I'm dissapointed.

[+rtbiv]

I am really new to this and I agree as well and that is why I stick to caches far away from the city and most towns that is why I passed on a few (except for small towns they still seem to have quality caches). However since I live in the sticks its easy.

 

Can we use our cache logging power to post that a cache is crappy? How about getting Groundspeak to allow us cachers to rate/vote on a cache's level of quality?

 

This way every cache will have a quality rating and we can determine by the rating wether we want to do a cache. I beleive a system like this will improve the overall quality of caches out there as no one will want to be know having a crappy cache.

 

What does everyone think about that idea?

[+cachew nut]

I've never met a cache I didn't like. Okay, maybe one or two, but nothing to complain about. If someone hides one by a dumpster, how can I complain, if there wasn't one there before? That's as silly as complaining about a micro in a spot where an ammo can would have fit. If it was such a good spot for an ammo can, why didn't you hide one there first instead of complaining that all of the good spots are taken?

 

We have a geocacher in our area who loves to complain about micros, even tried unsuccessfully to get them banned on many occasions. He complains about how many micros there are while at the same time boasting about how many "normal" caches are nearby. However, since he caches so rarely, he could never find all or even most of the "nice" ones, even if he tried. I guess he would rather complain about micros.

 

We have another geocacher who lives away from the city, but never has a nice thing to say about the urban caches. His logs reflect his distaste for these caches, but he comes to look for them anyway. We read the logs and laugh to ourselves. Some people just like to complain.

 

I realize that finding a cache in a trashy area may be more of a challenge for the less experienced, but with today's mapping and filtering tools, you can pretty much weed those out. But to complain about one you didn't even bother to go look for? Puhleez! Try finding a few caches instead of complaining, you might just enjoy yourself once in a while.

Edited September 4, 2006 by cachew nut

[+Team GPSaxophone]

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.

What about people that share the code number with their friends?

[+Wile E. Dragonfly]

We have tracking/code numbers on TBs... people could share, but they don't share alot (I don't think). I like the idea of a code in the log book of a cache. Was it Collin Powell who said, trust but verify.?

 

And, I have also thought that there should be a rule amount the number of finds a person has before being allowed to place a cache. Some say 30, I think a higher number, like 75 or 100 would be a good idea. Two reasons for this: 1) hopefully better caches placed 2) cache hiders will prove that they are truely addicted to the game and not in the honeymoon phase... so there won't be caches placed and not maintaned by newbies who left the game after a few months.

 

And, as a realitive newbie myself, I should point out that some of the worst caches I've ever found have been placed by 2 different individuals that are on the top 50 list for most cache finds. So, while the longer term higer volume cachers may be old hands at this, I still don't always like their caches...

Edited September 4, 2006 by Wile E. Dragonfly

[Mushtang]

Crappy caches? Boo-HOO! If you find one of my caches and decide that it's so crappy that it should have never been approved, then I say why don't you go hide a "good" cache instead of crying about it in the forums?

 

Pretty soon you'll have hidden so many "good" caches that the cachers in your area will all try to keep up with your quality and you'll have plenty of "good" ones to find.

 

But then what happens when a cache that you think is "good" is looked down upon by someone else? What if you HATE the micro behind a dumpster that I just hid and you wish I'd hidden an ammo can in the woods instead? Well, I say that there are quite a few people that would quickly get tired of walking off the trail of a park, finding a lump of pinestraw beside a fallen tree, and having their ankles covered with chiggar bites just because someone somewhere was decided that those were the "good" kind.

 

Someday you might find a thread on here complaining of the kinds of "lame" caches that you put out.

 

Just put out the caches you enjoy, and let everyone else do the same, instead of trying to tell others that your way is the best way.

 

Besides, none of MY caches are lame. You MUST be talking about someone else.

[+Kabuthunk]

And, I have also thought that there should be a rule amount the number of finds a person has before being allowed to place a cache. Some say 30, I think a higher number, like 75 or 100 would be a good idea. Two reasons for this: 1) hopefully better caches placed 2) cache hiders will prove that they are truely addicted to the game and not in the honeymoon phase... so there won't be caches placed and not maintaned by newbies who left the game after a few months.

YES! There must be no such thing as casual geocachers. You're either hardcore to no end, or get the $#%@ out! That makes PERFECT sense. Say someone's interested in geocaching, and knows of an excellent, not-well-known part of wherever that's just beautiful, etc, etc. Before they can share this with others, they MUST submit a large portion of their time to geocaching, and have said finds be verified and scrutinized! They must pass... the INITIATION... before they can be allowed into the cult hobby!

