]

Ive looked on the terra wiki and cant for the life of me find this ban on cross listing. All ive found is that they discourage it not ban it.


You should be aware though, that you should not "cross post" (duplicate cache listings here from other listing sites, or visa versa). The TerraCaching community generally prefers that caches listed here be unique to this site. However, since every cache is judged on it's own merits, exceptions are always possible. For instance, the community actually encourages cross posting event caches.

[Icenians]

I can't see any great valuein cross posting caches. The caches are already out there so I can go hunt them if I want already.

[Team Sieni]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the system of Sponsors have more to do with the checking of caches rather than cachers.
So the sponsors act like "reviewers"?

My question is - if the sponsors act as cache reviewers (or am I wrong) then surely they only come into play when you want to place a cache?

But surely a new joiner might want to do some finding first - and may indeed never set a cache?

I was interested by TC.com but completely put off by the sponsorship requirement. Entirely a personal thing, but I won't join if that's in place. That's not a criticism, I'm not saying it's wrong or they should change, it's just my personal response to it.

[Icenians]

So the sponsors act like "reviewers"?

My question is - if the sponsors act as cache reviewers (or am I wrong) then surely they only come into play when you want to place a cache?

But surely a new joiner might want to do some finding first - and may indeed never set a cache?

I was interested by TC.com but completely put off by the sponsorship requirement. Entirely a personal thing, but I won't join if that's in place. That's not a criticism, I'm not saying it's wrong or they should change, it's just my personal response to it.

Yes, that is all a sponsor is.

I don't quite understand what the reluctance to have a sponsor is, maybe it's the word sponsor. The only iteraction I ever have with my sponsors is when I create a cache.

What is the problem with you selecting a couple of people to be your reviewers even if you never place a cache? It's not as if you get whoever you are given! People offer and you accept the sponsors you want. You can change them if you don't get along as well.

You effectivly have exactly the same thing on GC except you don't get to choose. If you don't place caches, the reviewers are still there at GC.

[markandlynn]

Icenians point out a massive advantage of TC here.

Got an issue with a cache reviewer ? you can change them.

Want to list a virtual go ahead.

Want to list a code word cache you can

Want proof of FTF ? put a FTF code word on a card in the cache.

All the types banned by GC are available. However if i launch a roadsign virtual ie got to N xx W xx tell me what road sign is here the scoring system would soon see it delisted this get round the special significance the visitors decide.

Id guess Alan does not like the idea that someone else needs to approve him yet hidden caches on GSP have to be approved so with GSP you need approvers to publish on TC you need approvers but before you publish.

Every log you make on a cache is approved by the cache owner on GSP as well so i cant really understand having an issue with TC approvers at least they are up front and honest about it,

[Alan White]

No, you are reading the dust jacket and the first page. From that information you are making judgments on the quality and growth of TC. Unfortunately you are coming to a conclusion with half the information and broadcasting this as knowledgable fact.

While I agree TC may not be for you, it isn't right that you make statements that are not based on the correct information.

I say again, I can only comment on what I see. TC chooses to hide most cache information from non-members. No problem there: it's their site and if that's the way they want it to work that's up to them. But it's not likely to attract many new members, is it?

The map is, for non-members, TC's shop window. If the shop window isn't showing all the goods or, worse, sometimes show them then not, then prospective members may think that the site isn't up to the job. That's the growth aspect.

The quality aspect is self-evident and has been mentioned many times before by many people. TC sets itself up as a "quality not quantity" site but the evidence is that the quality isn't there.

To continue the book analogy, TC is like one of those "top-shelf" books which come wrapped in cellophane so you can't see inside. Moreover, the cover is misleading as it doesn't represent what's inside because the printer omitted some words or pictures. The analogy then falls down because, unlike TC, one doesn't need to find two previous purchasers to vouch for you before being able to buy the book :D.

You're clearly right that TC isn't for me. I think that's a shame, and I'd like to think that the owners of TC would think that's a shame.

[Team Sieni]

Yes, that is all a sponsor is.

I don't quite understand what the reluctance to have a sponsor is, maybe it's the word sponsor.
Thanks for explaining.

I'm not sure why I'm so averse to it myself, but I am - very. (It's not the word "sponsor" though). I probably wouldn't mind if I could try the services quietly by myself, and then obtain a sponsor when/if I had found a site where I would be happy to place a cache. Just a matter of personal taste, really.

[Alan White]

I was interested by TC.com but completely put off by the sponsorship requirement. Entirely a personal thing, but I won't join if that's in place. That's not a criticism, I'm not saying it's wrong or they should change, it's just my personal response to it.That's my view also. If I wasn't interested I wouldn't discuss TC, but the sponsorship requirement seems likely to restrict growth. Maybe that's the intention: it's just seems strange and unnecessary, that's all.

Contrary to what's been said elsewhere, the sponsors cannot simply be reviewers because if that were the case then sponsors would only be required when a cache is placed. As the system currently is no prospective member can see much at all without obtaining sponsors.

[Icenians]

The quality aspect is self-evident and has been mentioned many times before by many people. TC sets itself up as a "quality not quantity" site but the evidence is that the quality isn't there..

Once again you seem to have missed the point. The cache rating system is designed to weed out the caches the COMMUNITY consider low quality. No listing site can expect to provide quality to everyone as everyone has a different opinin of what quality is. It's the ability for the community to vote the cache down that drives quality and that will not happen until the numbers of caches and cachers increase.

I know of the existance of top shelf cellophane wrapped books but what I don't do is make assumptions on the contents and then stand in the street complaining loudly about them. If I wanted to do that I would read one first. If I didn't read one first, I wouldn't be standing there shouting about it.

By all means don't join and don't read the book. But don't profess to know what is inside either.

[markandlynn]

That's my view also. If I wasn't interested I wouldn't discuss TC, but the sponsorship requirement seems likely to restrict growth. Maybe that's the intention: it's just seems strange and unnecessary, that's all.

Contrary to what's been said elsewhere, the sponsors cannot simply be reviewers because if that were the case then sponsors would only be required when a cache is placed. As the system currently is no prospective member can see much at all without obtaining sponsors.

Would you like a sponsor ALan ? ill sponsor you no fee no obligation you can have a look.

You may like the PQ which goes send me the UK gpx file.

It then arrrives via email no limit.

You can then have a look inside the book you could also post on the TC forum about how much you would like to try before you buy and how offputting sponsorship is to you.

Just a point to note here Alan, this is like posting in the election thread despite not being a GAGB member.

[amberel]

To see the caches within 100 miles of your home location just got to the todo list menu item at the top of every TC page. That will give you a complete list of you're nearest caches that you haven't yet found.

If you want to see a list for the whole country, go to the bottom of that todo list and select the country, or state in the US, you wish to see.

The map doesn't show all the caches at as you zoom out. You need to zoom in to find them all.

I typically pick an area with the map, select one cache in that area and then go to nearest TC's on the cache page to get a list of all the caches within 100 miles of that one.Many thanks for that; I feel a bit foolish now because it wasn't so hard and I can't see why I had so many problems finding my way round. Maybe the To do list didn't work before I registered, and I didn't revisit it afterwards. Or maybe "To do" suggested something I set up myself rather than just a cache listing. I don't know now.

The map operation is odd - I could understand it if there was a maximum number it could show at any time, but that doesn't seem to be the case, sometimes it hardly shows any at all. It's not predictable, and I don't know how far I have to zoom in before I can expect to see them all. But the map is less important with a sorted listing.

Thanks again,

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

The map operation is odd - I could understand it if there was a maximum number it could show at any time, but that doesn't seem to be the case, sometimes it hardly shows any at all. It's not predictable, and I don't know how far I have to zoom in before I can expect to see them all. But the map is less important with a sorted listing.


I must admit, I hadn't noticed a problem with the map until you guys raised the issue. I went in and tried it in an area with a known cache and sure enough, it didn't pop up.

I'll raise that later. Unless you beat me to it :)

[amberel]

I can't see any great value in cross posting caches. The caches are already out there so I can go hunt them if I want already.I would agree that in an ideal world caches wouldn't be cross listed. But we aren't in an ideal world - we are in a country where GS lists 99% of the caches.

The first question is why do we want an alternative listing site. My interest is simply because GS management appears to be very remote and unresponsive. They have an excellent web site and a fantastic database, but I'm not keen on the company that runs it all.

Others may be interested in the alternative features TC offers, but that doesn't apply to me. The scoring doesn't interest me, I don't like virtuals and I like locationless even less. I'm not much interested in puzzles, nor by "innovations" - my interest is in plain, honest to goodness physical caches in interesting or out of the way places. Quality is important, but as far as is possible to tell from a cache listing, the quality on TC is similar to that on GC.

So as all I need TC to be is what GC already offers me, it stands or falls on building up a reasonable cache density. My own feeling is that allowing cross listing, at least for an interim period, would help to achieve that. With sufficient caches cross listed I could choose to log them on TC instead of GC, and once a critical mass had been reached it would take off.

While the number of TC caches is so tiny I may do one or two, but I'm not going to switch over. And if I'm not switching over, I'm not going to set any TC only caches. I've said several times that I would be happy to cherry pick from my GC caches and cross list them, and I've seen quite a few others say the same thing. As it appears TC don't want me to do that, I won't; it's no problem. But it's pointless for TC'ers to exhort those of us standing on the fringes, looking in, to go and place some TC caches when the offer of cross listing is refused.

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

Would you like a sponsor ALan ? ill sponsor you no fee no obligation you can have a look.That's very kind, thank you. However - and please don't misinterpret this - I don't know you and therefore I really can't see how I can be sponsored by someone I don't know. It would be completely pointless.

In any case, I've learnt all I need to know about TC from this and previous discussions. Sometimes, indeed often, you can tell a book by its cover. After all, one of the principal functions of the book cover is to entice one to open it :D.


Just a point to note here Alan, this is like posting in the election thread despite not being a GAGB member.Which is why I didn't, except to decline a proposal of chairman (on the grounds of not being a member) and to comment on election systems in general.

[Bear and Ragged]

Thanks for explaining.

I'm not sure why I'm so averse to it myself, but I am - very. (It's not the word "sponsor" though). I probably wouldn't mind if I could try the services quietly by myself, and then obtain a sponsor when/if I had found a site where I would be happy to place a cache. Just a matter of personal taste, really.

I set up an account to take a look at the site...

Four offers to sponsor me with-in 24 hours -more like 12 hours!
(Thanks to those that offered!)

Nearest cache is 46 miles away, and seems to be a moving cache.

[Team Sieni]

I set up an account to take a look at the site...

Four offers to sponsor me with-in 24 hours -more like 12 hours!
(Thanks to those that offered!)

It's not lack of available sponsors that bugs me ... it's the need for them at all. I dunno, it just puts me off for some reason. I think I like to wander around the bookshop quietly on my own without having to speak to an assistant first (he says, mixing up the book metaphor completely). It's just the way I reacted to it.

Anyway :cheers: I'm not looking for an argument, so happy caching everyone, wherever you do it.

[amberel]

Ive looked on the terra wiki and cant for the life of me find this ban on cross listing. All ive found is that they discourage it not ban it.I looked into this today, because it is a significant issue for me. If the site allowed it and it was just a vocal group of members who are against it then I would bring the matter up for discussion again, because I am prepared to cross list my best caches but I won't take them off GS in order to do so.

However, the mission Statement on the home page says "To provide the community with a unique list of caches, not listed elsewhere, that meet the community's high standards of quality." and I don't think you can get much clearer than that.

Shame, but I'm not trying to stir up the pot and I won't be raising the matter on the TC site.

Rgds, Andy

[Dave Gerrie]

same here - i might consider it (although like TS above, I'd like to try it quietly first without the need for a sponsor) but I'm certainly not taking my caches off GS first! Something to think about though.

[nobbynobbs]

As a side point. I did try earlier this year to contact the organisers to open discussions on various matters between them and the GAGB. I never received any reply at all.
So if anyone ever does contact with one of the senior members please point them in the direction of the committee.

thanks

[sTeamTraen]

The first question is why do we want an alternative listing site. My interest is simply because GS management appears to be very remote and unresponsive. They have an excellent web site and a fantastic database, but I'm not keen on the company that runs it all.

I'm not sure that you have to like a company to use its products. I suppose it helps, but there's a danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face or whatever the expression is. I know quite a few people who switched from Windows because of some ideological problem with Microsoft (of whose products and policies I am no fan), only to find that their main choices were a free product that ran less than half of the applications they wanted to use (this was a few years ago - please don't write in), or a fruit-based company whose "proprietariness" makes Bill Gates look like Richard Stallman (geek moment there).

Most of the alternative geocache listing sites started up after someone stormed out of geocaching.com after a disagreement with Groundspeak over "ideology". Although, arguably the most successful alternative site is OpenCaching, which AFAIK has never got into a battle of that kind, at least in public.

I don't think Groundspeak does too bad a job of being accessible. Their phone number is not kept secret and is answered by a real (and very nice) person, there's a single contact e-mail address which generally gets back to you within 48 hours, and they welcome people to visit their non-secret head office location any Friday afternoon. That's not too bad for an Internet company with around 20 staff and close to a million customers.

[amberel]

I'm not sure that you have to like a company to use its products. I suppose it helps, but there's a danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face or whatever the expression is.I've no intention whatsover of cutting off my nose to spite my face, which should have been obvious from the last paragraph in the message you quoted from. No, you don't have to like a company to use its products, but there is a reason for not liking them which affects the use of their products.

Your parallel with MS is a good one, and I feel it illustrates my position very well. There are even more reasons for me not liking MS than there are for not liking GS, but if GS continues to have ineffective competitors I can see the situation getting worse than it is now. In both cases the reasons to continue using their products currently outweigh the reasons to switch, by a considerable margin, but I would like the option to do so and therefore try to keep aware of the alternatives.

Rgds, Andy

[Bear and Ragged]

I looked into this today, because it is a significant issue for me. If the site allowed it and it was just a vocal group of members who are against it then I would bring the matter up for discussion again, because I am prepared to cross list my best caches but I won't take them off GS in order to do so.

However, the mission Statement on the home page says "To provide the community with a unique list of caches, not listed elsewhere, that meet the community's high standards of quality." and I don't think you can get much clearer than that.

Shame, but I'm not trying to stir up the pot and I won't be raising the matter on the TC site.

Rgds, Andy

... How about two caches at the same spot.
One marked GC the other marked TC.
Sign one or both... :dunno:

Just a thought. :ohmy:

[Icenians]

... How about two caches at the same spot.
One marked GC the other marked TC.
Sign one or both... :dunno:

Just a thought. :ohmy:

There is nothing to stop that happening, or indeed to stop cross posting, as long as you can convince your sponsors to approve the cache.

You can expect the cache to be rated down by other cachers if they notice.

[amberel]

... How about two caches at the same spot.
One marked GC the other marked TC.
Sign one or both... :dunno:

Just a thought. :ohmy:Silly as it may sound, it's worth considering, but probably not too practical for me. I live in a built up area (inside the M25, near Heathrow), and don't generally have the luxury of large hiding places out in the middle of the woods where there might be room for two - very often it's difficult to find a good place to put even one. Many of my better ones (which are the ones I would cross list if it was allowed) are custom built camouflaged containers where two just wouldn't work :(.

I can think of two or three locations where I might be able to squeeze two in. I wonder what the finders would make of it. Do you think it might just confuse them?

The other downside is that it could be considered against the spirit of the TC rule, and also it could be seen as trying to make the TC restriction look a bit petty and absurd. While I don't agree with the rule I'm not looking to stir things up or antagonise TC'ers.

Rgds, Andy

[sandvika]

It always seems that I manage to arrive at the end of a lively discussion on this forum and this is no exception. Icenians has been doing a great job and said pretty much what I'd have said anyway.

However, I should add that the majority of early TCs in UK were created by TCers on holiday in UK, hence virtual to avoid maintenance issues. The early TCers in UK (myself included) are mostly sponsored by foreigners because there was not enough TCing activity in UK to get local sponsorship in a timely fashion.

There is now enough local TCing activity to get local sponsors and most new UK TCers are offered and accept sponsorship from other UK TCers. The majority of new TCs placed in UK are now placed by locals and are physical caches.

In my experience of seeking caches on three cache listing sites, Navicache and Terracaching are not populated by trivial micros in unattractive settings and this alone ensures that the average standard of caches on these sites exceeds Geocaching.

I really enjoy the clever scoring system on TC - it adds a tactical dimension to the game and is very deliberately designed to reward challenging hides and finds. Power trails of micros would not succeed as they would have low scores and be voted down. On GC only the raw number of caches counts as score, so they become a "must do" if you are being competitive in the game, even if you don't like them.

I realise at present that over 99% of cachers are not intrigued enough to venture beyond GC.com, however I view that as their loss. I also realise that a significant majority of cachers who do register on the alternative sites view the comparatively empty maps with dismay and don't come back, whereas the minority see it as a blank canvass on which to be creative. If I can convince just a few people that the glass is actually half full rather than half empty then it can make a significant difference.

Lastly, I also think that the absence of effective competition on listing sites is the fundamental problem that allows GSP to be complacent and exhibit authoritarian tendencies. Competition on the other hand fosters innovation and attentiveness. Venting in forums might be cathartic for a brief period however self-evidently does not address the fundamental issues. So I would suggest that voting with your feet and seeking caches listed elsewhere is more effective. It's probably more cathartic too.

Roderick.

[amberel]

In my experience of seeking caches on three cache listing sites, Navicache and Terracaching are not populated by trivial micros in unattractive settings and this alone ensures that the average standard of caches on these sites exceeds Geocaching.

That rather depends on what you enjoy. I agree about micros in unattractive settings, but I like the majority of virtuals on TC even less, and the locationless even less than that. At present the ratio of caches on TC that are unattractive to me is considerably higher than those on GC.

OK, I can ignore the virtuals on TC, but if you are going to make that argument, I can (and do) just as easily ignore all the micros on the Bracknell ring road.

However, I hear what you say about the ratio moving in the right direction, and that's good news.


I really enjoy the clever scoring system on TC - it adds a tactical dimension to the game and is very deliberately designed to reward challenging hides and finds. Power trails of micros would not succeed as they would have low scores and be voted down. On GC only the raw number of caches counts as score, so they become a "must do" if you are being competitive in the game, even if you don't like them.In caching terms, I'm not competitive. I guess it's to some extent because I'm not really interested in the scoring system that I find it complicated, confusing and difficult to understand. I've also seen discussion on the TC forums about people fiddling the system to increase their scores. I find that baffling too.

But I don't mean to be completely negative, I do want TC to succeed, just not at the expense of GC.

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

Lastly, I also think that the absence of effective competition on listing sites is the fundamental problem that allows GSP to be complacent and exhibit authoritarian tendencies. Competition on the other hand fosters innovation and attentiveness.I agree. However, I don't believe that TC is positioning itself to be a competitor to Groundspeak. If it were it would be listening to and acting upon discussions such as these. See nobbynobbs post above. Is that the sort of attentiveness you mean? :D

As for innovation, virtuals, locationless and moving caches have come and gone on Groundspeak. Having a listing site which continues to list them isn't innovative.

[Icenians]

As for innovation, virtuals, locationless and moving caches have come and gone on Groundspeak. Having a listing site which continues to list them isn't innovative.

I see you once again pick a small part of the site and use it as an example of why it's not something Alan.

You of course miss the bits that are innovative such as the scoring system, the ability for cachers to rate caches, the ability for cachers to be innovative in placing caches.

On the subject of virtuals we have caches all over London being archived due to security concerns but this cannot be replaced with the obvious solution at GC so presumably eventually GC will have no caches for the London cachers.

At least with TC the virtuals and locationless caches are available for those that wish to play those games. For those that don't like locationless you wouldn't even be aware they exist. On GC those that do like these options are simply told NO.

I hardly see it as an advantage to not be able to list these things.

Simply picking a negative aspect all the time and endlessly quoting the lower quality caches as prove that all is bad at TC and all is good at GC is a little suspect. I can dig out many many examples of grotty caches at GC and simply ignore the good ones.

As I said before, no listing site can claim to provide quality for all and, as I also explained earlier, that isn't what quality means at TC. It simply means the local caching community gets to decide what quality is collectivly. Show me where you have that innovation at GC?

Kev

[amberel]

As for innovation, virtuals, locationless and moving caches have come and gone on Groundspeak. Having a listing site which continues to list them isn't innovative.I'm not sure TC have ever claimed that virtuals, locationless and moving caches are innovative, but if you do want innovation, there is no doubt that TC does have considerably more scope for it than does GC.

Rgds, Andy

[sTeamTraen]

... the ability for cachers to be innovative in placing caches.

I'm not familiar with the TC listing guidelines. What do they allow you to do that's "innovative" in (non-virtual) cache placement, that the GC.com guidelines don't?

[amberel]

I'm not familiar with the TC listing guidelines. What do they allow you to do that's "innovative" in (non-virtual) cache placement, that the GC.com guidelines don't?You can pretty much do anything, provided your two sponsors agree. After that, the idea is that the community judge it by rating the cache.

This is how I see it, though it must be said I am not an expert on the subject. There seem to be two issues here.

The first is whether your cache is illegal, likely to bring caching into disrepute, etc., and the intention is that the sponsors deal with that.

The second is whether the innovation has any merit, or broad appeal. I guess the sponsors may deal with that too, but I think that is mostly down to the community.

I have no experience of how well this works. I have logged only one cache, a locationless, and I had difficulty judging how to rate it. In the end I just chickened out and gave it a neutral 5/10. I imagine people who have been doing it for longer are more confident about how they rate things.

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

You can pretty much do anything, provided your two sponsors agree. After that, the idea is that the community judge it by rating the cache.

This is how I see it, though it must be said I am not an expert on the subject. There seem to be two issues here.

The first is whether your cache is illegal, likely to bring caching into disrepute, etc., and the intention is that the sponsors deal with that.

It's true that this would ba risk but you must remeber that you are at the mercy of the wrath of the caching community so if you have placed a cache that is deemed illegal etc then the community can rate it very low, and should do so, to get it out of the system. Sponsors and Cachers would normally respond to this as this has an effect on your scores etc. This is the whole essence of driving quality at TC. According to the areas in the US where they have sufficient numbers it does work once it all gets going.



The second is whether the innovation has any merit, or broad appeal. I guess the sponsors may deal with that too, but I think that is mostly down to the community.

This really falls into the hands of the caching community. If they, as a whole don't like it they vote via the rating system. This again sends a signal to the cache owner that maybe they got it wrong.



I have no experience of how well this works. I have logged only one cache, a locationless, and I had difficulty judging how to rate it. In the end I just chickened out and gave it a neutral 5/10. I imagine people who have been doing it for longer are more confident about how they rate things.


A couple of important points to note on rating caches

1. You don't have to be a finder to rate a cache. This means you can show your disaproval without having to go and actually find the cache. Finders rates do carry more weight though.

2. Your rating is anonymous so there is no need to be shy and worry about upsetting the owner. If you think it naff then you rate it as naff.

I've noticed that the ratings system is starting to work on some of the poorer UK caches as some are taking a very definate downward turn.

Kev

[amberel]

It's true that this would be a risk but you must remember that you are at the mercy of the wrath of the caching community so if you have placed a cache that is deemed illegal etc then the community can rate it very low, and should do so, to get it out of the system.When I said it was an "issue" that was a bad choice of word, I didn't mean to imply it was a problem; maybe "aspect" would have been better. I was trying to split innovation into "legality" and "desirability" and explain how each was dealt with.


... Your rating is anonymous so there is no need to be shy and worry about upsetting the owner. If you think it naff then you rate it as naff.I hadn't realised it was anonymous. Could be good or bad, but I think on the whole it is the better way. It could be abused, but without anonymity it would be awkward with aquaintances. It's easier to criticise the caches of total strangers or very good friends, not so easy to criticise those of somone you know slightly.

If you visited a cache and rated it low, would the cache setter see the change immediately and guess why?

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

If you visited a cache and rated it low, would the cache setter see the change immediately and guess why?

Rgds, Andy

I wasn't disagreeing with you just using your post to expand a little. :)

I've wondered about the anonyminity of the first rating being made by the first to find as well. I'm not sure what effect 1 rating has on the number total from a finder. I guess the thing to try, and I will try this next time I ftf, is to rate it low and see what happens. You can change your rating later.

I tend to rate any cache within my 100 miles before finding it based on the description. I then revise that rating on a find. I guess that approach means that unfounds have an anonymous rating to start with.

Kev

[sandvika]

I agree. However, I don't believe that TC is positioning itself to be a competitor to Groundspeak. If it were it would be listening to and acting upon discussions such as these. See nobbynobbs post above. Is that the sort of attentiveness you mean? :D

As for innovation, virtuals, locationless and moving caches have come and gone on Groundspeak. Having a listing site which continues to list them isn't innovative.

The innovation of TC lies primarily in the scoring. TC started after GSP retrospectively banned the scoring system from being overlaid on GC (though in typical inconsistent fashion they did not ban G:UK's rating system). They could just have easily embraced it, but then that's GSP attentiveness for you! Their way or the highway. :dunno:

However, if proportional voting systems are not your bag, then perhaps proportional scoring of caches is not either. :D

[Alan White]

If you visited a cache and rated it low, would the cache setter see the change immediately and guess why?That used to happen on G:UK's rating system. For infrequently visited/rated caches it was easy to see who had given what rating though not of course why, since the value of a cache is in the mind of the finder.

[Alan White]

However, if proportional voting systems are not your bag, then perhaps proportional scoring of caches is not either. :DI don't see the connection, but anyway...

I'm all in favour of finders being able to rate caches. The G:UK rating system was a useful tool for being able to see which caches had been enjoyed by other people. I didn't always agree with the ratings but they did serve as a guide. But, value being in the mind of the finder, I would never use it as a means of de-listing a cache.

[Alan White]

I see you once again pick a small part of the site and use it as an example of why it's not something Alan.

You of course miss the bits that are innovative such as the scoring system, the ability for cachers to rate caches, the ability for cachers to be innovative in placing caches.As you correctly say, I used those as an example.

The rating system is innovative, certainly, though not unique until the demise of G:UK. From the descriptions I've seen the TC rating system is complicated and can result in a cache being de-listed. I therefore don't regard it as a good feature.

Innovative in placing? Possibly, but there are many innovative caches on Groundspeak. I think that "innovative" is being used as a synonym for "unlistable on Groundspeak". Perhaps there are good reasons why it couldn't be listed there; perhaps there aren't.

[Icenians]

The rating system is innovative, certainly, though not unique until the demise of G:UK. From the descriptions I've seen the TC rating system is complicated and can result in a cache being de-listed. I therefore don't regard it as a good feature.

The WHOLE point of the rating system at TC is to alow the cache to be pushed out of the system over time if the OVERWEALMING majority of cachers don't like it. That is what allows the quality system to work. Without that you simply have a million naff caches. This also allows poor caches to make way for other, better ones.

It doesn't surprise me you find this a bad thing Alan, you obviously have decided that TC is bad and therefore all aspects of it are bad.



Innovative in placing? Possibly, but there are many innovative caches on Groundspeak. I think that "innovative" is being used as a synonym for "unlistable on Groundspeak". Perhaps there are good reasons why it couldn't be listed there; perhaps there aren't.

That may be your take on it. I don't doubt there are many excellent caches at GC, at little harder to find amoungst the rubbish these days, but they are there. As there are no written guidelines at TC it does mean that the cache placer has more freedom to be creative. Now I'm sure that you're intepretation on that will be that we all run around placing caches irresponsibly and illegally, also not the case. I have found the largest number of TC's in the UK to date, about one quarter of those currently active, and have yet to find any that have given me any cause for concern.

The active TC'ers in the UK all seem to be responsible cachers who also take an active part in GC caching as well. It is a myth, certainly in the UK, that we are all disgruntled GC cachers who are running around caching with no regard to the law.

I think if you actually took the step you wish not to take due to some strange ideas about knowing your cache reviewers personally, I assume you knew your GC reviewers personally and will cease playing the game when you have reviewers foisted upon you that you do not know, you will find that most are simply cachers who would like an alternative game scored differently, that is very much in the control of the local caching community.

Personally I'm a supporter of the underdog and enjoy the challenge of finding the high scoring caches, and placing caches that will hopefully become high scoring.

Your objections to TC seem to be that

1. You get to choose who your reviewers are
2. You are able to place more cache types than GC
3. You cannot simply cut and paste your present GC caches to the site
4. You have a scoring system that is different to that used at GC.
5. You are allowed to rate a cache at TC if you don't like it.

I don't understand why you continue to comment on the existence of TC when you clearly do not like it, although your knowledge of it is third hand, and take every opportunity to make a negative out of the very functions that provide TC with a unique selling point.

Kev

[Alan White]

The WHOLE point of the rating system at TC is to alow the cache to be pushed out of the system over time if the OVERWEALMING majority of cachers don't like it.And I don't agree with that as a point of principle. Just because some cachers don't like a cache doesn't mean that everyone won't. A rating system should be seen as another input into the decision whether one does or doesn't do the cache. Denying everyone the opportunity to make the choice for themselves isn't helpful.


That is what allows the quality system to work.The evidence I've seen and heard about doesn't bear that out. Quality is in my eyes, not someone else's. Today I did an excellent series of 22 caches on a lovely 5-mile circular walk. You may not enjoy that sort of caching: I do. From previous discussions I understand that a series like that would never be published on TC or, if it were, it would be rated off. I find that strange: such series are almost always popular so I'm not sure who these cachers are who would rate it off.


This also allows poor caches to make way for other, better ones.I don't see the logic in that. If I go to the trouble and expense of placing a cache and it gets automatically archived because some people rate it poorly (or, conceivably, rate me poorly ;)) then I'm not likely to place another.


I don't doubt there are many excellent caches at GC, at little harder to find amoungst the rubbish these days, but they are there.That would depend on what you regard as an excellent cache. But I'm sure that among the 33,000+ Groundspeak-listed caches in Great Britain that you'll be able to find some you like. In fact, I'm sure that you'll be able to find many, many more excellent caches on Groundspeak than the total number on TC.


As there are no written guidelines at TCA fundamental flaw, I think. It may work with a few tens of caches; it can never be practical with 33,000.


I think if you actually took the step you wish not to take due to some strange ideas about knowing your cache reviewers personally...Sorry, I don't understand that. I was referring to sponsors, not reviewers. By definition, you cannot meaningfully sponsor someone you don't know.


I don't understand why you continue to comment on the existence of TC when you clearly do not like itI continue to comment because I care about caching in general. Firstly, a landowner who finds a cache of which he doesn't approve won't care which site it's listed on: he will just acquire a negative aspect of caching. So what one site does has an effect on all listing sites. Secondly, as has already been said many times, it would be good to have meaningful competition between listing sites. I remain hopeful that TC, as an established site, would want to be involved in that but given their lack of response to GAGB it doesn't look like they do. I think that's a shame.


unique selling pointBut TC doesn't sell itself. In fact, it goes out of its way to not sell itself by preventing people from joining without sponsorship, and hiding details of the caches - indeed of the whole system except for a broken map - until you're a member. It's no accident that there are 33,000 caches on Groundspeak and - what was it you said? - 40 caches on TC.


I think we - at least for the benefit of other forum users - just have to accept that we have diametrically opposed views. Yes, there are "bad" caches on Groundspeak, but the "good" caches on Groundspeak outnumber those on Terracaching by several orders of magnitude. Anyone who wants a quality - by their definition - caching experience has to look no further than Groundspeak.

[sTeamTraen]

It's true that this would ba risk but you must remeber that you are at the mercy of the wrath of the caching community so if you have placed a cache that is deemed illegal etc then the community can rate it very low, and should do so, to get it out of the system.

I can see the advantages of this for caches which make people go "yuk" or which might be deemed environmentally unfriendly, etc. (Dry stone walls, for example.)

But what happens when there's an issue like the recent one in Greenwich Park, or the Central London terrorism issue (which featured direct contact between the Met Police and Groundspeak, I believe), or the current flap over the Appalachian Trail on the US East coast (multiple conflicting messages from different land management authorities)? In other words, who's in a position to say "stop" when some of the more serious aspects of real life interfere with caching in real time?

[amberel]

Sorry, I don't understand that. I was referring to sponsors, not reviewers.It has been explained before that your sponsors ARE your reviewers. Apart from having an effect on your score, which you can ignore if you're not interested in scoring, that's pretty much ALL they are. I think you're getting a bit hung up over semantics on this one.

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

And I don't agree with that as a point of principle. Just because some cachers don't like a cache doesn't mean that everyone won't. A rating system should be seen as another input into the decision whether one does or doesn't do the cache. Denying everyone the opportunity to make the choice for themselves isn't helpful.

It takes an awful lot of negative voting and a lot of time for a cache to be auto archived. It doesn't happen because a 'few' cachers don't like the cache. In general a cacher will archive there own cache rather than let it get too low. Of course with varied cachers comes varied ideas of quality and so varied rates. I take it you would rather that a rating system reflected only your idea of quality then.



The evidence I've seen and heard about doesn't bear that out. Quality is in my eyes, not someone else's. Today I did an excellent series of 22 caches on a lovely 5-mile circular walk. You may not enjoy that sort of caching: I do. From previous discussions I understand that a series like that would never be published on TC or, if it were, it would be rated off. I find that strange: such series are almost always popular so I'm not sure who these cachers are who would rate it off.


Again incorrect information. Personally I would allow a cache of ths type, just as someone such as yourself could. I would only refuse cache if it fell foul for some reason. Whether it is quality would be for the caching community, including the cache owner, to decide. It seems to me that you would rather not be made aware that your cache was of poor quality if the majority of cachers decided that but would be perfectly happy to find that the ratings for your caches were high.



I don't see the logic in that. If I go to the trouble and expense of placing a cache and it gets automatically archived because some people rate it poorly (or, conceivably, rate me poorly ;)) then I'm not likely to place another.


Possibly not. But rather than a poor quality cache, and that is remember decided by the cachers, blocking a location forever, the area gets freed up for either the cacher or another cacher to use.



That would depend on what you regard as an excellent cache. But I'm sure that among the 33,000+ Groundspeak-listed caches in Great Britain that you'll be able to find some you like. In fact, I'm sure that you'll be able to find many, many more excellent caches on Groundspeak than the total number on TC.


and some would argue that there are way too many caches listed ow. Maybe it's time some of those were archived out the way. just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean they are better. There was a time not so long ago when there were only 136 GC caches in the UK! The numbers are steadily climbing not falling as are the numbers of active cachers.



Sorry, I don't understand that. I was referring to sponsors, not reviewers. By definition, you cannot meaningfully sponsor someone you don't know.


You seem to have a real problem with the word sponsor. Whatever word was used originally at the start of terracaching, it does not change the fact that the sponsors are simply your reviewers and nothing more. You can deferentiate all you like between the words but it's the role they fulfil that is important.



I continue to comment because I care about caching in general. Firstly, a landowner who finds a cache of which he doesn't approve won't care which site it's listed on: he will just acquire a negative aspect of caching. So what one site does has an effect on all listing sites. Secondly, as has already been said many times, it would be good to have meaningful competition between listing sites. I remain hopeful that TC, as an established site, would want to be involved in that but given their lack of response to GAGB it doesn't look like they do. I think that's a shame.


Most of us care about caching. GC is a site of many guidelines, one of these being get permission. However, the reviewers reported only last week that the number of complaints from landowners is on the increase. Guidelines are only of use if they are followed!

The GAGB is, in my opinion, missing the point at TC by trying to contact the site owners to build a dialog towards guidelines etc. The site is simply a listing site, not a company with a plan like GC, and the GAGB should be aiming to promote it's guidelines to the members by encouraging people to take up GAGB membership. It is pointless an outside organisation representing a very small number of cachers from a tiny Island trying to influence a listing site. The reviewers are the cachers therefore the GAGB needs to open a dialog with the cachers in the UK.




But TC doesn't sell itself. In fact, it goes out of its way to not sell itself by preventing people from joining without sponsorship, and hiding details of the caches - indeed of the whole system except for a broken map - until you're a member. It's no accident that there are 33,000 caches on Groundspeak and - what was it you said? - 40 caches on TC.


No I believe it was me that said I'd found 45 it was you that quoted lower numbers from your limited knowledge of the site. there are currently 136 and that number is growing as we speak.

People do join TC every day, in fact roughly 1 every 4 hours. They don't seem to be ristricted by the action of filling in a form to have a username and then pop back a little later to see if anyone offered sponsorship. Sure, people with a frame of mind such as yours will join, yes I know you won't, take a look around, moan about the lack of a cache in there village and never come back. But equally people in say Devon will join take a look around, notice that there are 50+ caches in their area and start to find some of them. They may feel it's worth adding a couple themselves. It'll spread and then perhaps one day some chap called Alan White might even poke his head over the parapet to see what's happening :)



I think we - at least for the benefit of other forum users - just have to accept that we have diametrically opposed views. Yes, there are "bad" caches on Groundspeak, but the "good" caches on Groundspeak outnumber those on Terracaching by several orders of magnitude. Anyone who wants a quality - by their definition - caching experience has to look no further than Groundspeak.

Oh I think people in the caching world are big enough to stay out of threads that they find monotonous. I've actually enjoyed this as it's been a lively to and fro between us. I would say though that it does seem to have been of some benefit to TC as the number of people coming along and taking a look has gone up over the last week.

Kev

[Icenians]

I can see the advantages of this for caches which make people go "yuk" or which might be deemed environmentally unfriendly, etc. (Dry stone walls, for example.)

But what happens when there's an issue like the recent one in Greenwich Park, or the Central London terrorism issue (which featured direct contact between the Met Police and Groundspeak, I believe), or the current flap over the Appalachian Trail on the US East coast (multiple conflicting messages from different land management authorities)? In other words, who's in a position to say "stop" when some of the more serious aspects of real life interfere with caching in real time?

As things stand there isn't. However, this is the sort of thing te GAGB could help with. They already provide a central contact point for their members caches. Rather than trying to contact a website owner who does not want to be responsible for every TC on the planet perhaps they should be working on increasing membership of the GAGB over at TC. That leads to the ability to communicate these things.

The Ramblers assocation or BMC have been used a few times as parallels so here's another one. I like to climb but I'm not currently a member of the BMC. If I turn up at a crag and climb I may be unaware of some restriction currently in place. If you substitute cacher for climber you have the same thing. GAGB should be working at the cacher level on a site run by the cachers, and at reviewer level on a site run by reviewers.

For example. Has there been any attempt to post a link to the landowner agreements over on TC? There may have been in the past but if there has it's not done regularly. It wouldn't take much to post a link in the forums once in a while.

Unless of course GAGB landowner agreements are only for GC caches.

Sorry, think I rambled on a bit there. I'm sure you get what I mean though :)

[Alan White]

I take it you would rather that a rating system reflected only your idea of quality then.Not at all, and I don't see how you can infer that from what I said. My point here is that TC claims to list "quality" caches and therefore de-lists (whether automatically or by shaming the owner) caches which some cachers don't like. I don't believe that's a good approach simply because everyone's idea of a quality cache is different. When it was functional I was very interested in the rating system on G:UK. I often was amazed at some of the caches which reached the top ten, and at those which didn't. Again, quality is in the eye of the cacher: let him make his own decision by choosing whether or not to visit.


Again incorrect information.Well, it came from a very active Terracaching member so perhaps TC should ask itself why such misinformation is being put about.


I would only refuse cache if it fell foul for some reason.Fell foul of what? Since there are no guidelines for listing on TC then surely anything can be listed? Wasn't that the reason for TC in the first place: to overcome what some see as unnecessary restrictions at Groundspeak?


Whether it is quality would be for the caching community, including the cache owner, to decide. It seems to me that you would rather not be made aware that your cache was of poor quality if the majority of cachers decided that but would be perfectly happy to find that the ratings for your caches were high.Once again I think you're inferring something which I didn't intend. I really don't see how I can say it much more clearly that quality is up to the individual and a rating system is just one useful input into the decision whether or not to visit a cache. Yes, of course I would be - and was - pleased to see a cache of mine in the top ten. But I would not archive a cache just because it was in the bottom ten so long as it continued to receive visits.


and some would argue that there are way too many caches listed ow. Maybe it's time some of those were archived out the way. just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean they are better.I've seen this school of thought before. Why should a cache be archived because there are "too many". How many is too many? Why shouldn't there be a cache every 161m if that's what the community wants? You make a big thing about TC's community making the decisions; do you not think that Groundspeak's community are also making decisions by choosing to visit the very caches which a TC member once described as an anathema to TC?


You seem to have a real problem with the word sponsor.I don't have a problem with the word: I have a problem with the need. As has been said by others, the need for sponsors is off-putting and they are not merely reviewers because if they were they wouldn't be required unless placing a cache. I have no doubt that if the need for sponsors were removed then TC's membership would rocket. I don't think that TC wants that because it wants to remain small and, in its own mind, elitist.


GC is a site of many guidelines, one of these being get permission. However, the reviewers reported only last week that the number of complaints from landowners is on the increase.Actually there's no such guideline. And complaints from landowners are bound to increase as the number of caches does. As I said on another thread, most problems are best solved by education rather than rules.


The GAGB is, in my opinion, missing the point at TC by trying to contact the site owners to build a dialog towards guidelines etc.Sorry, I don't understand that. The listing sites are the media which publicise the caches: GAGB is a local organisation which wants to promote best practice. It seems self-evident that to succeed in that GAGB must have good working relationships with the listing sites.


there are currently 136 and that number is growing as we speak.I apologise for failing to keep up, but I don't believe the real number detracts from my point. There have been 238 caches published on Groundspeak in GB in the last seven days alone. You cannot possibly believe that all, or even a great percentage of those, lack "quality". I would make the same suggestion to you as you have made to me: why not go back to Groundspeak and explore some of the listings? Maybe you'll find something you like?


I would say though that it does seem to have been of some benefit to TC as the number of people coming along and taking a look has gone up over the last week.That is good to hear: I would like TC to succeed. I don't like its model but competition and choice are good.

[sandvika]

I don't see the connection, but anyway...

Proportionality! Your score is an aggregate of proportions of scores allocated to caches you have found. Your score is influenced by others finding the same caches - it goes down!


I'm all in favour of finders being able to rate caches. The G:UK rating system was a useful tool for being able to see which caches had been enjoyed by other people. I didn't always agree with the ratings but they did serve as a guide.

Yes, that's the whole point of the rating system built in to TC: however, unlike G:UK, it even goes further and suggests caches you might like to seek on the basis of the similarity of your ratings to those others have made. (That would work better if there were more caches!)

However, voting down a cache with a "Should Be Archived" rating to the point where it does get archived (and long before that starts to have a negative effect on the owner's score) is perfectly democratic and fair.

On the other hand, putting a SBA log on a cache on GC is not democratic and therefore can lead to arguments.


But, value being in the mind of the finder, I would never use it as a means of de-listing a cache.

I'd suggest then that you reserve your SBA's on GC for cases where the cache is beyond redemption following abandonment, not where you form a personal view that a cache is inappropriate.

[Alan White]

I'd suggest then that you reserve your SBA's on GC for cases where the cache is beyond redemption following abandonment, not where you form a personal view that a cache is inappropriate.This is rather off topic for a thread about Terracaching but I think you misunderstand the point of an SBA. An SBA is not a means of rating a cache it's a means of bringing to the attention of a reviewer that there may be a serious problem with the cache.

Since you're clearly referring to Heaven and Hell (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6b4ab0df-4da9-4db1-92df-2fed956a5644) I should say for the benefit of others who can no longer see the logs that I stand by my decision on that. I believe that you encouraging cachers to climb a monument is not appropriate on any listing site and that was the reason for my SBA. I still believe that that cache is likely to bring caching into disrepute but in order to show goodwill I decided not to pursue it when you altered the cache page on Groundspeak.

I would also point out that you said in August that the first stage had apparently gone missing. The cache isn't disabled nor is there any indication that the stage has been checked or replaced. May I suggest that it would be helpful to cachers - on all listing sites as the cache is cross-listed - to have a look?

[sandvika]

Today I did an excellent series of 22 caches on a lovely 5-mile circular walk. You may not enjoy that sort of caching: I do. From previous discussions I understand that a series like that would never be published on TC or, if it were, it would be rated off. I find that strange: such series are almost always popular so I'm not sure who these cachers are who would rate it off.

Alan, I know which 22 caches you refer to which I hope to do on Friday, I had a lovely chat and a beer with their owner just last week :beer: I don't think that TC is ready for such series yet as it would distort the caching landscape too much (not unlike the Lovelock case, in its time) however, from what I know of the series already I think it highly unlikely that they would be voted off.

Similarly, you know which series caches I was referring to in terms of pointless micros that could be voted off if on TC. Just in case there is any doubt about it, one of the series is geographically separated from the rest and within 0.1 miles of our home, which I take to be a deliberate response to my complaint about an earlier series from the same person(s).


I don't see the logic in that. If I go to the trouble and expense of placing a cache and it gets automatically archived because some people rate it poorly (or, conceivably, rate me poorly ;)) then I'm not likely to place another.

Actually, I think that an unfavourable log on a cache is more likely to discourage more sensitive people from placing caches, than an anonymous unfavourable vote. I have been criticised for being too blunt in my logs and have toned them down accordingly.

Referring back to the person(s) who placed the cache close to our home, my criticism clearly stung them, however, their subsequent series was improved almost beyond recognition and has been praised by me and others.


That would depend on what you regard as an excellent cache. But I'm sure that among the 33,000+ Groundspeak-listed caches in Great Britain that you'll be able to find some you like. In fact, I'm sure that you'll be able to find many, many more excellent caches on Groundspeak than the total number on TC.

I'm note sure what point you are making here Alan other than stating that there are more caches on GC than NC and TC. I've already made the point that in my experience of seeking caches listed on all 3 sites the average standard is higher on NC and TC and correspondingly lower on GC.


A fundamental flaw, I think. It may work with a few tens of caches; it can never be practical with 33,000.

I disagree. The system is more adaptable to local custom. For example, GAGB guidelines tailored to UK best practice and applied on TC empowers the cachers. In comparison, the GC reviewers are disempowered, obliged to impose GSP mandates even against their wishes and judgment.

As TC takes off in UK, I would be keen to see discussion of the skill of reviewing effectively, because it would be invaluable for cache setters to have maximum resources available to them to set caches appropriately on their first attempt.


Sorry, I don't understand that. I was referring to sponsors, not reviewers. By definition, you cannot meaningfully sponsor someone you don't know.

You are in effect saying you cannot befriend people you don't know. I am perfectly capable of befriending people and encouraging them. To me, that's what sponsorship on TC is about.


I continue to comment because I care about caching in general. Firstly, a landowner who finds a cache of which he doesn't approve won't care which site it's listed on: he will just acquire a negative aspect of caching. So what one site does has an effect on all listing sites. Secondly, as has already been said many times, it would be good to have meaningful competition between listing sites. I remain hopeful that TC, as an established site, would want to be involved in that but given their lack of response to GAGB it doesn't look like they do. I think that's a shame.

Actually, I'd have to suggest that the microscopic resources that NC and TC have compared to GSP makes it more understandable if they are unable to engage with GAGB. The much greater issue here is the >99% of caches and >99% of cachers are on GSP whilst GSP is evidently doing its own thing rather than engaging with the GAGB to help serve its customers in the UK caching community better. I hope that's something that I will be given the opportunity to help GAGB with.


But TC doesn't sell itself. In fact, it goes out of its way to not sell itself by preventing people from joining without sponsorship, and hiding details of the caches - indeed of the whole system except for a broken map - until you're a member. It's no accident that there are 33,000 caches on Groundspeak and - what was it you said? - 40 caches on TC.

GSP has had over 99% of caches listed in UK since before TC started, that has not changed yet. TC is catching on in UK and has experienced massive growth in physical caches in the last year. I'm not going to go looking for numbers and deriving statistics because it's not the point. TC has merits that have attracted and retain my custom and that of others who have a vision of caching that extends beyond Groundspeak. That's the bottom line.

Alan, you clearly have an issue with seeking sponsors on TC, just as you clearly have an issue with joining GAGB as a member and you seem to have a reticence to meet with cachers in general since you don't attend caching events where exchanging views on caching is a major topic of discussion.

I think in general you and I seem to agree on more points than we disagree on, where we differ is primarily in the approach. I did not have an issue with getting sponsors on TC; I did not have an issue joining GAGB. I'd rather improve caching by engagement which is why I'm standing for election and have set out my reasons clearly.

Roderick

[sandvika]

This is rather off topic for a thread about Terracaching but I think you misunderstand the point of an SBA. An SBA is not a means of rating a cache it's a means of bringing to the attention of a reviewer that there may be a serious problem with the cache.

Since you're clearly referring to Heaven and Hell (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6b4ab0df-4da9-4db1-92df-2fed956a5644) I should say for the benefit of others who can no longer see the logs that I stand by my decision on that. I believe that you encouraging cachers to climb a monument is not appropriate on any listing site and that was the reason for my SBA. I still believe that that cache is likely to bring caching into disrepute but in order to show goodwill I decided not to pursue it when you altered the cache page on Groundspeak.

I would also point out that you said in August that the first stage had apparently gone missing. The cache isn't disabled nor is there any indication that the stage has been checked or replaced. May I suggest that it would be helpful to cachers - on all listing sites as the cache is cross-listed - to have a look?

Actually, SBA is the term given to the most negative vote you can give to a cache on TC, to hasten its demise. In the case of the SBA on GC of course it notifies the reviewers. On TC you know who the owner and their sponsors/reviewers are and simply approach them.

I was actually not referring to H&H (https://www.navicache.com/cgi-bin/db/displaycache2.pl?CacheID=10655) (or H&H6FU (https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCCHY)) specifically; it was brought to my attention by others at the time that you had previously posted SBAs on other caches that in your sole opinion (as opposed to the will of the GC caching community as a whole) were not appropriate, as opposed to neglected.

It seems to me inconsistent that you should reject the TC principle of a cache being voted down by the community to the point that it gets archived but yet post SBAs on GC or over-rule the reviewers and approach GSP directly if you perceive there to be a problem with a cache.

(However, on the off-topic of H&H, it and other of our caches are overdue for maintenance due to my unavailability in recent months. They will be tended to shortly and our long-planned new caches will also be placed.

H&H is currently not visible where I last saw it. That suggests it could be missing, however it could equally well be slightly out of position, which has happened before, which is why I have not disabled it. Others are equally as capable of rectifying the positioning as I am, in the course of seeking it. If I find it is out of position rather than missing then I may conclude it is muggles that are moving it and leaving it out of sight might be better, albeit slightly increasing the challenge to cachers with one particular retrieval technique in mind that would no longer work.)

[Happy Humphrey]

I agree with Alan on the "definition of quality" issue. I don't like rating systems much, as I have no idea what makes a "quality" cache. I know what type of cache I'm hoping for when I set out for it; that's about as far as I can go.

I haven't come across more than a handful of obviously "poor" caches in nearly 800 finds. I think that's a fair sample that allows me to judge the situation.

Some bookmark lists are useful as pointers to certain types of cache, and TC would perhaps be better employing a similar system rather than attempting to eliminate unpopular caches.

[Team Sieni]

Proportionality! Your score is an aggregate of proportions of scores allocated to caches you have found.

Ahhh. I see.:dunno:

;) I'll go away and think about that.

[Mongoose39uk]

Did the OP get her sponsorship?

Would have done it myself but I am an ex terracacher.

[Alan White]

I haven't come across more than a handful of obviously "poor" caches in nearly 800 finds.I haven't come across more than a few dozen "poor" caches in over 4000 finds. I think the view that Groundspeak has a preponderance of "poor" caches is put about by those who are disaffected with Groundspeak rather than with the caches which they list.

[Alan White]

I am an ex terracacher.Are you able to say why you're an ex-Terracacher? It would be interesting to hear a different view.

[Mongoose39uk]

Hmm, nothing wrong with Terracaching, its just not for me.


