Jump to content

finds before hides


Recommended Posts

Having slept on it, I too like the 6/50 idea quite a lot.

 

It will never eliminate bad hides, nothing will, but I think it would help. It would at least force people to take a step back think a bit before rushing out to hide a cache within minutes of joining up and getting caught up in the initial excitement of it all.

 

50 finds shouldn't be too demanding for anyone, and chances are they will have met or talked to other cachers while hunting those 50 (either in real life or on the forums).

There is also a reasonable chance they would have experienced a range of different caches in those 50.

(Or you could say at least 2 multis and 2 puzzles must be included in those 50 finds?)

 

If finding 50 in their area is a challenge then all they have to do is stick with the game and live for 6 months. If they can still remember their password and the name of the website after 6 months then chances are they have maintained an interest for that period of time.

 

I think there would be some who, after being given 6 months to think about it, might realise they don't actually have to become a CO to get enjoyment out of the game.

 

There are lots of things in life (at work and play) where you have to have some experience or training before being allowed to move on to a next stage, for a whole number of reasons. I think caching should be the same, and the '6/50' rule does not seem overly draconian.

 

And before anyone says it, I will. Yes someone could just sit at home and log 50 local caches as found in a morning then rush out and hide one. But that is not a reason to do nothing.

Link to comment

If the coordinates appear to be way out, I do wish people would add what they believe them to be to their logs, rather than just say "we found the coordinates to be 50 feet out"

 

Thats a good point !!

 

Ditto that.

 

Since geocaching is a members only club, why not let new members join ONLY if they are petitioned by 2 other members. :D

Link to comment

But there is a problem. We basically take it on trust that a cacher has actually found a cache they they have claimed to found. Sure, many CO go through their physical logs and match them against those on the site, but not all do and certainly they don't do that after every single find.

 

So it's perfectly possible for someone desperate to hide a cache to claim they've found the required number, when in fact they haven't done anything of the sort.

Link to comment

But there is a problem. We basically take it on trust that a cacher has actually found a cache they they have claimed to found. Sure, many CO go through their physical logs and match them against those on the site, but not all do and certainly they don't do that after every single find.

 

So it's perfectly possible for someone desperate to hide a cache to claim they've found the required number, when in fact they haven't done anything of the sort.

 

And before anyone says it, I will. Yes someone could just sit at home and log 50 local caches as found in a morning then rush out and hide one. But that is not a reason to do nothing.

Link to comment

I know this is a oft debated subject, and from the "Get Satisfaction" link it seems it won't be implemented. But I do think some minimum time and finds does make sense. 50 finds/6 months seems a reasonable proposal.

 

As for providing feedback on "bad" caches; I do try and give constructive feedback. Personally I wouldn't say something like "A geocache of the worst kind" (even if that is what I thought). I try to be as specific as possible, and point out the good as well (if there is any). For example .

Link to comment

As for providing feedback on "bad" caches; I do try and give constructive feedback. Personally I wouldn't say something like "A geocache of the worst kind" (even if that is what I thought). I try to be as specific as possible, and point out the good as well (if there is any). For example .

 

This cache has moved twice now and been disabled twice, the number of DNF's is quite high and concerns about hiding in walls raised which I thought was against UK rules?

 

Why wasn't this cache archeived by the reviewers? They must take some responsiblity for the cahes they allow, maybe watch it for the 1st 5 finds?

 

I don't like the idea of 6/50 because you are making it all about the numbers. I have been caching for about 3 years and still only have 760 finds.

Link to comment

As for providing feedback on "bad" caches; I do try and give constructive feedback. Personally I wouldn't say something like "A geocache of the worst kind" (even if that is what I thought). I try to be as specific as possible, and point out the good as well (if there is any). For example .

 

This cache has moved twice now and been disabled twice, the number of DNF's is quite high and concerns about hiding in walls raised which I thought was against UK rules?

 

Why wasn't this cache archeived by the reviewers? They must take some responsiblity for the cahes they allow, maybe watch it for the 1st 5 finds?

 

I don't like the idea of 6/50 because you are making it all about the numbers. I have been caching for about 3 years and still only have 760 finds.

 

If people will not make a Needs Maintenance Log to flag up issues to the cache owner! Then if that fails a Needs Archiving Log-which along with Update Coordinates are the only 2 logs automatically copied to Reviewers. Then that is a issue the community it's self needs to resolve.

 

Personally having in the last 6 months or so, averaged over 1,000 published caches per month. I just do not have the time to monitor a new cache for 5 finds. that would possibly be 5,000 emails per month, on top of the emails already coming in.

 

Also the Reviewer Team are dependant on the community flagging up issues, using Needs Archiving logs or by email. So if you have a complaint, please ask all those who have found the cache. But yet have failed to do either! Or those who have failed to find it, and have failed to log a DNF and Needs Maintenance logs.

 

Reviewers are Volunteers not Supermen/women! The following has been posted before, and if the community followed it. There would be a lot less issues stagnating like the example above

Ok this comes from a mixture of the Guidelines and personal experience both as a Reviewer and as a Member :D

 

Caches should only be Disabled for a short period, but if the owner keeps everyone updated by posting a note the cache every 6-8 weeks explaining what's happening that period can be extensive ie: access issues due to forestry work, Building Work or even Illness come to mind.

 

After many DNF's the owner should Disable it to allow a Maintenance visit to be paid. We're not talking after one or 2 :unsure: but a large No indicates that there is a issue which needs looking into.

 

Caches Disabled for extended periods where the owner has not post a genuine reason risks having the cache Archived.

 

Warning system to owners <_< .

 

A Needs Maintenance Visit log should flag up to a owner that there is a issue that needs quickly seeing to. It should be considered a Yellow Card :) as Reviewers aren't copied the log.

 

Needs Archiving [sBA (the wording has been changed)] this should be considered a Red Card Final Warning by cache owners, as Reviewers are copied in on this Log Type. Owners who have not logged in for a extended period can reasonably expect to have it Archived Immediately on the Grounds that it has been Abandoned. In other cases it's on a case by case basis. I've seen NA logs made by mistake :D, and not always by new cachers :D

 

If your aware of a cache with Issues, which you do not fell needs a Needs Archiving Log being immediately made to it should receive a Needs Maintenance log. If after 4 weeks the owner has not actioned the log, then post a Needs Archiving log. The owner can't complain that they haven't received fair warning.

 

If your aware of issues with a cache ie: Multiple DNF's, extended Disabled without good reason. Needs Maintenance ignored. But do not wish to post a needs Maintenance or Needs Archiving log, please feel free to contact me or my colleagues directly. We [well i] won't shout or bite ;)

 

Both the Needs Maintenance and Needs Archiving log types are for Members to flag up issues with other members caches to the owners. and in the case of Needs Archiving to Reviewers as well.

 

Removal of Needs Maintenance Icons, the cache owner has to post a Owner Maintenance log. This log type should only be used after the owner has physically visited the cache location, maintained the cache and enabled it if needed. The use of this log type for any other purpose should be flagged back up with another Needs Maintenance log or by contacting one of the Reviewers. The Needs Maintenance Icon can not be removed by deleting the NM log [something I've seen happen to hide the fact that the cache needed urgent maintenance] , if you make a NM log and the cache owner deletes it without Maintaining the cache. Please post a Needs Archiving log or again make direct contact with a Reviewer.

 

As I have stated the above is a mixture of the Guidelines and personal experience, but above all it's based on common sense B)

 

I've just Disabled the cache to allow the Owner to make a Physical Maintenance Visit. And all logs indicate it was located in a Hedge. It had previously been located in a Wall (only Dry Stone Walls are a Prohibited Location) it was relocated when a community member flagged up the issue (community action shown to work).

 

There are Nine UK Reviewers, yet there are thousands of Geocachers comprising the UK Geocaching Community. Sorry but it's easier for the Thousands to flag up issues than it is for nine. Time for the community to genuinely step forward and actively get involved in the quality of Geocaching in the UK. Please don't try and place the responsibility on just nine persons.

 

If just 33% of the community flagged up issues, then the standard of Geocaching in the UK would improve 1,000%. At the end of the day, it's the communities choice about standards. They get the end results of their actions.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

Link to comment

I honestly don't think there is any way to prevent bad caches being hidden - we can only hope those who hide bad caches either drop the sport completely (in which case the caches get archived) or learn more and realise the cache was a bad one.

 

One of the cache setters near me has placed loads of caches which are mostly very good. One of his caches really wasn't good but he was quite open about the fact that when he set it he just wanted another cache out there (it is now archived). So even an experienced cache setter sometimes gets it wrong.

 

Another fairly local cache had a huge string of DNFs on it when I found it. It's not easy to spot, and from the comments on the cache page the setter doesn't seem to be very responsive to queries. But the cache is there, it's a nice location even though several people have hunted high and low and not found it.

 

And even all of this comes back to the ongoing discussion of what is a "good" cache. Some caches might be little more than a drive-by smiley on a map, but sometimes it can be fun to find a film pot. Especially in urban areas where it's hard to hide anything much bigger than a film pot or key safe, I'd rather have a bunch of film pots to find than half a dozen ammo cans in urban parks and nothing in between.

 

I think whatever system is put in place we have to accept that some people will hide caches we don't personally like. The only real solution I can see (and even this is potentially subject to being abused) is to let people cast a vote to have a cache removed because it's a bad cache, and give their reason why it's bad. Even then I'm not sure who would make the final judgement, or indeed how that judge would distinguish between a user who just hates micros generally and a user who might like micros but doesn't want to dig under a pile of trash to find one.

Link to comment

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"

This thread illustrates the problem nicely. Most of the descriptions of "bad" caches sound like they're definitely rubbish, until you read the cache logs. Pharisee's example has, for instance;

a very neat little hidey place and i did "love" the container,thank you.
It's a lovely little box
Nice LOCAL cache, found no problem,
Nice hiding place
cache now in excellent condition. Long may it last.

I've asked before, "what is a good cache?" and no-one could really define it. Yes, there are a few which have problems with the container, coordinates or the immediate location. But the ones that inspired the thread are the ones seemingly just thrown out; and I don't know what can be done about them directly. Certainly a "50 finds before a hide is allowed" approach is hopelessly flawed.

 

All I can say is that, in my experience, if people tend to not enjoy someone's caches then they start avoiding them. So the cache setter gets a bad reputation and gets fewer logs than others in the area. Long term, their reputation remains poor even if their caches improve - a lesson to those who are hasty in placing caches.

Link to comment

I suppose when I am talking about 'bad' caches set by new members (which is what the thread started talking about) are those which you know, or suspect, and which are later proven to be either in bad locations (because they are muggled very quickly), and/or spend ages disabled after a short period because the new member has not taken on board the need to maintain what he/she has put out.

 

Strooth, that was an awful sentence, sorry, I think it does make sense so i'll leave it and just apologise for the apalling punctuation.

 

So for me it's less about whether I enjoy finding the cache and more about the number of caches that are thrown out there with little thought and which are later not maintained.

 

This just adds to the number of abandoned pots, as I bet the new cacher who put out finds very quickly then subsequently archives them doesn't collect the physical cache in.

 

Over time, these unloved and abandoned caches build up to make the game less enjoyable.

 

I said a while back that going through GSAK each week deleting the archived caches shows very quickly how many of these were put out by relative newcomers who obviously did not think too hard about the hide and very quickly ran into problems.

Strings of DNF's or reports of the cache being in a 'cornish hedge' (which wasn't clear to the reviewer as these caches rarely have anything but a few words in the description), or soggy logs within a few weeks of placing.

The CO then either hasn't responded, in which case a reviewer forces the archive (cache not collected in), or they disable the cache where it sits for months until a reviewer spots it or someone reports it.

 

Does that make sense?

Link to comment

Reviewers are Volunteers not Supermen/women! The following has been posted before, and if the community followed it. There would be a lot less issues stagnating like the example above

 

Just out of interest, here is a hypothetical example:

 

A cache goes out, and Lovejoy goes and finds it within its first few weeks.

 

It's found a number of times until there are a few DNF's

 

The CO goes to investigate, decalres it missing and disables it with a note such as "Muggled, will replace soon"

 

Then it sits there, disabled, for 4 months. Tumbleweeds start to blow across the cache page.

 

No one is going to go and look for it as it is disabled. So it's not going to get reported that way.

 

Lovejoy has no real interest as he has already found it, and it shows a smiley on his map.

BUT, it does bug him that the cache is still on the map in a disabled state, taking up space that could be used for another cache, and also knowing that it is sitting like a sore thumb to visitors and others in the area.

It does not show the local caching community in a good light.

 

Who should bring it to the attention of the local reviewer, and how?

 

For Lovejoy to report it would look like he is having a pop at the CO as, after all, he has already logged it so why should he be interested in it?

 

I would be interested to know what, if anything, should be done in a situation like this.

 

Should it even bother me? Because for some reason, it does. Hypothetically.

Edited by Lovejoy & Tinker
Link to comment

I see what you're saying - the reason I haven't put any caches out there myself is because historically I haven't been in a position to provide timely maintenance if anything happened.

 

As to other caches that do stay disabled for a long time, IIRC the reviewers have tools which highlight caches that have been disabled for a long time and do deal with them. Obviously there has to be a happy medium between giving COs a fair chance to maintain their caches and other potential hiders a chance to use the location, and I think the reviewers do a pretty good job striking a balance.

 

I don't think the fact you've logged a find against a cache means you lose any entitlement to comment on it in the future. I've revisited caches to retrieve trackables, if I'm passing the area and want to confirm it's still there after a few DNFs, if I'm taking a friend new to the game out for a few finds, whatever. If I found it months back and now the owner isn't looking after it, it still needs to be archived.

Link to comment

Reviewers are Volunteers not Supermen/women! The following has been posted before, and if the community followed it. There would be a lot less issues stagnating like the example above

 

Just out of interest, here is a hypothetical example:

 

A cache goes out, and Lovejoy goes and finds it within its first few weeks.

 

It's found a number of times until there are a few DNF's

 

The CO goes to investigate, decalres it missing and disables it with a note such as "Muggled, will replace soon"

 

Then it sits there, disabled, for 4 months. Tumbleweeds start to blow across the cache page.

 

No one is going to go and look for it as it is disabled. So it's not going to get reported that way.

 

Lovejoy has no real interest as he has already found it, and it shows a smiley on his map.

BUT, it does bug him that the cache is still on the map in a disabled state, taking up space that could be used for another cache, and also knowing that it is sitting like a sore thumb to visitors and others in the area.

It does not show the local caching community in a good light.

 

Who should bring it to the attention of the local reviewer, and how?

 

For Lovejoy to report it would look like he is having a pop at the CO as, after all, he has already logged it so why should he be interested in it?

 

I would be interested to know what, if anything, should be done in a situation like this.

 

Should it even bother me? Because for some reason, it does. Hypothetically.

 

In my opinion that's what the NA log is for as it flags up to the reviewers.

 

Don't worry about looking like having a pop at the CO. If a cache has been disabled for 4 months then that's far too long and the CO is not keeping up with maintenance. We all agree to properly maintain our caches when we place them.

 

You could try emailing the reviewer who published it directly but I wouldn't recommend it as they have a lot to do and the NA log route will bring it to their attention quicker.

Link to comment

I was in Lovejoy's "hypothetical" situation very recently. I'd half-rescued a mangled cache, posted a NM, and put the thing on my watchlist. After two months and some more NMs (from other people), I posted a note asking if the cache would be maintained. CO deleted the note. So I NA'd to request reviewer assistance. Within a day or so, the cache was repaired.

 

I find it much better to approach this sort of thing in the impersonal and transactional manner that cache page notes provides than to email or PM the cache owner.

Link to comment

 

As to other caches that do stay disabled for a long time, IIRC the reviewers have tools which highlight caches that have been disabled for a long time and do deal with them. Obviously there has to be a happy medium between giving COs a fair chance to maintain their caches and other potential hiders a chance to use the location, and I think the reviewers do a pretty good job striking a balance.

 

 

Thanks, I wasn't sure if the reviewers got a regular report of caches that have been disabled for a long period or if they had to wade through a database to find them.

 

I agree with you, the reviewers do a thankless task very well and Graculus (our local reviewer) has always responded very quickly when I have had a problem (thankfully few of those).

 

Which is why I don't like adding to their workload by reporting things like this if they are going to get to it anyway with some system they have.

 

Your other comments noted and appreciated too, thanks.

Link to comment

Don't worry about looking like having a pop at the CO. If a cache has been disabled for 4 months then that's far too long and the CO is not keeping up with maintenance. We all agree to properly maintain our caches when we place them.

You could try emailing the reviewer who published it directly but I wouldn't recommend it as they have a lot to do and the NA log route will bring it to their attention quicker.

 

Thanks. I have kind of been watching this cache because when it was put out the CO was very new and scattered a number of caches about very quickly, several of which had problems fairly early on, one has now been archived already and 2 have been disabled for a while.

 

It was one of those that when they were published I wondered if the CO had considered maintenance of them all. So I watched a few to see what happened. And I get the reports on my notification system.

 

It's a shame because I have done most of the caches, and with the exception of a couple, they were reasonable hides which I enjoyed finding. It just comes down to maintenance.

 

Maybe I will start reporting these things. After all, I genuinely don't have an issue with the cachers involved (I have never met them) but having so many long term disabled caches in the area is not good for the game.

 

Which is why I have a bit of a problem with people throwing down caches 2 days after they join up, because many of them end up this way. Sadly.

 

Right, must get off to Mevagissey to check on the shop and one of our caches - talking about maintenance as we are <_<

Link to comment

This is worth repeating for newer cachers who don't realise...

 

The reviewer does not get notified of Needs Maintenance logs on caches.

 

The reviewer does get an automatic notification of Needs Archive logs on caches... and once it's done, it's done!

 

Even if the cache owner leaps into action as soon as he/she receives that NA log and deletes it (whilst muttering choice comments under their breath) the email will already have gone through to a reviewer. The reviewers can see all deleted logs on a cache page.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

We took it upon ourselves to fine 100 caches before we put any out and in all fairness i think it bettered us for it!

We have found lots of caches that we have enjoyed, some that have made us laugh, some that have driven us nuts and some proper manky ones that are not looked after. We have read loads on the internet about caching and caches all over the world which we have enjoyed looking at the photos <_< and reading the forums.

 

We now have 180 finds and have placed 5 caches. 3 of which are on a small walk above a lovely little village. A more experienced local cacher has even added 2 more to our little walk :wacko:

 

Cache 1: Clip lock box (slightly smaller than an ammo can) in a breathable camo bag filled with lots of childrens party favours and small toys, hidden by a tree.

Cache 2: 35ml micro at the top of the path behind a place to sit down and enjoy the view.

Cache 3: Magnetic 35ml micro on local historic large bridge .

Cache 4: Clip lock box (1/2 size of an ammo can) in a breathable camo bag on a short walk, nice view.

Cache 5: Micro in a breathable camo bag hidden at the base of a wall (a vexation cache) which is a little evil to find and seems to be causing problems :wacko:

 

All are different and as well like a mixture of caches ourselves to find we kind of planned them as an afternoon out trail around a quaint village. We are not saying they are the best caches to find or the worst, it's just a nice mixture. We are planning the next one which will be a muti to another large cache as there are lots of micros in North Wales :wacko: Fine for us but not so fine for the 5yo treasure hunting boy!

 

As long as a chache is maintained, clean and if it is big enough for swaps and TB's it should be made clear on the cache page :wacko:

 

Just our 2p's worth!

 

SCMP

Link to comment

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"

This thread illustrates the problem nicely. Most of the descriptions of "bad" caches sound like they're definitely rubbish, until you read the cache logs. Pharisee's example has, for instance;

a very neat little hidey place and i did "love" the container,thank you.
It's a lovely little box
Nice LOCAL cache, found no problem,
Nice hiding place
cache now in excellent condition. Long may it last.

I've asked before, "what is a good cache?" and no-one could really define it. Yes, there are a few which have problems with the container, coordinates or the immediate location. But the ones that inspired the thread are the ones seemingly just thrown out; and I don't know what can be done about them directly. Certainly a "50 finds before a hide is allowed" approach is hopelessly flawed.

 

All I can say is that, in my experience, if people tend to not enjoy someone's caches then they start avoiding them. So the cache setter gets a bad reputation and gets fewer logs than others in the area. Long term, their reputation remains poor even if their caches improve - a lesson to those who are hasty in placing caches.

 

They were just being polite.... It was a broken 35mm film pot in a rainwater filled hole in a tree at the side of a busy main road. The logsheet was a sodden mess and had been reported as such for months. I stand by what I wrote in the on-line log.

Link to comment

They were just being polite.... It was a broken 35mm film pot in a rainwater filled hole in a tree at the side of a busy main road. The logsheet was a sodden mess and had been reported as such for months. I stand by what I wrote in the on-line log.

 

That's a problem, if everyone else has been polite it makes it difficult to break from the crowd, stand out and speak your mind.

It's like the King's new clothes.

Well done for standing up and saying what you thought of it.

 

There was a cache I saw where everyone had been polite for ages although there was some thinly veiled criticism of the cache placement.

 

Then someone put a full on critical log which I would not dared to have written, but it was how they felt and logs are supposed to reflect your experience.

 

The next few logs followed suit - no one seemed to be scared to put their heads above the parapet any more and there were some damning logs being written.

 

Eventually the CO archived the cache, clearly upset at the string of negative comments.

 

So sometimes it only takes one person to say what they honestly think and that paves the way for others to say what they think.

 

If the first to criticise is in a minority and no one follows suit, then the CO needn't be too upset, as the one stray comment can be read in the context of all the other good comments.

Link to comment

 

A very good idea! Perhaps even for all hides not just first ones.

 

Of course presumably a reviewer can see if this is a persons first hide, and as such could be able to question the matter further? But this does put yet more work on the shoulders of already overloaded reviewers.

Link to comment

 

A very good idea! Perhaps even for all hides not just first ones.

 

Of course presumably a reviewer can see if this is a persons first hide, and as such could be able to question the matter further? But this does put yet more work on the shoulders of already overloaded reviewers.

 

But as a lot of hiders (new and old) don't even bother to read the guidelines before ticking the box to say they've read the guidelines, what guarantee do we have that the questionnaire hasn't just turned into a box ticking exercise?? :unsure:

Link to comment

Happy Humphrey draws a misleading comparison between Pharisee's log and others', as the latter were posted about the original container before the problems set in.

I know, but the point is that it isn't a cut-and-dried "bad" cache despite the inference that it is, and I was merely illustrating that it's difficult to be sure that anything is so bad that it should be archived.

 

OK, there is a small proportion of caches that really are terrible, and although it would be better to get rid of these I think that they aren't the real problem. What I mean by "terrible" is the sort that are 50m from the coordinates, in a film container with a soaking wet log book, hidden apparently with no thought and in full view of muggles in a bit of hedge with a lot of rubbish washed in from drainage from the main road, with a cache listing full of typos (etc...you know the sort of thing).

 

It's the many that are a bit average that are the problem. But I suspect that almost all of them are reasonably entertaining to a few visitors, so how can you judge which are just above the "acceptable" line and which aren't? I've always thought that every cache listing should have some explanation of why this cache was hidden, so at least you know what to expect. Perhaps that would make the inexperienced think again about their placement, if they can only write that they got a container for free so thought they'd hide it in a random spot.

Link to comment

It's the many that are a bit average that are the problem. But I suspect that almost all of them are reasonably entertaining to a few visitors, so how can you judge which are just above the "acceptable" line and which aren't?

 

I agree; but you don't have to judge which are just above or just below the 'acceptable' line for anybody else, only yourself. If the cache is acceptable to you then write a log that reflects that. If it isn't then say so even if it is apparently acceptable to some other cacher who may be less discerning than yourself.

 

Simples :unsure:

Link to comment

I know, but the point is that it isn't a cut-and-dried "bad" cache despite the inference that it is, and I was merely illustrating that it's difficult to be sure that anything is so bad that it should be archived.

 

Something like a film pot in a hole in a tree isn't necessarily bad - if it's listed as a micro and someone hates micros it's easy enough to avoid it.

 

If the film pot breaks or the lid doesn't seal and the log gets soaked, and the owner then fails to maintain the cache, I'd say that's when it crosses the line into being a bad cache. At the same time the large cache full of geoswag that is soaked because it broke and the owner didn't maintain it becomes an equally bad cache.

 

It's the many that are a bit average that are the problem. But I suspect that almost all of them are reasonably entertaining to a few visitors, so how can you judge which are just above the "acceptable" line and which aren't? I've always thought that every cache listing should have some explanation of why this cache was hidden, so at least you know what to expect. Perhaps that would make the inexperienced think again about their placement, if they can only write that they got a container for free so thought they'd hide it in a random spot.

 

Even if you could judge based on an "acceptable" line it can change over time. A once great hide where the lid broke and everything got soaked will soon become a bad hide. As it stands even with no specific requirements to write much about the cache there are things people might figure out from the listing. Someone who writes very little about the cache or the location, doesn't list any attributes at all and doesn't provide any waypoints for parking etc might be considered to have not put much thought in, whereas someone who provides two or three parking waypoints, extra waypoints for trail heads etc and a good list of attributes has clearly thought a bit about it.

 

It still doesn't guarantee the hide will be any good, nor does it guarantee that the hide is maintained, but at least it shows the person setting it put some thought in when they set it.

Link to comment
But as a lot of hiders (new and old) don't even bother to read the guidelines before ticking the box to say they've read the guidelines, .....

Really? I'd never have guessed. Perhaps that's why I have this geocoin :D

 

260bdae4-c5f5-408c-802f-11fc0498bc15.jpg

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

:unsure::unsure:;):lol::D

 

There ya go, fixed it for when you review hides by new cachers... :anibad:

 

4926860965_edef106830_m.jpg

 

:D

Link to comment

I'm a newb, I started yesterday and found 4 local micros on my first day, and a further 1 today on my lunch break.

 

Before reading this thread, I was about to make the common mistake of rushing to do my first hide.

 

After reading all the comments on this thread, I've realised that I don't yet have the experience to tell the difference between a good and a bad cache. All the finds seemed good to me so far because of the initial excitement of starting this new hobby and making finds.

 

I will now wait until I find 50ish before considering hiding one of my own. by that time I'll know whether Geocaching is something I'll stick with in the long term and I'll know what makes the difference between a satisfying find and a "Meh" find.

 

In the meantime, I'll continue reading the forums for more good advice. :unsure:

Link to comment

I'm a newb, I started yesterday and found 4 local micros on my first day, and a further 1 today on my lunch break.

 

Before reading this thread, I was about to make the common mistake of rushing to do my first hide.

 

After reading all the comments on this thread, I've realised that I don't yet have the experience to tell the difference between a good and a bad cache. All the finds seemed good to me so far because of the initial excitement of starting this new hobby and making finds.

 

I will now wait until I find 50ish before considering hiding one of my own. by that time I'll know whether Geocaching is something I'll stick with in the long term and I'll know what makes the difference between a satisfying find and a "Meh" find.

 

In the meantime, I'll continue reading the forums for more good advice. :unsure:

 

Woo hoo....we've got through to one.

 

Welcome to the wierd and wonderful world of geocaching. I hope you get as hooked as the rest of us. :unsure:

Edited by paulbarratt
Link to comment

I'm a newb, I started yesterday and found 4 local micros on my first day, and a further 1 today on my lunch break.

 

Before reading this thread, I was about to make the common mistake of rushing to do my first hide.

 

After reading all the comments on this thread, I've realised that I don't yet have the experience to tell the difference between a good and a bad cache. All the finds seemed good to me so far because of the initial excitement of starting this new hobby and making finds.

 

I will now wait until I find 50ish before considering hiding one of my own. by that time I'll know whether Geocaching is something I'll stick with in the long term and I'll know what makes the difference between a satisfying find and a "Meh" find.

 

In the meantime, I'll continue reading the forums for more good advice. :unsure:

Welcome! :unsure:

 

Thanks for taking the time to read a few things around here.

Shows you have a bit of commitment already!

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"

 

:D HA HA Nice one!! totally agree!

Link to comment

The issue is always quality, and different people like different things about caches. Only a built-in system, which prompts loggers for a star-rating, will allow cache setting and maintenance to become 'competitive'. I know it'd be great to filter for 4/5 star caches when visiting an area, or just trying to clear them all if I have time...

Link to comment
The issue is always quality, and different people like different things about caches. Only a built-in system, which prompts loggers for a star-rating, will allow cache setting and maintenance to become 'competitive'. I know it'd be great to filter for 4/5 star caches when visiting an area, or just trying to clear them all if I have time...

 

My Bold

 

Why should Maintenance be competitive, when it should be the first and highest priority for a cache owner. The priority should be Maintaining Owned caches, Finding Other Peoples Caches, Setting Caches.

 

We have enough people ignoring maintenance, and having to be prompted by both community members and Reviewers. Without making Setting Caches competitive.

 

Part of the downturn of this hobby is people rush to place caches, and find them. But can't be bothered to maintain those they own, and the blame can not be just put on very inexperienced cachers. I've seen many cases of very experienced cachers with finds in high triple and quadruple numbers. And placements in double and Triple numbers, who can go out every week finding caches. But yet who seem unable to Maintain their own caches.

 

So it's time the community stopped just looking at those members with low numbers who have placed a cache(s), and blame them for the lack of quality! It's endemic within the whole community!

 

The community wishes to see quality, well the solution is available right now! Be polite but honest in cache logs, stop using abbreviations! Stop going and finding caches which honest logs show to be of poor quality! Mentor newer cachers in your local area.If people are consistently honest and stop finding those caches shown to be rubbish. Then standards will increase in huge leaps.

 

Until find numbers are dumped, we will always have a hobby where the priority is finding caches over maintaining owned caches. And where there is a rush to place caches, because the number looks good!

 

To be brutally honest. The Numbers chasers get exactly what they wish for, Numbers over quality! And unless the community actively makes changes and stops just moaning, then standards are just going to get worse!

 

Deci

Link to comment

Place a block on COs logging a find while there is a NM flag on one of their own caches. Once the NM is cleared they can start logging finds again.

 

(tongue in cheek)

(partly)

 

That could be a good thing, it could backfire. It might tempt owners to just archive caches the minute the NM icon appeared, it could prompt them to post a Maintenance Visit log just to clear the flag so they could continue to log finds.

 

If someone isn't interested in maintenance it's good to get the dead caches archived and out of the way; if someone needs to schedule a visit to maintain it then it seems a bit tight to stop them from finding closer caches until they've been to one specific location.

Link to comment

The issue is always quality, and different people like different things about caches. Only a built-in system, which prompts loggers for a star-rating, will allow cache setting and maintenance to become 'competitive'. I know it'd be great to filter for 4/5 star caches when visiting an area, or just trying to clear them all if I have time...

 

But this feeds right back into the discussion that's been gone over again and again, namely what counts as a good cache.

 

I've seen large caches on lovely forest paths that were parts of a series and felt like they were placed because they were 0.1 mile from the previous box. I've seen odd micros in urban areas that I've really enjoyed because they took me somewhere new that I liked. I've seen film pots buried under wet rubbish in the corner of a car park, and large caches on lovely forest paths that were a pleasure to locate. I found a load of nanos this week in central London - despite working there for over a decade there are a surprising number of little parks and quiet spots I never knew existed, until I went hunting for something miniscule.

 

If someone hates micros they can easily avoid them using pocket queries etc. If someone hates caches in heavily muggle-infested areas how will they filter out the micros they will hate from the micros they will love, especially when people who love the challenge of not being spotted by muggles rate the former highly?

Link to comment

Personally i think the idea of blocking new cachers is snobbery and nothing else. I'm new to geocaching and wanted to get involved for the hiding of caches.. I came to this site some while ago but have only just started taking part.. I haven't had a chance to go looking for a cache because i care for my family. I have a father who has had a number of strokes and isn't able to do a great deal for himself. I have a mother who cares for him but can't do many tasks as she's had a couple of heart attacks. All the while i'm working all week or running errands for them or myself. People should stop being snobs. I've hidden a couple of caches for kids. They aren't a major challenge but it makes me happy to think people are having fun with my caches. If the caches had any negative feedback in the comments then i would know i was doing something wrong. But so far i have no complaints. What you should do is look at the cache online first and see if its worth your while. The admin at geocaching.com should create an anonymous feedback button for poorly maintained or placed caches. Please don't tar us noobcakes with the same brush it is unfair.

Edited by Claudis192
Link to comment

Personally i think the idea of blocking new cachers is snobbery and nothing else.

It isn't snobbery, it's just experience. No-one is saying that hides by new cachers will always be of poor quality, what some people are saying is that ON AVERAGE, experience finding caches first helps a hider set a better cache.

 

In just about every other activity, e.g. driving, cooking, etc., experience improves your skill. Why should caching be different?

 

You can acquire experience by setting caches yourself and learning by your mistakes. Or you can learn quite a bit from caches you find. The advantage of the second method is that you aren't subjecting the finders of your caches to all of the mistakes you make while learning.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

Personally i think the idea of blocking new cachers is snobbery and nothing else.

I don't see snobbery at all - that is an all too overused accusation and I don't think it fits very well in this case.

When you start a new job and have to do a probation period - is that snobbery?

 

There are many many things we do in life that place small restrictions on us when we are novices, either for safety or practical reasons. I don't think it's snobbery as such, just asking people to accept that you get better at things the more experience you have.

 

Nor do I see anyone trying to 'block' new cachers. All anyone has advocated is asking new cachers to just put some time and thought into the game before placing a first hide. There has also been acknowledgement that not all newbie hides are bad and that some 'old timer's' hides are bad.

No one is advocating stopping new cachers taking a full and active part in all other aspects of the game.

 

In your case, you joined on April 15th and placed your first hide on July 25th. That's over 3 months, during which you discovered that despite your hectic life and other commitmens you retained your interest in caching and could place and maintain some caches.

Then 2 months after that you have placed some more, presumably once you had seen how the first one went down.

 

If all new cachers took the same kind of approach, this conversation probably wouldn't be taking place.

Unfortunately some join on a Monday, place their first cache on a Friday, lose interest 2 weeks later and that's another ownerless cache out there to gradually deteriorate over time and cause frustration to other cachers.

 

Please don't tar us noobcakes with the same brush it is unfair.

 

I hope no one is really. Just discussing ways to make the game better for everyone.

You might see the following statement as snobbery, and so I apologise if it comes across that way, but with 1 find under your belt, have you suffered the frustration of finding (or trying to find) unmaintained ownerless caches? Or caches thrown out on a whim with no real thought or understanding of what makes a good hide? If not then you may not understand the problem.

 

Good luck with your newly published caches and keep having fun with them.

Edited by Lovejoy and Tinker
Link to comment
The issue is always quality, and different people like different things about caches. Only a built-in system, which prompts loggers for a star-rating, will allow cache setting and maintenance to become 'competitive'. I know it'd be great to filter for 4/5 star caches when visiting an area, or just trying to clear them all if I have time...

 

My Bold

 

Why should Maintenance be competitive, when it should be the first and highest priority for a cache owner. The priority should be Maintaining Owned caches, Finding Other Peoples Caches, Setting Caches.

 

<SNIP>

 

To be brutally honest. The Numbers chasers get exactly what they wish for, Numbers over quality! And unless the community actively makes changes and stops just moaning, then standards are just going to get worse!

 

Deci

 

Wow...... I think this is the first time I've absolutely agreed with everything Deci has posted.... :laughing::rolleyes::D

Link to comment

If someone hates micros they can easily avoid them using pocket queries etc.

Not so easy to filter, if cache setters set the size of 'Nano' as 'Not Chosen' or 'Other' despite the guidelines stating:

"Micro, film pot or smaller"

 

Should the reviewers sent the page back, if 'Not Chosen' or 'Other' is selected, yet the cache description says 'Nano' in it?

 

(Yes, I've voted on the Feedback page for 'Nano' size, and also on the other Feedback page for 'Micro/Nano' if Groundspeak aren't going to have 'Nano' as a separate size!

Edited by Bear and Ragged
Link to comment

If someone hates micros they can easily avoid them using pocket queries etc.

Not so easy to filter, if cache setters set the size of 'Nano' as 'Not Chosen' or 'Other' despite the guidelines stating:

"Micro, film pot or smaller"

 

Should the reviewers sent the page back, if 'Not Chosen' or 'Other' is selected, yet the cache description says 'Nano' in it?

 

(Yes, I've voted on the Feedback page for 'Nano' size, and also on the other Feedback page for 'Micro/Nano' if Groundspeak aren't going to have 'Nano' as a separate size!

 

"Not chosen" doesn't help but then sometimes "not chosen" is intended to be part of the difficulty of finding a cache. It's a shame when someone uses "not chosen" purely as a way of saying "nano" (especially when they then say in the text it's a nano) but I think that's the chance you have to take when hunting something of unspecified size.

 

I'd agree that "not chosen" should mean that the cache size isn't known in advance and if someone uses "not chosen" but then lists what the cache is in the description it should be sent back for correction. If not knowing what size cache you're hunting is part of the challenge than I think anyone seeking it needs to accept that it could be a bucket and it could be a nano.

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...