New recruits

[+thehoomer]

I seem to recall in the past, forum participants discussed the suggestion of new cachers having to qualify hiding a cache by finding a certain amount first. Ive had a search around but cant find the thread. Can anyone help please?

[+Eartha]

There are a multitude of threads that suggest that it's a good idea. That's probably why you can't find one. I found this one.

 

<edit to insert link>

Edited August 17, 2011 by Eartha

[+Bear and Ragged]

The guidelines have a suggestion of finding at least 20 before you hide one...

 

 

But. Had Dave Ulmer abided by that, would we be here?

[+thehoomer]

I thought I had a fixed opinion on this topic but after reading through the links within the link, I am now undecided/on the fence. It was good to read both sides.

Thanks very much for your help.

[+zodiac73]

The guidelines have a suggestion of finding at least 20 before you hide one...

 

 

But. Had Dave Ulmer abided by that, would we be here?

 

Exactly!

 

I've heard this many times "you should find 100 caches before being allowed to place a hide" etc etc which is silly. Some people can read up on the subject and learn what would make a crap hide without having to find a certain number first.

 

What should be done, is a system where crap caches get re-reviewed and archived if they are total rubbish!

[+NattyBooshka]

The guidelines have a suggestion of finding at least 20 before you hide one...

 

 

But. Had Dave Ulmer abided by that, would we be here?

 

Exactly!

 

I've heard this many times "you should find 100 caches before being allowed to place a hide" etc etc which is silly. Some people can read up on the subject and learn what would make a crap hide without having to find a certain number first.

 

What should be done, is a system where crap caches get re-reviewed and archived if they are total rubbish!

Reading the guidelines... I can put a challenge up, pinpointing a definate bin... With the challenge to dump a crap geocache here.

 

So we can police it ourselves at last!

 

Reviewers have no remit to check how good a cache is... They have enough to contend with trying to make sure it's legal!

Edited August 19, 2011 by NattyBooshka

[+zodiac73]

The guidelines have a suggestion of finding at least 20 before you hide one...

 

 

But. Had Dave Ulmer abided by that, would we be here?

 

Exactly!

 

I've heard this many times "you should find 100 caches before being allowed to place a hide" etc etc which is silly. Some people can read up on the subject and learn what would make a crap hide without having to find a certain number first.

 

What should be done, is a system where crap caches get re-reviewed and archived if they are total rubbish!

Reading the guidelines... I can put a challenge up, pinpointing a definate bin... With the challenge to dump a crap geocache here.

 

So we can police it ourselves at last!

 

Reviewers have no remit to check how good a cache is... They have enough to contend with trying to make sure it's legal!

 

Challenge accepted! Only kidding, even crap caches are still the legal property of the CO.

 

Some kind of opposite of Favourite points would work though, or just a string of logs where finders declare that they thought it was crap, for the location or waste of time whatever.

 

Or appoint volunteer Cache Police for each area lol

[+The Growler]

 

I've heard this many times "you should find 100 caches before being allowed to place a hide" etc etc which is silly. Some people can read up on the subject and learn what would make a crap hide without having to find a certain number first.

 

What should be done, is a system where crap caches get re-reviewed and archived if they are total rubbish!

 

I had a bit of an ephiphany today as I stared at another crappy cache and just walked away.

I am seriously thinking of giving up the game for a while or even for good. I just questioned whether I was enjoying myself anymore.

 

Back to your point.

Whilst quality needs to be upped, peer reviews are very much open to abuse and at the mercy of the schoolyard antics that go on in the caching world.

I would imagine caches getting negative marks for no other reason than that other COs can't take criticism in the logs on their caches.

So how do we fix this? Maybe there should be a 20,50 or 100 find minimum before you can place a cache. I know some of my earlier ones were poorly thought out as I really didn't know what I was doing. I suppose it might put some people off but I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. I'm going to read the arguments for and against here now and see which side I come down on.

Either way, I hope the quality improves.

[+gazooks]

The 20 cache find suggestion has been around for a long time - when I joined in 2005 there only about 5000 caches in the whole UK, so to find 20 caches took a few weeks and there were no power trails to speak of. These days you can find 20 caches in a morning on a power trail of micros.

 

IMHO I think the suggested figure should be raised and sadly enforced.

 

The quality of caches in my area of the country is certainly getting worse and like Bendos I do wonder sometimes why I am looking for another micro stuck in a hedge/behind a post etc.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I was only thinking about this yesterday. It seems that many of the best caches have been placed in the last two or three years, and the quality has gone through the roof. How about Werewolf for instance, or Alphabet Soup (just picking a couple at random). Or Bilsthorpe Southwell Trail 10:Watering Hole. Or The Fourth Upper Derwent Reservoir, or ...I could go on for hours.

 

Of course, you have to be a little selective when planning a cache trip as there are bound to be indifferent (or poor) ones out there as well. But I can honestly say that it's getting harder to find the bad ones, and the good ones are proliferating. Several local cachers (within eighty miles or so anyway) seem to be trying to outdo each other with the best caches.

 

Or perhaps I'm just getting better at spotting the likely candidates for a quality caching session. Or perhaps there are more good caches in this neck of the woods than in others.

 

Why not start by mostly finding caches that have a favourite point, and avoiding those that have neutral logs? I also check the local forums for tips, read bookmark lists, and look further afield for caches that have dozens of favourite points.

 

Or you could look through the pages of my recent finds and use them as a shortlist!

[+thehoomer]

I'm still on the fence on this. We had found around 400 caches before we set our first cache (GCWTW8). We felt that we had to live up to the clever hides of the likes of Jollyjax, Messe and Alibags and didn't feel confident of this, until we had had plenty of experience. The 'then and now' difference is, we are still very proud of our first hide some 5 years later, I wonder if those who jump straight in could say the same?

I don't have a problem with new cachers setting caches as such but what irks me is the fact that (in my experience), their 'new found, all addictive, all consuming' hobby fizzles out in no time at all and after setting caches, the CO suddenly disappears from the Geo world. This leaves a few problems. A cache which is broken/damp/missing but more importantly, geo-litter in the countryside. A few weeks ago, Dave and I went out to retrieve several containers which had been archived for some time and the CO's have been contacted to see if they want them. So far, no one has replied and I don't expect them to. The containers were face cream pots, chinese takeaway containers etc, so they are no use to us but equally, they are no use to the beautiful countryside they were placed in either!!

 

One thing is for certain, the reviewers would be a lot less busy (launching & archiving) if there was a 'finds requirement' or a show of commitment in some other way.

Edited to add.....

I know its not just new cachers who are responsible for leaving redundant caches in the countryside forever!

Edited September 10, 2011 by thehoomer

[+Shiggaddi]

I agree with the principle of something like 20, or even 100 finds before being allowed to set a cache, however I can see quite a few problems arising.

 

1. In the UK, in most areas it is possible to reach 100 easily, however in some countries, there's only 1 or 2 caches within 100 miles of the capital city. I think it would be reasonable to allow someone to set up an account and place a 3rd cache.

 

2. I recall from my visit to Mega Wales, one of the guest speakers was part of the local tourism board, and to encourage more people to visit a certain part of Wales, she looked into setting up geocaches, and the tourism board paid for a GPS, and she asked for advice on the forum. If organisations want to encourage tourism via geocaching, but can't do so because of the rules, then we'd be missing out on lots of good caches.

 

Also, people do have different opinions on what makes a good cache. A nano hidden along a tarmac path at a back of a lamp post might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm sure wheelchair users would appreciate it.

 

Newcomers also bring with them, their experience of favourite places. They might have a favourite spot or two in the countryside where it's quite a way to the nearest geocache. I've seen some newcomers place some really good caches, but they stop after a few, as they placed them in a few favourite places close to their home, and don't race to put out lots of bad quality caches.

[+The Growler]

I take it back - I'm not going to go over the arguments. I have made up my mind just based on caching experience. A minimum 100 caches found before you place is a must in the UK. I accept that remote places in the UK might need this tweaking (like the Highlands and Islands)but for the rest of us, some sort of QC is needed IMHO.

 

Several local cachers (within eighty miles or so anyway) seem to be trying to outdo each other with the best caches.

80 MILES = LOCAL!!!! Are you a Saudi oil sheik in disguise?

 

Sadly your recommended caches are neither local to me, nor wholly available to all players. Also, there is the little matter that most cachers have a pathological need to fill in their locale with smiley faces.

[+BrixingtonPaddler]

A crap cache is a crap cache, some of my early ones might be considered that in hindsight

 

But what if that was the purpose... difficulty goes up as it turns into a dare to go and get said crap cache - either by touch or because of local conditions

[+Shiggaddi]

I had a bit of an ephiphany today as I stared at another crappy cache and just walked away.

I am seriously thinking of giving up the game for a while or even for good. I just questioned whether I was enjoying myself anymore.

 

 

There is also the question of what is defined as a "crappy cache" There are a few million people all over the world with geocaching accounts, and you can't please everyone. Everyone has pet hates, and everyone has their favourite type, and as long as the cache is maintained and in good condition, then I'm happy to find a lamp post micro, although I do much prefer a walk on a footpath leading to a scenic view and a cache to find with very few muggles around. However if the CO explains that it's just a micro attached to a lamp post, then there's no problem as people who hate this sort of cache can decide not to find it.

 

However if a cache is placed around lots of rubbish and dog mess, the cache is waterlogged and damaged, and was just a broken ice cream container, and the owner hasn't logged in for 2 years, and the description says it's a nice walk in the park, is also rated a 1/1 even though wheelchair users would never be able to reach it, then I would certainly voice all my concerns in the log.

 

Also, remember there's always cachers around who are trying to fill in their caching calender, or need a few more caches to reach a milestone, or people on a long journey will all appreciate sensibly placed C&Ds when they don't have the time for a longer walk.

[+Shiggaddi]

I had a bit of an ephiphany today as I stared at another crappy cache and just walked away.

I am seriously thinking of giving up the game for a while or even for good. I just questioned whether I was enjoying myself anymore.

 

 

There is also the question of what is defined as a "crappy cache" There are a few million people all over the world with geocaching accounts, and you can't please everyone. Everyone has pet hates, and everyone has their favourite type, and as long as the cache is maintained and in good condition, then I'm happy to find a lamp post micro, although I do much prefer a walk on a footpath leading to a scenic view and a cache to find with very few muggles around. However if the CO explains that it's just a micro attached to a lamp post, then there's no problem as people who hate this sort of cache can decide not to find it.

 

However if a cache is placed around lots of rubbish and dog mess, the cache is waterlogged and damaged, and was just a broken ice cream container, and the owner hasn't logged in for 2 years, and the description says it's a nice walk in the park, is also rated a 1/1 even though wheelchair users would never be able to reach it, then I would certainly voice all my concerns in the log.

 

Also, remember there's always cachers around who are trying to fill in their caching calender, or need a few more caches to reach a milestone, or people on a long journey will all appreciate sensibly placed C&Ds when they don't have the time for a longer walk.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I take it back - I'm not going to go over the arguments. I have made up my mind just based on caching experience. A minimum 100 caches found before you place is a must in the UK. I accept that remote places in the UK might need this tweaking (like the Highlands and Islands)but for the rest of us, some sort of QC is needed IMHO.

 

Several local cachers (within eighty miles or so anyway) seem to be trying to outdo each other with the best caches.

80 MILES = LOCAL!!!! Are you a Saudi oil sheik in disguise?

 

Sadly your recommended caches are neither local to me, nor wholly available to all players. Also, there is the little matter that most cachers have a pathological need to fill in their locale with smiley faces.

I think you've hit the nail on the head twice with that reply.

If you're going to insist on trying every cache in your area then you're bound to encounter the dross.

Also, if you think that ten miles is a long way to go then you'll miss out on many great caches.

 

In addition, if some great caches are Premium-only; membership isn't very expensive, so you only have yourself to blame if you can't see some of the best caches in your area because you deem the price too high.

 

I don't go eighty miles just on a whim, but I'll build a list of great-looking caches until there's enough to justify a longer trip. Normally it's a much shorter journey than that, but I consider a 50-80 mile radius as "local" and I keep an eye on cache developments within that sort of area. I know that with petrol close to the £1.30 / litre mark you have to consider whether a journey is worthwhile, but in my case that motivates me to carefully identify all the really good caches I can get to. And I still say; the system must be working because there are more and more good caches available. The problem lies with non-selective seekers rather than poor hiders. Perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to start finding caches until you have ten cache hides...

Edited September 11, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[+Palujia]

My good lady wife (aka she who must be obeyed) cannot walk far so when I started to plan my first series I decided that they would be cache and dash. It started out with 5 and ended up as a circular drive of eight. I tried to make them as interesting as possible and you can't really go wrong with our glorious Cotswold countryside. They are all trad caches and most have room for coins/tbs. I took advice from experienced cachers by attending meets and set my series out before I had 100 finds. I visit them every couple of months to check log books and "water tightness" and even after 6 months found that a couple needed replacing - those stupid keysafes are NOT watertight and the magnets are not much kop either. Have since visited several specialist caching shops and now have a really good supply of really strong magnets and several types of really good containers for my next series. I have had no complaints and more than a few compliments on the series. So I'm not sure that any specific number of finds should be necessary - but much thought and planning should be given to what, why and where you are putting caches

Edited September 12, 2011 by Palujia

[+Shiggaddi]

As soon as I saw your post, and a circular drive on the Cotswolds, I went to check if it's the one that I'd done part of and it was. I done a few of the series as a C&D whilst travelling from where I was staying in London, on the way to the Wales Mega. It was good to find some nice caches to break up the journey.

[+thehoomer]

My good lady wife (aka she who must be obeyed) cannot walk far so when I started to plan my first series I decided that they would be cache and dash. It started out with 5 and ended up as a circular drive of eight. I tried to make them as interesting as possible and you can't really go wrong with our glorious Cotswold countryside. They are all trad caches and most have room for coins/tbs. I took advice from experienced cachers by attending meets and set my series out before I had 100 finds. I visit them every couple of months to check log books and "water tightness" and even after 6 months found that a couple needed replacing - those stupid keysafes are NOT watertight and the magnets are not much kop either. Have since visited several specialist caching shops and now have a really good supply of really strong magnets and several types of really good containers for my next series. I have had no complaints and more than a few compliments on the series. So I'm not sure that any specific number of finds should be necessary - but much thought and planning should be given to what, why and where you are putting caches

I suppose an enjoyable days caching means different things to different people. A whole series or day, dedicated to driving around in a car would be our worst nightmare. For us, Geocaching is all about getting out for a good walk in the countryside, seeing something interesting or learning about an area which is new to us. As you have said above though, not everyone has the luxury of fitness and drive-by caches are a solution for the less able who still want to go caching. These types of caches certainly have their place in the hobby and we have sometimes grabbed a few when we have already been on a long walk in the countryside and have a bit of time spare before going home.

I am sure there are many like you, who give a great deal of thought to placement/location/container/access etc but in my recent experience of this area at least, it seems that some new cachers are just throwing a cache on the ground and then ticking the release box. They create a page with 1 sentence on it or, as I think I have seen recently, the words, ‘NO PEN’ as the sum total of the information on the page.

I had a discussion the other day, with a caching friend who I hadn’t seen for ages. He pointed out to me that it may be that it just seems like there are more inferior caches out there because there are more caches generally. He said that there has always been caches which have room for improvement, it just appears that there are more now because the because of the overall growth in numbers. I hadn’t thought about it this way and I tend to agree with him. It concerns me though, that inferior caches will become the norm and future cachers will lose out on some of the fantastic caching experiences we have had.

I’m not sure what the solution is, may be there isn’t one and I will just have to learn to live with it. As others have said though, the favorite’s system seems to work well and we all have the option of being more selective too.