Newbies placing caches

[ao318]

What about changing the "Hide and Seek" GC.com page so that the only options available to choose prior to having access to the "online form" are the "Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines", "How to Hide a Geocache", and the "Knowledge Books". This way they would be forced to at least open those pages, whether or not they read them is a different story, and have to scroll through them to the bottom of the page and then check a box that states "I have read the guidelines" which will then allow them to access the "online form".

 

I know that this would be one more step for those that have previously hid caches but it would at least be a good first step for those that have not. Just an idea.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Hiding is a lot harder than finding. .

 

I could not agree more.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Because it is such a beautiful day in Northern New Jersey , I decided to go out at lunch for a new cache closeby. Hidden by a newbie. Found same, not a bad hide, one that has been used before, coordinates good, in a nice spot--only problem the container. Metal candy tin. New one down the road (cause you just can't go for one) also a newbie hide. Good coordinates, nice spot, good hide , only problem container--one of those paper clip holders with the two clips sold by staples. Hiding is a lot harder than finding. But it boils down to coordinates being accurate, with a good hide in a decent spot with a proper container. It comes together with some experience.

 

Went looking for six caches over the weekend. (All depends on how you define newbie...)

1st: 67 finds 3 hides. Coords good. Hint good. MKH. Under one of those post office green boxes. Is that allowed?

2nd: 33 finds 3 hides. Leaning against a tree in the posion ivy. Not waterproof.

3rd: 32 finds 1 hide. Take out soup container in the water under the roots of a fallen tree. Contents damp. Oddly most finders complained about the wet hiding spot. Sorry, that does not qualify as Tupperware!

4th: 2285 finds 12 hides. Nice hide. Nice to see a Lock and Lock! Coords a bit soft for me, but hint made it easy.

5th: 100 finds 2 hides. Very interesting spot. Good coords and hint. Container seems to be holding up.

6th: DNF. 48 finds 3 hides. Don't know what to make of this one. Beautiful spot! Bridge over a stream. Fences to prevent you from going on to the private property on both sides. Hint indicates that you need to reach up. Cannot do that from the bridge. My guess (and I might be wrong) is that you need to climb over the fence. Or, the coords are trrible? Leaves one in the middle of the bridge.

Synopsis: 4 pretty areas. 1 nice container. 1 terrible placement, 1 questionable. Container quality mostly terrible.

[+narcissa]

Because it is such a beautiful day in Northern New Jersey , I decided to go out at lunch for a new cache closeby. Hidden by a newbie. Found same, not a bad hide, one that has been used before, coordinates good, in a nice spot--only problem the container. Metal candy tin. New one down the road (cause you just can't go for one) also a newbie hide. Good coordinates, nice spot, good hide , only problem container--one of those paper clip holders with the two clips sold by staples. Hiding is a lot harder than finding. But it boils down to coordinates being accurate, with a good hide in a decent spot with a proper container. It comes together with some experience.

 

Went looking for six caches over the weekend. (All depends on how you define newbie...)

1st: 67 finds 3 hides. Coords good. Hint good. MKH. Under one of those post office green boxes. Is that allowed?

2nd: 33 finds 3 hides. Leaning against a tree in the posion ivy. Not waterproof.

3rd: 32 finds 1 hide. Take out soup container in the water under the roots of a fallen tree. Contents damp. Oddly most finders complained about the wet hiding spot. Sorry, that does not qualify as Tupperware!

4th: 2285 finds 12 hides. Nice hide. Nice to see a Lock and Lock! Coords a bit soft for me, but hint made it easy.

5th: 100 finds 2 hides. Very interesting spot. Good coords and hint. Container seems to be holding up.

6th: DNF. 48 finds 3 hides. Don't know what to make of this one. Beautiful spot! Bridge over a stream. Fences to prevent you from going on to the private property on both sides. Hint indicates that you need to reach up. Cannot do that from the bridge. My guess (and I might be wrong) is that you need to climb over the fence. Or, the coords are trrible? Leaves one in the middle of the bridge.

Synopsis: 4 pretty areas. 1 nice container. 1 terrible placement, 1 questionable. Container quality mostly terrible.

 

Interesting little break down. In my experience, container quality is the number one thing that new cachers fail at. And they tend to learn their lesson quickly through remarks by finders, or because of the maintenance required on bad containers.

[+Dgwphotos]

 

Many cachers have never looked at the guidelines, and this would be a way to get them to do it. I contacted a newer cacher about a cache that was placed directly on school property, and the reply was, "I had no idea they weren't allowed at schools..."

