HELLO EVRY1

[+thehoomer]

Im is new cacher. I fonnd 1 cachge since a joined yesterdad. THis game is grart. Gunna set my owm cashees now..? Ive nearlt finished my ice crean and as soon as its gon Im gunna throw the tub undar a trree 4 u all and make some cordinites on my fone. Plese speeek me onfacebuk.

I plan to 4get this game in t minus 60 hours. Happy days.

[+Panther&Pine]

[Pup Patrol]

Im is new cacher. I fonnd 1 cachge since a joined yesterdad. THis game is grart. Gunna set my owm cashees now..? Ive nearlt finished my ice crean and as soon as its gon Im gunna throw the tub undar a trree 4 u all and make some cordinites on my fone. Plese speeek me onfacebuk.

I plan to 4get this game in t minus 60 hours. Happy days.

 

I'm guessing this an attempt at a humorous rant about something, as the OP is obviously not new, and has thousands of finds and hundreds of hides.

 

Reads like an incredibly insulting and rude shot at newbies.

 

 

B.

[+Panther&Pine]

Im is new cacher. I fonnd 1 cachge since a joined yesterdad. THis game is grart. Gunna set my owm cashees now..? Ive nearlt finished my ice crean and as soon as its gon Im gunna throw the tub undar a trree 4 u all and make some cordinites on my fone. Plese speeek me onfacebuk.

I plan to 4get this game in t minus 60 hours. Happy days.

 

I'm guessing this an attempt at a humorous rant about something, as the OP is obviously not new, and has thousands of finds and hundreds of hides.

 

Reads like an incredibly insulting and rude shot at newbies.

 

 

B.

I reported it, very mean newbie baiting.

 

Although now I want ice cream, but that wasn't their intent.

Edited September 21, 2013 by MooseJawSpruce

[+Boggin's Dad]

Glad to see that our friends from the other side of the Atlantic keep an eye what is happening over in the United Kingdom/Ireland Forums. More than most geocachers from this country.

 

Did make me smile a bit though, perhaps not the kindest post ever, but a bit of truth?

[Pup Patrol]

Glad to see that our friends from the other side of the Atlantic keep an eye what is happening over in the United Kingdom/Ireland Forums. More than most geocachers from this country.

 

Did make me smile a bit though, perhaps not the kindest post ever, but a bit of truth?

 

I had no idea this was posted in the UK forum when I posted my replies.

 

It appeared in the "Recent topics added" list on the home page. I rarely pay attention to what subforum a thread is in when I click on it when it's in that list.

 

 

B. (in Canada)

Edited September 22, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[+Simply Paul]

Ice cream tub? I should be so lucky. I found a cache last month that was a ultra-flimsy, already brittle and broken fast food container of some sort (Badgers go crazy for MSG) which wouldn't have looked out of place in a Chinese or Indian. I had sturdy ice cream tubs 'in the field' for years. 1000ml circular Mivi ones seemed tougher than some budget lock-n-locks I've met out there. Anyway, if you don't tell newbies when they get things wrong, how will they learn (especially as some do skip the 'by experience' stage)? Perhaps a kinder tone would make them feel more welcome though...

 

Newbies, we love you. Go to events, talk to cachers about caching; that's part of what events are for and we're all very nice and kind really. Honest

[+thehoomer]

Ok, I can understand why my post may have been misconstrued and apologise if I caused any offence but please allow me to put something straight here.

 

Almost without exception, when a newb finds one of our caches and mentions in the log that this was their first cache, we post a note on the page welcoming them to the game and thanking them for choosing one of our caches as an introduction to Geocaching. Just in case they don’t revisit the page after logging, we also send them a pre-prepared email which repeats our welcome note and also contains our contact details if they require any help, guidance or assistance with anything geo-related. We also offer our attendance on a small caching trip to show them the ropes if they want it.

This offer has been taken up on several occasions and we have made some good caching friends as a result. Cachers in this area will testify, I am far from being anti-newb and actively encourage future involvement in the game by supporting and offering hands on assistance if required. It may sound pompous but I’ll wager that I am in the minority with this level of attention and ‘open arms’ approach to newbs.

 

I’m aware I’m raking over old ground but I remain unmoved by any argument against a qualifying period of involvement (or a set amount of finds) before setting a cache. This argument, amongst other things, used to be because it was felt that a better quality cache would be set as a result of experience but things have moved on since then. More and more, I’m seeing caches being set and almost immediately abandoned by the cacher who was in love with the game for 48 hrs and then moved on to something else. Often, the cache is never even found before it is archived because the co ordinates are wholly inaccurate.

We all know and appreciate how hard the reviewers work and I would like to feel that their valuable time was being spent reviewing caches which had been set by someone with a little more than a fleeting 48hr passion about the game.

[Deceangi]

Honest opinion, as a Reviewer, I'm happy to work with even someone with zero finds provided that they are prepared to work with me, to resolve all issues. Sadly just like with a very tiny minority of more experienced cachers, you get some who throw a rant, when issues are pointed out to them

 

I've published caches by genuine 0/0 hiders, which have had the finders raving about the cache.

 

I can remember exchanging over 15 emails with one cacher, when Additional Waypoints were first made Mandatory in the UK (mid 2006, Groundspeak took a further 12/18 months to do so, even though they supported our stance), who despite trying could just not grasp the idea of creating them. So the solution was to sit down with a piece of paper, and log every stage, as I created one. Which I then emailed to the person, who then had success.

 

Work with me, and I will go to the ends of the earth to help you out.

 

What does annoy me, are the tiny minority, who despite being very experience Geocachers, use Sock Accounts to set caches. This is not a dig at all Sock accounts, just a very tiny minority of them. These socks are used to set huge cache trails, that the CO then ignores, so when Maintenance issues arise, it is usually the finders who rectify them. Sadly over time, these Trails, get archived by the local Reviewer, in a Piecemeal fashion, as individual caches, get Needs Archived logs on them. In many of these cases, the caches under the CO's main account, are well maintained, and the person is out every week caching.

 

It is those 2 tiny minority groups, who waste Reviewers time and energy, and at times, saps the will to continue. For me personally, not only as a Reviewer, but Geocaching as well . It is the majority of the community, who make it worth while continuing.

 

There are huge trails out there, which you know the CO(s) will move heaven and earth, to quickly resolve all issues, even when set under a Generic Sock account. Because even under the Sock, they still take pride in their hides.

 

Sadly that is not something Reviewers can tell from a cache submission, but get hints of, from interactions, when issues have to be resolved. And that includes off 0/0 hiders.

 

Plus we have to remember, this hobby was started by a 0/0 hider, as were many of the first 30 or 40 caches in the world

 

Deci

[+dartymoor]

Excellent reply.

[+Delta68]

 

Plus we have to remember, this hobby was started by a 0/0 hider, as were many of the first 30 or 40 caches in the world

 

Deci

 

The difference then though, was that the cachers were mainly (if not all) from a technical background with a genuine interest in out-door and GPS based activities.

They can't really be compared to newbies who discover Geocaching by sitting in their bedroom browsing the iPhone app store looking for a new free app to play with.

 

 

Mark

Edited September 24, 2013 by Delta68

[+Happy Humphrey]

I’m aware I’m raking over old ground but I remain unmoved by any argument against a qualifying period of involvement (or a set amount of finds) before setting a cache. This argument, amongst other things, used to be because it was felt that a better quality cache would be set as a result of experience but things have moved on since then. More and more, I’m seeing caches being set and almost immediately abandoned by the cacher who was in love with the game for 48 hrs and then moved on to something else. Often, the cache is never even found before it is archived because the co ordinates are wholly inaccurate.

You'll also be aware that the "qualifying period" idea has been rubbished endless times because of its inherent weakness, i.e. how do you define it? At one time people used to propose a certain number of caches. Ten perhaps, or maybe as many as a hundred. Sounds simple, but there are areas where 100 caches in a weekend is not particularly challenging. So your newbie now gets the idea that geocaching is all about picking up as many easy caches as you can, and that most caches are simple ones lobbed in hedges : a good training exercise?

 

Someone in the wilds of Canada, or on a Mediterranean island, might only dream of finding twenty caches in a year...and that's the way it'd stay as no-one nearby would ever qualify to place one.

 

And as we all know, some people only find half a dozen caches and then place a real stormer; others find thousands and yet can only come up with a lame cache in a feeble effort to "put something back into the game" - I wish they wouldn't feel obliged.

 

In my opinion the best way to teach how to set a good cache is for people to log the bad ones with discouraging remarks...as tends to happen anyway. I see a few from time to time. The logs start off with the FTF complaining that the coordinates were way off and it took a slice of luck to find the cache. Then the next people only find it because they know the first lot, and they mention that the container is already leaking. A couple more DNFs follow, then someone else posts a Needs Maintenance and correct coordinates. The next finder comments that the location isn't very interesting.

 

By the time I take a look when building my shortlist: no favourites, complaints about coordinates, location and container...cache ignored. No problem. Soon enough the cache dies a natural death and the CO either gives up, gets ignored, or seeks to learn how to make a successful cache.

[+thehoomer]

Yes, I am aware, this is one of the reasons I said, 'I know I am raking over old ground'. I also said that I was unmoved by any argument and whilst I totally respect and appreciate the views given so far, my opinion remains steadfast.

 

I have said before, I am fully appreciative that a beginner is not necessarily afflicted with reduced competence when producing a quality cache but in my experience, these instances are occasional at best.

I completely engage with you, in an exemplary world, found logs which propose that the cache has room for improvement would be a valuable way forward. However, for varying reasons, many cachers will not express their true feelings on a poor placement. The almost overriding trend of 'TFTC' (or variations thereof) leaves the CO or future seekers in a neutral environment on cache quality. The favourites system has also become unreliable and flawed due to (what I consider to be) a diversion from its original course and intended purpose.

Perhaps you have the advantage of more preparation time than I but 'building a shortlist' with its ever-growing associated filters, is becoming more and more of a chore for me.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Perhaps you have the advantage of more preparation time than I but 'building a shortlist' with its ever-growing associated filters, is becoming more and more of a chore for me.

I can hardly see how you can go caching without some sort of shortlist system. Although it does take a little effort and may require half an hour of preparation, there's not really any option unless you just walk around at random and hope to come across caches as you go. A bit of research will probably save you wasted time and effort so the net effect may be that the caching trip takes less time overall.

I have no idea what's wrong with the favourites system either. Although not perfect it seems to be a reasonable way of identifying a good or poor cache. If a cache has been found 100 times and has no favourites I'd at least check out the logs to see whether it's going to be worth going out of my way for.

 

And how would you propose that any "qualifying period" works, given the obvious problems?

 

You seem to have a problem that is only a problem to a small number of cachers, with a solution that is undefined.

[+redsox_mark]

How about a qualifying period based on time only? From time of account creation need to wait X months before submitting a hide.

 

It wouldn't solve all problems but at least would provide a "cooling off" period. I.e it could help with the case where someone hears about the game and very quickly submits a hide then also quickly loses interest. Which I think is the worst case. Not only is the cache "bad", it is not maintained either. Someone whose first hide is bad but they stay involved in the game should learn to improve over time, and they could later improve that first cache.

[+thehoomer]

Perhaps you have the advantage of more preparation time than I but 'building a shortlist' with its ever-growing associated filters, is becoming more and more of a chore for me.

I can hardly see how you can go caching without some sort of shortlist system. Although it does take a little effort and may require half an hour of preparation, there's not really any option unless you just walk around at random and hope to come across caches as you go. A bit of research will probably save you wasted time and effort so the net effect may be that the caching trip takes less time overall.

I have no idea what's wrong with the favourites system either. Although not perfect it seems to be a reasonable way of identifying a good or poor cache. If a cache has been found 100 times and has no favourites I'd at least check out the logs to see whether it's going to be worth going out of my way for.

 

And how would you propose that any "qualifying period" works, given the obvious problems?

 

You seem to have a problem that is only a problem to a small number of cachers, with a solution that is undefined.

Forgive me if I gave rise to the notion that I go caching without any preparation. That as you say, would be foolish indeed.

I simply meant that the ever increasing amount of work involved was having a pleasure-reducing impact on the overall experience but I am gratified for your advice and ideas on how to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

I am pleased you are reasonably content with the favourites system but for me, it is no longer a reliable tool (in most cases). I do look at it but only with a serious element of tentativeness on board. I agree though, thus far, it is perhaps better to have it than not.

 

I’m not certain I understand para 3 but if I have deciphered it accurately, please can you advise of your statistical source for the ‘small number of cachers’ who suffer from the same ‘problem’, or is this statement the result of some kind of personal study?

 

I know it seems like gay abandon but bizarrely, I feel no obligation whatsoever to proffer a water tight business case in favour of a qualifying period (or a set amount of finds). Equally, I fail to see how you know there would be ‘obvious problems’ without first testing the water. We neither of us are Soothsayers and without first trialing the idea, are therefore unqualified to determine its success or failure. We are however, both entitled to our opinions on the idea as a concept and I respect yours to that end.

[+Simply Paul]

How about a qualifying period based on time only? From time of account creation need to wait X months before submitting a hide.

 

It wouldn't solve all problems but at least would provide a "cooling off" period. I.e it could help with the case where someone hears about the game and very quickly submits a hide then also quickly loses interest. Which I think is the worst case. Not only is the cache "bad", it is not maintained either. Someone whose first hide is bad but they stay involved in the game should learn to improve over time, and they could later improve that first cache.

I'm not sure that would work either. When does the clock start ticking? Create an account, wait x months, hide a bad cache. Create an account, find a cache, wait x months, hide a bad cache. Create an account, log in regularly, DNF fifty caches, hide a bad cache... Or even create an account, find 1000 caches over x months, hide a bad cache - the issue is 'bad caches', not who they're set by or where, or after how long. Newbies can set great caches - and they do.

 

I can see an argument for a cooling-off period, but I believe better education would make more sense. When trying to set your first cache, why doesn't the GS.com site send you to 'cache-setting video school' automatically, so you get a 20-30 minute walk-through of all the stages - location selection, container selection, cache type selection, maintenance planning etc etc - before it'll let you proceed to the Set a Cache page. You could even throw in a quiz section at the end to ensure someone had sat through the presentation. If they can't be bothered to watch a 20-30min video, they probably won't make a great cache owner anyway... In the words of a man I wouldn't usually quote, "Education, education, education!"

 

Edited to make it clear who I was replying to

Edited September 26, 2013 by Simply Paul

[+simplysup]

I did recently come across something I hadn't seen before, which I thought was neat. When creating a new cache, if any of your current hides have a Needs Maint. flag on them, you are informed of this, and advised to sort them out before submitting your new cache. You're not forced to, you can skip that part and continue, but I still thought it was a neat idea.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I can see an argument for a cooling-off period, but I believe better education would make more sense.

I agree that this is the way forward (if it's necessary) but I don't think your compulsory video would quite work. Certainly less bad than the cooling-off period or number of caches proposals though.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I know it seems like gay abandon but bizarrely, I feel no obligation whatsoever to proffer a water tight business case in favour of a qualifying period (or a set amount of finds).

But you seem to be saying that you don't see a problem with such a scheme:

 

I’m aware I’m raking over old ground but I remain unmoved by any argument against a qualifying period of involvement (or a set amount of finds) before setting a cache.

 

...so surely you can offer a counter-argument against people who say that it's patently obvious that it won't work? I'm unmoved by any argument FOR a qualifying period of involvement (or a set amount of finds) on account of no answer being given when I point out the weaknesses.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

"I agree this is the way forward" pffff sorry matey. But erm you do realise none of us is in charge don't you. Meaningless discussion of ideas and endless analysis and unilateral consensus of opinion and it means diddly. Yet the tone of this thread has become "how we can move forward". Sounds a teeny bit tin pot to me.

[+Happy Humphrey]

"I agree this is the way forward" pffff sorry matey. But erm you do realise none of us is in charge don't you. Meaningless discussion of ideas and endless analysis and unilateral consensus of opinion and it means diddly. Yet the tone of this thread has become "how we can move forward". Sounds a teeny bit tin pot to me.

Not so meaningless! I agree that Groundspeak are unlikely to be looking at this thread and thinking "Oh - there's an idea, let's change things". But by discussing between ourselves we can thrash out new ideas and see whether they work. If you have what appears to be a great new idea and it's shot down in flames on here, then you modify it and no-one can offer any objection; then you can get in touch with the site admin in the knowledge that it's a well thought through proposal. Of course they might still ignore it...but perhaps they'll bear it in mind should it fit in with one of their (seemingly random) changes in the future.

 

"Favorites" was like that: it was discussed for years ad nauseam, and I got the impression that any "cache rating" system was always fatally flawed, except the one where you simply "like" a cache, with certain restrictions as to how many you can apply this to.

 

As for moving forward...how is that tin pot? Is moving backwards better? The OP wanted to highlight that some caches are rubbish and that he blames newbie cachers who should be prevented from placing. So we had a discussion as to how we think we should address this problem (and whether it really is a significant problem). If you deem that a waste of time, then don't waste your time with it.

[+redsox_mark]

I'm not sure that would work either. When does the clock start ticking? Create an account, wait x months, hide a bad cache. Create an account, find a cache, wait x months, hide a bad cache. Create an account, log in regularly, DNF fifty caches, hide a bad cache... Or even create an account, find 1000 caches over x months, hide a bad cache - the issue is 'bad caches', not who they're set by or where, or after how long. Newbies can set great caches - and they do.

 

 

In my experience, some of the worst caches are by new cachers who hide shorty after registering, and then leave the game within a few weeks. The clock would start ticking when they create their account. Let's say X is 1 month. Sure, they can wait the month (doing no caching or education) and hide a cache after the month. But at least a month has gone by and they are still interested.

 

What I'm saying is those that "get" the game will likely hide decent caches, and their caches will improve over time. I'm trying to target those who dive in and hide a cache the same day they learn about the site as it seems a cool idea; then a few weeks later they have gone off the idea and become inactive. That is what the OP seemed to be referring to.

 

It is just an idea. I was trying to think of what harm it would do. I guess you could have a prospective great cache hider who gets bored waiting a month so never hides a cache that he would have otherwise.

 

I don't think this is likely to happen anyway; it is something Groundspeak could have done if they wanted to. They have chosen to give a guideline based on number of caches found (and to keep it as a guideline).

 

"The more geocaches that you have found, the better you will understand the various elements that make up a great geocaching experience. This knowledge will be invaluable when you place a hide, and likely make your geocache more enjoyable for the community. We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

Edited September 27, 2013 by redsox_mark

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Discussion is great. In fact I happen to agree with the op and thought it was humorous but for a slightly different reason. Same problem but regarding TB's. No I can see the problem and agree it's getting nauseating. Education has to be given. It should not fall to us to email these people to get it sorted and we should not have to chase up holders of TB's. In our off the cuff comment of our experience it's mainly newbies that cause us naus. Although there is the case of our TB that's would up somehow in Austria from Brighton. Initially the next visitors to the cache it was in were high rolling premium members.

 

No agree with the post in general. What I find confusing is the discussion that followed and disagreements. Because the context changed from it would be a good idea - then became the way ahead. Way ahead is a phrase used when you have some authority over a situation. Thing is you only think you have. You have clarified that you were stating that your and group opinion may/might/perhaps lead to a change which was more realistic to your level of control and then went on to attempt to displace my stand point and defend your own more firmly. So I'm confused. You are either in charge or you're not. Make your mind up. Because your tone is one of someone wrapping things up to get all final points and summaries down on paper ready for submission to you. At which point we can agree a way forward. Which is clearly ludicrous because nothing you have to say will go any further than your little world on here lol.