Okay, What now?
- EcoTeam
- 200 or more found
- Posts: 1267
- Joined: 03 April 03 7:57 pm
- Twitter: EEVblog
- Location: Crestwood, NSW
- Contact:
Random lunch time thought...
How about something like a "Respected Cacher" rating along the following lines:
Newbies have a rating of zero, so all their caches must be approved in the normal sense. Once they place a cache and it's been found and given the thumbs up by say 5 other "Respected Cachers" then the new cacher increases their "Respected" ranking by a set amount. A threshold could be set where you can eventually earn the right to place caches instantly without review?
Finds don't count, as this is a listing based rating.
Perhaps the same system can be used to archive a questionable cache. It takes say 5 high ranking respected cachers to give it the thumbs down as being "bad for the sport" before it gets archived.
Thoughts?
EcoDave
How about something like a "Respected Cacher" rating along the following lines:
Newbies have a rating of zero, so all their caches must be approved in the normal sense. Once they place a cache and it's been found and given the thumbs up by say 5 other "Respected Cachers" then the new cacher increases their "Respected" ranking by a set amount. A threshold could be set where you can eventually earn the right to place caches instantly without review?
Finds don't count, as this is a listing based rating.
Perhaps the same system can be used to archive a questionable cache. It takes say 5 high ranking respected cachers to give it the thumbs down as being "bad for the sport" before it gets archived.
Thoughts?
EcoDave
-
- Posts: 180
- Joined: 09 December 04 3:30 pm
- Location: Wyoming
-
- 100 or more tracks walked
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 27 April 04 2:33 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Using a specific example from here in QLD, a player with over 250 finds and 20+ hides placed a new cache in an area clearly marked as private without permission from the landowner.EcoTeam wrote: How about something like a "Respected Cacher" rating...
I was the first to try to find and immediately asked that it be archived. It was eventually archived by the owner (who although 'respected' under your system should have known better). Now under the system you are proposing, it would have taken another 4 'respected' cachers to get this cache removed. If I was the landowner I'd be very pissed off.
Would you have the cache hider penalised if 5 others found his cache 'unsuitable'? Wouldn't this open the system up to 'abuse' where cliques and factions could 'settle scores'?
I like the gist of your idea, ie. self-regulation, but in practice I believe there has to be rules and guidelines of some sort. One of those rules has to be no placing on private land without the explicit permission of the landowner.
- caughtatwork
- Posts: 17015
- Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Then the rule would be you have to follow the law.
There should not need to be a rule which restates the law.
You should not be on private property without permission (law) so you shouldn't be placing a cache there (rule).
Your point is valid though.
Someone with this experience should know better especially if they are saying to ignore the private property signs.
Same thing should be said for caches where the hider advises that you can ignore the do not enter signs, or where the signs say keep to the tracks otherwise penalties apply. The cache simply shouldn't be where it is, but you can't stop people doing it.
There should not need to be a rule which restates the law.
You should not be on private property without permission (law) so you shouldn't be placing a cache there (rule).
Your point is valid though.
Someone with this experience should know better especially if they are saying to ignore the private property signs.
Same thing should be said for caches where the hider advises that you can ignore the do not enter signs, or where the signs say keep to the tracks otherwise penalties apply. The cache simply shouldn't be where it is, but you can't stop people doing it.
Good idea Dave and I agree with the points you've made in other posts as well, but is this similar to the Terracaching system? How much of the new improved gc.com.au game is going to be simpy rehash of other game systems? Is the nature of the beast such that imitation is pretty difficult without replication and, if so, are we just heading down the same track that led to problems with gc.com? Just thinking out loud.EcoTeam wrote:Random lunch time thought...
How about something like a "Respected Cacher" rating along the following lines:
Newbies have a rating of zero, so all their caches must be approved in the normal sense. Once they place a cache and it's been found and given the thumbs up by say 5 other "Respected Cachers" then the new cacher increases their "Respected" ranking by a set amount. A threshold could be set where you can eventually earn the right to place caches instantly without review?
Finds don't count, as this is a listing based rating.
EcoDave
- EcoTeam
- 200 or more found
- Posts: 1267
- Joined: 03 April 03 7:57 pm
- Twitter: EEVblog
- Location: Crestwood, NSW
- Contact:
Does that include National Parks?The Four Bears wrote:Using a specific example from here in QLD, a player with over 250 finds and 20+ hides placed a new cache in an area clearly marked as private without permission from the landowner.EcoTeam wrote: How about something like a "Respected Cacher" rating...
I was the first to try to find and immediately asked that it be archived. It was eventually archived by the owner (who although 'respected' under your system should have known better). Now under the system you are proposing, it would have taken another 4 'respected' cachers to get this cache removed. If I was the landowner I'd be very pissed off.
Would you have the cache hider penalised if 5 others found his cache 'unsuitable'? Wouldn't this open the system up to 'abuse' where cliques and factions could 'settle scores'?
I like the gist of your idea, ie. self-regulation, but in practice I believe there has to be rules and guidelines of some sort. One of those rules has to be no placing on private land without the explicit permission of the landowner.
What is the new "committees" stance on this?
I have no idea what is being discussed with regards to the new rules, I haven't been invited into the private discussion...
