Balanced Numbers

[+Random Acts]

We've noticed a rather distressing trend evident among some of the cachers who have found our caches recently. Because several of our caches are placed where they're easy for passers-through to access, we've seen some folks who have very impressive numbers of finds to their credit. However, in checking their stats, we've noticed that many of these cachers, some w/ stats in the 4-digits, have placed less than 10 caches of their own.

 

Geocaching is one of the best hobbies around. However, if people do nothing but search for them and don't place any (or very few), how will we keep the activity fresh enough to keep people's interest and attract new cachers?

 

Some close caching friends of ours have a very valid and workable rule of thumb to which we aspire and recommend that others do, too: Cachers should place caches in a ratio of 1:10 to the caches they have found. I.e., if your finds equal 400, you should have placed 40 caches. This doesn't have to be all that hard to do. Do it for the love of the sport!

[+IV_Warrior]

Yes, nothing like encouraging more crappy caches by making people feel like they have to place a cache if they want to find more.

 

Some people like finding caches and don't care for hiding them. Others have more fun hiding and may have more hides than finds. Others enjoy both and have "balanced" numbers.

 

Leave the hiding to those who enjoy it and don't try and make people feel like they have to hide something, and we'll all be better off for it.

[+Bear Paughs]

For the love of the sport, I hope that people place caches of quality in quantities they're able to maintain, not to meet some ratio. We have not yet placed our first cache yet because we want to find a cool place (seems they're all taken in our cache-rich area) and I don't want to place generic micros (which would be easy) to meet some ratio. I'd rather there be less caches for us to find if they were well thought, than more less-than-inspired caches.

 

People should hide as many as they feel like and know they can maintain. Some people travel a lot or have other obligations that make owning caches more difficult. You don't know people's personal circumstances.

 

In any case, I think there are way too many reasons that imposing a ratio isn't the best idea.

[+CharlieP]

Yes, nothing like encouraging more crappy caches by making people feel like they have to place a cache if they want to find more.

 

Some people like finding caches and don't care for hiding them. Others have more fun hiding and may have more hides than finds. Others enjoy both and have "balanced" numbers.

 

Leave the hiding to those who enjoy it and don't try and make people feel like they have to hide something, and we'll all be better off for it.

 

I agree. IMHO, it is better to hide a few quality caches.

 

As the number of geocachers and geocaches increases, the idea that each cacher should hide a certain ratio of caches found becomes unreasonable. Consider a geographic area, say the metro area of a city. If there are 100 geocachers in the city, and each hides one cache, then after a while searchers will find all one hundred caches. So maybe a 10/1 found/hide ratio would be better. That gives you 1000 caches when each cacher has found a hundred, but when each cacher finds 1000 it will produce 10,000 caches. If in the meantime the number of cachers has increased to 800, you may have 80,000 geocaches in the city, and will have run out of lamp posts. If a cacher feels he MUST hide and maintain 100 caches, they are not likely to be high quality.

 

Hide a few and make them good ones.

[+Markwell]

Pueblo Colorado must not have the same problem that other areas have. Here in Chicago and the suburbs (about 50 miles out), we have over 2,500 caches.

 

I would never be in support of a rule that indicated that someone who may or may not be able to maintain a cache MUST place a cache because they've found X caches.

 

I would also never be in support of a rule that indicated that someone MUST place a cache because they've found X caches, even though they don't have a good location to which they want to bring cachers.

[+Kealia]

I echo everybody's posts up to this point.

 

They've said it all.

 

I understand your POV but "making" somebody meet some rule/ratio is a bad idea. Too many crappy caches will pop up just to meet the find "rule".

 

Just enjoy the fact that people are finding your caches.

[+Wacka]

I'm in the same general area as kealia (SF bay area). There are about 7-8000 caches within 100 miles of me. There are about 30 people with >2000 finds. If the 10:1 ratio was enforced, that would be at a minimum 7000 MORE caches. The top guy in the area would have to hide ~1500!

Edited July 11, 2006 by Wacka

[+StarBrand]

While I like to hide caches and maintain them - it is clear that many do not. I would rather they find a good location and quality container.

 

Many ways to give to our "fun". Leave quality swag, write interesting logs, attend events, help others learn, create events, participate in the forums - hide caches.

 

Having said that - my opinion is that you cannot really call yourself a cacher until you have planned, hidden and maintained at leat 1 hide of your own. Wether that is 10:1 or 10,000:1

[Tahosa and Sons]

Ratio is PFFFT!!.

