OK Old schoolers

[+sbell111]

The first one is pretty darn easy with the terrain ratings. The second one may or may not be simple depending on your other desires. Of course, I can't imagine any way that you are going to satisfy that requirement and other expressed unless you have a hundred options for people to check off when they list a cache. That clearly wouldn't work.

Exactly, it'd fail for many reasons previously mentioned umpteen times...that's why it'd be more feasible to implement a cache type that simply had a higher standard.

According to whom?

sbell...go back and read the dadgum thread.

I thought I had it, but you're helping me fill in the gaps.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Exactly, it'd fail for many reasons previously mentioned umpteen times...that's why it'd be more feasible to implement a cache type that simply had a higher standard.

Actually, someone did, and called them Terracaches. Supposed to be the creme de la creme of geocaches.

 

It didn't work there either.

[+egami]

As I understand it, a committee establish by TPTB would determine whether caches met this 'higher standard'.

 

I think this would cause angst that would dwarf that caused by 'Wow' by an order of magnitude.

 

There isn't much angst to be caused. It simply creates a subset of caches with a higher standard...how people choose to treat them is up to them.

 

It wouldn't cause anymore "angst" than PM does. Besides, at the end of the day, if your goal is making everyone happy then all solutions fail by default.

 

Functionally, my solution doesn't fail.

[vtmtnman]

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

 

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".

What the heck is 'hidersense'?

What the heck is 'geosense'?

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Exactly, it'd fail for many reasons previously mentioned umpteen times...that's why it'd be more feasible to implement a cache type that simply had a higher standard.

Actually, someone did, and called them Terracaches. Supposed to be the creme de la creme of geocaches.

 

It didn't work there either.

I imagine nothing would work outside of GC.com as GC.com seems to have iron clad control over the geocacing world. The question is, would something like that work here

[vtmtnman]

Exactly, it'd fail for many reasons previously mentioned umpteen times...that's why it'd be more feasible to implement a cache type that simply had a higher standard.

Actually, someone did, and called them Terracaches. Supposed to be the creme de la creme of geocaches.

 

It didn't work there either.

I was going to go there early on in the tread,but refrained.

[+sbell111]

I think I may be missing pieces of the puzzle. Can someone direct me to the definitions for each grade of Terrain and Difficulty?

 

I would rate a paved smooth parking lot behind a Walmart as a 1 Terrain, but I would also rate a nice paved or flat trail which went for miles into the woods as a 1 Terrain.

 

And I am clueless as to "Difficulty". I figured that was the difficutly of finding the cache once you reach ground zero.

 

Playing the Noob card again.

Brian summed it up nicely here.

[+egami]

Exactly, it'd fail for many reasons previously mentioned umpteen times...that's why it'd be more feasible to implement a cache type that simply had a higher standard.

Actually, someone did, and called them Terracaches. Supposed to be the creme de la creme of geocaches.

 

It didn't work there either.

 

That was not the intent published by their founder.

 

To allow geocaching to become self-regulating and self-sustaining by establishing ourselves as a not-for-profit member owned organization that works with landowners and the geocaching community to achieve its goals.

To enable national and local organizations to take on a more direct role in geocaching within their areas.

To provide a permanent archive for geocaching databases in order to preserve logs and caches for access and posterity.

Edited May 17, 2007 by egami

[vtmtnman]

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

 

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

Well I developed it after 4 finds...and I thought my first cache was decent for a guy that found four caches and wanted to get one out before not being able to cache for another 12-14 months.Some other folks maybe different.

[+sbell111]

As I understand it, a committee establish by TPTB would determine whether caches met this 'higher standard'.

 

I think this would cause angst that would dwarf that caused by 'Wow' by an order of magnitude.

There isn't much angst to be caused. It simply creates a subset of caches with a higher standard...how people choose to treat them is up to them.

 

It wouldn't cause anymore "angst" than PM does. Besides, at the end of the day, if your goal is making everyone happy then all solutions fail by default.

 

Functionally, my solution doesn't fail.

Trust me. There would be tons of threads from people whining that their cache didn't get chosen. Ask any reviewer how much flak they received regarding 'Wow'.

[+Renegade Knight]

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

 

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".

What thew heck is 'hidersense'?

 

I think the concept is the ability to hide caches that aren't crap.

Step one. Define universal quality.

[+sbell111]

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

 

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

Well I developed it after 4 finds...and I thought my first cache was decent for a guy that found four caches and wanted to get one out before not being able to cache for another 12-14 months.Some other folks maybe different.

Could you tell us what 'it' is?

[+egami]

As I understand it, a committee establish by TPTB would determine whether caches met this 'higher standard'.

 

I think this would cause angst that would dwarf that caused by 'Wow' by an order of magnitude.

There isn't much angst to be caused. It simply creates a subset of caches with a higher standard...how people choose to treat them is up to them.

 

It wouldn't cause anymore "angst" than PM does. Besides, at the end of the day, if your goal is making everyone happy then all solutions fail by default.

 

Functionally, my solution doesn't fail.

Trust me. There would be tons of threads from people whining that their cache didn't get chosen. Ask any reviewer how much flak they received regarding 'Wow'.

 

You missed the point, re-read that.

 

I am not interested in worrying about avoiding people getting their panties in a bunch.

 

You state emphatically the purpose behind the new cache type, and that it has a higher standard and refusal rate, and people can't get over it or they can become the inherent whiners.

Edited May 17, 2007 by egami

[+egami]

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

 

For like 15th time in this thread..."hidersense" and similar "solutions" that encompass the current makeup for the general geo-populous aren't going to work because of their subjective nature. The real question is how to develop "enhanced hidersense".

What thew heck is 'hidersense'?

 

I think the concept is the ability to hide caches that aren't crap.

Step one. Define universal quality.

 

I don't believe that really exists.

[vtmtnman]

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

 

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

Well I developed it after 4 finds...and I thought my first cache was decent for a guy that found four caches and wanted to get one out before not being able to cache for another 12-14 months.Some other folks maybe different.

Could you tell us what 'it' is?

The ability to place a cache with some thought involved...Such as history lesson,view,good loctaion(Urban or rural)etc.Not just placing a cache for cache sake.I think I'm getting the picture here.There was a point back in the day where quantity was needed.Now there is quantity,and quality is needed.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

 

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

Well I developed it after 4 finds...and I thought my first cache was decent for a guy that found four caches and wanted to get one out before not being able to cache for another 12-14 months.Some other folks maybe different.

Could you tell us what 'it' is?

Imagine that, four finds and he solved geocaching! I guess I need some of that geosense - how much is a can of it? I can't imagine how many I might find with some of that!

[vtmtnman]

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

 

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

Well I developed it after 4 finds...and I thought my first cache was decent for a guy that found four caches and wanted to get one out before not being able to cache for another 12-14 months.Some other folks maybe different.

Could you tell us what 'it' is?

Imagine that, four finds and he solved geocaching! I guess I need some of that geosense - how much is a can of it? I can't imagine how many I might find with some of that!

So your saying I think I know everything about Caching because I have ten finds?Therefore I have no valid opinions in this forum?

[Cracker.]

 

I'm tired of hearing that there are no or few good places to put a cache anymore. There may be a few less places where you can reach one without getting out of your car, but that's about it. If you can't find a good place, ask an "old school" cacher to suggest some places for you. You might have to (goodness forbid) actually walk a couple hundred feet to find a decent spot, but they're still out there if you're willing to look. I say this as part of a caching family including a blind man so don't tell me it's tougher for some than others to get to those caches. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-micro, I'm just anti-uninspired locations. I travel. I travel a lot. I've lived all over the country and I've yet to find a place that was devoid of interesting points of interest. What bugs me is when I see six uninspired caches of any size right next to a big state park a mile or two away with multiple historical and natural points of interest, but no caches. I know there are some places that are just saturated and don't need more caches. What I don't understand is why anyone feels the need to place a perfectly good cache behind the CVS next to the dumpster.

 

Well said. This is a good part of what I'm feeling. I live in one of the few realatively "open" caching areas, but I am feeling the "pressure" of lackluster caches moving closer.

 

We have a TON of interesting historical locations around, most that have a good story, or a scenic location to go with them. Unfortunately, life changes have kept me from devoting the time I would like to take on placing caches. I have about 40-50 caches that are semi-planned. I like to take my time, and do research on the history of a spot, or to custom make or come up with a good hide. So that adds to my problem....People claiming a spot I had picked out.

 

What I am seeing, and it kills me, is cachers, be they newbs, and I'm seeing even some "old skoolers" with over 3000 finds doing it, is caches being just thrown out in a good location, and the best hillights of the spot are not taken advanrage of. ie NO mention of the history of the spot, the unique view, waterfall, huge old tree, etc not being used as the reason for the hide. Not even a creative hide, either. Just caches thrown out along a trail just for the sake of someone being able to claim "I placed a cache".

If you're gonna place a cache, give me SOMETHING other than just a short hike along a well-used, popular trail, a reason to hit the lampost at Walmart to up my find count.

Give me a history lesson, a view, even just a creative hide. Teach me about a plant or tree, a person, a unique bit of architecture....SOMETHING.Some might say "it's the journey, not the find"....Well, I guess I am lucky to live in a beautiful rural area, and if I just wanted to take a walk in the woods, I can do that by walking out the end of my driveway, without having to buy a GPS, and spending gas money.

Just put SOME thought or twist into your cache.

 

I think thats one of the main things "old schoolers" are looking for.

 

And another is if youre going to place a cache, take the responsibility of maintaining it. I see SO many caches, not just lame urban micros, but good, old caches as well as new, just left to turn into sodden, moldy, containers with a few items of absolute junk in them. I've seen this from both new cachers as well some old skool cachers.

 

Another thing that gets old skoolers, I think, is the rules and beauracracy that have developed. It used to be, cachers used common sense to place and find caches. They pretty much were able to police themselves.

Now we have GC and even now our government, as well as the GC community to do that for us. I got into caching to get out, away from all the everyday crap, and now it seems its being brought into the "game" more and more.

 

I guess I'm second-generation like Renegade, and I have to say, there are "old skoolers" I dont think much of, as well as newbs that I DO think much of. I guess some of what determines it for me is:

 

1) Ive found old skoolers who seemingly take no effort to rehide caches

2) Old skoolers who dont mantain the 50 caches they have out

3) Old skoolers who write a log archiving their OWN caches as a find for themselves, obviously padding their numbers.

4) Old skoolers who seem to be just number hounds

5) Old skoolers who only seem to find the time to write log finds as "TNLN", or even just a sentence or two on what I KNOW are caches worthy of a paragraph or two.

6) Newbs who just throw a cache out with little thought

7) Newbs whose finds I can count on one hand placing caches in addition to #6 above

8) Newbs who have VERY creative hides, or nice themes or write ups on their hides

9) Newbs who always leave nice logs

 

I guess a summary of what I think old skool caching should be to me is:

 

1) Put some effort into your cache placements.

2) Put some effort into REHIDING caches you find.

3) Show your appreciation of the hiders efforts by leaving SOMETHING other than "thanx I found it" logs

4) MAINTAIN your hides (and I dont mean just wait for someone to log a problem. Periodically check your hides. If you cant do this, maybe you should archive it and let someone else use the area)

5) Overall, use some common sense when doing anything geocaching-related.

 

Thats it, now that I've written a book...LOL

OK, I've turned on the propane...go ahead and flame me.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

 

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

Well I developed it after 4 finds...and I thought my first cache was decent for a guy that found four caches and wanted to get one out before not being able to cache for another 12-14 months.Some other folks maybe different.

Could you tell us what 'it' is?

Imagine that, four finds and he solved geocaching! I guess I need some of that geosense - how much is a can of it? I can't imagine how many I might find with some of that!

So your saying I think I know everything about Caching because I have ten finds?Therefore I have no valid opinions in this forum?

No, I said "Imagine that, four finds and he solved geocaching! I guess I need some of that geosense - how much is a can of it? I can't imagine how many I might find with some of that!"

[vtmtnman]

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

 

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

Well I developed it after 4 finds...and I thought my first cache was decent for a guy that found four caches and wanted to get one out before not being able to cache for another 12-14 months.Some other folks maybe different.

Could you tell us what 'it' is?

Imagine that, four finds and he solved geocaching! I guess I need some of that geosense - how much is a can of it? I can't imagine how many I might find with some of that!

So your saying I think I know everything about Caching because I have ten finds?Therefore I have no valid opinions in this forum?

No, I said "Imagine that, four finds and he solved geocaching! I guess I need some of that geosense - how much is a can of it? I can't imagine how many I might find with some of that!"

Oh well in that case...

[vtmtnman]

 

I'm tired of hearing that there are no or few good places to put a cache anymore. There may be a few less places where you can reach one without getting out of your car, but that's about it. If you can't find a good place, ask an "old school" cacher to suggest some places for you. You might have to (goodness forbid) actually walk a couple hundred feet to find a decent spot, but they're still out there if you're willing to look. I say this as part of a caching family including a blind man so don't tell me it's tougher for some than others to get to those caches. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-micro, I'm just anti-uninspired locations. I travel. I travel a lot. I've lived all over the country and I've yet to find a place that was devoid of interesting points of interest. What bugs me is when I see six uninspired caches of any size right next to a big state park a mile or two away with multiple historical and natural points of interest, but no caches. I know there are some places that are just saturated and don't need more caches. What I don't understand is why anyone feels the need to place a perfectly good cache behind the CVS next to the dumpster.

 

Well said. This is a good part of what I'm feeling. I live in one of the few realatively "open" caching areas, but I am feeling the "pressure" of lackluster caches moving closer.

 

We have a TON of interesting historical locations around, most that have a good story, or a scenic location to go with them. Unfortunately, life changes have kept me from devoting the time I would like to take on placing caches. I have about 40-50 caches that are semi-planned. I like to take my time, and do research on the history of a spot, or to custom make or come up with a good hide. So that adds to my problem....People claiming a spot I had picked out.

 

What I am seeing, and it kills me, is cachers, be they newbs, and I'm seeing even some "old skoolers" with over 3000 finds doing it, is caches being just thrown out in a good location, and the best hillights of the spot are not taken advanrage of. ie NO mention of the history of the spot, the unique view, waterfall, huge old tree, etc not being used as the reason for the hide. Not even a creative hide, either. Just caches thrown out along a trail just for the sake of someone being able to claim "I placed a cache".

If you're gonna place a cache, give me SOMETHING other than just a short hike along a well-used, popular trail, a reason to hit the lampost at Walmart to up my find count.

Give me a history lesson, a view, even just a creative hide. Teach me about a plant or tree, a person, a unique bit of architecture....SOMETHING.Some might say "it's the journey, not the find"....Well, I guess I am lucky to live in a beautiful rural area, and if I just wanted to take a walk in the woods, I can do that by walking out the end of my driveway, without having to buy a GPS, and spending gas money.

Just put SOME thought or twist into your cache.

 

I think thats one of the main things "old schoolers" are looking for.

 

And another is if youre going to place a cache, take the responsibility of maintaining it. I see SO many caches, not just lame urban micros, but good, old caches as well as new, just left to turn into sodden, moldy, containers with a few items of absolute junk in them. I've seen this from both new cachers as well some old skool cachers.

 

Another thing that gets old skoolers, I think, is the rules and beauracracy that have developed. It used to be, cachers used common sense to place and find caches. They pretty much were able to police themselves.

Now we have GC and even now our government, as well as the GC community to do that for us. I got into caching to get out, away from all the everyday crap, and now it seems its being brought into the "game" more and more.

 

I guess I'm second-generation like Renegade, and I have to say, there are "old skoolers" I dont think much of, as well as newbs that I DO think much of. I guess some of what determines it for me is:

 

1) Ive found old skoolers who seemingly take no effort to rehide caches

2) Old skoolers who dont mantain the 50 caches they have out

3) Old skoolers who write a log archiving their OWN caches as a find for themselves, obviously padding their numbers.

4) Old skoolers who seem to be just number hounds

5) Old skoolers who only seem to find the time to write log finds as "TNLN", or even just a sentence or two on what I KNOW are caches worthy of a paragraph or two.

6) Newbs who just throw a cache out with little thought

7) Newbs whose finds I can count on one hand placing caches in addition to #6 above

8) Newbs who have VERY creative hides, or nice themes or write ups on their hides

9) Newbs who always leave nice logs

 

I guess a summary of what I think old skool caching should be to me is:

 

1) Put some effort into your cache placements.

2) Put some effort into REHIDING caches you find.

3) Show your appreciation of the hiders efforts by leaving SOMETHING other than "thanx I found it" logs

4) MAINTAIN your hides (and I dont mean just wait for someone to log a problem. Periodically check your hides. If you cant do this, maybe you should archive it and let someone else use the area)

5) Overall, use some common sense when doing anything geocaching-related.

 

Thats it, now that I've written a book...LOL

OK, I've turned on the propane...go ahead and flame me.

This is your guys' thread to tell we noobies where the sport was and where we need to keep it.Great post.

[vtmtnman]

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

 

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

Well I developed it after 4 finds...and I thought my first cache was decent for a guy that found four caches and wanted to get one out before not being able to cache for another 12-14 months.Some other folks maybe different.

Could you tell us what 'it' is?

Imagine that, four finds and he solved geocaching! I guess I need some of that geosense - how much is a can of it? I can't imagine how many I might find with some of that!

So your saying I think I know everything about Caching because I have ten finds?Therefore I have no valid opinions in this forum?

No, I said "Imagine that, four finds and he solved geocaching! I guess I need some of that geosense - how much is a can of it? I can't imagine how many I might find with some of that!"

Oh well in that case...

And if anyone is wondering why I have only 10 finds feel free to check the ol profile.Nuff said on that.

[+sbell111]

The base assumption that all of a hider's hides are alike and all his finds alike is flawed, so ignoring either won't work.

Actually this does work at the extremes. There are cachers out here hiding literally hundreds of caches that I would not like. So if I ignore all their caches it would help me. I can always go back and un-ignore a couple of caches if I get a recommendation.

 

Anyhow, I could learn to run an elaborate program with macros before I go caching with all kinds of options/filters. However, I know that many folks out there would not be able to do this. So Sbell's suggestion would help the techies but it is not feasible for many people. Plus this seems like a perfect task for the website, which is trying to keep it's customer's happy. Time's have changed and caches are abundant in many areas. So IMHO we need some enhancements to the better filtering/selecting of caches that anyone can easily do.

You have a point,but it'd be great if cacher used hidersense to hide just like the need geosense to find.Thus the point of learning about the way it was.

Interesting... How long does it typically take to develop thsi "hidersense?"

Well I developed it after 4 finds...and I thought my first cache was decent for a guy that found four caches and wanted to get one out before not being able to cache for another 12-14 months.Some other folks maybe different.

Could you tell us what 'it' is?

Imagine that, four finds and he solved geocaching! I guess I need some of that geosense - how much is a can of it? I can't imagine how many I might find with some of that!

[+egami]

And if anyone is wondering why I have only 10 finds feel free to check the ol profile.Nuff said on that.

 

Quiet newb.

[+sbell111]

I'm tired of hearing that there are no or few good places to put a cache anymore. There may be a few less places where you can reach one without getting out of your car, but that's about it. If you can't find a good place, ask an "old school" cacher to suggest some places for you. You might have to (goodness forbid) actually walk a couple hundred feet to find a decent spot, but they're still out there if you're willing to look. I say this as part of a caching family including a blind man so don't tell me it's tougher for some than others to get to those caches. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-micro, I'm just anti-uninspired locations. I travel. I travel a lot. I've lived all over the country and I've yet to find a place that was devoid of interesting points of interest. What bugs me is when I see six uninspired caches of any size right next to a big state park a mile or two away with multiple historical and natural points of interest, but no caches. I know there are some places that are just saturated and don't need more caches. What I don't understand is why anyone feels the need to place a perfectly good cache behind the CVS next to the dumpster.

Well said. This is a good part of what I'm feeling. I live in one of the few realatively "open" caching areas, but I am feeling the "pressure" of lackluster caches moving closer.

 

We have a TON of interesting historical locations around, most that have a good story, or a scenic location to go with them. Unfortunately, life changes have kept me from devoting the time I would like to take on placing caches. I have about 40-50 caches that are semi-planned. I like to take my time, and do research on the history of a spot, or to custom make or come up with a good hide. So that adds to my problem....People claiming a spot I had picked out.

 

What I am seeing, and it kills me, is cachers, be they newbs, and I'm seeing even some "old skoolers" with over 3000 finds doing it, is caches being just thrown out in a good location, and the best hillights of the spot are not taken advanrage of. ie NO mention of the history of the spot, the unique view, waterfall, huge old tree, etc not being used as the reason for the hide. Not even a creative hide, either. Just caches thrown out along a trail just for the sake of someone being able to claim "I placed a cache".

If you're gonna place a cache, give me SOMETHING other than just a short hike along a well-used, popular trail, a reason to hit the lampost at Walmart to up my find count.

Give me a history lesson, a view, even just a creative hide. Teach me about a plant or tree, a person, a unique bit of architecture....SOMETHING.Some might say "it's the journey, not the find"....Well, I guess I am lucky to live in a beautiful rural area, and if I just wanted to take a walk in the woods, I can do that by walking out the end of my driveway, without having to buy a GPS, and spending gas money.

Just put SOME thought or twist into your cache.

 

I think thats one of the main things "old schoolers" are looking for.

 

And another is if youre going to place a cache, take the responsibility of maintaining it. I see SO many caches, not just lame urban micros, but good, old caches as well as new, just left to turn into sodden, moldy, containers with a few items of absolute junk in them. I've seen this from both new cachers as well some old skool cachers.

 

Another thing that gets old skoolers, I think, is the rules and beauracracy that have developed. It used to be, cachers used common sense to place and find caches. They pretty much were able to police themselves.

Now we have GC and even now our government, as well as the GC community to do that for us. I got into caching to get out, away from all the everyday crap, and now it seems its being brought into the "game" more and more.

 

I guess I'm second-generation like Renegade, and I have to say, there are "old skoolers" I dont think much of, as well as newbs that I DO think much of. I guess some of what determines it for me is:

 

1) Ive found old skoolers who seemingly take no effort to rehide caches

2) Old skoolers who dont mantain the 50 caches they have out

3) Old skoolers who write a log archiving their OWN caches as a find for themselves, obviously padding their numbers.

4) Old skoolers who seem to be just number hounds

5) Old skoolers who only seem to find the time to write log finds as "TNLN", or even just a sentence or two on what I KNOW are caches worthy of a paragraph or two.

6) Newbs who just throw a cache out with little thought

7) Newbs whose finds I can count on one hand placing caches in addition to #6 above

8) Newbs who have VERY creative hides, or nice themes or write ups on their hides

9) Newbs who always leave nice logs

 

I guess a summary of what I think old skool caching should be to me is:

 

1) Put some effort into your cache placements.

2) Put some effort into REHIDING caches you find.

3) Show your appreciation of the hiders efforts by leaving SOMETHING other than "thanx I found it" logs

4) MAINTAIN your hides (and I dont mean just wait for someone to log a problem. Periodically check your hides. If you cant do this, maybe you should archive it and let someone else use the area)

5) Overall, use some common sense when doing anything geocaching-related.

 

Thats it, now that I've written a book...LOL

OK, I've turned on the propane...go ahead and flame me.

I have no flames to offer, but I do think that your expectations are unreasonable and that they set you up for disappointment.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

I always defined geosense as the ability to find cache locations withoug much searching. Like walking up to a rocky slope and pointing at the rock the cache is hidden under before even beginning to search.

 

And hidersense- knowing which hiders hide carp caches and avoiding those caches to avoid disappointments.

 

I like Cracker's summary and am going to repeat it:

 

1) Put some effort into your cache placements.

2) Put some effort into REHIDING caches you find.

3) Show your appreciation of the hiders efforts by leaving SOMETHING other than "thanx I found it" logs

4) MAINTAIN your hides (and I dont mean just wait for someone to log a problem. Periodically check your hides. If you cant do this, maybe you should archive it and let someone else use the area)

5) Overall, use some common sense when doing anything geocaching-related.

 

Our first cache finds were a virtual and a micro under some playground equipment. They were both fun.

-J

Edited May 17, 2007 by Jennifer&Dean

[+SeventhSon]

Starting in 2002, I'm not sure if I'm old school or not, but I started with the attitude that I was searching for a cache that someone took the time to hide. I didn't care where it was or what the surroundings looked like, I just wanted to hunt the cache. The hunt itself was the cake. The find was the icing.

 

Five years later, and a massive 162 finds, that hasn't changed. I still do it for the hunt. With an awesome valley on one side, and wild mustangs frollicking in a meadow on the other, I'll miss it all because I'm looking at a little treasure chest icon on my GPS.

 

Some of us still play the game in its simplest form

[+wandererrob]

Step one. Define universal quality.

 

That should keep 'em busy for a few years.

[Cracker.]

I have no flames to offer, but I do think that your expectations are unreasonable and that they set you up for disappointment.

 

LOL...Dont I know it...But I also realise it and deal with it...The OP asked a question, and I answered with what I would LIKE to see....Not with what I BELIEVE I will see...I know it wont happen, but newbs wont get edumicated unless you preach it...LOL

[+tozainamboku]

 

I've said this before -- Geocaching.com is more or less a library now. You don't read all the books in a library. You find something that works, and go for it. The issue is really ensuring that everyone finds what they're looking for, or helps them discover something they weren't.

 

Excellent observation!

This is a good analogy except that it is much easier to find what you are looking for in a library. Plus you don't get smileys for every book you read. If you did, the library would be overflowing with tiny single page books.

Be careful here or I might point out that geocaching is like an ice cream store

[+egami]

I have no flames to offer, but I do think that your expectations are unreasonable and that they set you up for disappointment.

 

LOL...Dont I know it...But I also realise it and deal with it...The OP asked a question, and I answered with what I would LIKE to see....Not with what I BELIEVE I will see...I know it wont happen, but newbs wont get edumicated unless you preach it...LOL

 

And, in fairness, being that it's of subjective nature this is the approach you have to take (well, you could elect to be a whiner I guess). With the varying degree of personalities of cachers you'll get varying degrees of expectations and in the end...as long as it meets the guidelines it's fair game.

 

This is why I choose the same road...I am not too picky about caches. I just try to visit them all, but knowing that I can appreciate whichever I choose to the degree I choose. For me it's not so much about the cache itself as much as the journey as a whole.

 

Sure, I think there are some crappy caches, but I am not going to let that ruin anything for me....because, ultimately, I know there will be a good one down the road.

[vtmtnman]

 

I've said this before -- Geocaching.com is more or less a library now. You don't read all the books in a library. You find something that works, and go for it. The issue is really ensuring that everyone finds what they're looking for, or helps them discover something they weren't.

 

Excellent observation!

This is a good analogy except that it is much easier to find what you are looking for in a library. Plus you don't get smileys for every book you read. If you did, the library would be overflowing with tiny single page books.

Be careful here or I might point out that geocaching is like an ice cream store

Thats true too.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Be careful here or I might point out that geocaching is like an ice cream store

Is that like "Caching is like a box of chocolates" ?

Edited May 17, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+Renegade Knight]

...What I am seeing, and it kills me, is cachers, be they newbs, and I'm seeing even some "old skoolers" with over 3000 finds doing it, is caches being just thrown out in a good location, and the best hillights of the spot are not taken advanrage of. ie NO mention of the history of the spot, the unique view, waterfall, huge old tree, etc not being used as the reason for the hide. Not even a creative hide, either. Just caches thrown out along a trail just for the sake of someone being able to claim "I placed a cache".....

 

This is your guys' thread to tell we noobies where the sport was and where we need to keep it.Great post.

 

I'm in training all day and don't have time to debunk the junk and credit the good parts.

 

However I'll tackle this one piece.

You can't use the old tree, the waterfall, the historic item of interst as your cache spot. Thats ground zero for muggles. You have to use the uninspired pile of stick 500' out of the way or your cache will be muggled.

 

The goal is for the cache to be found by cachers, and to be close enough so the cacher will wander over to the item of interest. It is a fair comment that the cache page should offer up some history if it's known or hint that there is some to be found if you are willing to invest the time.

[+sbell111]

I thought caches were like coffee beans?

[+Renegade Knight]

I think it's fair to note that not all old schooler are on the "quality is job 1" band wagon. The reason some of us don't is that we want to see creativity strictly defined and thereby squelched so that those new inventive hides can happen.

[+egami]

...What I am seeing, and it kills me, is cachers, be they newbs, and I'm seeing even some "old skoolers" with over 3000 finds doing it, is caches being just thrown out in a good location, and the best hillights of the spot are not taken advanrage of. ie NO mention of the history of the spot, the unique view, waterfall, huge old tree, etc not being used as the reason for the hide. Not even a creative hide, either. Just caches thrown out along a trail just for the sake of someone being able to claim "I placed a cache".....

 

This is your guys' thread to tell we noobies where the sport was and where we need to keep it.Great post.

 

I'm in training all day and don't have time to debunk the junk and credit the good parts.

 

However I'll tackle this one piece.

You can't use the old tree, the waterfall, the historic item of interst as your cache spot. Thats ground zero for muggles. You have to use the uninspired pile of stick 500' out of the way or your cache will be muggled.

 

The goal is for the cache to be found by cachers, and to be close enough so the cacher will wander over to the item of interest. It is a fair comment that the cache page should offer up some history if it's known or hint that there is some to be found if you are willing to invest the time.

 

I think the point is that there are completely uninspired surroundings where caches are placed.

[vtmtnman]

...What I am seeing, and it kills me, is cachers, be they newbs, and I'm seeing even some "old skoolers" with over 3000 finds doing it, is caches being just thrown out in a good location, and the best hillights of the spot are not taken advanrage of. ie NO mention of the history of the spot, the unique view, waterfall, huge old tree, etc not being used as the reason for the hide. Not even a creative hide, either. Just caches thrown out along a trail just for the sake of someone being able to claim "I placed a cache".....

 

This is your guys' thread to tell we noobies where the sport was and where we need to keep it.Great post.

 

I'm in training all day and don't have time to debunk the junk and credit the good parts.

 

However I'll tackle this one piece.

You can't use the old tree, the waterfall, the historic item of interst as your cache spot. Thats ground zero for muggles. You have to use the uninspired pile of stick 500' out of the way or your cache will be muggled.

 

The goal is for the cache to be found by cachers, and to be close enough so the cacher will wander over to the item of interest. It is a fair comment that the cache page should offer up some history if it's known or hint that there is some to be found if you are willing to invest the time.

That's a gem of advice too.That's how I have my cache set up.

 

Opps,can't toot my own horn too loud.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Question:

When people suggest that you write more than TNFN in the log, are they talking about the cache page on here or in the actual log book in the cache? Or both?

 

Generally, I let the kids write in the log book in the cache, so you dont normally get much but date and our name. I figure that prevents logbooks from getting too filled too quickly.

 

I do the logging on here and try to leave at lease a few sentences if I can.

Edited May 17, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[Cracker.]

 

You can't use the old tree, the waterfall, the historic item of interst as your cache spot. Thats ground zero for muggles. You have to use the uninspired pile of stick 500' out of the way or your cache will be muggled.

 

 

Untrue around here. When I talk about the historic places around here and a good write-up on the cache page, I'm talking about the "unknown" locations, where there is little or no information available at the site. I'm not talking about the tourist traps. On those, I agree, place a cache the best you can, and rely on the info available at the site to inform cachers who visit.

 

Anyone who has done any of my "historic location" themed caches would understand.

And as a side note, I realise many cachers dont want to read through my long, essays on the historic aspects of a location. So I always put all the relevant info to actually finding the cache in the short description, or at least the very beginning of the description. Then the story at the end, so they can read it or skip it as they see fit, yet still decide quickly whther to go for the cache or not.

[+brdad]

Question:

When people suggest that you write more than TNFN in the log, are they talking about the cache page on here or in the actual log book in the cache? Or both?

 

Generally, I let the kids write in the log book in the cache, so you dont normally get much but date and our name. I figure that prevents logbooks from getting too filled too quickly.

 

I do the logging on here and try to leave at lease a few sentences if I can.

 

I think most people that ask that are referring to the online logs. I try to add a little extra to mine, like "Yet another lamp post / guardrail / dumpster I would not have known about if not for caching". Another way is just to mention it's a nice day to be out caching, ignoring any references to the cache or location.

[Cracker.]

Question:

When people suggest that you write more than TNFN in the log, are they talking about the cache page on here or in the actual log book in the cache? Or both?

 

I agree. I mean the online log. I dont leave alot in the physical log anymore, either, unless its a really inspiring cache. Sitting in a swamp on a hot July evening, or on a bare, windy hilltop in Feb. can put a damper on leaving, or even reading past logs in the book.

 

PLUS, the logbook is only located half way through your journey. You still have a return trip that something may happen and be worth explaining in a good online log.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Cracker.

[+geomann1]

Question:

When people suggest that you write more than TNFN in the log, are they talking about the cache page on here or in the actual log book in the cache? Or both?

 

Generally, I let the kids write in the log book in the cache, so you dont normally get much but date and our name. I figure that prevents logbooks from getting too filled too quickly.

