Hiding after only one find

[+Dharma Dogs]

I’m sure this must have come up before, however I could not find previous postings with a search.

 

More often lately I’ve come across caches listed as active with multiple dnf’s and maintenance notices in the logs. After checking the profile of the CO’s I discover they have one or two finds, then make their first and only hide, and disappear completely after that. These hides are usually in containers that don’t hold up to the elements and are full of water etc.

 

Has there ever been a discussion about requiring a member to have a certain number of finds before being allowed their first hide? This would have the dual purpose of giving a member the chance to see if geocaching is something they really get into and also giving them the chance to learn about using proper containers and finding decent hiding spots.

 

Thoughts? Or can anyone point me to a thread where this was previously discussed?

 

Thanks!

[+Castle Mischief]

Has there ever been a discussion about requiring a member to have a certain number of finds before being allowed their first hide?

 

About once a month. Some folks think yes, some no. On the "yes" side of the hall the number ranges from 1 to 1000.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+wimseyguy]

What the mischief maker said.

Good hiders will want to place good caches.

 

I know of a few hiders with thousands of finds who still use crappy containers.

Those stats might skew the numbers a bit.

[knowschad]

Castle Mischief beat me to it, except that I will say that most, at least of those that regularily participate in the forums here, will give an exuberant "NO WAY!!".

 

I will say that I have seen hiders with very few finds turn out some very well done caches, and I've seen cachers with years of experience put out terrible hides. I hear what you're saying, but it really does work both ways, in my experience anyway.

[+brokenoaks]

I don't think a requirement like that is the way to deal with this problem. although it probably happens more with newer cachers, we get poorly thought out and non maintained caches from people that have been in the game for a long time. there is a system in place that addresses this. it may not happen instantly but by following these guidelines problem caches will eventually get fixed or archived. Given the number of caches out there you are sometimes going to find some junk, simply log it appropriately and move on to the next

[+Walts Hunting]

Oh boy. I can never find the stick when I see a dead horse that needs beating. I need to keep one with me.

 

It hard for me to believe that you couldn't find a previous thread since they are scatterred all over the place about this overly discussed issue.

 

Its not up to us to show you that you are bringing up a subject long since thought buried.

 

We were thinking about a rule that without at least 100 finds people should not be allowed to bring up new topics to help reduce this problem.

[+lavender5215]

I waited voluntarily before doing my first hide, I just didnt fee comfortable until I had atleast 10-15 finds

I also wanted to make sure that i was truly ready to take on the responsibility of cache care, i wouldnt want to ruin the game for everyone else.

 

I think 500 is excessive, not everyone has that kind of time or skill. Maybe there should be a suggested waiting period and maybe a section of the guidlines or a separate section titled " so you are thinking of placing a cache!"

[knowschad]

Hey... we're getting better! It took 6 posts this time before someone berated the OP for posting a dead horse topic! Keep up the good work, folks!!

[+lavender5215]

Oh boy. I can never find the stick when I see a dead horse that needs beating. I need to keep one with me.

 

It hard for me to believe that you couldn't find a previous thread since they are scatterred all over the place about this overly discussed issue.

 

Its not up to us to show you that you are bringing up a subject long since thought buried.

 

We were thinking about a rule that without at least 100 finds people should not be allowed to bring up new topics to help reduce this problem.

 

Ya, looking back through the forum topics i have noticed that a lot of dead horses get beaten around here, good or bad.

[+Castle Mischief]

Oh boy. I can never find the stick when I see a dead horse that needs beating. I need to keep one with me.

 

It hard for me to believe that you couldn't find a previous thread since they are scattered all over the place about this overly discussed issue.

 

Its not up to us to show you that you are bringing up a subject long since thought buried.

 

We were thinking about a rule that without at least 100 finds people should not be allowed to bring up new topics to help reduce this problem.

 

Another deadhorse is how the forum search function is kind of feature-poor. If certain forum regulars can dance the same dance over and over and somehow come out unscathed, there's no reason that the occasional noob can't ask a question again that's come up before.

 

...or you could provide links to the previous topics.

