"Wow" Factor - discussion cont.

Bronze · Post by **Bronze** » 02 July 06 10:14 am

Cache Rating Review

The Bronze at Lithgow Zombie.

We have all done, for want of a better word 'ordinary' caches that have little or no benefit to the cacher other than increasing the find and notching up another lost moment in time.

I want to revive the discussion started by i! in September of 04 and concluding with Cached and Bearleft in late January of this year.

Ultimately this thread led to the current 'recommendations' system that GCA cachers now enjoy and use to choose fav caches by those who have visited. A very useful feature if you are visiting an area and want to cut through the 'ordinary' caches that are in the area.

This thread concluded with Cached saying:

I was only discussing this last night with AGSMKY (who came for a Barbie and a swim).

Now I can go and recommend a heap of caches that I hadn't because someone else already had...

One other thing we discussed and it made a lot of sense to us, is that it would be great to have a small log, or a drop down box, or icon, which says why I am recommending this cache. Was it a spectacular view? Was it brain work? Clever container? Unless there is a quick link to the recommenders log, it might be hard to locate where they made their comment and especially if it was a mystery, they may not have said much in the log.

What do people think about incorporating sub-categories for recommendation. Those cachers that like particularly views, like me(eyes icon) or the puzzle factor (brain icon) or even an all round hard but fantastic cache (trophy icon). The more icons or higher "find:recommend" ratio or the higher the rating or some similar method which is easy and usable by all.

The Bronze.
Thread ref. -
http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=1453

Damo. · Post by **Damo.** » 02 July 06 1:14 pm

I think it would be worthwhile. Similar to the attributes system perhaps. You could select more than one attribute if you thought the cache was worthy.

Mr Walker · Post by **Mr Walker** » 02 July 06 9:36 pm

As I may have said before, I just wish I had the problem of being spoiled for choice. I tend to go for any cache that i can physically get to within about 250 kilometers. Having said that, hypothetically, I think a rating system would be a good idea, although it might only make more accessible what you can "nut out" from reading the cache descriptions and logs. Again, I have plenty of time to do this, but if you are faced with a multitude of choices, a mutually accepted rating system could save you time.
Just went back and read through the 14 pages of comments on the previous linked thread. Hadn't realised it would be such a complex and controversial issue. If you had a wow factor rating modelled on those of terrain and difficulty, and with similar guidelines for placers to check before they allocated their own wow factor in their cache page,couldn't you come up with something at least no more subjective than the current terrain /difficulty rating (which i know is still somewhat open to interpretation) Cache placers would probably be influenced by logs to modify this rating just as they may be by comments on terrain and difficulty. In the meantime i might just try writing in the comments on my next few hides something like. "This is a place of great scenic beauty" or, "this place is a dump, but it has a fascinating history."
I just did a maintenance check on one of my most visited caches and there is no doubt from the logs that people find this an unexpected oasis in what can be a great wasteland of caching, both because of its scenic beauty and also its historic background. I don't think i made this obvious enough in the cache notes, even though this was one of the reasons why I chose it as my first hide.

Damo. · Post by **Damo.** » 13 October 06 1:59 am

A small range of icons to pick from would be good.
Recommended for Location, Hide, Originality etc. An optional line for a brief comment if you wanted to add one.

Team Piggy · Post by **Team Piggy** » 13 October 06 9:49 am

Dog turd icon?

embi · Post by **embi** » 13 October 06 10:25 am

I tend to agree with piggy....why not have a crap cache icon???

Lets not mix words. The standard of some caches is crap. I dont know about other states but in Vic "it aint what it used to be" for a huge percentage of caches.

I'm not a numbers cacher as can be seen by my finds....still less than 300 and I've been around since way back when...(2001)

Being a reviewer was the main reason I lost interest in looking for caches, but the couple of times I decided to get back out there and have a go I have just found crap quality in all aspects.

This might stir a can of worms but we all talk about this sort of thing at events etc so lets bring it out and raise the level of our hobby...hopefully back to what it was.

Cached · Post by **Cached** » 13 October 06 12:19 pm

I wouldn't like to see a system where a cache is annotated as crap.

You get the opportunity to do that in your logs - it doesn't need an icon.

The best caches will be recommended, the others will stay in the bunch.

The biggest problem is that what one person calls crap, another may actually quite enjoy. But crap sticks.

zactyl · Post by **zactyl** » 13 October 06 3:17 pm

Agreed, the last crap cache I visited (crap location, crap container, crap contents) has had a couple of visits stating "Nice spot/location" when I thought it was nothing special and full of rubbish. Expanding the recommendations system would be the way to go.

Team Piggy · Post by **Team Piggy** » 13 October 06 6:13 pm

I have seen my fair share of truly "crap" caches since 2001..

Some of the old timers will remember the devastating "Nutty turd" cache from 2001!

(I bet maccamob are laughing after reading this!)..

Logs are probably the best way to go as cached says, my turd icon was more of a tongue in cheek suggestion!

The other day at work I lifted a pit lid (Comms cable pit in the ground) next to a highway near a truck parking bay just on the outskirts of suburban Adelaide.
As expected I found about 70 used syringes in it

thats why we use pit lid lifters!

My first thought apart from "Bloody dirty dogs" was "I bet a cache ends up in here"...

Post by **caughtatwork** » 13 October 06 6:14 pm

http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... highlight=

Cache ratings are going to be developed. Come here and put in your suggestions as to WHAT and HOW.

Cached · Post by **Cached** » 13 October 06 11:58 pm

I can't believe I took an obviously TIC comment so seriously!

I'm guessing a cache did end up in the syringe hole?

Post by **CraigRat** » 14 October 06 12:11 am

Cached wrote:I wouldn't like to see a system where a cache is annotated as crap.

Hmmm, I've added Tagging to caches/Gallery Images (Flikr style).... Will be interesting to see how it is used...

Team Piggy · Post by **Team Piggy** » 14 October 06 9:49 am

Cached wrote:I can't believe I took an obviously TIC comment so seriously!

I'm guessing a cache did end up in the syringe hole?

Not by me, But I bet one will oneday soon!

Geof · Post by **Geof** » 16 October 06 12:59 pm

I like wow factor caches. My bigest wow factor caches are some of my least found. Wish I had more time to find other caches like them.

Photo Guvenor_sier
Cache THE BLUFF

Post by **CraigRat** » 16 October 06 1:18 pm

Geof wrote:I like wow factor caches. My bigest wow factor caches are some of my least found.

Ditto (same for most of the wow factor ones I've done too....there seem to be a miniscule amount of finds compared to ones even nearby!).

And..that picture..... WOW!