Jump to content

The evolution of geocaching


Recommended Posts

.

 

Was planning a trip to NH this weekend, and out of curiosity took a look to see if there were any good caches in the area I was heading to. I saw nothing that stood out, maybe only a few worth looking at among the closest 100 to my destination. Sad to see but certainly not surprised.

 

For one, GC.com guidelines and practices essentially promote the placement of average-to-crappy-caches. The micro on a guardrail will pass muster quickly but the creative cache designed to offer a unique experience may never actually see the light of day. There is more work involved in placing and maintaining a good cache and management makes no effort to mitigate that challenge or respect the effort of those who invest the extra time.

 

It is understandable that GC.com is more concerned with money than quality. But what about the geocaching community itself? Why so little interest in quality?

 

Among the closest 100 caches to my destination, not so much as one multi cache, not a single one. Back home in my area, there has not been a nicely planned multi cache published within my closest 100 caches in a few years. In fact, those cachers once known for placing the best caches in my area are now all effectively retired from cache placement. A quick look at the profile of a typical cacher reveals the larger problem.

 

The thoughtful geocacher will take time to plot a route, mark coordinates and place stages as needed along the way to lead people on a nice hike through the woods. A typical geocacher, will drop a container somewhere, maybe in the woods or maybe not, mark the coordinates, and call it a day.

 

The thoughtful geocacher will invest some money to buy nice stash and hide a neatly organized, well-placed cache. A typical geocacher, will plunder the nice stash, leave the contents in a heap, and won’t replace the cache as carefully as it was hidden.

 

A thoughtful geocacher will post a find or DNF log, or a note to inform the community and, most importantly, the cache owner, that you visited the site. A typical geocacher plays by whatever rules he makes for himself, without regard for the community or cache owner, and may or may not post a log online indicating what happened when he/she visited the site.

 

Those who were here in the beginning can see the difference and “progress” has not been kind. The changes may be good for business if you own a piece of the frog, but they have not been good for the hobby/sport. It is time to create a new logo for GC.com to incorporate a lamppost and a guardrail, while striking away the multi-cache icon in favor of a new icon that denotes, “One-Minute Cache.” Welcome to the new evolution of geocaching!

 

.

Link to comment

I remember being a young cop and having the old guys look at me (us) and say how much the job had changed over the years and as I got older it continued to change. What we have here is evolution. Every activity that I have participated in over the decades changes over time. It is just the way it is. There will always be those that are ready to curmudgeonly comment about how the change is for the worst. You have choices one of them being after looking at a pq for an area don't go there or don't cache when you get there.

 

Think about this. If the current caching community didn't like these kind of caches they wouldn't go find them and they would be phased out by themselves. The fact that they continue to exist shows they are welcome.

 

Things change and people have to change with it or find something else to do that will not cause them angst when they find that it has moved on.

Link to comment

Wait so you want a new cache icon for P&G's wouldn't that promote them more???

 

Look I've been doing this since Christmas 2008 so I'm relatively new and came in after/during micro proliferation (depends on where you're located). I do have a good number of micros (they are cheaper and easier to maintain), but I also have quality caches that took thought. I don't have the ability for creative containers so I focus on location and cache page.

 

I think it depends a lot on your local caching community. I know where there is one hider who goes above and beyond will usually eventually draw other hiders to start going above and beyond. One of my favorite places to cache is Charlotte due to the diversity and creativity in a lot of the hides. Locally we are starting to push for this and I think by next year we will a lot more great caches.

Link to comment

.

 

Was planning a trip to NH this weekend, and out of curiosity took a look to see if there were any good caches in the area I was heading to. I saw nothing that stood out, maybe only a few worth looking at among the closest 100 to my destination. Sad to see but certainly not surprised.

 

For one, GC.com guidelines and practices essentially promote the placement of average-to-crappy-caches. The micro on a guardrail will pass muster quickly but the creative cache designed to offer a unique experience may never actually see the light of day. There is more work involved in placing and maintaining a good cache and management makes no effort to mitigate that challenge or respect the effort of those who invest the extra time.

 

It is understandable that GC.com is more concerned with money than quality. But what about the geocaching community itself? Why so little interest in quality?

 

Among the closest 100 caches to my destination, not so much as one multi cache, not a single one. Back home in my area, there has not been a nicely planned multi cache published within my closest 100 caches in a few years. In fact, those cachers once known for placing the best caches in my area are now all effectively retired from cache placement. A quick look at the profile of a typical cacher reveals the larger problem.

 

The thoughtful geocacher will take time to plot a route, mark coordinates and place stages as needed along the way to lead people on a nice hike through the woods. A typical geocacher, will drop a container somewhere, maybe in the woods or maybe not, mark the coordinates, and call it a day.

 

The thoughtful geocacher will invest some money to buy nice stash and hide a neatly organized, well-placed cache. A typical geocacher, will plunder the nice stash, leave the contents in a heap, and won’t replace the cache as carefully as it was hidden.

 

A thoughtful geocacher will post a find or DNF log, or a note to inform the community and, most importantly, the cache owner, that you visited the site. A typical geocacher plays by whatever rules he makes for himself, without regard for the community or cache owner, and may or may not post a log online indicating what happened when he/she visited the site.

 

Those who were here in the beginning can see the difference and “progress” has not been kind. The changes may be good for business if you own a piece of the frog, but they have not been good for the hobby/sport. It is time to create a new logo for GC.com to incorporate a lamppost and a guardrail, while striking away the multi-cache icon in favor of a new icon that denotes, “One-Minute Cache.” Welcome to the new evolution of geocaching!

 

.

1. You weren't here in the beginning.

2. Perhaps your interests are different than the average geocacher. For instance, many people don't love multis as you do. In fact, multis have never been hugely popular.

3. You appear to be attributing your pet peaves to all other cachers, or at least teh 'typical' ones.

4. The game hasn't changed, perhaps your expectations have. I bet that you can find more super awesome caches to go after than you could when you were a noob. You just have to implement some search techniques to make that happen. The mere existence of caches that you don't enjoy (but others do) does not show evidence of anything beyond your definition of 'quality' being out of step with the community.

 

BTW, if this was a geocide, I give it a two.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

BTW, if this was a geocide, I give it a two.

 

I'd go as high as 3.5

 

I'm with them. It's still pretty easy to find good quality caches. They're in similar locations. The only real difference I could imagine (not around back in the day) would be the ratio of carpy caches to decent ones. Just take a little time and hunt out the good ones. It's not very hard.

Link to comment

I for one - generally agree with the OP.

 

There are too many thoughtless hides. It is ever increasingly harder to find the types of caches I would like to hunt - so few new ones ever show up.

Thinking back on my first few dozen finds, I would probably think your post was talking about them, if I were choosy back then. Happily, I wasn't. I would wait with baited breath for that next cache to be listed and then go find it and be happy, regardless of whether it was awesome or not.
Link to comment

I for one - generally agree with the OP.

 

There are too many thoughtless hides. It is ever increasingly harder to find the types of caches I would like to hunt - so few new ones ever show up.

 

Yes, too many thoughtless hides. I agree with that statement, but I ask you this (actually asking, not being snarky): are there fewer quality hides, or is the ratio just changing? At least around here, there are lots of decent hides. Not many new ones come up, but they're out there. With the proliferation of carpy caches, don't you get more quality caches out there, even if it's only a few more than it used to be?

Link to comment

Where are you going in NH? Most places I can think of might not have a multi within the nearest 100 but there is usually one or two within easy driving distance. Not scientific, but checking the nearest 100 caches to my home, they are all within 4 miles. While none are multis, 2 are puzzles. Within 10 miles of my home, there are 10 multis, though.

 

As to why people don't place multis: Around here, my multis get many less finds than traditionals I've placed. I suspect people would hide more multis if more people would look for them. So, come on up to the Ossipee NH area, find my multis! They're a lot of fun!

Link to comment

I'm probably dating myself, but did that OP remind anyone else of Highline magazine? Goofus and Galant?

 

What I'd like to know, were there any "woods" within the range of those hundred caches? You stay in Seattle and try finding any "woods" nearby any of the hotels. There are lots of that kind of hide in the region (it is the Great Pacific NorthWet after all...), but you need to travel a bit out of town.

Link to comment

 

It is understandable that GC.com is more concerned with money than quality. But what about the geocaching community itself? Why so little interest in quality?

 

 

1. how exactly does the number of caches placed influence GC's income?

 

2. how do you propose GC controls/regulates the placement of crappy caches

 

to me is simple, take some time and do your "homework" and find caches that are worth your time or to your liking

a task that has become significantly easier since the "favorite" points have been introduced recently...which it is an attempt on GC's part to help out those that don't care to find crappy caches, they will never be able to stop such placements though

 

as for changing the logo, NO...why should they?

Link to comment

.

 

Sometimes the cache can look pretty junky, but in reality the location is amazing.

 

Understood. To that degree, the ratings system is helpful. My point more related to the absence of multi-caches. They take more effort and are generally the product of cache owners who put more consideration into their placements. There was a time when they accounted for closer to 30-35%. When you see multis down to under 5%, you can safely assume the singles have deteriorated to a similar degree.

 

Interesting to see that forum posts follow the same pattern, devolving in a similar way with many blasting out some quick or ignorant reply that requires no thought. As someone else noted, it is quite evident that most people are happy with average-to-crappy caches and that I may ignore those I do not like. This does not address the point of the post.

 

I shut my caches down a long time ago as have others in my area. I can't think of anyone previously known to place a good cache who is still active here. I guess the majority here thinks it is good to lose people who make an effort to publish a nicer cache. That's no shock, the profile of the majority is evident in the caches they are placing.

 

Many of those caches that are now gone in my area most likely would be among the highly rated favorites today if they were still active. In fact, many area cachers have actually gone back to rate archived caches as their favorites rather than invest a vote in an active cache that has no merit. It is sad to see the good ones gone and to see nothing new from those who put them out there. If GC.com was truly interested in advancing the hobby from a quality standpoint, there would be an effort to understand and remedy the trend.

 

.

Link to comment

.

 

Sometimes the cache can look pretty junky, but in reality the location is amazing.

 

Understood. To that degree, the ratings system is helpful. My point more related to the absence of multi-caches. They take more effort and are generally the product of cache owners who put more consideration into their placements. There was a time when they accounted for closer to 30-35%. When you see multis down to under 5%, you can safely assume the singles have deteriorated to a similar degree.

I am the owner of a very old multi (I placed it about a year before you started caching).

 

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state. I bet that right around five percent is as prevalent as they ever got.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I shut my caches down a long time ago as have others in my area. I can't think of anyone previously known to place a good cache who is still active here. I guess the majority here thinks it is good to lose people who make an effort to publish a nicer cache. That's no shock, the profile of the majority is evident in the caches they are placing.
This is a strange comment from an active cacher.

 

You state that multis are better and that few are currently being placed. Yet, you archived all of yours. Apparently, you want others to hide these good caches for you to find, but you aren't willing to let like-minded people find yours. I suspect that there is some story that you haven't shared in this thread that would make your motives more clear.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I for one - generally agree with the OP.

 

There are too many thoughtless hides. It is ever increasingly harder to find the types of caches I would like to hunt - so few new ones ever show up.

 

Yes, too many thoughtless hides. I agree with that statement, but I ask you this (actually asking, not being snarky): are there fewer quality hides, or is the ratio just changing? ...

 

The ratio has changed. Dramatically.

 

Used to be that 80% to 90% of new hides in this area (big area that I regularly travel) took you to a cool place and/or was a well thought out hide and container. These days - they get harder to weed out of the others as less than 20% now fit my particular cache aesthetic.

Link to comment

I am also planning a trip to NH. There are several caches that I look forward to doing in the area we will be visiting. Multis are not among them because typically I do not do them when traveling with my noncaching family. Neither do I do lamp post hides with them since I see no need to visit parking lots. But I always have been able to find caches that have shown me places that I would have otherwise missed - often earthcaches, virtuals, letterboxes, or wherigos - or caches that have taken me down trails that I never would have discovered in any other way. That part of the game is still available.

 

The caches that have always stood out for me have been based on location. When I first began caching I looked forward to new caches that took me to areas that I had not explored or showed me an area in a new light. I in turn placed caches in some of my favorite locations.

 

Yes, the growth in the game has meant a growth in caches that are easy to place in locations that I doubt could inspire anyone. But in my area, there are new caches that have led me back up the mountain or along the ridges and streams, into places that were fun to explore. Even in the city the other day, I found new areas to visit, hidden canyons, hills, and coastal jetties that that made the day interesting. Even more than most games, caching is what you make of it.

 

I am sorry that you archived your caches. If the good ones are pulled, people will have little incentive to learn that the game can be more than parking lots.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

When I was brand new to this game, I hunted for the caches closest to my home. A guardrail cache. Several lamppost caches. Altoids tin in the bushes. One ammo can chained to a bush outside the fire station. I was eyeballing a nearby guardrail to hide a cache of my own, but then I discovered an awesome multi/puzzle as my searches kept taking me farther from home. This cache involved looking through PVC tubes attached to trees and then walking to the location viewed through the PVC. That’s the cache that really hooked me. Before then it was kind of “meh” – just something to do when I was bored. After the PVC multi, I wanted to find more like that…caches with creative twists that sparked my imagination.

 

That PVC cache is now long gone, as is the person who hid it. But I’ve hidden a couple of my own creative multi/puzzle caches. I would never have done so if I hadn’t been inspired by someone else. I wouldn’t have known how to do so without getting ideas from others.

 

When I read about another CO archiving their older caches because they don’t like the newcomers, they don’t like blank/short/c&p logs, they don’t like smartphone cachers, they don’t like this or that, it’s a sad thing. Sad for the game. The game will evolve…nothing ever stays stagnant. You can influence the way it evolves, but only by participating.

Link to comment

Didn't I read this thread when I started caching in 2003? Seems like the "old-timers" have always been complaining about the direction that geocaching is taking. In fact I get a kick of going back and reading the old posts in the Yahoo! GPSStash group. It seems like there were always some geocachers who objected to the direction geocaching was going.

 

There are many reasons that people find for enjoying geocaching. No doubt that many of the early adopters were outdoors types. They already owned a GPS unit for hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, or hunting. To them finding a geocache was something they could do while engaging in the activities they alread enjoyed. They placed geocaches mainly in remote location that required a hike or bike ride to get to. And they wouldn't think of hiding lots of caches in any one area because the caches were simply an extra bit of fun to add to the main reason they were out. But even in the beginning, there were those who prefered caches to be by the roadside or in urban locations. Geocaching was an enjoyable activity in and of itself. Still some were very selective in their urban hide. They would find a location that had something "wow" about it, so that finders of the cache would feel that it was not just about the cache. Others, however, picked spots because they were convenient.

 

Over time geocaching has begun to appeal to a broader cross section of the public. No longer are most geocachers hikers, bikers, backpackers, and hunters. Many are retirees, students, stay-at-home moms and dad with small kids, people with long commutes who find caches along their routes, etc. They are not interested in taking long hikes in the wilderness. While some are interested in caches that bring them to "wow" locations, other are simply interested in finding another cache. Urban hides have become the predominant style and many of these are placed simply for convenience. Power trails have become popular destinations for cachers who are motivated by the numbers or simply want to find areas with high density of caches that will provide a day's worth of activity.

 

The biggest problem geocaching.com faces is keeping the variety of cachers happy. Those who like hiking can avoid searching for urban hides by selecting caches in rural areas with higher terrain, or by using maps to find caches along urban/suburban trails and bike paths. Those who like a challenging cache can use the difficulty rating to avoid most of the common type hiding styles they dislike. The new favorites system lets people find caches that have some kind of "wow" to them - usually either a neat location or some clever camouflage or hiding technique. Attributes are provided to help find (or avoid) specicific kinds of cache. Of course no system is perfect. You may still find a few caches that you don't like. But one way geocaching has changed is to make it easier to make these selections.

 

I think one other difference is the shear number of caches. Some "old-timers" remember a time when they would find every cache that came out. If some caches were disappointing, they didn't care as much, because they would still find all the great caches out there. Today, some cachers still seem to feel they must find every cache. They don't want to filter caches because they may miss that special cache. They would rather there be fewer caches so they could find the bad ones and not fear missing some good ones. People need to stop trying to find every cache and stop worrying about what you might miss. Perhaps the favorites system can point to those special can't miss caches and will be useful.