EcoDave
-
- 100 or more tracks walked
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 27 April 04 2:33 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Neither have I or most of the other AUS caching community and that's my point. Would we just be swapping one set of rules decided on by a select few (gc.com) for another (gca.com.au)?EcoTeam wrote:I have no idea what is being discussed with regards to the new rules, I haven't been invited into the private discussion...
-
- 550 or more Caches found
- Posts: 390
- Joined: 02 April 03 11:59 pm
- Location: Canberra
- Contact:
- embi
- 400 or more spectacular views seen
- Posts: 1698
- Joined: 02 April 03 2:09 pm
- Location: Wyndham Vale
- Contact:
There really isn't much being said anyway and once we realised that we were "behind closed doors" we have all agreed that we will open it up to everyone. Relax...take a chill pill and all will be revealed.The Four Bears wrote:Neither have I or most of the other AUS caching community and that's my point. Would we just be swapping one set of rules decided on by a select few (gc.com) for another (gca.com.au)?EcoTeam wrote:I have no idea what is being discussed with regards to the new rules, I haven't been invited into the private discussion...
I just have to try and stuff the rabbit into my hat
-
- Outdoor Adventurer
- Posts: 751
- Joined: 12 April 04 11:27 pm
- Location: Brisbane
we hope it won't be like that!Gunn Parker wrote:I am wondering if this forum will become a place only for gca cachers and gc.com cachers will not be welcome.
we agreecaughtatwork wrote:There should not need to be a rule which restates the law.
it will hopefully still be finding things with your gps. we don't want to head down the same track as gc.com and hopefully the lack of locked threads in the forum is at least one difference!Manta wrote: How much of the new improved gc.com.au game is going to be simpy rehash of other game systems? Is the nature of the beast such that imitation is pretty difficult without replication and, if so, are we just heading down the same track that led to problems with gc.com?
as embi mentioned, here's the the reviewer's lounge. it would have been great to open it up this morning in our previous post, but we thought we should be courteous to riblit, embi and swampy and ask their permission before doing so. swampy was out on his boat today so only just gave us the nod now. hopefully you'll see from the posts in there that it was as slider & smurf posted, intended as an area to toss around a few ideas and that the output would have been proposals, not rulesThe Four Bears wrote:Neither have I or most of the other AUS caching community and that's my point. Would we just be swapping one set of rules decided on by a select few (gc.com) for another (gca.com.au)?EcoTeam wrote: I have no idea what is being discussed with regards to the new rules, I haven't been invited into the private discussion...
now, thinking caps on:
the four bears conundrum:
hmmm... is there some way we could have both? ecodave's lunchtime thought was really interesting: approvals required until you become a respected cacher. yeah, working out what a respected cache could be tricky! then dave's thought sparked an idea:The Four Bears wrote:If gc.com.au is to have guidelines for placing caches decided by a select group they are no different from gc.com. If they are to have NO guidelines chaos reigns.
what if a reviewer _reviewed_ a cache as opposed to _approved_ it? ie like a movie reviewer reviews a movie and gives a thumbs up or whatever. so if you are like aussiecoder and appreciate someone having a quick look over your stuff before you let it go live, you can submit it to a reviewer and they'll look at it and maybe give you a thumbs up! or maybe say "do you really want to put it in the ocean?" and you fix it and get your thumbs up. if you are like sniper and you gotta get your cache out **NOW** then you can, but you won't have a little thumbs up icon against your cache. of course, this could descend into chaos as the four bears suggest. however, if a finder thought the cache was dangerous or whatever, they could press a button on the cache page which says "suggest that this cache be reviewed." a cache reviewer might look at it and say "in the middle of an active railway line? you gotta be joking" and give it a thumbs down. but the cache is still listed, just with a thumbs down from a reviewer.
if it sounds complicated, just think of movies: they're released, some are reviewed, some aren't. some reviews give a thumbs up, some give a thumbs down. if a movie-maker is smart, they do some pre-screenings to get a nice thumbs up. most movie-goers take a look at the reviews. other movie-goers might like a particular director or star and see it without a review.
your thoughts?
Sounds reasonable and, more importantly, it may actually be feasible.ideology wrote: what if a reviewer _reviewed_ a cache as opposed to _approved_ it? ie like a movie reviewer reviews a movie and gives a thumbs up or whatever. so if you are like aussiecoder and appreciate someone having a quick look over your stuff before you let it go live, you can submit it to a reviewer and they'll look at it and maybe give you a thumbs up! or maybe say "do you really want to put it in the ocean?" and you fix it and get your thumbs up. if you are like sniper and you gotta get your cache out **NOW** then you can, but you won't have a little thumbs up icon against your cache. of course, this could descend into chaos as the four bears suggest. however, if a finder thought the cache was dangerous or whatever, they could press a button on the cache page which says "suggest that this cache be reviewed." a cache reviewer might look at it and say "in the middle of an active railway line? you gotta be joking" and give it a thumbs down. but the cache is still listed, just with a thumbs down from a reviewer.
if it sounds complicated, just think of movies: they're released, some are reviewed, some aren't. some reviews give a thumbs up, some give a thumbs down. if a movie-maker is smart, they do some pre-screenings to get a nice thumbs up. most movie-goers take a look at the reviews. other movie-goers might like a particular director or star and see it without a review.
your thoughts?