Newbies and Hides

[+Azisbest]

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.

I hid my first cache with way less than 100 finds. I would wager my cache is in the top 10% of anyone who has found it, if you asked them. I have had people with thousands of finds say it was in the top five, not percent, top five. The number of finds has nothing to do with the quality of the hide.

1 out of 2 isn't bad. Notice some of the caches near your other goes against the guideline of:

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

And another cache in our area by a newbie, put near trash. The two first finders mentioned it and the CO said he would clean it up. When we got there it was still pretty trashed. Why would anyone put a good cache near underwear that obviously has been there for a long time, along with other assorted garbage?

I am not saying every cacher under 100 finds is bad, but in many cases it happens. I admit my mistakes. And I sometimes wish they would put some kind of reminder when you submit a hide. Such as when you enter info that maybe some messages would come up " Did you double check your coords?" "Is it on private property?" "Is it really wheelchair accessible?"

The second hide is no where near the airport AOA. And its two for two, I will put both hides up against 90% of what is out there.

[+jellis]

Had two more cases. A young cacher who put a cache in a park that requires a permit with no mention of needing one. No one has found it because we believe the coords are way off because the area doesn't match the description. Reviewer sent a message to the CO with no response. Then the mother responded getting upset about us complaining. A cacher responded back "look at the hint" the hint said " NEVER!"

Another one recently, a newbie decided to put out a cache after 38 finds. Everything sounded great. Someone went for FTF and only DNFd it. I contacted the owner asking if maybe their coords were off. The CO wrote back saying they wanted to be sure the cache would be approved before putting the cache out. Of course the cacher who was trying for FTF was slightly upset about not having a cache to find when it went live.

[+jellis]

Had two more cases. A young cacher who put a cache in a park that requires a permit with no mention of needing one. No one has found it because we believe the coords are way off because the area doesn't match the description. Reviewer sent a message to the CO with no response. Then the mother responded getting upset about us complaining. A cacher responded back "look at the hint" the hint said " NEVER!"

Another one recently, a newbie decided to put out a cache after 38 finds. Everything sounded great. Someone went for FTF and only DNFd it. I contacted the owner asking if maybe their coords were off. The CO wrote back saying they wanted to be sure the cache would be approved before putting the cache out. Of course the cacher who was trying for FTF was slightly upset about not having a cache to find when it went live.

[+jellis]

ditto

Edited May 19, 2010 by jellis

[+StarBrand]

I've seen vetran cachers make both of those mistakes as well.

[+Team Who Dat]

I don't think it is a newbie problem. I think it is people...new or experienced, who are just lazy with guidelines and all. I am a newbie and have only found 12 or so caches, but I have been doing a TON of reading and research before I just placed my first cache. It isn't published yet as I just placed it, but I made sure to check my coordinates, and so forth. So I think instead of blaming newbies, blame people who just don't care. I could find 500 caches and still place bad caches if I didn't read more about placing caches first.

[+jellis]

and sock puppets too. Funny how some cachers puts out a cache and when no finds it the owner doesn't care or wonders why. Whether newbie or veteran.

[+jellis]

As I said many times I am not blaming ALL newbies. But the odds are that most newbies or even veterans who haven't put one out before or ones who have who just put ones out to just have something don't check the guidelines.

[+roziecakes]

I don't think it is a newbie problem. I think it is people...new or experienced, who are just lazy with guidelines and all. I am a newbie and have only found 12 or so caches, but I have been doing a TON of reading and research before I just placed my first cache. It isn't published yet as I just placed it, but I made sure to check my coordinates, and so forth. So I think instead of blaming newbies, blame people who just don't care. I could find 500 caches and still place bad caches if I didn't read more about placing caches first.

 

I agree so much! I know the original poster isn't singling out all newbies... but I have to say that at least in my area, the worst caches are from some more experienced cachers who just don't care about cache maintenance and just want to have tons and tons of hides. And of course we have tons of great experienced and newbie hiders around here as well. It all boils down to the individual person.

 

Personally for us, I admit that the quality of our caches have certainly improved over time, but we have always been extremely diligent about cache maintenance, which is one of the most important things one can do I think.

[+ADTCacheur]

As a newbie myself, I agree with you! My son (who is 6) loves geocaching and cannot wait to place our first container. I told him exactly what you said. We need to log 100 finds before we can place one. I explained to him that you need to visit the cache every few months in order to maintain it and that it was a responsibility where other people were counting on you.

 

He understands and is slowly working his way to 100. I truly think it should be a policy that people with less than 50-75 finds cannot place caches.

 

You better visit the cache more often than that!

[+ADTCacheur]

Make a 100 cache limit, and you will cause history to repeat itself.

 

all the small towns will no longer have any new caches (I have about 20 caches in a 20km radius, and I don't drive so that's my limit) and eventually the old caches will be archived, and there will be none left. The big cities will have people reaching 100 caches, and then psychology will cause them to want to hide a cache (whether they can hide a good one or not) just because they can.

 

Next thing you know, there will be caches full of deterium

[Andronicus]

...And another cache in our area by a newbie, put near trash. The two first finders mentioned it and the CO said he would clean it up. When we got there it was still pretty trashed. Why would anyone put a good cache near underwear that obviously has been there for a long time, along with other assorted garbage?

...

Why are you complaining. You are just as guilty for not doing CITO as the CO. Quite playing the victum, and become part of the solution.

 

Maybe he put the cache there so that others could have the experience of doing CITO. It may do you some good.

[+roziecakes]

As a newbie myself, I agree with you! My son (who is 6) loves geocaching and cannot wait to place our first container. I told him exactly what you said. We need to log 100 finds before we can place one. I explained to him that you need to visit the cache every few months in order to maintain it and that it was a responsibility where other people were counting on you.

 

He understands and is slowly working his way to 100. I truly think it should be a policy that people with less than 50-75 finds cannot place caches.

 

You better visit the cache more often than that!

 

If you make a high enough quality cache you don't have to visit it more often than that...

[+roziecakes]

Make a 100 cache limit, and you will cause history to repeat itself.

 

all the small towns will no longer have any new caches (I have about 20 caches in a 20km radius, and I don't drive so that's my limit) and eventually the old caches will be archived, and there will be none left. The big cities will have people reaching 100 caches, and then psychology will cause them to want to hide a cache (whether they can hide a good one or not) just because they can.

 

Next thing you know, there will be caches full of deterium

 

I agree. I'm not a huge fan of the "find 100 caches first" thing. Some areas just don't have 100 caches, and like I said earlier, it really just depends on the person.

[+sbell111]

Had two more cases. A young cacher who put a cache in a park that requires a permit with no mention of needing one. No one has found it because we believe the coords are way off because the area doesn't match the description. Reviewer sent a message to the CO with no response. Then the mother responded getting upset about us complaining. A cacher responded back "look at the hint" the hint said " NEVER!"

Another one recently, a newbie decided to put out a cache after 38 finds. Everything sounded great. Someone went for FTF and only DNFd it. I contacted the owner asking if maybe their coords were off. The CO wrote back saying they wanted to be sure the cache would be approved before putting the cache out. Of course the cacher who was trying for FTF was slightly upset about not having a cache to find when it went live.

Apparently, you lived to tell the tale.

 

As a newbie myself, I agree with you! My son (who is 6) loves geocaching and cannot wait to place our first container. I told him exactly what you said. We need to log 100 finds before we can place one. I explained to him that you need to visit the cache every few months in order to maintain it and that it was a responsibility where other people were counting on you.

 

He understands and is slowly working his way to 100. I truly think it should be a policy that people with less than 50-75 finds cannot place caches.

 

You better visit the cache more often than that!

Some caches require nearly constant maintenance. Others will never receive a maintenance visit. Neither is a bad thing as long as the cache owner is providing the amount of maintenance that his specific cache requires.

[+Larene]

As a newbie myself, I agree with you! My son (who is 6) loves geocaching and cannot wait to place our first container. I told him exactly what you said. We need to log 100 finds before we can place one. I explained to him that you need to visit the cache every few months in order to maintain it and that it was a responsibility where other people were counting on you.

 

He understands and is slowly working his way to 100. I truly think it should be a policy that people with less than 50-75 finds cannot place caches.

 

You better visit the cache more often than that!

 

As with everything else, each cache/location has it's own personality and needs. I would certainly maintain any cache I placed in line with it's needs. If it required weekly maintenance/daily maintenance, I would do it. Hence the whole responsibility part.

[+BulldogBlitz]

Some caches require nearly constant maintenance. Others will never receive a maintenance visit. Neither is a bad thing as long as the cache owner is providing the amount of maintenance that his specific cache requires.

 

clearly i am too new to comprehend "constant maintenance"... as i see that as a sign of poor selection of location and/or container.

[+roziecakes]

Some caches require nearly constant maintenance. Others will never receive a maintenance visit. Neither is a bad thing as long as the cache owner is providing the amount of maintenance that his specific cache requires.

 

clearly i am too new to comprehend "constant maintenance"... as i see that as a sign of poor selection of location and/or container.

 

I dunno, I'm not that new, and I agree with you. If I have a cache that requires constant maintenance I realize that I must have done it wrong, and I fix it so it doesn't require said maintenance.

 

I have had two caches like that. One I had to take home and perform major surgery on (It's a puzzle-ish sort of container), and one I ended up just having to move it and change its container; and the reason I did that is so that they would hold up well and not require a ton of maintenance.

[+sbell111]

Some caches require nearly constant maintenance. Others will never receive a maintenance visit. Neither is a bad thing as long as the cache owner is providing the amount of maintenance that his specific cache requires.

clearly i am too new to comprehend "constant maintenance"... as i see that as a sign of poor selection of location and/or container.

I dunno, I'm not that new, and I agree with you. If I have a cache that requires constant maintenance I realize that I must have done it wrong, and I fix it so it doesn't require said maintenance.

 

I have had two caches like that. One I had to take home and perform major surgery on (It's a puzzle-ish sort of container), and one I ended up just having to move it and change its container; and the reason I did that is so that they would hold up well and not require a ton of maintenance.

Perhaps you are both too new.

 

Consider a nano cache in a very public location. As a nano, it will need much more maintenance that a larger cache simply because the log sheet will fill up quite quickly. Also, if placed in a muggle-rich area, it may disappear more often than a more private cache. A concientious cache owner would still happily own such a cache if he could provide the frequent maintenance that the cache needs.

 

The cache that comes to mind for me is a super small cache that is (or was. I found it years ago.) magnetically attached to a piece of sculpture very close to my office. It is on a super busy urban corner and likely would go missing very frequently. However, this particular spot really does cry out for a cache. I would certainly consider owning such a cache because I could check up on it daily, whether a problem had been reported or not.

 

The cache would get sufficient maintenance to allow prospective seekers to be reasonably certain that it was present any time they felt like looking for it. In my opinion, this is the standard that should be expected for owner maintenance.

 

A cache owner who wouldn't be willing to give a cache the amount of maintenance that any specific cache requires shouldn't place that cache. However, that person's unwillingness to do so doesn't mean that a cache placed by someone who is willing to put in the time is a 'poor selection'.

Edited May 20, 2010 by sbell111

[+roziecakes]

Some caches require nearly constant maintenance. Others will never receive a maintenance visit. Neither is a bad thing as long as the cache owner is providing the amount of maintenance that his specific cache requires.

clearly i am too new to comprehend "constant maintenance"... as i see that as a sign of poor selection of location and/or container.

I dunno, I'm not that new, and I agree with you. If I have a cache that requires constant maintenance I realize that I must have done it wrong, and I fix it so it doesn't require said maintenance.

 

I have had two caches like that. One I had to take home and perform major surgery on (It's a puzzle-ish sort of container), and one I ended up just having to move it and change its container; and the reason I did that is so that they would hold up well and not require a ton of maintenance.

Perhaps you are both too new.

 

Consider a nano cache in a very public location. As a nano, it will need much more maintenance that a larger cache simply because the log sheet will fill up quite quickly. Also, if placed in a muggle-rich area, it may disappear more often than a more private cache. A concientious cache owner would still happily own such a cache if he could provide the frequent maintenance that the cache needs.

 

The cache that comes to mind for me is a super small cache that is (or was. I found it years ago.) magnetically attached to a piece of sculpture very close to my office. It is on a super busy urban corner and likely would go missing very frequently. However, this particular spot really does cry out for a cache. I would certainly consider owning such a cache because I could check up on it daily, whether a problem had been reported or not.

 

The cache would get sufficient maintenance to allow prospective seekers to be reasonably certain that it was present any time they felt like looking for it. In my opinion, this is the standard that should be expected for owner maintenance.

 

A cache owner who wouldn't be willing to give a cache the amount of maintenance that any specific cache requires shouldn't place that cache. However, that person's unwillingness to do so doesn't mean that a cache placed by someone who is willing to put in the time is a 'poor selection'.

 

Point taken. Thank you for your very thoughtful response. I can definitely see that kind of situation happening. It really is true I suppose that it just depends on the cache itself in regards to maintenance.

 

I especially like the part of what you said that I 'bolded.' I will remember that.

[+ihorn]

I must say something here. After reading through this I can see people have very widely differing views on the subject. I only have a total of 14 finds so far in my Geocaching career if you will. I have developed a nice multiple stage puzzle cache to take people to some of the old airports around my area. They will be able to see places like where the Spruce Goose was built. I wont be putting out a log for people to sign at each stage, just a nice number puzzle, or crypto puzzle for people to solve to get the next set of coordinates. When they reach the final stage though it will have probably an ammo can with swag, and a log. This has taken time to think out, and it has taken time to get permission to use information from multiple sources in creating it. So this argument should come more down to people who are lazy about their hides, and people who are not loazy about their hides.

[the_wanderer09]

Just to throw out my two cents...my profile only has 27 finds but my cousin got me into geocaching (he has over 700 finds) and I tagged along with him whenever he was around. I finally got into it when he sold me his old GPS. For the past two years I would get caches when I could. I noticed in my hometown there were very few caches. Being the history guy I am and knowing my hometown really well I figured I would put some out to highlight the town history and to add some more for other cachers in the area. Yeah I may not know what I'm getting into and my caches could get muggled or have any of the above mentioned happened. But in my opinion, I gotta learn from experience good or bad and adjust accordingly.

[+d+n.s]

I'm pretty new and have heard the "100 finds" rule before. I've been trying to observe it, but its a little frustrating.

 

Simply put, I'm far more excited by the idea of hiding caches than finding them. I feel like I have to do a bunch of homework on lame caches just to start having fun. Its even more confusing because many of the caches I find seem to break one rule or another.

 

I feel like I've read the guidlines a million times and will read them a million more before I place a cache. I've watched youtube videos, read forums and listened to podcasts. Judging from some of the threads on this forum many people don't seem to read any of the rules.

This is probably a major part of the problem.

 

Maybe what people are really looking for is a harsher enforcemnt of the rules?

 

I must say something here. After reading through this I can see people have very widely differing views on the subject. I only have a total of 14 finds so far in my Geocaching career if you will. I have developed a nice multiple stage puzzle cache to take people to some of the old airports around my area. They will be able to see places like where the Spruce Goose was built. I wont be putting out a log for people to sign at each stage, just a nice number puzzle, or crypto puzzle for people to solve to get the next set of coordinates. When they reach the final stage though it will have probably an ammo can with swag, and a log. This has taken time to think out, and it has taken time to get permission to use information from multiple sources in creating it. So this argument should come more down to people who are lazy about their hides, and people who are not loazy about their hides.

Exactly what I mean. There are some fairly long standing and prolific cachers in my area who are just as lazy and thoughtless as the "noobs" are.

 

100 caches will take me a long time and thats not the part of the game that got me interested. :/

Edited May 21, 2010 by d+n.shults

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I'm pretty new and have heard the "100 finds" rule before. I've been trying to observe it, but its a little frustrating.

 

<snip>

 

100 caches will take me a long time and thats not the part of the game that got me interested. :/

 

There's no rule, it's not even a guideline. At most it's a suggestion but there's a lot of people who don't even agree with it.

 

Why are you trying to stick to a 'rule' that doesn't exist?

 

If you have a good idea about what you'd like to find, then hide it and commit to maintenance.

[+d+n.s]

I'm pretty new and have heard the "100 finds" rule before. I've been trying to observe it, but its a little frustrating.

 

<snip>

 

100 caches will take me a long time and thats not the part of the game that got me interested. :/

 

There's no rule, it's not even a guideline. At most it's a suggestion but there's a lot of people who don't even agree with it.

 

Why are you trying to stick to a 'rule' that doesn't exist?

 

If you have a good idea about what you'd like to find, then hide it and commit to maintenance.

I know its not an actual rule, but it is certainly something I heard even before reading the forums. It gets repeated a lot. Before this thread, I was under the impression that most people frowned on noobs hiding caches before this moment.

That said, I still plan on waiting a bit. I'm putting together my stuff and doing some more research on who owns what potential property. I still have a lot of questions, but honestly it feels a little intimidating to ask about it being as there are so many strong opinions on the subject.

Sometimes the passion on these forums feel a little bit like people are discussing politics

Somewhere between this thread, FTF threads and DNF threads it starts to feel like you run the risk of getting a "reputation" if you break the unwritten rules

It just seemed like there is a stigma attatched to tadpoles hiding caches.

I'm rambling... work is slow

Edited May 21, 2010 by d+n.shults

[+The Blorenges]

I'm pretty new and have heard the "100 finds" rule before. I've been trying to observe it, but its a little frustrating.

 

<snip>

 

100 caches will take me a long time and thats not the part of the game that got me interested. :/

 

There's no rule, it's not even a guideline. At most it's a suggestion but there's a lot of people who don't even agree with it.

 

Why are you trying to stick to a 'rule' that doesn't exist?

 

If you have a good idea about what you'd like to find, then hide it and commit to maintenance.

I know its not an actual rule, but it is certainly something I heard even before reading the forums. It gets repeated a lot. Before this thread, I was under the impression that most people frowned on noobs hiding caches before this moment.

That said, I still plan on waiting a bit. I'm putting together my stuff and doing some more research on who owns what potential property. I still have a lot of questions, but honestly it feels a little intimidating to ask about it being as there are so many strong opinions on the subject.

Sometimes the passion on these forums feel a little bit like people are discussing politics

Somewhere between this thread, FTF threads and DNF threads it starts to feel like you run the risk of getting a "reputation" if you break the unwritten rules

It just seemed like there is a stigma attatched to tadpoles hiding caches.

I'm rambling... work is slow

 

The very fact that you're here in this thread, reading it, considering the opinions of others in the geocaching community, being aware of the Guidelines and giving the whole matter serious thought suggests to me that you'll create a good first cache placement...

 

Go for it - Good luck!

 

MrsB

[+ADTCacheur]

Some caches require nearly constant maintenance. Others will never receive a maintenance visit. Neither is a bad thing as long as the cache owner is providing the amount of maintenance that his specific cache requires.

 

clearly i am too new to comprehend "constant maintenance"... as i see that as a sign of poor selection of location and/or container.

 

The only thing that I meant in my original post was a reflection of my area: a lot of people are too proud to log DNFs, and then if you only check on the cache every few months, somebody looking for the cache may get disappointed because it's been muggled and they didn't find out until a few months after it happens. If you only check every few months or so, and people don't log their DNFs often, this becomes only slightly less likely then the being stolen in the first place

 

Sorry if my first post didn't come across as that, but even the best hides will often be better off with regular maintenance

[+d+n.s]

The very fact that you're here in this thread, reading it, considering the opinions of others in the geocaching community, being aware of the Guidelines and giving the whole matter serious thought suggests to me that you'll create a good first cache placement...

 

Go for it - Good luck!

 

MrsB

What an honor

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Before this thread, I was under the impression that most people frowned on noobs hiding caches before this moment.

 

Most people frown on lame cache hides and lack of maintainance. How new you are to geocaching (or how seasoned) makes no difference. If you have an idea for a cache and the location is available, place it and submit it for publication. You don't have to wait until you reach some made up number of finds.

 

That being said, the number "100" gets bandied about because it's a good measuring stick. After 100 finds, you're probably not a here today/gone tomorrow cacher. Chances are you'll stick with the game. We've seen enough cachers who pick up the hobby, get all excited for a month, toss some film cannisters in pine trees, move on when the novelty wears off and their hides degrade into Trache.

 

After 100 finds, chances are also high that you've seen some quality caches and hopefully aspire to mimic those hides, with your own creative twists. If you've only found a few caches and they were all guardrail caches, for example, you might think that's how yours should be hidden.

 

But, again, if you have what you feel is a quality cache in a quality location, by all means hide it and let the rest of us congratulate you for it.

[+BulldogBlitz]

Some caches require nearly constant maintenance. Others will never receive a maintenance visit. Neither is a bad thing as long as the cache owner is providing the amount of maintenance that his specific cache requires.

clearly i am too new to comprehend "constant maintenance"... as i see that as a sign of poor selection of location and/or container.

I dunno, I'm not that new, and I agree with you. If I have a cache that requires constant maintenance I realize that I must have done it wrong, and I fix it so it doesn't require said maintenance.

 

I have had two caches like that. One I had to take home and perform major surgery on (It's a puzzle-ish sort of container), and one I ended up just having to move it and change its container; and the reason I did that is so that they would hold up well and not require a ton of maintenance.

Perhaps you are both too new.

 

Consider a nano cache in a very public location. As a nano, it will need much more maintenance that a larger cache simply because the log sheet will fill up quite quickly. Also, if placed in a muggle-rich area, it may disappear more often than a more private cache. A concientious cache owner would still happily own such a cache if he could provide the frequent maintenance that the cache needs.

 

The cache that comes to mind for me is a super small cache that is (or was. I found it years ago.) magnetically attached to a piece of sculpture very close to my office. It is on a super busy urban corner and likely would go missing very frequently. However, this particular spot really does cry out for a cache. I would certainly consider owning such a cache because I could check up on it daily, whether a problem had been reported or not.

 

The cache would get sufficient maintenance to allow prospective seekers to be reasonably certain that it was present any time they felt like looking for it. In my opinion, this is the standard that should be expected for owner maintenance.

 

A cache owner who wouldn't be willing to give a cache the amount of maintenance that any specific cache requires shouldn't place that cache. However, that person's unwillingness to do so doesn't mean that a cache placed by someone who is willing to put in the time is a 'poor selection'.

 

nope, still don't see where the need for weekly maintenance would be necessary. a high muggle area where the cache disappears weekly says one thing and one thing only. i completely appreciate the willingness to "take care of" or "maintain" it daily or weekly, but the fact would still be wrong location. as soon as that loving CO moves far enough away (or gets a job elsewhere) that constant TLC goes away. Also, if a single cache causes this much need... that certainly brings up the topic of how many hides are too many for one person. You might transition from geocacher to geo-hider only.

[+Mosaic55]

Just to throw out my two cents...my profile only has 27 finds but my cousin got me into geocaching (he has over 700 finds) and I tagged along with him whenever he was around. I finally got into it when he sold me his old GPS. For the past two years I would get caches when I could. I noticed in my hometown there were very few caches. Being the history guy I am and knowing my hometown really well I figured I would put some out to highlight the town history and to add some more for other cachers in the area. Yeah I may not know what I'm getting into and my caches could get muggled or have any of the above mentioned happened. But in my opinion, I gotta learn from experience good or bad and adjust accordingly.

 

You sound like a perfect example of why a find quota before allowing one to hide is a bad idea.

[+tango501]

think I had about 50 finds before I placed my first hide

but I did alot of thinking about container and placement

prior to hiding-it is still active after a year or so

 

I do agree that there should be a minimum amount of

experienced gained before anyone can place a hide

some of our reviewers have been very good about checking

and double checking newer cachers 1st few hides

 

pretty sure Groundspeak is not going to impose a minimum

limit on finds vs hides or time amount for experience

 

my youngest son is very active in our sport and he has been

very excited about his hides, my name is also on each of his

listings so we have double contact info if he is not available

this has worked out great so far

 

not sure there is a equitable solution with this issue other than

local reviewers working with each new cacher

[+d+n.s]

Just have to say that I recently found a hide by another new guy and it was the wirst hid I've seen yet.

-In plain sight

-No cache note

-Links to their youtube chanell

-There was food in there (not sure if it was them or one of the two other finders)

-bad coordinates (mentioned in the cache listing)

 

on the plus it was a solid container and the area was nice, but it was a bad PART of the ares to hide a cache. Especially with no caches nearby.

 

Definitely made me think of this thread. I can see where you guys are coming from. I tried to give some help in my log without being snotty.

[+j1m1th1ng]

I have less then 50 finds but have recently hid my first cache. I was very careful in reading and understanding the rules and guidelines. I placed it very near where I work (like less then 5 mins walking) so it would be easy for me to keep an eye on. I even placed the cache out for a good bit of time before listing just to see how it would hold up to the weather. (turns out I had to do some minor work on it!) Checked and double checked my cords. Had a FTF something like 4 hours after it was listed and a second find the same day. So really as others have said it just boils down to the person. I personally am glad that there is not a 100 find limit. I've been caching for a bit now but just don't do it as fast as some. I don't think that means I can't maintain a few good hides.

[+Yurt]

We probably waited about a month and 50 finds before our first. We made sure it was close to home (200 metres away) in case it needed maintenance. The one mistake we made was to publish it before hiding it. The notes said it could take three days to publish so we thought we had plenty of time but lo and behold it was published within hours upsetting a few chasing the FTF. Managed to get it in pretty quickly but learned a valuable lesson.

 

With our most recent cache placement (a year or so into caching) I sent the cache for review as I headed out in the car to place it. As I was coming back up the hill I got an email on my phone saying it was published! Service! I then checked the coords and found they were 10 metres out so I edited it on the spot! Smartphones aren't all bad! Mind you we always use the Etrex H for the coords though!

 

Kids are really keen to place one almost within minutes of finding their first cache. A new cache popped up here which was placed by some kid with one find. It was actually in a great spot, coords spot on and well hidden with useful stuff in the cache. On the negative side the kids came back and took out the TBs and GCs without knowing how to log them. They also logged a find on their own cache ( ). I PMed them about the TBs but no response and now everyone comments that the TBs and GCs are missing.

Something else to think about.

[+WhiteH20kayaker]

I have 67 finds, I hunt seldom as I seldom have spare time. I want to go big with my first hide, you know... worth the hike. I don't mind waiting until I have 100 find logs. It gives me more time to think about it.

[+scorpio_dark]

I think the suggestion that a large number of finds can give the new hider a chance to experience many types of hides, good and bad, can work.

 

Much better would be to suggest they check off X types of attributes and such from a list and or worksheet packet. Then you can better ensure that they are getting the experience you've deemed necessary for them. Not that we want to dump more responsibility on the volunteer reviewers, but maybe they can create a bookmark list of "what to do" type caches?

 

Again I think these can be added as suggestions. Requirements? Well I can see a probationary period from the time of joining and/or a find minimum before the site even allows a submission. Not 100, mind you.

 

Sorry if some of this was covered already. Suddenly a bit swamped at work to catch up on the thread post by post ATM.

 

EDIT:

. . . perhaps a more detailed submission process with questionaire --I think this would be good for all that play the game!

 

Agreed

Edited May 26, 2010 by scorpio_dark

[+Chokecherry]

I still hold to that any "variety" type of barrier to letting people hide a cache is going to knock out a bunch of the people who are only able to get to certain places. When I cache with my mom I can only go to 1 or 1.5 terrain caches. On the whole there is not much variety to them because there are only so many places they can be put. So essentially any of the "find so many of such and such terrain and difficulty" knocks her out of the cache hiding process as they can't be too difficult in either.

 

As for attributes. I don't know how that could make a meaningful cacher to have to find caches with certain attributes. Or so many attributes. Those are there as an indication of the conditions around the cache and some of them are only relevant to the population that uses them.

 

And then there's assumptions that there's any variety in the immediate area of caches which puts the demand out there that if you want to hide a cache have enough money so you can drive all over to find the caches you need to meet your quota. Kind of sucks the fun out of the game to attach some quote to it.

 

Mind you I really don't have intention to hide a cache at this point so I'm not arguing based on the fact that I want to hide one either.

[+MightyParagon]

Well, I'm just a newbie who wanted to try this for a long time. But honestly, I had NO idea the complexity of this game. People deleteing logs for personal reasons, bugs going missing, guidelines for placing caches...how to log a find or DNF, muggles, etc....

 

I too think it would be cool to hide one. But I won't. Because I can't commit to maintaining it. I am excited now, but that will wear off until it's just something else I entertain myself with.....like learning to shoot, learning to ride a bike, etc.....I think this is a great thing for anyone who travels a bit--there is always a cache to go look for....and the iPhone has nearly everything I need, almost all of the time.

 

But if I were to do it, it's very clear from reading this forum that it isn't about me and my ego: it's about being eco-friendly, respectful of other people's property and making sure others enjoy the game. If I can't commit to making sure that happens, I'm not going to place a cache.

 

Any player can place a cache no matter the level of experience, right? But a person has to look at the bigger picture: following the guidelines helps the game overall. A lot of thought has to go into placing a cache. It's people who don't do their homework who hurt the game, n00bs or not. No number of finds is going to change that.

 

But I'm just a newb, so take that for what it is worth.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I think the suggestion that a large number of finds can give the new hider a chance to experience many types of hides, good and bad, can work.

 

Much better would be to suggest they check off X types of attributes and such from a list and or worksheet packet. Then you can better ensure that they are getting the experience you've deemed necessary for them. Not that we want to dump more responsibility on the volunteer reviewers, but maybe they can create a bookmark list of "what to do" type caches?

 

Again I think these can be added as suggestions. Requirements? Well I can see a probationary period from the time of joining and/or a find minimum before the site even allows a submission. Not 100, mind you.

 

Sorry if some of this was covered already. Suddenly a bit swamped at work to catch up on the thread post by post ATM.

 

EDIT:

. . . perhaps a more detailed submission process with questionaire --I think this would be good for all that play the game!

 

Agreed

At least three of the most interesting caches I have done were hidden by newbies with no finds. Patton Creek Challenge, which I later adopted and is now archived because the area was developed, was a cacher's first and only hide. He had no finds. It was the most creative, challenging, fun and rewarding multi that I have ever done and was on multiple 'best of' lists for years.

 

I would not be in favor of any 'minimum participation' requirement for new hiders.

 

The more detailed questionnaire idea could have value IF it was a checklist of procedures common to all cache hides... but beyond 'Get permission', 'Hide cache', 'Get coordinates' and 'Publish cache' I can't think of anything which would be common to all cache hides and that would not cripple creativity.

 

I'm thinking 'Follow the Guidelines' and 'Hide what you would like to find' is about all the advice a newbie needs.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Well, I'm just a newbie who wanted to try this for a long time. But honestly, I had NO idea the complexity of this game. People deleteing logs for personal reasons, bugs going missing, guidelines for placing caches...how to log a find or DNF, muggles, etc....

 

I too think it would be cool to hide one. But I won't. Because I can't commit to maintaining it. I am excited now, but that will wear off until it's just something else I entertain myself with.....like learning to shoot, learning to ride a bike, etc.....I think this is a great thing for anyone who travels a bit--there is always a cache to go look for....and the iPhone has nearly everything I need, almost all of the time.

 

But if I were to do it, it's very clear from reading this forum that it isn't about me and my ego: it's about being eco-friendly, respectful of other people's property and making sure others enjoy the game. If I can't commit to making sure that happens, I'm not going to place a cache.

 

Any player can place a cache no matter the level of experience, right? But a person has to look at the bigger picture: following the guidelines helps the game overall. A lot of thought has to go into placing a cache. It's people who don't do their homework who hurt the game, n00bs or not. No number of finds is going to change that.

 

But I'm just a newb, so take that for what it is worth.

First, don't confuse what you read in this forum with the reality of the game. There's a reason that of the estimated 4 million geocachers less than 100 post here consistently! Go to events, post in local forums, get to know some cachers in your area and you will find this to be a pretty laid-back, relaxed and fun game where topics don't draw the sturm und drang that they do in here.

 

Caches don't really require a lot of maintenance if you give the hide just a bit of thought. I hide waterproof containers where muggles are not likely to see them and my caches often go for years without needing a maintenance visit. For example I own the oldest cache in Alabama, Trussville Civitan, still active since it was hidden in 2001. It gets visited just about weekly, and I've had to do a maintenance trip only four times.

 

The Guidelines for hiding a cache are really simple, common-sense stuff unless you try to parse and lawyer your way around them. Basically get permission if it is needed, hide a waterproof container with a log sheet inside and publish the accurate coordinates on a listing page IS the "big picture".

 

Beyond choosing an interesting location and a weatherproof container this game really doesn't require a lot of thought.

 

Hide it and they will come. Hide what you would like to find and you will make finders happy.

[Andronicus]

We probably waited about a month and 50 finds before our first. We made sure it was close to home (200 metres away) in case it needed maintenance. The one mistake we made was to publish it before hiding it. The notes said it could take three days to publish so we thought we had plenty of time but lo and behold it was published within hours upsetting a few chasing the FTF. Managed to get it in pretty quickly but learned a valuable lesson.

 

With our most recent cache placement (a year or so into caching) I sent the cache for review as I headed out in the car to place it. As I was coming back up the hill I got an email on my phone saying it was published! Service! I then checked the coords and found they were 10 metres out so I edited it on the spot! Smartphones aren't all bad! Mind you we always use the Etrex H for the coords though!

 

Kids are really keen to place one almost within minutes of finding their first cache. A new cache popped up here which was placed by some kid with one find. It was actually in a great spot, coords spot on and well hidden with useful stuff in the cache. On the negative side the kids came back and took out the TBs and GCs without knowing how to log them. They also logged a find on their own cache ( ). I PMed them about the TBs but no response and now everyone comments that the TBs and GCs are missing.

Something else to think about.

 

The submission before cache placment, to me, is the biggest issue. This could easely be rectified by having the "ready to submit" check box unchecked by default, and for reviewers to ask new cachers if they have placed the cache yet.

[+sbell111]

Some caches require nearly constant maintenance. Others will never receive a maintenance visit. Neither is a bad thing as long as the cache owner is providing the amount of maintenance that his specific cache requires.

clearly i am too new to comprehend "constant maintenance"... as i see that as a sign of poor selection of location and/or container.

I dunno, I'm not that new, and I agree with you. If I have a cache that requires constant maintenance I realize that I must have done it wrong, and I fix it so it doesn't require said maintenance.

 

I have had two caches like that. One I had to take home and perform major surgery on (It's a puzzle-ish sort of container), and one I ended up just having to move it and change its container; and the reason I did that is so that they would hold up well and not require a ton of maintenance.

Perhaps you are both too new.

 

Consider a nano cache in a very public location. As a nano, it will need much more maintenance that a larger cache simply because the log sheet will fill up quite quickly. Also, if placed in a muggle-rich area, it may disappear more often than a more private cache. A concientious cache owner would still happily own such a cache if he could provide the frequent maintenance that the cache needs.

 

The cache that comes to mind for me is a super small cache that is (or was. I found it years ago.) magnetically attached to a piece of sculpture very close to my office. It is on a super busy urban corner and likely would go missing very frequently. However, this particular spot really does cry out for a cache. I would certainly consider owning such a cache because I could check up on it daily, whether a problem had been reported or not.

 

The cache would get sufficient maintenance to allow prospective seekers to be reasonably certain that it was present any time they felt like looking for it. In my opinion, this is the standard that should be expected for owner maintenance.

 

A cache owner who wouldn't be willing to give a cache the amount of maintenance that any specific cache requires shouldn't place that cache. However, that person's unwillingness to do so doesn't mean that a cache placed by someone who is willing to put in the time is a 'poor selection'.

nope, still don't see where the need for weekly maintenance would be necessary. a high muggle area where the cache disappears weekly says one thing and one thing only.

I agree. It says that this is a cache that will need an owner who is willing to do lots of maintenance.

i completely appreciate the willingness to "take care of" or "maintain" it daily or weekly, but the fact would still be wrong location. as soon as that loving CO moves far enough away (or gets a job elsewhere) that constant TLC goes away.

That is true of all caches. If anything changes in any cache owner's life that makes it impossible for him to provide the level of maintenance that his cache requires, he should archive the affected cache, get it adopted by someone else, or figure out some other plan to ensure that it gets the required maintenance.

Also, if a single cache causes this much need... that certainly brings up the topic of how many hides are too many for one person. You might transition from geocacher to geo-hider only.

If a geocacher is willing and able to provide the level of maintenance that his caches require, then his number of cache hides is not 'too many'. Whether he has enough time to go find as many caches as he could otherwise find is moot.

[+L0ne.R]

Kids are really keen to place one almost within minutes of finding their first cache. A new cache popped up here which was placed by some kid with one find.

 

Which brings up another thing...kids....I think there should be an age "limit".....you have to be 18 or over i.e. you have to be an adult to accept the terms of agreement and guidelines to place and maintain a cache. There could be a checkmark box on the form that says:

o I am 18 years of age or older

Edited May 27, 2010 by Lone R

[+BulldogBlitz]

Kids are really keen to place one almost within minutes of finding their first cache. A new cache popped up here which was placed by some kid with one find.

 

Which brings up another thing...kids....I think there should be an age "limit".....you have to be 18 or over i.e. you have to be an adult to accept the terms of agreement and guidelines to place and maintain a cache. There could be a checkmark box on the form that says:

o I am 18 years of age or older

 

clip it at the bottom end at 18.... and the top end at 59. both ends are killing the game.

 

[+tango501]

Well, I'm just a newbie who wanted to try this for a long time. But honestly, I had NO idea the complexity of this game. People deleteing logs for personal reasons, bugs going missing, guidelines for placing caches...how to log a find or DNF, muggles, etc....

 

I too think it would be cool to hide one. But I won't. Because I can't commit to maintaining it. I am excited now, but that will wear off until it's just something else I entertain myself with.....like learning to shoot, learning to ride a bike, etc.....I think this is a great thing for anyone who travels a bit--there is always a cache to go look for....and the iPhone has nearly everything I need, almost all of the time.

 

But if I were to do it, it's very clear from reading this forum that it isn't about me and my ego: it's about being eco-friendly, respectful of other people's property and making sure others enjoy the game. If I can't commit to making sure that happens, I'm not going to place a cache.

 

Any player can place a cache no matter the level of experience, right? But a person has to look at the bigger picture: following the guidelines helps the game overall. A lot of thought has to go into placing a cache. It's people who don't do their homework who hurt the game, n00bs or not. No number of finds is going to change that.

 

But I'm just a newb, so take that for what it is worth.

 

well said and thought out, I like your way of thinking