Lame First Hides

April 13, 2008

So many times I see comments of the Cache Page that says something to the effect that - "This is my 1st hide - so don't expect much". Where is this attitude coming from and I am afraid it is spreading like poison among 1st hiders.

My advice is to wait until you think you have the perfect idea for a cache and not hide one until you can impress the hunters with something about the cache. It seems like some of the cache placement are token just to say "Yes I have hid one". I have seen so many caches - placed with obviously only one place to hide it. So easy or pointless in location.

I guess I would like to see caching done my way - self-fish of course!

1. There is some reason to hide it here. An interesting place.

2. There should be lots of places where it could be - not just one.

3. The area should not be know for trash.

4. The cache should be a water proof container

5. Not Permanently over taken by muggles.

6. Something Clever about it and is the result of some thought.

7. Hey you won't believe what this guy did or where is one is.

My question is - Are you finding alot of caches that are boring you to death and making you lose interest?

(I spend as much time weeding them out as I do caching).

How do we get this game back to a treasure HUNT and 1st hiders and others to actually hide the cache ????.

Edited April 13, 2008 by GPS-Hermit

2k · April 13, 2008

Well, I have 8 caches, 6 of which are active.

My first, I think it applies to #4, 5, 6, 7

It is definitely he opposite of #3.

I'm Ok with it cuz I like the hide and a lot of people have liked the hide.

38.2k · April 13, 2008

I'd be happy everyone did if #1 and #4, not just novices.

I'll also part company with you on #2. In many areas extended searches can increase the impact on the area,

so take this into consideration when hiding something on the difficult side. Hunts like that can be fun for some, but please hide these high difficulty caches on durable surfaces.

1.3k · April 13, 2008

I'm okay with any hide that conforms to the guidelines.

3.9k · April 13, 2008

To many folks, hiding a cache... any cache.. is a way of indoctronating themselves into the game. Perhaps making a that first step to commitment. So... go for it!

April 13, 2008

I'd be happy everyone did if #1 and #4, not just novices.

I'll also part company with you on #2. In many areas extended searches can increase the impact on the area,

so take this into consideration when hiding something on the difficult side. Hunts like that can be fun for some, but please hide these high difficulty caches on durable surfaces.

Excellent point - meaning Thought in placing a cache is very important even on the 1st one.

April 13, 2008

Heck, I think I covered all of the points listed in my very first cache!

:mad:

I think unimaginative caches are not confined to us newbies...

April 13, 2008

NANO caches are huge offenders to this list.

Oh look a street sign, lets stick a nano cache to it.

They need to make some serious rules (and enforce them) about placement of Nano caches. Personally I would be happy if they would just eliminate them and forbid the use of any cache below the size of X by Y

2.6k · April 13, 2008

NANO caches are huge offenders to this list.

Oh look a street sign, lets stick a nano cache to it.

They need to make some serious rules (and enforce them) about placement of Nano caches. Personally I would be happy if they would just eliminate them and forbid the use of any cache below the size of X by Y

I have a series of 5 nanos that conform to all seven of the OP's point's. All five are in nice locations. They have never had a wet log. They are in clean nice areas. They are not taking up space where larger caches could be. Also they lead you around town on a cute little journey to a nice little cache at a memorial.

It's not the size of the cache container that matters. It's how the caches is done.

Having said that, I will agree that micros and nanos do tend to lend themselves to caches that are not well thought out.

Anyway that's bit off topic. So on topic I'll say this. All caches, regardless of size, should follow as many of the list above as possible. If they did there would be a lot fewer rants of this forum. :mad:

April 13, 2008

To many folks, hiding a cache... any cache.. is a way of indoctronating themselves into the game. Perhaps making a that first step to commitment. So... go for it!

Exactly my point! If you are going to indoctrinate yourself into the sport - then please do so with a real contribution - instead of a lame - "look here it fell out of my hand - do you think you can find it". It is a hiding sport with lots of opportunity for folks to enjoy the Hunt". Every newpaper article I have seen says this game/sport is enjoyed by folks on a High tech Treasure hunt. I am not suggesting that everyone have a difficultly of a 4 - but that even the 1's have some choices in hiding places and you fell like you had to look for it. I find a 20 second hide is hurting the game and just wonder who else think so. Many times the place is purely nothing at all. They pulled off the side of the road and it fell out of their hand. I guess I expect more if it is to continue to be a game at all. each person makes a contribution to the game - pointless or thought provoking.

April 13, 2008

So many times I see comments of the Cache Page that says something to the effect that - "This is my 1st hide - so don't expect much". Where is this attitude coming from and I am afraid it is spreading like poison among 1st hiders.

My advice is to wait until you think you have the perfect idea for a cache and not hide one until you can impress the hunters with something about the cache. It seems like some of the cache placement are token just to say "Yes I have hid one". I have seen so many caches - placed with obviously only one place to hide it. So easy or pointless in location.

I guess I would like to see caching done my way - self-fish of course!

1. There is some reason to hide it here. An interesting place.

2. There should be lots of places where it could be - not just one.

3. The area should not be know for trash.

4. The cache should be a water proof container

5. Not Permanently over taken by muggles.

6. Something Clever about it and is the result of some thought.

7. Hey you won't believe what this guy did or where is one is.

My question is - Are you finding alot of caches that are boring you to death and making you lose interest?

(I spend as much time weeding them out as I do caching).

How do we get this game back to a treasure HUNT and 1st hiders and others to actually hide the cache ????.

To answer your question, no.

This all goes back to the thought that everyone plays the game differently. Those who go for the numbers, love the easy caches. The big hunters, maybe they don't.

If a cache is near me, I'll go for it no matter the level (I have a bunch of high terrains/high difficulty ones that I am looking forward to now that the weather has broken).

I don't think it is killing the game. People are going to do easy ones. People are going to do hard ones. It's the beauty of geocaching. All of those seven things you've posted would construe the game way too much to where people just wouldn't do it -- if all seven were the rules. The great part of this game is that people can interpret it in so many different ways.

Yesterday, we went on a five-step multi that taxed us -- thinking. It was outstanding. We also had an easy micro that made us say "Way too easy." But it's not like we were all made about it. We signed the log and moved on. No harm, no foul. It, at least, was a neat little area with a nice view.

My only thing is that I wish there was a selection where the person hiding the cache could say it was a nano and not just a micro. I know most will put in the description it's a nano, but it's always nice to know it for sure!

April 13, 2008

They need to make some serious rules (and enforce them) about placement of Nano caches. Personally I would be happy if they would just eliminate them and forbid the use of any cache below the size of X by Y

One of the best hides I ever found was a nano. Creative and enough to wow me. I highly disagree with this. Making people use a certain size would just be silly. Some places won't take anything higher than a nano. And those hides can often be outstanding.

April 13, 2008

Everyone is going to have a different 'standard' in which they feel a cache should live up to.

Me, I just applaud an effort and happy to see a new hide listed.

Maybe the extreme cache rich locations can afford a bigger gripe?

April 13, 2008

Well being a Newbie, and guilty of hiding my first cache, I am going to throw myself to the wolves here possibly. But I am curious. Check out my First Hide and tell me what you think. It has been found once but we have had some wet weather since I placed it. GC1B1GT

2.5k · April 13, 2008

I don't think anyone wants to hide a lame cache as their first atttempt. Adding the plea to understand it's their first hide is just that--a plea for understanding. They are trying something for the first time. They want to do well and have their cache visited. They know they will have a more experienced audience, and they really don't want to get slammed for their first attempt.

I think most people do put thought and time into their first hide. I would guess most 1st timers are afraid they will mess up the coords or not rate the cache appropriately and that is what they are most concerned with when they ask for some mercy. They want positive feedback and they'd like to avoid an outright attack.

Hiding a really good cache is an art. There actually is a lot more to it than just sticking some container somewhere and clicking a button. Some people have a natural knack for doing it well, and others have to learn how to do it. Eventually some of us will learn that hiding them just isn't our strong suite and we'll leave that aspect of the game to others. And that, my friend, is the crux of the matter. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. It's a geocache. It doesn't matter if it isn't perfect from the start.

If a raw newbie near you places a hide that is less than stellar, why not befriend them, take them under your broad wing, and help them learn how to improve instead of alienating them? Join them for a cup of coffee at the next event and compliment them for the attempt. Ask them how they think it could have been improved (they'll often know already). Gently suggest one thing that you would have done differently if it were your cache. Take them aching with you and show them some of your favorites in the area. Explain to them why you like those hides.

April 13, 2008

I just posted a reply on another thread about one of my first hides. It worked for the first year and a half, but we all have things to learn about hiding.. Heck, I am still learning, and listening. Go for whatever trips your trigger, and if it doesn't pan out, move on and design something better. :mad:

This thread

5.8k · April 13, 2008

I saw this written somewhere, I didn't come up with it on my own.

"There are no lame caches. Someone enjoyed hiding it, someone enjoyed finding it".

April 13, 2008

Honestly,if I had read the forums before placing my first cache,I still would have placed it.But I would have used a five gallon pail instead of a military first aid container.Mostly because of all the camo tricks I learned here,and it's in and area that I wouldn't need to use a 'Pointy object' to make a hole for it... :mad:

There's a question you should ask yourself(Not the OP but in general)-

"If I read the forums before I placed my first cache,would I have still placed it?"

Not that the forums are the ultimate last word in the geocaching community,but because there's a ton of information from experienced cachers here for the noobie to grow off of.

5.8k · April 13, 2008

Not that the forums are the ultimate last word in the geocaching community,but because there's a ton of information from experienced cachers here for the noobie to grow off of.

I think some call it fertilizer.

2.6k · April 13, 2008

Not that the forums are the ultimate last word in the geocaching community,but because there's a ton of information from experienced cachers here for the noobie to grow off of.

I think some call it fertilizer.

That's right. It promotes the healthy growth of the hobby and makes it stronger.

2.6k · April 13, 2008

:mad:

Stupid double post.

Edited April 13, 2008 by Totem Clan

1.4k · April 13, 2008

So many times I see comments of the Cache Page that says something to the effect that - "This is my 1st hide - so don't expect much". Where is this attitude coming from and I am afraid it is spreading like poison among 1st hiders.

My advice is to wait until you think you have the perfect idea for a cache and not hide one until you can impress the hunters with something about the cache. It seems like some of the cache placement are token just to say "Yes I have hid one". I have seen so many caches - placed with obviously only one place to hide it. So easy or pointless in location.

I guess I would like to see caching done my way - self-fish of course!

1. There is some reason to hide it here. An interesting place.

2. There should be lots of places where it could be - not just one.

3. The area should not be know for trash.

4. The cache should be a water proof container

5. Not Permanently over taken by muggles.

6. Something Clever about it and is the result of some thought.

7. Hey you won't believe what this guy did or where is one is.

My question is - Are you finding alot of caches that are boring you to death and making you lose interest?

(I spend as much time weeding them out as I do caching).

How do we get this game back to a treasure HUNT and 1st hiders and others to actually hide the cache ????.

I agree with a lot of the quality issues here in principle but I have a few general comments.

Why do you think you see "don't expect too much this is my first hide" so much? I found putting out my first hide fairly intimidating for a lot of reasons. If you read the forums or cache pages for any length of time, you'll find a newbie hider getting lambasted for something. I'd say that is why you see that on new hiders caches sometimes, folks are a little gun shy because some folks aren't exactly gentle.

Secondly, hiding a cache is not an entirely intuitive process, there are certain things that you have to just do to understand them completely. I think that there a lot of finer points of putting out a cache are really only learned by experiencing them.

That said, I think that understanding and education go a long ways. Someone that is motivated to put their time, money, and energy towards hiding a cache is a gift. Consider it a seed that needs to be watered and cared for before you get a bloom. There's a way of trying to help someone understand what makes a long lasting and enjoyable hide without embarrassing them or trying to control them. But this education, IMO, should only be given knowing that not everyone enjoys the same type of cache.

April 13, 2008

I think that understanding and education go a long ways. Someone that is motivated to put their time, money, and energy towards hiding a cache is a gift. Consider it a seed that needs to be watered and cared for before you get a bloom. There's a way of trying to help someone understand what makes a long lasting and enjoyable hide without embarrassing them or trying to control them. But this education, IMO, should only be given knowing that not everyone enjoys the same type of cache.

Wow!

That is one heckuva statement that should be incorporated into the geocacher's creed.

I love your attitude.

3.9k · April 13, 2008

NANO caches are huge offenders to this list.

Oh look a street sign, lets stick a nano cache to it.

They need to make some serious rules (and enforce them) about placement of Nano caches. Personally I would be happy if they would just eliminate them and forbid the use of any cache below the size of X by Y

They did make serious rules, and enforce them, about placement of Nano caches. They're actually called guidelines but they're enforced by the reviewers. If a Nano doesn't comply, it's not listed.

However, instead of taking away fun from people that enjoy the nano hides, why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something? It's not that hard to remove them from a PQ. It's not that hard to see the micro icon on the description page and move on to the next one.

April 13, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

Groundspeak has removed several other types of caches that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part " about caching. (Virtual, locationless, webcam) I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache. If that had been my first experience, my opinion of the sport would have been much different at the beginning and may have ended right there. Yes yes, the smart arse reply is just ignore them, don't do them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting the sport? Are the majority of Nanos good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really cool Nanos but I am willing to bet the large majority of them produce a lackluster experience for the cacher.

9.1k · April 13, 2008

I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache.

Start shuddering. Here is a recent log from one of my caches, a magnetic thingie attached to the bottom of a trash can:

This was my first geocaching experience. I live within walking distance of this one so after dinner my little girl and I walked to the location and started the search. I explained to her about mugglers and how we needed to be secretive about searching. We checked a few places in between traveling mugglers, then I spotted it! There were 2 mugglers near by so we had to wait for the coast to be clear. Finally the time was right and we got the treasure. After signing the log, we had to wait again for the coast to be clear to replace the geocache. This was really a great experience. It was fun for me and extremely fun for my little girl. She wants me to find some more "maps" tonight so we can treasure hunt more tomorrow. She is so excited that I've had to put her back to bed 3 times while I was writing this. She keeps getting out to see if I found any new "maps."

Now, it maybe explains things a bit if you knew that this was the view from the cache:

There are no lame sizes. There are only poor locations, and poor container choices for the location in which they are hidden. A rule against a certain cache size would rule out any chance of hiding a cache at this popular scenic overlook.

PS I hid this cache when I had about 200 finds, and it's still going strong five years later.

3.9k · April 13, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

Groundspeak has removed several other types of caches that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part " about caching. (Virtual, locationless, webcam) I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache. If that had been my first experience, my opinion of the sport would have been much different at the beginning and may have ended right there. Yes yes, the smart arse reply is just ignore them, don't do them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting the sport? Are the majority of Nanos good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really cool Nanos but I am willing to bet the large majority of them produce a lackluster experience for the cacher.

Okay, now that you've got me curious.... how, exactly, do nano's degrade the sport and experience?

14.3k · April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

I have only one hide so far and I can only think of one complaint, and that is the trash. My first cache is hidden under a swinging bridge that crosses a river, a lot of tourists stop and cross the bridge and it is used as a local fishing spot to. I tried to keep the trash to a minimum before I placed the cache but it just overwelmed me. But if you overlook the trash I think this was a great first hide, and the view from the bridge is pretty.

April 13, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience.

Excuse me? I have the opportunity to take a co-ordinate from cyberspace, plug it into a relatively cheap piece of technology, and use geosense and billion dollar satellites to have some fun for a couple of hours each weekend. What is so degrading about seeking something the size of a pencil eraser as opposed to something the size of a Volkswagen?

