Jump to content

Quality of caches


Moote

Recommended Posts

 

No instead all I see is one set of numbers, for micros only, and everyone agreeing that this is a good indicator that quality has reduced with absolutely ZERO analysis into the actual data set it was taken from.

 

 

I must have missed those posts.....are they in this thread??

Link to comment

Once again this thread seem to be turning towards the 'Stop anybody playing our game' direction.

It's an open game for all to play providing they join GC.com or even Opencaching.

Cache and dash and micros are here to stay.

It's not all the newcomers fault, I have seen micros hidden in areas that you could hide a tank in and quite a lot of those are hidden by the more experienced cachers. (ie: 2006 and 2000 plus finds.

The game evolves and as long as there are some cache setters out there who hide the type you want to find then lets just do it.

Plus of course there are those of us who are unable to walk round trips of 6 or 7 miles and go halfway up a mountain just to grab a cache and therefore we like a few odd simple close by caches or would some of the members like a set of criteria that you have to fulfill to be able to cache,.

I am sure that there are many more subjects that could be discussed that might not be so off putting to the newer cachers (such as us) than all this banging on about a topic that has been flogged to death, reincarnated and flogged to death again and again.

I'm sure that the UK's number one cacher would not have reached his current total without a few hundred (or thousand) little micro drive by caches.

ahhhhhhh.gif

OK rant over

Link to comment

To add my twopennys worth

what is quality ? is it the type of cache container found, full of goodies, a dry log book and a couple of Tb's to remove or..

A film cannister in a location which has a superb view or in an area with sights of great interest.

Both can be as good as each other if once you get to the end of the hunt - it is satisfying.

 

I find a cache which has been hidden in such a way that it makes it a challenge to search for it also worth the trip, but also a series of micros which takes you places you wouldn't have thought going to just as satisfying.

I recently did various single caches in north Wales, some involving long walks others not so, but the end result with the views etc. made for great trips out. That is why we go up that way a lot. It is different in the SE - but there are great walks out there and a few cachers who set nice trails allowing you to enjoy same.

 

I do agree with many however that there are some caches being placed just for the sake of it and when you get to the location there is nothing to look at when you get there and you do just end up signing a log pulled out of a film cannister. I will admit I probably seek these out to make up numbers but only if I am in the area on a cache blitz.

 

However to be fair - a lot of uninteresting caches have been placed by new cachers who are still learning and these are set to get the feel of hiding a cache.

 

Another point which has always been at the back of my mind - do cachers hide caches with the intention of keeping their caches out in the wild for a considerable amount of time - or are there some who hide caches with the intent of archiving after a certain period - I have 69 caches and all are still active and all have been found within the last 2/3 months - I do not intend to archive any of them - some of them were fiendish puzzle caches which had the hardened puzzlers scratching heads for a few months - but now the puzzles have been cracked I have made them easier with extra hints in order that the less hardy puzzler can have a go. If I had not done this I think one or two would not have been sought for a couple of years - caches are there to be found after all

 

:anicute:

Link to comment

As there are surely only a finite number of "good locations in the country, I assume all "seasoned" cachers complaining about the quality of hides getting worse will be more than willing to archive some of their caches in better locations to allow the newer cachers the opportunity to place new caches in these spots instead of worse locations?

 

 

Thought not :anicute:

Link to comment

As there are surely only a finite number of "good locations in the country, I assume all "seasoned" cachers complaining about the quality of hides getting worse will be more than willing to archive some of their caches in better locations to allow the newer cachers the opportunity to place new caches in these spots instead of worse locations?

 

 

Thought not <_<

goodpostingsign.gif

 

dahman.gif

Link to comment

As there are surely only a finite number of "good locations in the country, I assume all "seasoned" cachers complaining about the quality of hides getting worse will be more than willing to archive some of their caches in better locations to allow the newer cachers the opportunity to place new caches in these spots instead of worse locations?

 

 

Thought not <_<

 

You may be surprised. I for one am happy to give up locations if something better can take its place. I've done this a few times already and only one location is now home to a naff cache in my opinion. It's a good idea actually, to keep the game fresh, and also allows the original cache setter the chance to re-visit and log a find. There is some sentiment in keep old favourites going though and in a lot of cases there is no need to change an already good thing.

 

I understand the lack of interesting locations is a problem for newer cachers because so many good spots have already been taken, and those of us who were lucky to be about many years ago really were blessed with the amount of spots we could choose between, but in Buckinghamshire where I live for instance, I could write you a list of 20 great spots that don't have caches by tomorrow if requested, it just takes a little bit of time and effort to scout them out, something that unfortunatly not everyone is willing to put into their hides. I'd also like to think that where locations are lacking, the effort put into making the cache an interesting challenge would be upped. It's sad to see new film containers pop up in spots that hold little value for the sheer sake of hiding a new cache but then again I understand some people’s opinions that this is fine even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

I have to say I'm completely anti micros/urban caches/overlooked caches, but when I think about it, actually I just don't do them. There are loads built up on my nearest list but I can choose to ignore, just like some people may choose to ignore my puzzle caches that have hours gone into them, they are just not up everyones street and I guess we just all need to accept that were all very different!

Link to comment

I could write you a list of 20 great spots that don't have caches by tomorrow if requested, it just takes a little bit of time and effort to scout them out,

 

I agree absolutely. Similarly, it takes time for cachers to scout out good caches to do, just as it takes a bit of time and effort. Both parties are responsible, for placing and finding good caches (not that I'm going to try to define what "good" is! )

Link to comment

As I mentioned earlier on the thread, for those who feel they have risen to status's above mere geocachers and desire less icons on their maps, there is terracaching. From looking at mentions of terracaching on the web they emphasise quality and offer cache ratings.

 

Regarding geocaching.com, there is no need to get frustrated over something you are not obliged to seek. People all over the world, everyday, walk and drive past caches without the knowledge they are there and suffer no angst from the caches being there. Just be like one of those people.

Link to comment

As I mentioned earlier on the thread, for those who feel they have risen to status's above mere geocachers and desire less icons on their maps, there is terracaching. From looking at mentions of terracaching on the web they emphasise quality and offer cache ratings.

 

 

50% of the Terracaches we have found got muggled /went missing .

But that is just playing with stats, as mentioned earlier in thread ,because it's 50% of 2 <_<

 

and we didn't find any difference in quality to average geocache

Link to comment

As I mentioned earlier on the thread, for those who feel they have risen to status's above mere geocachers and desire less icons on their maps, there is terracaching. From looking at mentions of terracaching on the web they emphasise quality and offer cache ratings.

 

Regarding geocaching.com, there is no need to get frustrated over something you are not obliged to seek. People all over the world, everyday, walk and drive past caches without the knowledge they are there and suffer no angst from the caches being there. Just be like one of those people.

 

If people have a different opinion to yourself and wish to voice it why do you insist on making derogatory comments about them?

Link to comment

As I mentioned earlier on the thread, for those who feel they have risen to status's above mere geocachers and desire less icons on their maps, there is terracaching. From looking at mentions of terracaching on the web they emphasise quality and offer cache ratings.

 

Regarding geocaching.com, there is no need to get frustrated over something you are not obliged to seek. People all over the world, everyday, walk and drive past caches without the knowledge they are there and suffer no angst from the caches being there. Just be like one of those people.

 

If people have a different opinion to yourself and wish to voice it why do you insist on making derogatory comments about them?

 

Firstly what was derogatory about my last statement? Secondly what is your beef with singling out my posts?

 

Actually just forget it I'm going to put you on my ignore list.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

We have been following this thread with a little interest.

We have to admit that we feel/felt the poor micro and nano caches were/are getting bad press.

Is it the fact that micro and nano caches are harder to find? or that urban caches are harder because of muggles?

Today we did four caches on our way back from visiting relatives, three of these were micros and one was a nano, we thought about the locations, and the choices of size for two of the micros in our opinion was correct, the third could have been better placed with a larger cache box, but it was still a good hide because of the location scenery, as for the nano, there was no other option for this than a nano, but the location is/was poor and of no real interest, so was only good for numbers and experience.

When we got home we checked for new caches in the area, and we found two new caches, and then we found ourselves saying "oh no not more micros". Yes of the new caches one is a micro and one is a nano, and reading the cache descriptions you just know that bigger containers could have been used.

We will not let this put us off, but we will not be rushing to do these caches very soon.

 

As for the idea about archiving, we have done something along this line already. We had done a cache just after it had been archived; We liked the location and the story behind this cache.

We tried contacting the owner to see if he would mind if we placed a new cache in this area, he has never replied.

So last week we placed our newest cache in that location, we upgraded the size of the container and moved it about 40 to 50 feet from the original, gave it the same name but added "Revisited" at the end, because this is what we want, cachers to revisit the area and not sit at home and just do the online logging "because we have done this cache before", as far as we are concerned this is an all new cache, with new owners and slightly new location.

So far the logs have all been positive and some even thanking us for replacing the old archived cache.

 

We still think there is a place for micros and nanos and urban caches, we ourselves have placed micros, and we know some people think that at least one of these could have done with a bigger container, but we chose very carefully, a bigger container would have meant damaging the environment, and that is something we will never do, it is also intended as easy access for disabled persons and families.

So think before you rubbish a cache "am I complaining correctly? Is it just that I find urban caching hard because of muggles? Has this been done with disabilities in mind? Or is it just that it was placed by newbie's?"

 

Peace and Happy Caching

 

<_<

Link to comment

We have been following this thread with a little interest.

We have to admit that we feel/felt the poor micro and nano caches were/are getting bad press.

Is it the fact that micro and nano caches are harder to find? or that urban caches are harder because of muggles?

 

 

I don't think it's that - in the main - micros and nanos are harder to find. At the end of the day, if the page says it's a micro, and you get to ground zero, there are usually only so many spots you can slide a film pot into.

 

And I'm sure there's a place for most of the urban micros and nanos around here. (look - I didn't even add any facetious comments about bins or drains <_< ). But personally, once you've seen one street name sign, or lamp post, you've seen them all - and I've yet to find a postbox that was so remarkable that I just had to hide a cache to bring people to see it. But that's not to say that there aren't people out there for whom these places hold some interest...... :lol:

 

So while I personally can't stand the things, there will be people who have to hide them.... and others who, equally, have to go out and find them. Let them carry on - nobody in here's going to stop them. But equally, we have just as much of a right to moan about them as they do to hide and find them!

 

As a lot of you keep saying - if you don't like them, don't look for them. Well. if you don't like posts that don't coincide with your own preferences, don't read them. At least you get the option to ignore a writer - it's just a shame we can't run PQs that ignore certain hiders. :lol::anibad:

Link to comment

Funnily enough there's only one cache search we've abandoned early due to a bad quality area - and that was not a micro is was a container somewhere between small and regular size (going by the images posted).

 

Basically the site is/has become a literal open-air toilet for truck drivers. Now I don't know if that's the hiders fault if the area has deteriorated since placing the cache, but it doesn't grieve me one bit.

 

I look at it like this, when this hobby brings me more angst than it does joy... if I ever find myself complaining about quality of what I'm finding and so on... I shall take that as my hint to stop doing it and move onto something else.

 

But I should probably stop reading forum threads like this as they can really suck all the joy out of discovering hidden containers of all types, with logbooks, in places that are not noticed by the untrained eye. :anibad:

 

I'm just glad I was introduced to the sport casually before I discovered the forums. If I had read the forums too early I'm pretty sure I would have given up by now. But I know geocaching is way more fun than some make out it is here! <_<

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...