Hides Ain't What They Used To Be...

[+wildlifewriter]

I've just been looking over my list of all finds (the way you do) and I noticed some things.

 

They may be significant things, or they may just be a statistical fluke, but this (for what little it's worth) is what I noticed...

 

Of the first 20 caches I found:

 

19 are still active to this day. One is suspended by its owner, pending a maintenance visit.

Only one of those caches had grossly inaccurate co-ordinates. (More than 30 metres out.)

Only one had a leaking container, when it was found.

None have had to be archived, since.

 

Of the LAST 20 caches I found:

 

Two were so far astray of the guidelines that the reviewers never approved them in the first place. (But I found them anyway. )

Four had grossly inaccurate co-ordinates. > 30m

Two were saturated - even though they were brand new caches.

Two had to be archived almost immediately, because they were placed without permission.

 

Are standards slipping - or is this just the way the cookie crumbles?

 

-Wlw.

[Nediam]

I think the quality depends upon who set them and therefore, where they are:-

 

The first 20 I found were mostly close to home, of which 10 have been archived.

 

The latest 20 I've found are all still active but were much further away from home and set by a completely different bunch of players.

 

Over half of the last ones I found were part of 2 or 3 "cache series" and so have more interest than just a simple traditional cache.

 

Some of the best caches I have done, have been newish ones

 

I think the quality of caches is bound to vary whether new or old.

[+The Blorenges]

Some of them definitely are here.... Mrs B

[lakeuk]

On some caches you have to get there before nature gets there :-

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCRBG7

[+Rose_Thorn]

Haha, the peckish little beggars eh? Reminds me of when we camped at Coniston and found our tent wall, survival bag, rucksack and butty box had all been nibbled through. We were afraid of having our toes nibbled in the night, so we slept in the car!! I've done a lot of camping and it has only ever happened the once thank goodness.

[+Kitty Hawk]

 

 

Four had grossly inaccurate co-ordinates. > 30m

30m out - if I can't find a cache within 20ft or so and the clue doesn't help I don't stand an earthly.

 

It's testament to the skills of Hampshire cachers that I don't have too many DNF's.

[+2202]

What I have noticed (generally) is this:-

 

Quality has gone down hill.

Quantity has risen sharply.

No imagination being used in:-

either what the cache is about,

or the means of delivery.

 

Barricades are going up around Chez 2202

[+Daisy&me]

If geocaching is going to the dogs, are we ready for it?

[+Kitty Hawk]

There are more caches of the style " walk down this path about 0.4mile. You'll find the cache in a black bag and then walk back to the car. Hope you enjoyed the footpath.

 

These don't really do it for me, but at least I got out of the house and after all, it is a numbers game.

 

I have no objection to these caches, unless:-

 

1. They are badly thought out caches taking up an excellent location.

2. They've over sold themselves and I've driven miles to get it.

 

On the other hand, if we are concerned about the rise in numbers of cachers and caches, maybe the lame ones will put people off the game and an equilibrium point will be reached.

 

And, as a final point, the quality is always going to be subjective, if the bottom 20% of lame caches ceased to exist there would still be a 'bottom 20%' that are favoured least.

[+Sensei TSKC]

What I have noticed (generally) is this:-

 

Quality has gone down hill.

Quantity has risen sharply.

No imagination being used in:-

either what the cache is about,

or the means of delivery.

 

Barricades are going up around Chez 2202

Nick,

 

I suppose if we look at the numbers angle with your comment, upon face value your statement shouts out TRUTH! But if you break it down to percentages etc, does it still hold truth?

 

The more caches being placed, inevitably it will appear as if the quality is decreasing: i.e If for every 4 being placed 2 were great, it looks like good quality ratios but with the number of caches being placed increasingly rapid, with 100 placed and only 50 being quality it looks like the quality has decreased whereas in fact -it's the same.

 

Probably stating the obvious.

 

I do know from my experience though, that it does depend upon the experience of the cache setters in alot of cases. With high standards being maintained by seasoned cache setters - and we have some good ones in Bucks - it only goes to improving the quality of newbies wishing to emulate the caches they find.

 

This is by no means derogatory to cachers with low finds setting their first cache. These too can be as good as seasoned setters. This does still convince me that a minimum number of finds before setting a cache is a good idea for guidelines. But that's another thread - somewhere on the forum.

 

I believe wholeheartedly, that most cachers get an idea of the type of 'thrill' they are in for when they see who's set it. It's only the new setters that have the unknown element of either what to expect on searching for a cache or indeed in setting one.

 

<Taking a bit of cover behind 2202>

[+Pengy&Tigger]

Perhaps someone clever at GCUK could show us the average ratings vs age of caches.

 

It may be that the older ones are better because they have stood the test of time and the bad ones have fallen by the wayside with time.

 

T

[+Rose_Thorn]

I know I am still fairly new to the game, but I already have an opinion about what makes a good cache location and what makes a bad one. For instance I don't like having to search amongst lots of litter and excrement! I like to be in a place that has "something about it", either nice views, interesting architecture, pretty scenery or a good hard scramble to get there - whatever, just not any old street corner.

 

I read the logs of previous finders and if it sounds grotty, will give it a miss usually. In this respect, it would help if people wrote honestly about what they thought of a cache, whether negative or positive, rather than just the "found it easily, TNLNSL TFTC" type of log entry! I know people don't have time to write reams, especially if they are doing a lot of caches in one day, but a quick comment like "Really interesting spot" or "Unleasant location" would be helpful.

[+2202]

Sensei TSKC

I could be very rude, but do not particularly want to upset anyone.

However, being involved in design and visual art etc., I have repeatedly said the 95% of the population of the UK are visually illiterate.

The same goes with caching. (and probably everything else)

 

The barricades are up to first floor level now.

Edited November 18, 2005 by 2202