Give and Take

[+maxkim]

Just looking at the twenty UK cachers with the most finds (over 3000) and I notice that 7 have over 100 caches hidden, one has 2 and 11 have under 30. In general what is a good hide to find ratio? even at 3000 to 100 it boils down to 1 : 30 who can beat that???

[+Amberel]

Just looking at the twenty UK cachers with the most finds (over 3000) and I notice that 7 have over 100 caches hidden, one has 2 and 11 have under 30. In general what is a good hide to find ratio? even at 3000 to 100 it boils down to 1 : 30 who can beat that???

Comparing "hide to find" ratios is just as pointless as comparing the number of caches found. It's not a competition.

 

Rgds, Andy

[lakeuk]

wouldn't say there was a good/bad ratio, it'll all depends on the individual on what they do/enjoy. No point in putting a cache out for the sake of it

[+PopUpPirate]

Yes but to put something back is good, of course! Otherwise there'd be nothing to find

 

Anyways to answer th'OP : gotta be Lollybob hasn't it?

 

1801 found, 238 hidden!

[+Simply Paul]

Beats me: 1777 found, 180ish hidden, adopted, co-hidden, hidden under other names etc etc. I agree, there isn't a 'good ratio'; You could hide one to every find, but if they're all rubbish, no one's going to thank you. There are better ways to be a credit to caching than being a 'numbers hider' - Hiding one excellent cache, writing brilliant logs or uploading beautiful photos, even carrying replacement logs and pen/cils with you all spring to mind.

 

That all said, I do like to see fresh caches being hidden, especially by people with enough experience to know a quality location/conatiner/hide. However, cachers should never feel 'pressured' into hiding stuff just for the ratio, or any other reason. Better that a location seems to be crying out for a cache and they place one there to bring others to see it. Always quality over quantity!

[+Primitive Person]

Beats me: 1777 found, 180ish hidden, adopted, co-hidden, hidden under other names etc etc. I agree, there isn't a 'good ratio'; You could hide one to every find, but if they're all rubbish, no one's going to thank you. There are better ways to be a credit to caching than being a 'numbers hider' - Hiding one excellent cache, writing brilliant logs or uploading beautiful photos, even carrying replacement logs and pen/cils with you all spring to mind.

 

That all said, I do like to see fresh caches being hidden, especially by people with enough experience to know a quality location/conatiner/hide. However, cachers should never feel 'pressured' into hiding stuff just for the ratio, or any other reason. Better that a location seems to be crying out for a cache and they place one there to bring others to see it. Always quality over quantity!

 

Absolutely - couldn't agree more. There are some caches I've found and thought "why?!?" - and others that have been brilliant. I've found 115 and hidden 7, although I've archived the first one I hid following a muggle attack and won't be replacing it. My expectations have risen since I placed it, and I'd no longer regard it as being a good hide.

 

I try very hard to be a quality finder as well. I don't generally swap swag, but I make sure I write MUCH more than just "TNLN, TFTC" on my logs. I enjoy looking back at the logs I've written, so I do try to write something meaningful and worthwhile. It helps that I now use a TyTN II for caching that lends itself easily to writing logs at the scene - I usually do it straight after my find so I don't forget anything.

 

Lee

[+Team Sieni]

This is an easy question to answer.

 

First work out your own hide to find ratio.

 

This is the ideal ratio

Anyone who hides more than you is irresponsibly churning out caches that they can't hope to maintain properly.

Anyone who hides less than you is not pulling their weight or putting enough back into caching.

 

Simple!

[Deceangi]

The best reply is

 

Forget ratios comparing Hides/Finds, instead just hide as many caches as can be well maintained. It's no use having a high hide/find ratio if you've got a large No of hides with maintenance issues or which have been Archived by a Reviewer due to Non Maintenance.

 

And a word of warning once my new colleague is up to speed, and I've cleared out my Reviewer Email account. I will be going through the emails for Up date coordinate and Needs Archived logs. So don't be surprised if you see a large No of caches being actioned.

[+Von-Horst]

We've found 900-odd, hidden 3.

 

Hopefully, the 3 caches we've hidden are decent, 'quality' caches that people enjoy getting to and finding.

 

Would we like to own more?

 

Absolutely.

 

However, we would rather avoid just scattering caches in the local hedgerows...

 

I work full time and also have to work every other weekend so time is precious and we cannot commit to being able to both go caching and maintain a larger number of, for want of a better term, 'proper' caches.

 

Mike.

[+Guanajuato]

Well, Martlakes & Freya have a hide to find rate of 1 hide for every 7 found. And I can tell you that every single one of the caches we've found (about 50 of the 106) have been excellent.

 

My ratio is a little worse, with 1 hide to 279 finds - but I do have a couple of hides in the pipeline. My excuse is that Marlakes keeps pinching all the good spots!

[+jerryo]

The best reply is

 

Forget ratios comparing Hides/Finds, instead just hide as many caches as can be well maintained. It's no use having a high hide/find ratio if you've got a large No of hides with maintenance issues or which have been Archived by a Reviewer due to Non Maintenance.

 

And a word of warning once my new colleague is up to speed, and I've cleared out my Reviewer Email account. I will be going through the emails for Up date coordinate and Needs Archived logs. So don't be surprised if you see a large No of caches being actioned.

Will that include the caches that have been "temporarily" disabled for yonks?

[+Primitive Person]

The best reply is

 

Forget ratios comparing Hides/Finds, instead just hide as many caches as can be well maintained. It's no use having a high hide/find ratio if you've got a large No of hides with maintenance issues or which have been Archived by a Reviewer due to Non Maintenance.

 

Absolutely - this will vary for everyone. Of my seven hides thus far, I can walk from home to five of them within half an hour or so, and the other two are short train journeys away. If anything crops up that needs dealing with, even if I'm busy I can be there within a day or two and make sure it's sorted.

 

It's terribly frustrating to find a cache that's full of water or otherwise in need of TLC that was flagged up as needing maintenance months before. It's all well and good hiding dozens or hundreds of caches, but hopeless if you can't look after them properly.

 

Lee

[Deceangi]

The best reply is

 

Forget ratios comparing Hides/Finds, instead just hide as many caches as can be well maintained. It's no use having a high hide/find ratio if you've got a large No of hides with maintenance issues or which have been Archived by a Reviewer due to Non Maintenance.

 

And a word of warning once my new colleague is up to speed, and I've cleared out my Reviewer Email account. I will be going through the emails for Up date coordinate and Needs Archived logs. So don't be surprised if you see a large No of caches being actioned.

Will that include the caches that have been "temporarily" disabled for yonks?

 

If a cache has a needs maintenance Log or has been Disabled for a extended period, then Please post a Needs Archiving log to it. Needs Archiving and Update coordinates are the only logs the system automatically copies over to Reviewers. With the current work load, doing a sweep for long term Disabled caches is impossible . Due to the labour intensive process involved, as each one qualifying has to be physically checked to see if there is a justifiable reason why it's disabled for the extended period.

 

Please do not consider the making of Needs Archiving logs, to be Cache Police. It is in fact the community conducting quality control and improving the quiality of caches being found.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I have 95 hides to 766 finds according to my profile stats, but really that's due to being on an island, where it's quite common for me to have hardly any caches to find, but plenty of places to hide them within a short distance.

So I'm not particularly proud of that statistic. What I am proud of is that every hide has been due to some sort of idea or inspiration, none just because I haven't anything better to do!

[lakeuk]

My ratio is a little worse, with 1 hide to 279 finds - but I do have a couple of hides in the pipeline. My excuse is that Marlakes keeps pinching all the good spots!

 

You've got loads to good hiding spots left - especially at my end of town

 

[+Deepdiggingmole]

If you are going to look at ratios and I would say it is not an essential pasttime - but I like to think an interesting ratio is

 

number of caches / number of caches archived

 

I am aware that there are some owners who have had to archive caches for genuine reasons - but a lot of caches have been archived simply because the location was not suitable from the word go - and it resulted in the cache being muggled time after time and the owner eventually admitting defeat and archiving the cache - some caches have been archived because the owner is no longer active so they dont count anyway.

 

I am pleased to say that of the 50 caches that I own - 50 are still active

 

[+scottpa100]

I would echo Deceangi's comments about maintenance. Here in north Wales are two prolific setters. One has about 500 finds and 180 odd caches. One has about 360 finds and a 100 or so caches.

 

But one of them is and always has been excellent at maintaining caches. There's no fun in attending a cache with a puddle in it.

[+Flymgibet]

I would echo Deceangi's comments about maintenance. Here in north Wales are two prolific setters. One has about 500 finds and 180 odd caches. One has about 360 finds and a 100 or so caches.

 

But one of them is and always has been excellent at maintaining caches. There's no fun in attending a cache with a puddle in it.

HI, 142 found, 38 listed, it's not about the numbers ,we think it's about location, quality and ease of maintenance.

Any DNFs are checked and notes posted within 24hrs and if an additional hint required to assist an Email is sent as we like all our caches to be found.

We are allways on the look out for places that deserve a cache and if possible this will be done. (If we dont hide them you can't find them).

Al & Ros.

[+Flymgibet]

I would echo Deceangi's comments about maintenance. Here in north Wales are two prolific setters. One has about 500 finds and 180 odd caches. One has about 360 finds and a 100 or so caches.

 

But one of them is and always has been excellent at maintaining caches. There's no fun in attending a cache with a puddle in it.

HI, 142 found, 38 listed, it's not about the numbers ,we think it's about location, quality and ease of maintenance.

Any DNFs are checked and notes posted within 24hrs and if an additional hint required to assist an Email is sent as we like all our caches to be found.

We are allways on the look out for places that deserve a cache and if possible this will be done. (If we dont hide them you can't find them).

Al & Ros.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

I think it is better to look at the ratio

 

Number of finds on ones own caches / Number of finds

 

I think GSAK calls it Caching Karma.

 

Thanks to my London caches being on the tourist trail, and my not being a power cacher my Karma has been above 1 for a while now, so at least one log on one of my set caches for every cache I have found.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think it is better to look at the ratio

 

Number of finds on ones own caches / Number of finds

 

I think GSAK calls it Caching Karma.

 

Thanks to my London caches being on the tourist trail, and my not being a power cacher my Karma has been above 1 for a while now, so at least one log on one of my set caches for every cache I have found.

Mine's 2.74 (always wondered what that was!).

[+JollyJax]

I think it IS about the numbers in one sense.... I have a good number of hides to my 3000+ caches because I want to have them and want others to enjoy them too ...

 

However, I think some of the top 20 cachers, think differently and are only concerned with numbers found ... no interest in setting new caches or "giving back" to the community that supports our habit.

 

Good thread maxkim - one of my pets whinges for a long time but I rarely use this forum so havent posted on it before.

[+Simply Paul]

I think it is better to look at the ratio

 

Number of finds on ones own caches / Number of finds

 

I think GSAK calls it Caching Karma.

 

Thanks to my London caches being on the tourist trail, and my not being a power cacher my Karma has been above 1 for a while now, so at least one log on one of my set caches for every cache I have found.

Mine's 2.74 (always wondered what that was!).

This made me curious. So I checked my caches (including some that I've adopted and have co-ownership of, so I can't take full credit) -it took a while- and found they've been found/attended a total of 8359 times, giving me a 'Karma Ratio' (against my 1777 finds/attendeds) of 4.7:1. And to think, I had to become a premium member for some people to believe I was making a positive contribution to the game

[+Happy Humphrey]

However, I think some of the top 20 cachers, think differently and are only concerned with numbers found ... no interest in setting new caches or "giving back" to the community that supports our habit.

In my opinion, being only concerned with finding lots of caches is entirely valid and is most definitely "giving back". There's no point in hiding caches if people aren't bothering to look for them.

 

I don't give two hoots whether someone hides 100 caches or zero as long as they enjoy whatever part of the game appeals to them.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+maxkim]

I think it is better to look at the ratio

 

Number of finds on ones own caches / Number of finds

 

I think GSAK calls it Caching Karma.

 

Thanks to my London caches being on the tourist trail, and my not being a power cacher my Karma has been above 1 for a while now, so at least one log on one of my set caches for every cache I have found.

Mine's 2.74 (always wondered what that was!).

This made me curious. So I checked my caches (including some that I've adopted and have co-ownership of, so I can't take full credit) -it took a while- and found they've been found/attended a total of 8359 times, giving me a 'Karma Ratio' (against my 1777 finds/attendeds) of 4.7:1. And to think, I had to become a premium member for some people to believe I was making a positive contribution to the game

Well I do like this idea and its exactly what I was trying to get at in the original post... Mine seem to work out at 5788 finds on caches I own / maintain and 3336 found = 1.74.... I feel total Karma

[+Renegade Knight]

Just looking at the twenty UK cachers with the most finds (over 3000) and I notice that 7 have over 100 caches hidden, one has 2 and 11 have under 30. In general what is a good hide to find ratio? even at 3000 to 100 it boils down to 1 : 30 who can beat that???

 

The math isn't direct.

Anyone can find a cache and put a notch on the belt. Then never come back.

When you place one, you now have a relationship. Some have more time for more caches. Some don't. The real question becomes "should folks use some minimum amount of their free caching time placing and maintaining caches" in that world being a cache owner is more punative and the results would be unpredictable. I would prefer that the ones who enjoy owning caches place ones that make them smile and the ones who like finding them try to do a bit to make the owners keep smiling.

[Stray Cacher]

I think it is better to look at the ratio

 

Number of finds on ones own caches / Number of finds

 

I think GSAK calls it Caching Karma.

 

Thanks to my London caches being on the tourist trail, and my not being a power cacher my Karma has been above 1 for a while now, so at least one log on one of my set caches for every cache I have found.

Mine's 2.74 (always wondered what that was!).

This made me curious. So I checked my caches (including some that I've adopted and have co-ownership of, so I can't take full credit) -it took a while- and found they've been found/attended a total of 8359 times, giving me a 'Karma Ratio' (against my 1777 finds/attendeds) of 4.7:1. And to think, I had to become a premium member for some people to believe I was making a positive contribution to the game

Well I do like this idea and its exactly what I was trying to get at in the original post... Mine seem to work out at 5788 finds on caches I own / maintain and 3336 found = 1.74.... I feel total Karma

I'm sure that the Mega Event did skew these results.... and by rules stated before ..... a post of this length must refer to Mega by now... LOL

Edited August 8, 2008 by Stray Cacher

[The Birches Head Hunters]

I think it is better to look at the ratio

 

Number of finds on ones own caches / Number of finds

 

I think GSAK calls it Caching Karma.

 

Thanks to my London caches being on the tourist trail, and my not being a power cacher my Karma has been above 1 for a while now, so at least one log on one of my set caches for every cache I have found.

Mine's 2.74 (always wondered what that was!).

This made me curious. So I checked my caches (including some that I've adopted and have co-ownership of, so I can't take full credit) -it took a while- and found they've been found/attended a total of 8359 times, giving me a 'Karma Ratio' (against my 1777 finds/attendeds) of 4.7:1. And to think, I had to become a premium member for some people to believe I was making a positive contribution to the game

Well I do like this idea and its exactly what I was trying to get at in the original post... Mine seem to work out at 5788 finds on caches I own / maintain and 3336 found = 1.74.... I feel total Karma

Looks like ours is just over 3.5!

 

But I'll happily admit that a couple of our caches were trashy for a while, when we were still on a learning curve (not that long ago! ). We have since improved them with new (more appropriate) containers etc.. and all the new caches we hide we try to make them special, different, clever etc.. There's only one (older) cache I'm not happy with at the moment, and hopefully we'll be visiting that soon to make a decision on its future.

[+Amberel]

I think it is better to look at the ratio

 

Number of finds on ones own caches / Number of finds

 

I think GSAK calls it Caching Karma.

Except that a poor quality, badly hidden and badly maintained cache, but easy to find and in a busy area will almost certainly get a lot of hits, and a high quality, well maintained but difficult to find cache at the end of a long walk will get few. The ratio takes no account of cache quality, yet I'm sure you would agree that cache quality is extremely important.

 

You can compare geocaching statistics until the cows come home, but you can't derive any meaningful or useful information from the comparison.

 

Rgds, Andy

[reelcutter]

I think it is better to look at the ratio

 

Number of finds on ones own caches / Number of finds

 

I think GSAK calls it Caching Karma.

Except that a poor quality, badly hidden and badly maintained cache, but easy to find and in a busy area will almost certainly get a lot of hits, and a high quality, well maintained but difficult to find cache at the end of a long walk will get few. The ratio takes no account of cache quality, yet I'm sure you would agree that cache quality is extremely important.

 

You can compare geocaching statistics until the cows come home, but you can't derive any meaningful or useful information from the comparison.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

I agree with that, one out of my four active caches seems to be getting a lot more hits than the other three and it is the one I'm the least happy with, the location is urban and close to the M6, the others need a bit more effort to get to.

 

Being rubbish at maths I don't bother with numbers ratio's or stats much I just keep plodding on.

Karma thats an area of Walsall whats that got to do with caching and I don't think there are any caches there anyway.

[+qrang]

As one of the top twenty with few hides, I have to support Amberel.

 

We are not numbers cachers per se. We just enjoy finding caches, cache a lot and will do any kind of cache.

 

That being said, we get most enjoyment out of clever multis. Brambler's Pitch Series in Surrey comes to mind.

 

Currently we have 5 hides. Should we put out a hundred more to make our hide/found ratio look good?

 

There are already 4400 caches within forty miles. Will another 100 make a lot of difference to the general enjoyment of cachers?

[+Mad H@ter]

There are already 4400 caches within forty miles. Will another 100 make a lot of difference to the general enjoyment of cachers?

Yes it might well do. I have no idea of the area you talk about so this response is a bit hypothetical, but in many areas the majority of caches are placed by a minority of cachers who are likely to also be particularly active in finding caches. So I am sure that these cachers would be very appreciative of an new local caches for them to find as chances are they have already found many/most of their local ones; I know that I am (well I would be if there were any!). That said, I would not advocate placing caches just because you feel obliged to do so, as this will tend to lead to poor caches that are poorly maintained, just don't use the fact that there are already lots in the area as an excuse not to place any.

[+fat bloke]

You can't beat the eager newby in two weeks found 10 "the best thing I have ever done " puts out 10 then stops forever And don't talk about the co-ords being out ,

[+Us 4 and Jess]

We have found about 1,150 caches (I say about as I have well over 100 caches to log I hate logging )

 

And we have set 91 caches/events

 

Which means we have set 1 cache for every 12 caches we have found

 

M

Edited August 9, 2008 by Us 4 and Jess

[+maxkim]

We have found about 1,150 caches (I say about as I have well over 100 caches to log I hate logging )

 

And we have set 91 caches/events

 

Which means we have set 1 cache for every 12 caches we have found

 

M

Hi Mandy... copy and paste works for me.... usually when caching when working in the area... or whilst out running with Rowan... LOL. You can enter them quite quickly this way. Mark

[+qrang]

So I am sure that these cachers would be very appreciative of an new local caches for them to find as chances are they have already found many/most of their local ones; I know that I am (well I would be if there were any!).

 

Do the Allotment Gardener's excellent 'Secret Army' series over near Northampton.

 

In the 2 years that we have been caching we have done 1700 of the caches within 40 miles. In that time there have been about 2400 new caches placed, so even we are not keeping up.

 

Power Trails (Rings) seem to be in fashion at present. We recently did the Virginia Water series by LOTC. Lovely walk but very poor caches - film canisters next to poles. About 100 teams have done it in 2.5 months - thats 1600 hide hits for LOTC - is that good or bad?

 

Whereas Pharisee was about to archive 'Your Mission' , arguably one of the best caches in the UK, for lack of cachers completing it - 3 finds in 2008. (NB: We are half-way through).

 

There are already plenty of good caches just waiting to be done - just requires a bit more research and to travel a little further - the T-girls Elgar Variations series around Malvern springs to mind.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Currently we have 5 hides. Should we put out a hundred more to make our hide/found ratio look good?

I still have a large bag of 35mm film containers which I was given by Boots (when I asked for "one or two"!). I'll send them to you, and if you make up some log sheets you can chuck them liberally around the area, and quickly set up cache pages with rough coordinates and copy-and-paste descriptions. Probably best keeping them all within a few yards of the road. Hedges and ditches work well, as do corners of car parks.

If any turn out to be within .1 miles of another cache, just forget those ones.

That will demonstrate that you're "giving something back" rather than selfishly logging everyone else's caches!

[+Jaz666]

If a cache has a needs maintenance Log or has been Disabled for a extended period, then Please post a Needs Archiving log to it. Needs Archiving and Update coordinates are the only logs the system automatically copies over to Reviewers. With the current work load, doing a sweep for long term Disabled caches is impossible . Due to the labour intensive process involved, as each one qualifying has to be physically checked to see if there is a justifiable reason why it's disabled for the extended period.

 

Please do not consider the making of Needs Archiving logs, to be Cache Police. It is in fact the community conducting quality control and improving the quiality of caches being found.

 

Sadly I've yet again personally encountered an incident where someone has taken a well meaning query into the status of a long (6 month plus) disabled cache the complete wrong way, they've even gone as far as making the cache PM only, so they can see exactly if/when I'm looked at the listing.

 

I've deleted the log, so the cache in question isn't identified; but I don't mind admitting I've been tempted to quit caching a few times this year due to the way a minority have reacted to some of my efforts to give something back to our community in my free time

[+martlakes]

A very interesting thread. Got me thinking about the whole issue.

Basically the game needs both quality hiders and quality finders. How much of each you do is irrelevant as long as what you do is positive and of ‘quality’. Here’s a comment or two relating to three quotes that I agree with:

 

Renegade Knight: I would prefer that the ones who enjoy owning caches place ones that make them smile and the ones who like finding them try to do a bit to make the owners keep smiling.

 

Rather than dubious Karma stats, big number cache finders should not ask themselves whether they ought to put more caches out, but do their logs keep the cache owners smiling? Boilerplate cut-and-paste is just taking IMHO as it really says, “I came and found your cache and added it to my find count and that’s all it means to me.”

(Sure, if it’s a naff cache maybe you don’t have much to say, but assuming it’s a reasonable one, half a line of boilerplate is pretty stingy and won’t get much of a smile from the cache owner.)

 

Happy Humphrey: Being only concerned with finding lots of caches is entirely valid and is most definitely "giving back". There's no point in hiding caches if people aren't bothering to look for them.

 

Indeed. I hide caches cos I like hiding caches. Of course it would be pointless if no one came and found them. I also find caches cos I like finding caches. Finders need hiders, hiders need finders. So, do you put out ‘quality’ caches that people will enjoy finding? Turn that around though and also ask: "Do you find caches in a ‘quality manner’?"

 

Are you a quality finder or a just a number hound who just ‘takes’? What does a quality finder do?

Maybe, for example: reads the cache page!, uses stealth when needed, replaces the odd pencil, dries out a damp box, doesn’t leave tat, swaps well, dooesn’t stuff too large a TB in the box, re-closes the container properly, takes time and care to re-hide the cache as well as if it were your own, writes a good log (however long/short) that says something about your experience, records your DNFs, gives helpful and constructive feedback if there’s a problem/issue with the cache, …. etc

 

And you could write a list of what a 'quality hider' does, even with a wide variation in what is viewed as a quality cache.

 

It boils down to:

However you play the game and whatever part of the game you play, make sure you do it well, and with regard for the other players.

 

Unfortunately, as in any walk of life, a small minority of people don't seem to have any regard for others. Fortunately, lots of others do and they are a joy to play the game with. Nearly 1000 of them got together in Harrogate recently I seem to recall!

 

Amberel: You can compare geocaching statistics until the cows come home, but you can't derive any meaningful or useful information from the comparison.

Absolutely.

 

Cheers

Martlakes

[+purple_pineapple]

 

Sadly I've yet again personally encountered an incident where someone has taken a well meaning query into the status of a long (6 month plus) disabled cache the complete wrong way, they've even gone as far as making the cache PM only, so they can see exactly if/when I'm looked at the listing.

 

I've deleted the log, so the cache in question isn't identified; but I don't mind admitting I've been tempted to quit caching a few times this year due to the way a minority have reacted to some of my efforts to give something back to our community in my free time

 

shocking behaviour jamie - how dare you log an SBA on ANY cache?!

 

Seriously though - I will quite happily use GSAK to identify caches that have been long term disabled, or are potential candidates for an SBA - not because I feel like being the cache police, but because I'm a bit sad and geeky so I run random filters for these in GSAK! I do feel it helps though, as it highlights potential problems, and hopefully prevents people hunting out caches that aren't there any more, or frees up a site for a new cache!

 

I like to think that any SBA log I post is well worded though, to try and remove any potential for offence. Not that I'm saying yours wasn't - some people will always take things the wrong way!

 

Anyway, wandering wildly OT here! Don't mind me!

[+maxkim]

If a cache has a needs maintenance Log or has been Disabled for a extended period, then Please post a Needs Archiving log to it. Needs Archiving and Update coordinates are the only logs the system automatically copies over to Reviewers. With the current work load, doing a sweep for long term Disabled caches is impossible . Due to the labour intensive process involved, as each one qualifying has to be physically checked to see if there is a justifiable reason why it's disabled for the extended period.

 

Please do not consider the making of Needs Archiving logs, to be Cache Police. It is in fact the community conducting quality control and improving the quiality of caches being found.

 

Sadly I've yet again personally encountered an incident where someone has taken a well meaning query into the status of a long (6 month plus) disabled cache the complete wrong way, they've even gone as far as making the cache PM only, so they can see exactly if/when I'm looked at the listing.

 

I've deleted the log, so the cache in question isn't identified; but I don't mind admitting I've been tempted to quit caching a few times this year due to the way a minority have reacted to some of my efforts to give something back to our community in my free time

Sorry to hear that Jamie... and esp. that you have had thoughts of quitting over it and other comments.... anyway when all said and done its only a game isn't it???

[+Mad H@ter]

So I am sure that these cachers would be very appreciative of an new local caches for them to find as chances are they have already found many/most of their local ones; I know that I am (well I would be if there were any!).

Do the Allotment Gardener's excellent 'Secret Army' series over near Northampton.

I suppose this comes down to the definition of local! This series would involve a round trip of almost 100 miles just to get to the start of the first one of the series, and being in the unfortunate position of owning a 25mpg gas guzzler, the effect of the soaring fuel prices has considerably reduced my definition of local, but that's another thread I think . I'm sure we'll get over that way for some caching in the not too distant future, and will probably have a look at this series.

[+snuggle bug]

I read this thread with quite alot of dismay. I am a newbie to caching but am committed to the "game" and don't think I will give up after 2 weeks, have been doing it for a month now. I have not placed any caches and at the moment don't feel that i would like to, I like the idea of hiding my own cache but the thought also scares me am not sure that I would be able to hide a worth while cache that would be interesting to others. I have found nearly 30, but hidden zero does this make me a bad cacher, or that I am destined to have bad cache karma? I don't feel that it does. It saddens me to read that unless I have ratio of finds to hides that is at leadt 10:1 or that I have to have found so more than the previous person that I am not a "real" cacher, from reading up about caching before I started I feel that this going against the ethos of what the game is. I gain so much from hunting for the cache and while nothing quite beats that thrill of finding it, there is always a slight sadness that it is over. I feel that I am bringing my passion for the search and my sense of happiness and just exploring the places that where previous a mystery to me. I don't feel that am any else of a real cacher but it is clear that many other people are so quick to judge. Everybody brings something unique wheththey are hidder s or finders and we should be celebrating this.

[+snuggle bug]

I read this thread with quite alot of dismay. I am a newbie to caching but am committed to the "game" and don't think I will give up after 2 weeks, have been doing it for a month now. I have not placed any caches and at the moment don't feel that i would like to, I like the idea of hiding my own cache but the thought also scares me am not sure that I would be able to hide a worth while cache that would be interesting to others. I have found nearly 30, but hidden zero does this make me a bad cacher, or that I am destined to have bad cache karma? I don't feel that it does. It saddens me to read that unless I have ratio of finds to hides that is at leadt 10:1 or that I have to have found so more than the previous person that I am not a "real" cacher, from reading up about caching before I started I feel that this going against the ethos of what the game is. I gain so much from hunting for the cache and while nothing quite beats that thrill of finding it, there is always a slight sadness that it is over. I feel that I am bringing my passion for the search and my sense of happiness and just exploring the places that where previous a mystery to me. I don't feel that am any else of a real cacher but it is clear that many other people are so quick to judge. Everybody brings something unique wheththey are hidder s or finders and we should be celebrating this.

[+Amberel]

I read this thread with quite alot of dismay. I am a newbie to caching but am committed to the "game" and don't think I will give up after 2 weeks, have been doing it for a month now. I have not placed any caches and at the moment don't feel that i would like to

S'OK snuggle bug, you're doing just fine. There is a school of thought, to which I subscribe, that many newbie cachers are doing everyone a favour by NOT hiding caches for the first few months. Certainly I waited about 8 months in order to build up some experience first.

 

Even after that, it should be clear that you are no less a cacher should you decide to not hide any at all. Martlakes reply sums it up. It's good to put something back in, but it doesn't have to be in the form of hiding caches.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+scottpa100]

Don't worry Snuggle Bug. There are no ratios or nothing of any expectation. People have their different opinions which are here on the forum. And that's what all they are. Opinions. Keep on playing the way you want to. I'd also second Amberel's view point about waiting before you do place a hide. That way you find out what works as a cache and / or doesn't.

[+careygang]

Generally I find that UK Cachers are a fairly responsible lot, maintaining caches and archiving where needed, not forgetting having caches adopted if unable to maintain them any longer themselves.

 

The same cannot be said for my current location, where anything seems to go for several locals. I recently posted a 'Needs Maintenance Log' and the owner came back 4 days later with an Archive because they had moved to another State!

Fine you might think, but they still own several local caches around here...

 

Another local cacher currently has 2155 finds with 53 hidden, but in my experience her hides are not maintained and they are poorly placed just for the sake of throwing them out. Like one which she lists as wheelchair friendly, but when I eventually found it it was under the bridge, not on it. It is actually 7 ft off the ground above a dry rock strewn storm drainage gully!

 

We currently have 370 finds and no hides (excepting those we passed on back in UK), but having now lived here for 9 months I'm working on it.

 

Quality and more importantly the ability to maintain are the key requirements.

[+uktim]

Don't worry Snuggle Bug. There are no ratios or nothing of any expectation. People have their different opinions which are here on the forum. And that's what all they are. Opinions. Keep on playing the way you want to. I'd also second Amberel's view point about waiting before you do place a hide. That way you find out what works as a cache and / or doesn't.

 

Like many theories and opinions yours has a serious flaw! If everyone waited to gain experience before hiding a cache we'd still be contemplating our navels and waiting for someone to place the second cache in the UK

[+careygang]

Don't worry Snuggle Bug. There are no ratios or nothing of any expectation. People have their different opinions which are here on the forum. And that's what all they are. Opinions. Keep on playing the way you want to. I'd also second Amberel's view point about waiting before you do place a hide. That way you find out what works as a cache and / or doesn't.

 

Like many theories and opinions yours has a serious flaw! If everyone waited to gain experience before hiding a cache we'd still be contemplating our navels and waiting for someone to place the second cache in the UK

 

Not flawed, just sensible. I'm sure the first cachers in UK learnt by their own mistakes; now it's a bit easier, newbies can learn from others (mistakes).

 

I'll always remember going after a FTF on this one and immediately reporting it back to the Reviewers. GCV8E9

 

I think the owner had put it out after finding just 1 cache; we'd only found about 20 ourselves at the time, but we knew better than to put out a cardboard box in a carrier bag.

[+Amberel]

Like many theories and opinions yours has a serious flaw! If everyone waited to gain experience before hiding a cache we'd still be contemplating our navels and waiting for someone to place the second cache in the UK

Like many theories and opinions yours has a serious flaw! It may have been necessary 5 years ago but in case you hadn't noticed we do have a few more caches around these days!

 

Like careygang, if I find a really badly thought out cache I quite often find it has been hidden by a newbie. Doesn't always follow, of course, but the average quality definitely does improve with experience. This is not a criticism of newbies, merely a reflection that building up some experience before hiding a cache is usually a good idea.

 

Rgds, Andy