 

I have only around 250 finds in almost 5 years, so that would mean I should have only around 25 hides. Well then what caches over my 25 hides should I pull so I'm within the ratio guidelines.

 

And I'm about ready to go hide a couple of real good ones instead of spending my 2 days off looking for caches.

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

I have never hidden a cache and do not feel that I am any less a geocacher for it.

 

I am in a cache-rich area and have found a few good places to place a cache, but in each case they were too close to an existing cache, some of which were just "micro spew." Unfortunately, the few areas where a cache can be placed do not have any good hiding locations that I can find. But some other more imagitive local geocachers have found hiding locations in some of them so the available areas are getting fewer and fewer.

 

I try to keep the sport going in my own way. When I am travelling in sparcely populated (people and geocaches) areas I carry some cache supplies with me so I can repair any geocache I come across that is in need of repairing and then notify the owner about it.

 

Also I have several local caches on my watchlist where I live closer to the cache than the cache owner does. So when somebody reports problems with the cache and I am in town I will check the cache and report to the owner what I found and/or did.

 

You play the game your way, I will play the game my way. As long as we both go by the rules/guidlines of gc.com, then we are both geocachers.

[+FamilyDNA]

In areas that are less cache dense you may want to encourage more hides, but where I live it's getting tough to find a good, worthwhile spot to place a cache. I would also not want to have to maintain 90+ caches that the ratio would suggest I should have. I'm quite happy to have just placed my seventh in a good spot.

 

If you feel your area is in need of more hides, issue a challenge at your next local event. That might get some hides going.

[+welch]

We've noticed a rather distressing trend evident among some of the cachers who have found our caches recently. Because several of our caches are placed where they're easy for passers-through to access, we've seen some folks who have very impressive numbers of finds to their credit. However, in checking their stats, we've noticed that many of these cachers, some w/ stats in the 4-digits, have placed less than 10 caches of their own.

 

Geocaching is one of the best hobbies around. However, if people do nothing but search for them and don't place any (or very few), how will we keep the activity fresh enough to keep people's interest and attract new cachers?

 

Some close caching friends of ours have a very valid and workable rule of thumb to which we aspire and recommend that others do, too: Cachers should place caches in a ratio of 1:10 to the caches they have found. I.e., if your finds equal 400, you should have placed 40 caches. This doesn't have to be all that hard to do. Do it for the love of the sport!

The answer is 42

 

Actually, any ratio is best as a personal decision. Any forcing or guilting to place caches could easily backfire... as interesting as magnets on walmart lightpoles most would agree no more are needed.

Perhaps the cachers that visited your caches have some reason for placing few or none. Maybe they travel a LOT or know they wouldn't maintain their caches well, maybe they don't know any good spots, or maybe they just don't want to bother setting up some caches. Theres really no way to know what the situation is, just hope they are doing what works for them.

[+wimseyguy]

Forcing anyone to do something they do not want to is a BAD idea. Did your mother ever make you eat lima beans or spinach? How do you feel about them now?

 

Some cachers just like finding lots of caches. Some cachers like hiding lots of caches. Some like doing both.

Not everyone can even maintain a ratio of hides:finds. I used to try and create a ratio I felt good with. Now I'm finding that I'm pretty close to the maximum number of caches I wish to maintain, and have archived some because I wish to place new and better ones.

There are times when I'll go on a finding spree and find 50-100 in one day. I shouldn't feel pressured to hide a new cache just because I had fun doing that.

[+The GeoGadgets Team]

Back when my family and I first started caching, the only other local cacher made a huge deal about 'the ratio'. He implied that anyone who didn't hide at a five-to-one ratio wasn't truly a Geocacher (in other words: carp (from another thread... bear with me)), and he expounded on that to the point that we felt guilty for our lack of cache placements. Our first cache hide was out in the boonies, and only four people found it in four years, so we pulled it. After spending a few marathon caching days with 30-100 finds in a trip, we upped our ratio to 10:1. It has only been in the last year that I've realized how ridiculous that is. Quality is so much more important than quantity. In all fairness though, before we came along he was the only local Geocacher, with nothing to hunt unless he traveled over 100 miles in any direction.

