Why does caching feel different now?

[+The_Street_Searchers]

I have only being doing this for just over a yar but I have seen the prolification of uninspiring caches placed for the sake of it. There is a small strip of woodland near me which now has 4 micros in it. It is not a particularly nice woodland but this hasn't stopped it from being covered in Micros...I have however done some fantasitic caches which remind me why I started this in the first place. It is a shame that you have to wade through so much garbage to find a gem. I would love to see a cache rating on each page that looked at location and cache quality. I know there has been a big debate on this already in another thread and there are always pitfalls but a cache that is rated 5/5 for quality has got to be worth making an effort for!

[+keehotee]

I would love to see a cache rating on each page that looked at location and cache quality. I know there has been a big debate on this already in another thread and there are always pitfalls but a cache that is rated 5/5 for quality has got to be worth making an effort for!

 

The problem with a rating system is caches are only going to be rated by the people that find them - as weird as that sounds.

 

Badly hidden film pots in scrappy woodland are going to be found and rated by people who like finding badly hidden film pots in scrappy woodland. To them, at worse, it'll probably be an average film pot in an average bit of woodland. But it might be the film pot of their dreams, in a bit of woodland they found particularly scrappy and therefore attractive....

 

Conversely, people who like finding film pots in hedges might find a 500 yard trek up a muddy hill to a loc'n'loc box in a rock shelter a waste of time and energy, and give it a poor rating

 

A few people around our way are already using GCVote - and surprise surprise, practically nothing has less than 3 out of 5 stars - including some of the lamest ill thought out (to me) hides ever.

Every cache and cache type has it's supporters, and supporters will rate the caches they like accordingly.

[+Renegade Knight]

... I just wondered what about the game the old timers think has changed.

 

Three things.

1) We are all jaded old timers now.

2) The low hanging fruit was plucked a long time ago.

3) Easy of entry.

 

The easy quality caches were placed early on. Now it's infill. Quality varies.

Early on it was somewhat outdoorsy types who found out about caching by some means while it was still a 'secret'. Now everbody knows about it and even urbanites who detest the outdoors are joining up. What you haven now is a mix of everbody.

 

Any cache a person can want to find is out there to be found. You can learn about the like minded folks and focus on their caches, but the landscape is so much more mainstream now that it's more work to get the same experience we "old timers" had without any effort.

[+Renegade Knight]

... Are we all number whores and poor cache placers?...

 

In my area (Idaho, USA) I consider myself second generation. The first generation placed a cache, or found the one cache there was and placed one then had to find something else to do. Not many stayed.

 

Starting with us 2nd generation types we found all 4 of the First gen caches placed one of our own and found that other 2nd generation types had placed a few in the meantime, so we found those. Our generation was when caching became a sustainable activity with enough new caches to keep you busy.

 

That's the background. For a 2nd generation to have 'numbers' you had to find them all. We all found all the same caches knew who was out there, and could compare notes at an event becsaue we all did every cache in a large radius. Anyone with "numbers" did a lot of travel to get them and there was no cache not found. A busy day was 7 caches and 100 miles to get them.

 

Starting with the third generation there were enough caches to let you focus on urban. You no longer had to do them all to have numbers, you could spend your entire career focusing on park and grabs. What changed here was a 3rd gen with 100 finds would demand the same respect a 2nd and 1st gen had who had 100 finds. The game had chagned. 100 finds was a month of caching in town, not a year of caching in the mountains, and rivers, and towns spread over a 200 mile radius with a few trips further than that.

 

So with the 3rd generation I stopped respecting numbers the way I used too. More than a few of us did. The 3rd gen got hot and bothered over that lack of being paid their due. Some of them started the numbers game for the sake of numbers instead of a a side effect of the trill of the hunt. Numbers changed what they mean.

 

My first 100 was far more work sweat and fun, then my last 100.

 

So to answer you question, some really are numbers whores in every sence of the word. 1st and 2nd gen saw an era where that wasn't possible. That doesn't mean they didn't jump right in though. It does mean that some of us have a perspective that isnt' available anymore though.

[+FantasyRaider]

Hmmmm

 

I kind of know what you mean by this, and I have my own thoughts on it...

 

I just wonder has caching got too big? ie - too many people doing it?

Have Groundspeak become too big for their boots?

We lost 2 brilliant and very lovely reviewers, and whilst we have the very wonderful Deci, I can't help feeling that we'll never go back to the "cuddly" side of caching we had when we had the three stooges!!!

Groundspeak started to try and influence us (in the UK) too much...

 

Just my 2 penneth, it's not up for debate, nobody will change my mind, so don't bother trying!!!!!

 

I'd be interested to know what other people think too though!!

 

Edited to say....

 

I just read the thread that this one was born from and it would seem that although I've been caching for nearly 4 years I'm not an "old timer." Sorry if I'm not qualified to comment, but as I personally feel caching has changed, then I'm qualified!

 

 

You've hit that nail right on the head, Well said

Seconded, it ain't half what it used to be. I used to love the 'think outside the box' attitude to cache setting... Seems to have all sunk down to micros in woods etc... not great fun IMO

 

I've only been caching 6 months so you can all boo me off if you like but:

 

The more cachers, the more caches ...?

I love finding caches that have been there years ..... but I also love to try new one's from newbies like myself ............. even if it is a nano!

 

Nothing stays the same ......!

[+Ant89]

Only been at this a couple of months.

I often wonder why people say "there are no more good locations"

 

Is this not classed as a good location? http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/410535 (well maybe not for ease of find but for the view)

Edited November 25, 2009 by Ant89

[norsch]

I enjojed the first few caches that I found because they "were new to me" now I find I don't need gprs because I know where the cache is hidden from 100 meters away, but there are still lots of interesting places for hides, this is a big country, yes there there may be a magnetic nano on the back of every doggy-poo bin but there are still thousands of interesting places to place a cache

[+keehotee]

When did this turn into a "there aren't any good locations left" thread ????

Keep it on topic people.

 

And without being intentionally narky to anybody - my answer to Why does caching feel different now? is obviously going to be hugely different to that from somebody who's been caching for 6 months...

Edited November 26, 2009 by keehotee

[+Cache U Nutter]

Quality of caches - This does seem to be the common thread of everyones contributions.

When I am visiting a new area for a days caching or even just for half an hour I am presented with a bewildering choice of many different caches and it it sometimes difficult to 'see the wood for the trees' [i'm sure that there is a more appropriate Caching metaphor here]

If there was some kind of agreed 'Quality' rating published somewhere then it would make my life a lot easier for my caching descisions to be more selective.

Perhaps local members could put forward a shortlist of caches by category [puzzle, nice view, cunning hide, physical /extreme, historical, geographical .......] which they could all agree on .

They could do this by discussing and voting at an event or may be at a regional forum site.

 

I am constantly aware that my choice of caches is so often done by 'time it takes to get to the cache' rather than taking the time to review each cache description and qualify my choice.

[team tisri]

I can see an explosion in the number of caches being placed and how some of them are, shall we say, better than others.

 

I've been caching in some capacity for six years, although with varying levels of activity. Out of my find count almost 50% has been in the last few months, simply because I got myself a mountain bike to get out and actually find them, and enjoy it immensely. Sure, a few caches are in dismal locations (I remember one film pot I found in a corner of a car park under a pile of rubbish)

 

But even with a few caches that leave me seriously wondering why anyone bothered to put it there, there are enough around that are enough fun to not feel like I wasted a journey. I've also found them very useful as waypoints to plan a route, and I've discovered a number of local parks, trails etc that I'd never have found had I not been planning a bike route based on churches, coal posts and the like.

 

I hear what people are saying about respect, and at the same time can't help thinking that if people are playing a game demanding "respect" and considering whether they are "better" than someone else it rather defeats the point. To find a film pot on a park bench takes so much less effort than finding the box hidden at the top of Ben Nevis so it seems daft to believe the person who found five film pots in Hyde Park (before they were archived) has achieved more than the person who scaled Ben Nevis to find a single box.

Edited November 27, 2009 by team tisri