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

1.4k · April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by drat19: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

I did, but perhaps you missed the point I was making. Maybe in your area there never was a time when there were less than 15 caches. It wasn't till not long ago we got over 15.

BUT.....

Thare many many areas where there STILL are not 15 caches. My second paragraph was a kind of re-hash. How woould you propose taking care of those areas? Personally, I would have been thrilled if someone volunteered to come to El PAso and place 15 caches to get the game started. It is a very generous thing to do. Or we can just let them drive to where the caches are. Not a good way to get them started.

So, again, it is not "A MOOT POINT" in a much larger area than it is. Just looking at maps will show that point clearly.

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 Kodak's4:

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.

I think you raise a valid point. You're right, experience is no guarantee that one will learn the art of placing a good cache. My original argument was that experience would be a better indicator, but I can accept (also from experience) that that's not necessarily hard-and-fast.

quote:
Originally posted by Kodak's4:

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.

Once again, all valid points (seriously...I'm not patronizing you). I've worked with many newcomers to the sport these past several months when they've contacted me with questions, and I still continue to RECEIVE help from others when I've asked for it.

quote:
Originally posted by Kodak's4:

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.

Once again, I would remind you that in my response posts I did back off from my original proposed "rule", based on the constructive counterpoints that were posted (including yours), and as a result I now favor more of a "let's increase the awareness" approach. You're still focused on the original "rule" post I made...re-read the subsequent posts and back it down a notch, OK? I did (back it down a notch, that is) by correctly moderating my position on the subject based on well-made counter-arguments.

You also latched on to my use of the word "compel" in your response. Fair enough, that's a strong word...maybe too strong. Once again, in the spirit of moderation, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that we need to all just work together to find ways to increase the awareness of "what works", bearing in mind that what works for some doesn't necessaily work for others (going back to your point about "easy urbans" vs. "hard rurals", etc. (yes, I paraphrased)).

Yeah, I know the above sounds awfully politically correct (as in "can't we just all get along and sing Kum-bah-Yah?"), but I'd much prefer that approach to attacking one another. I'll remind you that when I started this thread I had a much more extreme position on this matter than I do now, and I moderated my position because I read and carefully considered the constructive counterpoints that were made. Perhaps others who have been (or will be) lurking on this thread will do the same...in which case you (and WE) will have accomplished your objective....which, as always, is to raise awareness and encourage the diversity of our sport.

What would you think if we make this a "virtual handshake", either because we agree now more than you realize, or because we're both OK to "agree to disagree", in either case, respectfully?

-Dave R. in Biloxi

[This message was edited by drat19 on April 17, 2003 at 10:06 AM.]

1.1k · April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Warrior:

I did, but perhaps you missed the point I was making. Maybe in your area there never was a time when there were less than 15 caches. It wasn't till not long ago we got over 15.

BUT.....

Thare many many areas where there STILL are not 15 caches. My second paragraph was a kind of re-hash. How woould you propose taking care of those areas? Personally, I would have been thrilled if someone volunteered to come to El PAso and place 15 caches to get the game started. It is a very generous thing to do. Or we can just let them drive to where the caches are. Not a good way to get them started.

So, again, it is not "A MOOT POINT" in a much larger area than it is. Just looking at maps will show that point clearly.

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

As I stated above in my response to Kodak's4, you too raise very valid counterpoints, Mike, and I promise you I'm not being patronizing when I say that. Obviously my original proposed "rule" was too extreme and didn't take into consideration the many counter-arguments that have been made, including yours, and I've taken that into consideration in moderating my point of view.

You're right, when I started caching last year the Miss. Gulf Coast was fairly barren of caches...less than 5 or 6 within around 25 miles of me, as I recall. Now, less than a year later, you can come on over to the Coast and spend a good 2 or more days bagging 30 or more caches of varying levels of difficulty and enjoyment. How did this happen? By folks like me and others trying to learn the ropes and reading and heeding feedback on "good" vs. "not-so-good" caches.

However, I can tell you FOR A FACT that with only a few exceptions, every cache along the Coast was placed by folks who took the time to communicate with others about placements, and read the FAQs and guidelines. I've personally been in touch with pretty much every "Miss. Gulf Coast regular"...it's a great group of folks who really put a good deal of thought into their placements and their feedback. We've grown the area the way we have because we have very few "dud" caches...newcomers to this area always have positive feedback on the caches they find early on and that's what keeps them coming back and making good placements and growing the area even more.

So you're right, my "rule" proposal was too extreme, and for less-cache-dense areas my "moot point" comment from an earlier post is not as correct, either. The way to "grow" an area like yours into a "caching destination" is all about awareness, awareness, awareness. And since there IS a rule about "no vacation caches" (due to the cache maintenance issue), then cachers like you in your area (much like it was me and a couple others at first here in my area) need to see if they can place as many quality caches (and yes, I know that's a subjective term) in the area as possible in order to jump-start the process.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mogolloyd:
How bout we just stop making negative threads towards "newbies." The only thing getting accomplished is scaring new members off.

If I might register the opinions of a "newbie" here I would say I agree with Mogolloyd on this matter. While reading this entire thread from top to bottom, I vacillated back and forth on weighing in on this issue. I consider my wife and I to be "newbies" although a couple of others have been kind enough to suggest otherwise on a different thread. I don't know when I will feel otherwise, maybe never.

I've been reading a lot of threads and everytime as I go through them I begin to wonder if I want to continue with this wonderful activity due to the apparent vehemence with which some points of view are defended.

The jury is still out on that issue, we'll go on for a while and decide based on our experiences.

Maybe part of the problem is that most of us didn't take "debate" or "forensics" in school and so never learned to take a point of view and defend it logically and dispassionately. I know that applies in my case if I get into a discussion that I feel strongly about. The other issue is the fact that when words are put on paper (or screen), they can be intrepreted much differently than was intended by the typist, as there are no audible cues to the tone of the comment. Hence the development of the Emoticon.

Relating to the original point of this thread, I must say that at every find I've gone to so far, I've been paying attention to several things, including the terrain ratings, the difficulty of finding the cache for a given rating and the overall method of the cache, all with an eye to someday placing my own caches. I already have a couple of ideas for caches, but am not ready to think seriously about it until I get some more experience and develop a feel for what I like about my favorite finds.

I realize that drat19 has backed off on his proposed rule, so I'm not going to belabor the matter any further. There have been many good points made on both sides by people whose opinions I have learned to consider respectfully (and in many cases I have appreciated the help they have given) from reading other threads.

MiTuCats

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need .... roads" --Dr. Emmett L. Brown

April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MiTuCats:

I've been reading a lot of threads and everytime as I go through them I begin to wonder if I want to continue with this wonderful activity due to the apparent vehemence with which some points of view are defended.

The jury is still out on that issue, we'll go on for a while and decide based on our experiences.

I would suggest that the discussions on the geocaching forums have only a passing effect upon actual geocaching. Some folks learn stuff, some get to vent about problems and feel better, but much of the time we simply end up with two or likely more people putting forth their own views and not changing them based upon what others say.

Forums can be valuable, but they can also just be ways to repeat one's opinions over and over. Don't take them too seriously.

Ron/yumitori

1.3k · April 17, 2003

I'd like to first say that after reading several view points I'm against a rule and for helping newbies by being friendly and offering them (politely) advice.

But I've seen the arguement that 'This rule would have prevented this sport/game from even getting started' - I mentioned earlier the idea of a 'waiver' for the rule. Not that it matters because the rule is unnecessary. It's just driving me nuts that people are ignoring that possibility

quote:
posted April 17, 2003 08:50 AM
quote:

I did, but perhaps you missed the point I was making. Maybe in your area there never was a time when there were less than 15 caches. It wasn't till not long ago we got over 15.

BUT.....

Thare many many areas where there STILL are not 15 caches. My second paragraph was a kind of re-hash. How woould you propose taking care of those areas? Personally, I would have been thrilled if someone volunteered to come to El PAso and place 15 caches to get the game started. It is a very generous thing to do. Or we can just let them drive to where the caches are. Not a good way to get them started.

So, again, it is not "A MOOT POINT" in a much larger area than it is. Just looking at maps will show that point clearly.

I mentioned the possibility of a "waiver" for areas with few caches earlier.

quote:
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...

Of course, it doesn't matter because the rule is a bad idea.... Who is to say what numbers should be used as limits, what number of caches should be the maximum in an area before the rule was put in place, what constitutes good/bad caches... etc...

I'll say this thread has opened up some different things I hadn't thought about. I just wish some people didn't have to get so angry over it

Somebody suggested a 'newbie mentoring' group. I don't know if that's necessary either - but a friendly email to a new hider would be a good way to start. You just have to make sure it's friendly and not overbearing. "Hey, NewbieCacher2003, you sure that a empty KFC tub is a good cache container?"

southdeltan

1.3k · April 17, 2003

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by MiTuCats:

I've been reading a lot of threads and everytime as I go through them I begin to wonder if I want to continue with this wonderful activity due to the apparent vehemence with which some points of view are defended.

The jury is still out on that issue, we'll go on for a while and decide based on our experiences.

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

I would suggest that the discussions on the geocaching forums have only a passing effect upon actual geocaching. Some folks learn stuff, some get to vent about problems and feel better, but much of the time we simply end up with two or likely more people putting forth their own views and not changing them based upon what others say.

I agree with Yumitori totally. I have no specifics but I'd bet that most cachers don't read the forums regularly and some have never read the forums.

If what's found here is depressing or annoying to you - ignore the forums Forums are just an extra feature. All you need to cache is a GPS (some would debate that) and a list of waypoints.

southdeltan

1.3k · April 17, 2003

Oops

1.1k · April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by South Deltan:

I'll say this thread has opened up some different things I hadn't thought about. I just wish some people didn't have to get so angry over it

AMEN!!

-Dave R. in Biloxi

April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Warrior:
Thare many many areas where there STILL are not 15 caches. My second paragraph was a kind of re-hash. How woould you propose taking care of those areas? Personally, I would have been thrilled if someone volunteered to come to El PAso and place 15 caches to get the game started. It is a very generous thing to do. Or we can just let them drive to where the caches are. Not a good way to get them started.

You would be creating a chicken and the egg kind of situation... You have an area with less than 15 caches. If someone from outside the area was to place caches, those caches would quite possibly be considered vacation caches. So nobody is going to place those 15 caches other than local cachers that may have only 1 or 2 finds.

I found 3 caches before I placed my first. I am now at 7 finds and 5 hides. There are 17 caches within a 100 mile radius, I placed 5 of them, 1 seems lost and 4 require extended canoe travel or wings.

Adi

April 17, 2003

My .02:

After reading this entire thread, the first thing I thought of was "who cares, another ugly forum discussion". Then I felt "compelled"

to respond.

Although there are some good points being made here, we can't regulate the character of the cacher--only the cache placement, and only the cache itself to a certain extent.

I have been to some lame caches and some great caches and have hid one which seems to have been a hit with those that have found it. I don't remember how many I had found at the time I placed it, (not 15) but I already knew what a lame one was by spending the time to read EVERYHING I could about this sport/game (WHATEVER) beforehand. I feel I could improve my hiding skills and plan to as I continue.

I still have a good time no matter if the cache I find IS lame. Many people do not want to learn anything or just don't take the time to--they just want to be participating. You nor I nor anyone else can do anything about that.

Bottom Line: I was taught to do my best in everything I do and that applies to Caching too!

You can tell alot about a person by his/her cache. Or at least what mood they were in!

1.6k · April 17, 2003

Here's a little thought that will throw a good sized wrench in any notion of requiring a certain number of finds before being able to list one--experienced letterboxers coming over to the Darkside.

Here's another one. Who says GC.com is the only caching site out there. True, it's the most popular by far, but what about people who have hunted and placed on sites other than GC.com?

Here's another issue. What's to prevent cheating? Say a geophyte wants to place a cache, but doesn't have the required minimum of caches? He could simply say he was at a cache, but he "don't do no paper log."

I really think requiring a certain minimum number of finds before being able to place a cache is wrong, counter productive, encourages cheating, and may discourage new hobbyists.

Even letterboxing, with it's centuries old traditions, doesn't require a certain number of finds before placing.

CR

1.1k · April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Here's a little thought that will throw a good sized wrench in any notion of requiring a certain number of finds before being able to list one--experienced letterboxers coming over to the Darkside.

Here's another one. Who says GC.com is the only caching site out there. True, it's the most popular by far, but what about people who have hunted and placed on sites other than GC.com?

Here's another issue. What's to prevent cheating? Say a geophyte wants to place a cache, but doesn't have the required minimum of caches? He could simply _say_ he was at a cache, but he "don't do no paper log."

I really think requiring a certain minimum number of finds before being able to place a cache is wrong, counter productive, encourages cheating, and may discourage new hobbyists.

Even letterboxing, with it's centuries old traditions, doesn't require a certain number of finds before placing.

CR

Your point debunking the notion of a minimum number of finds has already been made. We already moved past the original proposal of the initial post in this thread. If you have not already done so, please take a few minutes to read through the thread, including the various responses, and responses to those responses.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

1.1k · April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pudman&Pookie2:
My .02:

After reading this entire thread, the first thing I thought of was "who cares, another ugly forum discussion". Then I felt "compelled"

to respond.

Although there are some good points being made here, we can't regulate the character of the cacher--only the cache placement, and only the cache itself to a certain extent.

I have been to some lame caches and some great caches and have hid one which seems to have been a hit with those that have found it. I don't remember how many I had found at the time I placed it, (not 15) but I already knew what a lame one was by spending the time to read EVERYHING I could about this sport/game (WHATEVER) beforehand. I feel I could improve my hiding skills and plan to as I continue.

I still have a good time no matter if the cache I find IS lame. Many people do not want to learn anything or just don't take the time to--they just want to be participating. You nor I nor anyone else can do anything about that.

Bottom Line: I was taught to do my best in everything I do and that applies to Caching too!

You can tell alot about a person by his/her cache. Or at least what mood they were in!

I, for one, appreciate the fact that you were able to keep reading the thread and look past some of the flame wars that got started, and then see that as we progressed further we were able to carry on a more objective, respectful discussion and get to the heart(s) of the matter. THAT speaks to YOUR character. So too does your approach to life and to caching.

Thanks!

-Dave R. in Biloxi

April 17, 2003

I placed a cache before I found one. A few of the respondants to this thread say the same thing, <paraphrase> "no caches to find, so I started one." Still in place, not plundered, a few changes done, but spring cleaning is due, my first has a nice trip to a less-known area in a tourist town.

1636 caches word-wide made this happen.

1.6k · April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by drat19:
Your point debunking the notion of a minimum number of finds has already been made. We already moved past the original proposal of the initial post in this thread. If you have not already done so, please take a few minutes to read through the thread, including the various responses, and responses to those responses.

Thanks for the invite, but I really wanted to have my say and I said it. It's true that I skip past a good portion of what's posted and I don't care if I repeat what someone else has already said. Does that make my point any less valid. I think not.

Glad you came to your senses on the silly notion of requiring a minimum number of finds before listing one.

CR

1.3k · April 17, 2003

There is a cache in my area that was hidden before I ever got started. The person who hid the cache has zero finds, and yet has performed regular maintenance. I guess they just like to read the logs, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why do we assume that to enjoy caching, we have to find caches at all?

"Searching with my good eye closed"

1.1k · April 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

Glad you came to your senses on the silly notion of requiring a minimum number of finds before listing one.

CR

Once we got past the brief flame war early in the thread, the discussion that was spurred was not only enlightening to me, but raised a lot of different points of view that I hope were enlightening to everyone who's been reading it. So, even though my feelings got hurt at first, I feel really good that the group got to the heart of the issue.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

April 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:
Why do we assume that to enjoy caching, we have to find caches at all?

http://angelfire.com/pro/bloen/images/eyes.GIF

"Searching with my good eye closed"

I like that point. I had never thought about that viewpoint, but I can agree that someone might be thrilled with hiding something that others can enjoy hunting for. Many people who run Easter egg hunts seem to be very pleased with the challenge, excitement and fun the children get out of finding the hidden items, so this mindset could apply here as well.

Personally, I plan to enjoy both aspects of the activity in the future, but if someone only wants to plant things for me to hunt, I'll hunt and thank them for the privilege and pleasure!

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need .... roads" --Dr. Emmett L. Brown

April 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:

quote:
Originally posted by MiTuCats:

I've been reading a lot of ... begin to wonder if I want to continue with this wonderful activity due to the apparent vehemence with which some points of view are defended.

I would suggest that the discussions on the geocaching forums have only a passing effect upon actual geocaching. Some folks learn stuff, some get to vent about problems and feel better, but much of the time we simply end up with two or likely more people putting forth their own views and not changing them based upon what others say.

Forums can be valuable, but they can also just be ways to repeat one's opinions over and over. Don't take them too seriously.

Ron/yumitori

Thanks for the advice, it's appreciated. I've been reading a lot of threads to get an overview of the culture and customs so that we don't unwittingly draw flames upon our heads due to ignorance. We are also interested in putting out some travel bugs and caches and I wanted to get more deeply into the background and experienced advice on those matters than what is presented in the very useful summaries offered by the webmasters. I must say that most of the commentary in the forums is beneficial, all is interesting, but some does give a newcomer pause. Having never visited any other forums anywhere on the web, I was a little unprepared for the experience. I won't let it get me down!

MiTuCats

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need .... roads" --Dr. Emmett L. Brown

April 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by South Deltan:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by MiTuCats:

I've been reading a lot of threads .........due to the apparent vehemence with which some points of view are defended.

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

I would suggest that the discussions on the geocaching forums have only a passing effect upon actual geocaching. Some folks learn stuff, some get to vent about problems and feel better, but much of the time we simply end up with two or likely more people putting forth their own views and not changing them based upon what others say.

If what's found here is depressing or annoying to you - ignore the forums Forums are just an extra feature. All you need to cache is a GPS (some would debate that) and a list of waypoints.

southdeltan

Thank you very much for the response. I have already found an awful lot of valuable data in the forums already, so I don't really want to ignore them, but I will try my best to keep them from getting under my skin, and won't let them drive me away. As I said before I appreciate your advice.

MiTuCats

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need .... roads" --Dr. Emmett L. Brown

May 20, 2003

Ok, I can understand where you're coming from. Now let me try to explain another side of the story. I live out in very rural, flat, relatively uninteresting northeastern Colorado. There's some history out here but, believe me, not many people just happen out here on a Sunday drive. After thoroughly reading about geocaching even before investing in a GPS, I was able to figure out that you needed a sturdy container to hide it in. (I also have 3 boys and EVERYTHING that I do has to be practically indestructible.) I also take the extra precaution and enclose EVERYTHING in my cache, as well as the items that I trade out, in a plastic bag. This concept was not introduced to me in any caches that I had found. That being said when I first started, I had only 3 caches in my 100-mile radius area. This just wouldn't do and so I set out to set up some places that the adventurous geocacher might like to find. I've not had any bad comments or problems. I was wary about hiding my most popular Fooses Creek Cache since I live so far away, but a fellow cacher reported that a hinge on the box. Nothing serious but I wanted to make sure that my cache stayed in the best condition that I could keep it in, hubby and I were able to replace the box on a trip to Salida. Since I work 2 jobs have 3 kids, a husband and 2 Girl Scout troops, I don't have time to go on an all day hunt just to rack up the necessary finds so that I can hide a cache. Therefore, I've hidden caches and not been able to get out of town to log in another find.

Again, I understand, but I don't think it's appropriate. Let the bad caches get found and crititiqued. Let the bears break into a cache containing food. Let the contents get destroyed by moisture. Let the caches be unmaintained. Just let the cacher know about what you find. This site is just like a small town and the word WILL get around.

2.7k · May 20, 2003

How many caches did David Ulmer find before he planted the first one?

Finds do not necessarily give you the experience you need to plant a good one. It takes some backwoods experience and savy, you can't outsmart the GPS, numbers are numbers.

But trying to outwit the Cacher is the hard part. I planted this one without any finds under my belt, and a lot of cachers with lots of experience can't even get back in there to find it. Was I wrong or creative?

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

38.2k · May 21, 2003

quote:
How many caches did David Ulmer find before he planted the first one?

As I understand it, Dave placed food in the first cache and it was also partially buried. Bad cache!

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

24.7k · May 21, 2003

When you get right down to it, I like to be able to place stupid, inane, anal, boring, worthless, uninspired, and boring caches. I reserve the right to do the opposite.

Still with more than 15 finds under my belt I am now qualified to do these lame caches with a higher degree of skill than ever before. We are talking super lame if I so choose.

15 finds doesn't make one whit of difference.

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

Wherever you go there you are.

1.1k · May 21, 2003

Folks:

Please note the dates of the postings on this thread...we beat this dead horse over a month ago already and I was hoping it (the thread) would just die of old age. Can we please not start another debate over it? If you read past the earliest posts on this thread, you'll see that I softened my original position after reading the good, thoughtful, non-flame responses. I wish whoever bubbled this thread back up to the top would have read through all of that so we wouldn't have to re-visit this again.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

1.1k · May 31, 2003

This thread is here to stay it seems.

I have read through all the responses at least once.

I agree with several of the points and I think several are just outright funny.

To prove my point: I have over 750 finds and 45 plus hides. I planted THIS cache and screwed it up bad. It took a phone call from a local cacher who went out to chase it - twice - to get it through my head where I screwed up.

I liked the one idea about having a "mentor" or a "beta tester" for areas to help newbies out.

Just some thoughts.

logscaler.

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

Join the conversation