COTM Voting

[bartrod]

I thought deleting logs based on additional logging requirements was no longer allowed…or doesn’t this cache fall under that umbrella???

Oconto...the birthplace of western civilization:)

[TyeDyeSkyGuy]

Maybe this problem could be solved by creating a COTM “Nominated” ribbon.

Dave (Team DeeJay) has been kind enough to keep an honorable mention bookmark going for all the nominees, but maybe some would be more satisfied with having something to “show”.

Just a thought.

[gotta run]

@kansas64 wrote:

Funny, I am a SE Wisconsin cacher and earlier this year I bought up this problem and I was told by many including some who have posted here that this wasn’t an issue.

I haven’t changed my stance on this. I have no issue with the COTM being a “popularity contest.” And I don’t have an issue with campaigning for votes from people who have found your cache. And, as I may have said before, there is value to being nominated to the list, because it means at least one person, and probably a few, thought it was something special.

[As one aside, a few months ago I wasn’t fully aware of the extent of soliciting votes from people who had NOT done a cache. That does truly cheapen the whole thing.]

My only point here, as you can see above, is that I am asking to see a final tally of the votes for all caches nominated for COTM in April.

Unless it’s a big secret or something 😕

On the Left Side of the Road...

[RSplash40]

@Lostby7 wrote:

COTM is pointless plain and simple.

Agreed.

[sandlanders]

Nominated one COTM once, never voted for any others because we hadn’t done any of them, forgot to even check this past month.

No reason not to show any voting numbers. Or PM them to gotta run, if you have to.

[-cheeto-]

the votes should be public information after each month just like how comments have often been shared about the winning cache.

i feel the nominations are not “pointless” but the actual winner as many have said is often a popularity contest.

[seldom|seen]

@RSplash40 wrote:

@Lostby7 wrote:

COTM is pointless plain and simple.

Agreed.

I’ve tried to have this discussion come to some kind of action on the past. I have had many caches nominated and a couple win the COTM, but not necessarily the most creative ones.

I monitored a couple exhaustive threads that proposed a different system for this distinction. One that did not solicit votes or encourage nepotism. While it would still be subject to gerrymandering, an assessment of the most favored and popular caches, based on a monthly tally of cache rankings, would probably better represent truly deserving caches.

Of course this would be hard to implement because you’d have to establish a cache ranking system and widget to place on all cache listings. There would be an immediate bias towards new caches of course but maybe that isn’t a bad thing.

No system is flawless, but some DO a better job than others and at present, our COTM does a poor job of representing the best and brightest in the state. I’ve long ago accepted this fact and these days, when I see a cache of mine nominated, I almost hope I don’t win as the award has little meaning for me.

Maybe someday there will be a better method, but I’m not holding my breath in the meantime…

[Team Black-Cat]

A lot of great caches are never nominated because it isn’t possible for them to get enough votes to win. Since most agree that the nomination is honor enough, why not just stop at nominations?

[kansas64]

Maybe Gotta Run has part of solution (several others have good ideas also) but instead of showing just how many people vote for a particular cache maybe we should list the name so of those who voted also
The ribbon is also a good idea, as is just stopping with the nomination.
There are many cachers who routinely place better than average caches (Ranger Boy in my area, as an example) that just don’t get the respect they deserve. One of the problems I see with some of the puzzle cache publishing masters (S|S as an example) is yes we know that you put a lot of effort in your hides, and even more so in your puzzles, but many of us are still banging our heads on the keyboard trying to solve them.

[-cheeto-]

A lot of great caches are never nominated because it isn’t possible for them to get enough votes to win.

It’s unfortunate but this is pretty true.. I’ve not nominated based on this premise before. For instance, a cache that only 5 or 6 people has found but is an an excellent nomination for this honor.

[Trekkin and Birdin]

I went ahead and nominated a cache that falls into the category of “won’t have a chance of winning.” GCTVZH “Cache with a View.” It’s west of Lone Rock, not a quick search by any means, and not in an area with many cachers or caches (although GR8 Eyes has recently helped increase the caching potential in the area).

It’s a great “old school” cache; a challenge to get to, in an area not well known, with an incredible view at the top. I realized that at least by nominating it, it will get the honorable mention. I have done several in the far north that would be in the same vein

My personal opinion of the importance of COTM I will keep to myself.

[gotta run]

@-cheeto- wrote:

A lot of great caches are never nominated because it isn’t possible for them to get enough votes to win.

It’s unfortunate but this is pretty true.. I’ve not nominated based on this premise before. For instance, a cache that only 5 or 6 people has found but is an an excellent nomination for this honor.

Why not? The winner for April was only found by 8 people, so I’m guessing it got 8 or fewer votes.

I wonder how many votes “Chip and Dale” got?

It appears we’ll never know…

On the Left Side of the Road...

[sandlanders]

There is the Recommended Caches forum here for people to post great caches they’ve done (and their experiences with them). Of course, that doesn’t go on the cache page when people who don’t visit the forums or who aren’t in the WGA are looking for neat caches to do…

[Author]

Posts