Thanks Thanks:  2
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 181

Thread: Terracaching Sponsorship

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default Terracaching Sponsorship

    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

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Towcester, Northants
    Posts
    124

    Default

    Done. 1 down, 1 to go

  3. #3
    keehotee Guest

    Default

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

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    All sorted.
    It helps to have a spare sponsor :socool:
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Thanks everyone!

  6. #6
    SidAndBob Guest

    Default

    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:

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default

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

  8. #8
    wolfshead57 Guest

    Default

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

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfshead57 View Post
    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

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfshead57 View Post
    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.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  11. #11
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    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

  12. #12
    wolfshead57 Guest

    Default

    Hi

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

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Torquay
    Posts
    42

    Default

    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,
    Paul (Lord Darcy)



  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    128

    Default

    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
    Paved Roads: Another fine example of unnecessary Government spending!

  15. #15

    Default

    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.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rufty tufty boys View Post
    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.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    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... h34r:
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hornet View Post
    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.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  19. #19
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    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... h34r:
    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...

  20. #20
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hornet View Post
    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 . 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 .

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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

  22. #22
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    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 .

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default

    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.

  24. #24
    fraggle69 Guest

    Default

    How's about trying out the locationless caches?

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    40

    Default

    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.

  26. #26
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    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.

  27. #27
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    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.

  28. #28
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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!

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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
    Last edited by amberel; 13th November 2008 at 11:42 PM.

  30. #30
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    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.

  31. #31
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    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.

  32. #32
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Not sure which TC you're looking at then
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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

  34. #34
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    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.

  35. #35
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    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.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by markandlynn; 14th November 2008 at 09:55 AM.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  38. #38
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    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.

  39. #39
    Team Sieni Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rufty tufty boys View Post
    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.

  40. #40
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Sieni View Post
    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.

  41. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    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,
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  42. #42
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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 .

    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.

  43. #43
    Team Sieni Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

  44. #44
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Sieni View Post
    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.

  45. #45
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

  46. #46

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  47. #47

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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

  48. #48
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    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

  49. #49

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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

  50. #50
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    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 .

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •