This topic contains 20 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
For me it makes no sense to nominate a cache series as COTM, why you ask? everyone will probably agree that a good cache series is a great time & fun to complete but can you say all the caches in a series are of the same greatness? I will take Jan. 06 COTM winner as an example, how can I say the whole series is worthy of COTM when of the 12 caches only 2 or 3 locations/caches really stand out as great to me.
With a really great cache series you can tell the owner devoted time into putting everything together and that defiantly deserves recognition, but should these series caches not just be listed in recommended caches board?
This month the nominated series is really pushing it…. 50caches as COTM really just doesn’t make any sense. that’s like me saying I nominate all the caches in rock county.
I guess another way I could look at this is it takes a whole series to come close to how great the individual COTM winners are.what a joke…..
I think off hand a cache series can be in COTM only if the whole series counts as only 1 smiley / listed as one cache.
If the series is actually made up of several caches that have their own GC#### then no.
While the cache series might have 50 caches you / the individual should rate the whole series as one. Overall what did you think of the series. If only 2 out of 12 caches are decent them I would gather that it would rate low. It’s a personal review and others might have different standards and comparisons.
I guess as the owner of the above mentioned caches I really feel insulted to have the months of planning, hundreds of hours of effort and dollars that I spent in placing these caches referred to as “what a joke” by hogrod. I put a great amount of thought and effort into trying to make this an enjoyable cache series for anyone who would like to look for it. With the exception of one very large park, I can honestly say that I personally hiked all of the trails in the parks that I placed caches. I searched for good spots to place caches so that the hunter would cover the entire park in search of the caches and be able to see all of the great areas that the park had to offer. It is not 50 micros tossed out in the woods – there is 1 micro in the series, most of the hides are good old full sized ammo cans. I found the spots and prepared the caches and cache pages ahead of time but placed all of the caches in 4 days. I did so because if an other cache closer than .1 mile had been published before mine where released I would have to move mine and possible change clues for the location of the mystery caches. Each cache was stocked with what I would like to think was good swag and each cache also held a certificate good for a trackable personal geocoin that unfortunately wasn’t finished in time for the cache release. In addition each of the mystery caches had a new unregistered geocoin in and one of my registered geocoins also. I placed 7 or 14 caches in the selected parks so cachers could spend time caching instead of driving. I was not looking for recognition, I did it for the enjoyment of others. I was pleasantly surprised to discover how greatly I enjoyed the hours of scouting for cache locations and I also have enjoyed the times I have gone back to check caches. The idea that someone should be offended that the series has been nominated for COTM really puzzles me. I am willing to bet that the very same votes would be there if the person who nominated the caches had just chosen their favorite one!
@onesearching2find wrote:
I was not looking for recognition, I did it for the enjoyment of others. I was pleasantly surprised to discover how greatly I enjoyed the hours of scouting for cache locations and I also have enjoyed the times I have gone back to check caches. The idea that someone should be offended that the series has been nominated for COTM really puzzles me. I am willing to bet that the very same votes would be there if the person who nominated the caches had just chosen their favorite one!
I bet your series is a great and well put together one along with all the other series caches that have came up for COTM. It’s funny that all you got out of my post above was that I was offended that your series was nominated.
obviously you must think when I say “what a joke” I was referring to your caches, this is NOT the case.“what a joke” is regarding how this seems like abuse of the whole idea of having A cache of the month. As the owner of these 50 nominated caches of the month, I must ask would you not say there is a few of these that really stand out as great hides/great locations? Wouldn’t you like to know which caches the people really like in your series? I know I would because not being from your area when I visit I would want to know which caches really are great, not just a generic “there all great”.
The real point of my original post was to get peoples opinions about what they felt about series caches being nominated for COTM. I was in no way trying to single out your caches specifically, I’m sorry you took offense to my post.
After further review of the past COTM winners it seems that the real issue isn’t series caches being voted as cache of the month, but voting for a bookmark list as cache of the month.
looks like this is a growing trend, and it seems half the people here don’t like the practice.
