Jump to content

Newbies and Hides


jellis

Recommended Posts

I am sure we all talk about it but it is getting out of hand. When I started it was great to get newbies into geocaching. And they get excited finding caches. But when they start placing them after only finding a few doesn't always work out. My first hides were actually adopted caches. Like getting a puppy before having a baby. Trying them out and see how it feels like owning one. Having to take care of it, dealing with the logs etc.

Now there are way more newbies who are putting out caches, and some of the caches have problems like the coords are from 50 ft to half mile off. (don't get me wrong I still do that but I learned to double check them now), caches published without the containers being there (happens more often when someone forgets to uncheck the box), on private property without owners consent (should mention consent even if it is your own property), making them way too difficult on your first try, not maintaining them or responding DNFS, total blank page on a traditionals! I know it is exciting to them when they first put one out. But without the experience of finding enough caches, especially of different types like puzzles and multis, they are not truly understanding about how to place them and submit them correctly.

It is not only hard on the first cachers on the scene to have a difficult time finding them but also on the reviewer who has to fix the damage. There was one recently a newbie put out, and I went to find it. Met up with another cacher also looking. I realized the coords took us to the middle of a busy street. The theme and hint didn't match the area. Turned out the cache was over .25 miles from the posted coords. The owner said it was raining and didn't get good readings. Hmm so he went back out and gotten better coords. Of course the reviewer had to adjust the coords. Well the coords were adjusted and then cache was archived. Because it was 273 ft from another cache. If the cache owner was more experienced he first should have double checked the coords when he took the readings or when entered on the submission see if it is in the right spot on the map. Plus check the "caches nearby" link and see if he was too close to another cache. Saves a lot of wasted time.

Also the ratings are sometimes too high or low. I try to compare my hides to ones I have found and use common sense to rate them. The rating tool is good but it only outputs what you put in. What you think is difficult or not maybe different to someone else.

What I think GC should have reviewers do is to suggest to newbies to restrain from hiding any until they have found 100 or more and of different types. And some newbies even just get bored of geocaching and not do anything about the caches they have.

What is your opinion?

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

This one gets debated on here a lot, and I think most people largely agree with you, although 100 finds before a hide seems a little steep (at the rate I find caches that would take me years :))

 

The issue seems to be, where should that cut off be – if we agree that you shouldn’t hide until you have a fair bit of finding experience, how do you define that “experience”? – does someone who has found 100 traditional urban micros have more experience than someone who has found 50 caches of all shapes, sizes, types and in a mix of urban / rural / woods etc? I don’t think so.

 

When I originally started caching, I read some advice, probably here on the boards, that suggested hiding one cache for every 10 you have found, and trying to make your finds as varied as possible before hiding your first. Not a hard and fast rule, but fair advice I think.

 

With hindsight, I probably should have waited even longer as my first cache was muggled early on, and with the benefit of more experience I can now see that it was too exposed to local teens who hang around the area – they didn’t overlook the cache location itself, but they did witness people going into the same bit of woodland repeatedly, and they clearly went in to find out what all the fuss was about, and vandalised the cache. So now I can see that it was probably not the best site (although people did enjoy it while it lasted). My second one was placed in a much less muggalicious area, and seems to be getting along just fine so far, fingers crossed, and has received some very positive comments from local cachers of high renown, which made me feel all warm and happy inside :anicute:

 

Last night, there was a whole slew of new caches posted very local to me – a series of 6. They are mainly micros, but with one “Large”, which surprised me to see as I don’t think there is another “Large” in the area. I looked out of interest at the person who has hidden these, they only joined up last week, and they have 4 finds so far, all found on the same day, all trads in a very straightforward local series with low difficulty and terrain that you can complete on your lunch break. All they have put on the log for each is TFTC. There is one sentence of description on each of the 6 caches they published last night (the same one sentence copied and pasted across the 6). There is nothing to “sell” the series or the area to me. My instinct is that if they have put as little effort into the caches as they have into the listings and their own caching finds to date, then these probably aren’t going to be quality hides.

 

I might be wrong – and to be honest I’ll probably go and look for the “Large” just because I’ve never seen one before :ph34r: (but what’s the betting when I get there it’s no 5-gallon drum? It’s just larger than the teeny ones they have found to date and so they’ve called it large? I’ll wait till a few others have found it first I think)

 

Anyway – I’m rambling – but yes, in principle, I agree with the OP. I’m all for quality caches not quantity – and for me it just makes plain common sense that you play the game for a while to get a good feel for it before you start planting caches….

