Need some opinions

[+Team Chevitanondr]

So I put out my first geocache GC37627 and it was a fairly easy park and grab near a culvert in a shopping center. The cache is in the rocks above the culvert and required no climbing and at the time no need to move any rocks. (The description says all of this.) I went to check on the cache today after one person said DNF then another said they found it but it was further out than they expected. Going out there I can tell that people did not follow the description. The rocks that were once stable to walk on ...though you didn't need to... have now all been moved around and are loose making the area much more dangerous to walk on. I didn't find the cache but it was also raining and I didn't have much of a chance to look. (I am pretty sure it is there but has migrated.) Now my question that I pose to anyone reading this is ... Should I archive the cache so that people don't disrupt the area any more than they have? OR Do I up the terrain and put a warning about the loose rocks? (I am going to go back and check on it again when the weather is better.) I will say that I am upset over the lack of regard for the area BUT the rocks still serve the purpose that they are there for it has just made it more dangerous for people who choose to walk on them which most people wouldn't do anyhow especially non-cachers.

[AZcachemeister]

Looks to me like everyone has enjoyed the cache, so I wouldn't archive it.

 

Bringing people (cachers) to a location will almost always result in changes.

 

Perhaps a more explicit hint is in order?

[+L0ne.R]

Nice to read that there's a handcarved stamp in your letterbox. Kudos.

 

I agree with AZ, a good hint is needed. One that practically tells people where it is, will likely decrease the amount of rocks being moved and might keep the cache in the correct spot. Currently, the way it reads, it invites a lot of rock turning.

[knowschad]

Only 1 DNF and you are considering archiving it because of some loose rocks on "a fairly easy park and grab near a culvert in a shopping center."? And you have a 2 star terrain rating on it? No. Forget it. Just the 2 star terrain rating alone "fixes" any perceived problems the cache may have.

 

That said, I'd be likely to walk away from that cache, if it is what it sounds like. A rockpile hide near a shopping center wouldn't hold my attention for very long. But that's just me.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Some people don't have the cache page available, or they do but don't read it.

 

Some people have nothing but the coordinates, which have been pre-loaded into the GPS unit when they bought it. (Well, for a new cache, not right away, but given some time...) Those people won't even know who placed the cache - unless they expend some effort to find out - and won't notice if you've archived the cache and will keep looking anyway.

[+bflentje]

Only 1 DNF and you are considering archiving it because of some loose rocks on "a fairly easy park and grab near a culvert in a shopping center."? And you have a 2 star terrain rating on it? No. Forget it. Just the 2 star terrain rating alone "fixes" any perceived problems the cache may have.

 

That said, I'd be likely to walk away from that cache, if it is what it sounds like. A rockpile hide near a shopping center wouldn't hold my attention for very long. But that's just me.

 

My least favorite kind of cache as well but your scenario is not a reason to archive it. It's location probably is though..

[knowschad]

Only 1 DNF and you are considering archiving it because of some loose rocks on "a fairly easy park and grab near a culvert in a shopping center."? And you have a 2 star terrain rating on it? No. Forget it. Just the 2 star terrain rating alone "fixes" any perceived problems the cache may have.

 

That said, I'd be likely to walk away from that cache, if it is what it sounds like. A rockpile hide near a shopping center wouldn't hold my attention for very long. But that's just me.

 

My least favorite kind of cache as well but your scenario is not a reason to archive it.

I didn't suggest archiving it. Not at all.

[+Team Chevitanondr]

Looks to me like everyone has enjoyed the cache, so I wouldn't archive it.

 

Bringing people (cachers) to a location will almost always result in changes.

 

Perhaps a more explicit hint is in order?

 

Thank you AZcachemeister I will probably follow through on your suggestion once I have a chance to go out and locate the cache.

 

 

Only 1 DNF and you are considering archiving it because of some loose rocks on "a fairly easy park and grab near a culvert in a shopping center."? And you have a 2 star terrain rating on it? No. Forget it. Just the 2 star terrain rating alone "fixes" any perceived problems the cache may have.

 

That said, I'd be likely to walk away from that cache, if it is what it sounds like. A rockpile hide near a shopping center wouldn't hold my attention for very long. But that's just me.

 

My least favorite kind of cache as well but your scenario is not a reason to archive it. It's location probably is though..

 

knowschad and bflentje in reference to you saying that you wouldn't bother with a cache like this, like the title of this thread that is YOUR opinion. That being said though this culvert borders a small patch of woods that are part of a nature study and therefore there is interesting wildlife and scenery despite the proximity to the shopping center. However considering the amount of damage done I am glad I didn't place this in a more pristine area and I will continue to consider that when placing future caches.

[+larryc43230]

knowschad and bflentje in reference to you saying that you wouldn't bother with a cache like this, like the title of this thread that is YOUR opinion. That being said though this culvert borders a small patch of woods that are part of a nature study and therefore there is interesting wildlife and scenery despite the proximity to the shopping center. However considering the amount of damage done I am glad I didn't place this in a more pristine area and I will continue to consider that when placing future caches.

I can't speak for the others, but in my case I'd be tempted to put this cache on my Ignore List not because of the location but because of the type of hide. I get bored very quickly if I find myself needing to lift every rock in a rock pile looking for the one that either covers or contains the cache. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack: It just seems like a brainless exercise of picking up and staring at hundreds of rocks at random, and the time it takes to find the cache is a matter of pure chance. And that isn't my idea of a good time.

 

Of course, this is a favorite type of hide for quite a few cachers I know. To each his own!

 

--Larry

Edited December 7, 2011 by larryc43230

[+Team Chevitanondr]

knowschad and bflentje in reference to you saying that you wouldn't bother with a cache like this, like the title of this thread that is YOUR opinion. That being said though this culvert borders a small patch of woods that are part of a nature study and therefore there is interesting wildlife and scenery despite the proximity to the shopping center. However considering the amount of damage done I am glad I didn't place this in a more pristine area and I will continue to consider that when placing future caches.

I can't speak for the others, but in my case I'd be tempted to put this cache on my Ignore List not because of the location but because of the type of hide. I get bored very quickly if I find myself needing to lift every rock in a rock pile looking for the one that either covers or contains the cache. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack: It just seems like a brainless exercise of picking up and staring at hundreds of rocks at random, and the time it takes to find the cache is a matter of pure chance. And that isn't my idea of a good time.

 

Of course, this is a favorite type of hide for quite a few cachers I know. To each his own!

 

--Larry

 

That is the sad and disappointing part of this cache. The way it was hidden originally you shouldn't have had to move a single rock. The container has good camo but I had placed it with the intention being that observation was more important than physical action. Obviously I needed to be more clear in my description and clue ...you live you learn.

[+PokerLuck]

The way it was hidden originally you shouldn't have had to move a single rock.

 

I find this part intriguing. What information was provided to let people know which one stone needed to be turned to find the cache? I didn't see anything in the cache description that would tell me which stone it was. I imagine that most cachers are just going to start turning rocks over in their search, and I can't say that I blame them. If you don't provide cachers with the information they need, don't expect to control their behaviour.

 

Personally, I prefer challenging caches, not difficult ones like this one. A challenging cache requires you to think a little about the cache location, and once the light bulb in your head goes off, it's obvious. A difficult cache is just the opposite. No amount of reasoning or deduction will help locate it. A three year old could find a cache in a rock pile by just turning over rocks until he turns over the right one. Difficult and time-consuming? Yes, but not particularly challenging.

[+Team Chevitanondr]

The way it was hidden originally you shouldn't have had to move a single rock.

 

I find this part intriguing. What information was provided to let people know which one stone needed to be turned to find the cache? I didn't see anything in the cache description that would tell me which stone it was. I imagine that most cachers are just going to start turning rocks over in their search, and I can't say that I blame them. If you don't provide cachers with the information they need, don't expect to control their behaviour.

 

Personally, I prefer challenging caches, not difficult ones like this one. A challenging cache requires you to think a little about the cache location, and once the light bulb in your head goes off, it's obvious. A difficult cache is just the opposite. No amount of reasoning or deduction will help locate it. A three year old could find a cache in a rock pile by just turning over rocks until he turns over the right one. Difficult and time-consuming? Yes, but not particularly challenging.

 

I think you may have misread what I had written ..you did not need to move anything. The way it was if you just looked at the area there was an obvious spot where the cache was hidden. There was a cubby created by the stones the way they were sitting where the cache fit right in. The camo made it a little more difficult to spot but it was just sitting in this cubby. The description said that no lifting was needed but I am thinking I needed to be more obvious with both the description and clue.

[+larryc43230]

I think you may have misread what I had written ..you did not need to move anything. The way it was if you just looked at the area there was an obvious spot where the cache was hidden. There was a cubby created by the stones the way they were sitting where the cache fit right in. The camo made it a little more difficult to spot but it was just sitting in this cubby. The description said that no lifting was needed but I am thinking I needed to be more obvious with both the description and clue.

This reminds me of the time I went looking for a similar cache with the cache owner tagging along to watch the fun. We walked to the area, and he told me the spot, and the cache, should be obvious to any experienced cacher without moving anything. I stood there, scratching my head, not seeing anything that stuck out. As far as the cache owner was concerned, there might as well have been a big red neon arrow pointing to the spot the cache was in, but it just didn't pop out at me. I eventually found the cache, but only after stumbling around for a while.

 

The lesson I, and the cache owner, learned was that what seems obvious to one person may be not so obvious to someone else. Cachers who looked for that cache in the following months seemed split about fifty/fifty; a lot of cachers spotted the hiding place right away. A lot of others, maybe half, either took the pick-up-random-rocks approach and eventually found it that way, or gave up in frustration.

 

--Larry

[+uxorious]

The way it was hidden originally you shouldn't have had to move a single rock.

 

I find this part intriguing. What information was provided to let people know which one stone needed to be turned to find the cache? I didn't see anything in the cache description that would tell me which stone it was. I imagine that most cachers are just going to start turning rocks over in their search, and I can't say that I blame them. If you don't provide cachers with the information they need, don't expect to control their behaviour.

 

Personally, I prefer challenging caches, not difficult ones like this one. A challenging cache requires you to think a little about the cache location, and once the light bulb in your head goes off, it's obvious. A difficult cache is just the opposite. No amount of reasoning or deduction will help locate it. A three year old could find a cache in a rock pile by just turning over rocks until he turns over the right one. Difficult and time-consuming? Yes, but not particularly challenging.

 

I think you may have misread what I had written ..you did not need to move anything. The way it was if you just looked at the area there was an obvious spot where the cache was hidden. There was a cubby created by the stones the way they were sitting where the cache fit right in. The camo made it a little more difficult to spot but it was just sitting in this cubby. The description said that no lifting was needed but I am thinking I needed to be more obvious with both the description and clue.

 

The hint "Leave no stone turned", may well be misread by many people as, Leave no stone unturned.

 

If I had read that hint, I may very well have thought you meant it was under a stone. Your hint, though it seems like a good one, may have had the opposite effect of what you were after.

[+Team Chevitanondr]

I think you may have misread what I had written ..you did not need to move anything. The way it was if you just looked at the area there was an obvious spot where the cache was hidden. There was a cubby created by the stones the way they were sitting where the cache fit right in. The camo made it a little more difficult to spot but it was just sitting in this cubby. The description said that no lifting was needed but I am thinking I needed to be more obvious with both the description and clue.

This reminds me of the time I went looking for a similar cache with the cache owner tagging along to watch the fun. We walked to the area, and he told me the spot, and the cache, should be obvious to any experienced cacher without moving anything. I stood there, scratching my head, not seeing anything that stuck out. As far as the cache owner was concerned, there might as well have been a big red neon arrow pointing to the spot the cache was in, but it just didn't pop out at me. I eventually found the cache, but only after stumbling around for a while.

 

The lesson I, and the cache owner, learned was that what seems obvious to one person may be not so obvious to someone else. Cachers who looked for that cache in the following months seemed split about fifty/fifty; a lot of cachers spotted the hiding place right away. A lot of others, maybe half, either took the pick-up-random-rocks approach and eventually found it that way, or gave up in frustration.

 

--Larry

 

Well now the spot no longer exists. Like I said it was my first cache so all part of the learning curve. I think once the weather clears up I will locate the cache and adjust the wording of the description to try to fix the situation a bit. I appreciate hearing your about your experience it sounds very similar to the situation.

[+CanadianRockies]

The way it was hidden originally you shouldn't have had to move a single rock. The container has good camo but I had placed it with the intention being that observation was more important than physical action. Obviously I needed to be more clear in my description and clue ...you live you learn.

As others have pointed out, one of the things you will learn is that some people don't read the descriptions or hints. They simply go to the posted coordinates, find the cache, and hide it again...sometimes in a different location. "Cache migration" is a fairly common phenomenon, especially at locations where there are multiple places to re-hide the cache.

[+Team Chevitanondr]

The way it was hidden originally you shouldn't have had to move a single rock.

 

I find this part intriguing. What information was provided to let people know which one stone needed to be turned to find the cache? I didn't see anything in the cache description that would tell me which stone it was. I imagine that most cachers are just going to start turning rocks over in their search, and I can't say that I blame them. If you don't provide cachers with the information they need, don't expect to control their behaviour.

 

Personally, I prefer challenging caches, not difficult ones like this one. A challenging cache requires you to think a little about the cache location, and once the light bulb in your head goes off, it's obvious. A difficult cache is just the opposite. No amount of reasoning or deduction will help locate it. A three year old could find a cache in a rock pile by just turning over rocks until he turns over the right one. Difficult and time-consuming? Yes, but not particularly challenging.

 

I think you may have misread what I had written ..you did not need to move anything. The way it was if you just looked at the area there was an obvious spot where the cache was hidden. There was a cubby created by the stones the way they were sitting where the cache fit right in. The camo made it a little more difficult to spot but it was just sitting in this cubby. The description said that no lifting was needed but I am thinking I needed to be more obvious with both the description and clue.

 

The hint "Leave no stone turned", may well be misread by many people as, Leave no stone unturned.

 

If I had read that hint, I may very well have thought you meant it was under a stone. Your hint, though it seems like a good one, may have had the opposite effect of what you were after.

 

Yup I definitely think that is the case. I was concerned about that when I had written it but wanted it to be a little fun. I know that there have been times when we have been out and read the description and clue and on a subsequent read through gone DOH! we weren't reading that right. I just didn't think through the consequences (and apparent strength of some geocachers) would have to the area.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Team Chevitanondr

[+larryc43230]

The way it was hidden originally you shouldn't have had to move a single rock. The container has good camo but I had placed it with the intention being that observation was more important than physical action. Obviously I needed to be more clear in my description and clue ...you live you learn.

"Cache migration" is a fairly common phenomenon, especially at locations where there are multiple places to re-hide the cache.

That cache migration thing has ruined more than a few clever hides. If a finder doesn't understand the nature of the hide, or simply isn't paying enough attention, he has a good chance of not replacing it in exactly the same place, in exactly the same way, as he'd found it.

 

The problem gets (potentially) a lot worse when it's a group of cachers; the person who originally found the cache might not be the one who re-hides it, and the one who re-hides it might not have seen how it was originally hidden. When that process continues for days, weeks, and months, the cache can easily wind up hidden in a spot where the cache owner has trouble finding the thing.

 

--Larry

[+bflentje]

Looks to me like everyone has enjoyed the cache, so I wouldn't archive it.

 

Bringing people (cachers) to a location will almost always result in changes.

 

Perhaps a more explicit hint is in order?

 

Thank you AZcachemeister I will probably follow through on your suggestion once I have a chance to go out and locate the cache.

 

 

Only 1 DNF and you are considering archiving it because of some loose rocks on "a fairly easy park and grab near a culvert in a shopping center."? And you have a 2 star terrain rating on it? No. Forget it. Just the 2 star terrain rating alone "fixes" any perceived problems the cache may have.

 

That said, I'd be likely to walk away from that cache, if it is what it sounds like. A rockpile hide near a shopping center wouldn't hold my attention for very long. But that's just me.

 

My least favorite kind of cache as well but your scenario is not a reason to archive it. It's location probably is though..

 

knowschad and bflentje in reference to you saying that you wouldn't bother with a cache like this, like the title of this thread that is YOUR opinion. That being said though this culvert borders a small patch of woods that are part of a nature study and therefore there is interesting wildlife and scenery despite the proximity to the shopping center. However considering the amount of damage done I am glad I didn't place this in a more pristine area and I will continue to consider that when placing future caches.

 

@Knowschad: not suggesting you said archive it, was referring to OP.

 

@Team Chevitanondr: I never said I wouldn't bother. If you had read what I said, I said my least favorite kind of cache.

 

Jeez..

[+badger10]

The problem with the written word is that when you write your message you already know what you mean to say. It doesn't always follow that what I read and interpet is what the writer intended. That happens to me alot. What I know I meant to say is not always what the readers understand. Sometimes it helps me to have someone read what I write and then have them tell me what they get out of it. Of course if I had done that on a few of my posts on the forums I would not have to explain that what I wrote is not what I meant. S... happens. Live and learn.

[+DanOCan]

The hint "Leave no stone turned", may well be misread by many people as, Leave no stone unturned.

 

I agree. Even when I first saw your post my mind read it as "unturned" since that is the phrase you hear most often. The brain loves to fill it what it thinks it already knows.

 

Something else to consider -- I know a lot of cachers have gotten very good at reading ROT13 and they recognize common words such as rock, tree and stone. Some may not have even bothered decoding the hint and just saw "fbgar" and went -- ah ha, under a stone!

[+rob3k]

You could touch base with the person who gave you permission for the placement and see if the moved rocks are troubling to him or her. If not, leave it.

[+power69]

You could touch base with the person who gave you permission for the placement and see if the moved rocks are troubling to him or her. If not, leave it.

I got one like this on camelback and they've wrote me people are leaving the area in disarray so to keep the cache there i have to go by twice a week and put things how they should be.

[Clan Riffster]

Should I archive the cache so that people don't disrupt the area any more than they have?

How important is it that these rocks be placed in a specific way? If having them shuffled around is not going to cause harm, then I would not archive the cache. If having them shuffled about is going to cause harm, the cache should not be there. A lot of cachers I know simply follow there devices from cache to cache, checking the cache page/hint/past logs/etc as a last resort, if they don't find it right away. Because of this behavior, any cache that is placed on or even near a rock pile is going to result in those rocks being moved.

[+Team Chevitanondr]

Thanks to everyone for their ideas I'm going to leave the cache active as the rocks are moved but still serving their purpose. On future caches I'll be more specific for those who do read the descriptions. Thanks again. Team Chevitanondr