I find the site difficult to navigate, the cache pages were/are dull to the extent I didn't even bother to log my finds (even for the dual listed ones).

I already have lots of good quality caches locally to find (I guess I am lucky to be five minutes drive from the moors) on Geocaching.com.

As it happens I have just logged in today for the first time in a lot of months and still find I want to go and make a cup of tea rather than look around, still took me a couple of minutes to find listings. The rating system, well I look and it just makes no sense to me.

Like I say, not for me but appreciate others may enjoy it.

One thing I do like though, you can still list virtuals which I think is the biggest thing missing from GC for me.

To summarise, appearance and ease of navigation.

[Alan White]

I don't think that TC is ready for such series yetTC is not ready for an excellent and already popular series of good caches on a 5-mile walk in the country (aside from a short stretch alongside a motorway which is merely to close the loop)? Makes one wonder what sort of cache TC would like to have.


Similarly, you know which series caches I was referring to in terms of pointless micros that could be voted off if on TC. Just in case there is any doubt about it, one of the series is geographically separated from the rest and within 0.1 miles of our home, which I take to be a deliberate response to my complaint about an earlier series from the same person(s).An excellent demonstration of how a rating system can be misused or at best misinterpreted. Each of the 17 caches in that series has had 50+ finds in five months. If that's not a popular series I don't know what would be. That you don't like the series - though oddly you still chose to do it and were even FTF on some - doesn't make it a "poor" series.


Actually, I think that an unfavourable log on a cache is more likely to discourage more sensitive people from placing caches, than an anonymous unfavourable vote.No doubt true, but that wasn't the point, as I'm sure you know.


I'm note sure what point you are making here Alan other than stating that there are more caches on GC than NC and TC.The point is that anyone who is seeking "quality" caches is much more likely to find them on Groundspeak than anywhere else. Not all caches listed on Groundspeak are nanos on street signs :D.


The system is more adaptable to local custom.Yes, I can see how that could work. But didn't you say that your reviewers were not in the UK?


You are in effect saying you cannot befriend people you don't know.No, I'm saying that you can't sponsor someone you don't know. A sponsor is someone who vouches for you and says to those already there "this is a good person to know". Such a relationship cannot possibly exist between two people who are known to each other only as handles on a website.


TC has merits that have attracted and retain my custom and that of others who have a vision of caching that extends beyond Groundspeak.And that is good. TC attracted me also, which is is why threads like this are useful in helping me and hopefully others to decide whether TC is something of interest.


you clearly have an issue with seeking sponsors on TCI have an issue with the requirement. It dissuades - indeed, prevents - me from exploring further. I really don't understand why a website of which the only function is to publicise caches would prevent potential finders of those caches from looking at the details.


you clearly have an issue with joining GAGB as a memberWhat would you have me do? Join an organisation which has aims which I don't support? I'm sure you would be among the first to rightly condemn such hypocrisy. Perhaps I should also join the Conservative party, or the Labour party, or all the other political parties with whose policies I don't agree :confused:.


you seem to have a reticence to meet with cachers in general since you don't attend caching eventsSo now you feel qualified not only to identify which caches I should visit (the ones which meet your definition of "quality") but also how I should spend my free time? I don't enjoy visiting pubs and I don't enjoy being in large groups of people. Sorry if that doesn't accord with your view of what makes a good cacher, but there you are.


I think in general you and I seem to agree on more points than we disagree onI thought that was true but after this recent exchange I'm no longer quite so sure. In any case, just because we might agree on some points doesn't mean that we have to agree on everything.

[Alan White]

Hmm, nothing wrong with Terracaching, its just not for me.
...
Like I say, not for me but appreciate others may enjoy it.
Interesting perspective, thanks. I feel the same and I hope the value of this thread is that it presents both sides of the Groundspeak/Terracaching view.

In the same way as those who would say that the grass is greener in TC-land I'm trying to say that the grass at Groundspeak is not the brown stubble that some would have us believe :D.

[markandlynn]

Terracaching

Hard to navigate does not host pictures.

For terrain you post the lenght of the walk, height gain and the %slope

For difficulty you rate the difficulty of the hide

For a puzzle you rate the difficulty of the puzzle.

Visitors to your cache can log differences for example if you say a 5 mile walk cause you are exagerating the visitor can say its a 2 mile walk.

You rate your enjoyment of the cache simple like the old GCUK system

If everyone rates it poor the cache may be delisted.

You need someone to vouch for you as a geocacher before you can use the site Alan you have 1000 plus finds and several hidden caches i feel i can vouch for you as a geo cacher.

Number of caches on TC is low in the UK so the whole quality etc does not come into it.

I have over 400 caches on my GSP ignore list because they look rubbish to me i wont even seek them the owners will never know i dont like them cause i will never log them.

If GSP had a reason for planting section or something similar i would like to avoid the Drive by park step to the tree find micro stamp log increase find count by one type of cache.

In other words 1/1 traditional micros i hate them but judging from the no of finds others like them or do they ?

do they simply do them because they are there ? near to home and add one to the far to important caches found column. ??

just because a cache has 50 found it logs does not mean people enjoyed it.

[Icenians]

Did the OP get her sponsorship?

Would have done it myself but I am an ex terracacher.

Can I take it that you are a different Mongoose39UK from the TC one that offered, and became, a sponsor to a new TC member this very day then?

I hope if it is yourself that you will be active enough to review any caches they place?

[Icenians]

In the same way as those who would say that the grass is greener in TC-land I'm trying to say that the grass at Groundspeak is not the brown stubble that some would have us believe :D.

I'm not sure that we have been saying the grass is greener on either side of the fence. In fact I've acknowledged at least once that there are many excellent caches on GC. I mearly attempt to correct some of the inacurracies in some of the posts about TC.

Certainly in the UK, most TC cachers cache on both sites.

[Mongoose39uk]

Can I take it that you are a different Mongoose39UK from the TC one that offered, and became, a sponsor to a new TC member this very day then?

I hope if it is yourself that you will be active enough to review any caches they place?


Yup, I am happy to help out, just the site as it is offers nothing for me.

Just because I find it unwieldy and has little in the way of caches to entice me does not mean that I am 1) against the site 2) don't appreciate its use for others.

[Icenians]

Well, it came from a very active Terracaching member so perhaps TC should ask itself why such misinformation is being put about.


I'm not sure how to get a quote that included my part of the conversation you were quoting so I'll recap. The quote above was in response to me saying that a cache of the series you mentioned would not get listed at TC was incorrect.

What I said was I would allow such a cache to be listed. Therefore it is perfectly possible that this series of caches, or rather a similar series as I wouldn't allow a cross posted one, would be listed. I did however question whether it would survive long.

Your very active terracaching member possibly would not allow the cache. Perhaps, as I'm sure you understand by now, the fact that TC has many reviewers, who all have different ideas of what they would allow or not, would lead to different opinions as to whether such a cache would be listed. Of course, if the cache setters other sponsor disagreed then the cache would not be listed.

[Icenians]

TC is not ready for an excellent and already popular series of good caches on a 5-mile walk in the country (aside from a short stretch alongside a motorway which is merely to close the loop)? Makes one wonder what sort of cache TC would like to have.


I believe what Sandvika is saying here, you missed the important part off when you quoted, is that due to the low numbers of caches in that area, a series such as this would skew the points system considerably. as points are calculated partly by the number of visits a cache has AND the number of caches around it that have also been visited, a series such as this would have an unbalanced effect on points.

[Icenians]

Fell foul of what? Since there are no guidelines for listing on TC then surely anything can be listed? Wasn't that the reason for TC in the first place: to overcome what some see as unnecessary restrictions at Groundspeak?


Fell foul of commonsense guidlines, or obvious illegally placings. For example I would not allow a cache to be listed if it was in a dry stone wall.



I've seen this school of thought before. Why should a cache be archived because there are "too many". How many is too many? Why shouldn't there be a cache every 161m if that's what the community wants? You make a big thing about TC's community making the decisions; do you not think that Groundspeak's community are also making decisions by choosing to visit the very caches which a TC member once described as an anathema to TC?


There is no community input to the caching at GC. People place caches as individuals and cache as individuals. They have no say in what is placed or where it is placed as a community. You only have to read the many threads on for/against micros to see this. Number of visits to a cache is no indication as to the quality of a cache. There is no real way of knowing if a cache is good at GC until it has been visited. You can tell if a TYPE of cache is popular. Again as an example, if Micros get lot's of visits then you could claim that the micro TYPE is popular. But 50 visits to one cache may have left 50 diappointed cachers who are too polite to mention it in their log. Or they did so many that day they cannot remember one from the other :)



I don't have a problem with the word: I have a problem with the need. As has been said by others, the need for sponsors is off-putting and they are not merely reviewers because if they were they wouldn't be required unless placing a cache. I have no doubt that if the need for sponsors were removed then TC's membership would rocket. I don't think that TC wants that because it wants to remain small and, in its own mind, elitist.


There is no concept of TC as a being that has a mind to be elitist with. There is no concept of an individual or small group of individuals controlling it. Unfortunatly or fortunatly, whichever way you look at it, to place a cache you must have two reviewers. The assuption is, and the database is built in that way, that TCers will eventually place caches. If people did not place caches of course we would all be sitting at home argueing over empty listing sites waiting for someone else to make the first move.

If you mean by removing the sponsorhip requirement allowing you to join would be a huge increase in numbers then I'm afraid you are wrong. To date I've come across two people who have decided not to join because of this. Several people join each day so we are growing nicely thanks anyway. I doubt that any change to the underlying structure will happen to take this away so we must either live with this or vote with our feet as you have done. You obviously have principles in this area and I applaud you for sticking to them.



Actually there's no such guideline. And complaints from landowners are bound to increase as the number of caches does. As I said on another thread, most problems are best solved by education rather than rules.
.

Oh come come Alan. I challenge you to try and get a cache listed at GC by blatantly stating you do not hae permission to place the cache!



Sorry, I don't understand that. The listing sites are the media which publicise the caches: GAGB is a local organisation which wants to promote best practice. It seems self-evident that to succeed in that GAGB must have good working relationships with the listing sites.
.

I was trying to suggest that the GAGB trying to contact a team running a site that is deliberatly set up to run by a disconnected community is simply wasting there time. They will not get a response as there is noone there to get a response from. TC is a site set up in such a way as to let a community of cachers list caches. There is no one person in control. Hence my post suggesting that the GAGB committees time may be better spent trying to attract those individual UK cachers into GAGB membership and improve caching that way. The listing site IS the community therefore it needs to engage with that community.



I apologise for failing to keep up, but I don't believe the real number detracts from my point. There have been 238 caches published on Groundspeak in GB in the last seven days alone. You cannot possibly believe that all, or even a great percentage of those, lack "quality". I would make the same suggestion to you as you have made to me: why not go back to Groundspeak and explore some of the listings? Maybe you'll find something you like?


I'm not sure I ever said or meant that the many new caches posted on GC were poor quality. Nor have I said I only cache at TC! I still look after a couple of caches on GC which have been in place for many years. I've even been is gruntled with GC in the past and used NC for a while.

I do however believe that TC will become a viable site, and already is in Devon. It is increasing in UK cachers by the day and UK placed caches by the week.

[amberel]

Hi Kev,

Alan referred to a series of new caches on GS, and it made me wonder about what the group opinion of TerraCachers might be on a couple of subjects.

The first is series of caches versus single caches.

On GC, caches in a ring are likely to be forgiven if some are a bit "ordinary". Indeed, that could be said of some of my caches on the Thames Path and Thames Moorings series. I try to place caches in interesting places, or to liven them up with a camo or otherwise unusual container, or add a bit of humour, but I do have a few that are quite plain and exist merely to plug what would otherwise be a gap of two or three miles.

Now I'm sure TC'ers would disapprove of placing those ones that just "fill the gap". What I'm not so sure about is if rings of caches fairly close together are frowned on even if the individual caches are good quality.

The second point is whether a good cache container could by itself qualify for TC'ers idea of quality cache, even if placed in an ordinary location. By "good", I mean something a little different from a tupperware box or 35mm film can, something that has had a bit of effort put into it.

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

Yes, I can see how that could work. But didn't you say that your reviewers were not in the UK?

Given that TC was started by cachers in the US and the very structure of needing sponsors, everyone needs sponsors, means that someone, somewhere in the UK must have a US sponsor or two. As you also cannot have a sponsor down the line of your sponsorship, that will always be the case.

However, the system starts by alerting cachers of people needing sponsorship within their local area before expanding outwards in ever increasing steps. This ensures that most people joining these days will have a UK, or possibly Dutch, sponsor within a very short period of time.

So, yes some of us do have US sponsors but most UK cachers have UK sponsors.

When you combine the ability to choose your reviewer with the ability for local cachers to have direct input to the local caching scene you have far more community power than GC would allow.

[Icenians]

Hi Kev,

Alan referred to a series of new caches on GS, and it made me wonder about what the group opinion of TerraCachers might be on a couple of subjects.

The first is series of caches versus single caches.

On GC, caches in a ring are likely to be forgiven if some are a bit "ordinary". Indeed, that could be said of some of my caches on the Thames Path and Thames Moorings series. I try to place caches in interesting places, or to liven them up with a camo or otherwise unusual container, or add a bit of humour, but I do have a few that are quite plain and exist merely to plug what would otherwise be a gap of two or three miles.

Now I'm sure TC'ers would disapprove of placing those ones that just "fill the gap". What I'm not so sure about is if rings of caches fairly close together are frowned on even if the individual caches are good quality.

The second point is whether a good cache container could by itself qualify for TC'ers idea of quality cache, even if placed in an ordinary location. By "good", I mean something a little different from a tupperware box or 35mm film can, something that has had a bit of effort put into it.

Rgds, Andy

Hi Andy.

I think this is possibly a result of the quality arguement. I personally have no objection to a plain straight forward cache in a great location. I am not a fan of micros but found one that was hidden down the top of a sign post, a very clever hide.

TC isn't about setting just really hard caches! Personally, I think we should encourage people to set what they think is good. The local cahers over time will let you know if they agree or not. That way we learn what is enjoyed and what isn't. I've decided I need to place both puzzle type caches and plain ones around my neck of the woods as I've asked what people want, that and so far I've had 0 visits to mine :ohmy:

Typically my caches are multi puzzle type things that lead people around a place of interest, or along a good walk. I don't see what you are suggesting as being much different from that.

They don't all have to need diving kit or rock climbing skills :D

I'd say, judge for yourself what is quality and then see what happens. If the cachers hate it then it's score will gradually drop, if the like it it'll climb.

One thing I would suggest, don't place 22 in 5 miles. It'll play havoc with the numbers and I could almost garantee it'll get a hammering :wacko:

Kev

[amberel]

Typically my caches are multi puzzle type things that lead people around a place of interest, or along a good walk. I don't see what you are suggesting as being much different from that.

... One thing I would suggest, don't place 22 in 5 miles. It'll play havoc with the numbers and I could almost garantee it'll get a hammering :wacko: I understood that 22 in 5 miles would get a hammering if they weren't very good caches, but my question really was would they still get a hammering if every one of the 22 was a top quality cache in its own right, i.e. if every one would have got a high rating PROVIDED the other 21 were not present. If that's the case, and I understand from your reply that it probably is, then it implies there is an optimal cache density.

I think I can guess which 22 is being referred to here, and I'm using them to produce some example cache density figures, but I'm not judging how good they are because I haven't done them yet. For the purposes of the discussion we need to assume they are all good quality caches.

I'm guessing it goes without saying that one cache every 10,000 square kms would be regarded as less dense than optimal, and by the sound of it one cache every 0.25 square kms would be regarded as excessively dense irrespective of the quality of the individual caches. So what, roughly, might a typical TC'er (or TC'ers collectively) consider the optimal density?

Is the optimal density dependent on the terrain (e.g. desert, forest, urban), or is it an absolute?

I think, from what I've read, that scoring is affected by cache density. Is the TC'er optimal cache density based on what gives them the most caching enjoyment or that which gives them the opportunity for an optimal score? I understand that if you like the concept of scoring, then a high score is likely to increase your enjoyment, but that's not really what I meant here.

Sorry to ask all these hard questions of you, Kev, and I realise it's hard work being the most prominent TC advocate. But there do appear to be major differences in the approach of a typical TC'er and that of a typical GC'er, and it is useful to work them out.

It's interesting that, in theory, GC also disapproves of a very high cache density. They impose a normal 0.1 mile separation limit, they disapprove of "power trails", though without really specifying what constitutes a "power trail", and they suggest considering if several traditional caches close together might be replaced by one multi. But collectively, GC'ers seem to like "power trails" and prefer a group of trads to one multi.

My own preference is for a group of trads over a multi. That's not to say I don't find or set multis, but other things being equal I prefer trads. I like rings of caches close together, provided they are in a place I like to visit. Other things being equal I would choose to visit an area with 10 caches in preference to a single one.

But though I like what a TC'er might regard as a high cache density, those "other things being equal" phrases should not be ignored - e.g. I would choose a single trad that required me to take a dinghy to an island, or single multi that took a whole day's walk through a forest, in preference to 30 undistinguised micros in an urban environment. So, for me, high cache density but highly dependent on the terrain.

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

You need someone to vouch for you as a geocacher before you can use the site Alan you have 1000 plus finds and several hidden caches i feel i can vouch for you as a geo cacher.I thank you again for the kind offer.


just because a cache has 50 found it logs does not mean people enjoyed it.Oh come, surely you're not suggesting that 50 individuals decided to go and visit 17 caches, the nature of which is obvious, knowing they wouldn't enjoy them?

Here's a random selection from the logs:
"A great series if you are a numbers man."
"Thank you for all the caches you have put out ,helping us to reach our goals."
"He [a child] especially enjoyed the cache and dash element"
"thanks for a great series of cache and dashes, and helping me reach a new goal."
"I liked this a lot!"
"...thinks they are quite fun"

I did try, but I couldn't find any openly critical logs though I expect that's to be expected: those who didn't want to do the caches would simply ignore them.

[Happy Humphrey]

The Thames Path series mentioned by Amberel is a fine example of the "quality" dilemma.
As some might have noticed, I've found quite a few of those this year (depite being stranded on a rock in the Irish Sea most of the time).
My MO was to walk along the towpath for 15-20 miles, and only bother with caches that look like they don't entail much of a diversion (about 200 yards max, and even that might turn out to be too much).

Micros preferred, and not bothered about the location that much. Super-caches employing great ingenuity, sleuthing technique or difficult access generally ignored, although I might take on one per day.

Virtually all of the ones I found were top quality based on these criteria, but some might seem "pointless" to others.

[Alan White]

TC has many reviewers, who all have different ideas of what they would allow or notYou see that as a good thing; I - and experience - see it as a bad one. There've been many debates on Groundspeak about consistency of reviewing. When placing a cache a cacher surely wants to have a high degree of confidence that the cache will be published. Experience has shown that cachers simply do not want a cache to be denied by one reviewer in one country while another similar cache is published by another reviewer in another country.

This is the reason why Groundspeak's guidelines have evolved from the obvious to sometimes seeming too ridiculous. It is possible to get too close to Emerson but there has to be some degree and understanding of consistency. I doubt that the absence of guidelines and everyone being a reviewer can achieve that. Sure, it will work fine in the short term when there are few caches and all the cachers are those who went to TC because of its principles; but in the long term when an inexperienced cacher gets sponsored and then sponsors his friends who sponsor their friends then I have no doubt that the result will be exactly the opposite of what TC is hoping to avoid.

[Alan White]

I believe what Sandvika is saying here, you missed the important part off when you quoted, is that due to the low numbers of caches in that area, a series such as this would skew the points system considerably. as points are calculated partly by the number of visits a cache has AND the number of caches around it that have also been visited, a series such as this would have an unbalanced effect on points.Yes, the quoting system on here seems to allow only the immediately preceding message to be quoted; that sometimes makes things appear disjointed. But back to the discussion...

It seems to me that what you're saying is that it's more important to maintain the integrity of the points system than it is to place caches which cachers might enjoy. You'll be unsurprised to learn that I don't understand that at all :confused:.

[Alan White]

There is no community input to the caching at GC. People place caches as individuals and cache as individuals.It's exactly the same on Groundspeak: people place caches as individuals and cache as individuals (or often as teams or families, which I understand is something else that TC frowns upon and also stops me from joining). There has been community input to Groundspeak on many aspects of caching; from changes to the guidelines to additions of cache types. While I would never suggest that Groundspeak is as responsive as I would like I think that the suggestion that they are an unfeeling organisation which doesn't care about caching or cachers is far from the truth.


If you mean by removing the sponsorhip requirement allowing you to join would be a huge increase in numbers then I'm afraid you are wrong. To date I've come across two people who have decided not to join because of this.You cannot know how many people have looked at TC and decided not to bother because they need to find sponsors: you only know how many people have told you that they didn't. The fact that Groundspeak has a huge membership and no restriction on joining is ample evidence that prospective cachers prefer not to have to justify their potential interest in the hobby.

But this part of the debate is largely academic. TC is the way it is because that is the way it wants to be. It does not want large numbers of caches or caches. I suspect that long before TC ever grew to be, say, half the size that Groundspeak is now then many of the present TC members - who joined because of the exclusivity - would already have left to set up a new listing site matching their ideals.


There is no concept of an individual or small group of individuals controlling it.
...
I was trying to suggest that the GAGB trying to contact a team running a site that is deliberatly set up to run by a disconnected community is simply wasting there time. They will not get a response as there is noone there to get a response from.I merged these two points as they seem to go together.

I hear what you say but I don't see how an amorphous organisation such as you describe can possibly work. There has to be someone "in charge", and there has to be someone to respond to queries.

I don't know who GAGB contacted in TC but in any case even if TC doesn't want to have a discussion with GAGB it would be courteous to reply and say so, perhaps explaining the reasons why. Simply ignoring such contact isn't helpful to anyone.

More importantly, what happens when - as has already happened many times on Groundspeak - someone in authority has concerns about a cache and tries to contact TC but receives no response? In these times of heightened security that's exactly the sort of "don't care" (lack of) response that will get geocaching outlawed.


I still look after a couple of caches on GC which have been in place for many years.Yes, I saw that. I think it's especially sad that you decided to archive "On Location with Dads Army". It's too far for me but seems to have been a very popular cache which was visited as often as you'd expect a big multi to be. But it's your cache and it's up to you where you choose to list it. It just seems strange that you say that there are few "quality" caches on Groundspeak then archive one which would meet many people's definition of quality.

[Icenians]

It's exactly the same on Groundspeak: people place caches as individuals and cache as individuals (or often as teams or families, which I understand is something else that TC frowns upon and also stops me from joining).

It was Groundspeak I was referring to as caching as individuals. I'm sorry, but it is impossible on GC to express your rating of a cache other than by giving a polite but bland log which of course can be deleted. The only messure of a cache at GC is the number of visits it's had. That is no measure of it's quality. I've visited a fair few on GC that were a dissapointment, and sme on TC. On TC I was able to rate that cache after my visit and add my input as a community.



There has been community input to Groundspeak on many aspects of caching; from changes to the guidelines to additions of cache types. While I would never suggest that Groundspeak is as responsive as I would like I think that the suggestion that they are an unfeeling organisation which doesn't care about caching or cachers is far from the truth.


I've never said GC doesn't care nor that it was unfeeling? I'm still a premium member at GC and would still be a charter member had I not stopped caching for a while in the middle.

I've seen very little really change to the guidelines over the years at GC except for a general tightning up o them and the removal of a popular form of cache type. All these changes I seem to remember caused some uproar in the forums but that could hardly be described as community input.

By community input at TC I simply mean the ability for a local community to express it's preference on caches. I'll repeat that it takes and awfull lot of negative rating, and time, to drive a cache to archive. Low rated caches do stay but simply let the cacher know they are not the most popular.



You cannot know how many people have looked at TC and decided not to bother because they need to find sponsors: you only know how many people have told you that they didn't. The fact that Groundspeak has a huge membership and no restriction on joining is ample evidence that prospective cachers prefer not to have to justify their potential interest in the hobby.


Agreed, but likewise you cannot claim to know it stops people from joining. On the overhand of course, I can see just how many people it doesn't stop from joining which you are not able to tell. I only ever said that I KNOW of two that haven't joined for this reason.

Maybe I should put it as 'it doesn't SEEM to be a prolem to the 1 person that joins every 3.6 hours'. This I can say as they actually do join at that rate.



I hear what you say but I don't see how an amorphous organisation such as you describe can possibly work. There has to be someone "in charge", and there has to be someone to respond to queries.


I would suggest that the very fact that there isn't anyone in charge would suggest that the claim that someone MUST be in charge is completely wrong.



GAGB contacted in TC but in any case even if TC doesn't want to have a discussion with GAGB it would be courteous to reply and say so, perhaps explaining the reasons why. Simply ignoring such contact isn't helpful to anyone.


I've no idea who r how this contact was attempted and so cannot comment on that. All I was saying was that given the structure at TC I see it as fruitless trying to contact someone that does not exist and is powerless to do anything. GAGB should not be trying to bring a whole website into line simply because they want to chat about guidelines on one little island!



More importantly, what happens when - as has already happened many times on Groundspeak - someone in authority has concerns about a cache and tries to contact TC but receives no response? In these times of heightened security that's exactly the sort of "don't care" (lack of) response that will get geocaching outlawed.


I would suggest that as the caches I've found all have a contact email of the CACHER in them they would contact the cacher and not TC. Not a huge problem to solve. It is also possible if the cacher is a member of GAGB to leave the GAGB contact number in the cache. There is no central contact point at TC and so we don't leave a central one. It doesn't mean we don't leave a contactpoint at all though.



Yes, I saw that. I think it's especially sad that you decided to archive "On Location with Dads Army". It's too far for me but seems to have been a very popular cache which was visited as often as you'd expect a big multi to be. But it's your cache and it's up to you where you choose to list it. It just seems strange that you say that there are few "quality" caches on Groundspeak then archive one which would meet many people's definition of quality.

It's still acache, it can still be found. What difference to a cacher does it actually make where it's listed? Surely the point of this game is to find things. Where it's listed shouldn't stop anyone.

If I remember correctly I said there are plenty of quality caches on GC and so I was archiving this one to allow it to be listed elsewhere.

[Icenians]

You see that as a good thing; I - and experience - see it as a bad one. There've been many debates on Groundspeak about consistency of reviewing. When placing a cache a cacher surely wants to have a high degree of confidence that the cache will be published. Experience has shown that cachers simply do not want a cache to be denied by one reviewer in one country while another similar cache is published by another reviewer in another country.
.

And yet this happens so often at GC despite the guidelines.



This is the reason why Groundspeak's guidelines have evolved from the obvious to sometimes seeming too ridiculous. It is possible to get too close to Emerson but there has to be some degree and understanding of consistency. I doubt that the absence of guidelines and everyone being a reviewer can achieve that. Sure, it will work fine in the short term when there are few caches and all the cachers are those who went to TC because of its principles; but in the long term when an inexperienced cacher gets sponsored and then sponsors his friends who sponsor their friends then I have no doubt that the result will be exactly the opposite of what TC is hoping to avoid.

You're forgetting that the quality and setting of caches at TC has the extra 'step' if you like of peer review. For example, I rate every cache that appears in my 100 mile radius whether I've found it or not. I can revise that rating at any time and so may change my mind if something comes to light or I find the cache. This means that the cachers are in control of what makes a good and acceptable cache, not a one off decision by the reviewer.

Sure, things change over time. It's changed a whole lot at GC in a direction I'm not mad keen on. At GC there is nothing that can be done about it. At least ALL Tc cachers, not just the older ones, get the oppotunity to have a say in a democratic way. It would certainly end the old micro arguement if there was a clear indication one way or the other :)

[Icenians]

I understood that 22 in 5 miles would get a hammering if they weren't very good caches, but my question really was would they still get a hammering if every one of the 22 was a top quality cache in its own right, i.e. if every one would have got a high rating PROVIDED the other 21 were not present. If that's the case, and I understand from your reply that it probably is, then it implies there is an optimal cache density.

I think I can guess which 22 is being referred to here, and I'm using them to produce some example cache density figures, but I'm not judging how good they are because I haven't done them yet. For the purposes of the discussion we need to assume they are all good quality caches.

I'm guessing it goes without saying that one cache every 10,000 square kms would be regarded as less dense than optimal, and by the sound of it one cache every 0.25 square kms would be regarded as excessively dense irrespective of the quality of the individual caches. So what, roughly, might a typical TC'er (or TC'ers collectively) consider the optimal density?

Is the optimal density dependent on the terrain (e.g. desert, forest, urban), or is it an absolute?

I think, from what I've read, that scoring is affected by cache density. Is the TC'er optimal cache density based on what gives them the most caching enjoyment or that which gives them the opportunity for an optimal score? I understand that if you like the concept of scoring, then a high score is likely to increase your enjoyment, but that's not really what I meant here.

Sorry to ask all these hard questions of you, Kev, and I realise it's hard work being the most prominent TC advocate. But there do appear to be major differences in the approach of a typical TC'er and that of a typical GC'er, and it is useful to work them out.

It's interesting that, in theory, GC also disapproves of a very high cache density. They impose a normal 0.1 mile separation limit, they disapprove of "power trails", though without really specifying what constitutes a "power trail", and they suggest considering if several traditional caches close together might be replaced by one multi. But collectively, GC'ers seem to like "power trails" and prefer a group of trads to one multi.

My own preference is for a group of trads over a multi. That's not to say I don't find or set multis, but other things being equal I prefer trads. I like rings of caches close together, provided they are in a place I like to visit. Other things being equal I would choose to visit an area with 10 caches in preference to a single one.

But though I like what a TC'er might regard as a high cache density, those "other things being equal" phrases should not be ignored - e.g. I would choose a single trad that required me to take a dinghy to an island, or single multi that took a whole day's walk through a forest, in preference to 30 undistinguised micros in an urban environment. So, for me, high cache density but highly dependent on the terrain.

Rgds, Andy

Hi Andy,

I'm not aware of any particular issue of cache density. It wasn't how close the caches were together that I was meaning. If 22 different cachers all placed 1 cache each withing 5 miles then I see that as being no different from 22 caches placed by a single cacher. Don't forget a great cache might just as easily be about the route or the walk rather than the box at the end of it. TC isn't about placing just mega hard caches. I've done a couple that I left me wondering, why did they bother. I was able to reflect that when I rated them.

The reason that 22 caches in a very small area would be an issue at present on TC is not really about the quality of the caches but more about the scores. 22 caches represents a big percentage of all the UK caches and would have a strange effect on the scores for a small area. I'm not sure what that effect would be and I'm sure Sandvika, who seems much more up on numbers than I, could answer that one.

I cannot say how TC would react as a community to a cache like this. I suspect quite strongly negative.

That said I don't see that a set of caches leading you along a route, for example 15 miles of the Thames path would be an issue. It wouldn't if it was a multi so why should it as a series?

I suspect that the apparent popularity of caching trails such as those mentioned earlier are more to do with a thirst to get higher numbers. My own count at GC is very low by comparison these days but back a few years we were all trying to get to 100 and 500 was areally big deal. With the much larger numbers it makes these small numbers look ike you are an inexperienced cacher and so the temptation must be there to go grab 22 in a couple of hours walk.

Of course there is a lot of guff said about experience in caching :D. How hard is it to find a box :D

So, in short I guess that I see nothing wrong with a cache trail of good and not so good caches, I'd certainly approve such a thing. I would have to question the advisability of 22 in 5 miles as I would know it would get hammered. And I'd be one of those hammering it :)

[Icenians]

Sorry to ask all these hard questions of you, Kev, and I realise it's hard work being the most prominent TC advocate. But there do appear to be major differences in the approach of a typical TC'er and that of a typical GC'er, and it is useful to work them out.


Hey no problem. I spend most nights stuck in some hotel or other all over the place so this is the closest I get to conversation some evenings :D

[amberel]

I suspect that the apparent popularity of caching trails such as those mentioned earlier are more to do with a thirst to get higher numbers ...This is going off slightly at a tangent, but it is a moot point.

What is makes a cacher a numbers man (or woman).

In my case, other things being equal, I like rings of caches, and will most often cache in an area where I can find several caches rather than a single cache. But it's not because of a thirst for numbers, it's just that I enjoy finding caches while I'm out walking. And the location remains more important than the number of caches.

I am interested in and carefully keep a record of my own finds, but I believe comparing ANY statistics on GC is one of the most futile exercises it is possible to imagine. I don't understand the TC system well enough to know if it really is substantially better or not, but even if it is, I have no compulsion whatsoever to compare my score to anyone else.

Does liking dense rings of caches make me a numbers man, or does a lack of interest in comparing numbers make me not a numbers man?

Rgds, Andy

[Mongoose39uk]

This is going off slightly at a tangent, but it is a moot point.

What is makes a cacher a numbers man (or woman).

In my case, other things being equal, I like rings of caches, and will most often cache in an area where I can find several caches rather than a single cache. But it's not because of a thirst for numbers, it's just that I enjoy finding caches while I'm out walking. And the location remains more important than the number of caches.

I am interested in and carefully keep a record of my own finds, but I believe comparing ANY statistics on GC is one of the most futile exercises it is possible to imagine. I don't understand the TC system well enough to know if it really is substantially better or not, but even if it is, I have no compulsion whatsoever to compare my score to anyone else.

Does liking dense rings of caches make me a numbers man, or does a lack of interest in comparing numbers make me not a numbers man?

Rgds, Andy


How about someone who enjoys a nice walk that has caches along the route to add interest and take you some place you would not otherwise have been?

[Icenians]

This is going off slightly at a tangent, but it is a moot point.

What is makes a cacher a numbers man (or woman).

In my case, other things being equal, I like rings of caches, and will most often cache in an area where I can find several caches rather than a single cache. But it's not because of a thirst for numbers, it's just that I enjoy finding caches while I'm out walking. And the location remains more important than the number of caches.

I am interested in and carefully keep a record of my own finds, but I believe comparing ANY statistics on GC is one of the most futile exercises it is possible to imagine. I don't understand the TC system well enough to know if it really is substantially better or not, but even if it is, I have no compulsion whatsoever to compare my score to anyone else.

Does liking dense rings of caches make me a numbers man, or does a lack of interest in comparing numbers make me not a numbers man?

Rgds, Andy

I wasn't suggesting you are a numbers man. I just went off on a bit of a tangent.

I guess as I've had a recent burst of energy on TC to get myself to the top of the uK leader board, that I'm a numbers man.

I don't have an issue with people doing caches for the numbers. I was mearly wondering out loud if recent cachers felt they needed to accumulate numbers more quickly.

I'm not sure that any system works for number comparison. Over on TC the TPS score is simply a reflection of the caches yo own and have found. You could have a huge score simply by owning a single cache that was hardly ever visited, or from finding hundreds. The two are not really a comparison. One cachers works hard to get those numbers while another set 1 hard cache once. I'm using extremes here to illustrate rather than suggest that there are any cachers out there that reflect this.

I also don't have an issue with a ring of caches either, so long as there is a point to them beyond just adding to my tally. That's a personal preference and certainly doesn't mean anyone elses preference is wrong.

Just because I didn't like a type of cache wouldn't stop me fom approving it. It also wouldn't stop me from rating it poorly either.

[amberel]

I wasn't suggesting you are a numbers man ...And I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting I was a numbers man :D . And I wouldn't have been offended if you were :D . I was just going off topic to muse about what being a "numbers man" really meant.

Once again branching off, while the jury is still out for me on the issue of cachers getting a score, over the last couple of days I've pondered the matter of anonymous rating of caches and I think I am persuaded. I'm even persuaded over the 10% rating of unvisited caches. It is open to abuse, but with sufficient votes a malicious one should become sufficiently diluted. And one person's personal preference must influence it, but at the end of the day the averaged out personal preference is really what it's all about.

Well done for swaying my opinion on that one :D .

Rgds, Andy

[amberel]

How about someone who enjoys a nice walk that has caches along the route to add interest and take you some place you would not otherwise have been?That pretty much sums up my main reason for caching. Plus an attempt to get some exercise (for someone who does a very sedentary job).

Rgds, Andy

[sandvika]

TC is not ready for an excellent and already popular series of good caches on a 5-mile walk in the country (aside from a short stretch alongside a motorway which is merely to close the loop)? Makes one wonder what sort of cache TC would like to have.

Kevin covered this off well. Until the cache density increases significantly, having a high density patch in a small area would seriously skew the scores. We saw a similar problem before when Devon and Cornwall was a disconnected island from the rest of UK, due to geographical separation of found caches. A smaller number of caches in dispersed locations would be more appropriate at this stage.


An excellent demonstration of how a rating system can be misused or at best misinterpreted. Each of the 17 caches
in that series has had 50+ finds in five months. If that's not a popular series I don't know what would be. That you don't like the series - though oddly you still chose to do it and were even FTF on some - doesn't make it a "poor" series.

Well, I went out and got some FTFs and whilst out getting them realised what the plot was. However, I didn't count them as FTF as there was no GPSr or finding involved after the first two!

Yes, the owner(s) of those caches get more visits on these and their other series than any of my caches get, even those in "popular" walking rings. The one-dimensional "scoring" on GC (ie. number found) is what leads cachers to seek quantity over quality and ultimately drives placers to provide quantity over quality because they identify a target audience. Quantity need not preclude quality, however, it often does. This applies whether the cachers are competing against others to reach milestones or attempting to improve on personal "bests".

If the "ignore" feature on GC actually worked (it does not, on the maps), then you could ignore the poor caches on your doorstep, however, having your local map filled with caches you don't want to find but can find easily, eventually will lead to you finding them just to be rid of them. It was thus for the remaining nanos on streetsigns. On TC, the ignore feature works the way you would expect it to, so Andy could ignore the virtuals! :D So, with respect to the contribution that scoring systems make to encourage placing and seeking of more thoughtful caches, GC falls short, NC is better and TC excels.


The point is that anyone who is seeking "quality" caches is much more likely to find them on Groundspeak than anywhere else. Not all caches listed on Groundspeak are nanos on street signs . Yes, with G:UK you stood a fighting chance, though it could not exclude those you've found. Now it's gone there is no way of distinguishing poor ones from the good ones, short of recommendations. Back again to my point that the average quality I've found on NC and TC exceeds GC. I'm not saying that the top caches on GC are few or poor, I am saying that the average on the other sites is better, in my experience and this is more important to me than raw numbers of finds.



The system is more adaptable to local custom.
Yes, I can see how that could work. But didn't you say that your reviewers were not in the UK?
I'm an exception to some extent as I joined before it took off in UK, however, my reviewers have been great with critiquing and suggesting improvements to my caches. The ability to have a (sometimes lengthy) discussion about the caches being published is another way of improving quality. On GC, the small number of people reviewing could not possibly engage to such an extent, even if it were deemed to be within their remit.


No, I'm saying that you can't sponsor someone you don't know. A sponsor is someone who vouches for you and says to those already there "this is a good person to know". Such a relationship cannot possibly exist between two people who are known to each other only as handles on a website.
In the dictionary definition of "sponsor" you are correct. However, on TC it is to ensure the integrity of the peer review system, not to vouch for someone. Perhaps we can find a more suitable term.


I have an issue with the requirement. It dissuades - indeed, prevents - me from exploring further. I really don't understand why a website of which the only function is to publicise caches would prevent potential finders of those caches from looking at the details.
Well, it's the same principle on GC and NC - you can't see the coordinates of a cache listing until you register and sign in. TC happens to include getting your sponsors as part of the registration process. Cache placers get to choose whether or not their listing is revealed to non-members.


What would you have me do? Join an organisation which has aims which I don't support?
Not at all, I was merely showing how our approaches differ. That's all. I did not seek to imply criticism though hindsight being 20/20 it's now clear that it could readily be seen as such. I'm sorry about my clumsy writing and about the offence it caused you.


So now you feel qualified not only to identify which caches I should visit (the ones which meet your definition of "quality") but also how I should spend my free time?

Sorry again. I don't think I've suggested which caches you should visit and I'm certainly not advocaing what you do with your time. The point I sought and failed to make effectively was that face to face discussions at cache events have provided the greatest insight into our hobby to me. Again it's purely a difference in approach, not a matter of right or wrong.

From discussions I now know there are cachers who will not seek my caches because they consider them too difficult. I could only get them to do caches that I would not want to set and to be honest, I have set a few caches that I really don't like myself in an attempt to offer something for everyone.

However, not only has this failed, but also I don't enjoy setting them and there are others who seek out my caches because they think they are good. So, I have accepted that there are different caching audiences. I am not it it for the number of caches, but fot the challenge of hiding and seeking them. TC's scoring system does a decent job of rewarding effort and thereby allowing friendly competition beyond raw numbers of caches found. So, I'd like TC to succeed. If in the end it does not succeed, I can simply transfer my cache listings elsewhere.

[Mongoose39uk]

I am pleased you have found the quality of caches higher on terracaching Sandvika, however I have to say my experience is that they are no better and no worse.

As for the rating system. My understanding is that the average score is around 5? The caches within 100 miles of me all seem to be rated very close to 5 or below.

[Team Sieni]

(re on Location with Dad's Army) It's still acache, it can still be found. What difference to a cacher does it actually make where it's listed? Surely the point of this game is to find things. Where it's listed shouldn't stop anyone.
Glad you've said that. I've had my eye on it for a long time, and may yet go and seek it. I won't be able to log it but hey ... am I bovvered? (Hint: So if it does get muggled/withdrawn can you edit the archived GC page ;) )

[sandvika]

I am pleased you have found the quality of caches higher on terracaching Sandvika, however I have to say my experience is that they are no better and no worse.

As for the rating system. My understanding is that the average score is around 5? The caches within 100 miles of me all seem to be rated very close to 5 or below.

Well, of course your experience depends on how many you have found :D

In the UK we are all pretty much newbies. Although I'm not a particular fan of virtuals as I do like to find hardware, https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TC4SG is easily the best virtual I've found and I have a sneaking suspicion that https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCCTC could be similarly good!

I think your nearest might be https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCEG and it currently has a score of 45.

As discussed the score is a function of several variables including number of caches in the vicinity, so a dearth of caches in your area would suppress scores until some new ones are found.

[Mongoose39uk]

The cache you suggest "Say a little prayer" is 29 miles away and involves the joys of the M60.......

This one https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0aa2cafa-5af3-4649-b3b8-ed46c7b9c119 is only a couple of miles away, it is .8 of a mile from the road and took me roughly an hour from loading the GPS to logging it.

If you want a challeng that will take you longer (possibly a lot longer) there is the superb "Whitespace" https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=9658e987-c892-4bec-b28d-26d1c74dabdc or if you would prefer a virtual there is Subarite's "Soldier's Lump" https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=e222962c-b93c-4e73-b44a-0b575cab5111

Quality caches and there are plenty more of them on the moors to find. I certainly don't need a rating system to work out what I like.

Which would you find more tempting in my position?

[Alan White]

I would suggest that the very fact that there isn't anyone in charge would suggest that the claim that someone MUST be in charge is completely wrong.Someone came up with the idea for Terracaching; someone designed and developed the website; someone pays for the web hosting; someone maintains it all; and someone can turn it all off. That person is in charge. All organisations will always try to have one believe that there's a nice fluffy relationship and they're listening to what one says, but there is always someone in charge.


What difference to a cacher does it actually make where it's listed?I'd have thought that was obvious but just in case it's not: it matters because the primary purpose of a listing site is to publicise that the cache exists. Add to this that the cache owner presumably wants the cache to be found and the most effective way of combining these two objectives is to use a listing site with the greatest number of members likely to be interested in that cache.


And yet this happens so often at GC despite the guidelines.The volume of caches published on Groundspeak (over 1000 per month in GB alone) and the number of reviewers mean that it's inevitable that there will be some inconsistency, unintentional or otherwise. That is why the guidelines evolve: to try to iron out those inconsistencies and ensure that cache owners receive a consistent service. No guidelines and lots of reviewers equals anarchy.


I rate every cache that appears in my 100 mile radius whether I've found it or not.


The reason that 22 caches in a very small area would be an issue at present on TC is not really about the quality of the caches but more about the scores. 22 caches represents a big percentage of all the UK caches and would have a strange effect on the scores for a small area.

If there were any doubt at all in my mind that Terracaching isn't for me then those two statements would dispel it.

Someone who hasn't found - or at least attempted to find - a cache cannot possibly have a useful opinion on the value of that cache. Allowing non-finders to rate a cache belittles the whole rating system.

A cache should be rated on its own merit. What possible relationship can there be between the value of one cache and any other cache? They are separate: one may be very good, the other very bad. Dragging down the good one because of the bad one makes no sense at all to me.

[Alan White]

Well, it's the same principle on GC and NC - you can't see the coordinates of a cache listing until you register and sign in.I can't comment on Navicache (looked at it once in 2003, didn't like it :)) but the principle is not the same at all. Yes, you need to register on Groundspeak to see the coords (this wasn't the case when I joined) but the substantive difference, as you well know, is that you can register and start finding caches without any input from anyone else.


I'm sorry about my clumsy writing and about the offence it caused you.Accepted. Thank you.


From discussions I now know there are cachers who will not seek my caches because they consider them too difficult. I could only get them to do caches that I would not want to setYou have a dichotomy which only you can resolve (and aren't the first to have). Do you want to place caches which you enjoy placing but knowing that only a few cachers will find them; or do you want to place caches that you won't enjoy placing but lots of people will enjoy finding? Or somewhere inbetween (yes, I know that then makes it not a dichotomy :rolleyes:). Every cache owner must surely know that no matter what sort of cache they place there will always be people who won't want to look for it. It really is true that you can please some of the people some of the time. And it won't matter which site you list your cache on :).


TC's scoring system does a decent job of rewarding effortMaybe it does, and perhaps the reason why I don't like it is because I find caching to be its own reward. I (we) may have high numbers of finds but that's partly because we've been caching a long time and partly because we enjoy it so do a lot of it. I don't need a scoring system to tell me whether I'm having fun or not :D.

[Icenians]

Someone came up with the idea for Terracaching; someone designed and developed the website; someone pays for the web hosting; someone maintains it all; and someone can turn it all off. That person is in charge. All organisations will always try to have one believe that there's a nice fluffy relationship and they're listening to what one says, but there is always someone in charge.

Nope. They own the site yes but the very structure of the site means no one person is in charge.

Of course, the site owner could turn it all off or even change the whole structure just so that the GAGB can push it's guidelines on the world. We both know that just isn't going to happen.

Given that the GAGB appear not to have recieved a reply to TC head man, I suggest that I was correct in saying that approach was a waste of time.


I'd have thought that was obvious but just in case it's not: it matters because the primary purpose of a listing site is to publicise that the cache exists. Add to this that the cache owner presumably wants the cache to be found and the most effective way of combining these two objectives is to use a listing site with the greatest number of members likely to be interested in that cache.


And that approach leads to a monopoly.



The volume of caches published on Groundspeak (over 1000 per month in GB alone) and the number of reviewers mean that it's inevitable that there will be some inconsistency, unintentional or otherwise. That is why the guidelines evolve: to try to iron out those inconsistencies and ensure that cache owners receive a consistent service. No guidelines and lots of reviewers equals anarchy.


Given that most cachers are reasonale, level headed, common sense people I don't see anarchy. Don't forget that caches that shouldn't be placed will meet the wrath of the community.



If there were any doubt at all in my mind that Terracaching isn't for me then those two statements would dispel it.

Someone who hasn't found - or at least attempted to find - a cache cannot possibly have a useful opinion on the value of that cache. Allowing non-finders to rate a cache belittles the whole rating system.

A cache should be rated on its own merit. What possible relationship can there be between the value of one cache and any other cache? They are separate: one may be very good, the other very bad. Dragging down the good one because of the bad one makes no sense at all to me.
[/quote]

Oh I can certainly tell immediatly that a nut stuck on the back of sign post is not a good cache, in my opinion. Finding it would not change that opinion of that kind of cache. However, if a non finders rating was as influential as a finders I would agree with you. However, it isn't. It takes 10 non finder ratings to have the same effect as a single finder.

I'd also point out that this scoring and rating system isn't new. It's been around longer than TC has. It was first used as a rating system for GC caches in a part of the US.

[Icenians]

Glad you've said that. I've had my eye on it for a long time, and may yet go and seek it. I won't be able to log it but hey ... am I bovvered? (Hint: So if it does get muggled/withdrawn can you edit the archived GC page ;) )

I have a feeling you can log a cache that's archived on GC.

The links etc are still there.

[amberel]

Someone who hasn't found - or at least attempted to find - a cache cannot possibly have a useful opinion on the value of that cache.I don't think that's true. If we take the often quoted Bracknell Ring Road as an example, I haven't done any of them and don't intend to. I don't have to go there to know quite well enough that I wouldn't enjoy them if I did - the cache page tells me.

By voting on those I could, in a small way, tell the cache setter that I'm not keen on that sort of cache. If I'm in the minority and most people like them, they will go up in rating despite my view, because it's an average of everyone's view. And because people who will probably like them are much more likely to visit, and because visitors scores count ten times as much as someone who doesn't like them and doesn't visit, a low score caused simply by non-visitors implies that virtually no-one likes that sort of cache.

Remember that the score is not one person's opinion, it is the collective opinion of the whole community.

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

By voting on those I could, in a small way, tell the cache setter that I'm not keen on that sort of cacheWhy do you feel the need to tell the cache owner - who, let's remember, has gone to the trouble and expense of placing the cache - that you don't like his cache? If you don't like the sound of it then don't do it. Others will like it and be very pleased to do it.

As a fairly pathetic analogy, rating a cache you haven't found is like wanting a vote on Strictly Come Dancing even though you don't like the type of progam and don't know any of the contestants. Yes, you can ring up and cast your vote but it doesn't mean anything yet is still counted.

You've said that you're not keen on Mystery and Multis: would you vote against all of those simply because you don't like them? How fair is that, bearing in mind that the caches people tend to remember and rate highly are almost always Mystery and Multis?

There are plenty of caches to find. Do the ones you like; ignore the ones you don't. There's no need to rail against those you don't like - it's just the micros argument in a rating system.

[Happy Humphrey]

Top post, Alan.

That's why I feel that the only sensible "rating" system is one where the owners classify their offerings, to allow people to make a list of caches which are likely to suit their requirements at the time.

To borrow your analogy, that would be like the Strictly Come Dancing judges classifying the dancers according to style and ability, so you can choose which one to watch without having to be subjected to the whole lot. I might prefer to see the comically-inept one, whereas Mrs. Humphrey wants to see the technically brilliant dance.

[amberel]

Why do you feel the need to tell the cache owner - who, let's remember, has gone to the trouble and expense of placing the cache - that you don't like his cache? If you don't like the sound of it then don't do it. Others will like it and be very pleased to do it.I think the last bit of that quote shows you are still missing the point of how it works. If others do it, and they like it, then my 10% vote would pretty much count for nothing. But if hardly anyone visits it because they don't like the sort of cache that has been set, the 10% votes have more significance, and inform the owner that the reason no-one is visiting is more than that they are just too busy on the day. The owner can then, if he wants lots of visitors to his caches, try something different next time.

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

I think the last bit of that quote shows you are still missing the point of how it works.No, I don't think it does. I believe it fundamentally wrong that a rating system should permit someone to express their view on a cache without having been there and participated in the experience. It doesn't matter whether it's 10% or .0001%: it is of no value except to provide a structured mouthpiece for the "I don't like this sort of cache therefore they should be banned" lobby.

[Alan White]

That's why I feel that the only sensible "rating" system is one where the owners classify their offerings, to allow people to make a list of caches which are likely to suit their requirements at the time.I can see that that would be useful, and it could be argued that cache owners already do that by way of D/T ratings, attributes, description etc.

But I think that there's no substitute for the views of previous finders.

[amberel]

... it is of no value except to provide a structured mouthpiece for the "I don't like this sort of cache therefore they should be banned" lobby.That's not what it appears to me - it is a structured mouthpiece for nobody likes this sort of cache and therefore it's worth the cache setter reconsidering it.

The point I can't seem to get across is that if even a small number of cachers like the cache page, visit the cache and like it, then a few low ratings from non-visitors isn't going to appear on the radar. To get a bad rating it has to be rated low by a majority of those who visited it, and were disappointed, or be universally disliked and visited by virtually nobody.

Rgds, Andy

[Happy Humphrey]

I can see that that would be useful, and it could be argued that cache owners already do that by way of D/T ratings, attributes, description etc.

But I think that there's no substitute for the views of previous finders.
In many cases; doing some elimination, then wading through the cache descriptions, then creating a list on GSAK will get you there.
But if you're after a quick list of suitable caches, that procedure is too laborious, and previous finders' ratings are pretty useless unless you're only after the local "classics".

To Amberel: I haven't checked on TC, but would be interested to know what the guidelines are for giving a cache a good/bad rating: do you have a link to the web page?

[Icenians]

I haven't checked on TC, but would be interested to know what the guidelines are for giving a cache a good/bad rating: do you have a link to the web page?

There are no guidelines. You rate as you find it and on your own scale. I would imagne it would be virtually impossible to do anything else. I think the important thing is for the individual to vote consistantly.

Personally I have a cache in mind as an average and use that as a basis when rating.

Kev

[Icenians]

I
Here's a random selection from the logs:
"A great series if you are a numbers man."
"Thank you for all the caches you have put out ,helping us to reach our goals."
"He [a child] especially enjoyed the cache and dash element"
"thanks for a great series of cache and dashes, and helping me reach a new goal."
"I liked this a lot!"
"...thinks they are quite fun"

I did try, but I couldn't find any openly critical logs though I expect that's to be expected: those who didn't want to do the caches would simply ignore them.

I find this selection of logs you've provided as an example of cachers rating a cache, or in this case a series, rather interesting.

To me a number of these suggest that the cache was done but not really enjoyed in their own right. There is the suggestion in them that they would have enjoyed them if they were a numbers person, which suggests to me they didn't actually enjoy them. Others suggest that these caches were done simply to boost the cachers numbers. Now I would read these logs and draw the opposite conclusion to you.

If this is a representative selection from 50 logs then it doesn't sound that great to me. A score from each of the 50 cachers would however give, I feel, a more accurate reflection of the caches standing. Even more so when you consider that a lot of people feel it is rude to post a bad log to a cache and so the negative just get recorded as a bland TFTC type comment.

[Dave Gerrie]

Not posted much on this thread, just enjoying the debate!

I am curious though how, to use a well known example, Doc Solly's Chiltern 100 would be rated? If you rate each cache individually, ignoring the existance of the others, as if you had driven to it, logged it, and driven off again, then some may not score that highly (Sorry Doc - bear with me!)

However, the caches are designed to be done as a circuit. As such, they are, to my mind, an excellent series and we had a great time doing half of them a few weeks ago. How could these be rated?

Oh, and turning this series into a multi, as is sometimes suggested that a large series should be, and I wouldn't have driven for an hour to do it, and I certainly wouldn't consider 10-20 mile walk for one or two multis.

My personal favourite would be rating system like GC:UK, and an extension of the attributes system that HH suggests, so the cache can be categorized by type.

[Icenians]

Not posted much on this thread, just enjoying the debate!

I am curious though how, to use a well known example, Doc Solly's Chiltern 100 would be rated? If you rate each cache individually, ignoring the existance of the others, as if you had driven to it, logged it, and driven off again, then some may not score that highly (Sorry Doc - bear with me!)

However, the caches are designed to be done as a circuit. As such, they are, to my mind, an excellent series and we had a great time doing half of them a few weeks ago. How could these be rated?

Oh, and turning this series into a multi, as is sometimes suggested that a large series should be, and I wouldn't have driven for an hour to do it, and I certainly wouldn't consider 10-20 mile walk for one or two multis.

My personal favourite would be rating system like GC:UK, and an extension of the attributes system that HH suggests, so the cache can be categorized by type.

I see what you mean. However, the TC rating system is per cache.

I guess we all have different likes and dislikes. You say you wouldn't go for a single cache over 20 mile walk, points wise, whereas that is probably what would attract me to the cache.

Not sure what the effect would be score wise for the two approachs. I guess as a series of individual caches they would be found more often, I'm basing that on more people willing to hunt a number of caches possibly in stages, and so the caches would have more finds reducing their score. However, the number of caches found around a cache would increase the score. Of each cache I think.

On the other hand, one long 20 mile multi would be found less often, increasing it's score, but that score would be kept down by the lower number of other found caches around it.

So in short, I've no idea what the scoring would do in each case but the answer to your question is each is rated seperatly.

Kev

[Icenians]

Not posted much on this thread, just enjoying the debate!

I am curious though how, to use a well known example, Doc Solly's Chiltern 100 would be rated? If you rate each cache individually, ignoring the existance of the others, as if you had driven to it, logged it, and driven off again, then some may not score that highly (Sorry Doc - bear with me!)

However, the caches are designed to be done as a circuit. As such, they are, to my mind, an excellent series and we had a great time doing half of them a few weeks ago. How could these be rated?

Oh, and turning this series into a multi, as is sometimes suggested that a large series should be, and I wouldn't have driven for an hour to do it, and I certainly wouldn't consider 10-20 mile walk for one or two multis.

My personal favourite would be rating system like GC:UK, and an extension of the attributes system that HH suggests, so the cache can be categorized by type.

Forgot to add. It would of course be up to the individual how they rate the caches. You could rate each cache with them being a series in mind. So rate them all the same based on how you feel the series rated.

[Dave Gerrie]

I see what you mean. However, the TC rating system is per cache.

I guess we all have different likes and dislikes. You say you wouldn't go for a single cache over 20 mile walk, points wise, whereas that is probably what would attract me to the cache.

Not sure what the effect would be score wise for the two approachs. I guess as a series of individual caches they would be found more often, I'm basing that on more people willing to hunt a number of caches possibly in stages, and so the caches would have more finds reducing their score. However, the number of caches found around a cache would increase the score. Of each cache I think.

On the other hand, one long 20 mile multi would be found less often, increasing it's score, but that score would be kept down by the lower number of other found caches around it.

So in short, I've no idea what the scoring would do in each case but the answer to your question is each is rated seperatly.

Kev

I think all rating systems are per cache - so GC:UK falls down equally here - I tend to do as your second post - rate each caches based on the series, and give a bonus star (or whatever) for a good individual cache, and knock one off its a por hide.

regarding the above - for me, its nothing to do with how many points a cache is worth - its entirely down to the fact that I enjoy finding caches and signing logs - its what the hobby is about for me. Even if my numbers were invisible - or not even tracked - I'd still go for a long walk with lots of caches. Exactly as Amberel said earlier - its not about numbers as such, its about the joy of the hunt!

Finally, if I HAD to do a 20 mile multi (don't ask me why) it would get the lowest rating I could give it, regardless of how nice the walk was! And it would be equally lowly rated if I rated it before I found it!

The same applies to Rodz WTF of course - we had a fantastic walk along the canal finding lots of caches, but each individual cache may not receive a high rating on its own.

No answer, and not just a problem with TC of course! Just a comment!

[Icenians]

I think all rating systems are per cache - so GC:UK falls down equally here - I tend to do as your second post - rate each caches based on the series, and give a bonus star (or whatever) for a good individual cache, and knock one off its a por hide.

regarding the above - for me, its nothing to do with how many points a cache is worth - its entirely down to the fact that I enjoy finding caches and signing logs - its what the hobby is about for me. Even if my numbers were invisible - or not even tracked - I'd still go for a long walk with lots of caches. Exactly as Amberel said earlier - its not about numbers as such, its about the joy of the hunt!

Finally, if I HAD to do a 20 mile multi (don't ask me why) it would get the lowest rating I could give it, regardless of how nice the walk was! And it would be equally lowly rated if I rated it before I found it!

The same applies to Rodz WTF of course - we had a fantastic walk along the canal finding lots of caches, but each individual cache may not receive a high rating on its own.

No answer, and not just a problem with TC of course! Just a comment!

The points were really just aout the consequence of the two approachs to listing the cache(s). The rating is a seperate score from the points.

One is a measure of the cache ratings, the other is a score that over time reflects the difficulty of the cache.

[amberel]

To Amberel: I haven't checked on TC, but would be interested to know what the guidelines are for giving a cache a good/bad rating: do you have a link to the web page?Kev has already answered, and more authoritatively than I could have done.

I'm no expert at all on this, having rated only one cache, and a locationless at that, which is a type I don't enjoy. And before you ask why I logged it, it was something I saw on the way back from a GC cache that took 3 very long days for the trip there and back, and for which I ended up registering a DNF :D . So the TC locationless was a sort of consolation prize :D .

I did ask for advice on how I should rate a locationless, bearing mind I didn't like them in general. There was some disagreement about the right course of action, but the majority felt I should not rate it down because of my dislike for the genre. But locationless are not quite the same as virtuals on TC - they have a completely separate section whereas virtuals are grouped in with physicals. I get the feeling it would be OK to downrate virtuals because I'm less keen on them, but not to downrate locationless. That's not to say I would rate all virtuals rock bottom, but other things being equal (my favourite phrase) they would score lower than physicals.

I suspect I've made matters even more confusing, sorry :D .

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

The point I can't seem to get acrossNot at all. I understand the point: we just don't agree. You believe that it's good for someone to be able to rate a cache without having any intention of visiting it; I believe that it's both wrong and meaningless. We can't resolve that: we just have different views.

[amberel]

Not at all. I understand the point: we just don't agree. You believe that it's good for someone to be able to rate a cache without having any intention of visiting it; I believe that it's both wrong and meaningless. We can't resolve that: we just have different views.Unfortunately your answer shows that I STILL have not explained my point clearly :) .

My point is NOT whether it is good or bad, right or wrong - I agree we have to disagree on that. The point I have been trying to make is that the EFFECT of voting by those who haven't visited is negligible compared to those who have, and only comes into play if the cache is so universally disliked that virtually no-one visits it.

S'OK everyone, I shall do my best to restrain myself from commenting on this aspect any more :D:D:D .

Rgds, Andy

[Happy Humphrey]

There are no guidelines. You rate as you find it and on your own scale. I would imagne it would be virtually impossible to do anything else. I think the important thing is for the individual to vote consistantly.

Personally I have a cache in mind as an average and use that as a basis when rating.

Kev
Thanks for clarifying.
I would use a very different system if I was forced to rate caches, so the rating would ultimately be meaningless.

[Alan White]

the EFFECT of voting by those who haven't visited is negligibleThen why have it?


the cache is so universally disliked that virtually no-one visits it.Just because a cache isn't visited often doesn't mean that no-one likes it. It may be a difficult puzzle, or a long walk, or in a remote location. There are many reasons why a cache might get few visits.

As discussed earlier, I believe that the number of visits to a cache is itself a measure of the cache's popularity but the reverse is not the case. Some of the highest rated caches on G:UK were those that were visited infrequently simply because they're difficult. That's often why people enjoy and remember them.


I would use a very different system if I was forced to rate caches, so the rating would ultimately be meaningless.Everyone uses their own system to rate caches but that doesn't make a rating system meaningless. A good rating system, providing the number of votes is significant, will iron out such anomalies.

[Icenians]

Thanks for clarifying.
I would use a very different system if I was forced to rate caches, so the rating would ultimately be meaningless.

I don't see how this makes a rating meaningless. The very fact that some people like micros and some don't show we are all different in what we would rate as good or bad.

How could a guideline be applied to a rating system?

[Icenians]

Then why have it?



To distinguish between those caches visited infrequently because of, say time, and those that people do not want to bother with.

The rating system allows this feedback. Simply ignoring a cache leaves the setter not knowing if it disliked or to difficult.

[Icenians]

Then why have it?

Just because a cache isn't visited often doesn't mean that no-one likes it. It may be a difficult puzzle, or a long walk, or in a remote location. There are many reasons why a cache might get few visits.


One of those resons being that it isn't worth the visit!

Don't forget that ratings are not just about the negative. It is just as valid to say that's a great sounding cache and I'll get to it on of these days.

Your rating can also be changed at any time as you find the cache or other info comes to light.

[amberel]

Then why have it?
I'm really sorry everyone, I did say I would try not to comment again, but that post is such a misrepresentation of what I said that I just can't let it pass.

Why did you extract just a few words out of my sentence and quote them completely out of their context? You don't have to look very far at all for the reason to have it - go back and read the remainder of that same sentence!!!


Just because a cache isn't visited often doesn't mean that no-one likes it. It may be a difficult puzzle, or a long walk, or in a remote location. There are many reasons why a cache might get few visits.I think you've quite neatly argued my point for me there! It's exactly why being able to rate caches before visiting them appears to me to be a useful feature. It's a fairly blunt tool, but it's better than no tool at all. If you like a difficult puzzle, or a long walk, or a remote location, but you haven't had an opportunity to visit yet, you can rate it high to let the owner know the reason is not just because you don't like the cache.

And you missed off other possible reasons why a cache might not get many visits - it's right beside a very busy road, the area is full of rubbish or is frequented by drug addicts, it's in a dry stone wall, etc. A collective low vote lets the setter know it's not just a matter of being temporarily indisposed, or of a lack of opportunity, but that the cache is likely to remain unvisited.

Rgds, Andy

[Happy Humphrey]

I don't see how this makes a rating meaningless. The very fact that some people like micros and some don't show we are all different in what we would rate as good or bad.

How could a guideline be applied to a rating system?
Well, take an extreme example, as an illustration. A new cache appears and three cachers hurry off to it.
One gives it top marks because he had fun with the excitement of the FTF race. As it was fun, nothing else matters.
The second thinks that, even though it was a good hiding place and container, it was a micro and should be discouraged by definition. He wants swaps and trackables. So he gives it bottom marks.
The third cacher is OK with micros, but insists that caching is all about getting a good walk out in the country, and a cache should give you a bit of an adventure. The micro is less than a hundred yards from the car: the type of thing that's ruining caching. Bottom marks.

As there are no guidelines, all ratings are valid but based on different concepts of caching I don't see any value in them.

[Icenians]

Well, take an extreme example, as an illustration. A new cache appears and three cachers hurry off to it.
One gives it top marks because he had fun with the excitement of the FTF race. As it was fun, nothing else matters.
The second thinks that, even though it was a good hiding place and container, it was a micro and should be discouraged by definition. He wants swaps and trackables. So he gives it bottom marks.
The third cacher is OK with micros, but insists that caching is all about getting a good walk out in the country, and a cache should give you a bit of an adventure. The micro is less than a hundred yards from the car: the type of thing that's ruining caching. Bottom marks.

As there are no guidelines, all ratings are valid but based on different concepts of caching I don't see any value in them.

An interesting angle. What sort of guidelines would you suggest?

Even in your example it appears to me that we now have a 'slightly' below average cache rating based on 1 liking it a lot and 2 finding fault.

[Happy Humphrey]

The point is, the overall rating could have been anything. Below average based on these three, but another three cachers may have had even more different opinions on what "cache rating" is supposed to be.

Perhaps the next person along actually hated it, but thought that it could be a good cache for someone just passing by who wanted a quick break so gave it high marks. Then the next one thought the same, but as it didn't suit them marked it low. Then the next one saw who created it, doesn't like that person's caches so marked it low without finding it.

It would probably end up "average" after a lot of finds: so what does that tell me? Nothing, because I don't know what people were judging the cache on.

I would have expected guidelines to let you know how to judge a cache. Whether it's strictly how much enjoyment you got out of it at the time, or whether you're supposed to judge if it's a "good cache" according to the TC definition (which is?). Or whether you should use your own personal definition; or whether you should judge that it's generally good, but not for you. Perhaps you should only mark it if you found it, or perhaps a DNF is sufficient. Should you mark all caches based on trying to encourage or discourage certain types, or is that bad form. And so on! :)

[Icenians]

The point is, the overall rating could have been anything. Below average based on these three, but another three cachers may have had even more different opinions on what "cache rating" is supposed to be.

Perhaps the next person along actually hated it, but thought that it could be a good cache for someone just passing by who wanted a quick break so gave it high marks. Then the next one thought the same, but as it didn't suit them marked it low. Then the next one saw who created it, doesn't like that person's caches so marked it low without finding it.

It would probably end up "average" after a lot of finds: so what does that tell me? Nothing, because I don't know what people were judging the cache on.

I would have expected guidelines to let you know how to judge a cache. Whether it's strictly how much enjoyment you got out of it at the time, or whether you're supposed to judge if it's a "good cache" according to the TC definition (which is?). Or whether you should use your own personal definition; or whether you should judge that it's generally good, but not for you. Perhaps you should only mark it if you found it, or perhaps a DNF is sufficient. Should you mark all caches based on trying to encourage or discourage certain types, or is that bad form. And so on! :)

The ratings themselves are based on values from Should be Archived to Suberb with various levels of above or below average in between. I take those as a guide in that if the cache is average it gets that, if something about it was above or below then it gets something in that direction.

I don't think anyone could ever claim that any rating system, with or without guidelines, is perfect. I would however comment that it does seem to work.

The rating system also allows the system to select a recommended list of caches based on your ratings. How well that works is yet to be seen in the UK. Given the numbers here most of the recommedations for me are in the US.

The experience from the US where there are A. more caches and B. this system ran alongside GC caches before the existance of TC, is that it does work well once the numbers are there.