 

If one of the questions was "Are caches allowed on or near school property," that cache probably wouldn't have been placed.

 

I'm suprised the reviewer would even approve a school cache. I tried once to hide one, not realizing that was off limits, and got a note from the reviewer who would not approve it. I relocated it to another spot and had it approved.

[+Dgwphotos]

KennelBarb, it seems to be the exact opposite where I live. the people with all the finds won't maintain their own caches, thus causing us "newbies" to have to click the "needs maintenance" or "needs archived" box, thus causing the local people with even more finds to berate us for creating problems for the people that won't maintain their caches. A certain percentage of the population will be murderers. a certain percentage won't hide their caches correctly, a certain percenatage won't maintain their caches. it has nothing to do with their number of finds. I'm certain that you've done something wrong in your life, just as I have, but I'm not blaming you for it, so please stop blaming the "newbies" because you couldn't find their cache....... you did log a DNF, didn'tyou?

 

Luckily I knew one of the newbies who was hiding caches around here.

 

She didn't have a car nor GPS, so I went and picked her up and we went around to her placed caches and got good coordinates on them.

 

One was off 120 feet (placed with her I-phone). I went searching for each of them first (because I had not found them all yet, she had just gotten numerous complaints on them) and on one she had to resort to telling me "hotter" and "colder" because the coords were so far from the actual cache.

 

I got coords for her with my GPS. She has continued to cache, so, like the majority of people who go looking for more than a few, she has now gotten a real GPS.

 

PS. I love the idea of cachers taking a test first before placing a cache.

One of the questions must be: DO YOU HAVE A GPS??

 

I think it would help new hiders a lot to have a experienced, responsible mentor to guide them when hiding for the first time.

[+Azisbest]

Again, this is not brain surgery. New folks to geocaching can and should hide too. Look at the co's history and don't seek if you dont like his or her's qualifications. Quit pretending hiding a cache is a lost art or something. Jeez I don't like looking for one film cannister in a hollowed out rock among a truckful of rocks either, but some people do. Quit sniveling.

[+narcissa]

Again, this is not brain surgery. New folks to geocaching can and should hide too. Look at the co's history and don't seek if you dont like his or her's qualifications. Quit pretending hiding a cache is a lost art or something. Jeez I don't like looking for one film cannister in a hollowed out rock among a truckful of rocks either, but some people do. Quit sniveling.

 

A lame hide is one thing, but there are some caches that put the entire game at risk, i.e. caches hidden on private property without permission, or caches that causes property damage. Asking that a cache owner have some rudimentary knowledge of acceptable cache hiding practices isn't snivelling. Your post, on the other hand...

[+Chokecherry]

KennelBarb, it seems to be the exact opposite where I live. the people with all the finds won't maintain their own caches, thus causing us "newbies" to have to click the "needs maintenance" or "needs archived" box, thus causing the local people with even more finds to berate us for creating problems for the people that won't maintain their caches. A certain percentage of the population will be murderers. a certain percentage won't hide their caches correctly, a certain percenatage won't maintain their caches. it has nothing to do with their number of finds. I'm certain that you've done something wrong in your life, just as I have, but I'm not blaming you for it, so please stop blaming the "newbies" because you couldn't find their cache....... you did log a DNF, didn'tyou?

 

Luckily I knew one of the newbies who was hiding caches around here.

 

She didn't have a car nor GPS, so I went and picked her up and we went around to her placed caches and got good coordinates on them.

 

One was off 120 feet (placed with her I-phone). I went searching for each of them first (because I had not found them all yet, she had just gotten numerous complaints on them) and on one she had to resort to telling me "hotter" and "colder" because the coords were so far from the actual cache.

 

I got coords for her with my GPS. She has continued to cache, so, like the majority of people who go looking for more than a few, she has now gotten a real GPS.

 

PS. I love the idea of cachers taking a test first before placing a cache.

One of the questions must be: DO YOU HAVE A GPS??

 

I think it would help new hiders a lot to have a experienced, responsible mentor to guide them when hiding for the first time.

 

An online mentor would be great. In areas of low cache and cacher density then it becomes a problem quickly to find a mentor. And not everyone is that social. I'm a supporter of the mentor idea though. If all the people who are upset about the new people hiding took all that effort and put into guiding their local new people there would probably be a lot less to complain about.

[+Ecylram]

Hiding is a lot harder than finding. .

I could not agree more.

If it's done 'right', that's very true. There are many caches where it seems the CO put no thought into the hide.

