Crappy Caches

[+Ian5281]

Ok.. so they may not be crappy to some people, but I know I am not alone here.

 

Last year the local caches were the nice ammo-box-in-the-woods types of caches. Before I got started caching, I looked up my first cache, and went after it. I had a wonderful hike, found the cache... now I'm hooked.

 

Now we have an almost daily increasing number of micro caches that are hidden in locations that are just plain... boring. Tons of them are in parking lots of local stores, hidden in/on lamposts, or right along the highway. I am told the hiding spots are clever, but what is the point of such numbers of them?

 

Lets imagine "Potential Cacher X" who hears about Geocaching, and looks up the nearest cache, and finds himself at the local Wal Mart parking lot, struggling to get the micro cache, that has been stuck halfway up a lampost on a magnet, in plain view of all. I would not blame him if I found that his Garmin was posted on Ebay the next day.

 

Now, I am not saying that a cache or two like this is fun... but how many do we need? As a premium member, I can filter out the micros.. which I do, but what about "Potential Cacher X"? He may know lots of good hides, but we may never see them because his experience with geocaching was icky.

 

A micro or a virtual is great when a "traditional" cache just wont work there. Caches (in my humble opinion) are more about the location, the history of the site, the beauty of the area, the great hike, etc etc. "Look people, here is a cool thing/place that I want to share with you. It's worth the trip to see!" The emphasis is about the finders interaction with the surroundings. My complaint is now we have many many caches where the emphasis is just finding an object that someone has hidden, with no thought to the experience provided by the location. Its a disconnected interaction between hider and finder... a challenge of wits. The aspect of enjoying the location is gone. The offending hiders that I speak of may as well find an old abandoned factory, and hide a few hundred micros in the countless cubbyholes and crevices. They play a different game than I do , one about numbers and clever hides. I am fine with that, the problem is that its eclipsing the traditional cache experience in numbers.

 

Now, I know that its MY problem that I dont like to spend hours searching for a really well hidden micro in a Walmart parking lot. Its not the hiders fault that my expectations of a geocaching experience differ from thiers. The hider is technically allowed to do as he pleases... But I have to say SOMETHING! I want "Potential Cacher X" to show me the cool cliffs and waterfall behind his grandfathers farm! He may not show up now because the PROPORTION of those types of caches is going way way down, fast.

 

Should we place a zillion caches just because we CAN? How do you get it across to people that QUALITY counts, not just QUANTITY?

 

Input here? What do I do? Shut up?(Sorry, wont do that Polite email sharing my opinions to the prolific offending cachers? Whine about it on the forums?

 

Keep Caching!

Ian5281

[+SBPhishy]

While I do agree with you, I wouldn't imagine anything changing. Some people think that micros in wallmart parking lots are the bees knees.

 

I am lucky to have great caches hidden around here. Even the micros are hidden very cleverly, and in cool places.

[+briansnat]

There is a contigent of people who place caches just for the sake of placing one. There is no thought put into the location, container, or contents. You'll soon find out who they are in your area and learn to avoid their caches. I know there are a lot of people who will say no cache is a crappy cache, but how many leaky Gladware caches in litter strewn lots, hidden under rotting sheets of plywood do we need?

 

Of course, there will be the usual "if ou don't like it, don't look for it" responses, but too often you can't tell if its a "crappy" cache until you've found it.

 

Like SBPhishy, we're lucky in this area to have quite a few excellent cache hiders so lame caches aren't a big problem, but I've run into my share of them when hunting caches outside my home area.

Edited March 16, 2004 by briansnat

[+flask]

you can start by placing more REALLY clever caches, and by encouraging others to do so. i live in an area that (thank goodness) is populated by people who think that a good cache is a durable container with good stuff in it hidden cleverly or in an interesting place. methods do get re-used, but never too aften, and there are always some flat-out surprises.

 

of course, now and then we get a crappy cache, but even our first time hiders seem to go out of their way to bring us something interesting.

 

and sometimes the reason a spot is interesting may not be apparent to you as the hider, but that's kind of another thing. i have a crappy cache. it's kind of a joke, and kind of a behavioral CITO. a good cache with good stuff would be at risk in this area.

 

i'd also like to do a REALLY crappy cache as kind of a punchline to a line of discussion in the VTgeocaching news group. you wouldn't like it unless you knew the joke.

 

i'm happy to hunt a micro on a lamppost, but i'd hate it if my area were predominantly that way. a couple of these are cool, because the intersting things are the moment when you realize where the thing is, and using your stealth skills.

 

variety, my friends. reliable containers. interesting logs.

[+the8re]

Well, there have been a couple of times that I've gone to hide a cache, and shyed away at the last moment, for fear that the site isn't "good enough" or the swag is "too chearp". Mostly from reading posts like these.

