Mr.Benchmark

One problem with using the reasoning that "if one park manager doesn't like it - it's only a matter of time before they all don't" is that it seems inevitable that land managers in different states will reach differing and incompatible conclusions about cache placement in their area. For example, perhaps parks in California will decide "No more ammo cans - we want clear plastic containers so that no one mistakes the cache for a dangerous device." OK, this would upset a lot of people - but there's some merit to it. So a new guideline is passed taking this into account. Then a park manager in Texas decides "You know, those stupid plastic containers turn into litter too quickly - I think it was a lot better when metal containers were used. No more plastic caches in our parks - ammocans only." Well, when something like that happens, the only resolution is to leave matters like this to vary locally. The truly unfortunate thing here is that by suggesting the owner change the cache to a multi-cache, the reviewer is really asking the fellow to put out a great deal of extra effort on a series of caches that he's already most likely put great effort into creating. This really is unfair to the hider. It's not like the policy change was widely communicated. I understand that policies will have to change from time to time - that's inevitable. And it's true that no matter how well changes are communicated, there'll be somebody who just doesn't have a clue. Still, to make a change of this sort on a type of series cache that involves great effort on the part of the hider, and then only tell people about it AFTER the fact is really poor, in my opinion.

He has a point. We have lots of multi-caches here in Texas, and if you put a multi and a traditional in the same park, the multi does tend to get hit less frequently. I wouldn't say that the four cache loop is all that popular. It's done pretty well, but the P4 series has been hit more than half as many times as the four cache loop, in just a couple of months. It's done well considering its location. Contrast P4 with The Headless Horseman Takes a Fall, a really excellent multicache. HH has been out since August, and has fewer finds than P4. HH is MUCH more conveniently located for most of the cachers in this area than is P4. Distance is a big advantage for it - P4 isn't going to show up in the nearest 200 caches for most of us. (BTW, not trying to slight P4 - it's a good series of caches too.) The HH Multi involves rather elaborate props - it's worth doing just for that, really. (I did it last weekend - it's a really cool cache!) My point is that given two caches by the same hider, one a multi and the other a power path, the power path gets hit MUCH more frequently than the multi, at least here in DFW. We have lots of multi's in DFW. They just do not get found as frequently as traditional caches. They don't get attempted, on average, as frequently, either. What I don't understand is why gc.com is perfectly happy to let someone hide 20 film cans in random parking lots around town, but if that same person tries to create a trail like this in an area people might actually enjoy hiking, it's disallowed. I realize this is an abuse of the "find count," in some sense, but: - I thought this didn't matter anyway - Better to abuse it with caches with a nice hike than 20 park-n-grabs in generic suburban retail locations. What are they thinking? The power trail is not a perfect solution for quality control, but it's the best answer to reconcile the "I want big numbers real fast" crowd with the "I would like a nice hike please" crowd that I've seen here.

I meant "here" as in the Groundspeak forums. It seems to be about the numbers in DFW, too. I meant this was a practice that so many seem to engage in, but few admit to.

Sure. I've got no problem with that - more power to them - but "competition" is almost a dirty word around here, or it seems that way to me. Sometimes I'll even decide it's fun and go for FTF myself.

PrimeSuspect and Mr. Snazz - you can laugh about points all you want, and honestly, it's not my main motivation either - but there are people who want some competition. Look at the people who RACE to be FTF on a cache. Lots of times there's NO incentive to do this - the stat is not even tracked on this site, and for log only caches, my experience has been that signing first, second, or sixteenth was exactly the same. I don't think there's anything wrong with people who want to do this - the problem is that it's not supported, is actively discouraged by TPTB, and is the target of SNIDE comments from people in these forums. But people do it anyway, and the stats that are frequently used for competitive purposes tend to encourage quantity over quality. This isn't the ONLY reason this happens, but I think it's a factor. But that's not the biggest problem - the major problem with denying that this happens is that it leads people to just flat out lie to themselves and others about what it is they are doing. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'm not saying everybody has to be involved in some kind of a competition against everyone else, but would it be so wrong to support those who want this, and be upfront that's what's going on?

...and break it. Also true. There's plenty of incentive to hide large numbers of very simple log-only urban caches. These don't have to be low quality - but the "hide large numbers" part tends to make that a more likely outcome.

