Jump to content

Replacing old geocaches


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

I agree. I could care less How someone chooses to play the game. As long as there getting out and having some fun.

 

I disagree. As long as they're out the having fun I don't care how someone chooses to play the game, as long as how they're playing the game isn't having a negative impact on other others want to play the game.

 

 

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

I agree. I could care less How someone chooses to play the game. As long as there getting out and having some fun.

 

I disagree. As long as they're out the having fun I don't care how someone chooses to play the game, as long as how they're playing the game isn't having a negative impact on other others want to play the game.

 

Isn't that what we said?

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

I agree. I could care less How someone chooses to play the game. As long as there getting out and having some fun.

 

I disagree. As long as they're out the having fun I don't care how someone chooses to play the game, as long as how they're playing the game isn't having a negative impact on other others want to play the game.

 

Isn't that what we said?

 

No. The part that is missing is how one plays the game impacts how others play the game.

 

 

Link to comment

It'd be a bit annoying to 'have' to re log all the green dots that started to appear around me. Geocaching is enjoyable and all that but finding the same cache a second time doesn't seem that cool.

 

I'd imagine you wouldn't regain many of the favorite points on your caches and the overall visits would decline rather than increase with less favorite points.

 

It shouldn't be the *same* hide. It could be nearby, and it could be a similar container, but should not be a duplicate with a different GC#.

 

In my area, King Boreas does that all the time. In fact, most of us know that if he archives a bunch from one area, don't bother trying to put some out there yourself... odds are he's already got the area filled again.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

I agree. I could care less How someone chooses to play the game. As long as there getting out and having some fun.

 

I disagree. As long as they're out the having fun I don't care how someone chooses to play the game, as long as how they're playing the game isn't having a negative impact on other others want to play the game.

 

Isn't that what we said?

 

No. The part that is missing is how one plays the game impacts how others play the game.

Could you explain how a cacher who is interested in numbers impact how anyone else chooses to play the game. Not trying to be a smart a** I really don't know.

Link to comment

It'd be a bit annoying to 'have' to re log all the green dots that started to appear around me. Geocaching is enjoyable and all that but finding the same cache a second time doesn't seem that cool.

 

I'd imagine you wouldn't regain many of the favorite points on your caches and the overall visits would decline rather than increase with less favorite points.

 

It shouldn't be the *same* hide. It could be nearby, and it could be a similar container, but should not be a duplicate with a different GC#.

 

In my area, King Boreas does that all the time. In fact, most of us know that if he archives a bunch from one area, don't bother trying to put some out there yourself... odds are he's already got the area filled again.

 

Do people in your area enjoy going back to the same locations to find the new hides?

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

Does, too.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

I agree. I could care less How someone chooses to play the game. As long as there getting out and having some fun.

 

I disagree. As long as they're out the having fun I don't care how someone chooses to play the game, as long as how they're playing the game isn't having a negative impact on other others want to play the game.

 

Isn't that what we said?

 

No. The part that is missing is how one plays the game impacts how others play the game.

Could you explain how a cacher who is interested in numbers impact how anyone else chooses to play the game. Not trying to be a smart a** I really don't know.

 

If you look at some areas on the map you'll see that many of the parks and trails are completely saturated with caches and it's apparent that the local community is fostering caching for quantiy rather than quality. While some of those areas grow organically, when the caches are all based on a contrived theme (I've actually seen a series of 80 caches based on duct tape), it's pretty obvious that COs are placing a lot of caches at once to cater to the numbers crowd and the quality of the container or manner in which it's hidden is an after thought. For those that are looking for quality over quantity there are large swaths of real estate that they can't use for the type of geocaching that they enjoy. For those interested in numbers a small number of "quality" (I am not going to try to define it) have relatively no impact because it's just another number.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

I agree. I could care less How someone chooses to play the game. As long as there getting out and having some fun.

 

I disagree. As long as they're out the having fun I don't care how someone chooses to play the game, as long as how they're playing the game isn't having a negative impact on other others want to play the game.

 

Isn't that what we said?

 

No. The part that is missing is how one plays the game impacts how others play the game.

Could you explain how a cacher who is interested in numbers impact how anyone else chooses to play the game. Not trying to be a smart a** I really don't know.

 

If you look at some areas on the map you'll see that many of the parks and trails are completely saturated with caches and it's apparent that the local community is fostering caching for quantiy rather than quality. While some of those areas grow organically, when the caches are all based on a contrived theme (I've actually seen a series of 80 caches based on duct tape), it's pretty obvious that COs are placing a lot of caches at once to cater to the numbers crowd and the quality of the container or manner in which it's hidden is an after thought. For those that are looking for quality over quantity there are large swaths of real estate that they can't use for the type of geocaching that they enjoy. For those interested in numbers a small number of "quality" (I am not going to try to define it) have relatively no impact because it's just another number.

 

Thanks. I understand exactly what your talking about. Although I disagree with placing a cache or caches just for the sake of numbers I'm not sure what can be done about it. I don't begrudge the number cacher at all. I can't imagine placing 80 "quality" caches in any one area. I have a series of 7 in one area and it took me almost 6 months to complete. Is it possible to have quality and quantity at the same time realistically? I've seen simple lock n' locks in spectacular areas. The cache was nothing special but the walk along the trails was.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

I agree. I could care less How someone chooses to play the game. As long as there getting out and having some fun.

 

I disagree. As long as they're out the having fun I don't care how someone chooses to play the game, as long as how they're playing the game isn't having a negative impact on other others want to play the game.

 

Isn't that what we said?

 

No. The part that is missing is how one plays the game impacts how others play the game.

Could you explain how a cacher who is interested in numbers impact how anyone else chooses to play the game. Not trying to be a smart a** I really don't know.

 

You're only mistake was bringing the question up in the first place in a forum where people spend more time spewing their opinions than actually caching. My point is, just go do what you want to do, within the realm of the guidelines, and don't worry about what these opinionated "regulars" have to say. Just because they cry and whine the loudest does not mean their opinions have any more merit than the rest.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

I agree. I could care less How someone chooses to play the game. As long as there getting out and having some fun.

 

I disagree. As long as they're out the having fun I don't care how someone chooses to play the game, as long as how they're playing the game isn't having a negative impact on other others want to play the game.

 

Isn't that what we said?

 

No. The part that is missing is how one plays the game impacts how others play the game.

Could you explain how a cacher who is interested in numbers impact how anyone else chooses to play the game. Not trying to be a smart a** I really don't know.

 

You're only mistake was bringing the question up in the first place in a forum where people spend more time spewing their opinions than actually caching. My point is, just go do what you want to do, within the realm of the guidelines, and don't worry about what these opinionated "regulars" have to say. Just because they cry and whine the loudest does not mean their opinions have any more merit than the rest.

 

justintime1999 might also want to watch for posters that will resort to name calling against regulars based on their find count rather than address the arguments they're making.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

justintime1999 might also want to watch for posters that will resort to name calling against regulars based on their find count rather than address the arguments they're making.

 

Name calling? Calling a regular a regular? That's a stretch don't you think. It's pretty easy to compare your post history to your geocaching history.

Link to comment

justintime1999 might also want to watch for posters that will resort to name calling against regulars based on their find count rather than address the arguments they're making.

 

Name calling? Calling a regular a regular? That's a stretch don't you think. It's pretty easy to compare your post history to your geocaching history.

 

You're only mistake was bringing the question up in the first place in a forum where people spend more time spewing their opinions than actually caching. My point is, just go do what you want to do, within the realm of the guidelines, and don't worry about what these opinionated "regulars" have to say. Just because they cry and whine the loudest does not mean their opinions have any more merit than the rest.

 

Yes, it's easy to go to someones profile page and look up to see how many caches they've found. Are you saying that we should all judge the merits of the opinions and observations made by forum posters by how many caches they've found? Personally, I'll stick with deciding whether something someone posts here has any merit based on what they write, and not on their find count.

 

Bottom line, justintime1999 asked a question, and based on 7.5 years observing this game I gave an answer. If you have a rebuttal for that answer I'll be happy to discuss it, but if all you have to offer is these "opinionated regulars...cry and whine the loudest" then I have to wonder why you're here responding to people "spewing their opinions" and not out increasing your find count.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

in a forum where people spend more time spewing their opinions than actually caching.

 

While it is indeed easy to look the counts for found caches and posts in this forum, how do you decide how much time someone spends on caching and on posting? Most caches I do take several hours, some have taken me up to 8 day hikes (for a single found it log). Typical forum posts take 1-5 minutes and fit between other tasks to be performed with the help of a computer. An hour drive to the starting point of a hike, a several hours hike and the drive back cannot be squeezed in between such tasks.

Link to comment

Do people in your area enjoy going back to the same locations to find the new hides?

People in my area enjoy going back to a nice area, but I've never seen anyone relist the same cache to allow repeat visits. Now it's true that, as popular as caching is here in the SF Bay area, it's very rare for there to be no possibilities of a new cache in any given area big enough that I'd be looking forward to revisiting it, but I have to assume the culture in this area agrees with my feeling that a new cache is fine, but it's dumb to republish an existing cache just so it can be found again.

 

My point is, just go do what you want to do, within the realm of the guidelines, and don't worry about what these opinionated "regulars" have to say. Just because they cry and whine the loudest does not mean their opinions have any more merit than the rest.

I'm glad the OP came here for opinions, but now that he's shown his colors, I agree entirely that it's up to him. When he started this thread, I was a little worried he was thinking more about numbers than caching, but after a few posts, I can see that he won't do anything I need to talk him out of.

 

I have a few older hides which I am considering "recycling" by hiding something better. Many of these hides were made when I was a novice cacher. I think I can outdo my original hides now and look forward to entertaining others by doing so.

This is a perfect example: yes, if the point is to hide a new cache, then don't let any of these comments discourage you from archiving something you think you can improve on. Indeed, most cachers I know would not only like a new, improved hide, they'd be relieved that the old, stupid hide was gone so no one else would have to suffer it. (OK, I'm exagerating for effect without knowing anything about your hides, but I can definitely imagine the possibility.)

Link to comment

For a while I couldn't understand why people didn't get it until I started reading the replies again. First, people seem to assume that the new hides are going in the exact same places using the exact same containers hidden the exact same way. I'm surprised that people jumped to this conclusion immediately because to be honest it didn't even occur to me that this is something people would do. I guess it's my fault for not being specific as to my intentions. Second, I underestimated the hate and loathing for number cachers. I assume that it's this hate that causes people to jump to the "it's only for the numbers" argument although I don't quite understand why the numbers mean so much to anyone other than Groundspeak who has a genuine interest in the number of people caching and the frequency of finds and hides. Why dose anyone else care about the numbers? Is there prizes? financial gain? induction into the geocaching hall of fame? what?

Link to comment

For a while I couldn't understand why people didn't get it until I started reading the replies again. First, people seem to assume that the new hides are going in the exact same places using the exact same containers hidden the exact same way. I'm surprised that people jumped to this conclusion immediately because to be honest it didn't even occur to me that this is something people would do. I guess it's my fault for not being specific as to my intentions. Second, I underestimated the hate and loathing for number cachers. I assume that it's this hate that causes people to jump to the "it's only for the numbers" argument although I don't quite understand why the numbers mean so much to anyone other than Groundspeak who has a genuine interest in the number of people caching and the frequency of finds and hides. Why dose anyone else care about the numbers? Is there prizes? financial gain? induction into the geocaching hall of fame? what?

 

No, i don't hate numbers cachers. Although i don't think of geocaching as a competition, there are many who do. That big find count is what's important for them. I'd normally say have fun and enjoy but because this is so important for many, and because of the monkey see, monkey do syndrome, we end up with a proliferation of easy and uninspired caches placed solely for this. Uninteresting and of low quality but they are perfect for those seeking smiley count. They aren't worth a hoot for those of us seeking caches placed which have some thought put into them.

 

I admit, the first thought i had when reading your opening post was that you wanted to archive and then re-list pretty much the same thing you already had published. Not something i would want to see in my area. Again, if your idea is to improve in some way, by all means, consider placing new!

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...