Jump to content

finds before hides


Recommended Posts

I stopped off today to do a local cache which was placed about a month ago. It didn't look very appealing but when I found myself driving 0.12 of a mile from it I stopped off.

It was just thrown in the brambles on the edge of a wood in a housing estate. When I looked up the profile of the owner I saw that they had no finds. Shouldn't this be a requirement when a cache is reviewed? No wonder the countryside is becoming littered with tupperware - this is the sort of cache which gives caching a bad name.

Link to comment

This is a difficult one. I mean in the early days of caching, lots of people hid caches with no or very few finds. So you can argue why not the same for newbies today?

 

But on the flip side, caching standards these days seems do be degenerating. Before everyone has a go at me :P , I'm not saying all new caches are bad - far from it infact - but I think the percentage of poor caches has definately increased.

 

At the moment I don't know what you can or can't do to police cache standards - other than be honest in your logs. Constructive feedback on a poor cache is the only way to let the hider know that the hide isn't very good.

 

Personally I would like to see people have to make some commitment to the hobby before they hide anything. A minimum number of finds, premium membership or a minimum time registered as an ordinary member perhaps.

 

Leave feedback on the site under the new feedback option - you never know - maybe the powers that be will listen if enough of us speak up.

Link to comment
this is the sort of cache which gives caching a bad name.

Then why did you write "TFTC!" in your log?

 

 

If more cacher finders were a little less concerned about hurting the feelings of cache hiders and more concerned about the quality of caches being hidden then this sort of cache may become a little less common. Try writing logs like THIS instead of just writing "TFTC"

Link to comment

I reported a very similar cache within these forums and was shocked at the number of people defending it; they branded me as not understanding the nature of modern caching. What angered me about this particular cache positioned in brambles at the base of a gate post three feet from a busy road is a very short walk away is an ideal spot with parking but even this argument was deemed without merit. Good on your stance but I am afraid that those that consider anything less than 20 finds a poor afternoon’s sport will take exception to your comments.

 

As to honest log entries, get real. It is diffcult to assess whether entries are from cachers that individuals trust, most cachers are too courteous to include a poor log entry, most of the rest couldn't be bothered with the anxst that follows a poor report.

 

Geocaching in this country has evolved too far to start policing it now and if it hadn't, logs are not an effective way of going about it... well look at the logs and convince me they are!

Edited by The Hearse
Link to comment

I agree with *mouse*. It does seem that standards are falling, looking at new caches published and how long:

 

a ) They last before they are muggled (sometimes before they have even been found by a cacher)

b ) They are left unmaintained after being reported muggled or damaged, often because the CO has already grown bored of the game and not logged in for ages.

c ) It is before the coordinates have to be changed because the CO got it all wrong due to inexperience.

d ) It is before they are archived.

 

Going through GSAK each week deleting archived caches tells the story rather well when you see cache after cache that was put out by a new cacher, all keen and everything, then it goes missing, nothing happens for weeks or months and finally the reviewer steps in and archives it.

 

(Okay I know some long standing cachers are also guilty of that but new cachers seem to be worse).

 

And watching the 'getting started' thread, barely a day goes by without someone asking a question about some aspect of their first hide, then when you look at their profile, they have been a member less than 2 weeks and have less than 10 hides.

 

They're not all going to be bad hides, and at least they come to the forums to ask for help, but you do just want to shout back at them "get some experience, know you are in this for the long term and understand the long term commitment of owning a cache before you feel the desperate need to place one"

(But you are not allowed to do that in the getting started forum.

 

What do you think the great rush is to put hides out there when someone has just started?

Is it the thrill of seeing their name on a cache page?

Is it to try and get away from their newbyness?

Is it the thrill of knowing people are out there looking for something you have hidden?

 

All I know is we were petrified about putting our first one out, desperately keen to get it right and not receive a slagging in the logs.

Thankfully we had good mentors in The Two Bears who we went out with lots before placing our first hide, and used that time to learn as much as we could about everything.

Even then we hit a SSSI with our first location and Graculus kindly spotted it and put us right.

 

The first hide is not a great one but it does the job, we look after it. It's just not a great location.

 

Our next hides we are a lot more happy with as by then we were even better at knowing why we wanted to put them out, where we wanted them and what would make them fun to find.

 

So in my opinion, good hides do come with experience (and a little help from your friends) and I don't like seeing cachers with a one week membership desperate to start hiding.

 

I wouldn't be unhappy with a minimum find count before hiding, or a period of membership under ones belt.

But I also know a lot of people don't like the idea and will probably post here after me.

 

But if the standard of hides and the number of unmaintained and disabled caches continues to grow then all the reasons for this happening might have to be looked at and solutions tried. Or it will spoil the game for everyone.

 

Just my thoughts.

Edited by Lovejoy & Tinker
Link to comment

An honest log is enough to tell me not to bother finding a specific cache, so it definately has a use.

 

Unlike some I will pick and chose my caches and I rely on others to give me an indication of the quality. If the number chasers out there want to log a poor cache that's down to them, but personally i am grateful to those people who write a honest reply as I can use that to decide whether or not to stick it on the iggy list.

Link to comment

I'm not sure how a discussion on honest logging is going to influence Groundspeak policy on hiding caches, and whether Get Satisfaction would be the correct platform for such a discussion?

 

Is this a post as a moderator asking us not to discuss issues like this in the forum (a public meeting or assembly for open discussion) - or a post from a cacher and forum veteran that's seen it all before? <_<

 

If it's the latter - perhaps your caching profile might have been more appropriate than your moderator profile? :D

Link to comment

 

:D

 

I've seen this discussed over and over in my time and seen every possible opinion on the subject.

 

 

I haven't seen a full discusiion about it before, I haven't been in the forms long, only seen it touched on in threads about other topics. So I haven't seen every possible opinion on the subject.

 

I would be interested to hear what others think if they have an opinion, might even make me change my mind.

 

If we are allowed to discuss something again that's been discussed over and over ??

 

You seem a bit dismissive of people wanting to discuss a subject you have seen done to death, is it bad forum etiquette for us to continue do so?

 

Wouldn't want to tread on anyone's toes or upset the apple cart.

Link to comment

 

:unsure:

 

I've seen this discussed over and over in my time and seen every possible opinion on the subject.

 

 

I haven't seen a full discusiion about it before, I haven't been in the forms long, only seen it touched on in threads about other topics. So I haven't seen every possible opinion on the subject.

 

I would be interested to hear what others think if they have an opinion, might even make me change my mind.

 

If we are allowed to discuss something again that's been discussed over and over ??

 

You seem a bit dismissive of people wanting to discuss a subject you have seen done to death, is it bad forum etiquette for us to continue do so?

 

Wouldn't want to tread on anyone's toes or upset the apple cart.

 

I think my humour may have been lost there. I was going to use the flogging a dead horse image but that would have been going too far.

 

I have no problem with people discussing it. That's what the forum is here for.

 

I'm not sure how a discussion on honest logging is going to influence Groundspeak policy on hiding caches, and whether Get Satisfaction would be the correct platform for such a discussion?

 

Is this a post as a moderator asking us not to discuss issues like this in the forum (a public meeting or assembly for open discussion) - or a post from a cacher and forum veteran that's seen it all before? ;)

 

If it's the latter - perhaps your caching profile might have been more appropriate than your moderator profile? :D

 

Tim, It's the latter. My thinking was that using my mod account to promote the Get Satisfaction route was more appropriate.

 

Please follow my advice though and use the Get Satisfaction route as well as discussing it here.

 

Next time I'll not try and be funny <_<

 

Geohatter

Edited by geohatter
Link to comment

Just a quick question.............sorry for taking this thread totally off topic :unsure:

 

Keehotee mentioned that Geohatter should use his caching name for this thread (or something like that) which made me think....

 

Has Geohatter revealed himself yet...(hmm not like THAT you lot :D ) I mean do we know or are we meant to know his alter ego, obviously I don't know or I wouldn't have asked <_<

 

M ;)

Link to comment

Just a quick question.............sorry for taking this thread totally off topic :)

 

You are forgiven <_<

 

Has Geohatter revealed himself yet...(hmm not like THAT you lot :unsure: ) I mean do we know or are we meant to know his alter ego, obviously I don't know or I wouldn't have asked ;)

 

M :D

 

Errmmm...no, and I aint going to. I'm quite happy having a split geocaching personality. :D

 

Right. Back to the topic.

Link to comment

 

I think my humour may have been lost there. I was going to use the flogging a dead horse image but that would have been going too far.

 

I have no problem with people discussing it. That's what the forum is here for.

 

OK, understood.

 

It's just that speaking for myself, I am still a bit wary of these forums as I have seen the way things can get ugly quickly so I try and stay out of the heated ones.

 

To enter into a bit of a discussion and then have a mod jump in and seem to say:

 

Couldn't care less - the popcorn thing

You're opening a can of worms - (that one was obvious :D )

Heard it all before a hundred times <sigh>

No point in discussing it yet again

Been here, done this, find something interesting to talk about

Go and talk about it somewhere else.

 

was a bit disconcerting.

 

Now I know I'm not quoting your words, and I now know that's perhaps not at all what you meant - but it did come across a bit like that. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words and images. But don't forget we're not all used to forum 'humour' yet and perhaps see mods as advisors who are serious when they say stuff.

Good to know you are human <_<

 

I suspect this thread might not attract much more interest now and will go the way of the other thread in this section (about reporting crime to police) which suddenly took a dive and died a death after someone got all sarcastic and rather ruined the atmosphere.

 

EDIT

Oh pants, sorry, we've moved on, now I'm derailing the thread - it was all going on while I was typing.

I'm not very good at forums am I, sorry.

Edited by Lovejoy & Tinker
Link to comment

I'm a complete nubile to all of this so please 'flame' as appropriate,

is it not possible to 'move' a cache to another location as near to the original 'drop' as possible?, maybe somewhere far more interesting than a bramble laiden hedge at the edge of 'hoodieville' ?, this new locale and co-ordinates could be logged in the 'cache-blog'? and therefore impart 'satisfaction' (such a loaded word or is that just me?) to the subsequent 'finders' , or is it not good etiquete to move a cache ?

Link to comment

I'm a complete nubile to all of this so please 'flame' as appropriate,

is it not possible to 'move' a cache to another location as near to the original 'drop' as possible?, maybe somewhere far more interesting than a bramble laiden hedge at the edge of 'hoodieville' ?, this new locale and co-ordinates could be logged in the 'cache-blog'? and therefore impart 'satisfaction' (such a loaded word or is that just me?) to the subsequent 'finders' , or is it not good etiquete to move a cache ?

 

Some of the ones we've found wouldn't be improved by moving them a mile :D

 

You can't really move a cache. You can change the coordinates if they are inaccurate but if a cache is moved other than a few metres to avoid muggling it should be issued as a new hide.

 

Better to get it right to start with.

 

Not every cache can have a reason to be there - beautiful location, historic place etc etc.

In fact some of those roadside ones are good hides, needing stealth and cunning. I don't mind a good cache and dash.

Wouldn't want to see them in the majority though just because loads of people want to see their name on a cache page and can't be bothered to put some thought into a hide.

 

No flaming here <_<

Link to comment
This is a difficult one. I mean in the early days of caching, lots of people hid caches with no or very few finds. So you can argue why not the same for newbies today?

 

I think the answer to that is that in the early days new caches were needed to get the thing up and running, whereas nowadays there are plenty around, so new caches have to be judged on their intrinsic qualities.

 

I think that a 100-find threshold would radically reduce the number of poor hides.

Link to comment

I'm a complete nubile to all of this so please 'flame' as appropriate,

is it not possible to 'move' a cache to another location as near to the original 'drop' as possible?, maybe somewhere far more interesting than a bramble laiden hedge at the edge of 'hoodieville' ?, this new locale and co-ordinates could be logged in the 'cache-blog'? and therefore impart 'satisfaction' (such a loaded word or is that just me?) to the subsequent 'finders' , or is it not good etiquete to move a cache ?

 

Caches can be moved but shouldn't they be somewhere interesting in the first place.?! We went and did a lovely series yesterday - well thought out, varying terrain, interesting mine works etc to look at on route a real pleasure to do (not in the rain tho :D ) and then finished the day with a c&d on the drive home that was up a murky manky lane nothing whatsoever appealing about the place,no stunning views nothing - no idea why anyone would want to walk up there. I suppose some people just want to "up the numbers". I left an honest log - looking back on the others it seems I was nearly the only one and this was by a cacher with lots of finds. Can't blame it on a newbie for just chucking it there !!

Link to comment
This is a difficult one. I mean in the early days of caching, lots of people hid caches with no or very few finds. So you can argue why not the same for newbies today?

 

I think the answer to that is that in the early days new caches were needed to get the thing up and running, whereas nowadays there are plenty around, so new caches have to be judged on their intrinsic qualities.

 

I think that a 100-find threshold would radically reduce the number of poor hides.

 

I agree with you about a threshold but personally I would suggest a 50 find but then as my last post points out there are some cachers with plenty of hides that don't seem too enamoured about putting out nice caches :D !!

Link to comment

I'm a complete nubile to all of this so please 'flame' as appropriate,

is it not possible to 'move' a cache to another location as near to the original 'drop' as possible?, maybe somewhere far more interesting than a bramble laiden hedge at the edge of 'hoodieville' ?, this new locale and co-ordinates could be logged in the 'cache-blog'? and therefore impart 'satisfaction' (such a loaded word or is that just me?) to the subsequent 'finders' , or is it not good etiquete to move a cache ?

 

Caches can be moved but shouldn't they be somewhere interesting in the first place.?! We went and did a lovely series yesterday - well thought out, varying terrain, interesting mine works etc to look at on route a real pleasure to do (not in the rain tho :D ) and then finished the day with a c&d on the drive home that was up a murky manky lane nothing whatsoever appealing about the place,no stunning views nothing - no idea why anyone would want to walk up there. I suppose some people just want to "up the numbers". I left an honest log - looking back on the others it seems I was nearly the only one and this was by a cacher with lots of finds. Can't blame it on a newbie for just chucking it there !!

 

Hello Bears <_<

 

Is it because someone desperately wants to put one out but can't be bothered to find a good place - somewher near home perhaps? Or just any old quiet spot they can think of that they know?

 

But you are right, that hise was not a newbie.

 

How do you police that? Tricky

Link to comment

 

I think my humour may have been lost there. I was going to use the flogging a dead horse image but that would have been going too far.

 

I have no problem with people discussing it. That's what the forum is here for.

 

OK, understood.

 

It's just that speaking for myself, I am still a bit wary of these forums as I have seen the way things can get ugly quickly so I try and stay out of the heated ones.

 

To enter into a bit of a discussion and then have a mod jump in and seem to say:

 

Couldn't care less - the popcorn thing

You're opening a can of worms - (that one was obvious :D )

Heard it all before a hundred times <sigh>

No point in discussing it yet again

Been here, done this, find something interesting to talk about

Go and talk about it somewhere else.

 

was a bit disconcerting.

 

Now I know I'm not quoting your words, and I now know that's perhaps not at all what you meant - but it did come across a bit like that. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words and images. But don't forget we're not all used to forum 'humour' yet and perhaps see mods as advisors who are serious when they say stuff.

Good to know you are human <_<

 

I suspect this thread might not attract much more interest now and will go the way of the other thread in this section (about reporting crime to police) which suddenly took a dive and died a death after someone got all sarcastic and rather ruined the atmosphere.

 

EDIT

Oh pants, sorry, we've moved on, now I'm derailing the thread - it was all going on while I was typing.

I'm not very good at forums am I, sorry.

 

I'm not a noob - and I took it the same way.

 

The impression I got was that Geohatter wanted to kill the thread. Glad to hear that's not the case.

Link to comment

I'm a complete nubile to all of this so please 'flame' as appropriate,

is it not possible to 'move' a cache to another location as near to the original 'drop' as possible?, maybe somewhere far more interesting than a bramble laiden hedge at the edge of 'hoodieville' ?, this new locale and co-ordinates could be logged in the 'cache-blog'? and therefore impart 'satisfaction' (such a loaded word or is that just me?) to the subsequent 'finders' , or is it not good etiquete to move a cache ?

 

Caches can be moved but shouldn't they be somewhere interesting in the first place.?! We went and did a lovely series yesterday - well thought out, varying terrain, interesting mine works etc to look at on route a real pleasure to do (not in the rain tho :D ) and then finished the day with a c&d on the drive home that was up a murky manky lane nothing whatsoever appealing about the place,no stunning views nothing - no idea why anyone would want to walk up there. I suppose some people just want to "up the numbers". I left an honest log - looking back on the others it seems I was nearly the only one and this was by a cacher with lots of finds. Can't blame it on a newbie for just chucking it there !!

 

Hello Bears <_<

 

Is it because someone desperately wants to put one out but can't be bothered to find a good place - somewher near home perhaps? Or just any old quiet spot they can think of that they know?

 

But you are right, that hise was not a newbie.

 

How do you police that? Tricky

 

True, maybe it was a special place to them - can't for the life of me think why !? Its a good job we're all different and like different things otherwise the world would be a very boring place if we were all the same :unsure:

Link to comment

I think that a 100-find threshold would radically reduce the number of poor hides.

 

The argument folk make about that is that for people living in areas with few caches, 100 is a LOT to find.

 

I think I am in favour of a time period rather than a number of finds.

 

You can find 100 in a day, can't you Birdie?

Or you can take 6 months to find 100 if you are in a sparse area.

 

But if a time limit were in place it would mean people have demonstrated that the game is not just a passing craze for them (which will be set aside after a few weeks once the initial excitement wears off), while at the same time giving them chance to find some caches and work out what makes a good location and what makes a good container.

 

Of course you could join up, do nothing for 6 months then place a hide. But I don't think many would do that.

Link to comment

I think the geohatter may be having trouble with his split personality but I think I get the jist of what he tried (and failed) to say.

 

This topic has come up time and again with no real solution and a few people getting angry.

 

I've not looked at 'Get Satisfaction' properly but isn't it where GSP look to us to see where improvements can be made???? (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Surely instead of going round and round we should take the suggestions to that section for them to see.

 

From my point of view, noone should be forced to find x amount of caches before hiding as the question is one of quality. What if all they find is micros thrown into a hedge with dodgy coords????? That won't help them place good quality caches with good coords.

 

Threads like this should be used to educate noobs to find a variety of caches and experience the quality that is out there before placing caches. They should also be commited to caching as they could place one day and quit the next.

 

I didn't have any confidence in placing a cache for ages before I placed my first. I had a broad history of good and bad finds before I did.

 

To all noobs-------Please don't rush into hiding caches. Experience the full spectrum of hides (or at least most of it), go out with your trusty tupperware, make sure your GPS has waypoint averaging and hide the thing.

 

Oh and enjoy

Link to comment

I think that a 100-find threshold would radically reduce the number of poor hides.

 

The argument folk make about that is that for people living in areas with few caches, 100 is a LOT to find.

 

I think I am in favour of a time period rather than a number of finds.

 

You can find 100 in a day, can't you Birdie?

Or you can take 6 months to find 100 if you are in a sparse area.

 

But if a time limit were in place it would mean people have demonstrated that the game is not just a passing craze for them (which will be set aside after a few weeks once the initial excitement wears off), while at the same time giving them chance to find some caches and work out what makes a good location and what makes a good container.

 

Of course you could join up, do nothing for 6 months then place a hide. But I don't think many would do that.

 

Oooo you do have some good ideas sometimes don't you, maybe a time period is the way round it ?

Link to comment

The 1st cache I hid was a mirco in a tree on a footpath near to where I worked. I had only found about 20 caches and thought there was nothing wrong with it because I had found lots caches of this nature myself.

 

Once I had done more caches I realised that it was not the best cache and so I did more better cache hides later. I then archeived the 1st cache to make room for a cache series walk or power trail has some would call it.

 

My point been that I only hid what I had found and so the more bad caches out there the more they will be.

 

I always find it interesting that my cache walks or traditonal caches get far more visitors then my multi caches.

 

Always hide a cache that you would like to find and let the diversity of caches continue. I like to think that most of mine are reasonable and well stocked when hidden, even with just a pencil and log in a bag in a micro.

 

I do agree though that some new caches are poor and not in great locations which is a shame, thats why some people now use other cache listing pages. :D

Link to comment

You could indeed find 100 caches in 8 hours.. and start hiding caches the next day. And should those 100 caches all of been micros - then that's what you'd understand all caches to be.

 

You could, on the other hand, find 10 caches in your first month, that are all large ones at the end of nice walks and understand that's what all caches are like.

 

Neither of course is true...

 

You could however limit the number of caches a cacher could hide - say to no more than 20. Would they then not leave their best ones out, collect in the ones that get bad logs and replace them with something more popular?

 

A voting system (Like used to be on the old Geocaching UK site) might encourage better caches.

 

I'm not convinced that there's an ideal solution, whatever caches you put out, someone won't like them or they won't get visits. Puzzles and long multis being examples...

Link to comment

This topic has come up time and again with no real solution and a few people getting angry.

I suspect there never will be an ideal solution, but I quite like a reasoned discussion to help me form my opinions based on hearing other sides of the argument. Long as no one gets angry.

 

I've not looked at 'Get Satisfaction' properly but isn't it where GSP look to us to see where improvements can be made???? (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Yep, but it's not really a great format for a discussion, and I suspect if it has been discussed as often as people are saying then GS have probably heard all the arguments there are.

Surely instead of going round and round we should take the suggestions to that section for them to see.

I enjoy circular walks - as long as the last bit is downhill :D

 

To all noobs-------Please don't rush into hiding caches. Experience the full spectrum of hides (or at least most of it), go out with your trusty tupperware, make sure your GPS has waypoint averaging and hide the thing.

 

Oh and enjoy

That statement should be a sticky in the 'getting started' section !

Link to comment

A voting system (Like used to be on the old Geocaching UK site) might encourage better caches.

 

It would be nice to have a way of showing dislike for a cache in a fairly subtle but meaningful way without having to choose your words carefully so as not to cause too much offence or sound bitter. Sfter all, the CO probably thinks his hide is the best ever and everyone should love it and be grateful.

A rank built on numerous votes could help.

 

Don't like the idea of limiting hides though - it would deprive us of the very entertaining hides of a cacher in our area which we always enjoy and find challenging.

Link to comment

A good thread going here, varied points of view, as a noob If I decided to plant my first or any cache

 

a: I'd want it to be found, and popular

 

b: I'd want good write ups on it, which in turn would make it popular

 

c: I'd probably want to impress any finders with the location

 

but thats just meee

 

p0ynbeoy5ezgf53ffyf1fn.jpg

 

now, If I make a half @rsed 'drop' and it doesn't get much interest/poor logs

 

then I may have a different 'idea' of 'satisfaction' from others

 

could it be that we're all completely different and that the 'drop' that started this thread was only intended to appease the 'cacher' who dropped it and the type of finder that gets a buzz from this type of drop,

 

If I find a 'crap' cache then I think I would make this clear when filling in the 'blog', maybe I'd put some peeps off, then again maybe not

 

each to their own?

Edited by goosegogger
Link to comment

could it be that we're all completely different and that the 'drop' that started this thread was only intended to appease the 'cacher' who dropped it and the type of finder that gets a buzz from this type of drop,

 

Good point, maybe there is a whole different game going on out there with people who like hiding pointless caches and those who love finding the pointless ones.

 

But your theory supposes that the CO actually thought about the hide and what people would like to find. That in itself would be a good thing - in a way.

 

I think a lot of the really bad ones - those that are muggled within 5 minutes of being put out, or in completely unsuitable containers, or have to be archived within a few weeks, or are disabled for months on end, are the result of people not thinking at all.

Just thrown out in an inappropriate rush to get their name on a page.

 

They are not really aimed at anyone in particular. People just think "all I have to do is put a sandwich box in a tree somewhere and I have myself a cache and I'm a cache owner".

 

I like to think I am not a cache snob. I don't avoid nanos or micros, I don't mind finding a film pot in the middle of the moor if I have had a bloody good walk to get to it, and I like a good cache and dash.

Size of contaoiner is not an issue as I generally don't swap any swag.

What I care about is the getting there and the places I'm taken on a day out.

Cache and dash hides can make the drive to the days starting point (and the drive home) more interesting.

 

But I guess you are right, people play this game for different reasons, and maybe if you have small kids, an easy to get to sandwich box with some goodies in it is a good find, regardless of where it is or what there is to see when you get there.

Edited by Lovejoy & Tinker
Link to comment

We are newbies at this with only 32 finds uner our belt but I do agree that you need to find a few first to experiance what makes a good or bad cache and pick up some tips along the way. I have hidden 2 caches 1 nano in a very busy public area which creates a challenge in its self and the second in a little used beauty spot which is a great spot to take the kids to feed the ducks.

Caches should have a purpose I think wether it be a view, historic, or a challenge to get to.

Anyway we are loving it and my kids cant wait till the weekend to go treasure hunting so thanks to everyone for making this fun.

Link to comment

A voting system (Like used to be on the old Geocaching UK site) might encourage better caches.

 

It would be nice to have a way of showing dislike for a cache in a fairly subtle but meaningful way without having to choose your words carefully so as not to cause too much offence or sound bitter. Sfter all, the CO probably thinks his hide is the best ever and everyone should love it and be grateful.

A rank built on numerous votes could help.

 

I use GCVote which shows on the cache pages and maps. It isn't that popular yet, but in some ways that helps as so far has been fairly accurate (in my mind). I often use it if I am in a new area and just want to do the odd one or two caches - it gives me a starting point as to which caches to read up on before deciding if I would enjoy that cache.

Link to comment

As the originator of the thread I have taken on board what has been said about my log. I should have suggested accurate coordinates and maybe I should have written a negative log instead of a bland one. but logging opens up an entirely different can of worms.

I do not know how anyone who has never found a cache could possibly know how to hide one. Fair enough saying if a newbie only finds micros that's what he'll hide in return - but to have found nothing? And I'd bet that this type of "cacher" never seeks advice from a forum.

I think 6 months or 50 finds, whichever comes quicker would be reasonable but in all honesty I can't see any sort of limitation being adopted.

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...