No-find hiders. There ought be a law...

[+DarkZen]

_{I'm sure this is an old topic here but I gots to rant a bit. A new cache published near here:http://www.geocachin...aspx?wp=GC44TJY}

_{The hider has no finds. The cache page originally stated, "regardless of what the coordinates say, this cache is not in someone's yard".Sure enough Google maps showed it to be squarely in someone's front yard. You can see from the logs the coordinates were updated, now the show the new location as 750 feet away from the original location. There really should be a minimum of finds before allowing a cacher to hide one. That's my opinion anyway.}

_{Today another one published by another hider with no finds. Ugh...}

[+roundnround we go]

so what you trying to say is, if someone has 1000 finds hidden exactly the same way every 528 feet on a power trail in 1 weekend of caching that makes the more qualified to hide a cache than someone with 10 or so finds on quality hides that were all hidden different. In todays world of caching you can't base anything on someones find count. it just doesn't even come close to something you can use to rate a persons qualifications.

[AZcachemeister]

Instead of gnashing your teeth, perhaps you could offer them some sage advice.

You know, like offer to go out caching with them to show them the ropes and explain the various pitfalls a new cacher might fall into.

 

Ya think?

[+T.D.M.22]

How do you know every cacher with 0 finds is inexperienced? What about the 14 YO who caches with his parents and now wants his own account. Or what about the woman who cached with her boyfriend and they broke up and she has her own account now? And who's to say finding a cache will make you a better hider. Sure you learn what locations, and containers work. But how is that going to help when choosing co-ords. I don't average my co-ord when I find a cache. I don't check them against a map. I don't use google maps to find a cache, so until I try these things placing a cache, I might not know I should do the first to when placing, and shouldn't do the last one. Be kind, We had a local cacher who didn't really know what he was doing. But we told him what he was doing wrong, and how to fix it. Now he introduced something new to us that the local cachers love. Offer to go caching with the CO. Offer to help with a hide, don't just complain about it. After all I live 1640.6 km. You apparently live much, much closer. I'm guessing the same city, so in reality you are in the best position to help and teach the new cacher.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Instead of gnashing your teeth, perhaps you could offer them some sage advice.

You know, like offer to go out caching with them to show them the ropes and explain the various pitfalls a new cacher might fall into.

 

Ya think?

Ditto what you said.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Like you said, this is a rant. You probably already recognize that once the compass pointed to the front yard, it was a good one from which to walk away, post your DNF or Note (whichever you prefer) stating the coord/proximity to residence issue and put it on your watch list to see how things develop.

[+StarBrand]

Although it happens less often - even us old-time cachers can post messed up coordinates.

[+DragonsWest]

I think 100 finds would be fair, in this day and age.

 

Back when I started there were maybe 100 caches in the entire Bay Area. I still think my first hide, after finding about a dozen caches holds up pretty well - as Abraxas put it "All caches should be on a mountain top!" Well, not all, but it was a great spot and remains one.

 

Now the parks are full, the open spaces are filling up, the dead end roads, guard rails and such are all filling up. Even the lamp posts!

 

Some newbies are not without quite a few to find, to learn some various hiding styles (unless some greenhorn is initiated on the ET Trail and knows only a film can in a pile of rocks as example) There's also the prospect someone lives in some lonely corner of the world where caches are still 10 miles apart and finding 100 could be a year-long endeavour.

 

On the surface a minimum seems fair, but there be circumstances and circumstances. Perhaps if we just left it up to the Spanish Inquisition ...

[+dprovan]

Instead of gnashing your teeth, perhaps you could offer them some sage advice.

You know, like offer to go out caching with them to show them the ropes and explain the various pitfalls a new cacher might fall into.

Suggesting a way to resolve the problem after it happens is fine, although I suspect the CO has already learned the important lesson before anyone has a chance to offer sage advice. But the OP's suggestion is aimed at avoiding the problem to begin with. Such mistakes are common by inexperienced cachers, so it would be nice to avoid them. If your suggestion is to offer sage advice about premature hides to all newbies, then we're on the same page.

 

But I agree with everyone that some kind of requirement is the wrong approach on a few different levels. Personally, I'm prepared to just deal with such problems. They always seem rather amusing to me, actually. I've never been the one seeking the cache with bogus info, but I'm fairly used to not finding a cache for many different reasons, so having the one additional reason "newbie goofed up" doesn't strike me as a big deal.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think 100 finds would be fair, in this day and age.

 

Back when I started there were maybe 100 caches in the entire Bay Area. I still think my first hide, after finding about a dozen caches holds up pretty well - as Abraxas put it "All caches should be on a mountain top!" Well, not all, but it was a great spot and remains one.

 

Now the parks are full, the open spaces are filling up, the dead end roads, guard rails and such are all filling up. Even the lamp posts!

 

Some newbies are not without quite a few to find, to learn some various hiding styles (unless some greenhorn is initiated on the ET Trail and knows only a film can in a pile of rocks as example) There's also the prospect someone lives in some lonely corner of the world where caches are still 10 miles apart and finding 100 could be a year-long endeavour.

 

10 miles apart? Try hundreds of miles apart. When I was in Tanzania a couple of years ago for a week in a city of about 40,000 people there were 2 caches within 100 miles (the one I found has been archived). In the nearest big city (Dar es Salaam), a city of over 2 million people, there were no caches within 40 miles (and the closest was a 2 hour ferry ride to Zanzibar). I haven't captured country stats in a while but I wouldn't be surprised if well over half of the countries in the world had fewer than 100 caches in the entire country. Choosing some arbitrary minimum number just wouldn't work because it has to apply globally. 100 finds might be a good target for most cache rich places in the world, but it would effectively prevent many places from ever getting any new caches.

Edited January 29, 2013 by NYPaddleCacher

[+T.D.M.22]

I was talking to some of the "Old Timers" and one said out city had 12 caches by one person. That had put us as the most cache dense city in the Province.

 

Back on topic-There are many reasons why someone having no finds(created their own account after caching with family/friends for one example) is not necessarily mean they don't have enough experience. If they do introduce a minimum caches found rule then they would have a long, long list of exceptions, most of which could be bypassed dishonestly. While it may be a good idea-I wish I found more caches before placing my first-there are good reasons it won't happen, mainly because it is to complicated to accommodate everybody.

[AZcachemeister]

100 finds might be a good target for most cache rich places in the world, but it would effectively prevent many places from ever getting any new caches.

 

Yeah, there is that issue...

 

No caches to find.

No experience to be gained.

No caches get published.

 

Perhaps some vacation caches would alleviate the problem?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

100 finds might be a good target for most cache rich places in the world, but it would effectively prevent many places from ever getting any new caches.

 

Yeah, there is that issue...

 

No caches to find.

No experience to be gained.

No caches get published.

 

Perhaps some vacation caches would alleviate the problem?

 

I came across a user account the other day for someone that had hides in 20 different countries. Their join date was in 2010.

 

It probably gets old but I tend to look at geocaching from a global perspective (perhaps because my work requires seeing things from a global perspective) and see lots of suggestions that are based on what people see locally that just wouldn't work every where in the globally played game.

[+niraD]

I think 100 finds would be fair, in this day and age.

So, about an hour or two on the ET Highway numbers run trail, right?

[+ShaunEM]

That cache is fantastic!

 

He was able to change the background image on the cache page, so kudos to that!

 

Shaun

[nonaeroterraqueous]

so what you trying to say is, if someone has 1000 finds hidden exactly the same way every 528 feet on a power trail in 1 weekend of caching that makes the more qualified to hide a cache than someone with 10 or so finds on quality hides that were all hidden different.

 

No, what he's saying is that someone with zero finds is less qualified (or unqualified). There's some difference between 10 finds and 1,000 finds, but even one find is an infinite number of times more than zero.

 

How do you know every cacher with 0 finds is inexperienced? What about the 14 YO who caches with his parents and now wants his own account. Or what about the woman who cached with her boyfriend and they broke up and she has her own account now?

 

I knew that one would come up. You forgot to mention the cache that was placed under a team name, with all of the members being experienced finders. Even so, I've seen a few caches placed by zero-finders, and I've heard of a few, and every single one of them has been bad. We could argue the hypothetical all day, about what kind of experience the person might actually have, but it makes a good rule of thumb to say that accounts with zero finds make for bad hides, because that's generally how it works out. In your example, there's still no reason why that 14 YO or that woman couldn't just go and find a few more, just a few, before placing a hide. It doesn't have to be much, just enough to show you know how to use a GPS.

 

Although it happens less often - even us old-time cachers can post messed up coordinates.

 

A doctor can misdiagnose a disease, but I'm still going to one when I'm sick, rather than, say, a gardener.

[+L0ne.R]

Instead of gnashing your teeth, perhaps you could offer them some sage advice.

You know, like offer to go out caching with them to show them the ropes and explain the various pitfalls a new cacher might fall into.

 

Ya think?

 

I don't understand why meeting with someone should be any different then providing advice in the logs. This is someone who either doesn't have a GPS or doesn't know how to use a GPS and/or doesn't know how to geocache properly. A little time and a little experience wouldn't hurt. He joined Jan 18, found 2 caches and posted a cache 9 days later. I say wait 2 months, get some experience, read the guidelines. In 2 months if you're still interested in the game and ready for the responsibility then go for it.

[+DarkZen]

We all have our opinions. I stated in the OP I felt like ranting. It's a valid complaint and concern. Despite all of the 'exceptions' posted here (starting with the first reply), by and large most caches put out by hiders with no finds (or 5 or less) tend not to be good hides.

 

This sport has undergone a lot of rule changes down through the years. The concerns that it's not possible or practical are short-sighted. All it requires is a proclamation from TPTB. There used to not be a prohibition on vacation caches. Since one guiding principal that GC tries to impart to hiders is that caches are a long term concern. From the Geocache Listing Requirements:

 

"Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time."

They define this period as 3 months or more. That's another problem with no-find hiders; Frequently someone stumbles across geocaching, thinks it's fun, places a cache then two weeks later never return. If you are going to place a cache you must be willing to invest a reasonable amount of time in the game. Is it really that big of a deal to expect folks to do something they should be doing anyway if they are to become valued members? So Groundspeak did away with vacation caches and the sport is better off because of it.

 

I know there are cases where for one reason or another someone will open a second account. They might have hundreds of finds but their (sock) account shows none. This is an easy fix, explain this to the reviewer in the space provided while submitting the cache. Either that or run out and log 20 caches or so.

 

I am flummoxed by the notion that having to log a small number of caches is some sort of a hardship. Isn't that the whole point of geocaching?

 

Regarding the notion that some newbie could hit a power trail, get the required number of caches and then still publish a crappy hide is extremely miniscule. But on the 2 or 3 times it happens I'll happily accept their attempt.

 

I am a big believer in counceling newbies. Or any cacher for that matter. I actually spend quite a bit of my time contacting members for various reasons. I've contacted a fair number of hiders like the example in the OP and the answer is always the same - a wall of silence. Not that that will stop me from continuing to try to help but I think this problem is better combated before it arises.

[+6NoisyHikers]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's not about the number of caches but the TIME caching. If Groundspeak required people to be members for a month (or three) before they could place a hide, we would do away with the bulk of caches dropped by one weekend wonders.

[+The_Incredibles_]

You know, I find it *really* hard to believe they have zero finds. Perhaps they're one of the many who don't log their finds?

 

I can recall a few coordinate screw-ups in our area and most of the hiders had plenty of finds. The main problem seems to be people using their not-so-smart-phones to take coordinates.

 

Perhaps it help if when you submit a cache it displays:

 

1) a list of smarthphones which are known to produce fairly accurate coordaintes and

2) a list of smartphones that are known to produce crappy coordaintes

[+DarkZen]

1359444445[/url]' post='5199154']

I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's not about the number of caches but the TIME caching. If Groundspeak required people to be members for a month (or three) before they could place a hide, we would do away with the bulk of caches dropped by one weekend wonders.

This would work as well.

Edited January 29, 2013 by DarkZen

[+OZ2CPU]

nope will not work.. if they sign up, but dont do ANYTHING at all,

by only measure time, you dont know anything at all about how much skils they gained ??

 

ok to breake it down:

All beginning is hard and difficult.

It takes time and energy to get smart, to know it all.

it is easy to make mistakes.

The more you know, the less change you make mistakes.

It does drive people nuts if a cache listing contain alot of mistakes,

it does make it harder or even impossible to find,

some mistakes can mean many hrs wasted by people seeking wrong places,

it is quite important to avoid mistakes, or at lest try to minimize it

 

There is no perfect or simple way to measure if a CO is skilled or not,

all kinds of measure can give wrong result,

how ever no matter what we say or do here.. GS will most likely not change a thing anyway..

so how can we help solve this problem, with the tools and information we got now ?

 

What I do:

dont try to be a first finder, if the CO got 0 to few finds.

dont try to be a first finder, if the CO just got started.

if I live near by, I contact him if I see a pile of DNF or complain logs, and offer my help,

if I live close, I will sooner or later check out the cache anyway,

but dont waste too much time looking for it, if it dont match D/T or wrong hint or wrong cords.

again contact the CO, offer to phone him and to meet him

much better in real life, since some people do find it easy to misunderstand critism via emails or forums

even if it is ment as a friendly help by the writer

[+Afterburned]

 

On the surface a minimum seems fair, but there be circumstances and circumstances. Perhaps if we just left it up to the Spanish Inquisition ...

 

I didn't expect that...

[+StarBrand]

I've long thought some kind of guidelines "test" before placing a cache would be helpful - I even created a sample one some years ago.

 

http://www.wnag.net/checklist

 

Crude and incomplete - but you get the idea.

[+Redfist]

I have a friend who planted a ~250 cache long power trail. To avoid getting email spam from hell on those while still being able to see emails about his other "real hides", he created a different account to plant the power trail. His power trail account will look like it has no finds, but the cacher behind the account has over 2000.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Redfist

[+StarBrand]

I have a friend who planted a ~250 cache long power trail. To avoid getting email spam from hell on those while still being able to see emails about his other "real hides", he created a different account to plant the power trail. His power trail account will look like it has no finds, but the cacher behind the account has over 2000.

...and just how is this person aware of any issues that are emailed and logged on these caches??? (just wondering)

[+Redfist]

I have a friend who planted a ~250 cache long power trail. To avoid getting email spam from hell on those while still being able to see emails about his other "real hides", he created a different account to plant the power trail. His power trail account will look like it has no finds, but the cacher behind the account has over 2000.

...and just how is this person aware of any issues that are emailed and logged on these caches??? (just wondering)

 

He listed instructions about that. At the beginning of the trail, he has a huge bucket with spare containers, etc. He also listed his real geocacher name in the description of the cache so people can contact him. He's just avoiding the automatic 250 emails per person who completes the power trail.

[+StarBrand]

...At the beginning of the trail, he has a huge bucket with spare containers, etc. ..... He's just avoiding the automatic 250 emails per person who completes the power trail.

 

Sigh .... that's what I was afraid of....

 

Back to topic.....setting a "find" or "time caching" limit just isn't going to solve the issue of poor coordinates and misunderstanding the guidelines.

[+L0ne.R]

Looked at the photo on the CO's profile. If the photo is up to date the CO is a pre-teen boy. I wonder if his parents are aware that he's got an account on GC.com and planted this cache.

 

You know, like offer to go out caching with them to show them the ropes and explain the various pitfalls a new cacher might fall into.

 

As a parent I would not like someone to contact my pre-teen son and offer to meet up to show him the ropes.

 

It's too bad that there isn't some way of preventing under-age kids from posting caches on the GC site without explicit permission from their parents.

 

I think the cache in question should be disabled by the reviewer until the kid can explain why the coordinates are pointing at a fence on private property and can show proof that his parents give him permission to have an account and plant caches.

 

A 2 month wait period would very likely have an effect on young people who lose interest in things quickly. Or post a cache then get scared off by the repercussions of cache ownership.

Edited January 29, 2013 by L0ne R

[+hzoi]

Dave Ulmer didn't have any finds before he started geocaching.

 

Just sayin'.

[+dprovan]

We all have our opinions. I stated in the OP I felt like ranting. It's a valid complaint and concern. Despite all of the 'exceptions' posted here (starting with the first reply), by and large most caches put out by hiders with no finds (or 5 or less) tend not to be good hides.

I agree the complaint is valid, and I also agree listing exceptions is beside the point. But I'm still not seeing why it's a big deal. I've seen newbie cache problems about a half dozen times in my 2+ years/3k+ caches worth of caching, and generally it goes just as you describe: I look at the location, see the coordinates are in someone's back yard or otherwise don't match the description, and I either forget about it until it gets straightened out or, if I feel like going to that area, anyway, give it a go knowing I'll likely fail. Now that I think about it, it's exactly the same choice I make for a long standing cache that has a series of DNFs, something that comes up way more often. My approach seems like less effort for each one of us individually than arguing about an appropriate minimum, implementing the hard and fast restriction, and then reading all the complaints about it that would surely follow.

 

As you say, we all have our opinions. When there are lots of differing opinions, that's precisely the time that instituting a rule to force one specific opinion on everyone else is a bad idea.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Dave Ulmer didn't have any finds before he started geocaching.

 

Just sayin'.

 

He also buried the cache and included a food item as swag.

[+Redfist]

...At the beginning of the trail, he has a huge bucket with spare containers, etc. ..... He's just avoiding the automatic 250 emails per person who completes the power trail.

 

Sigh .... that's what I was afraid of....

 

Huh? He was proactive wrt maintenance and made himself available. Why would you be "afraid of" that?

[+NeverSummer]

I can't believe this thread is coming up again, and the OP says they know they are beating a dead horse.

 

What new information or ideas is going to come of this subject? None. Thus the "beating a dead horse" statement.

 

[+StarBrand]

I can't believe this thread is coming up again, and the OP says they know they are beating a dead horse.

 

What new information or ideas is going to come of this subject? None. Thus the "beating a dead horse" statement.

 

See post #24 - such a quiz for new hiders was once very seriously considered the solution for this.........

[+NeverSummer]

I can't believe this thread is coming up again, and the OP says they know they are beating a dead horse.

 

What new information or ideas is going to come of this subject? None. Thus the "beating a dead horse" statement.

 

See post #24 - such a quiz for new hiders was once very seriously considered the solution for this.........

Right. Not new information.

 

How seriously was it considered?

[+StarBrand]

....

How seriously was it considered?

Several reviewers endorsed the idea, it was discussed by the Lackey's for a while here and at the lilypad. I think the issue came down to differing standards for different cachers and some amount of fundamental unfairness in there somewhere.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

...At the beginning of the trail, he has a huge bucket with spare containers, etc. ..... He's just avoiding the automatic 250 emails per person who completes the power trail.

 

Sigh .... that's what I was afraid of....

 

Huh? He was proactive wrt maintenance and made himself available. Why would you be "afraid of" that?

 

So letting other geocachers do the maintenance for you on your caches is "pro-active"?

[+Redfist]

...At the beginning of the trail, he has a huge bucket with spare containers, etc. ..... He's just avoiding the automatic 250 emails per person who completes the power trail.

 

Sigh .... that's what I was afraid of....

 

Huh? He was proactive wrt maintenance and made himself available. Why would you be "afraid of" that?

 

So letting other geocachers do the maintenance for you on your caches is "pro-active"?

 

I'd say "with" instead of "for". He also checks as well as has 1-2 friends who frequently check.

 

So yes - proactive. Fixing issues before they become problems is proactive.

 

But anyway - this is straying from this thread's topic. I'm sure there are plenty of threads dedicated to power trails.

[+DarkZen]

I agree the complaint is valid, and I also agree listing exceptions is beside the point. But I'm still not seeing why it's a big deal.

<snip>

As you say, we all have our opinions. When there are lots of differing opinions, that's precisely the time that instituting a rule to force one specific opinion on everyone else is a bad idea.

It's a big deal in as much as any topic in the forums is a big deal. Don't like lampost hides? Don't start a thread, just ignore them. Don't like powertrails? Don't start a thread, just ignore them. Etc...

I'm not saying it's a big deal, I'm saying, in my opinion, it would help tweak the sport for the better. I've attened a few events, have a lot of geocaching friends and read a lot about caching on non-Groundspeak sites and the feeling I get is that it's near universal that it's a good idea. This board seems to be the flier.

 

 

I can't believe this thread is coming up again, and the OP says they know they are beating a dead horse.

 

What new information or ideas is going to come of this subject? None. Thus the "beating a dead horse" statement.

No, the purpose of the "beating a dead horse" statement was an attempt to stave off comments that add no substantive value to the thread. I'm acknowledging it's an old issue. There may be new info that you are not aware of that comes up.

Regardless, I'm adding my vote. Do you believe that Groundspeak did away with vacation caches because only one person complained?

Years I learned that when placing caches it was a good idea to place more than just one in a new area. People are more inclined to go out of their comfort zone to grab 3 new caches as opposed to 1. Once I placed 3 about a mile apart. A mile. I got a note from a reviewer pointing me to the cache-placing guidelines of that time that stated (something to the effect of) "just because caches are allowed every tenth of a mile, doesn't mean we want you to do it". Now powertrails are quite common with hundreds of caches - not just three. That got changed because people spoke up. Same thing applies to challenge caches (which I personally liked), they came and went because cachers voted with their opinion.

StarBrand, I like your guidelines test idea. I think you should pursue it. Might be a good thread topic idea?

 

ETA: Spelling

Edited January 30, 2013 by DarkZen

[+NeverSummer]

[No, the purpose of the [/size][/font][/color] "beating a dead horse" statement was an attempt to stave off comments that add no substantive value to the thread. I'm acknowledging it's an old issue. There may be new info that you are not aware of that comes up.

Regardless, I'm adding my vote. Do you believe that Groundspeak did away with vacation caches because only one person complained?

Years I learned that when placing caches it was a good idea to place more than just one in a new area. People are more inclined to go out of their comfort zone to grab 3 new caches as opposed to 1. Once I placed 3 about a mile apart. A mile. I got a note from a reviewer pointing me to the cache-placing guidelines of that time that stated (something to the effect of) "just because caches are allowed every tenth of a mile, doesn't mean we want you to do it". Now powertrails are quite common with hundreds of caches - not just three. That got changed because people spoke up. Same thing applies to challenge caches (which I personally liked), they came and went because cachers voted with their opinion.

StarBrand, I like your guidelines test idea. I think you should pursue it. Might be a good thread topic idea?

 

ETA: Spelling

If you knew it was an old topic, add it to the old threads. If you have new information or context, the forum guidelines request that you don't start another topic. That is all. Starting another topic, in this case, seems to just be stirring the pot IMO.

 

The guidelines test could be a good thing. However, as with any assessment of understanding, you need to be sure that the assessment addresses the learning that has been provided. Without an instructor to guide the learning process, the "test" would be nothing more than a speedbump to click your way through until you finished. Just because someone can finish an unmoderated online test doesn't mean that they understand, or have the knowledge we wish were required for placing a geocache.

 

"Old" cachers place caches as poorly as a "newbie" can. It's just part of the game. What we can do is get the new cachers involved in the community, and make events as welcoming and informative as possible. That would be a way to really see change in "newbie" cache placement. Active community is what helped this game get off the ground, not knowledge tests.

[+DarkZen]

If you knew it was an old topic, add it to the old threads. If you have new information or context, the forum guidelines request that you don't start another topic. That is all. Starting another topic, in this case, seems to just be stirring the pot IMO.

I read the guidelines before posting and saw no such directive. What is in the guidelines is:

 

6. Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should stay on-topic and pertain to the discussion.

 

... of which your jr modding is not.

 

I'm hardly stirring the pot, just a friendly suggestion and mild rant. You're welcome to skip past this thread if it bothers you. That is all.

[+NeverSummer]

If you knew it was an old topic, add it to the old threads. If you have new information or context, the forum guidelines request that you don't start another topic. That is all. Starting another topic, in this case, seems to just be stirring the pot IMO.

I read the guidelines before posting and saw no such directive. What is in the guidelines is:

 

6. Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should stay on-topic and pertain to the discussion.

 

... of which your jr modding is not.

 

I'm hardly stirring the pot, just a friendly suggestion and mild rant. You're welcome to skip past this thread if it bothers you. That is all.

Hey, we can pick nits, or you can address the on topic responses within my comments. To pick nits, email me through my profile. I'm not taking your bait.

[+niraD]

For the record, the existing discussion in the Feature Discussions and Suggestions forum is here:

[FEATURE] Set a minimum of 50 caches found before allowed to place one

 

The idea of a quiz is first referenced in post #7.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Years I learned that when placing caches it was a good idea to place more than just one in a new area. People are more inclined to go out of their comfort zone to grab 3 new caches as opposed to 1. Once I placed 3 about a mile apart. A mile. I got a note from a reviewer pointing me to the cache-placing guidelines of that time that stated (something to the effect of) "just because caches are allowed every tenth of a mile, doesn't mean we want you to do it". Now powertrails are quite common with hundreds of caches - not just three. That got changed because people spoke up. Same thing applies to challenge caches (which I personally liked), they came and went because cachers voted with their opinion.

 

I don't recall seeing an outcry to allow power trails prior to when the guidelines changed in 2009.

 

Sure, lots of people seem to like them, but they're still quite controversial.

 

GS can't just make decision about guideline changes, implementing features, or reviewer interpreting guidelines based on a bunch of people saying "we want this". There may be another group of people which will just as vehemently say "we don't want this". There may other factors such as a finite amount of employee resources they have available. Some perceived problems only really manifest themselves in localized areas. For example, there have been frequent requests to extend the proximity limitation by those that live is cache dense area. In 90% of the world the proximity guideline is a non-issue. Any guideline change has to be looked at from a global perspective because they apply to anyone the wants to play the game, no matter where they live. "Personally, I (or even a bunch of people) liked it" is just one data point among many that has to be considered.

 

Consider the recent thread in the Features forum about bringing back webcam caches. Someone posted that GS should bring back webcam caches because "who doesn't like webcams" and then posted something in a local forum asking people to respond to the thread in favor of the idea. It has over 180 responses, most of them "me too" posts that say something along the lines of "I like webcams...bring them back". However, GS isn't going to take action based on a bunch of solicited "me to" posts. If someone want's some aspect of the game changed, they're going to need to write a convincing argument and be prepared to defend it. Organized advocacy has it's merits, but quite often advocacy fails to present a convincing argument. "Lots of people like this" is not a convincing argument.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

"Lots of people like this" is not a convincing argument.

 

That's quite right. I would add that the same people who advocate for a change often reverse their opinions (or fail to defend them) once that change is actually implemented.

[+msrubble]

I have a friend who planted a ~250 cache long power trail. To avoid getting email spam from hell on those while still being able to see emails about his other "real hides", he created a different account to plant the power trail.

...and just how is this person aware of any issues that are emailed and logged on these caches??? (just wondering)

At the beginning of the trail, he has a huge bucket with spare containers, etc. He also listed his real geocacher name in the description of the cache so people can contact him. He's just avoiding the automatic 250 emails per person who completes the power trail.

Someone who thinks of geocachers' logs as spam should not be hiding geocaches.

[+NeverSummer]

I'm hardly stirring the pot, just a friendly suggestion and mild rant. You're welcome to skip past this thread if it bothers you. That is all.

 

I'm sure this is an old topic here but I gots to rant a bit. A new cache published near here:http://www.geocachin...aspx?wp=GC44TJY

The hider has no finds. The cache page originally stated, "regardless of what the coordinates say, this cache is not in someone's yard". Sure enough Google maps showed it to be squarely in someone's front yard. You can see from the logs the coordinates were updated, now the show the new location as 750 feet away from the original location. There really should be a minimum of finds before allowing a cacher to hide one. That's my opinion anyway.

Today another one published by another hider with no finds. Ugh...

 

We all have our opinions. I stated in the OP I felt like ranting. It's a valid complaint and concern. Despite all of the 'exceptions' posted here (starting with the first reply), by and large most caches put out by hiders with no finds (or 5 or less) tend not to be good hides.

 

This sport has undergone a lot of rule changes down through the years. The concerns that it's not possible or practical are short-sighted. All it requires is a proclamation from TPTB. There used to not be a prohibition on vacation caches. Since one guiding principal that GC tries to impart to hiders is that caches are a long term concern. From the Geocache Listing Requirements:

 

"Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time."

They define this period as 3 months or more. That's another problem with no-find hiders; Frequently someone stumbles across geocaching, thinks it's fun, places a cache then two weeks later never return. If you are going to place a cache you must be willing to invest a reasonable amount of time in the game. Is it really that big of a deal to expect folks to do something they should be doing anyway if they are to become valued members? So Groundspeak did away with vacation caches and the sport is better off because of it.

 

I know there are cases where for one reason or another someone will open a second account. They might have hundreds of finds but their (sock) account shows none. This is an easy fix, explain this to the reviewer in the space provided while submitting the cache. Either that or run out and log 20 caches or so.

 

I am flummoxed by the notion that having to log a small number of caches is some sort of a hardship. Isn't that the whole point of geocaching?

 

Regarding the notion that some newbie could hit a power trail, get the required number of caches and then still publish a crappy hide is extremely miniscule. But on the 2 or 3 times it happens I'll happily accept their attempt.

 

I am a big believer in counceling newbies. Or any cacher for that matter. I actually spend quite a bit of my time contacting members for various reasons. I've contacted a fair number of hiders like the example in the OP and the answer is always the same - a wall of silence. Not that that will stop me from continuing to try to help but I think this problem is better combated before it arises.

Sounds more to me like you don't like the feedback you're getting that goes against your "rant". Add in that you are "...sure this is an old topic here...", and it doesn't take much to understand where you hoped this would go.

 

Comparing vacation caches to a newbie cacher with no listed finds placing a cache is apples to oranges. (Especially when you apply the guidelines to either case)

 

The "problem" with new cachers and their cache placements is the same as what many of us have already mentioned: The have the same problems with "experienced" cachers. There are also considerations about things like different accounts, a kid's account, a land manager's account, full-on sock puppets. Each brings a myriad of issues as far as enforcing a blanket ban on "no-find hiders".

 

While a rant is warranted, as I've already said, there are many other topics on the subject that have nearly exhausted either side of the discussion. There have been feature suggestions, opinions voiced, arguments had, and bad blood created. We've been down this road before. We've already flogged this pony. The thirsty horse can't be led across that burning bridge we built in a day. Failing to understand the bigger picture of judging a cache's placement based solely on the number of finds someone has logged as improper is a big problem here. The root cause is something the other threads have tried to uncover, and, in most cases, I think people agree that the solution is community action, mentorship, and using tools like NM and NA (without being mean about the logs) to correct issues on existing listings.

 

Edit: broken tags

Edited January 31, 2013 by NeverSummer

[+WarNinjas]

I actually disagree with making a time limit or number of caches found before placing one. I know my daughter PinkNinja and I had our most original Ideas when we first started. We didn't have many number of finds to go by and see what everyone else was doing and get in the mindset of copying what was already out there. We could create stuff we thought of. If we had waited it would probibly be more of the same. Also we find hiding caches almost or more fun then finding them. Had we been not able to actually place one we might have lost interest. Not everyone is good at placing caches even after experience finding them. Our coords and caches were fine and found quickly even a week into this. If we waste some time on new cachers hiding who is to say they wouldn't do the same after they found 100 caches and then placed one. I'm sure there are some great caches placed by new cachers as well as some that are not so great. It is all a game anyways so if we waste some time looking for a bad cache from a new member so what we are actually probibly wasting our time caching in the first place. It gives us something to look for and maybe help out someone new and who really wants to get involved in the game. Might make them more into it to know there are people out there willing to help.

Then again there are days I think this is a good idea. Let the new cachers make there hides and if they are not good they will find out soon enough.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I actually disagree with making a time limit or number of caches found before placing one. I know my daughter PinkNinja and I had our most original Ideas when we first started. We didn't have many number of finds to go by and see what everyone else was doing and get in the mindset of copying what was already out there. We could create stuff we thought of. If we had waited it would probibly be more of the same. Also we find hiding caches almost or more fun then finding them. Had we been not able to actually place one we might have lost interest. Not everyone is good at placing caches even after experience finding them. Our coords and caches were fine and found quickly even a week into this. If we waste some time on new cachers hiding who is to say they wouldn't do the same after they found 100 caches and then placed one. I'm sure there are some great caches placed by new cachers as well as some that are not so great. It is all a game anyways so if we waste some time looking for a bad cache from a new member so what we are actually probibly wasting our time caching in the first place. It gives us something to look for and maybe help out someone new and who really wants to get involved in the game. Might make them more into it to know there are people out there willing to help.

Then again there are days I think this is a good idea. Let the new cachers make there hides and if they are not good they will find out soon enough.

 

I agree with this, for the most part. If a person is creative, they're creative. If they're capable of hiding a good cache, then they are. The find count won't change that. Trying to stifle someone putting out good caches because of something as arbitrary as a find count is BAD for geocaching, imo.

 

However, experience is valuable in learning what does or does not work. At any give time, I have might have 4 or 5 cache ideas knocking around upstairs. Most of those ideas turn to vapor as I know from experience that what looks great on a drawing board doesn't always cut it out in nature.

 

A new cacher who jumps in with a hide and having little to no geocaching experience may not understand that that Cool Whip container is going to last about a month out in the woods. As long as they learn from that mistake, they'll do better the next time. A "good" hider will find 100 caches and see examples of caches that don't hold up to nature or have lousy coordinates and think "I can do better than that". A "bad" hider will find those same 100 caches and put out more bad caches.