One cache placed for every ten found

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

A caching team fairly close to us has decided to place one cache for every ten they have found. Whilst I'm sure they feel they are doing a service and "paying back to the geocaching community", the idea fills me with horror!

 

These days it doesn't take long to clock up 100 finds - it can be easily done over a weekend. Many of our friends have 3000, 4000, 5000 finds. That would mean 100s of placements each - far too many to maintain properly in my opinion! If just a few decided to take on the idea, I feel that cache saturation would become ridiculous! It also opens up the liklihood that caches will be hastily placed without a great deal of research and thought, just to keep up the ratio.

 

What are your thoughts?

[+Lieblweb]

When you say...'caching team' - How many people are involved?

 

There are 'teams' or Login accounts that can have many many people involved. I'm part of a different login account which has NO finds and 105 hides. The account has 10 people associated with the hides. As long as all 10 people are maintaining their hides....

 

If you live in an area where you can hide 1 cache for every 10 you find - then, maybe it's not such a bad idea as long as they can maintain everything. It'll definitely boost geocaching in that area. In my area, it's very hard to find spots to hide.

 

You gotta give more details about this 'team'?? There might be more 'to it' than you think.....

just saying....

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

Ok, it's a Mr and Mrs and A.N. Other.

Believe me, there is definitely NOT a shortage of caches in the area

[+Amberel]

A caching team fairly close to us has decided to place one cache for every ten they have found. Whilst I'm sure they feel they are doing a service and "paying back to the geocaching community", the idea fills me with horror!

What are your thoughts?

The principle of linking hides to finds is wholly unnecessary.

 

There are so many caches now that there is no imperative to hide more. We can afford to forget about numbers and concentrate on quality. Any sort of pressure to hide higher numbers, even if self imposed, will not contribute to quality and could work against it.

 

Rgds, Andy

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

The principle of linking hides to finds is wholly unnecessary.

 

There are so many caches now that there is no imperative to hide more. We can afford to forget about numbers and concentrate on quality. Any sort of pressure to hide higher numbers, even if self imposed, will not contribute to quality and could work against it.

 

Rgds, Andy

That is EXACTLY what we think, Andy

[+Simply Paul]

For a while I was finding 5 caches for every one I placed, but that was a long time ago, when there was a shortage of caches. I'd say hiding a cache for every ten found is a fine ambition to have, but you'd want to be sure you had maintenance and quality firmly in mind before doing it. One way to do it would be to set caches with a set 3 month lifespan. It would be ok under Groundspeak rules, keep costs down, keep maintenance to a minimum and allow for some interesting hides which might not last much longer. It's an option which would allow the 1:10 ratio to work.

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

One way to do it would be to set caches with a set 3 month lifespan. It would be ok under Groundspeak rules, keep costs down, keep maintenance to a minimum and allow for some interesting hides which might not last much longer. It's an option which would allow the 1:10 ratio to work.

I agree that could work, SP, but I get a feeling that's just not going to happen. I also fear that others will think it's a great idea and follow suit

[+The Blorenges]

A caching team fairly close to us has decided to place one cache for every ten they have found. Whilst I'm sure they feel they are doing a service and "paying back to the geocaching community", the idea fills me with horror!

 

These days it doesn't take long to clock up 100 finds - it can be easily done over a weekend. Many of our friends have 3000, 4000, 5000 finds. That would mean 100s of placements each - far too many to maintain properly in my opinion! If just a few decided to take on the idea, I feel that cache saturation would become ridiculous! It also opens up the liklihood that caches will be hastily placed without a great deal of research and thought, just to keep up the ratio.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

My thoughts?

 

That gust of wind that drifted past you just then... That was my sigh from down here in south Wales.

 

 

MrsB

[+Delta68]

We saw the notifications yesterday as well and thought 'oh dear' or words to that effect

 

Here's the first one in the series GC3HP7Y (They are all PMO)

 

 

Mark

 

edited to fix link

Edited May 13, 2012 by Delta68

[+MartyBartfast]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought I'd come on here and find you were proposing this as an idea, I'm relieved to see you're not as I think it's a bad idea that will ultimately lead to a profusion of low quality caches in the vein of "micros thrown in a hedge". Perehaps it could work for someone who's been around a good while but has a relatively low find rate, however I see the placers of the cache in the link are relatively new and seem to be going at it hammer and tongs, so I'm afraid I'm fairly pessimistic about the prospects.