Link to comment

I'm guilty of submitting a cache before it was ready by forgetting to uncheck the "active" box. (I hastily added an apologetic reviewer's note when I saw the email confirmation of submission, though.)

 

I think that the default state of the "active" box should be UNCHECKED. Checking it would take a minimal amount of effort and it will help eliminate accidental cache submissions.

 

What is the process for making suggestions like this?

Link to comment

Being someone that goes after a lot of FTFs, I've seen a large number of problems with caches put out by newbies. I've also seen a lot of problems from cachers that should know better but don't care.

 

There have been some very good caches put out by newbie cachers and when there is a problem most (not all) are will to fix them right away after I drop them a note about the problem. Even though I'm willing to help out any cacher, I do think there should be a minimum number of finds before they can put out their first cache. My first thought is at least 100, I would prefer to see it be 200 caches and 2 months before they can put one out. Unless they have someone who is willing to help them and be willing to put their name next to the newbie as cache placer.

 

Some will say "That's not fair to someone that has been caching for a long time under a shared account and now is starting fresh". My answer to that is... If you have been playing awhile then getting 100 caches should be no problem. We just did 43 finds this past Sunday (personal best) but normally it would take us about 1.5 to 2 months to get 100. If someone is not willing to wait till they find 100 caches or to get someone to work with them, then maybe they should not be caching at all. This game is not for everybody and not everyone should play this game.

 

For myself I waited till I had found 500 but that's me.

Link to comment

As a newbie who really has no intention to put a cache out for sometime (due to not having time to maintain it). I think the 100 caches is a little steep. There are number of things to take into consideration when arbitrarily assigning a number of a caches to deem "experience."

 

On is that there are many people who have 1-2 hours a week if they're lucky to go out caching. This means getting very very few caches being foudn in that time. So applying an extra rule to these people stating you can't hide a cache until you've found 100 is going to drive the casual player away.

 

Secondly, around here people like to put caches in difficult terrain often. So if you're less athletic you'll never get 100 caches because you physically are unable to get to the ones in the area. So basically that says that unless you are physically fit you can't hide a cache. Or unless you have the time to travel extensively and the financial ability to do so you won't ever be able to hide a cache (see previous paragraph... some people only have 1-2 hours a week to cache).

 

Lastly this will extremely limit wheelchair bound cachers as well who are already very limited on the caches they are able to get to.

 

While I agree that newbies should not run out and start hiding caches I believe having a simple time limit before caches can be hidden would be much more useful than an arbitrary number of caches found to deem who is worthy. If you put a 2-3 month "break in period" you will likely weed out all the flash in the pan sorts of people who weren't that interested in the first place.

Link to comment

Nonsense!!!

 

If you have a good idea for a cache in a great location and it fits nicely in all the guidelines - my advice is go and hide it. No matter how many you have found. Why wait to see another dozen gaurdrail caches, 17 LPCs and 6 nanos. They might just spoil them.

 

The last 5 caches I've seen with the issues described above were all hidden by cachers with dozens of other hides and hundreds of finds. I don't think there is any reason to believe that the new cachers make more mistakes than experienced ones.

 

I had 4 hides before I had 10 finds and 3 of them are still up and going strong after 8+ years.

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

I had 2 finds a one DNF when I hid my first cache. I turned out better than some of my later ones. Even after having 200 finds, I transposed the 2 decimal of the minute on a cache. Didn't notice until it was published. Imediatly notified the reviewer, but took a bit to get fixed. One or two cachers wasted some time. I appolagised profusly. Anyway, the point is that mistakes happen. No amount of prerequisites can eliminate that.

Link to comment

I can not disagree more more with limitation concepts.

 

I hear mention that 100 finds can be accomplished quickly.

Yup that's true (in some places) and it is why limiting to 100 is a bad idea. Joe Noob makes 10 finds Friday, 51 on Saturday, and 43 on Sunday and what have they learned? Not much! They may have learned about park and grabs, they my have learned about numbers PTs, but they have learned nothing about hiding because they where spending their time going off to the next cache.

 

In February 09 I did a PQ that showed there where 106 geocaches available to basic members within 10 miles of me.

Out of curiosity, I placed all those caches on GE and started drawing 10 mile lines along the roads using my home as the starting point and dropped a marker at the end of each. When I connected all the markers to create a polygon, I had 24 of those 106 fall in it then I threw out 3 because the way they fell you would still have to drive over 10 miles to get near them or travel across private property. Even going with ATCF, 1 cache every 2.96 square miles isn't much.

 

Now lets get to the area that says you need to find 100 to place any and how it translates to "Even if you live in a high terrain difficulty area you brain must be broken if you cant find 100". I'm not kidding, applying a number sounds like that.

Granted I know a paraplegic who vs. most geocachers I would rather have on a hike with me because he will not slow me down, he simply isn't the norm. Does every disabled person live in an urban environment where 1/1 is the norm? No, but you are saying punish them for it.

 

How about we decide that time spent is the limiting factor? Hey, then I can say you should not be hiding unless you have been finding for a decade! Before I found geocaching, I was letterboxing and waystashing since the very early 80's.

 

How about, unless you're an avid outdoorsman you cant hide a cache?

 

Having failures is a learning lesson too, I never even thought of using plastic containers before my first geocache and it taught me a valuable lesson. Buried under leaves inside a fairy ring of trees is not a good spot for a plastic container because every 4.2 people will step on it before they find it.

My second one taught me that lazy people will migrate them.

My third taught me not to disable a cache because of what someone says.

So rather than try to apply some arbitrary condition to when a new person should be allowed to hide, you should privately and nicely tell them how they may improve their hide and/or invite them to participate in this and their local geocaching forums.

 

One last thought, when you want to reduce the number of caches being hidden, then arbitrary conditions for hiding will be a great idea. Even though wanting to reduce the number of caches being hidden is a bad one.

Link to comment

 

On is that there are many people who have 1-2 hours a week if they're lucky to go out caching. This means getting very very few caches being foudn in that time. So applying an extra rule to these people stating you can't hide a cache until you've found 100 is going to drive the casual player away.

 

 

If they only have 1-2 hours a week to cache and can't find that many, then how would they find time to maintain them if they did put them out?

 

The other issue I have is kid caches. Children who's parents who are also cachers or really support their children's hobby I have no issue. But school age kids who put out caches and then their parents won't take them out to maintain them, especially during school days have been a big issue here. So they sit, with long lines of dnfs. To me they should be treated like vacation caches. Not placed unless their parents or someone else can help maintain them.

Link to comment

 

On is that there are many people who have 1-2 hours a week if they're lucky to go out caching. This means getting very very few caches being foudn in that time. So applying an extra rule to these people stating you can't hide a cache until you've found 100 is going to drive the casual player away.

 

If they only have 1-2 hours a week to cache and can't find that many, then how would they find time to maintain them if they did put them out?

Ummmm, how about because maintenance on something you know the location of typically takes less time.

Link to comment

 

On is that there are many people who have 1-2 hours a week if they're lucky to go out caching. This means getting very very few caches being foudn in that time. So applying an extra rule to these people stating you can't hide a cache until you've found 100 is going to drive the casual player away.

 

If they only have 1-2 hours a week to cache and can't find that many, then how would they find time to maintain them if they did put them out?

Ummmm, how about because maintenance on something you know the location of typically takes less time.

 

That would depend on how many and how far. Oh and how active it is

Link to comment

I've found great caches placed by people with a handful of (and even no) finds and lousy caches placed by people with hundreds or thousands of finds. I'd be dead set against any number of finds before hides requirement.

 

I think the bad coordinates come from the fact that more and more novices are using smart phones to place their caches.

Link to comment

alwarren56 is correct, for sure! :rolleyes:

 

Initially, I thought it would be best if there were a minimum number of "finds" requirement to allow for the initial cache placement (even then though, I would say 100 is fully high).

 

Now, I am not so certain. I still believe that experience in finding is the best teacher for hiding.

 

I think the real key to the situation is getting the knowledge of hide placement, camouflage, private property issues, acceptable containers and a few hundred other tidbits into the head of a person wishing to place a hide.

 

I found a cache (STF) two days ago placed by a person that has "0" finds. It is currently their only cache. They had violated a goodly number of "rules", including foodstuffs in the cache, drilling a live tree, placement in an environmentally sensitive area, requiring a 1.5 mile bushwhacking only hike.

The hider is a sport snowmobiler and apparently placed it w/o any thought or knowledge as to what the non-snow season hike would present to cachers. A little thought and knowledge would have allowed for an enjoyable cache. After conference, the FTF and I are considering posting a SBA.

 

Solution to the "problem"? I don't know for sure, but I do believe education about hide placement and knowledge of the rules/guidelines is the key.

Link to comment

I agree that the worst caches tend to be placed by the least experienced cachers. .. and that the worst kids tend to have the youngest parents... and the newest drivers tend to have more accidents... It's the way it is. It's the ones that never learn and continue to place crap caches after hundreds of finds that bug me more than the newbie that gives it a shot and misses.

 

edit stuped tyops. :rolleyes:

Edited by edscott
Link to comment

Everything depends on something.

Good thing there were no restrictions placed on that first cache!

I am probably as guilty as anyone else who has placed one or more caches; we think that most of our caches are quality caches for one reason or another, that even our 'lame' caches are better than most and our 'first' cache hidden was the 'best'. 10, 100, 500, 1000 caches found doesn't mean you are going to be any better at hiding caches than anyone else. Common sense and following the guidelines are the only common factors that will govern whether a cache has been hidden properly; making mistakes in posted coordinates will happen to the best. Whether a cache is considered a 'quality' cache or not is strictly a matter of preference for the finder of the cache. For the 'numbers crunchers' an ALS or guardrail cache is probably a quality cache because it doesn't take them much time to find it and adds to their numbers. For the cacher who thrives on being taken to out-of-the-way places for scenic or historical significance, the size or how well the cache is hidden is of little importance. For the 'treasure hunters', only an ammo can stocked with lots of 'goodies' to trade for is the only kind of cache they consider 'quality'.

If anyone has a problem with someone hiding caches just because they don't have the 'numbers' in their stats to show they have 'experience', you can always avoid their caches and only search for those who do have the 'numbers' to 'prove' their 'experience'.

Link to comment

Another factor is learning bad habits, such as digging holes, defacing property, not learning what poison oak is when you place it in it.

The number was just an example. Yes I even saw a veteran cacher try to put cache on a freeway bridge over the water. Big no no. As soon as it was published the reviewer realized the mistake and unpublished.

Link to comment

I, like most cachers, will agree that “newbies” should refrain from hiding caches until they have some experience, but we don’t need to put restrictions on it. It is impossible to set a standard on experience. There are cachers out there with lots of experience on their family’s account, that finally get their own. My son has has over 300 finds with our family, but will soon be getting his own account and placing his first hide as part of the new Geocaching merit badge. There are also cachers out there with over a thousand finds, that I would question. I know a few couples that have separate accounts, but only one of them actually hunts them while the other stays in the car or even stays at home. Yet, they both log the finds. I am not saying what they are doing is wrong, they are playing the game they way they want to and not hurting anybody. Almost all newbies started because of a friend that helped them on their first find. That same friend needs to help them on their first hide. Remember that this is a game, it is intended to be fun. Let’s not ruin it with a lot more complicated rules. Which cache is more fun for you: the lightpost skirt in the Walmart parking lot, or the one where you weren’t sure just what side of the street it was on? You fell down a few times learning to ride a bike, but it was easier when somebody helped you. When your own kid was learning to ride a bike, did you just watch from the window and get upset every time he fell? Maybe complain if he fell against your car and put a small scratch on it? Or did you go out and help him learn? If somebody goes out and hides a cache without a full understanding of what they should be doing, it just makes it a little more challenging to find. Whether you are out there for the numbers, or the challenge, these newbie hides will give it to you. Yes, they should use more common sense and get more experience first, but they will sometimes hide before they are ready. They will make mistakes, but what good is our experience if we don’t use it to politely help them learn?

Link to comment

I've found great caches placed by people with a handful of (and even no) finds and lousy caches placed by people with hundreds or thousands of finds. I'd be dead set against any number of finds before hides requirement.

 

I think the bad coordinates come from the fact that more and more novices are using smart phones to place their caches.

 

I agree with this!! And to a lesser extend, car GPS's. I dunno man, it's getting pretty bad out there. Seriously. Within the last 2 months in my notification radii, we've had 1). someone use a shovel to bury a one gallon paint can in a small park, 2). someone with one find hide a micro up a tree in a residential neighborhood, rating it 1 star terrain, and with coordinates so bad it hasn't been found yet, and 3). A supposed multi cache at a RR museum, with the coordinates pointing inside the building; still hasn't been found, and no response from the Cache owner.

 

The way one of the questions was worded on the recent Geocaching survey almost leads me to believe the Frog is actually thinking about imposing a waiting period, despite the fact that idea is usually shot down in the forums. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Kill all newbies. Or at least kill the term "newbie", since I don't like it.

 

I don't have an opinion, but I did notice that a newcomer to the game found a bunch of caches this past weekend...and left "fresh dog treats" in each and every one of them.

 

Hey, did I mention I found 22 caches on Saturday, and not one DNF? A New! World! Record! for me. It was fun.