This month the nominated series is really pushing it…. 50caches as COTM really just doesn’t make any sense. that’s like me saying I nominate all the caches in rock county.
I guess another way I could look at this is it takes a whole series to come close to how great the individual COTM winners are.what a joke…..
I’m sorry I misinterpreted the point you where trying to get across also. After reading the above statement you could say I saw red! 👿 Just being a little sensitive I guess. After some contemplation I do understand what you are trying to say. There are certainly some of the HBZ caches that are better than the others, I could even probably pick the “best” by the comments I have received on them. The thing about a series is often the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. I could be pretty sure that the people who found the 49 caches needed to find #50 “The Ultra Mystery Cache” would agree. I guess I could have made it a really long multi…………. Not that I would have done that to get COTM (that really wasn’t part of my goal) – and it certainly wouldn’t have the appeal that the current HBZ series has. I am honored that the series was nominated, that means people enjoy it and that was part of my goal!
I’m also on the side that thinks that allowing COTM votes to be cast for a cache series isn’t a good idea. Just like we did with event caches, it may be time to stop accepting votes for series.
A cache series and a single cache are really different animals… you can’t make an apples to apples comparison when casting your COTM vote. A cache series may consist of many “pretty good” (in your mind/opinion) caches… does this mean it is better or worse than a single “pretty good” or even “excellent” cache? This is where the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” type reasoning that onesearching2find mentioned comes into play…
Even with this restriction on voting for a cache series, if you really like a series you could always either select what you think is the best cache in the series or the final/mother cache of the series.
I agree on topic of not having a series as COTM. Of interest to this topic there is postings under suggestions related to this topic. One of which has good ideas/points is MAJOR BRATS post on first page. http://www.wi-geocaching.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1625
@jeremy wrote:
Even with this restriction on voting for a cache series, if you really like a series you could always either select what you think is the best cache in the series or the final/mother cache of the series.
This is how things were done in the past, before the bookmark list came into play. I’m actually suprised that bookmark list were ever allowed as COTM.
@onesearching2find wrote:
The thing about a series is often the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. I could be pretty sure that the people who found the 49 caches needed to find #50 “The Ultra Mystery Cache” would agree.
I totally agree that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, thats why In the past the way a series would have been nominated for COTM people would have just submitted the final #50. (especially since you need to do the whole series to get that far) The whole series still gets recognition and there is still only one cache of the month.
looks like a win/win situation if bookmark lists aren’t allowed as COTM.
and @ onesearching2find good luck with COTM, looks like a great series!
Have we outgrown the need (purpose) of Cache of the Month?
As I see it, the original idea behind hind selecting a cache to highlight each month, was to aide geocachers in planning their activities. Where to visit and how to place a high quality cache were the issues I saw being addressed by the feature. Since the inception of COM there has been an explosion of caches throughout our state; the population of cachers has grown ten-fold as well. And yet, the numbers of nominees for COM still stands at a half-dozen, rarely more often less; and the number of voters for COM stands at about a score. One might expect the popularity of the feature to grow at about the same rate as that of the sport. I don’t see that.
Four or five years ago, cachers put a lot of effort into bringing innovation, fresh ideas and challenges to the game. Cache pages had animations (Puzzled in Cedarburg), Music (early caches by Miata), clever sagas (caches by jthorson), great locations (caches of Socko), challenges (OIT trail). Today’s caches appear at a rate of a dozen a week or more and so many are micro caches hidden in pine trees, magnetics on guard rails or zip-lock sandwich containers placed under a pile of sticks. Our newer caches may still be fun to find, but they just don’t show us the same level of effort in creation as the caches we saw years ago.
Perhaps COM has evolved from showing distinguished quality to showing distinguished effort. Should we then allow cache series to be eligible for COM? They certainly demonstrate effort on the part on the cache owner. And, is this issue even worth addressing since the portion of our population showing an interest in COM has so greatly diminished.
I don’t want to diminish the favor of any cache or cache hider. I am only expressing thoughts I have on the subject.
~tb
There have been series caches that were able to be done in one hike, where the series was all located in a single property. This type of a series would be much more acceptable to me as a COTM nomination than a series spread across a county or across the state. One definition of of a “series” of caches might not apply to all.
This is something to think about before rejecting series caches as COTM.
Just to throw in my two cents worth…….
I think the answer is….. It depends. There are really two types of series. There is the type where the series is really a series of loosely connected caches that share some common theme, hiding technique, location type, etc. In these series, a person can find just one or two of the caches to experience the “feel” of the series. Examples of these that have been nominated are the Thanapolis series, the Nemesis series and the Red Cedar Trail series. IMHO, I believe that, for series of this type, single members of the cache should be nominated, rather than the whole series.
On the other hand, many series require completion of all the parts of the series to appreciate the full quality of the series. Recent nominees of this sort include the Clue series, Along the Milky Way Series, the Flag series, and, yes, the HBZ series. In these cases, it makes little sense to nominate one member of the series, as one has to find all (or nearly all) the members to appreciate the series. While I suppose you could just nominate the terminal cache of the series, you would be, in reality, just using it as a proxy for the whole series. So for these, I think it does make sense to nominate the series instead.
Dang… Team Deejay took my answer…
I agree about the “two kinds of series” theory, although I suppose it’s mostly because I have created three different series which might fall under the second type.
If someone created a “Great Parks of Wisconsin Series” with a cache in several parks around the state, I’d sy that would fall under the first category as they are all really just individual caches that have “GPoW” attached to their name. If one of those caches was pretty cool, I might vote for just that individual cache for COTM, but probably not the entire series.
I don’t think there should be any restrictions placed on nominations. If someone nominates a series and people vote for it, it must be either something that people want, or the people that are against series aren’t coming out in enough numbers to nominate/vote for non-series caches.
@trudy & the beast wrote:
Have we outgrown the need (purpose) of Cache of the Month?
As I see it, the original idea behind hind selecting a cache to highlight each month, was to aide geocachers in planning their activities. Where to visit and how to place a high quality cache were the issues I saw being addressed by the feature. Since the inception of COM there has been an explosion of caches throughout our state; the population of cachers has grown ten-fold as well. And yet, the numbers of nominees for COM still stands at a half-dozen, rarely more often less; and the number of voters for COM stands at about a score. One might expect the popularity of the feature to grow at about the same rate as that of the sport. I don’t see that.
~tbI believe that the main reason that you don’t see more people participating with COTM is because caches not located in SE WI usually don’t win. Maybe it would be a good idea to section of the state into three areas, NE, NW, S. This way the areas/caches that don’t get as many visitors still have a chance of a COTM win. With the amount of caches our state now has this would make much more sense.(plus it would really help with planning trips up north!) When COTM was started there were only a few caches/cachers, geocaching in Wisconsin has moved on but COTM has not.
@Team Deejay wrote:
it makes little sense to nominate one member of the series, as one has to find all (or nearly all) the members to appreciate the series. While I suppose you could just nominate the terminal cache of the series, you would be, in reality, just using it as a proxy for the whole series. So for these, I think it does make sense to nominate the series instead.
per the poll results(as of right now) 1/2 the people don’t like the practice of series caches being listed. Should we continue using a system that 1/2 the people are unhappy with? would it hurt the other half if bookmark lists weren’t allowed but nomination of “proxy” terminal cache in the series were brought back in practice?(since this was the way things were done for years before the bookmark lists)
Most people hate any change but obviously with 1/2 the people unhappy with the way things are, things really do need to change.
Just my thoughts on this:
At this point the number of people voting in the poll is not a significant enough sample sized based on the population of WGA members to really mean anything. If 300 people were voting, then I would see some significance.
As overseer of the COTM, no matter what my opinion on it, WGA members are the ones who are nominating series for COTM. And other WGA members (friends too — didn’t want to forget you guys!) are the ones placing enough votes for these series to win. Obviously, there is some support of series as COTM, or there would be no nominations or votes.
This is similar to the discussion of events as COTM a little while back. And those are no longer eligible. If there is more support for series to not be part of COTM, the tides may again turn.
Bec
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.