[+lavender5215]

Hey... we're getting better! It took 6 posts this time before someone berated the OP for posting a dead horse topic! Keep up the good work, folks!!

 

Its OK beating dead horses is good exercise, gets the heart rate up!

[+brokenoaks]

Oh boy. I can never find the stick when I see a dead horse that needs beating. I need to keep one with me.

 

It hard for me to believe that you couldn't find a previous thread since they are scatterred all over the place about this overly discussed issue.

 

Its not up to us to show you that you are bringing up a subject long since thought buried.

 

We were thinking about a rule that without at least 100 finds people should not be allowed to bring up new topics to help reduce this problem.

We really need to keep that stick in hand for those that feel that they have to point out that a subject has been discussed before. Gees man the OP has only been a member for four months. give them a break. How will they learn the game if they don't get proper answers to questions? and the OP did ask how to find a thread where the subject has been discussed before!

Edited December 22, 2009 by brokenoaks

[+L0ne.R]

I’m sure this must have come up before, however I could not find previous postings with a search.

 

More often lately I’ve come across caches listed as active with multiple dnf’s and maintenance notices in the logs. After checking the profile of the CO’s I discover they have one or two finds, then make their first and only hide, and disappear completely after that. These hides are usually in containers that don’t hold up to the elements and are full of water etc.

 

Has there ever been a discussion about requiring a member to have a certain number of finds before being allowed their first hide? This would have the dual purpose of giving a member the chance to see if geocaching is something they really get into and also giving them the chance to learn about using proper containers and finding decent hiding spots.

 

Thoughts? Or can anyone point me to a thread where this was previously discussed?

 

Thanks!

 

I see this a lot lately. A recent example: I have a watch on a new cache (April 2009). It is as you described, a new cacher, zero finds, one hide. The coordinates put you smack dab in the middle of a busy 4 lane road (don't know why the reviewer allowed it - it's not a puzzle cache, it's a traditional). Complaints rolled in about the coords, adjusted coords were posted in the logs, the cache moved around ending up on top of a garbage can at one point, for some reason it's still active. No response from the owner, no change in the coords. He works in the building that the cache is hidden in front of.

 

Another one planted by a grade school student as his geography project. Zero finds. Placed near the school. Poorly written cache description. Many spelling and grammar errors. Poor coordinates sending people into someone's backyard. Multiple additional waypoints posted in the logs. Multiple complaints. No response from the owner. Cache eventually goes missing and is archived by the reviewer.

 

I'm starting to think that yes we need to see some commitment and interest in the game before someone can post a hide. It's not all that difficult to find a few. And it's not like we are desperate for people to hide caches because there are not enough out there.

[+lavender5215]

I’m sure this must have come up before, however I could not find previous postings with a search.

 

More often lately I’ve come across caches listed as active with multiple dnf’s and maintenance notices in the logs. After checking the profile of the CO’s I discover they have one or two finds, then make their first and only hide, and disappear completely after that. These hides are usually in containers that don’t hold up to the elements and are full of water etc.

 

Has there ever been a discussion about requiring a member to have a certain number of finds before being allowed their first hide? This would have the dual purpose of giving a member the chance to see if geocaching is something they really get into and also giving them the chance to learn about using proper containers and finding decent hiding spots.

 

Thoughts? Or can anyone point me to a thread where this was previously discussed?

 

Thanks!

 

I see this a lot lately. A recent example: I have a watch on a new cache (April 2009). It is as you described, a new cacher, zero finds, one hide. The coordinates put you smack dab in the middle of a busy 4 lane road (don't know why the reviewer allowed it - it's not a puzzle cache, it's a traditional). Complaints rolled in about the coords, adjusted coords were posted in the logs, the cache moved around ending up on top of a garbage can at one point, for some reason it's still active. No response from the owner, no change in the coords. He works in the building that the cache is hidden in front of.

 

Another one planted by a grade school student as his geography project. Zero finds. Placed near the school. Poorly written cache description. Many spelling and grammar errors. Poor coordinates sending people into someone's backyard. Multiple additional waypoints posted in the logs. Multiple complaints. No response from the owner. Cache eventually goes missing and is archived by the reviewer.

 

I'm starting to think that yes we need to see some commitment and interest in the game before someone can post a hide. It's not all that difficult to find a few. And it's not like we are desperate for people to hide caches because there are not enough out there.

Hey, has anyone ever thought of a kid oriented cache site like maybe geocaching.com for kids?

[+ventura_kids]

I believe instead of a limit system for hiding caches, we should just add a few additional attributes instead.

 

Here are my favorite attributes to add:

No maintenance will ever be performed, so please maintain it for me.

Crappy bush hide.

Miserable hide that can only be found by being told where it is, by a previous finder or the owner.

Poor coordinates. Try flipping around a few numbers in the coords.

No actual trail exists to reach the cache, so bushwack your way to it.

[+L0ne.R]

Oh boy. I can never find the stick when I see a dead horse that needs beating. I need to keep one with me.

 

It hard for me to believe that you couldn't find a previous thread since they are scatterred all over the place about this overly discussed issue.

 

Its not up to us to show you that you are bringing up a subject long since thought buried.

 

We were thinking about a rule that without at least 100 finds people should not be allowed to bring up new topics to help reduce this problem.

 

Are you saying that we can't re-discuss things?

Have you ever tried throwing your 2 cents worth into an old thread. I did, by mistake once (didn't realize how old it was), and boy did I hear from some forumers - the big sigh and eye-rolling about dredging up an old thread.

If it's a topic you're tired of reading or discussing, don't read it.

[+briansnat]

I've found outstanding caches placed by people with very few finds and I've found total crappola hidden by people with hundreds or thousands of finds. In fact most of the junky caches I find are placed by veteran cachers.

 

Much of cache hiding is monkey see, monkey do. If a newbie comes to the game with grand ideas for caches why spoil that?

[+L0ne.R]

Oh boy. I can never find the stick when I see a dead horse that needs beating. I need to keep one with me.

 

It hard for me to believe that you couldn't find a previous thread since they are scattered all over the place about this overly discussed issue.

 

Its not up to us to show you that you are bringing up a subject long since thought buried.

 

We were thinking about a rule that without at least 100 finds people should not be allowed to bring up new topics to help reduce this problem.

 

Another deadhorse is how the forum search function is kind of feature-poor. If certain forum regulars can dance the same dance over and over and somehow come out unscathed, there's no reason that the occasional noob can't ask a question again that's come up before.

 

...or you could provide links to the previous topics.

 

And a synopsis of what was discussed. That way the noob doesn't have to read sometimes 1000s of posts to see what the average forumer thinks about the topic.

[+lavender5215]

Poor coordinates. Try flipping around a few numbers in the coords.

 

We had one in this area that the coords where way off, because of one number, instead of being in cranston the cache turned out to be miles away in massachusetts!!!

[+CYBret]

It's been discussed (obviously) and I doubt any requirements will ever be made. I gave myself a "self-imposed" requirement when I started caching to find at least 14 before hiding one. That took a while back then...probably about 14 weeks.

 

However, I've seen a good number of caches hidden by 0/0 hiders (or those with a low find count) that were outstanding. I think some people read about the game, get caught up in the ideals and go out to hide something they'd like to find. They end up taking you to some very unique places.

 

On the other hand, crappy caches beget crappy caches. I've seen cachers who have found nothing but roadside micros who turn around and hide exactly the same thing, apparently thinking that's how the game is played.

 

It's one of those cases were you can't really legislate whether or not someone "gets it." It would be helpful in many cases if the active caching community could provide some support and guidance for new hiders. A short "ata boy" email can go a long way towards encouraging a new hider...along with some well-written constructive criticism.

[+lavender5215]

I've found outstanding caches placed by people with very few finds and I've found total crappola hidden by people with hundreds or thousands of finds. In fact most of the junky caches I find are placed by veteran cachers.

 

Much of cache hiding is monkey see, monkey do. If a newbie comes to the game with grand ideas for caches why spoil that?

I think people who have lots of cache placements decline in quality as they get up to say their 500th hide.

 

People who have few hides are proud of their little cache and tend to focus on it.

 

of course this doesnt count for everyone.

 

Not to mention it must get hard to maintenance sooo many caches when you get up in the hundreds.

[+wimseyguy]

I believe instead of a limit system for hiding caches, we should just add a few additional attributes instead.

 

Here are my favorite attributes to add:

No actual trail exists to reach the cache, so bushwack your way drive your jeep all the way to it.

 

Fixed it for ya.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Not to mention it must get hard to maintenance sooo many caches when you get up in the hundreds.

 

That depends. Good hides that are unlikely to be muggled, with good containers, tend not to require maintenance (or very little). I only recently replaced the container of my first hide (now over 5 years old) - it was finally brought down by New England weather.

 

My biggest "headache" is replacing logs on caches that get found a lot. Those tend to be very close to home, so a quick drive-by and the log is replaced.

[+9Key]

I believe instead of a limit system for hiding caches, we should just add a few additional attributes instead.

 

Here are my favorite attributes to add:

 

No actual trail exists to reach the cache, so bushwack your way to it.

What's the matter with that? As long as the terrain rating is appropriate there should not be an issue. Not all caches have paved trails to them. You should know that with thousands of finds.

 

Back on topic, I use the term "pigeon cachers". They fly in from out of nowhere, start caching with a flurry, poop out a bunch of caches, then fly off never to be seen again.

[Skippermark]

I'm kind late to reply but will echo what others have said. I've seen people with 0 finds place awesome caches. One of the most loved caches in our state was placed by someone with no finds, and it wasn't a sock puppet account either. Then, I've seen people with thousands of finds have terrible hides.

 

That said, it seems that when someone places a cache for a scouting project, school project or something like that, the caches tend to get forgotten once the hider has completed the requirements for their badge or the school project is completed. We recently found 2 caches placed by some kids (listed under the teachers account) during a summer school program. The hiding account signed up in July, listed the caches and hasn't logged in since. If the caches develop a problem, will they get fixed? I'm guessing no.

[+bittsen]

I think all cachers should have to wait till they have placed 5 caches before they are allowed to find one.

 

Yeah, I know, it's just as ridiculous as making them wait to hide one.

[+Kit Fox]

I’m sure this must have come up before, however I could not find previous postings with a search.

 

More often lately I’ve come across caches listed as active with multiple dnf’s and maintenance notices in the logs. After checking the profile of the CO’s I discover they have one or two finds, then make their first and only hide, and disappear completely after that. These hides are usually in containers that don’t hold up to the elements and are full of water etc.

 

Has there ever been a discussion about requiring a member to have a certain number of finds before being allowed their first hide? This would have the dual purpose of giving a member the chance to see if geocaching is something they really get into and also giving them the chance to learn about using proper containers and finding decent hiding spots.

 

Thoughts? Or can anyone point me to a thread where this was previously discussed?

 

Thanks!

 

How many "finds" should someone have before hiding a cache?

 

Newbie Cachers Should Not Be Allowed To Place Caches

 

Minimum Requirements for placing cache

 

New Geocachers placing caches?

 

When Should You Place Your 1st Cache?

 

Cache Placing Limitations

 

Cacher's stats are only one hidden

 

360 placed caches, and one find!

[+Team Cotati]

There is no requirement and there should be no such requirement.

 

Other than the land owner or manager, you don't need anyone's permission. You only need to follow the site's guidelines for placing a cache.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+dibug]

Many of the co in our area that have a lot of hinds put a lot of thought into them and they are quite good and lots of fun to look for. I think lnew cachers like myself do not have enough experience with the types of caches and containers to put in our own caches. My suggestion would be for community ed. programs to do what ours did and have a class on geo-caching that covers finding and hiding. Our teacher showed us many types of containers to use and where to find them. He showed us different camo type items to use as well.

[+powercatjeffy]

How about a minimum number of finds before anyone places a micro cache? I say about 100 finds.