 

We've taken our time before placing our first hide (650+ finds) and hope to have our first go active within about a week. It took time finding a quality location that was available (high saturation area), check with reviewer to confirm, visit multiple times to determine what kind of cache would fit for the area. Then we ordered an appropriate container, purchased camouflage materials and studied how to do the camouflage. Now we are writing the story for the description and adding a photo and formatting to the story/description.

 

Now we are collecting some starting swag, making a handmade logbook and a handmade FTF coin. It's taking time and we're loving the process. When it goes live we'll have a cache to be proud of. (Except for worrying that someone will put one in out location first.)

 

If we had done our first cache after only a few finds it probably would have been unremarkable.

[+The Blorenges]

 

...Now we are collecting some starting swag, making a handmade logbook and a handmade FTF coin. It's taking time and we're loving the process. When it goes live we'll have a cache to be proud of. (Except for worrying that someone will put one in out location first.)

 

 

If you haven't already done so, create your skeleton cache page now with the co-ords as accurate as you can and just add brief description details. Uncheck the box "Yes, this listing is active..."

 

It won't go through to the reviewer for review and publication but if anyone else creates a cache page after yours (i.e. with a later GC number) and sends it for publication before yours is finished the reviewer will be able to see that yours is already in the pipeline. Generally speaking, the earlier GC number gets the location.

 

It sounds like it will be a lovely cache.

 

MrsB

[+Azisbest]

Again, this is not brain surgery. New folks to geocaching can and should hide too. Look at the co's history and don't seek if you dont like his or her's qualifications. Quit pretending hiding a cache is a lost art or something. Jeez I don't like looking for one film cannister in a hollowed out rock among a truckful of rocks either, but some people do. Quit sniveling.

 

A lame hide is one thing, but there are some caches that put the entire game at risk, i.e. caches hidden on private property without permission, or caches that causes property damage. Asking that a cache owner have some rudimentary knowledge of acceptable cache hiding practices isn't snivelling. Your post, on the other hand...

 

My post might have been a diatribe, but hardly a snivel. The original post was a rant about bad coordinates vis a vis newbies, not illegal hides. I thought I might stay with the original topic. Of course one must follow the rules, but even a neophyte can read the rules and follow them.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Can we just pin this topic to the top of the forums as it comes up on a weekly basis?

[+Trucker Lee]

No guidelines will ever improve the ingenuity of a hide or the deviousness of the hider. And I imagine that there will always be those who keep score or "cache for the numbers" instead of caching for relaxation or just to have fun. Face it, there will always be anal type As in every sport or profession. (granted, sometimes that can be good). Let's face it, there is not a true way to grade the hide except by eyeballing the map to see if it is in a shopping center parking lot or a park. Then decide.

[+Ecylram]

 

...Now we are collecting some starting swag, making a handmade logbook and a handmade FTF coin. It's taking time and we're loving the process. When it goes live we'll have a cache to be proud of. (Except for worrying that someone will put one in out location first.)

 

 

If you haven't already done so, create your skeleton cache page now with the co-ords as accurate as you can and just add brief description details. Uncheck the box "Yes, this listing is active..."

 

It won't go through to the reviewer for review and publication but if anyone else creates a cache page after yours (i.e. with a later GC number) and sends it for publication before yours is finished the reviewer will be able to see that yours is already in the pipeline. Generally speaking, the earlier GC number gets the location.

 

It sounds like it will be a lovely cache.

 

MrsB

Thanks for the tip. We have done that but it was our understanding that the reviewers won't know the existence of the cache until it is made active. That would be good news if it's true.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Ecylram

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

Thanks for the tip. We have done that but it was our understanding that the reviewers won't know the existence of the cache until it is made active. That would be good news if it's true.

Mrs B is right (Mrs B is always right and always speaks types wise words). Once you have a GC number assigned, your spot is reserved for you (everything within 0.1 miles of your coordinates) and no one else can place a cache there without a reviewer first contacting you to ask if you are going ahead with your hide.

They are unlikely to contact you unless you have had the spot reserved for a while.

[+narcissa]

Again, this is not brain surgery. New folks to geocaching can and should hide too. Look at the co's history and don't seek if you dont like his or her's qualifications. Quit pretending hiding a cache is a lost art or something. Jeez I don't like looking for one film cannister in a hollowed out rock among a truckful of rocks either, but some people do. Quit sniveling.

 

A lame hide is one thing, but there are some caches that put the entire game at risk, i.e. caches hidden on private property without permission, or caches that causes property damage. Asking that a cache owner have some rudimentary knowledge of acceptable cache hiding practices isn't snivelling. Your post, on the other hand...

