Cache Finds to Cache Hides Ratio

[+dctr_derek]

I'm curious...

 

- What is your cache finds to hides ratio?

- What would you say is an ideal cache finds to hides ratio?

[+Pork King]

I'm curious...

 

- What is your cache finds to hides ratio?

- What would you say is an ideal cache finds to hides ratio?

 

1145/51

 

There is no ideal. I've found caches that was the only cache hidden by a cacher with lots and lots of finds that was mediocre at best, and I've found several caches by a cacher with only 1 or 2 finds that were pretty awesome.

 

The ideal number of finds is howerever many you want, the ideal number of hides should be in the range of "you can maintain every one of them if there is a problem" and "they are worthwhile to the game" (that last one is highly subjective!).

[+narcissa]

There is no ideal "ratio." Some people can maintain many caches well. Some people can't maintain any. You are not obligated to hide caches, nor are you obligated to limit your hides. Do what works best for you.

[+niraD]

There is no ideal.

There is no ideal "ratio."

+1

 

The ability/opportunity/desire to find caches is completely unrelated to the ability/opportunity/desire to hide and maintain caches.

[+captnemo]

There is no ideal.

There is no ideal "ratio."

+1

 

The ability/opportunity/desire to find caches is completely unrelated to the ability/opportunity/desire to hide and maintain caches.

+2

 

My ratio is 1124/45 not that it matters. In the early times there was a form post about this where the concern was that not enough new caches were being hid. The general consensus was 1 hide for 10 finds (kind of hard to imagine today).

[+Vooruit!]

I would say a more meaningful ratio would be the ratio Finds on your caches / Your finds (aka 'Caching karma'). Quoted from Project GC:

 

Caching karma equals the number of logs you have received on your caches from other cachers divided by the number of caches you have logged. A karma above 1.00 is normally preferred. The idea is that you should give back to the community at the same time as you use it. In other words, hide caches, not only log others.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Caches should be hidden when the hider finds a nice spot and wants to create and maintain a hide.

 

Over time, those who stay in the game will have thousands, tens of thousands of finds. Any attempt to maintain a ratio will get completely unwieldy.

 

There's no ratio and there's no karma.

[+Vooruit!]

Of course it's just for fun; I only said it was more meaningful. Maintaining this ratio should never be a goal in itself.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Caching karma equals the number of logs you have received on your caches from other cachers divided by the number of caches you have logged. A karma above 1.00 is normally preferred.

 

This drives the creation of low D/T caches and powertrails.

 

To improve my "karma" I should archive my multis, my paddle caches, and hide some roadside P&G.

 

The best cache I own hasn't averaged 1 find per year. I have caches with high percentage favorite points, unfound for 2 years, and gonna make 3. It's tempting to archive this stuff, and let the game go to the "all numbers all the time" crowd, but so far, I've stayed interested in owning them.

 

I note that the two cachers in my area that I consider the best additions to the local caching scene over the couple of years have several thousand finds, and own ZERO hides between them.

Hey, they're hunting my stuff, and caches I have on watch. They write nice logs, post some pics. Wonderful.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would say a more meaningful ratio would be the ratio Finds on your caches / Your finds (aka 'Caching karma'). Quoted from Project GC:

 

Caching karma equals the number of logs you have received on your caches from other cachers divided by the number of caches you have logged. A karma above 1.00 is normally preferred. The idea is that you should give back to the community at the same time as you use it. In other words, hide caches, not only log others.

 

Except that means if you have good caches that don't get lots of finds then you will have a poor karma score after a few years while someone who hides a powertrail will have high karma pretty much regardless of their Find count.

 

A more useful measurement of Hides would be something like average percentage of Favorites per cache.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Joshism

[+narcissa]

I would say a more meaningful ratio would be the ratio Finds on your caches / Your finds (aka 'Caching karma'). Quoted from Project GC:

 

Caching karma equals the number of logs you have received on your caches from other cachers divided by the number of caches you have logged. A karma above 1.00 is normally preferred. The idea is that you should give back to the community at the same time as you use it. In other words, hide caches, not only log others.

 

Meaningful in what way?

 

Putting out caches you can't maintain isn't helping the community.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people who find, but don't hide. It isn't bad karma. It isn't leeching. It isn't any of the awful things some people say about it.

[+Vooruit!]

Meaningful in the sense that the combined community ratio is obviously exactly 1.00. Because there are many cachers whose ratio is below 1 (or even 0), it follows that there have to be at least some cachers whose ratio is > 1.

 

And really, that's all. No one here is saying not hiding a cache is wrong. Not sure where all the agitation is coming from...?

[+narcissa]

Meaningful in the sense that the combined community ratio is obviously exactly 1.00. Because there are many cachers whose ratio is below 1 (or even 0), it follows that there have to be at least some cachers whose ratio is > 1.

 

And really, that's all. No one here is saying not hiding a cache is wrong. Not sure where all the agitation is coming from...?

 

The agitation comes from a valid concern that cachers will be pressured into placing low quality caches they can't maintain in order to attain some silly "ratio" of hides/finds. Just today in another thread, someone huffily referred to "leeching," as though there is something wrong with finding and not hiding.

[+cerberus1]

"A karma above 1.00 is normally preferred."

Really? Says who?

 

I think it odd that there may be some folks who believe someone elses ideal of how you're supposed to cache as fact.

 

Maybe these high-karma power trail, no maintenance folks will reincarnate into one who places a single, quality hide.

Sheesh...

[+niraD]

No one here is saying not hiding a cache is wrong.

Really? That isn't the way it comes across to me.

 

"What would you say is an ideal cache finds to hides ratio?"

Any "ideal" ratio below infinity (n/0) implies that finding but not hiding is wrong.

 

"A karma above 1.00 is normally preferred."

A karma above 1.0 implies that finding but not hiding is wrong.

 

"In other words, hide caches, not only log others."

In other words...

[+AustinMN]

I'm curious...

 

- What is your cache finds to hides ratio?

 

About 255:1 (about 510 finds and 2 hides)

 

- What would you say is an ideal cache finds to hides ratio?

 

Ideal? [100 or more finds] : [Zero or more hides]. I really can't imagine anything good coming from measuring a find/hide ratio or expecting a minimum hide ratio.

 

Austin

Edited July 14, 2015 by AustinMN

[+narcissa]

 

Ideal? [100 or more finds] : [Zero or more hides]. I really can't imagine anything good coming from measuring a find/hide ratio or expecting a minimum hide ratio.

 

 

Even then, I'd rather see someone with 10 really great finds hiding caches than someone who spent 2 hours on a power trail finding 100 copies of the same pill bottle hiding caches.

 

But ultimately, we're all allowed to hide caches, or not hide caches.

[+captnemo]

There is no ideal.

There is no ideal "ratio."

+1

 

The ability/opportunity/desire to find caches is completely unrelated to the ability/opportunity/desire to hide and maintain caches.

+2

 

My ratio is 1124/45 not that it matters. In the early times there was a form post about this where the concern was that not enough new caches were being hid. The general consensus was 1 hide for 10 finds (kind of hard to imagine today).

Ok, my Karma ratio is 5374 logs divided by 1124 finds equals 4.78!

 

I found a couple of interesting things while complying this ratio: On my 20 cache off-road series the logs range from 20 to 33 logs I would have figured they would be closer to the same. The cache with the most logs has 932 and the least has 6 logs, no finds.

[+Vooruit!]

Meaningful in the sense that the combined community ratio is obviously exactly 1.00. Because there are many cachers whose ratio is below 1 (or even 0), it follows that there have to be at least some cachers whose ratio is > 1.

 

And really, that's all. No one here is saying not hiding a cache is wrong. Not sure where all the agitation is coming from...?

 

The agitation comes from a valid concern that cachers will be pressured into placing low quality caches they can't maintain in order to attain some silly "ratio" of hides/finds. Just today in another thread, someone huffily referred to "leeching," as though there is something wrong with finding and not hiding.

 

Well, I can only agree wholeheartedly with that. On the other hand, why anybody would be pressured by a statistics website is beyond me.

[+narcissa]

Meaningful in the sense that the combined community ratio is obviously exactly 1.00. Because there are many cachers whose ratio is below 1 (or even 0), it follows that there have to be at least some cachers whose ratio is > 1.

 

And really, that's all. No one here is saying not hiding a cache is wrong. Not sure where all the agitation is coming from...?

 

The agitation comes from a valid concern that cachers will be pressured into placing low quality caches they can't maintain in order to attain some silly "ratio" of hides/finds. Just today in another thread, someone huffily referred to "leeching," as though there is something wrong with finding and not hiding.

 

Well, I can only agree wholeheartedly with that. On the other hand, why anybody would be pressured by a statistics website is beyond me.

 

New cachers are often looking to experienced cachers for guidance on what to do. When you spout off about "ideal" or "preferable" ratios, it influences them and misleads them into thinking there is a community expectation for hiding. The rest of us are negatively affected when someone runs out to place terrible caches to keep up their ratio.

 

You are the one pressuring them, not a stats page.

[+jellis]

I have seen more newbies get more excited in placing then hunting. So when they place them and get bored and leave the game the cache is now abandoned. When they go missing who will maintain them, some soft-hearted cachers, ones who need that extra cache and those cachers who will log it without even finding it which will give the impression the cache is still there.

[+The A-Team]

- What is your cache finds to hides ratio?

4783:77, or ~62:1

 

- What would you say is an ideal cache finds to hides ratio?

I'd say the ideal ratio is somewhere between 0 (0 finds/N hides) and ∞ (N finds/0 hides). Awesome, my own ratio falls right in this range!

[+Vooruit!]

Meaningful in the sense that the combined community ratio is obviously exactly 1.00. Because there are many cachers whose ratio is below 1 (or even 0), it follows that there have to be at least some cachers whose ratio is > 1.

 

And really, that's all. No one here is saying not hiding a cache is wrong. Not sure where all the agitation is coming from...?

 

The agitation comes from a valid concern that cachers will be pressured into placing low quality caches they can't maintain in order to attain some silly "ratio" of hides/finds. Just today in another thread, someone huffily referred to "leeching," as though there is something wrong with finding and not hiding.

 

Well, I can only agree wholeheartedly with that. On the other hand, why anybody would be pressured by a statistics website is beyond me.

 

New cachers are often looking to experienced cachers for guidance on what to do. When you spout off about "ideal" or "preferable" ratios, it influences them and misleads them into thinking there is a community expectation for hiding. The rest of us are negatively affected when someone runs out to place terrible caches to keep up their ratio.

 

You are the one pressuring them, not a stats page.

 

 

I only quoted Project GC to give an explanation of the term 'caching karma', and if you read my post carefully, you'll notice I only used the term 'more meaningful'. Furthermore, I've given a simple mathematical explanation that gives it some importance on a community scale and that's it. The idea that I'm pressuring people in placing caches because of some fractional number on some random webpage... sorry, that's just rediculous.

[cezanne]

I only quoted Project GC to give an explanation of the term 'caching karma', and if you read my post carefully, you'll notice I only used the term 'more meaningful'. Furthermore, I've given a simple mathematical explanation that gives it some importance on a community scale and that's it.

 

I think the issue several posters are taking with your statement is due to the fact that what you consider as more meaningful is less meaningful for others (like myself). If a cacher like Isonzo Karst owns some caches which get few visits but nice logs this is a greater value in my eyes (both for me as an indvidual and on a community scale) than if someone own a drive in cache that accumulates 10000 found it logs.

[+Vooruit!]

Oh, but I agree with that as well. The 'more' in 'more meaningful' has to be read in its context: the topicstarter came with a 'cache finds to hides ratio', and I only replied that a more meaningful ratio is the 'cache finds - founds on hides ratio'.

 

Anyway, I'm a bit tired of correcting other posters' running away with my replies. Something with a stick and a dog...

[cezanne]

Oh, but I agree with that as well. The 'more' in 'more meaningful' has to be read in its context: the topicstarter came with a 'cache finds to hides ratio', and I only replied that a more meaningful ratio is the 'cache finds - founds on hides ratio'.

 

I understood you correctly. I do not agree however that your measure is more meaningful than the other.

To agree to disagree.

[+narcissa]

Meaningful in the sense that the combined community ratio is obviously exactly 1.00. Because there are many cachers whose ratio is below 1 (or even 0), it follows that there have to be at least some cachers whose ratio is > 1.

 

And really, that's all. No one here is saying not hiding a cache is wrong. Not sure where all the agitation is coming from...?

 

The agitation comes from a valid concern that cachers will be pressured into placing low quality caches they can't maintain in order to attain some silly "ratio" of hides/finds. Just today in another thread, someone huffily referred to "leeching," as though there is something wrong with finding and not hiding.

 

Well, I can only agree wholeheartedly with that. On the other hand, why anybody would be pressured by a statistics website is beyond me.

 

New cachers are often looking to experienced cachers for guidance on what to do. When you spout off about "ideal" or "preferable" ratios, it influences them and misleads them into thinking there is a community expectation for hiding. The rest of us are negatively affected when someone runs out to place terrible caches to keep up their ratio.

 

You are the one pressuring them, not a stats page.

 

 

I only quoted Project GC to give an explanation of the term 'caching karma', and if you read my post carefully, you'll notice I only used the term 'more meaningful'. Furthermore, I've given a simple mathematical explanation that gives it some importance on a community scale and that's it. The idea that I'm pressuring people in placing caches because of some fractional number on some random webpage... sorry, that's just rediculous.

 

Importance on a community scale? Preferable? Meaningful? Karma? You certainly seem to place stock in these ratios.

 

We have spent the last several weekends canoeing to amazing geocaches on islands that are visited once or twice a year. By your standards, these are low karma geocaches, whereas the nearby power trail where most of the original containers are missing but people log them anyway is a stunning contribution to the community.

[+Vooruit!]

Meaningful in the sense that the combined community ratio is obviously exactly 1.00. Because there are many cachers whose ratio is below 1 (or even 0), it follows that there have to be at least some cachers whose ratio is > 1.

 

And really, that's all. No one here is saying not hiding a cache is wrong. Not sure where all the agitation is coming from...?

 

The agitation comes from a valid concern that cachers will be pressured into placing low quality caches they can't maintain in order to attain some silly "ratio" of hides/finds. Just today in another thread, someone huffily referred to "leeching," as though there is something wrong with finding and not hiding.

 

Well, I can only agree wholeheartedly with that. On the other hand, why anybody would be pressured by a statistics website is beyond me.

 

New cachers are often looking to experienced cachers for guidance on what to do. When you spout off about "ideal" or "preferable" ratios, it influences them and misleads them into thinking there is a community expectation for hiding. The rest of us are negatively affected when someone runs out to place terrible caches to keep up their ratio.

 

You are the one pressuring them, not a stats page.

 

 

I only quoted Project GC to give an explanation of the term 'caching karma', and if you read my post carefully, you'll notice I only used the term 'more meaningful'. Furthermore, I've given a simple mathematical explanation that gives it some importance on a community scale and that's it. The idea that I'm pressuring people in placing caches because of some fractional number on some random webpage... sorry, that's just rediculous.

 

Importance on a community scale? Preferable? Meaningful? Karma? You certainly seem to place stock in these ratios.

 

We have spent the last several weekends canoeing to amazing geocaches on islands that are visited once or twice a year. By your standards, these are low karma geocaches, whereas the nearby power trail where most of the original containers are missing but people log them anyway is a stunning contribution to the community.

 

The kind of geocaching you describe is exactly what I love as well. Why do you insist that having a high 'caching karma' is something I'm encouraging? Please! As if there aren't already enough micros thrown behind trees...

 

The mathematical explanation I gave before is what I meant with 'importance on a community scale':

 

Meaningful in the sense that the combined community ratio is obviously exactly 1.00. Because there are many cachers whose ratio is below 1 (or even 0), it follows that there have to be at least some cachers whose ratio is > 1.

 

Then again, English not being my first language, maybe I should have used a different term than 'importance'. If I ever gave the impression that one should be encouraged to place caches to be eligible to find them, it was fully unintentional. In fact, please don't place caches 'just because'!