finds before hides

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

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...

I agree.

 

But then I am in favour of caches being sent back for any instance of the page not being filled in correctly. Over time I think this would both help COs learn the correct way to fill out a cache page and will improve the quality of the cache pages for everyone.

I include in this things like having parking coordinates or other waypoints written in the text but not added in the additional waypoints section (I already did a thread on this).

 

But I am also aware that this is not a popular idea and it would give the volunteer reviewers more headaches as they try to deal with COs who might get frustrated when their pages keep getting thrown back at them for corrections.

 

That's why I would not make a good reviewer (current reviewers please note ), as I would want everything on a cache page to be perfect before publication - including spelling, capitalisation and punctuation

[+MartyBartfast]

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

 

I disagree and on the hint for one of your caches you say

 

My skills at concealing things are a bit pants....Many thanks to ????? for finding this more secure spot in the same location

 

If you'd gone out and found a good selection of caches before placing this then you would have a better idea of what makes a good secure hiding place!

[team tisri]

But I am also aware that this is not a popular idea and it would give the volunteer reviewers more headaches as they try to deal with COs who might get frustrated when their pages keep getting thrown back at them for corrections.

 

Agreed... it's easy to come up with great ideas when someone else has to do the work. Although in fairness most caches don't seem to be "Not chosen" so that side shouldn't make a whole lot of extra work.

 

That's why I would not make a good reviewer (current reviewers please note ), as I would want everything on a cache page to be perfect before publication - including spelling, capitalisation and punctuation

 

Shoddy speling and punkchooashun irritate me but not to the extent I'd reject a cache page over it. As long as it's clear what the person is trying to say I can live with it.

 

Going back to the question of whether some finds should be required before hiding, a few caches I've found show a few signs of an inexperienced cacher. Where a clue for a multi is based on a sign, fire hydrant or similar it seems a less experienced cacher will spot the sign, mark the waypoint and post it. The more experienced cacher will notice other signs that match the description within the possible circle of inaccuracy and either choose a different clue or make some comment in the text so it's clear which one is required.

 

That said a less experienced cacher is more likely to make their caches easier to find by using calculations that enable a hunter to work out the values without having to visit every waypoint. I remember one I found where I could calculate the only possible values from the cache page, and another (years ago) that was something like a 10-stage multi with coordinates like N AB CD.EFG and the furthest parts of the loop were the points that gave A and B. Since it was based in central London it was pretty obvious it was N 51 something, so the furthest points weren't needed to locate the cache. These days it seems most cache hiders in my area will post the final coordinates as something like N51 38.ABC W 000 37.DEF

[+Mallah]

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here? Surely a bad cache is one that is either too hard to find or one that is so badly hidden it gets found by the next passing dog! After that the more the better until we start getting several in the same spot but I think that is covered by current reviewers anyway.

 

I have to admit that I was suprised that I didn't need to somehow prove my caching credentials before setting a cache but then again there is plenty of information on GC about how to do it so really there should be no problem with someone doing nothing else but setting caches and not finding any?

 

I set my first cache this year after logging err - 1 cache, although I've been registered here since 2006?. The info on this site seemed clear and the reviewer was very helpful on a couple of other points. It's quite remote but it's been found a few times already so I suspect it is providing a decent walk and find - which I think is the point.

 

Perhaps it might be useful/better for those setting caches to provide reviewers with photos of the cache, and its site as a confirmation that it is in a suitable location - after all a picture paints etc....

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here?

You have never come across a bad newbie cache? Really?

Surely a bad cache is one that is either too hard to find or one that is so badly hidden it gets found by the next passing dog! After that the more the better until we start getting several in the same spot but I think that is covered by current reviewers anyway.

No. In my book a bad cache is one that is not maintained. Mainly. Besides being put in a pointless place in an unsuitable container so everything is soaking wet. For months without attention.

And a cache that's found by the next passing dog is not a minor problem if you happen to own a coin that's been put in it by someone.

 

....but then again there is plenty of information on GC about how to do it so really there should be no problem with someone doing nothing else but setting caches and not finding any?

Have you read the getting started threads recently? Some people don't even read the sticky FAQ topic on the forum. Or the basic information on the "Hide a Cache" page. Some of the questions by people about to hide a new cache do make you wonder if they have given it any thought or done any reading on the subject at all. I suspect many haven't.

Perhaps it might be useful/better for those setting caches to provide reviewers with photos of the cache, and its site as a confirmation that it is in a suitable location - after all a picture paints etc....

I like the idea of the photo. But people have been known to change cache page text after publication - so would they move the hiding place too? Maybe.

 

The game is changing. I have spotted that and I am a relative newbie myself, less than a year in and 700 finds. With the growth in the use of smart phones I can see lots of people starting cheaply and easily and getting all enthusiastic before the enthusiasm falls away and caches become abandoned.

 

Growth is not a bad thing, nor is the use of cheap mobile phone technology. Access shouldn't be limited to those with the funds to buy a £200 dedicated GPS.

But rapid growth may require greater control to maintain the integrity of the sport for all..

 

When few people drove cars there was no driving licence, no speed limits, no road signs and everything was ok. But things changed once driving became a mass participation activity.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Lovejoy and Tinker

[+Palujia]

We thought long and hard about putting out our first series. It had to be more or less "cache and dash" as "she who must be obeyed" can't walk far (for maintenance) but with enough traditional boxes to encourage TBs etc. Had some initial teething troubles - one moved on advice from reviewer and all co-ordinates checked and re-checked as advised by a couple of early DNFs. Tried to make the Titles and clues either humerous and/or informative and have had no further trouble and finds logged regularly. We are perhaps lucky, living in rural Oxfordshire and can find nice, interesting locations for caches. Visiting the Outlaws near London we researched some local caches and decided not to bother that weekend as they were nearly all nanos in supermarket car parks or on road signs etc. So it must be difficult for some "townie" cachers to put out interesting caches. We always check logs before going out to try and find and, obviously, if there are a lot of negatives, or too many DNFs - we don't do that one. If everyone did this the really obviously "not very good ones" would wither through lack of interest - and if no logs for 6 months or so would probably die out

[+Bear and Ragged]

Snipped >< - and if no logs for 6 months or so would probably die out

But.

Some caches, that are 'stand alone' (not part of a numbers run) and 'stuck in the middle of nowhere' could be a great walk, with a terrific view, and something at the site "That you would never have known about, if it wasn't for Geocaching" may get very few visits, due to the 3 mile walk...

 

-How ever, it might have some terrific comments in the logs!

[+Chalky723]

Snipped >< - and if no logs for 6 months or so would probably die out

But.

Some caches, that are 'stand alone' (not part of a numbers run) and 'stuck in the middle of nowhere' could be a great walk, with a terrific view, and something at the site "That you would never have known about, if it wasn't for Geocaching" may get very few visits, due to the 3 mile walk...

 

-How ever, it might have some terrific comments in the logs!

 

Agreed, I'd rather do 1 cache in a remote, scenic location, that you can't find by the muddy "geo trail" leading to it than do 10 mediocre film cannisters leading me round a park to find another film cannister at the end.

 

After all, its not about the numbers

 

Chalky

[+Palujia]

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't making myself too clear. If the cache is in a remote spot, and the logs (how ever few) are good then, it surely will survive. My point was - reading the logs (as previous replies state- 35mm in muddy field next to rubbish tip etc) would put me off So if we avoid the obvious "not so good" ones then problem solved (hopefully) - Did you read the new thread about how many caches there are now in the UK

Plenty of good ones out there to find !!!

[+cooper troopers]

last night jumped in car to get a FTF local got to GZ it was in a housing estate of new houses very over looked and GZ looked to be in someones garden so we didn't go for it incase we where wrong but there was no metion of this in details as if there was we wouldn't have gone for it. went home to check all details that i had got where right logged a DNF and put reasons and hubby said how many have they found had a quick look to find found 1 hidden 1. i rest my case