Only You Can Prevent Lame Caches

[+Renegade Knight]

...If we had a large group of disabled cachers in my area, I'd go out of my way to make fun, and crafty caches that they could enjoy.

 

I would as well. However not every cache that I thought would be fun, has proven to be well recieved and strangly enough, vice versa.

[+sunrise searcher]

I say publish it -- I have a 3-year-old daughter and a newborn son. Right now, I cannot get to the caches that require I take my infant son out in the cold winter air. A short, quick cache like this would be wonderful for us -- Wrap the baby up snugly, take the pre-schooler to the cache site, let her find it, make her happy by letting her exchange gifts, back to the house. Happy day! Not all caches have to be tough -- I have caches ranging from 1/1 to solid 4s. I figure there need to be caches for all age ranges, people of all mobility levels, and people with very little time to people with nothing better to do than search for caches all day every day. With small children, obviously, I cannot spend a lot of time on puzzle caches, multi-caches, and micros. The children (and some days, myself as well) do not have that kind of attention span. The easier caches are a great way for us to spend family time together, being outdoors and having fun.

[Clan Riffster]

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

Yup!

 

How does the mere existence of a so-called "lame cache bother you? Why can't you just ignore the ones you don't like?

I'll assume for now that you are actually seeking information, rather than trolling for an argument, and I'll answer accordingly. Your job will be to recognize that my views are simply my opinion. I offer no statistical data to support them. It's just how I feel.

 

I believe that the existence of what I would call "Lame" caches has an overall negative impact on the game. I didn't have anybody holding my hand, showing me the ropes of geocaching, when I first started. If my first finds had been a bunch of soggy log film canisters or hide-a-keys plopped down in what I perceive to be uninspired locations, I would've quit a long time ago. This train of thought leads me to ponder how many folks, who would have been a positive force for geocaching, met this exact fate?

[+fizzymagic]

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

Count me in. Just because some dogs like to eat their own poop doesn't mean I should leave my dog's droppings out there for other dogs to enjoy.

 

How does the mere existence of a so-called "lame cache bother you? Why can't you just ignore the ones you don't like?

0.1-mile rule. Pocket query limitation of 500 caches per query. Imperfect filters.

 

I would have thought those things were completely obvious.

Edited December 4, 2006 by fizzymagic

[+sbell111]

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

Count me in. Just because some dogs like to eat their own poop doesn't mean I should leave my dog's droppings out there for other dogs to enjoy.

Just because some people hate hot dogs, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to walk down to the corner and buy one.

[+drat19]

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

Count me in. Just because some dogs like to eat their own poop doesn't mean I should leave my dog's droppings out there for other dogs to enjoy.

Just because some people hate hot dogs, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to walk down to the corner and buy one.

I believe we have the dictionary definition of "stalemate".

[+tozainamboku]

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

Count me in. Just because some dogs like to eat their own poop doesn't mean I should leave my dog's droppings out there for other dogs to enjoy.

Just because some people hate hot dogs, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to walk down to the corner and buy one.

Just because dog poop ice cream sux

 

I will also go on record that I can't completely agree with the statement

I would rather find that "lame" cache than to have had no cache there at all.

I believe that hiders should place caches they would like to find and not just place caches to keep their hide to find ratio up or to "give back to the community". Of course I live in a high cache density area, and might feel different otherwise. If people would hide what they like to find and because they truly feel that an area needs another cache then I would never have a problem with lame hides. I would feel like KBI that if someone hid it then someone would want to find it, even it is not me. I've seen many times where a cacher has archived his/her early hides when they realize they don't come up to their own standards. It may be true that newbies, anxious to hide their first cache, are hiding uninspired hides because that is what they've seen so far. It is also true that if they are hiding a cache, its likely because they've enjoyed what they have found so far. As they gain experience they will either get bored with geocaching and quit, discover hiding styles and location to maintain their interest, or remain satisfied with quick and easy hides in locations that some may find questionable. So long as their hides reflect what they enjoy, I have no problem.

[+edscott]

Now that we're clearer on each other's thinking, I must ask you some obvious questions:

1. How do you define "inspired?"
   
2. How do you define "lame?"
   
3. Isn't it likely – in fact, hasn’t it been proved in these very forums (man, I sound like a dadgum lawyer) – that other cachers have very different definitions of those words as they apply to the caching experience?
   
4. If we've established that your personal definitions of "inspired" and "lame" are unique to you, then isn't it true that what you're really asking for is that the entire worldwide game be refurbished and taylor-made exactly to your personal specifications of acceptability?
   
5. Isn't that more than a little selfish?
   
6. If these wholesale changes to the game were accomplished, but they were done using someone else's personal definitions that happened to be substantially different from yours (they really enjoy lightpole hides, but think painted mayonnaise jars make for lame caches) ... would that be okay?
   
7. How would you react if someone singled out one of your own cache hides, used it as an example to illustrate "lameness and lack of inspiration," and moved to have it archived for the good of the game?
   
8. Isn't it better to simply leave others be, live and let live, and follow both the golden rule and Frisbee rule 1.02?
   

 

I believe there are enough comments here and elsewhere to say my feelings on lame caches are not unique. Yes you are sounding like a lawyer and I am not playing the game. I did hide a couple of lame caches. They are now archived.

[+boda]

I believe there are enough comments here and elsewhere to say my feelings on lame caches are not unique.

 

OK. KBI has support for his concerns as well.

 

Where is this going? You both have essentially diametrically opposed opinions, and you both have support, so.....is there a solution? Or is there even a problem?

[+Scare Force One]

I agree with the OP.

[+edscott]

I believe there are enough comments here and elsewhere to say my feelings on lame caches are not unique.

 

OK. KBI has support for his concerns as well.

 

Where is this going? You both have essentially diametrically opposed opinions, and you both have support, so.....is there a solution? Or is there even a problem?

 

I don't know that we are diametrically opposed. I don't think he has come out in favor of archiving all caches that are not lame.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Sometimes people just plunk down a cache without putting much thought into it.

I object to that statement on the grounds of "mind reading".

 

I don't think you can really tell how much thought and effort went into a hide. While there may be circumstances that seem to indicate that more thought could have been put into a hide, this statement presupposes a level of intelligence, experience, and creativity that you assume are "standard" (or perhaps should be). I would submit that no such standard exists.

 

Of course "sometimes" is one of them words...

[+KBI]

I'll assume for now that you are actually seeking information, rather than trolling for an argument, and I'll answer accordingly. Your job will be to recognize that my views are simply my opinion.

Nope. My job, per your request, will be to not respond to any further posts from you.

 

I asked you to stop quoting me out of context. I asked you to respond to my posts as I wrote them instead of wasting my time by changing their meaning so you would have easier straw men to debate:

 

I KNOW you’re not suggesting that the hider’s dissent in this regard should be silenced.

Unlike your earlier post, ("ABSOLUTELY NOT"), I would never suggest that dissent be silenced...

At this point you are no longer debating me. You're only debating the fictitious version of me you create when you quote me out of context. If you continue to do so there will be no reason for any further responses from the real me -- I'll just stay out of the way so you can go beat up on your fantasy version of KBI.

 

You responded by quoting me out of context again -- and by "celebrating" the fact that I wouldn't be debating you any further:

 

If you continue to do so there will be no reason for any further responses from the real me

Whoo Hoo!!! Cel-e-brate good times, tonight!

Thanks. It's been fun.

[+KBI]

Now that we're clearer on each other's thinking, I must ask you some obvious questions:

1. How do you define "inspired?"
   
2. How do you define "lame?"
   
3. Isn't it likely – in fact, hasn’t it been proved in these very forums (man, I sound like a dadgum lawyer) – that other cachers have very different definitions of those words as they apply to the caching experience?
   
4. If we've established that your personal definitions of "inspired" and "lame" are unique to you, then isn't it true that what you're really asking for is that the entire worldwide game be refurbished and taylor-made exactly to your personal specifications of acceptability?
   
5. Isn't that more than a little selfish?
   
6. If these wholesale changes to the game were accomplished, but they were done using someone else's personal definitions that happened to be substantially different from yours (they really enjoy lightpole hides, but think painted mayonnaise jars make for lame caches) ... would that be okay?
   
7. How would you react if someone singled out one of your own cache hides, used it as an example to illustrate "lameness and lack of inspiration," and moved to have it archived for the good of the game?
   
8. Isn't it better to simply leave others be, live and let live, and follow both the golden rule and Frisbee rule 1.02?
   

 

I believe there are enough comments here and elsewhere to say my feelings on lame caches are not unique.

Okay, so lots of folks share your desire to tell others how to play the game. How does that make it right?

 

Remember, I feel the same way about lame caches as you do -- just not the parts where you publicly criticize fellow amateur, volunteer hiders' for their lack of creativity, and where you push for elimination of those hides.

 

Yes you are sounding like a lawyer and I am not playing the game.

Your choice ... but somehow I'm not at all surprised that you chose not to answer question #6.

 

I did hide a couple of lame caches. They are now archived.

That's too bad ... for me. If I'm ever in your neighborhood on one of my layovers, they might very well have been the only caches within walking distance of my hotel that day. I prefer WOW caches just like you, but ... unlike you, I'd always prefer to have an uninspired cache to find than no cache at all.

[+TrailGators]

....unlike you, I'd always prefer to have an uninspired cache to find than no cache at all.

Things change. Now I am totally uninspired about finding uninspired caches.

[+KBI]

How does the mere existence of a so-called "lame cache bother you? Why can't you just ignore the ones you don't like?

0.1-mile rule. Pocket query limitation of 500 caches per query. Imperfect filters.

 

I would have thought those things were completely obvious.

Sorry Fizzy, I guess I'm just having a Stupid Day. You'll have to help me here: How, exactly, do those things cause you to be troubled by lame caches, or prevent you from ignoring the caches you don't like?

 

Imperfect filters? I don't even USE filters, and I've NEVER had a problem either (1) bypassing the caches that didn't sound good to me, or (2) getting over the ones I didn't particularly enjoy.

[+KBI]

....unlike you, I'd always prefer to have an uninspired cache to find than no cache at all.

Things change. Now I am totally uninspired about finding uninspired caches.

That's fine. I completely understand. To each his own.

 

My beef is with those who can't stop there, those who would selfishly have such hides archived ...

 

 

... even though they can't agree on a consensus definition of the word "uninspired."

[+sbell111]

....unlike you, I'd always prefer to have an uninspired cache to find than no cache at all.

Things change. Now I am totally uninspired about finding uninspired caches.

I'm not singling you out. I'm just using your post as an example of one of the many people who feel the way you do.

 

I believe that the dichotomy shown in your position and that of KBI (and myself) is based on your expectations of the game. I hope that I'm not misrepresenting you, but my impression of your expectations of the game is that you want to be shown something cool. That may be a cool hide technique, an interesting puzzle, a new kind of container or camo job, a nice view, or a long walk in nature. Don't get me wrong, those all are marks of a great cache.

 

KBI (in my opinion) also likes caches to have those criteria. However, that is not what he really likes about the game. To him (and me), the adventure is the game itself. He put it better in this post from another thread:

... So what if you think it’s lame – it’s a thing that is hidden or camouflaged from public view and only findable via GPS coords and an awareness of this game. Some folks really, really get a thrill out of that, no matter WHERE it's hidden!! It’s like being in on a secret! To a lot of us, that’s pretty cool ...

One of the things that I like most about this game is that I can do it anywhere I want. I don't have to take the day and prepare for a hike. If I'm bored, I can pull up the nearest cache on my pda. Maybe the cache will be 'lame', but it gave me something to do for a little while to get me away from real life. That's the mark of a positive caching adventure, in my book.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Sometimes people just plunk down a cache without putting much thought into it.

I object to that statement on the grounds of "mind reading".

 

I don't think you can really tell how much thought and effort went into a hide. While there may be circumstances that seem to indicate that more thought could have been put into a hide, this statement presupposes a level of intelligence, experience, and creativity that you assume are "standard" (or perhaps should be). I would submit that no such standard exists.

 

Of course "sometimes" is one of them words...

 

I suppose at some point in this conversation, it's a good idea to consider possible definitions of lame. While it is very hard to quantify creativity or that something special in a hide that makes it unique there are things that make caches lame that can be defined.

 

1. Poor concealment of container.

2. Substandard container.

3. Dangerous or hazardous search area. (dumpster, gutter, stormdrain hides)

4. Bad cache page directions or misleading clues

5. Using "Cache" in the title of the cache page (that's just me)

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. (is this interesting to anyone after a few finds?)

7. No consideration for parking (encouraging illegal parking)

8. Existence of cache making a negative impact on the area and no effort to correct location or directions for finders.

9. Duplication of nearby hides in the area (this is another good litmus test..is this a new experience?)

10. Really bad coords that are not corrected when more than one finder points this out.

 

I'm certain there's more but this is bringing back some supressed memories. Anyone got any to add?

[+KBI]

I suppose at some point in this conversation, it's a good idea to consider possible definitions of lame. While it is very hard to quantify creativity or that something special in a hide that makes it unique there are things that make caches lame that can be defined.

 

1. Poor concealment of container.

2. Substandard container.

3. Dangerous or hazardous search area. (dumpster, gutter, stormdrain hides)

4. Bad cache page directions or misleading clues

5. Using "Cache" in the title of the cache page (that's just me)

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. (is this interesting to anyone after a few finds?)

7. No consideration for parking (encouraging illegal parking)

8. Existence of cache making a negative impact on the area and no effort to correct location or directions for finders.

9. Duplication of nearby hides in the area (this is another good litmus test..is this a new experience?)

10. Really bad coords that are not corrected when more than one finder points this out.

Well done! I was wondering when someone would volunteer to take on the challenge of nailing down a practical and useable definition.

 

Trouble is, that's only YOUR version of "things that make caches lame". I agree with some of those points, but take exception to others.

 

Also, you've now got to develop consensus definitions, as they apply to hides, for the words "poor," "substandard," "dangerous," "hazardous," "bad," "misleading" ...

[+tozainamboku]

....unlike you, I'd always prefer to have an uninspired cache to find than no cache at all.

Things change. Now I am totally uninspired about finding uninspired caches.

Like sbell111, I don't want to single out anyone, but TrailGators response does indicate the the differing positions.

 

Some people cache because they like being taken to interesting places, some like to have a challenging hide, still others prefer just finding something no matter where it is hidden, and some like many caches in easy to get to places so that they can set a goal of finding lots of caches in one day.

 

Some have stated that big growth in urban hides in parking lots will turn off new cachers. I think the truth is just the opposite. Now when people hear about geocaching they look on the site and find there is one at the 7-11 down the street. So they go find it and get hooked on the idea that you can hide a cache in such a mundane everyday place and only geocachers will know it is there. Of course, some of these people will get bored after awhile if they don't discover that caching can take you to new places or that there are new techniques for hiding caches that can to continue to challenge them. Others will continue to be satisfied finding the simple easy urban hides because they don't have the time or inclination to hike. They may prefer caches that still bring them to a an interesting place, but even if it is just the Wal*Mart parking lot they'll get some enjoyment.

 

If you like to hike or go to interesting places, it is easy enough to spend a little time cherry picking caches by reading the cache descriptions and logs before deciding whether to hunt a cache. Hiking caches are really easy to find since you can use terrain as a first pass on the filter. I suspect that newbies who might decide that they really don't like looking for caches in parking lots but might like a hike in the woods to find a cache would figure this out pretty quickly. I agree that that tools aren't there for some others kinds of cachers. For example, it is pretty hard to find which caches are hidden near a historic site or by an interesting work of art short of reading the description. Perhaps an attribute that and indicate cultural or historic significance would be useful to help find these. The difficulty rating can help some in find challenging hides, but there are probably many lamppost that are rated 2 or 3 - which would be about right if you've never seen one before.

[+sbell111]

I suppose at some point in this conversation, it's a good idea to consider possible definitions of lame. While it is very hard to quantify creativity or that something special in a hide that makes it unique there are things that make caches lame that can be defined. ...

 

1. Poor concealment of container.

2. Substandard container.

3. Dangerous or hazardous search area. (dumpster, gutter, stormdrain hides)

4. Bad cache page directions or misleading clues

5. Using "Cache" in the title of the cache page (that's just me)

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. (is this interesting to anyone after a few finds?)

7. No consideration for parking (encouraging illegal parking)

8. Existence of cache making a negative impact on the area and no effort to correct location or directions for finders.

9. Duplication of nearby hides in the area (this is another good litmus test..is this a new experience?)

10. Really bad coords that are not corrected when more than one finder points this out.

 

I'm certain there's more but this is bringing back some supressed memories. Anyone got any to add?

I think that I actually agree with one of your examples, but even that one comes down to a definitional issue that we likely would disagree on.

 

Rather than going through your list point-by-point, I'll only touch on a couple of them that I was surprised to see on it:

5. Using "Cache" in the title of the cache page (that's just me)

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. (is this interesting to anyone after a few finds?)

The truth is, I get a little warm, fuzzy feeling when I see a cache named 'Geocache' or a list of the original contents. You see, when I first started playing the game, many caches were called 'Geocache' and the original contents were frequently listed.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

By all means go ahead and list it.

[+Renegade Knight]

.....I suppose at some point in this conversation, it's a good idea to consider possible definitions of lame. While it is very hard to quantify creativity or that something special in a hide that makes it unique there are things that make caches lame that can be defined.

 

1. Poor concealment of container. [Hidden in plain sight? A true 1 after a 10 mile hike? Not a problem]

2. Substandard container. [depends on the location, and has little to do with the hunt quality]

3. Dangerous or hazardous search area. (dumpster, gutter, stormdrain hides) [i love industrial slag caches]

4. Bad cache page directions or misleading clues [annoying but can still lead to a great cache]

5. Using "Cache" in the title of the cache page... [not just you, but it's just a pet peeve]

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. [ok, but should be removed after the first few finds]

7. No consideration for parking...[part of the challenge again merely a pet peeve for a few]

8. Existence of cache making a negative impact on the area and no effort to correct location or directions for finders. [two issues here, placment should consider this but this by itself doesn't make a lame cache]

9. Duplication of nearby hides in the area...[i've ween woods, waterfalls, fields and wilderness, please duplicate]

10. Really bad coords that are not corrected when more than one finder points this out. [this is a listing problem and doesn't make a cache lame]

 

I'm certain there's more but this is bringing back some supressed memories. Anyone got any to add?

 

My comments are in [brackets]. I am not sure you have captured the essence of lame. Here is my stab it at. "If you didn't have fun, that cache is lame, for you ". I worked long and hard to actually place a lame cache. I spent a lot of time to refine the cache to capture the very essence of all things lame as complained about in the forums. I got the wet log, crappy container, no swag, lamp post, lame coordinates and everthing. Was it lame? No, people liked it. Go figure.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+tozainamboku]

1. Poor concealment of container.

These will take care of themselves as these are likely to get muggled. It's also a rule that has many exceptions. I've found many ammo cans sitting out in the open, just in an area where a person isn't likely to go. There are also plenty of hidden in plain sight caches, although I suppose many could be classified as using clever camouflage to hide the fact that you are looking at a cache. I have a cache that is a micro hanging high up in a burnt tree. It's pretty much in plain sight and the difficulty is figuring out how to get it down.

2. Substandard container.

Using a containter that is not suitible for the environment will result in a cache that needs more maintenance. These will eventually get archived or replaced with an appropriate container. Still there are often ways to hide cheap containers so they can withstand the environment. Cachers often learn this through experience

3. Dangerous or hazardous search area. (dumpster, gutter, stormdrain hides)

I only need to refer you to this thread. You may be uncomfortable looking near dumpsters or around electrical boxes. Simply skip these or post a note or DNF with your concerns.

4. Bad cache page directions or misleading clues

While obfuscation and misdirection are probably most appropriate for puzzle caches, I can see sometimes where it may add to the fun of doing a cache (e.g. liar's cache). Ambiguous clues are often par for the course where the hider want's to give a clue that doesn't make the cache trivial to find. Bad directions that are may cause unneccesary risks or are just there for spite are probably very rare. If there is a real problem, and you can't get the cache owner to fix it, try emailing a reviewer.

5. Using "Cache" in the title of the cache page (that's just me)

Personal preference

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. (is this interesting to anyone after a few finds?)

Personal preference. The original intent was to list the original contents and then for each finder to list what was traded so you could decide to search for a cache base on what was in it. Since many people don't list their trades it may not make that much sense to list the original contents. It still could give an idea of how much the hider invested in placing the cache.

7. No consideration for parking (encouraging illegal parking)

This is called a hiking cache. You find legal parking and walk to the cache. Cachers should not encourage finders to do anything illegal. But what constitutes encouragement? You can hide a cache in a park that is closed from dusk to dawn and post that on the cache page. Someone will still go look for it at nigh.

8. Existence of cache making a negative impact on the area and no effort to correct location or directions for finders.

Cachers not maintaining their hides is bad. Once notified that a cache is having a negative impact on an area the hider should fix the problem or archive the cache.

9. Duplication of nearby hides in the area (this is another good litmus test..is this a new experience?)

Personal preference.

10. Really bad coords that are not corrected when more than one finder points this out.

The hider is responsible for providing accurate coordinates. There might be some disagreement as to what Really bad means.

Edited December 5, 2006 by tozainamboku

[Backup]

Any cache is better than no cache. I love it when, for example I'm out shopping with the wife, I turn on my GPS and, WHAM, a cache pops up nearby. An easy drive-up is always a pleasant surprise. Also, did you consider the end customer? Cachers come in all different levels and capabilities. The newbies, the kids, or the handicapped, etc. I never consider a cache "lame" because it's easy (that's a whole other category). It all comes down to, "No one is forcing me to find any cache. If I don't like it, I can choose to ignore it."

[Clan Riffster]

You responded by celebrating the fact that I wouldn't be debating you any further

I guess my celebration was a bit premature.

[+edscott]

Your choice ... but somehow I'm not at all surprised that you chose not to answer question #6.

 

I ignored question #6 because all it shows to me is that you read a few words from my profile. The type of container I often use is not a relevant issue.

[+Confucius' Cat]

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. (is this interesting to anyone after a few finds?)

Others have pretty well refuted the others, but they have missed the obvious on this one.

 

Long Description

Details about the cache, including contents of the cache, what the container looks like, etc. You can be as brief or as detailed as you like.

 

Quoted from the cache submission page.

 

So, reading and following instructions is an element of lame?

[+sbell111]

Your choice ... but somehow I'm not at all surprised that you chose not to answer question #6.

I ignored question #6 because all it shows to me is that you read a few words from my profile. The type of container I often use is not a relevant issue.

I disagree. #6 on KBI's list is a restating of one that has to be continually asked of all societies. 'Would you accept change if you were not the one controlling the change?' As such, it should be examined and has nothing to do with your individual container choices.

If these wholesale changes to the game were accomplished, but they were done using someone else's personal definitions that happened to be substantially different from yours (they really enjoy lightpole hides, but think painted mayonnaise jars make for lame caches) ... would that be okay?

[+Team GeoBlast]

I suppose at some point in this conversation, it's a good idea to consider possible definitions of lame. While it is very hard to quantify creativity or that something special in a hide that makes it unique there are things that make caches lame that can be defined.

 

1. Poor concealment of container.

2. Substandard container.

3. Dangerous or hazardous search area. (dumpster, gutter, stormdrain hides)

4. Bad cache page directions or misleading clues

5. Using "Cache" in the title of the cache page (that's just me)

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. (is this interesting to anyone after a few finds?)

7. No consideration for parking (encouraging illegal parking)

8. Existence of cache making a negative impact on the area and no effort to correct location or directions for finders.

9. Duplication of nearby hides in the area (this is another good litmus test..is this a new experience?)

10. Really bad coords that are not corrected when more than one finder points this out.

Well done! I was wondering when someone would volunteer to take on the challenge of nailing down a practical and useable definition.

 

Trouble is, that's only YOUR version of "things that make caches lame". I agree with some of those points, but take exception to others.

 

Also, you've now got to develop consensus definitions, as they apply to hides, for the words "poor," "substandard," "dangerous," "hazardous," "bad," "misleading" ...

 

Okay.

 

I'll come clean before the pitch forks find me. I really don't even agree with some of my own definition points. I was just trying to generate a list in order to generate discussion about the core issue in this thread, lame caches. How can anyone address the prevention of lame caches if there's no consensus on what one is?

 

Or... if there is even such a thing as a lame cache?

[+Team GeoBlast]

Any cache is better than no cache. I love it when, for example I'm out shopping with the wife, I turn on my GPS and, WHAM, a cache pops up nearby. An easy drive-up is always a pleasant surprise. Also, did you consider the end customer? Cachers come in all different levels and capabilities. The newbies, the kids, or the handicapped, etc. I never consider a cache "lame" because it's easy (that's a whole other category). It all comes down to, "No one is forcing me to find any cache. If I don't like it, I can choose to ignore it."

 

Hence, there are some that would say that lame caches do not exist. If they don't, then why are we discussing this? If they do, there's got to be some common ground on what exactly that is.

[+Team GeoBlast]

1. Poor concealment of container.

These will take care of themselves as these are likely to get muggled. It's also a rule that has many exceptions. I've found many ammo cans sitting out in the open, just in an area where a person isn't likely to go. There are also plenty of hidden in plain sight caches, although I suppose many could be classified as using clever camouflage to hide the fact that you are looking at a cache. I have a cache that is a micro hanging high up in a burnt tree. It's pretty much in plain sight and the difficulty is figuring out how to get it down.

2. Substandard container.

Using a containter that is not suitible for the environment will result in a cache that needs more maintenance. These will eventually get archived or replaced with an appropriate container. Still there are often ways to hide cheap containers so they can withstand the environment. Cachers often learn this through experience

3. Dangerous or hazardous search area. (dumpster, gutter, stormdrain hides)

I only need to refer you to this thread. You may be uncomfortable looking near dumpsters or around electrical boxes. Simply skip these or post a note or DNF with your concerns.

4. Bad cache page directions or misleading clues

While obfuscation and misdirection are probably most appropriate for puzzle caches, I can see sometimes where it may add to the fun of doing a cache (e.g. liar's cache). Ambiguous clues are often par for the course where the hider want's to give a clue that doesn't make the cache trivial to find. Bad directions that are may cause unneccesary risks or are just there for spite are probably very rare. If there is a real problem, and you can't get the cache owner to fix it, try emailing a reviewer.

5. Using "Cache" in the title of the cache page (that's just me)

Personal preference

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. (is this interesting to anyone after a few finds?)

Personal preference. The original intent was to list the original contents and then for each finder to list what was traded so you could decide to search for a cache base on what was in it. Since many people don't list their trades it may not make that much sense to list the original contents. It still could give an idea of how much the hider invested in placing the cache.

7. No consideration for parking (encouraging illegal parking)

This is called a hiking cache. You find legal parking and walk to the cache. Cachers should not encourage finders to do anything illegal. But what constitutes encouragement? You can hide a cache in a park that is closed from dusk to dawn and post that on the cache page. Someone will still go look for it at nigh.

8. Existence of cache making a negative impact on the area and no effort to correct location or directions for finders.

Cachers not maintaining their hides is bad. Once notified that a cache is having a negative impact on an area the hider should fix the problem or archive the cache.

9. Duplication of nearby hides in the area (this is another good litmus test..is this a new experience?)

Personal preference.

10. Really bad coords that are not corrected when more than one finder points this out.

The hider is responsible for providing accurate coordinates. There might be some disagreement as to what Really bad means.

 

Thanks for all this effort. This is actually what I was hoping would happen when I posted that. Prevention or even addressiing lame caches cannot happen until we are talking the same animal. What is needed is a discussion of lame because without it, we are on a backwards treadmill here.

 

'm sure others would be interested in what you think lame is since you seem to have some pretty strong opinions on the list I put out there. I promise to read your list with the understanding that there has to be some personal preference in any list and to remain positive about what you have to say.

[+Team GeoBlast]

6. Listing all of the original contents on the cache page. (is this interesting to anyone after a few finds?)

Others have pretty well refuted the others, but they have missed the obvious on this one.

 

Long Description

Details about the cache, including contents of the cache, what the container looks like, etc. You can be as brief or as detailed as you like.

 

Quoted from the cache submission page.

 

So, reading and following instructions is an element of lame?

 

A good very good point. Thanks, it's been a while since I read the cache submission page. I wonder when the last time GZ.com actually reviewed that? Perhaps that a topic for another thread.

 

Anyway, as I already stated, I was really trying to reach 10 items when I typed that one in. I see people talking about lame caches all the time in here and I am not at all sure that anyone is really talking about the same thing. It's extremely subjective when you try to define it.

[+tozainamboku]

My definition of a lame cache is the one Lep used in his original post 3 years ago.

Self, this is exactly the kind of cache that you do NOT enjoy finding. Why hide it?

If I knew that every cacher hid the kind of caches they enjoyed finding, I would be satisfied that there are no lame caches. There are caches that I don't enjoy finding, but I accept these because I know someone else enjoys finding these caches.

You may look at some caches and think "Absolutely no one would enjoy finding this cache". I suspect these are caches that are hidden because someone didn't think about whether or not they would enjoy that cache. But it is impossible to read someone's mind - so we'll never know if the cache is really lame or not.

[+sbell111]

My definition of a lame cache is the one Lep used in his original post 3 years ago.

Self, this is exactly the kind of cache that you do NOT enjoy finding. Why hide it?

If I knew that every cacher hid the kind of caches they enjoyed finding, I would be satisfied that there are no lame caches. There are caches that I don't enjoy finding, but I accept these because I know someone else enjoys finding these caches.

You may look at some caches and think "Absolutely no one would enjoy finding this cache". I suspect these are caches that are hidden because someone didn't think about whether or not they would enjoy that cache. But it is impossible to read someone's mind - so we'll never know if the cache is really lame or not.

I also agree with that definition. Of course, it is only useful in identifying whether one of the caches that I own (or are considering) is lame. As such, I don't consider caches that are owned by others to actually be lame.

[Clan Riffster]

Or... if there is even such a thing as a lame cache?

I think that's the key element to this debate. Geocachers are such a wonderfully diverse group, that our likes & dislikes cover an entire spectrum of container types, hide types & difficulty levels. I can easily define "Lame" for me, but there is no way I could define "Lame" for someone I've only met in an on-line forum. Heck, there are probably cachers that enjoy nothing more than digging through all the funk behind a Burger King dumpster to dig out a film canister.

 

Once you break the "Do lame caches exist" barrier, then the debate shifts to, "Are lame caches a problem"? Again, diversity and attitude take over. Some folks feel that there may be caches which they would consider to be "Lame", but that these caches do not have any negative impact on the game, for various reasons, to include the fact that most folks are capable of filtering out lameness.

 

Those who feel that lame caches are a problem, fall into even more sub groups trying to define what should be done about it. Some embrace the U.N. philosophy of "Do nothing", some express their views without naming names, while others go out of their way to insult individual cache owners.

 

Ain't diversity kewl?

 

Imagine how boring this world would be if we were all the same.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Or... if there is even such a thing as a lame cache?

I think that's the key element to this debate. Geocachers are such a wonderfully diverse group, that our likes & dislikes cover an entire spectrum of container types, hide types & difficulty levels. I can easily define "Lame" for me, but there is no way I could define "Lame" for someone I've only met in an on-line forum. Heck, there are probably cachers that enjoy nothing more than digging through all the funk behind a Burger King dumpster to dig out a film canister.

 

Once you break the "Do lame caches exist" barrier, then the debate shifts to, "Are lame caches a problem"? Again, diversity and attitude take over. Some folks feel that there may be caches which they would consider to be "Lame", but that these caches do not have any negative impact on the game, for various reasons, to include the fact that most folks are capable of filtering out lameness.

 

Those who feel that lame caches are a problem, fall into even more sub groups trying to define what should be done about it. Some embrace the U.N. philosophy of "Do nothing", some express their views without naming names, while others go out of their way to insult individual cache owners.

 

Ain't diversity kewl?

 

Imagine how boring this world would be if we were all the same.

 

This is the best post in this entire thread and not because I agree 100% with it, either. I'd be willing to bet that the word lame conjours up a different definition to everyone reading this. So, this has to be the starting (or ending) of this debate.

 

While it is a difficult thing to do, I think this discussion is worth having however. Putting a cache somewhere simply because there is not one there and "any cache is better than no cache" are a two tickets for disaster IMO and if every cacher used these guidelines to place a cache, the game is headed for a demise of epic proportions.

 

Although I do not profess to have the answer to exactly what, but I believe that with a little compromise, that most would agree there's such a thing as a lame cache. One thing it involves is a standard of some kind. Returning to the orginal post that started this thread, I gave him a standing O, and I stand by that, because he considered a standard (of his own creation) and decided not to put a cache where he was considering putting one for the sake of just putting one there. This is a model that will allow geocaching to survive.

 

Otherwise.. why did I buy this fancy GPSr?

[+sbell111]

... Returning to the orginal post that started this thread, I gave him a standing O, and I stand by that, because he considered a standard (of his own creation) and decided not to put a cache where he was considering putting one for the sake of just putting one there. This is a model that will allow geocaching to survive.

Actually, he placed the cache, but didn't list it. Then, most everyone who responded to the initial post urged him to go ahead and list it.

 

Given that this was the attitude three years ago when this thread began, I think that it is safe to say that your doom-and-gloom prediction is unfounded. Clearly, the game is not 'headed for a demise of epic proportions'.

[+edscott]

My definition of a lame cache is the one Lep used in his original post 3 years ago.

Self, this is exactly the kind of cache that you do NOT enjoy finding. Why hide it?

If I knew that every cacher hid the kind of caches they enjoyed finding, I would be satisfied that there are no lame caches. There are caches that I don't enjoy finding, but I accept these because I know someone else enjoys finding these caches.

You may look at some caches and think "Absolutely no one would enjoy finding this cache". I suspect these are caches that are hidden because someone didn't think about whether or not they would enjoy that cache. But it is impossible to read someone's mind - so we'll never know if the cache is really lame or not.

 

I totally agree!!! And if you archive your cache that you feel is your worst, the quality of caches in your opinion will be better. And if everyone does it, the quality, in our collective opinion, has to go up. Sure there will still be diversity, but again in our collective opinion the quality has to get better.

[+fizzymagic]

You may look at some caches and think "Absolutely no one would enjoy finding this cache". I suspect these are caches that are hidden because someone didn't think about whether or not they would enjoy that cache. But it is impossible to read someone's mind - so we'll never know if the cache is really lame or not.

Very good observation.

 

For me, the caches I think of as lame are those where it seems to me that the hider didn't give much thought to the experience the finders would have. A cleverly-camoed container that causes seekers to tear up a nice forest area is (to me) lame. The very same container hidden in such a way that it doesn't encourage destruction of the surroundings might be very nice. The difference is the thought that went into the placement.

 

I recently encountered cache that required searching for a fake rock in a big pile of rocks. That kind of hide can be fun, but (for me) this one wasn't, because the big pile of rocks in question was right in the middle of a busy intersection. Thousands of cars going by, with people stopping right by you and staring. I had read previous logs, so I knew that people were spending a lot of time out there looking, too.

 

Now, maybe there are people out there that enjoy being stared at for a half-hour or more in such a place while they hunt for a cache, but I personally have never met one. As a result, I was left with the impression that the hider's enjoyment came at the expense of the seeker, in imagining their discomfort. My impression was probably wrong; I think it's far more likely that the hider just didn't consider how it would feel to be a seeker in that spot. But the salient point here was that I left the (quickly aborted) search with a kind of bad feeling about the cache.

 

So maybe you have hit upon the essential element of what makes a cache lame. Thanks for the insight.

[+Confucius' Cat]

You may look at some caches and think "Absolutely no one would enjoy finding this cache". I suspect these are caches that are hidden because someone didn't think about whether or not they would enjoy that cache. But it is impossible to read someone's mind - so we'll never know if the cache is really lame or not.

Very good observation.

 

For me, the caches I think of as lame are those where it seems to me that the hider didn't give much thought to the experience the finders would have. A cleverly-camoed container that causes seekers to tear up a nice forest area is (to me) lame. The very same container hidden in such a way that it doesn't encourage destruction of the surroundings might be very nice. The difference is the thought that went into the placement.

 

I recently encountered cache that required searching for a fake rock in a big pile of rocks. That kind of hide can be fun, but (for me) this one wasn't, because the big pile of rocks in question was right in the middle of a busy intersection. Thousands of cars going by, with people stopping right by you and staring. I had read previous logs, so I knew that people were spending a lot of time out there looking, too.

 

Now, maybe there are people out there that enjoy being stared at for a half-hour or more in such a place while they hunt for a cache, but I personally have never met one. As a result, I was left with the impression that the hider's enjoyment came at the expense of the seeker, in imagining their discomfort. My impression was probably wrong; I think it's far more likely that the hider just didn't consider how it would feel to be a seeker in that spot. But the salient point here was that I left the (quickly aborted) search with a kind of bad feeling about the cache.

 

So maybe you have hit upon the essential element of what makes a cache lame. Thanks for the insight.

this hider will perhaps have a "geopiphany" when he comes back for maintenance (if he bothers) and he has to search for an hour for his own cache that is probably never replaced in exactly the same place.

[Bluehook]

To me, the only lame cache is one with bad coordinates and/or crappy hints.

 

I found a cache today for the first time in a long time -- I saw another new(er) cache nearby but passed on seeking it for the following reasons:

 

- The container was reported as a "vitamin bottle." I have vitamin bottles in my house that range from a 1-gallon "tub" to a two tablet container. Right off the bat, I have no idea what I'm looking for...

 

- The encyrpted clue read "near a dead tree." A dead tree in the woods? I think that hiders intentions are good but just don't realize how ridiculous and useless this type of clue is -- some of my other favorites are, "near the big tree," and "by a large rock."

 

- To top it off, knowing the area somewhat I could see that the cache was placed on the side of a fairly steep hill. After you play this game for a few weeks you realize that a GPS signal bounces around alot/aren't very accurate on a steep incline. I don't mind a good climb, that's not the issue -- why not put it at the top?

 

I passed on seeking this one today. I may or may not go back..

 

No offense intended to the hider -- this is a far too common phenomenon in the game today. Personally, I like using the GPS, I don't like rummaging around for caches - and I realize that many do. But, I also believe that encrypted clues should be revealing by requirement thereby letting all enjoy the game on their own terms.

 

[+KBI]

Your choice ... but somehow I'm not at all surprised that you chose not to answer question #6.

I ignored question #6 because all it shows to me is that you read a few words from my profile.

This response shows me that you completely missed the point of the question.*

 

The type of container I often use is not a relevant issue.

Yes, it is.

 

You'll never truly know whether anyone perceives painted mayonnaise jars as lame or uninspired until a suggestion like yours is successfully and universally adopted, and by then it might be too late for some of your favorite hides.

 

In your earliest post you were clearly calling for people to archive their lamest hides. You said "I agree that the only way to reduce lame caches is not to place them and for those that have done so to archive them."

 

As a premise, I presume that you own at least one cache that you would not classify as "lame." By asking you question number six*, I assumed it would be made quite obvious to you that calling for the elimination of "lame" caches could, due to the very un-definable nature of the word “lame,” easily cause some of your very own caches to become the first targets for permanent retirement under such a wholesale elimination proposal.

 

It was my long-winded way of saying "be careful what you ask for, you might actually get it."

 

One should put one's self into the other's shoes before one points one's finger at another's hide and loudly applies terms such as LAME, UNINSPIRED or UNWORTHY OF LISTING.

 

You can choose to either (1) admit the validity in that alternate point of view, or (2) obfuscate and "unintentionally" ignore the question*. Either way, I believe I've made my point.

 

 

 

 

*Question number six (from this post): "If these wholesale changes to the game were accomplished, but they were done using someone else's personal definitions [of "inspired" and "lame"] that happened to be substantially different from yours (they really enjoy lightpole hides, but think painted mayonnaise jars make for lame caches) ... would that be okay?"

[+KBI]

You responded by celebrating the fact that I wouldn't be debating you any further

I guess my celebration was a bit premature.

And I'm disappointed to see that you're uninterested in (or incapable of) defending your "any cache I declare as 'lame' is unworthy of existence" stance.

[+Ambrosia]

My definition of a lame cache is the one Lep used in his original post 3 years ago.

Self, this is exactly the kind of cache that you do NOT enjoy finding. Why hide it?

If I knew that every cacher hid the kind of caches they enjoyed finding, I would be satisfied that there are no lame caches. There are caches that I don't enjoy finding, but I accept these because I know someone else enjoys finding these caches.

You may look at some caches and think "Absolutely no one would enjoy finding this cache". I suspect these are caches that are hidden because someone didn't think about whether or not they would enjoy that cache. But it is impossible to read someone's mind - so we'll never know if the cache is really lame or not.

 

I totally agree!!! And if you archive your cache that you feel is your worst, the quality of caches in your opinion will be better. And if everyone does it, the quality, in our collective opinion, has to go up. Sure there will still be diversity, but again in our collective opinion the quality has to get better.

I still find this amazing. Why in the world would we want to archive the cache we feel is our worst? For one thing...I can't for the life of me make that choice. All my caches are different, not one better than the other.

 

If we took this to the extreme, and all of us did this, say, once a year, eventually we would be getting rid of a lot of older historical caches. I like history.

 

There are just so many reasons why this suggestion is too general to be a true solution.

[+erikwillke]

You should submit the cache. No cache is lame, it's more about degrees of fun. I would love to have run out today at lunch and locked up a cache just like that. I'm sure someone with mobility challenges would like it as well.

 

Plug some kind of theme to it if you want to make it more interesting.

 

I'm not usually the one to agree with Criminal but this time I do. I've placed 9 caches with 4 more on the way. about 5 of those are micros, 2 will be and 3 of those are "Lame" by some standards. I mused a while ago about if micros were getting away from the sport. My focus was on PNG's but I have decided that there is a place for PNG's.

 

1. beginner cachers, if it is too hard they may quit.

2. Numbers Hounds (not knocking them, really)

3. Out of state drive-throughs (on vacation or going to grandmas)

4. Handicapped

 

I agree with another cacher's assessment that you should always place the largest container the area will support. That being said, drive-ups do have their place.

 

JMHBAO

Erik

[+Ambrosia]

You should submit the cache. No cache is lame, it's more about degrees of fun. I would love to have run out today at lunch and locked up a cache just like that. I'm sure someone with mobility challenges would like it as well.

 

Plug some kind of theme to it if you want to make it more interesting.

 

I'm not usually the one to agree with Criminal but this time I do.

Just remember that you're agreeing with the 2003 Criminal.

 

This is like a time capsule.

[+Team GeoBlast]

... Returning to the orginal post that started this thread, I gave him a standing O, and I stand by that, because he considered a standard (of his own creation) and decided not to put a cache where he was considering putting one for the sake of just putting one there. This is a model that will allow geocaching to survive.

Actually, he placed the cache, but didn't list it. Then, most everyone who responded to the initial post urged him to go ahead and list it.

 

Given that this was the attitude three years ago when this thread began, I think that it is safe to say that your doom-and-gloom prediction is unfounded. Clearly, the game is not 'headed for a demise of epic proportions'.

 

Whoa. Is it just me or do I need to grow a few layers of extra skin to post here? Okay, so it might be me coming from the land of aloha but I am not sure why you can't be a little more positive in your tone.

 

Anyways, that wasn't a prediction. It was a worst case scenario and I do not think that we are there currently. I do think that there's a legitimate cause for concern but it's not the total demise we should be concerned with. It's the slow trickle downward of the quality of the game and I do think this is will and is happening in some areas I have visited.

 

In consideration of the majority of players but not every player:

 

There is such a thing as a lame cache.

There is such a thing as a quality hide.

There are motivations for hiding caches that are not good for the game in the long run.

[+Team GeoBlast]

My definition of a lame cache is the one Lep used in his original post 3 years ago.

Self, this is exactly the kind of cache that you do NOT enjoy finding. Why hide it?

If I knew that every cacher hid the kind of caches they enjoyed finding, I would be satisfied that there are no lame caches. There are caches that I don't enjoy finding, but I accept these because I know someone else enjoys finding these caches.

You may look at some caches and think "Absolutely no one would enjoy finding this cache". I suspect these are caches that are hidden because someone didn't think about whether or not they would enjoy that cache. But it is impossible to read someone's mind - so we'll never know if the cache is really lame or not.

 

I totally agree!!! And if you archive your cache that you feel is your worst, the quality of caches in your opinion will be better. And if everyone does it, the quality, in our collective opinion, has to go up. Sure there will still be diversity, but again in our collective opinion the quality has to get better.

I still find this amazing. Why in the world would we want to archive the cache we feel is our worst? For one thing...I can't for the life of me make that choice. All my caches are different, not one better than the other.

 

If we took this to the extreme, and all of us did this, say, once a year, eventually we would be getting rid of a lot of older historical caches. I like history.

 

There are just so many reasons why this suggestion is too general to be a true solution.

 

What this describes is self policing or quality control and I personally like this idea. Even if you can't create a checklist or solid criteria to follow. If you are constantly nipping the bottom end of the curve off, the median will rise.

 

As for not being able to decide which of your caches to archive, you might be different in that you practiced quality control on the front end. Or, perhaps, you are having trouble being objective about your own cache hides. Either way, if you can really say that all of your hides are quality hides, all the finders are raving about how they enjoyed finding them, and you have the energy and time to maintain them... leave them be.