Jump to content

Less than ten finds... creating geocaches?


irid3sc3nt

Recommended Posts

I don't think the waiting period needs to be very long. It needs to be more than a week, to filter out the people who find a cache on Saturday, hide one on Sunday, and never play again after that. But the goal isn't to filter out all be the most dedicated geocachers, and the goal isn't to discourage people who are seriously interested in owning and maintaining a cache early in their geocaching career.

Is the case we're trying to stop by creating a fixed limit really so common that we should risk discouraging any newbies that will do a good job?

 

If we really think something should be done about it, I'd describe the problem differently: the problem isn't that new people plant caches; the problem is that people, regardless of how long they've been caching or how many caches they've found, plant cache even though they haven't really considered what will be required of them long term. If we want to reduce that problem, maybe the solution is that first time COs are required to complete a questionnaire that forces them to consider the commitment they're making to maintaining the cache for the duration. "How often do you plan to check on the cache to make sure it's still in good condition?" "If someone reports a problem with the cache, how long will it take you to visit the cache to correct the problem?" No right answers (as long as the answer doesn't reveal they have no intention of maintaining the cache at all), but in order to answer (even if they lie!), they have to think about those kinds of issues.

Link to comment
If we want to reduce that problem, maybe the solution is that first time COs are required to complete a questionnaire that forces them to consider the commitment they're making to maintaining the cache for the duration. "How often do you plan to check on the cache to make sure it's still in good condition?" "If someone reports a problem with the cache, how long will it take you to visit the cache to correct the problem?" No right answers (as long as the answer doesn't reveal they have no intention of maintaining the cache at all), but in order to answer (even if they lie!), they have to think about those kinds of issues.
The idea of a quiz has been suggested before as well (for example, in this thread). I think there's a lot of merit to that, and for questions that have right and wrong answers (e.g., basic guideline questions), I think it's perfectly fine to require them to get the answers right. Edited by niraD
Link to comment
If we want to reduce that problem, maybe the solution is that first time COs are required to complete a questionnaire that forces them to consider the commitment they're making to maintaining the cache for the duration. "How often do you plan to check on the cache to make sure it's still in good condition?" "If someone reports a problem with the cache, how long will it take you to visit the cache to correct the problem?" No right answers (as long as the answer doesn't reveal they have no intention of maintaining the cache at all), but in order to answer (even if they lie!), they have to think about those kinds of issues.
The idea of a quiz has been suggested before as well (for example, in this thread). I think there's a lot of merit to that, and for questions that have right and wrong answers (e.g., basic guideline questions), I think it's perfectly fine to require them to get the answers right.

I was thinking of questions that lead to thinking, not a test that has to be passed.

Link to comment
If we want to reduce that problem, maybe the solution is that first time COs are required to complete a questionnaire that forces them to consider the commitment they're making to maintaining the cache for the duration. "How often do you plan to check on the cache to make sure it's still in good condition?" "If someone reports a problem with the cache, how long will it take you to visit the cache to correct the problem?" No right answers (as long as the answer doesn't reveal they have no intention of maintaining the cache at all), but in order to answer (even if they lie!), they have to think about those kinds of issues.
The idea of a quiz has been suggested before as well (for example, in this thread). I think there's a lot of merit to that, and for questions that have right and wrong answers (e.g., basic guideline questions), I think it's perfectly fine to require them to get the answers right.

I was thinking of questions that lead to thinking, not a test that has to be passed.

 

I was thinking of a test that had to be passed but that one could take over and over until they did. As I see it, the point is to ensure that every one knows what the right answers are.

Link to comment

In my area I was surprised to find a new geocache published by a user who had specifically stated in their geocache description that they had became a member a half hour ago. They had about seven finds.

Their cache gets published. People went to find it. It wasn't there because they hadn't set it out yet. Then after they set it out, it was muggled. Oh, but they found it and put it back.

About a week later, they get another cache published. It has no details/description and no hint. Nothing. Two people went to find it again (and these people have over 1000+ caches between them). Can't find it. In fact, the area is mostly water and muck and the d/t is 1.5 for both.

 

I feel angry that these caches have even been published. Why would a reviewer publish these? It seems like it would be a good idea to have a certain amount of finds + time being a member before hiding caches.

 

Actually, some very beautiful caches have been hidden by cachers with very few finds and only a short time into geocaching.

 

I've hidden my first cache (which still exists and soon will turn 12) when I had less than 20 finds (there were very few caches available).

One of the best caches in my province

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC13FAD_raubritterschatz-robber-knight-treasure

has been hidden by someone who had less than 10 finds (I think 5) at the time when he hid the cache.

Some of the caches in my area have been hidden by someone with no finds as it was the first cache in the area.

 

Back then it almost never happened that someone sent a cache for review without having hidden a container. Now this happens very often. This is however a question of people ignoring the guidelines and not informing themselves before they hide a cache and not a question of how long someone is into geocaching and how many caches someone has found.

Link to comment

Whilst both new and experienced cachers can create good (or bad) hides, and maintain them (or not), to me there is one thing specific to new cachers. That is that a lot of people try the game, and only some of those become "regular" geocachers.

 

Forget hiding for a moment... I say this based on seeing data about the large number of accounts which have just a few finds, made shortly after they start. Then nothing. For years. People try the game, and find it isn't their thing. And that's fine.

 

Now, most of the time people are sensible enough that they don't jump into hiding the day after they join and make their first find. They wait until they feel they are sure the game is for them, and they can take on the responsibility of cache ownership.

 

But a few discover the game, think this is cool, and immediately hide a cache. In these cases I believe the percentage who drop out of the game is higher than for more established caches. And something like a 1 month "cooling off"period before hiding could help.

 

I understand the theory of a "test", but I think the guidelines already make the responsibilities of ownership clear. Someone who wants to hide a cache as soon as they have found their first is unlikely to be deterred by having to answer some questions. If a month later they still like the game, they will still hide their cache. If waiting a month means they lose interest in geocaching, then it is probably best they didn't hide a cache in the first place.

 

Having said all that, I don't know if the volume of such cases makes it worth worrying about. I've seen a few around my area, but not many.

 

There is also the case where a group of experienced players take out a new "team account" for some series made by committee; and they don't want to wait...

Link to comment

W

 

I understand the theory of a "test", but I think the guidelines already make the responsibilities of ownership clear. Someone who wants to hide a cache as soon as they have found their first is unlikely to be deterred by having to answer some questions. If a month later they still like the game, they will still hide their cache. If waiting a month means they lose interest in geocaching, then it is probably best they didn't hide a cache in the first place.

 

Actually most of the hides in my area where a cache got published without a container being placed are due to cachers who were in the game for at least a month.

The guidelines are clear about cache ownership but need to be read. A test would make it apparent if someone has not dealt with the guidelines at all. Clicking two check boxes is too easy ...........

Link to comment

The very first geocache ever was hidden by a geocacher with zero founds.

He dug a hole in the ground and he had food inside. See what happens when someone with zero finds hide a geocache? :ph34r:

As the game grows things change. But Newbies should go find more before making a hide.

Example: Newbie 0 finds made 1 hide, 20 feet from side of road in the woods. Turned out to be a trespass situation.

The search was visible from property owners home. Point being all hiders need to verify legality of the hide.

Those who search should also verify the legality of the hide. I did and made this discovery. The CO did not have permission.

All who searched faced possible arrest. Why did this happen? The CO had absolutely no idea as to what to do to make a hide.

Finding some and learning what to do would be a big help. How many should that be? I can't answer that I guess that

would be up to the individual. Some are more responsible that others. Myself I waited till after 1000 and still fubar the coords by 400 feet (a typo error).

Link to comment

We had out 8 hides within our first month and we didn't even cache for a week after our first finds. All are still active and so are we. One has 170 favorite points. We would have been very disappointed in the game if we couldn't have hidden those to make our experience more enjoyable. To punish excited new cachers because some come into the game and leave I don't think is the right way to do it. Who is to say someone wouldn't find one and then not cache for a week or 2 then find another and then a couple of weeks later decide to hide one and then not cache again. We knew right away this was a game we would enjoy and that we would take care of all of our caches. So why would it be right to not let us do it. Those caches have been active for over 4 years. That is a lot longer then most caches I see survive by CO who have been caching for many years before they hid the one they just archived.

Link to comment

Pehaps along with a test, new geocachers should also be fingerprinted and have a background check run on them. If they pass the background check, they can apply for a license which has to be renewed every 3 years. If there was a fee associated with this license, say around $100.00 this would weed out future poorly placed caches. For the test, I was thinking a 500 word essay where the applicant would have to interview at least 10 other geocachers with 1000 finds or more and ask them what makes a good geocache. We wouldn't want to make it easy for new people excited about the game.

Link to comment

I would have to agree with those suggesting a waiting period. 10-14 days seems reasonable. It could even be built into the review process: For accounts less than 10-14 days old, the reviewer could go through the review process but disable the listing until the waiting period is up. Once day 14 rolls around, the reviewer can place the cache back into the hands of the cacher by posting a note saying that the cache has met the guidelines and can be enabled for publication. A response from the cacher would ensure that the account is still active.

 

Having said that, I can understand not having a waiting period. The Needs Archived option is a great tool, most reviewers will archive the cache after a 30 day period.

Link to comment

Yup. I look at the local cacher. Member for two years. (Well. Has not signed in since December.) Four finds (in a different state.) Forty-two hides! Along highways or in shopping centers. Never does maintenance. Two or four DNFs the caches get archived as "MIA". Twenty nine of the forty two hides are now archived.

Same area: Cacher for a year and a half. (Well. Has not signed in since last November.) One hundred-fifty-nine finds. One-hundred-seventy-two hides. Along rural highways. One hundred sixty of the hides have been archived. No maintenance done! A few DNFs = archived.

I realize that it's all about the numbers, but geocaching would be far better off without these caches!

Link to comment

I would have to agree with those suggesting a waiting period. 10-14 days seems reasonable. It could even be built into the review process: For accounts less than 10-14 days old, the reviewer could go through the review process but disable the listing until the waiting period is up. Once day 14 rolls around, the reviewer can place the cache back into the hands of the cacher by posting a note saying that the cache has met the guidelines and can be enabled for publication. A response from the cacher would ensure that the account is still active.

 

Having said that, I can understand not having a waiting period. The Needs Archived option is a great tool, most reviewers will archive the cache after a 30 day period.

A waiting period? Are we buying a firearm or geocaching? :ph34r: I've seen great caches placed by new players just as I've seen poor caches placed by seasoned players. To me it's more about the thought process of the individual when placing a cache. I don't see how a waiting period would change this. Perhaps reviewers are overwhelmed with the amount of new caches awaiting approval and poor caches are getting through. If this is the case, we should have more reviewers where needed.

Link to comment

I would have to agree with those suggesting a waiting period. 10-14 days seems reasonable. It could even be built into the review process: For accounts less than 10-14 days old, the reviewer could go through the review process but disable the listing until the waiting period is up. Once day 14 rolls around, the reviewer can place the cache back into the hands of the cacher by posting a note saying that the cache has met the guidelines and can be enabled for publication. A response from the cacher would ensure that the account is still active.

 

Having said that, I can understand not having a waiting period. The Needs Archived option is a great tool, most reviewers will archive the cache after a 30 day period.

A waiting period? Are we buying a firearm or geocaching? :ph34r: I've seen great caches placed by new players just as I've seen poor caches placed by seasoned players. To me it's more about the thought process of the individual when placing a cache. I don't see how a waiting period would change this. Perhaps reviewers are overwhelmed with the amount of new caches awaiting approval and poor caches are getting through. If this is the case, we should have more reviewers where needed.

 

Just an opinion. As I said, I see the argument for both sides. A waiting period built into the review process would definitely filter out a few cachers who go missing after a week or two. With the smartphone app, we're seeing more one and done profiles being created. For example, we have a few caches scattered around the town where my wife's parents live...all put out within 10 days of the COs account activation and she hasn't logged in since a couple days after their publication. All caches are missing. The coordinates are on average 50-80 feet off. Since the caches are active, they are limiting the placement of new caches (a problem I'm attempting to deal with). My suggestion would've prevented this from happening.

 

Is it really that big of a deal? No. A simple Needs Archived and eventually the caches will be replaced or archived. And I completely agree that the majority of thoughtless caches I've found were placed by seasoned cachers.

 

I would much rather see Groundspeak ban lamp-skirt caches.

 

EDIT: A waiting period for firearms!?! Who you kiddin'? This is America brah

Edited by blackdog7
Link to comment
A waiting period? Are we buying a firearm or geocaching? :ph34r: I've seen great caches placed by new players just as I've seen poor caches placed by seasoned players. To me it's more about the thought process of the individual when placing a cache. I don't see how a waiting period would change this. Perhaps reviewers are overwhelmed with the amount of new caches awaiting approval and poor caches are getting through. If this is the case, we should have more reviewers where needed.
The waiting period isn't about the quality of the caches. For that matter, the entire review process isn't about the quality of the caches. The volunteer reviewers are not – and do not want to be – in charge of reviewing cache quality.

 

The idea behind a waiting period is to weed out the one-weekend wonders who discover geocaching, hide a cache the next day, and then disappear with no thought of maintaining the cache. I think a short waiting period can do that without significantly impeding newbies who are genuinely interested in owning and maintaining a geocache for the long term.

Link to comment

 

Is it really that big of a deal? No. A simple Needs Archived and eventually the caches will be replaced or archived. And I completely agree that the majority of thoughtless caches I've found were placed by seasoned cachers.

 

Citing specific examples of a new cacher placing a cache that turns out to follow all the guidelines, has a container appropriate for the location, and uses some creativity or caches placed by a seasoned cacher that are lame doesn't really prove anything. Proof by example is generally a poor form of evidence.

 

If it can shown that *in general* that caches placed by very new cachers tend to violate guidelines (it's about buried treasure, right?) or are less likely going to be maintained, then perhaps we should consider something that might reduce the issues. Even if it doesn't reduce the number of lame caches placed by seasoned veterans, improving the adherence to guidelines, overall cache quality, and better maintenance for caches placed by newbies is still an improvement.

 

Is it really that big of a deal? Usually, no, but if a Needs Archived is the answer that it means that it's a cache that should not have been placed and published in the first place. A cache placed without permission might be an example, which might not be a big deal unless the cache was discovered by the land manager, who then decides to enact a no-geocaching policy on all of land they manage. A Needs Archive log just means that the cache has the potential to cause a problem, and the archival of the cache wouldn't make a land manager forget that the problem occurred.

 

Perhaps reviewers are overwhelmed with the amount of new caches awaiting approval and poor caches are getting through. If this is the case, we should have more reviewers where needed.

 

More reviewers isn't the solution unless you expect reviewers go out and visit every cache before it's published (that's never going to happen). Many caches which violate the guidelines get published simply because reviewers have to assume that when the person checked the box which says, "I have read and understand the guidelines" it means that the person actually read and understands the guidelines.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Citing specific examples of a new cacher placing a cache that turns out to follow all the guidelines, has a container appropriate for the location, and uses some creativity or caches placed by a seasoned cacher that are lame doesn't really prove anything. Proof by example is generally a poor form of evidence.

 

I'm not trying to prove anything. We've all seen good caches by newbies and terrible caches by oldies, and vice versa.

 

If it can shown that *in general* that caches placed by very new cachers tend to violate guidelines (it's about buried treasure, right?) or are less likely going to be maintained, then perhaps we should consider something that might reduce the issues. Even if it doesn't reduce the number of lame caches placed by seasoned veterans, improving the adherence to guidelines, overall cache quality, and better maintenance for caches placed by newbies is still an improvement.

 

My only point it that, as with all hobbies, a certain number of people will try it and lose interest quickly. A short waiting period would no doubt filter out a number of caches that probably shouldn't be published. Still, I doubt GS will (or even should) do anything about it. Again, this is why I appreciate the Needs Archived option.

 

To be honest, one of the better and older caches in my area was placed by someone who was active for only a month or two...it has gone missing several times over the years, but due to its historic value (and creativity) local cachers continue to replace it and keep it alive.

 

EDIT: I'm using the Needs Archived example as a remedy for these types of caches already in place. That's all.

Edited by blackdog7
Link to comment

The "bottom line" is that the guidelines don't always get read by everyone. And even if they do, they aren't understood or interpreted the same way by every cacher (or Reviewer).

 

What is missing for "new cachers" is the hands-on, "hand holding" learning process that was more common in the earliest of days. Global game play with many vectors of how to start playing is only serving to muddy the waters, and makes Groundspeak have to clarify and add more guidelines to try and keep people from "doing the wrong thing".

Link to comment

It is easy to single the new cachers who have trouble "getting it right" the first time or times they hide a cache because the bad examples stick out like sore thumbs. What is more difficult is to give credit to the new cachers who "get it right" from the beginning and never look back because many folks don't take notice of them.

 

During my first six months of geocaching, I hid eleven caches, eight of which are still active, are now more than a decade old, and have accrued more than fifty favorite points. The other three were archived because one went under the bulldozer, one was a night cache I couldn't maintain after moving 350 miles away and I couldn't get local maintenance help, and the third because I hid a cache near my in-laws 3000 miles away and my local maintainer eventually lost interest in helping with the cache (first-hand lesson learned...vacation caches are a bad idea even when the Guidelines are followed). My first cache was published before the container was in place and I met the FTF attempters when I went out to place the container (another lesson learned!). During that same time, I found only about 100 caches in two states.

 

Looking back on my first six months, I made some rookie mistakes and was overly optimistic about some things. However, I learned from my mistakes through coaching from my local Reviewer and more experienced cachers in the community and I became a better cacher as a result.

 

Why can't we cut the newer cachers some slack, help show them the ropes, and give them a second or third chance (or more) before writing them off?

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

It is easy to single the new cachers who have trouble "getting it right" the first time or times they hide a cache because the bad examples stick out like sore thumbs. What is more difficult is to give credit to the new cachers who "get it right" from the beginning and never look back because many folks don't take notice of them.

 

During my first six months of geocaching, I hid eleven caches, eight of which are still active, are now more than a decade old, and have accrued more than fifty favorite points. The other three were archived because one went under the bulldozer, one was a night cache I couldn't maintain after moving 350 miles away and I couldn't get local maintenance help, and the third because I hid a cache near my in-laws 3000 miles away and my local maintainer eventually lost interest in helping with the cache (first-hand lesson learned...vacation caches are a bad idea even when the Guidelines are followed). My first cache was published before the container was in place and I met the FTF attempters when I went out to place the container (another lesson learned!). During that same time, I found only about 100 caches in two states.

 

Looking back on my first six months, I made some rookie mistakes and was overly optimistic about some things. However, I learned from my mistakes through coaching from my local Reviewer and more experienced cachers in the community and I became a better cacher as a result.

 

Way can't we cut the newer cachers some slack, help show them the ropes, and give them a second or third chance (or more) before writing them off?

I agree. Well put, LBK.

 

I think we have to deal with the circumstances and find ways to meet these new cachers on their level--not the level we wish we could find them: "with 100 finds" or "member for at least a year" or whatever. Everyone was new once, and none of us "got it right" the first time...

