I see the problem. There's not a defined goal to geocaching. Is this a competitive pursuit, or non-competitive? What's a "good" cache? Everyone knows how to start caching, but no one knows when they're finished.I think some rules are in place on GC.com that steer cachers toward the wrong conclusions.
People get smileys for finds, and no smileys for placing, so implication #1:
Finding caches is a greater priority than placing caches.
Just look at who the heroes are. Everyone knows who the TeamAlamos and EMCs are, many cachers probably even know approximately how many finds the Finders have. But, does anyone have any idea who's the cacher with the most caches placed? How many caches does the leading Place-r have? Who cares? No one gets smileys for placing.
One Smiley for One Find. Implication #2:
Go after only the easiest caches.
How can you boost the numbers? Power cache the nearest, most accessible, easiest finds you can. Park and Grabs flourish. Hikes, Puzzles and Multis languish. When someone logs their copy/paste of all the caches they bagged on their powercaching excursion, what's your reaction?
...whose goal this weekend was to set our own personal best records. Our attempt was power cache 200 caches in 1 day -SO- we recorded our visits on the log as T200 to expedite our quest. We exceeded our goal! ~~
My# from this adventure= 251 caches in 1 day (Sat. in 17 hrs) / and 422 caches for the weekend.
Do you think that they're superhuman? Or that they bypassed the area's good caches to bag all the dreck? I feel pity, not awe.
Here's an issue: The star system for difficulty rating is veneer only. Ratings are totally subjective to the hider. Not to mention that one cache hider's 2 star is another's 4 star. That, and the question's always so easy when you know the answer. The hiders usually rate the harder ones too easy, since it's hidden just Right There, why can't ppl see it? And the easier ones? The skirt lifters still get two stars, don't ask me why.
Why can't the finders rate the difficulty after they've found it? Consensus wins the day.
Hey, while they're at it, they can rate the quality of the placement. Let the placer get some pointage for extending himself. Otherwise, a smiley a placement turns into another skirt lifter parade, polluting the supply like the demand's already been poisoned.
Anyway, I like the Terracaching rating system. I think it's underused there. The ratings make the multiple points per find/placement possible on that site, but I don't think ppl rate regularly. Don't ask me why.
I conclude that rating's the only ray of sunshiny hope for caching. Until there's a definitive gameplay goal, variable scoring for caches, some reward for placing (better) caches, and ratings for difficulty and quality, caching is gonna continue to serve the lowest common denominator.