 

BTW the link above had too many 'O' s, here's the right link

 

GC3HP7Y

Edited May 13, 2012 by MartyBartfast

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

We did half think of taking a look, as they were on our way home from our one and only find of the day (on The Long Mynd ~ a quality cache in a top quality area.) But we would have just looked for 1.6 of the series

 

edited to remove a duplicated word. Obviously a case of "word saturation"

Edited May 13, 2012 by Izzy and the Lizard King

[+lodgebarn]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought I'd come on here and find you were proposing this as an idea, I'm relieved to see you're not as I think it's a bad idea that will ultimately lead to a profusion of low quality caches in the vein of "micros thrown in a hedge". Perehaps it could work for someone who's been around a good while but has a relatively low find rate, however I see the placers of the cache in the link are relatively new and seem to be going at it hammer and tongs, so I'm afraid I'm fairly pessimistic about the prospects.

 

BTW the link above had too many 'O' s, here's the right link

 

GC3HP7Y

And all shouty as well, I can hear the listing up in Derbyshire . How nice!

[+Simply Paul]

Since the people with this plan have been 'named and shamed', let's take a moment to look at what they're doing. They're setting lots of caches because they're finding lots of caches. Some might call that putting something back into the game. THE PAGES ARE A BIT SHOUTY but then I've seen every sort of cache page criticised here. "No description at all!" "Too much description- who the hell's going to read all that history?" "Why include pictures? They just slow the page loading" and so on. Again, CAPS ARE NOT A CRIME. I appreciate their intention might worry folks, but how about waiting to see i) if they're rubbish or ii) badly maintained before passing judgement? Numbers don't have to equal damp micros in dull/bad places. And even if they are, it's their right to place them (with permission) and your (you're) right to ignore them

[+lodgebarn]

CAPS ARE NOT A CRIME.

True enough and not related in the slightest to the OP being discussed. However, I find them very harsh on the eye no matter who has set them and when I see them rarely read past the first line.

[+drdick&vick]

and just to make a certain forum member happy, it is a micro in an Ivy covered tree, according to Google Earth in a wooded area.

[+uktim]

A caching team fairly close to us has decided to place one cache for every ten they have found. Whilst I'm sure they feel they are doing a service and "paying back to the geocaching community", the idea fills me with horror!

 

These days it doesn't take long to clock up 100 finds - it can be easily done over a weekend. Many of our friends have 3000, 4000, 5000 finds. That would mean 100s of placements each - far too many to maintain properly in my opinion! If just a few decided to take on the idea, I feel that cache saturation would become ridiculous! It also opens up the liklihood that caches will be hastily placed without a great deal of research and thought, just to keep up the ratio.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I suspect you're being too harsh here. I spotted these when they were published and they look to have the makings of a nice series forming a pleasant circular walk.

 

Live and let live. We shouldn't expect everyone else to do it our way. If we don't like the look of a cache we don't have to visit it.

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

I suspect you're being too harsh here. I spotted these when they were published and they look to have the makings of a nice series forming a pleasant circular walk.

 

Live and let live. We shouldn't expect everyone else to do it our way. If we don't like the look of a cache we don't have to visit it.

The series is not the concern here, it is the concept of placing one cache for every ten found ~ I just doubt the wisdom of the idea and was asking how others felt.

 

We don't bother doing a cache if we don't like the look of it, and don't see the point in clearing our local area of caches if they don't appeal to us. Perhaps that's why we have only got 2300 finds in just over 7 years when some of our friends have double that in a couple of years!

[I!]

and your (you're) right to ignore them

Ooh, nice grammar-judo. Well played.

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

and your (you're) right to ignore them

Ooh, nice grammar-judo. Well played.

I noticed that too and had to smile

[+uktim]

I suspect you're being too harsh here. I spotted these when they were published and they look to have the makings of a nice series forming a pleasant circular walk.

 

Live and let live. We shouldn't expect everyone else to do it our way. If we don't like the look of a cache we don't have to visit it.

The series is not the concern here, it is the concept of placing one cache for every ten found ~ I just doubt the wisdom of the idea and was asking how others felt.

 

We don't bother doing a cache if we don't like the look of it, and don't see the point in clearing our local area of caches if they don't appeal to us. Perhaps that's why we have only got 2300 finds in just over 7 years when some of our friends have double that in a couple of years!