Link to comment

The main problem I see with this complaint is the fact you are blaming it all on Groundspeak.

 

They are a LISTING service. They LIST the caches that we place. They do not place them themselves.

 

In fact I see the new cache rating system as something that is encouraging people to place better caches.

 

What else can they do to encourage good cache placements?

 

you say that complicated caches don't get published. Well they are harder to get approved because they are more complex. You run into more issues about private property and about minimum distances etc. etc. They are harder to publish and take more patience from the cacher and Groundspeak. I have never known Groundspeak to have a lack of patience.

 

I agree with the poster who said,

 

"BE the change you want to see"

 

Not only can you hide the type of caches that inspire other cachers, but you can even hold classes on hiding a good cache, or other things.

 

If all you're doing about it is archiving your caches and complaining about it, you're contributing to the problem, not helping it.

Link to comment

I think some of the last posts were very good.

 

As others said, if you like multis...list some good ones. Perhaps that will inspire others to list good ones. I like multis, so I have listed some. I like finding challenge caches and puzzle caches so I have added some of my own. I admit I have yet to do a Wherigo, LBH or Earth Cache. I do not have the patience to learn how to write a Wherigo right now and to be honest, I cant think of a good Earth cache around here that has not already been done many times over. More power to those who list them.

 

If you want good caches, set an example.

Link to comment

You state that multis are better and that few are currently being placed. Yet, you archived all of yours. Apparently, you want others to hide these good caches for you to find, but you aren't willing to let like-minded people find yours. I suspect that there is some story that you haven't shared in this thread that would make your motives more clear.

 

I agree that there must be more that is being left unsaid. Having zero active caches of his own doesn't help the OP's position. (In addition to only logging a find on one single cache in this year). It doesn't seem as though the OP has any interest in making the game better in his own area if he is willing to contribute so little.

 

Back on topic - sorting the list of nearest caches based on favorite points would definitely help locate some potentially interesting caches in whatever area the OP is intending to visit.

 

(Around here, if I only looked at the nearest 100 caches, I would be within 2 miles of my starting point.)

Link to comment

When I was brand new to this game, I hunted for the caches closest to my home. A guardrail cache. Several lamppost caches. Altoids tin in the bushes. One ammo can chained to a bush outside the fire station. I was eyeballing a nearby guardrail to hide a cache of my own, but then I discovered an awesome multi/puzzle as my searches kept taking me farther from home.

 

This is a slight tangent but this post illustrates a point that I have tried to make for quite a while. When you first start caching, you look for caches that are closest to the places that you drive by everyday. Excpet for the very earliest cachers, no one buys a GPS and then drives 100 miles to get a cache the day that bought it, you find the things that are close to where you live. Typically, those are in Urban areas of strip malls, gaurd rails, rck walls and park benches.

 

So after you find the two or three dozen that are within a couple of miles from your house and/or work you think you have a pretty good idea how these things are supposed to be hidden, which of course is in lamp posts, gaurd rails and rock walls. So the newbie cacher goes out and hides the type of caches that they have "enjoyed" finding. Consequently what happens? They hide more LPC's, gaurdrails and rock wall nides hear where they live or work, and the problem of crappy cache proiliferation continues.

 

It isn't until you've really found an awesome hide that you "discover" how incredible some hides can be but becasue there have been such an exploding number of new entries (starting about the time that I took up the sport) into the sport in the last few years, you are going to continue to see a higher percentage of not very well thought out hides as new cachers continue to place the types of caches they have found...

Edited by FobesMan
Link to comment

I think some of the last posts were very good.

 

As others said, if you like multis...list some good ones. Perhaps that will inspire others to list good ones. I like multis, so I have listed some. I like finding challenge caches and puzzle caches so I have added some of my own. I admit I have yet to do a Wherigo, LBH or Earth Cache. I do not have the patience to learn how to write a Wherigo right now and to be honest, I cant think of a good Earth cache around here that has not already been done many times over. More power to those who list them.

 

If you want good caches, set an example.

