What's The Proper Ratio

[+Douglas_Clan]

We have over 300 finds, and we have placed 13, 9 of which are still active. I've seen the ratios anywhere from 20:1 to 10:1.

[+Miragee]

This comes up all the time. Some people either can't maintain a cache (they travel a lot), or aren't inspired to place caches.

 

No one should feel pressured to place a cache if they don't want to.

[+welch]

there isn't one .

[CoyoteRed]

there isn't one .

Bingo.

 

You hide as many or as few as you want. If you feel like you should hide a cache, don't. Only hide if you are inspired. There are far too many uninspired caches out there. Please don't add to them.

[+Sagefox]

Find lots. Hide some.

[+dogbreathcanada]

I think a pretty reasonable ratio is the following:

 

5.0% - 0 - 200 finds

2.5% - 200 - 1000 finds

1.0% - 1000+ finds

 

Of course there are no hard and fast rules. But if you want to contribute back to the hobby in a reasonable manner, the above percentages of hides to finds works well.

 

So, if you have 200 finds, you'd have 10 hides. If you had 400 finds, you'd have 15 hides. If you had 800 finds, you'd have 25 hides. If you had 1000 finds, you'd have 30 hides. If you had 1500 finds, you'd have 35 hides.

Edited August 27, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[+SixDogTeam]

43.78: 1

[CoyoteRed]

43.78: 1

Yep. About as good as any.

[+Renegade Knight]

Per the rules, if everone on the planet was a cacher and placed one cache we would not be able to list them all given the current rules on spacing.

 

Any hides is good. A ratio is a bad idea because while you can always go find more caches, you can't always maintain more caches.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Per the rules, if everone on the planet was a cacher and placed one cache we would not be able to list them all given the current rules on spacing.

Nonsense. Caches can be (and are) placed on, in and under the water.

 

Even if they weren't, the population density of the earth is 113 people per square mile. It can be shown that as many as 119 caches can be placed in a square mile of land while adhering to the 528-foot rule

[+TotemLake]

Yah but most would be pretty lame.

 

The ratio depends entirely upon how much fun you have doing each.

[+Thrak]

I'm new but my impression was that you find as many as makes you happy and you hide as many as makes you happy. Isn't this for fun?

[+Ed & Julie]

Find lots, and only hide as many as you can reasonably maintain.

 

Having a low "ratio" because you have a dozen caches that you maintain well is MUCH better than 3 or 4 dozen caches that are neglected.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'm new but my impression was that you find as many as makes you happy and you hide as many as makes you happy. Isn't this for fun?

This is the embodiment of the sport!

I'll search for as many as I can find, and hide as many as I am happy with. Currently 551 finds, 11 hides. I like each of my eleven hides. Yes, there will be more. But only as I see fit. I got a great log on one of my caches today. It made me smile! That's what it's all about.

[Tahosa and Sons]

I think a pretty reasonable ratio is the following:

 

5.0% - 0 - 200 finds

2.5% - 200 - 1000 finds

1.0% - 1000+ finds

 

Of course there are no hard and fast rules. But if you want to contribute back to the hobby in a reasonable manner, the above percentages of hides to finds works well.

 

So, if you have 200 finds, you'd have 10 hides.

OK, I have around 200 finds and out of the 57 Caches that I own 19 are real caches which ones should I archive so I have around 10. And should I cancel the next ones I have on the drawing board?

 

As CR said its an inspiration to hide them. Just don't hide to make it a numbers game. Some are hiders and some are finders.

[+Ambrosia]

I don't think that any of us are very proper around here.

[ZoopD|ngle]

I think a pretty reasonable ratio is the following:

 

5.0% - 0 - 200 finds

2.5% - 200 - 1000 finds

1.0% - 1000+ finds

 

Of course there are no hard and fast rules. But if you want to contribute back to the hobby in a reasonable manner, the above percentages of hides to finds works well.

 

So, if you have 200 finds, you'd have 10 hides.

OK, I have around 200 finds and out of the 57 Caches that I own 19 are real caches which ones should I archive so I have around 10. And should I cancel the next ones I have on the drawing board?

 

As CR said its an inspiration to hide them. Just don't hide to make it a numbers game. Some are hiders and some are finders.

I don't see where he's suggested you archive any caches. Unless I missed something.

 

I say hide as many as you can maintain.

[+Renegade Knight]

Per the rules, if everone on the planet was a cacher and placed one cache we would not be able to list them all given the current rules on spacing.

Nonsense. Caches can be (and are) placed on, in and under the water.

 

Even if they weren't, the population density of the earth is 113 people per square mile. It can be shown that as many as 119 caches can be placed in a square mile of land while adhering to the 528-foot rule

I better double check my math. Are you counting Antartica? That's tough for most to maintain.

[+Renegade Knight]

...So, if you have 200 finds, you'd have 10 hides.

OK, I have around 200 finds and out of the 57 Caches that I own 19 are real caches which ones should I archive so I have around 10. And should I cancel the next ones I have on the drawing board?...

In your case, Archive your lamp post micros. That should make everone happy, and yet not actualy change a thing.

[+deimos444]

Speaking as a SixSigma guy I think we need to run a Cusum chart on this.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Alas a ratio, I knew it well.

 

I'll go ahead and say that it shouldn't matter at all.

[+Sagefox]

We have over 300 finds, and we have placed 13, 9 of which are still active. I've seen the ratios anywhere from 20:1 to 10:1.

Since there is no shortage of caches in most areas there is no need to suggest that people need to place any number of caches.

[+wimseyguy]

Find lots.  Hide some.

Wow, someone better tell this guy to get his find count back in line.

Oh and to quit finding so many TB's.

 

Back OT-do what ever is FUN for you. When it becomes a chore instead of fun, go sweep the kitchen instead.

[+budd-rdc]

I'll echo the sentiments of others - there is NO proper ratio.

 

In fact, this is a useless number you are chasing. Are you absolutely sure you won't compromise your common sense for the sake of numerical goals like ratios and find counts?

 

If you are confident of your clever hiding style, or you found an awesome location, then hiding a cache to impress us is contribution.

 

I was tempted to be sarcastic, but I'm trying not to confuse new members who might mistakenly equate ratios as contribution.

Edited August 29, 2005 by budd-rdc

[+Markwell]

John and Mary* are retired. The travel around in their motor home visiting this great country of ours, settling in KOA campgrounds and visiting relatives all year long. They are nomadic in nature, never having a permanent home more than where they spend their Christmases.

 

This type of person would be ill-suited to a "proper ratio" - as any cache they placed would most likely not be maintained.

 

In the beginnings of our sport, some people looked down their nose at those that found and never hid. They thought of these "only-finders" as parasites to the hobby, taking and never giving.

 

But when this hobby exploded and caches were littered in every conceivable nook and cranny, that mentality went the way of the Pterodactyl.

 

I would never suggest to someone that they are obligated to hide a cache just because they've found X number of caches. To do so would promote placing a cache just to place a cache, which (IMHO) is a bad practice and creates BAD caches.

 

 

*These names in this story are ficticious. Any similarity to actual people, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.

Edited August 29, 2005 by Markwell

[Pto]

Find lots.  Hide some.

Wow, someone better tell this guy to get his find count back in line.

Oh and to quit finding so many TB's.

 

As stated earlier, hide as many as you can maintain.

The example given is a good one to notice- Since no one person can effectivly maintain That many, hiding that many isn't recommended.

Im at 9 hidden, and I doubt I'll ever get past 10 (active) hides. Thats what works for me tho- so your results may vary.

 

Oh, and Have Fun !

[fishiam]

In an earlier topic elsewhere I admitted that a warped find/hide ratio irked me. After reading some responses I have come to accept that is just the way things are and it's not all bad. But ... what does continue to bother me is the case where there is a really warped ratio of FTFs to hides. IMHO, those who avidly chase all the FTFs in an area ought to do their part to share the wealth for others. Or is this also an outdated Pterodactyl concept? peace, fishiam

[ScottFla]

669 hides?! Wow! But, to answer your question, the perfect ratio is 17 found/ 1 hidden

[+Riddlers]

I feel strange looking for caches hidden by someone who has never found a cache but once you have found 50 or so, you know how it feels to search so it allows one to hide with understanding. A limit? Well, I find it hard to believe that one should hide more then they found, or that they should have 50% more finds than hides, but if one can take care of them, and there isn't a ton of "log is wet" "conatiner needs replacing" and just plain dnfs then okay, more power to them. Just my two cents worth.

[+Miragee]

We have some of those here. Recently some new cachers placed a whole bunch of caches. They have been fun to find . . . but they already have wet logs, the containers are not going to last, the coordinates have been off, and one was placed on private property that got the first finders visits from security personnel . . .

 

Most of these will either have to be placed again, with better containers in different locations, or they will be disabled and then archived . . .

[+WeightMan]

The rest of you are obviously wrong. The correct answer is always 42

[+tabulator32]

Ok, Prefect!

 

Move along. Nothing to see here.