I agree, 100%. I've long thought that hiders who do a really amazing job (as decided by the people who find and enjoy there caches) should get some type of special recognition, beyond the "I Found it" logs. (I always try to write a really good log if I enjoyed the cache and thought it was really well done. But not everyone does.) Some really do put an amazing amount of time, effort, and creativity in to their hides.

Many would argue that we're way, way past that now in some areas. I agree that the count of caches found isn't intended to be a score. In fact, I'd say it's actively discouraged as being viewed as a score, both by Groundspeak and a great many in the caching community. The fact that many seem to desperately want to use it in this manner is a reality though. Contrary to so many negative postings about this, I believe there's nothing perverse about wanting some type of score. I've been chided by people for pointing this out - "No REAL geocacher cares about their find count", and then invited by the same person to go to an event cache luncheon to celebrate some milestone count of finds. (Or sometimes hides and finds - 1000 / 100 is typical.) There's no need to add a "found it" smiley for a hide in any case. Our local hiders who care about this are in a race to see who gets to some milestone number of hides, and they simply compare the count of caches owned. Since no one will actually come out and SAY they are trying to compete to reach a milestone, this is kind of fascinating to watch from a distance. The general concept of encouraging hiders to hide good caches in some way is a good one, and using the statistics to do this is an idea I've long felt has merit. However, that has a very low probability of happening here, so I'll not mention it further. If someone wants to be in a race to be the top-dog, uber-hider in the area, they just need to compare the caches owned stat to someone else's caches owned stat. People can and do compete with the existing statistics - anyone who thinks this doesn't happen is fooling themselves. The existing statistics absolutely favor quantity over quality if they are used in this manner, in my opinion.

I like multicaches if they are well designed. Often well designed means a nice sight-seeing tour - you are lead along a very interesting path, often the most pleasant and fun one to the cache. Sometimes the path is not the best one - you can use a multi to deliberately impose a terrain obstacle on someone. A little bit of that can be fun, but too much probably isn't a good idea. (For example, I recently did a multi on a rocky hill. The final was a short distance, 0.15 mi, from parking, and had it not been a multi, it would have involved a nice walk down the hill, grab the cache, and go. It would have been OK. The multi made you walk around the hill to find 3 stages prior to the final. The stages were interesting, and weren't trivial to find, but weren't impossible either. It was a lot more fun than a single stage cache would have been. I don't like multi's that involve finding large numbers of tiny, difficult to find, micros in the woods. If each stage is reasonable to find (5-15 minutes), I'll enjoy it. If it's not reasonable (45 minutes or more per stage) and there's a large number, I'm liable to never complete the cache. Others may enjoy this type though - it certainly adds to the challenge. I'd say 5 stages is about my limit - but others do much better. I think it helps if there's something interesting to see at one or more of the stages of the multi.

5.1 miles for 100. 7 miles for 200. 10.1 miles for 400. 16.2 miles for 800. One year ago, probably 8 miles Two years ago, probably 13 miles. Closest cache is 0.2 miles away. Next closest is 0.3 miles. 6 caches are within 1 mile of where I live.

This is a great list, Markwell! No argument with any of these! Only things I'd add are: Humorous theme / container / execution Fun and interesting terrain I've found some caches that were just hilarious - I mean laugh out loud funny! I'll always remember those. Some of 9key's caches are like this. In terms of interesting terrain, some places just seem to be fun. A little bushwhacking, maybe a creek to cross, some hills. If being clever lets you get around some of the terrain obstacles a bit more easily, so much the better. If you have to think for a few minutes about how you're going to get IN there, it's probably fun.

Actually, I think what you said in your post: makes for an excellent disclaimer. I'd put this on the cache page. Yeah, it will scare off some finders. Most of the ones it'll scare off probably need to be scared off. One thing you could consider, if the approver would allow it, is to list the parking coordinates for the cache as the cache location, and the list the actual coordinates to the cache on the cache page. Only people who've read your page and (presumably) planned accordingly, will be lead into the swamps. There are a few people who, for added challenge, just download waypoints into their GPS and then off they go. They don't read the cache page. Many times, this isn't necessary. However, for this cache, it sounds like it might be. You'd hope someone would get near your cache - see the swamp, and go "wow, I'm totally unprepared for this," and pass on it until they had proper gear. Then again, if people in your area just know "stay out of the swamps - they are dangerous" as common sense, then this probably isn't needed. Just a thought - if you don't do this I'm sure the cache will be fine. Sounds like it would be a challenge! I bet the sights are incredible there.

As angst filled forum posts go, this guy's was kinda mild, don't you think? Telling him to shut up seems a little strong? Sure, as things to worry about goes, I'd have to agree that golf balls are not the biggest challenge facing the game - probably not even a pebble in the road, really. New golf balls, or ones in good shape, seem like perfectly OK items to leave in caches at least to me. (Actually, new golf balls can be a very nice trade item - they have real value and some people truly appreciate them - maybe more than the original poster had considered - there are whole store's dedicated to that, I think. ) Range-balls, worn out or badly stained balls really don't have any kind of value, and might border on being litter. (Although a kid might like them unless they are so trashed they don't bounce or roll anymore - it's still a better item than used movie tickets or a coupon that was expired when you left it.) A used golf ball in good shape is worth 0.25 or so, new ones more. Folks might ought to keep that in mind if they trade one for a something worth a couple of dollars, but other than that, I can't see much of a problem. Compared to some items that have been left in my caches, golf balls are pretty swell, really. And the golf ball graveyard cache I found was absolutely hilarious. Actually, I think I'm going to go buy some new golf balls to place in my caches. I'd kind of forgotten about them. Thanks!

What I've learned from this argument: 1. No one's values are superior to anyone else's. Therefore the lowest standard should be the universal one. 2. Every cache is a gift. Sure, some gifts may not seem well thought out, but hey, you probably receive gifts like that every holiday. The fact that some gifts require more resources in time and materials and planning is irrelevant. 3. Even log only film cannister micros have serious maintenance requirements. Remember, the guy who hid it might have to drive a few miles to change out the log. See, that's part of the gift. 4. The handicapped especially enjoy caching at WalMart. Try to consider them frequently in your hides. 5. The feelings of the hider are the most important. That's why it's important to write nice "I Found it" logs, regardless of your actual feelings. Or if you can't do that, communicate nothing, because people KNOW when you don't say much of anything, that's really negative. wink wink. "TNLNSL" is your friend. 6. Only lazy finders write "TNLNSL". At least try to mention that this was #n of NN for the day. That makes it a lot more personal. 7. It is OK sometimes to say something negative if the cache is in an extremely unsafe or illegal place - especially if nobody locally likes the hider anyway. 8. If you don't like 'em, don't find 'em. In fact, as the finder, if you aren't having a good time, it's your own darn fault. You should carefully research each find, and if you make a mistake and find one you just don't enjoy, you should move along and not say anything. (See item #4) Successfully practicing this will save you a lot of grief, and vastly expand your powers of ESP and clairvoyance! (A terrific side benefit!) 9. It's about the hunt. Even an easy hunt is still a hunt. Even a hunt that takes 37 seconds because the prior 37 you've done are just like it. I know this may all have a weird, "Atlas Shrugged" type of feel to it at first, but you have to keep in mind that even a tiny, compromised container micro with a soggy log attached to a bin of rotting fish is still a GEOCACHE, and a proud descendant of the old style geocaches in ammoboxes amongst the mighty redwoods. Therefore we should ignore petty issues like personal preferences and individual enjoyment, and think about what's better for the community as a whole. So hold your head high, hold your nose if you have to, and go get that cache!

You'd really hate this one then - first golf ball cache I know of: Golfball Graveyard The second stage was actually a golf ball with the coords written on them, nailed to the top of a fence post. The guy who placed it finds an enormous number of golf balls. I've seen him recover dozens while we're out caching.

You raise an interesting point, and also ironic...since on another hotly-discussed thread here lately we've been told that TNLNSL and the like are preferable to actually providing any commentary if it's not "all good". -Dave R. I've certainly heard more than one person who hides slews of micros express to me the dismay about people who trade unkindly and log 'TNLNSL'. On the other hand, I've never observed these same folks to ever hide anything worth trading, either. So who knows? I do think that selfish finders can make people not want to bother placing decent trade items in their caches. And if you aren't going to do that - why not place a micro? Here locally, I don't think what goes on in the forums has much to do with people's attitudes. A great many of the cachers here locally take great pride in IGNORING what goes on in these forums. The irony is that they are unaware of how many would agree with them, and their placement of huge quantities of micros. I believe the reason micros have proliferated are quite simple: 1. Some people are really motivated to increase their stats quickly. 2. Virtuals, as a way to abuse the stats, were pretty much eliminated 3. None of the dynamics that made people want to boost their stats changed, so the explosion of micros began. Many of these are easy to find, take little physical effort, and count just the same as a cache that takes you all day to find. For the hider, you get tons of "I found it" logs, mostly positive ones. There are folks here locally who are racing to reach milestones for the number of caches they hide, not just find. We have folks who celebrate reaching 1000 finds / 100 hides - it's a big deal. BTW, I see nothing wrong with this. It's not neccessarily just the stats - a lot of folks just like the easy ones. They want to go find a cache at lunch. Some of the more traditional types of caches sometimes leave you going back to work smelling like the creek you fell into. Not a good thing for most of us. Some people with young children want to play this game. Again, nothing wrong with any of this. I see these easy micros as being a lot like fast-food. They are convenient and a fairly sure thing. There's nothing inherently wrong or evil about any of this - but the dynamic has lead to certain, very simple, types of caches to overwhelm other types in some areas - in some places almost to the exclusion of everything else. (It certainly seems that way in my area lately.) A couple of years ago here in Dallas, the really easy ones were the exception, rather than the rule. Now it's exactly the opposite. The end result here is that our outdoor activity greatly resembles an easter egg hunt. That's the main reason I've been complaining - "don't hunt 'em if you don't like 'em" is only really helpful advice if someone is placing any of the type you like.

Do you find that there are more hard caches or easy ones in your area? I hope you have a good variety of different kinds to choose from. Easy ones, hard ones, ones in between, puzzles, multicaches. It used to be like that here. I'm in N. Texas. It's flat. There's not any 4* terrain here. I really don't go looking for easy caches and then complain about them. I'm complaining because mostly I'm not looking for caches because I'm surrounded by easy caches that I don't much care for. Terrain here mostly indicates whether or not there's a creek crossing, or overgrowth. It sometimes factors in distance. It's pretty hard to tell. I can't tell you how many I've driven to, only to go, 'forget it', and then left.

I've done this. Some locations don't allow for a very nice walk - just a longer one. And it's not always just the lack of a walk. I'm trying to be nice here - I really do not enjoy most of these hides. I'm glad other people do - that's wonderful. Doesn't help me, though.

That again. Yes, obviously the hider has no responsibility to do anything that anyone might like, and it's totally up to the finder to figure out which ones he might like, despite the fact that no negative information whatsoever can be conveyed by other finders. What was I thinking? Clearly it's a much more enjoyable game for someone who doesn't like quick finds to go wading through dozens and dozens of cache listings to find one that looks promising - only to get there, realize it's mis-labeled, and find a terrain 2.5 with a 50' roundtrip walk from parking to the cache. Forget about quality though - it's obvious to me there's little interest in this subject here. Look, at this point I don't care - I understand people like these types of hides a lot. Lots of people really, really like them. If folks want to play that way - that's fine by me. Honestly! I really have no desire to try to impose my will over them, and make them stop. I'm quite disappointed, but not surprised, that more folks don't seem to agree with me, but that's the breaks. What I'd like is for the website here to provide me a reasonable way to avoid most of these types of hides. (Sure, secretly I'd like this to not be an issue at all, but I know that's not going to happen - it is too late for that.) If I could more or less mask their existence and didn't ever have to see them again, that would be even better. It's somewhat difficult to do that with the tools available today. It's not like I want to avoid 10 or 20% of the current local hides - it's probably like 75-80% of them. If I'm going to spend time planning my caching, I'd like to spend it figuring out the best approach to a cache, not wading through dozens of listings that I dislike. The trouble is that when there's a lot of quick to find caches, there tends to be a lot of listings to wade through. If it were easy for me and folks that like the larger caches with longer walks to ignore these, we could do our thing, y'all could do yours, and I'd be happy as a clam. It's not like I'd want a particularly sophisticated filter - a minimum roundtrip distance would probably come pretty close to doing it, or even an indicator that the cache is intended to be found very, very quickly, so I could just ignore it. Personally, I think it might be better if quick, small hides were distinct from more traditional caches, but that wouldn't be necessary. "Speed" finds vs. "Classic" finds - both versions of the game viewed equally. No judgement on which one was better. No reason a person couldn't play both if they so desired. Just a nod that perhaps the quick cache at a strip mall wasn't precisely the same experience as a moderate to long hike ending in an ammobox.

That would suit me fine.

Why do people continue to hide the kind of caches that disappoint us? Why not be selective, do a little research like picking a good location before hiding? It's a two way street, isn't it?

That surprises me - he didn't respond to any of our emails, and at the time he hadn't logged into the site in many months. It looks like he just stopped for about a year. Again, I am ashamed I didn't post a SBA note. I should have done that, and I regret not doing it at the time. I promise you I have not made that mistake again. Generally, if there are maintenance issues, I'll mention it in the cache page unless they are severe, and try to resolve it with a PM to the cache owner. However, if it's a bad enough problem, I'll post a very blunt SBA note that explains why folks shouldn't hunt for the cache, and then email the owner. In the two or three times I've done it since then, folks who looked for the cache risked arrest.

I certainly agree - but in my experience few speak their minds about caches. Even pretty awful caches get a pass most of the time. Example: Fish Eye View While this was a cool cache when it was hidden - a sealed section of PVC pipe dangling by a barely visible tether underwater, the owner bailed out of the game pretty soon after hiding it, and left it there, out in the wild. I found the cache in april. Here's a log from May: Another Fish Eye View Log Now when I found it in April, it was the most disgusting, noisome, slimy mess imaginable. To my shame, I did NOT post a SBA note. But I did mention the generally poor condition of the cache. Heck, it wasn't even a cache at that point - it was a slimy tube on a rope, totally filled with water and muck. There was NO fun inherent in this cache at the time I found it, and there was not even an owner around who was going to have hurt feelings if someone said anything bad about it. My point is that while a few people danced around this issue, nobody really told it like it was until another cache got DENIED because it was a few feet (and I mean just a few) too close to this one, across the pond. (That's another story.) So if you're looking for the logs to tell you that a cache is just god-awful so that you can avoid it, you are apt to be in for a surprise - and not a happy one. Of course this isn't a new situation - this is why the term DPM originated in the first place. But there seems to be no resolution to it, as the chances of bruising the tender egos of hiders trumps just about every other consideration.

The new cache attribute with the clock face is just what you are asking for. Granted it's a hour or less, not ten minutes, but some of us are just quicker than other perhaps. I understand some day in the not to distant future these attributes will actually work with the PQ's as well. Won't that be swell? An hour isn't really fine enough granularity. It's really the distance + the time that I'm more concerned about. Actually a field that could be filtered for the PQ for distance to the cache would suit me about as well. I'd filter out everything less than 450' from parking to the cache, regardless of what it was. I know I come off as being really adamant about this stuff - but I don't mind doing a "quick cache", where "quick" is a 0.5 mile roundtrip walk. You can do most like this in less than an hour. I just don't usually want to do 10 quick caches with a 20' walk from parking to the cache...

That is a good idea. How about a different category for "quick to find" caches as opposed to just "micros" as a solution. Regardless of the container, if the distance from the car to the cache is less than 250', or you expect the finder to take 10 minutes or less, then it falls into the "quick find" category. You can have a quick to find ammocan - it just takes the right placement! I guess it doesn't solve the problem of a micro in the woods, but I don't think there's an overabundance of those. I don't see the need to limit micros to the city limits. There are probably folks out in the country surrounded by long hikes to an ammocan that might appreciate a nice quick cache. This would really resolve a great many of my complaints. I could easily filter out caches that I'm just not interested in. There needn't be any stigma in placing or finding that type of cache. I'm perfectly happy for people who just want to log a find to be able to do it however they like best. I just don't want it to get in the way of what I like to do, and this seems like it would really help with the situation.