Link to comment
To be honest, one of the better and older caches in my area was placed by someone who was active for only a month or two...it has gone missing several times over the years, but due to its historic value (and creativity) local cachers continue to replace it and keep it alive.

Curious, was the creativity the cache itself, or it's hidden spot?

One near us was a creative container, but replaced a number of times with some not so much.

Seemed to get worse with time.

IIRC, it ended up a pill bottle (from an ornate bird house) before it was finally archived.

It's historic value was simply the date placed.

Folks who tried to keep it going needed that date for challenges I guess.

Link to comment
To be honest, one of the better and older caches in my area was placed by someone who was active for only a month or two...it has gone missing several times over the years, but due to its historic value (and creativity) local cachers continue to replace it and keep it alive.

Curious, was the creativity the cache itself, or it's hidden spot?

One near us was a creative container, but replaced a number of times with some not so much.

Seemed to get worse with time.

IIRC, it ended up a pill bottle (from an ornate bird house) before it was finally archived.

It's historic value was simply the date placed.

Folks who tried to keep it going needed that date for challenges I guess.

 

I'd say both, it was a cache hidden by hanging fishing line over, under then over a set of limbs in a tree. You would initially spot what looked like the log container hanging from fishing line, but the actual container was further up in the tree. You had to use the different turns in the fishing line as a sort of pulley system to retrieve the log. Several DNFs were logged because people saw the first 'container' and thought the log sheet was missing.

 

As far as I know, one of the local cachers has taken it upon himself to keep it as close to the original as possible.

Link to comment
To be honest, one of the better and older caches in my area was placed by someone who was active for only a month or two...it has gone missing several times over the years, but due to its historic value (and creativity) local cachers continue to replace it and keep it alive.

Curious, was the creativity the cache itself, or it's hidden spot?

One near us was a creative container, but replaced a number of times with some not so much.

Seemed to get worse with time.

IIRC, it ended up a pill bottle (from an ornate bird house) before it was finally archived.

It's historic value was simply the date placed.

Folks who tried to keep it going needed that date for challenges I guess

 

I'd say both, it was a cache hidden by hanging fishing line over, under then over a set of limbs in a tree. You would initially spot what looked like the log container hanging from fishing line, but the actual container was further up in the tree. You had to use the different turns in the fishing line as a sort of pulley system to retrieve the log. Several DNFs were logged because people saw the first 'container' and thought the log sheet was missing.

 

As far as I know, one of the local cachers has taken it upon himself to keep it as close to the original as possible.

Cool. Thanks.

Link to comment

This comes around a few times a year.

I understand some newbies put out great ones. And some cachers who've cached for years may not.

I have a few recent examples.

 

A cacher who has found just over 100 and has cached since 2009 put out two previous good hides. But the third one I went after for FTF and not finding it. The CO showed up and said he decided to put it somewhere else. So he took it but I had to email him later to ask him to disable or archive the cache to prevent others from wasting their time. He did, but then re-released it in the same exact spot.

He put out another one where if you sit on a bench you could clearly see the wire attachment in front of you (only heard about this one). After someone was FTF the cache went missing.

 

Another one is a new cacher with 2 finds. Has cached with other cachers on those two. Then places a cache and the remarks from other cachers were that the coords took them to private property. The cache was disabled by the CO because she admitted she fudged the coords because where she put it was too close to another cache. Then she makes a note "just disregard this cache" and that she would permantally take it down later. Reviewer had to archive it until they decided what they would do with it.

Link to comment
another note. I always think it odd that some great favorited caches would be the ones that violates the guidelines.
I think it makes perfect sense. Most people don't really know the guidelines, so they don't see a cache that violates the guidelines. They just see a cache that is different from all the rest, a cache that is somehow special.
Link to comment
another note. I always think it odd that some great favorited caches would be the ones that violates the guidelines.
I think it makes perfect sense. Most people don't really know the guidelines, so they don't see a cache that violates the guidelines. They just see a cache that is different from all the rest, a cache that is somehow special.

Yep, I agree.

Link to comment

My thought is that members without validated emails should not be allowed to post a log to any cache, nor even see the cache pages. No validated email members should only be able to see items in the Help Center and post in the Forums.

Link to comment

I know this is a old topic and beat into the ground a lot then resurrected and beat down again. you can do some research with one push of a button to see how long the person has been playing before you go to find their geocache. I myself only found nanos Altoids tins and LPCs for the first month. Then I made my first hide. A altoids tin on a pub. I was so proud of it. That was only 1 and a half years ago. It's still active and I get logs every few days. Then I stumbled on to a cacher named mr.and mrs. Smiths. That was the end of my altoids pub lpc Nano hides or finds. the people I started with are into 400 500 finds now and are content with the small log only hides and that's great. I have not passed the 200 mark because of the caches I choose. Now back to the mr.and mrS. Smiths they in my opinion where some of the best urban camo developers in there time. they specialized in in your face out in the open geocaches. I then knew what geocaching was all about.and have put out some quality hides one that has favorites from some big name cachers In my area. one popular one was put out in my first month and a half of playing. So my point is this. Be more selective of the caches you seek and u won't have to worry about bad hides. if u want to hide a cache before u ever find a single one more power to u I'll FTF it anywaY. Or I'll pass Cuz I can see ur profile.

Link to comment

I then knew what geocaching was all about.

You knew what geocaching was all about for you. Geocaching is about clever hides for you. Others may like interesting locations, 100 miles of film canisters ever 528 feet, entertaining puzzles, a hike in the woods, attending events, or learning topics on geology. Or any combination of those.

Link to comment

I think the new way you create a cache now was suppose to help with newbies but some are still not reading the guidelines. Finding them on Postal mailboxes, private property, fudging the coords so they can put it where they want, vandalizing public property etc.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, AddisonPascal said:

I know this thread is old but I have to say that I think new cachers should be able to hide before they find ten, actually I hid one before I found one! (Not recommended but it was a good one up a mountain)

Odd thing to say when you  correct yourself by saying  it's "not recommended"...  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, AddisonPascal said:

I know this thread is old but I have to say that I think new cachers should be able to hide before they find ten, actually I hid one before I found one! (Not recommended but it was a good one up a mountain)

You think it's recommended that it's okay for cachers to be able to hide a cache before their first ten but not a recommended idea for someone to hide a cache before they even find one? 

Link to comment
On 3/4/2015 at 4:36 PM, steelerdrew79 said:

I know this is a old topic and beat into the ground a lot then resurrected and beat down again. you can do some research with one push of a button to see how long the person has been playing before you go to find their geocache. I myself only found nanos Altoids tins and LPCs for the first month. Then I made my first hide. A altoids tin on a pub. I was so proud of it. That was only 1 and a half years ago. It's still active and I get logs every few days. Then I stumbled on to a cacher named mr.and mrs. Smiths. That was the end of my altoids pub lpc Nano hides or finds. the people I started with are into 400 500 finds now and are content with the small log only hides and that's great. I have not passed the 200 mark because of the caches I choose. Now back to the mr.and mrS. Smiths they in my opinion where some of the best urban camo developers in there time. they specialized in in your face out in the open geocaches. I then knew what geocaching was all about.and have put out some quality hides one that has favorites from some big name cachers In my area. one popular one was put out in my first month and a half of playing. So my point is this. Be more selective of the caches you seek and u won't have to worry about bad hides. if u want to hide a cache before u ever find a single one more power to u I'll FTF it anywaY. Or I'll pass Cuz I can see ur profile.

People wanna rip on LPC but you know what? When those suckers are at the front by the doors? That cache ain't no joke, and I bet the lot of you just log a Found It! without even bothering to lift the skirt up. 

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...
×
×
  • Create New...