[seldom|seen]

@K0rpl wrote:

I guess, I am not sure why the reviewers should bend the rules for certain cachers, and not others. I guess, I don’t see why a cache would need to be placed if it is not 528 Feet or more from another cache…… Rules are rules

And just to clarify, we’re not talking about a huge derivation either. I often find myself working around the 500-528′ range and when a cache doesn’t get published because it’s 510 or 514′ from the next one, that just seems a little stringent, particularly when the placement of the cache is predetermined. If it’s less then 500′ I’ll concede to the reviewers, but a difference of 28’… is it really that critical to abide by the 528 guideline?

[seldom|seen]

I digressed…

Came in to suggest adding some function to cache listings that would allow an owner to download a “Current HTML” file for backups. I recently overwrote a listing by accidentally copy/pasting and had nothing to fall back on. Would have been nice to simply reload the listing with an archived file. Not sure how this would be accomplished with all of the listing components, but it sure would make me feel better. With 204 complicated listings, I sometimes lie awake wondering when the GC server is going to go down and loose everything. I do hope there is a STRONG and reliable backup strategy in place…

[seldom|seen]

@benny7210 wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

We’ve seldom seen any caches that far off. Usually they’re right on the marc.

OMG How true!! 😳 😳

If the reviewers would give me a small degree of latitude on the 528′ guideline (read “rule”) then maybe my cords could have a much higher degree of accuracy. Until then you’ll have to take what you can get or just ignore mine altogether. If it bothers you that much, don’t do em…

[seldom|seen]

Yup, this I have been made aware of. I just assumed that from an historical and paleological perspective, earthen burial mounds in and of themselves would be sufficient. But having reviewed a couple other mound sites in the state, I see that each includes a segment about the local geomorphology which qualifies them as EC’s.

So, mine will get published, just gotta find the time to re-write and submit. I do wish I didn’t have to re-post everything, though…

[seldom|seen]

@Lostby7 wrote:

I’m glad there is some interest in the listings.

It’s a testament to the time and effort you put into creating your Earthcaches and the knowledge of what it takes to get one of them published via Earthcache.com. Anyone whose been through the process knows that it is not as easy as publishing in GC.com. That alone makes adopting a well crafted EC look very attractive and I’m not surprised in the least by the interest in yours!

I tried getting one published for the Campout, but had to shelve it since it wasn’t significantly geocentric and had more to do with the burial mounds than local geology. I have to turn the tables a bit and now I have to re-submit the whole thing unlike GC.com where I could simply edit the content. See, not as easy as…

So, I’m hoping my number comes up,but if it doesn’t I’ve still got plenty of EC ideas to bring to fruition. (fingers crossed)

[seldom|seen]

First, that’s awesome feedback, well done you two!!!

Midday of any week is tough for me or I’d be willing. However, I will try to get out there and make sure mine are in good shape and maybe plant one or two new ones for this session.

I expect someone with more time on their hands will come through for you.

[seldom|seen]

If any aren’t spoken for, I’d like to adopt one. In particular, I’d take Powder Hill since it’s closest to Home(town).

[seldom|seen]

Yes, Rock Pile, that’s a good one.

Wonder how hard it would be to get GC.com to create a “special characteristics” set of attributes? Certainly, owners would use their own discretion to choose how much they want to give away.

Hell, I even start a list:

Headstone: Cemetery Hide
Magnifying Glass: Nano
Brain Hemisphere: Very Difficult / Time Consuming Puzzle
Rock Pile: Rock Pile
Monkey: Tree Climb
X-Mas Tree Topper: Pine Tree Hide
Bumper: Park and Grab/Guardrail
“X”: Extreme Physical or Terrain Challenge (Dangerous Area doesn’t always fit)

I’m sure there are many more “common” hide types that I’m missing

[seldom|seen]

Oh yeah, (sidetracked)

What I’d really like is the ability to sort my caches. Alphabetically at the very least. With 200+ caches it can be a bugger to find one when the only option I have to view them by is Last Found.

[seldom|seen]

@cekcacher wrote:

I’d like to see some sort of designation for “daredevil” caches – caches that only a young person in good shape can chase! Caches placed 10+ feet up a tree, caches placed on slopes with a terrain greater that 3, caches hidden in places that people with common sense don’t go! I realize the Game attracts all kinds, but I get frustrated chasing down the ridiculous!

A number of these can be accomplished with some additional attribute categories, something I’ve been asking for for a lone time. Why not a Headstone for cemetery caches?, A Monkey for Tree climbs, A Brain for Hard Puzzles… cripes, if I thought about it for 10 minutes, I could come up with a dozen useful icons, certainly more useful than that whole subset which includes telephone, picnic bench, bathroom, etc. How often are those used except when someone like myself want to be cute?

[seldom|seen]

Do you have a tally of who and how many are placing?

[seldom|seen]

@Team Deejay wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

Second, it does not translate to a bookmark list, which means there’s no easy way to download it, see what’s near you, etc.

So, what you are saying is that I have been wasting my time maintaining a bookmark list of all the caches in the Recommended forum?

I’m certainly biased toward my own caches, but only 1 S|S cache on a recommended list of almost 500 alongside a whole bunch of others that I have done, which I wouldn’t recommend to others, tells me this method too is subject to cache owner bias and regional emphasis.

Like some other “must do” bookmark lists, I wouldn’t trust this one to be a good representation of the best ones out there either. And I certainly wouldn’t use it…

[seldom|seen]

@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.

[seldom|seen]

@froggerz wrote:

What a great accomplishment!

We were proud of ourselves for being at 21% puzzle cache finds when we recently hit 1000 finds. Now we have a new goal to aspire to.

I’m slackin’ at barely over 10%. But I do have an interesting number. 65% of my hides are puzzles, and you all know how many hides I have.

[seldom|seen]

I’m in for two…

[Author]

Posts