Cache Hide To Find Ratios

[+BigCarbonFootprint]

I am relatively new to this activity and greatly enjoy it. My fun however is due to a small group of cachers out there. The hiders. I recently did some number crunching, something I do for fun. I know I am very sick. I really appreciate the efforts of a few for the many. I found that most of the caches out there are place by a minority of the overall cachers. For example I found that of the cachers that have over 2000 finds only a couple have a hide ration of close to five percent. I did find that a handful of cachers with in my state have close to 10% hide to find ratio. Can the developers of Geocaching.com publish a listing and recognize those that keep this hunt going. Perhaps there could be an unwritten goal made by all participants to attain a fair hide to find ratio. Maybe I am out of line, being so new to this, but it seems to me that placing a cache for every 10 you find is not a lot to ask. Any thoughts out there.

[+C&C+COMPANY]

some people get mad if you hide alot of caches in a area , they say you don't give other cachers a chance to hide one . I have 300 finds and 34 hides I try to keep the # difference ay 10% myself.

[+Nushiekitty]

I'm not so concerned with one person dominating a certain area as I am with the fact that it seems that people with a lot of caches have a harder time maintiaining them all.

[+The Leprechauns]

A prominent high-number geocacher that I know has a hide-to-find ratio of one cache hidden for every 26 found. Yet, because of the sheer number, that cacher is criticized frequently for hiding too many caches. Under your proposal, that cacher would need to hide literally hundreds MORE.

 

I have hidden 29 caches, and sometimes it's a struggle to maintain the 25 that remain active. I've visited three of my caches in the past week -- to change a logbook, to re-stock clue sheets and to swap out a waterlogged clue stage. Sure, I could have spent the same four hours to find a half dozen new caches for my find total, but the maintenance work is important. I cannot hide too many more, or else I'd never be able to find the time to go find any. Under your proposal, I'd be obligated to go place more than 100 additional caches to achieve the desired 10% ratio.

 

We should never be in a position of forcing anyone to hide a cache. Caches should be well-planned things that the owner WANTS to hide. My theory is that a forced cache is more likely to be a crappy cache. For the 100 that you want me to hide, I can drive down a state highway and slap a magnetic hide a key onto the guardrail every 650 feet just to keep everyone happy. That's way easier than hiding an ammo can after I've applied spray paint and/or a sticker, and stocked it with nice trade items, and obtained land manager permission, and taken the time to think of a cache "concept" that is worthy of hiding.

 

Have fun crunching your numbers, but no thanks, we already have quite enough rules in this game.

[+Yamahammer]

To echo my 'Burgh buddy, you should only 'hide' caches that you can maintain. Too many could do more harm than good if not maintained properly. In no more than are in Longview, TX, we have 5 disabled and another one or two that need to be disabled just due to the fact that the owners have left the country or no longer care. Some of us try to give them a facelift but it won't be enough down the road.

 

I live in a population area that is not as dense (no comments), as say a large city like Dallas. We do not have a target rich environment and it takes some planning to go where you can pick up 10-20 finds. But I'd rather do that then have caches not maintained and left to rot. Too many as it is.

 

But your concerns bring up some interesting points.

 

[+Big Dawgg & Cardinal Girl]

A prominent high-number geocacher that I know has a hide-to-find ratio of one cache hidden for every 26 found. Yet, because of the sheer number, that cacher is criticized frequently for hiding too many caches. Under your proposal, that cacher would need to hide literally hundreds MORE.

 

I have hidden 29 caches, and sometimes it's a struggle to maintain the 25 that remain active. I've visited three of my caches in the past week -- to change a logbook, to re-stock clue sheets and to swap out a waterlogged clue stage. Sure, I could have spent the same four hours to find a half dozen new caches for my find total, but the maintenance work is important. I cannot hide too many more, or else I'd never be able to find the time to go find any. Under your proposal, I'd be obligated to go place more than 100 additional caches to achieve the desired 10% ratio.

 

We should never be in a position of forcing anyone to hide a cache. Caches should be well-planned things that the owner WANTS to hide. My theory is that a forced cache is more likely to be a crappy cache. For the 100 that you want me to hide, I can drive down a state highway and slap a magnetic hide a key onto the guardrail every 650 feet just to keep everyone happy. That's way easier than hiding an ammo can after I've applied spray paint and/or a sticker, and stocked it with nice trade items, and obtained land manager permission, and taken the time to think of a cache "concept" that is worthy of hiding.

 

Have fun crunching your numbers, but no thanks, we already have quite enough rules in this game.

 

I agree with this. Some cachers are not good hiders or do not enjoy hiding caches. To me I enjoy hiding as much as finding. Also hiding takes more time and effort to find a good location and container for that location. Some do not have the time to do that. In my area there are very few caches or cachers, so it would not be hard to put out a large quantity of caches as the area is not very saturated. In some areas the saturation level is so high it would be tough to put out alot of caches.

 

I think that each individual needs to decide how many they want to hide and how many they are able to maintain. As Lep said Forced hides are going to be crappy hides.

[+Sagefox]

...but it seems to me that placing a cache for every 10 you find is not a lot to ask. Any thoughts out there.

I just finished setting up caches for a two week road trip from Mendocino County, Northern CA to north of Seattle. No shortage of caches along that 800 mile route that we travel frequently nor has there been since 2001 when we started caching. Also no shortages in any of the cities, towns and rural routes we will be visiting.

 

My input on this is that without a shortage of caches there is no need to put pressure on anyone to place caches. Keystone just said in a nearby topic that he approves about 100 caches per week.

 

Seems like the task of placing cache is well covered with possible exceptions in some rural areas.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Team Sagefox

[+briansnat]

Perhaps there could be an unwritten goal made by all participants to attain a fair hide to find ratio.

 

No way. Some people have no interest in hiding and maintaining a cache. Its silly to force them, or at least make theym feel like they need to place a cache. Save the hiding for those who enjoy it.

 

In the beginning (for my first 30 or so hides and finds) I stayed around a 1:1 find hide ratio. Once I started finding more caches, that was hard to keep up so now I'm at about a 3:1 find hide ratio. As I get more finds even that will be hard to keep up

[+PlasteredDragon]

I don't think the ratio matters all that much. My advice would be (1) don't hide anything until you've made at least 10 finds or so... seeing how other caches have been placed/described is your best source of of what to do and not to do when hiding caches and (2) don't hide more caches than you can adequately mantain. If after 10 finds you decide you are bored with finding and are never going to want to go looking again, then I suppose you have a lot of time on your hands to maintain hides.

 

Right now I've got 5 hides and that's plenty. Maybe it will go as high as 10 some day, but the maintenance sounds daunting. Especially since all my hides require a decent hike to get to them.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Some people enjoy the hunt, some enjoy the hiding, some enjoy both. If you force those that only enjoy the hunt to become hiders, I think that we would see an explosion of lame caches just to meet the quotas.

 

I'd rather have caches only be hidden by those that like to hide them and are willing to do the work to maintain them.

 

Having said that, I was trying to keep a 10 to 1 ratio, as I enjoy hiding caches and like to contribute, but with the move to Texas I've stopped placing caches until I get a better feel for my new surroundings. I do have a few idea rattling around my head though.

[+hukilaulau]

Another perspective: Say you want to maintain a 5% ratio. Your home area is fairly well saturated. You go on vacation to North Dakota and log 100 new finds. Where are you going to hide 5 more once you get back home?

You can find caches anywhere. You can only hide them in an area where you can maintain them.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Another perspective: Say you want to maintain a 5% ratio. Your home area is fairly well saturated. You go on vacation to North Dakota and log 100 new finds. Where are you going to hide 5 more once you get back home?

You can find caches anywhere. You can only hide them in an area where you can maintain them.

Well said.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I kept a 10% ratio for awhile, but like the Leprechauns said, hampsters need loving too

 

or was it don't strangle chickens

 

no, no, it was something about having to maintain too many caches and not being able to go geocaching anymore.

[+sept1c_tank]

...it seems to me that placing a cache for every 10 you find is not a lot to ask. Any thoughts out there.

Sure, if you like finding guardrails, lamposts, and piles of rocks.