 

Find a few micros where the container is a CD jewel case (surprisingly not water-tight), or in a used Crystal Light container (cardboard), and then watch as the owners completely ignore requests to maintain those caches... the numbers become insignificant compared to the enjoyment, or lack of, during the find.

 

If you yourself live in a cache-strapped area, and you take enjoyment of hiding high-quality caches, more power to you. Sit back and enjoy the logs as others find your caches.

 

If you feel neglected because you are the only folks in your area who are hiding caches, leaving you little or nothing to find, then you need to get away from your area more often (you might see a new type of hide that inspires you). Or better yet, when new cachers pop up in your area, hold an event and encourage them to place a few well-thought out hides (be a mentor).

 

In the long run, the quality of your hides will encourage others to meet or beat you, and it will give you all something to strive for.

[+The GeoGadgets Team]

I've just realized something... my find count is higher than my number of posts in the forums...

Oh well. I make up for it with my use of ellipses.

[+Random Acts]

Yes, nothing like encouraging more crappy caches by making people feel like they have to place a cache if they want to find more.

 

Some people like finding caches and don't care for hiding them. Others have more fun hiding and may have more hides than finds. Others enjoy both and have "balanced" numbers.

 

Leave the hiding to those who enjoy it and don't try and make people feel like they have to hide something, and we'll all be better off for it.

 

Sorry, but this argument and the others that follow don't cut it. Of course, we all want fun, interesting and challenging caches. However, holding off placing by using the excuse of waiting for the perfect opportunity to place a 'quality cache' is just an excuse for not getting out there and doing it. If most people seek, but few place, it reduces the opportunities for all.

[+The GeoGadgets Team]

Sorry, but this argument and the others that follow don't cut it. Of course, we all want fun, interesting and challenging caches. However, holding off placing by using the excuse of waiting for the perfect opportunity to place a 'quality cache' is just an excuse for not getting out there and doing it. If most people seek, but few place, it reduces the opportunities for all.

 

I'm sorry too, because now it really does sound like your are bemoaning the number of caches that you have to hunt, not truly a statement on whether or not this should be some type of 'rule'.

Again I say, you really need to get out more, and by that I mean out of your area.

But in the end it goes like this:

- There is no ratio rule.

- With the exponential number of new cachers joining everyday, you need to accept that an area can only bear so many caches.

- Just read the logs about pocket caches and Geo-Cheaters - there are already enough rules and guidelines in Geocaching to make is enjoyable and safe. Don't confuse the issue with numbers.

 

Considering the amount of time you've been Geocachers, compared with your number of finds, what if I wanted to make a rule that states that you have to record a specific number of finds per year of membership to truly be a Geocacher? I don't think you'd be pleased, because compared to others, your numbers wouldn't be able to keep up with some other cachers with thousands of finds who haven't been in the sport all that long.

 

Complain if you want, but what the others stated is correct: forcing ratios on all other cachers would be dangerous, foolish and ruin the sport as a whole.

[+sbell111]

Yes, nothing like encouraging more crappy caches by making people feel like they have to place a cache if they want to find more.

 

Some people like finding caches and don't care for hiding them. Others have more fun hiding and may have more hides than finds. Others enjoy both and have "balanced" numbers.

 

Leave the hiding to those who enjoy it and don't try and make people feel like they have to hide something, and we'll all be better off for it.

Sorry, but this argument and the others that follow don't cut it. Of course, we all want fun, interesting and challenging caches. However, holding off placing by using the excuse of waiting for the perfect opportunity to place a 'quality cache' is just an excuse for not getting out there and doing it. If most people seek, but few place, it reduces the opportunities for all.

I get that you live in a part of Colorado without a huge cache count, but the game continues to grow. More people will join and hide more caches.

 

It could be worse. When I started, there was only a couple of caches within my area. As time went on, more people joined up and decided to hide caches. Some were good and some were bad. We even went through a period where some of the power cachers felt the need to pressure others to hide more caches. This led to many lame caches being hidden, in my opinion.

 

BTW, do you find it ironic that you do not have a 1:10 hide to find ratio?

[+wimseyguy]

I've just realized something... my find count is higher than my number of posts in the forums...

Oh well. I make up for it with my use of ellipses.

That is a good thing; the ellipses are just the bonus.

[+sbell111]

I've just realized something... my find count is higher than my number of posts in the forums...

Oh well. I make up for it with my use of ellipses.

That is a good thing; the ellipses are just the bonus.

