Okay, What now?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
EcoTeam
200 or more found
200 or more found
Posts: 1267
Joined: 03 April 03 7:57 pm
Twitter: EEVblog
Location: Crestwood, NSW
Contact:

Post by EcoTeam » 11 January 05 1:09 pm

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 :)

Wyoming Wombats
Posts: 180
Joined: 09 December 04 3:30 pm
Location: Wyoming

Post by Wyoming Wombats » 11 January 05 1:14 pm

Fine for cachers in urban areas. What happens with newbie caches that are placed by country people in reasonably off the track places (Cowra, Young etc). Rather than encourage people in these types of places, we may actually be pushing them away. Just a thought to promote more discussion.

The Four Bears
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 8
Joined: 27 April 04 2:33 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by The Four Bears » 11 January 05 3:39 pm

EcoTeam wrote: How about something like a "Respected Cacher" rating...
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.

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.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 11 January 05 4:19 pm

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.

Manta
250 or more caches found
250 or more caches found
Posts: 52
Joined: 05 June 03 5:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Manta » 11 January 05 4:48 pm

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 :)
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.

User avatar
EcoTeam
200 or more found
200 or more found
Posts: 1267
Joined: 03 April 03 7:57 pm
Twitter: EEVblog
Location: Crestwood, NSW
Contact:

Post by EcoTeam » 11 January 05 5:52 pm

The Four Bears wrote:
EcoTeam wrote: How about something like a "Respected Cacher" rating...
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.

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.
Does that include National Parks?
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 :)

The Four Bears
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 8
Joined: 27 April 04 2:33 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by The Four Bears » 11 January 05 6:00 pm

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...
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)?

Slider & Smurf
550 or more Caches found
550 or more Caches found
Posts: 390
Joined: 02 April 03 11:59 pm
Location: Canberra
Contact:

Post by Slider & Smurf » 11 January 05 6:34 pm

Perhaps we could wait to see the initial proposal, rather than second-guessing? I'm sure i! would be open to debate before casting anything in concrete..

User avatar
embi
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 1698
Joined: 02 April 03 2:09 pm
Location: Wyndham Vale
Contact:

Post by embi » 11 January 05 6:35 pm

The Four Bears wrote:
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...
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)?
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.

I just have to try and stuff the rabbit into my hat :)

Lt. Sniper
Outdoor Adventurer
Posts: 751
Joined: 12 April 04 11:27 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by Lt. Sniper » 11 January 05 6:42 pm

Its good to see more Queensland reinforcements arrive :)

Manta
250 or more caches found
250 or more caches found
Posts: 52
Joined: 05 June 03 5:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Manta » 11 January 05 6:56 pm

We're here, Sniper, we're here....just waiting for some of the dust to settle :D

User avatar
ideology
Posts: 2763
Joined: 28 March 03 4:01 pm
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by ideology » 11 January 05 7:13 pm

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 hope it won't be like that!
caughtatwork wrote:There should not need to be a rule which restates the law.
we agree
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?
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!
The Four Bears wrote:
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...
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)?
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 rules

now, thinking caps on:

the four bears conundrum:
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.
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:

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?

Manta
250 or more caches found
250 or more caches found
Posts: 52
Joined: 05 June 03 5:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Manta » 11 January 05 7:29 pm

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?
Sounds reasonable and, more importantly, it may actually be feasible.

User avatar
embi
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 1698
Joined: 02 April 03 2:09 pm
Location: Wyndham Vale
Contact:

Post by embi » 11 January 05 7:29 pm

ideology wrote:your thoughts?
bloody brilliant idea.

Does that make me David Stratton??? :lol:

User avatar
ideology
Posts: 2763
Joined: 28 March 03 4:01 pm
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by ideology » 11 January 05 7:35 pm

embi wrote:Does that make me David Stratton???
oh dear, that makes riblit or swampy, errr... we don't want to think about it!

Post Reply