Hiding a cache

[+ThePropers]

These questions have been bouncing around in my head for awhile, and I fully suspect that it will garner a negative reaction from everyone, but with the recent...uhm....discussions in a couple of the other forums, I figured I might as well bring it up.

 

Why can anyone hide a cache and have it listed on this site? Why isn't their any regulations? Why can someone with no finds and no experience hide a cache?

 

I really don't get it.

 

The only reason I can think of is that by allowing anyone/everyone to hide caches, then there are more hides, thus making geoaching more popular. If that's correct, then that policy would have made sense 2 or 3 years ago when there weren't a whole lot of caches around and geocaching isn't as popular as it is today. It's not like we really need as many hides as possible now....there are plenty without needing joe-sixpack with 2 finds under his belt being able to hide one.

 

I know this isn't my site or business (and I don't pretend that it is), but why can't a couple of thoughts be considered? This would be my suggestions:

1. A pre-determined amount of finds before you can place a cache. I know this has been discussed before, but I do think it's something that deserves more thought.
   
2. How about having to be a "premium member" to hide a cache? It'd still be free to join GC.com and seek caches, but the privilege/honor of being able to hide a cache would be another benefit of a paid membership. Everyone I know who is even somewhat serious about geocaching is a paid member anyways.
   

Like I said, I assume this will be met with negative reaction. But remember, it's not like we're talking about being able to have a baby here, this is geocaching! There should be some pre-requisites!

Edited October 18, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Cache Heads]

This cache was placed by a guy who had no finds at the time (he now has 1). It's often referred to as one of the best in our area-- I can't wait to finally go after it! I think it would have been a shame if he had not been allowed to place it. Edited October 18, 2006 by Cache Heads

[+ThePropers]

This cache was placed by a guy who had no finds at the time (he now has 1). It's often referred to as one of the best in our area-- I can't wait to finally go after it! I think it would have been a shame if he had not been allowed to place it.

 

With all due respect, I wasn't really looking for examples of decent caches placed by people with low find-counts.

 

I suppose my question/concern was more about why GC.com allows it. It seems to me at least some experience at geocaching would be a nice thing to have as a pre-requisite. That's just my opinion though.

Edited October 18, 2006 by ThePropers

[+tozainamboku]

This cache was placed by a guy who had no finds at the time (he now has 1). It's often referred to as one of the best in our area-- I can't wait to finally go after it! I think it would have been a shame if he had not been allowed to place it.

 

With all due respect, I wasn't really looking for examples of decent caches placed by people with low find-counts.

 

I suppose my question/concern was more about why GC.com allows it. It seems to me at least some experience at geocaching would be a nice thing to have as a pre-requisite. That's just my opinion though.

 

You may have a person who just doesn't like to log their finds online for some reason. You may have a person who just finds the hiding aspect more fun than finding. It may be that the person wants to see if they can fool all the experienced geocachers or maybe just fool the muggles. Some caches are hidden by sock puppets because the cacher may not want people to know who the real hider is. This is sometimes used in particularly tough puzzles. It also may be used when a group of geocachers hides a cache and doesn't want any one particular member of the group to get credit for the hide.

[+ThePropers]

You may have a person who just doesn't like to log their finds online for some reason. You may have a person who just finds the hiding aspect more fun than finding. It may be that the person wants to see if they can fool all the experienced geocachers or maybe just fool the muggles. Some caches are hidden by sock puppets because the cacher may not want people to know who the real hider is. This is sometimes used in particularly tough puzzles. It also may be used when a group of geocachers hides a cache and doesn't want any one particular member of the group to get credit for the hide.

 

All easily overcome with a quick note to a reviewer (except the one about hiding being more fun than finding....I don't think it would be unreasonable for said person to need a pre-determined amount of finds).

[+briansnat]

Why can anyone hide a cache and have it listed on this site? Why isn't their any regulations? Why can someone with no finds and no experience hide a cache?

 

Because having experience is no guarantee that a person will use good judgement in placing their cache. Conversely, not having experience doesn't mean the person can't be familiar with the guidelines and place a quailty cache.

 

The reviewer asks one question, "does the cache conform to the guidelines?" If it does, why should it matter how much experience the cache placer has?

 

I've encontered lousy or irresponsibly placed caches hidden by people with hundreds and thousands of finds. I've also encountered excellent caches placed by people who have no, or few finds.

 

So considering that, could you tell my why the number of finds someone has SHOULD matter when it comes to deciding who can place a cache?

[+Cache Heads]

With all due respect, I wasn't really looking for examples of decent caches placed by people with low find-counts.

 

I suppose my question/concern was more about why GC.com allows it.

I guess I was trying to point out one reason why GC.com might allow it.... newbies can still be great cache hiders. On the other hand, some folks with thousands of finds are still lousy cache hiders. But basically, that's my point.... the amount of finds that one has really has no bearing on their hiding skills, IMO.

[+Renegade Knight]

Put simply,

 

Cache owners are 100% responsible for their cache. They own it, they maintain it, it belongs to them, they are the ones at risk if the bomb squad is called, they are the ones who lose all the swag when people trade out the good stuff for junk or steal the cache.

 

That's why anyone who is willing to take on that responsiblity can become a cache owner. That's actually more involved than becoming a parent.

 

This site lists caches. As a courtesy to land managers and the hobby, and to an extent to make the business of geocaching easier on itself, this website has some guidelines on what caches they will list.

 

The two functions are separate and they need to remain that way for a lot of reasons. If geocaching.com started regulating caches and dictacting placments then they are going to start assuming the responsiblities of the cache owner. That would not be good for geocaching as a whole.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Kabuthunk]

I think perhaps what The Propers is looking for is that geocaching.com somehow comes up with a way to ensure that the hider actually knows what they're doing when it comes to hiding, instead of rolling a micro with a scrap of paper in it under a dumpster and calling it a cache.

 

At that point, geocaching.com has pretty much done that as best they can, with the 'terms and conditions' that a cacher needs to check off before they can do pretty much anything. The ONLY way this could possibly be made more effective is if the terms and conditions had to be seperately gone to, and you had to place a check beside each paragraph indicating that you've read and understand it.

 

And at that point, there's nothing stopping the person from not reading it anyway and just scrolling down and checking them all regardless. I'm thinking geocaching.com has done about as much as is possible for this issue.

 

Also, keep in mind that those with "high find counts" can sometimes get them either by a) lying, or finding all of the microspew that you're trying to make better. A high found count means next to nothing.

[+ThePropers]

Thanks everyone for your feedback, and it was about what I expected and also brought up some good points. Perhaps "number of finds" is a bad pre-requisite and I apologize.

 

I suppose the point or concern I was trying to get across was more about having some experience and/or show some dedication to the sport before being able to place a hide. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of trying to implement a "trial" period where people could try out seeking geocaches in the beginning, and then once they try it, and if they like it, then they can get more involved in the community by actually hiding caches.

 

I guess "number of finds" wouldn't be the best idea to gauge this. Maybe a time period, like 30 or 60 days after opening your account, would be something to consider. That's enough time for the intial excitement to wear off and a person to decide if they're going to enjoy and continue with the sport.

 

Just some thoughts I had in my head, based off of some discussions and things I've witnessed since I've been geocaching. I see there's not much support for anything like this though, but feel better that I brought it up to get it off my chest.

Edited October 18, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Kabuthunk]

Hmm... I could see a time-based thing working.

 

I think I can picture sorta what's going on in your head for the reasoning. Someone hears about geocaching. Giddy because of the 'cool' factor of finding stuff, they wanna make something for someone to hide find (how did I mix THAT up ). They take whatever container they can find at home that's vaguely capable of holding paper, and tape it to the back of the garbage bin behind their house or whatever, so they can watch people come and get it. After a month or so, the giddy wears off, and they really don't like having to go and replace the tape and paper since their crap container is always full of water. They just say 'screw it', since they found some new video game to play, and it's abandoned entirely.

 

So yes, I can DEFINITELY see that happening. I was nearly one of them. I was all excited and stuff, and really wanted to hide something. In thinking about it, I'm glad I had the self-restraint to hold back and wait for a while (still preparing the cache containers/etc for two hides as we speak, several months and over 100 finds later ). When my caches go in, they should be memorable to say the least (seeing as I haven't found any yet with the... umm... style I'll be using).

 

In either case... I could honestly put my support behind the "30 days after registration" wait period before hiding a cache. Sorta like how on message boards sometimes when you need to wait for X amount of time before you can use all the features. If they plan to stay with geocaching, a month is nothing. They should use that time to better prepare their first cache.

