This topic contains 52 replies, has 23 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
My general take on the cache of the month is 2 fold.
One, it is a nice way to give credit to caches that are nice and allows a way for the WGA members to expresses their like and appreciation for a cache.
Two, it is naturally going to be flawed system. As pointed out with a majority of cachers located in lower east part of the state the chances of a cache that is further away being voted on compared to a new one close to that area being a winner is slim since you should only be voting on a cache you been to. Look at the current votes for this month. Some of the caches in this area I think are great haven’t even had 7 people visit them this year.
The cache rating system would be nice but for it to truly work once again it is subjected to multiple problems some of witch have already been pointed out. I would like to see such a system but actually on GC.com. When someone logs the cache it would also like you to rate it. This would serve to show good caches and also point out to owners and approvers which caches suck and should be removed. It is important though that rating not be tied to a user to prevent retaliatory remarks on that person cache.
Example:
John Doe cache is visited by me and I mark his cache as 2 out of 5 (5 being best). Later John Doe goes to one my caches and marks it a 1 just because he is pissed I marked his cache a 2.I also ask who would setup and manage this information if not by GC.com? If getting data from GC.com is already a problem, who is going to enter all caches in the WI area by hand and maintain it as caches are added, archived, and disabled.
If you can work all that out then you can also easily make the House of Brew info as well.
I think cache of the month should stay but realize that the Milwaukee – Madison area holds the most control over what actually wins.
quote:
Originally posted by pcfrog:
…Some of the caches in this area I think are great haven’t even had 7 people visit them this year.
Good for the caches, but sad for WGA, with the numbers of people nominating and/or voting on COTM, 6 or 7 votes may be enough to win the blue ribbon link for the cache page.
quote:
Originally posted by pcfrog:
I think cache of the month should stay but realize that the Milwaukee – Madison area holds the most control over what actually wins.I disagree with this opinion. If you pull up any cache in these areas, you will find that people from all over visit them.
Also, how many of the 50 people who logged GCNK8F were from other areas of the state? This cache is in one of those out of the way areas, but won COTM in June of 2005.
MBI am not advocating a rating system in my suggestion. For one obvsious reason, see pcfrog’s latest entry.
I am saying keep a list – if you like a cache, say so by ticking it off. As more people indicate they like a particular cache, it’s numbers will go up.
No negative features invovled.
quote:
Originally posted by CB&MB:
I disagree with this opinion.
I check the past 17 Cache of the Month 11 of them are around and between Madison and Milwaukee.
I stand by my point most are around that area. Yes there are exception but I said “the Milwaukee – Madison area holds the most control over what actually wins.” Not that ALL were.
quote:
Originally posted by pcfrog:
I check the past 17 Cache of the Month 11 of them are around and between Madison and Milwaukee.I stand by my point most are around that area. Yes there are exception but I said “the Milwaukee – Madison area holds the most control over what actually wins.” Not that ALL were.
with over 80% of the State’s population in the South of the State; I think we should see more than 65% of the COM
quote:
Originally posted by pcfrog:
I check the past 17 Cache of the Month 11 of them are around and between Madison and Milwaukee.I stand by my point most are around that area. Yes there are exception but I said “the Milwaukee – Madison area holds the most control over what actually wins.” Not that ALL were.
Have to agree with you pcfrog. There are some great caches waaaaay up north in the state, but not very many will go for them or visit the area, therefore these can get nominated but most likely NOT be chosen. Logs will be far and few between for finds. The cachers who do log them we may see to be “Out-of-staters” visiting the minimally populated area (minimally populated by people and caches).
So, does this mean people should NOT plant caches in these remote places???? No… just really doubt they will ever get chosen unless there is an event up in the area. How to resolve this… I don’t have any ideas at this time… nope…but something to ponder.
(Edited `cause I hit the enter button before I finished my thoughts…ooops!)
[This message has been edited by Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu (edited 02-27-2006).]
I think we will be seeing some shift in the activity toward more remote caches. SE Wisconsin has a growing number of micro caches that are going to fuel this change. Micros are easy to hide and maintain and they are less likely to be muggled. But, they can be more difficult to find especially for children. The lack of swag makes them boring for children. In time, family groups will draw their attention on day trips to get the kids away from the urban scene. Keep placing caches with swag, trading even or up, writing great cache descriptions and “found it ” logs and they will come. So will the blue ribbons.
[This message has been edited by Trudy & the beast (edited 02-28-2006).]
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy & the beast:
I think we will be seeing some shift in the activity toward more remote caches.I sure hope so T&tb….great stuff up yonder and some awesome sights to see!!
I think I may have voted for COTM once, but I cannot see voting for caches we have not done. We have not had (or made) the opportunity to hunt caches in SE WI, and we’ve only done a few in the Madison area.
I’ve suggested before… how about doing something regional on occasion? The voting response from those of us upstate may increase if we are able to choose from a plate of caches from our own area. And by watching the logs, I know that many of the metro folks who are active on these message boards do hunt caches in other parts of WI, and are probably familiar with a lot of pretty cool caches up nort’ here.
Dividing up regions could be pretty easy – like north of Hwy 29 and east of Hwy 51/39; or between Hwy 21 & 29 and Hwy 41 & 13; or something similar. A little time with a state highway map would be all it would take…
cYa, Grandpa
I really like Marc’s idea of allowing people a simple “thumbs up” vote when they find a cache that they like.
However, I always envisioned taking it a step farther… to allow people to create “top ten” or “favorites” lists of various flavors. We could have all kinds of different list types: “overall favorite WI cache”, “most challenging multicache”, “best cache in NW Wisconsin”, etc. Each member could add their own selections to as many or as few of these lists as possible. There would probably have to be a limit on the number of selections one could add to a particular list to keep the results from being diluted (you wouldn’t want to allow someone to add every cache they find to the best overall cache list)…
An overall ranking for a cache could be developed based on the number of top ten/favorites lists it appears in.
What I’m hearing is:
– Should NOT have a rating system
– Should allow people to somehow select or enumerate a small number of caches they like or that they feel are special in some way
– Need to have a way to “even the playing field” so that good caches all areas of the state get recognized
– Need to have different categories to allow caches unique in certain ways to be recognized
– Need to be able to aggregate the selections of all members to produce a master list or listsPlease keep the ideas coming!
quote:
Originally posted by Team Deejay:
Does anyone have a record of all the caches nominated for COTM that have did not win?
Yes, we actually do keep information on all the caches that were nominated, as well as the number of votes for each cache, who voted, their comments, etc. We have this information stretching back to the start of the “new” COTM system which was put in place in February 2003.
Maybe we need a to use this data to put together a list of “honorable mentions”… caches that have been nominated but have not yet won. Maybe to keep the list managable we should only list those caches nominated in the past 12 months?
How about creating a public bookmark list similar to Cheesehead Dave’s COTM bookmark list? Eliminate the archived caches and call it Wisconsin’s active honorable mentions.
quote:
Originally posted by jvechinski:
Yes, we actually do keep information on all the caches that were nominated, as well as the number of votes for each cache, who voted, their comments, etc. We have this information stretching back to the start of the “new” COTM system which was put in place in February 2003.Maybe we need a to use this data to put together a list of “honorable mentions”… caches that have been nominated but have not yet won. Maybe to keep the list managable we should only list those caches nominated in the past 12 months?
Jeremy, If you could send me the information for past months, I will put together the honorable mention list and maintain it. Any format is acceptable (even handscrawled on a napkin) as long as I can either see it or read it into some sort of program. Just a list of the cache names or waypoints is all I need. Email me at drsecond at scj dot com.
Oh, and I’m not too worried about the list being unmanageable. If you review past months, you will see that rarely was there more than one or two caches nominated for the first time, so we are only talking about 50 or so on the list. Between older caches being archived and others actually winning the COTM, the list will tend to stay at about the same size once it is created.
[This message has been edited by Team Deejay (edited 03-01-2006).]
Here’s the start of the honorable mention list (Just the ones I can remember). I will complete when I get more info.
Honorable mention list
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.