[+secretagentbill]

Has there ever been a discussion about requiring a member to have a certain number of finds before being allowed their first hide? This would have the dual purpose of giving a member the chance to see if geocaching is something they really get into and also giving them the chance to learn about using proper containers and finding decent hiding spots.

 

So, someone goes to hide a cache and the system won't let them because they don't have enough finds. They run out and find another 100 LPCs and then they're qualified. So...did they really gain any additional experience in that little exercise to make them a better hider? Nope. No find count is going to ever correlate to a person's ability to place a good cache.

 

I see what you're saying about giving the member the chance to see if geocaching is something they really want to get into, though. Maybe it is more a factor of time than find count.

[+ventura_kids]

I believe instead of a limit system for hiding caches, we should just add a few additional attributes instead.

 

Here are my favorite attributes to add:

 

No actual trail exists to reach the cache, so bushwack your way to it.

What's the matter with that? As long as the terrain rating is appropriate there should not be an issue. Not all caches have paved trails to them.

 

Around here we try to stay on the trails that have been created for us to hike on (paved or not).

The rangers get upset when we plow off trail to find a film can. Most parks have rules about leaving the trails. Many parks around here are wildlife refuges, and preserves, and as such don't allow leaving the trail.

Also, Newbies tend to crash thru the bushes and drop a cache deep in the nicely landscaped areas of parks.

I'd much prefer a magnetic micro on the phone near the front gate.

[+9Key]

I believe instead of a limit system for hiding caches, we should just add a few additional attributes instead.

 

Here are my favorite attributes to add:

 

No actual trail exists to reach the cache, so bushwack your way to it.

What's the matter with that? As long as the terrain rating is appropriate there should not be an issue. Not all caches have paved trails to them.

 

I'd much prefer a magnetic micro on the phone near the front gate.

That's what I thought.

[Andronicus]

I’m sure this must have come up before, however I could not find previous postings with a search.

 

More often lately I’ve come across caches listed as active with multiple dnf’s and maintenance notices in the logs. After checking the profile of the CO’s I discover they have one or two finds, then make their first and only hide, and disappear completely after that. These hides are usually in containers that don’t hold up to the elements and are full of water etc.

 

Has there ever been a discussion about requiring a member to have a certain number of finds before being allowed their first hide? This would have the dual purpose of giving a member the chance to see if geocaching is something they really get into and also giving them the chance to learn about using proper containers and finding decent hiding spots.

 

Thoughts? Or can anyone point me to a thread where this was previously discussed?

 

Thanks!

 

I see this a lot lately. A recent example: I have a watch on a new cache (April 2009). It is as you described, a new cacher, zero finds, one hide. The coordinates put you smack dab in the middle of a busy 4 lane road (don't know why the reviewer allowed it - it's not a puzzle cache, it's a traditional). Complaints rolled in about the coords, adjusted coords were posted in the logs, the cache moved around ending up on top of a garbage can at one point, for some reason it's still active. No response from the owner, no change in the coords. He works in the building that the cache is hidden in front of.

 

Another one planted by a grade school student as his geography project. Zero finds. Placed near the school. Poorly written cache description. Many spelling and grammar errors. Poor coordinates sending people into someone's backyard. Multiple additional waypoints posted in the logs. Multiple complaints. No response from the owner. Cache eventually goes missing and is archived by the reviewer.

 

I'm starting to think that yes we need to see some commitment and interest in the game before someone can post a hide. It's not all that difficult to find a few. And it's not like we are desperate for people to hide caches because there are not enough out there.

 

I think that a rule like 10 finds before first hide would be reasonable.

 

I hid my first one after about 4 or so finds. I still think it is a good hide, but I probably would have used a little better cache container if I had waited a bit.

[Andronicus]

 

How many "finds" should someone have before hiding a cache?

 

Newbie Cachers Should Not Be Allowed To Place Caches

 

Minimum Requirements for placing cache

 

New Geocachers placing caches?

 

When Should You Place Your 1st Cache?

 

Cache Placing Limitations

 

Cacher's stats are only one hidden

 

360 placed caches, and one find!

 

Kit Fox always comes through with the list. Do you have a magic search tool. I can never find anything I want. I end up useing google (or is that your secret?)

[+DanOCan]

Back on topic, I use the term "pigeon cachers". They fly in from out of nowhere, start caching with a flurry, poop out a bunch of caches, then fly off never to be seen again.

 

(bolding added by me)

 

If you are lucky they fly off never to be seen again; if you are unlucky they continue to hang around and keep on pooping.

[+DanOCan]

I know I am not the first one to suggest this:

 

Rather than some arbitrary number of Finds, I'd much rather see someone have to pass a test on the guidelines for hiding a cache before they are eligible to do so. There are far far too many people who just don't read the rules.

[sdarken]

Rather than a specific number of finds, I'd like to see people somewhat committed to the game before they place their own cache. In addition, if I had my way, when new geocachers dropped out of the game there would be some way of archiving their caches (unless the local geocaching community decided they were worth keeping) rather than having them live on until lack of maintenance caused them to be archived. (Though that's actually a whole separate topic).

 

In my own case, I did actually set myself a goal of finding 100 caches before I placed my own. In this area, that seemed like a reasonable number to ensure that I knew what I was doing.

 

Around these forums I see people argue against minimum find counts since it's said that the experience of finding lots of LPCs and guardrail caches will only increase the likelihood that people will copy-cat those ideas. Personaly I think that creative people are not likely to be swayed by those experiences while uncreative people will at least get to experience a few bad caches and hopefully not emulate those mistakes.

[+lavender5215]

I think all cachers should have to wait till they have placed 5 caches before they are allowed to find one.

 

Yeah, I know, it's just as ridiculous as making them wait to hide one.

Thats actually a really great idea!!!! With all the complaints from cache owners who get nasty logs from finders that have no idea what it like to be a cache owner.

 

I think that finders should be required to make at least one cache placement before they are allowed to continue being members of the site, maybe after they find their first 10 caches they have to place at least one.

 

Just a thought

Edited December 22, 2009 by lavender5215

[+L0ne.R]

So, someone goes to hide a cache and the system won't let them because they don't have enough finds. They run out and find another 100 LPCs and then they're qualified. So...did they really gain any additional experience in that little exercise to make them a better hider? Nope. No find count is going to ever correlate to a person's ability to place a good cache.

 

I see what you're saying about giving the member the chance to see if geocaching is something they really want to get into, though. Maybe it is more a factor of time than find count.

 

One would hope that if they've found 100 LPCs in order to up their numbers that they will have grown tired of them and not place another LPC. I see your point about numbers though, we don't want to encourage anyone to cache in order to up their numbers, but I think a handful of caches and perhaps a 3 month wait period would show that they actually do want to play the game and will more likely stick around to maintain their caches.

[knowschad]

I know I am not the first one to suggest this:

Rather than some arbitrary number of Finds, I'd much rather see someone have to pass a test on the guidelines for hiding a cache before they are eligible to do so. There are far far too many people who just don't read the rules.

And a test on what makes a good cache container. And then follow it up by a review panel. If they pass, they receive a license certificate they can frame and hang on the wall. I'm likin' this!!

[+ventura_kids]

I know I am not the first one to suggest this:

 

Rather than some arbitrary number of Finds, I'd much rather see someone have to pass a test on the guidelines for hiding a cache before they are eligible to do so. There are far far too many people who just don't read the rules.

 

Huh? ....We have guidelines?

[knowschad]

I know I am not the first one to suggest this:

Rather than some arbitrary number of Finds, I'd much rather see someone have to pass a test on the guidelines for hiding a cache before they are eligible to do so. There are far far too many people who just don't read the rules.

Huh? ....We have guidelines?

Don't worry... they are only guidelines, not rules.

[+Kit Fox]

 

Kit Fox always comes through with the list. Do you have a magic search tool. I can never find anything I want. I end up useing google (or is that your secret?)

 

I hate the search function, but I remember many of my previous posts on subjects like these. I found my list by searching the word "minimum."

[+lavender5215]

I know I am not the first one to suggest this:

Rather than some arbitrary number of Finds, I'd much rather see someone have to pass a test on the guidelines for hiding a cache before they are eligible to do so. There are far far too many people who just don't read the rules.

And a test on what makes a good cache container. And then follow it up by a review panel. If they pass, they receive a license certificate they can frame and hang on the wall. I'm likin' this!!

 

maybe they can start doing one of those 100 question tests just like when you fill out an online application for a job!

 

example question: lock n locks make great containers in the winter...... Do you....

 

a. agree strongly

b. slightly agree

c.disagree

d.Dont give a crappie!

[+ventura_kids]

Actually, I would have to vote to leave things the way they are.....NO restrictions on hiding.

 

One of the greatest thrills in geocaching is when someone finds a geocache that you have hidden.

Try to think back to your very first hide........

 

You spend a great deal of time and money creating a geocache that you HOPE other geocachers will like.

You then look around your neighborhood to find that perfect place.... and you carefully take down the coordinates. You double check the coordinates, and possibly even have a friend try to find the geocache using your gps.

You then spend hours sitting at the computer creating the perfect geocache web page.

You think up what hint you will use.... possibly a really clever one that will give searchers just the right amount of help.

You SUBMIT the cache page and wait.......... APPROVED ! Woo hoo! Your excitement grows as you wait and hope a FTF'r will zoom out in the middle of the night just to find your geocache.

Then it happens....You get notification of the first finder....and you read the log they wrote......

 

Found it.

[+BigFurryMonster]

This is not a discussion about experienced cachers placing lousy caches. That's reversing the argument.

 

This is a discussion about whether beginners should be allowed to place caches.

 

I myself favour a limit of, say, 100 finds, before one is allowed to place a cache. What the OP describes happens a lot in my region: new cachers find a couple of micros or nanos, do the odd short multi, and then hide a cache that spells 'crappy' all over it: lamppost, industrial area, parking lot, you know the places.

 

There is little reason if you have a great idea but too few finds to not wait a little while and find some more caches first. You get exposed to a variety of caches and hiding methods in the process, and may bump into fellow cachers a few times. This all provides you with the real flavour of the game, and will enhance the quality of hides.

[+Dharma Dogs]

Oh boy. I can never find the stick when I see a dead horse that needs beating. I need to keep one with me.

 

It hard for me to believe that you couldn't find a previous thread since they are scatterred all over the place about this overly discussed issue.

 

Its not up to us to show you that you are bringing up a subject long since thought buried.

 

We were thinking about a rule that without at least 100 finds people should not be allowed to bring up new topics to help reduce this problem.

 

Yes thank you for the warm welcome.

 

I used to moderate a discussion board and now I remember why I stopped.

 

freedom of speech is great but remember there is also freedom of kindness.

 

Thanks to all who were compassionate enough to answer.

[+bittsen]

This is not a discussion about experienced cachers placing lousy caches. That's reversing the argument.

 

This is a discussion about whether beginners should be allowed to place caches.

 

I myself favour a limit of, say, 100 finds, before one is allowed to place a cache. What the OP describes happens a lot in my region: new cachers find a couple of micros or nanos, do the odd short multi, and then hide a cache that spells 'crappy' all over it: lamppost, industrial area, parking lot, you know the places.

 

There is little reason if you have a great idea but too few finds to not wait a little while and find some more caches first. You get exposed to a variety of caches and hiding methods in the process, and may bump into fellow cachers a few times. This all provides you with the real flavour of the game, and will enhance the quality of hides.

 

I heard a rumor that the first guy to ever place a geocache had exactly ZERO finds.

 

Of course the argument could be made that he sucked at hiding because the cache was buried and had food in it.

[+StarBrand]

Nonsense!! If you have a good idea for a cache in a good spot - go place it. I see no need at all for some artificial finding limit before you place one.

 

My first cache was placed after exactly 1 find and is still out and available nearly 8 years later.

 

Some have proposed that you pass some form of a guidelines test before you place a cache - that makes a little more sense to me. in fact - I once came up with a sort of sample test.... http://www.wnag.net/checklist