Dealing With Problem Placers

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Just Curious...what is a "LAME" cache....so I don't do "Lame" caches?

In a sentance, a lame cache is one that has no reason to bring a geocacher to that cache.

 

Possible reason to bring a geocachers to a place:

• Interesting hiding technique
  
• great view
  
• historic place
  
• nice hike
  
• good container
  
• extra difficult
  
• cool part of town
  
• anything else is in someway interesting/unique/worthwhile/funny/clever/creative/etc.
  

Basically is it worth it to make a trip to find that cache?

What I think you've missed in this list is that for some people, "because I can" is good enough, quickly followed by "because people will find it". Some cachers are OK with the reasoning being that not only is it sufficient to place a cache because it does not violate the guidelines, but also it will fulfill many other cachers needs to make CFC=CFC+1.

 

 

This is a game about location. Take a look at the top of the forum: Groundspeak: The Language of Location. Jeremy also said it here just this week: The activity used to be about the journey to discover new locations.

 

I think THAT'S what I miss most about the "good old days" in caching. I used to think it was REALLY great when someone took me to a forest preserve I had no idea was nearby, or to a cool little nook of wilderness in an area I was visiting. It was like I had a personal little tour guide telling me "There's something neat here that no one else knows about."

 

But what I've seen recently are caches placed because "there wasn't one here yet." The idea of bringing someone to a neat location has been lost.

That is one of the neat things about this game. There is something for everyone. I like finding those out-of-the-way places I never would have found on my own. I also like creative containers. I don't like lamppost hides. Maybe we just need more attributes so we can filter for caches based on what we like and don't like. It's not so much CFC+1, but adding good caches to your CFC

[+SG-MIN]

 

I think the problem is related to cache saturation. The cache separation distance is too close. Once all the prime spots have been taken then people keep placing them in whatever locations they can find that are 528 feet away from the nearest cache.

 

 

 

not in my area.

[+SG-MIN]

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.

 

Okay folks, I think we have spanned the gamet on possible answers to the original question. In brief the following options have been recommended:

• Ignore the caches placed by that particular individuals
  
• In person or via telephone (not email!!) discussion placement options with that particular individual
  
• Place better caches and lead by example.
  

And the best advice: Do all three!!

 

 

Any final comments before I close this thread? I think this discussion could head south (and OT) quickly.

[+TrailGators]

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.

 

Okay folks, I think we have spanned the gamet on possible answers to the original question. In brief the following options have been recommended:

• Ignore the caches placed by that particular individuals
  
• In person or via telephone (not email!!) discussion placement options with that particular individual
  
• Place better caches and lead by example.
  

And the best advice: Do all three!!

 

 

Any final comments before I close this thread? I think this discussion could head south (and OT) quickly.

 

 

Make and share your favorites lists!

[+onesearching2find]

I would consider it a bit harsh, but here is a log from a less than great cache:

 

Location: Garbage dump on the side of a hill, with mosquito infested used tires and a tub of used oil.

Coordinates: Off by 75 feet.

 

Sportsmanship: "Found" by 3 teams several days before it was published.

 

Impression: Looks like this cache was signed in the car by the cache owner's companions, then thrown down the hill to see how far it would roll in the local hillside dump. Coordinates are the average of 4 wild guesses.

 

Recommendation: I suggest archiving this very poor cache as it may dissuade new cachers from wanting to try another one. Looks like it is time to think about quality rather than quanity. I am sure that if you hiked the nearby state forest you could find a spot that is cache worthy.

 

The cache placer posted his rebutal a short time later:

 

Wow, I didn't know we were doing reviews. I probably should look at my notes and correct my Wisconsin logs from "several days" ago.

F:

 

If you see this will you pull the cache? I know someone who will adopt it and archive it. Don't have to worry about quantity that way. I know I don't.

 

BTW, maybe the reviewer should check out St. Croix State Forest? or Solana State Forest? or Snake River State Forest? or Rum River State Forest? Just a thought.

