This topic contains 52 replies, has 23 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
When the subject of Cache of The Month comes up, inevitably someone will mention that it’s just a popularity contest. Well, perhaps it is, since it’s likely a cacher votes for the caches he or she knows.
The COTM only allows for only one cache to be recongized. This means that other, equally commendable caches go unrecongized because they do not come out on top. And the same will apply to Cache of the Year.
In place of a monthly vote, what about an ongoing, accumulative voting, to recongize the best of Wisconsin’s caches?
Instead of there being a month by month vote, when a cache is ‘nominated’, it goes on a list. The list would indicate, by total number of votes, which are considered worthwhile. Over time, caches – both new and old – would accumulate higher totals as more people say they like that cache.
The list would look something like this:
22 GCGR9T Matt’s Road
19 GCNMHJ Riverside Multi
12 GC2De4 Green Bay Trail
12 GC43DT Puzzled in Milwaukee
9 GCRT4E Fox Point Park
2 GCWE24 Logan’s Runi like that idea. i never vote for cache of the month, mostly because i have not done the caches that are nominated. it would be nice to see a listing of what amounts to favorite caches, so when i am in that area, i can go looking for them
djwini, this is not directed at you only, but at everyone who has, at one time or anyother made the statement you just made:
I never vote for cache of the month, mostly because I have not done the caches that are nominated.
To put it in the bluntly… That is just a poor excuse not to vote. Why? Anyone can nominate a cache for COTM!
That said, I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea that there could be better way of doing things than the current COTM system.
Just a recap of the 2005 COTM Races
[*]12 months in the year
[*]77 caches nominated for COTM
[*]52 diferent nominators of the 77 caches
[*]only 15 people nominated more than one cache
[*]5 is the highest number anyone nominatedDo I have an answer? No. Just providing some food for thought.
(djwini, the cache you nominated tied for second place )
Team GeoPink – Co-conspirators to make the world a better place…
– Jeff Rahmlow
WGA President
geopink at wi dash geocaching dit comThe comments and opinions above are those solely of Team GeoPink (arcangl7) and are not those of the WGA, the WGA board, or its other fine members.
I too think that COTM is a fine thing, but has proven to be limited in purpose.
The idea of an ongoing tally would be an asset in that it would serve as a sort of “cache rating system” whereas caches would continue to generate notice over an extended time period.
With any such system, nomination should be limited to geocachers with a certain amount of experience. Every cache is great when you are a newbie.
quote:
Originally posted by arcangl7:
…That is just a poor excuse not to vote. Why? Anyone can nominate a cache for COTM!BRAVO!
This time every year there’s a discussion begun about this topic. Last year evolved into the discontinuation of Events being allowed as COTM.Perhaps this year we can do something about an entire series of caches being voted in. Shouldn’t they be listed as “caches” of the month?
Perhaps we should start voting on categories?
Cache of the Month
Multi-Cache of the Month
Series of the Month
Event of the MonthIf only one cache is nominated, only one cache will receive votes. If 75 caches are nominated, one would presume 75 caches will be voted upon. If a cache is not nominated, and someone wants to draw attention to it without stepping up to nominate it, there is a page for that too. It’s called “Recommended Caches” and is there for everyone to see. If 1/4 of the people who post on these forums would nominate/vote for COTM we’d see a lot more caches being recognized. As for COTY…well there can only be twelve of those nominated/voted on.
Even if there were a running total of “Wisconsin’s best caches,” it would still be a popularity contest. The more visits it has, the better off the chances are it will be listed. One cacher may absolutely love the cache, and another may wish they had never gone there. See…still a popularity contest.
I would like to see a time when one could only nominate a cache that they actually logged that month! A cache I visited in 2003 and loved could today be in great disarray and need to be archived, thus not really qualifying it for COTM.
Just some more thoughts on the subject…not meant to “tick” anyone off, so stay calm people!
MBLove your parting shot, Major!
quote:
Originally posted by MajorBrat:
Even if there were a running total of “Wisconsin’s best caches,” it would still be a popularity contest. The more visits it has, the better off the chances are it will be listed. One cacher may absolutely love the cache, and another may wish they had never gone there. See…still a popularity contest.
MBI know how you love for people to pick apart your posts, so I will grab this paragraph.
I think COTM was started to “reward” people for setting up caches that the our active geocachers found the most enjoyable. It’s hard to be fair when the majority of the caches and cachers are centered in less than 1/3rd of the state, but we have had some COTM’s out of these boundries, which is a great thing. You are right in that the more traffic a good cache generates, the more likely it will be nominated. Does this make it the “most popular”? I think not.
I have long supported the idea of a cache rating system that is based on quality.
It has already been determined through these forums that the quality of a cache is judged primarily by location, and secondarily, by the method of the hide. If someone were to set up a system that would allow cachers to “score” (say for example 1 to 5 stars)each cache based on these assets, then an average could be published based on the number of finders.
By averaging, everything is placed on an even keel, irregardless of traffic. The only weakness I see in this is during the first few finds. The greater number of finds that the cache has seen, the more meaningful it’s score would be.KeenPeople.com has developed such a rating system. Unfortunately it can only be implemented by each cache owner and it lacks a centralized list of rated caches, making it fairly useless.
Lets not forget that during the voting process, all of the caches that have been nominated are listed. The idea behind COTM is two fold:
1) Allows folks to see the list of caches during the month that have been enjoyed by other(s) enough to nominate, so they might be worthy of a trip to hunt.
2) Rewards those that put extra effort into making an above average cache (and hopefully inspire others to try as well).
Sure its a popularity contest; its a contest to find the popular caches each month so the rest of us can go see what’s so great about them and judge for ourselves.
[This message has been edited by CacheCows (edited 02-26-2006).]
One qualification that I would like to see enforced is that when you vote for either COM or Cache of the Year, that you need to have found that cache prior to voting for it. Tami
I have to ask a simple yet important question. I might have missed it but I really have not found how to submit a cache for cache of the month.
I been to the “cache of the month” page but I seem not to be able to find a place to submit a cache for the next round. If this is on that page could someone point it out?
This topic always gets my goat….I will hold my tongue and answer pcfrogs query:
I been to the “cache of the month” page but I seem not to be able to find a place to submit a cache for the next round. If this is on that page could someone point it out?
To nominate a cache scroll down the cache of the month page to where you see the listing of caches for that month. The last option is other. Select this one and enter the name of the cache. It is that simple.
[This message has been edited by Folk Trakers (edited 02-27-2006).]
i always thought it was wrong to vote for the one cache that i may have visited, when i have not seen the others that month. it may have been a great cache, but the others might be even better.
early in my caching career, i was looking at the winners to use as a start to planning a caching trip, figuring they would be good caches. i would rather see a rating system and/or comments about the caches to know ahead of time when a cache is a “must do” either because of location or set-up.quote:
Originally posted by Folk Trakers:
This topic always gets my goat….I will hold my tongue and answer pcfrogs query:To nominate a cache scroll down the cache of the month page to where you see the listing of caches for that month. The last option is other. Select this one and enter the name of the cache. It is that simple.
[This message has been edited by Folk Trakers (edited 02-27-2006).]
Oh…..
I thought that was like a write in, not an option to actually get a cache to be placed on there for voting.
Does anyone have a record of all the caches nominated for COTM that have did not win? I would like to maintain a public list of these if possible. For me, the main value of COTM is bringing outstanding caches to people’s attention. I do participate regularly in the voting (although not this month, haven’t gotten to any of them yet), but every nominee was thought to be special by at least one person. Everyone of the nominees that I have visited has been at least above average, if not outstanding. I would think the list would be of value to others besides me.
On cache ratings, I don’t know how well this would work. I am afraid that this would be very discouraging to new and younger hiders who don’t yet have all the experience to understand when they are making a “not so good” hide. For example, we have a person hiding caches in Racine who has hidden 3 caches. The first one sits in a regularly flooded area, lying on the ground behind a tree, in a pill bottle with no camoflage. It is located on the edge of an unremarkable park with a nice view of the adjacent strip mall. His second hide was a puzzle cache with numerous spelling errors where the coordinates are slightly scrambled (AFTER solving the puzzle) as a poorly executed joke at the expense of people with dyslexia, with the final coordinates still being off by more than 60 feet in a rockpile (in the same unremarkable park overlooking the same strip mall). The third is a guardrail hide beside a busy city street, where the coordinates are actually in the middle of the road. If I were rating these caches 1-10, I would rate them 1, -1, and 3 respectively. But, would I want to do this on their cache page (or other obvious public place)? The answer is a resounding no. It is not in the best interest of the activity to discourage people from participating, which is what the public humiliation of “bad” ratings would do. In this case, I chose to email the person (not that it has done much good, obviously) with a few soft nudges towards cache maintenance, site selection, coordinate accuracy, etc. I am hoping that, as this person grows up, he will be more consciencious in his cache placement and stick with the activity. That is the beauty of the COTM/Recommended caches idea. We can point out the great ones without having to put down the lesser ones. JMNSHO!
Deejay Dave
quote:
Originally posted by Cathunter:
I know how you love for people to pick apart your posts, so I will grab this paragraph.
quote:
Originally posted by djwini:
i always thought it was wrong to vote for the one cache that i may have visited, when i have not seen the others that month. it may have been a great cache, but the others might be even better.
Very rarely will we find a cacher who has visited all the nominated caches. If you find one you think is great, put it out there for the rest of us to see. If there are enough people who agree with you, it may just win the blue ribbon. Someone may have done the cache on the first of the month and forgotten how much they liked it until they saw it nominated. It could happen…
(Better, not better, it’s all based on one’s perception of the cache to begin with.)
MB
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.