 

How about posting your ideas of what makes a good cache?

 

variety, my friends. reliable containers. interesting logs.

the location, container, or contents

hidden very cleverly, and in cool places

the location, the history of the site, the beauty of the area, the great hike, etc etc. "Look people, here is a cool thing/place that I want to share with you. It's worth the trip to see!" The emphasis is about the finders interaction with the surroundings.

 

Feel free to elaborate!

 

-T

[+CrimsonWrath]

And what about all those micros hidden in wide open parks? Someone didn't want to go through all the trouble to hide a decent sized cache and plops a micro there. Now guess what? You can't place a larger cache there since that cache now occupies 0.1mi bubble.

 

I'm currently in the process of developing a complicated cache that will take a long time to prepare and place. What happens if a micro-squatter tosses one into my neck of the woods?

 

There are far too many TNLNSL's out there.

 

Micros have their place, but not in parks, IMHO.

[+Team Grizzly]

I haven't read all the replies, so it might have been mentioned, but the obvious solution (if we think it's a problem) is to turn a bunch of micros in an area into a multi. Of course, this might upset the "number" cachers (those looking for the highest number of finds) out there, but it makes some others happy for a more rewarding find. I guess it all depends on what you really want to get out of geocaching. I'm kind of mixed on my feelings about this, actually.

[tubby and]

i realize that the population density is much much lower up here, but i have always found the .2 mile limit too small. Some people complain about it being to large, that you should be able hide them even closer. i would place the the limit at at least a kilometer. i dread the day that cache saturation in Canada approaches the levels of the States. i hope that old, worn out caches would be archived at near the same rate as new ones are placed so that i can still keep logging new finds without having a Starbucks level saturation. i prefer quality to quantity. i can't even imagine having a hide level above five or eight, let alone over three hundred.

[+carleenp]

i realize that the population density is much much lower up here, but i have always found the .2 mile limit too small. Some people complain about it being to large, that you should be able hide them even closer. i would place the the limit at at least a kilometer. i dread the day that cache saturation in Canada approaches the levels of the States. i hope that old, worn out caches would be archived at near the same rate as new ones are placed so that i can still keep logging new finds without having a Starbucks level saturation. i prefer quality to quantity. i can't even imagine having a hide level above five or eight, let alone over three hundred.

 

My understanding of the .1 mile rule is that it is not meant to prevent cache saturation. Instead, it is meant to avoid people accidentally finding the wrong cache. With that purpose in mind, .1 mile is about right.

 

I don't mind a lot of caches in an area, but yes hopefully they will be quality ones. Here, the best trails tend to have quite a few caches because good trails are not very common here! I think it is fun to go get several caches along a trail.

 

We don't really have a problem with too many micros here. Either a cache is a micro because there is no place to hide a larger one, or people tend to place the larger caches. I do own a "lame" lightpole micro, but it is unique here. I specifically hid it because no one had done that here.

[+El Diablo]

There are several good points brought up in this thread. I believe the reason for the micro explosion is three fold.

 

1. The places where you can place a full size cache is already taken.

 

2. People like to hide micros to make them challenging to find.

 

3. There are people out there that just plop them down anywhere with no thought as to the location what so ever.

 

I think you should be able to hide a full size cache within .01 of a micro. Not likely anyone will accidently find a micro while looking for a full size cache.

 

Also, and I know you have heard this from me before, archive your caches after the majority of the locals have found them. If we all did this the area would recyle it's self. There are too many people out there that believe their cache is a time capsule. As long as that belief remains, caches will continue to be micros and lame.

 

If you live in a major city think about a newbie coming in wanting to place a cache. They look around and find there are no interesting places to put one because they are all taken. So the newbie does what is left to him, they hide micros in Wal-Mart parking lots. All because the prime spots are taken by caches that the locals hit a year ago, and now it gets a hit a month.

 

I archived a bunch of mine, and instantly new caches went into the area and all the locals had new quality caches to go hunt again. Think about it people.

 

El Diablo

Edited March 15, 2004 by El Diablo

[+briansnat]

Also, and I know you have heard this from me before, archive your caches after the majority of the locals have found them. If we all did this the area would recyle it's self.

 

I emphatically disagree with this. I place most of my caches for a good reason. A nice view, historic, or geological interest or just a nice place. Just because most of the locals found it, the reason for my placing it doesn't go away. There are always new people joining the sport and vacationers and business travellers passing through the area, as well as people from other regions who are expanding their search radius. I think my cache should stay available for these people as long as I'm willing to maintain it.

 

They look around and find there are no interesting places to put one because they are all taken.

 

They're not looking hard enough. I've lived in tiny NJ for 45 years and I'm still amazed at the neat places people come up with for caches that I didn't know existed. And I like to think I still surprise the locals with some of the places I come up with.

Edited March 16, 2004 by briansnat

[Pto]

I archived a bunch of mine, and instantly new caches went into the area and all the locals had new quality caches to go hunt again. Think about it people.

 

Boy My area could use a little of this kind of "spring cleaning"- We are cache dense-

But when #'s matter, it seems to cloud a persons judgment.

[CoyoteRed]

To each their own, but I like urbans. I like the thought that people walk right past a good micro and never know it's there. That was part of the draw for me.

 

I've got only one micro out at the moment, but am planning more. I have a series of micros planned and the thrust of these is riddle solving and unique-to-the-area hides. These aren't about hiking or seeing sights, it's the hunt.

 

[EDIT: forgot "planned" above. Added something.]

Edited March 15, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+Ian5281]

1. The places where you can place a full size cache is already taken.

 

 

This is certainly not the case here! There may be few good cache locations left in downtown Local City, USA, but this is not the case where the offending "parking lot micros" are. I have a couple caches, and would have several more really nice, thought-out caches in beautiful places...if I only had the time to get them set up. I will get to them as time permits... there are plenty of really good spots left here!

 

I believe our area suffers from "numbers lust", and the focus is far away from quality. (speaking of a very limited number of people, certainly not for the greater caching population in our area)

 

I think turning the many micros into a greater Multicache is a great idea. Then the cache page could state that you would be traveling from parking lot to parking lot, and you would know what to expect, and unsuspecting souls who were looking for a more traditional "walk in the woods" or "discover some interesting landmark" type of experience would not be lured into an unsatisfying caching experience. I will suggest to the prolific cacher that a multi may be a good idea.

 

Thanks for your suggestions, all!

Ian5281

[+CrimsonWrath]

To each their own, but I like urbans.  I like the thought that people walk right past a good micro and never know it's there.  That was part of the draw for me.

 

I've got only one micro out at the moment, but am planning more.  I have a series of micros and the thrust of these is riddle solving and unique-to-the-area hides.  These aren't about hiking or seeing sights, it's the hunt.

Urban micros: Good.

Rural micros: Bad.

[+Ian5281]

To each their own, but I like urbans. I like the thought that people walk right past a good micro and never know it's there. That was part of the draw for me.

 

I've got only one micro out at the moment, but am planning more. I have a series of micros and the thrust of these is riddle solving and unique-to-the-area hides. These aren't about hiking or seeing sights, it's the hunt.

 

Thats fine! Some people enjoy that! I am sure you will let people know in the cache page what they are in store for when they hunt these out! You can see tho, how this type of cache is different from a more traditional "ammo can hidden by the pretty place in the woods" type thing, and that people who haul their family out looking for that pretty place get annoyed when their saturday is spent looking for a bunch of parking lots and rest stops.

[+wimseyguy]

I believe our area suffers from "numbers lust", and the focus is far away from quality.  .

 

Is this really any different than other aspects of American life in the 21st Century? How many quality independent restaurants are there compared to mind-numbing chain locations in your area?

 

I think turning the many micros into a greater Multicache is a great idea.  Then the cache page could state that you would be traveling from parking lot to parking lot, and you would know what to expect, and unsuspecting souls who were looking for a more traditional "walk in the woods" or "discover some interesting landmark" type of experience would not be lured into an unsatisfying caching experience.  I will suggest to the prolific cacher that a multi may be a good idea. .

 

All the unsuspecting cacher needs to do is use the handy map links on the cache page. That should help determine if a cache is a lovely walk in the woods or a stealth cache in a public area. Ther is room and need for both types in Geocaching

[+Renegade Knight]

I have 200 film canisters and an event cache planned to place as many as can be done in an area.

 

Add me to your crappy list. But we will have fun doing it and that's what counts. If later someone whines about how crappy they all are. Big whoop.

[+Gizmo & Brazin]

My vote is Micros in parking lots is fine. I don't like to hunt them, so I chose not to. But others like them. As long as the micros are in the parking lot, they aren't on a trail and taking valuable space where I can hide/find a traditional. I do like Micros on a trail, when they are part of a multi leading to a larger cache. What can I say? I'm a female and yes...size DOES matter!

[+bons]

It often seems we have a choice: "Look. No new caches." or "Look. Caches that are less than we hoped for."

 

My one cache took me at least a month and a lot of trips and checking out a lot of waypoints that never got used. One of my favorite caches was most of a year in the making. If this is what we set for the standard, a lot of us are going to go stir crazy from the lack of caches to hunt.

 

You may not like the caches you have, but at least you have caches. It could be worse.

[+bigredmed]

Here I go putting on the Nomex forum suit.

 

Here I am sitting at my PC about to write a comment.

 

The comment is this.