 

Yyyyeah, I'll have to disagree with your thoughts on that one. If someone knows of an excellent place... let them place it! Maybe someone takes joy in watching how many people find THEIR cache, but don't specifically enjoy going out themselves and hunting for them.

[+JohnnyVegas]

As I have said in the past, the reason you we see so much micro spew is because they are cheap to hide, you can a film can for free, then stick a strip of paper in for a log-then you have a cache that cost nothing to put together. These are placed by cachers that are to cheap tp spend more than 5 cents on a cache. THere are micros that show some imagination in the way they are camouflaged, but these are not the norm.

 

But there are also large caches that are very bad. Last spring I was looking for a large cache in stockton Ca. that is suppose to be a tribute to our troops. The coordinates took me and my caching partner to an urban trash dump, we did not even bother with this trash cache, I post my DNF with my comments regarding the poor placement of a cache that is suppose to be dedicated to our troops. THe hidder is an eagle scout and was offened by my comments, not that I really care about his feelings, He even had his daddy send my an e-mail.

 

Yesturday I came accros a cache behind a McDonalds that was also in a trash heap, but this trash heap looked like it might have also been a crime scene, there were even several live shotgun shells on the ground, so we must called the local LEOs to take of the area and did not bother with the cache. Maybe they will find it and toss it. I really do not care what happens to it, it is a trash cache.

[+SierraFive]

All kinds of caches have a place and cachers will undobtedly complete the ones that appeal to them and leave the ones that don't (As has been evidenced in the posts above). However, there are clearly some caches that are better than others. Some have had a lot of thought go into the hiding place, puzzles, clues etc. Others like that have been thrown under the nearest bush and the co-ords logged. Some valid points have been made that what appeals to one person may not another, however, i'm firmly of the quality not quantity brigade. What constitutes quality is of course a seperate matter.

 

Ultimate, I want to do a cache, that of I took a friend along who had never been before, would be impressed with the activity and the challenge. Dumpster trucks and the such like, just wont do that.

[+Wile E. Dragonfly]

 

YES! There must be no such thing as casual geocachers. You're either hardcore to no end, or get the $#%@ out! That makes PERFECT sense. Say someone's interested in geocaching, and knows of an excellent, not-well-known part of wherever that's just beautiful, etc, etc. Before they can share this with others, they MUST submit a large portion of their time to geocaching, and have said finds be verified and scrutinized! They must pass... the INITIATION... before they can be allowed into the cult hobby!

 

 

The reason I said that is that there is a nearby lake with several caches placed by someone with 9 finds who hasn't found a cache since 2002 and who last visited the gc page in Dec. 2003. Maybe they'll come back, maybe not... but in the mean time, the cache that I found was leaking, wet, and stuff was molding. It had been noted in the logs previously, but the owner didn't fix it. The local reviewer temporarily disabled it (after my needs archived posting) but the owner still hasn't repaired it, and it's been over a month at this point... and they own a couple other caches with similar problems. That's what I am referring to, not that one needs to be addicted to our cult but that a hider should be active in maintaning their caches and not contributing to geotrash.

 

That's all I meant, didn't mean to unduly offend anyone...

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

Wow! Double Wow! The lame micro defense team must all be out caching this labor day weekend. This has to be one of the most unanimous "crappy cache threads" I've ever seen

 

So the post I'm quoting above. Nice small picnic areas known only to employees of the center. I'm sure it's nice for the employees, seing as it was provided by their employer, and of course is private property. There's a better chance I'll be struck by lightning as I'm typing this that the cache was placed there with permission.

Edited September 4, 2006 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+robert]

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........

None of those are actually caches though... but that's a different thread.

 

[Sadie]

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

 

I suppose you would also tell the artist of this picture that it doesn't deserve to be shown in public?

 

 

I am shocked. Absolutley shocked.