 

Edited for typo

Edited October 18, 2006 by Kabuthunk

[+Renegade Knight]

...I suppose the point or concern I was trying to get across was more about having some experience and/or show some dedication to the sport before being able to place a hide. ...

 

A lot of people like that idea in general. Alas I'm not one of them One way or another we have lessons to learn that can only be leanred from hiding caches. Finding them helps, but it also gives you a bias towards what a cache hide is and may take away from a hiders creative idea that would be a stand out cache. If all you see are wally world micros you start to think that maybe this is what caching is and that's just a bad way to learn about this RASH.

[+Kabuthunk]

True, but after a month, there's a significantly greater chance that they will have left Wally World and found some creative, unique caches. Lot better chance after a month than 4 hours of caching before wanting to hide one, anyway

 

It's physically and statistically impossible to 100% ENSURE that someone will have the knowledge or experience to be able to tell the difference between a good cache and a bad cache, but if they're with geocaching for a good month, the odds are significantly greater that they will know the difference between good and bad.

 

And yes, the definition of 'bad' and 'good' is quite subjective, but I think that we can all agree that a cache magneted to the underside of a dumpster or whatever would be bad . At the bare minimum, the "grey zone" between good and bad will be a lot smaller after a month, which I think would greatly improve the geocaching community as a whole.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Kabuthunk

[+Jaz666]

I can think of one big reason why we shouldn't have a set limit of finds before a hide is allowed........

 

There are lots of areas where there are very few caches. If someone new wants to take up the sport, and place their own cache, but happen to live in a sparce area, they might have to travel a long long way before they get the required number of finds.

[+Kabuthunk]

Yeah, The Propers already kinda shut down his own thought on the number of finds. I think it's kinda been switched to a time-based "pre-hiding" period as the idea-du-jour.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Kabuthunk

[GermanSailor]

I really don't get it.

 

 

Never touch a running system!

 

GC works just fine how it is at the moment. Why do you want to make it more complicated by adding a rules? Caches are already reviewed, what more do you want?

 

"I suppose my question/concern was more about why GC.com allows it."

 

EVERYTHING should be allowed, as long as there is not good reason to ban it!

 

Your post sounds a bit patronizing to me.

 

GermanSailor

 

(Placed my first cache in Germany, after I found 20 or so caches in the US. It didn't trigger the Armageddon!)

Edited October 19, 2006 by GermanSailor

[+LDove]

I agree with German. Why make more rules, guidelines and even "waiting periods" for people to get riled up about? If a bad cache is placed, the people who go look for it will let the cache hider know I am sure. I hid my first one only after a few finds, it is still there, one of the best I have done and gets a lot of compliments. Why not set up notifications on your computer for new caches - then when you get the listing - look at the profile and see if that person has enough cache experience to make it worthwhile for you to search or wait it out? Just a suggestion.

[+ThePropers]

Why not set up notifications on your computer for new caches - then when you get the listing - look at the profile and see if that person has enough cache experience to make it worthwhile for you to search or wait it out? Just a suggestion.

 

I feel the need to clarify that this was not a "all inexperienced cachers only hide lousy caches" bashing thread, and I'm sorry if I came off as "patronizing" or with a bad attitude towards newbies, as that was not my intention.

 

It was more about ensuring (or at least attempting to prevent) those caches that are placed out of a kneejerk reaction to reading about geocaching in an article or seeing it on TV and thinking it sounds cool, when in reality the person will hide a cache, find one or two, and then never be heard from again.

 

That is NOT saying that the caches placed in these situations are all lame or the coordinates are off. But what we do end up with is a bunch of caches without an owner, per se. I know these are archived/adopted on a case-by-case basis as they need maintenance or are muggled, but unfortunately, IMHO, they do take away from places where a cache could be hidden by an active geocacher who will do the cache maintenance and actually read the logs and enjoy them. And no, I am not naive enough to think that every active geocacher actually maintains their caches as they should. I guess I would be curious to see a percentage of caches that are owned by people who haven't logged onto the site for 6 months or more.

 

Again, this wasn't a bashing thread, but simply some thoughts I had that would help newbies get acquainted with the sport and decide if they actually like it before being able to hide a cache.