Link to comment
Being someone that goes after a lot of FTFs, I've seen a large number of problems with caches put out by newbies.

I'm not a newbie, but on a cache we recently hid, we accidentally entered the coords wrong and the FTFers were looking 1/2 mile away from where the cache was. :rolleyes:

 

Several years ago one of the most raved about caches in our area was placed by someone with only 1 find. It's still one of the most talked about caches and on most people's "to do" list. On the other hand, I've seen caches placed by folks with lots of finds, and they aren't very good.

 

I'm not opposed to some kind of a test, perhaps 10 random questions from the guidelines. Until the cacher passes the test, the option to hide a cache won't be available. I know all cachers are supposed to familiarize themselves with the guidelines, but not everyone does.

 

I've talked with cachers about hides that violate the guidelines, and have heard things like, "Oh, I didn't know caches weren't allowed on school property."

 

Edited a typo.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

We just had a newbie place one in our area yesterday and her father is experience (so so). So far one cacher dnf'd it because he was chased away from someone saying it is on private property and he said he wasn't the only one chased away. The next dnf was someone saying the coords are not matching the area. That the coords must be off. So he went to where the coords are describing and still not finding it. So where a FTF doesn't last long here in the first half hour, the clock is now ticking at 10 hours.

 

Just as I am writing this the newbie disabled it.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

.....I'm not opposed to some kind of a test, perhaps 10 random questions from the guidelines. Until the cacher passes the test, the option to hide a ache won't be available. I know all cachers are supposed to familiarize themselves with the guidelines, but not everyone does.

 

I've talked with cachers about hides that violate the guidelines, and have heard things like, "Oh, I didn't know caches weren't allowed on school property."

I once purposed a sample test: http://wnag.net/checklist/

Link to comment

Wish I could see the rest of the questions. And the coords input will not show puzzle or multi finals. But it would help. Does one of the questions have if they have permission for private property? Did you dig a hole, or damaged private or public property to obtain a hiding spot? Did you double check your location to see if it matches the coords? Is it in a location that may get muggled easily like in full view of muggles. If rated 1 terrain can wheelchairs really access it?

 

Seen way to many of this problem. I remember when I first placed one a reviewer asked me that. I don't hear it anymore. 1 terrains just because it is easy to get to does not make it wheelchair accessible.

If I am not sure I either make it a 1 and put a note saying this may or may not be wheelchair accessible. Or just make it a 1.5.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

As a new cacher (less then 20 finds), I find the 100 cache rule foolish, as if you check my profile, I have been caching for a year. So does that make me a newbie, or a cacher with out much time for the hunt? Hummmm.. I have place 4 caches, Maintence? Open door, make sure it is still there.. good. Bring son to bus stop, cache still there too. Who said that it has to take too long?

 

Stop making this a debate about experiance and smily finds. If the location is good, the Administrator approves it, and there are no comments from the finders, then drop the argument.

 

(toss the soap box out the window) :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I've found great caches placed by people with a handful of (and even no) finds and lousy caches placed by people with hundreds or thousands of finds. I'd be dead set against any number of finds before hides requirement.

 

I think the bad coordinates come from the fact that more and more novices are using smart phones to place their caches.

+1

I too blame the smartphones.

Link to comment

I am going to weigh in on this one. I still consider myself a "noobie" and I have 201 finds since I joined Jan.23 2010. I have zero hides.

 

100 finds too steep?? Hardly. I found 106 in one day!!! Of course that included a power trail of 78. So the numbers aren't really related to any example of "experience". Drive a quarter mile, get out, locate pill bottle, open and sign log, replace, drive another quarter mile, "lather, rinse, repeat". Some great "experience" gained there. I enjoyed the drive through some scenic back-country, but please... It didn't make me an expert. If I went to the OKC urban area, I am sure I could duplicate this one day number with little effort using LPCs this time. I am rural so most of my finds involve some driving.

 

I have found caches by "noobies" that were what I considered "excellent" examples, and I have found caches by CO's with over five hundred finds/two + years experience that sucked!! The majority of "problem" caches in my rural area, were placed months, even years ago, and owners are not maintaing them. So lets not limit this complaint thread to "bad caches by noobies"

 

With the "commercial approach" Groundspeak has taken concerning cell phone apps, I think the quality of caches is bound to deteriorate. You can cling to the lofty notions about "the purity of the game" and "staying true to the original values" but Groundspeak is a business, not a hobby, and they could care less. Its about generating revenue (and I fault no-one for this, its the American way) not about accuracy or "happy cachers" Guidelines say "use a GPS". Is a cell phone with a GPS app considered a " GPS" in relation to the guidelines? Do you really believe Groundspeak is going to enforce any kind of "no coordinates published with a cell phone used to determine them" restriction? Fat chance!!