 

The Wallyworld micro is a less than satisfying cache. The "if you don't like them, don't hunt them" argument is an old saw and like most old saws, it just doesn't cut as well as it used to. When I started, there were about 100 caches in the 100 miles around Omaha. There are more than double that now. The listing for caches in my area is very long. I am sure its longer in other places.

 

The thing about these caches is that they fill up the list and server space without acomplishing any goal of geocaching. They tend to be in mall parking lots and not in some cool location. They may or may not be very clever. Thus they don't take me someplace cool, or give me a little entertainment. They do mean that I get to download 10 pages instead of 8.

 

My suggestion (Here I am watering down my Nomex): Micros and trads have to be more than 1 mile apart and that mall caches can have a cache density of no more than 1 per 4 square miles.

[+CYBret]

First of all, I have to say that I'm very impressed with the way this discussion is going. In times past the flames would have been much higher by now.

 

At our event cache last weekend, several of the veterans were lamenting the very thing. One comment made was, "If the caches when you started were like the ones you do today would you have gotten hooked?" Ouch. Several of us felt the sting from that one. In fact, it might not be a bad question to ask before you hide your next "drive by."

 

In my own head it works something like "The law of diminishing returns." Cacher "A" hides a tough cache. Cacher "B" finds it, but doesn't want to be considered as sadistic as Cacher "A" so he hides one just a little less tough. By the time Cacher "F" comes along he's up to his elbows in Altoid strip containers.

 

Then again, maybe it's all a matter of "Cache Karma." For every tough cache that eats your lunch the cache gods allot you a certain number of lame ones to make up for it.

 

Bret

[jarja_grl and G-man]

While admittedly I don't have the depth of experience of the long term cachers here, I tend to think that geocaching sort of corrects itself in these matters. When I read a cache page before I plan a day of caching, I generally have some idea of what I'm in for and I choose what to go after accordingly. Good cache pages seem to be the key for avoiding parking lot micros or underwater SCUBA caches if that's not my bag.

 

I ony have fifty something caches, but I have yet to be blindsided completely about what type of cache I was looking for (except for mushtangs evil Gwinnett Country Fairgrounds Micro mystery cache....grrrrrrr.....still don't have that one!)

 

I'm generally in favor of fewer 'rules' and more self correcting by the participants of this particular sport. The reasons people get hooked on caching are as varied as the folks who do it. We all get something out of it.

 

I don't think that makes it okay to do thoughtless caches just strewn in a garbage heap, but if you choose to create one of those, the participants of geocaching will make it known through logs on the page what type of cache it was. Even if it's not labeled "lame", the TNLNSL, CITO'd for hours will tell the tale.

 

For what it's worth, I just still think geocaching is a heck of a lot of fun.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Here I go putting on the Nomex forum suit.

 

Here I am sitting at my PC about to write a comment.

 

The comment is this. 

 

The Wallyworld micro is a less than satisfying cache.  The "if you don't like them, don't hunt them" argument is an old saw and like most old saws, it just doesn't cut as well as it used to.  When I started, there were about 100 caches in the 100 miles around Omaha.  There are more than double that now.  The listing for caches in my area is very long.  I am sure its longer in other places.

 

The thing about these caches is that they fill up the list and server space without acomplishing any goal of geocaching.  They tend to be in mall parking lots and not in some cool location.  They may or may not be very clever.  Thus they don't take me someplace cool, or give me a little entertainment.  They do mean that I get to download 10 pages instead of 8. 

 

My suggestion (Here I am watering down my Nomex):  Micros and trads have to be more than 1 mile apart and that mall caches can have a cache density of no more than 1 per 4 square miles.

I think you are wrong about the "1 micro in 4 miles" restriction. It would make more sense to require ALL micros to be hidden ONLY at the malls. Perhaps Jeremy could then set up pocket queries to filter out all mall locations.

 

We need to contain this invasion as soon as possible!

 

Just another idea from an oldfart.

[CHTH]

I don't care if its a micro or a traditional as long as its a challenge and in a area thats of interest because of history or the scenery. I don't find the Walmart parking lot either of the two.

[+SBPhishy]

It often seems we have a choice: "Look. No new caches." or "Look. Caches that are less than we hoped for."

 

While I have not hidden a cache yet, that has not taken a decent amount of thought and prep. I personally, after finding all the caches in my immediate area, would rather have lame caches pop up, over no caches. I NEED SOMETHING TO FIND!

 

I have since been hunting the harder caches that require hours of hiking. Overall, many of them are much more rewarding, but, it would be great to be able to drive over to the local park, and find a new cool cache.

 

So, since I can only find a new cache every week or two, I have instead been getting my caching fix by hiding new caches, or at least thinking of cool new ideas for caches.

 

There's no Wallmart here where I live, but there's a K-Mart. Maybe I'll go hide a micro in the parking lot...

Edited March 16, 2004 by SBPhishy

[+Renegade Knight]

I'll be blunt.

 

One solution to crappy cache is anti crappy cache rules.

Anyone who wants to go there is a freaking moron. It's too subjective to be uniform, fair, and allow for regional differences.

 

The way I see it the only valid option is to let people choose which cache to hunt. It's so simple and yet so effective.

[+Runfrog]

I detect a superioroty complex in this group. My "regular cache" is better than your "Micro (-squatter) cache".

[+flask]

please, oh, please, PLEASE someone hide a new cache near me. even a lame one. i hve some basic choices: aches that require hours of bushwhacking that would be better left until summer, caches on which i am still stumped, and those that require more than an hour's drive.

 

as for the question of archiving old caches, i love when i go to a tow and there are older, mature caches to find. and i love seeing who comes to visit our area's older caches. i've found them and so have the older. we have a crop of newbies who are still fresh and excted ny these old saws and i'd feel bad if they didn't have the opportunity to hunt them. it's nice at the picnic to be able to have gone to the same containers. and it's nice to know the new kids get to find what i found. stroll down memory lane, that is.

[+El Diablo]

Also, and I know you have heard this from me before, archive your caches after the majority of the locals have found them. If we all did this the area would recyle it's self.

 

I emphatically disagree with this. I place most of my caches for a good reason. A nice view, historic, or geological interest or just a nice place. Just because most of the locals found it, the reason for my placing it doesn't go away.  There are always new people joining the sport and vacationers and business travellers passing through the area, as well as people from other regions who are expanding their search radius.  I think my cache should stay available for these people as long as I'm willing to maintain it.

 

Here is where I will disagree with you Brian...and I do this with total respect for your opinons.

 

I'm sure that a cacher of your quality places caches in interesting areas for a reason. However, your idea of keeping that spot just for new cachers to find is a bit unfair. If you archived that cache, then someone else put one in the same general area (even if it were you.), it would still lead cachers to the same historical or geological location. The newbies could still hunt for it and the rest of your community would have a new cache to look for. That sounds like a win, win situation to me.

 

Normally when a new cache is placed, it is hit by the majority within a month or two, then after that, it is hit occassionaly. Why not archive it, move it a hundred feet or yards and have a brand new hunt?

 

Like I said, I respect you and your opinons, but these are mine.

 

El Diablo

[+Ed Rad]

Ok...while reading all the posts here I was thinking about what everybody has said so far. IMHO, it appears that it is different for everyone. I live in the Chicago area and there are a ton of micros, but alot of them are very well done. I hate the micro in the woods unless it is part of a multi that leads to a regular cache as the final leg.

 

Another thing hit me as I sat here eating my meatball sandwich and fries... I started hiding micro and smaller containers because I got tired of investing in nice items only to find crap and garbage in the cache a month or two later (that's a whole other issue). The way I've gotten around that, to a degree,is to user smaller containers such as plastic jelly or peanutbutter jars. They can hold a memo pad for the log. I also started creating cache specific tokens or laminated cards for finders to take. They don't have to trade and I re-plentish the supply when it runs low. That way is low cost to me, cachers seem to enjoy them, and I enjoy creating them.

 

The logic of hiding a cache in a spot that is cool is great, but in and around big cities there are not alot of cool natural places. We have Forest Preserves. Most start to look the same after a year plus of caching since the terrain doesn't vary much in this part of the state. I would rather look for a well hidden micro than walk a trail in a Preserve and find it in a hole in a tree after 3 seconds of searching.

 

I am fortunate to have a bunch of cachers in my area that can be very creative when hiding a cache, so it remains fun for me. A cache is a cache and it gets me out of the house, no matter how lame, easy or boring it may be at the time. Those lame caches are fun when I'm with my kids or my friends, which what it's all about for me!

 

Whew! Sorry for the long winded post!

 

Cache on people!

[+flask]

d'ya thnk iought to edit my typos or just go to bed?

[+Ian5281]

I have 200 film canisters and an event cache planned to place as many as can be done in an area.

 

Add me to your crappy list.  But we will have fun doing it and that's what counts.  If later someone whines about how crappy they all are.  Big whoop.

This attitude is unfortunate, but probably not exclusively his.

 

I really want visitors to my caches to enjoy themselves. I even feel a little responsible if they dont, if there was some information I could have provided that would have helped. (ie. "Flashlight required!" or "You will get very dirty finding this cache") I guess I feel some obligation to deliver a good experienc to those I've invited to the area. I realize that this is a self-imposed obligation... My hope is that others will adopt a similar philosophy.

 

Back to the micro topic:

 

Members of my family went to a family function out of state a while back. There were some geocachers among them, and they took family members new to caching out to find the local caches. The area was new to all but my elderly grandparents. All they found were disappointing micros in poor locations, thoughtlessly hidden. The cachers among them were not the most computer savvy, and were not familiar with all the research options available to them, nor did they have the time to use them at the time. The point is, that it was really difficult for them to persuade the folks for whom this was their first caching experience, that the whole game was not really really lame.

 

My complaining is useless without offering suggestions on how it could be done better, so I offer this to hiders of micros in parking lots. Give ample, immediately obvious warning of what is to come for the finder. "Nothing great about this spot excpept for the dastardly, tricky hide" would be a nice warning, or "Just a quick park&grab at the rest stop!", or "This is a micro devilishly hidden in the WalMart parking lot. You are going to have to work for this one"

[+Ian5281]

I'll be blunt.

 

One solution to crappy cache is anti crappy cache rules.

Anyone who wants to go there is a freaking moron.  It's too subjective to be uniform, fair, and allow for regional differences.

 

The way I see it the only valid option is to let people choose which cache to hunt.  It's so simple and yet so effective.

I dont think anybody is suggesting that new rules be instated to prevent crappy caches. (Well, at least I'm not!) You are right, tho, anti-crappy cache rules are only ONE solution, and not a viable one. I would personally like to see a more pervasive culture of quality cache placement, and personal pride in what people do. Ask yourself, "What things do people like about Geocaching? Does my idea for a cache satisfy as many of these things as it could? Does my cache kick a**? Is it satisfactory? Is it really just kinda lame?

 

Runfrog Posted on Mar 15 2004, 06:10 PM

  I detect a superioroty complex in this group. My "regular cache" is better than your "Micro (-squatter) cache". 

There are loads of great micros out there. The cache hiders that prompted me to start this topic have plenty of them! There are crappy regular caches out there as well.

You are right, tho. All other things being equal, many of us prefer a "regular cache" over a micro. Its just hard to keep a 50 cal ammo can hidden on a street corner in downtown San Diego!

Ian5281

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

oh my another complainer. I won't even read all the way through the thread. I'd just like to add my usual comment.

 

Don't do it if you think you'll end up on the forums whining about it.

[+RJFerret]

I apologize for only skimming the responses, and it was said near the top, but I'll reiterate the point.

 

Place caches of the style you want! People get new ideas from what they've seen. You often see the trends pass through an area (hanging caches, certain camo, caches requiring projecting waypoints, etc.)

 

If you place more good trad caches in interesting places, others will follow your example and the ratio will swing the other way.

 

The flip side of this coin is a cacher who started placing a bunch of "micros in the woods" until getting a DNF on just such a cache another had placed--guess what? No more lousy micros in the woods!

 

There will always be the lame new cache dropped a few feet from parking in gladware, but fortunately those people never seem to place a second.

 

Encouragement through email or logs helps as well. Another local cacher placed an unimpressive roadside cache amongst poison ivy. He totally cleaned it up by pulling all the ivy! The next one was a more interesting place. The next a better and more challenging hide. The most recent a great puzzle in a great place!

 

hth,

 

Randy

[+briansnat]

f you place more good trad caches in interesting places, others will follow your example and the ratio will swing the other way.

 

This is key! Well said.

 

Normally when a new cache is placed, it is hit by the majority within a month or two, then after that, it is hit occassionaly. Why not archive it, move it a hundred feet or yards and have a brand new hunt?

 

My point for placing a cache is often to introduce people to an interesting area, not to drag them back there time and time again

Edited March 16, 2004 by briansnat

[+Mastifflover]

Give ample, immediately obvious warning of what is to come for the finder.  "Nothing great about this spot excpept for the dastardly, tricky hide" would be a nice warning, or "Just a quick park&grab at the rest stop!", or "This is a micro devilishly hidden in the WalMart parking lot.  You are going to have to work for this one"

I think this would help. I do believe that there is a place for the parking lot micro's though. I started caching this past winter and after doing all of the caches that were not totally insane to do with 3 feet of snow on the ground, ok I did a few of those too I kind of appreciated those so called lame micro's. They kept me going until enough snow melted that I could do the 4-5 mile hike caches again.

[+SBPhishy]

Normally when a new cache is placed, it is hit by the majority within a month or two, then after that, it is hit occassionaly. Why not archive it, move it a hundred feet or yards and have a brand new hunt?

 

While that is an interesting idea, I have to stick with Briansnat's opinion:

My point for placing a cache is often to introduce people to an interesting area, not to drag them back there time and time again

 

I think that is very important. I love finding a cache that has been there since 2001. Reading the log of someone who was standing here, doing the same thing I am doing 3 or more years ago is a cool feeling. We were both brought to that place by someone who wanted to show it to us, and it has been the same log, container, etc. since the beginning.

 

I would take the loss of not having as many new caches, to having "vintage" caches that were hidden well before I ever heard of caching.

[+Snoogans]

I would personally like to see a more pervasive culture of quality cache placement, and personal pride in what people do.  Ask yourself, "What things do people like about Geocaching?  Does my idea for a cache satisfy as many of these things as it could?  Does my cache kick a**?  Is it satisfactory?  Is it really just kinda lame?

 

Moot. Futile.

 

"Everyone plays their own game. There is no sense in trying to police another's mindset as long as it falls within the general parameters of the game." Me (quoting myself from the poll that I posted on 10/23.)

 

1. Someone took the time and effort to add to the game. No matter what, that is a good thing.

 

2. How many hides do you have?

 

3. Did you claim a find on these so-called "Crappy Caches?" Maybe you should delete your finds on Crappy Caches in protest and abstain when you find other Crappy Caches.

 

While I actually try to place "Non-Crappy Caches," I realize that the world is a much better place because not everyone thinks like me. I have no need to project my standards and values to others.

 

Sn gans

Edited March 16, 2004 by Snoogans

[TimasaurusRex]

I have very few caches under my belt, and I have placed only one. That one I placed was a regular, just like I like to find. I put nice stuff in it, just like I like to find. It's not super challenging, but then again, I am new and haven't been searching out the "perfect hide" for as long as many. I really hated the first micro I chased after, because it took me three tries! Then, after a few magnetic hints, I got it! That was a great find & yet, I still hate micros. Guess what? The next cache I am going to place is a Micro! But, here's the kicker - it's going to be really easy to find. Then, I'm going to really screw with the finder's head and put one of the nastiest brain twisters in it imaginable - combined with several other puzzles to find the "real" traditional cache. It's my revenge cache for that dadgum micro that took me so long to find! Those of you who like the park&grabs beware! Anyways, I don't REALLY mind the micros, they ARE sort of a pain to wade through though, when all I want to look at are the regular caches. Any way to weed them out effectively? Sorry if i'm a little off-topic, but this seems like another issue where all of the people will continue to do what they like to do and the others will complain a lot and do what they like to do. Those with the time and the patience will place great caches, and then there are those who will trade a quarter that's painted red for a silver dollar. I just know that if it weren't dark and I wasn't watching the baby, I'd be out there right now, trying to find that dang cache that I missed in the stupid orange grove! But hey, I have an excuse, I had a baby slung over my shoulders! honest! Anyways, I give you all my promise that every cache I hide will be thought out, will have good swag in it (to start anyways) and will have sufficient warnings for the faint-of-heart (if it is too hard or time-consuming). Isn't there some kind of geocacher's oath we all took when we signed up for this crazy band of misfits? I'm sure that's another whole forum of complaints and arguments, just waiting to happen - run with it if you please, and enjoy!

[+sbell111]

As much as I get tired of 'another lamp post micro', I doubt we will ever find a solution to it.

 

In my opinion, it is driven in two ways. First, for many people, what they like about caching is simply getting out of the house and finding as many as they can. It is not about going to a cool spot.

 

Second, there are still many people that judge others (quite openly) by how many caches they have hidden. There is pressure for people to get out and hide more. This does a disservice to the hobby because it results in an increase of illconceived and poorly maintained caches.

[CoyoteRed]

Introducing...

 

"How Not to Hide Caches" series

Coming soon! What's a lame cache? Well, this series of caches is designed to illustrate how to NOT hide a cache. Lame, lame, lame! These caches are some of the lamest you'll ever find. You are encouraged to hide your own "How Not to Hide Caches" cache. Tell others your idea of lame!

 

(Just hope no one duplicates one of your favorite hides under this series! Ouch!)

[+briansnat]

I think that is very important. I love finding a cache that has been there since 2001. Reading the log of someone who was standing here, doing the same thing I am doing 3 or more years ago is a cool feeling. We were both brought to that place by someone who wanted to show it to us, and it has been the same log, container, etc. since the beginning.

 

I agree. I found a cache while on vacation in December that had been there since early 2001. The original logbook was inside it and I spend quite a while thumbing through it. Some people complaining about the oppressive heat, others about all the snow they had to walk through. Some mentioning the humidity and bugs, others talking about the beautiful, crisp fall day and all sharing the experiences of the hunt for that particular cache. I thought that was really neat and finding that historic cache meant more to me than if it was the 5th cache by the 5th owner in that spot.

Edited March 16, 2004 by briansnat

[Cruz1n4Cache]

I think you should place a cache to reflect the type of person you are. If you are an outdoorsey, hike through the woods type of person, like myself, and live near those types of places, then place caches that way. You will mostly attract people who appreciate those types of places and have no problem spending an entire afternoon hiking through the mountains and only logging 2 or 3 caches for the day.

 

On the other hand, if you are more of a city slicker, like my brother, place caches that way. You will mostly attract people who are used to the urban environment, and can appreciate their surroundings (archetecture, parks, fountains, historical areas, etc.) while logging tons of micros.

 

If you like Wal-mart parking lots, then go for it, but you probably won't see a guy like me searching for it....then again, if it were close to my home, maybe I'd give it a try for the heck of it!!!!

 

The biggest thing I've learned through caching is to have fun with it no matter what. If it becomes no fun looking for light poles, head for the mountains.....literally. If your thing is not hiking through the wilderness, visit the nearest city and search out micros. But by all means, it's just a game.

[+bigredmed]

Perhaps the way to fix this is to set up a new category of micro.

 

Micro 1. Tricky, well hidden caches that take the cacher to a unique place or provide a puzzle or clever hide.

 

Micro 2. Lamp post micro

 

The separation wouldn't lower the page count on the listing, but would make identifying them easier.

 

Ultimately, it would be nice to be able to configure your premium membership to filter certain types of caches from your area listing on the website. (I don't use pocket queries as I don't use PDA's and I tend not to load waypoints into my GPS electronically.)

 

That would be a feature I would pay extra for.

[+wimseyguy]

As much as I get tired of 'another lamp post micro', I doubt we will ever find a solution to it.

 

In my opinion, it is driven in two ways.  First, for many people, what they like about caching is simply getting out of the house and finding as many as they can.  It is not about going to a cool spot.

 

Of course there is no solution. It's a game played by 1000's who bring varied interests and abilities. What makes it different from other recreational pasttimes is that it is self-perpetuating. Golfers cannot build their own courses (unless you hang with the Trump.) However they too can choose from a muni goat track or a well maintained well run course. One of the aspects that makes this a great place to live is our diversity in all facets of our lives. So quit carping, if you don't like parking lot micros-don't seek them. If you think caching should be a walk in the woods to a scenic or historic spot seek those, or better yet, hide some more of those types of caches.

 

Second, there are still many people that judge others (quite openly) by how many caches they have hidden.  There is pressure for people to get out and hide more.  This does a disservice to the hobby because it results in an increase of illconceived and poorly maintained caches.

 

I agree with this 99%. However you would think that just maybe a few of these folks could give back a little more in the way of hides. Thousands of finds and only a handful of hides. Now I gotta get busy and get my 'working on it' hides placed. It's soooo much easier to just run out and find some caches than to place the good ones, but reading the logs can be pretty satisfying too. Especially the 'Finally I found this #$%@ cache' ones. But that's another topic.

 

Perhaps the way to fix this is to set up a new category of micro.

Maybe we should have three sets of stars and add a Quality rating to the Difficulty and Terrain?

Edited March 16, 2004 by wimseyguy

[+briansnat]

I think you should place a cache to reflect the type of person you are. If you are an outdoorsey, hike through the woods type of person, like myself, and live near those types of places, then place caches that way. You will mostly attract people who appreciate those types of places and have no problem spending an entire afternoon hiking through the mountains and only logging 2 or 3 caches for the day.

 

I try to place all kinds of caches. The bulk of my hides are nice hikes in the mountains around northern NJ (well what we call mountains in NJ), but I also have a number of lame magnetic guardrail caches and drive and dumps, just because they are so popular. But I try to make sure that even my lame caches have a tiny bit of redeeming value. I put them near a nice view - maybe a roadside pond - or some other area of interest.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

But I try to make sure that even my lame caches have a tiny bit of redeeming value. I put them near a nice view - maybe a roadside pond - or some other area of interest.

Those don't sound all that lame, at least compared with some I've seen!

 

I don't think the problem is log-only micros - it's caches that are not very interesting or creative. A micro cache with a well constructed puzzle, interesting theme, humorous twist, good location, clever hide, or better yet, several of the above, can be a good deal of fun.

 

A micro hidden inside of a lamp post, just like the other 37 nearby caches, in a generic location is not that much fun to me. It's not the lamp post, or the fact that it's a micro that's the problem - it's the fact that it's just like all the other caches around it. After you've found a few of them, the rest can get kind of tedious. This same can sometimes be true of traditional hides as well (oh look - an unnatural pile of wood out in the middle of the forest, gosh, where can the cache be?), but often even the lamest of these has the charm of a nice walk through the woods to set it apart.

 

If people would be a little creative (doesn't have to be a lot!) about their hides, this would be a lot less of a problem I think.

[+Renegade Knight]

This attitude is unfortunate, but probably not exclusively his.

Interesting.

 

To throw an event where people have a good time is in part what event caches are about. Having fun while placing some caches is in part what this hobby is about. Having a thick enough skin to deal with topics like "crappy caches" isn't what this hobby is about but it is what you need to deal with. Therefore I can't give people who bitch nearly as much creedance as those who say thanks and those who at least give out a great idea while 'bitching'.

Edited March 17, 2004 by Renegade Knight