Kev

[Happy Humphrey]

I admit I don't have any experience of Terracaching in action, so I suppose I can't take the discussion further without trying it out. I must admit I'm put off by the haughty "mission statement" though. :(

I'm visiting the UK for a long weekend next month and should have a few Terracaches on the route (or so I thought at first), considering it starts in Birmingham and takes in Oxford, Milton Keynes, Reigate, the North Downs (on foot for three days), Reading, Swindon, Worcester and Stourport-on-Severn (and many places inbetween).

I haven't registered for the site so all I can see is the map, and this appears to show the whole route completely cache-free for quite a distance each side (:confused:). I wasn't expecting thousands, but surely there are more than this?

For geocaching purposes, I'll be seeking out bookmark lists in various areas to give some pointers. For the North Downs section it'll be a "caches along a route". For waymarking, I'll keep my eyes peeled. For Terracaching, it looks like I can just forget it :o.

[markandlynn]

Another element of the rating system is that you can vote the difficulty and terrain as wrong after finding a terracache.

Terrain is a description of the length of walk, the ground beneath your feet and elevation gained.

Difficulty is the difficulty of the hide (not the puzzle) very clear definitions are provided to help you.

An issue on GSP is that i can never let a cacher know thier caches dont appeal all i can do is ignore them, we then get the current monkey see monkey do way of setting caches.

As and aside just why are these power trails allowed even though they are not allowed by GSP ?.

A few pages ago someone said they would do a walk for loads of caches but not the same walk for a multi, what is the difference ? the stages provide the quoted thrill of the hunt.

Can anyone say that a motorway mayhem is a great cache ? honestly ? and those who say diversion on a long journey what do you do if you have allready found it ? go sign the logbook again ?

[sandvika]

I can't comment on Navicache (looked at it once in 2003, didn't like it :))

I'd have to concur that Navicache is the clunkiest of the 3 sites to use, it has not really been developed (eg. implementing the Google Maps API to provide global maps is a doddle but has not been done) however, what appeals to me about Navicache is syndication. Theoretically the caches that I've listed there are available for viewing on any other site that is in the syndication pool. In practice I don't think this has any effect due to a lack of competition in the UK.

However, as I've stated before, the cache quality on Navicache is such that I'd be depriving myself by ignoring it!


you can register and start finding caches without any input from anyone else.

On balance I think you're right. It's clearly a barrier to entry for you and it would be reasonable to deduce that it is a barrier to an unknown proportion of others too.


You have a dichotomy which only you can resolve (and aren't the first to have). Do you want to place caches which you enjoy placing but knowing that only a few cachers will find them; or do you want to place caches that you won't enjoy placing but lots of people will enjoy finding? Or somewhere inbetween (yes, I know that then makes it not a dichotomy :rolleyes:). Every cache owner must surely know that no matter what sort of cache they place there will always be people who won't want to look for it. It really is true that you can please some of the people some of the time. And it won't matter which site you list your cache on :).

Yes, spot on. It's a dichotomy! Ooh, I feel the need for a sock-puppet account coming on, so I can have multiple "brands". ;) Rather like the difference between "Hello" magazine and "New Scientist" :D

I'll have to ask the people who have been most complimentary about my caches if they would be prepared to venture beyond GC.com to find them. But then again, I think time is on my side - it's early days.


Maybe it does, and perhaps the reason why I don't like it is because I find caching to be its own reward. I (we) may have high numbers of finds but that's partly because we've been caching a long time and partly because we enjoy it so do a lot of it. I don't need a scoring system to tell me whether I'm having fun or not :D.

Well, I'm not ashamed to admit I like to have a more competitive element to the game. When G:UK was in existence and I discovered just how badly rated my first hides were, I made a big effort to place more challenging caches and they got great ratings, but few people did them, hence the "dumbing down" of our (highly rated) multi-caches by augmenting them with rings, where the individual caches were (predictably) rated poorly. I guess that's a case of dichotomy in practice. I thought I could entice more people to attempt the multis by increasing the rewards, however, I don't think it has worked and I've effectively just created a much greater maintenance burden than existed before.

[sandvika]

The cache you suggest "Say a little prayer" is 29 miles away and involves the joys of the M60.......

This one https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0aa2cafa-5af3-4649-b3b8-ed46c7b9c119 is only a couple of miles away, it is .8 of a mile from the road and took me roughly an hour from loading the GPS to logging it.

If you want a challeng that will take you longer (possibly a lot longer) there is the superb "Whitespace" https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=9658e987-c892-4bec-b28d-26d1c74dabdc or if you would prefer a virtual there is Subarite's "Soldier's Lump" https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=e222962c-b93c-4e73-b44a-0b575cab5111

Quality caches and there are plenty more of them on the moors to find. I certainly don't need a rating system to work out what I like.

Which would you find more tempting in my position?

You lucky chap, living so close to Saddleworth moor and others. However, without a rating system, could you tell me 3 caches centred around GCP59X would be worth doing and 3 that would not be worth doing?

In your position, like anyone else's, I don't think it's a case of either/or. I suspect many people when they take up caching can't believe how many times they have walked past caches. Similarly, when out caching, why pass on caches listed on other sites? Yet the majority of cachers do, frequently.

[Alan White]

could you tell me 3 caches centred around GCP59X would be worth doing and 3 that would not be worth doing?I doubt that he can, because he has no idea what sort of cache you regard as "worth doing". If you ask me a similar question I will tell you three caches I enjoyed. And that's also all a rating system will tell you, except that you probably wouldn't be able tell that it was me who told you.


Yet the majority of cachers do, frequently.I doubt that, too, as there are so few caches listed other than on Groundspeak that statistically the likelihood of passing one is very low.

[sandvika]

But I think that there's no substitute for the views of previous finders.

Which is why G:UK was so valuable and why the MCE rating on TC is so valuable.

On TC you get to cast 1/10 of a vote on caches on the strengths of their listings alone. Surely this has less impact than "voting up" your friends' caches on G:UK, which I'm sure used to happen. I think it all evens out in the end.

[Alan White]

Can anyone say that a motorway mayhem is a great cache ?Probably not. But then, as you surely know, it isn't the intention of a MM to be a great cache. Its purpose is merely to provide a break from the motorway. Of course, as you say, one cache can only do that once, though the cache may highlight some useful features or facilities which can be used many times and which one wouldn't have known about were it not for the cache, which surely is one of the benefits of any cache.

Not every cache can be a great cache. In order to have great caches there have to be average caches; and in order to have average caches there have to be poor caches. In other words, it's only the variety of caches available that makes the great ones. Otherwise all caches would be average.

[sandvika]

Exactly as Amberel said earlier - its not about numbers as such, its about the joy of the hunt!

Finally, if I HAD to do a 20 mile multi (don't ask me why) it would get the lowest rating I could give it, regardless of how nice the walk was! And it would be equally lowly rated if I rated it before I found it!


Dave, I'm tickled because you have very nearly just coined the slogan of Terracaching "For the love of the hunt".

Your example of a 20 mile multi is valid. I have a multi cache that has a "worst case" scenario of 48km travelled and elevation gain of 11600 metres. I realise that very few people would contemplate such a challenge and D5/T5 doesn't really help define it. However, on Terracaching it becomes a "sleeping giant" if it is not found and would eventually attract the highest possible score in its area, which both defines the challenge and rewards the finder. It almost goes without saying that I enjoyed setting this cache and would love to seek similar placed by others. :D

[markandlynn]

.


Im more interested in your opinion of the rating of difficulty and terrain and the ability of finders to re rate these based on thier experience of the cache.

It is not just a percieved quality that can be rated on TC and in fact i go against the 8/10 scores id rather know how long a walk and what sort of terrain and what type of hide (cache wise) i will be seeking.

All very hard on GSP death of power 5 hour walk 4 terrain.

20 minute walk up very steep steps 4 terrain.

cache 18 feet above your head 4 terrain

cache up a steep muddy bank 4 terrain

Got to find all the other alcheny caches first 5 terrain

hardly consistent is it

[sandvika]

I doubt that he can, because he has no idea what sort of cache you regard as "worth doing". If you ask me a similar question I will tell you three caches I enjoyed. And that's also all a rating system will tell you, except that you probably wouldn't be able tell that it was me who told you.

I doubt that, too, as there are so few caches listed other than on Groundspeak that statistically the likelihood of passing one is very low.

Actually, I was suggesting caches that he might regard as worthy and unworthy. I think our area happens to be one of the more challenging ones in which to "pan for gold" without the benefit of a ratings system. If "The Bracknell Ramble" still existed, would it stand out without the G:UK "Top 1%" logo on the listing, or would be lost amongst the many "unknown" caches here, let alone the many caches?

Of course the ratings are anonymous on TC just as they were on G:UK however you don't need to "ask a local cacher" for help when visiting an area if you have ratings at your disposal.

As for a cache that is passed frequently but never attempted, try https://www.navicache.com/cgi-bin/db/displaycache2.pl?CacheID=266 for size compared to its nearest GC neighbour! :D

[Alan White]

Im more interested in your opinion of the rating of difficulty and terrain and the ability of finders to re rate these based on thier experience of the cache.
...
hardly consistent is itI'm very flattered that you're interested in my opinion - thank you :).

Yes, D/T is often rated inconsistently by cache owners (this is partly why I don't fully support HH's concept of cache owners rating their own caches). Cache owners set D/T on the basis of what they've found: an inexperienced cacher will often come up with an idea they think is innovative and so set D very highly to reflect the fact that they would find it difficult. Then experienced cachers come along, find the cache in seconds and wonder what the fuss was about. That works both ways too. I've found caches with low D or T that I've struggled with for one reason or another.

I think the problem is threefold: firstly many cache owners clearly don't use clayjar's system even though there's a link to it on the cache submission page; secondly, clayjar's system is very out of date and doesn't reflect many of the features of today's caches; and lastly, the 9-point D/T scale doesn't provide sufficient granularity to handle the nuances.

Many cachers will, on logging their find, suggest that D/T should be tweaked in one direction or the other. Sometimes cache owners will take such comments on board and adjust accordingly; sometimes, for whatever reason, they won't.

So do I think that fiinders being able to set D/T ratings is a good idea? Well, I can't see why it wouldn't be, any more than I can see why it wouldn't be a good idea to have the corrected coords by finders (as already happens). I think there would need to be some thinking about the best way to implement it, but why not? That said, I wouldn't see it as a high priority and I can't see it being extensively used. I think that some changes to clayjar's system and a bit of publicity for it would iron out many of the anomalies.

[Happy Humphrey]

Can anyone say that a motorway mayhem is a great cache ? honestly ?
I haven't done many, but the few I've found were all indeed "great". :socool: :applause:

...based on my criteria, anyway. Others would doubtless have disagreed.

[Icenians]

I'm visiting the UK for a long weekend next month and should have a few Terracaches on the route (or so I thought at first), considering it starts in Birmingham and takes in Oxford, Milton Keynes, Reigate, the North Downs (on foot for three days), Reading, Swindon, Worcester and Stourport-on-Severn (and many places inbetween).

I haven't registered for the site so all I can see is the map, and this appears to show the whole route completely cache-free for quite a distance each side (:confused:). I wasn't expecting thousands, but surely there are more than this?

There are 138 currently. Of course we will only get to the thousands stage when people actually set some :D but it is creeping upwards in the right direction.

I'm not sure of your exact route, or how far you are willing to go either side of the route, but there are a few around Bracknell which is fairly close to Reading. I guess that depends on the route taken.

https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCCFS
or
https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCCHY althogh this one would probably need several visits.

Slightly north of Bracknell is https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCC9D again this depends on your route, etc.

There is also, in the area but the coords would need to be worked out first, https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCCAQ

Unfortunatly the caches in the UK are located in a limited number of locations as the cachers themselves are in isolated pockets. These pockets are becoming more numerous and with a greater number of locally placed caches in each.

Had you been travelling through Devon for example you would have found well over a 3rd of all UK terracaches in the one county.

Kev

[Alan White]

As for a cache that is passed frequently but never attempted, try https://www.navicache.com/cgi-bin/db/displaycache2.pl?CacheID=266 for size compared to its nearest GC neighbour! :DInteresting, though one cache doesn't prove a theory :). In any case, that cache - or at least its starting point - is a long way off any route that someone would take around the VW Groundspeak caches.

And unless there are logs I can't see the cache has been there for seven years and the only logs are two from the owner? :confused:.

[Happy Humphrey]

There are 138 currently. Of course we will only get to the thousands stage when people actually set some :D but it is creeping upwards in the right direction.

I'm not sure of your exact route, or how far you are willing to go either side of the route, but there are a few around Bracknell which is fairly close to Reading. I guess that depends on the route taken.

Thanks for the links: why don't they appear on the Google map? Anyway, I might just attempt to get to see the coordinates of one or two of them as they can't be too far from a feasible route.

[amberel]

Thanks for the links: why don't they appear on the Google map?
a) you have to zoom in a long way, and
b) there seems to be a bug in it :) .

Rgds, Andy

[Happy Humphrey]

Thanks: you need to have an inkling of where to look before zooming in...

[amberel]

Yes, D/T is often rated inconsistently by cache owners (this is partly why I don't fully support HH's concept of cache owners rating their own caches). ... Many cachers will, on logging their find, suggest that D/T should be tweaked in one direction or the other. Sometimes cache owners will take such comments on board and adjust accordingly; sometimes, for whatever reason, they won't.Setters can misrate a cache, but finders are fallible too - finding a cache frequently includes an element of chance. As a setter I would only very rarely rerate a cache based on a single comment, but I would seriously consider it if there were several saying the same thing.

If there was a rating system, the average would likely be pretty realistic after several votes.

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

Thanks: you need to have an inkling of where to look before zooming in...

Yep. The map isn't the best way of navigating the site, especially with a low cache desity, as there is definatly a bug in there somewhere.

I tend to zoom to the rough area I'm travelling to, find any old cache in the middle somewhere, and then click on the nearest caches link for a list of what is within 100 miles. It'll do this for GC and NC caches as well by the way.

I appreciate that this function may well not be avaialable to non members of the site as you only seem to have the map to go one but given that most UK caches don't have coords that you can see without being a member, the result from the map would be of little use anyway.

Kev

[sandvika]

Interesting, though one cache doesn't prove a theory :). In any case, that cache - or at least its starting point - is a long way off any route that someone would take around the VW Groundspeak caches.

And unless there are logs I can't see the cache has been there for seven years and the only logs are two from the owner? :confused:.

How many examples do you need for proof? :D There's another at the copper horse and a couple over at Dinton, not forgetting those in Swinley Forest, which just spring to mind without even needing to go to a web site to check.

You can be sure that I'd have bagged a FTF on it if it were really up for grabs however this cache was previously GC1985, so it has not had visits since October 2001 but dates from August 2001.

[Alan White]

How many examples do you need for proof? :D There's another at the copper horse and a couple over at Dinton, not forgetting those in Swinley ForestWould it be fair to say that there are unusual circumstances in this part of the country? We all know why those caches are on Navicache rather than Groundspeak, but what's the total number of GB caches on NC and where are they? That's what we need to know to be able to evaulate your statement that "the majority of cachers frequently pass on caches listed on other sites". I maintain that statistically that's very unlikely.


so it has not had visits since October 2001 but dates from August 2001.So it really hasn't had any visits for seven years. I'd archive it and save myself the maintenance :).

[Mrs Blorenge]

... We all know why those caches are on Navicache rather than Groundspeak...

I don't. Which ones are they? Why?

:)

[Alan White]

I don't. Which ones are they? Why?Check the owner :). It's just before my time but I think it's within yours. AIUI Robin moved all his caches to Navicache because he was banned from Groundspeak for infringing the "no commercialism" rule by placing copies of his GPS software in each of his caches.

[amberel]

The majority of new TCs placed in UK are now placed by locals and are physical caches.OK, all being well I will take tomorrow off and do one, probably your Iron Age Fort to start with :) . I have now set up my own systems to be listing site agnostic, so I can import, browse and log GS, TC and N caches in much the same way.

I did my first Navicache (Penton Hook) on the way to work this afternoon. It was a multi, and I was greatly amused to find the final was only 30 metres from one of my caches.

I was the first person to find this cache for nearly 5 years (April 2004) ! I had to extract it from undergrowth that had intertwined all round it and left it looking as if it was in a sort of basket! But it was in very reasonable condition, log just a tiny bit damp, that's all.

Rgds, Andy

[jacobite]

I was the first person to find this cache for nearly 5 years (April 2004) ! I had to extract it from undergrowth that had intertwined all round it and left it looking as if it was in a sort of basket! But it was in very reasonable condition, log just a tiny bit damp, that's all.

Rgds, Andy

Andy, Would you be kind enough to share what type of container the cache was? 5 years is a long time for a box to be sitting, and for the log to just be slightly damp! Also, are there any maintenance logs for the 5 year period?

Cheers.

[amberel]

Andy, Would you be kind enough to share what type of container the cache was? 5 years is a long time for a box to be sitting, and for the log to just be slightly damp! Also, are there any maintenance logs for the 5 year period?Just a plastic lunchbox (albeit a large one), not one with snap locks and a separate seal, but just a push on lid that snaps on, the sort that I reckon normally doesn't work so well. It was a very large box for a plastic cache.

No maintenance logs, this cache had no human contact for 5 years :D . It was at the base of a tree, under tree cover and with foliage grown all over and around it, but nothing else protecting it from the elements.

And it was barely damp, just a trace, no mildew whatsoever.

It suggests to me that dampness is more likely to be caused if the cache is opened in bad weather, or if the box is damaged or the lid isn't refitted properly.

Rgds, Andy