 

My log on the same cache:

 

Beautiful area in general, but this spot in particular appeared to be a local dumping ground. I did not enjoy my hunt for the cache. I found in my search most of the remains of a dead turkey, many other animal bones, lots of garbage, a bong and an empty rusted cookie tin near the posted coordinates (at that point I asked "When was this cache placed?") Sweating, being attacked by bugs - who where proliferating in the many water filled old tires laying around- and finding nothing but garbage in each area I searched, I was ready to leave when ____ found the cache about 75 feet down the hill from where our GPS's said it should be. TNLN.

 

The saddest part of this whole thing is that I don't think that the placer had anything but good intentions when placing the cache and the area was a large state forest with probably thousands of better places to put a cache. Unfortunetely it is not a matter of inexperience either as this person has placed more than his fair share of caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

 

Perception is reality. I personally like some of the kinds of caches that others have said they hate and avoid. Vice versa is also true. Very few caches are universally lame just as very few caches are universally good.

 

Because lame tends to be individual what you can do is to use the ignore feature for caches from the cachers who you find to place caches that you don't like and don't want to do.

 

Beyond that have fun and don't forget that people do break the mold on occasion and they may very well place a good cache after a string of 500 lame ones.

 

Also you can set a good example with your placments.

 

Edit: Read the OP's final post and that sums up what I just said. There isn't a winning way to say "your caches suck" so I'd drop the second option unless your opinion is asked.

Edited July 31, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Kit Fox]

 

Make and share your favorites lists!

 

Thats what the "favorites" bookmark list is for. There is a good reason why certain caches are bookmarked as "the best.," by numerous cache finders.

 

I bookmark my favorites, and I also bookmark my dislikes too.

 

Imagine if the local "lame hider," had all of of his caches bookmarked as such, by multiple cachers.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Make and share your favorites lists!

 

Thats what the "favorites" bookmark list is for. There is a good reason why certain caches are bookmarked as "the best.," by numerous cache finders.

 

I bookmark my favorites, and I also bookmark my dislikes too.

 

Imagine if the local "lame hider," had all of of his caches bookmarked as such, by multiple cachers.

 

I wonder if my newest cache will make any of Kit Fox's lists?

[+Kit Fox]

 

I wonder if my newest cache will make any of Kit Fox's lists?

 

Since I enjoyed hiking to the top of that mountain, for my 700th find, and the fact that the cache isn't attached to a dumpster, or a newspaper rack, etc, I'm sure I would really enjoy your new cache.

[+CheshireFrog]

That is one of the neat things about this game. There is something for everyone. I like finding those out-of-the-way places I never would have found on my own. I also like creative containers. I don't like lamppost hides. Maybe we just need more attributes so we can filter for caches based on what we like and don't like. It's not so much CFC+1, but adding good caches to your CFC

 

I think the ultimate answer lies right there. Expand the tools to allow people to filter out what they don't like and quit whining. Having said that, the tools available already pretty much provide for this. I never cease to be amazed at the people who read the cache description and see that it's a micro, check the maps and see that it's in a Wal Mart parking lot, and then act surprised when it's a film cannister in a light post skirt.

[+wimseyguy]

I think the ultimate answer lies right there. Expand the tools to allow people to filter out what they don't like and quit whining. Having said that, the tools available already pretty much provide for this. I never cease to be amazed at the people who read the cache description and see that it's a micro, check the maps and see that it's in a Wal Mart parking lot, and then act surprised when it's a film cannister in a light post skirt.

I pulled up to one yesterday, fully expecting it to be just that. I got two smileys-one for finding the cache, and an even bigger one because it was a very clever urban camo job of an out in the open hide done by a fairly new cacher instead.

[+TrailGators]

That is one of the neat things about this game. There is something for everyone. I like finding those out-of-the-way places I never would have found on my own. I also like creative containers. I don't like lamppost hides. Maybe we just need more attributes so we can filter for caches based on what we like and don't like. It's not so much CFC+1, but adding good caches to your CFC

 

I think the ultimate answer lies right there. Expand the tools to allow people to filter out what they don't like and quit whining. Having said that, the tools available already pretty much provide for this. I never cease to be amazed at the people who read the cache description and see that it's a micro, check the maps and see that it's in a Wal Mart parking lot, and then act surprised when it's a film cannister in a light post skirt.

 

When I go caching I load 1000 caches into my GPS and head out. Since I've cleared out the area near my house I typically drive 30-40 miles to cache with a group in various areas of the county. We often hit a particular set of caches and after those we make an impromptu decision on where we are gonna go next. I guess if we brought a laptop and found a hotspot we could sit there are read through all the caches to try to figure out which are the lame ones. But that is a since that is waste of time so we just keep caching. We do hit some lame caches but it beats doing research for a fun hobby. Hopefully someday there will be an easy way to filter these lame cache out from my PQs.

[+sbell111]

...My log on the same cache:

 

Beautiful area in general, but this spot in particular appeared to be a local dumping ground. I did not enjoy my hunt for the cache. I found in my search most of the remains of a dead turkey, many other animal bones, lots of garbage, a bong and an empty rusted cookie tin near the posted coordinates (at that point I asked "When was this cache placed?") Sweating, being attacked by bugs - who where proliferating in the many water filled old tires laying around- and finding nothing but garbage in each area I searched, I was ready to leave when ____ found the cache about 75 feet down the hill from where our GPS's said it should be. TNLN.

 

The saddest part of this whole thing is that I don't think that the placer had anything but good intentions when placing the cache and the area was a large state forest with probably thousands of better places to put a cache. Unfortunetely it is not a matter of inexperience either as this person has placed more than his fair share of caches.

One word: CITO

[+sbell111]

When I go caching I load 1000 caches into my GPS and head out. Since I've cleared out the area near my house I typically drive 30-40 miles to cache with a group in various areas of the county. We often hit a particular set of caches and after those we make an impromptu decision on where we are gonna go next. I guess if we brought a laptop and found a hotspot we could sit there are read through all the caches to try to figure out which are the lame ones. But that is a since that is waste of time so we just keep caching. We do hit some lame caches but it beats doing research for a fun hobby. Hopefully someday there will be an easy way to filter these lame cache out from my PQs.

You don't appear to be bothered by the few lame ones, so cache on. For those that are: you can actually do that research before you leave the house, rather than searching for a hotspot.

[+Team Neos]

When I go caching I load 1000 caches into my GPS and head out. Since I've cleared out the area near my house I typically drive 30-40 miles to cache with a group in various areas of the county. We often hit a particular set of caches and after those we make an impromptu decision on where we are gonna go next. I guess if we brought a laptop and found a hotspot we could sit there are read through all the caches to try to figure out which are the lame ones. But that is a since that is waste of time so we just keep caching. We do hit some lame caches but it beats doing research for a fun hobby. Hopefully someday there will be an easy way to filter these lame cache out from my PQs.

We also load 1000 waypoints in our units and choose a group of caches to begin our day. Those are always previewed, of course. Much as you do I sure, we choose the group because they look like a cluster of caches that we will likely find interesting.

 

We also run a PQ of the local caches and load that into our PDAs. When we get ready for the impromptu caches, we look to see what caches are nearby and then look them up in the PDA. If the description sounds "iffy" I read the last few logs to see what people are saying about the cache. Often we pass on a cache because it just doesn't sound like something we would enjoy. The PDA helps us weed out caches we just won't like as well as caches we might like but just aren't prepared to do that day--for example caches that require special equipment or multis that don't give the total number of stages.

[4wheelin_fool]

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.

 

Okay folks, I think we have spanned the gamet on possible answers to the original question. In brief the following options have been recommended:

• Ignore the caches placed by that particular individuals
  
• In person or via telephone (not email!!) discussion placement options with that particular individual
  
• Place better caches and lead by example.
  

And the best advice: Do all three!!

 

 

Any final comments before I close this thread? I think this discussion could head south (and OT) quickly.

 

Placing better caches and leading by example is the *best* option - in my opinion. Ignoring the caches is good also, but won't change the situation too much. You should discuss it with the cacher in person, but only in person, and in a non-direct, friendly way.

[+Davispak]

Just Curious...what is a "LAME" cache....so I don't do "Lame" caches?

It's any cache that "they" don't like.

 

who is they?

 

 

They are a figment of your imagination, They are the Men in Black.

[+TrailGators]

You should discuss it with the cacher in person, but only in person, and in a non-direct, friendly way.

Realistically very few people will ever to talk to anybody. Face it, we live in the age of being "Politically Correct." We also live in an age where "Anything Goes." So trying to have higher standards goes against the grain, because doing so hurts people's feelings. Edited August 2, 2006 by TrailGators

[+The Brown Scavengers]

Any cache is a good cache in my opionion. I started out letterboxing, but there just weren't enough of them in the area. I enjoyed some letterboxes more than others, but the fact that I got to go out and search for one at all, made it fun. Some people just like the "hunt for the treasure".

I appreciate everyones effort to hide something, we aren't all going to love every cache, but those we don't like, make the next one more enjoyable don't you think?

Don't start judging and suppressing people from hiding them, or you might be sorry one day when people stop hiding them and there arn't as many to find anymore. That would suck.

[+BobboTeam]

I've not been involved in this game for too terribly long, but I did just now spend some time refreshing myself with the game rules and guidelines on the official site. Having done so, I want to weigh in on this general topic, even though the thread seems to be trailing off.

 

I think I understand the comments regarding "pointless caches", but I do not see them as anything oher than two somewhat opposing preferences, both of which are competely within the stated rules of the game.

 

If you find you don't like a particular player's hides, then ignore them. If you find an individual hide to be too easy, too hard, too boring or what-have-you, then say so in your log entry, as politely and diplomatically as possible (critique and criticize are not identical terms). Understand that your individual experience and preferences for the game are just that: yours. Share your views within that context. For example: "I'm not much for urban streetcorner hides, and I have to say for me, this one doesn't have what it takes to make it interesting" or conversely, "I generally hate pog containers hidden 100 feet from a city park parking lot, but today was such a beautiful day and I had no idea about the views here. This one is the exception to my personal prejudice against these kinds of hides."

 

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, in my opinion: When it comes to the impressions given to new players of the game, I think more harm comes when players whine about how others do not play the game the way it ought to be played, than all the boring suburban film cannisters in the world.

[+TrailGators]

I've not been involved in this game for too terribly long, but I did just now spend some time refreshing myself with the game rules and guidelines on the official site. Having done so, I want to weigh in on this general topic, even though the thread seems to be trailing off.

 

I think I understand the comments regarding "pointless caches", but I do not see them as anything oher than two somewhat opposing preferences, both of which are competely within the stated rules of the game.

 

If you find you don't like a particular player's hides, then ignore them. If you find an individual hide to be too easy, too hard, too boring or what-have-you, then say so in your log entry, as politely and diplomatically as possible (critique and criticize are not identical terms). Understand that your individual experience and preferences for the game are just that: yours. Share your views within that context. For example: "I'm not much for urban streetcorner hides, and I have to say for me, this one doesn't have what it takes to make it interesting" or conversely, "I generally hate pog containers hidden 100 feet from a city park parking lot, but today was such a beautiful day and I had no idea about the views here. This one is the exception to my personal prejudice against these kinds of hides."

 

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, in my opinion: When it comes to the impressions given to new players of the game, I think more harm comes when players whine about how others do not play the game the way it ought to be played, than all the boring suburban film cannisters in the world.

 

I think you are missing the point some of us were making. Most of us have no problem with urban caches or any cache unless it is placed in an inappropriate location. The main point of the game is to bring people to new and exiting locations!

 

 

Here is an example to consider: Imagine yourself driving down the road with some friends that are visiting. You start talking about geocaching and they want to know what it is like. You happen to have your GPS with you and see that there is a cache in a nearby shopping center. You park the car and you all get out. You start walking in the direction of the cache. As you are walking you are explaining how fun geocaching is and showing everyone how to use the GPS. Then as you approach the cache you smell some awful odor. You look up and suddenly realize the cache you are looking for near a disgusting pungent trash dumpster...

[+tozainamboku]

Here is an example to consider: Imagine yourself driving down the road with some friends that are visiting. You start talking about geocaching and they want to know what it is like. You happen to have your GPS with you and see that there is a cache in a nearby shopping center. You park the car and you all get out. You start walking in the direction of the cache. As you are walking you are explaining how fun geocaching is and showing everyone how to use the GPS. Then as you approach the cache you smell some awful odor. You look up and suddenly realize the cache you are looking for near a disgusting pungent trash dumpster...

 

I happen to like looking for caches in trash dumpsters or being taken to the hidden location in the corner of the park that the homeless guy uses for his toilet. Seriously, I think that TrailGators overstates the problem. Sure, there are caches in places like this. Usually the hider did not consider or know of the problem and a note to the owner may get them to move the cache. In some cases, the hider may not care or may not think the negative issues of the location are extreme enough to justify their moving their cache. Then just post an honest log. Worse thing is that the owner will delete your log. If you come across such a cache while showing your friends what geocaching is about, assure them that such cache are the exception or that a few hiders have really odd ideas about what makes a good cache.

[+TrailGators]

Here is an example to consider: Imagine yourself driving down the road with some friends that are visiting. You start talking about geocaching and they want to know what it is like. You happen to have your GPS with you and see that there is a cache in a nearby shopping center. You park the car and you all get out. You start walking in the direction of the cache. As you are walking you are explaining how fun geocaching is and showing everyone how to use the GPS. Then as you approach the cache you smell some awful odor. You look up and suddenly realize the cache you are looking for near a disgusting pungent trash dumpster...

 

I happen to like looking for caches in trash dumpsters or being taken to the hidden location in the corner of the park that the homeless guy uses for his toilet. Seriously, I think that TrailGators overstates the problem. Sure, there are caches in places like this. Usually the hider did not consider or know of the problem and a note to the owner may get them to move the cache. In some cases, the hider may not care or may not think the negative issues of the location are extreme enough to justify their moving their cache. Then just post an honest log. Worse thing is that the owner will delete your log. If you come across such a cache while showing your friends what geocaching is about, assure them that such cache are the exception or that a few hiders have really odd ideas about what makes a good cache.

 

I agree that caches like that are the minority. However, my example was realistic and could easily happen. But maybe what geocaching really needs is a new campaign that pushes for better caches. The campaign could have slogans like "Geocaching takes you to amazing places!" If more people got that in their heads, it just might have a positive influence!

Edited August 8, 2006 by TrailGators

[+onesearching2find]

I would consider it a bit harsh, but here is a log from a less than great cache:

Location: Garbage dump on the side of a hill, with mosquito infested used tires and a tub of used oil.

Coordinates: Off by 75 feet.

Sportsmanship: "Found" by 3 teams several days before it was published.

Impression: Looks like this cache was signed in the car by the cache owner's companions, then thrown down the hill to see how far it would roll in the local hillside dump. Coordinates are the average of 4 wild guesses.

Recommendation: I suggest archiving this very poor cache as it may dissuade new cachers from wanting to try another one. Looks like it is time to think about quality rather than quanity. I am sure that if you hiked the nearby state forest you could find a spot that is cache worthy.

 

The cache placer posted his rebutal a short time later:

Wow, I didn't know we were doing reviews. I probably should look at my notes and correct my Wisconsin logs from "several days" ago.

F: If you see this will you pull the cache? I know someone who will adopt it and archive it. Don't have to worry about quantity that way. I know I don't.

BTW, maybe the reviewer should check out St. Croix State Forest? or Solana State Forest? or Snake River State Forest? or Rum River State Forest? Just a thought.

 

My log on the same cache:

Beautiful area in general, but this spot in particular appeared to be a local dumping ground. I did not enjoy my hunt for the cache. I found in my search most of the remains of a dead turkey, many other animal bones, lots of garbage, a bong and an empty rusted cookie tin near the posted coordinates (at that point I asked "When was this cache placed?") Sweating, being attacked by bugs - who where proliferating in the many water filled old tires laying around- and finding nothing but garbage in each area I searched, I was ready to leave when ____ found the cache about 75 feet down the hill from where our GPS's said it should be. TNLN.

 

The saddest part of this whole thing is that I don't think that the placer had anything but good intentions when placing the cache and the area was a large state forest with probably thousands of better places to put a cache. Unfortunetely it is not a matter of inexperience either as this person has placed more than his fair share of caches.

 

In response to these logs the hider is pulling the cache - sometimes an honest opinion does count!

[+BobboTeam]

I think you are missing the point some of us were making. Most of us have no problem with urban caches or any cache unless it is placed in an inappropriate location. The main point of the game is to bring people to new and exiting locations!

 

Nope. Not missing the point. The idea that the game is intended to bring people to new and exciting locations is not explicitly the goal of the game. It is a bonus, it is desired, yes, but it is not the idea. It's why most players get involved, but not all.

 

For some people it is more about a clever hide, which can be anywhere. For some it is just the exercise and having a goal to meet, making that exercise more rewarding. Personally, I prefer being enticed to "nice" places. But, I do not consider it bad game play to make a thoughtful hide in a mundane, even boring (some might say unpleasant) place. And I also know that "nice" for some is not "nice" for others.

 

Today I made a find in a park-and-ride shelter with my daughter. No view, nothing noteworthy. A boring place, or it would have been without the cache. It was fun. In some ways, perhaps the best of the day, because the owner had stashed several decoys throughout the area. Was that guy playing the game right? Darned right he was. And we had a blast.

 

I read through the whole thread, and I kept coming back to one thing: some here were making claims about what the game is supposed to be, and those claims are not spelled out explicitly or implicitly in the game rules. They are part of the culture of the game, which varies from region to region, I suspect, as well as from player to player. I suspect I might very much enjoy the hides made by those who made such comments. But, hearing those dismissive comments did not inspire me to find more noteworthy locations to hide caches, rather they made me feel as though my own hides were potentially being compared to an unpublished, subjective standard for which I have no benchmark.

 

Having said all that, I really like TrailGators' suggestion to highlight that aspect of the game "Geocaching takes you to amazing places!". It encourages players to strive to make unique and interesting hides, as well as being the kind of marketing copy that puts a positive, fun face on the game.

Edited August 12, 2006 by BobboTeam

[CoyoteRed]

...some here were making claims about what the game is supposed to be, and those claims are not spelled out explicitly or implicitly in the game rules.

 

...subjective standard for which I have no benchmark.

 

Why does quality-of-experience have to be spelled out in the rules of a listing site? The community is what drives the hobby and a large segment of the community would like to have a quality hide. Try to separate what the listing site requires and what the community would like.

 

I've always held that the standard would be if you would bring a friend to the cache location what would their reaction be. Would he enjoy the experience or look at you as if you're weird. Basically, that's what you are doing when you are placing a cache--you're bringing a friend along.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I agree that caches like that are the minority. However, my example was realistic and could easily happen. But maybe what geocaching really needs is a new campaign that pushes for better caches. The campaign could have slogans like "Geocaching takes you to amazing places!" If more people got that in their heads, it just might have a positive influence!

 

Love the slogan!

 

I'd buy it on a T-shirt, hat or window sticker!

 

If it's original you might suggest it to Groundspeak for their store items, if not, where can I find it?

 

In 2" white lettering, with the geocaching logo on the left and the CITO logo on the right of that slogan, that'd be parfect across the bottom center rear window on my Tahoe!

 

Ed

[+Glenn]

You have no authority to judge what constitutes a "good hide" for other people to hide or hunt.

 

Wow.

 

That's a very interesting statement.

 

I'll take it from the other side: You have no authority to tell me that I can't have an opinion, nor restrict my opportunity to tell someone else that opinion.

 

I do so on my website, and I recommend certain caches to others through my Top 10% Favorites on my profile. My whole rating suggestion is geared toward having similar lists aggregated, but many do not like that for whatever reason.

 

There used to be a website on the net called "CheckTheGrid.com" The idea was that the site showed the results of 10 separate movie reviews and a user poll. The quick look showed whether that particular movie reviewer recommended the movie (green), cautioned that it was average (yellow) or said that the movie stunk (red).

 

I checked the internet archive and found some of their ratings:

Based on this, I would have said that I would have wanted to see both Spiderman and Black Hawk Down, but I would want to investigate closer Anger Management before I went to go see it. That doesn't mean that I WOULDN'T see it, but I would investigate it closer.

 

According to their signoff page, in 2001 CheckTheGrid.com it was named a "Very Useful Site" by Yahoo! Internet Life Magazine and was featured in Entertainment Weekly with an A-. Finally in 2002 it was named "the best digest of movie reviews on the web" by Newsweek.

 

All it did was aggregate the scores of 10 different movie reviewers. It showed the reviews, but it didn't try to subdivide the movies into horror or action or sci-fi or chick-flick or animated feature or drama or Ben Affleck movies. It just said if the particular movie reviewer recommended the movie or not and showed the aggregation of those results.

 

<snip>

 

Thats very interesting. However, how my producers or movie directors do you find also writing movie reviews? You have to have a way to remove the bias. For example; not allowing anyone to rate caches within' 100 miles of any caches that they have placed.

[+jadeskyline]

I can't see why all of you spend so much time writing on this subject. I can't even read all of this crap. When I first started hiding caches, and still today, If it is crap-a fellow cacher will let me know his oppion. something I greatly value. if he says it could be better, I try to make it that way or get rid of it! That simple, tell them what you think, its a free country. If they don't like what you say, that is thier right also. Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

[+hikergps]

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

 

Because the internet makes it conviently easy to piss and moan about it to others without having to look them in the eye while you are doing so.

[+TrailGators]

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

 

Because the internet makes it conviently easy to piss and moan about it to others without having to look them in the eye while you are doing so.

 

OK then look into my eye!

 

[+hikergps]

[+James Lobb]

 

 

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

 

 

there are a few caches i an area where i was planning to do an eleborat multi-cache where the last cache is under water and locked to a dock. but i guess i will have to hope that the cache that is taking up the area gets archived sometime soon. for thoose who are wondering the area is chowder bay in sydney. the cache near it is not of poor quality and is called chow down by gorge.

[+BoggyWoggy]

I'm relatively new to geocaching. I got so darned excited about searching, socializing, and learning and put my effort into my own cache! Then, as I completed it and started getting log info., I felt a little embarassed about how stupid it is! I wondered if I should remove it...then, got a log from a family passing through the area that mentioned "trying to get as many finds as we can on our way to XXXXX." You see, my cache is a dash and cache...and is really, really lame...but, obviously someone found a purpose for it. As I become more refined and knowledgable, I'm learning more about creativity, challenge, and purpose. It seems the original discussion was about someone who isn't doing this...not really expanding or altering. This is a simple case of "paradygm paralysis." It's pretty tough to cure. A licensed therapist would say, "You cannot change another person. You can only alter your perspective." So, put a little humor into your logs, if you choose to seek this guy's caches! Say stuff like, "I encountered a bear near the cache," or, "This really beautiful woman approached me while I was at this location and we're now getting married," when its in a stupid location. This entertains others and gives you something to do. And, don't forget...you increase your "finds" on geocaching.com...and it makes you look really, really cool!

[+Mike & Kate]

You know, I'm pretty much brand new at geocaching, and I've only found 3 caches so far. Of them, two are urban micros.

 

The two I found are great examples of "going new places". One is outside our town's old Train Depot Museum. I'm 26, and I've never been there before. The other is in a downtown park, and while hunting, I really took a look at the statues and other scenery I'd not noticed in previous trips.

 

Now, listening to all of you, I could understand some frustration. It sounds like some people really appear to have ugly, uninteresting cache locations. Well, if I stumbled on one of them, this would be along the lines of what I would write:

 

I found XXXXX cache earlier today, and I was surprised by its location. I did not expect to find a cache in this particular area. Why did you decide on this spot? Either way, TFTC and SL. I'll be interested to look in on your future caches.

 

If this were my cache, and I read a log like this, I would most likely answer the question, and the answer might shed some light for future visitors. Granted, some of these owners may not be like me, and may not answer, but I think it would be fairly easy to say to yourself that if the owner couldn't take 30 seconds and share his inspiration for his placement, then maybe I shouldn't bother spending my time to find his other caches.

 

Since I'm new, maybe my ideas about this are all wrong, but it seems to me that this would be a "politically correct" way to go, and maybe you'll come out of it noticing something remarkable that you didn't see due to "tunnel vision" caused by the final cache location.

 

Mike (from Mike & Kate)

[+sbell111]

yawn

[+GreyingJay]

I did the same when I started off. I walked 2 minutes from my house to this tiny park just off my street, found a place to hide a cache, and stuck one up. I was so excited! People seemed to like it OK, too, but after a while I realized that it was pretty lame. When it eventually (and inevitably) got muggled, I archived it, saying I would put my future energy into doing better ones. (Still working on that...)

 

I like to at least try to make my logs interesting, even if it is a silly dash-and-cache. Generally they derive humour by playing on my incompetency, like this log:

 

I read the map wrong and misjudged the location of another nearby MHN cache, thinking it was much closer than it really was. That thwarted my plan to park in one equidistant spot and nab both, so the end result was simply that I parked at the far, far opposite end of the parking lot for this one and went for a bit of a walk.

 

My GPSr pointed me directly to a candidate tree. Woohoo, I thought, and charged right in. Ouch! Those are prickly, and I can't really see anything... no matter, I'll just drop to the ground and crawl in through -- OUCH! Those are prickly too!

 

Tried a few approaches, but just couldn't avoid being pincushioned by the tree's many dead sharp pointy branches and needles, and that's when I realized...

 

WRONG TREE!

 

Checked the correct tree (a muggle driving by down below must have thought I was nuts!), and found it in short order. Aaaah, that's better. Logged, traded nothing (I had nothing small enough). Couldn't even stop by the nearby Timmy's for a drink since I left my cash in the car... whoops! So now my hands and arms are covered in tiny cuts and scratches (ouch, that stings) but ... I did find it!

 

Even the cache description listed it as "yep, another micro in a tree", so the least I could do was try to have some fun with it.

[+BobboTeam]

...some here were making claims about what the game is supposed to be, and those claims are not spelled out explicitly or implicitly in the game rules.

 

...subjective standard for which I have no benchmark.

 

Why does quality-of-experience have to be spelled out in the rules of a listing site? The community is what drives the hobby and a large segment of the community would like to have a quality hide. Try to separate what the listing site requires and what the community would like.

 

I've always held that the standard would be if you would bring a friend to the cache location what would their reaction be. Would he enjoy the experience or look at you as if you're weird. Basically, that's what you are doing when you are placing a cache--you're bringing a friend along.

 

Perhaps you misread me. I do separate the official rules from the overall goals. However, the official rules are the only benchmark we can use to suggest whether others are playing properly. I like coins and bugs, and I like to move them along. Some like only to discover them, leaving them in the cache. The rules suggest moving them, but they also accomodate a "discover" option. Who is playing the game properly? Both. You make your own choices about such things.

 

I suggest the reason quality-of-experience is not spelled out is because it is not the same for every player. That was my original point on this thread.

 

I like your metaphor about bringing a friend along. But it doesn't necessarily support your point, in my mind. Different friends like different things. But then, most of my friends look at me as if I were wierd sometimes.