Gimmes

[CoyoteRed]

What do you guys think about cache discriptions that tell you exactly where the cache is? The only redeeming value of the cache is a hike, neat spot, or point of interest. Something like a virt but with a container.

 

Reason I ask is, while I love a good urban micro where you have to contend with muggles to retrieve, I was wondering if there is room for caches where you are told exactly the location the cache is hidden--remove completely "the hunt."

 

I'm thinking some hunts need exactly this. For instance, our climb to Panther Tail Perch in NC was in no way diminished just because the cache location was obvious from 50' away. In fact, the enjoyment might have been blemished if there had been a frustrating hunt and/or DNF.

 

So, all other aspects aside--say it was a nice hike--would you be disappointed if right in the cache discription the author told you "the cache is in the only hollow stump around?"

[+bons]

Nothing is a gimmie with 4 feet of snow on the ground...

[+Divine]

So, all other aspects aside--say it was a nice hike--would you be disappointed if right in the cache discription the author told you "the cache is in the only hollow stump around?"

Disappointed would be quite strong a word for this case (for me), because the hike was nice anyway, but I'd rather have that information in the encrypted additional hint. One of the main interests in this hobby for me besides the hike is finding hidden stuff. It wouldn't be much of a find if the hider told me the hiding place right away. Still, I'd probably go for the cache anyway.

[Keystone]

For an interesting historical perspective, I thought everyone would get a kick out of this quote from Matt Stum in a post to the original GPS Stash discussion on May 26, 2000. Matt was the first to suggest the terms "cache" and "geocache."

 

I think we're giving away *way* too much information about the stashes. The *whole point* was that we are using GPS's to find these things now that SA is

gone. Lat/Long coords should be sufficient. But we're also giving away Country,State,City, and even stories that include specific instructions about what roads or which side of the trail the stash is on.

 

We've come a long way in four years!

[MustangPhreak&Phate]

We're with Divine on this one...

We'd rather see the true spoiler in the encrypted hint than on the cache page. That way if you really want to try to find it on your own first then you can.

 

Kind of like spoiler pics that sometimes accompany cache listing, you don't have to look at them but if you know it's going to be quite a hike and don't want to be frustrated once you arrive at the destination you could peek at them before you leave.

 

We'd hunt it either way, especially if the view was worth it!

[+Team Flashncache]

I'm in agreement with Divine on this one. If it would be necessary to include a hint that amounts to a "spoiler", I'd rather it be encrypted than right there in black and white. Also, from a personal standpoint, I would like for it to have SPOILER written all over it! Then it gives the finder the option of making it easy.....or letting it be a bit harder.

 

Could this be the start of a new trend? Multi-level difficulty?

(It's a 3* if you don't decrypt the hint, but a 1* if you do.)

Just a thought...

 

(edit: added clarification.)

Edited June 16, 2004 by Team Flashncache

[+bigredmed]

I would be in favor of them if they were marked as such in the cache listings and could be skipped during a search. They would have a role in helping groups of new players get the hang of the game before going after a harder one, they would help people with kids who are too little to be interested in the hunt rather than the toys inside, and they would help keep our sport friendly to those with physical challenges.

 

We need to expand our ability to label caches in the main database so that we can self filter caches that we don't like looking for. This kind of cache has a role, but it would not be good for everyone. Being able to set a filter (once) and know that that type of cache (and what ever other types I didn't want to search for) would be blinked out would be way worth the $30 a year for a membership.

 

The ability to blink things off your search also supports my goal of experimental caches. If you could list these as X-caches, the people who didn't like my experiments or who just wanted to go to the park with their kids could just blink mine off their list.

[+briansnat]

It depends. Sometimes I provide dead giveaways because I don't want people tearing up the area looking for the cache. Perhaps the point was to bring people there, but I don't want them to make a mess of it.

 

In another case I have a series of caches that involve an 8 mile circuit hike. It's been well received, but one stage was very hard to find for some. I figure if someone hihes 8 miles and spends 5-6 hours out there doing the series, spending an hour searching for one stage isn't a lot of fun, so I put a major spoiler on the cache page.

 

Most of the time however, I prefer to find the cache myself without too much help from the owner and this is they way most of my caches are set up. But I do understand why someone would provide gimmes in a cache page.

Edited June 16, 2004 by briansnat

[+Divine]

I'm in agreement with Divine on this one. If it would be necessary to include a hint that amounts to a "spoiler", I'd rather it be encrypted than right there in black and white. Also, from a personal standpoint, I would like for it to have SPOILER written all over it! Then it gives the finder the option of making it easy.....or letting it be a bit harder.

 

Could this be the start of a new trend? Multi-level difficulty?

(It's a 3* if you don't decrypt the hint, but a 1* if you do.)

Just a thought...

Some people encrypt graduated additional hints, something like

*** Easier approach is from north.

** Top of the cliff.

* Tree hollow near the rockpile

So you can decrypt only one part to give you a nudge to a right direction without having to decrypt the dead giveaway at once. For example, if the cache is close to the cliff edge on above example, you might be searching from the wrong places at the foot of the cliff. By decrypting the middle hint, you know to look at the top side, but you still don't know the exact hideaway.

 

The bad side of graduated hints are that they tend to take a lot of space from the hint field, and as most of my cache pages are bilingual, it takes twice the space. Still waiting the promised improvements on multilinguality on cache pages.

[+Mopar]

There is room for all types of difficulty, just like there is room for all types of terrain. That's why we have difficulty ratings to go with terrain ratings.

Difficulty rating

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching. 

 

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting. 

 

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon. 

 

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete. 

 

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache. 

 

If you are looking for "gimme" type caches because you want to make it easy for kids or newbies, search out the 1 star difficulty caches. If you are searching for a 3-4 star difficulty cache, you should be prepared to spend hours, maybe even multiple days searching for the cache based on the information on the cache page without complaining about it.

 

Some people like the trip, some people like the hunt.

Me, I like both types at times, and both types have their place.

If the reason for my cache is a long/difficult hike, or a great view, then most likely I'm going to make the cache itself easy.

If it's just your typical short walk in a local park, I can go 2 ways. I may lay out the cache to be an easy find for the kids, or I may try to make it a challenge, for the people who enjoy that type of hide.

If you look at the cache ratings before you head out to the cache, it should be obvious which of the above types you're searching for.

 

All types are good, and personally I'll hunt any of them depending on my mood and the location.

Edited June 16, 2004 by Mopar

[+Renegade Knight]

There are spots worthy of a cache and yet too senstiave for normal hunting methods. In those cases the cache owner is doing the right thing when they tell you point blank where the cache is at.

[+JoGPS]

The individual can place a difficulty of a one to a five, do you think you need a boat to find every cache , well no, should a handicapped person think a gimme cache is not fun, well no, We can all read the cache pages if it gives away too much and you don’t think it would be challenging enough “ Don’t Go”

 

I have hidden a few gimmes, but also have hidden a few five difficulty and plan to continue with all types. The rating system we have in place is doing just fine in my book we don’t need a filter for every possible combination of cache we need to get back to “Reading” the cache page.

 

With all that said last weekend I tried to find a two difficulty cache and was stumped even with a spoiler, was it fun, sure and will keep going back until I find it. The way an individual rates their cache varies from region to region, lets try to keep it simple.

 

Sorry for the rant……………. JOE

[+JMBella]

Some caches are for the hunt, some are for the location. If I want to get people to a great location for whatever reason, I might make it a ridiculously easy find. If you ask the cachers around here though, they will tell you those are few and far between. At any rate there's nothing wrong with giving it away. In some cases it's the only appropriate thing to do. For instance if there's a park that doesn't want any off trail hiking like this one.

[Toron]

Seems like the points I would make have already been made by others, but here's my .02.

 

I don't think there's such a thing as too much info about what to expect. That does NOT mean every detail about the cache itself. It simply means if someone is going to need some rapelling rope to complete the cache, that should be listed in the cache description rather than someone finding out after they've hiked twenty plus miles to get to the general location.

 

Same goes for easy caches, though. Yes, the star rating is a great (and probably the best) start, but there are other indicators. I have used one of those symbol bar add-ons to indicate handicap accessible and lunchtime caches. When you see that kind of stuff on a one-star cache, you gotta be thinking gimme.

