Minimum finds before hiding

[+Team Perrito Blanco]

It seems obvious but why doesn't Groundspeak require a minimum number of finds (50?) before allowing a player to make a hide? It sucks to spend the time looking for a cache only to find that the hider has zero finds and this is their first hide.

[+T.D.M.22]

It seems obvious but why doesn't Groundspeak require a minimum number of finds (50?) before allowing a player to make a hide? It sucks to spend the time looking for a cache only to find that the hider has zero finds and this is their first hide.

 

I can go do 550 power trail caches in my city. If I find those will that mak me hide better caches?

[+Markwell]

This has been suggested many, many times. The answer has always been crickets chirping.

[+kunarion]

It seems obvious but why doesn't Groundspeak require a minimum number of finds (50?) before allowing a player to make a hide? It sucks to spend the time looking for a cache only to find that the hider has zero finds and this is their first hide.

 

I can go do 550 power trail caches in my city. If I find those will that mak me hide better caches?

Minimum select caches. A variety of quality caches specially chosen by local cachers to spotlight attributes of good hides.

 

But if someone has a personal requirement to hunt caches only after a hider has 50 finds, they should look at the number next to the cacher name in most lists. It shows the find count. To save time, it might be a good addition to Pocket Query filters, as an adjustable number, since the true number for perfection is 57 finds.

Edited October 5, 2013 by kunarion

[+wmpastor]

It seems obvious but why doesn't Groundspeak require a minimum number of finds (50?) before allowing a player to make a hide? It sucks to spend the time looking for a cache only to find that the hider has zero finds and this is their first hide.

Research the caches before you go. Do they have favorites? Are the comments good?

 

Some hiders do well from the start. My four hides all have favorites points, & I placed them well before reaching 50 finds. (I only have 64 finds now.) A suggestion rather than a rule is better.

 

Make it a rule & a n00b determined to place a cache will create 50 fake finds.

Edited October 5, 2013 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

This has been suggested many, many times. The answer has always been crickets chirping.

And for good reason. See post #5.

[+Walts Hunting]

And the number one reason is that Groundspeak is a business. No business wants to make it harder for people to use its services. We need to stop thinking of Groundspeak as the guardian of the gate. They do a good job with guidelines but are not going to,do,anything that adversely affects their business plan.

[+kunarion]

are not going to,do,anything that adversely affects their business plan.

That's an excellent idea! When will it start?

[+tozainamboku]

It seems obvious but why doesn't Groundspeak require a minimum number of finds (50?) before allowing a player to make a hide?

It seems obvious why. If you live in a country with very few caches who would hide them? Geocaching started because people who had never found a cache hide some.

 

What number would you pick? Would this be different for cachers in the US and Germany than for cachers in Mongolia or Paraguay?

 

Even in an area with lots of opportunity to find caches, some people prefer to be hiders. Requiring them to find caches would just turn them off. There is some evidence that "hide or find" some people will get bored and stop geocaching after a few times. The suggestion for a minimum number of finds is often meant to reduce the number of caches that get hidden by people who quit the sport a few days later. If this the case, a better suggestion would be that you have to wait a few months after signing up before placing a cache.

 

It sucks to spend the time looking for a cache only to find that the hider has zero finds and this is their first hide.

It's convenient to blame the cache you didn't find on the hider being a newbie who didn't know how to get good coordinates with their iPhone. But I have found caches that were the first hide by someone with no logged finds that were creative and well done, as well as a few that had some logs by frustrated FTFers who didn't look beyond the usual places. I won't argue that if you are interested in quick easy finds, someone whose been exposed the usual hiding styles is more likely to have hidden the cache where you expect to find it. My suggestion is not to run out to get FTF on some newbie's first cache.

[+Chief301]

Not to mention the folks who for whatever reason prefer not to log their finds online.....I don't think this represents a large portion of the caching community but they're out there. So they may have dozens or even hundreds of finds already, just no evidence of it online.

 

I have a few times given a Fave point to someone's first hide, and in a couple of notable cases these folks had very few hides at the time....single digits. I have also found some terrible caches from very experienced cachers with hundreds and thousands of finds, who seem to be more concerned with having a whole bunch of hides that they don't bother to maintain than with quality. I guess if you have a whole bunch of hides out there that you didn't put a lot of thought into, you really don't care about their condition much. How is that better?

[+6NoisyHikers]

HELLO? (jumps up and down waving arms) Been talking about this forever! I still maintain that the best plan puts a probation on an account: 30 days before you can place a cache. This would cut down on all those one-weekend wonders. If they even remember they have an account after 30 days, then let them give cache ownership a shot.

[jholly]

My socks simply don't like this idea. Why should my zero find socks not be allowed to hide caches simply because they don't have any finds?

[+Mineral2]

There are some people who set up more than one account, and may log finds under one account and place hides with another.

[+DonB]

It seems obvious but why doesn't Groundspeak require a minimum number of finds (50?) before allowing a player to make a hide? It sucks to spend the time looking for a cache only to find that the hider has zero finds and this is their first hide.

If they do a good job on the hide what's the difference how many caches they have found? If you're referring to their coordinates I've done caches put out by seasoned cachers that the coordinates were at least 40 feet off, one I remember was 90 feet off.

[+L0ne.R]

HELLO? (jumps up and down waving arms) Been talking about this forever! I still maintain that the best plan puts a probation on an account: 30 days before you can place a cache. This would cut down on all those one-weekend wonders. If they even remember they have an account after 30 days, then let them give cache ownership a shot.

 

People gets so fixated on arguing about the number of finds. Whenever anyone brings up the alternative - a probation period, it's met with relative silence. Maybe because there's nothing to argue about. Maybe this is a good idea and won't mean a loss of revenue for Groundspeak. Anyone who wouldn't invest 30 days to get to know the game and the website before hiding a cache, probably won't invest 30 dollars to buy a membership.

[+Bear and Ragged]

HELLO? (jumps up and down waving arms) Been talking about this forever! I still maintain that the best plan puts a probation on an account: 30 days before you can place a cache. This would cut down on all those one-weekend wonders. If they even remember they have an account after 30 days, then let them give cache ownership a shot.

 

People gets so fixated on arguing about the number of finds. Whenever anyone brings up the alternative - a probation period, it's met with relative silence. Maybe because there's nothing to argue about. Maybe this is a good idea and won't mean a loss of revenue for Groundspeak. Anyone who wouldn't invest 30 days to get to know the game and the website before hiding a cache, probably won't invest 30 dollars to buy a membership.

 

I'd go with a time limit. 30 days may be a little long.

How about 15 days before you can hide a cache?

[+cerberus1]

HELLO? (jumps up and down waving arms) Been talking about this forever! I still maintain that the best plan puts a probation on an account: 30 days before you can place a cache. This would cut down on all those one-weekend wonders. If they even remember they have an account after 30 days, then let them give cache ownership a shot.

 

People gets so fixated on arguing about the number of finds. Whenever anyone brings up the alternative - a probation period, it's met with relative silence. Maybe because there's nothing to argue about. Maybe this is a good idea and won't mean a loss of revenue for Groundspeak. Anyone who wouldn't invest 30 days to get to know the game and the website before hiding a cache, probably won't invest 30 dollars to buy a membership.

Agreed.

Most jobs I ever worked for had a probation period before you were eligible for most of the bennys. Others the same. Might work.

- "Questions from a probie" may take a while to get used to...

[+6NoisyHikers]

I'd go with a time limit. 30 days may be a little long.

How about 15 days before you can hide a cache?

 

I read somewhere that it takes three weeks to form or break a habit. I think 15 days is a little short, but I'd take it over nothing at all. If someone really wants to hide a cache, it will take them that long to pick a good spot, create a container, get permission and submit the listing. A probationary period will also give them time to - hopefully - experience a variety of hide styles and let their mind imagine bigger and better things.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'd go with a time limit. 30 days may be a little long.

How about 15 days before you can hide a cache?

 

I read somewhere that it takes three weeks to form or break a habit. I think 15 days is a little short, but I'd take it over nothing at all. If someone really wants to hide a cache, it will take them that long to pick a good spot, create a container, get permission and submit the listing. A probationary period will also give them time to - hopefully - experience a variety of hide styles and let their mind imagine bigger and better things.

 

I like the idea of a time limit rather than a minimum number of finds. Getting a minimum number of finds is just a lot easier for a new geocacher that lives in a cache dense area with a few power trails nearby than it is for a new geocacher that lives in an area with few other caches. As a result, the area which might not need a lot of new cache placements will get more cache hiders, while the area which could actually use a a lot more new cache placements won't get many because it will be difficult to become a cache hider. A time limit doesn't create a "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer" scenario.

 

 

[+redants]

This has been suggested many, many times. The answer has always been crickets chirping.

Maybe that means that something should be done about it? It's called connecting the dots.

[+redants]

HELLO? (jumps up and down waving arms) Been talking about this forever! I still maintain that the best plan puts a probation on an account: 30 days before you can place a cache. This would cut down on all those one-weekend wonders. If they even remember they have an account after 30 days, then let them give cache ownership a shot.

I agree. My neighbours started caching, and they left it for a month before placing a cache. Instead of a boring micro, they placed a cleverly hidden cache- albeit micro- but still in a very clever container. Wait a period of 3 weeks or 30 finds, whatever comes first. Then the cachers cache will be interesting.

[+Markwell]

Finding 30/50/100 caches in parking lots of Big Box stores by using an iPhone 3s does not guarantee that hiders will automatically place an interesting cache.

Finding 1 cache in a parking lot of a Big Box store by using an iPhone 3s and then waiting 30 days does not guarantee that hiders will automatically place an interesting cache.

 

Time for a root cause analysis. Before we start throwing solutions to a problem that may or may not work, and will definitely alienate new players, why not found out WHY people place caches that are uninteresting.

 

Of course, the first problem would be defining "uninteresting". I used the "cache in a parking lot of a Big Box store" as an example, but some people LOVE those. I'll be glad to check back in on this thread after everyone voices their opinions and comes to complete agreement on what newly placed caches are the best (not unmaintained caches, which always suck - but the ones that when they are first placed are better than the other ones when THEY are first placed).

 

Ready - go...

[+6NoisyHikers]

Finding 30/50/100 caches in parking lots of Big Box stores by using an iPhone 3s does not guarantee that hiders will automatically place an interesting cache.

Finding 1 cache in a parking lot of a Big Box store by using an iPhone 3s and then waiting 30 days does not guarantee that hiders will automatically place an interesting cache.

 

 

I'm not so much conceerned about a global definition of "interesting" as requiring a basic level of commitment from a user that will hopefully curb the bulk of hasty - and then abandoned - hides.

 

I would love to know what the user involvement stats are on cache placements denied and caches disabled and archived. Would any reviewers be willing to look back over the last two weeks and tell us how many disables or archives they had to enact on the caches of users who were fly-by-nighters (active less than 30 days)? How many cache placement submission have been denied due to "newbie" errors? (And how many newbies actually respond and fix the problem - or do they just disappear, leaving their container to rot unfound?)

[+Tassie_Boy]

I don't think a minimum number of finds will do anything, for all the reasons that have been mentioned. Along with a time limit before hiding (a month is reasonable, it's only 4 weekends) why not a small 10 question quiz on the guidelines that you must pass before being given the option to hide a cache. That way you know the guidelines have been read, that some thought has gone into it and 10 questions should only take 10 min to compete, not long for a pass-time that could last a lifetime.

[+Walts Hunting]

I don't think a minimum number of finds will do anything, for all the reasons that have been mentioned. Along with a time limit before hiding (a month is reasonable, it's only 4 weekends) why not a small 10 question quiz on the guidelines that you must pass before being given the option to hide a cache. That way you know the guidelines have been read, that some thought has gone into it and 10 questions should only take 10 min to compete, not long for a pass-time that could last a lifetime.

You are making an assumption on facts not in evidence (as they say in court). You are assuming that people who hike caches that violate the guidelines don't know them. I am not sure about that. I think most of them know the guidelines but choose to circumvent them.

[+Don_J]

I don't think a minimum number of finds will do anything, for all the reasons that have been mentioned. Along with a time limit before hiding (a month is reasonable, it's only 4 weekends) why not a small 10 question quiz on the guidelines that you must pass before being given the option to hide a cache. That way you know the guidelines have been read, that some thought has gone into it and 10 questions should only take 10 min to compete, not long for a pass-time that could last a lifetime.

 

Groundspeak gave the quiz idea some very serious thought a few years back. I have to take instructional quizzes as part of my career path at work. These types of quizzes are not as much about passing as they are about reinforcing what you should already know. Something like:

 

True/False - Caches are never hidden on private property without the property owner's permission?

True/False - Placing a cache should be considered a long term commitment. Caches are expected to be in place for a minimum of 3 months?

True/False - You are responsible for timely maintenance of your cache when a problem is reported?

True/False - You are required to use a GPS device to obtain accurate coordinates before submitting your new cache?

Edited October 18, 2013 by Don_J

[+Harry Dolphin]

Finding 30/50/100 caches in parking lots of Big Box stores by using an iPhone 3s does not guarantee that hiders will automatically place an interesting cache.

Finding 1 cache in a parking lot of a Big Box store by using an iPhone 3s and then waiting 30 days does not guarantee that hiders will automatically place an interesting cache.

 

 

I'm not so much conceerned about a global definition of "interesting" as requiring a basic level of commitment from a user that will hopefully curb the bulk of hasty - and then abandoned - hides.

 

I would love to know what the user involvement stats are on cache placements denied and caches disabled and archived. Would any reviewers be willing to look back over the last two weeks and tell us how many disables or archives they had to enact on the caches of users who were fly-by-nighters (active less than 30 days)? How many cache placement submission have been denied due to "newbie" errors? (And how many newbies actually respond and fix the problem - or do they just disappear, leaving their container to rot unfound?)

 

Shall contemplate this tomorrow. Going on an 'easy cache run'. One of the cachers there has been a member for six months, found 35 caches, and hidden 78. 25 of the hides have been archived, instead of doing maintenance. Seem to be a lot of camoed pill bottles just off the road. I will probably get a favorite point. Very doubtful that I will award one. This CO has exceeded the three month period.

[+suchanana]

ahhh, remembering with fondness the excitement of my first cache placement...

 

oh to be be sure there were newbie mistakes that ensued, however, the patience and help from the NWOGEO community

cannot be forgotten, nor is the sharing attitude of geocaching FUN ... the manner approaching newbies with cache

flaws is uppermost in alleviating further snafus - it takes a village, to be sure...

[+wmpastor]

I don't think a minimum number of finds will do anything, for all the reasons that have been mentioned. Along with a time limit before hiding (a month is reasonable, it's only 4 weekends) why not a small 10 question quiz on the guidelines that you must pass before being given the option to hide a cache. That way you know the guidelines have been read, that some thought has gone into it and 10 questions should only take 10 min to compete, not long for a pass-time that could last a lifetime.

 

Groundspeak gave the quiz idea some very serious thought a few years back. I have to take instructional quizzes as part of my career path at work. These types of quizzes are not as much about passing as they are about reinforcing what you should already know. Something like:

 

True/False - Caches are never hidden on private property without the property owner's permission?

True/False - Placing a cache should be considered a long term commitment. Caches are expected to be in place for a minimum of 3 months?

True/False - You are responsible for timely maintenance of your cache when a problem is reported?

True/False - You are required to use a GPS device to obtain accurate coordinates before submitting your new cache?

Good quiz. Are you going to tell us the answers?

 

Edited October 20, 2013 by wmpastor

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think that the "quiz" idea has some merit. If it's not too long-winded, and focusses on the basics, then it might make a few think a bit more about their cache hide and description. Obviously you'd only have to complete this once.

 

There's no way a "minimum finds" system could be made to work effectively. The 30 days suggestion would merely cause annoyance.

 

I wonder if some sort of merit award could be made to cache hiders with a certain proportion of favourites (over 50% of logs award a favourite, for instance)? Although I'm not suggesting it would weed out bad caches it might make some people think about putting more effort in, and serve to inspire people in the right way.

 

Or perhaps you could simply ban someone from hiding a cache if they've demonstrated that they can't start any sentence with a capital letter and can't spell the word "cache"! If they haven't made the effort to get that right then surely the hide itself is also going to be rubbish...