 

I started caching with an older Garmin GPS60 and a Blackberry. Both were great for finding caches, but I wouldn't dream of hiding one with the Blackberry.

 

I recently purchased a PN40 and found out what "higher accuracy" is all about. Even so... the accuracy of what you use to hunt is of no benefit if the accuracy of what was used to hide was mediocre.

 

Factor in the "sick twisted enjoyment" some people seem to get by intentionaly hiding with soft coordinates, and the "quality of the hunt" deteriorates even more.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love a challenge, and get a lot of enjoyment out of playing the game, but I get my share of frustration too!!

 

There is a CO who will remain nameless, nearby, that has the poorest coordinates of any caches by any cacher I have seen. On one recent attempt to find one of their "poor coordinates" caches, after returning home with a DNF and reading the entire cache log, it seems there has not been a single find on the cache that has not had to ask the Owner for help. Whats the fun in that?? Most cachers on this log, while logging only one DNF, admit that they had attempted it several times before getting help, and a find.

 

I digress into an "angst" fest so I will get back OT.

 

If Groundspeak should consider a "minimum requirement" (and I believe they should) it should be a combination of "time in" and "number found" not a single element.

 

I have not hidden any caches due to my "caching time" being spotty at best. I have maybe one weekend a month to devote to the game, and don't feel that its fair I put out a cache I might not be able to do maintenance on for a month span.

 

Years of experience and thousands of finds does not necessarily a good CO make. Neither does the latest/greatest Iphone app. and the desire to be a CO. This may be a great thread to express opinions, but if you are expecting anything to come of them, I think you are being overly optimistic.

 

But then... thats just me... and my own humble opinions!!

Link to comment

Hey, I like that idea! 100 cache limit! Rock on.

 

I'll stop researching hide ideas on my lunch hour in the Groundspeak forums. I'll stop asking questions or reading messages from experienced cachers. I'm also going to delete my routes that I was going to hike over the next few weeks to see what really cool terrain or locations are out there in my neck of the weeds. I'm going toss out those two brand new ammo cans I got from my 1SG at the range last month (who set them aside for me and my weird hobby specifically). I'm also going to use that new lock-n-lock for left-overs instead.

 

I guess at the rate I'm going (a couple finds here and there on a spare saturday or sunday, when I can get away from work), I'll just have to wait...

Link to comment

So how are we determining caches found as well? There are many people veterans and not who do not log their found caches on this website and simply sign log books. So does that mean they can never hide them because their count on the website is not high enough?

 

it truly is all about the power of the pixel.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

generally i would agree with requiring people to gather a certain amount of experience before placing caches themselves, but unfortunately there's no good/fair way to do that. most importantly it would keep areas with only very few caches or even none at all from ever getting populated with caches.

Link to comment

So how are we determining caches found as well? There are many people veterans and not who do not log their found caches on this website and simply sign log books. So does that mean they can never hide them because their count on the website is not high enough?

 

it truly is all about the power of the pixel.

 

:rolleyes:

 

LOL Frankly if I was a sneaky person and that was the restriction I would go log finds without ever actually finding anything just to gain the privilege.

Link to comment

I've found great caches placed by people with a handful of (and even no) finds and lousy caches placed by people with hundreds or thousands of finds. I'd be dead set against any number of finds before hides requirement.

 

I think the bad coordinates come from the fact that more and more novices are using smart phones to place their caches.

I agree with the smart phone inaccuracy, however, being in a large city I am used to issues with inaccuracy with many receivers (I have 4 GPSrs and a smartphone), and know if I get down to 30' to start looking. (I have had times where I put a cache out and after 30 minutes had a touch and go lock on position.)

 

But I digress, I think the issues the CO brings to light besides inaccurate coords are area selection (besides LPCs I have seen a few caches put in trash strewn areas by newbies, why? just because no CITO requests on page), poorly rated caches, containers that are glass (and NOT watertight) and poorly maintained caches.

The 100 (or whatever number) caches would (hopefully) show diverse cache hides, containers, etc.

I mean, remember the first time you saw an LPC film can and ran out to get a film can to put out cause it was cool. Not so much anymore, right? Or maybe, hiding that PVC container in the middle of NYC may not be the wisest choice of containers (hey, NYPD just took away 100's of bikes off of Houston St due to the president's motorcade for to pipe bomb countermeasures).

