[Geocache Quality]

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

You're fortunate to live in a place with lots of caches to find, but spare a thought for someone in, say, Fiji where there are only 34 caches in the whole country. How is caching ever supposed to grow in a place like that if you have to find 100 caches before you can hide one?

 

I take your point.  I have no doubt that I could have placed high quality caches after my first few finds; my comment was more to show that I didn't think it was unreasonable to ask people to get a bit of experience first, but of course that does assume that such experience is available!  Perhaps number of finds could be just one metric?  Alternatively perhaps ask folks to read a short and well designed 'how to' manual with examples of low/high quality caches before allowing them to proceed with their first placement? Plus a quick tick box list at the end to confirm that each quality criterion has been considered before placing the cache?  Also provide a chance for the community to rate/feedback on the extent to which they think these criteria were met after finding the cache? Of course, there is no guarantee that the information will be absorbed or followed, and there will be a lot of room for individual 'interpretation'...

[Geocache Quality]

I am pretty new to geocaching, having started in April this year, and finding 71 caches so far.  I am offering my comments in the spirit of 'first impressions'...

• In your mind, what is a high quality geocache?
  • For me, a high quality cache shows signs of thought and consideration.  This could include many things.  It could be choosing to place the cache in an interesting area to visit (e.g. historical interest, secret garden, place of beauty, or an everyday place with a little known fact which will be explained on the cache page).  It might be that the cache itself is of interest (e.g. a great disguise or a fun hide - there was one near us hidden up a tree and the idea was that you had to let it down on a string - it wasn't the most exciting place to put a cache but the cache itself was a lovely idea).   I've also enjoyed caches that make a series/trail. 
  • I would also expect high quality caches to be well maintained - so dry logs inside, logs being replaced as needed, box lids present and well fitting, camo bags in one piece if being used and replaced if they are damaged.  I've seen some caches with additional fixtures and fittings to ensure the container (say a small film cannister type) is securely placed and protected from the elements.  Often these have been very discrete and I like the idea that there is a set place to return the cache to as I've found many that have been somewhat hurled into a spot and I see potential for these to go missing or 'drift' from their coordinates over time. 
  • Finally I think high quality caches have good CO visibility and interaction.  I have been impressed by CO's that leave a note in the logs to say that they have checked on their cache recently and all is well - without any apparent prompting from maintenance reports, etc.  Evidence that the CO is active is great and reassures me that they are keeping an eye on things (e.g. maintenance updates, responding to queries, etc). 
• In your mind, what is a low quality geocache?
  • Unfortunately I have found a few such caches in my short geocaching time.  A low quality cache to me is one that appears to have been placed for the sake of it with no consideration of what this cache adds to the community.  For example, I have found several film cannisters thrown into tree stumps with disintegrating logs - these are very disappointing and feel like someone just wanted to the kudos of having placed something with no thought to the cache aftercare.  I also consider the use of rubbish as a cache container low quality - e.g. a log hidden in the base of a tree in an empty energy drink bottle.  I was also disappointed in a puzzle cache which lead to the side of a nightclub, although I arrived in day time the state of the area was grubby, grimy and  filthy with refuge so we abandoned any search. 
  • Poorly maintained caches are also low quality, more so where it has clearly been flagged up in previous logs but nothing has been done about it. 
• What steps can the community take to improve geocache quality?
  • I think logging DNF's is very helpful, along with giving an honest account of how you found the cache site if there were any obvious problems.  Also, better communication!
• What steps can Geocaching HQ take to improve geocache quality?
  • I've never published a cache so I am not sure of what the current procedure is.  However, I would support having a strict requirement for geocachers to have found  say 100 caches before being allowed to place any of their own.  I have found discovering lots of different types of caches very helpful for informing my ideas about where I might choose to place caches, and I certainly wouldn't be offended as a new geocacher to be asked to wait until I have found 100 or so before placing any of my own.  I'm not sure how caches are presently validated, but I would expect to have to submit coordinates, a description of the site, a picture of the cache in situ, and have the cache page text approved.