Cache quality, again

[+rutson]

A cache approved yesterday renewed by interest in this.

• Micro
  
• No description (I mean NO description, short and long both blank)
  
• Coords reported to be 30m out (Iphone?)
  
• User with one find, joined on Sunday
  

OK, some of my hides haven't exactly been top notch but I like to think there's been SOMETHING going for them.

 

I think it must be time to impose some sort of limitation on number of finds before placing.

[+Gushoneybun]

That one should surely have been bounced back by the reviewer.

 

 

Add in the lack of attributes on many new (and some old) caches. I think there is such a rush for newbies to get a cache or a dozen published.

 

 

I would add in a ruling for those who do not maintain caches, I know of one cacher who has had a dozen or so caches archived by reviewers due to lack of maintenace but they are still happily placing new caches.

[+Simply Paul]

What about people who find lots, but don't log online? I've never felt the minimum number of finds route was a guarantee of an improvement of cache quality/condition. The one you describe certainly sounds like a challenge...

[+dino-irl]

That one should surely have been bounced back by the reviewer.

Why?

 

Caches are reviewed according to compliance with the guidelines so I'd be interested to see how it violates any of them in a way which is obvious at the review stage.

 

[+Amberel]

I've never felt the minimum number of finds route was a guarantee of an improvement of cache quality/condition.

You're right that there is (very much) no guarantee that an experienced cacher will set a good cache or that an inexperienced cacher will set a bad one.

 

But on the balance of probabilities, and for any individual cacher, a little bit of experience before placing their

first cache is likely to result in a better one.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+lodgebarn]

That one should surely have been bounced back by the reviewer.

Why?

 

Caches are reviewed according to compliance with the guidelines so I'd be interested to see how it violates any of them in a way which is obvious at the review stage.

 

 

Because the cache type is wrong - seems more like a puzzle to me.

[+rutson]

Oh yes! No attributes either, and the originally posted coords were in someone's garden.

 

The sad thing is, it's 1/4 mile from my flat so I'll probably have a look for it on the way home. Who knows, maybe I'll be surprised?

[+HouseOfDragons]

I've never felt the minimum number of finds route was a guarantee of an improvement of cache quality/condition.

You're right that there is (very much) no guarantee that an experienced cacher will set a good cache or that an inexperienced cacher will set a bad one.

 

But on the balance of probabilities, and for any individual cacher, a little bit of experience before placing their

first cache is likely to result in a better one.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

I think it depends what caches you've found though. If you've found 100s of micros in ivy covered trees or boxes under some sticks, that's what you'll hide and you'll think they're great. someone who's only found 5 caches but they were top notch caches will most likely hide similar ones.

 

I am thankful that I found some innovative caches early on in my geocaching career.

[+The Baggster]

Oh flip! I've found 19 and was hoping to hide my first this weekend.

 

Now I'm starting to worry. Most of mine have been micros, hidden by ivy and I've enjoyed finding them. I know from reading the logs for them that others have too.

 

What to do? It seems there's plenty of different views and plenty of different types of caches - you can't please all of the cachers all of the time, perhaps?

[+rutson]

Hmmm... this is the problem and I know I was opening a can of worms ;-)

 

Indeed you can't please all of the cachers all of the time and if one throws a nano on a railing you'll please a lot of the cachers as it's a smiley (sometimes I like them!).

 

I think the main point is to think before placing your cache. "Would I enjoy finding this?"

 

I worry about the quality of a cache where the placer can't even be bothered to write ANYTHING about it.

 

Oh... I have very little doubt that sometime soon someone will work out which cache I'm on about then start looking at my caches. Yes, I have a cache quite nearby this one with no description, at all, too. I think that's a different case though as it's a puzzle.

[norsch]

Oh yes! No attributes either, and the originally posted coords were in someone's garden.

 

The sad thing is, it's 1/4 mile from my flat so I'll probably have a look for it on the way home. Who knows, maybe I'll be surprised?

Nice garden though.

[+Gushoneybun]

That one should surely have been bounced back by the reviewer.

Why?

 

Caches are reviewed according to compliance with the guidelines so I'd be interested to see how it violates any of them in a way which is obvious at the review stage.

 

 

 

I have seen reviewers add notes to publish logs about the lack of attributes and the like in the past. If the reviewer had bounced it back; it would perhaps just make the CO write something on future cache pages which will surely improve the quality out there?

[+The Blorenges]

Maybe the cache owner was just going along the 'minimalist' route?