 

I agree! I'm quoting post #27, and the 7 or 8 above it were excellent! No knee-jerk "if you don't like them don't find them", or "who are you to judge what is lame" sort of stuff.

 

I'll just have to agree with some of the sentiments that have been posted, you just have to do your homework to find the type of caches you like. And you should have never archived your caches. :)

Link to comment

.

 

Was planning a trip to NH this weekend, and out of curiosity took a look to see if there were any good caches in the area I was heading to. I saw nothing that stood out, maybe only a few worth looking at among the closest 100 to my destination. Sad to see but certainly not surprised.

 

For one, GC.com guidelines and practices essentially promote the placement of average-to-crappy-caches. The micro on a guardrail will pass muster quickly but the creative cache designed to offer a unique experience may never actually see the light of day. There is more work involved in placing and maintaining a good cache and management makes no effort to mitigate that challenge or respect the effort of those who invest the extra time.

 

It is understandable that GC.com is more concerned with money than quality. But what about the geocaching community itself? Why so little interest in quality?

 

Among the closest 100 caches to my destination, not so much as one multi cache, not a single one. Back home in my area, there has not been a nicely planned multi cache published within my closest 100 caches in a few years. In fact, those cachers once known for placing the best caches in my area are now all effectively retired from cache placement. A quick look at the profile of a typical cacher reveals the larger problem.

 

The thoughtful geocacher will take time to plot a route, mark coordinates and place stages as needed along the way to lead people on a nice hike through the woods. A typical geocacher, will drop a container somewhere, maybe in the woods or maybe not, mark the coordinates, and call it a day.

 

The thoughtful geocacher will invest some money to buy nice stash and hide a neatly organized, well-placed cache. A typical geocacher, will plunder the nice stash, leave the contents in a heap, and won’t replace the cache as carefully as it was hidden.

 

A thoughtful geocacher will post a find or DNF log, or a note to inform the community and, most importantly, the cache owner, that you visited the site. A typical geocacher plays by whatever rules he makes for himself, without regard for the community or cache owner, and may or may not post a log online indicating what happened when he/she visited the site.

 

Those who were here in the beginning can see the difference and “progress” has not been kind. The changes may be good for business if you own a piece of the frog, but they have not been good for the hobby/sport. It is time to create a new logo for GC.com to incorporate a lamppost and a guardrail, while striking away the multi-cache icon in favor of a new icon that denotes, “One-Minute Cache.” Welcome to the new evolution of geocaching!

 

.

 

Well these are your views and you are entitled to them, but you don't hve to go for the ones you do not like. How about being part of the solution and place some great Multis instead of Crying on the Forum it's embarrassing.

 

SS

Link to comment

How about being part of the solution and place some great Multis instead of Crying on the Forum it's embarrassing.

That's not very nice. Maybe the OP is just looking for some hope.

 

When we first started caching, it did not take us very long to realize that not only were we not going to find them all, we didn't even want to find them all. We eventually learned that caches hidden in about 2005 or earlier, when geocaching still pretty small, would often tend to be more interesting. From reading the old logs, one can see a real sense of community in the early years that is not so evident today. Caches were often hidden more in the spirt of "I like this place and I hope you do too" than "here have a smiley, take as many as you like". While this is not a hard and fast rule, it does help us find caches we are more likely to enjoy.

 

Many people don't care, they'll find anything. We are even like that at times, but lately we find ourselves gravitating to the oldies.

Link to comment

 

That's not very nice. Maybe the OP is just looking for some hope.

 

 

i very much doubt it, he archived all his caches not long ago stating that he doesn't want them on GC anymore...i somehow think this thread its been started for other reasons than just plain dislike for what geocaching has become

Link to comment

Gotta side with several other prominent forum posters: By archiving your caches, you become part of the problem. By leaving them archived, you continue to be part of the problem. So, you've got to decide which is more important to you. Being part of the problem, or part of the solution. Ball's in your court. I've learned over time that the best way to ensure what you consider to be quality hides in your area is to hide some yourself. Folks will find them and try to emulate them, leading to more quality hides for you to find. Taking your ball and going home is seldom an effective means for improving a game. If you have strong views on what constitutes a quality cache, (as I do), there are tools at your disposal which can greatly increase your chances of being satisfied when you get to ground zero.

Link to comment

BTW, if this was a geocide, I give it a two.

 

I'd go as high as 3.5

I think that one of the official Geocide Rules should be: "you can only geocide once."

 

The tone of the opening diatribe rang a familiar bell, so a quick forum search uncovered the OP's geocide thread: Hasta la vista, baby. That thread began as a protest against discontinuing "Additional Logging Requirements" -- a move by Groundspeak which, in the benefit of hindsight two years later, I think has worked well as a check on cache hiders who wish to control and micro-manage the activities of cache finders. Groundspeak was protecting the fun factor.

 

But then, the geocide thread uncovered the real reason why the OP archived his 75 caches: it was a protest against Groundspeak's refusal to continue forward the OP's cache concept. The series design encouraged other geocachers to hide caches, adding to the series. There is now very specific language in the Knowledge Books on this very subject. One of the reasons for this restriction is that "hide another one" cache series serve to encourage the placement of poor caches by people who might not otherwise be motivated to hide a cache. Groundspeak promotes quality cache placements through having this guideline. Let people hide caches because they want to, and decided on their own to do so.

 

So, it's ironic that the issue which caused the OP's first geocide thread is a guideline designed to curb the type of cache placements that are the focal point of the OP's second geocide thread.

 

News flash: There are fewer multicaches hidden today, percentage wise, because hiders know that traditional caches will get a lot more finds. Multi's are my favorite cache type to hide and to find, but I doubt I'll hide any more of them soon. My best multicache just passed the one year mark since it was last found.

 

News flash: The primary reason why it's easier to get parking lot micros published than elaborate caches in parks is because of the parks, not because of Groundspeak. More and more parks are approaching the saturation point where they can't fit any more caches. In contrast, there is always another guardrail or lamp post someplace. More and more land managers are adopting permission policies for geocaches on their properties. Rather than talk to a park ranger, it's easier to head for the corner of the mall's parking lot and say "use stealth" on the cache page. Someday if Wal-Mart adopts a geocaching policy like the State Parks have done, this may change. Oops, sorry. That was trackinthebox's geocide thread. I am rambling.

Link to comment

I've been mostly GRIM-free and LPC-free in 2011. And most of the ones I have found are Puzzles. With a little effort you can skip the ones you don't like.

 

Search what interests you. Filter out low-difficulty low-terrain micros if you don't like them. Use the Favorites system; I've been very happy with it.

 

Find the cachers who hide the kind of caches you like and find their caches.

 

Hide the kind of caches you want to find.

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

.

 

 

... it's ironic that the issue which caused the OP's first geocide thread is a guideline designed to curb the type of cache placements that are the focal point of the OP's second geocide thread.

 

 

.

 

Like dumping a box in the woods and calling it a cache, it's pretty easy to post a comment anonymously without giving it much thought. In your case you don't even have your facts straight. You clearly do not understand the reason why I shut down my caches.

 

The ALR controversy had nothing to do with it. I merely referenced it as an example of a problem. I personally did no own any ALR caches and had no horse in that race. In addition, your description of my cache series is also not accurate nor was your background information. Not sure why you felt the need to change the subject.

 

I guess in this community, when someone takes the time to publish 75 caches with more than 200 stages and maintain them diligently over a period of several years but then decides it's time to move on, the appropriate response is, "Good riddance." Then when others do the same, you say, "Who cares?" Maybe you should read the find logs of the caches that are now gone before passing judgment.

 

What I have done or not done is really not the point. There is no disputing the fact that quality has deteriorated and the fault lies both with GC.com which has demonstrated it does not care, and a large portion of the geocaching community who do not treat a well designed and/or well stocked cache with respect.

 

If you had any concern for the hobby, logic would dictate that you should have concern that owners of quality caches are walking away. Instead, it is easier for you to insult me, which pretty much proves the point of the original post. The idea was to start a discussion on what seemed to me to be an important topic. Unfortunately, like a well stocked cache, this thread quickly deteriorated mostly into a collection of Mc-posts.

 

.

Link to comment

I stand by my prior post as a fair summary of the OP's first geocide thread. Those interested are welcome to read the linked thread - indeed, several who have posted here also posted in the first geocide thread. Many posters to the first geocide thread were confused by the initial focus on ALR's, commenting that the OP did not appear to own any ALR caches. Only later in the thread was the real reason unveiled, and my post noted this. I am also aware of the background regarding that cache series and the subsequent policy discussions which led to the current standards now uniformly followed when new geocaches are reviewed. My mention of your series was necessarily brief as it is only tangential to the point I was making.

Link to comment

There is no disputing the fact that quality has deteriorated and the fault lies both with GC.com which has demonstrated it does not care, and a large portion of the geocaching community who do not treat a well designed and/or well stocked cache with respect.

I dispute this. Saying that something cannot be disputed does not make it so.

 

For example, the relatively recent implementation of a "Favorite Caches" feature is designed in part to recognize quality caches. It also makes it much easier for those interested in seeking quality caches to do so. I believe that Groundspeak as a company and a listing service is very interested in encouraging quality cache placements.

Link to comment

.

 

I stand by my prior post as a fair summary of the OP's first geocide thread. Those interested are welcome to read the linked thread - indeed, several who have posted here also posted in the first geocide thread. Many posters to the first geocide thread were confused by the initial focus on ALR's, commenting that the OP did not appear to own any ALR caches. Only later in the thread was the real reason unveiled, and my post noted this. I am also aware of the background regarding that cache series and the subsequent policy discussions which led to the current standards now uniformly followed when new geocaches are reviewed. My mention of your series was necessarily brief as it is only tangential to the point I was making.

 

Since you are "aware of the background," maybe you can explain what the problem was and why it is relevant to this discussion.

Link to comment

I feel guilty. In my area it's an embarrassment of riches. Sure we have lousy caches, but we also have way more than our share of amazing containers, great hikes, interesting puzzles, unique cooperative experiences, tree climbs, letter boxes...you name it...all placed in the last year. Sure there has been some great older hides but if anything the hides have even improved since I began caching. I would like to think it's just luck, but it's really not...it's peer pressure. Caches that need maintenance get needs maintenance logs on them, caches that need to be archived do as well. But caches that need a little help seem to get that as well. Seems the cachers around here anyways, lead by example, by placing good caches and support the CO through maintenance, positive feedback and encouragement. Peer pressure goes a long way.

Link to comment
This is a slight tangent but this post illustrates a point that I have tried to make for quite a while. When you first start caching, you look for caches that are closest to the places that you drive by everyday. Excpet for the very earliest cachers, no one buys a GPS and then drives 100 miles to get a cache the day that bought it, you find the things that are close to where you live. Typically, those are in Urban areas of strip malls, gaurd rails, rck walls and park benches.

 

So after you find the two or three dozen that are within a couple of miles from your house and/or work you think you have a pretty good idea how these things are supposed to be hidden, which of course is in lamp posts, gaurd rails and rock walls. So the newbie cacher goes out and hides the type of caches that they have "enjoyed" finding. Consequently what happens? They hide more LPC's, gaurdrails and rock wall nides hear where they live or work, and the problem of crappy cache proiliferation continues.

 

It isn't until you've really found an awesome hide that you "discover" how incredible some hides can be but becasue there have been such an exploding number of new entries (starting about the time that I took up the sport) into the sport in the last few years, you are going to continue to see a higher percentage of not very well thought out hides as new cachers continue to place the types of caches they have found...

If they are hiding caches like those that they enjoyed finding, then how can it be called 'crappy cache proliferation'? They are hiding caches that pretty certainly will be enjoyed by others. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

There has been a park and grab attribute for a while now.

 

"For a while"? You still think there is a difference between being 13 years old and being 15 years old. :lol: "For a while" to you could be as little as six weeks.

There you go again. He's young so his opinion isn't worth much, right? :rolleyes: Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

It's taken us almost 2 years to figure it out, but we finally come up with a set of personal "rules" that allow us to have fun every time we go out:

 

1. Not every cache has to be found.

 

2. Look for caches that interest you... at that moment. Ignore the rest.

 

3. Hide caches that you like to find.

 

4. Everyone plays by their own rules, fair or unfair, and can change them on the fly. Deal with it.

 

5. Not every cache has to be found.

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...