Good ideas ……..

I know that this idea is almost impossible to implement, but here goes.

If a cache gets a vote from someone outside the region where the cache is located that vote counts for 3.

This shows that the cache is viewed by someone who took the time to visit it from another region to be worthy of the COTM honors.

Again, I know it is almost impossible at this time.

@gkrone wrote:

If a cache gets a vote from someone outside the region where the cache is located that vote counts for 3.

The method I mentioned above would work exactly this way, except in the SE WI were most cachers live and the cache would already be getting allot of Visits/votes your vote would only count as one.

Mister G, we couldnt have said it better or agree with you more.

Also this would eliminate the cachers who get nominated for their body of work rather than an outstanding cache

Like Marks idea of showing the number of votes or recommendations a cache gets, however given the population density issue again you could see unworthy caches get honorable mention.

Being we sometimes travel to cache it would be nice to know what some of the better caches in that area are.

Maybe the best question to be asked is what does the BOD (not individual BOD members) think of the COTM and if it needs changes?

I know from another issue BOD members have told me they prefer to be reactive rather than proactive, so since this has been going on for quite awhile (in one form or another) what is the BOD’s opinion?

@marc_54140 wrote:

Along the lines of Mister Greenthumb …..

Eliminate the COTM, and go with a recommended list.

Any cache that is recommended goes on the list, and have an indication of how many cachers recommend it.

If a cache gets … say 20 recommendations … it would go onto an honorable mentions (or whatever) list.

If we distill the purpose of the COTM down to it’s rewards, what are they?

1. Recognition of outstanding caches that you’d recommend to other cachers for the experience, the scenery, the challenge, the creativity.

2. Recognition of the cache creator.

If a a system is created to address no.1 then no.2 is a forgone conclusion and the actual COTM tag is rendered pointless. And that’s teh sentiment everyone seems to be voicing here. That it’s really about highlighting some kind of experience that is worth the time and effort to do and not about making someone’s cache page look more interesting.

Because the reasons are so vast from one’s enjoyable cache to the next, the process for rating them would have to be really well organized with categories for just about every aspect of what makes caching fun and what makes caching not so fun.

Then there’s the fact that many cache placers would be upset if they saw low rankings on their listings, and the potential for abuse by some vindictive cachers, which makes the whole comments thing very appealing. I like the list, but honestly, if you ranked caches in the valley, a majority would be in the list and then what purpose does is serve? Just go out and do them all, right?

I always like the idea of a cache ranking system but it all sounds to complicated. I think that I am just going to put a simpler overall “cache-o-meter” on my own caches for others to dial in their experience and see if that gets me anywhere.

In the end NO system is going to be perfect, and a ranking system would be far from it. It would take out the in-voting to a degree since all caches would be evaluated with a current and cumulative ranking.

So, i don’t know anymore if there’s a solution, but I do know that we can do something to improve the current COTM system, if that’s what we set out to do.