 

Rather like this cache: .

 

Or even this one: .

 

MrsB

Edited March 26, 2010 by The Blorenges

[+Pharisee]

That one should surely have been bounced back by the reviewer.

Why?

 

Caches are reviewed according to compliance with the guidelines so I'd be interested to see how it violates any of them in a way which is obvious at the review stage.

 

I guess one has to ask why Groundspeak 'employ' volunteers to review new cache submissions and not use a simple 'computerised' system for cache approval. If it was merely a case of 'Any cache that meets a set of pre-defined criteria automatically gets approved.', as you seem to be suggesting, then there would be no need for a human interface. A computer program could do that easily and so much faster.

I like to believe that it's because a human reviewer has the ability to apply some of that oh-so-rare 'common sense' to the cache approval system and see some of the grey shades, not just the black and white. I don't know the cache in question but if it really was as badly submitted as it appears then shouldn't the reviewer have 'bounced it back' even though, in black and white terms it met the approval requirements?

[katowora]

My guess is that the CO thought of a nice cache related pun for a name and got carried away in his eagerness to set it

[+rutson]

Well, I had to drive past it, I was GOING to TRY to resist but:

 

a) I am slightly addicted

I could see it from the car

 

On the plus side, I have seen many worse caches, the cache *itself* is fine. There's not there's not really anything going for the immediate environs except, I guess, the owner lives very nearby?

 

For the owners sake, I hope it survives a while and doesn't put him off, I'm sure his cache pages will improve ;-)

[+riviouveur]

The only issue I can see here which might cause a reviewer to stop and pause for a second is the empty description. In such cases, particularly with new hiders, I might drop them a note saying "Do you really want a blank description?", but if the cache owner insists, they can have it published like that. And if, as in this case, the owner has provided a hint, then I'd probably assume that their lack of description is deliberate and so publish it straight away. This is not like a school essay where you have to write 100 words or whatever.

 

As a cache seeker, I don't worry about quality overmuch. The number of great caches is higher than ever. (Whether or not the percentage of great caches is going up, is another matter.)

 

Don't forget, the first ever cache was buried, contained food, and was placed right by the side of a road (I've visited the site, it truly is a drive-in). It was not properly maintained, and the site had no scenic view or other interesting features. And it was placed by somebody who'd never found a single cache, which some might argue explains the above issues.

[+rutson]

To the credit of the owner, he has replaced the cache with a more appropriate container so I can't fault his maintenance!

[GerritS]

A cache approved yesterday renewed by interest in this.

• Micro
  
• No description (I mean NO description, short and long both blank)
  
• Coords reported to be 30m out (Iphone?)
  
• User with one find, joined on Sunday
  

OK, some of my hides haven't exactly been top notch but I like to think there's been SOMETHING going for them.

 

I think it must be time to impose some sort of limitation on number of finds before placing.

 

Been flamed for agree this point before but yes some requirement should be enforced to many junk caches appearing.

 

Another Idea I have not seen posted? Maybe there should be a question or 2 for the cache setter to complete when he submits a cache.

 

1) Why have you placed this cache?

 

2) What do you hope other cachers will get form finding it?

 

I am not saying it would stop any caches being placed but might make people think?

 

Only an idea, but have my fire suit and lead suite on standby

[+dino-irl]

That one should surely have been bounced back by the reviewer.

Why?

 

Caches are reviewed according to compliance with the guidelines so I'd be interested to see how it violates any of them in a way which is obvious at the review stage.

 

 

Because the cache type is wrong - seems more like a puzzle to me.

We have yet to see a link to the cache but if the cache is at the posted coordinates (or supposed to be there) then it's a traditional, not a puzzle.

[+dino-irl]

I have seen reviewers add notes to publish logs about the lack of attributes and the like in the past. If the reviewer had bounced it back; it would perhaps just make the CO write something on future cache pages which will surely improve the quality out there?

I guess one has to ask why Groundspeak 'employ' volunteers to review new cache submissions and not use a simple 'computerised' system for cache approval. If it was merely a case of 'Any cache that meets a set of pre-defined criteria automatically gets approved.', as you seem to be suggesting, then there would be no need for a human interface. A computer program could do that easily and so much faster.

I like to believe that it's because a human reviewer has the ability to apply some of that oh-so-rare 'common sense' to the cache approval system and see some of the grey shades, not just the black and white. I don't know the cache in question but if it really was as badly submitted as it appears then shouldn't the reviewer have 'bounced it back' even though, in black and white terms it met the approval requirements?

