I want your opinions on what you think the ratio of hidden to found....

[+The Infielders]

caches should be. It's my personal policy to try to hide one cache or virtual for every five I find.

 

Well last week (last Friday night) a cacher here in the Tampa Bay area logged one of my recently hidden caches. They said they didn't know why it was rated at a 2.5 and that they found it without any difficulty. The tone of the log was kinda condescending. I posted a note to explain it was rated that way because the rating site put it at two but the neighborhood it's in is a tricky one where you can get turned around.

 

Anyway, I looked at their statistics and they've found almost 200 caches and only hidden 3! I think they need to spend a weekend hiding some to get a feel for it and how sometimes it's not easy to get a good difficulty rating.

 

I feel like people like that take away from geocaching. It costs money to hide caches, not a lot but some.

 

What are your thoughts on what cachers ratios of found to hidden caches ought to be? I think if everyone were in the area of 7 to 10 found for every 1 hidden, there'd be plenty of good caches.

[+retphoto]

I thought like you did, early on...and even posted a similiar "suggestion" (which someone may or may not Markwell).

 

But it was pointed out to me,(and I agree) that the only thing this would really do, is saturate areas with tons of half-*** caches that people would place only to satisfy a numeral ratio. There would be no real thought as to placement, and the general public would take umbridge at our activites, due to the amount of trash. that would be out there all Marked "Geocaching.com".

 

AS it stands now....sure it may seem one sided, but the "users" aren't hurting us, and the numbers of Good High Quality caches is HIGH.

 

keep on Caching....

 

Give me a Tall ship, and a Star to steer her bye...

 

The White Fleet....

[+Stunod]

Everyone should set their own ratio and not worry about others. Just enjoy the game.

 

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

[+SceneryGuy]

I agree with Geo Packrat. I wouldn't want anyone to place a cache because they thought they were required to. In fact, I wish some folks would limit or use more discretion in placing caches. There are over 700 in Central Florida and I would bet that 1/3 of them aren't maintained.

 

I also think that you should be required to have 5 or 10 finds before you are allowed to place a cache. I have seen a lot of caches placed by newbies that aren't really familiar with a properly placed cache or they placed it while they thought they were interested in geocaching for about a week and then never gave it another thought.

 

And...some folks would just rather find them than hide them.

 

"I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous!"

[+Web-ling]

With a 5-to-1 ratio, it's is going to be an awful lot of work to maintain all those caches after the first several hundred finds...

 

Don't worry about your ratio. Focus on making quality caches, not just putting stuff out there to keep your ratio up.

 

[+Harrald]

My opinion is that it's up to each one of us to decide how many caches they want to hide.

 

Some cachers like to hide and not find

Some cachers like to find and not hide

Some cachers like to find and hide

Some cachers like to only hide

Some cachers like to only find

 

There's plenty of room for all types of GeoCachers.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

[+ShaneN4Girls]

I didn't place my first cache until about find #103... Up until that time, I didn't really feel qualified to put out a good quality cache. I wanted to learn more of the "tricks" to quality caches first.

 

When I began putting them out, I put them out in a couple of spurts. I think I have 8 caches out as of now. Now I'm back to finding them again, but I carry a packed 50-cal ammo can, and a packed decon container just in case I find that perfect hiding spot while out having fun.

 

I'd rather have 10 quality caches than 100 poor caches.

 

Adversity is certain, misery is optional.

[+worldtraveler]

Go For The Green:

I don't mean this to sound condescending, because I'm certainly not in any way superior; but I have three suggestions.

Rate your caches accurately. The length or difficulty of the drive to the cache is not a factor for rating the difficulty of finding the cache.

Include a logbook in every cache you place. Most cachers would probably consider it more essential than the trinkets.

As others have said, don't worry about a ratio; just try to make each cache you place "better" in some way than the previous one.

 

Worldtraveler

[Cholo]

I read the log in question. I think you over reacted. Being in Florida now, you should heed their new motto and just "move on". This ratio thing is a pet peeve that you'll forget about in time. Btw, try a forum search on "golf balls in caches". Have a nice day and watch the traffic.

[+smithdw]

I waited until I had about 50 finds before placing my first one. As far any ratios, at a 5-1, I would have to place 65 caches, which is more than I really want to maintain right now. I don't have a lot of time to go geocaching and I usually have more fun in finding than placing. I am starting to place more caches now, but I have very little creativity, so it takes time for thinking of new caches and looking over the forums for new ideas. I don't believe there should be any 'rule' for any type of ratios. Everyone should be able to find/place at their own pace. Also, everyone should be able to find whatever types of caches that they want, whether it's a traditional, virtual, locationless, etc. Whatever they are comfortable with doing. Also, if a particular cache has certain requirements, if someone wants to be able to log it as a find, they must meet those requirements that are deemed by the cache owner. If you can't/don't want to meet the owner's requirements, then don't try and find/log it. Just my opinion. The whole idea behind geocaching is to have fun.

[+ClayJar]

How about, what is the proper ratio of attempts for my caches vs. attempts for other people's caches? I think that all of you guys aren't doing your part in trying to find the really hard to get to caches. Are you all just lazy cachers or what? I mean, just because it's a /5 doesn't mean you shouldn't go rent a powerboat or canoe 36 miles down the Mississippi River! I mean, come on, *I* did it, why can't you?

 

As you can plainly see, trying to lump all cachers into one type is, to put it diplomatically, unwise. I know at least a couple cachers that would be of a great service to geocaching if they would never place another cache (think about illegal and unsafe hides that make groups ban caching).

 

Some people are good at hiding caches. In fact, some people almost exclusively hide. Other people would not make good hiders. Think about a person who travels a whole lot, either for work or otherwise. They will not be able to properly check and maintain many caches. Telling them they should hide more that they can't maintain is, again, unwise.

 

Personally, I have three current caches. One has not been found in well over a year, and as soon as the Mississippi River is back in canoeable form (it's nearing flood stage here, so no canoeing), I'll take another 36-mile trip to check on it. The second is the memorial cache for a LAGG (event cache), and gets a few people now and again. The third was destroyed in a flood and is waiting for me to get to a Corps of Engineers office to see precisely what part of the swamp they control so that I can be sure to put the improved version out legally. Among the three of these, all my maintaining caches budget is used up. I *could* hide more, but then what would I do? Just leave them to rot?

 

"Cache ratios" are most certainly based on poor assumptions. If I hide 100 caches, and 95 of them are archived because they're in train stations at airports on active military bases, does that make me any better than the person who hid 5 very high quality caches? Of course not! Still, the rather unthinking 100-cache hider would look oh-so-much better to someone looking at cache ratios. (Yes, this is certainly a fabricated example, but think about it and perhaps you will know of someone to whom it may apply, even if not to this extent.)

 

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

[+Kissimmee Kouple]

Living about 15 miles from Disney World my gripe is with people that visit the area, hide a cache and never return.

 

Kissimmee Kouple

[+rusty_da_dog]

I have thought about this subject for a long time, as I have seen people that have found 2 and hidden 10 or found 30 and hidden 35.

 

My personal opinion or at least what I was trying to do when I started hiding caches was hide one every couple of months, but now I just kinda hide one when I feel like it, which here lately hasn't been very often since I have been spending time finding, and keeping the caches I have up and running.

 

RW Da Man!!!

CHS#1

[+Renegade Knight]

A ratio of hidden to found isn't really viable. There are only so many caches that I can reasonably maintain. Even so I can find as many as I can find time to get out and look for.

 

Over time I may keep 40 or so caches out and about but my finds will keep on creeping up ever higher.

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

[+TheEdge]

I think what you stated in your first paragraph says it all. It's your "personal policy."

People should not feel that they have to stick to some arbitrary ratio. If they feel they MUST do a hide it is liable to be considered a chore, and the quality will most likely suffer.

So to answer your question. I don't think there should be any ratio of found to hidden.

[+Woof!]

there are over 2500 caches hidden withing 100 miles of me. I just started 1 month ago and found my 57th today. I haven't hidden one yet and I don't plan to until I am good and ready. I agree with TheEdge that holding someone to an arbitrary ratio would lead to low quality caches. It seems to me that you should learn about terrain ratings from finding and not from hiding. JMHO

 

Happy Halloween

[+fizzymagic]

If an appropriate ratio were to hide one cache for every five found, then I am a serious slacker, since I am supposed to have hidden something like 140 caches.

 

How do you suppose I would maintain that many?

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go For The Green:

caches should be. It's my personal policy to try to hide one cache or virtual for every five I find.

<---snip--->

Anyway, I looked at their statistics and they've found almost 200 caches and only hidden 3! I think they need to spend a weekend hiding some to get a feel for it and how sometimes it's not easy to get a good difficulty rating.

---

So, the people that are approaching 2500 finds should have 500 caches that they can't maintain? Or just 500 lame virtuals?

And speaking of maintaining your caches, is it really better to have 12 caches when you can't properly maintain 6, or just 6 high-quality caches? The idea is NOT to have caches like this one, where the broken remains of the caches have been sitting there since last December. Can't you just run right out and place a logbook in this one? Don't tell me with only 12 placed, you already can't properly maintain them? Whatcha gonna do when you have 40 caches out there to maintain?

Actually, I'm sure after 200 finds, the person your complaining about has a pretty good idea of how a cache is rated compared to other caches. He doesn't need to hide any to know how difficult the terrain was, or how hard it was to find the cache.

I've found the ratings do vary by geographical area somewhat, because what may be considered an easy or common terrain/hiding method in one region, might be unusual or difficult in another. So sometimes when I'm traveling, a rating I think might be a little off for my area seems to fit right in with the rest of the caches in the area the cache is hidden in.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

 

[This message was edited by Mopar on May 12, 2003 at 04:48 AM.]

[+9Key]

I don't think a ratio is appropriate either, but I would like to see folks give back to the game. I'm sure there are cachers all over the country that have a few hundred finds and 0 hides. That's not very fair IMO.

 

In my case, I like hiding caches as much as finding them. Its a creative outlet for me.

 

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 9Key:

I don't think a ratio is appropriate either, but I would like to see folks give back to the game. I'm sure there are cachers all over the country that have a few hundred finds and 0 hides. That's not very fair IMO.

---

Just remember that hiding is not the only way to give back to the game. There are people who go and clean up waterlogged caches. There are people that don't hide but always trade way up to get worn out caches back in neocacher-compatible form. There are people that don't hide many and don't trade but are the veritable poster children of CITO. (Oh, and I know of at least one person who's a bit busy with some coding and a chat to do much hiding or even finding.)

 

It's important for people to give back, but geocaching has become more than just a box in the middle of nowhere. There is room for all sorts of contributions.

 

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

[+9Key]

I wasn't fingering you Clayjar. Chill pill!

 

The folks I'm thinking of here in the Dallas area don't do CITO, help maintain caches, etc.

 

Please resume coding!

 

[+Dave_W6DPS]

I don't like the idea of a ratio at all.

 

My son and I just decided on a guideline of placing one physical cache per month, but I still only want to place good quality caches. At least, I think they are good quality caches....

 

My ratio currently would be over 11 to one (almost 30 to 1 if you don't count virtuals), and I wonder how many caches I can practically maintain.

 

So my question is, if I get to the point where I have enough active caches that I

don't think I can properly support any more, am I supposed to stop looking?

 

Does that mean my only function in the hobby then would be to maintain caches for others?

 

By the way, Go For the Green, as of yesterday you are two behind--ARE YOU GOING TO STOP LOOKING UNTIL YOU HIDE 2.2 MORE CACHES?????

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

 

[This message was edited by Dave_W6DPS on May 13, 2003 at 01:17 AM.]

[Cholo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

Just remember that hiding is not the only way to give back to the game.

---

On a similar note: I don't remember the reason, but the other day I checked Elias' profile. His activity showed one benchmark found, and that's it. And that was on April 1st, so maybe it too was a joke. After wondering about this for a few seconds, it hit me. Duh! This is the guy who is responsible for all the computer and forum stuff that most of us take for granted. This just shows that snap judgements can often be wrong.

[+The Infielders]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. I have read them all over the last couple of days as more have been added.

 

Ok, so there are some of you who have found way more than most of us and for you a 5:1 ratio would be impossible. I've found 71 now and I think given the area I live in, 5:1 is still very real for me. I think there are plenty of places for virtual caches where you can teach/expose someone to history in the area that they may not know. To me, learning more is a big part of this. I love to go to virtuals where something signifcant is there to be read or seen.

 

For those who can't do a 5:1 ratio or don't agree with it (and that's cool) maybe placing a cache three to five times a year would be better.

 

My issue with starting this thread is to shed some light on those who are out there finding but not hiding caches. It wasn't to take anyone to task, I had to use an example of a recent log on a cache to start the thread however.

 

Again I thank you for reading the post and replying. Happy caching.

 

Now to DaveW6DPS, I have two caches here in the house which I will have hidden in time for Memorial Day weekend, so yeah my "personal" ratio will be back to the 5:1 area.

 

To Mopar, two of the caches you linked are ones I hid when I still lived in Indiana. One of them was supposedly archived, (the 1st one I hid) but maybe it was just temporarily removed. I will look into it. The other, as far as I know is still there because no one has reported not finding it. I'll email some of my caching friends in Indiana to see if any will be in that area of the state and if they are to check it for me. Any other suggestions? That's the best I know to do since I live 1,000 miles from there.

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go For The Green:

Thanks to everyone for your responses. I have read them all over the last couple of days as more have been added.

---

I know your intentions were good, and yea, it sucks to see some people seem to skate along without giving back, but you don't always know the full story.

Guys like ClayJar and 9key spend 100's of hours giving back in other ways too. CJ with his watcher program, IRC chat, and rating system.

9key and the other admins often spend several hours a day working on approving our caches.

Some hide caches under a team name, and log finds under a personal account.

 

According to your ratio, I need to hide about 40 more then I have (if you include the ones I have under another account too). With 2000 caches already within my local area, I don't know that I could find places to put 40 more quality caches, nor could I maintain them.

Some people are different. We have a cacher here in NJ that maintains a personal ratio of 1:1. Right now he has about 140 caches placed. How he does it I dunno, but he maintains most of them well.

I wasn;t trying to put you down about your own caches, just pointing out that having caches you can't maintain is worse then maintaining some ratio. As far as the ones 1000 miles away, you could arrange for one of the locals to adopt it for you. Course, it would hurt your ratio, but the cachers would benefit.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

[+Marky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go For The Green:

To Mopar, two of the caches you linked are ones I hid when I still lived in Indiana. One of them was supposedly archived, (the 1st one I hid) but maybe it was just temporarily removed. I will look into it. The other, as far as I know is still there because no one has reported not finding it. I'll email some of my caching friends in Indiana to see if any will be in that area of the state and if they are to check it for me. Any other suggestions? That's the best I know to do since I live 1,000 miles from there.

---

This is the reason why 'vacation' caches aren't allowed. If you are moving out of the area and have placed caches, you either need to have someone officially adopt them (from that point on, they get to edit the description, disable or archive, etc.) or you should remove them and archive them before moving. You shouldn't leave caches in place and hope for the best.

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

[+Georat]

I would prefer it if Cachers went for quality, well-maintained caches rather than quantity.

[+briansnat]

I agree that it's nice for people to give back by placing caches, but some people just don't want the responsibility (and if they don't, we definitely don't want them placing caches).

 

In the beginning, I kept pretty close to a 1:1 ratio, but as I found more caches, that became impractical. I'm pretty much near my limit as to the number of caches I can comfortably maintain, so as I place new caches, I've been archiving some older ones. Because of this, my number of hides will remain pretty much static and my hide to find ratio will grow as I find more caches.

 

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln