"Caches for the sake of caches"

[+redants]

I am disappointed with the many low value caches being published. By this I mean caches with descriptions of "Cache is a small container stuck on the back of/under a sign/seat (whereever)" which are placed in great locations full of history, but make no attempt to mention the spot. Disappoints me, when the placer could have put some effort into finding the history of the place, or to make it a memorable find.

 

It annoys me, especially when it is in a great spot, as there was a cemetery near my home which I was eyeing up for a Multi cache, when someone placed a cache with the description "Cache is a 200 ml sistema container painted green. I couldn't place it at (undisclosed location) because it was too close to a cache. So I moved it to (undisclosed location) but it was too close to a mystery cache. This was the first place I was able to place it.". They improved it a bit later, but still no history on the place. And to quote the placing guidelines-

 

When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

I would add to that "or give it some history"

If I could I would "dislike the cache" which is not a feature on GC.com- Yet?

 

Has anyone else noticed this?

[+BlueDeuce]

Yes, but I prefer cemetery caches that are placed with permission for either a multi-waypoint or final.

[Trinity's Crew]

This thread will likely be moved to geocaching topics but this topic has been discussed to death, reanimated, discussed again, had a stake driven through its heart, revived again, killed again, and then resurrected as a zombie. I wish you well in your quest.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+BlueDeuce]

This thread will likely be moved to geocaching topics but this topic has been discussed to death, reanimated, discussed again, had a stake driven through its heart, revived again, killed again, and then resurrected as a zombie. I wish you well in your quest.

 

Yeah, still have to talk it out with the next person to bring it up.

 

 

bd

Edited November 3, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This thread will likely be moved to geocaching topics but this topic has been discussed to death, reanimated, discussed again, had a stake driven through its heart, revived again, killed again, and then resurrected as a zombie. I wish you well in your quest.

 

Yeah, still have to talk it out with the next person to bring it up.

 

 

bd

"Someone took my spot!"

"I hate lame caches!"

"People should do things my way!"

 

No need for a new thread, just Google it. I promise that after 10 years and millions of cachers and caches you don't have any new complaints to say about this game.

 

And this is the wrong thread to say it in.

 

 

 

[+BlueDeuce]

This thread will likely be moved to geocaching topics but this topic has been discussed to death, reanimated, discussed again, had a stake driven through its heart, revived again, killed again, and then resurrected as a zombie. I wish you well in your quest.

 

Yeah, still have to talk it out with the next person to bring it up.

 

 

bd

"Someone took my spot!"

"I hate lame caches!"

"People should do things my way!"

 

No need for a new thread, just Google it. I promise that after 10 years and millions of cachers and caches you don't have any new complaints to say about this game.

 

And this is the wrong thread to say it in.

 

I visit a forum for the Book House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. An amazing book by the way.

 

The forum posters make it very clear that you should never ask a question that has been posted before. I don't have a problem with that.

 

Who are you to say the same here in this forum?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This thread will likely be moved to geocaching topics but this topic has been discussed to death, reanimated, discussed again, had a stake driven through its heart, revived again, killed again, and then resurrected as a zombie. I wish you well in your quest.

 

Yeah, still have to talk it out with the next person to bring it up.

 

 

bd

"Someone took my spot!"

"I hate lame caches!"

"People should do things my way!"

 

No need for a new thread, just Google it. I promise that after 10 years and millions of cachers and caches you don't have any new complaints to say about this game.

 

And this is the wrong thread to say it in.

 

I visit a forum for the Book House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. An amazing book by the way.

 

The forum posters make it very clear that you should never ask a question that has been posted before. I don't have a problem with that.

 

Who are you to say the same here in this forum?

I miss your point, but the beauty of this forum for me is that I am just another Off Topican. So long as I stay within the forum guidelines I don't have to be anything but another voice expressing an opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

[+tozainamboku]

This is in the off-topic forum so I don't know if I should post or

[+The Cheeseheads]

Moving to the correct forum...

[Mr.Yuck]

Well you know, if the topic is lame write-ups for caches in interesting or historical places, that actually has not been beat to death over the years. And yes, I realize the title of the thread is clearly "Caches for the sake of caches", but lame write-ups seems to be the major complaint.

 

I will admit to being disappointed a few times over the years at seeing some cheesy 10 word cache page at a historical location. And I definitely remember a cache in my area where a teen placed a cache in a cool location with a lamo cache page, and a 10 yr. veteran local gave the kid some history, which he copied and pasted into the cache page, and thanked her on the page too.

 

If one really disappoints you, you could do the same. I just wouldn't make it a crusade, and go emailing 5 people about multiple caches or something.

[+redsox_mark]

I agree with Mr. Yuck that I've not seen that many threads about the information on caches pages; though there have been some.

 

Some thoughts/observations:

 

- The owner may not know of the historical significance of that spot.

- Many caches are themed based on some interest of the cache owner. In these cases the pages usually talk about that theme more than the history of the location.

[+BlueDeuce]

I stopped for a cache near a cemetery that took me to a micro the back corner fence. I searched for another micro cache that had me collect information from various military sites including the grave of a person listed as "10 years old when he enlisted in the Union Army. He was reported to be the youngest soldier in the Civil War."

 

I'm not saying the first cache shouldn't have been placed but I certainly enjoyed the second one much more, and Favorited it.

 

 

bd

Edited November 5, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+lamoracke]

 

If I could I would "dislike the cache" which is not a feature on GC.com- Yet?

 

 

Lets say you had a few folks in your area who do not like you personally. Don't you think they would put dislike on all your caches if they could do so, especially if it was an anonymous function? I think this would be abused and also, it would be a system which would make a lot of people feel bad. I think folks not having a lot of favorite points is enough of a negative if you ask me.

 

Personally, I sure have wished on the spot I could negative a cache...a cache took me to a terrible disgusting place or it was so close to private property I felt totally uncomfortable, etc, but I do not want this system for fear of the negativity and conflict such a system would probably bring.

 

Edited to include the word not.

Edited November 6, 2012 by lamoracke

[Trinity's Crew]

I agree with Mr. Yuck that I've not seen that many threads about the information on caches pages; though there have been some.

 

Some thoughts/observations:

 

- The owner may not know of the historical significance of that spot.

- Many caches are themed based on some interest of the cache owner. In these cases the pages usually talk about that theme more than the history of the location.

You and Mr. Yuck are right. I was reacting more to the thread title than the meat of the complaint. I also didn't initially notice that this was Redants first post. So I apologize for my misplaced attempt at humor.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

If I could I would "dislike the cache" which is not a feature on GC.com- Yet?

 

 

GC.com has a dislike feature already. You cast your dislike vote by not bothering finding a cache that is lame to you. Not the most visible way to vote down a cache but if enough cachers turned their noses up to lame caches, owners would get the message.

[AZcachemeister]

...if enough cachers turned their noses up to lame caches, owners would get the message.

 

Won't work.

Too many numbers whores out there.

[AZcachemeister]

In the OP's scenario I would be thankful the cache was placed in an (at least somewhat) interesting location, and not a lampskirt in a parking lot, a nondescript rock pile along a lonely desert highway (or maybe just a wooden stake stuck in the ground), a guardrail along the same desert highway, a guardrail next to the dumpster behind a strip mall (because the lampskirt in the parking lot out front was already taken).

 

Sometimes a place like that could (and rightly should) inspire a finder to do their own research to discover the history of the location.

[+BlueDeuce]

In the OP's scenario I would be thankful the cache was placed in an (at least somewhat) interesting location, and not a lampskirt in a parking lot, a nondescript rock pile along a lonely desert highway (or maybe just a wooden stake stuck in the ground), a guardrail along the same desert highway, a guardrail next to the dumpster behind a strip mall (because the lampskirt in the parking lot out front was already taken).

 

Sometimes a place like that could (and rightly should) inspire a finder to do their own research to discover the history of the location.

 

Seems to me that the OP did and was disappointed the cache owner didn't. Hence the "which are placed in great locations full of history, but make no attempt to mention the spot."

 

I go to that back fence micro and go, "meh". I go to the multi/info and go "oooh".

 

If I did research on the meh and found a treasure trove of history I'd feel just like the OP.

[AZcachemeister]

Naturally, I certainly do appreciate a CO who does his research and tells me why they chose that particular location for their cache.

 

In any case it's still better than a Walmart LPC.

[+BlueDeuce]

Wish in one hand, eh?

[+Chokecherry]

In the OP's scenario I would be thankful the cache was placed in an (at least somewhat) interesting location, and not a lampskirt in a parking lot, a nondescript rock pile along a lonely desert highway (or maybe just a wooden stake stuck in the ground), a guardrail along the same desert highway, a guardrail next to the dumpster behind a strip mall (because the lampskirt in the parking lot out front was already taken).

 

Sometimes a place like that could (and rightly should) inspire a finder to do their own research to discover the history of the location.

 

Seems to me that the OP did and was disappointed the cache owner didn't. Hence the "which are placed in great locations full of history, but make no attempt to mention the spot."

 

I go to that back fence micro and go, "meh". I go to the multi/info and go "oooh".

 

If I did research on the meh and found a treasure trove of history I'd feel just like the OP.

 

I kind of feel like the OP. I've been to various places where there is some history where a cache is placed and there is no mention of it. I did a couple at one point by the same owner in a pretty historic spot here. I couldn't even find much in the way of written history for the area. I wouldn't have known anything if not for the chatty older person on the trail. I thought it was sad that none of that was brought up on the cache when apparently it's common local oral history in that area. I've been to other caches where there was clearly some historical connection but couldn't find any information on it beyond the sign on site or whatever. Sad reality is for many historical places (at least where I am) the only history is oral history. So you get a cache page that says something historical happened but with no other information. I dwell on it but I do find it sad especially in comparison with people who put a lot of effort into noting why a place is significant on a cache page.

[+BlueDeuce]

In the OP's scenario I would be thankful the cache was placed in an (at least somewhat) interesting location, and not a lampskirt in a parking lot, a nondescript rock pile along a lonely desert highway (or maybe just a wooden stake stuck in the ground), a guardrail along the same desert highway, a guardrail next to the dumpster behind a strip mall (because the lampskirt in the parking lot out front was already taken).

 

Sometimes a place like that could (and rightly should) inspire a finder to do their own research to discover the history of the location.

 

Seems to me that the OP did and was disappointed the cache owner didn't. Hence the "which are placed in great locations full of history, but make no attempt to mention the spot."

 

I go to that back fence micro and go, "meh". I go to the multi/info and go "oooh".

 

If I did research on the meh and found a treasure trove of history I'd feel just like the OP.

 

I kind of feel like the OP. I've been to various places where there is some history where a cache is placed and there is no mention of it. I did a couple at one point by the same owner in a pretty historic spot here. I couldn't even find much in the way of written history for the area. I wouldn't have known anything if not for the chatty older person on the trail. I thought it was sad that none of that was brought up on the cache when apparently it's common local oral history in that area. I've been to other caches where there was clearly some historical connection but couldn't find any information on it beyond the sign on site or whatever. Sad reality is for many historical places (at least where I am) the only history is oral history. So you get a cache page that says something historical happened but with no other information. I dwell on it but I do find it sad especially in comparison with people who put a lot of effort into noting why a place is significant on a cache page.

 

Well, if I'm looking for a solution I'm thinking my local club might be the place to give owners a few things to think about and how to discover the local history.

 

Thank you.

Edited November 6, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+Totem Clan]

I am disappointed with the many low value caches being published. By this I mean caches with descriptions of "Cache is a small container stuck on the back of/under a sign/seat (whereever)" which are placed in great locations full of history, but make no attempt to mention the spot. Disappoints me, when the placer could have put some effort into finding the history of the place, or to make it a memorable find.

 

It annoys me, especially when it is in a great spot, as there was a cemetery near my home which I was eyeing up for a Multi cache, when someone placed a cache with the description "Cache is a 200 ml sistema container painted green. I couldn't place it at (undisclosed location) because it was too close to a cache. So I moved it to (undisclosed location) but it was too close to a mystery cache. This was the first place I was able to place it.". They improved it a bit later, but still no history on the place. And to quote the placing guidelines-

 

When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

I would add to that "or give it some history"

If I could I would "dislike the cache" which is not a feature on GC.com- Yet?

 

Has anyone else noticed this?

It sort of funny that this came up now. I got nasty-gram today from a cacher complaining that my cache page was too wordy on this historical cache hidden out where there is no other reason to have a cache. Of course I ignored them. Some people just want a find.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I am disappointed with the many low value caches being published. By this I mean caches with descriptions of "Cache is a small container stuck on the back of/under a sign/seat (whereever)" which are placed in great locations full of history, but make no attempt to mention the spot. Disappoints me, when the placer could have put some effort into finding the history of the place, or to make it a memorable find.

 

It annoys me, especially when it is in a great spot, as there was a cemetery near my home which I was eyeing up for a Multi cache, when someone placed a cache with the description "Cache is a 200 ml sistema container painted green. I couldn't place it at (undisclosed location) because it was too close to a cache. So I moved it to (undisclosed location) but it was too close to a mystery cache. This was the first place I was able to place it.". They improved it a bit later, but still no history on the place. And to quote the placing guidelines-

 

When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

I would add to that "or give it some history"

If I could I would "dislike the cache" which is not a feature on GC.com- Yet?

 

Has anyone else noticed this?

It sort of funny that this came up now. I got nasty-gram today from a cacher complaining that my cache page was too wordy on this historical cache hidden out where there is no other reason to have a cache. Of course I ignored them. Some people just want a find.

 

Only problem with that cache is its too far to drive for my weekend cache outing....great read though.

[+tozainamboku]

Well you know, if the topic is lame write-ups for caches in interesting or historical places, that actually has not been beat to death over the years. And yes, I realize the title of the thread is clearly "Caches for the sake of caches", but lame write-ups seems to be the major complaint.

The issue of the write-up has come up numerous times in "lame" cache threads. Each time I give the example of these two caches:

GC1HF2V

GCPV78

And every time there are those who will pick one of these as the "better" cache.

 

These are, for all intents and purposes, the same cache. After the one with the write up was archived, the other was placed "to help increase the cache density in the area". Both are hidden in the same parking lot, only 86 feet part (the distance between lamp posts). If you want to imagine that a few facts posted about some barn that was moved from this location 58 years ago makes the cache better you can.

 

The truth is that both caches were mostly found by people enjoying urban caching around Burbank. Most of them couldn't care less what used to be here. If anything they're glad to know the CVS is here so they can buy batteries.

 

I've been to a few historic caches where the owner had quit the game and no one was maintaining the cache. In the past, you would find lots of caches where the owner would have changed the page to make it a virtual: "It seems the cache is missing again. But this is too cool of a place to not have a cache, so instead of replacing it, email with the year of death on the tombstone".

 

Being an interesting place that "deserves" a write up, is seldom a good enough reason for hiding a cache in and of itself. Is there a good hiding spot? Is the cache likely to be muggled? Do you have permission? Perhaps a portion of he geocaching community prefers caches that take them to "interesting" places, but most people simply want a cache to find that is reliably there to find. And they don't want to have to read a 500 word report on the history of the place when they are looking for a description of the cache or a hint.

 

Meanwhile you can look for this micro on fence at the end of a residential street, where someone thinks that Toto from the "Wizard Of Oz" is buried. Who knows if it's true or I just made it up.

[+Totem Clan]

How many times have you ever seen a sign that says, "Blank marker at a place where something important happen 1 mile ahead."

The point is not that the cache container or hide is better because of the write up. The point is that it is interesting to be told the history of a place.

[+tozainamboku]

How many times have you ever seen a sign that says, "Blank marker at a place where something important happen 1 mile ahead."

The point is not that the cache container or hide is better because of the write up. The point is that it is interesting to be told the history of a place.

Ahh! But that's what Waymarking is for

Edited November 6, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+OZ2CPU]

what do you think works best ?

 

Criticism

or

Endorsement

or

Encouragements

 

you as a finder got the power to say what you think about the cache/its page/its location.

 

Say it out loud :

 

WOW what a cool cache, I give favorite point due to bla bla bla...

or

TFTC

 

what kind of log do you think CO's like to get ?

Edited November 6, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+Totem Clan]

How many times have you ever seen a sign that says, "Blank marker at a place where something important happen 1 mile ahead."

The point is not that the cache container or hide is better because of the write up. The point is that it is interesting to be told the history of a place.

Ahh! But that's what Waymarking is for

So all we need for caching is just the coords and nothing else.

 

Huhh

 

That sounds like a lot of vanilla to me.

[AZcachemeister]

 

So all we need for caching is just the coords and nothing else.

 

Huhh

 

That sounds like a lot of vanilla to me.

 

You could at least toss a wooden survey stake in the bushes for us to scribble our names on...

[+tozainamboku]

How many times have you ever seen a sign that says, "Blank marker at a place where something important happen 1 mile ahead."

The point is not that the cache container or hide is better because of the write up. The point is that it is interesting to be told the history of a place.

Ahh! But that's what Waymarking is for

So all we need for caching is just the coords and nothing else.

 

Huhh

 

That sounds like a lot of vanilla to me.

Other than there should be a cache to find I guess that's the point.

 

It is clear that some people like not only to have caches in interesting places but to have someone provide information on the cache page about the place. But this is not part of the guidelines for placing a cache. And there is reason for this. A person may not have selected the location because it is historic, or they may not know any more about the place other that what is on the historic marker that anyone visiting can read. If we started approving cache pages only when they are historically researched with full write ups of the history, I fear the reviewers would rebel. I also think that some people would find this sucks the fun out of a simple hide and seek game. The people who want to tell the story of the location where they placed their cache are free to do so. And some people will no doubt appreciate it. I'm happy if people find that looking for a cache on fence where the street dead-ends are free are excited to learn that Toto may have been buried there, but if I had to make up stories about a historic boxer's barn that isn't there any more or Toto being buried under a freeway for every cache I placed I'd find it a bore.

 

Just because the cemetery cache didn't tell the story the cache owner either didn't know or didn't think was worth putting on the cache page doesn't make the cache "lame". And perhaps it's because I live in Los Angeles, but it would be rather easy to come up with some story to connect any LPC hide to the movies. That isn't going to make the cache any more interesting (even when the story is true).

[+Totem Clan]

How many times have you ever seen a sign that says, "Blank marker at a place where something important happen 1 mile ahead."

The point is not that the cache container or hide is better because of the write up. The point is that it is interesting to be told the history of a place.

Ahh! But that's what Waymarking is for

So all we need for caching is just the coords and nothing else.

 

Huhh

 

That sounds like a lot of vanilla to me.

Other than there should be a cache to find I guess that's the point.

 

It is clear that some people like not only to have caches in interesting places but to have someone provide information on the cache page about the place. But this is not part of the guidelines for placing a cache. And there is reason for this. A person may not have selected the location because it is historic, or they may not know any more about the place other that what is on the historic marker that anyone visiting can read. If we started approving cache pages only when they are historically researched with full write ups of the history, I fear the reviewers would rebel. I also think that some people would find this sucks the fun out of a simple hide and seek game. The people who want to tell the story of the location where they placed their cache are free to do so. And some people will no doubt appreciate it. I'm happy if people find that looking for a cache on fence where the street dead-ends are free are excited to learn that Toto may have been buried there, but if I had to make up stories about a historic boxer's barn that isn't there any more or Toto being buried under a freeway for every cache I placed I'd find it a bore.

 

Just because the cemetery cache didn't tell the story the cache owner either didn't know or didn't think was worth putting on the cache page doesn't make the cache "lame". And perhaps it's because I live in Los Angeles, but it would be rather easy to come up with some story to connect any LPC hide to the movies. That isn't going to make the cache any more interesting (even when the story is true).

Then you agree with me 100%.

......and I will keep enjoying caches that take me to interesting place and tell about them.

[+irisisleuk]

Funny, the topic title and the first sentence op the first post "I am disappointed with the many low value caches being published." makes you think this is a topic (again) about the large amount of low quality of caches which seem to outnumber the good/interesting/funny etc. caches.

 

BUT this topic isn't about a "bad" cache (with quotes, since bad can be interpreted in many ways, as previous discussion showed), or a "bad" cache location, since the cache itself seems to be fine and the location is interesting.

In this case the complaint is about the cache page, since it doesn't give any info on the location, only info that might be of importance to the CO, not to the visitors.

 

I'm happy to read at least this cache is located at an interesting place, that makes it different from what I call points instead of caches, which seem to get published more often lately. If the cache page would be informative, preferably with a nice layout, it would be a nice cache. So the real question is "why isn't the cache page attractive in any way? ".

 

There are a lot of possible reasons for this. But one of the main reasons I've heard from cachers is that they just don't know how to do that. When you try to make a cache nowadays, you get guidance in posting the correct size, difficulty, type etc. but for layout there is hardly any help. I've seen cache pages with a lot of information, totally unreadable because the CO didn't know how to make a new paragraph in html. So there were no enters between new sentences, and there were over 100 sentences!

And yes, these CO's could have asked others to help them, but how many will take that time after they have already placed the cache and got excited about getting it published as soon as possible?

 

Some guidance in making a cache page, on "what makes a cache page interesting", but also on how to use basic html when you hit the "online form"-link, might result in more happy cachers and cache owners.

[+Totem Clan]

 

Some guidance in making a cache page, on "what makes a cache page interesting", but also on how to use basic html when you hit the "online form"-link, might result in more happy cachers and cache owners.

The new online form for hiding a cache has a formater on it so that you don't need to know html to create the page. It will do it for you. All you have to do is type and click on the buttons you want. It's not even as complicated as post here.

[+irisisleuk]

 

The new online form for hiding a cache has a formater on it so that you don't need to know html to create the page. It will do it for you. All you have to do is type and click on the buttons you want. It's not even as complicated as post here.

 

That is true, but if I go through the first steps and then go to "preview your page", and then decide to edit the page, I won't get the formater anymore. So what to do then?

And for instance a simple issue: uploading a photo or image to the webpage (in this specific case a photo about what the place looked like in the past might be interesting). If it is not a photo that is placed on an external website, how would you get the img url, before having made a cache page and upload the photo which you would like to use?

[+Totem Clan]

 

The new online form for hiding a cache has a formater on it so that you don't need to know html to create the page. It will do it for you. All you have to do is type and click on the buttons you want. It's not even as complicated as post here.

 

That is true, but if I go through the first steps and then go to "preview your page", and then decide to edit the page, I won't get the formater anymore. So what to do then?

And for instance a simple issue: uploading a photo or image to the webpage (in this specific case a photo about what the place looked like in the past might be interesting). If it is not a photo that is placed on an external website, how would you get the img url, before having made a cache page and upload the photo which you would like to use?

I agree the feature is clumsy, but it's there. Therefore there's no 'need' leave the page blank or just write "Here's a new cache. Go find it." That is unless that is exactly what they wanted to do with or without the tools.

[+redants]

All I was trying to say was that caches for the numbers are OK, but when they ruin good spots, it annoys me.

[joesdolphins]

Stop crying and go find some caches.

[knowschad]

This thread will likely be moved to geocaching topics but this topic has been discussed to death, reanimated, discussed again, had a stake driven through its heart, revived again, killed again, and then resurrected as a zombie. I wish you well in your quest.

Yeah, and if the OP had instead done a forum search and found one of the older topics on it, people would be screaming about the Zombie thread. If a topic keeps coming back up, there is probably a very good reason for it. What do you suppose that reason is? Hmmmm... maybe there are too many caches for the sake of caches.