Jump to content

Quality vs Crappy Caches


Guzzi Riders
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Does there need to be a system in place for removal of crappy caches?

 

After having done geocaching for some time and clocked up an average number of caches we are now aware of what makes a crappy cache and a quality cache. E.g. either a pill or mint container with a scrap of paper in a flax bush or pile of rocks marking no specific reason or place except that its just there, compared to a quality container or unusual container in a location of significance hidden in a challenging or easy to find place, well maintained and makes you happy to stop or visit it.

 

Here is one idea for a system of user review and thus raising the standard of caches.

 

Our idea is to have a voting box on every cache log accessible only to premium members who have logged a minimum of say 500 finds.

 

The check box could be simply like logging a favourite but its allocating a crappy cache point. When a cache receives say 5-10 crappy votes then the reviewer has to archive the cache.

 

This idea sprang to us because we are sick of stopping and fossicking for crappy caches. Very often crappy caches also attract litter and other human waste. They often feel unclean or unsafe and don't normally give you the feeling that you are glad you stopped here. Normally they give you the feeling of lets get out of here fast.

 

We feel there should be a system where we can vote a cache off the site.

 

What do you think?

 

Guzzi Riders

Link to comment

No, because the system could easily be abused. Get a clique of 5-10 friends together, vote against someone's caches simply because you have a vendetta against them (or just to wreak havoc), and see their caches archived. Way too easy to abuse.

 

If it's crappy such that the contents don't stay protected, then log a NM or NA and let normal channels take their course. If you simply don't like the cache but it's in fine shape, then ignore it.

Link to comment

I think the idea needs to be voted off the forum :laughing:. Seriously though, the subjective nature of what you think is crappy may differ from what I think is crappy. (Aren't all film canisters crappy?) It could lead to abuse, as TriciaG said. I would just log a NM or NA if it is that bad.

Link to comment

I think there should be a system to remove crappy flavors of ice cream from the store. There are a lot of flavors that I don't think should be there :mmraspberry:

 

While geocaching is not ice cream, it does attract different people with not only different tastes but different reasons for caching. Not surprisingly, many of the caches some people find to be not as well done, are extremely popular by those who find the process of finding the cache more important that the quality of the individual hide or container. Some many refer to these people as being obsessed with the number of finds. For them, more cheap throwaway containers in the same common hiding spots is a good thing because they have more caches to find.

 

Fortunately there are several ways to reduce the number of these cache that you personally search for. Be more selective in choosing where you go looking for caches.

 

Favorite points were implemented the way they were because some people do not see the point in voting off the caches they don't like. Other people may like them - or at least like that there are so many of them. Instead of being negative about someone's caches (which could be abused), why not limit the rating system to positive comments about caches. What the favorite points do is give you another way to avoid the caches you don't like. Those caches are not likely to get many favorite points. Limit your searches to caches to caches with at least a couple of favorite point and you will find that you don't have to be fossicking for crappy caches. (Thanks for the new word).

Link to comment

Don't look for Micros with less than 5 Favorites and one will avoid most "crappy caches" the OP describes.

 

Groundspeak's stance seems to be they will reward quality caches but not punish "crappy" caches.

 

Be vigilant about DNF and NM logs when you find a cache in poor condition. Throwdown micros will often degrade quickly.

Link to comment

Very often crappy caches also attract litter and other human waste. They often feel unclean or unsafe and don't normally give you the feeling that you are glad you stopped here. Normally they give you the feeling of lets get out of here fast.

If by crappy caches you mean crappy caches and not simply "either a pill or mint container with a scrap of paper in a flax bush or pile of rocks marking no specific reason or place except that its just there," then I would agree that there are sometimes caches that despite meeting the guideline for cache placement shouldn't be there.

 

Geocaches are often hidden away from the main traffic so as to not be found by muggles. These locations may also attract people who need to relieve themselves. Sometimes the hider just didn't notice the crap, other times they may simply be less concern about it than most people would be. Generally if you find a cache in a questionable location like this, just mentioning it in the log is often enough to get the cache owner to archive it. If the owner doesn't want to move or archive the cache, you could always try a Needs Archive log to bring this to the attention of the reviewer. What we don't need is a vote to tell if the cache location is "crappy".

Link to comment

When a cache receives say 5-10 crappy votes then the reviewer has to archive the cache.

Unless you're willing to pay fair value for renting out my spine, I'd want no part of this.

There could be a separate "archiver of crappy caches" reviewer. ;) His forum name would be "The Executioner," & he would have an Intro account - so no one could email him! :lol:

Link to comment

When a cache receives say 5-10 crappy votes then the reviewer has to archive the cache.

Unless you're willing to pay fair value for renting out my spine, I'd want no part of this.

There could be a separate "archiver of crappy caches" reviewer. ;) His forum name would be "The Executioner," & he would have an Intro account - so no one could email him! :lol:

HA! good one :) That had me smiling

Link to comment

This would be so abused by folks. I can see cliques and inner circle groups like ones in my former state pairing up to "vote" out fellow cachers they don't like regardless of cache quality.

 

If you want better caches, look for the higher favorite points or spend time reading the logs of caches BEFORE going for them.

 

Keep in mind....sometimes the cache itself is a POS, but the point is to take you to a neat spot, or take you on a little adventure, or make you aware of an area/spot.

Edited by TheWeatherWarrior
Link to comment

1) I never met a cache I didn't like. Some I like more than others.

2) All caches can be 'likable' if they're maintained.

3) Variety is the key to success to enjoying the hobby. 'Unlikable' caches make those 'likable' ones look even better.

4) There are no classes, tests, or skills required to hide a cache. It is not a competition and we don't have winners or losers.

5) Respect your fellow geocachers. Not everyone has the ability to live up to your own high standards

6) If you find yourself nitpicking at every cache, then you're obviously not enjoying the hobby. Time to find another hobby.

Link to comment

If you don't want to find crappy geocaches, stop geocaching. It's completely subjective as to what you find crappy and what everyone else finds crappy, and honestly I've never found a cache I didn't like because someone took the time to place it, and it gave me something to do. That's what it's about. If they aren't up to your standards, maybe you'll have a better time making and publishing caches instead.

Link to comment

If you don't want to find crappy geocaches, stop geocaching. It's completely subjective as to what you find crappy and what everyone else finds crappy, and honestly I've never found a cache I didn't like because someone took the time to place it, and it gave me something to do. That's what it's about. If they aren't up to your standards, maybe you'll have a better time making and publishing caches instead.

 

Really? The last two replies are basically "quit Geocaching"? C'mon now. The two posts do represent the mainstream though, most Geocachers are happy with anything listed on the website. But as someone who doesn't look for crappy caches himself, you just have to do your research ahead of time before even looking for caches. And I realize a crappy cache in New Zealand is different than a crappy cache in The U.S.A. By the way, I'll bet ours are crappier. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Ideas on how to get rid of crappy caches :

Stop finding them. A cache owner isn't going to put out caches that noone wants or tries to find but all these "crappy caches" get found dozens or hundreds of times. Stop looking for them and they will go away.

 

Ideas on how to get rid of crappy caches (summary):Use favorite points to separate the wheat from the chaff.Use NMs and NAs where appropriate.Read the last few logs to help you decide if the cache is worthwhile.Stop logging crappy caches.

Another idea on how to get rid of crappy caches: Write meaningful logs. In the online log, review the cache respectfully but honestly. Point out what you felt was unsatisfactory. Don't simply write tftc as code for 'this cache is crappy', most COs will interpret the first 't' as a meaningful 'thanks', which suggests one is grateful.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
.

 

Keep in mind....sometimes the cache itself is a POS, but the point is to take you to a neat spot, or take you on a little adventure, or make you aware of an area/spot.

 

A poor quality cache at a nice location actually spoils the moment for me. When I think back to my geocaching experience at that lookout/landmark/scenic spot I remember a leaky bison tube with a mushy log on a fence next to an outcrop of boulders where an ammo can could fit. Disappointing. And now no one local can plant an ammo can there because someone planted their unmaintained micro tube.

Link to comment

Ideas on how to get rid of crappy caches:

Stop finding them. A cache owner isn't going to put out caches that noone wants or tries to find but all these "crappy caches" get found dozens or hundreds of times. Stop looking for them and they will go away.

 

I didn't see this, as I was posting about the two consecutive "quit geocaching then" posts that I posted after. Don't find them doesn't work. I generally associate "crappy" caches with "easy" caches. You know, the lame parking lot micro. The record shows they're going to be found much more often than the average cache in the woods, by an endless parade of smiley seekers.

 

I can only remember a handful of times ever seeing a cache that was so crappy, people weren't even looking for it. There's one in my area right now, hidden by a middle schooler on a guardrail on a 45 MPH rural road with no shoulder, and nowhere to park for about a half mile. Now that's crappy. :ph34r:

Link to comment
.

 

Keep in mind....sometimes the cache itself is a POS, but the point is to take you to a neat spot, or take you on a little adventure, or make you aware of an area/spot.

 

A poor quality cache at a nice location actually spoils the moment for me. When I think back to my geocaching experience at that lookout/landmark/scenic spot I remember a leaky bison tube with a mushy log on a fence next to an outcrop of boulders where an ammo can could fit. Disappointing. And now no one local can plant an ammo can there because someone planted their unmaintained micro tube.

 

So, log the Found It, log Needs Maintenance, Log Needs Archived.

Someone can now prepare to place that Ammo Can.

Link to comment

Until we all think with a Borg like collective mind, our opinions of crap are always going to differ. For a large percentage of people, numbers are important so any cache that has a logbook that isn't a wad of pulp is good. If I had the ability to reward caches with a crap point, pretty much any cache in or near a parking lot, or along side a road would get a coveted crap point (of course after I signed it ... yeah, I'm that way.)

Link to comment
.

 

Keep in mind....sometimes the cache itself is a POS, but the point is to take you to a neat spot, or take you on a little adventure, or make you aware of an area/spot.

 

A poor quality cache at a nice location actually spoils the moment for me. When I think back to my geocaching experience at that lookout/landmark/scenic spot I remember a leaky bison tube with a mushy log on a fence next to an outcrop of boulders where an ammo can could fit. Disappointing. And now no one local can plant an ammo can there because someone planted their unmaintained micro tube.

 

So, log the Found It, log Needs Maintenance, Log Needs Archived.

Someone can now prepare to place that Ammo Can.

 

Good point.

 

I shall add that a maintained bison tube where an ammo can could fit would also be a disappointment at a nice location. The bison tube shall remain perhaps for years making the experience of a scenic spot a little disappointing. I might mention my disappointment with the geocaching part of the experience but would acknowledge the scenic view in my log.

Link to comment
.

 

Keep in mind....sometimes the cache itself is a POS, but the point is to take you to a neat spot, or take you on a little adventure, or make you aware of an area/spot.

 

A poor quality cache at a nice location actually spoils the moment for me. When I think back to my geocaching experience at that lookout/landmark/scenic spot I remember a leaky bison tube with a mushy log on a fence next to an outcrop of boulders where an ammo can could fit. Disappointing. And now no one local can plant an ammo can there because someone planted their unmaintained micro tube.

 

So, log the Found It, log Needs Maintenance, Log Needs Archived.

Someone can now prepare to place that Ammo Can.

 

Good point.

 

I shall add that a maintained bison tube where an ammo can could fit would also be a disappointment at a nice location. The bison tube shall remain perhaps for years making the experience of a scenic spot a little disappointing. I might mention my disappointment with the geocaching part of the experience but would acknowledge the scenic view in my log.

 

If you're going to be disappointed with anything but an ammo can there is a lot of disappointment out there. I , for one , would not want every container to be an ammo can. One of the things we enjoy most is variety and one of our favorite hides is actually a micro in the woods. Besides containers there are hide techniques.....with ammo cans your hiding options are very limited.

Link to comment

If I had the ability to reward caches with a crap point, pretty much any cache in or near a parking lot, or along side a road would get a coveted crap point (of course after I signed it ... yeah, I'm that way.)

 

That would be about 80%+ of all caches out there. Once you eliminate public property and right of way all the rest of the land is private property. P & G's aren't the problem.....we love them. Every container you can imagine ( yes ton's of ammo cans ) hidden in every way imaginable , we have found as a P & G. Walking a long way doesn't make a great cache, its just a long walk. We've taken long hikes and found cracked, wet Gladware .....then found some very nice challenging P & G's.

I think we can just about all agree that the perfect " geocaching experience " would be a long hike on a beautiful day through the forest where we would find an ammo can by a waterfall .....I'm on board with this I just don't think the rest are " crappy ".

Link to comment

crappy to me mostly means unmaintained.

 

Some people like any location that is not too far from parking. It's not crap to them.

 

I'm not anti-micro either. Near me a hider is using quality pill containers, hides in woods in some nice places. Some of them would be prone to disappearing during hunts if ammo cans. The Bisons® will remain undiscovered.

 

I recently found a wet slim bob (taped baggie) at the base of an oak in a preserve. I was annoyed - until i read the recently updated cache page. Owner removed ammo can pending prescribed burn. A slightly nicer temp container would have been pleasant, but I definitely understand removing ammo can pending burn and vegetation recovery. He used what he had. I got over being annoyed and logged my find - the key is the active owner, paying attention.

Link to comment

There is already a system in place for getting rid of "crappy" caches. It is called "N.A.". If the cache is truly "crappy" and the CO refuses to do maintenance, just log the NA, and move on. The system will handle the rest.

 

Now if by "crappy" you mean "did not live up to my expectations", you have a problem only YOU can solve.

 

PQ's can weed them out.

 

You can refuse to log them at all "if" and "when" you find them.

 

OR... and I like this one the best... YOU can put out as many "quality" caches as you possibly can, thereby blocking the proximity of your entire neighborhood from "crappy" caches!!

 

Don't be surprised though... if someone eventually comes along and thinks YOUR cache is "crappy".

 

 

Link to comment

Ideas on how to get rid of crappy caches:

Stop finding them. A cache owner isn't going to put out caches that noone wants or tries to find but all these "crappy caches" get found dozens or hundreds of times. Stop looking for them and they will go away.

 

I agree with most of that, but there are plenty of cachers who strive to find every last cache they can to make their find count increase. Finding hundreds of identical, unimaginative, film canisters placed .10 mile apart along a highway makes many players giddy with excitement because of the large number of smilies they can possess and tell their friends about.

 

Eliminate the find tallies in players profiles and there will be far less motivation for hiding and seeking 'crappy caches'.

Link to comment

A friend used to identify the crappy caches he found with a TFTCC notation. But these days I see no reason to find a container just because someone decided that a parking lot or a news stand lacked a cache. So I look at the location, title, description, and cache type (favorites has never seemed particularly helpful to me). If I think a cache is worth seeking out, I am probably not going to label it as "crappy."

Link to comment
Very often crappy caches also attract litter and other human waste.

"other human waste" Makes me wonder what area you cache in :unsure:

 

This comment caught my attention as well....do the crappy caches ATTRACT "litter and other human waste" or was the area prone to litter and human waste before you placed your cache there? I'm thinking the latter in most cases. If so it was a poor choice location. I'm a proponent of the philosophy that if the only reason you placed a cache there was that there wasn't already a cache there, you need to rethink your reasons for hiding caches.

 

Bring me somewhere interesting, beautiful, or unique. Bring me to something interesting in your area that I wouldn't have otherwise known about. Don't bring me to the dumpster behind Burger King. There are thousands of Burger Kings, what in the world would anyone consider interesting about that?

Link to comment

 

I agree with most of that, but there are plenty of cachers who strive to find every last cache they can to make their find count increase. Finding hundreds of identical, unimaginative, film canisters placed .10 mile apart along a highway makes many players giddy with excitement because of the large number of smilies they can possess and tell their friends about.

 

Eliminate the find tallies in players profiles and there will be far less motivation for hiding and seeking 'crappy caches'.

I'm not a true numbers chaser. Never been to a lower 48 power trail, and only grab a few at a time on the one we have here(the HELP series, it's on a beautiful trail I like camping near GC3W3X8), but I love having the find totals.

 

And I don't brag about my total................BTW, I have 2015 smileys :) sorry, couldn't help it :)

Link to comment

If you don't want to find crappy geocaches, stop geocaching. It's completely subjective as to what you find crappy and what everyone else finds crappy, and honestly I've never found a cache I didn't like because someone took the time to place it, and it gave me something to do. That's what it's about. If they aren't up to your standards, maybe you'll have a better time making and publishing caches instead.

 

Really? The last two replies are basically "quit Geocaching"? C'mon now. The two posts do represent the mainstream though, most Geocachers are happy with anything listed on the website. But as someone who doesn't look for crappy caches himself, you just have to do your research ahead of time before even looking for caches. And I realize a crappy cache in New Zealand is different than a crappy cache in The U.S.A. By the way, I'll bet ours are crappier. :ph34r:

 

Sure, quality/crappiness is subjective for many but i tend to think that this doesn't matter to those who say they like all caches. The fun for them is getting the smiley itself. They're happy just so long as they can log the find. Allthough a cool cache setup or a cool location might be a bonus, these are not the reasons they cache.

Link to comment
Very often crappy caches also attract litter and other human waste.

"other human waste" Makes me wonder what area you cache in :unsure:

This comment caught my attention as well....do the crappy caches ATTRACT "litter and other human waste" or was the area prone to litter and human waste before you placed your cache there? I'm thinking the latter in most cases. If so it was a poor choice location. I'm a proponent of the philosophy that if the only reason you placed a cache there was that there wasn't already a cache there, you need to rethink your reasons for hiding caches.

 

A small bison tube would probably pass through a persons digestive track just fine, but they would probably have to visit the parking lot at night to hide it.

Link to comment

I disagree. The quality of the cache at a nice location has no effect on my enjoyment of that. A nice view at the top of a long arduous climb is not diminished by the weather/sun deteriorated plastic container.

This is what I refer to as the great schism. There are people who feel that the purpose of geocaching it to take you to interesting places or at least take you on an interesting journey to get to the cache. Other people feel that the purpose of geocaching is to find caches.

 

There is no doubt not a schism, but a spectrum of opinions from one side to the other. We tend to see the extremes represented more often (especially in discussions on crappy caches) than you would otherwise expect.

 

People who take the extreme views have completely different ideas of what makes a "crappy" cache.

 

crappy to me mostly means unmaintained.

I like this definition. Of course one can find the forum discussion on when the NM log should be used and will see there is no consensus on when a cache needs maintenance. However, if you find a cache which you think needs maintenance, then instead of posting a "crappy" vote, post a Needs Maintenance. The owner can decide if this is something that really needs attention or not. If several people have posted needs maintenance and the owner has not responded, a Needs Archive log may be appropriate to bring this to the attention of a reviewer.

 

Regarding the OP's statement that crappy caches attract litter and other human waste, what I believe is happening is that there are some locations that may get used for caches that are also places that are used for other things.

 

We have problems with some caches in our local mountains that turn in to party spots and get trashed. Often someone finds a cave or a rock outcropping somewhat off the trail. Looks like a great place for a cache. Sometime later a cacher logs that the area is full of broken bottles and other trash. In this case it wasn't a crappy cache that attracted the litter, because it was probably an ammo can in a nice location. No one can tell if the kids would have discovered that party spot if the cache was not there, so I wouldn't blame the cache, but the possibility exists that the cache attracted the litter.

Link to comment

Does there need to be a system in place for removal of crappy caches?

No. There needs to be a better understanding of how to use the tools and website features to filter out the caches you wish to look for. And some of those features need some upgrading.

 

After having done geocaching for some time and clocked up an average number of caches we are now aware of what makes a crappy cache and a quality cache. E.g. either a pill or mint container with a scrap of paper in a flax bush or pile of rocks marking no specific reason or place except that its just there, compared to a quality container or unusual container in a location of significance hidden in a challenging or easy to find place, well maintained and makes you happy to stop or visit it.

 

Thank for sharing your opinions, many will agree with yours, some won't. You shouldn't subject those who don't agree to your ideals and definitions.

 

Here is one idea for a system of user review and thus raising the standard of caches.

 

Our idea is to have a voting box on every cache log accessible only to premium members who have logged a minimum of say 500 finds.

 

Except that there are plenty of PM's out there who can run a power trail and find 500+ in one day, many of which might meet your definition of crappy, and probably won't agree with you.

 

The check box could be simply like logging a favourite but its allocating a crappy cache point. When a cache receives say 5-10 crappy votes then the reviewer has to archive the cache.

You don't like the reviewers very much do you?

 

This idea sprang to us because we are sick of stopping and fossicking for crappy caches. Very often crappy caches also attract litter and other human waste. They often feel unclean or unsafe and don't normally give you the feeling that you are glad you stopped here. Normally they give you the feeling of lets get out of here fast.

 

Then you should learn to be more selective and don't stop for those caches that don't give you the feelings you are looking for. I too agree that the ratio of mundane to better than average has decreased some over the years, but sometimes a quick snack of a mundane cache is better than not getting any cache at all.

Link to comment

I search the "nearest to..." or "newest in...", reading the cache pages and logs if not new for info, rather than just hit anything.

I can't tell you when's the last time I've found a crappy cache.

- My other 2/3rds, still hitting C&Ds or looking at what's near on her phone, finds 'em a lot. That's her own fault.

Link to comment
There needs to be a better understanding of how to use the tools and website features to filter out the caches you wish to look for. And some of those features need some upgrading.

...

Then you should learn to be more selective and don't stop for those caches that don't give you the feelings you are looking for.

ditto_smile.gif

Link to comment
.

 

Keep in mind....sometimes the cache itself is a POS, but the point is to take you to a neat spot, or take you on a little adventure, or make you aware of an area/spot.

 

A poor quality cache at a nice location actually spoils the moment for me. When I think back to my geocaching experience at that lookout/landmark/scenic spot I remember a leaky bison tube with a mushy log on a fence next to an outcrop of boulders where an ammo can could fit. Disappointing. And now no one local can plant an ammo can there because someone planted their unmaintained micro tube.

 

So, log the Found It, log Needs Maintenance, Log Needs Archived.

Someone can now prepare to place that Ammo Can.

 

Good point.

 

I shall add that a maintained bison tube where an ammo can could fit would also be a disappointment at a nice location. The bison tube shall remain perhaps for years making the experience of a scenic spot a little disappointing. I might mention my disappointment with the geocaching part of the experience but would acknowledge the scenic view in my log.

 

If you're going to be disappointed with anything but an ammo can there is a lot of disappointment out there. I , for one , would not want every container to be an ammo can. One of the things we enjoy most is variety and one of our favorite hides is actually a micro in the woods. Besides containers there are hide techniques.....with ammo cans your hiding options are very limited.

I completely agree with variety. But variety in swag size water tight containers. It doesn't impress me when COs decide to cheapen the experience, with a bison tube hanging on a fence. Especially if there are spots where a larger quality cache (ammo can, authentic lock n lock, nalgene jar) will fit.

This is still in the Help Center:

Generally, you want to use a container that:

is suitable for your particular environment

    • Can this forest support a nice, large geocache with room for many trade items?

 

Link to comment

Sure, quality/crappiness is subjective for many but i tend to think that this doesn't matter to those who say they like all caches. The fun for them is getting the smiley itself. They're happy just so long as they can log the find. Allthough a cool cache setup or a cool location might be a bonus, these are not the reasons they cache.

This about sums it up. Or, to put it the other way around, many of us don't let a crappy cache negate the fun we're having.

Link to comment

Does there need to be a system in place for removal of crappy caches?

 

After having done geocaching for some time and clocked up an average number of caches we are now aware of what makes a crappy cache and a quality cache. E.g. either a pill or mint container with a scrap of paper in a flax bush or pile of rocks marking no specific reason or place except that its just there, compared to a quality container or unusual container in a location of significance hidden in a challenging or easy to find place, well maintained and makes you happy to stop or visit it.

 

Here is one idea for a system of user review and thus raising the standard of caches.

 

Our idea is to have a voting box on every cache log accessible only to premium members who have logged a minimum of say 500 finds.

 

The check box could be simply like logging a favourite but its allocating a crappy cache point. When a cache receives say 5-10 crappy votes then the reviewer has to archive the cache.

 

This idea sprang to us because we are sick of stopping and fossicking for crappy caches. Very often crappy caches also attract litter and other human waste. They often feel unclean or unsafe and don't normally give you the feeling that you are glad you stopped here. Normally they give you the feeling of lets get out of here fast.

 

We feel there should be a system where we can vote a cache off the site.

 

What do you think?

 

Guzzi Riders

 

Too open to abuse. A large number of "archive it" votes would be impossible to obtain because so many people are reluctant to even post NM or NA logs, and a small number would be easy to achieve simply by getting a few friends who dislike a certain style of hide to vote it down. If you're going to go down that route you might as well take to making an executive decision and throwing someone's cache in the river before logging NM because it doesn't seem to be there any more.

Link to comment

Not needed--just avoid caches in parking lots, search for ones you will like with pocket queries, and do more ECs, virtuals, multis, and puzzles. Concentrate on the good stuff, concentrate on what you like, and ignore the rest.

 

He's from New Zealand. I'm sure he's not talking about film canisters in the Wal-Mart parking lot. Isn't he lucky? :lol:

 

More likely he's talking about poorly maintained Altoids tins tossed on the side of the road in a bush 20 feet from parking.

 

I might add, the original idea expressed in the OP would never work, not that "they" would ever implement it. I could definitely see "cliques" getting together and getting all kinds of caches archived.

Link to comment

I disagree. The quality of the cache at a nice location has no effect on my enjoyment of that. A nice view at the top of a long arduous climb is not diminished by the weather/sun deteriorated plastic container.

This is what I refer to as the great schism. There are people who feel that the purpose of geocaching it to take you to interesting places or at least take you on an interesting journey to get to the cache. Other people feel that the purpose of geocaching is to find caches.

 

There is no doubt not a schism, but a spectrum of opinions from one side to the other. We tend to see the extremes represented more often (especially in discussions on crappy caches) than you would otherwise expect.

 

People who take the extreme views have completely different ideas of what makes a "crappy" cache.

 

 

I agree that when arguing about quality we tend to pull the geocaching experience apart and create a schism.

 

Ultimately, for me it's about the full geocaching experience. It's nice when a CO strives for a good caching experience for the majority of cachers, from beginning to end of the process. A nice cache page, a nice walk/ride, a pleasant location, good coordinates, an enjoyable hunt, a water tight container large enough to hold a couple of small travelbugs, a maintained cache listing and physical cache. If it must be a micro there's a good reason for it, either creativity that couldn't be achieved with a larger cache, in a location that couldn't support a larger cache, not because it's easier and cheaper to hide.

 

 

Link to comment

Just remember, every 'crappy' cache you have come across was considered a 'great idea' by the cache owner! Too subjective to rate. If you do come across an inappropriately placed cache, or one that is in really bad shape without response from the owner, report it to your local reviewer for consideration for removal.

 

Since you have discovered what types of caches you like doing, limit your caching to only those types. Maybe ones with high difficulty or terrain, maybe ones in rural locations (use the map feature for this), or those with high favorites numbers. I know cachers who only do puzzles, others who only do multi's, others who only do difficulty ratings over 3, and some that only do quick cache and dash because they like to find 20 caches every time they are out caching. All these people are passionate about caching, just have different likes/dislikes.

 

You could also host an event, and have pre-planning sessions with interested, fellow cachers, and place caches in unique locations. This may spark events by other cachers in your area to do the same, so you have new interesting caches to find, yourself!

Edited by MIGolfer
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...