I'm dissapointed.

3.9k · September 4, 2006

To start off with, this is not a rant against micros; it’s a rant against ill placed caches.

I just got back into caching and I’m limited pretty much to urban caches or those that have a terrain rating of 1.5 or less due to physical problems. The difficulty level doesn’t bother me at all, the higher the better. What does bother me is ill placed caches. Caches placed with little or no thought in a bad area. I’ve found some micros in really cool spots, or if not that, they were very cleverly hidden and I really enjoyed them!

However when I went hunting today and 2 out of 5 caches led me to the rear of a shopping center near the dumpsters, I passed and moved on. I wouldn’t log those caches if it bumped my windshield on the way past.

This sport should have some standards honored by both the cache placers and the reviewers, or actually Groundspeak. We have rules against placing caches in sensitive areas. Even rules deciding what we can put in a cache. However we totally ignore the standards of a cache.

I know this is subjective, but so are the contents allowed. A cache hidden in the rear of a shopping center in a drain pipe near the dumpster is low standard, and this is just one example. It’s also a sensitive area. Let a law enforcement officer catch you messing around back there. Caches like these only degrade the sport/game/hobby.

If anyone out there is offended by this, so be it. If we don’t stop these kinds of caches it’s going to degrade this sport/hobby/game. You can say don’t hunt them if you don’t like them, but you don’t know what you are hunting until you get there.

Pause in rant. flame on!

El Diablo

Edited September 4, 2006 by El Diablo

3.3k · September 4, 2006

I share your opinion 100%.

It is not that the cache is a micro, it's the crappy location that ruins the experience. For some, these are great caches, because they get "yet another smiley."

I use a simple rule to hide my caches, "If they were filming a documentary about geocaching, would you want to take the filming crew to the cache. If the answer is no, find a better location."

1.5k · September 4, 2006

:laughing:

That being said.... I agree 100%

September 4, 2006

I'll agree that a cache next to a dumpster is no fun to find, but all caches behind shopping centers are not disgusting. Several times I found that caches behind shopping centers were hidden in nice, small picnic areas that probably were only known to the employees of the center.

7.2k · September 4, 2006

Plenty of us have been harping on this for a while.

...with little result.

September 4, 2006

Offended? No, I'm in complete agreement.

5.9k · September 4, 2006

I’m alarmed, given your position in the geocaching community, that this is the first you’ve noticed of it. It’s come up a number of times in the forums and the people who complain about it are lambasted by the number hounds. C’mon El D, get with it! :laughing:

Edited September 4, 2006 by Criminal

3.9k · September 4, 2006

I’m alarmed, given your position in the geocaching community, that this is the first you’ve noticed of it. It’s come up a number of times in the forums and the people who complain about it are lambasted by the number hounds. C’mon El D, get with it!

I did note that I just got back into it. Just recently surpassed 100. Give me a break. I didn't know things had gotten this bad. Also you had and avenue to express these concerns...and not one peep.

El Diablo

September 4, 2006

Count one more in complete agreement.

September 4, 2006

I have to agree with cashe placeing I have had mostly goods ones and they were, what I have found is that they are in some disrepair, or arnt marked as a cache. I found one micro that was a good one and placed well, but if lets say a worker that was working found it they would through it away because it had no markings. they sell a sticker that you can put on them. so please if you place caches mark them right. and buy the sticker its 50 cents :laughing:

September 4, 2006

I agree with you completely, El Diablo! But... as I am sure you have noticed... people put those caches out there just because they "can" ..... there are some of us that prefer bringing people to a new place, or do something creative with the container or make it a really fun series. I also don't want to be hunting behind stores, finding micros on utility boxes, light poles, or things like that. Yeah, one or two, or on occasion... micros do have a purpose, and I do occasionally hunt for them, but I would far rather go hiking in a park (small or big), or on a nice hike and bike trail. Some communities have very nice trails that have plenty of hiding places on them.

September 4, 2006

I agree as well. Things in my neck of the woods have been going down hill for a while - lately it seems like 1 or 2 out of 10 offer anything scenic/challenging/nice walk/well-stocked. I've got 6 on the list for tomorrow - we'll see what happens.

September 4, 2006

I agree also. When we first started caching a few years ago there were very few caches in our area but everyone we went to was in an area that someone thought was a nice place to show. Thats what got us hooked on caching finding areas close to where we live that we hadn't seen before or a fun hike to a cool spot. It seems that a lot of cachers out here do it for the status of being a high number finder so they love every 1/1 by the dumpster, lampost, ect because its a quick easy smiley. We find a lot fewer but we try to pick ones that may be a clever hide or a nice place to visit.

Mike

1.6k · September 4, 2006

I agree too. I've pretty much quit caching because of that reason. The only time I'll go caching is if I'm away from the city and all the carpy caches.

September 4, 2006

This was recently discussed in the New England forum. Looks like it's everywhere.

I've noticed many unimaginative caches popping up in my area. I have no desire whatsoever to seek those.

However, it isn't limited to micros.

1.2k · September 4, 2006

It's too bad that crummy caches keep popping up. I'm quick to add caches to my ignore list. I've also started profiling caches/cachers. I find it frustrating to follow my GPS to the dumpster behind a Wally-World or a LPC.

In the spring, I added a cache to my ignore list after I discovered it was in and around a pile of broken cinder blocks and broken wood palettes. Unfortunately, I forgot to remove the cache from my GPS. As a result I follow my GPS pointed to the nearby parking. I realized where I was and promptly deleted the waypoint and moved on.

When I got home I decided to check on the cache logs and confirm that other disapproved of the cache as much as I did. One of the logs stated that the hunter got frustrated searching and decided to CITO out some trash. As he was ready to through out the stuff he collect he realized on of the ideas was the cache. Friggin' great.

Not every cache needs to be found. The Ignore list and deleting the caches from my GPS make my caching experience a little better. Also knowing the "usual suspect" for good and bad caches helps.

Anyway, thanks for letting me vent, and sorry you had a crummy day out El Diablo. Welcome back! (?)

5k · September 4, 2006

I've logged DNFs on caches I chose not to hunt because I thought they were unimaginitive. A phone booth in the parking lot of a convenience store... ugh.

I've also not gotten a warm response from those such logs.

Like Anon, I've more-or-less given up caching in and around my apartment in the city. Not but a year or so ago, I looked forward to finding the new caches placed in the area, but recently we've had a surge of very uninspired caches. A year ago, there was one single lamp-pole cache around my city (that I'm aware). Today, I wouldn't even bother to count. It seems every day I get two or three new cache notifications, and if I take the time to click on the cache page, one of the first sentences is "If you don't like PNG caches, this isn't for you."

At least the hider has the courtesy to let us know ahead of time.

Nonetheless, I've found it not worth my time to wade through all the crap to find the occasional well-placed cache. And the truth is, there have been some interesting caches placed, too. They're just far outnumbered by the easy-to-hide lampost/guardrail/drainpipe style.

When traveling however, I'm not so picky. I've found once I'm away from the beaten path and cruising down a pleasant two-lane, the caches that I might encounter are more-than-likely of the type I find worthwhile.

It sounds like you're preaching to the choir though. Despite the numerous, numerous logs posted to such caches (as well as the great many people who hide them), nobody yet has replied to this thread that they are pleased with the situation.

Jamie

3.2k · September 4, 2006

To start off with, this is not a rant against micros; it’s a rant against ill placed caches .... The difficulty level doesn’t bother me at all, the higher the better. What does bother me is ill placed caches. Caches placed with little or no thought in a bad area. I’ve found some micros in really cool spots, or if not that, they were very cleverly hidden and I really enjoyed them!

However when I went hunting today and 2 out of 5 caches led me to the rear of a shopping center near the dumpsters, I passed and moved on. I wouldn’t log those caches if it bumped my windshield on the way past.

I'll agree, but not quite 100%

The last two caches to seriously challenge my skills were both placed at the back side of small retail shopping strips. A few other caches I've done lately were so easy as to be not fun, but the Dumpster-area type hides, if they're done right, can easily tax the skills of even the most experienced and clever cache hunters (not that I fall into those categories -- not most days, anyway).

The challenge of the hunt is one of the most enjoyable elements of the game for me. I don't look for Geocaching to always take me on a tour of beautiful places -- I can do that by myself with or without caching. What I DO like to be able to expect is frequent cleverness, creativity, humor, and the occasional semi-frustrating serious headscratcher of a hide. I'm much more satisfied with a find when I've cracked some super effective disguise job, or an ingenious misdirection tactic, than when I've simply pulled yet another lock-n-lock from under a fallen tree in the woods. I like ALL caches, don't get me wrong -- I just like the tough ones better. Thing is, you never know for sure which ones are the most fun until you try them.

What's a one-star difficulty for everyone else is sometimes the very demon I'll be wrestling with for the next five visits. You never know.

I use a simple rule to hide my caches, "If they were filming a documentary about geocaching, would you want to take the filming crew to the cache. If the answer is no, find a better location."

Good rule, but I don't think that necessarily rules out back-of-store caches. Location is not the only element that matters. I think either (or both) of the two back-of-store caches mentioned above would make for some fine, very interesting documentary footage: "Look at this! Can you believe this? That's brilliant! Who'd have ever expected to find a stash of trinkets hidden here?!? It blends right in -- looks just like a REAL [thing that you wouldn't expect to be a cache] !!!"

Everyone is different of course, and each of us gets different kinds of enjoyment from this game. I learned a long time ago, however, not to judge any cache as lame until I've actually tried it.

2.7k · September 4, 2006

So true, what they won't do to create something for those dadgum smiley hunters. I've noticed that few and fewer go looking for those that I put in the hills, just too much work for a smiley.

Maybe we should come up with a new note, icon or whatever we want to call it. Instead of saying that the cache is bad, we should have an OUTHOUSE ICON. That should sum it up.

8k · September 4, 2006

Once upon a time some people complained that virtual caches were being placed in locations that were just too ordinary - or worse the virtual was a tennis shoe or a dead animal. The solution was that the reviewers were asked to make sure that virtual caches met a standard before being accepted. This was called the "Wow" test. It was a total failure because "Wow" is subjective. The forums were full of threads complaining the reviewers were unfair. If we were to require that reviewers were to enforce standards for placement of physical caches the approval process would grind to a a halt.

I think it is very easy to avoid these caches. You can generally tell from the satellite photo in Google maps. Even if you don't know in advance, it's very easy to decide not to do the cache when you arrive at the location. Just keep going to the next cache.

It may be that caches in these location are bad for the sport. I'm not sure. I suspect that caches are placed in the back of strip malls because there are no muggles around. The caches probably last longer and cachers can search for them. If cachers start to get arrested for being behind the mall looking for a cache that was placed without permission or with permission from someone who did have authority to give permission, then I could see the reviewers asking for written permission before allowing caches here. That might reduce the numbers some.

Edited September 4, 2006 by tozainamboku

1.8k · September 4, 2006

I've pretty much stopped caching anywhere near my home for that same reason. The last time I went out, 90% of the hides were in parking lots. If there was something even remotely creative about any of the hides, it might have been even remotely worthwhile.

Sigh.

2.5k · September 4, 2006

Agreed here as well. I used to go and find the back lot hides, but after a few I now do more pre-planning and look for caches in the woods and recreational areas, I've been focusing on them more, since those are the ones I enjoy.

2.5k · September 4, 2006

As with others I have pretty much given up on caching in the city. I do read the cache pages and, if it sounds like it is something other than a light pole or bus stop type of cache, I might consider doing it. Most puzzles ending in micros are on my ignore list. Too many of the puzzles are ending up with a micro hidden in one of the four posts of a bus stop.

As somebody said, this is just preaching to the choir. I have yet to see anyone defend these poor placements.

I really enjoy finding caches in parks and areas I never knew existed. I also like those that take me to areas that non-cachers seldom get to, but have magnificent views. I can think of a few along the Oregon coast like that. Many of the rest stops along 101 have short hiking trails that lead to great views of waves crashing below. Most people stop to use the facilities and only stretch their legs in the parking lot. The good views require a little walking. Those are the ones I like.

As JamieZ said, while traveling, I'm not as picky. If there is not hiking trail, but I need the stop and the short walk to a light pole, I will take it. The numbers are not that important to me.

Just my $0.02

2.3k · September 4, 2006

To start off with, this is not a rant against micros; it’s a rant against ill placed caches.

I just got back into caching and I’m limited pretty much to urban caches or those that have a terrain rating of 1.5 or less due to physical problems. The difficulty level doesn’t bother me at all, the higher the better. What does bother me is ill placed caches. Caches placed with little or no thought in a bad area. I’ve found some micros in really cool spots, or if not that, they were very cleverly hidden and I really enjoyed them!

However when I went hunting today and 2 out of 5 caches led me to the rear of a shopping center near the dumpsters, I passed and moved on. I wouldn’t log those caches if it bumped my windshield on the way past.

This sport should have some standards honored by both the cache placers and the reviewers, or actually Groundspeak. We have rules against placing caches in sensitive areas. Even rules deciding what we can put in a cache. However we totally ignore the standards of a cache.

I know this is subjective, but so are the contents allowed. A cache hidden in the rear of a shopping center in a drain pipe near the dumpster is low standard, and this is just one example. It’s also a sensitive area. Let a law enforcement officer catch you messing around back there. Caches like these only degrade the sport/game/hobby.

If anyone out there is offended by this, so be it. If we don’t stop these kinds of caches it’s going to degrade this sport/hobby/game. You can say don’t hunt them if you don’t like them, but you don’t know what you are hunting until you get there.

Pause in rant. flame on!

El Diablo

You can not legislate Good Taste. What one likes another hates. Go to any mall and sit for 20 minutes and watch the people walk by. Look at all the people that got dressed and looked in the mirror and said "DAM I LOOK GOOD!!!!!", in their white leisure suits and lime green shirts. Quality is subjective in a case like this. And just for the record. They are not rules.

Edited September 4, 2006 by CO Admin

3.9k · September 4, 2006

To start off with, this is not a rant against micros; it’s a rant against ill placed caches.

I just got back into caching and I’m limited pretty much to urban caches or those that have a terrain rating of 1.5 or less due to physical problems. The difficulty level doesn’t bother me at all, the higher the better. What does bother me is ill placed caches. Caches placed with little or no thought in a bad area. I’ve found some micros in really cool spots, or if not that, they were very cleverly hidden and I really enjoyed them!

However when I went hunting today and 2 out of 5 caches led me to the rear of a shopping center near the dumpsters, I passed and moved on. I wouldn’t log those caches if it bumped my windshield on the way past.

This sport should have some standards honored by both the cache placers and the reviewers, or actually Groundspeak. We have rules against placing caches in sensitive areas. Even rules deciding what we can put in a cache. However we totally ignore the standards of a cache.

I know this is subjective, but so are the contents allowed. A cache hidden in the rear of a shopping center in a drain pipe near the dumpster is low standard, and this is just one example. It’s also a sensitive area. Let a law enforcement officer catch you messing around back there. Caches like these only degrade the sport/game/hobby.

If anyone out there is offended by this, so be it. If we don’t stop these kinds of caches it’s going to degrade this sport/hobby/game. You can say don’t hunt them if you don’t like them, but you don’t know what you are hunting until you get there.

Pause in rant. flame on!

El Diablo

You can not legislate Good Taste. What one likes another hates. Go to any mall and sit for 20 minutes and watch the people walk by. Look at all the people that got dressed and looked in the mirror and said "DAM I LOOK GOOD!!!!!", in their white leisure suits and lime green shirts. Quality is subjective in a case like this. And just for the record. They are not rules.

Good point! They are guidelines. As I mentioned in my OP it was subjective. My next question would be who has ever recieved permission to place these caches (Including Wal-mart.) in a shopping center? I doubt anyone has. Yet they are approved everyday. Why is that?

I don't mean disrespect. I'm just concerned about the ramifications of caches like these. I think the Reviewers do a great job as pointed out in a previous thread, but I think Groundspeak should take a stance against these types of caches.

El Diablo

September 4, 2006

I use a simple rule to hide my caches, "If they were filming a documentary about geocaching, would you want to take the filming crew to the cache. If the answer is no, find a better location."

That's a pretty good rule. I'll certainly bear it in mind if and when I ever place a cache!

4.5k · September 4, 2006

I certainly won't say that i'm pleased with the situation, but for the most part, we enjoy most of the caches that get put out around here. One reason is that we realize that the "good" areas are pretty much taken up so we're not expecting alot with any new caches that come out. I have also come to expect that most urban caches are going to be on the lame side anyways, so it's not a shocker when we go out and find a new cache hidden in a lightpole or behind a building. Yes, i know there are some good urbanaches out there but most are the same ole same ole.

We have found alot of these types and they do get boring sometimes. For us there are other things besides the cache itself that provide for our enjoyment of geocaching. In our case it's not only the cache that we enjoy, it's the nice drive in the beautiful weather or having good friends along with us when finding it that make for a great outing too!

September 4, 2006

So true, what they won't do to create something for those dadgum smiley hunters. I've noticed that few and fewer go looking for those that I put in the hills, just too much work for a smiley.

And in my case (and bugmama42's too from what we talked about the last time we went "mountain caching"), I love the good hikes and hides in the mountains...

Maybe we should come up with a new note, icon or whatever we want to call it. Instead of saying that the cache is bad, we should have an OUTHOUSE ICON. That should sum it up.

I agree! Enough of THOSE showing up on someone's logs may give them a hint!

3.3k · September 4, 2006

I use a simple rule to hide my caches, "If they were filming a documentary about geocaching, would you want to take the filming crew to the cache. If the answer is no, find a better location."

Good rule, but I don't think that necessarily rules out back-of-store caches. Location is not the only element that matters. I think either (or both) of the two back-of-store caches mentioned above would make for some fine, very interesting documentary footage: "Look at this! Can you believe this? That's brilliant! Who'd have ever expected to find a stash of trinkets hidden here?!? It blends right in -- looks just like a REAL [thing that you wouldn't expect to be a cache] !!!"

Everyone is different of course, and each of us gets different kinds of enjoyment from this game. I learned a long time ago, however, not to judge any cache as lame until I've actually tried it.

I have a cache behind a shopping center, the key difference is the quality of the container, and the nice landscaping, adjacent to open desert, where I hid my cache. You have to leave the pavement to find the cache also.

3.8k · September 4, 2006

I think part of the problem is that we don't like to offend the hiders when we find a poor hide. TFTC doesn't always express that a cache is bad.

My logs will be more like this one on caches I don't like

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...50-19131ef26f1e

38.2k · September 4, 2006

I have yet to see anyone defend these poor placements.

I have. Just keep peeking in at this thread and you probably will too.

6.7k · September 4, 2006

My Daddy taught me not to complain about something unless I was willing to try to fix it.

He said the right to complain had to be earned by first trying to change the thing I didn't like.

So if I see a situation I don't like I try to find a way to influence it before I complain about it.

You CAN influence the state of caches in your area, but not by complaining... instead, become proactive!!

If you don't have a geocaching association in your area, start one! The many free forums software or even a free interactive (Remember it's not a bully pulpit for your opinions!) blog will get you going.

Our AGA (Alabama Geocaching Association) is three years old, has over 1000 members and is the best thing that could have happened to geocaching in Alabama - everyone is trying to please and impress the others, leading to an 'average' cache that's pretty good.

Make your hides good ones, but beyond that attend events and give a 5-minute non-whiny talk about how easy it is to find a good spot, learn something about it and show it to others. You can (and should) do this without even mentioning crappy local hides and your disdain for them.

Instead of running existing caches down, explain how hides can be used to challenge, delight and educate.

Start an awards program, where you mention the really good caches you've found and give out printed "Geocacher Appreciation" awards to the owners at events or in your local forum.

Maybe get a AAA or local guidebook to historical sites in your state, start a series where you invite other hiders to join in, see if you can't get a cache placed at each site in the book! We have a number of cachers here with hides at wooden covered bridges; any series idea will do

Make a presentation to your local Tourist Board or Historical Society and see if they will place caches at their places of interest... give them the containers if you have to.

What's a decent cache cost? $6 for a dry-box (like a plastic waterproof ammo can from WallyWorld), a log and pen, some trinkets? $20.? Host or attend events and give them away as door or game prizes... I give away on average 10 a month like this... when they're hidden I have new caches to hunt and everyone benefits.

When you give them away challenge cachers to hide them in interesting places and ways.

Do whatever it takes to help your community learn what good placement is, help lead the way - then if you still have crappy caches in the area you will have earned the right to complain!

Ed

2.2k · September 4, 2006

trouble is you can't expect the powers that be to be able to do anything about it, it's hard enough to check that the caches are placed within the actual guidelines before they get approved without adding any subjective level of approval.

positive feedback to help educate and develop the placers ability. it will be ignored by some who feel that they can place anything pretty much anywhere but the rest will hopefully try harder next time.

2.7k · September 4, 2006

El Diablo, you should check out the new Bookmark feature. Maybe you can create a few bookmarks. One for your favorite caches and one for your least favorite caches.

September 4, 2006

I share your opinion 100%.

It is not that the cache is a micro, it's the crappy location that ruins the experience. For some, these are great caches, because they get "yet another smiley."

I use a simple rule to hide my caches, "If they were filming a documentary about geocaching, would you want to take the filming crew to the cache. If the answer is no, find a better location."

Our rule for hiding caches is similar - is this place interesting enough that we would take a an out of town visitor to see it? Most dumpsters don't make the cut.

For the finding side, we've taken to only going out to hunt regular size caches and micros that have been recommended by friends. We still download the run of the mill micros to our gps, but only go look for them if they happen to be on our way to a regular cache or we'd be stopping there anyway.

A friend of ours uses a different filter - caches that have been in place at least a year. That tends to filter out quite a few of the caches placed with little thought and/or maintenance. Haven't tried that one yet, but it's a promising idea.

September 4, 2006

Lots of good suggestions in this thread.

I believe the bookmarks are underutilized.

If I'm going through an area and I only have a limited time to look for something I wouldn't mind having some suggestions for the best ones to look for in that time.

September 4, 2006

This thread reminds me why I have 800 caches on my ignore list.

September 4, 2006

i just dont understand micros.

they have no swaps

a tiny logsheet

whe you find them its a sigh, you dont jump for joy because the container is boring and so is the location

there just dumb

i think that there should be a user decided voting system of how good a cache is. like the system they use on www.digg.com

2.1k · September 4, 2006

I don't run into many of that kind of cache in my area (thankfully), but when I have, I make mention of it in my log, and post an SBA...

Jamie - NFA

September 4, 2006

A friend of ours uses a different filter - caches that have been in place at least a year. That tends to filter out quite a few of the caches placed with little thought and/or maintenance. Haven't tried that one yet, but it's a promising idea.

Hey now... I take offense to that! I've only been caching since April and placed 3 hides since then. All of mine have been thoughtful, well designed placements and have the logs to prove it. Not all new cache hiders place carppy hides! I totally agree with the mico behind the supercenter concerns (especially the few like that here) .... I agree so much that I tend the other way in my hides making them hard and devious. Many of the yucky caches in my area have been in place for longer than a year... Do I like them, heck no. Do I log them, yes. Why? Because I live in a small-ish town and there aren't that many out there to find and getting out and about with my hubby on a weekend trumps avoiding a possible bad hide.

I've read the thread before that there should be a rating system in place... and I totally agree. I try to leave constructive feedback, but with the cacher community being so small in this area, I really don't want to allienate folks with more obvious remarks before I've met them. (First picnic in 3 years for our area is in a few weeks).

So, here's for supporting a rating/review system by finders. Please?

2.3k · September 4, 2006

To start off with, this is not a rant against micros; it’s a rant against ill placed caches.

I just got back into caching and I’m limited pretty much to urban caches or those that have a terrain rating of 1.5 or less due to physical problems. The difficulty level doesn’t bother me at all, the higher the better. What does bother me is ill placed caches. Caches placed with little or no thought in a bad area. I’ve found some micros in really cool spots, or if not that, they were very cleverly hidden and I really enjoyed them!

However when I went hunting today and 2 out of 5 caches led me to the rear of a shopping center near the dumpsters, I passed and moved on. I wouldn’t log those caches if it bumped my windshield on the way past.

This sport should have some standards honored by both the cache placers and the reviewers, or actually Groundspeak. We have rules against placing caches in sensitive areas. Even rules deciding what we can put in a cache. However we totally ignore the standards of a cache.

I know this is subjective, but so are the contents allowed. A cache hidden in the rear of a shopping center in a drain pipe near the dumpster is low standard, and this is just one example. It’s also a sensitive area. Let a law enforcement officer catch you messing around back there. Caches like these only degrade the sport/game/hobby.

If anyone out there is offended by this, so be it. If we don’t stop these kinds of caches it’s going to degrade this sport/hobby/game. You can say don’t hunt them if you don’t like them, but you don’t know what you are hunting until you get there.

Pause in rant. flame on!

El Diablo

You can not legislate Good Taste. What one likes another hates. Go to any mall and sit for 20 minutes and watch the people walk by. Look at all the people that got dressed and looked in the mirror and said "DAM I LOOK GOOD!!!!!", in their white leisure suits and lime green shirts. Quality is subjective in a case like this. And just for the record. They are not rules.

Good point! They are guidelines. As I mentioned in my OP it was subjective. My next question would be who has ever recieved permission to place these caches (Including Wal-mart.) in a shopping center? I doubt anyone has. Yet they are approved everyday. Why is that?

I don't mean disrespect. I'm just concerned about the ramifications of caches like these. I think the Reviewers do a great job as pointed out in a previous thread, but I think Groundspeak should take a stance against these types of caches.

El Diablo

So a cache that has permission is a quality cache? well that was easy.

Caches get listed because they meet the guidelines. Quality is subjective. WOW didn't work. How do you suggest we tell someone that the cache they worked very hard on and are VERY proud of, doesn't meet the proposed Quality guideline? To them its the coolest cache in the world. There are people that love Micros, Lamp pole caches, and all types or hides. They have just as much right to see them listed as anyone else.

Edited September 4, 2006 by CO Admin

September 4, 2006

explain how hides can be used to challenge, delight and educate.

Maybe you could start some kind of magazine about caching.

38.2k · September 4, 2006

You can not legislate Good Taste. What one likes another hates. Go to any mall and sit for 20 minutes and watch the people walk by. Look at all the people that got dressed and looked in the mirror and said "DAM I LOOK GOOD!!!!!", in their white leisure suits and lime green shirts.

Actually its not that they think they look good, its that many of these people just don't care how they look. Same with the hiders. They really don't give a clam's patootie as long as they get another hide to their credit and there are always enough grateful numbers hounds to encourage them.

September 4, 2006

I always thought the philosophy of geocaching was it will take you to a place that you didn't know about. I've seen some that the cache was on the stores actuall property. You just don't feel confortable to start poking around everywhere. In my opinion those caches in a non significant place and have really no meaning to them are useless. If you tell them in the beginning that those are not allowed maybe they won't think so highly of their caches and instead think that they broke the guidelines.

September 4, 2006

If there weren't people that log these kinds of caches, there wouldn't be these kinds of caches.

If you find a crappy cache, don't log it! If you need to express your opinion about the cache to the cache owner, send them a polite email. It'll make them wonder why their cache was found by you, but wasn't deemed worthy of a "found it" log. Maybe it'll make them think?

Other than that, we must let people play geocaching how they choose to play it.

2.4k · September 4, 2006

There are people that love Micros, Lamp pole caches, and all types or hides. They have just as much right to see them listed as anyone else.

There was a time when the same could be said about the people who loved Earthcaches, Webcam caches, Virtuals, Locationless........

2.1k · September 4, 2006

There are people that love Micros, Lamp pole caches, and all types or hides. They have just as much right to see them listed as anyone else.

There was a time when the same could be said about the people who loved Earthcaches, Webcam caches, Virtuals, Locationless........

so can TPTB make another offshoot site... lamecaching.com

Jamie - NFA

September 4, 2006

Lame crappy caches are a problem everywhere (Except maybe some of the more rural areas). I for one, prefer a bit of a challenge rather than jst a numbers game. As more and more people become aware of Geocaching, the more crappy caches there will be. It seems, as soon as someone finds their first cache, they want to place there own. A lot of caches turn up in urban areas simply because that's where people live and it's easy for them to maintain. Howver, it is those more remote one that really hold the challenge and the reward for finding them. Maybe, individuals shouldn't be allowed to post their own cache until they have found thirty or so themself. This would mean that only those individuals who have at least shown some form of continued interest get to set up caches for others.

2.4k · September 4, 2006

Maybe, individuals shouldn't be allowed to post their own cache until they have found thirty or so themself. This would mean that only those individuals who have at least shown some form of continued interest get to set up caches for others.

Or those who took five minutes to sit in front of their computer and "find" 30 or so caches......

September 4, 2006

Hmmm,

May be the person who sets a cache should allocate a code word or number to that cache on the internet. (Not visible to anyone).

Then when someone finds the cache, they make a note of the code word or number inside the cache and enter this into the caches webpage when they log their find. The system will only allow them to log the find if the number matches the one on record.

That would stop fraudulent claims of a find.

Are fraudulent claims a real problem? I don't have enough time GeoCaching yet (Just over a year) to decide.

I'm dissapointed.

Recommended Posts