 

My post might have been a diatribe, but hardly a snivel. The original post was a rant about bad coordinates vis a vis newbies, not illegal hides. I thought I might stay with the original topic. Of course one must follow the rules, but even a neophyte can read the rules and follow them.

 

Incorrect or soft coordinates aren't just a nuisance. There is always some amount of trampling and other assorted damage at the site of acache, and when multiple cachers have to increase their search radius because of bad coordinates, a larger area gets damaged.

 

A neophyte *can* read the rules, but many of them don't. Putting up a couple of road blocks that make it more difficult for new cachers to ignore the rules could improve things a bit without placing limitations based on number of hides.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Thanks for the tip. We have done that but it was our understanding that the reviewers won't know the existence of the cache until it is made active. That would be good news if it's true.

Mrs B is right (Mrs B is always right and always speaks types wise words). Once you have a GC number assigned, your spot is reserved for you (everything within 0.1 miles of your coordinates) and no one else can place a cache there without a reviewer first contacting you to ask if you are going ahead with your hide.

They are unlikely to contact you unless you have had the spot reserved for a while.

 

Not that I don't believe you or Mrs. B, but I'd like to see this confirmed by a reviewer. As far as I can tell, I can create a new cache listing and put it almost anything for the published coordinates and leave the "this cache is not active" box unchecked, then change the published coordinates and resubmit, then change them again, and again, but once the "this cache is active" box is checked only then will a reviewer determine if there are proximity issues. If I never check the "this cache is active" box I doubt that the coordinates currently specified for the published coordinates will remain reserved forever.

 

Again, I don't think I've ever seen a definitive answer for this from a reviewer and if there has been an answer posted somewhere it should probably be in the official knowledge books somewhere.

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

Not that I don't believe you or Mrs. B, but I'd like to see this confirmed by a reviewer. As far as I can tell, I can create a new cache listing and put it almost anything for the published coordinates and leave the "this cache is not active" box unchecked, then change the published coordinates and resubmit, then change them again, and again, but once the "this cache is active" box is checked only then will a reviewer determine if there are proximity issues. If I never check the "this cache is active" box I doubt that the coordinates currently specified for the published coordinates will remain reserved forever.

 

Again, I don't think I've ever seen a definitive answer for this from a reviewer and if there has been an answer posted somewhere it should probably be in the official knowledge books somewhere.

You have doubted the word of MrsB

 

 

I believe MrsB has a direct line to one of the reviewers

 

As I understand it, the coordinates on an unactivated cache page get 'logged' in the system and will flash up on the reviewer's systems when checking proximity.

If you change the coords on an inactive cache page, they will update in the proximity system.

 

I too would like to know exactly how it works, but I believe that is the effect

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

You have doubted the word of MrsB

 

 

Don't look know, but Mr B is walking up the driveway and he looks ticked off.

[+Azisbest]

Again, this is not brain surgery. New folks to geocaching can and should hide too. Look at the co's history and don't seek if you dont like his or her's qualifications. Quit pretending hiding a cache is a lost art or something. Jeez I don't like looking for one film cannister in a hollowed out rock among a truckful of rocks either, but some people do. Quit sniveling.

 

A lame hide is one thing, but there are some caches that put the entire game at risk, i.e. caches hidden on private property without permission, or caches that causes property damage. Asking that a cache owner have some rudimentary knowledge of acceptable cache hiding practices isn't snivelling. Your post, on the other hand...

 

My post might have been a diatribe, but hardly a snivel. The original post was a rant about bad coordinates vis a vis newbies, not illegal hides. I thought I might stay with the original topic. Of course one must follow the rules, but even a neophyte can read the rules and follow them.

 

Incorrect or soft coordinates aren't just a nuisance. There is always some amount of trampling and other assorted damage at the site of acache, and when multiple cachers have to increase their search radius because of bad coordinates, a larger area gets damaged.

 

A neophyte *can* read the rules, but many of them don't. Putting up a couple of road blocks that make it more difficult for new cachers to ignore the rules could improve things a bit without placing limitations based on number of hides.

 

Incorrect or soft coordinates are a very legitimate issue, a peeve of mine as well. But bad cords are put out there just as often by experienced cachers, and the op was talking about lame hides anyway. And as I stated I was trying to stay on topic. Whether a person. new or experienced. reads the rules we have no control over. However, they are there for their perusal.

[+niraD]

Whether a person. new or experienced. reads the rules we have no control over.

True, but a simple quiz on the guidelines could ensure that they at least understand some of the basics before listing a cache.

[+Scooter Rider]

There is one fly in the ointment with a test.

 

Ask ten people here what the rule/ guidelines mean you will get ten different answers.

 

Maybe we should all take the test that way we can all be on equal footing.

 

It wont put and end to the augments but it will put us on equal footing.

[+twoodward15]

Sure would be nice if the OP would actually get involved in their own thread instead of doing a type and run. Almost feels like she's trolling a bit.........

[+niraD]

Ask ten people here what the rule/ guidelines mean you will get ten different answers.

Sure, there are places where the guidelines are ambiguous (or at least, where at lot of people interpret them incorrectly ). But there are plenty of key points that are pretty clear, and those are the key points that the quiz should focus on:

 

A geocache uses a 16oz (500ml) container. The appropriate size is:

a. micro

b. small

c. regular

d. large

 

A geocache uses a container that is smaller than 1oz (30ml). The appropriate size is:

a. micro

b. small

c. regular

d. large

 

A traditional geocache must have all of the following, EXCEPT:

a. a container

b. a log book or log sheet

c. trade items (swag)

d. the coordinates of the exact location of the cache

 

You as the owner of the cache must obtain the coordinates:

a. by visiting the site and using a GPS receiver

b. with online aerial/satellite images, such as on Google Maps

c. with detailed topographic maps

d. any of the above

 

And so on...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There is one fly in the ointment with a test.

 

Ask ten people here what the rule/ guidelines mean you will get ten different answers.

 

Maybe, but the point of the test isn't to get all the answers correct. The point is to make sure that those submitting a cache to be published have read and understand the guidelines. Someone could take the test several times before getting enough correct answer, but hopefully that would mean in doing so they learned what the correct answer (as established by those that write the test) is supposed to be.

 

If for example, you answered 10 questions on a quiz and for each of the incorrect answers it provided not only the correct answer but the reasoning behind the guideline, even if you got the answer wrong you'd come away with an explanation of the guideline as it was intended by Groundspeak.

 

One of the most common guidelines that seems to get all sorts of interpretations is the "No Buried Caches". Many seem intent on coming up with a definition of buried our "pointy object" that will allow them to have a cache published that they fail to understand the purpose of the guideline. The purpose isn't to prevent hiders and seeker from using pointy objects. It's to prevent geocachers from engaging in behavior (creating holes in the ground that didn't exist prior to the placement of a geocache) that land managers will discover. If a land manager discovers a hole in the ground on property they manage they're not going to care if it was made using a shovel or a bowling ball. If there is a geocache nearby it only perpetuates the myth that geocaching is about hiding and finding buried treasure and makes it unlikely that they're going to allow future geocaches placed on the land that they manage.

[+Scooter Rider]

Putting the meanings and or intent of the rules / guideline aside .

 

If a test showed up tomorrow how many here would be willing to take it.?

[+Ecylram]

Putting the meanings and or intent of the rules / guideline aside .

 

If a test showed up tomorrow how many here would be willing to take it.?

I'd take it and I bet most of the people here would pass with flying colors.

[+Chokecherry]

You don't need to get that deep in the test where the meaning behind the guidelines need to be addressed. Simple stuff is probably adequate. Do you need permission to hide a cache on private property. Aside from arguing what is/isn't actually private property it should be a fairly simple question. Which is a micro cache? Who must maintain the caches that are put out? How must coordinates be obtained?

 

I wouldn't care if I had to answer some questions before posting a cache.

[+Don_J]

Hiding is a lot harder than finding. .

 

I could not agree more.

 

Wow!

I've been away for a couple of days, but this really stands out.

It takes nothing at all to place a magnetic nano on a wall mounted light, outside the the front entrance to a popular restaurant. On the other hand, me, as the hider, has to search. Searching in an area that draws attention to me is a lot harder.

[+Don_J]

Can we just pin this topic to the top of the forums as it comes up on a weekly basis?

 

Groundspeak has no official opinion this. All we have is hundreds of opinions by it's user, with no clear direction. Pinning it would be wrong.

[+Don_J]

 

If for example, you answered 10 questions on a quiz and for each of the incorrect answers it provided not only the correct answer but the reasoning behind the guideline, even if you got the answer wrong you'd come away with an explanation of the guideline as it was intended by Groundspeak.

 

 

I hate tests

 

But, I was involved in something very similar to this. As the Safety coordinator of a local unit that employed 90, in five different locations, and was part of a world wide organization with over 300,000 employees, I was presented with a new program for testing me, and the employees that depended on me, being safe.

 

The tests were all computer based. They involved watching a video. Afterwords, you took a multiple choice test of 10 to 15 questions. If you failed on a single question, you failed, and were required to watch the video again, and take the test again.

