Ways to limit mass placements

[+fab_seeker]

As mentionned in another topic, some geocachers were against the mass caching (idea that I understand, I prefer finding a beautiful cache than 20 microfilm boxes, but that's only my opinion, I also understand those who like searching for many caches, research is a part of the game).

 

So do you agree with that limitation, and if yes what could be the way to prevent this mass caching?

Some ideas exposed:

- create a timeout between each cache creation on the website.

- Make it longer to create a new cache webpage.

- Prevent the publishing of caches which have a description containing less than 150 words.

- Limit the number of geocaches of each cacher in order to be sure that the maintenance can be done.

...

 

What do you think about that?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

As mentionned in another topic, some geocachers were against the mass caching (idea that I understand, I prefer finding a beautiful cache than 20 microfilm boxes, but that's only my opinion, I also understand those who like searching for many caches, research is a part of the game).

 

So do you agree with that limitation, and if yes what could be the way to prevent this mass caching?

Some ideas exposed:

- create a timeout between each cache creation on the website.

- Make it longer to create a new cache webpage.

- Prevent the publishing of caches which have a description containing less than 150 words.

- Limit the number of geocaches of each cacher in order to be sure that the maintenance can be done.

...

 

What do you think about that?

 

How about re-instating the guideline which was removed in 2009 which stated, "Please don't place geocachers every 600 feet just because you can".

 

As I see it, this is more about a mindset than something that can be solved with technology (i.e. changing the submission forms or the processes and guidelines which manage them). If you want to limit mass placements, someone you're going to have to convince people that "it's not about the numbers".

 

[Pup Patrol]

As mentionned in another topic, some geocachers were against the mass caching (idea that I understand, I prefer finding a beautiful cache than 20 microfilm boxes, but that's only my opinion, I also understand those who like searching for many caches, research is a part of the game).

 

So do you agree with that limitation, and if yes what could be the way to prevent this mass caching?

Some ideas exposed:

- create a timeout between each cache creation on the website.

- Make it longer to create a new cache webpage.

- Prevent the publishing of caches which have a description containing less than 150 words.

- Limit the number of geocaches of each cacher in order to be sure that the maintenance can be done.

...

 

What do you think about that?

 

I think that if this bothered Groundspeak, they would have taken action.

 

It doesn't bother them, so it doesn't bother me.

 

There's already lots of rules about publishing caches on Groundspeak's site. I think some of your proposed rules are just way too restrictive and speak of stereotypes. Whether a cache page has 150 words or none, for example, is meaningless. I could fill in the form with 152 words that have nothing to do with the cache location. What's the point?

 

What "you" like for a cache experience doesn't necessarily reflect what the millions of other cachers prefer. Why should Groundspeak make a major change just to suit "your" preferences?

 

B.

[+Team Microdot]

How about re-instating the guideline which was removed in 2009 which stated, "Please don't place geocachers every 600 feet just because you can".

 

You'd never get them to stay in place anyway - they'd just get bored and wander off....

[+The A-Team]

How about re-instating the guideline which was removed in 2009 which stated, "Please don't place geocaches every 600 feet just because you can".

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that.

However, TPTB already pad the numbers regarding how many geocachers there are, presumably to make the site more attractive for marketing purposes. Allowing power trails and the like lets them pad the number of placed caches. I don't see them doing anything to stop this.

 

P.S. Fixed the quote as per Team Microdot's post.

[+T.D.M.22]

 

So do you agree with that limitation, and if yes what could be the way to prevent this mass caching?

Some ideas exposed:

- create a timeout between each cache creation on the website.

- Make it longer to create a new cache webpage.

- Prevent the publishing of caches which have a description containing less than 150 words.

- Limit the number of geocaches of each cacher in order to be sure that the maintenance can be done.

...

 

What do you think about that?

 

-Time out; That would affect those placing more than one cache. And that's for creation. I could create one cache page per day for a month and then send them in for review/publish at once. What about a series of themed caches, or caches for an event?

-Longer to create a new cache page; That would also discourage new cachers.

-Description of less than 150 words; Copy/paste. People would put gibberish words, or filler. Plus there are good descriptions that are less than 150 words.

-limit number of cachers per cacher; Who's to say how many I can maintain. I could have 120 caches in a tiny little hamlet that don't get found often. I might only do maintenance once a month. Or I could have 20 caches in New York City that get found every day with maintenance twice a week. I could also create multiple accounts.

 

These rules all have ways to get around them, and all would discourage new cachers, and most importantly, don't necessarily mean better caches. What you said-mass placements is different than what I think you mean-power trails.

 

I'd also like to point out that where I live we have 4 trails with about 100 caches each. It attracts people to come into the city and find our other caches as well, spend their money at hotels, for food, and gas. They will be more likely to come back for our annual event. The cost of those power trails was from the people who placed them, but the benefits go to the whole community.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

- Prevent the publishing of caches which have a description containing less than 150 words.

 

What do you think about that?

At least 150 words? No problem.

[+geodarts]

Groundspeak has made the decision that mass placements (repetitive caches, placements on private property without express permission, placements made without any maintenance plan) is where they have chosen to take this game. Users can choose to participate in that aspect of the game or not. The only way to limit mass placements is to decide to do other things.

[Mr.Yuck]

Groundspeak has made the decision that mass placements (repetitive caches, placements on private property without express permission, placements made without any maintenance plan) is where they have chosen to take this game. Users can choose to participate in that aspect of the game or not. The only way to limit mass placements is to decide to do other things.

 

Geodarts with the bullseye. Sorry, couldn't resist. I agree though, they could have nipped caches in the Wal-Mart Parking lot or on the Cracker Barrel front porch in the bud when people first started placing them in 2002 or 2003 or whenever. They could have kept "please don't place a cache every 600 feet because you can". But they didn't in both cases. Speaking of which, I stumbled on about a week old post by a UK reviewer in the UK forum the other day, which gives insight into the removal of "please don't place a cache every 600 feet because you can" language. In a nutshell, a power trail couldn't be defined. Kind of reminds me of the "WOW factor" on virtuals, how "they" said it couldn't be defined.

[+Don_J]

 

These rules all have ways to get around them, and all would discourage new cachers, and most importantly, don't necessarily mean better caches.

 

I agree. It would also discourage current cache hiders. Those who break rules will do whatever it takes to get around them. Meanwhile, the rest of us are also affected. If I place four good caches along 2 miles of hiking trail and then have to jump through technical hoops just to get them published, I just might not hide them in the first place.

[+Don_J]

Groundspeak has made the decision that mass placements (repetitive caches, placements on private property without express permission, placements made without any maintenance plan) is where they have chosen to take this game. Users can choose to participate in that aspect of the game or not. The only way to limit mass placements is to decide to do other things.

 

Geodarts with the bullseye. Sorry, couldn't resist. I agree though, they could have nipped caches in the Wal-Mart Parking lot or on the Cracker Barrel front porch in the bud when people first started placing them in 2002 or 2003 or whenever. They could have kept "please don't place a cache every 600 feet because you can". But they didn't in both cases. Speaking of which, I stumbled on about a week old post by a UK reviewer in the UK forum the other day, which gives insight into the removal of "please don't place a cache every 600 feet because you can" language. In a nutshell, a power trail couldn't be defined. Kind of reminds me of the "WOW factor" on virtuals, how "they" said it couldn't be defined.

 

Interesting. If I am interpreting this correctly, this reviewer considered one cache every .5 miles as okay. At the same time, our local reviewer drew the line at .2 miles. Two different reviewers, two different ideas on what constitutes a power trail. Someone else decides .15 and finally, someone decides that .1 is what the guideline says and thinks that the "don't hide every 600'..." as a simple suggestion.

 

As a relatively new cacher in 2006, I was surprised to learn that the "every 600'" was more than a suggestion and was being enforced as a guideline. Of course, I couldn't understand why someone would want to hide a cache every 600', but I still didn't interpret the phrase as anything more than a suggestion. I am sure that there were many others that read it the same way and took their reviewers to task for enforcing a suggestion.

[+redants]

I like the idea, we have a local who puts out lots of useless caches. This cacher puts out heaps.

[Mr.Yuck]

Groundspeak has made the decision that mass placements (repetitive caches, placements on private property without express permission, placements made without any maintenance plan) is where they have chosen to take this game. Users can choose to participate in that aspect of the game or not. The only way to limit mass placements is to decide to do other things.

 

Geodarts with the bullseye. Sorry, couldn't resist. I agree though, they could have nipped caches in the Wal-Mart Parking lot or on the Cracker Barrel front porch in the bud when people first started placing them in 2002 or 2003 or whenever. They could have kept "please don't place a cache every 600 feet because you can". But they didn't in both cases. Speaking of which, I stumbled on about a week old post by a UK reviewer in the UK forum the other day, which gives insight into the removal of "please don't place a cache every 600 feet because you can" language. In a nutshell, a power trail couldn't be defined. Kind of reminds me of the "WOW factor" on virtuals, how "they" said it couldn't be defined.

 

Interesting. If I am interpreting this correctly, this reviewer considered one cache every .5 miles as okay. At the same time, our local reviewer drew the line at .2 miles. Two different reviewers, two different ideas on what constitutes a power trail. Someone else decides .15 and finally, someone decides that .1 is what the guideline says and thinks that the "don't hide every 600'..." as a simple suggestion.

 

As a relatively new cacher in 2006, I was surprised to learn that the "every 600'" was more than a suggestion and was being enforced as a guideline. Of course, I couldn't understand why someone would want to hide a cache every 600', but I still didn't interpret the phrase as anything more than a suggestion. I am sure that there were many others that read it the same way and took their reviewers to task for enforcing a suggestion.

 

That is very interesting, isn't it? Very few people are going to see it here, or the original post buried in a thread in the UK/Ireland sub-forum though. I'm surprised I've never seen such an explanation by any reviewer from anywhere in one of the dozens of angsty power trail threads.

[+ChileHead]

How about if people just stop looking for those power trails so they are less popular? Lots of people moan and groan about the lame power trails and parking lot caches, but they still go out and find them. If nobody went out to do the ET power trail, other similar trails wouldn't come out. But that's never going to happen.