1.7k · April 13, 2008

Why do you think you see "don't expect too much this is my first hide" so much? I found putting out my first hide fairly intimidating for a lot of reasons. If you read the forums or cache pages for any length of time, you'll find a newbie hider getting lambasted for something. I'd say that is why you see that on new hiders caches sometimes, folks are a little gun shy because some folks aren't exactly gentle.

Secondly, hiding a cache is not an entirely intuitive process, there are certain things that you have to just do to understand them completely. I think that there a lot of finer points of putting out a cache are really only learned by experiencing them.

That said, I think that understanding and education go a long ways. Someone that is motivated to put their time, money, and energy towards hiding a cache is a gift. Consider it a seed that needs to be watered and cared for before you get a bloom. There's a way of trying to help someone understand what makes a long lasting and enjoyable hide without embarrassing them or trying to control them. But this education, IMO, should only be given knowing that not everyone enjoys the same type of cache.

Very well said.

Frankly I enjoy the variety of cache sizes. I can understand why some don't like nanos or micros but it's a bit much to say it's degrading the sport. To the poster who claimed it is degrading the sport, opinions are all well and good - but please don't think your opinion applies to everyone. That's just plain rude.

Edited April 13, 2008 by ThePetersTrio

1.4k · April 13, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

Groundspeak has removed several other types of caches that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part " about caching. (Virtual, locationless, webcam) I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache. If that had been my first experience, my opinion of the sport would have been much different at the beginning and may have ended right there. Yes yes, the smart arse reply is just ignore them, don't do them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting the sport? Are the majority of Nanos good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really cool Nanos but I am willing to bet the large majority of them produce a lackluster experience for the cacher.

Okay, now that you've got me curious.... how, exactly, do nano's degrade the sport and experience?

Just a friendly word of advice. Don't answer this unless you have a lot of time and patience.

3.9k · April 13, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

Groundspeak has removed several other types of caches that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part " about caching. (Virtual, locationless, webcam) I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache. If that had been my first experience, my opinion of the sport would have been much different at the beginning and may have ended right there. Yes yes, the smart arse reply is just ignore them, don't do them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting the sport? Are the majority of Nanos good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really cool Nanos but I am willing to bet the large majority of them produce a lackluster experience for the cacher.

Okay, now that you've got me curious.... how, exactly, do nano's degrade the sport and experience?

Just a friendly word of advice. Don't answer this unless you have a lot of time and patience.

Instead, if you don't have time just do a drive by posting, without logic or reason, that you can't back up with facts, and then ignore those that ask you for clarification.

Right TG?

10.2k · April 14, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

Groundspeak has removed several other types of caches that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part " about caching. (Virtual, locationless, webcam) I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache. If that had been my first experience, my opinion of the sport would have been much different at the beginning and may have ended right there. Yes yes, the smart arse reply is just ignore them, don't do them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting the sport? Are the majority of Nanos good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really cool Nanos but I am willing to bet the large majority of them produce a lackluster experience for the cacher.

Okay, now that you've got me curious.... how, exactly, do nano's degrade the sport and experience?

Just a friendly word of advice. Don't answer this unless you have a lot of time and patience.

Tag team ankle-biting routine? :laughing:

20.7k · April 14, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience. ...

Rather than rehash the threads that this post reminds me of, wouldn't it be better if we each concentrated on our own fun, rather than trying to change everyone else to our whims?

April 14, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

Groundspeak has removed several other types of caches that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part " about caching. (Virtual, locationless, webcam) I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache. If that had been my first experience, my opinion of the sport would have been much different at the beginning and may have ended right there. Yes yes, the smart arse reply is just ignore them, don't do them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting the sport? Are the majority of Nanos good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really cool Nanos but I am willing to bet the large majority of them produce a lackluster experience for the cacher.

Okay, now that you've got me curious.... how, exactly, do nano's degrade the sport and experience?

Just a friendly word of advice. Don't answer this unless you have a lot of time and patience.

:laughing:

20.7k · April 14, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

Groundspeak has removed several other types of caches that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part " about caching. (Virtual, locationless, webcam) I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache. If that had been my first experience, my opinion of the sport would have been much different at the beginning and may have ended right there. Yes yes, the smart arse reply is just ignore them, don't do them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting the sport? Are the majority of Nanos good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really cool Nanos but I am willing to bet the large majority of them produce a lackluster experience for the cacher.

Okay, now that you've got me curious.... how, exactly, do nano's degrade the sport and experience?

Just a friendly word of advice. Don't answer this unless you have a lot of time and patience.

Instead, if you don't have time just do a drive by posting, without logic or reason, that you can't back up with facts, and then ignore those that ask you for clarification.

Right TG?

The hurried drive-by poster could also save themselves some angst by simply doing a search.

(Apparently, we are officially finished with the 'Groundspeak is bad' angst fests and back to the 'I hate X caches' angst fests.)

Edited April 14, 2008 by sbell111

April 14, 2008

"There are no lame sizes. There are only poor locations, and poor container choices for the location in which they are hidden. A rule against a certain cache size would rule out any chance of hiding a cache at this popular scenic overlook."

See in the old days, that scenic overlook would have been a "virtual cache" since it was impossible to place a "real cache" or even a micro. Virtual caches were eliminated for lots of reasons... perhaps a quick search of the forums will show you why they were moved to Waymarking. I would also say there is probably another way to get people to that scenic overlook other than a Nano. A multi that requires them to stop there and observe/read something to move to another location where the cache is. Furthermore, I would argue that that observation area might be better served as a waymark. To me Nano's are just a way to turn something that should be a waymark into a cache,

Okay first a definition: Degrade: To reduce in worth or value

Now a few days ago I am standing on a quiet public street looking for a Nano that was ingeniously offset from a street sign. (distance given as 250 - 600 ft away) Wheee... lets search all the signs on this public street while people stare. Inevitably someone asks what we are doing and its quite hard to make up a story. Ummm, I am the sign inspector? Rather than make up a story I default to the truth and the man looks at me and says, sounds pretty stupid to search around for a spec, why not just make it a certain hair on a gnats arse. Now in the eyes of this potential new player the value of Geocaching has been reduce at the sight of people looking for a silly little spec on a public street. His final question was: "Why does it have to be so small" .. honestly I have no good answer for that. Ummm, because we love trying to pull out the tiny log without ripping it? We really love rolling paper up into tiny tiny rolls and trying to jam them into a little tin? Now the point of this nano was to take people to the "shortest" street in the town. Okay, cool I suppose if your into that sort of thing.. again this easily could have been a multi since just around the corner was a nice plot of friendly woods. Take me to the street, have me find the sign you love or the telephone pole you think is the bomb and make me get some numbers to compute the final location... there, I saw the tiny street and I am on my way to find a full size cache and whoooo I can get my feet dirty and see trees too (yea!)

Okay, so as someone posted above, its not the size that makes a bad cache its people's location and hiding choice. I agree 100% with this. The problem is Nano caches seem to breed bad choices on both accounts.

The person that brings up the bridge example and others that people post ..what a micro wouldn't have worked? Is there really only room for a tiny tiny magnet? If so why not just make it a waymark.

Virtuals, Webcam and Locationless where all moved to Waymarking. How is that working out? I did a quick search in my area and on the first two pages I found no waymark that has EVER been visited. Is Waymarking a failure? Are Nano's the way to get something that should be a waymark onto the geocache site. This ambiguity certainly degrades the potential of Waymarking and geocaching.

Can I stick a Nano on top of a benchmark and kill two birds with one stone? Just tell people that if they want people to find a certain benchmark, go place a nano on it and kill the benchmarking portion of the site.

So if you need so ideas on where to place Nanos... go to the Waymarking site and search... just place a Nano at every waymark spot. If its important enough to waymark..surely there should be a cache there.

10.1k · April 14, 2008

Ah. Curious. We hid our first cache 3.5 years ago. It has received some accolades. We learn from the best.

