Jump to content

Dealing With Problem Placers


SG-MIN
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I know there are plenty of topics on Micro Spew and lame caches and the like. This is not the place to discuss that. We already know that we have varying preferences, but we also know that sometimes caches are just plain bad - no matter who you are.

 

 

So here's the question: What do you do when a single cacher is responcible for most of the lame caches in an area? Is it appropriate to "discuss" the quality of their caches with them?

 

 

In my mind, bad placement (especially when better areas exist) just breeds the perception that most caches in an area are lame - and thus leads to new cachers placing similar caches.

Link to comment
If you can meet face to face .... YES Discuss away.

 

E-mail ..... ????? I say NO as E-mails are often miss-read with the wrong intent taken.

 

Meeting other cachers and interacting is the coolest part of geocaching for me! :laughing: ImpalaBob

 

I have actually met the guy face to face (it has been a while). What surprised me was that he was actually very proud of some of the caches that most of us in the community here think are among the most lame.

Link to comment

I try to make my opinions known through polite but honest logs, in the belief that feedback *may* influence future hiding choices. If the cache left me wondering, "why is there a cache here?" then I will say something like "I'm not sure what the purpose of this cache was, but I found it, thanks." And if it is good, I will say so at length. Putting a cache on your ignore list doesn't provide much feedback, unless everyone in the area does the same thing and the cache gathers cobwebs. Without feedback, there's not much hope for improvement, is there?

Link to comment

Hmmm, what is it that he likes about the hides?

 

And is it just "placement" that you don't like about them? Is the hiding technique itself sound? Are they well camo-ed? Good containers?

 

Are some people in the community fans of his hides? What good things of they say about the hides?

 

Is it mostly the folks who prefer a good hike that dislike his caches? Do you really wish he would start hiding caches out where you want to go, so you can enjoy his hiding technique?

 

I think if I kept hiding caches that no one else went after, while nearby caches were found frequently and lavished with praise, I would eventually figure out how to attract the locals to my caches.

 

If you really just wish he would disappear from caching, I would just continue to ignore him and put out better caches as examples to others. If you really want to help him become a better at choosing his hiding locations, perhaps you could compliment one of his hide techniques and let him in on the secret of a spot where you think that hide type would be just perfect?

Edited by Team Neos
Link to comment

The fact that this is even being discussed is a sign of how timid and insecure people are. What's wrong with criticism? Really? If someone doesn't like the way you've placed a cache, that's their opinion. If you're interested in getting better at it, you'll pay attention. I still grimace when I hear about how touchy-feely people suggest they need to be when trying to tell others the truth about how they feel. It's better for us to develop thicker skin, than it is to try to figure out an indeterminate number of warm and fuzzy ways to explain things to people with fragile sensibilities.

 

If someone says, "Your cache placement sucks!" and your first response isn't, "Why do you think that?" then IMO, you have a problem, not the person being undiplomatic. But that's just my opinion, if you disagree, I'd prefer you keep it to yourself. (LOL, just kidding)

Link to comment

There are ways to make constructive suggestions, both in the logs and in person. E-mail is not recommended, but open minded cache owners WILL send e-mail and inquire when a subtle suggestion is made in the logs. :laughing: The trick is to keep the open mindedness a two way street.

 

Let's hope the cache owner in question isn't arrogant AND ignorant - a dangerous cocktail in life, not just in Geocaching.

Link to comment
If you can meet face to face .... YES Discuss away.

 

E-mail ..... ????? I say NO as E-mails are often miss-read with the wrong intent taken.

 

Meeting other cachers and interacting is the coolest part of geocaching for me! :laughing: ImpalaBob

 

I have actually met the guy face to face (it has been a while). What surprised me was that he was actually very proud of some of the caches that most of us in the community here think are among the most lame.

 

Lameness is in the eye of the beholder. I've had people come up to me at events to complain that my puzzle caches are too hard or that my hiking caches are too tough and they just put my caches on their ignore list. So I try to accept that people are hiding the kinds of caches they like to find. If there are a lot of lame micros around, I suspect its because thats the kind of caches those hiders like.

Link to comment

Man, that's a tough one. I think I would have to go face to face. An e-mail, or a flame log ( :laughing: ) would only serve to start a war of words. If he had a good cache, I would compliment the hide. Other hints could be the old TNLNSL/TFTC variety, and maybe he/she would get the hint. Otherwise, if you want to help them out, I think face to face is about the only proper way to do it.

Link to comment
I know there are plenty of topics on Micro Spew and lame caches and the like. This is not the place to discuss that. We already know that we have varying preferences, but we also know that sometimes caches are just plain bad - no matter who you are.

 

So here's the question: What do you do when a single cacher is responcible for most of the lame caches in an area? Is it appropriate to "discuss" the quality of their caches with them?

 

In my mind, bad placement (especially when better areas exist) just breeds the perception that most caches in an area are lame - and thus leads to new cachers placing similar caches.

Perhaps you are wrong in your thinking that 'everyone' agrees with you. Perhaps the caches are perfectly fine, but not your cup of tea.

 

If you believe that one person's caches are lame, ignore that person's caches. It easily solves your problem and still allows those people who like his caches to enjoy them.

 

Stop trying to make everyone place caches that you like.

Link to comment

There are ways to make constructive suggestions, both in the logs and in person. E-mail is not recommended, but open minded cache owners WILL send e-mail and inquire when a subtle suggestion is made in the logs. :laughing: The trick is to keep the open mindedness a two way street.

 

Let's hope the cache owner in question isn't arrogant AND ignorant - a dangerous cocktail in life, not just in Geocaching.

 

I am reminded of my days playing in bands when I was younger. We had to translate between "political speak" and "reality" to get an idea of whether or not people liked us.

 

"I liked your band." translates to, "Your band didn't totally suck."

 

"I liked the third song you played." translates to, "The only song worth listening to was your third one."

 

"The bass player was great." translates to, "The only decent guy in the band is the bass player. What's he doing with the rest of you losers?"

 

Some bands really weren't receptive to criticism, and as a result, they never really got better, but this was also mainly due to people not being honest, and them indirectly enabling the mediocrity of the musicians and their false impression of how capable they were.

 

Have you ever broken up with a girlfriend/boyfriend and then later had one of your friends say, "I never like them - you two weren't right for each other - he/she did some stuff behind your back.." and you'd be like, "Hey! Why didn't you say this before???" I think a lot of time and energy is wasted because people are often too diplomatic.

 

I guess it's one of my secret wishes that our society would become a little more thick-skinned and not so sensitive. I think a lot of conflict in this world, as well as most of the mediocrity and apathy, is the result of too much pandering to peoples fragile sensibilities.

Link to comment

If you believe that one person's caches are lame, ignore that person's caches. It easily solves your problem and still allows those people who like his caches to enjoy them.

 

That seems fair, but I can recognize that it is frustrating to see someone claim a very nice area with a really lame cache. My two beefs that I've identified thus far are:

1. The "oops" microcache - no camo at all, they just drop or stick it somewhere totally unoriginal

2. The micro in a spot where a full-sized cache could be - another waste of space

 

If there are a few really nice attractions and someone has a cache claiming the area and they fit into one of the above two categories, it's not simply that their cache is lame, or not up to your standards, but that they've taken a really good geographic spot and not placed a cache that is deserving of such prime real estate.

 

But yea, I get the point, love it or leave it. But it doesn't hurt to suggest to someone that if they're going to claim a really nice area, they should consider re-vamping the cache so it's of a similar quality.

Link to comment

Oh this isn't just about me, I am asking in general.

 

The person I am thinking about does have a few good caches (3 out 15 or so). Those are in excellent locations. He usually camos all his caches in the same way.

 

The kind of lameness I am talking about is like this: Why place a guardrail cache in a location with nothing to look at (i.e. commercial area of town) when just around the corner is a good park, or a cool monument, or a great view.

It goes back to: "Why is the world would you want to bring geocachers to this area?" There is nothing special here, no cool hiding technique, no point of interest or view, no special puzzle.

 

I am talking about the lameness that isn't redeemable in anyone's eyes, regardless if you are a hiker, or a park-n-grab, or a puzzle guy, or a micro-lover or a...

 

What gets me fired up is the fact that lame pointless caches are the easiest to hide - therefore people to tend to place poor caches have the ability to saturate and area

 

ARRGGHH!!!! What can be done!!!

Edited by SG-MIN
Link to comment

Oh this isn't just about me, I am asking in general.

 

The person I am thinking about does have a few good caches (3 out 15 or so). Those are in excellent locations. He usually camos all his caches in the same way.

 

The kind of lameness I am talking about is like this: Why place a guardrail cache in a location with nothing to look at (i.e. commercial area of town) when just around the corner is a good park, or a cool monument, or a great view.

It goes back to: "Why is the world would you want to bring geocachers to this area?" There is nothing special here, no cool hiding technique, no point of interest or view, no special puzzle.

 

I am talking about the lameness that isn't redeemable in anyone's eyes, regardless if you are a hiker, or a park-n-grab, or a puzzle guy, or a micro-lover or a...

 

What gets me fired up is the fact that lame pointless caches are the easiest to hide - therefore people to tend to place poor caches have the ability to saturate and area

 

ARRGGHH!!!! What can be done!!!

 

Like folks have said over and over if you don't like them don't do them. Just ignore them the way you would a restaurant you don't like, a movie you could care less about, etc. Some cachers will like the easy caches, enjoy the food at the restaurants and even go to see the movies you wouldn't waste popcorn on.

 

That's what could be done.

Link to comment

Oh this isn't just about me, I am asking in general.

 

The person I am thinking about does have a few good caches (3 out 15 or so). Those are in excellent locations. He usually camos all his caches in the same way.

 

The kind of lameness I am talking about is like this: Why place a guardrail cache in a location with nothing to look at (i.e. commercial area of town) when just around the corner is a good park, or a cool monument, or a great view.

It goes back to: "Why is the world would you want to bring geocachers to this area?" There is nothing special here, no cool hiding technique, no point of interest or view, no special puzzle.

 

I am talking about the lameness that isn't redeemable in anyone's eyes, regardless if you are a hiker, or a park-n-grab, or a puzzle guy, or a micro-lover or a...

 

What gets me fired up is the fact that lame pointless caches are the easiest to hide - therefore people to tend to place poor caches have the ability to saturate and area

 

ARRGGHH!!!! What can be done!!!

 

Like folks have said over and over if you don't like them don't do them. Just ignore them the way you would a restaurant you don't like, a movie you could care less about, etc. Some cachers will like the easy caches, enjoy the food at the restaurants and even go to see the movies you wouldn't waste popcorn on.

 

That's what could be done.

 

yeah, but in your analogy, I am not only a resturant customer, I am a resturant owner. I am not only a movie goer, I am a producer.

Link to comment

Oh this isn't just about me, I am asking in general.

 

The person I am thinking about does have a few good caches (3 out 15 or so). Those are in excellent locations. He usually camos all his caches in the same way.

 

The kind of lameness I am talking about is like this: Why place a guardrail cache in a location with nothing to look at (i.e. commercial area of town) when just around the corner is a good park, or a cool monument, or a great view.

It goes back to: "Why is the world would you want to bring geocachers to this area?" There is nothing special here, no cool hiding technique, no point of interest or view, no special puzzle.

 

I am talking about the lameness that isn't redeemable in anyone's eyes, regardless if you are a hiker, or a park-n-grab, or a puzzle guy, or a micro-lover or a...

 

What gets me fired up is the fact that lame pointless caches are the easiest to hide - therefore people to tend to place poor caches have the ability to saturate and area

 

ARRGGHH!!!! What can be done!!!

 

Like folks have said over and over if you don't like them don't do them. Just ignore them the way you would a restaurant you don't like, a movie you could care less about, etc. Some cachers will like the easy caches, enjoy the food at the restaurants and even go to see the movies you wouldn't waste popcorn on.

 

That's what could be done.

 

yeah, but in your analogy, I am not only a resturant customer, I am a resturant owner. I am not only a movie goer, I am a producer.

 

I don't get it. You asked what could be done about cache hiders that hide caches you don't like... just don't seek them. Ignore them the way you ignore the restaurants and movies you don't like. Then maybe if enough people don't patronize them they will go away.

Edited by horsegeeks
Link to comment

Even if I have the best McDonalds in the world with gourmet food, people still associate McDonalds as cheap, fast food.

 

Even if there are a few great caches in Anytown USA, if one cacher dominates that area with crap caches, then Anytown USA could get the rap as having lame caches.

 

In the end, problem placers hurt the perception of geocaches in general. (this goes back to the whole arguement: maybe people place lamp skirt caches, because that is all they have seen.)

Link to comment

If you "confront" him it will likely turn into a MYOB sort of thing. But I do applaud you for an attempt to "coach" him but be sure to state it as your opinion and not as a rule/guideline sort of thing. I am sure he keeps planting them because people keep looking for them.

 

Ignore his caches and encourage others to do the same. Eventually he may get the hint if nobody visits them. Other than that, as long as the caches meet the guidelines for listing - they will be listed.

Link to comment

Even if I have the best McDonalds in the world with gourmet food, people still associate McDonalds as cheap, fast food.

 

Even if there are a few great caches in Anytown USA, if one cacher dominates that area with crap caches, then Anytown USA could get the rap as having lame caches.

 

In the end, problem placers hurt the perception of geocaches in general. (this goes back to the whole arguement: maybe people place lamp skirt caches, because that is all they have seen.)

 

Whose perception are they hurting? I have only cached heavily in a few states...NC, FL, SC, TX and VA. I personally don't think any of those places have problem one with a bad reputation. Sure there may be some caches there that YOU may not like but there are certainly many many others to satisfy most cachers. One of the best trips we took was four days in Nashville. We were able to find caches of all types to satisfy us. I went out early in the morning and satisfied my number hunger. Then Ms horsegeeks and I spent the rest of the day and the evening doing ones that we both liked. I hear some forum bellyaching about the lousy caches in Nashville. There were caches for all tastes. The only problem I had was a certain cache in a beautiful park south of Nashville where I broke my ankle not following instructions on the cache page.

 

I just don't see why people gripe about caches they don't like, there are so many more

Link to comment

Even if I have the best McDonalds in the world with gourmet food, people still associate McDonalds as cheap, fast food.

 

Even if there are a few great caches in Anytown USA, if one cacher dominates that area with crap caches, then Anytown USA could get the rap as having lame caches.

 

In the end, problem placers hurt the perception of geocaches in general. (this goes back to the whole arguement: maybe people place lamp skirt caches, because that is all they have seen.)

 

Whose perception are they hurting? I have only cached heavily in a few states...NC, FL, SC, TX and VA. I personally don't think any of those places have problem one with a bad reputation. Sure there may be some caches there that YOU may not like but there are certainly many many others to satisfy most cachers. One of the best trips we took was four days in Nashville. We were able to find caches of all types to satisfy us. I went out early in the morning and satisfied my number hunger. Then Ms horsegeeks and I spent the rest of the day and the evening doing ones that we both liked. I hear some forum bellyaching about the lousy caches in Nashville. There were caches for all tastes. The only problem I had was a certain cache in a beautiful park south of Nashville where I broke my ankle not following instructions on the cache page.

 

I just don't see why people gripe about caches they don't like, there are so many more

 

 

If you take the average quality (measured by whatever scale you choose) from 2006 and compare it to the average quality of caches in 2002, what do you think you would see?

 

 

In general, the overall cache quality has degraded. That is the perception to which I am refering.

Link to comment

If you take the average quality (measured by whatever scale you choose) from 2006 and compare it to the average quality of caches in 2002, what do you think you would see?

I wasn't around then, and neither were you apparently...but

 

If the average cache quality in 2002 was so wonderful, all caches would be just like that today by your reasoning. (people hide caches just like what they see).

 

From what I have heard from the old timers, paint buckets and ammo cans waaaaay out in the boonies at the end of grueling hikes were not enough to please every cacher. After a bit people started trying to come up with something a bit more interesting, challenging, unique, etc. And the game grew in popularity anyway.

Link to comment

If you take the average quality (measured by whatever scale you choose) from 2006 and compare it to the average quality of caches in 2002, what do you think you would see?

 

In general, the overall cache quality has degraded. That is the perception to which I am refering.

 

I'm not convinced that average quality has decreased. Perhaps the average SG-MIN quality measure of caches has decreased. You assume again that everyone has the same measure of quality that you have. There are a greater number of all kinds of caches - (except virtuals :laughing: ) so if you like hikes there are more of those, if you like park and grabs there are more of those. The ratio of urban micros to other caches may have gone up a little. This is due mostly to a lot of new urban cachers. They include students (jr. high and high school) who don't drive and young adults, often with children, who don't have the time or inclination to take long hikes and caching trips but prefer to find caches close by, and people of various ages with physical limitations that make it hard for them to seek higher terrain caches. Of course most of them would prefer caches hidden in local parks and playgrounds instead of in alleys but sometimes the hiding places in the parks are limited and it's fairly easy to find a guardrail or lamppost. So there may have been a slight change in the game in favor of micros in urban settings. While a lot of these are simple 35mm cans or mint tins hidden in the usual way, there are many that show the hider has given some thought to the hide. I can only assume that the new urban cachers are hiding the kinds of caches that they enjoy finding.

Link to comment

[/b]

 

If you take the average quality (measured by whatever scale you choose) from 2006 and compare it to the average quality of caches in 2002, what do you think you would see?

 

 

In general, the overall cache quality has degraded. That is the perception to which I am refering.

 

I'm with you, brotha. Why just last weekend, I made a wisecrack in my latest cache description about there being no such thing as a parking lot micro when I placed my first cache.

 

However, THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN. Ignore the caches. It's the only way. Do not question the wisdom of the tribe.

 

You will be frustrated when 95% (or more) of the cachers in your area (including some of the most respected and reputable) run out and gleefully find these things.

 

You will be frustrated when newbies find them, think they're a great idea, and hide more.

 

In the end, your only choice is to ignore the caches.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

[/b]

 

If you take the average quality (measured by whatever scale you choose) from 2006 and compare it to the average quality of caches in 2002, what do you think you would see?

 

 

In general, the overall cache quality has degraded. That is the perception to which I am refering.

 

I'm with you, brotha. Why just last weekend, I made a wisecrack in my latest cache description about there being no such thing as a parking lot micro when I placed my first cache.

 

However, THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN. Ignore the caches. It's the only way. Do not question the wisdom of the tribe.

 

You will be frustrated when 95% (or more) of the cachers in your area (including some of the most respected and reputable) run out and gleefully find these things.

 

You will be frustrated when newbies find them, think they're a great idea, and hide more.

 

In the end, your only choice is to ignore the caches.

 

Yes but after you ignore all that is on your ignore list there will be plenty of great caches left to do. Go out and enjoy them and spend less time on the forums deciding what you need to hate.

Link to comment

You are right, I wasn't around in 2002.

 

I can however see when caches were placed, and in my experiance, the older they are, the more likely they are to be in an optimal location (by anyone's standards).

 

you could chalk that up to the good sites being taken, but in all honesty, in my area, there are still great places that are far from the nearest cache. The most saturated area is the most mundane area of the county.

 

 

The ignore works for me, but doesn't do anything for the quality of the game.

Link to comment

You are right, I wasn't around in 2002.

 

I can however see when caches were placed, and in my experiance, the older they are, the more likely they are to be in an optimal location (by anyone's standards).

 

you could chalk that up to the good sites being taken, but in all honesty, in my area, there are still great places that are far from the nearest cache. The most saturated area is the most mundane area of the county.

 

 

The ignore works for me, but doesn't do anything for the quality of the game.

 

The quality of the game as far as you are concerned

Link to comment

Hmmm, what is it that he likes about the hides?

 

And is it just "placement" that you don't like about them? Is the hiding technique itself sound? Are they well camo-ed? Good containers?

 

My response is: I just think he has done something right and is lucky to just have them published!!..... We placed our first 3 caches out 5 days ago and STILL waiting for them to be approved and published.

Link to comment

You are right, I wasn't around in 2002.

 

I can however see when caches were placed, and in my experiance, the older they are, the more likely they are to be in an optimal location (by anyone's standards).

 

you could chalk that up to the good sites being taken, but in all honesty, in my area, there are still great places that are far from the nearest cache. The most saturated area is the most mundane area of the county.

 

 

The ignore works for me, but doesn't do anything for the quality of the game.

 

The quality of the game as far as you are concerned

 

Until there is foolproof way for me to figure out ahead of time which caches are a waste of my time and which ones are the good ones, I reserve the right to rant about the proliferation of thoughtlessly placed caches.

Link to comment
I know there are plenty of topics on Micro Spew and lame caches and the like. This is not the place to discuss that. We already know that we have varying preferences, but we also know that sometimes caches are just plain bad - no matter who you are.

 

So here's the question: What do you do when a single cacher is responcible for most of the lame caches in an area? Is it appropriate to "discuss" the quality of their caches with them?

 

In my mind, bad placement (especially when better areas exist) just breeds the perception that most caches in an area are lame - and thus leads to new cachers placing similar caches.

Perhaps you are wrong in your thinking that 'everyone' agrees with you. Perhaps the caches are perfectly fine, but not your cup of tea.

 

If you believe that one person's caches are lame, ignore that person's caches. It easily solves your problem and still allows those people who like his caches to enjoy them.

 

Stop trying to make everyone place caches that you like.

 

Agreed. Not everyone's opinion of a cache matches mine or someone else. If you find a bad/lame cache, okay, on to the next one. I have a guy here I don't particularly like his caches but I've also found a couple of 'ok' caches of his. It's chance but it's not the end of the world.

Link to comment

I think this thread is going the wrong way.

 

Regardless of who you are, we all know there are some dumb caches by anyone's standard [for instance if it is a mundane location, with typical hiding techniques, near other caches, with no points of interest (i.e. a film canister hidden on a dumpter behind a convienant mart in a commercial area of town)]

 

My question is really how can cachers encourage other cachers to place better caches.

Link to comment

 

Regardless of who you are, we all know there are some dumb caches by anyone's standard [for instance if it is a mundane location, with typical hiding techniques, near other caches, with no points of interest (i.e. a film canister hidden on a dumpter behind a convienant mart in a commercial area of town)]

 

 

There are some people who won't even concede this point.

Link to comment

Yeah, I know the cacher you're talking about. Oh, wait a moment. You're in a different state.

He's the one who put the bison tube in the prickly evergreen in the manicured park, with the coords 50' off in the middle of the street? Or in the yew bush at the Little League Park? And when they are muggled, he archives them, rather than reviving them?

Hmm... Some of these are actually interesting places, but the caches are, IMHO, badly placed.

Or is it the cacher who places mystery caches that are so rife with typos and wrong data that no one can understand them?

And what can we do about them? Absolutely nothing! They are proud of their caches.

Oh, well.

Link to comment
Really I don't think there is a lot you can do other than encourage better hides by placing your caches like you want others to be placed. If the other cachers have fun on your hides, they will try to make theirs just as good.

 

I know you are from the BG area, you probably have an idea who I am talking about. I mean the guy is really nice, and he has a few great caches out there, but lots of others that don't seem to bring a geocacher to anything worthwhile

Link to comment
Really I don't think there is a lot you can do other than encourage better hides by placing your caches like you want others to be placed. If the other cachers have fun on your hides, they will try to make theirs just as good.

 

I know you are from the BG area, you probably have an idea who I am talking about. I mean the guy is really nice, and he has a few great caches out there, but lots of others that don't seem to bring a geocacher to anything worthwhile

 

I'm not real sure yet. Nothing sticks out right away, BG doesn't have as many lame caches as some places I've been.

Link to comment

Yeah, I know the cacher you're talking about. Oh, wait a moment. You're in a different state.

He's the one who put the bison tube in the prickly evergreen in the manicured park, with the coords 50' off in the middle of the street? Or in the yew bush at the Little League Park? And when they are muggled, he archives them, rather than reviving them?

Hmm... Some of these are actually interesting places, but the caches are, IMHO, badly placed.

Or is it the cacher who places mystery caches that are so rife with typos and wrong data that no one can understand them?

And what can we do about them? Absolutely nothing! They are proud of their caches.

Oh, well.

 

It wasn't a yew bush, it was arborvitae and I apologize for the typos.

Link to comment
Really I don't think there is a lot you can do other than encourage better hides by placing your caches like you want others to be placed. If the other cachers have fun on your hides, they will try to make theirs just as good.

 

I know you are from the BG area, you probably have an idea who I am talking about. I mean the guy is really nice, and he has a few great caches out there, but lots of others that don't seem to bring a geocacher to anything worthwhile

 

So why don't you confront this really nice guy in an event and tell him you are not impressed with his caches that don't take you to anywhere that impresses you. You may just get "something" done rather than just sit here and gossip about him. You may just find out what his problems are that make him waste your time.

Link to comment
you could chalk that up to the good sites being taken, but in all honesty, in my area, there are still great places that are far from the nearest cache. The most saturated area is the most mundane area of the county.

 

This is an extreme case but I'm starting to see too many maps like this:6e1e0b77-444d-44af-940c-c5485cafe08d.jpg

 

And yes, the state doesn't prohibit caches in state parks. And if you know the area, please don't reveal it, I'm not trying to bash the hiders, many of the ones in that town were pretty good, they others, well... But none in the huge green area?

 

Note: 5 and 8 were spectacular hikes, not all of the ones listed were micros, but I think you can see my point.

 

Paul

Link to comment

As Brian said, it's hard to know if a cache is worth doing until you've done it. If a cacher gets a reputation that his caches simply suck and few locals hunt them, I doubt he will get the picture. There will be plenty enough people from out of town or who are new to the hobby who will hunt the cache--he will get a bit of traffic.

 

Ignoring the cache will not tell the owner anything. He can't tell if he's being ignored or simply most have not gotten around to his cache or not.

 

I think Lep's approach is the best. Nice polite, but honest feedback is the best. Wait to talk to them face to face.

 

Yeah, I've made a few mistakes in the past on how to handle things. Hopefully I've learned and will handle it more appropriately in the future.

Link to comment

Hmmm, what is it that he likes about the hides?

 

And is it just "placement" that you don't like about them? Is the hiding technique itself sound? Are they well camo-ed? Good containers?

 

My response is: I just think he has done something right and is lucky to just have them published!!..... We placed our first 3 caches out 5 days ago and STILL waiting for them to be approved and published.

I'm confused... all 3 caches have a hidden date of Monday the 24th, and were published Wednesday the 26th. And what does this have to do with "problem placers?"

Link to comment

Lead by example. Place a whole bunch of inspired caches with scenic views, crafty thoughtful hides and interesting little-known historic locations.

 

People will flock to your hides and tell wonderful tales of the experiences in their logs.

 

You'll get more enjoyment out of the game.

 

 

But still, people who want nothing more than their current find count (CFC) to be CFC+1 will still go to find the micro behind the dumpster.

 

But you'll sleep better and get better enjoyment for the positive impact that you've had locally.

Link to comment

Oh this isn't just about me, I am asking in general.

 

The person I am thinking about does have a few good caches (3 out 15 or so). Those are in excellent locations. He usually camos all his caches in the same way.

 

The kind of lameness I am talking about is like this: Why place a guardrail cache in a location with nothing to look at (i.e. commercial area of town) when just around the corner is a good park, or a cool monument, or a great view.

It goes back to: "Why is the world would you want to bring geocachers to this area?" There is nothing special here, no cool hiding technique, no point of interest or view, no special puzzle.

 

I am talking about the lameness that isn't redeemable in anyone's eyes, regardless if you are a hiker, or a park-n-grab, or a puzzle guy, or a micro-lover or a...

 

What gets me fired up is the fact that lame pointless caches are the easiest to hide - therefore people to tend to place poor caches have the ability to saturate and area

 

ARRGGHH!!!! What can be done!!!

 

Like folks have said over and over if you don't like them don't do them. Just ignore them the way you would a restaurant you don't like, a movie you could care less about, etc. Some cachers will like the easy caches, enjoy the food at the restaurants and even go to see the movies you wouldn't waste popcorn on.

 

That's what could be done.

 

yeah, but in your analogy, I am not only a resturant customer, I am a resturant owner. I am not only a movie goer, I am a producer.

 

Two suggestions:

1. As a restaurant owner or movie producer or cache hider you can set the standard for what you think quality should be. Lead by example, not just by your words. There is room in this large country for all kinds and types of restaurants, movies, and caches. Sure it takes more work and thought to place a high quality cache than an everyday cache, but if you want your community to see the difference you have to be part of the solution yourself.

2. Talk to him in person, but not via email. Just try to make it a 'help me understand' conversation not a 'your caches suck attack'. Be prepared for resistence, and if you want to take the high moral ground here, see sugggestion #1. You better be prepared to show some examples of what you think is a quality cache.

 

My personal behavior-I just like to make people smile when they find my caches. Some take you on a nice hike, some give you some historical info on the area, some just make you smile.

Link to comment

I've been thinking about this a lot since you asked and I've read through this thread a few times.

 

I looked at the maps for the general area you are talking about. My curiosity wasn't just because of your this thread--Bowling Green is near an area on my list of places to go caching one day. One of my uncles was from that area, and I am curious to see some of the places he spoke of when I was younger.

 

I'll tell you what I see as an outsider:

Fairly well spread out caches.

Not many caches there yet, so plenty of room for more. There are only 60 or so caches in the area just around the city, and those are put out by about 12 different cachers.

A reasonable variety of caches, not many virtuals, a few puzzles, a few more multis.

 

I glanced through some of the cache pages near there, and saw compliments about the cache on every page. Admittedly I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at about half of them. In the cases of the handful of cachers who have the most hides, I looked a little more closely. Same thing. Every cache had something that someone complimented. No big looooong lists of people just saying TNLNSL or TFTC (which others in these forums is nice-talk for "gee your cache stunk but it was there so I grabbed a smiley").

 

In other words, if there is a huge problem, it really isn't obvious to the outsider.

You've got a nice small caching community there. It should be fairly close-knit with so few people involved in hiding geocaches.

 

I notice that you have only been caching for about six months, and have only hidden two caches yourself. If the caches that are out there in your area aren't to your liking, you really ought to take the advice given to you by people in this thread, and put some out there that are the kind you want to hunt. If other people like them, they will copy them, and you'll be able to hunt them.

 

I think if I were you, I would just let this one go. You seem like you really want something to come of this, but it may be one of those things that is better left alone. I have to tell you, it almost looks like the guy stepped on your toes somehow, and you are hoping that someone else will publically embarass him now that you've mentioned this little concern you have--but I'll say this, as small as your local group is, you probably don't really want to go there.

Edited by Team Neos
Link to comment

One local group had an event to show what were some of the better local hides. Kind of a way of showing how others were doing things.

 

Check out this link—One local Club ran an event to nominate good caches—Kind of allows others to see what good ones are like and allows hiders to see what others enjoy.

 

GCVHFQ

 

Then there were bookmarks

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...30-4bf8019c9985

 

Then there were links to the nominated caches. So there was a consensus as to what constitutes a good hide—It seemed to come down to location, location, location but was not limited to that.

 

 

http://www.nnjc.org/

 

One thing I did notice around here is that people are usually very kind when saying a hide has problems, and I know that from personal experience on a number of occassions. They said things like "seems kind of open" don't think this will pass the muggle factor.

Link to comment
If you take the average quality (measured by whatever scale you choose) from 2006 and compare it to the average quality of caches in 2002, what do you think you would see?

 

In general, the overall cache quality has degraded. That is the perception to which I am refering.

I disagree. I don't think that these has been very much change at all. I suppose that you see a higher percentage of urban micros hidden now, but that doesn't really affect the nonurban, nonmicros.

 

Also, you should keep in mind that the older caches that you see today are not representative of all caches that we hid and found in the 'early years'. They are only the older caches that have survived. Therefore, these tend to be full-sized caches hidden in the woods.

 

Also, since these older rural caches still exist, they block their locations.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

There is another thread or two or three... on whether or not caches should have a quality rating of some kind that is based on the opinions of those that have found it. Seems like some sort of peer pressure exerted in this way might improve the caches.... or maybe my definition of a lame cache is in the minority and the quality would continue as it is... As long as numbers are important to some cachers then cache quality to those people will be less important that cache quantity.. both as finders and hiders.

Link to comment

I try to make my opinions known through polite but honest logs, in the belief that feedback *may* influence future hiding choices. If the cache left me wondering, "why is there a cache here?" then I will say something like "I'm not sure what the purpose of this cache was, but I found it, thanks." And if it is good, I will say so at length. Putting a cache on your ignore list doesn't provide much feedback, unless everyone in the area does the same thing and the cache gathers cobwebs. Without feedback, there's not much hope for improvement, is there?

 

I agree. The guy with the bad comb-over will never know how ridiculous he looks if no one ever tells him. Sadly, most people, for whatever reason, would rather let the person walk through life and snicker behind his back than help him understand what is wrong. I mean, how would you feel if it had been hours since you'd visited that public restroom, only to find the streamer of toilet paper stuck to your shoe and no one around you bothered to utter so much as an "excuse me"?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...