Hiding a cache

9.4k · October 26, 2006

Since this is feature-specific, how about a filter in Pocket Queries that only returns caches hidden by geocachers with more than x finds? At least that way you could decide whether you wish to seek them out.

We are planning to focus a lot more on the placer on cache listings in the future. That way the placer is profiled along with the cache itself.

1.8k · October 26, 2006

Since this is feature-specific, how about a filter in Pocket Queries that only returns caches hidden by geocachers with more than x finds? At least that way you could decide whether you wish to seek them out.

We are planning to focus a lot more on the placer on cache listings in the future. That way the placer is profiled along with the cache itself.

Placer has over/under xxx finds
Placer has over/under xxx hides
Placer's account is at least/less than xxx days/months/years old
Placer has logged into GC.com at least/more than xxx days/months/years ago

Edited October 26, 2006 by The Cheeseheads

5.3k · October 26, 2006

Since this is feature-specific, how about a filter in Pocket Queries that only returns caches hidden by geocachers with more than x finds? At least that way you could decide whether you wish to seek them out.

We are planning to focus a lot more on the placer on cache listings in the future. That way the placer is profiled along with the cache itself.

Placer has over/under xxx finds

Placer has over/under xxx hides

Placer's account is at least/less than xxx days/months/years old

Placer has logged into GC.com at least/more than xxx days/months/years ago

Placer is not on your Ignored Placer List

October 26, 2006

Since this is feature-specific, how about a filter in Pocket Queries that only returns caches hidden by geocachers with more than x finds? At least that way you could decide whether you wish to seek them out.

We are planning to focus a lot more on the placer on cache listings in the future. That way the placer is profiled along with the cache itself.

Placer has over/under xxx finds

Placer has over/under xxx hides

Placer's account is at least/less than xxx days/months/years old

Placer has logged into GC.com at least/more than xxx days/months/years ago

Ya know, I think that this is precisely the type of resoloution we need to be presenting! GC does not itsself have to restrict who can cache (keeps lotso folks happy and membership flourishes) while at the same time ThePropers of the world can focus on filtering what they believe to be suitable caches.

These forums are more than just a place to hang out! We might just be gettin somewhere with this!! :unsure:

October 27, 2006

Figured I'd just toss this in, since it became the initial point of the topic. Albeit the above is an excellent idea... it's still going to do nothing to a cache that's created and abandoned a week later... that being what The Propers was hoping to avoid :unsure:

October 27, 2006

I can definitely say that some kind of caching experience is helpful in emplacing cache hides. The first multi-cache I hid failed into an aborition. However, I have a traditional hide that receives raves on how it was constructed and hidden.

October 27, 2006

I can definitely say that some kind of caching experience is helpful in emplacing cache hides. The first multi-cache I hid failed into an aborition. However, I have a traditional hide that receives raves on how it was constructed and hidden.

Just what did you (not)do which caused your first cache to flop?

October 27, 2006

Since this is feature-specific, how about a filter in Pocket Queries that only returns caches hidden by geocachers with more than x finds? At least that way you could decide whether you wish to seek them out.

We are planning to focus a lot more on the placer on cache listings in the future. That way the placer is profiled along with the cache itself.

Although I'm impressed Jeremy is suggesting this, I'm not a big fan of that proposal, as it's pretty much accepted that none of these criteria determine a caches "worthiness" (for lack of a better term). I started this thread, and I that's not what I was trying to convey (despite what Span 24 thinks) and wouldn't use this.

Although the ability to ignore a user holds a certain intrigue, but I think that's been brought up before.

What I would actually like to see implemented is some kindof feature like this, but there are too many semantics, I suppose

Automatic weekly/monthly job to scour the database for any caches owned by users who haven't logged onto the site for X time (say 6 months).
Automatically post note to cache page asking for response to verify the owner is still around, still interested in geocaching, and still interested in owning/maintaining their cache(s). Maybe email them a simple link to click on that would just verify they are still around.
If no response in X time (say 1 month), put the cache up for adoption (which might mean another reviewer log type).

Everything up to that point could be an automatic process. How to actually find an adopter in the area would require some thought, as well as what should happen if no adopter can be found. I think archiving the cache would be fine, but then someone would have to clean it up. That needs further thought and hashing out obviously.

What is my reasoning for this? Well, it would remove an "abandoned" cache that, in reality, doesn't have an owner, and open up the area for an active cacher. Also, and I'm not sure this is even a problem, if a non-cacher (like a park ranger or something) has a problem with the cache and wants it to be removed and goes through the GC site to either log a note or email the owner, and receives no response because they aren't active anymore (and maybe never even get the mail) it does reflect badly on geocaching. A think a little bit of self-policing is prudent.

EDIT: Perhaps when the "Up for Adoption" log is added, it could send an email to everyone who has requested notifications in the area, in order to get the word out that it's available to be adopted. Just a thought...

Edited October 27, 2006 by ThePropers

October 27, 2006

Although I'm impressed Jeremy is suggesting this, I'm not a big fan of that proposal, as it's pretty much accepted that none of these criteria determine a caches "worthiness" (for lack of a better term). I started this thread, and I that's not what I was trying to convey (despite what Span 24 thinks) and wouldn't use this.

Ya know, if tryin to get under my skin with snippy comments is your goal, you are doing a fine job. This is the second time you have off-handedly suggested that I haven't the capacity to understand you. What I have concluded is that you keep redefining your issue.

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.

So no good cache is ever abandoned? Is it a requirement to prove experience that you are advocating, a better review process, or the ability to filter caches based upon the experience you cited as a "nice thing". While I am confused as to just what you are seeking here, I am not nearly as confused as you...

It would really be more productive dialog if you stuck to what you are looking for with this thread. And before you suggest it, I did go back and read each post. Seems most responders appear to be missing your point as well.

Sorry for the negativity but I am really tired of being criticized publicly for my responses. Directly or indirectly. :unsure:

October 27, 2006

Although I'm impressed Jeremy is suggesting this, I'm not a big fan of that proposal, as it's pretty much accepted that none of these criteria determine a caches "worthiness" (for lack of a better term). I started this thread, and I that's not what I was trying to convey (despite what Span 24 thinks) and wouldn't use this.

Ya know, if tryin to get under my skin with snippy comments is your goal, you are doing a fine job. This is the second time you have off-handedly suggested that I haven't the capacity to understand you. What I have concluded is that you keep redefining your issue.

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.

So no good cache is ever abandoned? Is it a requirement to prove experience that you are advocating, a better review process, or the ability to filter caches based upon the experience you cited as a "nice thing". While I am confused as to just what you are seeking here, I am not nearly as confused as you...

It would really be more productive dialog if you stuck to what you are looking for with this thread. And before you suggest it, I did go back and read each post. Seems most responders appear to be missing your point as well.

Sorry for the negativity but I am really tired of being criticized publicly for my responses. Directly or indirectly.

I believe the point of "discussions" is to "discuss" which may result in a change or refinement of ideas and suggestions, rather than (to use a recent political phrase) "stay the course". If you're that offended by me, choose to add me to your ignore list, as I will be doing to you as soon as I get done typing this as it's obvious you are so offended by my first post that you can't get past it.

As for snippy comments meant to get under the skin:

...while at the same time ThePropers of the world can focus on filtering what they believe to be suitable caches...

Edited October 27, 2006 by ThePropers

October 27, 2006

Perhaps Jeremy can give us some idea as to the percentage of abandoned caches by hiders with fewer than xx finds, or non-premium members, or members with less than x months of membership. I havent really heard that this problem exists anywhere except in ThePropers "head". Certainly the previous posts to this thread were focused primarily on "poor caches", not abandonment...

October 27, 2006

If you're that offended by me, choose to ignore me, as I will be doing to you as soon as I get done typing this as it's obvious you are so offended by my first post that you can't get past it.

This is why I joined the military and fought in the war. God Bless America!

As for snippy comments meant to get under the skin: ...while at the same time ThePropers of the world can focus on filtering what they believe to be suitable caches...

Simply a well phrased reference to your original post, nothing more...

October 28, 2006

If they make it so you can only place a cache if you are a premium member, I WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just dont want to pay 30 bucks a year. I dont geo cache that much.

9.4k · October 28, 2006

If they make it so you can only place a cache if you are a premium member, I WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just dont want to pay 30 bucks a year. I dont geo cache that much.

So your self worth is less than $30 bucks?

Just kidding.

October 28, 2006

If they make it so you can only place a cache if you are a premium member, I WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just dont want to pay 30 bucks a year. I dont geo cache that much.

So your self worth is less than $30 bucks?

Just kidding.

This thread alone has been worth $30 bucks. :laughing:

1.6k · October 28, 2006

Perhaps it would be helpful to remind everyone that Groundspeak operates a Geocache Listing Service. And apart from some 'guidelines' they do not actually have any control over the physical caches that are placed. They can only affect the listings.

This in no way is intended to be a slight on anyone or Groundspeak.

Groundspeak's role is to publish listings that meet the, to some people, arbitrary requirements. They archive the listings that have been shown to be non-operational when enough evidence is brought forward.

They have NO reason to concern themselves with the actual cache itself. That is not their job, they just list them. The local caching community has to determine for itself how they will address the issue of caches that have either 'disappeared', 'are damaged', 'have been abandoned', 'are placed against the guidelines' and numerous other possible issues related to the actual physical site.

Yes, all of these items are a very valid concern especially when it might impact how the activity of Geocaching is perceived by those outsite of the activity. And yes in time many caches will become nothing more than a waterlogged, garbage filled box. When you find one, clean it up if it means a lot to you or post a needs maintenance/archived. Whatever you do, it has nothing to do with Groundspeak.

When it comes to the idea of regulating who can hide a cache, which basically is the OP's item of discussion, it really doesn't matter in the short or long run. What I think you are looking for is a method to determine when a listing should be archived and how to ensure that the physical remains are removed. You won't get that info from Groundspeak, nor should you. Again, they are just a listing service.

Basically if a new Geocacher places a cache that you feel is poor quality, be happy that someone tried. If they do stick around, they will see better examples and update themselves accordingly, maybe even archive their own cache because they see better how to place one. If they leave, eventually the cache they placed will fail. That is when you, as a responsible Geocacher, return to ensure the physical cache component has been removed. Sometimes that feels better than finding a cache.

Personally, and even though I frequently work with Federal, Provincial and local park authorities on effective Geocaching policies for landowners (such as national parks), I don't believe that Groundspeak should be denying listings in any location. That is an issue between the parks and the people that place the physical component of the Geocache. That would be a local caching community issue to be worked out with the group that controls the land in question. In my opinion, Groundspeak is just being polite in respecting the wishes of the groups that request that no caches be places upon their lands. That is commendable on their part as a responsible corporation. Even though I am not a lawyer, it is one thing for Groundspeak to say "We don't want to list this Geocache"... that is fine it's their website they can list whatever they like. But to say "We are not allowed to list this Geocache because it exists on land operated by <whoever>" is technically not accurate in my eyes. If they were aware of a legal reason to not list it, they should advise the person providing the submission, and let them decide if they want to go ahead or not. That is the whole point of the final two boxes that everyone must select to submit a cache description.

I said all of that because ultimately, there is no reason to deny anyone the opportunity to place any cache they like, regardless of capability or experience. Yes we all would like enjoyable caches. In the same way we wish every movie was great, every song was enjoyable and every day was a happy one.

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

October 29, 2006

[*]Automatic weekly/monthly job to scour the database for any caches owned by users who haven't logged onto the site for X time (say 6 months).

[*]Automatically post note to cache page asking for response to verify the owner is still around, still interested in geocaching, and still interested in owning/maintaining their cache(s). Maybe email them a simple link to click on that would just verify they are still around.

[*]If no response in X time (say 1 month), put the cache up for adoption (which might mean another reviewer log type).

I don't like this idea. I think cachers logging "needs maintenance" or SBA works just fine for abandoned caches. Owners can place caches that will easily last for months or years without maintenance. There's no need to automatically adopt caches.

October 30, 2006

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:

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.

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!

I agree with you... granted I am a new member... and I paid for a membership before I even tried to go and look for a cache... I went out and in two days found 9 out of 11 that I tried. I agree that you should have a paid membership to be able to post a cache. I myself have hid a cache. I admit it may be too soon, but in the two days I have gone caching, I have fallen in love.

1.4k · October 30, 2006

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!

Don't know if there's a difference between a negative and a cynical response, but here goes.

Are you trying to impose "quality control" on Geocaching? I think it's already happening, from the tightening of the Guidelines in recent years. I see that the "find count" idea was shot down already, but "timeout period" before hiding a first one also reeks of bureaucracy. In the Groundspeak forums anyhow, any attempt at trying to do "quality control" gets shot down by "play the game we want" or sarcastic "yes, <fill in the blank>" responses, so you'll have to give up on expressing your concerns here. Searching through the forums will show your futility.

The reasonings and explanations of why there shouldn't be any pre-requisites mentioned above are valid, though, IMHO.

A community based solution that's local seems to work: peer pressure, show by examples, constructive criticisms in person, etc. As for those who play the game solo, you'll just have to trust their judgement. If the guidelines are becoming more oppressive, you know it's hopeless.

November 5, 2006

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.

At the risk of "beating a dead horse"...

This is why:

GCZ31D

This is my first cache. I placed it after having been in the hobby only 10 days, being a GC.com member only 1 week, and only having found 4 caches. I guess I just got lucky...

Maybe we all cannot develop terriffic caches like "ThePropers", after reading his bio and reviewing some of his caches he seems to know what he is doing, but putting restrictions on who can place caches may only serve to discourage some of those out there with the ability to create really good ones. That would be unfortunate. Perhaps "ThePropers" just got tired of "weeding through the fluff". I feel for him while at the same time apploading his successes.

I personally am not opposed to requiring membership before caches can be placed. After all, the resources to maintain the listings must be paid for somehow...

November 5, 2006

I did a cache this w/e which really sucked. As a result of this thread I've just looked up the placer's profile and found they joined 2 days before placing, with 2 finds under their belt. Not too scientific, but it speaks volumes.

I think it's good that any geocacher should want to hide caches, but maybe there should be a mechanism to vote out / archive very poor caches.

November 5, 2006

but putting restrictions on who can place caches may only serve to discourage some of those out there with the ability to create really good ones.

Eh, I don't really buy that. If having to wait a month is THAT discouraging that they completely out-and-out quit geocaching... it's a relatively safe bet that they weren't going to stick with it for more than a few months tops regardless. If they actually WANT to keep geocaching... there's nothing that would stop them from creating the cache after 30 days. A month is like... nothing when it comes to the wanted lifespan of a geocache itself. The only vague worry is that someone might take that "spot" in the month that they're waiting... but the odds of that in itself is slim to nil.

And if you're rushing out to quickly stuff a cache into a location as fast as possible before someone else takes the spot... it's another safe bet that a lot more thought could stand to go into it.

Yes, there are exceptions to the above. Don't bother pointing them out, as they've been pointed out a dozen times already. However, for every exception, there's probably several hundred to a thousand non-exceptions. Look at the bigger picture here people, not just the "Well, THIS cache was good, so NYAH!" view.

November 5, 2006

I have not looked at this thread since I last posted. I want to respond tho the question that was asked of me.

When I first started caching, I had some ideas for hides. I made myself wait until I have more finds, and more experience caching before I started hiding. I'm glad I did, as I became more familiar with the guidelines and found out what other cachers consider quality hides, and what they consider sucky hides - by reading here in the forums.

I'm not saying that my hides are all five star caches, but everyone seems to like them. In contrast, some of the ideas I had during my first 2 weeks of geocaching were bad ideas. Things like placing a micro in a post that is across the street from my house-an extremely uninteresting place.

November 5, 2006

I know THAT feeling. When first starting, the want of "wanna make a cache right outside where I live so I can watch people go after it" type of thing. Yeah, glad I waited for that plan to dissipate

Although, I'm still in the process of building my first cache. However, with winter upon us, I may not be able to get it in until spring (you can assume this particular one won't be winter accessible. There's no way to make that particular area winter accessible ). We'll have to see how that goes

November 5, 2006

I know THAT feeling. When first starting, the want of "wanna make a cache right outside where I live so I can watch people go after it" type of thing. Yeah, glad I waited for that plan to dissipate

I get your point. Takes a mighty big person to admit that they had these thoughts. Fortunately I never had those urges. Guess I just knew better from the start...

Oh well, As has been posted earlier, there will likely never be an answer to the problem... Actually I don't think that it has been determined that there was a problem. Again, we have seen no data to substantiate that there is a trend. The evidence seems to show that it really doesn't matter how long you have been a member, or how much experience you have finding, or placing caches.

But I am happy to have the opportunity to go find out for myself!

As Yakov used to say "I love dis country!"

Hiding a cache

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment