Jump to content

Is never hiding fair?


SidAndBob

Recommended Posts

After reading the 'Hiding a cache' thread it seemed just as important to me that all members have a responsibility to hide as well as find. I try to keep a 25:1 ratio, but I think at least a 100:1 ratio should be enforced.

If hiding is giving and finding is taking, then surely it's not right to only take.

Placing a cache might also help these "non-hiders" to appreciate the effort the rest of us spend when making a hide.

Link to comment

Keep in mind that if everyone is "forced" to hide a cache, then you'll be getting a LOT of medeocre, or just plain bad, caches being created so that a person can "get the hide out of the way so they can go back to finding".

 

Also keep in mind that some places are nigh-saturated with caches as is.

 

And finally... some people don't want the added responsability of looking after a hide. Don't force this onto them, or they will just... not bother, then not only will you have a medeocre or bad hide, but it'll be an unkept medeocre or bad hide.

Link to comment

Hello,

 

I think you should hide a cache when:

 

you have time to maintain it

you know a "cool" location which you want to show others

you have a "cool" idea for you cache

 

I don't think we need more of the Wal-Mart-Lamp-Post-Keyholder caches, so just to get the "hidden caches" numbers up. Some people do pretty ridiculous things just to push their found it stats, we don't need that with hidden caches.

 

In my opinion it's not about the quantity it's about the quality. A cool cache hidden on a trail which requires me to hike for an hour to get it, while seeing some wildlife or historical places is much better than most of the urban drive by ones. But that's just my opinion, other might just like the park-and-grab caches.

 

To put it in a nutshell: You are not forced to hide, because you found. It's far better to spend the money for nice trade items than to blow it on a cache if you don't really have an idea und just feel obligend to place one.

 

Just my €0.02

 

GermanSailor

Link to comment

I'd like to think that ALL Geocachers had a little more integrity than that, but you may be right.

Everybody should have at least a couple of good caches in their repetoire. I know I couldn't wait to share some of the cool places I know and I get a great deal of satisfaction when others enjoy those place. Fortunately I have some great hiders in my area, but there's scope for loads more.

 

I was forgeting the high saturation thing as it certainly isn't a problem in my neck of the woods. I was caching 40 miles from home yesterday and there were 10 caches within a 10 mile radius :D That's in a beautiful area too.

Link to comment

Like most things in life, this is complicated. In cache rich areas there are too many lame caches hidden just because someone felt that they had to "give back" to the RASH. Those kind of "guilt trip" caches aren't really needed. There are more than enough caches in the urban areas in the USA. In the rural areas of the US there may be very low cache density and in those areas cachers should be encouraged to hide caches. I can't speak to other parts of the world since I have only cached in the UK and Canada and the latter was only one cache several years ago.

 

Some people like to suggest a ratio like the OP did. That kind of thinking does not take into account the variablily of cache density around the world. No one ratio will work for all areas. I currently have 1200 finds and a total of fourteen hides listed, but only eight or so are active. One will be re-enabled very soon. Others were archived. I do not feel a need to hide any more right now. I don't have any interesting locations that I want to bring people to. Yes, I could hide one at a nearby Wal-Mart, but I won't. My last hide was placed because a cache had been in that park and had been archived. I felt the part deserved a cache and so I put one there. It is a well hidden off leash area for dogs as well as an interesting area to visit. I could put another one there, but why? The one I have there does the job. There will be an urban trail opening up soon in my area and I will likely place a cache or two there to let people know about the walking trail.

 

As others have said, it is about quality not quantity. But in some areas with few caches it may well be about quantity. The more caches, the more cachers and the more hides for someone to find. In that case we have to hope for quality.

Link to comment

After reading the 'Hiding a cache' thread it seemed just as important to me that all members have a responsibility to hide as well as find. I try to keep a 25:1 ratio, but I think at least a 100:1 ratio should be enforced.

 

My math skills aren't up to the task, but I think it would be interesting to have the mathematical progression that idea implies worked out, just to see how many caches would result.

 

If hiding is giving and finding is taking, then surely it's not right to only take.

 

I'd vary your premise just a bit. Something along the lines of "If hiding is giving then finding is receiving".

 

Placing a cache might also help these "non-hiders" to appreciate the effort the rest of us spend when making a hide.

 

I've got 70-something find now and have not yet hidden a cache. I still don't know if I'm going to. I have some materials lined up just in case, but that's the easy part.

 

Anyhow, speaking as a non-hider, I assure you that I do appreciate the effort involved in placing them. I'm sure sure most other finders share my sentiments.

Edited by VeryLost
Link to comment

As this is not a website feature, bug or policy related thread, I am moving the topic over to the General Geocaching Topics forum.

Hi Keystone,

I created this in the web site forum because I believe that a hide to find ratio should be enforced by the web site.

 

So you want me to hide a cache because of how many cache I've found. hmmm.

 

You don't care what caches you look for do you?

Link to comment

Hi Keystone,

I created this in the web site forum because I believe that a hide to find ratio should be enforced by the web site.

 

Some of us believe there should be a suggestion of so many finds BEFORE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HIDE. Neither idea seems to be popular so I guess we'll both be disappointed in our requests.

 

GC is a listing service. The fewer requirements, the better for all.

Link to comment

 

If hiding is giving and finding is taking, then surely it's not right to only take.

 

I guess I missed the thread this idea came from, because I don't understand how finding is taking unless the cache is worse off than before you found it. ('you' being any finder, not you personally SidAndBob)

After you've found a cache and area should in theory be as good as it was before, and you've now added your own little adventure visit to the story of the cache. Plus the area has received yet another admiring visitor who hopefully appreciates that park or trail more than they used to :D.

Link to comment

If you live in an area with very low cache density, then by all means put together some hides and encourage those around you to do so, as well. But if you're like me, in an area with many cachers and an abundance of hides, then I have no problem with my very few hides as compared to finds. There are those around here who truly love to place caches and have the ability to maintain their large number of hides. Good for them, but that's just not me.

 

I have a few caches out, and I'm kicking around ideas for a few more, but am in no hurry. (After all, the local Wal-Mart already has two lampost micros. :D )

Link to comment

If hiding is giving and finding is taking, then surely it's not right to only take.

Just realized something about this line. Even if this statement is completely true... you can only "take" a given cache once (generally speaking). If you "give" a cache however, if it's a good cache, it can be "taken" by others thousands of times, and generally will never stop being taken until it's archived.

 

Hence, a 25-1 ratio, or 100-1 ratio would be horribly off to begin with, given a cache can be found thousands of times easily.

Link to comment

Ow! Ow! Yes, I found two of the three caches hidden by the cacher with three hides and one find. Chinese food containers do not last well, especially under the twenty pound rock. Or, yes, I enjoyed the three micros in guard rails along Rte 17. A very pleasant view(?)

Some people prefer hiding to finding. Some people should not attempt to hide caches.

Please do not force the first to find more caches to improve his ratio. And Please, please, do not ever force anyone to hide a cache.

Link to comment

OOOH, I'm guilty as charged.

 

I've logged about 140 caches, but have not hidden one yet.

 

I have collected several containers, logbooks etc for a future cache though. And, have seriously thought about placing caches that require a kayak or snorkeling gear to access.

 

However, I just don't feel ready to place one yet. I see sooooooo many comments about LAME CACHES, that I don't want to add to the problem. And, some of the posts are VERY unforgiving about this. I'm not sure I want to go to the trouble just to get the aggrivation.

 

On the other hand, I have seen a lot of very clever caches that I have enjoyed. Virtually all of these were placed by people with 100s or 1000s of caches under their belts.

 

Maybe what would be helpful would be to join a local group that hides caches?

 

But, do we NEED more caches in a cash dense area?

Edited by michigansnorkeler
Link to comment

Agree with all the folks that are against forced hides, for all the same reasons.

 

And I would add that there are people who cannot maintain hides in a particular area. One caching couple that comes to mind are retired and spend ALL of their time traveling from place to place in an RV. They don't stay in the same place long enough to hide a cache, but they did manage to pick up one of my classes TBs from an event in Virginia and take it all the way to Alaska --stopping along the way to have it visit very nice caches that would help it meet the goal of visiting a lot of different biomes--and they sent a packet of brochures about various parks the TB had visited to me for my classes to use as well.

 

I have a few hides out. I am not a gifted cache hider, like some folks around me. If I feel inspired or find a neat space, I do put something out. You probably would not want to find something that I put out because I "had" to meet my quota!

Link to comment

oh my goodness no.

 

There are hiders,

 

There are finders.

 

 

They are not often the same people. Although I would like to see more caches, I would NOT like to see more carpy caches. Many (most) people just don't have what it takes to hide good caches.

 

People should hide caches because they enjoy it, because they found a great spot for one, because others have commended them on their past hides.

 

People should definitely not hide caches because of any requirement.

 

 

I don't think the premise of this thread is correct. "hiding is giving, finding is taking"

 

I would alter the premise. "hiding is giving, quality finding is giving."

 

Instead of more caches, we need more *good* finders. People who trade up or leave quality items. People who write great logs. People who actually hide the caches when they are finished.

 

If you want to "give" then practice quality finding.

 

Leave the hiding to people who enjoy it, and are good at it.

 

:D

Link to comment

To back up what Neos2 said, I'm a graduate student and will likely be hopping around for the next few years. When I place a cache, I'll want it to be one that will be around for a while, not one that I'll have to abandon in a year.

 

I've had some ideas about placing a cache at my family's house in the Chicago suburbs, but after reading comments in the forums about "house caches", I decided against it.

Link to comment

I currently have a 11.2 to 1 ratio (953 finds and 85 hides) I don't want anyone telling me I need to hide more caches, until (A) I'm ready to, (B) I can afford to stock it with nice SWAG, ©I have time to research the perfect location, and (D) I have time to maintain one more cache.

 

Making forced requirements will lead to a huge increase in Micro Spew.

 

If your area is lacking in caches, place a large cache container, filled with "seed caches." Specify that cachers must place one of the seed caches within X numbers of miles of the large cache, before they can receive a "found it" on your cache.

 

Try this, and see how it works.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

As this is not a website feature, bug or policy related thread, I am moving the topic over to the General Geocaching Topics forum.

Hi Keystone,

I created this in the web site forum because I believe that a hide to find ratio should be enforced by the web site.

 

Wrong dead wrong. A hide to to find ratio should not be enforced by the Web Site.

 

Hiding a quality cache is an art unto itself, it doesn't matter if you have found 1 or a 100 some of us are hiders. And that is my contribution to the sport. Hides = 19.77% Finds = 80.23%

 

If others don't want to hide then that is their choice, let them look, and look and look. Eventually they will take the long walk to those caches in the back country.

Edited by Tahosa and Sons
Link to comment

I absolutely love to hide caches.

I put a lot of work into finding a great spot and then trying to match the hide to that spot.

This wasn't always the case. Some of my first hides were less than stellar.

Looking back it seems apparent that I was in too much of a hurry to "give back" for all the fun I was having.

I don't think that my hides are all that spectacular but they seem to be enjoyed by those who find them.

If you want to give back for finding one of my hides just write more than "TNLNSL"

In the long run we will all be happier.

Link to comment

Looking back it seems apparent that I was in too much of a hurry to "give back" for all the fun I was having.

I would venture that a lot of us have fallen into that trap

 

Looking back on my hides, I see several that were just plain junk.

 

In my newby days I just had to place a cache. I even complained that another couple of cachers with hundreds of hides had taken up all the good locations (I should have instead been profusely THANKING them for showing me so many cool places in my immediate area that i had no idea existed).

 

As I got a little more experience I was able to find unique places on my own. I have found a LOT of places that the "mega cachers" did not get yet. I even found 3 covered bridges that the Winningham Boys hadn't cached! (How is THAT possible?) :D

 

I have 9 active (soon to be 10) and 10 archived, of which I could certainly say 3 were "hurry-ups".

 

I have somewhere around 400 finds. Sorry, I don't meet the "new guidelines". Guess I should pull them all and get another hobby. -NOT! :D (my favourite smiley)

Link to comment

I currently have a 11.2 to 1 ratio (953 finds and 85 hides) I don't want anyone telling me I need to hide more caches, until (A) I'm ready to, (:D I can afford to stock it with nice SWAG, ©I have time to research the perfect location, and (D) I have time to maintain one more cache.

Well said. We like to stock our caches with lots of swag, and it takes some time to get worked up to it and not go over budget.

 

Also, there is no real relationship between hides and finds. I don't need to hide anything to make up for my finds, because I haven't removed or devalued anything in the process (I hope). I will find if I feel like it, therefore I will hide if I feel like it. No harm, no foul.

Link to comment

I have somewhere around 400 finds. Sorry, I don't meet the "new guidelines". Guess I should pull them all and get another hobby. -NOT! :D (my favourite smiley)

 

WHAT WAS I THINKING!?

 

My "official" Stats: Found 12, Hidden 19

 

I'm good to go!

 

Since I seldom log online, I meet specs! In fact, my hides outnumber my finds. How cool is that.

 

And I'm not even counting all the "pocket caches" i own. (uh- zero, but who's countin?)

 

Didn't somebody say this rule would be easy to circumvent? Hmmmmmm?

Link to comment

I guess your experiences in the US are very different from ours in the UK. You all seem to be swamped with caches and by the sound of it, many are of poor quality. In my area (England / Wales border) there aren't that many caches, though the quality is generally very good and carpark micros don't exist. :D Infact, any micros are pretty unusual. It is an area steeped in rich history, beautiful scenic valleys and nearby mountains, but there are still many, many locations for quality hides. I guess I just find it frustrating when you're having to drive so far to go caching when there are potentially so many other good caches which could be available.

The trading up idea sounds good, but we all have different ideas of what caching is about. Tradeable items are not important to me and I have rarely seen it happen.

The "writing good log entries" comment is good, but that's the least any of us should do. Just writing "Found this one" or similar is a kick in the teeth, but that's a whole different thread.

I do believe 'hiding is giving'. It takes a lot of time, local knowledge, effort and money to make a good hide. After all, if you were in a football team, you couldn't just play all your matches away because you didn't fancy hosting any home games. No one would play, we'd all be sitting at home, waiting for someone else to make the effort.

Finally, I know you can't force cachers to hide caches with quality, but I hoped this may provoke some ideas on how to improve things in low cache density areas.

 

P.S. Kit Fox's "seed caches" idea is interesting. I'm not sure it'll work, but it's out-of-the-box and more of what I'm looking for.

Link to comment

The "hide to give back" mentality is what has led to the microspew© problem.

 

nuff said.

 

or is it microspew® ??? :D

 

I believe Drat19 prefers the Copywrite symbol, I could be wrong though. :D

 

I'm guessing the OP isn't really hearing what they expected. It is kind of complicated, like someone said. On the surface, I'd say yes, it does seem kind of rude for say a 1,000+ find cacher or an zany FTF hound to be running around like crazy finding, but not hiding. But some people are leaders, not followers. Some don't want the responsibility of maintenance; or they could just be a bonafide numbers 'ho, who just can't be bothered. Either way, I'd have to agree with the consensus, you'd just get some bad hides from people required to "give back". And I'd definately say an enforced ratio by TPTB is never going to happen.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

I guess your experiences in the US are very different from ours in the UK. You all seem to be swamped with caches and by the sound of it, many are of poor quality. In my area (England / Wales border) there aren't that many caches, though the quality is generally very good and carpark micros don't exist. :D Infact, any micros are pretty unusual.

 

Some UK areas are allready swamped with hasty hides and as your distance to go caching increases (away from all that wonderfull welsh scenery) im sure you will find more "lame" caches :D some car park caches and there equivalents.

Allthough we are nowhere near the density of many parts of the USA we are heading that way slowly but surely so its only a matter of time :):D

 

Going back to your OP how would you enforce it ? we have a 10 stage multi cache does this count as 10 hides or 1 ?

Link to comment

After reading the 'Hiding a cache' thread it seemed just as important to me that all members have a responsibility to hide as well as find. I try to keep a 25:1 ratio, but I think at least a 100:1 ratio should be enforced.

 

My math skills aren't up to the task, but I think it would be interesting to have the mathematical progression that idea implies worked out, just to see how many caches would result.

 

This issue has been discussed many times before. This is a post I made back in July in a similar thread and it addresses your question.

 

As the number of geocachers and geocaches increases, the idea that each cacher should hide a certain ratio of caches found becomes unreasonable. Consider a geographic area, say the metro area of a city. If there are 100 geocachers in the city, and each hides one cache, then after a while searchers will find all one hundred caches. So maybe a 10/1 found/hide ratio would be better. That gives you 1000 caches when each cacher has found a hundred, but when each cacher finds 1000 it will produce 10,000 caches. If in the meantime the number of cachers has increased to 800, you may have 80,000 geocaches in the city, and will have run out of lamp posts. If a cacher feels he MUST hide and maintain 100 caches, they are not likely to be high quality.

Link to comment

After reading the 'Hiding a cache' thread it seemed just as important to me that all members have a responsibility to hide as well as find....

 

There are a lot of ways to give back without ever hiding a single cache. Here are a few.

 

You can write good logs. The kind people like getting that make them happy they placed a cache. I'd trade 1000 TNLN TFTC! logs for one good log.

 

You can attend event caches and help the host. The host will almost always need help.

 

Third you can do a lot of good working with government officials and land managers to keep geocaching in a positive light.

 

You can be a cache angle and dry out wet logs, replace busted zip locks and broken containers. Leave a pencil where one is missing, and so on.

 

You can trade well or create a signature item that is coveted and in demand.

 

Etc. Hiding caches is giving back, but so are other things. As for a ratio...that's an artifical costraint. You should place what you can maintain and when you hit your limit, that's your number of hides. This varies by the person as we all have differing amounts of time.

Link to comment

I have the answer! Just like people who claim a find on a cache even though they didn’t (They tried to find it and would have if it were there, they found the lid, they solved the puzzle, or whatever lie they choose to tell) someone can hide a cache in a similar way. Then they don’t have to worry about a container or a place to hide it.

 

I tried to hide a cache at the great viewpoint atop the ridge, but I couldn’t get there becaue it was too hard for me. About halfway up I realized I only brought the lid to the cache anyway. So I’m claiming a hide since I needed one with a four star terrain.

Link to comment

....

I tried to hide a cache at the great viewpoint atop the ridge, but I couldn’t get there becaue it was too hard for me. About halfway up I realized I only brought the lid to the cache anyway. So I’m claiming a hide since I needed one with a four star terrain.

This gives a good place for all those fake logs.

 

I tried to hike to the cache that was almost hidden but I couldn't get up any further than the cache owner. When I stopped I met the cache owner and we had a beer so I'm claiming this find.

Link to comment

....

I tried to hide a cache at the great viewpoint atop the ridge, but I couldn’t get there becaue it was too hard for me. About halfway up I realized I only brought the lid to the cache anyway. So I’m claiming a hide since I needed one with a four star terrain.

This gives a good place for all those fake logs.

 

I tried to hike to the cache that was almost hidden but I couldn't get up any further than the cache owner. When I stopped I met the cache owner and we had a beer so I'm claiming this find.

:rolleyes:B):(:(:(

Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that!

 

This last week 182,144 logs were written. That means about 7,285 new caches should have been hidden (25:1). Over one year that comes to 378,820 new caches hidden. This game is 6 years old and has only 329,804 cache active - are you really wanting more caches hidden this next year than are currently active? :(:(

 

And what about those top finders? With 17,000+ finds, that means they would have to have over 680 hides each! Yeah, right!

Link to comment

I try to keep a 25:1 ratio, but I think at least a 100:1 ratio should be enforced.

 

Sorry, but I find the idea that people should be FORCED to hide caches fairly obnoxious. First, not everybody is good at it, nor has the time to properly maintain caches. Second, in some areas, it's pretty dadgum hard to FIND places to put caches, especially when you've got local cachers who are so "into" hiding caches that they don't leave much room for others to do it.

I have two "home bases" that I cache around, about 50 miles apart, and in both areas hiding is dominated by just a couple of local cachers who hide literally dozens. In one of the two areas, the hiders are actually teams of several people, some of whom are retired and apparently do nothing but cache. (One team is also somewhat notorious for somehow managing to FTF nearly every cache for about a 35-mile radius.)

Trying to force everyone else in the area to compete with them for cache placements would be both ridiculous and obnoxious.

 

If hiding is giving and finding is taking, then surely it's not right to only take.

 

And where is it defined that "hiding is giving and finding is taking"??

 

Placing a cache might also help these "non-hiders" to appreciate the effort the rest of us spend when making a hide.

 

First, sorry, but your theory falls down with the idea that everyone else makes an effort when hiding caches. Of the last three new caches I did (all within the last month), two showed little or no effort on the part of the hiders.

One guy put out a cache with nothing in it but ONE page torn out of a small notebook, and a broken golf pencil. (And he's not a noob, either. :rolleyes: ) Another cache had a proper log book, but the cache itself is a discarded coffee container, and the "swag" was clearly cheap odds and ends that the hiders had simply had lying around the house.

 

And second, again, I can appreciate who puts out an effort and who doesn't without being forced to try to find some spot in my extremely saturated area to put out a cache of my own. There are 122 caches within 5 miles of my home, and approximately 700 caches within a 20-mile radius; forcing everyone who caches to put out more whether they want to or not would NOT, IMO, improve caching in this area.

Link to comment

Even if the OP was correct, does it really come as a surprise to anyone that most folks take far more than they give?

 

It's why the 'givers' among us are appreciated,

An astute observation of humanity, but the OP's premise is still nonsense. Participation is not "taking" because "taking" connotes getting something for onesself whilst (effectively) denying it to others. This is not the case in caching. A cache is placed for all to enjoy. The only people "taking" are those who destroy the cache or the cache experience for others, e.g. by poor trades, pilfering, exposing the cache, intentional spoilers or just plain stealing it.

 

I have to wonder why I am still following this thread which has such a ridiculous premise.

 

Entertainment? :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Even if the OP was correct, does it really come as a surprise to anyone that most folks take far more than they give?

 

It's why the 'givers' among us are appreciated,

An astute observation of humanity, but the OP's premise is still nonsense. Participation is not "taking" because "taking" connotes getting something for onesself whilst (effectively) denying it to others. This is not the case in caching. A cache is placed for all to enjoy. The only people "taking" are those who destroy the cache or the cache experience for others, e.g. by poor trades, pilfering, exposing the cache, intentional spoilers or just plain stealing it.

 

I have to wonder why I am still following this thread which has such a ridiculous premise.

 

Entertainment? B)

 

Yep. It reminds me of some issue where the local news 'people' can find one guy who disagrees and they promote it as 'the controversy over blah blah blah’.

 

This is the same thing but opposite. :(:rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

If your area is lacking in caches, place a large cache container, filled with "seed caches." Specify that cachers must place one of the seed caches within X numbers of miles of the large cache, before they can receive a "found it" on your cache.

 

Try this, and see how it works.

 

I think you have a very clever idea here. I don't know about requiring a hide to get the find, but I have a generous sized snap-lok container that could host some very nice starter cache containers. I live in an urban setting, and it is just too easy to slap a mag key holder in place and run. I like the challenge of getting small & regular containers to work...it makes a day of caching more interesting.

 

--Cindypray

Link to comment

I guess I'll never place a hide. For me its about the hunt and not the numbers. I look for caches that are going to be fun to hunt with the wife, be it a nice 4X4 trail, a nice hike or a nice view. I live in the city and there are several nice hides within a couple of miles. I've never been to any of them. Saving them for when I have something that needs dropped off (Like a travel bug) that I've held for more than a week. I figure as long as I'm trading even, trading up, or not taking anything at all then I'm doing right by everyone. If and when it becomes a requirment to place a hide, I'll probably just stop logging finds. I know I only have 3 finds and am rather new but to me it just doesnt make sense to require something that doesnt add to the hobby.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...