Thanks Thanks:  2
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 181

Thread: Terracaching Sponsorship

  1. #101

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    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

  2. #102
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

  3. #103
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    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 hmy:

    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

    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

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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

  5. #105
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    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.

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    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.

  7. #107
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    TC has many reviewers, who all have different ideas of what they would allow or not
    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.

    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.

  8. #108
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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 .

  9. #109
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

  10. #110
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

  11. #111
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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

  12. #112
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    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 . How hard is it to find a box

    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

  13. #113
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    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

  14. #114

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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
    Last edited by amberel; 20th November 2008 at 06:35 PM.

  15. #115

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    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?

  16. #116
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    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.

  17. #117

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    I wasn't suggesting you are a numbers man ...
    And I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting I was a numbers man . And I wouldn't have been offended if you were . 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 .

    Rgds, Andy

  18. #118

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    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

  19. #119

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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! 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

  20. #120

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    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.

  21. #121
    Team Sieni Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    (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 )

  22. #122

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    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

    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.
    Last edited by sandvika; 21st November 2008 at 01:27 PM.

  23. #123

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    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/cach...8-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/cach...d-26d1c74dabdc or if you would prefer a virtual there is Subarite's "Soldier's Lump" https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cach...a-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?

  24. #124
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    I rate every cache that appears in my 100 mile radius whether I've found it or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

  25. #125
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    I'm sorry about my clumsy writing and about the offence it caused you.
    Accepted. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    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
    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 ). 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 .

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    TC's scoring system does a decent job of rewarding effort
    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 .

  26. #126
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

  27. #127
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Sieni View Post
    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.

  28. #128

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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

  29. #129
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    By voting on those I could, in a small way, tell the cache setter that I'm not keen on that sort of cache
    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.

    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.

  30. #130

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    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.

  31. #131

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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

  32. #132
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    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.

  33. #133
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    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.

  34. #134

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    ... 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

  35. #135

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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?

  36. #136
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    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

  37. #137
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

  38. #138

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    99

    Default

    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.

  39. #139
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Gerrie View Post
    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

  40. #140
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Gerrie View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Icenians; 22nd November 2008 at 06:26 PM. Reason: edited for typo

  41. #141

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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!

  42. #142
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Gerrie View Post
    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.

  43. #143

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    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 . So the TC locationless was a sort of consolation prize .

    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 .

    Rgds, Andy

  44. #144
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    The point I can't seem to get across
    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.

  45. #145

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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 .

    Rgds, Andy

  46. #146

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    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.

  47. #147
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    the EFFECT of voting by those who haven't visited is negligible
    Then why have it?

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    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.

  48. #148
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    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?

  49. #149
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

  50. #150
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

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