Edited October 19, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Kit Fox]

This cache was placed by a guy who had no finds at the time (he now has 1). It's often referred to as one of the best in our area-- I can't wait to finally go after it! I think it would have been a shame if he had not been allowed to place it.

 

I'm fairly certain the cache placer has a another account. I've found that cache, and what I read on the first page gave me a pretty good idea as to who the cacher really is.

 

Regarding the topic at hand.

 

I've seen several cachers with 0 to 10 finds botch up there first few caches, most correct there mistakes with guidance from more experienced cachers.

 

On the other hand, I've seen cachers with hundreds to thousands of finds, that hide horrible caches, and they don't want anyone to tell them how to play the game.

[+StarBrand]

I know that I wouldn't have been nearly as interested in caching without the ability to run out and hide one. Of course much has changes in the nearly 5 years I have been around but I find that there are 3 general categories of geocachers: Hiders, finders and casual interlopers. It is the 3rd category that tends to bother me but all too hard to identify until they have come and gone.

[+weathernowcast]

I think that they allow newbies to hide caches because the small amount of caches they hide does not significantly detract from the game. Also, you have a choice as to what caches you wish to investigate. If the newbie has only logged in a few caches and you don't want to find something they hid: Don't. There is enough data on the website to determine how experienced the geocacher is. If it is there first hide and you don't want to find it: you can ignore it and move on.

[+Kabuthunk]

Perhaps I should make clearer The Propers' initial statement (as I see it, and the part that I agree with).

 

He's not trying to say that people with few caches shouldn't hide anything. He's not saying that they're going to be bad. He's not saying that the waiting period will make them better OR worse. He's not saying ANY of those things.

 

What he's saying (from what I see) is that a waiting period would nigh-eliminate the problem of someone creating a cache, but then never geocaching again after two weeks. He's attempting to stop caches from being abandoned very shortly after being created. If someone's been caching for a month, it's significantly more likely that they will KEEP geocaching than someone who's geocached for three days.

 

This theory would be to keep caches from being abandoned. That's it. It's been "proven" time and again by everyone in this topic that the caches won't be either better or worse from this, so there's no point in bringing that up any more. It's about caches being abandoned days after being created.

[+Ambrosia]

They should make people take tests and classes before they are allowed to have children, but they don't. And that's a lot more important than geocaching.

[+ThePropers]

They should make people take tests and classes before they are allowed to have children, but they don't. And that's a lot more important than geocaching.

I said something to that effect in my first post. And OT, some people I know were denied being able to adopt a dog because they didn't meet the qualifications. So obviously the ability to take care of a dog is more important and requires more qualifications than the ability to take care of a child.

 

Back On-topic, Kabuthunk seems to get what I was saying, so thanks.

[+Super_Nate]

This cache was placed by a guy who had no finds at the time (he now has 1). It's often referred to as one of the best in our area-- I can't wait to finally go after it! I think it would have been a shame if he had not been allowed to place it.

 

I'm fairly certain the cache placer has a another account. I've found that cache, and what I read on the first page gave me a pretty good idea as to who the cacher really is.

 

Even if that guy has another account, I still see a growing trend that caches hid by newbies are some of the best you will ever come across. I can rattle off several in my area of someone who has found less than 100 caches and can whip up caches that you will never forget.

 

Sorry, that had nothing to do with the topic at hand....the thought crossed my mind and it wasn't worth starting a whole new thread over it.

[+Span 24]

They should make people take tests and classes before they are allowed to have children, but they don't. And that's a lot more important than geocaching.

 

Amen!

 

Back to the topic:

 

Perhaps ThePropers can share with us the data which shows that unless you have more than xx finds, are a Premium Member, or have been a regular visitor to the GC website for xx days then you automatically develope and place sub-par caches. As a noob (yea I spell it that way) I would prefer to judge the caches for myself and not restrict their placement with some form of arbitrary system. If you only want to find the really good caches then only search for your own!

 

I have less than a dozen finds, have been a premium member of GC for only 2 weeks, purchased my SECOND GPSr only last week and will be placing my first cache this weekend in memory of a local P.O. who lost his life in the line of duty. I have contacted the director of the cemetery, the local P.D. where he worked, and gotten, permission, ftf items and such, all in preparation of laying down a really good mulit-cache. I have to tell you that I am very confident that my first cache will be far better than some here who have dozens.

