Quality caches. What are they?

[Happy Humphrey]

People on this forum and the GC.com forum often bang on about "quality" caches (usually when proposing yet another rating system). Quite arrogantly (IMHO), they often assume that everyone will know what they mean about a "quality" cache.

Well, I don't know exactly what they mean; it seems to depend on who is using the term at the time. I have no idea how a rating system could work when there's no clear definition of "quality" in this context.

I invite GAGB forum contributions from anyone who thinks they know what a "quality" cache is, with a view to defining the term for future use (if that proves possible!). It's no use just saying what type of cache you prefer; I'm after a general definition.

The only reasonable definition I've seen so far is that it's a cache that's well-maintained, with a clean and dry log book and good coordinates.

[von-horst]

A bit of effort on the listing helps - its nice when someone puts some effort into 'selling' their cache.

It could be an explanation as to why they've placed the cache where they have, a bit of information about a nearby historical tidbit, that sort of thing - you know, something that helps the cache stand out from the crowd when you're planning a day out.

Call me an elitist is you will , but running things through spellchecker never hurts either...

A good/quirky cache title is also a nice attention grabber.

[gazooks]

A bit of effort on the listing helps - its nice when someone puts some effort into 'selling' their cache.

It could be an explanation as to why they've placed the cache where they have, a bit of information about a nearby historical tidbit, that sort of thing - you know, something that helps the cache stand out from the crowd when you're planning a day out.

Call me an elitist is you will , but running things through spellchecker never hurts either...

A good/quirky cache title is also a nice attention grabber.

I agree... :socool:

- plus a pleasant walk or great view is always appreciated.
- an unusual or clever hide.

The size or cache type does not matter (too much) if other factors raise the cache from the mundane.

[Happy Humphrey]

I appreciate the replies, and such things as a well-written cache description and good location certainly help make a cache more appealing, but I was really after a concise definition of "quality".

But perhaps that's impossible, and what we need is a checklist of major selling points. Then, if you're rating a cache (for whatever purpose) you'd be able to give points based on a number of factors; eliminating any that are too much a matter of opinion.

For example, you could rate a cache as between one and five stars after taking into account the following;

Location (poor = 1* to amazing = 5*)
Condition of the cache (Neglected to well-maintained)
Cache description (Useless to entertaining/informative)
Creativity (Mundane to brilliant)
Collectibility (Pointless to must-do)

Possibly the last one is most controversial, but in reality there are many caches that people want to "collect" (for various reasons) and cachers will put up with other "quality" factors being low in these cases (caches in a series, for instance, or caches with some notoriety, or historic/unusual caches).

The idea would be to give an overall rating by adding up the stars awarded for each factor then dividing by the number of factors (so if a cache is average for each of the five detailed above, it's 15 divided by five so it's a three-star cache). This would improve consistency, and reduce the personal preference factor.

[keehotee]

Location (poor = 1* to amazing = 5*)
Condition of the cache (Neglected to well-maintained)
Cache description (Useless to entertaining/informative)
Creativity (Mundane to brilliant)
Collectibility (Pointless to must-do)

I think this is going to prove impossible.
To take the (seemingly) easiest category..

1. Location. If you're a wheelchair user, this is going to be 1 terrain, with a reasonable view. If you're a mountain leader type person, this is going to be a 4 terrain on the top of a mountain - with a reasonable view.

2. Condition of the cache. The box might be spotless - with no swaps left. It needs maintenance to add swaps - but does this affect the condition?

3. cache description - some of my favourites have utterly cryptic wording, with no description of the surroundings at all....

4. Creativity. Hmmmm - tricky.

5. Collectibility. As in series? Or individual caches?

[Happy Humphrey]

I think this is going to prove impossible.
To take the (seemingly) easiest category..

1. Location. If you're a wheelchair user, this is going to be 1 terrain, with a reasonable view. If you're a mountain leader type person, this is going to be a 4 terrain on the top of a mountain - with a reasonable view.

2. Condition of the cache. The box might be spotless - with no swaps left. It needs maintenance to add swaps - but does this affect the condition?

3. cache description - some of my favourites have utterly cryptic wording, with no description of the surroundings at all....

4. Creativity. Hmmmm - tricky.

5. Collectibility. As in series? Or individual caches?

Yes, maybe there would have to be some help text to explain further.

1. Location: is it well-sited, in a spot that seems worth visiting? A wheelchair user might not like it if it's up a flight of steps, but then if it's given Terrain 2 then he/she won't be judging it on wheelchair accessibility, and could still give it full marks for being a great spot to visit (if he/she is finally able to log the cache). You might have a preference for mountain caches, but you should be capable of appreciating a well-thought-out urban hide in a historic city-centre location.
2. Condition of the cache. If it's in good condition and well-maintained, then there will be appropriate swaps. If not; it might not be the cache owner's fault, but it will be marked down slightly. You might not actually want swaps but a big empty box doesn't look good.
3. Cache description. Yes, the description might seem utterly meaningless at first, only to reveal its clever secret after careful study. But what I meant was that it might actually be totally useless (NOT in any deliberate way!), and/or sloppily put together.
4. Creativity. Not that tricky; if you think that it's generally humdrum and run-of-the-mill then mark it low. If the cache made you feel like laughing and applauding (an unusual hide, or some surprises along the way, for instance) then give it more stars. It could also be defined as entertainment value.
5. Collectibility. If you really feel the need to collect this individual cache for any reason, then give it more stars. Perhaps it's one of a series, or it's the oldest cache in the county, or it's the highest (most southern/western...) in the country, or it's the only Wherigo in the county, or it's notorious (etc.). It's a pity if it turns out to be otherwise a bit lame, but the fact is that it does have drawing power and this is an asset which adds "quality".

[The Hornet]

I think trying to define "quality" is an impossible pursuit. However I recognise a "quality" cache as one where I feel better AFTER looking for it than I did before.

How a cache makes me feel better doesn't really matter as much as the fact that it just does.

I guess some people feel better for having clocked up one more find, some people feel better for having solved a puzzle, some feel better for having discovered a good walk or view, some might feel better for having learned an interesting fact. We're all different but we all recognise what is important to US.

[Icenians]

Quality to me is very very simple. A cache is something you visit. Cache pages etc, I don't visit that it's just a signpost to the actual cache. At the end of the hunt I take a look around and ask one simple question, Why? If I can see a good reason for that, it was a quality cache. If I can see absoloutly no reason for someone to bring me here then it's not a good cache.

There is far too much rubbish quoted about how things average out and how we should have guidelines etc. People simply do not need telling or guidance to know whether or not they enjoyed something. Quality is subjective and always will be.

Cache rating systems work when they are used. I recently visited an appalling cache in Holland that was rated consistantly low, I only visited it to allow my rating to be counted, and the rating system was correct. I saw nothing of interest from a motorway bridge across an industrial river and it was clear from the caches score that nobody else deemed it worthy either.

A system that shows a genral dissatisfaction or otherwise of a particular cache is a good means of telling the owner, and others, that maybe they are not in touch with what others call good. It also allows folk to see what others think is great.

[Happy Humphrey]

I recently visited an appalling cache in Holland that was rated consistantly low, I only visited it to allow my rating to be counted, and the rating system was correct. I saw nothing of interest from a motorway bridge across an industrial river and it was clear from the caches score that nobody else deemed it worthy either.

It's an interesting example. It might be that the cache owner had a good reason for placing the cache there. If this is mentioned in the description, then that might be the only thing of note about the cache but it's bound to be a "good" cache whatever the actual location or size of box. For example, let's say it's to commemorate a lovely viewpoint that is no more since the building of the motorway. You might not like the viewpoint now it's been ruined, but it's not a bad cache because it's taking you to where the cache owner wanted you to go. Many caches of "historic" or local interest are like this.

Or, of course, it might be just placed at random (do people really do that?).

A system that shows a genral dissatisfaction or otherwise of a particular cache is a good means of telling the owner, and others, that maybe they are not in touch with what others call good. It also allows folk to see what others think is great.

It works in sifting out a few really great caches and a few really bad ones, but the systems I've seen aren't much help beyond that. The weakness is that the caches are just rated "better" or "worse" by several visitors and this is fairly useless information on its own.

[markandlynn]

.

Or, of course, it might be just placed at random (do people really do that?).

I can think of a few that are there because you can park a car safely with no other obvious reason ---- either in the description or looking at the nearby scenery.

I can definitely identify a few that appear to be even more random than car parking available as well.

Ok if your struggling to find a lay by though so they do have a point just not one that appeals to me.

Without knowing the intention of the hider there is no way to easily distinguish caches id like to do from caches i wont. Taken the far safer route to not being dissapointed by spending more time researching caches than actually finding them.

[Icenians]

It's an interesting example. It might be that the cache owner had a good reason for placing the cache there. If this is mentioned in the description, then that might be the only thing of note about the cache but it's bound to be a "good" cache whatever the actual location or size of box. For example, let's say it's to commemorate a lovely viewpoint that is no more since the building of the motorway. You might not like the viewpoint now it's been ruined, but it's not a bad cache because it's taking you to where the cache owner wanted you to go. Many caches of "historic" or local interest are like this.

Or, of course, it might be just placed at random (do people really do that?).

It works in sifting out a few really great caches and a few really bad ones, but the systems I've seen aren't much help beyond that. The weakness is that the caches are just rated "better" or "worse" by several visitors and this is fairly useless information on its own.

Ah, you misunderstood me. There is no box, to log the cache you stand on the the motorway bridge and take a photograph of yourself. The view is a typical dutch industrialised scene that has been like that for some time.

The rating system has an average cache as 5 with poor down at 1 and great up at 10. This one is at 1 and it takes a lot of negative votes to get to 1.

Having done the cache I can assure you there is nothing redeeming about it.

[Master Mariner]

Quality is very subjective and what appeals to one may not appeal to another. Over the past year, or so, I have tried to take some photographs of the area near the cache so that others can try and judge for themselves whether a cache look like doing or not. I have had one or two stroppy emails from cache owners asking me to remove photos as they are, to quote one "not representative of the location".

[GAZ]

Quality to me is very very simple. A cache is something you visit. Cache pages etc, I don't visit that it's just a signpost to the actual cache. At the end of the hunt I take a look around and ask one simple question, Why? If I can see a good reason for that, it was a quality cache. If I can see absoloutly no reason for someone to bring me here then it's not a good cache.

Got to agree with you there, Kev. I have a cache in a lay-by, and the only reason it was placed there was the difficulty rating I gave it. I have said this on the cache page so everyone knows that it wasn't placed just for the sake of it. The feedback I have had back has been positive which is good to receive.

Another cache of mine has wonderful views.......albeit on a good day, which has also had good feedback. I don't think I would place a cache "just for the sake of it".