geocahing destroyed by dayflies

[+wildlifeseeker]

Hello,

 

Recently in belgium geocaching apeared on some programmes, it was very interesting, BUT it also had some side effects . A lot of new geocachers apeared on the site, and a lot of them (i call them dayflies ) don't take the game very seriously.

Some of them only did maybe 4 or 5 caches but create 10 new caches, all micro's, uninteressting places, no story no challenge no nothing. Just drive around stop along the rote and log. Where is the adventure . I love to go looking for a larger cache on a interesting spot. Now a lot of geocaches apear on the map, 99% micro's and when the logroll is full, no maintenance and archived, the roll and micro stays 99% of the times on the spot because the dayflies aren't interested anymore in the game. I read in the forum a good suggestion. Alow basic members to place a cache every six months or maybe only every 100 finds or the both of them. at some places here in belgium they create a bicicle trip of 100 caches. there is a cache every 200m, no story!!! and biking??? if you have to start pedaling and stop after 200m to start looking again where is the fun in that????? I guess if it keeps going like this the game will be destroyed by dayflies. There will become laws in littering and people won't like it anymore. Some caches are hiden here at the corner of somebody's property!! it's not on private property so if you read the guidelines it's ok to putt one there. But for the people who live there in calm and serinety, suddenly there stop cars on the drive way to go looking 2 m away from there house. it's not even an interesting place, nothing to see, just a member who can say (like the facebook fenomenon with the friends) OH LOOK I haved hidden 100 caches !!!!!

you see what i try to say. So sollution basic member 1 cache every 6 months or every 100 caches, premium member unlimited.

Somebody who loves the game and goes hunting every weekend won't mind to pay 30$ for a membership.

I hope i didn't hurt anybodies feelings by beeing so strikt butt in order to save the game the dayflies need to be controlled !!!!

cheers wildlifeseeker finds over 200 hides only 2 but worth visiting and that's what matters !!!!!!

Edited May 7, 2012 by wildlifeseeker

[+Xynix]

I'm fully agree with wildlifeseeker.

since a report on TV the caches are rising on places that have no senses.

I think that a lot af people are trying the game and hide caches averywhere.

The idea of wildlifeseeker to give the permission only on premiummembers or members every six months is good.

So the gamers have some expierence to find before they hide something.

 

Take a look at this link and surrounding areas

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1BVNX

 

Where is the challenge / adventure in this?????

[+Croesgadwr]

Hi,

I have been geocaching for almost 2 years now, have found over 650 caches & placed only 16. I hate drive-by caches - but I 'do' them! That is because "they are there", therefore I'll go and search for them. I much prefer a decent trek into a forest or woods to search for a mixed sized series of caches, but I can't always have that! I also like caches in dis-used quarry's. I have actually placed caches in woodland and quarry areas, and the number of people that actually bother to go search for them is quite small. So in some respects placing caches as drive-by's, or in structures closer to available car parking makes more people get out there and search them out...hence some of my hides ARE drive-by's!

I tend to agree totally with the points you make, there are too many 'poor caches' out there that require nothing more than a quick look behind a pole or roadsign to find...no challenge whatsoever! It is my opinion that 'saturation cache placement' does nothing to enhance the hobby or enjoyment that should be gained from searching for varied & challenging caches whilst going about your walk.

Your main point of limiting cache placements by non-premium members is another matter, and I neither support or reject the principle of such limitations. My stance is driven by personal experience of searching for poor 'high concentration' (or saturation) cache placements by premium members who really should know better... for example, a series of caches placed at regular intervals along a public footpath route (which is fine). These caches are given D&T ratings above what they really are...and the reason for these high ratings is that the co-ordinates are so badly recorded (purposely!) to ensure that the caches are difficult to find. These are premium member caches that I'm talking about, placed by fellow cachers with much more experienced than me.

Please remember that my comments are just personal opinions, and are not necessarilly shared by others.

Croesgadwr,

a North Wales geo-cacher

[+Sapience Trek]

Not a getting started topic. Moved to general discussion area.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm fully agree with wildlifeseeker.

since a report on TV the caches are rising on places that have no senses.

I think that a lot af people are trying the game and hide caches averywhere.

The idea of wildlifeseeker to give the permission only on premiummembers or members every six months is good.

So the gamers have some expierence to find before they hide something.

