Cacher's obligation to 'hide' as well as 'seek' ?

[+vds]

I've noticed that there are a surprising number of folks with over 100 finds who haven't hidden at least one (1) cache at all. You have to think there would be at least 'someplace' they could try to hide 'something' to keep the sport growing.

 

Heck, there are even multiple zero-hiders in the top 100 (ie, over 250 finds+hides) overall sayeth Dan Miller's Leaderboard.

 

Given the cost in time/gas/etc. to reach 100 finds, I sure can't see how anybody could come up with any viable explanation for zero hides as well.

 

Thoughts ?

[+briansnat]

Just a guess. Some people prefer to look for caches and don't want to be bothered with hiding and maintaining a cache. The last thing we need are more people sprinkling ill thought-out caches around.

 

I've also heard of people who've hidden a number of caches and have yet to find one. Its just personal preference.

 

As one who (until last week) had an equal number of hides and finds, I have no problem with those who only seek caches. Heck, without them, many of my caches would go unfound for months

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[+Team Tecmage]

It's all about preference. Since there is no requirement that Cachers place one, some people never will.

[iryshe]

We've gone through this discussion before. I'll use the analogy to upload/download ratios on the old bulletin board systems (BBS) pre-Internet. People would upload crappy software so they could get their ratio up.

 

We don't want crappy caches because people feel an obligation to place them. If folks don't want to place them, that's their gig. They're certainly making placers happy when they log a find. And as long as their doing that, I have no problems with them not placing caches.

 

I, for one, am a terrible hider. My wife is much better at it than I am.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+jhwf44]

Some people would rather find caches then seek them. If someone is going to hide one it should be because they want to, and not because they feel obligated to. If they feel obligated they could make it really bad...not caring, because they know the only reason they are going to hide it is so they don't feel bad about not hiding any. I don't think this is a large problem...there's not to many people out there like that so I don't think we need to worrry to much about it. I'm more concerned about people placing caches and then they get destroyed and no one is there to fix it because they owner is to lazy to do anything about it.

 

jhwf4

[+Harrald]

Don't forget the people that hide and seek under different accounts.

 

BBS.....I'm getting so old. I remember when the web was all text based

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

[+jhwf44]

Just curious Harrald...why do you do this?

 

"Don't forget the people that hide and seek under different accounts."

 

jhwf4

[+Grizz1]

I'm very new to this ( 4 finds in 2 days) but I think before I try placing my first cache I'll find some more to get ideas about the proper way to conceal a cache. 3 of the 4 were done very well ( one was a virtual) so I'm learnin' as I go.

[+TeamCNJC]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jhwf4:

Just curious Harrald...why do you do this?

 

"Don't forget the people that hide and seek under different accounts."

 

jhwf4

---

 

Some people hid under "team" accounts, so that no one team member gets credit or sole responsibility for a cache. Under the current system, only one logon ID can be the "owner" of a cache.

 

-Craig/TeamCNJC

 

... Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took off through the thorns, chest high, ...

[+Gliderguy]

I think quality over quantity is the key. If someone so likes to find that they never go anywhere that doesn't already have a cache, well that is fine with me. I did hide one cache, but if I didn't have such a natural place to put it, I would still be a zero hider right now.

 

I think that if even 1 person in 10 hides 1 cache for every 10 that they seek, (a ratio of 1 new cache for every 100 finds on this website) The number of caches will still grow some, until we reach some nice moderate density of caches where the new cache rate equals the archive rate of plundered, destroyed, lost, or just plain bad idea caches.

 

At that point you might consider the sport "mature" and there will probably be a renewed interest in making the new caches quality over quanity - more difficulty, complex puzzles, ect.

 

I think until we reach that equilibrium and see what kind of cache density we have in the country, we shouldn't worry about it. I bet that the die hard hiders would then start looking to fill a need, putting new caches in locations that have low cache density.

[+vds]

I guess my thought was that if you had 100 finds, you must have had 'one' opportunity to do a hide that was fair to good. Perhaps I'm spoiled out here in Seattle, where there are a very large number of small parks, with a huge opportunity to hide things. But poking through the worldwide top-25 list and finding somebody with zero hides ? Just can't see it.

 

So it goes...

[+Alan2]

Some one recently posted that the most caches hidden in a 100 mile radius is around 950 if I recall. That averages out to about 1 cache every 30-35 square miles or so, not exactly falling over one another.

 

Of course "averages" can be deceiving. I'm reminded of the guy that drowned in a lake with an average depth of 2 feet!

 

Alan

[+Bear and Ting]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

old bulletin board systems (BBS) pre-Internet.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

---

 

What's a BBS?

 

Actually, we are almost in that group. We have 60+ finds and have not hidden a single cache. It is not that we do not want to, we just want to find the right place. (We thought we had one place and were going to place a simple cache this week and WHAM, someone snuck in and placed one in the same park and area ahead of us!). Oh well, we have a few other places too. We are also working on three themed caches too, two of which I am seeking permission to place (one is in an abandoned cemetary and is deep in a wooded area surrounded by private property).

 

Bear & Ting

 

 

I thought I was a little off, then I looked at my GPS and discovered I accurate to 12 ft.

 

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

[+Bear and Ting]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

old bulletin board systems (BBS) pre-Internet.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

---

 

What's a BBS?

 

Actually, we are almost in that group. We have 60+ finds and have not hidden a single cache. It is not that we do not want to, we just want to find the right place. (We thought we had one place and were going to place a simple cache this week and WHAM, someone snuck in and placed one in the same park and area ahead of us!). Oh well, we have a few other places too. We are also working on three themed caches too, two of which I am seeking permission to place (one is in an abandoned cemetary and is deep in a wooded area surrounded by private property).

 

Bear & Ting

 

 

I thought I was a little off, then I looked at my GPS and discovered I accurate to 12 ft.

 

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

[+Markwell]

I think this might have been a valid concern a year ago when there just weren't as many caches around. I kept hitting that refresh button every 15 minutes on a Friday evening, hoping that a new cache would be placed within 40 miles of home.

 

Now it seems that a new cache is placed in my area at a rate that actually exceeds my hunting abilities (but not others). I usually find about 1 or 2 caches per week on average. Caches are up to about 2 or 3 placed in the Chicago area per week. And, with an interview and expedition I just did with the Chicago Tribune - and therefore an expected article coming out in a major metropolitan newspaper...

 

I agree - I'd rather see thoughtful caches placed than a glut of tupperware-on-the-trail caches.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[evilrooster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

I think this might have been a valid concern a year ago when there just weren't as many caches around. I kept hitting that refresh button every 15 minutes on a Friday evening, hoping that a new cache would be placed within 40 miles of home.

---

 

Lucky you. There are 4 caches in my city , two each by the two cachers who live in the area. And most of Scotland is pretty lightly covered, despite our network of stone walls and other good hiding places.

 

I'm less bothered about a "requirement" to hide caches than about the occasional suggestion that one be required to find a certain number before hiding any. Frankly, I think circumstances (both personal and geographical) vary so much that we shouldn't constrain this activity with these rules.

 

Let those who want to search, search well, cache in and trash out, leave no trace, etc. Let those who want to stash stash good ones full of quality stuff. Rules lead to unwilling compliance, poor caches, junk for prizes, and people quitting.

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

[evilrooster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

I think this might have been a valid concern a year ago when there just weren't as many caches around. I kept hitting that refresh button every 15 minutes on a Friday evening, hoping that a new cache would be placed within 40 miles of home.

---

 

Lucky you. There are 4 caches in my city , two each by the two cachers who live in the area. And most of Scotland is pretty lightly covered, despite our network of stone walls and other good hiding places.

 

I'm less bothered about a "requirement" to hide caches than about the occasional suggestion that one be required to find a certain number before hiding any. Frankly, I think circumstances (both personal and geographical) vary so much that we shouldn't constrain this activity with these rules.

 

Let those who want to search, search well, cache in and trash out, leave no trace, etc. Let those who want to stash stash good ones full of quality stuff. Rules lead to unwilling compliance, poor caches, junk for prizes, and people quitting.

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-