 

When I did my first test and got 9 of 10, and failed, I was not happy, but after watching the video the second time, I was able to see several key items that I had missed. I think that this is a great method for training. I personally learned a lot though this process.

 

Do I want to see this on GC? NO.

 

What I would like to see is, when a cacher with no hides,attempts to submit, that they see a simple disclaimer screen advising them of the guidlines.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Don_J

[+Chokecherry]

There already is a simple disclaimer advising them of the guidelines. Most people just check the box stating they read the guidelines and move on with their day whether or not they actually read them.

[+narcissa]

Putting the meanings and or intent of the rules / guideline aside .

 

If a test showed up tomorrow how many here would be willing to take it.?

 

I would. I like tests.

[+Don_J]

 

I wouldn't care if I had to answer some questions before posting a cache.

 

You have not placed a cache.

I have placed about 160.

 

Adding restrictions on the web site that makes it harder to submit my cache, In My Opinion, would kill the game.

...

[+dfx]

the problem isn't people with low find counts putting out their first cache. the problem is people with low hide counts putting out their first cache.

Edited November 28, 2010 by dfx

[+Georgia Lookers]

Here's what I just posted on the Feedback forum:

 

"Here's my idea. Both new/old hands can do a bad/good job of hiding caches. Passing a test is not going to solve that problem. Somebody can pass the test and still do a consistently bad job of placing caches.

 

Here is an alternate idea. Why not let the geocachers themselves rate how a cache is on a scale of 1 to 5? When I shop at any online store, the first thing I do is see how the users rate the product. If 400 people have given a product 4.7 stars, I know that I am going to get a quality product. It could work exactly the same way for caches. Each cache could have a cumulative rating of how people like the cache and each geocacher would have a cumulative rating of how people have rated their individual caches.

 

This will have the added benefit of real-time assessment of caches. When a new cache is placed and has lots of fun stuff, it will probably get high marks. As it ages, the ratings will decline if the placer does not do a good job of maintaining it and it fills with old golf balls.

 

This would be so helpful in planning caching trips so that we don't drive 200 miles and find out that all the caches are "micros in the woods" or ammo cans filled with McJunk that haven't been maintained in a year. That would be far more useful in my opinion than a test that would really tell you nothing.

 

You might also rate it on different categories: safety, quality of the hide (LPC or carefully crafted camouflage?), quality of the cache (frequently maintained by the user with lots of fun goodies for kids or stuffed full of used McDonalds crap). Take it a step further -- let the users rate the difficulty and terrain instead of relying on what one individual person thinks.

 

Yes, everyone has different opinions on what makes an "ideal" cache but it would average out over time. And if a cacher has spent time and effort to put up quality caches, they will get more visitors as their online reputation grows. Bad placers will find that no one bothers to visit their caches.

 

One more thought...geocachers should be able to point out rules violations...placed on private property, too close to an existing cache, etc. Three strikes in the same violation category by three different users and the cache is auto-archived until the problem is corrected and verified by the CO."

 

Thoughts?

Edited November 28, 2010 by Georgia Lookers

[+narcissa]

Here's what I just posted on the Feedback forum:

 

"Here's my idea. Both new/old hands can do a bad/good job of hiding caches. Passing a test is not going to solve that problem. Somebody can pass the test and still do a consistently bad job of placing caches.

 

Here is an alternate idea. Why not let the geocachers themselves rate how a cache is on a scale of 1 to 5? When I shop at any online store, the first thing I do is see how the users rate the product. If 400 people have given a product 4.7 stars, I know that I am going to get a quality product. It could work exactly the same way for caches. Each cache could have a cumulative rating of how people like the cache and each geocacher would have a cumulative rating of how people have rated their individual caches.

 

This will have the added benefit of real-time assessment of caches. When a new cache is placed and has lots of fun stuff, it will probably get high marks. As it ages, the ratings will decline if the placer does not do a good job of maintaining it and it fills with old golf balls.

 

This would be so helpful in planning caching trips so that we don't drive 200 miles and find out that all the caches are "micros in the woods" or ammo cans filled with McJunk that haven't been maintained in a year. That would be far more useful in my opinion than a test that would really tell you nothing.

 

You might also rate it on different categories: safety, quality of the hide (LPC or carefully crafted camouflage?), quality of the cache (frequently maintained by the user with lots of fun goodies for kids or stuffed full of used McDonalds crap). Take it a step further -- let the users rate the difficulty and terrain instead of relying on what one individual person thinks.

 

Yes, everyone has different opinions on what makes an "ideal" cache but it would average out over time. And if a cacher has spent time and effort to put up quality caches, they will get more visitors as their online reputation grows. Bad placers will find that no one bothers to visit their caches.

 

One more thought...geocachers should be able to point out rules violations...placed on private property, too close to an existing cache, etc. Three strikes in the same violation category by three different users and the cache is auto-archived until the problem is corrected and verified by the CO."

 

Thoughts?

 

I don't put any "swag" into my geocaches. I do maintenance to make sure my caches are in place, with logs that are dry and have room to write in. Does that make me a bad cache owner? I don't think so.

[+Chokecherry]

I like swag junk or not.... I don't think the owners of caches should be responsible to refill their caches full of stuff for people to take but I don't think that a cache full of what one determined to be junk should be rated any lower.

[+Georgia Lookers]

Narcissa,

 

I don't put any "swag" into my geocaches. I do maintenance to make sure my caches are in place, with logs that are dry and have room to write in. Does that make me a bad cache owner? I don't think so.

 

Not in the least. That's why a "kid-friendly" category would be a good thing to have a category for. There can be many great caches that are cleverly constructed and placed (which would also have categories) with nothing in them that the older cachers that don't care about swag (like myself) could focus on. But when I am with my 10 year old, those are the caches that I want to look for.

 

If there is a "quality of cache" category, I'm sure you would get great marks.

 

That's why categories would be ideal.

 

Regards...Chris

Edited November 28, 2010 by Georgia Lookers

[+DarkZen]

Not that I don't believe you or Mrs. B, but I'd like to see this confirmed by a reviewer. As far as I can tell, I can create a new cache listing and put it almost anything for the published coordinates and leave the "this cache is not active" box unchecked, then change the published coordinates and resubmit, then change them again, and again, but once the "this cache is active" box is checked only then will a reviewer determine if there are proximity issues. If I never check the "this cache is active" box I doubt that the coordinates currently specified for the published coordinates will remain reserved forever.

Not a reviewer but I'll share my experiences with you. There have two occasions where I have submitted caches for review that were blocked by a previous (but unpublished) cache submission. The reviewer explained he would give the other cacher a couple of weeks to finish their submission. In one case the other cache was eventually published. In the other case I contacted the reviewer after the allotted time. The reviewer archived the other cache and published mine. In another instance I had created a cache but did not check the "this cache is active" box. For forgotten reasons, I let this cache sit this way for a while. After a time I was contacted concerning my intentions as I was blocking another cache. So I'm guessing you do get first crack at an area if you have a 'lower' GC#. Regarding changing posted coordinates I assume you only have the area locked as they are posted.

 

BTW, any caches of mine that get turned down (such as being blocked by a puzzle final, for example) get their coords changed to the middle of the ocean so I can 'recycle' the cache page rather than archive it.

 

Again, I don't think I've ever seen a definitive answer for this from a reviewer and if there has been an answer posted somewhere it should probably be in the official knowledge books somewhere.

Agreed.

[+niraD]

That's why a "kid-friendly" category would be a good thing to have a category for. There can be many great caches that are cleverly constructed and placed (which would also have categories) with nothing in them that the older cachers that don't care about swag (like myself) could focus on. But when I am with my 10 year old, those are the caches that I want to look for.

Do you interpret the "Recommended for kids" attribute as an indication that the container is full of kid-friendly trade items? I interpret the "Recommended for kids" attribute as an indication that the location is a good place for those geocaching with kids. Expecting a cache owner to keep the container full of kid-friendly trade items seems rather unrealistic to me.

 

If there is a "quality of cache" category, I'm sure you would get great marks.

 

That's why categories would be ideal.

Any rating/feedback system needs to be quick and simple, otherwise people won't use it, or they'll use it but the data collected will be junk. I question the usefulness of a single 1-5 star rating. The data collected from multiple 1-5 star category ratings would be even less useful. People just won't take the time to fill in multiple category ratings in a thoughtful, meaningful way.

 

But ultimately, to be useful, such a system needs to correlate my preferences with those of others, and show me caches that were enjoyed by people with similar preferences to my own. For example, I enjoy caches with 4-star camouflage, caches that emphasize public art, and puzzle caches with great "Aha!" moments (even if the hide itself is routine). I don't care which caches are enjoyed by a mom looking for caches with "treasure" for her kids, or by a 4x4/scuba/climbing enthusiast who enjoys only 5-star terrain, or by someone who usually does numbers runs. The system needs to show me caches that were enjoyed by people who like the kinds of caches that I like, or it will be useless to me.

[+FloridaFour]

I think I'm more annoyed with the very experienced cachers who have hundreds of lame nano hides every 520 feet. Boring as all get-out, IMO.

 

I would like that the cacher at least understands travel bugs and coin exchanging before they place a cache and that they use a nice, sturdy container and in a relatively safe place. (for the cacher and the container) Other than that, I try to cache in places I find interesting, so at least all is not for naught, if a cache is lame or missing.

[+FloridaFour]

Georgia Lookers,

I like the idea of a general cache rating system, but what I have seen on a few state cache forums is where a collection of different categories of favorite caches are made. Top 25 "cool container caches", top 25 "most unique hides, top 25 "great location" caches, etc. Take a look at the forum for Pacific Northwest and you'll see some lists at the top of their forum. I haven't seen lists like that for all of the states, but they did a good job on it. I wish there was a list compiled like this for each state and territory, etc.

[+narcissa]

Not in the least. That's why a "kid-friendly" category would be a good thing to have a category for. There can be many great caches that are cleverly constructed and placed (which would also have categories) with nothing in them that the older cachers that don't care about swag (like myself) could focus on. But when I am with my 10 year old, those are the caches that I want to look for.

 

If there is a "quality of cache" category, I'm sure you would get great marks.

 

That's why categories would be ideal.

 

Regards...Chris

 

My idea of "kid-friendly" means that it's a pretty easy walk in a nice place with interesting things to look at. I've been geocaching with my four-year-old since he was an infant. He doesn't seem to care what, if any, "swag" is in a geocache, but he loves being outside. A "kid-friendly" ranking that indicates a cache has toys in it would be useless to me.

 

So who defines these ranking "categories?" If they don't have strict definitions, then everybody is ranking based on their own perception, which makes them useless. If they have strict definitions, they will become too narrow to be useful. Seems a hopeless business.

[+L0ne.R]

Why not let the geocachers themselves rate how a cache is on a scale of 1 to 5?

 

You might enjoy GCVote. I like it a lot. The more I use it, the more I like it. I just wish more people would use GCVote. I am hoping that GS implements something like it, so that it's in-house, filterable and downloadable via PQs.

[+kennelbarb]

KennelBarb, it seems to be the exact opposite where I live. the people with all the finds won't maintain their own caches, thus causing us "newbies" to have to click the "needs maintenance" or "needs archived" box, thus causing the local people with even more finds to berate us for creating problems for the people that won't maintain their caches. A certain percentage of the population will be murderers. a certain percentage won't hide their caches correctly, a certain percenatage won't maintain their caches. it has nothing to do with their number of finds. I'm certain that you've done something wrong in your life, just as I have, but I'm not blaming you for it, so please stop blaming the "newbies" because you couldn't find their cache....... you did log a DNF, didn'tyou?

 

Yes I did log a DNF..so did the cacher before me and the 4 cachers after me. It's been almost 2 weeks and this local cache has NOT been found.

[+kpanko]

Adding restrictions on the web site that makes it harder to submit my cache, In My Opinion, would kill the game.

I am assuming that this quiz would only be taken once, and then you would get your "hider's license" and not have to take it again. That would be okay.

 

Are you assuming that, in order to hide 160 caches, the quiz must be taken 160 times? That does sound like a pain in the rear end.

[+twoodward15]

So you hit the NM or NA button after that, right?

[+calamitystrange]

*whew* you guys are so serious! i thought geocaching was supposed to be a fun game.

 

i am a newbie. i have some hides. i have one hide that barely anyone in my area has found and more people are watching than have DNF'd (obviously they DNF'd!)

 

i would imagine, although no one has said so yet, that some of the more experienced cachers in the area that have looked and not found it- think it's a 'bad hide'. there are two things that make this cache hard to find. 1. there is no cell reception and VERY bad GPS signal where it is located. (nothing i can do about that) 2. it is a micro hidden in VERY good camo. because i am new-ish, and therefore not predictable yet, they just don't know what to look for. a couple of people i know personally have found it, because they were super persistent (4 times to the site) and because i assured them it was there. then no one else found it for awhile, so i went out to check on it. yes, there it was, but even i had a hard time finding it. like i said excellent camo! finally another person recently found it and she logged precisely what needed to be said "you can totally see it if you are looking at the right place from the right direction, but otherwise -- no way!" since then, i placed three more caches nearby- sort of leading to this area, to try and entice folks to come back out and have another go.

 

is a cache that is "too hard to find" a "bad cache"? when it comes to this activity- i understand the frustration of DNF-ing.

i also understand the accomplishment of then finding a previous DNF because i was dadgum well determined to find it.