 

Take a look at this link and surrounding areas

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1BVNX

 

Where is the challenge / adventure in this?????

 

I see basically a power trail, an organized effort by several people, almost all of whom are not premium members. I admit, that's kind of weird, some of them have over 1,000 finds, and they're not premium members. Then again, the fact that a for-profit American company has a worldwide de-facto monopoly on the hobby of Geocaching isn't as popular of a concept in Europe as it is over here.

 

Well, placing limits on basic members certainly would slow them down.

[+The Leprechauns]

Those pesky dayflies are also responsible for taking out 50% of the "c" in geocahing. I much prefer the old days, where all the caches were ammo cans and there was a superabundance of "c's."

[Mr.Yuck]

Those pesky dayflies are also responsible for taking out 50% of the "c" in geocahing. I much prefer the old days, where all the caches were ammo cans and there was a superabundance of "c's."

 

Well you know, I was just telling Snoogans last week that there are old school reviewers.

 

I actually had to Google Dayfiles. We have them in North America, but I admit to not being very familiar with them. Apparently they only live a few days at most, so now I get it. Sort of.

[AZcachemeister]

All you can do is filter out the trash and wait for the infestation to subside.

 

They will go away.

[+OZ2CPU]

>They will go away.

 

yes maybe, but more new people will come all the time, and place more bad stuff,

a new rule, to let you place 1 cache pr 10 caches you find for PM,

and 1 pr 30 for non PM will be something I vote for !

 

--

 

Use NM and NA more often, will help too,

if only cachers dare more, we get less bad stuff.

Edited May 7, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+irisisleuk]

I'm not sure whether TV programs are the real source of these less positive experiences or if it is a result of that geocaching in general is made more easy since there is no need to buy/rent a (dedicated)gps anymore since mobile phone have all necessary functionalities.

 

When things get easier to start with (whether this is geocaching or something else), more people can just give it a try. This has both positive and negative side effects. Sometimes I wonder if geocaching should or shouldn't be made as easy/accessible as possible, but that is a whole other discussion.

 

There are as many different types of geocachers as there are geocaches. I started with geocaching because I liked the idea of combining my interest in nature walks with finding a treasure box. When "just" walking I missed having a goal and/or guidance that makes a walk extra interesting to me, so I was happy to discover geocaching (due to an item in a TV program I think). When I looked into it I discovered geocaching was a lot more than just a box hidden in a nature area. Since then I learned about lots of interesting topics due to mystery caches, can visit great spots in cities all over the world without having to buy a travel guide etc. etc.

 

It's the diversity that attracts me. One day I'm in the mood for a long walk, the other day I just want to be able to quickly log a cache to complete my calender. With the latter I hope to find an easy cache that leads me to a nice location, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. But unless I'm one of the first cachers to find this cache, I will know this in advance by simply looking at the cache page, logs and favorites.

 

I tried power trails, it's not for me, but I don't mind they exist simply because I like aspect of diversity of cache types. Some cachers like powertrail caches, so apparantly they see a challenge in finding them. Maybe not the challenge you're talking about, but another one.

 

But..... I do share your concern of the 1 day fly cachers and caches. I noticed they are more discussed and attract more attention nowadays then the caches of a better quality (whether this quality can be found in the cache page info, the cache itself or the location). I hardly hear any good geocaching stories anymore, it's more and more complaining about the bad ones, instead of appraising the good ones. Somehow there always seems a need to criticize and compare to the good old days.

 

I understand people get enthusiastic about geocaching as soon as they have found their first couple of geocaches. You might get all kinds of ideas for a cache yourself and in some cases want to place one yourself as soon as possible. But the geocaching ideas you might get are limited when you have just found 1 or 2 caches. The ideas get are limited when you have only thought about it for a couple of days.

 

Therefore I like the idea of not being able to place a geocache within the first 6 months of a membership, whether this is a basic or premium member. Just so the 1 day fly cacher gets some time to think about what he really likes in geocaching and what he can or wants to contribute.

I do not like the idea of setting limits based on the amount of caches found etc., since the amount of caches found gives no indication on whether the cache experiences are of a certain quality that might inspire to do better. Quality is subjective, what types of caches one should like is subjective, and everybody is free in choosing which caches they like and want to do.

 

I would like to emphasize that I do not think that a geocacher is not able to make an excellent cache when he isn't a member for at least 6 months. I'm sure lots are! The years of membership give no guarantee on quality, whether this is in creating new caches or maintaining old ones. I just think that a period of "are you sure you're going ahead with geocaching" could help in dealing with some of the spur of the moment caches.

[+Mudfrog]

New cachers sometimes bring some creativity to our geocaching hobby but more times than not, they don't. The smiley is the goal these days for most cachers so they seem to work, at least for a while. I figure many of those cachers figure out sooner or later that smiley count alone doesn't amount to much and they end up getting bored with geocaching. I would definitely go for limiting how many caches a new member can "throw" out.

 

To AZcachemeister's reply below,,, I don't see the infestation subsiding. It's only gonna get worse, unless limits are placed.

[Mr.Yuck]

New cachers sometimes bring some creativity to our geocaching hobby but more times than not, they don't. The smiley is the goal these days for most cachers so they seem to work, at least for a while. I figure many of those cachers figure out sooner or later that smiley count alone doesn't amount to much and they end up getting bored with geocaching. I would definitely go for limiting how many caches a new member can "throw" out.

 

 

Sounds kind of snobish, and many won't agree, but I love your post, and could get behind limiting how many caches a new member can place. Locally, I have two 2012 joiners, one has only 29 finds and 12 hides. Another had 15 hides well before 100 finds, although they're up to about 250 finds now. But check this out, that 15 hide joined in 2012 account? Hasn't logged into the website in 3 1/2 weeks. They sure can lose interest quickly, can't they?

[+ArcherDragoon]

Take it as an opportunity to hold/host a geocaching 101 event...just a thought. Sometimes people don't know what they don't know until someone takes the opportunity to help...

[+Mudfrog]

New cachers sometimes bring some creativity to our geocaching hobby but more times than not, they don't. The smiley is the goal these days for most cachers so they seem to work, at least for a while. I figure many of those cachers figure out sooner or later that smiley count alone doesn't amount to much and they end up getting bored with geocaching. I would definitely go for limiting how many caches a new member can "throw" out.

 

 

Sounds kind of snobish, and many won't agree, but I love your post, and could get behind limiting how many caches a new member can place. Locally, I have two 2012 joiners, one has only 29 finds and 12 hides. Another had 15 hides well before 100 finds, although they're up to about 250 finds now. But check this out, that 15 hide joined in 2012 account? Hasn't logged into the website in 3 1/2 weeks. They sure can lose interest quickly, can't they?

 

Hate to sound that way but is the way i see it. I really do love seeing a new person get excited about geocaching. Only thing is, alot of the first caches they find were placed for easy smiley count and they end up placing the same. Unfortunately, more times than not, i usually see this excitement subside fairly quickly. Those that they may have placed go missing or need maintenance but never get repaired.

[+Ike 13]

This topic (new cachers placing caches too early) has been around for the past couple years. I don't see Groundspeak limiting hides in anyway anytime soon. IF they decided to do that I would be in favor of making new accounts wait 3 (maybe 6) months before hiding a cache. Simply because it is more common for a newer cacher to come in, LOVE it for 2 weeks, hide a cache, then disappear.

 

GS does have a system for dealing with this. It's the NA log. Anytime any cache is in disrepair and the owner is not around to fix it then you can post a NA log. After the reviewer gives the owner a chance to respond the cache will be archived and open up an area.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Take it as an opportunity to hold/host a geocaching 101 event...just a thought. Sometimes people don't know what they don't know until someone takes the opportunity to help...

 

I am hosting a "Hiding 101" class this coming weekend. Only one "Will Attend" log so far. And he's an ubercacher, coming to hang out with the regulars. It woudl be nice if more newcomers would come to these types of classes.

[+lamoracke]

labeling new cachers with a term one step above a pesky mosquito is not going to help any new cachers hide better caches.

 

Have seen some really nice caches in our area placed by newbies that were awesome. And of course, have seen the latter. Have seen established cachers (let say trying to fit your defintion of 6+ months around and at least 100 finds) place poor ones as well.

 

I would personally agree that a cacher should have a number of finds before placing any, but not sure that would solve the problem. Making it premium only members really would not solve the problem in my mind. How is the person being able to cough up $30 make them a better hider? Won't change the GPS they use (if they even have one), won't stop them from potentially using a microwave tin or using Google Maps for coords and won't stop them from putting a new cache in a nasty garbage filled juniper bush in an Albertson's parking lot.

