One cache placed for every ten found

[+Amberel]

I have found some really interesting locations for Nano caches on the back of road signs.

Ignoring the issue of whether back of a road sign really is a great hiding place for a cache, can I just concentrate on the "nano" bit.

 

Rolling up nano logs with my fat fingers is a chore on a nice warm, sunny day. On a freezing cold winter's day, with my hands already cold from a motor-cycle ride, it is a total pain in the butt!

 

I accept that nanos may have a place, but not where there is ANY chance to place anything larger.

 

Rgds, Andy

[Langy]

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 .

 

Alan yes there may be over 7500 within 50 miles of Bury St Edmunds but in Suffolk it is a very rural area and can take you 20 minutes to get to one that is just 5 miles away. How are you supposed to do those in a one hour break? Even with Norwich only 35 miles away as the crow flies it would take over an hour to get there. North Norfolk is like travelling down the back of beyond as most roads go, spent a lot of time there in the past with the caravan.

 

Again different people have different ideas about what they can and can not do. For some travelling distance is a big issue, some are willing to travel the whole country.

[+Simply Paul]

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

If we apply my 'Five Cs' of good cache hiding (Container, Contents, loCation, Cunning hide & Complete experience*) then micros can have good, creative containers (or be wet 35mm pots), but fail the contents test. A log is rarely exciting. If the point of the cache is a cool location, its size will/should be set by 'what's the biggest cache I can safely place here?' but micros do well with the cunning hide factor. Nanos too, for that matter. The experience of getting to GZ - doing a walk, solving a puzzle, following a night caching trail, etc - would be the same if you found a micro up a plastic rat's bottom at the end of it, or an ammo can almost rusted closed. So on the face of it, micros are at a contents disadvantage but a cunning hide advantage; so, micros are not a sign of poor quality.

 

However! The point of micros is they're low cost. Low cost can mean low 'investment' in the other elements of a great cache hide: Small, free, bland, leaky Container, leading to poor (log only) damp Contents, placed at a 'why am I here again?' loCation, without a Cunning hide to add interest and no enjoyable puzzle/walk element leading to a poor Complete caching experience. In that situation, you'd better hope the micro is one of 100 on a trail and at least you'll have a grand numbers day out, even if no one cache will stick in your mind long enough for you to get to a computer to log it. Hence: "TNLN-TFTC&S!"

 

*The Complete experience is whatever gets you to GZ. So, a puzzle, a trail, an exciting boat trip across the ocean... There's probaby a better C-word than Complete - so to speak - but I can't think of it.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Simply Paul

[+uktim]

 

If we apply my 'Five Cs' of good cache hiding (Container, Contents, loCation, Cunning hide & Complete experience*)

 

 

You're more than welcome to apply your 'Five Cs' when hiding caches and choosing which ones to visit.

 

The rest of us may have other criteria that we use when caching

[+Simply Paul]

If we apply my 'Five Cs' of good cache hiding (Container, Contents, loCation, Cunning hide & Complete experience*)

You're more than welcome to apply your 'Five Cs' when hiding caches and choosing which ones to visit.

 

The rest of us may have other criteria that we use when caching

I thought those five factors covered everything. What other than container, contents, location, hide and 'everything else' is there?

[Langy]

If we apply my 'Five Cs' of good cache hiding (Container, Contents, loCation, Cunning hide & Complete experience*)

You're more than welcome to apply your 'Five Cs' when hiding caches and choosing which ones to visit.

 

The rest of us may have other criteria that we use when caching

I thought those five factors covered everything. What other than container, contents, location, hide and 'everything else' is there?

 

I think waht UKTim is trying to say is that you have your five factors that you use and some people may use them, some of them, none of them or a combination of them as well as something else. If you're a number cacher then almost all the five factors go out the window.

 

Now the person doing the 1 in 10 rule are they using any of your five factors or do they have a different schedule to work to when creating the new caches?

[+uktim]

If we apply my 'Five Cs' of good cache hiding (Container, Contents, loCation, Cunning hide & Complete experience*)

You're more than welcome to apply your 'Five Cs' when hiding caches and choosing which ones to visit.

 

The rest of us may have other criteria that we use when caching

I thought those five factors covered everything. What other than container, contents, location, hide and 'everything else' is there?

 

I'm sure that you never included "everything else" in your original list

[+Simply Paul]

I'm sure that you never included "everything else" in your original list

I did say the fifth C was 'Complete experience', covering the other things a setter can build into a cache, beyond container, location, hide and contents. That would include a great cache page, a location which is special for reasons explained on the cache page (a colourful history perhaps) and so on. I gave some other examples above. The actual experience of finding the cache will always be changed by factors outside the setter's control too, of course. Caching with company (unless teamwork is built into the cache design), weather, time of day... lots of things can enhance - or otherwise - any cache.

 

Langy, I think everyone uses those things I outlined when placing a cache. How well they use them is another thing all together! Take the ET Highway. Container: There are thousands of them, all the same. Amount of thought per cache- next to none. Hide: There are thousands of them, all the same. Amount of thought per cache- next to none. Contents: Next to none (log only?). Location: The next lamp post or fence post?- amount of thought per cache- next to none. If you're a numbers cacher you still have those factors in mind, but sheer volume may make you decide while each cache 'scores low', the whole 1500ish trail adds up to something well worth doing. If spending a day drive-by, fish-in-a-barrel caching is your thing

 

The folks setting the 1 for 10 caches still have to decide what to hide, what to fill it with, where to place it, how to hide it and what cachers have to do to find it. Even if they're not consciously aware of considering those things, they're still doing them.

[+squirtchy]

If we're looking at them placing a cache every 10 finds they get, that seems quite a lot for a little amount of finds, but if you think of it likes this, for every 300 finds they get, the place a nice circular walk of 30 caches! I like circular walks, so if they did that theory, i'd say get caching and get placing!!