Only You Can Prevent Lame Caches

[+sbell111]

Things were much different back then, hey?

I'll say. Now I absolutely never let Cathy's mother or sister ride with us.

 

It only took a few horrible experiences to learn that.

 

Interesting off-topic story: We were once driving across the state of NY from Buffalo to NYC with those two in the back seat. Her sister, the drama queen, wanted to stop for a while and my wife wanted to drive on. Her sister started to complain that she was nauseous, but it was obvious to everyone that she was faking. My wife made me pull over and guilted her sister into inducing vomiting.

 

Yep, no more trips with those two.

I could have died happy if I hadn't read that, thanks for ruining my death.

She really just kind of dry heaved pathetically for a minute or two while I tried to keep from laughing at her. Edited December 1, 2006 by sbell111

[+Team LaLonde]

We don't hide caches for ourselves, we hide them for our fellow cachers to enjoy. We have met most of these people either on the trail or at events and know their limitations/abilities. Some people CAN'T complete a three star cache so they like finding ones and twos.

[+wimseyguy]

Thanks for your kind words, wimseyguy. You are more than welcome to come up here sometime to DNF my lame cache.

Be careful what you wish for. I just might call you for a hint at 1 AM!

[+johninvandergrift]

Responding to original posting

 

Has anybody else had second thoughts and not submitted a cache page for a cache that they had already hidden?

 

Yes! I have one out right now that I'm not sure I want to publish. I think it's a good hide. My 10 year old son thinks it's a good hide. Heck, he thinks it's too good. But I can still have reservations. I don't think it's wrong to have second thoughts. As a matter of fact, I've already made a change to it after placing it and I still haven't published it yet. Second thought feels right to ME so that's what I'll do. After all, shouldn't we all just be doing what feels right to us.

[+KBI]

Responding to original posting

 

Has anybody else had second thoughts and not submitted a cache page for a cache that they had already hidden?

 

Yes! I have one out right now that I'm not sure I want to publish. I think it's a good hide. My 10 year old son thinks it's a good hide. Heck, he thinks it's too good. But I can still have reservations. I don't think it's wrong to have second thoughts. As a matter of fact, I've already made a change to it after placing it and I still haven't published it yet. Second thought feels right to ME so that's what I'll do. After all, shouldn't we all just be doing what feels right to us.

But ... are your having these reservations specifically because you're afraid your cache might be percieved as "too lame?"

 

"Lameness" was the issue in the original posting.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm a firm believer in listening to my inner voice. Call it intuition if you wish. Heck, call it llama nuggets if that title suits you. Because I'm a hopeless geocaching addict, my mind is constantly evaluating the world around me from a cacher's perspective. Would that be a good container? Would that be a good location? Can I twist that into a puzzle? Etc, etc... Quite often I'll drive by a spot and think, "Self, we've got a couple swag filled ammo cans in the truck, should we feed our hide fixation?" It's at that stage that I evaluate the LQ, (Lameness Quotient), of the potential hide. LQ must, by definition, be entirely subjective, and I happily work within my own parameters. While I oft glen some large measure of enjoyment from what I would consider an average cache, I find far more enjoyment in those hides which have a bit of "Wow!" to them. As such, I try to limit my hides to those that would rate low on my own personal LQ scale. There are so many hiders in my area who go the extra mile to generate the "Wow", that I feel compelled to give back in kind. If the day ever comes where I lose the ability to apply creativity to my own hides, I'll lower my standards accordingly. Gotta feed the addiction, don't-cha-know?

[+edscott]

Lots of interesting responses and the bottom line seems to be "bring on the lame caches.. someone will love them". 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. Some time ago I suggested that if everyone were to archive their worst hide, the cache quality would go up significently. That suggestion was basically booed off the stage. Seems like you may have gotten just a tad more support, but it appears to me that geocaching is evolving into a something for everyone activity. It's OK.. the schools do it too. Everyone feels fuzzy and warm in their success and never suffers the anxiety of failure. Eventually we will have set the bar so low that we'll need a shovel to get under it.

[+KBI]

... but it appears to me that geocaching is evolving into a something for everyone activity.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

Everyone feels fuzzy and warm in their success and never suffers the anxiety of failure. Eventually we will have set the bar so low that we'll need a shovel to get under it.

Since when did this hobby become some kind of he-man competition?

 

Are you saying you think too many caches are too easy?

 

If you only like the tough ones, what does it matter to you if the easy-cache-to-tough-cache ratio goes from one-to-one to 50-to-one, or even to 200-to-one? Does the mere existence of a cache you don't like take anything away from your enjoyment of one you do like?

 

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.

I disagree that anything here indicates the need to start archiving caches at all. What you want is impossible anyway -- "lame" is in the eye of the beholder, and it's impossible to quantify. I already covered that.

 

Just because a few people don't like a cache doesn't mean it's time to archive it. If you don't like it, bypass it.

[+...The Girl]

Things were much different back then, hey?

I'll say. Now I absolutely never let Cathy's mother or sister ride with us.

 

It only took a few horrible experiences to learn that.

 

Interesting off-topic story: We were once driving across the state of NY from Buffalo to NYC with those two in the back seat. Her sister, the drama queen, wanted to stop for a while and my wife wanted to drive on. Her sister started to complain that she was nauseous, but it was obvious to everyone that she was faking. My wife made me pull over and guilted her sister into inducing vomiting.

 

Yep, no more trips with those two.

Now, that's funny.

[+edscott]

Yes I know you already covered it. Sorry I stepped into YOUR thread.

Edited December 2, 2006 by edscott

[+sbell111]

Lots of interesting responses and the bottom line seems to be "bring on the lame caches.. someone will love them". 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. Some time ago I suggested that if everyone were to archive their worst hide, the cache quality would go up significently. That suggestion was basically booed off the stage. Seems like you may have gotten just a tad more support, but it appears to me that geocaching is evolving into a something for everyone activity. It's OK.. the schools do it too. Everyone feels fuzzy and warm in their success and never suffers the anxiety of failure. Eventually we will have set the bar so low that we'll need a shovel to get under it.

You get that this thread is three years old, right?

[+edscott]

Lots of interesting responses and the bottom line seems to be "bring on the lame caches.. someone will love them". 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. Some time ago I suggested that if everyone were to archive their worst hide, the cache quality would go up significently. That suggestion was basically booed off the stage. Seems like you may have gotten just a tad more support, but it appears to me that geocaching is evolving into a something for everyone activity. It's OK.. the schools do it too. Everyone feels fuzzy and warm in their success and never suffers the anxiety of failure. Eventually we will have set the bar so low that we'll need a shovel to get under it.

You get that this thread is three years old, right?

 

Naah.. just skipped right to the second page

[+KBI]

Yes I know you already covered it. Sorry I stepped into YOUR thread.

No need to attack me. I wasn't attacking you. I was responding directly to your debate points. If something I said offended or annoyed you that was not my intent, and I apologize if I failed to make that clear.

 

Do you have any response at all to the points I made, or are you done?

[+Outspoken1]

I am still rather new with caching (a little over 100 finds) and still get "glee" when I find a cache - micro or otherwise! If you don't like micros, don't hunt for them. However, living in a urban/suburban area, often micros are the only cache that can be reasonably hidden and not muggled/taken. While I do enjoy trading swag in regular caches, my greatest enjoyment comes from matching mental skills with a fellow human being and signing the log. I always enjoyed Sherlock Holmes stories, so I enjoy thinking about the clues to find the caches. Other cachers have taken time to develop creative caches that I have greatly enjoyed finding. Some are easier than other - for me! I have found caches that have stumped others and vice-versa. For me, the fun is in the search - not the swag or location.

 

I may just be lucky and live in an area with great geocachers who are skilled to place good caches. Or I am having fun and so glad others come out and play with me!

 

Take care,

Sandy

[+Viajero Perdido]

Walking distance. That’s the key. We get a hotel room for our layover, but we get no wheels.

Hi, CaptRussell.

 

If you're ever stuck in Edmonton, and don't consider benchmarks to be lame, then you might want to walk over to N53 18.442, W113 32.416 ("BCP224"). Probably a very short walk from your hotel, and possibly a bit of challenge under a heap of snow. (Contrary to Google Earth, it's not inside a fence.)

 

In Canada, GC.com doesn't support benchmarks at all, but in Alberta we have the same thing, sort of, crammed into a single web page. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...96-da6d00a04db6 (Caution: world's longest cache page; clicking "View them all" may crash your browser.) The benchmark I mentioned above (actually, we call them "brass caps") is coded BCP224, and you can log it by PMing the cache owner with the numbers you find on the cap and a description of the area.

 

Hope that makes at least one layover a little less boring.

 

PS: Only a small subset of survey benchmarks (um, caps) can participate in this game in Alberta. Here's a link to the list: http://members.shaw.ca/pdops/BrassCapFiles/BrassCapCache.gpx None of these are close to Calgary's airport, BTW.

[+KBI]

Hi, CaptRussell.

 

If you're ever stuck in Edmonton ...

Thanks! My company doesn't currently fly to Edmonton but the routes are always changing. I'll keep that in mind!

 

- CaptRussell (aka KBI)

[+TrailGators]

I'm bumping a really, really old thread because I finally hid a cache nearly three years later in the same park that I described in my initial post. The end result is The Elves' Shopping Center Cache. The "hook" is that finders are conditioned to expect an uninspired hide in a parking lot. Instead, they're surprised by visiting a nice park with a stream crossing, but within sight of the shopping center. And the cache is hidden in a less obvious place than the big hollow tree sitting by itself in the middle of a field.

 

It is interesting to read the comments where everyone told me to go ahead and hide a "lame" cache. Yes, we've debated the same stuff for that long.

 

Some take three minutes to plan a cache placement. This one took me three years. I am happy with the result.

Interesting thread! I think this little story showed that a lot of thought went into this cache. That is really important! One way to garnish an potentially ordinary cache is to make it a mystery cache. Lately I've been fascinated by photo caches. Anybody can make a photo cache because no math is involved! For those of you that don't know how they work they are kind of like multis but they use one of more photos to guide to the finder to specific locations. The posted coords only give you the starting point. They are very fun! So my point is that creativity and variety created by some addtional thought that make this game more special! Anyhow, it sounds like your cache came out just fine because there were no lamp posts or guard rails involved....

[+edscott]

Yes I know you already covered it. Sorry I stepped into YOUR thread.

No need to attack me. I wasn't attacking you. I was responding directly to your debate points. If something I said offended or annoyed you that was not my intent, and I apologize if I failed to make that clear.

 

Do you have any response at all to the points I made, or are you done?

 

Perhaps my post was unclear. I am talking about us not generating uninspiring uninteresting caches, but instead attempting to design to the best of our ability, and as our abilities improve, archiving our lesser efforts of years past. This really has nothing to do with level of difficulty, but rather the level of the experience. I usually get nothing from snooping about a shopping mall or picking magnets off a guardrail, but granted there have been a few exceptions. Shouldn't our prime objective be to improve the experience rather than simply increase the numbers. Numbers will go up either way, why not make it happen with the best caches we can design? The bar I see slipping is that of quality, not difficulty. This seems to be the theme of the OP and I am in agreement.

[+The Leprechauns]

I'm bumping a really, really old thread because I finally hid a cache nearly three years later in the same park that I described in my initial post. The end result is The Elves' Shopping Center Cache. The "hook" is that finders are conditioned to expect an uninspired hide in a parking lot. Instead, they're surprised by visiting a nice park with a stream crossing, but within sight of the shopping center. And the cache is hidden in a less obvious place than the big hollow tree sitting by itself in the middle of a field.

 

It is interesting to read the comments where everyone told me to go ahead and hide a "lame" cache. Yes, we've debated the same stuff for that long.

 

Some take three minutes to plan a cache placement. This one took me three years. I am happy with the result.

Interesting thread! I think this little story showed that a lot of thought went into this cache. That is really important! One way to garnish an potentially ordinary cache is to make it a mystery cache. Lately I've been fascinated by photo caches. Anybody can make a photo cache because no math is involved! For those of you that don't know how they work they are kind of like multis but they use one of more photos to guide to the finder to specific locations. The posted coords only give you the starting point. They are very fun! So my point is that creativity and variety created by some addtional thought that make this game more special! Anyhow, it sounds like your cache came out just fine because there were no lamp posts or guard rails involved....

Thanks very much for the on-topic response, and for the nice compliment! Yes, I'm happy with how the cache turned out. And yes, I considered using a puzzle as a way to make it more interesting. But eventually I decided upon the shopping center gimmick to make some social commentary.

 

I will probably do a word puzzle at the next location that strikes me as being in need of a cache, but doesn't meet my standards for a traditional hide.

[+Ambrosia]

Yes I know you already covered it. Sorry I stepped into YOUR thread.

No need to attack me. I wasn't attacking you. I was responding directly to your debate points. If something I said offended or annoyed you that was not my intent, and I apologize if I failed to make that clear.

 

Do you have any response at all to the points I made, or are you done?

 

Perhaps my post was unclear. I am talking about us not generating uninspiring uninteresting caches, but instead attempting to design to the best of our ability, and as our abilities improve, archiving our lesser efforts of years past. This really has nothing to do with level of difficulty, but rather the level of the experience. I usually get nothing from snooping about a shopping mall or picking magnets off a guardrail, but granted there have been a few exceptions. Shouldn't our prime objective be to improve the experience rather than simply increase the numbers. Numbers will go up either way, why not make it happen with the best caches we can design? The bar I see slipping is that of quality, not difficulty. This seems to be the theme of the OP and I am in agreement.

I can't think of a single cache of mine that I would ever archive. I wouldn't have placed a cache unless it was good, and frankly, I think that the first cache that I placed in 2002 was my very best. We really can never put a blanket statement over everybody.

[+KBI]

I am talking about us not generating uninspiring uninteresting caches, but instead attempting to design to the best of our ability, and as our abilities improve, archiving our lesser efforts of years past. This really has nothing to do with level of difficulty, but rather the level of the experience. I usually get nothing from snooping about a shopping mall or picking magnets off a guardrail, but granted there have been a few exceptions. Shouldn't our prime objective be to improve the experience rather than simply increase the numbers? Numbers will go up either way, why not make it happen with the best caches we can design? The bar I see slipping is that of quality, not difficulty. This seems to be the theme of the OP and I am in agreement.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Ed.

 

I value your opinion, but I still disagree.

 

You say you're concerned about quality, and that your concern is the basis for your suggestion that folks should start archiving caches based on perceived lack of same. You also specifically correlate quality with experience. I see two problems with this line of thought:

1. Any newbie cacher who is thinking of hiding a cache, especially if it's their very first hide, will likely think twice about doing so after reading forums posts like yours where people are criticizing quality of cache hides -- especially caches hidden by "inexperienced cachers." Who's to say that the cache idea you inadvertently squash with your comments isn't a "quality" one until you've had the chance to experience it yourself? Who knows how many potential hiders of truly great hides have said "uh, nevermind" quietly to themselves rather than risk exposing their very personal creativity to some outspoken Forum Cache Judge? Why would you seek to deny the world of these potentially wonderful geocaches?
   
2. You say that you think quality is more important than quantity. Many cachers share your opinion ... but not all. Some people love nothing more than to turn an entire weekend into a "numbers run," trying to fit in as many cache finds as they can into the time allowed. For these folks the simple act of using lat/long coords to find ANYTHING that is hidden from the public and listed on this website is pure pleasure. Some of them even set up mutually agreed upon rules and compete with each other! Why would you seek to deny these folks their fun? Doesn't that smack of telling others how you think they should play the game?
   

Again I say: Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible. It is impossible for the simple reason that there is no consensus definition of the word "lame" as it applies to geocache hides, and there never will be.

 

I agree that one should only seek – and hide – the type of caches that one believes will be enjoyable. This constitutes positive leadership: Leading by example. If you don’t like guard-rail hide-a-key caches, then you probably shouldn’t plant any yourself. You and I seem to be in agreement up to that point. It’s when you openly criticize the creativity of others -- and especially when you question whether some cache type, one that you happen not to like, should even be allowed to exist -- that our opinions diverge. Just because you don't like guard-rail hide-a-key caches doesn't mean they're not fun for someone else.

 

If you want to archive your own older cache hide efforts, that is your prerogative -- but please don't presume to tell me, or anyone else, how we should play this awesomely diverse game.

[+edscott]

I can't think of a single cache of mine that I would ever archive. I wouldn't have placed a cache unless it was good, and frankly, I think that the first cache that I placed in 2002 was my very best. We really can never put a blanket statement over everybody.

 

My personal goal is to be constantly improving in whatever activity I am doing.

[+edscott]

I am talking about us not generating uninspiring uninteresting caches, but instead attempting to design to the best of our ability, and as our abilities improve, archiving our lesser efforts of years past. This really has nothing to do with level of difficulty, but rather the level of the experience. I usually get nothing from snooping about a shopping mall or picking magnets off a guardrail, but granted there have been a few exceptions. Shouldn't our prime objective be to improve the experience rather than simply increase the numbers? Numbers will go up either way, why not make it happen with the best caches we can design? The bar I see slipping is that of quality, not difficulty. This seems to be the theme of the OP and I am in agreement.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Ed.

 

I value your opinion, but I still disagree.

 

You say you're concerned about quality, and that your concern is the basis for your suggestion that folks should start archiving caches based on perceived lack of same. You also specifically correlate quality with experience. I see two problems .....

 

Note that my post says THE experience as in the experience of finding the cache.... not how long you have been caching or how many caches you have hidden. Read again in that context and perhaps we are even closer in agreement.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I don't want anyone saying that one of my caches is lame.

ONE OF YOUR CACHES IS LAME!

 

There. See since you can't stop someone from saying your cache is lame, why sweat it.

 

Submit it. Some people will enjoy finding it.

[+Ambrosia]

I can't think of a single cache of mine that I would ever archive. I wouldn't have placed a cache unless it was good, and frankly, I think that the first cache that I placed in 2002 was my very best. We really can never put a blanket statement over everybody.

 

My personal goal is to be constantly improving in whatever activity I am doing.

I agree. My, I have a bright future!

[+KBI]

Note that my post says THE experience as in the experience of finding the cache.... not how long you have been caching or how many caches you have hidden. Read again in that context and perhaps we are even closer in agreement.

Now I see what you meant. I completely misunderstood you the first time around. My mistake.

 

Yes, it's safe to say that we agree on many things, but my original response was mostly in reaction to this bit:

... it appears to me that geocaching is evolving into a something for everyone activity. It's OK.. the schools do it too. Everyone feels fuzzy and warm in their success and never suffers the anxiety of failure. Eventually we will have set the bar so low that we'll need a shovel to get under it.

Please correct me if I’m still misunderstanding you. You seem to be saying that Geocaching has not only been lamed-down, but that you'd prefer for there not to be so many easy finds, or that the game should somehow be made more difficult/challenging for everybody who participates. Am I right?

 

I've been discussing pretty much this same issue with a few other folks in another thread. An ever-increasing number of forum posters have been complaining about a perceived increase in the number of so-called "lame" cache hides. I respect that opinion. I understand where that opinion comes from. I even share that opinion – to a point. What bothers me is when some of these folks go a bit beyond merely expressing disappointment with the menu; they insist that the menu needs to be changed. Others, like me, point out that the menu is richly and broadly diverse – it’s deep AND wide – and that there is something out there for everyone. Somebody enjoys those so-called lame caches, else they wouldn’t be there! I have asked these complainers why they can’t simply ignore the types of hides they don’t like and stop criticizing their fellow cache-hiders’ failure to adequately entertain them, but the question goes mostly ignored – they just go on and on about how "lame" the game has become, and trade ideas for getting it changed more to their liking.

 

I’m very interested in hearing more clarification of your position, Ed. If we still disagree, maybe you can convince me to modify my point of view.

[CoyoteRed]

Has anybody else had second thoughts and not submitted a cache page for a cache that they had already hidden?

 

This is an interesting situation. I can't say that I have. I've thought of and rejected many hides. I think them through before I make the effort of placing one--I think mainly is because I don't have ready-made caches that can be placed at a moment's notice. There was a time when I did and I think it resulted in the cache that I'm least proud of. I've wanted to archive it, but "She Who Must Be Obeyed" wants to keep it.

[+edscott]

.. it appears to me that geocaching is evolving into a something for everyone activity. It's OK.. the schools do it too. Everyone feels fuzzy and warm in their success and never suffers the anxiety of failure. Eventually we will have set the bar so low that we'll need a shovel to get under it.

Please correct me if I’m still misunderstanding you. You seem to be saying that Geocaching has not only been lamed-down, but that you'd prefer for there not to be so many easy finds, or that the game should somehow be made more difficult/challenging for everybody who participates. Am I right?

 

I’m very interested in hearing more clarification of your position, Ed. If we still disagree, maybe you can convince me to modify my point of view.

 

strike "easy" and replace with uninspired, replace "difficult/challenging" with interesting and I think you have it.

Edited December 4, 2006 by edscott

[+sbell111]

strike "easy" and replace with uninspired, replace "difficult/challenging" with interesting and I think you have it.

The problem is that 'interesting' is an impossible concept to define.

 

Remember the 'Wow' wars of 2004?

[+KBI]

.. it appears to me that geocaching is evolving into a something for everyone activity. It's OK.. the schools do it too. Everyone feels fuzzy and warm in their success and never suffers the anxiety of failure. Eventually we will have set the bar so low that we'll need a shovel to get under it.

Please correct me if I’m still misunderstanding you. You seem to be saying that Geocaching has not only been lamed-down, but that you'd prefer for there not to be so many easy finds, or that the game should somehow be made more difficult/challenging for everybody who participates. Am I right?

 

I’m very interested in hearing more clarification of your position, Ed. If we still disagree, maybe you can convince me to modify my point of view.

strike "easy" and replace with uninspired, replace "difficult/challenging" with interesting and I think you have it.

I'll give it a try. How's this:

edscott's position:

 

Geocaching has been lamed-down. I'd prefer for there not to be so many uninspired finds, and that the game should be made more interesting for everybody who participates.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Now, if you have the patience for a Long Winded KBI Post™, I refer you to this ramble of mine (from the other thread, where I was awarded the title of Staunch Defender Of Everything Lame):

 

Allow me to remind you of two things that should be obvious:

 

(1) ALL cache hiders are VOLUNTEERS.

 

(2) ALL cache hiders are AMATEURS.

 

Do you complain to the manager when you get a bland plate of food at a restaurant? You should. Do you post negative reviews on Amazon.com when you watch a lame DVD or read a novel that wasted your time? Absolutely you should. You're the customer. The customer is always right.

 

Should you whine when you discover that some of the geocaches you've been finding didn't quite live up to your standards of fun? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You're NOT a customer here -- you're a fellow participant. Sure, maybe you paid for a premium membership, but that money goes to the website, not the cache owner. Geocaching.com is merely the listing agent. It is the individual cache owner who designs and executes each cache hide.

 

Will whining about growth in the number of so-called lame caches cause owners of those caches to consider archiving them? Maybe. (Probably not, actually, because if those hiders didn't care what you thought before, what makes you think threads like this will get their attention? Who are you going to convince that one of their very own caches is "lame?")

 

One thing that whining about so-called lame caches WILL almost certainly do is cause certain potential hiders of future fun caches to hesitate. If I were a newbie, had only a couple dozen finds, and had a great idea for a thoughtful and creative new hide, I can see how reading you comments and name calling (Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame) might scare me off from putting out the cache. "What of nobody likes my hide? What if I'll just be adding to the problem? What if my hide gets held up in the forums as a Bad Example for Everyone to Behold as Lame? Maybe I'll just stick to finding other people's hides instead."

 

No one ever promised you that all caches will be fun. In fact, and as Snoogans pointed out, the enjoyment one gets from this hobby has a lot more to do with one's inner attitudes and motivations than with any specific type of existing or future hide method.

 

Those of you who are bitching about other volunteer, amateur, fellow participants' lack of inspiration should be ashamed of yourselves. If pointing that out to you like this is blunt, then please excuse me -- I can't think of any more diplomatic way to phrase it.

 

Whining "WAAAA! sometimes I find caches that aren't fun" implies a lack of patience with your fellow man that indicates maybe Geocaching is not for you. Nothing wrong with that. I frequently find disappointing ("lame") caches myself, but I don't turn around and whine about the efforts of my fellow VOLUNTEER, AMATEUR cachers when it happens to me. Somebody liked it -- else it wouldn't be there.

 

If my opinion makes me a "Staunch Defender of Everything Lame" then pin that big 'ol S.D.E.L. badge on my chest, and I'll wear it proudly!!

 

Does that clarify my position?

 

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?
   

[+Team GeoBlast]

Another take on this is people with disabilities that can't do a hike. I know, because I temporarily (I hope it's temporary) fall into this category. I've had to place caches that were very easy to get to, at least physically. Mentally however is where I took a lame cache and made it a hit.

 

El Diablo

 

Only problem is that grass is not an accessible surface nor is the area the hider has described.

[+sbell111]

Another take on this is people with disabilities that can't do a hike. I know, because I temporarily (I hope it's temporary) fall into this category. I've had to place caches that were very easy to get to, at least physically. Mentally however is where I took a lame cache and made it a hit.

 

El Diablo

Only problem is that grass is not an accessible surface nor is the area the hider has described.

That depends on your definition of 'accessible'. After my accident, I was limited to very short walks using a cane. The area described in Lep's original post was 'accessible'.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

We placed a wilderness cache in the mountains near our home, very close to a really beautiful and breathtaking spot (a gigantic natural rock formation on a mountain ridge, overlooking the entire area to the E-SE) but then decided never to bother listing it. Why? The cache was placed in a wilderness area, but in the previous months, a newcomer had bought a 10 acre plot of land not far from the cache and had built a wilderness home there. The private residential property was near the natural rock formation and the spot where the cache would be placed, and the same private residential property extended downhill hundreds of yards to the road below, bordering the wide swath of wilderness forest that any cache hunter would need to traverse on the 1/3 mile hike up the mountainside from parking spots on the road to the ridge area where the cache was located. After placing the cache, and after witnessing the thoughtless and mindless things that a minority of cache hunters will do to reach a cache site, and after realizng that many cachers no longer read cache listing pages and their attendant warnings and caveats, I developed strong concerns that the cache would be an invitation for trouble, and that it would be only a matter of time before one or more cache hunters seeking an easier route or shortcut from the road to the mountaintop would wander off the wilderness land and would either trespass on the private residential driveway or worse, would end up trespassing on the private residential property adjacent to the new home (i.e., the homeowner's backyard). So, after months of reflection, I decided to pull the cache listing (I had never finished the submission process) and we hiked back up there and retrieved the cache container.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Recently, I took a break from finding caches and went out to hide a bunch of caches that had been kicking around in my mind for months. I spent an entire weekend scouting, preparing containers, hiding the caches and writing up the cache pages.

 

Six of those caches now appear on GC.com and they were very well-received. There is a seventh cache, however, that never saw the light of day. That is what this topic is about.

 

There's a little strip of green park next to the local shopping center where I buy my groceries. Just enough room for folks to walk their dogs or play frisbee. It's maybe 300 feet wide at the most, and runs from one main road to the next main road on opposite ends of the shopping center. I said "there's a park without a cache," so on my weekend of hiding, I placed a small rubbermaid container under some bark in a large tree that was hollow at the bottom. It would rate out as a 1.5/1.0 at best, since the big tree stands off all by itself. I couldn't find a better hiding spot, even with a small container. The cache is 150 feet from the parking area.

 

By the time I got home, I thought to myself, "Self, this is exactly the kind of cache that you do NOT enjoy finding. Why hide it? This is a driveby cache. People expect better caches from The Leprechauns." I never wrote up the cache page. The container is still sitting there; I will pick it up the next time I go to buy groceries.

 

This exercise taught me a valuable lesson. From now on I will ask myself if I would enjoy finding the cache, BEFORE I hide it. I don't want anyone saying that one of my caches is lame.

 

Has anybody else had second thoughts and not submitted a cache page for a cache that they had already hidden?

 

****Standing Ovation****

 

There are things that every cache hider can do to inch the standard of cache hides upward. "Walking the talk" is a good first step in encouraging a higher standard. It was already mentioned that a good litmus test is "would I enjoy finding that?" If everyone would attempt to create their own standards and constantly work to upgrade those, this game could be something truly amazing. The "just put it out, somebody might like it" school of thought can't help but to push the standard expenditure of energy and creativity invested in hides downward.

 

This shouldn't be news to anyone reading this but other ways to raise the standard are when you come across a hide that took some real time and thought to put together, are to let the hider know that you appreciate it with a nice log, a photo or leaving something extra special in the cache. If you are fortunate enough to have a new hider ask you for some help or a suggestion, embrace that moment with every bit of energy you can muster.

 

But most of all, checking your own actions just as the OP is doing here is essential. If you can honestly say that the cache you considering putting out is forgetable, consider doing just that, forget it.

[+SniperChicken]

I say place it,send in the form and let the reviewer open it up! There are plenty of cachers who are looking for the "quick and easy find". I would not let ALL my caches be that "boring" because then i become the "lame cacher hider" that you are trying not to become. I commend you on thinking outside the box and thinking " If i was the one seeking this one, what would make it fun and memorable?" I know of cachers who have hidden close to 100 caches but the majority of them are "store bought" hide-a- keys or 35mm film cans, nothing wrong with that ..other than when finding these i felt no heart was put into in it. Know what i mean? To put a quality cache out takes time,preparation,a little research,and a little of yourself put into each one.

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

 

SniperChicken

[+SniperChicken]

I say place it,send in the form and let the reviewer open it up! There are plenty of cachers who are looking for the "quick and easy find". I would not let ALL my caches be that "boring" because then i become the "lame cacher hider" that you are trying not to become. I commend you on thinking outside the box and thinking " If i was the one seeking this one, what would make it fun and memorable?" I know of cachers who have hidden close to 100 caches but the majority of them are "store bought" hide-a- keys or 35mm film cans, nothing wrong with that ..other than when finding these i felt no heart was put into in it. Know what i mean? To put a quality cache out takes time,preparation,a little research,and a little of yourself put into each one.

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

 

SniperChicken

[+KBI]

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

Precisely!

 

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

[+Team GeoBlast]

Another take on this is people with disabilities that can't do a hike. I know, because I temporarily (I hope it's temporary) fall into this category. I've had to place caches that were very easy to get to, at least physically. Mentally however is where I took a lame cache and made it a hit.

 

El Diablo

Only problem is that grass is not an accessible surface nor is the area the hider has described.

That depends on your definition of 'accessible'. After my accident, I was limited to very short walks using a cane. The area described in Lep's original post was 'accessible'.

 

Since it is hard to address every level of ability, I was just going by what the ADA law sez. "A firm, stable, and slip resistant surface." Your circumstance and point is well taken however. It is a true talent to appreciate all levels of ability in a hide.

 

I guess the "holy grail" for me in this case would be an accessbile cache that would treat a challenged individual to an "ah ha" experience once the cache is discovered. The OP was describing a cache that didn't offer that.

[+Team GeoBlast]

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

Precisely!

 

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

 

From the bottom of my heart, I do.

[+drat19]

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

Precisely!

 

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

I used to feel this way back in my Numbers Ho days, but now I would disagree with it. Honestly.

 

"Just because a location CAN support a cache hide doesn't necessarily mean that it SHOULD." Quoted from (if you'll pardon my immodesty)...myself.

[CoyoteRed]

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

Precisely!

 

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

 

~raises hand~

 

I've proven it plenty of times by bypassing said lame cache and moved on. A lame* cache is a waste of my time and I'd rather folks not waste my time.

 

* As plenty of folks argue that "lame" is in the eye of the beholder, I behold said lame cache is lame in my eyes.

[+Kit Fox]

QUOTE(El Diablo @ Dec 15 2003, 02:56 PM)

Another take on this is people with disabilities that can't do a hike. I know, because I temporarily (I hope it's temporary) fall into this category. I've had to place caches that were very easy to get to, at least physically. Mentally however is where I took a lame cache and made it a hit.

 

El Diablo

 

I find this logic to be a bit patronizing. I fully understand that many people with disabilities are mobility impaired, and can't go on great hikes. I think cachers can still create disability friendly caches that are stimulating, and located in areas other than parking lots, and other nasty areas that have pavement, asphalt, etc.

 

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.

[+Team GeoBlast]

[\quote]What bothers me is when some of these folks go a bit beyond merely expressing disappointment with the menu; they insist that the menu needs to be changed. Others, like me, point out that the menu is richly and broadly diverse – it’s deep AND wide – and that there is something out there for everyone. Somebody enjoys those so-called lame caches, else they wouldn’t be there!

 

Have you ever run across a cache that is hidden by someone with one find and one hide that are 8 months old? I do, and they are still there. I think considering that particular hider and the circumstances surrounding how that hide came into being is important in a discussion like this. What information or perception of "a hide" was that person working with when they decided to hide a cache? Once they did, was the feedback so awful that they decided to quit?

 

I would agree that the menu is and should be diverse, deep, AND wide. But does this preclude any and all QC? Should hiders be encouraged to hide "for numbers?" Or what should be the intention if it is not to provide a true adventure? Is it possibly that through education and encouragement that better hiding skills could be developed? Don't you think that sharing ideas or going out of ones way to help a new hider with some nuiances such as understanding what containers will not result in better hides could ultimately raise the overall bar of the diverse menu?

 

With all due respect, you seem like you are punting on third down. Few cachers are not born with hiding skill. In some instances, good hiding can even be counterintutive. With this knowledge just passively "letting it happen" cannot improve the game in the long run and good people will burn out quickly and not play.

[+sbell111]

... With all due respect, you seem like you are punting on third down. Few cachers are not born with hiding skill. In some instances, good hiding can even be counterintutive. With this knowledge just passively "letting it happen" cannot improve the game in the long run and good people will burn out quickly and not play.

In your scenario, you assume that those few cachers are the primary hiders in an area. You also assume that the caches they find do not influence the caches that they hide. I disagree with both of those assumptions. I believe that a cacher's hides become similar to caches that they enjoy finding. As such, I see no problem to resolve.

Edited December 4, 2006 by sbell111

[+KBI]

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

Precisely!

 

Is there ANYONE who honestly disagrees with this sentiment?

 

From the bottom of my heart, I do.

I would disagree with it. Honestly.

~raises hand~

Everyone’s definition of lame is different. What you think is lame my well be a thrill to someone else. Why would you begrudge that person his or her fun? 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?

 

Not liking certain caches, I understand.

 

Wanting to rid the world of the particular type of cache just because you don’t like it, I’ll never understand.

[+wandererrob]

Another take on this is people with disabilities that can't do a hike. I know, because I temporarily (I hope it's temporary) fall into this category. I've had to place caches that were very easy to get to, at least physically. Mentally however is where I took a lame cache and made it a hit.

 

El Diablo

 

I was about to say something along these lines, but I figured somebody would cover it.

 

Having a good friend who's disabled and another friend who was pregnant until this summer, sometimes the easy, drive-bys do fill a niche. If it's a nice place you'd like people to see, why not list it?

[+kingsting]

There are probably many cachers out there that would consider my first find to be a lame cache. It was a tin keyhider with a damp log hidden at the end of a chainlink fence in a park. I found it without a GPS. I just used the cache description and the hint and found it after a short search. I thought it was neat that this thing was in an area that I pass by every day and I never knew it was there. This was enough to get me hooked on the hobby and about a week later I bought a GPSr and have been caching ever since.

Edited December 4, 2006 by kingsting

[+Criminal]

Another take on this is people with disabilities that can't do a hike. I know, because I temporarily (I hope it's temporary) fall into this category. I've had to place caches that were very easy to get to, at least physically. Mentally however is where I took a lame cache and made it a hit.

 

El Diablo

 

I was about to say something along these lines, but I figured somebody would cover it.

 

Having a good friend who's disabled and another friend who was pregnant until this summer, sometimes the easy, drive-bys do fill a niche. If it's a nice place you'd like people to see, why not list it?

Funny, somone mentioned that same thing way back at Post 43.

[+Criminal]

If it's a nice place you'd like people to see, why not list it?

Sometimes people just plunk down a cache without putting much thought into it. we have a couple here in town that are micros but were hidden cleverly. One blends in perfectly with a certain piece of artwork, hidden in plain sight. The cache hider could have velcro’d it under one of the six benches, but they instead decided to make it fun.

 

The other gets you on a bridge and you have to use a compass and the provided coordinates to pick off clues from the skyline. Once you solve the puzzle you can find the micro cache in a tiny park. The cache hider could have just dropped the micro in the park but they instead decided to make it fun.

[+Team GeoBlast]

... With all due respect, you seem like you are punting on third down. Few cachers are not born with hiding skill. In some instances, good hiding can even be counterintutive. With this knowledge just passively "letting it happen" cannot improve the game in the long run and good people will burn out quickly and not play.

In your scenario, you assume that those few cachers are the primary hiders in an area. You also assume that the caches they find do not influence the caches that they hide. I disagree with both of those assumptions. I believe that a cacher's hides become similar to caches that they enjoy finding. As such, I see no problem to resolve.

 

No, not exactly. I'm saying that every single hider, on every level, could improve their hides and assuming that that we agree that this is the desired outcome, it is much more likely to occur in an environment where "doing better" this is the expectation and is the norm.

 

I will agree that this sounds good on papar and one of the obstacles of implementation are a few things aspects of this is something you've already pointed out. That is the delivery of the QC, help, education or whatever you want to call it. This has to be done in a constructive way and that in itself is an artform that many cannot master.