Jump to content

[FEATURE] Set a minimum of 50 caches found before allowed to place one


Team Perrito Blanco

Recommended Posts

I searched but came up empty on this subject.

 

I've been finding a some crappy cache containers lately and they mostly turn out to be from inexperienced cachers. Chinese food containers and other non-waterproof items make for a lousy caching experience. Not to mention bad coordinates.

 

I think that a minimum of 50 cache finds before being allowed to place a cache would serve as an education in geocaching for newbies. The quality of the game is suffering.

Link to comment

I searched but came up empty on this subject.

 

I've been finding a some crappy cache containers lately and they mostly turn out to be from inexperienced cachers. Chinese food containers and other non-waterproof items make for a lousy caching experience. Not to mention bad coordinates.

 

I think that a minimum of 50 cache finds before being allowed to place a cache would serve as an education in geocaching for newbies. The quality of the game is suffering.

 

If you had done a search of the general forums, you would see that this topic comes up ad nauseum.

 

The futility of setting a minimum numbers of finds before being allowed to hide one has been beaten to death.

 

What exactly can someone learn by finding 50 film canisters? Or 50 single-stage caches?

 

Suggesting that someone find a variety of cache types and locations and hiding styles would make more sense to me.

Link to comment

OK, so I'm a newbie. Yesterday I found my first cache. It happened to be a creatively camoed Tupperware container in a nearby park. So today I spent several hours making and attaching some creative camo to a container of my own, and I went and hid it in a greenbelt behind the houses on the next block. I go to submit it to the site, but I'm given an error that says "You must find at least 10 caches before you can submit a new hide."

 

Darn. OK, I need to find some caches. Quick. I do a search on the website, and click that little filter box for easy caches. I load them into my GPS and head out. First find is an lamp post cache. Then I find a cache in a guardrail. Then 3 more LPCs. A film can tossed in a bush, and a magnetic key container on a garbage can follow that. Then 2 more guardrails and 2 more LPCs round out the 10.

 

Based on those 10, I've learned that creative caches are not the norm, so I retrieve my cache and throw it away. Tomorrow I'll put a film can under a LPC and submit that.

 

Is this what you really want to happen?

Link to comment

I think that a minimum of 50 cache finds before being allowed to place a cache would serve as an education in geocaching for newbies. The quality of the game is suffering.

 

There are a lot of us that agree with you about a minimum number of finds. Me, I'd also add a wait period of 2 months after registration before posting a cache hide. I also think a mandatory cache ownership quiz for first time hiders is a good idea.

 

Probably none of these things will happen. So we've got to use the tools already provided. Give constructive feedback in the online logs. Example: " The cache container probably isn't waterproof and the cache contents probably won't survive a wet spell. It might be good to at least put the logbook in a Ziplock bag to protect it." When the container contents are found wet post an NM. Watch the cache and if the new CO has not responded in about a month, and there continues to be reports about a wet cache, post an NA (Needs Archive).

Link to comment

I think the number of finds is the wrong measurement. I'd rather potential cache owners find half a dozen caches with different sizes, different containers, different camouflage techniques, different D–T ratings, etc., than find a hundred essentially identical caches. But there's no way to codify that.

 

And more than any measure of experience, I think potential cache owners need to understand the guidelines. From the comments posted to the UserVoice forum, it sounded like Groundspeak was considering a quiz (based on the guidelines) for new cache owners.

Link to comment

OK, so I'm a newbie. Yesterday I found my first cache. It happened to be a creatively camoed Tupperware container in a nearby park. So today I spent several hours making and attaching some creative camo to a container of my own, and I went and hid it in a greenbelt behind the houses on the next block. I go to submit it to the site, but I'm given an error that says "You must find at least 10 caches before you can submit a new hide."

 

Darn. OK, I need to find some caches. Quick. I do a search on the website, and click that little filter box for easy caches. I load them into my GPS and head out. First find is an lamp post cache. Then I find a cache in a guardrail. Then 3 more LPCs. A film can tossed in a bush, and a magnetic key container on a garbage can follow that. Then 2 more guardrails and 2 more LPCs round out the 10.

 

Based on those 10, I've learned that creative caches are not the norm, so I retrieve my cache and throw it away. Tomorrow I'll put a film can under a LPC and submit that.

 

Is this what you really want to happen?

 

Well-put.

Link to comment

OK, so I'm a newbie. Yesterday I found my first cache. It happened to be a creatively camoed Tupperware container in a nearby park. So today I spent several hours making and attaching some creative camo to a container of my own, and I went and hid it in a greenbelt behind the houses on the next block. I go to submit it to the site, but I'm given an error that says "You must find at least 10 caches before you can submit a new hide."

 

Darn. OK, I need to find some caches. Quick. I do a search on the website, and click that little filter box for easy caches. I load them into my GPS and head out. First find is an lamp post cache. Then I find a cache in a guardrail. Then 3 more LPCs. A film can tossed in a bush, and a magnetic key container on a garbage can follow that. Then 2 more guardrails and 2 more LPCs round out the 10.

 

Based on those 10, I've learned that creative caches are not the norm, so I retrieve my cache and throw it away. Tomorrow I'll put a film can under a LPC and submit that.

 

Is this what you really want to happen?

 

Well-put.

 

Or you could just log some caches online to meet the find 10 caches criteria without actually going to find them.

Edited by Chokecherry
Link to comment

I am sure that many or even just some experienced members when they were beginning Geocaching wanted to hide caches when they have only found a few , as someone already stated there are experienced members who post not so good caches , however everyone's definition of a good cache is different " whats good for the goose may not be good for the gander " , and then it comes down to ability some members ( including myself ) have disabilities that make it difficult to get to some locations so if D/T was included that would be discriminatory . and there is also the preference choice , what cache do you prefer to go for , some like searching regular , small , and others may prefer micro , nano

 

so I think to have a minimum limit on finding before posting is wrong and hope that members will learn what is a good and not so good cache will their experience grows over time

 

thats my 2 pennies worth - hope everyone has a great new years and best wishes for 2012

 

FH143

Link to comment

I agree that improving the overall quality of caches should be a priority. There are a huge number of new people coming into the hobby and there is an understandable learning curve involved in placing good caches. Every one of us is on a different track and holds a somewhat different perspective on what is good and what is bad.. lame... whatever. Many years ago I recommended that everyone cull the herd once in awhile. Archive your worst cache and replace it with a new one that exemplifies your personal progress since the time you placed that older one. I was shouted down then and will probably will be again, but this is the best way to grow the sport while keeping the quality as high as possible.

Link to comment

How about we set a minimum of 10 placed caches before being allowed to place one. Oh, wait...

 

All nonsense aside, there's a few arguments to this here:

#1 says: "Openness and freedom on geocaching.com could be considered crucial to players of the game. Imposing such a basic limit or restriction is authoritarian and is not in the spirit of geocaching. It's ridiculous that we should restrain such a crucial, elemental part of geocaching."

 

#2 says: "@1, You know what isn't in the spirit of geocaching? Bad hides. People who hide useless containers in useless places, with useless coordinates. We should set a minimum such as the OP agrees. Newbies are useless at hiding caches"

 

#3 says: "@2, I've seen cachers with thousands of hides put out stupid caches, and those with only a handful of finds put out some of the most brilliant caches in the region. It's silly to set a minimum based purely on such a flawed number."

 

#4 says: "#3, I agree: How about we think outside the box, and have a checkbox when you go to list a cache online that says 'Are you hiding this container to legitimately bring people to a new place or location?', if it is not checked, the cache listing is denied."

 

#5 says: "@4, that's ridiculous because everyone will check it anyway."

 

#4 replies: "@5, okay, how about a flag button on the cache page? Those with more finds and hides have a greater "weight" when clicking the flag button, say 500, and those with less have less "weight", perhaps 25. When the accumulated flag weight on the page reaches 2000, the cache is sent to the reviewer for a check or to be re reviewed".

Link to comment
When the accumulated flag weight on the page reaches 2000, the cache is sent to the reviewer for a check or to be re reviewed".

There is nothing in the guidelines about cache quality. You really don't want the reviewers judging cache quality. They did that back with virtuals and it wasn't pretty. I don't think any of the reviewers want to go that route again.

Link to comment

My son has fewer than 100 cache finds. Once he got started, he wanted to hide his own. He has gone back to work on it and make it better and better. Just because you don't have a bunch of finds doesn't mean you can't put down a decent cache and then improve on it. Don't forget, not all cachers are grownups that expect more than the scattered lamp post/sign post micro.

Link to comment

As said before, in this topic and in other topics, quality of a geocache and number of caches found before a geocacher can became a hider are issues where the community will never reach an agreement. In my country, and I think in others too (in their own language), we use to say "cada cabeça, sua sentença" which, roughly translated, means "each head, his sentence".

 

So, if one wants to seek for quality caches, then he should read carefully the listings, the last logs the geocache received (the number he thinks is enough to feel himself informed), the attributes and then decide what caches to visit based on his own quality criteria.

 

If one seeks for every cache that is on an area or in his route, then forget about quality. Number of caches found and quality of caches found are two goals that don't walk together anymore.

Link to comment

There is nothing in the guidelines about cache quality. You really don't want the reviewers judging cache quality. They did that back with virtuals and it wasn't pretty. I don't think any of the reviewers want to go that route again.

 

interesting. <_<

Edited by kantear
Link to comment

i don't agree with restricting someone for placements ... weather it's a quick park and grab or an impossible puzzle that only the poster can figure out, you cannot judge the "quality" unless it's ill-maintained and you're physically present to put an eyeball on it.

 

and ... what if someone creates an account to specifically plant one cache and that's it ... i've seen a few dummy accounts around that are meant to be clues... so they do exist.

Link to comment

Well this topic doesn't apply to all countries either. In Australia I can thing of only 1 LPC... This morning I went to find a cache hidden by a bloke who had only found 29 and this new cache has 5 finds and 2 favourites. His first cache was even better currently sitting at 4 favourites (A respectably total) after a few finds !!!

 

Despite this we have a local hider who just hides mint tins and has hidden 30- he has only found 10!!!

Link to comment

I agree that restricting the ability to place a cache is somewhat draconian, and we musn't forget that excitement we all felt when we also started out on this hobby. Placing caches is after all part of this game and provides an element of excitement and satisfaction when others find them. I also agree that the logs will soon provide an indication of how 'good' any cache is before too long. There were two new caches near me last year that very quickly started to receive comments that suggested there was a problem, they don't exist anymore.

 

I think that the Favourites system could be improved to allow everyone to show that they do indeed like what they have found. Strange that we agree that it is wrong to find 10 caches before being able to place 1, yet this is what we have to do in order to give away a Favourite point - This seems back to front as the Favourite point system helps to identify those that 'most' people like. At the moment many caches are missing out on this because either people don't have a Fav point to give away, OR are reluctant to do so in case they come across another one they think is slightly better. I know of some who enjoy simply building up their tally of Fav points so will never end up giving any away. If we had a free hand to award Favourite points I suspect the poor caches would be easier to identify a lot quicker. Personally, if this was the case I would be looking at whether the locations of mine were worth keeping out there if they never got a favourite. As things stand I never really know if the reason for not getting a Fav point is for one of the reasons given above.

Link to comment

If we had a free hand to award Favourite points I suspect the poor caches would be easier to identify a lot quicker. Personally, if this was the case I would be looking at whether the locations of mine were worth keeping out there if they never got a favourite. As things stand I never really know if the reason for not getting a Fav point is for one of the reasons given above.

 

There's an greasemonkey script called GCvote that might help. It pre-dates Favorite votes. If a few people use it in your area it'll help sort out some of the poor quality caches.

 

gcvote3.png

Link to comment

Dear Geocaching and Geocachers,

 

I'm a visually impaired geocacher, I think for a better geocaching, that the newbies must have 50 caches before hide her cache… Because we have bad caches (The whole is very often wet and one limps not isothermal plastic which resists the rain, the snow) I know that not everybody wants to invest in the basic kit...

 

You could also plan a reviewer which speaks French because I managed to publish a hiding place and of to wait one month before having one monster answer by saying needs to make this, needs to make that, and then earthcache like that has it there too much)...

 

Of what to put you the morale in zero and to archive the hiding place!

 

This is for the good of the geocaching, because there is in Europe more and more poor quality cache... And we like the good quality game...

50 hide minimum so that the new can see how the professionals of the géocaching make their cache….

Link to comment

I'm a visually impaired geocacher, I think for a better geocaching, that the newbies must have 50 caches before hide her cache…

 

This has been suggested many times, but will not be implemented and for good reasons. One of the best caches in my province

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=7b048f61-cca0-4491-a95b-3c07e3f9a269

has been hidden by a cacher who had much less finds at the time when he hid the cache (he has less then 40 even now). Likewise I know many

bad caches hidden by cachers with more than 2000 finds.

 

I do not understand why being visually impaired connects to this topic.

 

You could also plan a reviewer which speaks French because I managed to publish a hiding place and of to wait one month before having one monster answer by saying needs to make this, needs to make that, and then earthcache like that has it there too much)...

 

There are several reviewers who speak French (Quebec, France, French speaking part of Belgium). The problem in your case seems to be that Suisse Romande is handled by the Swiss reviewers whose native language is German (according to my knowledge). I do not think that these reviewers do not understand French, but it might well be that their French is not that good. Typically, people are more at ease in their native language. I am sure that I would better understand your text in case you had written it in French and not in English.