 

For me it's not an issue. As long as the caches are good a "one for every ten" policy is as good as any other IMO. Bear in mind that these guys have an even lower find rate than your own

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

Bear in mind that these guys have an even lower find rate than your own

I don't think so actually. They hardly found any in their early years and it is only this year that they have become active really. This year they have found over four times as many as we have this year :laughing:

Edited May 13, 2012 by Izzy and the Lizard King

[Langy]

Like someone mentioned before should we really condemn something before they have been placed and looked at?

 

OK I've been properly active for about a month now and only managed to notch up 47 so far, on that rule I should be looking to place 4 caches so far. Yes I've raised a piece on here earlier about locations and permission which has caused a lot of different opinions being aired with lots of people. From what I have seen different people have different opinions on what they like to find and look for. It doesn't matter if it is a nano on the back of a road sign or a large lunch box at the top of a large hill with spectacular views, we all like different things.

 

Today I took on the GC3E0XA series of 13 caches where I was hoping to break 50 so far. Now the CO of this route had carefully planned a 4 mile walk across some stunning countryside and to better things had some basic caches but had some which a lot of effort had gone in to making. I don't want to ruin things by saying what they had used (go do the series to find out) but that was 13 caches in one walk. This is a highly recommended series if you are about.

 

Here in Suffolk we are full of footpaths across the countryside, it would be quite easy to find locations for a series and place 10 caches in a series in interesting areas. If you can crate interesting caches like the CO of the one I did today then you can soon create yourself quite an armoury of caches.

 

Yes maintenance may become a full time job, but if your caches are in an area which doesn't get a lot of visitors then your maintenance schedule can be quote low.

 

It may actually turn out to be a good thing to have a 1 in 10 rule (which may well need to be higher for some people) as at least it presents someone with a task to create more caches and return something back to the community.

 

Also remember if you live in a highly populated area there are bound to be lots of caches but when you live out in the sticks the quantity of caches and their visitors tends to be much lower.

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

Langy, I asked for people's thoughts and I accept differing opinions, although I don't have to agree.

If the 1 in 10 "rule" became commonplace (perish the thought ~ I think we would return to just walking if it did!) there would surely have to be a "cut off point" What number would that be then?

 

I would like to add that placing more caches is by no means the only way of putting something back into the community

[+Dogfort]

Ive around 20 finds per hide. I get more of a kick out of caches being found. Dont know what it is but I enjy haing my caches found more than caching. Saying that Ive cached alot recently but for me its the joy from knowing people are having fun doing my caches.

[Langy]

Langy, I asked for people's thoughts and I accept differing opinions, although I don't have to agree.

If the 1 in 10 "rule" became commonplace (perish the thought ~ I think we would return to just walking if it did!) there would surely have to be a "cut off point" What number would that be then?

 

I would like to add that placing more caches is by no means the only way of putting something back into the community

 

Most certainly agree to all that Izzy.

 

Yes if it all became common place then the 160 Metre rule would be used before anything else as we would just be over run.

 

I think that the notice as below says it all on the front page though. There are far more geocachers than there are geocaches which means we should not get overrun as only a small percentage of the geocachers actually place and manage geocaches. We have to be thankful to these people otherwise we wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

 

There are 1,755,661 active geocaches and over 5 million geocachers worldwide.

 

Don't mean to be negative, apologies if it sounds that way but we have to be careful how we treat an individual as we all know in this world that mud sticks and peoples reaction to one person can tar the entire community.

 

There I go sounding negative again.

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

......... we have to be careful how we treat an individual as we all know in this world that mud sticks and peoples reaction to one person can tar the entire community.

......which is why I didn't "name and shame"

[+Delta68]

 

...which is why I didn't "name and shame"

 

I didn't name and shame!

I only named

 

Shame is only felt by those who feel shame.

If anyone doesn't like attention being drawn to their actions they shouldn't do it in the first place

 

The CO in question is probably proud of their 'original' idea.

 

 

Mark

[+Amberel]

Like someone mentioned before should we really condemn something before they have been placed and looked at?

No caches were being condemned before they were looked at, the subject was the principle of having to hide a cache for every 10 found.

 

It may actually turn out to be a good thing to have a 1 in 10 rule (which may well need to be higher for some people) as at least it presents someone with a task to create more caches and return something back to the community.

A lot of people like hiding caches, and those who find them are putting something back into the community if they take care not to damage the cache location, trade even or up, rehide the cache carefully, pick up litter and put some thought and effort into their found it log (or even their DNF log).

 

There is no need at all to put something back by hiding caches. There are 120 thousand caches in the UK, mostly listed on Groundspeak, and the number is growing at a furious rate without any quotas being imposed.

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited May 14, 2012 by Amberel

[+Happy Humphrey]

A lot of people like hiding caches, and those who find them are putting something back into the community if they take care not to damage the cache location, trade even or up, rehide the cache carefully, pick up litter and put some thought and effort into their found it log (or even their DNF log).

 

There is no need at all to put something back by hiding caches. There are 120 thousand caches in the UK, mostly listed on Groundspeak, and the number is growing at a furious rate without any quotas being imposed.

Exactly. Even if the log doesn't show much effort then it's still putting something back.

 

Please don't place any cache because you feel it's your duty, or to "put something back". That's a really bad policy. I'd much rather one cache that took six months in the making than a hundred run-of-the-mill, contractual-obligation ones.

Only place a cache because you're inspired by a great location, or you have a creative idea of some sort. Otherwise, you'll be "putting something back" by NOT placing that ordinary cache.

[Dave from Glanton]

My hide to find ratio was about 1:10...I've not really been active much of late, so have picked up a few more casual finds without doing any hiding. That 1 for 10 thing wasn't a policy though - it just kind of happened to be the frequency at which I found a suitable spot or had an idea for a hide.

 

As for quality? Only one micro amongst my hides, and that is an intentionally devious one. The rest are all proper boxes, some with a few twists. Never been accused of over-populating the area, and managed to pick up a few favourite points along the way.

 

So...I don't think one hide for every 10 finds is necessarily a bad thing, provided that you work hard enough to maintain quality. But placing for the sake of placing, I would say is a no-no.

[+Mallah]

I suspect their 1 for 10 policy won't last? The reality of finding places to hide them and maintain them will kick in before long. And lets not forget, there are plenty of caches that don't last more than a year so several of these may be archived by this time next year anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure we will never be asked to adopt this policy by GC, but someone above raised an interesting prospect for a new type of cache though - a temporary one. I guess it would be like an event cache but set to expire after a few months. Probably of more interest to local cachers, where an area could then be released for another temp series every so often.

[+MartyBartfast]

... but someone above raised an interesting prospect for a new type of cache though - a temporary one. I guess it would be like an event cache but set to expire after a few months. Probably of more interest to local cachers, where an area could then be released for another temp series every so often.

 

But then it comes down to why is the cache there? If it's about the lovely view/interesting location/challenging walk then why remove a serviceable 'temporary' cache and replace it with another in more or less the same place? Having a temporary cache which is regularly replaced with a new one just so everyone can get another smiley makes it just about the numbers, which is pretty dire IMHO, you might as well go for a proper power trail with a micro behind every other lamp post .

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

I didn't name and shame!

I only named

:laughing:

That's ok, Mark. I know we think on a similar wave length as you

 

I'm glad that there are some who "get" what my concerns are and can express them more eloquently ( eg Andy and HH )

[Langy]

... but someone above raised an interesting prospect for a new type of cache though - a temporary one. I guess it would be like an event cache but set to expire after a few months. Probably of more interest to local cachers, where an area could then be released for another temp series every so often.

 

But then it comes down to why is the cache there? If it's about the lovely view/interesting location/challenging walk then why remove a serviceable 'temporary' cache and replace it with another in more or less the same place? Having a temporary cache which is regularly replaced with a new one just so everyone can get another smiley makes it just about the numbers, which is pretty dire IMHO, you might as well go for a proper power trail with a micro behind every other lamp post .

 

OK I know the post is about 1 in 10 but I think the main part of the topic is coming across about quantity and quality of caches, so let's take another view on the whole thread.

 

Why do we all do this in the first place? I guess that there are three or four main categories that you could put people in.

 

A Geocacher who

1. wants to clock up as many numbers as possible
2. wants something that gives them a puzzle to solve so that they can say yes I found it as and when they like (numbers mean nothing)
3. wants to be taken to a place of interest to be shown something that is worth while seeing
4. wants somewhere to go for a morning / afternoon / evening which may also include other friends or family where geocaching is a nice activity to do

With the above four options the site needs to provide enough of everything to cover all of the above.

 

Now temporary caches have been mentioned which can cater for all the above options.

 

Yes they can help the number builder, new caches appearing regularly in a local location.

Something new for the puzzle solver.

If the temporary cache is in a special place of interest it takes option 3 back to a special place for a new challenge several times a year.

Also on option 4 if it's local then at last minute the family / friends can all go out for a short walk to take on a new challenge.

 

Yes I can see everyone is worried about caches being stuck in silly locations just to build numbers, but they don't have to. Yes they will appear because that's life and some people may want to play the number game on managing their own caches.

 

So in conclusion perhaps temporary / themed caches commemorating events etc may be an option that should go ahead.

We could have a Jubilee or Olympic theme to start with.

[+Simply Paul]

And me. I get your concerns too Izzy and/or The Lizard King. Didn't that come across? I've always said hiding caches for the sake of hiding a cache is almost always a bad idea. It often leads to low quality (in terms of contents, container, location and hide, plus any enjoyable puzzle/multi element to get you to GZ - the Five Commandments of Good Cache hiding?), poorly maintained caches. However, I wouldn't want to dissuade anyone planning to hide caches (1 for 10, 1 for 100 or 1 for 1000) simply on the grounds that they might be crud. They might not be.

 

On another angle, 'Temp' caches - ones with a fixed, short life span - are allowed by Groundspeak, so long as the set time isn't less that three months. I think there are several good reasons why they can exist.

i) They're an extra challenge as you have a fixed/short 'window of opportunity' to find them.

ii) Some landowners would be fine with a '3 month treasure-hunt' on their land rather than an open-ended one.

iii) No one said the cache box would have to pop-up in the same area again. It could rove the 314squ miles (800+ squ. Km) within 10 miles/16.1Km of the setter's home. Staggered, three cache boxes (and refreshed contents) could give cache hunters a fresh challenge per month, much like YOSM does. An 'ephemeral' series actually sounds rather fun to me. Agreed, they might not take you somewhere special, but they might take you back to a location you'd previously cached and enjoyed, re-inspired to visit by a fresh, short-lived cache.

 

Edit: Langy and I are playing from the same song sheet

Edited May 14, 2012 by Simply Paul

[+Amberel]

Why do we all do this in the first place? I guess that there are three or four main categories that you could put people in.

 

A Geocacher who

1. wants to clock up as many numbers as possible
2. wants something that gives them a puzzle to solve so that they can say yes I found it as and when they like (numbers mean nothing)
3. wants to be taken to a place of interest to be shown something that is worth while seeing
4. wants somewhere to go for a morning / afternoon / evening which may also include other friends or family where geocaching is a nice activity to do

You've missed off what is for me the most important - best of all I like to find good quality caches. That includes being in good locations, but that is only part of the story.

 

I hope you don't think that people like me are such a minority that we don't even get classed as one of the main categories!

 

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

I think that the notice as below says it all on the front page though. There are far more geocachers than there are geocaches

There are 1,755,661 active geocaches and over 5 million geocachers worldwide.

As a loyal listener to Radio 4's More or Less a randomly quoted statistic like that always causes me to look a little closer, especially when I don't believe it .

 

The 5 million figure presumably comes from the last-used value from the username sequence, which as I write is a tad over 5839000. I don't know Groundspeak's database, but database sequence numbers aren't necessarily all used. Of those which are, many will be redundant accounts and many will be alternatives (lots of users have more than one account for various reasons). Therefore this sequence number is not a measure of the number of active cachers.

 

Let's look at the real statistics for GB caches (listed on Groundspeak). There are 120,507 active caches, where "active" includes temp disabled but not archived. Let's say an active cacher is one who's posted a log of any type on any cache in the last three months. That's 41,472.

 

So the true ratio of cachers to caches isn't the suggested 3.3 but the rather more likely 0.34 .

[Alan White]

Let's say an active cacher is one who's posted a log of any type on any cache in the last three months. That's 41,472.

I should qualify that figure by saying that of those 41,472 7,805 have posted only one log, and only 21,729 - just over half the total - have posted more than five logs. It all depends on what one defines as an active cacher .

[+Happy Humphrey]

OK I know the post is about 1 in 10 but I think the main part of the topic is coming across about quantity and quality of caches, ...

I hope it's not. I was replying to the "1 in 10" post, and although I've certainly been guilty of helping threads go off-topic in the past I'd prefer that a discussion about quantity and quality of caches is kept separate.

 

It's a whole can of worms that has raised its ugly head on countless occasions and tends to doom any thread to oblivion. If cans have heads, anyway.

 

The "1 in 10" idea (or similar) has also been mooted many times (probably by Moote, amongst many others), but I appreciate that not everyone has been around these forums for years and they might think that it's a new and valid point. Getting into a general debates about cache quality will confuse the matter, when I was hoping to keep the answer a straightforward one ("don't do it!").

Sticking to a 1 in 10 regime and keeping the caches good quality might in theory be possible, but that's not the point. The point is that it's a poor motivation for cache hiding.

[Langy]

Why do we all do this in the first place? I guess that there are three or four main categories that you could put people in.

 

A Geocacher who

1. wants to clock up as many numbers as possible
2. wants something that gives them a puzzle to solve so that they can say yes I found it as and when they like (numbers mean nothing)
3. wants to be taken to a place of interest to be shown something that is worth while seeing
4. wants somewhere to go for a morning / afternoon / evening which may also include other friends or family where geocaching is a nice activity to do

You've missed off what is for me the most important - best of all I like to find good quality caches. That includes being in good locations, but that is only part of the story.

 

I hope you don't think that people like me are such a minority that we don't even get classed as one of the main categories!

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Sorry Andy, I did start with a list of three and then soon added. I'm sure that we could deviate from the list several times to cater for everyone.

I was just trying to point out that different people have different reason for doing the hobby so therefore we all have different expectations as to what we want from an available cache list.

[Langy]

Let's say an active cacher is one who's posted a log of any type on any cache in the last three months. That's 41,472.

I should qualify that figure by saying that of those 41,472 7,805 have posted only one log, and only 21,729 - just over half the total - have posted more than five logs. It all depends on what one defines as an active cacher .

 

OK now you're getting in to what I like doing (usually bores people by statistics).

So what is the average number of finds in the country and compare that to the number of active caches.

We can then see how close in general we are to the 1 in 10 rule.

 

[Langy]

OK I know the post is about 1 in 10 but I think the main part of the topic is coming across about quantity and quality of caches, ...

I hope it's not. I was replying to the "1 in 10" post, and although I've certainly been guilty of helping threads go off-topic in the past I'd prefer that a discussion about quantity and quality of caches is kept separate.

 

It's a whole can of worms that has raised its ugly head on countless occasions and tends to doom any thread to oblivion. If cans have heads, anyway.

 

The "1 in 10" idea (or similar) has also been mooted many times (probably by Moote, amongst many others), but I appreciate that not everyone has been around these forums for years and they might think that it's a new and valid point. Getting into a general debates about cache quality will confuse the matter, when I was hoping to keep the answer a straightforward one ("don't do it!").

Sticking to a 1 in 10 regime and keeping the caches good quality might in theory be possible, but that's not the point. The point is that it's a poor motivation for cache hiding.

 

So keeping with the 1 in 10, if you are the sort of person that likes to try and stick to rules or guidelines like this but at the same time have your own very strict guidelines as to how the caches are created along with the location, interest and quality then surely it would work as a good rule for someone?

 

Its almost like saying that for every tree you cut down you will plant a new one. Obviously we all expect the person planting the new trees to place these in a proper manageable location fit for their purpose.

[Alan White]

So what is the average number of finds in the country and compare that to the number of active caches.

We can then see how close in general we are to the 1 in 10 rule.

That's a bit tricky because of the rate at which cachers and caches increases. Taking a view since caching started would be meaningless. Even a recent snapshot isn't very informative - I did a similar exercise about three months ago and there've been over a thousand active cachers added since then .

 

Howver, let's have a go. Because of the above let's look just at the last year (a year back from today, not 2011). In that time there were 45,743 caches placed and there've been 1,405,460 found logs posted on those caches. That's a bit over 3% so a long way from this notional 10%.

 

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, I don't approve of this 1 in 10 or any other suggestion which encourages caches beyond finding enjoyable or interesting places to hide them. There are far too many caches already: caching should be about quality not quantity.

[+metal-bijou]

 

Its almost like saying that for every tree you cut down you will plant a new one. Obviously we all expect the person planting the new trees to place these in a proper manageable location fit for their purpose.

 

But it's more like saying that by walking into a wood and seeing trees that you will then plant more. It’s not as if you pick up and take away the cache just because you get a smiley. Which if it’s appropriate to plant/place where you wish I don’t see a problem.

 

I also don’t see a problem with having this as their motivation to set caches but it wouldn’t be mine. Each cacher gives something back to caching in their own way. Some set events, others caches, many write logs for the setter to read and even the TFTC cachers boost up the number of finds of a cache (controversial I know - and who knows they might contribute by good conversation when you bump into them in the field or at an event).

 

I doubt this cache 10, place 1 will catch on to the wider community especially with favourites having the same ratio. I have no intention only placing another couple of hundred just for the sake of a numbers ratio while I know others in my area have placed hundreds in nice circuits.

 

It will be really interesting to see how long their cache 10 place 1 policy will last.

[Langy]

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, I don't approve of this 1 in 10 or any other suggestion which encourages caches beyond finding enjoyable or interesting places to hide them. There are far too many caches already: caching should be about quality not quantity.

 

I agree in principal with you to teh 1 in 10 rule unless you know the exact details of how it is being operated.

Regarding too many caches I think you will find that there are several people who would like more caches to appear near them.

Even after caching seriously for about a month now I have nearly already hit all the local major ones I can sensibly do as I tend to do these in a lunch break or sometimes evenings / weekends when time and family allow. There will always be caches some of us can not possibly do.

 

Again agreed sometimes there are too many caches but these tend to be in pockets in certain areas, especially around built up areas of towns etc there are lots to choose form. Living in the countryside I prefer the country location caches as you often are not looking for a cache right in front of someones house and don't get that intimidating feeling.

[+Amberel]

I prefer the country location caches as you often are not looking for a cache right in front of someones house and don't get that intimidating feeling.

Then there is at least one subject on which we are in complete agreement .

 

This is part of the business about finding the right location. Right in front of someone's house (though I have to add, with certain exceptions :-) ) is usually a poor place for a cache.

 

Finding the right location is very important, and it is not at all easy to do "by numbers".

 

Rgds, Andy

[+uktim]

 

As for quality? Only one micro amongst my hides,

 

 

Are micros a sign of poor quality. The caches highlighted in this thread appear to be predominately micros sited alonga pleasant walk.

 

Are they good or poor quality caches?

 

I'd say good, our 6 year old daughter would probably disagree but is growing to understand that it is about much more than the size of the box.

[+uktim]

 

The "1 in 10" idea (or similar) has also been mooted many times (probably by Moote, amongst many others), but I appreciate that not everyone has been around these forums for years and they might think that it's a new and valid point. Getting into a general debates about cache quality will confuse the matter, when I was hoping to keep the answer a straightforward one ("don't do it!").

Sticking to a 1 in 10 regime and keeping the caches good quality might in theory be possible, but that's not the point. The point is that it's a poor motivation for cache hiding.

 

Motivation is a very personal thing, we're all motivated by different things. Some people are motivated by a drive to find as many caches as possible, others strive for FTFs and some like to hide and receive "good" logs.

 

We have no right to criticise someone elses motivations just because they don't "float our boat".

 

Find 10/hide 1 is a perfactly valid "motivation" and it will be of interest for some cache seekers. I'm already watching what appears to be a developing series, maybe even a power trail, with interest to see where the next caches are placed.

 

Good luck to them. I hope they find another 10 caches soon and place the next cache so that the interest is maintained

[Alan White]

Regarding too many caches I think you will find that there are several people who would like more caches to appear near them.

Even after caching seriously for about a month now I have nearly already hit all the local major ones I can sensibly do as I tend to do these in a lunch break or sometimes evenings / weekends when time and family allow. There will always be caches some of us can not possibly do.

I agree there are cache deserts though there are 7,500 active caches within 50km of Bury St Edmunds - plenty for you to do yet .

 

For comparison, there are 12,000 active caches within 50km of Bracknell, of which we've found only 4,500 .

[Langy]

As for quality? Only one micro amongst my hides,

 

 

Are micros a sign of poor quality. The caches highlighted in this thread appear to be predominately micros sited alonga pleasant walk.

 

Are they good or poor quality caches?

 

I'd say good, our 6 year old daughter would probably disagree but is growing to understand that it is about much more than the size of the box.

 

I know some people start spitting feathers at the sound of a Micro, but I have found some really interesting locations for Nano caches on the back of road signs. The location was really nice and at the same time placing on the back of a road sign can mean less maintenance as these tend to be pretty water tight, easy to place and find but serve their purpose of getting someone to that area.

 

My kids like the idea of the big caches just so they can do the swaps but I don't do it for that, I like to see the whole area, taken somewhere new and have a little puzzle on the way of trying to find it.