 

If anything perhaps the review system should be reworked. I can say for certain that I have learned that "in plain sight" means different things to each of us, and that "a grave-marker" is open to interpretation. So instead of worrying about how long one has been interested in the hobby perhaps we should be more concerned that each and every cache is developed, placed, and maintained in a manner consistent with established guidelines. Hey, don't they do that now?

 

In the end I believe that the diversity which comes with letting whosoever-will place caches is far better than restriction. Perhaps someday when some yo-yo offs his local FTFHound with a boobied cache we will have to license all cachers.

 

Until then, Cache-on!

Edited October 24, 2006 by Span 24

[+LDove]

Propers, you seem to have something on your head lately, feeling ok? Edited October 24, 2006 by lonesumdove

[+Ambrosia]

They should make people take tests and classes before they are allowed to have children, but they don't. And that's a lot more important than geocaching.

I said something to that effect in my first post. And OT, some people I know were denied being able to adopt a dog because they didn't meet the qualifications. So obviously the ability to take care of a dog is more important and requires more qualifications than the ability to take care of a child.

 

Back On-topic, Kabuthunk seems to get what I was saying, so thanks.

You're right.

[+ThePropers]

Perhaps ThePropers can share with us the data which shows that unless you have more than xx finds, are a Premium Member, or have been a regular visitor to the GC website for xx days then you automatically develope and place sub-par caches.

 

Obviously you have either misunderstood what I have said numerous times and Kabuthunk has reiterated more eloquently than I did in my OP, or you just didn't read the entire thread. In any case, maybe you could go back an reread the earlier posts so you realize that I was saying nothing of the sort.

 

Propers, you seem to have something on your head lately, feeling ok?

 

Why yes. A bit of headache though....a splitting headache actually. My thanksgiving avatar will be a little less bloody. Maybe.

Edited October 24, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Span 24]

Obviously you have either misunderstood what I have said numerous times and Kabuthunk has reiterated more eloquently than I did in my OP, or you just didn't read the entire thread. In any case, maybe you could go back an reread the earlier posts so you realize that I was saying nothing of the sort.

Actually, I think I got it quite correctly. You stated in your original post that you thought it would bring some controversy. It did... That alone tells me that you knew that it was a volotile issue and that you might be steppin on some toes. Based upon the responses most readers appear to have been well aware that what you were suggesting was that you had somehow determined that those new to the hobby were/could be causing problems. Though you did not actually state that readers were able to draw the inference that you are somehow dissatisfied with "newbs". As a newb I was compelled to offer my opinion, interpretations, and suggestions.

NEWBS; ppl with fewer than xxx finds, ppl with only xx days of geocaching experience, however you choose to define the term its still an inexperienced GeoCacher to which you were referring. I did not need to reread what you posted as my knowledge of the above was reflected in my original response.

 

Kabuthunk did not understand you any better than anyone else, he merely offered a more appropriate definition of a newb.

 

I will however, refresh our memory of your original post...

 

Why can anyone hide a cache and have it listed on this site? Why isn't their any regulations? Why can someone with no finds and no experience hide a cache?

I think it's clearer now...

[+ThePropers]

Obviously you have either misunderstood what I have said numerous times and Kabuthunk has reiterated more eloquently than I did in my OP, or you just didn't read the entire thread. In any case, maybe you could go back an reread the earlier posts so you realize that I was saying nothing of the sort.

Actually, I think I got it quite correctly. You stated in your original post that you thought it would bring some controversy. It did... That alone tells me that you knew that it was a volotile issue and that you might be steppin on some toes. Based upon the responses most readers appear to have been well aware that what you were suggesting was that you had somehow determined that those new to the hobby were/could be causing problems. Though you did not actually state that readers were able to draw the inference that you are somehow dissatisfied with "newbs". As a newb I was compelled to offer my opinion, interpretations, and suggestions.

NEWBS; ppl with fewer than xxx finds, ppl with only xx days of geocaching experience, however you choose to define the term its still an inexperienced GeoCacher to which you were referring. I did not need to reread what you posted as my knowledge of the above was reflected in my original response.

 

Kabuthunk did not understand you any better than anyone else, he merely offered a more appropriate definition of a newb.

 

I will however, refresh our memory of your original post...

 

Why can anyone hide a cache and have it listed on this site? Why isn't their any regulations? Why can someone with no finds and no experience hide a cache?

I think it's clearer now...

 

Apology accepted

 

Seriously though, I did try to clarify what I was trying to say in post #10 and #18. I admit my OP didn't really convey what I was trying to say and came off in a "holier than thou" way, which I didn't intend. If you still are stuck on that first post rather than the rest of the discussion and feel that I was ripping on newbs/noobs/newbies/noobies or even newsies, then I guess I don't know what else to say.

Edited October 25, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Span 24]

Seriously though, I did try to clarify what I was trying to say in post #10 and #18. I admit my OP didn't really convey what I was trying to say and came off in a "holier than thou" way, which I didn't intend. If you still are stuck on that first post rather than the rest of the discussion and feel that I was ripping on newbs/noobs/newbies/noobies or even newsies, then I guess I don't know what else to say.

 

Apology Accepted...

 

Now about that review process...

[+weathernowcast]

They should make people take tests and classes before they are allowed to have children, but they don't. And that's a lot more important than geocaching.

I said something to that effect in my first post. And OT, some people I know were denied being able to adopt a dog because they didn't meet the qualifications. So obviously the ability to take care of a dog is more important and requires more qualifications than the ability to take care of a child.

 

Back On-topic, Kabuthunk seems to get what I was saying, so thanks.

 

So we have reached a consensus and are in full agreement

[+weathernowcast]

Thanks for cliarifying the points above. I missed that originally. Personally, I find it helpful if the person that places the cache shows some interest in their cache by placing notes on-line about there cache. Like "I inspected my cache today." This shows that the cache is active. Perhaps, a date stamp could be added to the cache to indicate if the owner actually views his caches online--this indicating activity. Also, what happens to my cache's when I die? I am sure they will get a lot of negative posts (maybe for years) after I can not step out of the grave to maintain them. I have noticed a lot of commeradory amongst the geocachers with the most longevity for people taking over expired geocacher's caches.

[+ThePropers]

Thanks for cliarifying the points above. I missed that originally. Personally, I find it helpful if the person that places the cache shows some interest in their cache by placing notes on-line about there cache. Like "I inspected my cache today." This shows that the cache is active. Perhaps, a date stamp could be added to the cache to indicate if the owner actually views his caches online--this indicating activity. Also, what happens to my cache's when I die? I am sure they will get a lot of negative posts (maybe for years) after I can not step out of the grave to maintain them. I have noticed a lot of commeradory amongst the geocachers with the most longevity for people taking over expired geocacher's caches.

 

We've had a few cases around here where people have left the game, been incapacitated, or are no longer able to maintain their caches, and the community generally steps up and adopts/archives/cleans up these caches.

 

Of course, that is in my area. Your mileage may vary, but I think you'll find that's pretty typical.

 

I kindof like that "last active timestamp" thing. About the only gauge we have right now of the last time a person was active is by viewing their cache finds (which doesn't mean they aren't active or just not logging caches). As far as I know, I can't even find any notes/logs a person has entered, unless it is actually a "found it" log.

 

I've also always been curious if, in the event the person is no longer active, if their email address is still valid. For instance, how do we even know if when we log a cache, or send the person an email, that it's not being bounced back as undeliverable?

 

Perhaps some in-the-know could clarify how that works, or if any steps are taken in the event a user's email account is no longer valid? My guess is that it's ignored until one of their caches needs maintenance, and then the normal steps are taken (reviewer note on the page...etc).

Edited October 25, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Cache Heads]

About the only gauge we have right now of the last time a person was active is by viewing their cache finds (which doesn't mean they aren't active or just not logging caches).

The main page of a user's profile does show the date of their "Last Visit".... that's what I usually check to see how active a hider has been.

[+ThePropers]

About the only gauge we have right now of the last time a person was active is by viewing their cache finds (which doesn't mean they aren't active or just not logging caches).

The main page of a user's profile does show the date of their "Last Visit".... that's what I usually check to see how active a hider has been.

 

Hey, I never even noticed that! Apparently my eyes just skip over that line everytime. Now that I've learned something today, can I go home?

 

Ok, I feel sufficiently stupid now. Thanks.

Edited October 25, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Cache Heads]

Hey, I never even noticed that! Apparently my eyes just skip over that line everytime. Now that I've learned something today, can I go home?

 

Ok, I feel sufficiently stupid now. Thanks.

Don't worry... I'm sure it won't be long before I give you a nice opportunity to return the favor

[+Okiebryan]

I've been reading this with some interest over the last few days.

 

When I started Geocaching, I lurked a lot in the forums, since I am the type of person who seeks to learn as much as possible about a subject before I get too involved. I did the same thing before buying my fifth wheel camper-I read every thread I could that seemed remotely relevant on RV.net.... OT: which is, btw, how I found out about geocaching.

 

Anyway, the point is that I decided to place a self-imposed waiting period before hiding a cache. I wanted my caches to be good ones, as judged by the standards I saw people applying here in the forums, as well as by good examples of what I saw in the field. The quality of my hides would have suffered had I rushed right out to place a cache, like I initially wanted to do, when I started caching.

 

Personally, I agree that there should be a period of time of finding before one is allowed to register a hide. That's my opinion.

[+Span 24]

The quality of my hides would have suffered had I rushed right out to place a cache, like I initially wanted to do, when I started caching.

How so? What mistakes do you feel you avoided by waiting? How would your caches have suffered?

 

There may be a few out there who, thanks to nature, would have problems placing caches. But surely most of those mistakes are what made up the "rules" posted on the GC site and are supposed to be used when reviewing new hides. Sorry, but this aint rocket science and really just about anyone with the ability read the rules and a GPSr can, with a little consideration, successfully place an acceptable cache.

 

I would just like to read some examples of newbie mistakes, other than those already outlined in this thread, specifically, dumping a cache without properly archiving it.

 

Perhaps my lack of knowledge and experience in this area is the answer to my question. Still, this is the perfect forum to find out, dontcha think?

Edited October 25, 2006 by Span 24

[+QuesterMark]

 

Hey, I never even noticed that! Apparently my eyes just skip over that line everytime. Now that I've learned something today, can I go home?

 

Ok, I feel sufficiently stupid now. Thanks.

 

Last visit doesn't mean they're paying attention! One of the people that picked up one of my TBs on it's first ever journey and then NEVER placed it back still logs in occasionally. He doesn't, apparently, check email....

 

But I digress.

[+cimawr]

 

GC works just fine how it is at the moment. Why do you want to make it more complicated by adding a rules? Caches are already reviewed, what more do you want?

 

 

Not to mention that if you see a REAL problem with a cache - such as it being placed without permission in an area that genuinely requires it, being more dangerous than the cache page indicates, etc. - you can always either privately contact the reviewer or post a public log with your concerns.

[+cimawr]

 

But surely most of those mistakes are what made up the "rules" posted on the GC site and are supposed to be used when reviewing new hides.

 

Yes, but... the problem with that is that the reviewers only know what the hiders tell them. For example, I recently went out on a new cache hide in a park, and found that there's an unfenced - and invisible from the path! - active railroad track right behind the hide area.

The hider, when I questioned him, stated that he "believes" the cache placement "just barely makes" the distance requirement for placement near active train tracks. However, I'm betting that he never even mentioned the train tracks to the reviewer.

He also hadn't noticed that there was barbed wire and huge amounts of jagged broken glass all through the woods around his hiding site... which could be a MAJOR problem for someone caching with dogs or kids, or wearing sandals in the summertime. This is a small suburban park with paths, not a woodland hide; he hid a micro in a tree right next to the path, and didn't think to look behind and around the tree, where people looking for the cache would actually go.

 

Which, btw, leads to an answer to your question about "what mistakes do people make" - a BIG one, IMO, is hiders not taking GPS bounce into account, and examining the area for 50-100 feet AROUND their cool hiding spot to see where people looking for the cache may go, and what they may run into.

Edited October 26, 2006 by cimawr

[+cimawr]

I have to tell you that I am very confident that my first cache will be far better than some here who have dozens.

 

 

Which brings to mind the fact that, at least in my area, some of the lamest caches are placed by a several high-stats, long-time members. They have some hides which are cool, but they also seem to sometimes rush out and put up caches just because they can; IOW, it seems as if part of their "competitiveness" WRT high numbers of caches FOUND also extends to caches PLACED.

And we have another local cacher who's been involved for a couple of years, has a decent number of finds, but more than half of his cache hides are problematic; too close to private homes (resulting in cops being called because cachers are percieved as prowlers), behind a grocery store where the hiding spot is frequent buried under pallets of trash which are too large for some cachers to move, buried in pine needles in landscaping in an area riddled with rat holes and drug parapharnalia, etc.

 

I'm still surprised that the grocery store one got published, since he stated on the web page that seekers might have to "move something temporary", and I would have thought the reviewer would have questioned that. Sorry, but pallets stacked higher than my head ain't something I should be expected to move to find a cache, IMO.

[+Span 24]

For example... /edited for content/

 

Which, btw, leads to an answer to your question about "what mistakes do people make" - a BIG one, IMO, is hiders not taking GPS bounce into account, and examining the area for 50-100 feet AROUND their cool hiding spot to see where people looking for the cache may go, and what they may run into.

All very good examples of mistakes and/or poor judgement calls, which I believe supports a great arguement for changing the review process as I stated earlier. Were these particular issues found to be the result of inexperience, or just plain-ole stupidity? As an aircraft mechanic for a number of years and I can tell you that it doesnt matter how much experience one has, some people are just not very good at being smart! "Stuck on stupid" is what we like to say here in the Midwest.

 

buried in pine needles in landscaping in an area riddled with rat holes and drug parapharnalia, etc.

Hey! You need to come to Indiana before you end up a storyline for a CSI episode! Over 1200 caches within 50 miles!

 

Newbie mistakes, or stupidity?

Edited October 26, 2006 by Span 24

[+The Cheeseheads]

I think ThePropers need a do-over button to restate the OP. I've never been in favor of a minimum number of finds restriction before you can hide a cache, pretty much for the reasons that others have offered. There's a lot of fine caches out there placed by n00bs and a lot of carp placed by experienced cachers.

 

I could get behind a 30-day "waiting period" for new accounts, however. The cacher may still only find a half-dozen WalMart LPCs in that month, and their hides after those 30 days may still suck. At least it proved that they have the attention span to stick with geocaching through the first month and it will hopefully make it more likely that they aren't going to stick a key container behind a guardrail somewhere and abandon it after a week.

 

Here's a corollary: If new cachers sign up for accounts and see that they have to wait for 30 days before they can place a new cache, will that decrease the number of new, active accounts? Will the next great cache hider sign up for an account, see that they have to wait to hide the high-quality cache they had in mind, and say "that sucks" and never sign into their account again?

[+Ed & Julie]

Caching expeirence does not guarantee quality hides.

 

I have two high-numbers caches in my local area who have flooded the area will lame, non-inspired, oft-muggled micros (over 200 between the two of them).

[+Span 24]

There's a lot of fine caches out there placed by n00bs and a lot of carp placed by experienced cachers.

Now we are gettin somewhere! But isn't placing a carp in a cache covered by the review process?

 

This must be strictly an old-timer experiment when they get bored. Never see any self-respecting n00b placing a fish in a box for others to find!

 

Sushi!!

 

The cacher may still only find a half-dozen WalMart LPCs in that month, and their hides after those 30 days may still suck.

OK, OK, n00b moment here: what the blazes is a "WalMart LPC"??

 

TFTI! (thats n00bspeak for "Thanx For The Info")

[+cimawr]

 

Hey! You need to come to Indiana before you end up a storyline for a CSI episode! Over 1200 caches within 50 miles!

 

Heh. That one, I walked away from; I wasn't sticking my hand into the ground cover where I could see rat holes all over the place, and my lurcher (I cache with my dogs, even in urban areas) was telling me Mr. Rat was at home.

I was new to the game at the time, and so didn't log my visit - not being sure of how to handle it - but the hider archived it not long after, due to quite a few complaints/comments in the logs.

 

Newbie mistakes, or stupidity?

 

Well, again - he can't be called a newbie, because he's been caching for several years (although his counts are still under 100 IIRC). And I don't think he's STUPID .... maybe unobservant?

[+cimawr]

 

OK, OK, n00b moment here: what the blazes is a "WalMart LPC"??

 

 

Lamp Pole Cache. Or haven't you found one of those yet? If not, the first time you see one, you think it's cool, but by the second or third you'll be rolling your eyes and groaning.