[namiboy]

can i add a noobie perspective?

i have just an etrex legend, i'm not a premium member although i recently bought a pda and have google earth downloaded. i have out of my 9 finds two that were lampposts. i think a lot of caches sound pretty lame when i look thru an area that i might be going to, or am going to. the way to search on geocaching.com is so good that it's very easy to pick the ones you might want to go find. i like some micros, but not if they are so easy. i think the point of the OP was that lame caches are harming the hobby and i have to agree. i don't care about 'how many smileys' i care about was it fun or interesting to make a find. as a noobie, and with the personality i have/had before i even started geocaching, i simply cannot understand the lure of logging a lot of finds. who are you impressing? and why do you feel the need to impress? maybe this is all flying way over my head. i bought a gpsr because i go mountain biking and my wife was worried, later i found out i could use it for geocaching and i thought it would be a fun thing to do with my daughter. i do worry that the hobby could become way diluted with the lamppost or dumpster thing. that's just my opinion. if many people ignored them would they go away? it seems to me, and again, i know i'm a noob, but this hobby is getting away from what it was originally intended to be...

[Clan Riffster]

I am shocked. Absolutley shocked.

Oh my heavens! Someone is suggesting being honest to children! How can we possibly breed the next generation of (insert mindless political party of your choice here) if we actually tell the truth to our kids? We don't want to hurt their self esteem, do we?

 

Ok, snarky comment mode has been temporarily disabled.

 

Like Ed, I prefer education to legislation. As IV Dude pointed out, any guideline Groundspeak created could be circumvented. Teach the newcomers what constitutes a good cache vs a lame one, and some will take those lessons to heart. Certainly it's a subjective process, but that's no reason why an experienced cacher shouldn't share his reasoning. Some mentioned the "news crew" rule above. I prefer a slight alteration; When I create a cache, I ask myself, "If you brought a muggle here, would the experience cause them to become a cacher?"

 

Why is it no one has started a "Ammo cans hidden near scenic locations really stink" thread? Hmmm... Must ponder that one a while.

[+BlueDeuce]

I suppose you would also tell the artist of this picture that it doesn't deserve to be shown in public?

 

Not at all. But we happen to be discussing lame cache locations.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I agree with Blue Duece. The topic is lame micro caches, not childrens art. But I like the picture better than that stuff Picaso use to put out. At least with the childrens art you can tell what it is.

[+TrailGators]

There are small percentage of people that can't walk a mile to do a nice two terrain in a park, so the urbans give these people something to find. However the sheer volume of these caches has mushroomed far beyond the percentage of cachers that can't walk a mile. It is a bit scary to me to witness the obsessive compulsive behavior over the numbers these days. The conversations while caching have gotten downright boring because that's all some people seem to talk about. I'm not a psychologist, but it amazes me, how many people seem to be prone to this behavior. So what is the root cause? I think the system rewards this behavior by posting everyone's smiley count. I guess some people feel better about themselves if they have found 1000 more Altoid's tins under a lamp post cover than someone else. I bet that if Groundspeak took away the smiley count that this this behavior would fade away. I also think the cache quality would increase because the majority of people would start caching for the sheer enjoyment of visiting cool and exciting new places like it used to be.

 

Groundspeak should at least give us the option to hide our smiley counts. So the next time somebody asks me how many caches I have found I could honestly say that I don't care and I have no idea!

[+Trucker Lee]

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

 

THanks ED, well thought out, well stated! Good suggestions

[+Klatch]

I bet that if Groundspeak took away the smiley count that this this behavior would fade away.

And those cachers would also fade away along with their revenue stream. Groundspeak won't let that happen.

[+cachew nut]

Groundspeak should at least give us the option to hide our smiley counts. So the next time somebody asks me how many caches I have found I could honestly say that I don't care and I have no idea!

 

It already exists. You can copy your logs to an offline database and delete your finds. You can also change all of your finds to notes. Either option will get rid of your find count, and many have already used those options to keep their numbers private.

[Mr.Yuck]

I agree with Blue Duece. The topic is lame micro caches, not childrens art.

 

Yeah, but would you rather hear the weak old "who are you to judge what is lame" argument for the 1,000,000,000th time, or see a fine piece of artwork?

[+cachew nut]

 

I love it. Especially the cute redhead in the doorway!

[+TrailGators]

Groundspeak should at least give us the option to hide our smiley counts. So the next time somebody asks me how many caches I have found I could honestly say that I don't care and I have no idea!

 

It already exists. You can copy your logs to an offline database and delete your finds. You can also change all of your finds to notes. Either option will get rid of your find count, and many have already used those options to keep their numbers private.

That would be way too difficult for most people to do. If people can't put their caches on to a Palm how do you expect them to load their caches into a offline database? Plus who's going to go back and edit hundreds of caches to turn them into notes? Plus there is nothing wrong with logging a find. A simple checkbox would be a lot easier. Plus you missed my point, if most people started hiding their find counts, it would make a community statement, and the quality of caches would improve because it wouldn't be about quantity anymore.

[+TrailGators]

I bet that if Groundspeak took away the smiley count that this this behavior would fade away.

And those cachers would also fade away along with their revenue stream. Groundspeak won't let that happen.

What percentage do you think would quit? Would more quit than the number of people that are quitting because they think most caches are lame? If the quality of caches got better that would be good for business as well.

[+cachew nut]

Groundspeak should at least give us the option to hide our smiley counts. So the next time somebody asks me how many caches I have found I could honestly say that I don't care and I have no idea!

 

It already exists. You can copy your logs to an offline database and delete your finds. You can also change all of your finds to notes. Either option will get rid of your find count, and many have already used those options to keep their numbers private.

That would be way too difficult for most people to do. If people can't put their caches on to a Palm how do you expect them to load their caches into a offline database? Plus who's going to go back and edit hundreds of caches to turn them into notes? Plus there is nothing wrong with logging a find. A simple checkbox would be a lot easier. Plus you missed my point, if most people started hiding their find counts, it would make a community statement, and the quality of caches would improve because it wouldn't be about quantity anymore.

 

I looked at your find count, it's very impressive. Although mine is not as high as yours, I'm still proud of it. I've been striving to reach a one cache per day average, and I think I may have reached that just last week. I guess I'll know the next time I run my Cachestats program. I think those that really want to hide their counts have already taken steps to do so, and some even have regrets. I don't think that the whole game should change for everyone else because hiding your find count is too hard to do. We all know how the game is played going in. I think it's already changed considerably from it's roots, but that's probably a good subject for a completely separate thread.

 

I also don't think that hiding your stats will make the quality of caches any better. I believe a bad cache has more to do with experience of the hider than anybody's find count. I think it's just an eagerness to hide a cache, without a lot of foresight. A person who places bad caches will probably still place them whether your find count is visible, or not.

[+TrailGators]

..... I think it's already changed considerably from it's roots, but that's probably a good subject for a completely separate thread.

 

I also don't think that hiding your stats will make the quality of caches any better. I believe a bad cache has more to do with experience of the hider than anybody's find count. I think it's just an eagerness to hide a cache, without a lot of foresight. A person who places bad caches will probably still place them whether your find count is visible, or not.

 

I know for a fact that the game was better when I first started! Most caches I found back then were decent caches. There were new cachers back then too but they didn't hide the crappy caches. So the newbie excuse doesn't fly for me. Newbies hide caches that imitate what they find. Nowadays the newbies think the numbers caches are what people want so they hide them.

[Abigail]

I live out in a rural area where most caches are scenic and take time. I had to laugh when I found my first lamp skirt cache about 50 miles away. So, this is what all the fuss is about? Out here in the boonies a park n grab can be a nice thing. Since that first one, I've found 2 more. I have to admit they are boring. The only exciting thing about it was watching the kids race to the pole.

 

I have to confess a caching buddy and I hid one last night at Walmart. We have some great micros in our area (a nut and bolt which is mine, acorn, pinecone, etc.). Why not have a chessy one? I figure we can provide a little something for everyone.

 

Abigail

[+TrailGators]

I live out in a rural area where most caches are scenic and take time. I had to laugh when I found my first lamp skirt cache about 50 miles away. So, this is what all the fuss is about? Out here in the boonies a park n grab can be a nice thing. Since that first one, I've found 2 more. I have to admit they are boring. The only exciting thing about it was watching the kids race to the pole.

 

I have to confess a caching buddy and I hid one last night at Walmart. We have some great micros in our area (a nut and bolt which is mine, acorn, pinecone, etc.). Why not have a chessy one? I figure we can provide a little something for everyone.

 

Abigail

 

I love doing the ones in the country! Anyhow, as the cache density increases the cache quality decreases and there are always some exceptions.

[+webscouter.]

It never ceases to amaze me that everytime this discussion comes up folks defend poor cache placement with the "unable to walk" argument. I can't quite believe that if a cacher looses their ability to walk long distances they suddenly develop an interest in parking lots and dumpsters instead of pocket parks and roadside views. I have done many interesting caches that were less than 100 feet from a parking spot that offered a great view or interesting historical lesson. These caches have always interested me more than the third lightpole in a shopping center parking lot or dead end barricade on an old access road. I hardly think that if I lost my ability to walk long distances that this would change.

 

For those who say just skip the cache I say, I will keep looking for the caches because of the occasional cacher who has the right idea and takes me 50 feet from the side of the road to see a one of a kind remaining bridge, a great nighttime view of a city, a hidden grave of a pioneer child or the site of the first shot fired in the civil war. To those cachers I say thank you and I will continue to seek out your caches.

 

For those caches I will continue to endure the abandoned parking lots, back alleys and piles of trash. To those cachers I say please try to do better.

[+CYBret]

I like LaP's point about "legislating good taste." I don't know much about good taste, but I really enjoy caches that are placed with some thought.

 

Thats one of the reasons I wrote the "Elements of Style in Geocaching" article.

 

Thanks for the topic, El D.

 

Bret

[+TrailGators]

I like LaP's point about "legislating good taste." I don't know much about good taste, but I really enjoy caches that are placed with some thought.

 

Thats one of the reasons I wrote the "Elements of Style in Geocaching" article.

 

Thanks for the topic, El D.

 

Bret

 

Excellent article Bret! I wish all newbies would get that article emailed to them when they sign up!

[+ChaseOnTheGo]

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.

 

Like the travelbug system....

[+briansnat]

It never ceases to amaze me that everytime this discussion comes up folks defend poor cache placement with the "unable to walk" argument. I can't quite believe that if a cacher looses their ability to walk long distances they suddenly develop an interest in parking lots and dumpsters instead of pocket parks and roadside views. I have done many interesting caches that were less than 100 feet from a parking spot that offered a great view or interesting historical lesson. These caches have always interested me more than the third lightpole in a shopping center parking lot or dead end barricade on an old access road. I hardly think that if I lost my ability to walk long distances that this would change.

 

BINGO! There are many places, even in urban areas, that that can make interesting spots for caches. All it takes is a little thought to place a good cache. Not every cache needs to be an awe inspiring experience, but do they have to make you say "what's the point?", or even worse, "ewwwww".

Edited September 5, 2006 by briansnat

[+TrailGators]

It never ceases to amaze me that everytime this discussion comes up folks defend poor cache placement with the "unable to walk" argument. I can't quite believe that if a cacher looses their ability to walk long distances they suddenly develop an interest in parking lots and dumpsters instead of pocket parks and roadside views. I have done many interesting caches that were less than 100 feet from a parking spot that offered a great view or interesting historical lesson. These caches have always interested me more than the third lightpole in a shopping center parking lot or dead end barricade on an old access road. I hardly think that if I lost my ability to walk long distances that this would change.

 

BINGO! There are many places, even in urban areas, that that can make interesting spots for caches. All it takes is a little thought to place a good cache. Not every cache needs to be an awe inspiring experience, but do they have to make you say "what's the point?", or even worse, "ewwwww".

 

In our area, Dan-oh is the king of great urban caches. He latest creation is called Behind the Walmart.

[+Kit Fox]

Are you tired of looking for uninspired, just because, or lame caches? Do like me, and Lead By Example. Show the new cachers what great caches are all about. Do the right thing, and reward cache owners, who hide great caches with Best of the Best bookmarks

 

Warn cachers of "Asking for trouble caches," while your at it.

 

Be sure to take the time and write nice, online logs for the caches that you enjoyed most.

 

GC55F

GCH7GY

GC2CE4

[+tozainamboku]

There are small percentage of people that can't walk a mile to do a nice two terrain in a park, so the urbans give these people something to find. However the sheer volume of these caches has mushroomed far beyond the percentage of cachers that can't walk a mile. It is a bit scary to me to witness the obsessive compulsive behavior over the numbers these days. The conversations while caching have gotten downright boring because that's all some people seem to talk about. I'm not a psychologist, but it amazes me, how many people seem to be prone to this behavior. So what is the root cause? I think the system rewards this behavior by posting everyone's smiley count. I guess some people feel better about themselves if they have found 1000 more Altoid's tins under a lamp post cover than someone else. I bet that if Groundspeak took away the smiley count that this this behavior would fade away. I also think the cache quality would increase because the majority of people would start caching for the sheer enjoyment of visiting cool and exciting new places like it used to be.

 

Groundspeak should at least give us the option to hide our smiley counts. So the next time somebody asks me how many caches I have found I could honestly say that I don't care and I have no idea!

 

Ok. Cacher A's motivation is to find as many caches as possible. The so-called lame urban hides are the favorites of this cacher because they can be found quickly and there is no need to stand around admiring the scenery behind the strip mall. Cacher B's motivation is to visit interesting places that they didn't know about. They like caches in near an historic location or where there is a scenic view. Cacher C's motivation is to have a cache to find on a hike that they were going to take anyway. Cacher D's motivation is to be challenged by a clever hide or camouflage. So we understand that TrailGators isn't cacher A. Rather than criticizing Cacher A or the caches he hides, lets look at ways to identify caches that Cacher A enjoys and similarly for Cachers B, C and D. I know TrailGators has proposed a rating system in other threads. The proble with that rating system is that it assumes everyone likes the same kind of caches as TrailGators. Instead why not rate cache on several different criteria. For example - Cache is a quick park and grab, Cache is in a scenic or historic locations, Cache requires a hike or other physical challenge, Cache is challenging due to cammo or hiding technique.

[+Jhwk]

But you still aren't addressing the root of the problem - why the lame locations?

 

Part has been covered (easy to put out)

 

But I think a more insidious reason is this whole "give back to the community" line that folks foist on the noobs, or semi-noobs.

 

"I see you have 132 caches and ONLY one hide - you need to quit taking and give some back to the community."

 

So now you have thousands of new cachers running around your towns trying to find "cool or unique" spots. Well, depending upon your local, and the cacher density - most of the cool or unique places are gone. The cacher feels pushed to "give Back", so they do, any where they can. that why I have 300 finds and 4 caches (One real, two adopted, one is a rehide in a cursed location) Cool is hard to come by, so I'll just wait until I find one, then I'll THINK about placing one.

 

stop the madness...

 

and bring back

des palourdes mortes, or DPM. Just don't tell the noobs what it means

[+Hula Bum]

I'm not sure what is worse, a lame micro next to a dumpster or a lame micro placed 30 minutes back on a dirt road in the middle of a national forest. Got to experience both this weekend and I think it's a toss up. Don't get me wrong, we did several micros this weekend that were really cool, just not these. I agree that they are no good for geocaching, but being that I don't think Groundspeak will start a microcaching.com site and split them off, what, if anything can be done? (yes, that's an actual question) I would gladly do something if I thought it would help. Not logging them, logging them but making my distaste very clear? have the dog pee on them? Suggestions?

[+Quest Master]

I suppose you would also tell the artist of this picture that it doesn't deserve to be shown in public?

 

 

I would. This picture is suitable for the refrigerator of a proud parent but I don't think that it should displayed in public. Would the curator of an art museum be responsible if he exercised no standards and put everything and anything up on the wall just because somebody asked him to? Moreover would he be responsible if somebody gave him a big stack of this "art" expecting for all of it to be put on display?

 

Thus we have the geocachers gallery where art isn't appreciated but people come anyways to say that they saw this art and that art so that they can get a smiley and increment their precious find count. It's very fortunate that this particular gallery has no standards because that means more "art" for everyone to enjoy. If you don't like it, you don't have to look, right?

 

I'm disappointed too. This game is on a downward spiral and the laziest common denominator is destined to rule by the sheer numbers of crummy caches they hide.

 

I think that the stats should go away and that there should be limits on the number of caches that any one person can hide. These are non-subjective solutions to a subjective problem that could reverse this trend. It's a shame that this website will probably do nothing and dismiss this whole thread as a "tempest in a teapot".

 

This game sure has changed a lot since I started playing. I often wish that we could burn the whole mess and start over.

[+eagletrek]

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.

 

Check and double check!!! Completely concur with El Diablo and Moore9KSUcats. A great example of a well placed cache in a superb location was "Inside Out." Too bad you had to archive it.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Would the curator of an art museum be responsible if he exercised no standards and put everything and anything up on the wall just because somebody asked him to? Moreover would he be responsible if somebody gave him a big stack of this "art" expecting for all of it to be put on display?

 

This game sure has changed a lot since I started playing. I often wish that we could burn the whole mess and start over.

 

I agree. The nature of the game has changed a lot. Not a lot for the better IMO.

 

The problem of lame caches (not only micros) is a difficult one. "Standards" are difficult to define and even more difficult to enforce. I know it has been discussed ad nauseum and is unlikely to ever be implemented, but the best thing to do would be to implement a voluntary one vote per cacher annonymous rating system- each cacher that logs a find could vote yea or nay and the tabulation would appear on the cache description, bulk listing, and in PQs.

 

This would not be of much help for newer caches because it would take several finds b4 the rating would be meaningful. Also, the owner would be able to tell who rated it by noting how the rating changed with each log. Perhaps the rating should only be displayed every 10 finds.

 

Perhaps premium members could even set up an (optional of course) automatic ignore list for those caches that are low rated.

 

Perhaps owners that get a lot of low ratings would take the hint and dump them and hide better quality. Perhaps not.

 

One thing is certain, as we continue on the course we are now travelling, it will be harder and harder to justify our obsession with finding these silly boxes- even to ourselves- unless it really is "only about the numbers".

[+JimmyEv]

But you still aren't addressing the root of the problem - why the lame locations?

 

Lets say you live in a Suburban area. The handful of parks are saturated. The one museum in the area has a cache in front of it. What's left? Shopping centers. I've taken to putting out micros while bicycling, if I see an interesting spot. And maybe if I just feel like taking a break. In the city, this isn't a problem. Around my house, well, there's really not anything but shopping centers, office complexes, and little playgrounds. Guess that's what happens when your town didn't exist 15 years ago. And since people are most likely to maintain a cache close to their home, that's where it goes.

[+wsgaskins]

And, I have also thought that there should be a rule amount the number of finds a person has before being allowed to place a cache. Some say 30, I think a higher number, like 75 or 100 would be a good idea. Two reasons for this: 1) hopefully better caches placed 2) cache hiders will prove that they are truely addicted to the game and not in the honeymoon phase... so there won't be caches placed and not maintaned by newbies who left the game after a few months.

 

Yes, but that would have prevented this cache from getting approved:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0a-b679d907071b

 

You can always argue that new cachers may enjoy the placing of caches more than the hiding of caches. I know a few in my area that love puzzle caches. If a high limit were required before allowing placement, then they would probably just say - "stick it!" - and get on with their lives. But fortunately there is not a limit, and there are some really excellent puzzle caches in this area as a result.

 

If a cacher leaves the sport, but they did make a fairly good hide, ADOPT IT! If you are unsuccessful at contacting the person through their profile, you can always appeal to your local reviewer to move ownership over for you. Then you have the privledge of maintaining a good, well placed hide. And if the hide is terrible, and the cacher is no longer in the sport, just get the reviewer to archive the thing and go collect the remains and recycle it into one that fits your higher standards. The ncgeocachers.org group maintains a 'Cache Rescue Mission' list that shows older archived caches that logs indicate may still be hidden in their original locations. As a group, we go collect these and often recycle them into new ones. Best ammo can is a 'free' ammo can that already contains trade items!

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

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.

 

Wow! Double Wow! The lame micro defense team must all be out caching this labor day weekend. This has to be one of the most unanimous "crappy cache threads" I've ever seen

 

So the post I'm quoting above. Nice small picnic areas known only to employees of the center. I'm sure it's nice for the employees, seing as it was provided by their employer, and of course is private property. There's a better chance I'll be struck by lightning as I'm typing this that the cache was placed there with permission.

 

Shopping centers are private property open to the public. I doubt that any of the caches hidden in the parking lots out front were placed with permission. None of these picnic areas out back had no tresspassing signs or signs saying for employees only. They were as open to the public as the rest of the shopping center. So what's your problem? Your complaint doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand.

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

tozainamboku said:

Ok. Cacher A's motivation is to find as many caches as possible. The so-called lame urban hides are the favorites of this cacher because they can be found quickly and there is no need to stand around admiring the scenery behind the strip mall. Cacher B's motivation is to visit interesting places that they didn't know about. They like caches in near an historic location or where there is a scenic view. Cacher C's motivation is to have a cache to find on a hike that they were going to take anyway. Cacher D's motivation is to be challenged by a clever hide or camouflage. So we understand that TrailGators isn't cacher A. Rather than criticizing Cacher A or the caches he hides, lets look at ways to identify caches that Cacher A enjoys and similarly for Cachers B, C and D. I know TrailGators has proposed a rating system in other threads. The proble with that rating system is that it assumes everyone likes the same kind of caches as TrailGators. Instead why not rate cache on several different criteria. For example - Cache is a quick park and grab, Cache is in a scenic or historic locations, Cache requires a hike or other physical challenge, Cache is challenging due to cammo or hiding technique.

 

What you are asking for are attributes rated on some scale such as 0 and 1, 0 meaning this attribute doesn't exist for this cache, and 1 meaning the attribute does exist for this cache. So Cacher A will look for caches with a PnG of 1, Cacher B will look for caches with Interesting Place of 1, Cacher C looks for Hikes 1, and Cacher D looks for Camouflaged 1. Jeremy & Co. probably would do something like this if enough cachers asked for it.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Backwards Charlie from Austin

[Clan Riffster]

It never ceases to amaze me that everytime this discussion comes up folks defend poor cache placement with the "unable to walk" argument. I can't quite believe that if a cacher looses their ability to walk long distances they suddenly develop an interest in parking lots and dumpsters instead of pocket parks and roadside views.

Very well said. I'm one of those "unable to walk" mentioned above. My knee is blown out, and everyday walking is a minor pain. As the distance of the walk increases, so does the pain level. After about three miles, my joints are grinding together like a drawer full of knives in an earthquake. If my injury degenerates to the point that I can only hobble to Wally World light poles, I'll slap a TB tag on my 60CSx and let it go. I'm sure I can find something to keep me amused besides lame micros.

 

I believe a lame micro is typically the result of a lame imagination. Is there really a cure for this? Can any new guidelines or logging regulations somehow keep folks from hiding a film canister in the bushes of Burger King? Personally I don't believe it. Will restricting the number of hides a person owns solve the problem? I don't think so. I know several cachers with high hide counts, and all of their caches are imaginative and fun.

 

If I had to pick one new regulation to impose upon my fellow cachers, it would probably be the one earlier restricting folks ability to hide until they meet some sort of criteria. It's certainly true that the lamest caches I've found were all hidden by folks with a low find count. If I'm a noob, and all I've found were lamp post hide-a-keys, film canisters and a few Gladware containers shoved unceremoniously under some hedges, I might honestly believe that these types of hides are what Geocaching is all about. My hides would be reflected in those finds. Could an unscrupulous cacher find a way around such a restriction? Sure, but that's no reason to dismiss it out of hand.

 

Even this is no guaranteed cure, but at least it offers some hope in reducing lame hides. Those noobs who create amazing puzzles and brilliant hides can still do so, they'd just need to be patient. Maybe the local school board could give them some Ritalin? Those noobs for whom caching is but a passing fancy would be weeded out before they had the chance to spew film canisters across the land. Speaking strictly for myself, this rule would've prevented my first two hides, both of which could easily be considered lame.

 

I still feel the best method is education. Local geocaching organizations focusing on certain predetermined standards, then embracing the noobs and teaching them those same values, will have unprecedented results, and surely couldn't hurt.

[+webscouter.]

But you still aren't addressing the root of the problem - why the lame locations?

 

Lets say you live in a Suburban area. The handful of parks are saturated. The one museum in the area has a cache in front of it. What's left? Shopping centers. I've taken to putting out micros while bicycling, if I see an interesting spot. And maybe if I just feel like taking a break. In the city, this isn't a problem. Around my house, well, there's really not anything but shopping centers, office complexes, and little playgrounds. Guess that's what happens when your town didn't exist 15 years ago. And since people are most likely to maintain a cache close to their home, that's where it goes.

 

I'm not attacking you so please don't take this post that way.

 

I am asking this question because you have stated that you place cache in shopping centers etc unless I read your post wrong.

 

So my question is why do you feel you have to place a cache? Is it so bad to not cover every possible location? If your town only has 15 interesting locations then only place 15 caches.

[Clan Riffster]

why do you feel you have to place a cache?

GeoTourette Syndrome?

"Oh my God! There's a bush with no cache in it! Kwick! Somebody hand me a film canister!"

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Here's my perspective:

 

Geocaching = baseball?

 

The total batting average for all players in 2005 was .264. The home run percentage (home runs hit/at bats) for all players in 2005 was .030.

 

Lets equate at bats with placing a cache, a hit as an above average cache and a home run as an outstanding cache. That means a little over 26 out of 100 caches would be above average and only 30 out of every 1000 would be really outstanding.

 

In my experience caching does not have the same numbers as baseball- it's a bit better.

 

While it would be great to have all caches be home runs (or even just hits), the simple fact of the matter is that it is not a reasonable expectation.

 

As far as historically speaking: yes, the game has changed. Older caches were not really any better than newer ones tho. I think that perception is looking at things thru rose colored glasses, a common occurrence when looking backwards. There are just a lot more caches now and of course that means there are a lot more ordinary caches too.

 

 

Note: baseball stats are from here.

[+Confucius' Cat]

As far as historically speaking: yes, the game has changed. Older caches were not really any better than newer ones tho. I think that perception is looking at things thru rose colored glasses, a common occurrence when looking backwards. There are just a lot more caches now and of course that means there are a lot more ordinary caches too.

 

Reckon I'll buy that. The problem is how to filter out the ones you (personally) don't want without wading through the mess.