+Mr'D Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 Title says it all. What is a 'fair' ratio between caches found and caches laid? Mine is around 2% = not good enough? Jon
+stora Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 You don't have to place caches. Place as many or as few as you want to.
+macroderma Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 found to laid : 506 to zero Anyone worse than that? I do have plans for a couple though....
+The Bolas Heathens Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) Found 458, hidden 6, so about 1.3% ratio. I don't think there is a right answer to this as some people get great enjoyment out of just finding the caches and some out of setting them, some both. It's all down to how you want to play the game. Personally we'd like to set a lot more caches as we really enjoy the research and design of them. We've got a few ideas on the go but it all involves a lot of work before the cache gets released and thus things don't happen as quickly as we may like. Edited May 10, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens
+currykev Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 I spend a ??? deal of time while out and about...checking out possible sites.As long as maintenace doesn't become to much of an issue I'll add more.
+civilised Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 found to laid : 506 to zero Anyone worse than that? I do have plans for a couple though.... A lot of Wiltshire cachers have a keen interest in your first placed cache, macroderma civilised
+John Stead Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 Kev has put his finger on it - if you lay too many, maintenance may become a problem. But otherwise it is entirely up to the individual though I feel that to set some good ones is giving a bit back to the game.
+Simply Paul Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 Found 708, placed/adopted 128, ratio of 5.53:1. I'd found five before I placed one, so my ratio's not changed that much over the years. As for what's a 'good' ratio, I'd rather see a good cache and a 'bad' ratio then some 'bad' caches and a good ratio
+Mr'D Posted May 10, 2006 Author Posted May 10, 2006 So for those mathematicians out there... What if every cacher laid one cache only? How long would it be before we reached saturation point and found every cache that exists?
+Sensei TSKC Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 <rant>Naturally we know there is no right or wrong answer and I believe some comments are being made to belittle the original post! Personally, I think it's a great topic. If it wasn't, I wouldn't respond to it. Why can't responses be conducive to the OP? Anyway, rant over, on to my reply.</rant> Sorry Jon. I have always thought that it would be good to have either 1 cache for every 25 or 50 found. At the moment it seems as though I can have a rest. Going along my line of thought I should have hidden 21.64 or 10.82 respectively. My tally is 38 plus 3 others not on my profile. 1:13.1 I think that's fair.
+Sensei TSKC Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) Getting embarrassed now. Edited May 10, 2006 by Sensei TSKC
+Sensei TSKC Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) Last one. Edited May 10, 2006 by Sensei TSKC
+Sensei TSKC Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) another double post. whoops Edited May 10, 2006 by Sensei TSKC
+Sensei TSKC Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) double post. sorry Edited May 10, 2006 by Sensei TSKC
+The Bolas Heathens Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) I'm struggling to see what the quadruple <rant> has to do with the OP. Wow - this is a friendly place today isn't it? What ever happened to that nice forum about geocaching I used to enjoy visiting? I've already answered the OP and hope others will do without being <rant>ed at further for no particular reason! Edited May 10, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens
+Sensei TSKC Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 I'm struggling to see what the quadruple <rant> has to do with the OP. Wow - this is a friendly place today isn't it? What ever happened to that nice forum about geocaching I used to enjoy visiting? I've already answered the OP and hope others will do without being <rant>ed at further for no particular reason! The quadruple rant was due to the fact that I didn't know that the 1st / 2nd / 3rd / or 4th actually posted! As you can see from another thread it took me 2 hours to make ONE post. So it was just ONE ranty post and WAS on topic. How long will it take to get this one to post?
+The Bolas Heathens Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) Seems to have worked this time Can't say as I've been following your posts particularly so did not know you were having problems posting. I still do not follow your need for a <rant> though? I see some good replies to the OP which is what this thread is all about I don't see anyone being belittled unless I've missed something REALLY obvious....would not be the first time Edited May 11, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens
+Mr'D Posted May 10, 2006 Author Posted May 10, 2006 It's a bit beyond me chaps... Going to bed. L8R Jon
+The Golem Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 Everyone takes part in the hobby in a different way - some of us collect coins, some of us enjoy hiding caches, some folk will log a coin they've been shown in the pub, some enjoy getting FTFs, some like to play the numbers game, some people like to set/break records. There is no right or wrong way to take part in the hobby, if you want to hide a cache well go out and do it, if you just want to find 'em - well that's ok too...
+Teasel Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 found to laid : 506 to zero Anyone worse than that? Yep +-------------------------+-------------+ | name | found_total | +-------------------------+-------------+ | The Haywood Hornet | 1705 | | rodz | 842 | | Herts_Skip | 559 | | SK MK TK PK | 501 | | xbox xplorers | 488 | | darrach | 484 | | The Fewston Finders | 442 | | scottandsam | 418 | | macroderma | 414 | +-------------------------+-------------+ (usual restrictions: UK / RoI only, and only "proper" caches - no premium or locationless)
+rutson Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 Ah! well er..... the xbox xplorers have actually placed caches, but THEY don't enter COTM
+Teasel Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 Ah! well er..... the xbox xplorers have actually placed caches, but THEY don't enter COTM Nothing to do with COTM! The "xbox xplorers" really have placed no caches on geocaching.com Now, possibly some or all of the people in "xbox xplorers" may also happen to be members of another team or teams. I don't know. And possibly one or more of those teams may have placed some caches. But that's a different matter entirely...
+badger Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 The xbox xplorers have placed caches under Rutson's account, as they are his sons.
+The Cache Hoppers Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) The xbox xplorers are the lovely and wonderful offspring of Rutson .... Edited to say: beaten to it by one minute! Edited May 11, 2006 by The Cache Hoppers
+Pharisee Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) I have 1218 caches found and 42 hidden/adopted of which 9 have been archived for one reason or another. The 33 active caches have a total of 64 hidden elements (not counting virtual stages) and it takes at least 25% of my available caching time to maintain them to a standard that I'm happy with. I don't just leave them until a problem occurs or hope that someone else will sort them out for me One cache in particular takes a whole weekend and I try to get round it once every couple of months or so. I've been quite lucky with my caches in that I've had very little problem with muggles (reaches out to touch wood) so usually it's just a case of topping up any clue sheets etc. and re-hiding them (they seem to get 'un-hidden' very quickly somehow ). Don't know how you guys with 100 or more hidden cope with the maintenance side of it Edited May 11, 2006 by Pharisee
+Simply Paul Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 Don't know how you guys with 100 or more hidden cope with the maintenance side of it Well, personally I hope that someone else will sort them out for me Actually I do have a lot of help from understanding cachers on some of my further-flung cachers. Bekandian, The White Family, Nebias and Zensunni amongst others have all been kind enough to fix or replace caches for me. I tend to have offers rather than need to ask for help though, which is lovely. I've recovered muggled caches, collected archived 'geolitter' caches and generally try to make myself helpful too, so I guess it's reciprocal. Of my 118 'live' caches, just four are currently unavailable to be found. It's not ideal, but it's a long way off a crisis. 'Don't set more than you can look after' is good advice though, unless you plan to rotate many short-lived caches every 3+ months (as per Groundspeak setting rules). More thoughts OT: I do like to see finders setting too, but accept not everyone stays in one place for long so can't place, or just don't want to. There's no rule to say you have to give anything back to the sport. Oh, and I saw Sensei this morning and we talked about this thread and his rant. I think he'd taken something to be a negative comment, but having talked about it, he seems a lot calmer
+Happy Humphrey Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 There's no rule to say you have to give anything back to the sport. I agree: but actually I think that finding caches IS giving something back to the sport, particularly from those who write interesting log entries. There's absolutely no need to feel obliged to set any caches at all: wait until you feel inspired to set one (if ever!). HH
kulgan Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 How do all - well I thought I'd break my duck on the forums by voicing on this post. I've been caching a little while now - but only occasionally get the chance to get out there. So far I've only been finding - mainly because I could be moving in a little while (hopefully not too far) and also because I'm still learning from the clever caches people are hiding locally (around Dorking, Surrey) all the time. As long as you keep to the guidelines about swapping and replacing caches where you found them, you are in a way helping to maintain existing caches. What has amazed me is the increase in interest in this hobby/sport in the last few years - I first heard about it in 2002/03 when there were just a small number of caches in my local area. Looking at the number that are going up every week, I don't think we are in danger or running out or reaching saturation soon! Thanks to all of you who do place caches - it makes a great reason to go out and find new places. Mark
+wizard1974uk Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 So for those mathematicians out there... What if every cacher laid one cache only? How long would it be before we reached saturation point and found every cache that exists? I don't think that'll ever happen, well I hope not, otherwise I'd have to find another hobby or attend every event going and just get drunk
+Silver-Fox Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 Found 258, hidden 24, so I think that’s about a 9% ratio.
+freespirit1402 Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 found to laid : 506 to zero Anyone worse than that? I do have plans for a couple though.... A lot of Wiltshire cachers have a keen interest in your first placed cache, macroderma civilised found 75, laid one and im with civ on this one macroderma!
alistair_uk Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 I was consistently around the 10% mark until I hit the 100 finds mark. Now I must be heading down to 5% where it will probably stay for a while. ...but in answer to your question, I don’t think there is a good ratio as it differs for everyone.
LazyLeopard Posted May 12, 2006 Posted May 12, 2006 Havn't hidden any new ones in quite a while myself, partly because I've not been doing much cache hunting either (it's taken me almost six years to get to 100 finds). Way back when there were fewer than a couple of hundred caches in the entire UK, some folks still got upset when other folks hid "too many" or "too few". These days, with so many caches out there, it's probably a good idea to find a reasonable number before hiding your first, though. Who's to say whether "a reasonable number" is nearer 5, 50 or 500...
+Mr'D Posted May 12, 2006 Author Posted May 12, 2006 Thanks to everybody for all the input over the last few days. My original question was really out of curiosity as I had been feeling a little bit guilty about my found/laid ratio. Now I see I am not alone (not in my guilt feeling but my ratio...) I don't feel so bad Be prepared for a new series of caches in my territory. Jon
Recommended Posts