No Cachehides under 100 Finds.

July 9, 2011

Hello.

I am having this problem for a long time, but wasnt quite sure if i should psot it or not.

As i have morethan 500 Caches so far i am pretty sure that i can tell u my opinion.

There are many Cachers in the world, and we should respect each other, and i really do so.

But what i dont like are really stupid Caches in the middle of nowhere, hidden by people with less than 100 Finds.

To be exect i have had a Cacher with only 30 finds.

He placed a small filmcan in the woods, 2 miles away from the civilisation.

As we logged the cache the container was broken, and at home i logged a Tb.

A few horus later the owner of this tb contacted me, and said the cacheowner took it from a cache, but didnt log it in.

What i want from Groundspeak is like a rule for all Geocacher, that they can only palce a Cacher after they have found at least 100 Caches.

Who agress?

18.9k · July 9, 2011

No thanks.

Been discussed hundreds of times.

I've seen just as many lousy caches from experienced cachers as I have from newbies. I placed one after finding one and it is still in play 9.5 years later.

If you simply MUST have something - I just maybe might support a guidelines quiz but that is about it.

July 9, 2011

No thanks.

Been discussed hundreds of times.

I've seen just as many lousy caches from experienced cachers as I have from newbies. I placed one after finding one and it is still in play 9.5 years later.

If you simply MUST have something - I just maybe might support a guidelines quiz but that is about it.

+1

I could go get 100 in one afternoon and still know less about what makes a good cache than the next guy.

The game doesn't need more rules IMO. I find it EXTREMELY easy to avoid caches that aren't up my alley.

Edited July 9, 2011 by d+n.s

1k · July 9, 2011

No.

July 9, 2011

Some people's caches aren't to everyones taste. Lots of people on the forums don't like LPCs but yet, people place LPC's, so there must be some out there that enjoy them.

Some people learn by doing. Making mistakes is a way to learn. Logging tb's is complicated for some, and it's not because they are being lazy, or cruel, it's because they don't understand. Maybe a friendly email about the tb you took that wasn't logged would be helpful.

July 9, 2011

I have a similar (but much less incredible) scenario to StarBrand. I'm of the opinion that the one cache that I hid before I had 100 finds is also my best hide. At least, it's definitely the one that I put the most thought and energy into. :unsure:

July 9, 2011

Join the discussion if you agree

So I can't discuss if I don't agree?

I don't agree but I'll join anyway. Personally I have 32 finds and it's very hard to get to 100 where I live. So that's not rely fair. And as soon as I got to about 3 finds I totally got the idea and wanted to start placing caches. (I still haven't, because I'm doing lots of planing in advance.)

So my point is, it's difficult to put a rule like this for people living in remote areas in the world where there aren't many caches. And if you put out exceptions for those, then the problem will be where to put the line.

July 9, 2011

If it annoys you, just dont look for caches owned by GCrs with whatever number of finds you deem makes them acceptable hiders?

1.2k · July 9, 2011

Cachers with 100+ finds are guilty of poor caches as well.

The best way to fight poor caches is to place quality caches. Most people will see the comments those get and want to emulate that.

2.6k · July 9, 2011

You don't like a cacher's hides? befriend them and take them caching to the kind of caches you like. Maybe they'll learn about whole new facets of hiding styles they've never seen before.

But blanket rules like the one you are suggesting seldom, if ever, accomplish what they are intended for.

July 9, 2011

I'd support requiring one find, but not 100. I placed my first after 40, and learned a lot more from placing one than finding 100. I don't like my first one, but my second came after about 60 and is really nice, I believe.

July 9, 2011

I'd support requiring one find, but not 100. I placed my first after 40, and learned a lot more from placing one than finding 100. I don't like my first one, but my second came after about 60 and is really nice, I believe.

True for us as well. Owning a cache makes you a far more considerate finder too.

6.1k · July 9, 2011

Hello.

I am having this problem for a long time, but wasnt quite sure if i should psot it or not.

As i have morethan 500 Caches so far i am pretty sure that i can tell u my opinion.

There are many Cachers in the world, and we should respect each other, and i really do so.

But what i dont like are really stupid Caches in the middle of nowhere, hidden by people with less than 100 Finds.

To be exect i have had a Cacher with only 30 finds.

He placed a small filmcan in the woods, 2 miles away from the civilisation.

As we logged the cache the container was broken, and at home i logged a Tb.

A few horus later the owner of this tb contacted me, and said the cacheowner took it from a cache, but didnt log it in.What i want from Groundspeak is like a rule for all Geocacher, that they can only palce a Cacher after they have found at least 100 Caches.

Who agress?

I dunno. That would be like asking someone to take a spelling and grammar test before posting in the forums.

Some people would cheat and it wouldn't raelly matter.

Edited July 9, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

7.5k · July 9, 2011

Cachers with 100+ finds are guilty of poor caches as well.

The best way to fight poor caches is to place quality caches. Most people will see the comments those get and want to emulate that.

I've seen plenty of new cachers find a handful of good swag-size caches in good locations and then proceed to hide film canisters. I have read in the forums how some new cachers don't want to invest in a good quality cache or even a seek out a good location until they know they're going to want to keep caching. The film canister in the bushes by the nearby plaza is their test cache.

July 9, 2011

Isn't good/bad cache kind of subjective? Sort of "one man's trash is another man's treasure?" As long as they're maintained, who cares? Sometimes I just want a quick PNG when I'm out running errands. As hot as it is here right now, a quick PNG is great for getting my cache fix without suffocating in the heat. In that case, magnetic key holders on bridges & film cannisters are just fine with me. Other times, I like the thrill of a good hike to a beautiful location.

38.2k · July 10, 2011

I've seen terrible caches hidden by people with hundreds and thousands of finds and great caches hidden by people with a handful of finds. So I'd be against any such rule.

2.4k · July 10, 2011

There are a couple of folks around here that have fantastic hides, and many of them, but not so many finds. I have also found that the reverse can be true - the "experienced" cacher can put out a not so good hide.

If the 100 finds rule came in...what is to stop armchair logging to reach that number? I prefer the idea of a quiz if there has to be anything at all.

I only have 1 hide, because I am hypercritical of my ideas, and I don't want to put out something others don't enjoy.

7.9k · July 10, 2011

I don't really think you can equate a certain number of finds with a concern to hide 'quality' caches.

Some people 'get it' right away, others will struggle with the concept no matter how many they find.

9.2k · July 10, 2011

I've hunted for nearly 5000 geocaches over the past nine years. I keep track of the best ones on a "Favorite Caches" bookmark list. Within that list, I recognize my top ten favorite caches of all time.

Had your proposed rule been in effect, you would have prevented the placement of half the caches that I regard as the "best of the best." Among these are the cache with the most favorite points in my home state - a cache I spent several hours in travel time to score as my 100th find back in 2002. The owner of that cache still doesn't have 100 finds.

I judge quality cache by cache, not by the number of caches which the owner has found.

8k · July 10, 2011

What kind of discussion is it if you invite only those that agree to join? <_<

1.7k · July 10, 2011

What kind of discussion is it if you invite only those that agree to join?

Latest trend in discussion?

I hid my first cache when I had barely 100 finds, about 5 years ago. It's still there, going strong, and people enjoy it. Number of finds has nothing to do with how creative a person is, so, no, no such rule should exist.

3.7k · July 10, 2011

I think a recommendation of finding 30-50 caches before hiding would be good, but it wouldn't make sense in some areas with few caches.

If the caches is a poor hide, it will probaby get muggled anyway.

15.4k · July 10, 2011

The idea of requiring a minimum number of finds has been suggested (and declined) on the feedback forums:

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1053283-just-after-50-founds-make-a-cache-

And the guidelines already suggest finding at least 20 caches before hiding one.

3.7k · July 10, 2011

And the guidelines already suggest finding at least 20 caches before hiding one.

I wish they'd put that in bold, with underlining. I have read the guidelines many times and never saw that until you mentioned it.

July 10, 2011

I don't think it matters how many caches a person has but it does matter what kind of person they are and how much thought they put into placing their cache.

I've found 21 caches and since the beginning have been thinking about everything that goes with placing my own cache, location, container, contents etc... I still haven't placed my own cache because I don't think I am yet able to ensure it will be an enjoyable cache. I already know where I want my cache, I'm playing with the idea of a few containers that might be a bit more interesting and when i'm done I'll maintain it well and look forward to seein peoples comments when they log it.

6k · July 10, 2011

If you really think that then go to the feedback forum and start a topic and see how many people vote for it. Nothing said here will have any affect on the issue

19k · July 10, 2011

What kind of discussion is it if you invite only those that agree to join?

May I presume that your response implies that you agree with the OP?

19k · July 10, 2011

But what i dont like are really stupid Caches in the middle of nowhere, hidden by people with less than 100 Finds.

So, are you saying that you have no problem with really stupid caches in the middle of nowhere, hidden by people with more than 100 Finds?

Do you realize that a newbie could easily find 100 caches in one day, these days by hitting one of the many power trails that have been springing up around the country?

2.3k · July 10, 2011

I like the caches in the middle of nowhere as that's where many of our caches are here. 100 finds or not. If the coordinates are good, the cache is decent and the place is neat I'm all for it. 100 finds or not .

8.9k · July 10, 2011

Join the discussion if you agree

I guess I won't join the discussion.

July 10, 2011

Hello.

I am having this problem for a long time, but wasnt quite sure if i should psot it or not.

As i have morethan 500 Caches so far i am pretty sure that i can tell u my opinion.

There are many Cachers in the world, and we should respect each other, and i really do so.

But what i dont like are really stupid Caches in the middle of nowhere, hidden by people with less than 100 Finds.

To be exect i have had a Cacher with only 30 finds.

He placed a small filmcan in the woods, 2 miles away from the civilisation.

As we logged the cache the container was broken, and at home i logged a Tb.

A few horus later the owner of this tb contacted me, and said the cacheowner took it from a cache, but didnt log it in.

What i want from Groundspeak is like a rule for all Geocacher, that they can only palce a Cacher after they have found at least 100 Caches.

Who agress?

Sometimes someone could cache for years, decide to include someone else in the fun, create a NEW profile for the both of them and decide to hide one together. A new profile always starts at 0 finds. That doesn’t mean the cacher that just hid a cache isn't a noob.

Just another way for you to think of it... So no, don't agree with you. Happy hunting.

7.5k · July 10, 2011

Online logs are one way to deal with poorly placed caches. Provide constructive criticism.

In your example of the micro in the woods, I'd write something like "I was surprised to find a film canister under a rock right in the middle of the woods with so many hiding spots for a larger cache. The logsheet is wet. A Coghlan's waterproof matchstick container (you can buy them for about a dollar in the camping supply department at Walmart) is a good watertight micro container." Hopefully the CO will learn, if not hopefully they won't plant anymore caches.

2.2k · July 11, 2011

Had your proposed rule been in effect, you would have prevented the placement of half the caches that I regard as the "best of the best."

Me too. Also, a rule like this would have prevented the placement of some of the oldest active caches in existence, including Mingo.

July 11, 2011

Nope, will have to disagree. I only have 61 finds and 1 hide. I placed a 5/5 that has only been found 3 times and all 3 have favored it. I did alot of planning before I placed it. I am very proud of it and have a couple more in the planning stages that I want to be as good as the first one.

Also, in the area I live, there is a CO that has placed caches in any direction you turn...in areas where the homeless sleep....35mm film canisters...etc., so no, I don;t think those with more finds automatically make them hide "better" caches...just my opinion

July 11, 2011

i'd say i agree with a limit, but as many have pointed out theres the few clever ones that get the basics of a good hide within finding only a few. Id really like to see a hold placed on caches that are published the same day or week of account creation. theres at least a half dozen that have recently been released that fall into the "i had an empty chewing gum pack so i put it in a bush near my house" and i used my phone and google maps for the co ords... just a little "you're not allowed to use that feature yet" would go a long way in some of the geotrash thats getting dropped.

July 11, 2011

I know some very good, experienced cachers that don't log most of their finds online. Oh, wait... I don't agree with you. guess I can't join the discussion.

July 11, 2011

Join the discussion if you agree

So I can't discuss if I don't agree?

I don't agree but I'll join anyway. Personally I have 32 finds and it's very hard to get to 100 where I live. So that's not rely fair. And as soon as I got to about 3 finds I totally got the idea and wanted to start placing caches. (I still haven't, because I'm doing lots of planing in advance.)

So my point is, it's difficult to put a rule like this for people living in remote areas in the world where there aren't many caches. And if you put out exceptions for those, then the problem will be where to put the line.

I did not ee your quote" join the discussion if you agree" in orginl post.....where did u come up with that?

ok, went back and saw it in thread title...

carry on

Edited July 11, 2011 by Stealth Bobber

6.1k · July 11, 2011

Its a good thing to recommend to someone, but to require it would be terrible. A person taking the recommendation would likely be encouraged to visit many different types of caches by a variety of different cachers.

If it is made into a rule, then there would be those who would just find a powertrail and do 100 in one day, or post a bunch of fake logs.

3.3k · July 11, 2011

...He placed a small filmcan in the woods, 2 miles away from the civilisation.

...

in the woods, 2 miles away from the civilisation? That sounds like a cache I would like to find. Not a fan of the filmcan, but that would be a nice hike! Probably bring the geokids along too because it is not too far; kind of a nice medium hike.

July 11, 2011

I cache with my wife, and her schedule and my schedule keep us from going out together very often. It could take us an eternity to get to 100. Having said that, we've both read the guidelines and discussed our first (and a few subsequent) hides. I'm not really digging the whole 20-is-the-minimum 'rule' let alone 100. I am fairly certain that as two, college educated, middle aged, thoughtful people, we could go out tomorrow and place a quality cache or two, but we wait to satisfy the current rule.

18.9k · July 11, 2011

I cache with my wife, and her schedule and my schedule keep us from going out together very often. It could take us an eternity to get to 100. Having said that, we've both read the guidelines and discussed our first (and a few subsequent) hides. I'm not really digging the whole 20-is-the-minimum 'rule' let alone 100. I am fairly certain that as two, college educated, middle aged, thoughtful people, we could go out tomorrow and place a quality cache or two, but we wait to satisfy the current rule.

Its not a 'rule' - just a suggestion.

3.3k · July 11, 2011

I cache with my wife, and her schedule and my schedule keep us from going out together very often. It could take us an eternity to get to 100. Having said that, we've both read the guidelines and discussed our first (and a few subsequent) hides. I'm not really digging the whole 20-is-the-minimum 'rule' let alone 100. I am fairly certain that as two, college educated, middle aged, thoughtful people, we could go out tomorrow and place a quality cache or two, but we wait to satisfy the current rule.

One of my better hides came when I had 8 finds (if I remember correctly). I aggree with you 100%.

July 11, 2011

I've seen just as many lousy caches from experienced cachers as I have from newbies. I placed one after finding one and it is still in play 9.5 years later.

This, this, and this. +1. Agree. Like. Retweet.

Etc. etc. etc.

19k · July 11, 2011

I cache with my wife, and her schedule and my schedule keep us from going out together very often. It could take us an eternity to get to 100. Having said that, we've both read the guidelines and discussed our first (and a few subsequent) hides. I'm not really digging the whole 20-is-the-minimum 'rule' let alone 100. I am fairly certain that as two, college educated, middle aged, thoughtful people, we could go out tomorrow and place a quality cache or two, but we wait to satisfy the current rule.

To reiterate what Starbrand said, you are merely reading someone's suggestions. There is no rule regarding the number of finds to hides.

No Cachehides under 100 Finds.

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation