Proposal: New cachers should make 15 Finds before placing their first Hide

1.1k · April 16, 2003

Not sure if y'all are having this issue where you are, but we're having it in Mississippi and I'd like to make a proposal about it:

Issue is: Folks rushing to make their first Hide(s) before having made 10 or 15 Finds to get (a) a feel for the culture, and ( :cool: a feel for "what works" vs. "what doesn't" in terms of both cache containers and cache locations. I feel this has become more prevalent as more articles are being written about our sport and thus it's becoming more mainstream.

I would like to propose that the cache approvers enforce a guideline that a cache Hider must have made at least 15 Finds before having their first Hide approved. In addition to higher-quality caches and locations, this will also prevent Hides from folks who get all excited when they first start to play, and then the novelty wears off and we never see them again (and thus, maintenance of their caches never happens). Think about how many Hides you see from folks who have 2 or 3 Finds and 1 Hide, and then no activity for 6 months.

Obviously this guideline would need to be published in the "Hiding your first cache" rules as well.

What do y'all think?

-Dave R. in Biloxi, MS

P.S. ***NOTE: This part here is an edit to my original message above, 1 day after I posted it and after reading about 45 responses that have been posted. If you're reading this post for the first time, I would respectfully ask that you PLEASE resist the urge to post an immediate knee-jerk response to my original note above before you read the debate and my responses to those responses...I've softened my position on my original proposal because many have made VERY VALID counterpoints in a thoughtful and constructive manner. PLEASE take a few minutes to read through this thread and differentiate the constructive from the sarcastic, before you post your comments. Thanks! -Dave R. ***

[This message was edited by drat19 on April 17, 2003 at 04:55 AM.]

38.2k · April 16, 2003

Oh good,another rule . I placed my first cache after only one find. The only things I've learned since were that I didn't have to put nearly as much thought into the placement, container and contents.

I learned that instead of spending money for quality items, I could have filled it with junk drawer discards and broken toys from my kids drawer. I learned that I could have walked 50 yards into a non-descript, litter strewn lot and hidden it under a pile of rotting plywood; instead of choosing a challenging hike to a beautiful area. I learned that instead of spending money on a solid, waterproof contianer, I could have used a 50 cent Gladware container.

Actually, it's a good thing I placed my cache before I had a number of finds, or else the quality of my first caches may have been pretty lousy. I'd have thought broken McToys and leaky, watersoaked caches were the norm.

My first cache got good reviews from day 1 and is going strong after a year and a half. I still think it's one of my best.

Is it a good idea to have a few finds under your belt before placing a cache? Maybe. Make it a rule? Absolutely not!

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on April 16, 2003 at 09:17 AM.]

1.3k · April 16, 2003

Well, from what I've read here, many people look back on their first hides, and wish they had done a better job. Many others just seem to have a natural talent for knowing what works right from the start. I have mixed feelings about the second cache I placed. At the time, I had less than twenty finds. But, people seem to like it, from what I read in the logs. The only thing that stops me from saying "Yes, great idea!" is the fact that the first cache was hidden by someone with no finds. If they had to wait untill they found 15 caches, we wouldn't be enjoying the sport today.

"Searching with my good eye closed"

April 16, 2003

As much as we would like to avoid rules, they are necessary to make things work. This sounds like a good idea to me.

April 16, 2003

Hey drat19, Iraq is looking for a president.

Rino 110

MeriGreen 128

9.1k · April 16, 2003

If a newbie's cache sucks, leave a constructive log that lets the hider know what you didn't like about it. Better yet, e-mail them and offer to talk about cache placement locations and ideas.

I acted constructively when I encountered a bad first hide. Now I have one more Geo-friend. Isn't that a better result than yet another rule?

Why not 25 finds? I waited until I passed 50 finds. Some people "get it" and can place a great cache after five hides. Other people have dozens of finds and still insist on tossing Gladware out their car window.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

.sdrawkcab dootsrednu tub sdrawrof devil si efiL

April 16, 2003

Perhaps you should first bring this proposal up on the Mississippi Geocachers Association web forum, of which you are a member. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any mention of it there. Personally, I'm against it. I don't think the number of finds you have is any indication of how well you might place a cache. I think it's pretty much a common sense issue.

April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by drat19:
Not sure if y'all are having this issue where you are, but we're having it in Mississippi and I'd like to make a proposal about it:

Issue is: Folks rushing to make their first Hide(s) before having made 10 or 15 Finds to get (a) a feel for the culture, and ( a feel for "what works" vs. "what doesn't" in terms of both cache containers and cache locations. I feel this has become more prevalent as more articles are being written about our sport and thus it's becoming more mainstream.

I would like to propose that the cache approvers enforce a guideline that a cache Hider must have made at least 15 Finds before having their first Hide approved. In addition to higher-quality caches and locations, this will also prevent Hides from folks who get all excited when they first start to play, and then the novelty wears off and we never see them again (and thus, maintenance of their caches never happens). Think about how many Hides you see from folks who have 2 or 3 Finds and 1 Hide, and then no activity for 6 months.

Obviously this guideline would need to be published in the "Hiding your first cache" rules as well.

What do y'all think?

-Dave R. in Biloxi, MS

I agree with BS that another rule is not needed. Since the caches should be dynamic, placing a cache early will allow for the cache to improve over time. If the cache leaks or whatever, then they can learn that way. It should help to keep the creativity aspect open on the caches and not having 2000 of the same caches hidden in the same containers using the same hiding technique.