 

I do the logging on here and try to leave at lease a few sentences if I can.

 

I would think it is more important to write something appropriate on the on-line cache page, since the log book is probably seldom read.

 

In my humble opinion, not all logs warrant more than a thank you. However, if a cache is something special or unusual make note of it.

 

I would also note that many of the "old pros" show bad manners when they brag in their logs about easy a find was. That is uncalled for. No harm in just saying thanks.

[+Dew Crew]

Perhaps some sort of group could be formed to help promote quality caches.

[+egami]

Perhaps some sort of group could be formed to help promote quality caches.

 

This is similar to another idea I've had, but it's independent from a GC.com solution. You could essentially create a group that created a higher standard and caches could be submitted for review and they could essentially earn the seal of approval from the group.

 

I am sure there would subsequently be a way to make that searchable in GSAK.

[+briansnat]

Iwould also note that many of the "old pros" show bad manners when they brag in their logs about easy a find was. That is uncalled for. No harm in just saying thanks.

 

Is it bragging or just rehashing your hunt? I say it all the time. "Easy find after I reached GZ", "Cache was a quick find", etc... I'm just recounting my experience, not bragging at all. isn't the point of the log to give feedback? I know as a cache owner I want to know if it was an easy or hard find, so I can rate the difficulty correctly.

 

In fact I am the worlds worst geocacher and am not afraid to say so, so I doubt I can be accused of bragging.

Edited May 17, 2007 by briansnat

[+Dew Crew]

Perhaps some sort of group could be formed to help promote quality caches.

 

This is similar to another idea I've had, but it's independent from a GC.com solution. You could essentially create a group that created a higher standard and caches could be submitted for review and they could essentially earn the seal of approval from the group.

 

I am sure there would subsequently be a way to make that searchable in GSAK.

 

If I'm not mistaken, that is the idea of TerraCaching. I was going to try it out, I wasn't really sure about the idea of listing a cache outside of geocaching.com.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Perhaps some sort of group could be formed to help promote quality caches.

 

This is similar to another idea I've had, but it's independent from a GC.com solution. You could essentially create a group that created a higher standard and caches could be submitted for review and they could essentially earn the seal of approval from the group.

 

I am sure there would subsequently be a way to make that searchable in GSAK.

Higher standard? Quality caches? Lame caches? Good caches? Arent there all the subjective-type terms that make any solution "impossible"?

 

A speed cacher may think a cache that is reachable out his car window without even having to get out is high quality and one that requires a long hike into the mountains lame.

 

A family cacher knows hids kids will get frustrated so a cache that takes longer than 30 minutes to find is a lame cache no matter where it is.

 

Kid cachers might think a cache is great if its got good goodies and lame if its empty.

 

Too subjective to set as a goal. Who could decide this higher standard and who gives who the right to make that judgement?

 

I still stand firm to just adding criteria to filter by so we can all use that and create lists for ourselves based on whatever we like.

Edited May 17, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+sbell111]

Perhaps some sort of group could be formed to help promote quality caches.

 

This is similar to another idea I've had, but it's independent from a GC.com solution. You could essentially create a group that created a higher standard and caches could be submitted for review and they could essentially earn the seal of approval from the group.

 

I am sure there would subsequently be a way to make that searchable in GSAK.

Higher standard? Quality caches? Lame caches? Good caches? Arent there all the subjective-type terms that make any solution "impossible"?

 

A speed cacher may think a cache that is reachable out his car window without even having to get out is high quality and one that requires a long hike into the mountains lame.

 

A family cacher knows hids kids will get frustrated so a cache that takes longer than 30 minutes to find is a lame cache no matter where it is.

 

Kid cachers might think a cache is great if its got good goodies and lame if its empty.

 

Too subjective to set as a goal. Who could decide this higher standard and who gives who the right to make that judgement?

 

I still stand firm to just adding criteria to filter by so we can all use that and create lists for ourselves based on whatever we like.

If it's really hot or really rainy, they all stink.

[+egami]

Perhaps some sort of group could be formed to help promote quality caches.

 

This is similar to another idea I've had, but it's independent from a GC.com solution. You could essentially create a group that created a higher standard and caches could be submitted for review and they could essentially earn the seal of approval from the group.

 

I am sure there would subsequently be a way to make that searchable in GSAK.

Higher standard? Quality caches? Lame caches? Good caches? Arent there all the subjective-type terms that make any solution "impossible"?

 

You're missing the boat on the "subjective" discussion I think...when you confine subjectivity to like-minded individuals then you utilize that subjectivity in a manner in which assists those people.

 

Versus simply opening subjectivity up to everyone on an open-ended rating system where there are no guidelines or standards to drive the initiative.

 

You can never eliminate subjectivity....you can, however, manipulate it toward a goal which is what my solution does (either solution I mentioned actually)

Edited May 17, 2007 by egami