I've put both posts in one reply as you are basically saying the same thing and I have the same reply for both of you. How do you know the reviewer didn't bounce it back to the owner? If they did and the owner didn't want to add anything then the cache should be published. There is nothing anywhere that says you must write a description of the cache site.

[+Bear and Ragged]

1) Why have you placed this cache?

Because I can.

 

2) What do you hope other cachers will get form finding it?

A smilie to add to their cache found total.

 

Have I answered correctly?

Do you think my cache will be published?

 

 

 

 

edit to add:

As one of the finders has added

PS Look for caches on the Speyside Way as it can be counted as planned activity on your expedition plus gives the special needs something else to do other than walking...

I wonder if it's a young cacher doing a Duke of Edinburgh award..?

Edited March 26, 2010 by Bear and Ragged

[team tisri]

 

Been flamed for agree this point before but yes some requirement should be enforced to many junk caches appearing.

 

Another Idea I have not seen posted? Maybe there should be a question or 2 for the cache setter to complete when he submits a cache.

 

1) Why have you placed this cache?

 

2) What do you hope other cachers will get form finding it?

 

I am not saying it would stop any caches being placed but might make people think?

 

Only an idea, but have my fire suit and lead suite on standby

 

I quite like that idea. If someone wants to stick a film pot behind a junction box just because it's outside their home and to give passing cachers an easy smiley then all well and good, but at least it makes them think about what they're wanting to do and whether they would enjoy finding it.

[GerritS]

1) Why have you placed this cache?

Because I can.

 

2) What do you hope other cachers will get form finding it?

A smilie to add to their cache found total.

 

Have I answered correctly?

Do you think my cache will be published?

 

 

 

Yes

 

It seems that the policy is and set to continue to be to publish any Cache that ticks all the box's . There is a whole debate there that I do not want to enter again .

 

If the questions make 5% of caches better thought out its a start .

 

Most newbies would not know the reviewer would not not care to much about the answers , by the time they found out they would probably be experienced cachers

 

In-fact with answers like that the Reviewer would probably know you are an experienced cacher

[+Woodbury Walker]

I do these poor quality caches because they are there!

 

My comments are ‘TFTC’ which I hope shows my views on them?

[Puppy Socks]

What about people who find lots, but don't log online?

 

There are certainly more of them around than we will ever know about !

[Puppy Socks]

1) Why have you placed this cache?

Because I can.

 

2) What do you hope other cachers will get form finding it?

A smilie to add to their cache found total.

 

Have I answered correctly?

Do you think my cache will be published?

 

 

 

 

edit to add:

As one of the finders has added

PS Look for caches on the Speyside Way as it can be counted as planned activity on your expedition plus gives the special needs something else to do other than walking...

I wonder if it's a young cacher doing a Duke of Edinburgh award..?

 

They certainly knew local experienced cachers, judging by the logged comments, so I guess they may have some experience.

It just seems a shame that an opportunity to advise people about the local area has been missed.

I love reading cache pages that explain the history or geography around the area I'm caching in.

 

The whole point of my cache experience is to be taken to interesting places I wouldn't neccessarily have found without a cache there.

[+rutson]

What about people who find lots, but don't log online?

 

Logging ones finds online is part of the rules.

[+naffita]

You got in one.

 

The whole point of my cache experience is to be taken to interesting places I wouldn't neccessarily have found without a cache there.

 

As someone used to say "Its not about the numbers"

 

The huge upsurge of lame film can hides is mainly the reason I have virtually stopped caching, wandering round a field finding a film can on each side is not my idea of an interesting time. As for riding along a road and stopping at each sign post, I can think of better ways of wasting fuel.

[Deceangi]

I won't comment on the cache which the OP referenced to [and yes I'm fully aware which one it is]. But several posts in this topic seem to be hinting or stating that Quality of caches, should be down to the Reviewer to assess!

 

For those who were around in the period leading up to the demise of Virtual caches on this site. Which required the Reviewers to make subjective decisions about the Quality of Virtual caches in regards to the WOW factor. Will remember, That failed dismally!

 

But now once again Reviewers are once again being expected to make decisions about Cache Quality! When the community it's self will not do that!

 

i: The community will not on a whole post Needs Maintenance/Archived logs

 

ii: The community were quite happy to have over 1,000+ caches Disabled for well over 2 months without any sort of feed back as to why the cache was Disabled for so long. Some going back to 2008!

 

iv: There are huge moans about the Number of Micro's being placed. Yet the Community continue to go out and find them.

 

v: The Community continue to moan about cache standards, but once again, they happily run out and find caches. Which they know before even departing to go and search for the cache, will be of extremly low quality.

 

vi: Parts of the community feel it is acceptable to go out to carrying replacement Micros, so that if they cant find the cache they will put out a replacement so they can claim a find.

 

But despite all of the above, it's down to the Unpaid Volunteer Reviewers to Police Quality! Sorry but not until the community decides to Police Quality themselves. Don't try dumping onto the Reviewers what the community as a whole will not do.

 

Personally I have spend enough time arguing with people about how their cache should be published, despite it not meeting the Guidelines. To start having to argue with people about the quality of their caches.

 

If you want quality start posting Needs Maintenance/Archive Logs, stop attacking people for doing so [you know comments like "I won't be the cache police"] start mentoring people who the community feel are placing rubbish caches. Help them to improve standards.

 

When the community as a whole actively does the above, that's when the Reviewers will be in a position of Reviewing for Quality as well as for compliance to the Guidelines.

 

Deci

[+uktim]

Well, I had to drive past it, I was GOING to TRY to resist but:

 

a) I am slightly addicted

I could see it from the car

 

On the plus side, I have seen many worse caches, the cache *itself* is fine. There's not there's not really anything going for the immediate environs except, I guess, the owner lives very nearby?

 

For the owners sake, I hope it survives a while and doesn't put him off, I'm sure his cache pages will improve ;-)

 

Why should his cache pages improve to meet your criteria? Some people like talking and writing and some don't, why not appreciate the fact that all folks are different instead of moaning about it?

[Chudley Cannons]

What about people who find lots, but don't log online?

 

Logging ones finds online is part of the rules.

Didn't know there were rules. It's not like bowling. Oh dear...

[+Simply Paul]

What about people who find lots, but don't log online?

Logging ones finds online is part of the rules.

Didn't know there were rules. It's not like bowling. Oh dear...

I too have put my foot over the line whilst caching

 

I accept it's likely that someone with more finds will place better hides, but as far as I know, there's no evidence for this. It's just a perception and as what makes a 'good cache' is subjective, not all that helpful. An on-site rating system would be the only workable 'democratic' system to help cachers decide which caches to try for. Average score out of ten: 8.7 tells you lots of other cachers rate the hide/location/experience. Average score out of ten: 2.4 suggests it's little more than a smiley, and a micro with no clue and poor co-ords in ivy at that- but it's still there for you to find if it's your informed choice to look for it. This would also make cache-hiding 'competitive' in a way it's not at the moment. Come on Groundspeak- let us see the diamonds amongst the... non-diamonds!

[GerritS]

The idea of the questions was, to make the cache setter think, not for reviews to do anything about!

 

Now since that idea has a serious floor (Deci, and all the reviewers I would not want your job if I was paid for it! I respect the work you do, and would hate to do it myself!)

 

Lets change it

 

Another idea (boy am expecting a flaming soon ) what would happen if the same questions where posed and published in the cache?

 

1) Why have you placed this cache?

Because I can.

 

2) What do you hope other cachers will get form finding it?

A smilie to add to their cache found total.

 

The answers might not seem so clever?

 

Will put shovel away (for a whilst) a before I dig my self a deeper hole

[+Amberel]

Another idea (boy am expecting a flaming soon ) what would happen if the same questions where posed and published in the cache?

 

1) Why have you placed this cache?

Because I can.

 

2) What do you hope other cachers will get form finding it?

A smilie to add to their cache found total.

 

The answers might not seem so clever?

Yesterday evening I decided I would do something along these lines on all my caches, including all my existing ones, using the "short description". Why I've placed it, why it's the size it is, etc. Not sure I'll use your second question, the person reading the page should be able to decide that for themselves from the other information I propose to include.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+lefthanded99]

We can spend as much time as we like debating the quality of "newbie" caches, but it seems to me that the person who need to know that this cache is less than perfect, is the very person who is LEAST likely to be reading this forum.

 

Maybe what is needed here is not policing, but encouragement. Has anyone tried dropping a friendly email to the cache owner explaining how his listing could be improved (and how an improved listing could result in more finds on his cache)?