[+geognerd]

it seems to me that placing a cache for every 10 you find is not a lot to ask.

Being good at math, could the original poster figure out what would happen if everyone placed one new cache for every 10 found? It would be kind of like figuring out population growth. We would have an unbelievable saturation problem. Remember, quality, not quantity! I'd rather have someone hide one good cache that brings me to a nice spot along the river than 5 quick-and-easy magnetic keyholders. Not to say that there isn't a place for the quick-and-easy cache that satisfies you when you're really jonesing for a cache.

[+Team Perks]

Maybe I am out of line, being so new to this, but it seems to me that placing a cache for every 10 you find is not a lot to ask. Any thoughts out there.

Wow, I only have 78 hides under my belt. It's appalling, isn't it?

 

So, does this mean you just volunteered to help me maintain all 232 caches I'm supposed to have hidden? While you're at it, could you place an order for 100 ammo cans? Thanks, I really appreciate it.

[nickie218]

tdl &claire.....I guess some read right over the fact that you are a new cacher and felt the need to bash you right away. I can understand your point, perhaps you feel as if just a few cachers are taking on the burden of a specific area, and you are trying to get others to particitpate. In theory it would be great if everyone could hide 10% of their finds, but the quality would suffer. As you become more familiar with geocaching you will see that some of the best hiders take months to plan out their cache, thus planning an enjoyable find for you.

 

Welcome to geocaching....your best bet is to search out a local or regional geocaching group...they tend to be more pleasant than the GC forums.

[+reveritt]

15 hides (not including archived):222 finds.

[+sept1c_tank]

...your best bet is to search out a local or regional geocaching group...they tend to be more pleasant than the GC forums.

Whatchutalkinbout?

[+Ambrosia]

I am relatively new to this activity and greatly enjoy it. My fun however is due to a small group of cachers out there. The hiders.

Hopefully it will pick up where you live eventually.

 

When I started caching 3 years ago, we had around 5 or 6 caches in a 30 mile radius of town, and around 5 or 6 active caching families. Now we have around 350 caches in that same 30 mile radius, placed by a much larger amount of cachers that have moved in or converted over time. And that doesn't include a good amount of caches that have been archived over the years.

 

Who knows what will happen in your area in the future.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Ambrosia

[+Miragee]

We sort of have the opposite problem here.

 

From the San Diego Thread --

 

linky

[+Ambrosia]

And I thought that we were doing good: Link

[+M&DofKJE]

I would say we and our daughter are responsible for over half the hides in the Daytona area. The one thing that hiding a lot of caches caused was to get others hiding as well. Our family has a combined 158 (well over 100 active) hides with me having 653 finds. (Agent K's finds have either been our caches or one's we've found with her.) This I know is a high ratio, but we look to it falling. We have significantly slowed our hiding so others may hide... and finally they are! On the other hand, I just hid one in Nashville per my daughter's instructions so they get a little taste of evil there. I look forward to the day we have less than 10% of the hides locally. (Not due to archiving, but increased hides!)

[+Harry Dolphin]

It's a question of quality versus quantity, isn' it? Believe me, you don't want to force a ratio of hides to finds! I've found my share of rather pathetic caches. I'm very glad that some of these cachers have only put out one cache!

Ratio can be a very tricky question. Some people are capable of maintaining a lot of very good caches. BrianSnat comes to mind!

I have nine hides, and four hundred fifty two finds. (Hides ten and eleven coming up soon.) I don't know that I'm capable of maintaining more than that. (Hmm... There's a new Wal-Mart nearby. I could usurp that area with an evil mystery cache! I think I shall do that!! Hee hee hee.) My caches are, I think, generally well thought out, and usually very scenic.

Do you really want me to hide a lot more caches, just for the sake of hiding a lot more caches? Not my style, sorry.

[+budd-rdc]

Perhaps in the early days of Geocaching, something like the Hide to Find Ratio was a good way to motivate people to hide more caches. I thank my predecessors profusely for placing many hides at interesting locations (great view, historic, clever camouflage, etc).

 

Cache density will be a new issue to deal with, if not already.

 

I know some people feel the need to hide as many as possible to help others get more finds. But I don't think it's as simple as that anymore.

 

When I find a new area to hide caches, I try not to hide more than two. I wait for others to show up to the area, and see if they will place more. If after a while, no one has placed more, I go back and place a few more, and wait, and so on.

 

No need to appease to the power cachers, because good ones will wait patiently and strike when they feel there are enough placements to swoop down for a run.

 

I consider it bad etiquette to place bunch of caches in one park and not giving others a chance to pick their own locations. It's like "taking over a turf" which is not a friendly act. But that's IMHO.

[+PlasteredDragon]

We sort of have the opposite problem here.

 

From the San Diego Thread --

 

linky

Yesssss.

 

I was envious that you could knock off 14 caches in a day, then I noticed that you seem to live someplace where a 2 mile stretch of road will have 10 caches along it. WOW!

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

Where I live typically you drive somewhere, hike a half mile or more, find a cache, hike back to the car, and drive somewhere else (far away). So when I hear 14 caches I think like, wow, 10+ miles of hiking and a bunch of long trips in the car!

 

I'm still impressed though...

[Tahosa and Sons]

Well my hides are about 55 but if you subtract the couple of events that I have done then my hides are less. The find count stands at 201 and that has taken about 4 years to do.

I prefer to hide them over looking for them. There is a lot more work in the hide than the find, especially with the kind of hides that I create. I know of more areas to hide them in but in due time the cache will be hid. Maybe next June I'll do a 6 x 6 and see what happens.

[+Miragee]

We sort of have the opposite problem here.

 

From the San Diego Thread --

 

linky

Yesssss.

 

I was envious that you could knock off 14 caches in a day, then I noticed that you seem to live someplace where a 2 mile stretch of road will have 10 caches along it. WOW!

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

Where I live typically you drive somewhere, hike a half mile or more, find a cache, hike back to the car, and drive somewhere else (far away). So when I hear 14 caches I think like, wow, 10+ miles of hiking and a bunch of long trips in the car!

 

I'm still impressed though...

Only 14 . . . I actually did 17 on another day. Of course, we were gone for 12 hours that day and drove more than 120 miles!

 

Most of my finds are out in the country. I'm really not an urban cacher, but I now understand how the "city folk" can get so many caches. If it is an easy cache, I won't pass one up if I'm in an urban setting, but I am very uncomfortable looking for urban micros and really don't understand the point of them . . .

 

I gave up hunting for this micro in a rockpile the other day because I just didn't like the placement . . . then all these other Geocachers showed up and they had no qualms about searching for a micro in a rock pile . . .

 

[+M&DofKJE]

Actually, I feel it is important to give back. There's one caching couple in our county with over 1,000 finds. Last time I looked, they had 4 hides. That's a bit pathetic.

[+hukilaulau]

Actually, I feel it is important to give back. There's one caching couple in our county with over 1,000 finds. Last time I looked, they had 4 hides. That's a bit pathetic.

A quick random look at the caches you've hidden shows that they are almost all urban micros and your clients are mainly numbers maniacs. If I had to choose a definition of "pathetic", that would pretty much be it. But I don't choose, because I don't care how you play the game. I obviously play it differently than you do, and somebodies 2 or 3 cahces in the woods would mean more to me than any of the ones I saw on my random search through your list. You have "given back" nothing to me.

[+BigCarbonFootprint]

How do I put the lid back on this can of worms? As I stated I am new to this and I was just looking for some mild feedback. I can see as usual, innocent inquiry is becoming a global pissing contest. Thanks nickie218 for being the only one to actually comprehend the message. I am seeing, as I did not realize before the efforts it takes to install and maintain a cache. I have none yet. I hope to very soon. My comment was intended to respect those that put out a little more effort than others, for what ever reason. Not good or bad. Thanks for everyone’s feedback. I’ll be going home now. Please turn out the light when the last one leaves.

 

tdl&claire

[+OzGuff]

tdl&claire:

 

Don't even worry about putting the lid back on the can. The forums can be an interesting place but make sure you have your flak jacket tied securely. However, it can also be a great place to find answers and to participate in relatively civil, though spirited, discussions.