[+dakboy]

Take it as an opportunity to hold/host a geocaching 101 event...just a thought. Sometimes people don't know what they don't know until someone takes the opportunity to help...

Generally speaking, the sort of people who will come to such an event aren't the sort of people the OP was talking about in the first place.

[+dakboy]

I found a cache last week hidden by a newbie - a single find to their credit. The description hinted that it might be a glass jar, but I didn't want to jump to any conclusions until I saw it for myself.

 

The container was in fact a glass candle jar, wrapped in duct tape. No protection. No waterproofing to speak of. Nestled in the crook of a tree near a pond.

 

I sent them a note which I thought was polite yet strong, explaining why this was not a suitable container and suggesting alternatives. Other finders have since posted similar log messages. No action has been taken yet.

 

I'm hoping that the reviewer noted similar concerns & asked the CO to address it, but unfortunately the reviewer can't completely stop someone from doing this (reject the listing) if it's an otherwise acceptable placement.

[+Sol seaker]

I agree on the limits.

Since the phone apps have come out we see a lot of these too. And caches hidden with phones can be 100 feet off.

 

The 101 classes are a great idea. The problem is how to let these new cachers know about them.

They don't often read the forums, they don't seem to comb the weekly newsletter like I do. They don't search for events. How do we reach them?

[knowschad]

New cachers sometimes bring some creativity to our geocaching hobby but more times than not, they don't. The smiley is the goal these days for most cachers so they seem to work, at least for a while. I figure many of those cachers figure out sooner or later that smiley count alone doesn't amount to much and they end up getting bored with geocaching. I would definitely go for limiting how many caches a new member can "throw" out.

 

 

Sounds kind of snobish, and many won't agree, but I love your post, and could get behind limiting how many caches a new member can place. Locally, I have two 2012 joiners, one has only 29 finds and 12 hides. Another had 15 hides well before 100 finds, although they're up to about 250 finds now. But check this out, that 15 hide joined in 2012 account? Hasn't logged into the website in 3 1/2 weeks. They sure can lose interest quickly, can't they?

 

Hate to sound that way but is the way i see it. I really do love seeing a new person get excited about geocaching. Only thing is, alot of the first caches they find were placed for easy smiley count and they end up placing the same. Unfortunately, more times than not, i usually see this excitement subside fairly quickly. Those that they may have placed go missing or need maintenance but never get repaired.

The way I see it, the problem is not new people. The problem is spoon-fed new people. Typically, people that are willing to do a little digging to learn about something will also take the time to learn it right. They are also more likely to be committed for the long-term, and hence, be aware that they will develop a reputation for the caches they hide.

[+GeoBain]

yes maybe, but more new people will come all the time, and place more bad stuff,

a new rule, to let you place 1 cache pr 10 caches you find for PM,

and 1 pr 30 for non PM will be something I vote for !

 

What about those who have been caching for over 7 years but have no "official" finds? We already are not given favorite points. Now we shouldn't be able to hide caches either?

[+Ohiosiouxfan]

There are caches that are limited to premium and charter members only, correct? Isn't that one effective way of avoiding the problem caches?

[+Bear and Ragged]

The way I see it, the problem is not new people. The problem is spoon-fed new people. Typically, people that are willing to do a little digging to learn about something will also take the time to learn it right. They are also more likely to be committed for the long-term, and hence, be aware that they will develop a reputation for the caches they hide.

 

YES!

 

How many times do we see the question on the forums: "I've hidden my cache, when will it be published?"

It's all answered in the Help books, Geocaching 101, etc... Obviously never been read!

[+Ike 13]

The way I see it, the problem is not new people. The problem is spoon-fed new people. Typically, people that are willing to do a little digging to learn about something will also take the time to learn it right. They are also more likely to be committed for the long-term, and hence, be aware that they will develop a reputation for the caches they hide.

 

I think that is a good and fair point. When I started I spent time reading the forums, the guidelines, the knowledge books, etc. I devoured the info. But that's the type of person/learner I am. All the time friends ask me questions and I want to respond just read the knowledge books that's how I found out, but then the teacher in me usually breaks down and explains it anyway.