[+vw_k]

We can spend as much time as we like debating the quality of "newbie" caches, but it seems to me that the person who need to know that this cache is less than perfect, is the very person who is LEAST likely to be reading this forum.

 

Maybe what is needed here is not policing, but encouragement. Has anyone tried dropping a friendly email to the cache owner explaining how his listing could be improved (and how an improved listing could result in more finds on his cache)?

 

Agreed. A short email to the CO with some constructive suggestions will achieve more than just leaving "TFTC" as a log.

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

or restrict every cacher to hiding a maximum of ten caches...then we'd have to be far more selective as to which caches we put out..

[team tisri]

or restrict every cacher to hiding a maximum of ten caches...then we'd have to be far more selective as to which caches we put out..

 

Or we'd end up with dozens of sock puppet accounts, each of which owned ten truly dismal caches precisely 0.1 miles from the next truly dismal cache.

[+dogastus]

or restrict every cacher to hiding a maximum of ten caches...then we'd have to be far more selective as to which caches we put out..

 

Or we'd end up with dozens of sock puppet accounts, each of which owned ten truly dismal caches precisely 0.1 miles from the next truly dismal cache.

 

This could be solved by allowing only premium members to set caches. The free account people would still be able to find as many caches they wanted.

[+HookwayFamily]

I have a suggestion....how about a rating system being implemented whereby when you log your fin you can also rate the cache quality or maybe a few things, quality of the hide, the area etc..

 

This way the cachers have an opportunity to in effect advise fellow cachers of what to expect. Then when searching you can knock of the low quality ones in required with a filter.

 

Perhaps some guidelines on how to rate may help, you get the idea...??

[+keehotee]

I have a suggestion....how about a rating system being implemented whereby when you log your fin you can also rate the cache quality or maybe a few things, quality of the hide, the area etc..

 

This way the cachers have an opportunity to in effect advise fellow cachers of what to expect. Then when searching you can knock of the low quality ones in required with a filter.

 

Perhaps some guidelines on how to rate may help, you get the idea...??

 

Like this you mean?

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...9&hl=gcvote

[team tisri]

or restrict every cacher to hiding a maximum of ten caches...then we'd have to be far more selective as to which caches we put out..

 

Or we'd end up with dozens of sock puppet accounts, each of which owned ten truly dismal caches precisely 0.1 miles from the next truly dismal cache.

 

This could be solved by allowing only premium members to set caches. The free account people would still be able to find as many caches they wanted.

 

I think that would just cause more issues. Not all basic members set bad caches - overall I'd say most caches I've found have been ones I was pleased to find. It also reduces the number of people placing caches, and creates the issue of what to do if a premium member sets caches but then doesn't renew their premium membership. Would you really want caches archived just because someone felt that paying $30 wasn't something they wanted to do any more?

[+HookwayFamily]

I have a suggestion....how about a rating system being implemented whereby when you log your fin you can also rate the cache quality or maybe a few things, quality of the hide, the area etc..

 

This way the cachers have an opportunity to in effect advise fellow cachers of what to expect. Then when searching you can knock of the low quality ones in required with a filter.

 

Perhaps some guidelines on how to rate may help, you get the idea...??

 

Like this you mean?

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...9&hl=gcvote

 

Well yes just like that really but integrated on this site...lol

[+Happy Humphrey]

We've debated this "quality" idea so many times, and the argument always falls down on the definition of "quality". It means different things on different days to different people, and few caches are going to be totally rubbish all the time to everyone.

We are never going to agree on that one, so how a reviewer is supposed to decide to reject a cache for "quality" reasons without even going to see the cache in question beats me.

 

I would say that there is merit in some sort of minimum standard for cache listings, but I wouldn't like to be the reviewer that tries to enforce that one either. Possibly there could be a sort of form to fill in as an alternative to the free-form description boxes, as an option for those who can't or won't put together the type of clear sentences that entertain, help and/or inform.

 

I have had a cache queried by a reviewer for having no short description, no long description, no hint or other clue (and only a two-letter title) and didn't take offence. But I did classify it as a Mystery, and it has been a very popular cache over 5 years. So what did that reviewer (Eckington) know!

[+Geo-Lana]

As 'newbies' We have plenty of questions regarding Geocaching. At the time of posting this we have just under 40 finds under our belt. We are putting serious thought into our first hide(s) but are concentrating on gaining more finding experience first.

 

Our biggest question is regarding this very thread subject. As experienced geocachers, what do you hope to find? Our experience is that most caches have been small (little or no room for swaps etc).

 

Do you hope to find larger caches with interesting contents or is a micro ok as long as plenty of thought has gone into its location?

 

questions questions questions!

 

As a P.S to this post, we have chosen a location for our first hides. No other caches within at least a 1.5 mile radius, plenty of differing geography to walk through, nice views etc and plenty of space for up to half a dozen hides of different shapes and sizes making a nice circular walk. Why do we want to do it?....

 

1. we have really enjoyed our short time finding geocaches

2. we feel it would be nice to 'give back' a little so others can enjoy one of our favorite locations.

[+gururyan]

I'm all for quality of caches, but the minimum number of finds troubles me. As you will notice, I am not only just 5 days into being a 'cacher but I only have 16 finds. I don't even have a GPS, I have found all of mine by using the Sun and my 6th sense. That said, I have already constructed my first cache awaiting placement. I have a GPS arriving tomorrow so I can get the coordinates. Anyway, I foresee having more fun placing caches than finding them. I don't care so much for micros/nanos, and I don't care so much for swag either. I like travel bugs and geocoins, so I tend to like the larger caches but I like a challenge too (but not because it's the size of a pencil eraser, tossed in a gravel road). This is why I have opted to practice what I preach and will only be creating "clever" caches, usually large enough to house bugs/coins but prove to be a creative challenge. I want people to smile and go "ahhhhhhhhhhh" when they find it, not "@#$% SOB!." My first cache, the one I will place tomorrow, took a number of items from the local hardware, and lots of time to invent and create successfully. As previously stated, I am all about quality over quantity. I would post pics of my cache but for obvious reasons I can't do that just yet. Maybe after 50 finds I can post the container but still, the point being, some of us may prefer doing the hiding vs. the finding.

[GerritS]

I'm all for quality of caches, but the minimum number of finds troubles me. As you will notice, I am not only just 5 days into being a 'cacher but I only have 16 finds. I don't even have a GPS, I have found all of mine by using the Sun and my 6th sense. That said, I have already constructed my first cache awaiting placement. I have a GPS arriving tomorrow so I can get the coordinates. Anyway, I foresee having more fun placing caches than finding them. I don't care so much for micros/nanos, and I don't care so much for swag either. I like travel bugs and geocoins, so I tend to like the larger caches but I like a challenge too (but not because it's the size of a pencil eraser, tossed in a gravel road). This is why I have opted to practice what I preach and will only be creating "clever" caches, usually large enough to house bugs/coins but prove to be a creative challenge. I want people to smile and go "ahhhhhhhhhhh" when they find it, not "@#$% SOB!." My first cache, the one I will place tomorrow, took a number of items from the local hardware, and lots of time to invent and create successfully. As previously stated, I am all about quality over quantity. I would post pics of my cache but for obvious reasons I can't do that just yet. Maybe after 50 finds I can post the container but still, the point being, some of us may prefer doing the hiding vs. the finding.

 

Sounds like your going along the right lines, all you have to do is throw in Ammo Box and place of intrest/ a history or scenic view (preferably all three) and you will have a superb cache on your hands not just a good one!

 

Once you place your first sit back and read the logs... Just make sure they do not become abandoned unloved caches... Although if they are good ones people tend to do most of the looking after for you...

[+Amberel]

I'm all for quality of caches, but the minimum number of finds troubles me.

I think it's clear that no-one is suggesting that every cache hidden by an inexperienced cacher is a bad one, any more than every cache set by an experienced cacher is a good one.

 

An experienced cacher will have seen that some things work well and some things don't. I think it would be safe to say that experience of finding caches is considerably more likely to improve your own hides than it is to make them worse. I don't mean just finding good caches; you gain experience from finding bad caches too, it helps you understand what to avoid when you set your own.

 

But experience is just one contributory factor. Other contributory factors might include how observant the cache setter is, how concientious they are, what sort of caches they like themselves, how much time and money they have to spend, what skills they posess, what sort of terrain they have available in their locality, and I'm sure lots of other factors.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+MBFace]

I have had a cache queried by a reviewer for having no short description, no long description, no hint or other clue (and only a two-letter title) and didn't take offence. But I did classify it as a Mystery, and it has been a very popular cache over 5 years. So what did that reviewer (Eckington) know!

 

For this one the spoof coordinates are 'all at sea'. We've come across a similar cache where they aren't with several DNF logs from people who obviously haven't noticed the Mystery icon Both real quality caches as far as we are concerned!!!