One would think after 50 or a 100 finds then you would get the feel of the game and further the spirit of the game.

But, I would still advocate further measures on the submission page to ensure proper cache placement and rating for ALL.

Link to comment

I do not think that a minimum find restriction should be placed at all. Many folks do not have the luxury of being able to take the time to find 100 caches in a day. I know that for us, timewise it took us forever to get to 100 caches because we have an extremely busy work schedule.

 

I do have to say that I agree that in MOST cases, newer geocachers should make a few finds before they hide... BUT there are too many exceptions to the rule to place any restrictions I think. We all have different time conflicts, physical ability, financial freedom, etc.

 

One thing I would suggest though, is trying our best to help new folks. We were lucky because a friend who was already a cacher got us into the sport, so we had some tips and tricks to begin with.

 

Maybe some folks could be new cacher tutors, or sponsors, or geocaching 101 events could be organized to help folks learn how to hide and find.

 

Something...

 

I just think helping new folks get used to the game is more productive than complaining about them.

Edited by nymphnsatyr
Link to comment

One would think after 50 or a 100 finds then you would get the feel of the game and further the spirit of the game.

And it shows a level of commitment to the game. I think a mix of finds (of several types) plus a time requirement (maybe 3 months) would be best to show that the cacher has some staying power.

 

An example from my area. New boxer, found 2 caches on Sep 9, planted 4 on Oct 4. They showed signs of trouble from the get go - a airline travel nylon pouch, a large dollar store container crammed into a stump that required great force to extricate - lid cracked soon after planting, tin can piggy bank (rusted up quickly) placed in full view of the back of houses. She/he did no maintenance. After someone reported a soaked cache (the nylon pouch), the CO responded by disabling the cache and in the note field typed a "." - that's it, just a period. After numerous reports about the cracked lid, 2 months after the 1st report, the CO said "I will be replacing the container once final exams are done; thanks for your patience." 3 months more, still no replacement, then she/he left a note "Moving to Korea; can no longer maintain cache." And then she/he was gone. Left all 4 caches for the reviewer to archive and locals to clean up.

 

I think things would have been different if the CO had to find 50-100 caches of several types over a 3 month (or more period). The above scenarios probably wouldn't happen, which would have been a good thing.

Link to comment

I've found great caches placed by people with a handful of (and even no) finds and lousy caches placed by people with hundreds or thousands of finds. I'd be dead set against any number of finds before hides requirement.

 

I think the bad coordinates come from the fact that more and more novices are using smart phones to place their caches.

-1 for you!

 

Maybe iPhones produce bad coordinates. My HTC Touch usualy gives me ±3m (tested on 50+ benchmarks). How does your fancy GPSr do?

 

Plus there is cool software on my smart phone that does coordinate averaging, then I take averages of the averages. Anyway, so far no one has complained about the coordinates given by my SmartPhone's GPS.

 

PS

I've found great caches placed by people with a handful of (and even no) finds and lousy caches placed by people with hundreds or thousands of finds. I'd be dead set against any number of finds before hides requirement.

 

I think the bad coordinates come from the fact that more and more novices are using smart phones to place their caches.

+1

I too blame the smartphones.

-1 for you too!

 

PPS

...

I agree with the smart phone inaccuracy, ...

-1 for you too.

 

PPPS

Some people think "iPhone" when they hear Smartphone. In fact, an iPhone barly qualifies as a smartphone. It is realy not that smart at all. No multitasking is the biggest issue, and the requirement for 2 hands (do to the weird gestrue "feature"). Give me strength...The only time I used one I almost through it accross the room.

Edited by Andronicus
Link to comment

I remember almost heading out the door to a Jellis cache, just around the corner in Nisene Marks, only for it to vanish after I asked the best entrance to get to what looked a remote corner. Looks like the real location of (GC1ZJ6F) was about 70 miles away. :blink:

 

There's a cache in the Castroville/Marina area with 11 hides, some are great and others so-so, with one a likely violation of caching rules. He only has 23 finds and hasn't logged in in about a year. Ratings are all over the place, too.

 

Flash in the pan, so it seems.

 

It was a short time after my first find I did my first hide, but I think I did well with it and it's going to be 7 years old in June. Quite a few years before my next hide happened. I'm slowing down a bit now I've hit 45 hides as the weight of maintaining them bears in. I'm happy at 44 hides and will probably do a few more, but slowly now.

 

On the other hand, the newbies are the new blood in geocaching and should be encouraged to hide if they've got a good location and a good idea. I think its up to finders to advise on the hides with their logs, after all, what are logs for if not feedback?

Edited by DragonsWest
Link to comment

Numbers are meaningless. I have a little over 60 finds. Do I know more because I hit some magical number? No. In fact, I learned most of everything I know because of the variety of hides in the first dozen finds or so.

 

I took a group of scouts out this week on two hunts. Both were particularly difficult micros (no LPCs) for the beginner. They found them and it took a good half hour or longer on each one. But I can guarantee they learned a great deal from just those two finds. When we go out again in a couple of weeks I'm betting they do a lot better.

 

It's not the numbers. It's not the container type. It's not even the location. It's the style of the hide that counts. Once you have a basic understanding of a few different styles it doesn't take long before you begin to get a good picture of how this works. The only thing left then is container choice. You're not going to learn that with 50 or 100 hides. With 60 plus finds, I've found exactly two lock n locks and 3 ammo cans. The rest are a pretty wide variety. Most, of which, are containers that the "experts" recommend against. Interesting enough though, of those 55 or so, only two had problem logs.

 

nymphnsatyr is right. Helping a new geocacher is far more important than complaining or making up some imaginary number. Throwing out a number is easy. Taking the time to explain a few basics takes a little work.

Edited by alwarren56
Link to comment

Newcomer, or old timer, either one can hide caches poorly if they don't read the guidelines.

Hiding "good" caches has little to do with how many caches one has found.

 

Yes and having an old account but a few finds is still somewhat a newbie. As I mentioned it would be nice if they found other types like puzzles and multi. But I forgot to mention different ratings too.

 

Now for another example friend and I found or I might say DNFd a cache where the owner was member since 2008 has 3 finds and recently put out a cache that has been DNFd multiple times (no finds yet). We seem to all agree the coords maybe off and now the reviewer stepped in and disabled it. The owner has not logged in for 10 days now. We believe it is a school age cacher. And in a park you have to pay to get in. Which the owner failed to mention. We bush wacked our way to GZ and found great places a cache could be but didn't see anything. And the location mentioned a trail that was not near it.

Link to comment

I remember almost heading out the door to a Jellis cache, just around the corner in Nisene Marks, only for it to vanish after I asked the best entrance to get to what looked a remote corner. Looks like the real location of (GC1ZJ6F) was about 70 miles away. :blink:

 

There's a cache in the Castroville/Marina area with 11 hides, some are great and others so-so, with one a likely violation of caching rules. He only has 23 finds and hasn't logged in in about a year. Ratings are all over the place, too.

 

Flash in the pan, so it seems.

 

It was a short time after my first find I did my first hide, but I think I did well with it and it's going to be 7 years old in June. Quite a few years before my next hide happened. I'm slowing down a bit now I've hit 45 hides as the weight of maintaining them bears in. I'm happy at 44 hides and will probably do a few more, but slowly now.

 

On the other hand, the newbies are the new blood in geocaching and should be encouraged to hide if they've got a good location and a good idea. I think its up to finders to advise on the hides with their logs, after all, what are logs for if not feedback?

Yes and if you saw my first post I admit I have done that and now I double check my map

Link to comment

after all, what are logs for if not feedback?

places to explain to the cyberworld how you went out in the middle of the night in order to get an FTF 30 miles from your house.

 

logs are also a good place to show yourself to be an amateur poet....

 

or brag about how you swapped a bottle cap for a GC...

 

...or whine about your GPS not cooperating with you...

 

:blink:

Link to comment

So how are we determining caches found as well? There are many people veterans and not who do not log their found caches on this website and simply sign log books. So does that mean they can never hide them because their count on the website is not high enough?

 

to me they seem to be just doing it to find them and are not caring about the GEOCACHING.COM.

Seen some like that. So if they don't log why would they want to hide?

 

In SF there was a muggle (yes a muggle not a cacher) he signed up and hid a cache with mentioning fully he was not a cacher and didn't want to be a cacher. The cache he hid the coords were WAY off. Someone followed the description and found the cache. The area was clearly labeled Private Property DO NOT ENTER. But you were suppose to enter if you skirt the property in the rocks in low tide or by kayak. I mentioned to the reviewer about the coords that were entered by the FTFer who had to change them because the Muggle wasn't responding to emails. We don't know what happened to the Muggle or the cache. A few finds on it and no one else was able to find it and it was reported to be really on private property and archived.

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...