I go by the difficulty as to what I expect to find. My experience is that the tougher the placement the better the cache b/c the more experienced cachers go to them. The 1/1 caches seem to have a lot of activity and thus the lower quality items.

But, that's just me and I've been known to be wrong before...

With man, it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible!

6.5k · April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by drat19:
I would like to propose that the cache approvers enforce a guideline that a cache Hider must have made at least 15 Finds before having their first Hide approved. In addition to higher-quality caches and locations, this will also prevent Hides from folks who get all excited when they first start to play, and then the novelty wears off and we never see them again (and thus, maintenance of their caches never happens). Think about how many Hides you see from folks who have 2 or 3 Finds and 1 Hide, and then no activity for 6 months.

This and this one are a couple somewhat recent threads about this. Ill just quote what I said there.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by bradtal:
My question is... Should the "Powers-to-be" (Jeremy, Erik, etc) not allow new caches to be hidden if the user has less than __X__ number of found caches? __X__ could be 5 or 10, for example...

quote:
welch:
No, this would be vastly difficult to set up and give only marginal returns. If cacher A has to find X caches before placing cache 1 they may just find a bunch of easy ones just to get past it(or not even find them, just log fake finds). And that assuming there are X within A's area. There are whole contries in which the total ammount of caches is

And theres no gurantee that after cacher A has found X caches they will have a feel. Just because none (I hope)of the X caches were strapped to a bridge or on private property or any of the other non-good places, doesn't mean 'A' won't think its a good idea.

I think a better (and maybe easier to enforce?)idea might be to find some way to require new users to read the guidelines/faqs and maybe an "good cache container" thread. It seems like some people don't read the guidelines till their cache gets turned down

ps- Non-cachers think everything looks like a bomb, not just PVC

quote:
welch from the other thread:
As I said in the other thread...

No, such a system with an X limit would be difficult to set up (even if X was a variable), difficult to enforce, and wouldn't do any good.

April 16, 2003

I really don't think we need more rules and regulations or you’re going to start scaring people away. Some people hide great caches and some people hide horrible caches. I don't think finding a few caches will help these people in the latter group. Sometimes I enjoy finding a horrible cache for a good laugh and it makes an interesting story to talk about later.

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

1.3k · April 16, 2003

quote:
Hey drat19, Iraq is looking for a president.

Was this really necessary?

quote:
Perhaps you should first bring this proposal up on the Mississippi Geocachers Association web forum, of which you are a member. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any mention of it there. Personally, I'm against it. I don't think the number of finds you have is any indication of how well you might place a cache. I think it's pretty much a common sense issue.

Actually this issue was discussed on the MGA forums, although the thread doesn't necessarily indicate that. There are at least 2 threads there mentioning this. The longer of the threads started out as a discussion over what types of containers were good or bad ideas. There is a local cacher who is a "newbie" (well, he's not anymore) who placed some caches that were toolboxes. They were not water tight and this led to some cachers being upset by this.

It turned out there was a bit of confusion over what the site meant when it said waterproof. Everything has been worked out now, the "newbie" has replaced all of his traditional caches with ammo cans and I think all of the friction is gone

Matter of fact, I took one of the previously mentioned 'toolboxes' as a door prize at the Metro Area Cachers meeting this past weekend.

My point is - it has been discussed there. I'm not sure that it matters if it was discussed there or not, however. The MGA (or any other local group) has no countrol over what guidelines approvers set.

I think a nominal number of finds should be required before placing any caches. Somewhere between 10 and 20. I know arguements can be made on all sides about this, there are people with hundreds of finds who hide caches poorly. It won't solve all the problems. It certainly couldn't hurt. I've noticed several people with 2 or 3 finds placing 2 or 3 caches and they are often ill thought out.

This rule could be bad, for people like me - who have only 1 cache within a 40 mile radius.

BTW - Common sense is a rather uncommon thing...

SouthDeltan

8.9k · April 16, 2003

If this were the line of thinking, Geocaching would have never started. How could the first cache placer have found 15 caches before placing?

I know, we're at "critical mass" now, and most areas have enough caches that this is not an issue, but what of the areas in the world that are just starting to cache? They don't have ANY to find, let alone 15.

My very first cache (placed May of 2001) is going through somewhat of a resurgence lately, and people are giving me good comments. My second cache was plundered in 2 days due to poor placement. I didn't hide my first REALLY good cache until I had found about 10.

Do I wish I would have found more? Yep.

Am I going to insist that others do the same? Nope, but I'd suggest it if someone asked me.

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

1.3k · April 16, 2003

Hrm, I rambled a bit in my last post, let me see if I can be a bit more concise:

Good points to this proposed rule:

1. Will help reduce caches by newbies who quit the sport after they 'newness' wears off - resulting in abandoned caches.

2. Will help reduce poorly planned and placed caches.

Bad things:

1. It's yet another rule.

2. Some people are good hiders from the start, some can find a 1000 caches and still hide bad ones.

3. Some people live in areas with few caches. (However, the rule could be lifted for people with no caches within an X mile radius)

SouthDeltan

1.3k · April 16, 2003

quote:
If this were the line of thinking, Geocaching would have never started. How could the first cache placer have found 15 caches before placing?

It could always be lifted for people who live in an area (country?) where there are no caches within a certain amount of distance... shrug...

I think a better idea would be this:

When a cacher attempts to list his/her first cache the cacher should be forced to read through the helpfiles about placing caches, as well as even a few of the more relevent threads.

"Click Here If you have read the FAQ on Hiding Caches"

That might work, It might not... but I don't see how it could hurt anything...

SD

April 16, 2003

Bad idea...

you're just discouraging newcomers by making it seem like you have to earn your way into this group. Everyone should be free to hide and seek as they choose.

enough rules, enough

-pizzachef

24.7k · April 16, 2003

My first hide was ultimatly plundered. Looking back it was still a good location and still a good hide.

Why dampen enthusiasm by making a rule that doesn't need to exist?

After 15 finds your creative idea may become just another version of coloring between the lines.

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

Wherever you go there you are.

1.7k · April 16, 2003

I wonder how you arrived at 15 being the magic number?

I have seen some in MO, placed by experienced cachers (experienced at the time they placed it, if you do some research) that are:

(1) Illegal

(2) Hidden in a hole dug in the ground (against geocaching.com rules)

(3) Poorly placed/poorly hidden

There also is one that I found that was cracked and full of water. I notified the experienced cacher that placed it. As of the last posted log, the cache remains cracked and keeps accumulating water. Yet the cacher is still active.

I would say no to the RULE but yes to the SUGGESTION that new cachers wait a while before placing them.

DustyJacket

Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case...

6.5k · April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by South Deltan:
I think a better idea would be this:

When a cacher attempts to list his/her first cache the cacher should be forced to read through the helpfiles about placing caches, as well as even a few of the more relevent threads.

Now that idea I like .

Maybe when people sign up for an account they have to scroll down down a FAQ of some sort. Then important items could be bolded(No Food, Not on NPS lands, Seeking permssion is...), that way even if they dont read it word for word they might pick up something. Or that might be too confusing for people just signing up, we don't want them to get the idea they MUST hide a cache. Maybe the 'report a new cache' link could be rigged up, so that the first time someone clicks it, it brings up an "FAQ agreement" or something.

6.5k · April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by South Deltan:
Good points to this proposed rule:

1. Will help reduce caches by newbies who quit the sport after they 'newness' wears off - resulting in abandoned caches.

2. Will help reduce poorly planned and placed caches.

1. Maybe. I guess my area doesn't have a lot of fad cachers placing. Anyone can lose interest, and there are 'abandoned', not being maintained, caches that were placed by cacher are still active. I can't see this proposed rule, somehow eliminating orphans....

2. I don't see how this is true. Yes some cachers seem to get better at hiding as they mass more finds & hides. Others stay the same, and some say as a person hides more caches they become of lower and lower quality.

How is adding yet another rules going to change this?

9.1k · April 16, 2003

Out of curiosity, I just reviewed the history of the 22 caches listed in The Leprechauns' Top 10% Greatest Cache Hunts. Of those, about HALF the caches were hidden by someone who had less than 15 finds at the time they placed the outstanding cache. Several of those hiders still have less than 15 finds. Think about it. At least for me, this rule would have delayed or prevented half of the best caches I've ever found.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

.sdrawkcab dootsrednu tub sdrawrof devil si efiL

April 16, 2003

well said brian. i've got more to add but no reason to.

Click to subscribe to ozmtngeocachers

if you cache it, they will come.

April 16, 2003

Sorry, D-rat, but I'll have to somewhat disagree with you on this point. It certainly would be a good suggestion to have some finds under your belt, but I would imagine that hiding a cache gets more people hooked than finding one. It makes my day to get an email saying "Somebody Found Your Cache!".

I have to admit, I placed Little Brown Bottle as an experiment before ever finding a cache myself. For most Golden Triangle Geocachers, this is the first geocache they ever found. This was the first Geocache ever placed in downtown Starkville/MSU and you see how many have sprung up since.

And face it, some people could find 300 caches and still not "get it", whereas some people study our addiction, read a lot of logs, and thoroughly plan their cache hides, even with a few or no finds under their belt. I really feel the key to a good cache is planning, not necessarily experience.

Bad caches, regardless who placed them, eventually fade away. I'm one of the "old guys" of MS geocaching, and there have been quite a few that are now archived. The better ones stick around.

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

1.3k · April 16, 2003

quote:
Sorry, D-rat, but I'll have to somewhat disagree with you on this point. It certainly would be a good suggestion to have some finds under your belt, but I would imagine that hiding a cache gets more people hooked than finding one. It makes my day to get an email saying "Somebody Found Your Cache!".

The more I think about it the more I agree that a rule might not be the best idea - but I don't see why there shouldn't be a suggestion in there for first time hiders.

I think that would help a lot of people out. I'm not sure if how it could hurt anybody, or how it would do so...but I'm sure if it's possible somebody will point that out...

I still think it would be a good idea to have that "Check here if you have read the FAQ and agree to follow it to the best of your ability" or something like that... I'm not sure the best way to word it. I think somebody suggested making it so you'd have to actually scroll through the helpfile/FAQ before you could click 'I Agree' and hide your first cache.

Just an idea.... nothing more...

Tooooooo many people get their feathers ruffled at suggestions. Suggesting something doesn't make it happen. Sometimes the best way to find out if your idea is good or bad is to mention it and then wait for it to get dissected on these forums....

southdeltan

April 16, 2003

RULES ~~~ "Who needs a STINKING RULE"

Joking aside, I don't feel that we need a "RULE" covering when one is to place a cache.

I place my first (10/2/2001) after all this time it's still going strong ~~ getting good coments in the logs etc. and I had only found 3 -4 at the time I hid / placed this one.

Hide e'm Find e'm Enjoy e'm Here in my area of the desert southwest we take what ever we can !!

Mzee ~~~ "And now where Homes?"

April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by drat19:

I would like to propose that the cache approvers enforce a guideline that a cache Hider must have made at least 15 Finds before having their first Hide approved. In addition to higher-quality caches and locations, this will also prevent Hides from folks who get all excited when they first start to play, and then the novelty wears off and we never see them again (and thus, maintenance of their caches never happens). Think about how many Hides you see from folks who have 2 or 3 Finds and 1 Hide, and then no activity for 6 months.

Obviously this guideline would need to be published in the "Hiding your first cache" rules as well.

What do y'all think?

-Dave R. in Biloxi, MS

I would like to propose that people should refrain from making up new rules for geocaching until they have at least 450 finds. In addition to higher-quality [sic] rules, this will also prevent rules from people who get all excited when they first start to play, and then the novelty wears off and we never see them again (and thus, enoforcement of their rule never happens). Think about how many rules you see from folks who have 260 or 270 finds, and then no activity for 6 months.

Seriously, now. What about those places where there are no caches? Why not do something constructive, like volunteer to moderate a forum discussing what to consider when making your first hides?

April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by drat19:
I would like to propose that the cache approvers enforce a guideline that a cache Hider must have made at least 15 Finds before having their first Hide approved. -Dave R. in Biloxi, MS

No its a bad idea. There are people who live in areas where there are very few caches and thus may never reach your 15 caches.

According to the rules, you can not place a cache whilst on vacation, so the game wont spread to countries were there are no caches, as in this case, no-one can place the first cache!

Also, someone who has found say 50 caches and placed 5 could get bored with the game and not maintain them or place low quality caches.

--------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."

--------------------------------------------------------

Victor

April 16, 2003

Wow, lots of people take this hobby pretty seriously. Do you all put this much thought into, say, who your local representatives are? Or who is running your school district?

Now, don't get all uppity. Maybe you do. I'm just throwing this into the mix.

April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tradboy:
Wow, lots of people take this hobby pretty seriously. Do you all put this much thought into, say, who your local representatives are? Or who is running your school district?

Now, don't get all uppity. Maybe you do. I'm just throwing this into the mix.

Yeah, I checked. But none of them have put out OR found caches!

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tradboy:
Wow, lots of people take this hobby pretty seriously. Do you all put this much thought into, say, who your local representatives are? Or who is running your school district?

Now, don't get all uppity. Maybe you do. I'm just throwing this into the mix.

Yeah, I checked, but none of them have hidden OR hunted geocaches! And they've probably never doubled-posted either!

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

April 16, 2003

I agree that most people should find a certain amount of caches before they hide one, I really don't think it needs to be a rule though. I have 16 finds and am in the planning stage of my first hide, and I'm still hoping it doesn't suck. If it does, hopefully I will get some helpful feedback, and I can improve it.

I knew from the beginning that I would want to find several caches before I hid one, but up until a few finds ago (#13) even I didn't know how many. I think that magic number will be different for everyone, some people will do fine after one find, (not me). NO rule can take that dynamic into consideration, and shouldn't try.

If you don't want to hunt a cache that has been placed by a noob with a low number of finds, Don't. It's easy to check on the hider to see if they have found what you consider to be the right number. If they don't, don't hunt that cache. I might want to and don't want to be deprived of the privilege, just because you don't want to.

While I cringe a little when I see somebody post that they just found their first cache and are going to hide one tomorrow, I'm still rooting for them (us).

I don't think you should try to mold this game to your liking, the diversity is one of the things I like most.

_________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures

38.2k · April 16, 2003

quote:
ow, lots of people take this hobby pretty seriously. Do you all put this much thought into, say, who your local representatives are? Or who is running your school district?

In answer to your question:

Governor: Jim McGreedy (yuk)

US Senators: Frank Lousenberg and Jon Corslime

Congressman: Rodney Frelingheuysen (spell that one, I can't)

State Senator: Robert Martin

State Assembly: Alex DeCroce and I admit the other guy's name slips my mind.

Sheriff: Ed Rochford

Town Mayor: Glenn Sisco

School Board: Don't know all the members but I voted for Bill Hickey and Margret Zybeck on Tuesday and I know Diane McIntee and Bill Luisi are also members. There are 2 or 3 more, and their names escape me at the moment

School Super: Chuck Grau

Do we take our sport seriously, many of us do, sort of.... We're kind of like golfers. We do it for fun. We know it isn't life, or death, But if we find someone cheating, we may not want to play with them anymore.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

1.1k · April 16, 2003

Well, I expected some follow-up to my proposal on this thread, but frankly I'm surprised at the vehemence of some of the counterpoints. Perhaps that's MY "live and learn" as to better "learning the culture". I'd like to reply to many of the points made:

(1) As SouthDeltan pointed out, much of this discussion (in Miss., anyway) came as a result of one particular cacher's "signature" containers, and I made the very real mistake of posting not-so-constructive comments publicly both in the logs and on the Miss. forum. Clearly the right approach, as was pointed out on this thread by one of the respondents, would have been to contact the hider privately and constructively. "Live and learn" for Dave.

(2) It's clear to me that most of the resistance being voiced on this thread is to the "rule" part of it. I can definitely see y'all's point on that. In fact, on several of my hides I've also been frustrated with the cache approvers' "rules" and have traded Emails back and forth with them until my caches were either modified to their satisfaction, or until my points as to why they were acceptable to them were made persuasively enough. Did "getting past the approvers' rules" take some of the fun out of my placements? Absolutely. So your points here on this thread are certainly well taken.

(3) Several of the respondents' comments that there should be STRONG SUGGESTIONS as to how to place a cache, as opposed to RULES on it, look like an excellent compromise, especially those where a placement requires "check if you agree or have read the FAQs" kind of checkpoint. Can a hider just skip on past it? Of course. But it's a "pause point"...maybe enough to ensure at least one more moment to think about it.

(4) I'm sincerely appreciative of those on this thread who have chosen to engage in a RESPECTFUL debate on this...there is NOTHING WRONG with a healthy disagreement as long as the comments are written with respect to the others' point of view. However, comments such as "president of Iraq" or the one where the respondent took my words and replaced them with information derived from my profile (the "260-270 finds" reference) are just being mean-spirited, in my opinion. Let's keep the debate on a respectful level, please.

(5) Someone asked about how I arrived at 15 as my "magic number". Honestly, it was fairly arbitrary. I drew upon my own experience that after around 15 Finds I felt I had seen a reasonable cross-section of "good caches" vs. "not-so-good caches". The counterpoint that some areas don't have enough caches to support that as a rule is a good counterpoint, indeed, and lends additional credibility to the "strong suggestion to read the FAQs" idea.

(6) Several on this thread have made the point that "yet another rule will run off new participants", and that's valid. However, I would make the counterpoint that if a new participant's first few finds were of poor quality (and that would include any or all of the location, the container, and/or the contents), that fact might run off that new person from wanting to participate further (in fact, BrianSnat's first response to my post, up near the top of this thread, makes that very point!). I made the point in my comments on the Miss. forum that there's a "trust" associated with choosing a cache to target for a search, and the "trust" is that the cache will be in a location worth going to, and will be a cache of reasonable enough quality to feel justified in going after. It's absolutely true that some new people place excellent caches right off the bat, but it's also true that there's no substitute for experience.

(7) Someone also made the point that if such a rule ("minimum finds before a first hide") existed at the beginning, we'd never have gotten off the ground. True. However, I think that's a moot point now, because, well, we're off the ground now.

Once again, any and all healthy/respectful debate gladly welcomed and appreciated, sincerely!

-Dave R., Biloxi, MS

[This message was edited by drat19 on April 16, 2003 at 07:12 PM.]

April 16, 2003

Speaking from the viewpoint of one of the cache approvers I can say that we do look at "found count" when reviewing caches, but it almost never enters into a decision on whether to post a cache or not.

There are still some virgin areas that would never get any caches if we required people to have even a small number of finds. If a cache meets the requirements we're happy to post it.

I guess the only ones we are hesitant to post from someone who has zero finds are the few that we get that have the default cache name of "geocache" and no text at all - only a set of coords and the bare minimum of date, state, country, difficulty ratings, and cache owner's name. On a number of those I've found when checking for the nearest cache there is one already at those exact coords. Apparently these "caches" were someones very first attempt to log a "find" on a cache! Those folks get a gentle lesson on how to do it properly.

In a perfect world people should find some caches before placing there own, but I don't think we need rules for this. The site has some pretty good guidelines for placing caches which most seem to follow.

erik - geocaching.com admin

1.1k · April 16, 2003

Erik:

I'm truly glad to see your post and participation on this thread...I hope others feel the same.

As you know, you and I have had a discussion or two about caches worthy of approval, and as I stated in my response above to the others, I had no problem with a healthy difference of opinion because it was RESPECTFUL between us.

So what do you think about the compromise position stated by some others on this thread...that we come up with a better way to compel first-time placers (or heck, even experienced placers) with a requirement to at least read or re-read the cache placement FAQs as a reminder to what's a "good quality cache location, container, and/or contents"? Is this something that can be implemented relatively easily? (I realize you'd have to get with Jeremy if he's not already reading this thread)

That's what I'm going after in this discussion....just some way to better improve the quality of all aspects of a cache (location, container, contents) so that our newcomers WILL be encouraged to keep at it and invite their friends to come join us?

-Dave R. in Biloxi

April 16, 2003

I think I would like to propose a new rule.

No whining in the forums until you've hidden 10 caches.

And that you cant hide a cache until you've found 23 caches.

And of the 23 caches you need to find, none can be virtual or locationless caches, and that 5 need to be multi-caches.

Also, 8 need to have difficulty/terrain rating of 3.5 or better.

And 3 caches need to be hidden in gladware containers (so you can see what NOT to do), 2 caches need to be micro-caches, 2 caches need to be urban caches, and 2 caches need to be graveyard/cemetary caches.

And 1 cache needs to be an event cache, so all the experienced area cachers can look you over, and determine whether or not you are "worthy" to play our "GAME".(Hint, Hint....It's just a GAME for crying out loud)

Oh, and I think there should also be a rule that you also need to find 5 benchmarks before being allowed to hide a cache. 2 need to be vertical survey points, and 1 needs to be a horizontal point. 2 also need to be part of triangulation points, both of which need at least two related azimuth/reference points to be located.

I am sure that these requirements would reduce the whining in the forums by ten-fold, as I'm sure more RULES would cut the amount of newbies wanting to start caching by at LEAST ten-fold.

I agree, I think that our governments (Federal, State, & Local) dont regulate us enough.

I think there arent enough rules for me at work.

I dont think there are enough rules imposed on me by retailers when i walk into their stores (I think underpants should be required clothing along with shoes and shirts...)

I dont think my parents had enough rules when I lived in their house.

I dont think this GAME already has enough rules, even with the PUBLIC parks all starting to get in on the action by enforcing rules on geocaching in addition to those already imposed by the GAME itself...

I think EXACTLY what I need is more rules enforced on me by my HOBBIES....

Gee, what could I be thinking, when all this time, I though HOBBIES & GAMES were there so you could GET AWAY from rules, regulations, and stress, and just HAVE FUN??!!??....

Whew.....

Art

www.yankeetoys.org

www.BudBuilt.com

http://www.ttora-ne.mainpage.net/

April 16, 2003

quote:
So what do you think about the compromise position stated by some others on this thread...that we come up with a better way to compel first-time placers (or heck, even experienced placers) with a requirement to at least read or re-read the cache placement FAQs as a reminder to what's a "good quality cache location, container, and/or contents"? Is this something that can be implemented relatively easily? (I realize you'd have to get with Jeremy if he's not already reading this thread

Jeremy has added a link to the cache guidelines on the cache submission page with the intent that people will read it before submitting a cache. I suspect that many do, but do so after having already hidden a cache. Then they go ahead and submit it anyway and cross their fingers.

Unfortunately there are enough caches submitted that are obviously counter to those guidelines (like caches placed on vacation) that we don't usually worry about the more subtle "violations". If someone says their cache is a baggie that they tossed into a ditch from a moving car we won't approve it, but beyond that we give people the benefit of the doubt.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the posted rules or guidelines refer to what's required for cache submission. There really isn't much that can be done in the submission/review/approval process to prevent lame caches from being placed to begin with. That has to occur through education.

There is a limit to what the site can do to educate people. There is, however, a lot that can be done on the local level through geocaching associations and one-on-one communication with other geocachers. This link is one example of the newbie education that can be done to prevent the problem. This is another.

erik - geocaching.com admin

2.7k · April 16, 2003

Just think if Ulmer had to wait till he had 15 finds would this endeavor ever get started.

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

April 16, 2003

Can't agree with this one. Heck, I only had 5 or so caches under my belt when I placed my first one. That cache promptly got snatched by the NPS (I was 50ft inside NPS property [sigh]. My second, however, is still in place and pretty popular.

Rules. I hate rules. I live by them and follow them and hate them all the same.

I used to be the "rule dude" at a fairly large gov't organization. I was the guy who set policy and established administrative (i.e., red tape) procedures. I was also the guy who other people went to when they wanted new rules (policies) established. Man, in this PC world it was very hard to keep from slapping people and explaining how idiotic they were. Also, it was hard to explain to some people that you simply cannot regulate all aspects of everything at all times.

The first question I would ask was, "OK, if we have that policy, how is it enforced?" That's the hard part; enforcement. Fifteen caches? Actuals? Virtuals? Locationless? Events? What counts as 15 caches was what I thought of when I first read this thread. So . . .

I've gotta agree with Erik (there I go sucking up again) and say that newbies should educate themselves as much as they can before that first cache placement. I read and read and thought and thought. Seems to have worked in my case. (Well, for the second one.)

Oh, a personal rule of mine is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Seems to me that applies here.

Have a Dixie Day!

April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by drat19:
(4) I'm sincerely appreciative of those on this thread who have chosen to engage in a RESPECTFUL debate on this...there is NOTHING WRONG with a healthy disagreement as long as the comments are written with respect to the others' point of view. However, comments such as "president of Iraq" or the one where the respondent took my words and replaced them with information derived from my profile (the "260-270 finds" reference) are just being mean-spirited, in my opinion. Let's keep the debate on a respectful level, please.Once again, any and all healthy/respectful debate gladly welcomed and appreciated, sincerely!

-Dave R., Biloxi, MS

[This message was edited by drat19 on April 16, 2003 at 07:12 PM.]

Well, since you mention my response specifically, I'll see if I can make my point in a way you feel is more respectful.

Reading your own words, with your own situation on the downside (e.g. 260-270 finds treated as a 'newbie') seems to have struck you as (ahem) less than completely respectful. In fact, to you it seems 'mean spirited'.

Now, let's examine the situation for a person who, having found five caches that are close to his home, decides he'd like to contribute by hiding a cache in his own special spot. And you tell him that, after having found ONLY five caches, he's not yet qualified to *hide* one. Will he feel this rule is mean-spirited? Based on your response, the answer is 'yes'. Will he be ticked? Heck, yes. Is that a problem? I think it is. We, as a geocaching community, NEED that new geocacher as a part of our community. We don't want him/her to feel like we don't welcome him, or like we are mean-spirited, or that we are not treating him and his cache idea respectfully.

I see people with a lots and lots of finds who continue to hide caches that I think are lame. I've seen some caches hidden by 'clueless newbies' that were absolutely stellar. To be honest, I see only a very rough correlation between number of finds and quality of hides, and I see that correlation only with people who have hundreds and hundreds of finds, and it certainly does not start at 15. Plenty of people make lame hides after their 15th find. Heck, some people are still making lame hides after 15 *hides*.

And I think that's ok, because the alternative is to cut these people off. And I don't see that excluding someone is helping geocaching at all. I'm in favor of basic standards for caches (e.g. don't hide it on railroad tracks, don't hide it on private property without permission) but beyond that, I say let people learn by doing if that's their learning style. We have enough problems with people feeling excluded when the volunteer admins enforce the few rules we currently have about cache placement. We don't need more bad feelings.

So I say let the enthusiastic newcomer hide a less than perfect cache. Pretty soon, he'll discover why it's not as great as it could be, and then he'll do better. Some people learn by reading a checklist. Some people learn by watching what others do. Some people learn by doing, and correcting their mistakes. And frankly, some people seem to never learn at all. Why focus on the lame caches hidden by newbies, and not on the people who, despite the experience of many finds, continue to hide lame cache after lame cache? Experience is usually better than no experience, but experience is certainly NOT a panacea.

Where are we going to draw the line between 'newbie' and experienced? Why must we draw this line at all? What goal is advanced by drawing it?

I think the geocaching community can withstand the occasional lame geocache far more easily than it can handle giving newcomers to the sport the impression that they and their contributions to the sport are not needed or not wanted.

April 16, 2003

To expect a "newbie" to log 15 finds before placing a cache is unrealistic. There are less than 15 caches available in our area and only 22 within 100 miles of where we are. We found 2 before placing our cache, now we're hooked!

3.1k · April 16, 2003

I propose that people who propose new proposals have their find totals cut in half and are not allowed to hide a cache for 5 years.

Two of the best caches I've ever done are by a cacher with 2 hides and zero finds. There are two other excellent caches in our area placed by a zero find and 1 hide.

Go to law school, leave us alone.

Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful

April 16, 2003

We know of people that don't log their finds online (and just plain aren't interested in doing so), but who hide great caches. Would be a shame to miss those caches just because the user doesn't have 15 finds logged on-line.

Temporarily French Polynesia's most prolific geocachers!

April 16, 2003

Sorry, accidental duplicate post...

April 17, 2003

Yes, please more rules

i'm new to this "sport" and i need some guidelines to do this right.

Heck i might to do something wrong otherwise.

And that would be bad.

Yes more rules right now

April 17, 2003

Rule #1:

Whatever you do use the common sense.

It's that simple.

I placed my first cache when find count was about 30 but IMHO that one would not have been better or worse as a cache if my count was 0 or 100. Anyway I did wait untill I saw how the others do it before placing my own ones. Did not need any outside rules to justice my own ability to hide a cache.

-Errare humanum ets.-

1.1k · April 17, 2003

Wow, this thread has touched quite a few nerves with folks, and frankly I'm glad to see that...as I stated in one of my other responses, it helps me understand our culture more. (I may not feel I'm a "newbie" at caching anymore, but I'm enough of a grown-up to admit that it's OK to continue to learn!).

I continue to appreciate the thoughtful responses and counterpoints made along this thread (and yes, among others that means you Kodak's4...thanks for your follow-up clarification, really). Those who have continued to post sarcastic responses obviously have not taken the time to read the entire thread, including the responses that I've already written along the way.

If y'all HAD read my responses to your responses, you'd have read that I HAVE indeed backed off from my original assertion that we impose a "rule" about minimum finds before a placement, because many of the counterpoints about (a) folks who don't have access to enough finds in their area, ( :cool: folks who "get it" more quickly and are able to place good caches right away, and © imposing yet more "rules" takes away some of the joy from our wonderful sport, are all completely valid points in my opinion. I haven't backed off because of some of the sarcastic "pressure" I've read in some of the posts...I've backed off because I agree with the counterpoints and I appreciate that the non-sarcastic folks were willing to make them thoughtfully and respectfully.

Clearly several folks agree that we've all seen our share of less-than-great caches along the way (and that means any combination of location, container, and contents), and clearly there needs to be some compromise in the area of EDUCATING folks on what constitutes a cache of good quality, though the local orgs, emphasizing the FAQs more prominently, or what have you.

THAT is what I'm looking for here...not ways to make newcomers feel excluded, but ways to improve caches such that newcomers will feel great about their early finds (the cache "quality" to which I've been referring) and become that much more enthusiastic. My argument has been that if a new cacher's early finds are of less-than-good quality, the first impression might very well be, "What so great about this sport?"...and that's precisely NOT what we want.

I was fortunate that my first few finds were GREAT caches (although I was quick to give the hiders a good-natured hard time about getting my feet wet and walking me through all those thorns!), and like so many others I've become consumed with caching and have turned several others on to it with similar results. THAT'S what it's all about. If I'd found crappy caches in crappy locations early on, I'm not so sure I'd have felt so enthusiastic.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

1.4k · April 17, 2003

Hmmmmm..... just a thought here. When I first started geocaching, there were not 15 caches in the local area. I placed 5 by the time I had found 5. Since that time, I have directly gotten at least 10 others started, and have influanced countless others. And we now have maybe 25 caches in the local area, and over 50 within 100 miles.

So, what do you do if you want to be a geocacher? Do you get on this thread and ask for 15 experienced cachers to come into your area and set up caches for you to find? Or do the first 15 cache hiders just do the best they can? Will this lead to the 16-xxxx cachers having a lesser idea of what a good cache is? Does this imply a double standard? The first 15 cache hiders do not need to find 15 before they can hide, bur after 15 caches are hidden, the rule is activated?

Just stirring the pot here.

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

1.1k · April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Warrior:
Hmmmmm..... just a thought here. When I first started geocaching, there were not 15 caches in the local area. I placed 5 by the time I had found 5. Since that time, I have directly gotten at least 10 others started, and have influanced countless others. And we now have maybe 25 caches in the local area, and over 50 within 100 miles.

So, what do you do if you want to be a geocacher? Do you get on this thread and ask for 15 experienced cachers to come into your area and set up caches for you to find? Or do the first 15 cache hiders just do the best they can? Will this lead to the 16-xxxx cachers having a lesser idea of what a good cache is? Does this imply a double standard? The first 15 cache hiders do not need to find 15 before they can hide, bur after 15 caches are hidden, the rule is activated?

Just stirring the pot here.

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

Pot's already been stirred on that point, Mike, and I've already responded to it above as a valid counter-argument. If you would, or have not already done so, please take a few minutes to read through all the responses on this thread, including my responses to those responses. Thanks.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by drat19:
Clearly several folks agree that we've all seen our share of less-than-great caches along the way (and that means any combination of location, container, and contents), and clearly there needs to be some compromise in the area of EDUCATING folks on what constitutes a cache of good quality, though the local orgs, emphasizing the FAQs more prominently, or what have you.

THAT is what I'm looking for here...not ways to make newcomers feel excluded, but ways to improve caches such that newcomers will feel great about their early finds (the cache "quality" to which I've been referring) and become that much more enthusiastic. My argument has been that if a new cacher's early finds are of less-than-good quality, the first impression might very well be, "What so great about this sport?"...and that's precisely NOT what we want.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

You claim your concern is that people are placing poor quality caches. And yet, you seem to believe that the vast majority of these poor quality caches have been placed by people who hide them before they've found some number (you say 15) of finds. Effectively, you're claiming that by keeping people from hiding a cache until after they've found 15, we'll prevent a lot of poor quality caches but not lose any high quality caches.

I don't believe that, not even for a second. I know of at least one geocacher who has more than 100 finds and hides caches I think are fairly lousy. There's one geocacher with considerably more than 15 finds and more than 15 hides whose caches are so poorly done I won't search for them anymore. At the same time I know several geocachers whose first hides (hidden with only one or two finds) were among the best I've had the good fortune to hunt for. Insisting that people should have found 15 before hiding their first would be a great plan IF: a) you could prove that it would prevent some number of bad hides and it didn't seem exclusionary to newcomers. But in fact, it would fail on BOTH counts.

So my question for you, which you'd have noticed if you'd carefully read all of my response, is "Why are you focusing on the low quality hides made by newbies, when the low quality hides by 'experienced' cachers are far more of a problem?" Because from my point of view, someone who is still hiding lame caches after having found more than 100 and hidden more than 15 is way more of a problem than someone who is an eager newbie. And I feel that way because the evidence is strong that the experienced cacher who makes lame hides will continue to do so into the forseeable future, whereas it's actually fairly likely that the clueless newbie will make one or two lame hides, notice the problems, and will improve as they gain more experience. Furthermore, I'd assert that no matter what you do, the person who still hides cruddy caches in cruddy locations after more than 100 finds and more than 15 hides will continue to do so no matter what you do, and I'll also assert that the best way to advance the clueless newbie to the 'hides good caches' stage is by helpful, positive, constructive comments rather than by draconian rules which arbitrarily sort people into the 'clue-less' and 'clue-full' categories based on a metric which has very poor correlation with being clued in.

Beyond the lack of correlation between experience and hide quality, I'd also claim that the term 'quality of a cache' is pretty vague, and a cache that is rated as 'high quality' by one person may well be rated as 'sucks big time' by another. Some folks LOVE urban micros with evil, devious hides, and would rate such a cache as 'extremely high quality'. Others HATE urban micros, love caches at the end of day long hikes to scenic locations, and would rate an evil urban micro as 'sucks big time' but rate the 1.0/4.5 cache the urban micro lover hated as 'best cache ever'. There's a diversity of wants and needs, ranging from handicapped accessible brain teasers to the multi-day 5 star terrain adventure. We don't need (and I'd claim don't WANT) to come up with a single scale of quality. There's no way to please everyone with a single cache. Let people hide the sort of caches they want, and instead of trying to compel people to do it your way, let the searchers sort out which ones they'll hunt for and which ones they won't.

If you really want to reach the newbies and help, I'd suggest that setting up a 'find a mentor' service for people who want to hide their first cache would be a whole lot more positive and a whole lot more effective than establishing the rule you propose. Just set it up so that when someone wants to hide their first cache, it's easy for them to find a sage, experienced, helpful geocacher who knows what makes for a good cache to go out, meet with them one on one, and *help* them hide the cache, explaining along the way about the things that make for great caches and the things that just spoil the experience. Or the Biloxi area cachers could put together a list of 'recommended caches for your first hunt' to help make sure newcomers have a positive experience on their first outings.

But beyond all that, you just set all sorts of alarm bells ringing when you write things like

quote:
...that we come up with a better way to compel first-time placers (or heck, even experienced placers) with a requirement ...

Why are you so focused on 'compelling' anyone to do anything? Not only do I not see the problem of poor quality caches being primarily the result of newbies hiding caches before they have some number of finds, I find your need to 'compel' people to do something fairly distressing. Furthermore, I don't believe that we can 'compel' someone to hide only quality caches anymore than I believe we can 'compel' people to be honest, or moral, or anything else.

You didn't find it very pleasant when I suggested that we 'compel' you to not come up with rules until you'd reached a certain experience level. I suggest you take a good look in the mirror, and ask yourself why you feel you've earned the right to 'compel' newcomers to do something but you claim that I haven't earned the right to 'compel' you (a relatively inexperienced cacher compared to me) in the same way. After all, I seem to have about as many more finds than you have as you have more than the newbie with one hide. If relative experience gives authority, then I'd claim I have as much authority over you as you have over a newbie. Face it - experience isn't a very good indicator of anything besides experience. It doesn't confer 'ability to hide good caches' any more than it confers 'ability to guide the future of geocaching by coming up with draconian rules'.

Maybe a better way for you to proceed with this would be for you to simply not search for caches hidden by people with fewer than 15 finds. Or if you'd prefer, I could propose a 'rule' that you not be allowed to search for caches hidden by people with fewer than 15 finds.

April 17, 2003

How bout we just stop making negative threads towards "newbies." The only thing getting accomplished is scaring new members off.

Proposal: New cachers should make 15 Finds before placing their first Hide

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment