Why are really new cachers able to place caches?

[+wyrdsister]

Im sure this thread will be somewhere but we have put off placing caches as we felt we needed experience, recently we have had a spate of cachers with under 50 logs placing very crappy caches in our area, with a spate of vandalism cache owners are feeling in the area I have to wonder if there is a connection. Would it not be sensible to have a minimum of finds before placing one, the same way you earn favorite points?

[+wmpastor]

It seems that there is at most a slight correlation between number of finds and quality of caches placed. Around here we don't see the problems you described, so requiring (rather than suggesting) a minimum number of caches found before placing a cache seems like too much regulation.

[+Ruddles1325]

This is a tricky one. Generally in my experience users within some dozens of found caches place better caches than those without, however there have been a few spectacular exceptions to this, the best being a cacher who after finding just 9 then placed a beautifully constructed cache which had people with 1000's of finds hunting around. I suspect there are people who have cached as part of a team, or with a shared account, who then go on to set up their own account. Overall I think it would help with quality to prevent hiding before you've found say 50, but in a few occasions that will miss out on (or delay) some really good hiders.

[+BCandMsKitty]

This topic comes around every so often, and I say it's a useless concept!

If someone is going to hide crappy caches, they will do so whether they've found 1 or 100! It sounds like common sense on the surface, but experience shows that how many caches someone has found has little bearing on how good, or bad their hides are!

I've seen as many seasoned cachers, who "should" know better, hide crappy caches as I have seen newcomers make mistakes with their hides. It's something you can't regulate, or fix.

There's no real way of knowing how many caches someone has found anyway. A new hider has just started up in the area, with only 1 logged find to their name. Just hid 2 new caches. we found one, and it was as good a hide as I've seen anyone make, decent container and all. Had to DNF the second. Upon looking at their profile, they've been members since 2011! How would a "requirement" to find a certain number before they could hide one work in this situation?

[+ChileHead]

Im sure this thread will be somewhere but we have put off placing caches as we felt we needed experience, recently we have had a spate of cachers with under 50 logs placing very crappy caches in our area, with a spate of vandalism cache owners are feeling in the area I have to wonder if there is a connection. Would it not be sensible to have a minimum of finds before placing one, the same way you earn favorite points?

 

Most crappy caches, by a long shot, are placed by experienced cachers. Have you seen the number of crappy parking lot micros or geotrails that are placed every 0.10mi on the side of the road? Are those more or less crappy than the ones you are referring to?

[+briansnat]

Some of the crappiest caches I've found were placed by people with hundreds, or thousands of finds and I've found some outstanding cache placed by people with few finds.

 

The quality of the cache has more to do with the the imagination and ambition of the hider, rather than the number of finds they have.

[+Chief301]

I think the biggest problem with newbies hiding caches is not so much the crappy hides....there are tons of crappy hides out there by experienced cachers, and great hides by relative newcomers. No, the biggest problem with newbie hides is whether they will stay with the game or not. It's easy to be excited during the "honeymoon" phase,, run out and hide a few caches (crappy or awesome) in this cool new game they just discovered. But once the novelty wears off, they forget about the game and move on to other pursuits, leaving their caches behind.

 

If the cache was crappy, it will probably die eventually anyway (thankfully) when someone posts a NA log and the dropout cacher, no longer associated with the game, ignores maintenance requests and the cache gets archived.

 

If the cache was great, it's even more sad because now a good and worthy cache that many people liked will also spiral into decline and an eventual archival because the long-gone owner, again, ignores maintenance requests (and even adoption offers) to keep a good cache alive.

 

That's the real problem with newbie hiders, IMO

[+wimseyguy]

If you tell someone that they must find a certain number of caches before they can hide one, and they have the urge to hide one now, they will look for the easiest to find ones in the area. Then they will be inspired to hide new ones just like those. As already posted-people who have an interest in creative hiding will place those, and are more likely to seek them out too. At least with the favorite point system there is some way to help newer cachers sort through the choices.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This is a tricky one. Generally in my experience users within some dozens of found caches place better caches than those without, however there have been a few spectacular exceptions to this, the best being a cacher who after finding just 9 then placed a beautifully constructed cache which had people with 1000's of finds hunting around. I suspect there are people who have cached as part of a team, or with a shared account, who then go on to set up their own account. Overall I think it would help with quality to prevent hiding before you've found say 50, but in a few occasions that will miss out on (or delay) some really good hiders.

 

There are a couple of problems with setting some arbitrary number of caches that must be found before being allowed to place one. The first that that the quantify of finds does not necessarily correlate with experience. If someone wants to hide a cache they'll just look for a power trail or series to get those finds and typically will see little if any variation in cache types, hide styles, or types of containers.

 

The second is that that areas where it is easiest to find 50 (or whatever number is chosen) caches are probably areas where the need for new caches is the lowest. Conversely, for areas where there are very few caches and could use more placements, finding the minimum number will be much more difficult. In the select list of countries/territories there are about 250 countries/territories listed. As of a couple of months ago (the last time I captured stats) about 148 of those countries had 50 or fewer caches in the entire country. Some of those countries are quite large or are islands. How are any of them going to get more caches if one is required to find 50 caches before placing a new one?

 

 

[+Ruddles1325]

This is a tricky one. Generally in my experience users within some dozens of found caches place better caches than those without, however there have been a few spectacular exceptions to this, the best being a cacher who after finding just 9 then placed a beautifully constructed cache which had people with 1000's of finds hunting around. I suspect there are people who have cached as part of a team, or with a shared account, who then go on to set up their own account. Overall I think it would help with quality to prevent hiding before you've found say 50, but in a few occasions that will miss out on (or delay) some really good hiders.

 

There are a couple of problems with setting some arbitrary number of caches that must be found before being allowed to place one. The first that that the quantify of finds does not necessarily correlate with experience. If someone wants to hide a cache they'll just look for a power trail or series to get those finds and typically will see little if any variation in cache types, hide styles, or types of containers.

 

The second is that that areas where it is easiest to find 50 (or whatever number is chosen) caches are probably areas where the need for new caches is the lowest. Conversely, for areas where there are very few caches and could use more placements, finding the minimum number will be much more difficult. In the select list of countries/territories there are about 250 countries/territories listed. As of a couple of months ago (the last time I captured stats) about 148 of those countries had 50 or fewer caches in the entire country. Some of those countries are quite large or are islands. How are any of them going to get more caches if one is required to find 50 caches before placing a new one?

 

That's why I said it's really tricky...

[+redsox_mark]

I think the biggest problem with newbies hiding caches is not so much the crappy hides....there are tons of crappy hides out there by experienced cachers, and great hides by relative newcomers. No, the biggest problem with newbie hides is whether they will stay with the game or not. It's easy to be excited during the "honeymoon" phase,, run out and hide a few caches (crappy or awesome) in this cool new game they just discovered. But once the novelty wears off, they forget about the game and move on to other pursuits, leaving their caches behind.

 

I agree. Sure; some experienced hiders will leave the game (and some more gracefully than others), but I have observed a specific issue with new cachers who quickly lose interest and abandon their caches. (Of course, many other new cachers grow into experienced cachers).

 

But I don't think you can solve it with rules. Some people will take a cautious approach and make sure they understand the responsibility, others will jump in with less thought. I was a finder for 9 months before I hid my first hide; I wanted to be sure the game was for me and I could maintain it. (I'm not saying hiders need to wait 9 months!).

 

I know there is a guideline of at least 20 finds... and I seem to recall a newsletter saying something like "take your time and don't rush into cache ownership". That is the best advice.

[+T.D.M.22]

While I agree that new cachers shouldn't place a cache unless they understand all guidelines, and what makes a good or bad cache, there is no way to tell who is a new cacher. What about the new account for the local geocaching club where the members might have 10,000 combined finds? OR the wife who started caching with her husband and wants her own account now, or they split up and she wants to keep caching? Or the Kid who has been with his parents for 2000 finds and now is old enough to get his own account and cache by himself?

 

And what's to stop someone from finding just powertrail caches? You use your GPSr to find one cache then drive the 520 odd feet to the next one. You only need your GPSr to find the first cache.

 

So what I'm saying is that it just won't work.

[+L0ne.R]

Crappy cache? Provide constructive feedback in the log. Might help, might not but it's worth a shot. At least it lets the next finders know that the cache is, for instance, a cracked yogurt tub with a wet logsheet. You might also want to post a photo of the container/contents so future finders are warned (if it doesn't spoil the hide).

[+Chief301]

Crappy cache? Provide constructive feedback in the log. Might help, might not but it's worth a shot. At least it lets the next finders know that the cache is, for instance, a cracked yogurt tub with a wet logsheet. You might also want to post a photo of the container/contents so future finders are warned (if it doesn't spoil the hide).

 

You mean, any more than it's already spoiled?

[+SwineFlew]

LOL... if there is no crappy caches, there won't be many caches out there. Whiners will always whine.

[+J Grouchy]

I found my first cache on 12/5/12 and placed my first two caches on 12/7/12 after only having found five caches. Both have received good feedback, are still well in place and get regular visits. Neither is particularly difficult, but I learn from experience...as we all do.

 

I don't count myself as any sort of genius cacher...I only say all this because lack of experience does not necessarily equal "crappy caches" and I sort of resent the implication that it does.

[+dprovan]

I found my first cache on 12/5/12 and placed my first two caches on 12/7/12 after only having found five caches. Both have received good feedback, are still well in place and get regular visits. Neither is particularly difficult, but I learn from experience...as we all do.

Excellent. Can you explain why you were successful? Did it just happen that the cache you found was wonderful, and you copied a great idea? How did you avoid using a crappy container? How did you know not to hide in a muggle prone area? How did you know where to put the cache to keep seekers from damaging the area with geotrails? How did you know what kind of hide wouldn't "go bad" when the snow came or the river rose or weeds grew?

 

I think most people recognize that some newbies can hide good caches, so the question becomes one of figuring out what those successful newbies did right. Were you just lucky, or is there some approach you can suggest to other newbies that will make them successful, too.

 

Did being a member for nearly 3 years before finding a single cache help?

[+The_Incredibles_]

They can't enforce a minimum number of hides for a couple reasons.

 

1) What do people do if they live in a cache-poor area.

 

2) Newbies may be tempted to log fake finds just to get up to the minimum.

 

I've seen some crappy newbie hides and they all end up getting archived sooner or later. If it's hidden poorly, it's likely to get muggled. If the container's crap and the contents disgusting, eventually someone will CITO it.

[+Redfist]

There are many variables involved. The only constant we can be sure of is that this same topic will be posted anew month after month after month...

[+wyrdsister]

I think im just suffering crap cache fatigue, hopefully the best solution is to place good ones and add to the good ones out there. Looks like I have some work to do.

[+wyrdsister]

LOL... if there is no crappy caches, there won't be many caches out there. Whiners will always whine.

I was asking a genuine question, I consider myself new to caching with under 500 finds, sorry if you consider it a whine to try and work out how things work.

[+wyrdsister]

They can't enforce a minimum number of hides for a couple reasons.

 

1) What do people do if they live in a cache-poor area.

 

2) Newbies may be tempted to log fake finds just to get up to the minimum.

 

I've seen some crappy newbie hides and they all end up getting archived sooner or later. If it's hidden poorly, it's likely to get muggled. If the container's crap and the contents disgusting, eventually someone will CITO it.

 

Thanks it makes sense, I just haven't seen it happen yet due to only caching a short time - the joy experience brings.

[+The_Incredibles_]

They can't enforce a minimum number of hides for a couple reasons.

 

1) What do people do if they live in a cache-poor area.

 

2) Newbies may be tempted to log fake finds just to get up to the minimum.

 

I've seen some crappy newbie hides and they all end up getting archived sooner or later. If it's hidden poorly, it's likely to get muggled. If the container's crap and the contents disgusting, eventually someone will CITO it.

 

Thanks it makes sense, I just haven't seen it happen yet due to only caching a short time - the joy experience brings.

 

Trust me, they won't be around for long. Maybe put them on your ignore list for the time-being. That's what I do.

 

Here's one I'm looking forward to seeing go. The "geocache" is a tiny little plastic bag with a magnet and a slip of paper, stuck to the underside of a park bench. Their other one was an altoids tin buried in the sand at a playground.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2WDC1

Edited May 16, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[+J Grouchy]

I found my first cache on 12/5/12 and placed my first two caches on 12/7/12 after only having found five caches. Both have received good feedback, are still well in place and get regular visits. Neither is particularly difficult, but I learn from experience...as we all do.

Excellent. Can you explain why you were successful? Did it just happen that the cache you found was wonderful, and you copied a great idea? How did you avoid using a crappy container? How did you know not to hide in a muggle prone area? How did you know where to put the cache to keep seekers from damaging the area with geotrails? How did you know what kind of hide wouldn't "go bad" when the snow came or the river rose or weeds grew?

 

I think most people recognize that some newbies can hide good caches, so the question becomes one of figuring out what those successful newbies did right. Were you just lucky, or is there some approach you can suggest to other newbies that will make them successful, too.

 

Did being a member for nearly 3 years before finding a single cache help?

 

Your post is literally dripping with sarcasm. Seriously...I had to go wash my hands.

 

Honestly, I don't even remember joining in 2010 because I knew nothing about geocaching until last summer and only tried actually LOOKING for geocaches back in December. But since you brought it up, now I'm trying to think back to see what that's all about.

 

So, to answer your obviously leading questions:

No

No

I bought some "official" geocache containers.

"Muggle prone area?" How should that be a factor? Some of the best geocaches I've found are in busy, muggle-prone areas requiring stealth.

I hid them in areas I knew well and obviously required stealth due to their very nature.

Snow? In Atlanta? That's a good one.

Luck as much as common sense. I knew I should start with easy-to-find hides and work my way up to harder puzzles and trickier hides. I think some people want to start off with some amazingly difficult hide, but don't think it through and perhaps put it in a sensitive area or in a spot that isn't ideal.

Edited May 16, 2013 by J Grouchy

[+bflentje]

LOL... if there is no crappy caches, there won't be many caches out there. Whiners will always whine.

I was asking a genuine question, I consider myself new to caching with under 500 finds, sorry if you consider it a whine to try and work out how things work.

 

If you're suffering from crappy cache fatigue, then you're caching methods need to be changed. Ignore all of gthe stop sign hides you're finding and start hitting the trails and the woods.

[Mr.Yuck]

I found my first cache on 12/5/12 and placed my first two caches on 12/7/12 after only having found five caches. Both have received good feedback, are still well in place and get regular visits. Neither is particularly difficult, but I learn from experience...as we all do.

Excellent. Can you explain why you were successful? Did it just happen that the cache you found was wonderful, and you copied a great idea? How did you avoid using a crappy container? How did you know not to hide in a muggle prone area? How did you know where to put the cache to keep seekers from damaging the area with geotrails? How did you know what kind of hide wouldn't "go bad" when the snow came or the river rose or weeds grew?

 

I think most people recognize that some newbies can hide good caches, so the question becomes one of figuring out what those successful newbies did right. Were you just lucky, or is there some approach you can suggest to other newbies that will make them successful, too.

 

Did being a member for nearly 3 years before finding a single cache help?

 

Your post is literally dripping with sarcasm. Seriously...I had to go wash my hands.

 

Honestly, I don't even remember joining in 2010 because I knew nothing about geocaching until last summer and only tried actually LOOKING for geocaches back in December. But since you brought it up, now I'm trying to think back to see what that's all about.

 

So, to answer your obviously leading questions:

No

No

I bought some "official" geocache containers.

"Muggle prone area?" How should that be a factor? Some of the best geocaches I've found are in busy, muggle-prone areas requiring stealth.

I hid them in areas I knew well and obviously required stealth due to their very nature.

Snow? In Atlanta? That's a good one.

Luck as much as common sense. I knew I should start with easy-to-find hides and work my way up to harder puzzles and trickier hides. I think some people want to start off with some amazingly difficult hide, but don't think it through and perhaps put it in a sensitive area or in a spot that isn't ideal.

 

Per what I've bolded. Muggle prone area IS a HUGE negative factor for many people, me included. You are letting your personal caching aesthetic show in your post.

 

I'm not flaming you here, seriously. I'm just pointing out that a sizeable segment of the caching population is not into Stealth. As a matter of fact, I can't stand the word, personally That being said, I looked at your first hide, and it's described in the cache description as a "screw-top nano", (bison tube, not blinky?) and street view shows it to be along a sidewalk, in front of a factory. If that cache were placed in my area, I would have put it on my ignore list. Again, there are no flames here, just my personal caching aesthetic, which is the polar opposite of yours, and neither of which is universal amongst Geocachers.

[+dprovan]

Your post is literally dripping with sarcasm. Seriously...I had to go wash my hands.

No, it really, really wasn't, so I'm glad you answered despite your negative opinion of me. (I almost missed that you were answering me, since I learned not to be sarcastic in electronic communications sometime in the early nineties.)

 

Anyway, I think you're suggesting some really excellent ideas for newbies. Here's what I get out of it:

 

1. Only use containers specifically sold as geocaches. That's excellent. Not only will they be much more likely to be good containers, that also means the newbie is looking around websites and getting a good sense of what a typical container should be.

 

2. Only hide caches in an area you know very well. This captures so many good ideas in a simple concept, including both an understanding of the local muggle issues and picking a place you frequently visit so maintenance is easier.

 

3. Start with easy ones.

 

4. Use common sense. This is good, of course, but it's actually one of the trickier ones. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "common sense" without geocaching experience is insufficient for hiding caches. For example, most people with no caching experience have no common sense feeling for where water will go when it rains. Just a couple days ago, I found a cache that was hidden on the ground in a marsh, but since we had very little rain this year, the dry ground when the cache was hidden a couple months ago make it seem like a reasonable place to hide a cache unless you can imagine the cache floating in standing water that's there most winters. (And the CO wasn't really a newbie, so even experience doesn't help develop common sense.)

 

5. Recognize that success is a matter of luck. The importance of this is that you need to look for and recognize when you've had bad luck and failed, and be prepared to deal with it. That's probably the biggest reason newbies have a bad rap: they probably don't have that many more failures than experienced cachers, but they often don't pay any attention -- typically because they've stopped caching -- so their failures are out there longer festering.

 

Thanks, again. That's just the kind of insight I was hoping you'd share.

[+Off Grid]

Im sure this thread will be somewhere but we have put off placing caches as we felt we needed experience, recently we have had a spate of cachers with under 50 logs placing very crappy caches in our area, with a spate of vandalism cache owners are feeling in the area I have to wonder if there is a connection. Would it not be sensible to have a minimum of finds before placing one, the same way you earn favorite points?

 

Most crappy caches, by a long shot, are placed by experienced cachers. Have you seen the number of crappy parking lot micros or geotrails that are placed every 0.10mi on the side of the road? Are those more or less crappy than the ones you are referring to?

agreed no labels no nothing on it telling you what it is and place by experienced cacher.

[+Off Grid]

LOL... if there is no crappy caches, there won't be many caches out there. Whiners will always whine.

I was asking a genuine question, I consider myself new to caching with under 500 finds, sorry if you consider it a whine to try and work out how things work.

 

If you're suffering from crappy cache fatigue, then you're caching methods need to be changed. Ignore all of gthe stop sign hides you're finding and start hitting the trails and the woods.

does not sure mean they are better just cause there in the woods I come across crap ones hiking

[+J Grouchy]

I found my first cache on 12/5/12 and placed my first two caches on 12/7/12 after only having found five caches. Both have received good feedback, are still well in place and get regular visits. Neither is particularly difficult, but I learn from experience...as we all do.

Excellent. Can you explain why you were successful? Did it just happen that the cache you found was wonderful, and you copied a great idea? How did you avoid using a crappy container? How did you know not to hide in a muggle prone area? How did you know where to put the cache to keep seekers from damaging the area with geotrails? How did you know what kind of hide wouldn't "go bad" when the snow came or the river rose or weeds grew?

 

I think most people recognize that some newbies can hide good caches, so the question becomes one of figuring out what those successful newbies did right. Were you just lucky, or is there some approach you can suggest to other newbies that will make them successful, too.

 

Did being a member for nearly 3 years before finding a single cache help?

 

Your post is literally dripping with sarcasm. Seriously...I had to go wash my hands.

 

Honestly, I don't even remember joining in 2010 because I knew nothing about geocaching until last summer and only tried actually LOOKING for geocaches back in December. But since you brought it up, now I'm trying to think back to see what that's all about.

 

So, to answer your obviously leading questions:

No

No

I bought some "official" geocache containers.

"Muggle prone area?" How should that be a factor? Some of the best geocaches I've found are in busy, muggle-prone areas requiring stealth.

I hid them in areas I knew well and obviously required stealth due to their very nature.

Snow? In Atlanta? That's a good one.

Luck as much as common sense. I knew I should start with easy-to-find hides and work my way up to harder puzzles and trickier hides. I think some people want to start off with some amazingly difficult hide, but don't think it through and perhaps put it in a sensitive area or in a spot that isn't ideal.

 

Per what I've bolded. Muggle prone area IS a HUGE negative factor for many people, me included. You are letting your personal caching aesthetic show in your post.

 

I'm not flaming you here, seriously. I'm just pointing out that a sizeable segment of the caching population is not into Stealth. As a matter of fact, I can't stand the word, personally That being said, I looked at your first hide, and it's described in the cache description as a "screw-top nano", (bison tube, not blinky?) and street view shows it to be along a sidewalk, in front of a factory. If that cache were placed in my area, I would have put it on my ignore list. Again, there are no flames here, just my personal caching aesthetic, which is the polar opposite of yours, and neither of which is universal amongst Geocachers.

 

"Personal caching aesthetic"...? Seriously? Is that a real thing?

 

One could argue that any cache in metro-Atlanta is "muggle prone".

 

Not a bison tube.

Not a factory, but a commercial loft development.

Along part of a future city-wide transit and walking beltline, so trying to call attention to it and the actual commercial developments that it has spawned (the lofts).

 

Obviously not for everyone, but it seems odd for anyone to purposefully put it on some ignore list. Sometimes what looks boring or uninspired on paper ends up being interesting in some other way...even the occasional LPC takes me somewhere worthwhile. I prefer to keep an open mind...

 

Not sure I get the point of an "ignore list" feature, anyway. Why not just...oh, I don't know...ignore it?

Edited May 16, 2013 by J Grouchy

[+J Grouchy]

1. Only use containers specifically sold as geocaches. That's excellent. Not only will they be much more likely to be good containers, that also means the newbie is looking around websites and getting a good sense of what a typical container should be.

 

Of course, I would say this is mostly recommended only for those NEW to placing geocaches. Eventually, with time, you get a sense of what works and what doesn't. That only comes with finding a good variety.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

 

"Personal caching aesthetic"...? Seriously? Is that a real thing?

 

One could argue that any cache in metro-Atlanta is "muggle prone".

 

Not a bison tube.

Not a factory, but a commercial loft development.

Along part of a future city-wide transit and walking beltline, so trying to call attention to it and the actual commercial developments that it has spawned (the lofts).

 

Obviously not for everyone, but it seems odd for anyone to purposefully put it on some ignore list. Sometimes what looks boring or uninspired on paper ends up being interesting in some other way...even the occasional LPC takes me somewhere worthwhile. I prefer to keep an open mind...

 

Not sure I get the point of an "ignore list" feature, anyway. Why not just...oh, I don't know...ignore it?

 

Don't worry, "Personal caching aesthetic" would never come out my mouth, or from my fingers, normally. I will give attribution to Snoogans. But if I'm wrong, than it was probably Clan Riffster.

 

The ignore list will remove the cache from all searches, Pocket Queries, and the maps. Very handy for some of us. A commercial loft development? That does sound kind of interesting.

[+Annawashere]

I would certainly say newbies place lower level caches (skirt lifters and such), but that's not always true. A local example (and a favorite of mine) is "AUSTRALIA" (GCTQJJ). It was placed by Cavendish5 who at this point has only 43 finds. Although that would lead some to believe their caches might be less than stellar as they have less experience, this is an amazing cache, and one of the best I've ever found. Certainly not the hardest difficulty, but not all amazing caches are dictated by that.

If they were ever to set a restriction like this, I would say no more than 50 finds required. And really, it's kind of hit or miss. Some people with over 300 finds have placed caches in bad locations, with easily destroyed containers, and don't maintenance their caches even when it's needed. I guess it depends on the cacher

[+L0ne.R]

 

"Personal caching aesthetic"...? Seriously? Is that a real thing?

 

 

Aesthetic...philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty.

 

A quality cache container, with a logbook and pencil and a few clean unbroken trinkets, in an attractive location, well maintained and owned by a cache owner that cares about the finder's experience -- it's a thing of beauty. I prefer forest finds, filter out micros except for micros with a lot of FPs, and use the Ignore List liberally (333 currently on the list). I think I may have gained a 'personal caching aesthetic' over the years.

[+hukilaulau]

When I find a great old cache I like to look at the owner's history.

Some of the best caches from the early years were placed by folks who only found one or two caches.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

Not sure I get the point of an "ignore list" feature, anyway. Why not just...oh, I don't know...ignore it?

 

As Mr. Yuck stated, just "ignoring" it won't keep it out of a PQ.

 

For me, I try to keep a healthy supply of "easy" caches set aside for caching once the snow falls, so that in January, when I'm just bugging to find an easy nearby cache or two, I don't have to drive for miles along slippery roads or slog through a quarter mile of snow in the woods. Those caches that would just be a cache and dash during the spring/summer/fall months go on my ignore list to make sure they're available in the winter.

[+Chief301]

When I find a great old cache I like to look at the owner's history.

Some of the best caches from the early years were placed by folks who only found one or two caches.

 

In the early years, those one or two finds were more likely to be a nicely stocked ammo can or other suitable container in a scenic or interesting location. So the new (at the time) cacher had that image in mind of what a cache is supposed to be, so that's what they emulated. Nowadays a new cachers first few finds will more likely be of the pill bottle under a lamp skirt behind Walgreens variety. So guess what they view as a typical Geocache?

[Luckless]

I think the favorite points were designed (sort of) to encourage people to make fun caches to get points. (it's all about the numbers)

(I wonder if people should have a total listing of their favorite points just like they do their cache finds.- might encourage maintenance- who knows)

Edited May 17, 2013 by Luckless

[+J Grouchy]

 

Not sure I get the point of an "ignore list" feature, anyway. Why not just...oh, I don't know...ignore it?

 

As Mr. Yuck stated, just "ignoring" it won't keep it out of a PQ.

 

For me, I try to keep a healthy supply of "easy" caches set aside for caching once the snow falls, so that in January, when I'm just bugging to find an easy nearby cache or two, I don't have to drive for miles along slippery roads or slog through a quarter mile of snow in the woods. Those caches that would just be a cache and dash during the spring/summer/fall months go on my ignore list to make sure they're available in the winter.

 

I don't usually do PQs.

Besides, what's the big deal if a few you don't care to look for DO show up in your pocket query? Unless one is extremely selective, I can't imagine anyone has an ignore list that comprises a significant percentage of caches that would show up in a pocket query.

 

Maybe if I ever get to be a crotchedy "old-timer" here I'll change my tune.

[+L0ne.R]

When I find a great old cache I like to look at the owner's history.

Some of the best caches from the early years were placed by folks who only found one or two caches.

 

In the early years, those one or two finds were more likely to be a nicely stocked ammo can or other suitable container in a scenic or interesting location. So the new (at the time) cacher had that image in mind of what a cache is supposed to be, so that's what they emulated. Nowadays a new cachers first few finds will more likely be of the pill bottle under a lamp skirt behind Walgreens variety. So guess what they view as a typical Geocache?

 

That's quite true. We started on Christmas Eve 2001, caches were few and far between. Each one in a nice location (waterfall, old mill, beach, sculpture park), mostly rubbermaid containers, ammo cans and peanut butter jars. We did a lot of travelling, the closest cache was about a 40 minute drive away. Even in those days with so few caches to find, we spent 2 months caching and found 7 before we felt ready to hide our first cache (in a rubbermaid container, near a waterfall).

 

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

Not sure I get the point of an "ignore list" feature, anyway. Why not just...oh, I don't know...ignore it?

 

As Mr. Yuck stated, just "ignoring" it won't keep it out of a PQ.

 

For me, I try to keep a healthy supply of "easy" caches set aside for caching once the snow falls, so that in January, when I'm just bugging to find an easy nearby cache or two, I don't have to drive for miles along slippery roads or slog through a quarter mile of snow in the woods. Those caches that would just be a cache and dash during the spring/summer/fall months go on my ignore list to make sure they're available in the winter.

 

Can you select to not include IGNORED caches in a PQ?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

Not sure I get the point of an "ignore list" feature, anyway. Why not just...oh, I don't know...ignore it?

 

As Mr. Yuck stated, just "ignoring" it won't keep it out of a PQ.

 

For me, I try to keep a healthy supply of "easy" caches set aside for caching once the snow falls, so that in January, when I'm just bugging to find an easy nearby cache or two, I don't have to drive for miles along slippery roads or slog through a quarter mile of snow in the woods. Those caches that would just be a cache and dash during the spring/summer/fall months go on my ignore list to make sure they're available in the winter.

 

I don't usually do PQs.

Besides, what's the big deal if a few you don't care to look for DO show up in your pocket query? Unless one is extremely selective, I can't imagine anyone has an ignore list that comprises a significant percentage of caches that would show up in a pocket query.

 

Maybe if I ever get to be a crotchedy "old-timer" here I'll change my tune.

 

I've got well over 100 caches on my ignore list.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Can you select to not include IGNORED caches in a PQ?

 

Yes - tick the option "Are not on my ignore list".

[+bflentje]

LOL... if there is no crappy caches, there won't be many caches out there. Whiners will always whine.

I was asking a genuine question, I consider myself new to caching with under 500 finds, sorry if you consider it a whine to try and work out how things work.

 

If you're suffering from crappy cache fatigue, then you're caching methods need to be changed. Ignore all of gthe stop sign hides you're finding and start hitting the trails and the woods.

does not sure mean they are better just cause there in the woods I come across crap ones hiking

 

Agreed but I believe it does increase your odds of getting a better cache.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

Can you select to not include IGNORED caches in a PQ?

 

Yes - tick the option "Are not on my ignore list".

 

I knew that...I shoud have typed "Can't you just..."

[+JKMonkey]

I only have 59 found and I placed one when I had less than 30 found. I received a ready-made cache at a cachers dinner and wanted to place it asap, so using the skills i learned at a sort of geocaching seminar we had here in november, i placed it in a spot i wanted to bring other cachers to.

[+popokiiti]

We'd found quite a few before we hid any. Personal choice - we wanted to see what was out there and wanted to place caches that folks would enjoy for one reason or another. I have only hidden one myself, and want to do more.....but I want to place something folks will enjoy, either for the location or the cache itself - hopefully both!

[+KC2WI]

I placed my first cache before I had found any. I actually cheated because I didn't even have a GPS when I first placed it. People seemed to like it nonetheless.

 

I can't recall if I had gone caching with other geocachers or not before I placed the cache.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Of course, there's kids hiding caches without adult supervision. 11 km off.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=997201de-01dc-4a7b-b341-ad007fdffd34

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

And then there is the cache I did this morning by a CO with 17 finds, all since December. It was awesome with a great combo of terrain, difficulty and location. It had a unique container which I question durability, but it's working in a pretty harsh environment. It took one of my favorite points. Glad he wasn't blocked from hiding it.