 

The point is, as long as it's clear (and there are a variety of ways to make it so), make a gimme. That leaves the decision making up to the individual cacher, and that is how it should be.

[+Team DEMP]

I think the encrypted hint should first and foremost be valid. Having an encrypted hint of "You shouldn't need a hint" or "No hint needed" or "You are kidding, right" is not appropriate. I think the approvers should address that when approving the cache. Leave the hint empty if you're not providing a hint.

 

I feel the ability of the hint to focus the person on obtaining the cache is based on how difficult the find is supposed to be. If the hike is short/easy and the challenge is finding the cache, then I don't think the hint should tell you specifically where it is. If the focus of the cache is on the hike itself, then I think that the hint should provide the cacher with enough information that if they got there, they should be able to find it.

 

And I feel if the hint is supposed to direct the person to a specific area, it should be as specific as possible. If the coords take you to a large boulder field, having the hint say "under rock" or "between rocks" is useless. Isn't it obvious if you're in the middle of boulders for 20 yards to any side, that it's between rocks?!

[Keystone]

I think the encrypted hint should first and foremost be valid. Having an encrypted hint of "You shouldn't need a hint" or "No hint needed" or "You are kidding, right" is not appropriate. I think the approvers should address that when approving the cache. Leave the hint empty if you're not providing a hint.

Don't assume that the volunteer cache reviewers aren't already doing this. And don't assume that cache pages never get edited after they are initially reviewed.

[+Mopar]

And I feel if the hint is supposed to direct the person to a specific area, it should be as specific as possible. If the coords take you to a large boulder field, having the hint say "under rock" or "between rocks" is useless. Isn't it obvious if you're in the middle of boulders for 20 yards to any side, that it's between rocks?!

In theory, I agree with this. In practice it's not as easy (or helpful) as it seems.

I've been told that the encrypted hint on harder caches should be a spoiler for use when there is bad satellite coverage. Well, since the basis of this game is finding the cache with a gps, not clues (that would be letterboxing, not geocaching) I don't personally subscribe to that line of reasoning, but even if I did it doesn't work.

I recently did a cache (really!). I'm pretty certain with decent satellites the cache is an easy find. That day we didn't have good coverage. Lot's of bounce. I would get right down to 5-10ft, and then the GPS would jump to 130ft. I was getting 3-4 distinct "ground zeros" each 100ft from the others. There were 5 of us and none had found the cache after 30 minutes of searching, so we agreed to decrypt the hint. It was a gimme-type hint, basically told you the cache was in the treestump. Well, with the coverage we had, it still took a long time to search every treestump in the 1.25 acres of New England forest the search area consisted of. Had we had good coverage, there was really only the one stump in the general area of the cache and it would have been a gimme hint, but then if there was good coverage I doubt we would have needed the hint.

I'm not saying don't include a hint if you like, just consider what seems like an obvious hint to the hider (or any hint short of a bright red orange flag on top of the cache for that matter) may not work so well for the cache searchers.

[+Team DEMP]

I think the encrypted hint should first and foremost be valid. Having an encrypted hint of "You shouldn't need a hint" or "No hint needed" or "You are kidding, right" is not appropriate. I think the approvers should address that when approving the cache. Leave the hint empty if you're not providing a hint.

Don't assume that the volunteer cache reviewers aren't already doing this. And don't assume that cache pages never get edited after they are initially reviewed.

Good to hear!!! Maybe it's just the older caches I've seen this on and that new caches are being reviewed for this.

[+Team DEMP]

I'm not saying don't include a hint if you like, just consider what seems like an obvious hint to the hider (or any hint short of a bright red orange flag on top of the cache for that matter) may not work so well for the cache searchers.

You mean like "in a crevice" LOL!

[+WalruZ]

I have a 'gimme' out there. It's in a community garden in SF. I don't want people doing anything there but finding the cache, signing the log, and looking at the pretty flowers and beautiful view of India basin. The cache description tells you where the cache is, in a rock in a cluster of rocks at the bottom of the stairs. The point is to go there. There are other caches in the area that are hard to find.

 

Diversity is good.

[+dekster]

I do it for both the hunt and the location. I'm not into trading, so usally I just SL. A good hint (encrypted) is a real plus: My second find, the first with my own GPSr was in a lovely little park and I thought I was going nuts - the GPSr led me to an improbable place. Well, I decoded the hint and after a few more minutes found the micro. Being a newbie, I didn't comment on the coordinates, but later gamers did and it turned out they were off a bit. The owner later posted the updated coordintes. So, I got to see a great park and with the hint got a find in spite of the coordinates. Really gave me a boost as a newbie.

[CoyoteRed]

For an interesting historical perspective...

I can't tell if you're for or against gimmes.

[+Team Perks]

Sometimes it's fun to see how long an incredibly easy one can last.

 

THIS one has somehow managed to stick around for the past six months...

[mortonfox]

If the cache was about the nice hike or the good view, I would hardly consider it a disappointment if the cache description gave away the hiding spot. And besides, anyone who feels otherwise can read the cache description beforehand and not go for the cache.

[Keystone]

For an interesting historical perspective...

I can't tell if you're for or against gimmes.

And that is entirely appropriate! I would not post my personal opinion about a geocaching issue using my moderator's account, except where it related to the review process, the listing standards, etc.

 

If a "gimme" cache otherwise meets the listing requirements, then my sole duty is to press the button that posts the cache to the website.

[CoyoteRed]

For an interesting historical perspective...

I can't tell if you're for or against gimmes.

And that is entirely appropriate!

But what about the cacher sans the moderator or approver hat?

 

Eh, you don't have to answer if you don't want to. It's all cool.

[+rusty_tlc]

... Well, since the basis of this game is finding the cache with a gps, not clues (that would be letterboxing, not geocaching) I don't personally subscribe to that line of reasoning, but even if I did it doesn't work. ...

'bout sums it up I'd say.

[+Team DEMP]

... Well, since the basis of this game is finding the cache with a gps, not clues (that would be letterboxing, not geocaching) I don't  personally subscribe to that line of reasoning, but even if I did it doesn't work. ...

'bout sums it up I'd say.

I don't think that's entirely true. In fact, looking at The Geocaching FAQ I quote the following:

 

What is Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for gps users. Participating in a cache hunt is a good way to take advantage of the wonderful features and capability of a gps unit. The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

Sure it says using a GPS but it doesn't say anything against hints/clues/etc.

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

Again it doesn't say anything about finding the cache.

 

In another section of the FAQ it mentions:

may be located in cities both above and below ground, inside and outside buildings.

If there's no GPS signal in a building, I'm not sure how a GPS is your means of finding the unit, other then getting you to the building. Same goes for a cave.

 

So I feel as many other folks do, that how YOU want to play is up to YOU. To say that a clue or hint is not how the game is supposed to be played is not a generalization I think everyone will agree with, especially since there's nothing that seems to indicate otherwise.

 

David

[Major Catastrophe]

I agree w/ the others who would prefer the dead-giveaway-type clues be encrypted, but I also understand that there is a place for this type of cache. My own hides tend toward "your GPS will get you in the neighborhood but the reception will be so lousy that you'll be there all day," but these are not for everyone.

 

I'd think these caches [edit: (the gimmes)] would be self-selecting; people who like easy finds and a walk in the park, plus those after massive numbers of finds, will seek them. Those in search of a challenge with a prize at the end will not. So there.

Edited June 16, 2004 by Major Catastrophe

[uperdooper]

my brother Hysteria has a series of 3 in upper michigan that include a lot of steep climbing. he figures that if the cache is hard to get to, the find should be fairly easy. he always leaves a spoiler in the encrypted hint. that leaves it up to the finder to use or not.

[+sept1c_tank]

So, all other aspects aside--say it was a nice hike--would you be disappointed if right in the cache discription the author told you "the cache is in the only hollow stump around?"

I don't think I would be disappointed. There's a very good chance that I would have read the cache page before embarking upon the hunt. So I would already know that there is a major spoiler, and I would have probably already weighed that in my decision to hunt the cache.

 

If I was searching for the cache, having never read the cache page, then the question is moot.

 

It's the same as all other types of caches. If you don't want to attempt a 5-star cache, or a (possibly lame) urban micro, or a multi, or a "Gimme," read the cache page and make an informed decision as to whether to hunt or not.

 

As far as cache owners; it's their cache and their decision to present it in any approved manner.