 

If more and more cachers show up in Suisse Romande, then someone local might be willing and able to act as reviewer. That's not an issue of Groundspeak, but rather of the Swiss geocaching community which happened to be extremely dominated by the German speaking Swiss geocachers. I also found it very sad that the Swiss geocaching forums are almost exclusively in German.

 

Was the cache where you had to wait one month an EC? If so, then the waiting time is not necessarily a consequence of the language. The review of ECs does take typically longer than the review of normal caches. The requirements of the GSA are rather complex and you need to study the guidelines, faqs and other parts of the earthcache web page very carefully before submitting an EC. ECs are reviewed by separate reviewers, not by the ones that review the normal caches. This is, however, not a language issue.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Yes, Cezanne is right. It's very unlikely that Groundspeak will ever implement a minimal number of finds before allowed to place a cache. Or what I'd like to see - a minimal amount of registration time (2 months) before allowed to place 1 cache. Too many people register, place a cache the next day, then promptly abandon the cache and cache listing. A 2 month wait might weed out probably most of the fly-by-nighters.

 

So, what to do? Use the tools at hand. Post constructive feedback in your online log. Post NMs and NAs when necessary.

Link to comment

More fodder for this discussion: Check out GC42290 for newbie with no finds placing caches with coords off 700' and more. This cache would never have been approved with correct coords since the actual location is ~300' from one existing cache and ~400' from another. Then look at the logs for his other 3 hides!

Link to comment

More fodder for this discussion: Check out GC42290 for newbie with no finds placing caches with coords off 700' and more. This cache would never have been approved with correct coords since the actual location is ~300' from one existing cache and ~400' from another. Then look at the logs for his other 3 hides!

 

http://coord.info/GC42290

 

Now that was fun reading. Thanks for posting it. Nice to see a reviewer who quickly put it out of it's misery. (along with 3 of the other CO's caches with the same problem).

 

Here's one that makes for interesting reading.There's a lot of heated discussion with the kid that planted it: http://coord.info/GC2G5X3

Link to comment

OK, for a bit of balance:

 

Some cachers local to us called roseoftindcarets had hidden 9 before they'd got up to 50 finds, and they went on to hide 4 more. Those 13 caches have a combined total of 216 favourite points.

 

(there's probably a better example but I'm thinking of one local to us)

Link to comment

My 16 year daughter has an account where she hides caches. She does have a handful of caches the she has logged even though she has found hundreds of caches with me. Under a minimum rules she couldn't hide her own.

 

She only hides quality caches. I would hate to see caches like that blocked while a 1,000+ find cachers few towns over that will go un-named keeps hiding low quality unmaintained caches that end up as geolitter.

Link to comment

I think that a minimum of 50 cache finds before being allowed to place a cache would serve as an education in geocaching for newbies. The quality of the game is suffering.

 

There are a lot of us that agree with you about a minimum number of finds. Me, I'd also add a wait period of 2 months after registration before posting a cache hide. I also think a mandatory cache ownership quiz for first time hiders is a good idea.).

 

If I recall, the suggestion for a quiz that must be take before someone published their first cache has been made here before and that it was actually marked that it was being CONSIDERED.

 

I think that most of the objections to the minimum number of finds required before placing a cache boils down to the premise that a number of finds equates to experience. I've seen cache logs from someone that found over 1000 caches on a power trail the day after they created their account. I'd suggest that, given the right set of caches, a greater amount of experience about cache containers, different locations, and hiding methods could be obtained by finding only 10 caches.

Link to comment

OK, for a bit of balance:

 

Some cachers local to us called roseoftindcarets had hidden 9 before they'd got up to 50 finds, and they went on to hide 4 more. Those 13 caches have a combined total of 216 favourite points.

 

(there's probably a better example but I'm thinking of one local to us)

 

Roseoftindcarets started May 2010 and waited until July to hide their first cache. I count 35 finds before hiding their first. A nice variety of cache types and sizes too. Sounds like a reasonable bit of experience and not a fly-by-night type of new cacher.

Link to comment

OK, for a bit of balance:

 

Some cachers local to us called roseoftindcarets had hidden 9 before they'd got up to 50 finds, and they went on to hide 4 more. Those 13 caches have a combined total of 216 favourite points.

 

(there's probably a better example but I'm thinking of one local to us)

 

Roseoftindcarets started May 2010 and waited until July to hide their first cache. I count 35 finds before hiding their first. A nice variety of cache types and sizes too. Sounds like a reasonable bit of experience and not a fly-by-night type of new cacher.

Like I said, there's probably a better example lol. They are great cachers with great caches too. Cleverly designed and constructed.

Link to comment

More fodder for this discussion: Check out GC42290 for newbie with no finds placing caches with coords off 700' and more. This cache would never have been approved with correct coords since the actual location is ~300' from one existing cache and ~400' from another. Then look at the logs for his other 3 hides!

 

http://coord.info/GC42290

 

Now that was fun reading. Thanks for posting it. Nice to see a reviewer who quickly put it out of it's misery. (along with 3 of the other CO's caches with the same problem).

 

Here's one that makes for interesting reading.There's a lot of heated discussion with the kid that planted it: http://coord.info/GC2G5X3

wow.

Link to comment

I prefer to see a length of time as a member instead of a number of hides.

What I'd like to see is a combination of elapsed time and a quiz. As 6NoisyHikers pointed out, having a waiting period would weed out a lot of the fly-by-nighters. Once those are out of the way, I'd like to see prospective hiders prove that they have read the guidelines (or at least skimmed them) by getting them to answer some questions. Maybe covering things like maintenance, permission, burial, etc.?

Link to comment

I prefer to see a length of time as a member instead of a number of hides.

 

Three months as a member would solve so many of these fly-by-night, one-fail-wonders. After three months, most people who really weren't all that interested in caching would have moved on and forgotten all about it.

I've seen people who registered and then never found a cache or hid one for months if not years, so you would still have the same problem.

Link to comment

I prefer to see a length of time as a member instead of a number of hides.

 

Three months as a member would solve so many of these fly-by-night, one-fail-wonders. After three months, most people who really weren't all that interested in caching would have moved on and forgotten all about it.

I've seen people who registered and then never found a cache or hid one for months if not years, so you would still have the same problem.

 

And then planted a cache after their account sat unused for months/years? Got any examples? Were the subsequent caches poorly placed and abandoned?

Link to comment

I've seen people who registered and then never found a cache or hid one for months if not years, so you would still have the same problem.

And then planted a cache after their account sat unused for months/years? Got any examples? Were the subsequent caches poorly placed and abandoned?

I've seen a few, but I've seen far more where the account had only just been created when they hid their cache(s). I'll see if I can dig up some of the former.

 

Edit: I just scanned through my GSAK database looking for some, and here they are:

5inacruiser: Account created June 2005, first find in July 2007, first hide in February 2009.

AlecSaan: Account created November 2006, no finds, only hide placed in February 2008.

boogati: Account created April 2011, 1 find and 1 hide both in January 2012.

...and I was only down to the B's. If I kept looking, I could probably come up with a long list of accounts that sat dormant for a long period of time before their first activity.

Edited by The A-Team
Link to comment

I prefer to see a length of time as a member instead of a number of hides.

 

Three months as a member would solve so many of these fly-by-night, one-fail-wonders. After three months, most people who really weren't all that interested in caching would have moved on and forgotten all about it.

 

Nice in theory.

 

There's a cacher not all that far from me who put out a lot of caches and routinely fails to maintain them. Usually they are pretty good caches for the first couple of months. Once the log gets wet, the box cracks, or something goes wrong with it, it's usually just a question of time before it gets archived for non-maintenance. Unfortunateliy along the way it often ends up missing for quite some time before being marked disabled.

 

The trouble is this same cacher has been known to be out finding caches within a short distance of their own caches that are marked as needing maintenance.

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment

I prefer to see a length of time as a member instead of a number of hides.

 

Three months as a member would solve so many of these fly-by-night, one-fail-wonders. After three months, most people who really weren't all that interested in caching would have moved on and forgotten all about it.

 

Nice in theory.

 

There's a cacher not all that far from me who put out a lot of caches and routinely fails to maintain them. Usually they are pretty good caches for the first couple of months. Once the log gets wet, the box cracks, or something goes wrong with it, it's usually just a question of time before it gets archived for non-maintenance. Unfortunateliy along the way it often ends up missing for quite some time before being marked disabled.

 

The trouble is this same cacher has been known to be out finding caches within a short distance of their own caches that are marked as needing maintenance.

 

It won't be full-proof but it will have an effect on fly-by-night types. Someone who places one or two caches, to see if they're going like geocaching. People need to cache for a few months, then decide if they like the game enough to commit to the responsibility of cache ownership.

 

For the type of deliquent owner in your example, I'd like to see them prevented from hiding more caches, unless they can explain to a reviewer the extenuating circumstances.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...