I've never been able to pull off the elipses thing. I try to make up for it through the overuse of commas.

[+karstic]

Some are hiders, some are seekers.

 

BTW how easy would it be to maintain 100+ caches , plus just think of the cache saturation.

[gerboa]

I guess it boils down to "Some Lead, Others Follow"

[+MrCOgeo]

Yes, nothing like encouraging more crappy caches by making people feel like they have to place a cache if they want to find more.

 

Some people like finding caches and don't care for hiding them. Others have more fun hiding and may have more hides than finds. Others enjoy both and have "balanced" numbers.

 

Leave the hiding to those who enjoy it and don't try and make people feel like they have to hide something, and we'll all be better off for it.

 

Sorry, but this argument and the others that follow don't cut it. Of course, we all want fun, interesting and challenging caches. However, holding off placing by using the excuse of waiting for the perfect opportunity to place a 'quality cache' is just an excuse for not getting out there and doing it. If most people seek, but few place, it reduces the opportunities for all.

Some of my most treasured geocache hunt opportunities have been when I didn't even find the actual geocache. The journey eclipsed any need to find a "mundane" container.

 

I personally feel that by forcing impulsive hiding (i.e. just do it) with a set ratio would only contribute to un-maintainable geocaches and geotrash. It may be exciting to have lofty goals but my personal opinion could be to caution anyone from policing other people's realistic goals.

 

PS: I'm from geocache bleak Pueblo myself but I escaped to the rich playing fields of the Springs. Feel free to give it a try up north a little ways, I'd be glad to tour guide.

[+Teamhawaii1981 & blueicyrose]

This question seems to pop up every year, and to add to the comments above about geo-trash, quantity dulls quality, etc...

 

- What about those that don't have a steady place to stay and move around a lot (students, service men, displaced employees). I don't think they should be forced to place a cache that would either a) have to be adopted out or archived when they leave. Plus, by moving around continuosly they may not be able to truly get to know an area, and be able to make the stellar caches they wish in special locales. Furthermore, by moving around they are more likely to be able to up their numbers by replenishing their cache index with each move, thus their ratio will be very skewed.

 

- Forcing people to hide could potentially cause for less proceeds in premium membership/less membership overall, thus decreasing the services GC.com could provide. In that, if cacher X reaches his ratio limit and cannot log anymore without hiding a cache, but really doesn't want to hide, cacher X is likely just going to let his premium membership lapse and non-premium members will not log on anymore. Why move in a negative direction like that?

 

- Lastly, just let them play the game.

[+Kit Fox]

As of 7/11/06, I have 890 finds and 80 hides. This is close enough to the "magic number." The majority of my caches are Small to large caches, with a few log only micros. What prevents me from hiding more quality caches is time an money. It gets expensive maintaining over 70 active hides, with the cost of gas. Time is in short supply also.

 

The difference for me, is that I pride myself on hiding quality caches, in muggle free areas. I refuse to place a bunch of "just because" micros, to maintain the 10/1 rule. Every new cache I place has good swag, scenic locations, and no muggles.

 

I'll hide more quality caches when i'm ready and able. Forcing people to hide caches inevitably causes more micro spew.

[+Bear Paughs]

Yes, nothing like encouraging more crappy caches by making people feel like they have to place a cache if they want to find more.

 

Some people like finding caches and don't care for hiding them. Others have more fun hiding and may have more hides than finds. Others enjoy both and have "balanced" numbers.

 

Leave the hiding to those who enjoy it and don't try and make people feel like they have to hide something, and we'll all be better off for it.

 

Sorry, but this argument and the others that follow don't cut it. Of course, we all want fun, interesting and challenging caches. However, holding off placing by using the excuse of waiting for the perfect opportunity to place a 'quality cache' is just an excuse for not getting out there and doing it. If most people seek, but few place, it reduces the opportunities for all.

 

 

Yeah, you're right. It's wayyyy better for people to place thoughtless uninspired caches just to maintain some magic ratio (which you yourself have failed to do) than to promote well thought out quality placements that will improve the activity. Everything that everyone else has contributed to this thread has been worthless. Great argument.

 

By the way, I understand that my not getting out there and just placing a quality cache is an excuse according to you, but I'd be happy to do it, if you come to my house, work my job, take care of my husband and children (one of whom has special needs and requires a lot of attention) as well as find a suitable cache location in a pretty saturated area. I mean, the demands on my time are just an excuse and aren't valid.

 

Boy, am I glad the cachers in my area are nothing like the OP. Despite my lack of cache placement thus far, they've been very welcoming and kind, and have sent several notes of encouragement and even thanks for our entertaining logs. We will place our caches according to our time frame and look forward to doing it, but I refuse to add to the problem by putting out more crap just for the sake of quantity. More crap is just that -- more crap.

[+Klondike Mike]

 

Some close caching friends of ours have a very valid and workable rule of thumb to which we aspire and recommend that others do, too: Cachers should place caches in a ratio of 1:10 to the caches they have found. I.e., if your finds equal 400, you should have placed 40 caches. This doesn't have to be all that hard to do. Do it for the love of the sport!

 

I see you have 232 finds listed on your account. If that is the case, shouldn't you be at 23 hides rather then the 14 listed on your profile?

[+FireRef]

Just my $0.02 worth...

 

I have found close to 450, and have placed 15 (including 2 multi step puzzle caches). When I looked at the Grand High Poobah's ranking pages, I have within 2-3 either way hidden as compared to people with similar amounts of finds to me. So I figure I probably am in the right range.

[+miss_butterfly]

I'm in the process of putting my first cache right now, and i have 39 finds. to be honest, i don't think i would've been able to creat a good cache with appropriate descriptions etc before now, before seeing what works and what doesn't work in a cache, where's best to hide them, etc. If you can place a cache for every 10 cache you find, then that's great and you're really putting something back into the geocaching community, but for me, I think my number of finds for each cache i place will be higher. do i feel bad about that? Nope. at least i am trying to give SOMETHING back, rather than nothing at all.

[+Markwell]

Sorry, but this argument and the others that follow don't cut it. Of course, we all want fun, interesting and challenging caches. However, holding off placing by using the excuse of waiting for the perfect opportunity to place a 'quality cache' is just an excuse for not getting out there and doing it. If most people seek, but few place, it reduces the opportunities for all.

 

Ah. I see.

 

So it's about increasing the opportunities to increase the number of finds you have. I'm glad you'd rather find a falling apart gladware container behind a vacant store next to the dumpster than a nice cache in the woods, just so that you have more "opportunities."

 

Me - no thanks.

Edited July 13, 2006 by Markwell

[+CharlieP]

Well, this deteriorated rather rapidly to name calling, and in less than one page! We are getting better ... or worse ... depending on your perspective. One side says non-hiders are deadbeats and the other side calls them numbers freaks in retaliation. Could it be that folks in cache-poor areas would like to have more caches to hunt, and those who are where every other lamp-post contains a micro have a much different perspective? Whichever it is ... a set hide/find ratio is a bad idea ... you can prove it mathematically and a few folks have done so in this thread.

[+Random Acts]

I echo everybody's posts up to this point.

 

They've said it all.

 

I understand your POV but "making" somebody meet some rule/ratio is a bad idea. Too many crappy caches will pop up just to meet the find "rule".

 

Just enjoy the fact that people are finding your caches.

 

In perusing our original (and apparently unpopular) posting, you'll notice that we don't in any way suggest that a 10:1 ration of finds to placements be a 'rule' - merely a rule of thumb, a standard to which cachers ought to aspire. We don't ourselves, but we strive toward it.

 

My original attitude still holds. Of course, every cacher, with a few notable exceptions, prefers to seek rather than place. Placing caches takes time, thought, effort and some expense. Much more so than buying a GPS and going hunting. It's a challenge and, sometimes, a pain in the a**. However, that's why I'm not impressed by cachers w/ high 3 and 4 figure find stats and 1 digit hide stats. Complaining about 'crappy caches' and virtually every other objection raised are simply ways of saying that people would rather play the game than do the work to keep it interesting and vibrant for all. It's grasshoppers vs. ants.

[+headybrew]

I'm just curious,

can anybody quote for me the part of the OP where it says this should be an enforced rule?

 

... I would never be in support of a rule that...

 

... "making" somebody meet some rule/ratio ...

 

... If the 10:1 ratio was enforced ...

 

... what caches over my 25 hides should I pull so I'm within the ratio guidelines.

 

Forcing anyone to ...

 

... there are already enough rules and guidelines ...

 

... I personally feel that by forcing impulsive hiding...

 

... Forcing people to hide could ...

 

anyone? Beuler?

[+Bear Paughs]

I'm just curious,

can anybody quote for me the part of the OP where it says this should be an enforced rule?

 

anyone? Beuler?

 

"Rule" and "should" were the OP's words:

 

...a very valid and workable rule of thumb to which we aspire and recommend that others do, too: Cachers should place caches in a ratio of 1:10 to the caches they have found.

 

Recommending a rule by its very nature implies recommending enforcement of the same. The rest of the discussion was centered around other cachers' opinions of why such a rule shouldn't be enforced.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Bear Paughs

[wandering360]

You will also see that the people who claim to hate "Urban Micros" have very few 4 or 5 star cache finds.

[+Bear Paughs]

You will also see that the people who claim to hate "Urban Micros" have very few 4 or 5 star cache finds.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand exactly. I saw many posts about not wanting to add to the number of boring micro placements, not about whether all micros were lame or to be hated. Many will still hunt for them because they're there to be found in large numbers, and not all are necessarily detestible.

 

You actually make their point -- in some areas there may not be many 4 or 5 star cache finds and having a recommended ratio of 10:1 finds to hides would in all likelihood reduce the number of challenging hides and increase the lower difficulty micros (regardless of whether one likes or hates them).

[+webscouter.]

Complaining about 'crappy caches' and virtually every other objection raised are simply ways of saying that people would rather play the game than do the work to keep it interesting and vibrant for all. It's grasshoppers vs. ants.

 

You're right! Placing caches is the ONLY way to contribute to the game. It's time for reviewers to stop reviewing caches and place some. All the South Carolina caches that are spending so much time at the capital working with the legislators to stop a bad law from being enacted stop it, you need to be hiding caches! Those who teach at tech events that they don't list you are wasting your time. And stop putting on MEGA events like Geowoodstock, do you realize how many caches you can hide in the amount of time that it takes to set up this event. Tahosa needs to stop escorting cachers on his caches in the mountains and teaching them how to read maps and use some "primative" tools like a compass. Clyde, Clayjar, PrimeSuspect, LilDevil, RobertLipe you guys stop working on software upgrades and hide a cache dammit!

 

Darn grasshoppers all.

[+Wacka]

We've noticed a rather distressing trend evident among some of the cachers who have found our caches recently. Because several of our caches are placed where they're easy for passers-through to access, we've seen some folks who have very impressive numbers of finds to their credit. However, in checking their stats, we've noticed that many of these cachers, some w/ stats in the 4-digits, have placed less than 10 caches of their own.

 

Geocaching is one of the best hobbies around. However, if people do nothing but search for them and don't place any (or very few), how will we keep the activity fresh enough to keep people's interest and attract new cachers?

 

Some close caching friends of ours have a very valid and workable rule of thumb to which we aspire and recommend that others do, too: Cachers should place caches in a ratio of 1:10 to the caches they have found. I.e., if your finds equal 400, you should have placed 40 caches. This doesn't have to be all that hard to do. Do it for the love of the sport!

 

I've found >2500 and hid 5 (one I adopted). My area has ~8000 cahes in 100 miles (and part of that is the Paific or it would be about 10K). There are no dearth of caches for people to find here. I have a PQ set out to 35 miles for new caches. There are 25-35/ week. Therejust aren't that many great spaces left around here.

[+Team Dromomania]

I agree with all the others. Ratios are just another form of the Numbers game. For me, geocaching isn't about the numbers. It's about the fun I can have while doing it.

[+hikergps]

As of the time of this posting "There are 289212 active caches in 222 countries" as listed on the home page. Isn't that enough for you?

 

If you want to impose new rules, start your own local club and make part of the membership requirements be your propsed 10% ratio. Oh wait, you can't do that because you haven't achieved that ratio yet. So sorry. I guess maybe you need to live up to your own standard before beating on the pulpit.

[+Bear Paughs]

Rather than a recommended ratio of finds to hides, one thing I do offer up for those concerned with the number of hides others have is this: Hide a cache with the stipulation that placing a new cache is a requirement for logging a find. This encourages finders to hide without imposing a rule over their entire geocaching experience, just one cache. It sets a good example and does so in a friendlier, lighter tone than the way the original post and many subsequent ones have come across.

[+miss_butterfly]

In perusing our original (and apparently unpopular) posting, you'll notice that we don't in any way suggest that a 10:1 ration of finds to placements be a 'rule' - merely a rule of thumb, a standard to which cachers ought to aspire. We don't ourselves, but we strive toward it.

 

 

so you want us to "aspire" to this standard you have decided upon for us, but you, personally haven't?

 

I think people are free to find and/or place how many ever they want, how experienced a cacher is, does not give them any right to tell another cacher what to do. I admire you for aspiring to place 1 cache for every 10 caches you find, but that's not so practical for some people. However, those people shouldn't be made to feel inferior by someone else for that. we're all here to have fun.

[+headybrew]

I'm just curious,

can anybody quote for me the part of the OP where it says this should be an enforced rule?

 

anyone? Beuler?

 

"Rule" and "should" were the OP's words:

 

...a very valid and workable rule of thumb to which we aspire and recommend that others do, too: Cachers should place caches in a ratio of 1:10 to the caches they have found.

 

Recommending a rule by its very nature implies recommending enforcement of the same. The rest of the discussion was centered around other cachers' opinions of why such a rule shouldn't be enforced.

 

Did you happen to see the two word modifier that followed the word "rule" in the OPs post?

[+headybrew]

so you want us to "aspire" to this standard you have decided upon for us, but you, personally haven't?

 

How do you know they aren't "aspiring" to it? Aspiring does not necessarily lead to complete accomplisment of the feat.

 

I really think we should ask ourselves, what is the basic sentiment behind the OP's remarks. Is it wrong to give back to the activity you love by placing a few caches? Perhaps 10% is too high a figure, or whatever, but why such passionate rejection of someone who had a good-natured suggestion? Why the instant condemnation and knee-jerk reactions against Rules, when the OP never suggested it should be enforced as law, but rather something to aspire to.

 

Why the hostility? Some introspection is in order here.

[+miss_butterfly]

[EDITED] not that the post was negative in any way, i just don't want to carry this on.

Edited July 15, 2006 by miss_butterfly

[+welch]

I really think we should ask ourselves, what is the basic sentiment behind the OP's remarks. Is it wrong to give back to the activity you love by placing a few caches? Perhaps 10% is too high a figure, or whatever, but why such passionate rejection of someone who had a good-natured suggestion? Why the instant condemnation and knee-jerk reactions against Rules, when the OP never suggested it should be enforced as law, but rather something to aspire to.

 

Why the hostility? Some introspection is in order here.

If there is hostility, possiably it could be because their good-natured suggestion reads like a condemnation of anyone that does not reach the given percentage?

For whatever reason, some people have low or non existent ratios. Trying to force any predetermined number on some is usually found to be wrong every time there are 'ratio' discussions. Its also noted that demanding people place more caches, might get more caches at the cost quality.

[+Foothills Drifter]

Howdy......

This thread has gone a SHORT way in a LONG time...

 

Vern...

[+Bear Paughs]

I'm just curious,

can anybody quote for me the part of the OP where it says this should be an enforced rule?

 

anyone? Beuler?

 

"Rule" and "should" were the OP's words:

 

...a very valid and workable rule of thumb to which we aspire and recommend that others do, too: Cachers should place caches in a ratio of 1:10 to the caches they have found.

 

Recommending a rule by its very nature implies recommending enforcement of the same. The rest of the discussion was centered around other cachers' opinions of why such a rule shouldn't be enforced.

 

Did you happen to see the two word modifier that followed the word "rule" in the OPs post?

 

Sure I did. But "rule of thumb" is defined essentially as a "rule" that has not been proven scientifically but is accepted as best practice. So at its basis, a rule is what we are speaking of. A rule of thumb is a type of rule, smart guy. Geez, have a few more hairs to split?

[+MrCOgeo]

... Cachers should ...

Should?!?

 

Try not to should on yourself or others.

[+headybrew]

If there is hostility, possiably it could be because their good-natured suggestion reads like a condemnation of anyone that does not reach the given percentage?

For whatever reason, some people have low or non existent ratios. Trying to force any predetermined number on some is usually found to be wrong every time there are 'ratio' discussions. Its also noted that demanding people place more caches, might get more caches at the cost quality.

 

Again, where did they say "force" or "demand"?

 

They said "rule of thumb" to "aspire to".

 

What urks me here is the whole idea that someone can say something intended well, and it's taken as something it's not. Posters instantly twisted the OP's message into something it was NOT, and then proceeded to dump on something that the OP never even said.

 

How, in that atmosphere is it possible to have any discussion that is not filled with "angst"?