Jump to content

Find to hide ratios?


Zop

Recommended Posts

I'm really not trying to find a baseline here but I would love to have some opinions.

 

I've been looking at stats and all and see that some cachers are really into hiding and some are really into finding. In my area, we have some cachers who have anywhere from a 1:1 to a 1000:1 or even higher F:H ratio.

 

I would imagine that there are some opinions here regarding placing caches.

Aside from the obvious, quality v.s. quantity, and avoiding saturation, what do you as a cacher think about this?

Link to comment

As I am still new to caching I will admit to the thrill of finding. I have been advised to wait at least 100 finds b4 placing my first cache and I plan on doing that. I will be happy in the mean time in finding especially the tougher caches and look forward to providing others with the thrill in the future.

 

I am sure some people are hiders and some are finders. There are also some I am sure that given thier situation are only able to be finders while it may be easier for others to be hiders.

 

The only ratio that seems to make sense to me is the 100:1 for the very first hide

Link to comment

There are so many ways to give back to this little activity of ours: good logs, quality swag, setting up events, cito, teaching, forum participation, hiding etc.....

 

No need to ever worry about an artificial "ratio".

 

Nobody should hide anything because they feel obligated to do so.

Well said! Ditto!

Link to comment

I don't think there should be any set "ratio". There are many ways to contribute something back into the sport/hobby. But I do think every cacher should, if they are able, contribute something back to the hobby that brings them so much pleasure. I happen to love to place caches and that is my way of giving back. I love reading the logs that others leave whether they be positive or negative.

Link to comment

I try to keep my ratio at 1 hide for every 10 finds - but only for the fun of it. At the very least, every active cacher should be encouraged, but not required to hide just one cache. If a container such as an ammo box, or a lock'n'lock is used, and a spot is picked that would be unlikely to be found by anyone at all (but other cachers) it really would not need any maintenance.

 

But of course, I don't think anyone should really feel obligated to hide anything unless really inspired.

Link to comment

Ratio is just not the right way to think about this. If you continue to geocache over some years your finds are going to continue to climb. Trying to maintain some ratio is going to be silly.

I once thought 30 active hides would be an upper limit - I have around 100 now, and that is feeling like the true upper limit for me. Lately I've been archiving something each time I hide something new. For me to maintain my current ratio, whatever it is, I'd have to stop finding..... hm, maybe not.

Link to comment

I'm really surprised nobody brought up the excuse about "retired cachers who live in their motorhomes, and can't maintain caches," yet. :anibad:

 

This topic has been brought up many times, and there is no unanimous agreement. I'm proud to say that I'm at a 10:1 ration with 105 finds, and 1056 finds. There are several caches who should not hide caches, and i'll remain quiet as to why. Lets just say that some people just don't "get it," and the cachers always violate GC guidelines.

Link to comment

I'm really surprised nobody brought up the excuse about "retired cachers who live in their motorhomes, and can't maintain caches," yet. :anibad:

 

This topic has been brought up many times, and there is no unanimous agreement. I'm proud to say that I'm at a 10:1 ration with 105 finds, and 1056 finds. There are several caches who should not hide caches, and i'll remain quiet as to why. Lets just say that some people just don't "get it," and the cachers always violate GC guidelines.

Even without violating guidelines, there are many who just don't "get it."

 

But it has nothing whatever to do with find/hide ratios, unfortunately.

 

Legislating "get it" would be even harder than legislating "morality." Or perhaps like building a bridge to Hawaii... (how many lanes did you want?)

Link to comment

I did my first hide at 12 finds... now I am at 14 hides and 110 finds. Ratios are for statisticians and accountants. I like ti hike different trails and areas every week - if I am in an area with caches, I find; when I am in an area with none, I may drop a hide. I will probably slow down on hides at 20 because my caches are all wilderness hides and I need to keep maintenance under control. Quality always beats quantity.

 

If you find yourself obligated to find/hide, then you will probably not do it as well as if you WANT to. Find a way to give back to the sport... just writing a good log is a great gift in itself.

Link to comment

I'm really surprised nobody brought up the excuse about "retired cachers who live in their motorhomes, and can't maintain caches," yet. :anibad:

 

This topic has been brought up many times, and there is no unanimous agreement. I'm proud to say that I'm at a 10:1 ration with 105 finds, and 1056 finds. There are several caches who should not hide caches, and i'll remain quiet as to why. Lets just say that some people just don't "get it," and the cachers always violate GC guidelines.

Even without violating guidelines, there are many who just don't "get it."

 

But it has nothing whatever to do with find/hide ratios, unfortunately.

 

Legislating "get it" would be even harder than legislating "morality." Or perhaps like building a bridge to Hawaii... (how many lanes did you want?)

 

I purposely left out the "other" reason, because I didn't want to listen to the SDEL crowd defend crappy caches.

Link to comment
In my area, we have some cachers who have anywhere from a 1:1 to a 1000:1 or even higher F:H ratio.

 

So it's working out great in your area. People who like finding caches, find them and people who enjoy hiding them, hide them.

 

The last thing we need are people hiding caches simply because they feel they have to adhere to some arbitrary ratio.

 

My personal F to H ratio is roughly 3 - 1. That is good for me. No way do I think that anybody should try to match that, nor would I consider matching someone with a 1:1 ratio.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

My ratio is about 63:1. I find that I can keep up with 30-something caches on my own, but not too many more. It seems like one or more of them is always needing a maintenance visit, and it's not polite to let them languish.

 

To have a 10:1 ratio, I would need to rush out and hide about 230 lamp post and guardrail caches. That is the only way I think I could catch up quickly. But I'd much rather wait until the perfect combination of location, container, hiding style and cache description comes together in my head. Then I will hide just that one.

Link to comment

Thanks for all the great replies everyone!

 

I think I'll just doing what I feel fun. I really like the logs I read on my caches. I think I'll just keep on caching and placing them as long as I can keep up the creativity and maintenance.

 

J..

Link to comment

I personally don't care if a cacher has 0 finds and 5 hides, as long as those 5 hides are quality caches and the owner maintains them when needed. I don't worry about how many caches I've found before I place my next one, I try to plan the next one to be better than my previous ones. As it has already been said, some people love to find 'em, some people love to hide 'em, some people enjoy both, and in all sorts of different ratios. I doubt you'll find any pattern to it.

Link to comment

I'd almost ask the other question:

 

Who shouldn't be placing any hides?

 

1) People who place caches just because the feel an obligation but really don't want to.

2) People who are unwilling [don't have time] to maintain their caches.

3) People who think their should be a cache under 'every' lamp post skirt.

4) People who think that 'mean' caches are fun to place (e.g. film can under the leaf litter in the woods with bad coords)

Link to comment

It's kind of like telling someone that after they've read 500 books, they need to write one. The two activities are really separate.

 

Good finders may or may not make good hiders. In my book, a good finder is someone that has a lot of spare time, a desire to get out there and methodically think like a person that hides the cache.

 

Likewise, good hiders may or may not make good finders. In my book, a good hider is someone that has knows something about the area, works with the land managers to get a good image on caching, and brings people to a great, little-known spot. There's bonuses in there for people with individual creativity and those who want to challenge people without making things impossible.

Link to comment
It's kind of like telling someone that after they've read 500 books, they need to write one. The two activities are really separate.

 

Good finders may or may not make good hiders. In my book, a good finder is someone that has a lot of spare time, a desire to get out there and methodically think like a person that hides the cache.

 

Likewise, good hiders may or may not make good finders. In my book, a good hider is someone that has knows something about the area, works with the land managers to get a good image on caching, and brings people to a great, little-known spot. There's bonuses in there for people with individual creativity and those who want to challenge people without making things impossible.

 

This is a great analogy. I was also going to say that some areas have so many caches that there should be no pressure to hide more in those areas. However, even those areas may be lacking certain types of caches, so it makes sense to hide more of rarer types of caches to maintain a good balance/variety.
Link to comment

I'm really surprised nobody brought up the excuse about "retired cachers who live in their motorhomes, and can't maintain caches," yet. :)

 

This topic has been brought up many times, and there is no unanimous agreement. I'm proud to say that I'm at a 10:1 ration with 105 finds, and 1056 finds. There are several caches who should not hide caches, and i'll remain quiet as to why. Lets just say that some people just don't "get it," and the cachers always violate GC guidelines.

Even without violating guidelines, there are many who just don't "get it."

 

But it has nothing whatever to do with find/hide ratios, unfortunately.

 

Legislating "get it" would be even harder than legislating "morality." Or perhaps like building a bridge to Hawaii... (how many lanes did you want?)

 

I purposely left out the "other" reason, because I didn't want to listen to the SDEL crowd defend crappy caches.

 

Crappy caches RULE!!! Wooooooo!!!!! Go crappy caches! HOORAY for all crappy caches everywhere!!!!!

 

No, I don't think a Find to Hide ratio would be something to try and maintain. Hiding a crappy cache because you want to hide a cache and that's the kind you want to hide is way different than hiding a crappy cache because you need to keep up with a ratio in order to keep finding.

Link to comment

I'm really surprised nobody brought up the excuse about "retired cachers who live in their motorhomes, and can't maintain caches," yet. :)

 

This topic has been brought up many times, and there is no unanimous agreement. I'm proud to say that I'm at a 10:1 ration with 105 finds, and 1056 finds. There are several caches who should not hide caches, and i'll remain quiet as to why. Lets just say that some people just don't "get it," and the cachers always violate GC guidelines.

Even without violating guidelines, there are many who just don't "get it."

 

But it has nothing whatever to do with find/hide ratios, unfortunately.

 

Legislating "get it" would be even harder than legislating "morality." Or perhaps like building a bridge to Hawaii... (how many lanes did you want?)

 

I purposely left out the "other" reason, because I didn't want to listen to the SDEL crowd defend crappy caches.

 

Crappy caches RULE!!! Wooooooo!!!!! Go crappy caches! HOORAY for all crappy caches everywhere!!!!!

 

No, I don't think a Find to Hide ratio would be something to try and maintain. Hiding a crappy cache because you want to hide a cache and that's the kind you want to hide is way different than hiding a crappy cache because you need to keep up with a ratio in order to keep finding.

Some people have very high find to crappy cache hide ratios. That is why I've been asking for this.
Link to comment

Some people have very high find to crappy cache hide ratios. That is why I've been asking for this.

Yeah, I'd like to see that implemented, too.

 

I don't think a "ratio" is necessary but I also don't think it would be a bad thing for every cacher to try hiding at least one cache just for the experience. That way, there will be metric for them to judge as to whether they like doing it, should be doing it, or ought to just stick to finding.

Link to comment

No, I don't think a Find to Hide ratio would be something to try and maintain. Hiding a crappy cache because you want to hide a cache and that's the kind you want to hide is way different than hiding a crappy cache because you need to keep up with a ratio in order to keep finding. Some people have very high find to crappy cache hide ratios. That is why I've been asking for this.

 

I would love to have that option!

We have some cachers around here that are obsessed with keeping up a ratio of somesort.see this

I have over 500 finds, yes I have only hidden two. A) I'm not all that creative :) I don't really have time to maintain them, if I were to put them in a "quality" place. On the other hand I cache with people that have several hides out there and they are very creative with them. I think it should be up to the cacher and not up to others!

Edited by LostinReno
Link to comment

I've got less than 100 finds, but I've never felt obligated to do hides at any particular point.

We've got several extremely active and creative hiders in this area, so it's pretty tough to come up with a find in a good area that doesn't already have at least one cache! I saw one area I thought would be a great place for a hide...checked it and, sure enough, there was already a cache there.

If I find a great place in the future that isn't oversaturated with caches and is close enough for me to reasonably maintain a cache, I'd consider placing a hide.

Meanwhile, I'm not suffering any angst over not placing a hide.

 

I try to do my part by recording good, timely logs...moving TBs and coins in a reasonably timely manner...carrying spare zipper bags, small notepads, pencils, etc. so I can do minor replace & repair if I run into a cache that needs a little TLC...letting cache owners know if their caches need further maintainance...supporting the hobby/sites (this one and my local) by becoming a paid member...and attending some local events so I can get to know people better and better learn how I can be a good cacher.

Link to comment

Some people have very high find to crappy cache hide ratios. That is why I've been asking for this.

Yeah, I'd like to see that implemented, too. I don't think a "ratio" is necessary but I also don't think it would be a bad thing for every cacher to try hiding at least one cache just for the experience. That way, there will be metric for them to judge as to whether they like doing it, should be doing it, or ought to just stick to finding.

 

No, I don't think a Find to Hide ratio would be something to try and maintain. Hiding a crappy cache because you want to hide a cache and that's the kind you want to hide is way different than hiding a crappy cache because you need to keep up with a ratio in order to keep finding. Some people have very high find to crappy cache hide ratios. That is why I've been asking for this.

I would love to have that option!

We have some cachers around here that are obsessed with keeping up a ratio of somesort.see this

I have over 500 finds, yes I have only hidden two. A) I'm not all that creative :lol: I don't really have time to maintain them, if I were to put them in a "quality" place. On the other hand I cache with people that have several hides out there and they are very creative with them. I think it should be up to the cacher and not up to others!

 

Feel free to add your opinions to that thread. I'm not sure if TPTB are reading it, but you never know... :)

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

...Hiding a crappy cache because you want to hide a cache and that's the kind you want to hide is way different than hiding a crappy cache because you need to keep up with a ratio in order to keep finding.

 

All too true.

 

A crappy cache hidden because that was your goal, is a job well done. But a crappy cache that happens because of other reasons is not a job well done.

 

Of course if you set out to place a crappy cache and utterly fail, I'm not sure that's a bad thing, even if it's not a job well done....

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

i get nervous when somebody thinks of cache hiding to be a stat they have to race to milestones on.

 

(sorry about the grammar)

 

i have seen some of these hides. if you WANT to stick a lock'n'lock in a woodpile at an unremarkable parking lot for whatever purpose, fine.

 

maybe you're thinking of a drive-by someone might do on their way to somewhere else. i have enjoyed stops like this.

 

if you're only doing it so you can claim more hides, i'd have to tell you to leave well enough alone.

 

 

i used to think that i should place a cache at every viable location i could. then i started to realize that if i let other people do it, there would be more for me to find.

 

at the moment crashco and i are preparing to put out a series of caches at a favorite ski/mountain bike area of ours. we will have much latitude in locations, and in types of hides. we and WE ALONE have permission to use this trail network for cache hiding.

 

we intend to near saturation for a few reasons, one being that we know a lot of good possibilities, and also that it costs six dollars to get in (it is a non-profit and therefore acceptable). we intend to make a set of caches that will provide, say, a whole family with interesting and varied caches that will keep them busy for a whole day on just one parking spot.

 

the terrain and habitats are varied and the trails are beautifully laid for biking, skiing, and snowshoeing. the land is beautiful and historic. mountain bike facilities include terrain parks, some of which are used in winter by snowboarders.

 

these days we don't bother with placing a cache unless we have a reason for it.

Link to comment

My personal goal was to reach a place where people are logging finds on my caches at about the same rate as I'm logging finds on other people's caches. I reached that point about a month or two ago, even after archiving a couple of caches (my find rate has plummeted). Now the hide/find ratio is a bit top-heavy.

 

Generally, though, I'd say you should do whatever you feel like doing.

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...