Considering Cache Quality Again

The last couple days have been interesting. I began a campaign to archive a virtual cache on TC.com. I do not think it approaches the standard of a high quality cache. TC.com is all about high quality caches and since, for me, this is an obvious exception, I brought it to the community’s attention. The community has resoundingly dismissed my campaign. As a matter of fact, the community has rated this cache as an above average cache.

Since my original post that started all this, I realized that the issue is far broader than the one specific virt that I feel is lacking. TC.com is built upon a four-part mission in which each member is to submit high quality caches and use the tools provided to prune those not meeting the standard. The community is to define high quality and to enforce that each cache is.

The issue is that the community has not defined high quality. It has abdicated its charge. I outlined that argument the other day. It occurs to me that a further flushing out of two points may help make this clearer.

Qualities of a High Quality Cache

Quality, as defined and strictly enforced by the community, is the law of the land here.

That sentence from the main page of TC.com is the essence of the discussion we have been having the last few days.

Plain and simple: the community has not defined quality. No one has been able to provide one attribute of quality on TC.com since the discussion began. No one has been able to provide a quality attribute in the seven months the site has been active. No, the community has abdicated its charge of defining quality.

As members of TC.com, it is our duty to uphold the mission of the site. The mission clearly calls for the placement of high quality caches and the community to prune those caches which are not up to that standard.

I have been involved in numerous conversations with some of the stalwarts of the game. I have searched for common ground with them on this point. On each and every one, however, they have resisted making a universal statement about the attributes of a high quality cache. They have refrained from describing distance as an attribute. They have not wanted to say the type of cache is an attribute. None has wanted to say that if it is solvable online then that is an attribute.

If terracachers are unwilling to commit to any statement of quality, then we are missing the boat. It is our charge as members of the community to define quality and to enforce it. Terracaching is not about caching. Instead, terracaching is about high quality caching. There is a difference between caching and high quality caching. That is why TC.com exists. That is why there is a mission which highlights high quality caching.

So, the question is, What is high quality caching?

I have asked this question any number of ways and none have answered. Some have tossed ad hominem arguments. Some have discussed everything other than high quality caches, and some have said they just refuse to rule anything out. None of those responses define high quality.

For me, there are ways of defining high quality caches. A Googleable virt is an attribute of a low quality virt. A Walmart micro is another attribute of a low quality cache. It is fine that others do not hold those opinions. Contrary to what AK has said, this is not about me getting my way. If others do not hold those to be attributes of quality, then what are? Many have mentioned the work a hider has put into placing a cache. And while I agree that the hider has work to do, is that an attribute of a high quality cache? How does one measure the hider’s effort? His desire? His time? I cannot measure those. I can only measure the product as it exists for me to find. After seven months, we should be able to speak somewhat intelligently about our charge of high quality. Yet, nowhere do I see that. For me, that is unacceptable and a strong indication that the model that TC.com is using does not produce the result it strives for.

Qualities of a Virtual
I have not been able to rectify yet how the DC virtual is rated by the community as an above average cache.

One of the things I have been working on is a piece titled Characteristics of a Good Cache/Find to complement the Characteristics of a Good Hide piece. It is far from done as I am still constructing the framework from which to write. When I wrote the Hide piece, I was mindful of the fact that my points needed to be broad enough to include virtuals. It seems to me, however, that the qualities of a virtual, from the seeker’s POV, are significantly different than those of a physical cache.

Location is always key to a cache placed or found. My standard is the location should positively impress the seeker. The nature of a virtual, however, makes it more difficult to positively impress. Yes, you read that correctly. The nature of a virtual makes it harder to positively impress the seeker. Why?

We can all navigate to the Lincoln Memorial, Statue of Liberty, and the Alamo. Coordinates are not needed to get there. So, on a caching adventure, if one is going to positively impress the seeker, he is going to need to do better than such a plaque or monument. I am not calling for an all-out ban on this style of cache. I can envision good virts. To positively impress, however, I would think a spectacular location in a remote area is going to be closer to the standard than some place I can get to using Fodor’s. The Washington Monument isn’t going to do it in caching terms. The DC virt is exactly this! There is nothing there to positively impress the seeker if he Googles it ahead of time.

Virts have a higher standard. The adventure is all about the seeker. Many have pointed to the time and effort the hider put into the DC virt. I cannot measure those attributes. I can only measure the final product. The final product is a cache which I Googled an answer for. I have enough information now to measure the quality of this cache. I know what the Mall is. I have been to Constitution Gardens. The location for this virt does not positively impress. It is not good enough. It has failed to achieve excellence in its location. Linking it to a GC.com cache does not help it. Requiring a photograph does not help either. Stating it is a stop-gap measure does not help its cause. Not servicing it for a month does not make it a high quality cache. This cache has failed to positively impress its one seeker.

There is a legitimate argument that just because one person does not like the cache does not mean it should be archived. But the one seeker has offered a strong argument for how this cache is not a high quality cache. And while there may be room for disagreement, no one has offered anything to effectively challenge that argument. I’ve heard a lot of Well, I am unwilling to make blanket statements. I have heard that the owner put a lot of effort into it. I have seen the community response that it thinks it is an above average cache. But no one can say why. No one has a definition of high quality. No one has offered one attribute to describe our charge. And for me, that shows that the TC.com community is not interested in high quality. It wants to say it is set apart from other listing sites. It wants to herald the term high quality, but in the end, it is just hot air. I suspect that the real reason for the site is the points system. Linking it to quality provides some superficial legitimacy. But as is clear, when scrutinized, the quality end of things is hollow. That means the points system stands alone. I have no problem with that as I was a fan of the system on the old site. Allow it to run without stating the project is all about high quality.

Correct me where I am wrong . . .

Also blogged on this date . . .

Tags: , ,

4 Responses to “Considering Cache Quality Again”

  1. By Bull Moose on Jun 7, 2005

    Your campaign backfired. There were a lot of “superb” votes to counter anticipated “should be archived.” But since there weren’t many SBA your campaign actually drove the MCE higher.

    Are you sure you aren’t a Democrat? You seem to get awfully flustered when people don’t listen to you when you are trying to tell them what’s best for them and their interests.

  2. By Bob on Jun 7, 2005

    No, I am not a Democrat. :) I do not see where I was flustered. That seems like a cheap shot at the opponent. Shouldn’t you be above that?

    If you read this piece, you will see that I admitted the campaign failed.

    Now, would you care to address what the attributes of a high quality cache are? Whether you agree or disagree with me, BM, on the quality of your virt, surely we can work together to do the work we are expected to do as members of TC.com.

    What is a high quality cache?

  3. By splicingdan on Jun 8, 2005

    Yup, the campaign did backfire.

    Now we’re stuck with another crappy cache because people missed the point of Bob’s effort.

  4. By Bob on Jul 4, 2005

    The MCE of this cache is now at below average status.

Post a Comment

By submitting a comment here you grant ladow.net a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.