Please...quality, Not Quantity

[4x4van]

In our area, we have a cacher who has flooded the area with caches. Many have numerous DNFs logged with no response/maintenance, are in questionable or even dangerous areas, some are micros in areas that would easily support full-sized caches, numerous logs reporting bad coordinates...Many caches are in places that you stand there, look around, and think "why here?". Now granted, everyone caches to their own drummer and everyone has their own opinion of good and bad caches, but still...If you can't at least maintain caches that have multiple DNFs or complaints, then maybe it's time to scale back your placements rather than continuing to flood the area with more.

 

What is the point? My opinion of a good place to put a geocache is a place that I would enjoy going to even if there was not a geocache there. Show me something/somewhere interesting, pretty, neat, special, unique, even "hmmm, that's kinda cool". Just because you can put a cache somewhere doesn't mean you should put a cache there. It's Quality, not Quantity that makes a geocache special.

 

I'm sorry if I sound bitter, but when I started this great activity called geocaching, I actually looked forward to the destination and the journey, not just the cache itself. But those kinds of caches are getting harder and harder to come by. And then when I've finally gotten to the cache (with the bad coordinates) in the bush (like every other bush in the area) beside the road (like every other road in the area) in an area that has absolutely nothing interesting to see, it's probably a micro (where a 5-gallon bucket would fit) or it's full of junk, even though it was just placed. When did this sport's purpose become nothing more than signing or hiding as many little slips of paper as possible?

 

I'll say it once more, with feeling: It's Quality, not Quantity!!! Please, people, make Geocaching Shine!

[Tahosa and Sons]

Yes quality is very important. But quality is a vague term, a micro is quality to some, while I could care less. And there are those that dislike those caches that I put in the hills.

[+T-bone's Team]

Ummm....uhhh....maybe don't search for that user's cache hides??!?!?!?

[+tozainamboku]

Yes quality is very important. But quality is a vague term, a micro is quality to some, while I could care less. And there are those that dislike those caches that I put in the hills.

 

If numbers mattered, Tahosa and Sons can be sure that the cookie cutter drive up micros are much better than his long hikes up the mountains. I'd bet that most of the urban micros the OP complains about have many many more finds that T&S caches. My advice is to hide the kind of caches you like to find. You'll soon start to know who likes and who hides similar finds and can ignore others. Urban hides are sometimes more difficult to judge quality. But even there you can find out who takes the time to pick out interesting spots or who does creative camouflage work versus the person who is just throwing out film cans under every lamppost and doesn't maintain them.

[+Robespierre]

I doubt if any of us wants "enforcement police." Short of that, we have what we have. And what we have is an "ignore" feature, and a pq function which can filter out.

 

Any one of us could easily figure out which cacher you are referencing. That said, maybe tolerance, or else direct personal discussion, would have been better. I promise, though, I won't look.

[+Renegade Knight]

A DNF is a sign the cache may or may not need a look. If it's a hard cache a DNF is normal. If it's easy, then it's an indicator of MIA.

 

Bad coords are an indicator that a person uses a Magellan and are not used to how they average waypoints. At least that's how it seems locally. As for "Why here?" that's a judgment and often what's left after everone else got to say "Yes Here!" and filled up all the good spots with caches. Usually the "why here?" spots don't block the other spots since 500' from Walmart is usally more Walmart.

 

It's hard to say when it comes to your cacher which is which. Still in your case if you stop and look around you would find that there are even more of the caches that you do like than there used to be. So many in fact that they go begging for a find just because there are so many.

 

I spent a lot of time making my most recent cache intensinoally bad. While I'd love to see you hate it, you are free to pass over it and get the others I've placed (and will continue to place) that would meet with your approval.

 

It's a big world with enough room for all kinds of caches and cachers.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[Clan Riffster]

Bad coords are an indicator that a person uses a Magellan and are not used to how they average waypoints.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

Seems like most folks around here know about my clunky ol' Magellan's shortcomings, and just apply the Garmin shift to all my coords.

 

Back on topic:

For me, hiding caches had a definite learning curve. I hid my first one after about 50 finds, and in retrospect, I can say it's pretty lame. Just an ammo can in a park. My second hide was made by my 10 year old daughter, so it's also a bit lame. Another ammo can in a park, but hidden a bit better. By my third hide, I was starting to put some thought into it, and came up with what I thought was a kewl theme. Since then, I've concentrated on making all my hides interesting by using good camo, good site selection and a good write up.

 

Obviously, I could've gone to Wally World and got a bunch of film cannisters to polute the world with, but I've learned that, for me, quality really is more important than quantity. I'm old enough to realize that not everybody feels this way though, and I respect their opinions, even as I judiciously apply the "Ignore" button.

[+KandRS]

We went and got a bunch of film cannisters, but haven't used them yet. We prefer the more creative caches. Those are only good if you're really going to put some effort into hiding them. Even then at least take the effort to camo paint/tape them.

[+StarBrand]

I Enjoy both Quality and Quanity of hides - it can be done. I have a very few caches that have garnered the "lame" title but I think most of mine are very interesting. You just can't please everybody. Many ways to think about this pastime of ours. Some like different things.

[+Markwell]

I know where you are coming from, as I used to complain about the same thing. In the Chicago area, we've seen a tremendous growth in the number of micro caches:

 

Each column represents what the caching environment in Chicago looked like as of that date. I grumbled and grumbled about the demise of the regular-sized cache.

 

 

But a wise man pointed out to me that the number of Regular Sized and Large Caches is also increasing, just not as fast as the micros.

 

So if the caches are placed that you don't want to find, ignore them. There's still plenty of other caches to find. I agree that my PREFERENCE is that a micro-cache with only a log book not be placed in a location that would be suitable for a regular-sized cache, but I've still got plenty of caches to find.

[+Harry Dolphin]

It didn't sound like OP was necessarily complaining about micros, but rather the 'Why Bother' caches, and the profligate unmaintained caches. There are good micros (I have a few myself). I've seen come very creative hides in the big town. But, I've seen far too many of the 'new cacher puts out three Chinese food containers and disappears.' And bison tubes in manicured shrubbery in small parks.

[4x4van]

It didn't sound like OP was necessarily complaining about micros, but rather the 'Why Bother' caches, and the profligate unmaintained caches. There are good micros (I have a few myself). I've seen come very creative hides in the big town. But, I've seen far too many of the 'new cacher puts out three Chinese food containers and disappears.' And bison tubes in manicured shrubbery in small parks.

Exactly. I never complained about "micros", or "urban caches", or any other "type" of cache. They all have their place, and can be done very well. And quite often are. But there are far too many caches that have no thought to them at all, regardless of the size or type. And when a cache has multiple DNFs spanning several months or more, with no response from the hider, even while the hider is still placing more in the area, I still have to wonder, "Why bother?" Part of placing a cache is the responsibility of maintaining that cache. If they are in the area (which obviously they are), how hard is it to swing by and take a look, archiving, disabling, or replacing it if necessary?

 

Yes, I know I can "ignore them". But that's not my point. Some of his caches are in fact well thought out and enjoyable. How do I know the difference untill I search for one?

 

So again I say, quality is more important than quantity, and I stand by that statement. Obviously, the term quality can mean many things to many people. But at the very least, a little bit of thought and the commitment to maintain the cache should be in everyone's definition of a quality cache. If you are unwilling or unable to maintain (or at least archive) a cache you placed, don't continue to place more untill you are.

[+welch]

...

So again I say, quality is more important than quantity, and I stand by that statement. Obviously, the term quality can mean many things to many people. But at the very least, a little bit of thought and the commitment to maintain the cache should be in everyone's definition of a quality cache. If you are unwilling or unable to maintain (or at least archive) a cache you placed, don't continue to place more untill you are.

I think finding common ground in opinions will continue to become more difficult. If you go out a enough friend of a friend of a friend (degrees if you like) you almost certainly know both nuns and felons. As the number of geocachers grows there is the same sort of thing, some have and will see the best cache as a phyisical ammo can at a hidden waterfall, or a 5 gallon bucket on a hill with a nice view. Others see locations like graves, momuments, historical brown fields as more interesting and therefore better places. Some will even see micros like film tubes hidden in walmart parking lots as the best type, (apperently because they like the finding of the actual hide more important than the view, or location. So sneaky hides and camoflauge like blinkies in the crack of a sidewalk are their game...). Growing as a whole also means other things, like more attention which is both good (new players, more crafty thinkers, more people that know about all the cool places in the parks, events, groups/orgs) and bad (pirates, bomb scares, stupid cieps...). Theres not really a way* to get the good while leaving out the bad, so just be happy with the good side

 

(*if you come up with one, please let us all know )

[+Alan2]

I've always ignore caches that I'm not interested in doing. Lately, I've been clicking the Ignore button so caches I'm not interested in don't keep popping up in my PQ downloads.

[+Cache Heads]

And when a cache has multiple DNFs spanning several months or more, with no response from the hider, even while the hider is still placing more in the area....

 

This sounds like an excellent case where a "Needs Archived" log is in order. I've only used that feature twice, but both times it was for the good of my local caching community. In both instances, we were the last in a string of DNFs after nothing but smilies. We contacted the owners and gave them ample time to respond, we then posted a note explaining that we were about to log an SBA and then after a few days with no response, we logged it. Both times the reveiwer promptly archived the cache. Sometimes, even though it takes some work to do it "nicely", logging an SBA is the way to go. Most reviewers have no idea that a cache has been abandoned until someone brings it to their attention and maybe "deadbeat" cache-hiders will eventually wise up when they see that their caches are being archived.

 

I agree with you-- I'm all for log-only micros and I never mind a good ammo can in a bush, but if you're going to hide a cache you should really be able to confirm its existence after a string of DNFs, IMHO .

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

In our area, we have a cacher who has flooded the area with caches. Many have numerous DNFs logged with no response/maintenance, are in questionable or even dangerous areas, some are micros in areas that would easily support full-sized caches, numerous logs reporting bad coordinates...

 

...I'll say it once more, with feeling: It's Quality, not Quantity!!! Please, people, make Geocaching Shine!

 

First, since portions of my response may seem to be a bit critical, please allow me to say that I believe that you have every right to write what you did and i have no problem with that. Having said that, allow me to say the following:

• As a number of other respondents have pointed out, in many ways, the meaning of the word "quality" can vary greatly from person to person. To each their own: some like tea, some like coffee, some like hard liquor, some like orange juice and some like water. This is simply individual preference; this is diversity. I find that fun.
  
• As for "dangerous" areas, this, to me, is perfectly fine so long as the hider has disclosed an appropraite (i.e., 4 or 4+) Terrain rating on the cache listing and has listed some of the more relevant possible dangers and hazards on their cache listing page. In fact, some folks deliberately seek out highly dangerous caches; if you do not believe me, check out Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations, waypoint ID GCTA5E, or even Psycho Urban Cache #10 - Derelict Grunge Acropolis, GCT9NT. If you do not personally like caches placed in what you feel are dangerous areas, you are free to ingore them. No one is forcing you to seek them. There are plenty of caches in Maryland which I find boring or not worth hunting, and so I ignore them, but I certainly have no problem with their being in existence nor with other folks hunting them. We each enjoy different kind of things, and that is half the fun of life.
  
• I suspect that what might be really bothering you is that the proliferation of "quick and dirty" micros placed by this hider has left you fewer options for placing caches of the types which you prefer in your area. Welcome to the club: this is a problem faced by many prospective cache hiders in many of the areas which have high cache density. To me, this is just a chance for you to employ creativity and originality in placing caches.
  
• If some of the local caches placed by the cache hider are of interest to you and yet have accrued numerous DNFs and the owner seems to be ingoring pressing maintenance issues, and if this is continually bothering you, why not hop in you car and go out and do a survey of five or six of the possibly-missing caches? You can then file a note on the cache page for each stating that you thoroughly checked the cache and either found it present or missing, and, if it needs maintenance, you an state that there, and even change your log to a "Needs Maintenance" log entry, or even an SBA. If the latter does not elicit a response from the cche owner within a month or so, and if the maintenance needs are pressing, you are always free to contact the owner and offer to adopt the cache in question, or to file an SBA. As for the offer to adopt a particular cache -- the owner might very much appreciate such an offer.
  

In the meantime, you are free to continue to seek out caches which you like and to seek them! Have fun!

Edited February 14, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

[4x4van]

 

First, since portions of my response may seem to be a bit critical, please allow me to say that I believe that you have every right to write what you did and i have no problem with that. Having said that, allow me to say the following:

• As a number of other respondents have pointed out, in many ways, the meaning of the word "quality" can vary greatly from person to person. To each their own: some like tea, some like coffee, some like hard liquor, some like orange juice and some like water. This is simply individual preference; this is diversity. I find that fun.

I agree completely. I never complained about the "type" of cache. There are days when I want to hike for 5-10 miles, and there are other days that I want, and enjoy, snagging a bunch of urban micros. Honestly, I'm fully aware that even a cache that I might personally consider lame, can still be considered a quality cache by many. But is it still a quality cache if it is not maintained when needed?

As for "dangerous" areas, this, to me, is perfectly fine so long as the hider has disclosed an appropraite (i.e., 4 or 4+) Terrain rating on the cache listing and has listed some of the more relevant possible dangers and hazards on their cache listing page. In fact, some folks deliberately seek out highly dangerous caches; if you do not believe me, check out Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations, waypoint ID GCTA5E, or even Psycho Urban Cache #10 - Derelict Grunge Acropolis, GCT9NT. If you do not personally like caches placed in what you feel are dangerous areas, you are free to ingore them. No one is forcing you to seek them. There are plenty of caches in Maryland which I find boring or not worth hunting, and so I ignore them, but I certainly have no problem with their being in existence nor with other folks hunting them. We each enjoy different kind of things, and that is half the fun of life.

I'm not talking about that kind of danger. As an example, one cache is located in the small island (CALTRANS Property) of a highway/freeway/crossstreet with alot of traffic; traffic that is moving fast coming off the freeway and fast getting on the freeway since there are no stop signs or lights. Yet it is rated a 1/1, and makes no mention of the situation.

I suspect that what might be really bothering you is that the proliferation of "quick and dirty" micros placed by this hider has left you fewer options for placing caches of the types which you prefer in your area. Welcome to the club: this is a problem faced by many prospective cache hiders in many of the areas which have high cache density. To me, this is just a chance for you to employ creativity and originality in placing caches.

Not at all. I'm all for high cache density. And the areas that these are in are areas that I tend not to place caches in anyway, since the few that I have placed generally require hiking to get to. Again, it's not the type or number that bothers me. It's going out with a list of 10 caches for an afternoon with my son, and only finding 3 of the ten. And all of them are 1/1 rated caches. Then finding out those 7 that we didn't find all have numerous DNF logs spanning several months, with seemingly no attention from the placer. So in essence we wasted our time even looking for them.

If some of the local caches placed by the cache hider are of interest to you and yet have accrued numerous DNFs and the owner seems to be ingoring pressing maintenance issues, and if this is continually bothering you, why not hop in you car and go out and do a survey of five or six of the possibly-missing caches? You can then file a note on the cache page for each stating that you thoroughly checked the cache and either found it present or missing, and, if it needs maintenance, you an state that there, and even change your log to a "Needs Maintenance" log entry, or even an SBA. If the latter does not elicit a response from the cche owner within a month or so, and if the maintenance needs are pressing, you are always free to contact the owner and offer to adopt the cache in question, or to file an SBA. As for the offer to adopt a particular cache -- the owner might very much appreciate such an offer.

In the meantime, you are free to continue to seek out caches which you like and to seek them! Have fun!

That I will!