 

Your original point is of great interest to me. When I started this activity/hobby/sport/obsession in September 2003 there were three caches within 10 miles of my home zipcode. There are now 123, of which 15 were placed by cachers other than me. Living in a low cache-density locale I thought that placing a cache (or two) might entice others to place their own. (Which I would then be able to find.) Unfortunately, this didn't work that well as there seems to be few active cachers in the area.

 

Undeterred, I placed a few more caches, then a few more, and then -- wow! I now have 251 hides: 3 are event caches and have been archived (or soon will be), 14 have been archived for various reasons, 3 are currently disabled. That leaves 231 active caches. If you check any of them you should find evidence of maintenance visits on almost all of them. My less-visited caches get visited for maintenance less often but they get (or will get) checked on.

 

Of my 251 current hides: 1 Large, 92 Regular, 32 Small, 108 Micro, 15 Other, 3 Event. Roughly half of my caches allow trade items to be swapped. I have tried to provide a wide range of caches within the area. If you want to zoom through the area and up your numbers, you can. (But there aren't that many park-and-grabs; most of my micros have a little twist.) If you want long hikes with awesome views, I have them. How about puzzles that will exercise your mind? There are more than a few.

 

Have I begun to exhaust the hiding spots in the area? I think not. Will I stop hiding caches? Again, I think not. (Unless I am unable to due to disability.) I like to hide caches and I like to read the logs of folks who search for my caches. (Even the "TNLNSL TFTC" logs.) If I find a good spot for a crafty hide, or an amazing view that I would like to share with others, I will place a new cache. (I am attending an event cache today and will likely place three -- one ammo box, one small and one very micro.)

 

I currently have 1632 finds, so I am running at about 6.5 finds per hide. I find caches because I like to -- it is about the numbers and the experiences. I hide caches also because I like to -- it is also about the numbers and the experiences.

 

Hope this helps!

[+PlasteredDragon]

How do I put the lid back on this can of worms? As I stated I am new to this and I was just looking for some mild feedback. I can see as usual, innocent inquiry is becoming a global pissing contest.

The primary problem with the internet (actually, it's a problem with human nature) is that people will be extremely rude or condescending because they don't have to face the person they are talking to. You can pretty much expect it.

 

A: What do you think about carrying a gun while caching?

B: It's not something I would do, but if you're going to do it, you should inform those that cache with you that you are carrying.

C: Obviously B is a terrorist-sympathizing liberal hiding a wolf's face under a sheep-like veil.

B: ????

 

It's easy to become upset by that sort of cowardly rudeness, but try not to let it bother you. At least in the fora it's often best to let an insulting or ignorant response go unanswered. Or responded to in a trite way.

 

All that said, I apologize to you if my earlier post came across as rude. Looks like you only got one answer you liked and it wasn't mine. Oh well. I meant no harm.

[+Kit Fox]

I have currently have 577 finds, and 45 hides. of the 45 hides, 43 are still active, viable caches. When I had less finds, I maintained the 10 finds to 1 hide ratio for the longest time.

 

I don't try to keep up with the ratio anymore. Every cache I place now, is at minimum a small to large sized cache (no more micros), and I wont hide one unless the location is suitable to me.

 

I spend more time researching historical as well scenic areas. I have been on a mission to hide the best caches I can, so it takes more time to plan and execute these types of hides.

[+BigCarbonFootprint]

I am back with a final thought from me. I have learned from all respondents that the goal is Quality over quantity. Isn’t that true with just about everything, well almost everything? I have learned that my first hide will be a well planned, strategic and tactical adventure for my fellow cachers. I know I have gotten greater satisfaction from the tough ones over the “park-n-grabs”. Thanks to all for your experienced input, the likes of Kit Fox, PlasteredDragon, OzGuff, Tahosa and Sons, budd-rdc, and Harry Dolphin. I apologize if I left some by name out. It’s only 48 hours to Shanghai and 36 more till I am caching in Big D again. And that little comment about 10% ratios, let’s just pretend I never said that, OK.

 

tdl&claire