[+Snoogans]

New cachers sometimes bring some creativity to our geocaching hobby but more times than not, they don't. The smiley is the goal these days for most cachers so they seem to work, at least for a while. I figure many of those cachers figure out sooner or later that smiley count alone doesn't amount to much and they end up getting bored with geocaching. I would definitely go for limiting how many caches a new member can "throw" out.

 

 

Sounds kind of snobish, and many won't agree, but I love your post, and could get behind limiting how many caches a new member can place. Locally, I have two 2012 joiners, one has only 29 finds and 12 hides. Another had 15 hides well before 100 finds, although they're up to about 250 finds now. But check this out, that 15 hide joined in 2012 account? Hasn't logged into the website in 3 1/2 weeks. They sure can lose interest quickly, can't they?

 

Hate to sound that way but is the way i see it. I really do love seeing a new person get excited about geocaching. Only thing is, alot of the first caches they find were placed for easy smiley count and they end up placing the same. Unfortunately, more times than not, i usually see this excitement subside fairly quickly. Those that they may have placed go missing or need maintenance but never get repaired.

 

Hmmmm, Glen, you don't sound like a snob to me. This thread could have gone a whole different direction in my mind if not for your carefully chosen words. I know you don't descriminate on caches or heap hate out on hiders for having to suffer a find you feel is not worth your time. It puzzles me when folks post hate messages (like in this thread) about certain types of caches based on their personal aesthetic. It takes real effort to hate something actively.

 

I would entertain the idea of a hiding restriction based on time rather than finds. It may improve perceptions for some in the long term, but its impact wouldn't be felt for years. Almost like some game management(as in wild animals such as deer, etc.) programs here in Texas. It could work.

[+Snoogans]

Those pesky dayflies are also responsible for taking out 50% of the "c" in geocahing. I much prefer the old days, where all the caches were ammo cans and there was a superabundance of "c's."

 

You forgot to say "This post brought to you by the letter G."

[+L0ne.R]

I hate drive-by caches - but I 'do' them!

 

There was someone in the forum who whenever someone lamented about the influx of lame caches (drive-bys, LPCs, film canister micros) insisted that because lots of people found these types of caches that it proved that people liked them. Thanks for confirming that this is not true.

 

I use to search for most caches. I stopped. For 2 reasons - because it was getting irritating and because I didn't want to encourage more of the same lame hides.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of hiders that think that because a film canister in the Walmart parking lot gets 10 times more logs then the ammo can in the nearby woods it therefore means the film canister is the desired and better cache.

[+L0ne.R]

New cachers sometimes bring some creativity to our geocaching hobby but more times than not, they don't. The smiley is the goal these days for most cachers so they seem to work, at least for a while. I figure many of those cachers figure out sooner or later that smiley count alone doesn't amount to much and they end up getting bored with geocaching. I would definitely go for limiting how many caches a new member can "throw" out.

 

To AZcachemeister's reply below,,, I don't see the infestation subsiding. It's only gonna get worse, unless limits are placed.

 

I agree. A new creative cacher will still be creative if they have to wait a couple of months before planting. If they can't wait a couple of months what are they chances that they would have made a responsible cache owner? I would also suggest limiting new players to one cache hide 2 months after registration. Then cache hides are unlimited after the first cache has been placed and taken care of for one month. Unless the GS people but in some limits, I doubt there's anything that will stop the dayflies. The problem is, is it fiscally smart to limit people? Will they go to another site? (Probably not if they want people to actually go hunt for their cache).

[+Snoogans]

I hate drive-by caches - but I 'do' them! That is because "they are there", therefore I'll go and search for them.

 

Are you a masochist?

 

I also search for caches because they are there, but only when it's convenient to do so. I know what I'm probably in for if I decide to find a cache in a parking lot and if I'm not up for that (which is most of the time) I don't go outta my way to do it.

 

I had to keep Moosiegirl talking all the way to GW5 from Houston to Raleigh or I would have had an acquaintance with every off ramp on the way there. Still, I found a Wal-Mart, guardrail, magnetic mint tin with a moldy wet log (jeesh a quadruple threat) that offered a pretty cool view from the hill where the store was built. I was glad for the stop.

 

Ya just never know sometimes. That's the beauty of geocaching. Why would anyone bother to spend their free quality time on something they don't even like or in your case "hate" doing?

 

BTW- Been cachin' over 9 years now and I only have about 1050 finds. Some day that's gonna be the utmost in cool around here. Till then it looks like me and briansnat are trend setters.

[+Snoogans]

New cachers sometimes bring some creativity to our geocaching hobby but more times than not, they don't. The smiley is the goal these days for most cachers so they seem to work, at least for a while. I figure many of those cachers figure out sooner or later that smiley count alone doesn't amount to much and they end up getting bored with geocaching. I would definitely go for limiting how many caches a new member can "throw" out.

 

To AZcachemeister's reply below,,, I don't see the infestation subsiding. It's only gonna get worse, unless limits are placed.

 

I agree. A new creative cacher will still be creative if they have to wait a couple of months before planting. If they can't wait a couple of months what are they chances that they would have made a responsible cache owner? I would also suggest limiting new players to one cache hide 2 months after registration. Then cache hides are unlimited after the first cache has been placed and taken care of for one month. Unless the GS people but in some limits, I doubt there's anything that will stop the dayflies. The problem is, is it fiscally smart to limit people? Will they go to another site? (Probably not if they want people to actually go hunt for their cache).

 

A couple of months before being allowed to fully participate?! Feh! Maybe 1 hide the first month and 2 the second increasing by numbers to maybe 4 or 5 months and then drop the pretext entirely is more workable to me. You don't start noob off not being allowed to fully participate. Not good for business all the way around. That's a lead balloon.

 

Speaking of business, you realize it's the growth of the database that runs the hamster’s economy. Most Groundspeak hamsters now sport jeweled tread wheels and pad their habitrails with old discarded issues of the Robb Report. I hear that the upper level hamsters actually have hot tubs.

 

Edited May 7, 2012 by Snoogans

[+L0ne.R]

I found a cache last week hidden by a newbie - a single find to their credit. The description hinted that it might be a glass jar, but I didn't want to jump to any conclusions until I saw it for myself.

 

The container was in fact a glass candle jar, wrapped in duct tape. No protection. No waterproofing to speak of. Nestled in the crook of a tree near a pond.

 

I sent them a note which I thought was polite yet strong, explaining why this was not a suitable container and suggesting alternatives. Other finders have since posted similar log messages. No action has been taken yet.

 

I'm hoping that the reviewer noted similar concerns & asked the CO to address it, but unfortunately the reviewer can't completely stop someone from doing this (reject the listing) if it's an otherwise acceptable placement.

 

I agree, make polite yet strong comments in the logs. If anything it might make the hider realize that hiding a cache is not something one does on a whim without some thought, understanding and experience. Some caching communities do not take kindly to poor containers and poorly placed caches and will be quite vocal about it.

[ll JK ll]

I'm new to caching and even though the idea of hiding my own cache is appealing I feel an obligation to gain more experience before I start hiding my own caches.

 

The way I look at it, it's in my own interest to learn more about the game from vets and get a good feel for what works and what doesn't work in terms of good containers, good locations.

 

As a new member it wouldn't offend me to have to acquire a certain number of finds before being able to hide my own.

[+Croesgadwr]

 

Are you a masochist?

 

I also search for caches because they are there, but only when it's convenient to do so. I know what I'm probably in for if I decide to find a cache in a parking lot and if I'm not up for that (which is most of the time) I don't go outta my way to do it.

 

Ditto... I don't go out of my way to find caches which are not of my prefered type. But I don't ignore them just because I don't like them!! Similar to some medications, I might not like the taste, but I know I've just got to take it!!

[knowschad]

Ditto... I don't go out of my way to find caches which are not of my prefered type. But I don't ignore them just because I don't like them!! Similar to some medications, I might not like the taste, but I know I've just got to take it!!

Poor analogy. You may have to take the medication. You definitely do NOT have to find the cache.

[+Snoogans]

Ditto... I don't go out of my way to find caches which are not of my prefered type. But I don't ignore them just because I don't like them!! Similar to some medications, I might not like the taste, but I know I've just got to take it!!

Poor analogy. You may have to take the medication. You definitely do NOT have to find the cache.

Yup. I want to cache sometimes and any cache will do. Especially if it's in a new state or city. Finding a cache I would never want to call my own or try to emulate doesn't move me to hate. It ties up too many brain cells that have better things to do.

 

I have never found myself needing to cache so badly I would waste my time and not enjoy the end result.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Snoogans

[+firestronaut]

Education would work better than restriction. You don't want to scare people away from the game.

I've found 58 caches, became a premium member after 6, and I've hidden 5 caches.

The whole game was started by noobs, it's suppose to be fun. Where's the fun if you limit hides?

 

What I would suggest, is not being able to place a cache until you've hit 10 or 15, and then being able to place them - unlimited.

There's always the possibility of people finding really bad 15 first hides and copying them, but that's not always gonna be the case, and will give a little bit of education in the game.

 

Limiting the amount indefinitely will only cause false finds so people can place that cache they've been working on.

 

What drew me into playing the game was the fact it was free. I soon became a premium member, sure, because I wanted to support the game, not for the benefits - I only really use my favourite points and statistics.

Limiting the amount of caches a basic member can place is slightly unfair. Just because you're premium, doesn't mean you're better. To me, it sounds more like a punishment for basics, than a benefit to premiums.

[+dakboy]

Just because you're premium, doesn't mean you're better.

If you've paid, you're more likely to keep at it and do a better job, to justify the expense.

[+firestronaut]

Just because you're premium, doesn't mean you're better.

If you've paid, you're more likely to keep at it and do a better job, to justify the expense.

That still doesn't make you a better cacher than the ones who stick with it as basic.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

What kind of a limit would you place on hides that wouldn't be likely to eliminate this game from sparsely populated areas, both sparsely populated in terms of caches, and cachers?

 

Consider

Dallas Texas:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=33.004167&lng=-96.802967

13064 records

 

Eufaula Oklahoma

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=35.288750&lng=-95.576833

1049 records

 

It seems to me that making a single rule limiting hides that would encompass both of these places well would be difficult. Depending on how you limited placements, you could easily arrange things so that the only people doing non-urban hides were people from densely populated urban areas. If you further *really* enforced the vacation cache rule, it seems to me that you'd make it extraordinarily difficult to place caches in remote areas at all. To my mind, the more remote areas are actually *the best* places for caches, so this would be a bad thing.

 

BTW, I'm not trying to argue against the problem the OP stated - I definitely see his point - just worried that solutions that seem "obvious" in dense areas might not work out so well in sparse areas.

 

[+fuzziebear3]

One thing I try to do -- If a name I don't recognize logs one of my caches, or one on my watchlist, I get a notification and I will go check out their profile.

 

If they are a new player and probably live in my area (I figure first few finds are usually close to home), I send them a nice e-mail, welcome them to the game, offer to help if they get stuck, and offer to go out caching with them sometime.

This helps to establish a friendship, gives them some confidence and a possible contact / mentor, and opens the way to additional conversations about good hides, methods, events, travel bugs, etc.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I know this will sound cynical, but I promise that I do not mean it that way - it seems to me that the business model at Groundspeak depends on lots of caches being placed, and lots of cachers. They'd be stupid to mess with this or limit it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Those pesky dayflies are also responsible for taking out 50% of the "c" in geocahing. I much prefer the old days, where all the caches were ammo cans and there was a superabundance of "c's."

 

Well you know, I was just telling Snoogans last week that there are old school reviewers.

 

I actually had to Google Dayfiles. We have them in North America, but I admit to not being very familiar with them. Apparently they only live a few days at most, so now I get it. Sort of.

 

You might be thinking of Mayflies, and they only live for a month...unless they're eaten by a trout.

[Mr.Yuck]

One thing I try to do -- If a name I don't recognize logs one of my caches, or one on my watchlist, I get a notification and I will go check out their profile.

 

If they are a new player and probably live in my area (I figure first few finds are usually close to home), I send them a nice e-mail, welcome them to the game, offer to help if they get stuck, and offer to go out caching with them sometime.

This helps to establish a friendship, gives them some confidence and a possible contact / mentor, and opens the way to additional conversations about good hides, methods, events, travel bugs, etc.

 

Interesting, but I think there'd be way too many of them lately for me to do that! Let me ask you this in the smartphone era. How many of them respond? When I do contact brand new people, it's almost always "you logged my cache 5 times on your phone, so I deleted 4 of them". I have never once received a response back.

 

I'd also have reservations about contacting the new person too because statistically, I don't think the majority of them are going to be around too long. You know, find a handful, or even several dozen caches, and disappear forever. If I were ever to do this, I would wait until I consistently see the same new name 4 or 5 times.

