Jump to content

0 Finds placing caches


jellis
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I am sure we are not the only ones getting either new cachers or sock puppets placing caches with 0 finds or just a few finds.

I can understand maybe 25 finds but 0 finds? How is this being a cacher if your not actually playing the game by not finding any?

The ones we have here usually just place them and either there is something wrong with the cache or it is actually a good hide. But then you don't hear from them again and in most cases we are stuck with a cache in the area that gets no maintenance or have to put NA because something is wrong with it and the cacher doesn't respond.

What are your thoughts?

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

Not actually the same. They are asking when. Which is the right thing to do. I am more like complaining about ones who have already done it and don't seem to care what others think.

And yes I've seen it over and over. But I am looking for what others think about it. And yes wishing over and over that there was some kind of limit to finds per placing.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

Not actually the same. They are asking when. Which is the right thing to do. I am more like complaining about ones who have already done it and don't seem to care what others think.

And yes I've seen it over and over. But I am looking for what others think about it. And yes wishing over and over that there was some kind of limit to finds per placing.

Those that don't care what others think are rather unlikely to hang out on these forums, and therefore will probably never see this thread. They're likely too busy hiding crappy caches (according to this way of looking at things, anyway).

 

Personally, I've never seen any connection between the number of finds a cacher has in his profile and the quality of his cache hides. There are way too many other factors at play. Some cachers use a different account for hiding caches than they do for finding caches. Others never (or seldom) log their finds on-line (see the various threads arguing about Web site privacy settings). Some cachers are creative and mature enough when they first discover caching to do the proper research into what makes for a good cache and hide the most clever and least lame caches in the neighborhood right from the beginning.

 

Looking at this from another angle, how does finding 100 lamp post hides, guardrail micros, or other crappy caches give someone any real background on which to base their own hides and make it any more likely they'll hide caches you'll approve of? Sometimes it really isn't all about the numbers (to coin a phrase).

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Not actually the same. They are asking when. Which is the right thing to do. I am more like complaining about ones who have already done it and don't seem to care what others think.

And yes I've seen it over and over. But I am looking for what others think about it. And yes wishing over and over that there was some kind of limit to finds per placing.

Those that don't care what others think are rather unlikely to hang out on these forums, and therefore will probably never see this thread..

 

Larry's right about that. We need to get to the source of the problem via the CO's cache page. Use constructive criticism in the logs (tough love), as well as NMs and NAs where needed (or report caches to Reviewers if you don't want to use the NA feature).

Link to comment

I'm still proud of my first geocache hide which I made 6 days after my first find. It's been out there for over 6 years now (replaced container once). 29 finds and 0 DNF's. It is still more than 4 miles from the nearest cache.

I found my 100th cache on the first anniversary of my first find. My 1000th was at the Geocaching Block Party this summer.

I have had to archive 2 caches. The first washed away with a flood (not replaced). The other was found over 50 feet downhill from where I hid it. It had been smashed by a bear. The logbook and a trackable was recovered. I'm planning on replacing that one with a better container after the winter snow melts.

Link to comment

I'm still proud of my first geocache hide which I made 6 days after my first find. It's been out there for over 6 years now (replaced container once). 29 finds and 0 DNF's. It is still more than 4 miles from the nearest cache.

I found my 100th cache on the first anniversary of my first find. My 1000th was at the Geocaching Block Party this summer.

I have had to archive 2 caches. The first washed away with a flood (not replaced). The other was found over 50 feet downhill from where I hid it. It had been smashed by a bear. The logbook and a trackable was recovered. I'm planning on replacing that one with a better container after the winter snow melts.

 

I placed my first cache after one find. It's still out there over 10 years later and I can't think of anything I'd change about it.

Link to comment

I'm still proud of my first geocache hide which I made 6 days after my first find. It's been out there for over 6 years now (replaced container once). 29 finds and 0 DNF's. It is still more than 4 miles from the nearest cache.

I found my 100th cache on the first anniversary of my first find. My 1000th was at the Geocaching Block Party this summer.

I have had to archive 2 caches. The first washed away with a flood (not replaced). The other was found over 50 feet downhill from where I hid it. It had been smashed by a bear. The logbook and a trackable was recovered. I'm planning on replacing that one with a better container after the winter snow melts.

 

I placed my first cache after one find. It's still out there over 10 years later and I can't think of anything I'd change about it.

 

You didn't have too much choice in 2001, though, did you? I am not a fan of the find quota concept, but I do see a distinct difference between one find and zero finds. One find, to me, would indicate a newbie. Zero finds makes me suspect some alterior motive, although I can't really come up with any reason why that would be a problem by itself.

Link to comment

we are stuck with a cache in the area that gets no maintenance or have to put NA because something is wrong with it and the cacher doesn't respond.

What are your thoughts?

 

Whats the difference between that and a CO that lives out of the area and expects the local cachers to maintain their cache for them?

Link to comment

Here's a cache in our area that was hidden by an account with zero finds. Eight geocachers have found it, and six of them gave it favorite points. The cache was hidden by three experienced cachers, so there are three people available to maintain it.

 

Of course, not all zero-find caches are excellent. Neither are all 1,000-find caches. I can't say I've noticed any general trend of zero-find caches being worse than average. Perhaps it's a local thing.

Link to comment

 

 

Looking at this from another angle, how does finding 100 lamp post hides, guardrail micros, or other crappy caches give someone any real background on which to base their own hides and make it any more likely they'll hide caches you'll approve of? Sometimes it really isn't all about the numbers (to coin a phrase).

 

 

this is actually the argument that has the most relavance with regard to this issue. Most new cachers locate the first few caches they find either close to home or where they work. Usually, these are urban micros in lamp posts and rock walls. When all you find are those types of hides, you think it is perfectly acceptable if not desired.

 

I still remember the first Lamp Skirt Cache I found. I thought it was enormously clever. Turns out my own one and only lamp skirt cache (albeit slightly different than the ones outside of Wally World) continually gets comments about how clever a hide it is from new cachers, same goes for my guardrail cache. Veteran cachers either give me a TFTC or comment on the sites that I brough tthem there to see instead.

 

My point is that people hide what they've found. This lends creadance to the larger argument thta new cachers should meet some threshold before hiding their first cache. An opinion that I happen to agree with.

Link to comment

we are stuck with a cache in the area that gets no maintenance or have to put NA because something is wrong with it and the cacher doesn't respond.

What are your thoughts?

My thought is when you are stuck with a cache that has something wrong with it and the cacher doesn't respond, put in a NA log.

It happens with old caches. New caches. In-between caches. Just do it and be happy when irresponsible cachers leave the game.

Link to comment

My point is that people hide what they've found. This lends creadance to the larger argument thta new cachers should meet some threshold before hiding their first cache. An opinion that I happen to agree with.

And what do you propose to use for that threshold? Finding 100 crappy caches? Finding 10 most excellent caches? And who defines that threshold? How would you handle cachers who prefer to hide under a different account than the one they cache under? Or cachers who never log their finds on-line? Are you proposing some sort of entrance exam before being allowed to hide caches, something like a quiz on the guidelines? I really can't think of a simple, objective way to define or enforce such a threshold that would also accommodate all the different sorts of cachers who want to hide caches. And pretty much any threshold would have prevented briansnat from hiding his now 10-year-old cache.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

My point is that people hide what they've found. This lends creadance to the larger argument thta new cachers should meet some threshold before hiding their first cache. An opinion that I happen to agree with.

And what do you propose to use for that threshold? Finding 100 crappy caches? Finding 10 most excellent caches? And who defines that threshold? How would you handle cachers who prefer to hide under a different account than the one they cache under? Or cachers who never log their finds on-line? Are you proposing some sort of entrance exam before being allowed to hide caches, something like a quiz on the guidelines? I really can't think of a simple, objective way to define or enforce such a threshold that would also accommodate all the different sorts of cachers who want to hide caches. And pretty much any threshold would have prevented briansnat from hiding his now 10-year-old cache.

 

--Larry

 

Any system in place would not have prevented briansnat from placing his now 10 year old cache, it simply would have delayed it. And besides, 10 years ago, when geocaching was even more fringe then it is now, 100s of lamp post caches and perpetual rock wall hides did not exist within a short drive of where ever it is that briansnat lives. In 2001 when briansnat placed his first cache, barely 10000 caches existed worldwide let alone within a few hours drive of where he lived and I am sure that most of the examples that he would have had to choose from as the one and only find he had up to that point were nice caches in scenic locations, which was the greater point of all of the info that you edited out.

 

Actually, I kind of like one of your first suggestions. If favorite points are an accurate representation of what we as a caching community like to find as caches then perhaps a new cacher should be required to accumulate a certian number of favorite points as finds before they can place their first cache... Not a bad idea, if favorite points are an accuarte indication of cache quality, which unfortunately is not always the case...

 

The rest of what you suggested have all been proposed before, and each has been debated as to their pros and cons so I won't comment on each of those. I agree that veteran cachers can place crappy hides just as I agree that occaisionally a newbie can place a nice one after just a few finds but those are the exception. In my expereince the majority of the 0-10 find hiders, usually make bad choices as to hide location or container type. It's not completely their fault if what they are finding are similar types of hides...

Link to comment

The entire ET Highway power trail (both times) was hidden by an account that had 0 Finds. (It now has 2 Finds, both events but both fairly recent).

 

Chief Talking Bull is a local sock puppet here in FL. 0 Finds, 8 Hides:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=32bc9333-5e52-4957-b0f6-5a2c8fc7b257&u=Chief+Talking+Bull

 

I've heard some people on the forums who make all Hides with one account and all Finds with another. Or don't log any Finds online. Or there is a family where each member has their own account, but the family hides under a single account.

 

I would be more concerned about someone with less than 5 Finds (all non-events) and an account created in the last month who hides a cache than I would about an account with 0 Finds and many Hides. The latter suggests to me sock puppetry or other circumstances; the former indicates a newbie who may not know what they're doing and/or may not stick around. Although I'm probably disinclined to rush out to try either cache; I'll let someone else be the guinea pig. ;)

 

Of course, such caches it becomes all the more important to log DNFs when they occur: to alert newbie CO that they have erred out of honest inexperience and to alert other cachers that trouble may be afoot.

Link to comment

"Three-Day Wonders" are probably the worst. Found one. Hid three Dollar Store Containers under rocks. Smashed Cache. Goodbye. But those don't usually last long.

But, then we have:

'Hid caches to enhance my find/hide ratio. They will be gone in three months.'

Prolific cache hider, fairly creative hides. Usually interesting. But NEVER does maintenance.

And: These have been out a year. Let me archive them all, and hide new ones.

Link to comment

 

 

Looking at this from another angle, how does finding 100 lamp post hides, guardrail micros, or other crappy caches give someone any real background on which to base their own hides and make it any more likely they'll hide caches you'll approve of? Sometimes it really isn't all about the numbers (to coin a phrase).

 

 

this is actually the argument that has the most relavance with regard to this issue. Most new cachers locate the first few caches they find either close to home or where they work. Usually, these are urban micros in lamp posts and rock walls. When all you find are those types of hides, you think it is perfectly acceptable if not desired.

 

I still remember the first Lamp Skirt Cache I found. I thought it was enormously clever. Turns out my own one and only lamp skirt cache (albeit slightly different than the ones outside of Wally World) continually gets comments about how clever a hide it is from new cachers, same goes for my guardrail cache. Veteran cachers either give me a TFTC or comment on the sites that I brough tthem there to see instead.

 

My point is that people hide what they've found. This lends creadance to the larger argument thta new cachers should meet some threshold before hiding their first cache. An opinion that I happen to agree with.

 

If they were to create minimum number of finds rule, whether it's 10, 20, 50 whatever, when a newbie is itching to hide a cache, what is he going to do? He's going to try to reach that number as quickly as possible, which means he'll probably target park-n-grab micros. Not sure how much experience he'll gain from that.

Link to comment

 

 

Looking at this from another angle, how does finding 100 lamp post hides, guardrail micros, or other crappy caches give someone any real background on which to base their own hides and make it any more likely they'll hide caches you'll approve of? Sometimes it really isn't all about the numbers (to coin a phrase).

 

 

this is actually the argument that has the most relavance with regard to this issue. Most new cachers locate the first few caches they find either close to home or where they work. Usually, these are urban micros in lamp posts and rock walls. When all you find are those types of hides, you think it is perfectly acceptable if not desired.

 

I still remember the first Lamp Skirt Cache I found. I thought it was enormously clever. Turns out my own one and only lamp skirt cache (albeit slightly different than the ones outside of Wally World) continually gets comments about how clever a hide it is from new cachers, same goes for my guardrail cache. Veteran cachers either give me a TFTC or comment on the sites that I brough tthem there to see instead.

 

My point is that people hide what they've found. This lends creadance to the larger argument thta new cachers should meet some threshold before hiding their first cache. An opinion that I happen to agree with.

 

If they were to create minimum number of finds rule, whether it's 10, 20, 50 whatever, when a newbie is itching to hide a cache, what is he going to do? He's going to try to reach that number as quickly as possible, which means he'll probably target park-n-grab micros. Not sure how much experience he'll gain from that.

 

Then that would be an even greater argument to have some percentage or base number of favorite points in order to be able ot hide a cache.

Link to comment

I know that I would have placed a lousy hide with zero or few finds. We have an acquaintance who puts out great hides, with only a few finds when he first started placing caches. However, that is not normally the case...unfortunately.

It seems around here that quick hiders fall out of love with the game and don't archive or remove abandoned caches. Or as is the case on one cache, don't respond to multiple DNFs, messages, notes or private messages.

Link to comment

I'd like to see the review process to be extended from a few days to a few weeks for the first hide, and also to have a few reviewers look at it. That should encourage new cachers to check the listing over for mistakes more thoroughly.

 

I don't buy that at all. What you are saying is that some reviewers aren't really up to snuff and would let a lousy cache by a person with few hides get by but another reviewer would catch it. Why else would you need multiple reviewers.

 

If that reviewer is that bad then lousy caches by experienced cachers would also get by him/her.

 

This issue of having qualifications before hiding a cache comes up pretty regularly and nothing ever changes but i guess giving people a chance to vent is healthy.

Link to comment

 

 

Looking at this from another angle, how does finding 100 lamp post hides, guardrail micros, or other crappy caches give someone any real background on which to base their own hides and make it any more likely they'll hide caches you'll approve of? Sometimes it really isn't all about the numbers (to coin a phrase).

 

 

this is actually the argument that has the most relavance with regard to this issue. Most new cachers locate the first few caches they find either close to home or where they work. Usually, these are urban micros in lamp posts and rock walls. When all you find are those types of hides, you think it is perfectly acceptable if not desired.

 

I still remember the first Lamp Skirt Cache I found. I thought it was enormously clever. Turns out my own one and only lamp skirt cache (albeit slightly different than the ones outside of Wally World) continually gets comments about how clever a hide it is from new cachers, same goes for my guardrail cache. Veteran cachers either give me a TFTC or comment on the sites that I brough tthem there to see instead.

 

My point is that people hide what they've found. This lends creadance to the larger argument thta new cachers should meet some threshold before hiding their first cache. An opinion that I happen to agree with.

 

If they were to create minimum number of finds rule, whether it's 10, 20, 50 whatever, when a newbie is itching to hide a cache, what is he going to do? He's going to try to reach that number as quickly as possible, which means he'll probably target park-n-grab micros. Not sure how much experience he'll gain from that.

or they'll simply armchair log what the limit is to get around it.

Link to comment

We've seen plenty of examples of where there are legitimate reasons why an account may have zero finds when placing a cache. I prefer to not judge a new hide by the number of finds on the account that placed it but rather by the quality of the cache listing.

 

An account with no finds + poorly written cache page = stay away until others find it and sort out the issues

Link to comment

We've seen plenty of examples of where there are legitimate reasons why an account may have zero finds when placing a cache. I prefer to not judge a new hide by the number of finds on the account that placed it but rather by the quality of the cache listing.

 

An account with no finds + poorly written cache page = stay away until others find it and sort out the issues

+1

 

This is pretty much my strategy. Well said.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

If they were to create minimum number of finds rule, whether it's 10, 20, 50 whatever, when a newbie is itching to hide a cache, what is he going to do? He's going to try to reach that number as quickly as possible, which means he'll probably target park-n-grab micros. Not sure how much experience he'll gain from that.

 

Which is exactly why this entire debate, that we see over and over, is just a waist of time. No matter what we all think, there will NEVER be a minimum requirement.

Link to comment

I find that in the end, geocaching only amplifies the person you are. If you are a goober in your normal life, you will probably be a goober in geocaching. If you are annoying in real life you will be that way in geocaching. I have seen too many "experienced" cachers that will just do what pleases them. I found three new caches on Monday that were by a new cacher and they were pretty great. Location, quality of the actual cache and coordinates. He has like 8 finds, but obviously he is using his brain and listening to the suggestions for hiding your first geocache. I think we want to blame experience, but it just comes down to the fact that the differences in people create a huge disparity in the quality of their contributions.

Link to comment

I'd like to see the review process to be extended from a few days to a few weeks for the first hide, and also to have a few reviewers look at it. That should encourage new cachers to check the listing over for mistakes more thoroughly.

 

I don't buy that at all. What you are saying is that some reviewers aren't really up to snuff and would let a lousy cache by a person with few hides get by but another reviewer would catch it. Why else would you need multiple reviewers.

 

If that reviewer is that bad then lousy caches by experienced cachers would also get by him/her.

 

This issue of having qualifications before hiding a cache comes up pretty regularly and nothing ever changes but i guess giving people a chance to vent is healthy.

 

It wouldn't work because reviewers are not the arbiter of cache quality. Lousy containers, mundane locations, ill thought out hiding places are not against the guidelines.

 

Catching big things like bad coords, that's what FTF hounds are for.

Link to comment

If they were to create minimum number of finds rule, whether it's 10, 20, 50 whatever, when a newbie is itching to hide a cache, what is he going to do? He's going to try to reach that number as quickly as possible, which means he'll probably target park-n-grab micros. Not sure how much experience he'll gain from that.

 

Which is exactly why this entire debate, that we see over and over, is just a waist of time. No matter what we all think, there will NEVER be a minimum requirement.

 

What about a minimum wait period?

Link to comment

I find that in the end, geocaching only amplifies the person you are. If you are a goober in your normal life, you will probably be a goober in geocaching. If you are annoying in real life you will be that way in geocaching. I have seen too many "experienced" cachers that will just do what pleases them. I found three new caches on Monday that were by a new cacher and they were pretty great. Location, quality of the actual cache and coordinates. He has like 8 finds, but obviously he is using his brain and listening to the suggestions for hiding your first geocache. I think we want to blame experience, but it just comes down to the fact that the differences in people create a huge disparity in the quality of their contributions.

 

I kind of like this post!! Some may be offended that you refer to some people as "Goobers" though. Not me, considering I'm one of the annoying people you are referring to. :blink:

 

I don't know though, the more I think about it, there is still a strong experience (or lack of it) influence in there. Even though this is the 0 find thread, last summer someone with 5 finds hid a cache in my area. Those 5 finds were 3 keyholders in street corner free newspaper boxes, and 2 parking lot micros. Their first (and only) hide had terrible coordinates, and was inside a hole on the lighted sign of a pizzeria (in full view of the employees). The owners of the Pizzeria went bonkers, taped the hole up with duct tape, and the cache was involuntarily archived. I can't necessarily say this newbie is a Goober in real life. Just hiding the kind of stuff they've found around the neighborhood.

Link to comment

I'd like to see the review process to be extended from a few days to a few weeks for the first hide, and also to have a few reviewers look at it. That should encourage new cachers to check the listing over for mistakes more thoroughly.

 

I don't buy that at all. What you are saying is that some reviewers aren't really up to snuff and would let a lousy cache by a person with few hides get by but another reviewer would catch it. Why else would you need multiple reviewers.

 

If that reviewer is that bad then lousy caches by experienced cachers would also get by him/her.

 

This issue of having qualifications before hiding a cache comes up pretty regularly and nothing ever changes but i guess giving people a chance to vent is healthy.

 

I didnt say that at all. Many lousy hides are just tossed out in a hurry. If the cacher knew ahead of time that it would take a few weeks, they would put more thought into it. It would also help create a positive behavior pattern. There should be a little interaction between the reviewer and the hider anyhow, such as asking what kind of container they used. If they post the cache and never log back in to answer basic questions, then it should be put on hold.

Link to comment

... Many lousy hides are just tossed out in a hurry. If the cacher knew ahead of time that it would take a few weeks, they would put more thought into it. It would also help create a positive behavior pattern.

In other words... creating a new set of "rules", different for some than for others. I fail to see how this would prevent or curtail lousy hides as there are loads of "questionable" hides placed by well experienced cachers. This is sort of like trying to create "smarts" with a back-door approach, and it just ain't gonna happen -- it doesn't always happen with a front-door approach!

 

There should be a little interaction between the reviewer and the hider anyhow, such as asking what kind of container they used. If they post the cache and never log back in to answer basic questions, then it should be put on hold.

For the most part, this statement already holds true. If there is a question regarding placement, the interaction is present. If no question, what good is further interaction? It would only create more "work" for the reviewer.

If the hider never logs in to answer a reviewer question, well... I believe that the proposed cache eventually falls into the archival pit. This happens all the time.

 

The bolded part however, is outside of the bounds of review and in essence it would be turning the reviewer into "Good Cache Container" police. Perhaps it is a fair idea, but the reviewers have plenty of demands placed upon them as it is. Besides that, each placement is (mostly) unique in its' own right. What container is good for this hide, is not for the next hide.

Link to comment

GC.COM is unlikely to implement anything to curtail what you perceive as poor quality hides beyond what they currently do. This debate was going on at the time I left the game - I think clearly it is settled.

 

Your best guide to choosing good vs bad caches is the logs, and maybe favorite points. (I am honestly surprised this was implemented.)

 

If new players hiding badly conceived/implemented caches is a problem in your area, seems to me that one could form a local caching club and hold periodic geocaching 101 events.

 

There are other sites that promote quality over quantity, however, I think that it is fair to say that none of them can guarantee your experience is always awesome, and the difference in quantity is vast.

Link to comment

Some may be offended that you refer to some people as "Goobers" though. Not me, considering I'm one of the annoying people you are referring to. :blink:

 

You are in good company! Most of the time I am a goober, but as some know I can also be annoying.

 

I don't know though, the more I think about it, there is still a strong experience (or lack of it) influence in there. Even though this is the 0 find thread, last summer someone with 5 finds hid a cache in my area. Those 5 finds were 3 keyholders in street corner free newspaper boxes, and 2 parking lot micros. Their first (and only) hide had terrible coordinates, and was inside a hole on the lighted sign of a pizzeria (in full view of the employees). The owners of the Pizzeria went bonkers, taped the hole up with duct tape, and the cache was involuntarily archived. I can't necessarily say this newbie is a Goober in real life. Just hiding the kind of stuff they've found around the neighborhood.

 

I agree that they may be subject to the fact that they have only seen a certain level of quality, but notice that they didn't emulate those hides. They wanted to grow from what they had seen. When they looked at the scenario they refused to recognize peoples feelings about what they were doing. I know you can't do that perfectly every time, but from what you said they made some judgement calls based on a lack of experience. A life issue not necessarily a geocaching issue (although prevalent at times).

Link to comment

The ones we have here usually just place them and either there is something wrong with the cache or it is actually a good hide. But then you don't hear from them again and in most cases we are stuck with a cache in the area that gets no maintenance or have to put NA because something is wrong with it and the cacher doesn't respond.

What are your thoughts?

 

Everyone is focussing on the lameness factor. What about the abandonment factor that jellis mentions? Many many newbies plant and abandon caches. Many of those people also have little caching experience - registered a couple of days, less then a handful of finds, often zero finds, place a cache and then their gone. The NM, NA process can take years before it is finally archived by the reviewer.

Link to comment

It could be for a school project. That has happened before.

Unfortunately, yes.

 

 

The problem with a lot of school project, scout troop, or other "projects" is that the person leading the project often knows as much about geocaching as the kids. That's not *always* the case though.

 

My son goes to a Montessori school that is located adjacent to a small town park. The park has several trails, a really pretty pond, a large shelter with a ball field....and no geocaches located in it. The kids play in the park almost every day. I know that the owners of the schools daughter has an interest in letterboxing and placing having the school kids place a cache is just the kind of activity that they do quite often. I'll probably wait until Spring but I was planning on helping them create an account, write up a cache listing, select a container, and place a cache in the park that would be owned by a school account. In other words, it would be a cache with an owner with zero finds. However, I think I've got enough experience that I can help the kids create a cache as a school project and teach them how to maintain it.

Link to comment

I'm still proud of my first geocache hide which I made 6 days after my first find. It's been out there for over 6 years now (replaced container once). 29 finds and 0 DNF's. It is still more than 4 miles from the nearest cache.

I found my 100th cache on the first anniversary of my first find. My 1000th was at the Geocaching Block Party this summer.

I have had to archive 2 caches. The first washed away with a flood (not replaced). The other was found over 50 feet downhill from where I hid it. It had been smashed by a bear. The logbook and a trackable was recovered. I'm planning on replacing that one with a better container after the winter snow melts.

 

I placed my first cache after one find. It's still out there over 10 years later and I can't think of anything I'd change about it.

I placed my first cache, within hours after learning about geocaching and the website. Stll there, too. I didn't find a cache until the next day.

Link to comment

I'm still proud of my first geocache hide which I made 6 days after my first find.

I placed my first cache after one find. It's still out there over 10 years later and I can't think of anything I'd change about it.

I placed my first cache, within hours after learning about geocaching and the website. Stll there, too. I didn't find a cache until the next day.

 

If you had to wait 2 months to list your cache would you have waited?

Link to comment

I think you will always come across good caches and poor caches and whilst generally more experienced cachers will set better hides this is not always the case.

Education is in my opinion the best way to deal with this issue.

 

It doesn't matter who it is, if it is a poor hide then place an honest but polite view of your experience when you log your find. If everybody does this then the cache will either be ignored or the CO will soon realise that their cache isn't very good and will hopefully change/archive it. This will help other new cachers see that poor caches will not be tolerated and good caches will recieve nice, positive comments.

 

NOW... all we need to do is agree on the difference between a good cache and a bad cache?

Link to comment

The NM, NA process can take years before it is finally archived by the reviewer.

 

We are lucky here in Arizona in that this process rarely takes more than three months.

Of course that does little to remedy the low-quality containers full of soggy paper that get left behind. :(

 

NOW... all we need to do is agree on the difference between a good cache and a bad cache?

 

I can tolerate nearly any cache with a dry log having space for me to sign and I didn't have to dodge the property owner to make the find.

 

Naturally, there is a whole lot of room for improvement beyond those minimums. ;)

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...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...