COs with ZERO finds

[+RecipeForDisaster]

I've noticed several recent hides where the CO has never found a single cache. One of them had created their account the day of the hide, one of them had 2 DNFs on very easy caches... should the system prohibit a user from hiding a cache if they haven't even logged ONE find? I hesitate to bother with finding a cache hidden by someone who has really never found one. I've even come across COs who own say, 8 caches, and have found 2.

 

On the other hand, if these are sock puppets, they should at least have to go through the trouble of logging a couple of finds. I don't love that, either... sometimes I think I can tell, if the cache page is well written versus it's a hide with a poorly written page(and a container with no log in it).

 

Thoughts?

 

RFD

[+The_Incredibles_]

One thing to consider is that they have found alot of caches with their smartphone and just never bothered logging them.

 

We had someone here hide a cache with zero finds and the account created only days earlier. The cache was pretty good, but the coords were crap.

 

I personally don't think the system should prohibit the user from doing so, it doesn't necessarily mean the cache will be bad. I would probably hesitate to rush out for FTF though. And I would read the logs well before going out!!

Edited June 19, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[knowschad]

How many skirt lifters, power trail film canisters, or stop-sign bison tubes should they find before hiding their first cache?

[+docsigma]

There's a cacher I'm friendly with who has over 1000 finds, but uses a separate, find-free account to hide his caches.

[+baloo&bd]

To many reason:

 

1. Many cachers do not log any of their finds. They either use notes or private lists/databases to track things.

 

2. Some cachers set up a separate account for hidings caches.

 

These are the two legitimate reasons I can think of, others may exist (pets, kids, etc.)

[+badger10]

When we first joined about two years ago we had a single account. Before we found our first cache we decided to make our own geoniks. We have thought about using the first name to put out our hides. That would mean we would be putting out caches without any finds...at least on our profile. My wife has found hundreds of caches but does not log any unless it is required for a geocoin challenge.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Cacher could be part of a family. The Find under the family account, and the individual does the hiding. I know of a local family that does just that.

 

Find count doesn't necessarily equate to quality of hides. There are cachers with 1000's of finds that still hide garbage caches.

[+RecipeForDisaster]

All good points, some I hadn't thought of... the only one that doesn't fit any of these is the person with DNFs(I stumbled upon while logging my own finds)and no finds. I certainly know that a high find count doesn't equal a good hide-but if it really looks like you have found 2 caches(or zero), that can't lend confidence to those finding your new cache.

 

I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to log their finds(especially as a communication to the CO and future finders), but to each their own, I guess.

 

RFD

[+Max and 99]

All good points, some I hadn't thought of... the only one that doesn't fit any of these is the person with DNFs(I stumbled upon while logging my own finds)and no finds. I certainly know that a high find count doesn't equal a good hide-but if it really looks like you have found 2 caches(or zero), that can't lend confidence to those finding your new cache.

 

I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to log their finds(especially as a communication to the CO and future finders), but to each their own, I guess.

 

RFD

I do not log all of my finds, and only I know how many caches I've REALLY found!

 

But you do have a good point that the number of caches found can sometimes lend credibility when you start hiding them. I understand that.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

But you do have a good point that the number of caches found can sometimes lend credibility when you start hiding them. I understand that.

 

In those cases I left other people go out and get the bugs worked out.

[+dprovan]

Thoughts?

Not worth worrying about. Either the cache is good or bad. If it's good, it doesn't matter how many they've found. If it's bad, it might still be bad even after they've found a bunch.

 

Certainly, I would encourage people to get some experience before hiding something, but I'd never dream of making it a requirement.

[+SwineFlew]

Like this cache?

 

Nobody hunt for it. It got archived because its fake. Pay attention to the date the CO signed up and the date of the cache.

[+Prime Suspect]

should the system prohibit a user from hiding a cache if they haven't even logged ONE find?

It wouldn't help. Finding isn't hiding. For example, someone can find hundreds of caches, and unless they read it or are told, never pick up on the fact that they are all spaced at least 1/10 of a mile apart.

[+Lieblweb]

I belong to an account with 105 hides and NO finds. It's a separate account created for a Battleship Game. There are two of us who monitor the account and about 20 people who actually hid the caches.

 

Sure, I don't believe anyone should hide caches unless they have finds - but who are we to argue how they enjoy playing the game? As long as their caches are maintained - we can enjoy them.

[+sidekeck]

Thoughts?

Not worth worrying about. Either the cache is good or bad. If it's good, it doesn't matter how many they've found. If it's bad, it might still be bad even after they've found a bunch.

 

 

+1

 

If you did go search for it and determine it was bad, and you were truly concerned vs. just wanting to vent, you could always offer to help them out or mentor them. RI is a small caching community and there is a bit of this that goes on. The more we help each other, the better the caches get, in theory.

[+L0ne.R]

Yep, I think it's a problem too. Especially when they really have no experience, don't understand the game and don't even know if they like the game enough to take on the responsibility of cache ownership. If it's a bad cache, point out the problems in the online log (e.g. No Trespassing signs, cache not there, coordinates way off, poor container, garbage area, next to a playground, etc.). If anything it will at least help the next finders decide whether they want to skip it.

[+OZ2CPU]

if people place good caches at good locations, using good cords, and maintain them,

and they are fun to find,

I think we care not at all about the CO, his name, his finds or any other of his stats..

 

so use your NM, NA, and log text to prase good things.

 

FIRST: look at your own hides, are they all perfect ?

[+Glenn]

I've noticed several recent hides where the CO has never found a single cache. One of them had created their account the day of the hide, one of them had 2 DNFs on very easy caches... should the system prohibit a user from hiding a cache if they haven't even logged ONE find? I hesitate to bother with finding a cache hidden by someone who has really never found one. I've even come across COs who own say, 8 caches, and have found 2.

 

On the other hand, if these are sock puppets, they should at least have to go through the trouble of logging a couple of finds. I don't love that, either... sometimes I think I can tell, if the cache page is well written versus it's a hide with a poorly written page(and a container with no log in it).

 

Thoughts?

 

RFD

 

The issue isn't with people placing caches. As you can see there are plenty of reason for someone with zero reported finds to place a cache. The issue is with people who do not properly report the condition of a cache. It is them up to the finders to report on the cache. This means making Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived logs as appropriate.

[+ras_oscar]

I never look at any information about the CO when I'm planninhg a caching trip. Is that a part of your regular planning procedure or do you have issues with a particular cache?

[+RecipeForDisaster]

Thoughts?

Not worth worrying about. Either the cache is good or bad. If it's good, it doesn't matter how many they've found. If it's bad, it might still be bad even after they've found a bunch.

 

 

+1

 

If you did go search for it and determine it was bad, and you were truly concerned vs. just wanting to vent, you could always offer to help them out or mentor them. RI is a small caching community and there is a bit of this that goes on. The more we help each other, the better the caches get, in theory.

 

I've already mentored a few, particularly finders of my own caches. I certainly do contact COs with any issues I find, too... this is not about me as a finder in particular(I am well aware that I can ignore/watch a cache) and not about a particular cache or hider, but a trend. I just found it curious; it doesn't take much to log even a couple of caches so that your find count isn't zero.

[+RecipeForDisaster]

I'm certainly not expecting that anyone's hides be perfect(I didn't feel comfortable hiding anything before I'd found quite a few, personally)but if someone's really never found a cache, it's got to be harder to know what a good cache is. I've read logs where it looks like this is the case...

[+Z3ROIN]

How many skirt lifters, power trail film canisters, or stop-sign bison tubes should they find before hiding their first cache?

 

Word

[knowschad]

How many skirt lifters, power trail film canisters, or stop-sign bison tubes should they find before hiding their first cache?

 

Word

 

There's a new string of caches near me... each one is a bison tube stuck in a stop sign. There are 22 of them. It took me about two hours on a bicycle. Probably less than an hour if driving. One might think that 22 finds would be enough to teach one how to hide a cache.

Edited June 20, 2012 by knowschad

[jholly]

How many skirt lifters, power trail film canisters, or stop-sign bison tubes should they find before hiding their first cache?

 

Word

 

There's a new string of caches near me... each one is a bison tube stuck in a stop sign. There are 22 of them. It took me about two hours on a bicycle. Probably less than an hour if driving. One might think that 22 finds would be enough to teach one how to hide a cache.

Let me guess. The series is called Catch-22.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Let me guess. The series is called Catch-22.

 

Silly. I have a cache called Cache-22!

[+The_Incredibles_]

The last time this topic came up, somebody pointed out that Dave Ulmer had zero finds but did a pretty job of his first cache (except for the burying part).

[+jellis]

Like this cache?

 

Nobody hunt for it. It got archived because its fake. Pay attention to the date the CO signed up and the date of the cache.

Yeah that was one of those April Fool pranks

[+jellis]

Let me guess. The series is called Catch-22.

 

Silly. I have a cache called Cache-22!

How many are there? We have one down here by that name.

[+jellis]

I quit trying to fight it. As long as the cache is placed at the coords and the CO maintains it I am happy. If the coords are off, cache is not placed or goes missing withing a week and the CO disappears too then No I am not happy (unless I found it and then I don't care anymore)

[+SwineFlew]

Like this cache?

 

Nobody hunt for it. It got archived because its fake. Pay attention to the date the CO signed up and the date of the cache.

Yeah that was one of those April Fool pranks

I emailed the reviewer about it on the day it was published and he said everything followed the guideline but he did felt it was a April's Fool prank. Nobody hunt for it but there was a few fake "found" it logs to see if the CO will delete it but the people that wrote up the found it logs deleted it.

 

I have a list of people that might had done it.

[+hzoi]

1. Many cachers do not log any of their finds. They either use notes or private lists/databases to track things.

 

I keep seeing this when this question pops up, and I have to dispute the term "many."

 

I'm no charter member, but I've been at this for a little while now. I specifically know of two. Dave Ulmer apparently used to do it, GeoBain currently does it. I have a vague memory of a third but I have no idea who it was.

 

That's not very "many."

[+baloo&bd]

1. Many cachers do not log any of their finds. They either use notes or private lists/databases to track things.

 

I keep seeing this when this question pops up, and I have to dispute the term "many."

 

I'm no charter member, but I've been at this for a little while now. I specifically know of two. Dave Ulmer apparently used to do it, GeoBain currently does it. I have a vague memory of a third but I have no idea who it was.

 

That's not very "many."

 

Actually, there are 7 or 8 off the top of my head that i know of in my area. Surprised you don't know them.

[+GeoBain]

1. Many cachers do not log any of their finds. They either use notes or private lists/databases to track things.

 

I keep seeing this when this question pops up, and I have to dispute the term "many."

 

I'm no charter member, but I've been at this for a little while now. I specifically know of two. Dave Ulmer apparently used to do it, GeoBain currently does it. I have a vague memory of a third but I have no idea who it was.

 

That's not very "many."

 

I see a few names in caches around these parts that don't have accounts, and that's just the few odd names I bother to look up.

[+larryc43230]

I see a few names in caches around these parts that don't have accounts, and that's just the few odd names I bother to look up.

A few weeks ago, I did some maintenance on one my caches that's been active for more than five years. Just for fun, I compared the entries in the logbook (more than 150) with the on-line logs. I found at least half a dozen entries in the physical log that didn't have corresponding logs on-line. In fact, I'd never heard of those cachers before seeing their names in the logbook, and I couldn't find accounts with those names on the Web site.

 

Surprisingly (to me, anyway), I didn't find any on-line Find logs that didn't also have corresponding entries in the logbook.

 

--Larry

[+The_Incredibles_]

1. Many cachers do not log any of their finds. They either use notes or private lists/databases to track things.

 

I keep seeing this when this question pops up, and I have to dispute the term "many."

 

I'm no charter member, but I've been at this for a little while now. I specifically know of two. Dave Ulmer apparently used to do it, GeoBain currently does it. I have a vague memory of a third but I have no idea who it was.

 

That's not very "many."

 

Lots of people I know personally that don't log their finds online.