[knowschad]

Just because you're premium, doesn't mean you're better.

If you've paid, you're more likely to keep at it and do a better job, to justify the expense.

That still doesn't make you a better cacher than the ones who stick with it as basic.

 

Better... no. I would agree with that. But in many (but certainly not all) cases, less committed.

[knowschad]

Those pesky dayflies are also responsible for taking out 50% of the "c" in geocahing. I much prefer the old days, where all the caches were ammo cans and there was a superabundance of "c's."

 

Well you know, I was just telling Snoogans last week that there are old school reviewers.

 

I actually had to Google Dayfiles. We have them in North America, but I admit to not being very familiar with them. Apparently they only live a few days at most, so now I get it. Sort of.

 

You might be thinking of Mayflies, and they only live for a month...unless they're eaten by a trout.

(aside: from Wikipedia: Common names for mayflies include "dayfly", "shadfly", "Green Bay fly", "lake fly", "fishfly" (in the Great Lakes region of North America),^[/url] and "Canadian soldier)

 

(lifespan of a MONTH? They often hatch, lay eggs, and die in the same day, although the nymph lives for a year underwater, right?)

[Mr.Yuck]

Those pesky dayflies are also responsible for taking out 50% of the "c" in geocahing. I much prefer the old days, where all the caches were ammo cans and there was a superabundance of "c's."

 

Well you know, I was just telling Snoogans last week that there are old school reviewers.

 

I actually had to Google Dayfiles. We have them in North America, but I admit to not being very familiar with them. Apparently they only live a few days at most, so now I get it. Sort of.

 

You might be thinking of Mayflies, and they only live for a month...unless they're eaten by a trout.

 

Same thing with different regional names. See, I told you I Googled it. And no, Wikipedia says the lifespan in only a few days, and Wikipedia is never wrong.

 

So you live maybe 150 miles from me, we have these in New York? In retrospect, I've probably seen absolute swarms of them when I lived on the shores of Devil's Lake, North Dakota for a couple weeks (military training). I thought they were all Dragonflies though.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

What kind of a limit would you place on hides that wouldn't be likely to eliminate this game from sparsely populated areas, both sparsely populated in terms of caches, and cachers?

 

Consider

Dallas Texas:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=33.004167&lng=-96.802967

13064 records

 

Eufaula Oklahoma

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=35.288750&lng=-95.576833

1049 records

 

It seems to me that making a single rule limiting hides that would encompass both of these places well would be difficult. Depending on how you limited placements, you could easily arrange things so that the only people doing non-urban hides were people from densely populated urban areas. If you further *really* enforced the vacation cache rule, it seems to me that you'd make it extraordinarily difficult to place caches in remote areas at all. To my mind, the more remote areas are actually *the best* places for caches, so this would be a bad thing.

 

BTW, I'm not trying to argue against the problem the OP stated - I definitely see his point - just worried that solutions that seem "obvious" in dense areas might not work out so well in sparse areas.

 

Agreed. It wouldn't be the first time someone suggested a global solution for what is typically a local issue.

 

There are also quite a few densely populated areas that do not have saturation issues by any stretch of the imagination. There are only 443 caches in the entire country of China. In about a month I'll be traveling to a city with a population of about 2.7 million. There is only one cache within the city, one just outside the city, and the next closest is over 40 miles away and requires a two hour (one way) ferry ride.

[+Croesgadwr]

Please remember that my comments are just personal opinions, and are not necessarilly shared by others.

Croesgadwr,

a North Wales geo-cacher

 

As I said... Just my "personal opinions", expressed in my initial reply to the original thread raised by 'wildlifeseeker'...

I see no justification for masochistic references to 'a type of cache' that falls someway short of being my favorite. I stated that I 'hated' drive-by caches, I also quoted my prefered type of terrain / cache. Again, personal opinion... MY personal opinion.

[+Ohiosiouxfan]

In retrospect, I've probably seen absolute swarms of them when I lived on the shores of Devil's Lake, North Dakota for a couple weeks (military training).

 

The ever-changing shores of Devils Lake. Did you hit all dozen GCs in DL?

 

(PS - I finally just "got" the whole missing C line of posts too. I'm not usually this thick-headed on a Monday either.)