Most of our caches have spectacular views. (Nope. Not all. But most.) That is what we pride ourselves on: Location. (Okay. Or evil mystery caches...) Today, we outdid ourselves! Spectacular view, evil mystery cache, and it's our first nano container! It may not get a lot of visits. (A lot of our caches do not. But, that's your loss.) And if you don't want to hunt for it, that's your prerogative. But, if you do, you'll find it very rewarding. Sometimes you have to fit the contaner to the spot. And the nano is the only container for this spot. If you call it 'degrading to the sport' then you seriously need to reconsider your priorities.

April 14, 2008

"If you call it 'degrading to the sport' then you seriously need to reconsider your priorities."

What?!? What does it have to do with my priorities?

"Sometimes you have to fit the container (sp fixed) to the spot"

Absolutely.. you missed the point. If a micro won't fit (which I highly doubt) then make it a waymark or make it a leg of a multi. Tiny nano cache dne good hide.

"If you call it 'degrading to the sport'

Pawing around for some tiny magnet in highly public places is not exactly dignified nor does it reflect well when people query you about the sport. YES, the are some great ones... sorry, the majority of Nano's do not reflect well on the sport. If your the exception... ballyhoo for you!

"Ah. Curious. We hid our first cache 3.5 years ago. It has received some accolades. We learn from the best. "

Did I single you out. Did I say hey, your caches suck? Was there some reason you needed to pump up your ego before posting anything relevant. Yeah for you, you have good caches... well done mate. It is amazing me how personally people are taking a comment about a particular cache size not being good and/or reflecting poorly on the sport.

5.8k · April 14, 2008

Umm...Hello? HELLO!! Can we keep to the topic please? The topic is not about Cache size.

April 14, 2008

Actually we are on topic..

From Original Poster:

My question is - Are you finding alot of caches that are boring you to death and making you lose interest?

(I spend as much time weeding them out as I do caching).

How do we get this game back to a treasure HUNT and 1st hiders and others to actually hide the cache ????.

My response. Nano's are boring and reflect poorly on the sport. Get rid of Nano's and we might make out way back to treasure HUNT and keep it interesting. Furthermore, the use of a Nanos can be avoided by being creative (multi) or the spot can be a waymark.

1.4k · April 14, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

Groundspeak has removed several other types of caches that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part " about caching. (Virtual, locationless, webcam) I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache. If that had been my first experience, my opinion of the sport would have been much different at the beginning

and may have ended right there. Yes yes, the smart arse reply is just ignore them, don't do them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting the sport? Are the majority of Nanos good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really cool Nanos but I am willing to bet the large majority of them produce a lackluster experience for the cacher.

Okay, now that you've got me curious.... how, exactly, do nano's degrade the sport and experience?

Just a friendly word of advice. Don't answer this unless you have a lot of time and patience.

Instead, if you don't have time just do a drive by posting, without logic or reason, that you can't back up with facts, and then ignore those that ask you for clarification.

Right TG?

I have logic and a reason.

Logic: This is a topic that you and a few others in this forum are very passionate about and have no qualms debating for months on end if you can manage to not get the thread closed. I know I have done it once with you. It is very time consuming.

Reason: This poster honestly might not want to engage in that type of diatribe.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

5.8k · April 14, 2008

Umm...Hello? HELLO!! Can we keep to the topic please? The topic is not about Cache size.

Actually we are on topic..

From Original Poster:

My question is - Are you finding alot of caches that are boring you to death and making you lose interest?

(I spend as much time weeding them out as I do caching).

How do we get this game back to a treasure HUNT and 1st hiders and others to actually hide the cache ????.

My response. Nano's are boring and reflect poorly on the sport. Get rid of Nano's and we might make out way back to treasure HUNT and keep it interesting. Furthermore, the use of a Nanos can be avoided by being creative (multi) or the spot can be a waymark.

OK, you make a good point there, but I think the OP was looking for a discussion on Quality rather than Size. While I can see how those are related, if we let this slip into the arguement over Nano's, then there will be no room for a productive discussion on Overall Quality (that won't fit in a Nano).

I just think we will have a better discussion if we stick to overall quality.

14.3k · April 14, 2008

I have logic and a reason.

Logic: This is a topic that you and a few others in this forum are very passionate about and have no qualms debating for months on end if you can manage to not get the thread closed. I know I have done it once with you. It is very time consuming.

Reason: This poster honestly might not want to engage in that type of diatribe.

That is very logical TGB! :laughing:

8k · April 14, 2008

Why? Well IMHO, ice cream sandwiches degrade ice cream and the experience of eating it. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy ice cream sandwiches but that does mean the ice cream listing sites should allow them. In every gastronomic list there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun to eat but the gastronomic list in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

The ice cream list has remove several other type of frozen deserts that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part" about eating ice cream. (frozen yougurt, popsicles, and sherbet) I shudder to think of that first time ice cream taster eating an ice cream sandwich as their first ice cream. If that hand been my first experience, my opinion of ice cream eating would have been much different at the beginning and may have ended right there. Yes Yes, the smart arse replay is just ignore them, don't eat them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting ice cream eating. Are the majority of ice cream sandwiches good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really good ice cream sandwiches but I am willing to be the large marjority of them produce a lackluster experience for the ice cream eater. :laughing:

3.9k · April 14, 2008

Pawing around for some tiny magnet in highly public places is not exactly dignified nor does it reflect well when people query you about the sport. YES, the are some great ones... sorry, the majority of Nano's do not reflect well on the sport. If you're (spelling fixed) the exception... ballyhoo for you!

Well, by all means, if these are caches that YOU don't like, then let's BAN them from the game!!!!

If you think Waymarking doesn't see a lot of action, just wait until we remove everything from geocaching just because someone doesn't like it.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Mushtang

3.9k · April 14, 2008

"why don't you just eliminate micros from your searches and not try and change the way everyone else has to play just because YOU don't like something?"

Why? Well IMHO, Nanos degrade the sport and the experience. Yes its true, some people actually enjoy Nanos but that doesn't mean the sport should allow them. In every sport there are rules that tread or remove things that some people like or think are fun but the sport in the end has to make rules to maintain its core experience.

Groundspeak has removed several other types of caches that many people thought were "fun" or the "best part " about caching. (Virtual, locationless, webcam) I shudder to think of that first time cacher finding a Nano as their first cache. If that had been my first experience, my opinion of the sport would have been much different at the beginning

and may have ended right there. Yes yes, the smart arse reply is just ignore them, don't do them, remove them from the list... that takes care of me. What about protecting the sport? Are the majority of Nanos good for the sport? Yes I am sure there are some really cool Nanos but I am willing to bet the large majority of them produce a lackluster experience for the cacher.

Okay, now that you've got me curious.... how, exactly, do nano's degrade the sport and experience?

Just a friendly word of advice. Don't answer this unless you have a lot of time and patience.

Instead, if you don't have time just do a drive by posting, without logic or reason, that you can't back up with facts, and then ignore those that ask you for clarification.

Right TG?

I have logic and a reason.

Logic: This is a topic that you and a few others in this forum are very passionate about and have no qualms debating for months on end if you can manage to not get the thread closed. I know I have done it once with you. It is very time consuming.

Reason: This poster honestly might not want to engage in that type of diatribe.

I just don't understand these type of answers. You're actually suggesting that if he doesn't want to discuss it (and of course you had to say it in an insulting way) then just because I'm replying to him then he HAS to reply back?

That makes about as much sense as him complaining about nanos. If you don't like them, you can just not hunt them. If you don't want to discuss something, just don't reply.

6.7k · April 14, 2008

"Take the 1st hide seriously"?

Why not take all of your hides seriously? :laughing:

Edited April 14, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

14.3k · April 14, 2008

"Take the 1st hide seriously"?

Why not take all of your hides seriously?

Great advice TAR! :laughing:

Lame First Hides

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment