Limit On New Caches

July 10, 2004

I wish there was a limit imposed on the number of geocaches placed by a single member, other than simply keeping the caches 528ft. apart.

It's really frustrating to plan for a day of geocaching thinking that you're going to see nice scenery, learn interesting facts, find places of special significance, discover the history of an area etc., only to end up nowhere special and find a trash container that was placed there by someone simply because they wanted to have one more cache added to their statistics.

It should be quite safe to assume that someone who has placed over 102 caches over a 3 month period, with over 40 in one single month, hasn't put much thought into it and doesn't really care what visitors are going to find once they get there. I think this is far from what geocaching is all about. I have a really hard time believing that a single person can come up with over 200 caches that are worth a visit, especially all in one province.

With the growing popularity of this sport, I really think it's time the rules were more specific about how many caches can be placed in a particular area, by a single member and in a defined time span. I don't want to waste my time and energy on crappy caches anymore; let's keep this sport about the quality, not the quantity.

July 10, 2004

I know what you mean, A local guy has 3 accounts just so he can place more hides.

July 10, 2004

If someone doesn't place good caches don't go to them. We have some locals that place lots of quality caches and I would not want them curtailed. (See I said it all with a smile.)

July 10, 2004

I agree...and I also believe if there was a limit to the number of micros that could be placed, it would cut down on the crappy caches and crappy locations by a long shot.

Edited July 10, 2004 by PandyBat

July 10, 2004

If someone doesn't place good caches don't go to them. We have some locals that place lots of quality caches and I would not want them curtailed. (See I said it all with a smile.)

Well, you don't know if they're crappy until you go to them. And if you live in a cache-starved area like I do, and don't feel like driving an hour every time you want to do a little caching, then even the crappy ones will satisfy a geocaching urge.

July 10, 2004

One of the reasons that geocaching is so popular is the tremendous variation in the way the game is played.

Do you want long hikes in the woods?

Do you want easy finds in parking lots?

Do you want a challenge or just an opportunity to relax in the outdoors?

What kind of challenge do you want? High numbers? Difficult terrain? Puzzles?

Personally, I prefer a walk in the woods to find a box and trade things. But I have also found micros, virtuals, locationless, etc. It depends on what I feel like doing at the time.

While I agree that there are a lot of bad caches out there, I can't agree that a rule limiting the number of caches placed by a cacher will solve any of the problems.

I am tempted to say "If you don't like them, don't look for them", but I know that some areas are cache-poor and you have to take what you can get.

July 10, 2004

I advocate a rating system for finders. On the "Log Your Visit" page, finders could rate caches and if the caches got low ratings, there would be fewer visitors, and no fun "Stashing for Stats" only. Caches with high ratings would get all the action, all the TBs, Coins, and "Cool Stuff". eBay has a system that provides a way of rating sellers on there site that seems to work quite well.

2.4k · July 10, 2004

I advocate a rating system for finders. On the "Log Your Visit" page, finders could rate caches and if the caches got low ratings, there would be fewer visitors, and no fun "Stashing for Stats" only. Caches with high ratings would get all the action, all the TBs, Coins, and "Cool Stuff". eBay has a system that provides a way of rating sellers on there site that seems to work quite well.

But would people actually honestly rate the caches, or would everyone give all caches "good" ratings, out of fear cache owners would delete their finds if they gave their honest opinion of the cache. Sorta like a log that reads "Found quckly, TNLNSL, thanks for the cache" as opposed to "gee another film can under a lamp post, that was original"

July 10, 2004

I advocate a rating system for finders. On the "Log Your Visit" page, finders could rate caches and if the caches got low ratings, there would be fewer visitors, and no fun "Stashing for Stats" only. Caches with high ratings would get all the action, all the TBs, Coins, and "Cool Stuff". eBay has a system that provides a way of rating sellers on there site that seems to work quite well.

But would people actually honestly rate the caches, or would everyone give all caches "good" ratings, out of fear cache owners would delete their finds if they gave their honest opinion of the cache. Sorta like a log that reads "Found quckly, TNLNSL, thanks for the cache" as opposed to "gee another film can under a lamp post, that was original"

The rating part of the log could be anonymous.

But I don't think that a rating system would be that effective.

Or, to put it another (and possibly more honest) way, I wouldn't use it, either in my logs or when deciding what caches to hunt for.

July 10, 2004

Keenpeople.com has cache ratings you can add to your cache page LINK you have to register to view or use them, but not to vote. Some people around here (Florida) use them, but they don't really help much. People seem to give high ratings or nothing.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a fair way to regulate quality with rules. In our area, the best results have come from really encouraging, praising and recommending good caches. A little comraderie, peer pressure and friendly competition has gone a long way to better quality caches overall.

3.9k · July 10, 2004

I wish there was a limit imposed on the number of geocaches placed by a single member, other than simply keeping the caches 528ft. apart.

It's really frustrating to plan for a day of geocaching thinking that you're going to see nice scenery, learn interesting facts, find places of special significance, discover the history of an area etc., only to end up nowhere special and find a trash container that was placed there by someone simply because they wanted to have one more cache added to their statistics.

I feel your pain. I was recently on vacation and the area I was in was saturated with lame caches by one individual. After hunting several I gave up in disgust.

On the other hand here in my own neck of the woods we have several cachers that place a lot of caches, and I've never seen a lame one yet. So the rule would hurt more than help I think.

Maybe the best thing to do is to politely point out to the offender in your area by email the errors of their ways. It was also be very helpful to explain to them what is expected generaly in a quality cache. Be very polite and offer suggestions, not demands or put downs.

El Diablo

1.2k · July 10, 2004

We have about 60 caches, including some events, placed during 11 months.

We saw a couple who placed MANY caches per day, under a month. We are talking about 5-10 caches, and we thougth they didn't plan those caches. Then we found (I think) 1 or 2 of those caches, and they were placed on beautiful places with perfect coordinates.

Perhaps they have been planning the caches, and then drop them off on a single day.

July 10, 2004

Rating Found Caches:

I don't profess to know how to do this to maximize the effectiveness of a rating system, but when I think of the risk/benefit possibilities, I think that it has the most promise to maintain the value and integrity of our burgeoning sport.

Think of it this way; if you are going caching today, and you see on the website a choice of several similar caches, some with Four Star (Finder's) ratings, some with One Star (Finder's) Ratings, which would you be most inclined to go after? If you are planning to hide a cache, and of your previous 10 caches, 5 rated very high, and 5 rated very low, what kind of caches would you be inclined to hide in the future?

2k · July 10, 2004

I do much of my caching on my lunch break while driving my truck around Indiana and nearby states. I will load up co-ords that are near my route and keep my little yellow eTrex handy in case I'm passing near one.

Often I will skip over items that look a tad weak in the "Wow" department, especially urban micros in unexciting locations. Look for descriptions of the area on the log page and see if it's just anoher lamppost or something sweet like a park or memorial. Zooming in on the map will someimes give you an idea if it's worth getting.

Don't be afraid of stating your opinion (kindly, of course) about lame finds. A possible phrase: "This was no challenge and would have been nicer IF ..." ; or: " Was hoping for more ... but thanks for the cache."

Also, don't be afraid to report caches that might be placed illegally, perhaps if a few more of us would police our sport better the quality will rise.

Finally, Set some of your own out to improve the quality.

22k · July 10, 2004

You really want gc.com to micro manage your local caches? (pun intended).

If it’s a crappy hide, say so.

Edit: spelling error

Edited July 10, 2004 by Elf Danach

July 10, 2004

Question regarding caches...what is the normally expected lifetime of a cache?

Say I hide one out there, should I prepare to maintain it for a month? 12 months? until no one goes looking for it for 60 days?

Even a well hidden cache can become a bit of an attraction if your area is loaded to the gills (like Indy) with geocachers.

So...would it be best to just maintain it, until no one comes for it for a certain time period?

Personally, I don't see how a person with a 40 hour a week job could possibly hide and PROPERLY maintain more than 4 to 6 caches.

Anyone still putting disposable cameras in their caches?

2.3k · July 10, 2004

El D! You're back! Welcome!

3.9k · July 10, 2004

El D! You're back! Welcome!

Thanks!

El Diablo

3.9k · July 10, 2004

I don't like it when people place an abundance of sub-par caches, but no more rules please. Why punish some of the great hiders because there are a few people that place lame caches. The best thing to do is not hunt them. Maybe if nobody bothers to find them the owner will get the hint. You also have to realize that every region is different and the problem you are having in your area, may not be a problem in most other areas. Therefore the rule may not be justified everywhere.

July 10, 2004

I've always believed that, in most cases, nobody has a right to complain about something if they can't, at least, offer some type of solution to the problem along with their gripe. There's been a bit of local observations concerning the number of local "drive-by micros" in my area lately, and so, in an attempt to rectify the situation, I decided to place a cache of a bit "higher-quality" (IMHO), and so I've offered my own solution to this local situation:

(Not that I'm "plugging" my own cache, mind you)

Rick

7.2k · July 10, 2004

See my reply in the latest "Rating" thread.

By ranking cachers by the quality of their hides it would encourage better hides. Hiders would voluntarily cull lesser hides. Finders could create lists of caches based on hider ranking.

The question would be what would you rather own, one killer cache that everyone likes and are on quite a few Top 1% lists or a couple of dozen that folks think is mediocre?

If you want competition, a healthier way to compete is vie to be the best hider in your area.

July 10, 2004

What is the deal here . Look at the description of the cache . What do we want , Neiman-Marcus caches..at least someone is putting them out there...we get too regulatory and geocaching will tank. We have placed 10 in one large municipal park and have worked hard on each of them. One cache contains as few as fifteen nice items , one , a pirates treasure chest has 500 items in it. Look on the view cache screen and you can get a fair idea of whats coming up..if its a bad location then move on.. Some have found over a hundred caches and have never placed a cache. Are those wanting regulations from DC?

6.5k · July 11, 2004

If someone doesn't place good caches don't go to them. We have some locals that place lots of quality caches and I would not want them curtailed. (See I said it all with a smile.)

Well, you don't know if they're crappy until you go to them. And if you live in a cache-starved area like I do, and don't feel like driving an hour every time you want to do a little caching, then even the crappy ones will satisfy a geocaching urge.

Ok, but how many do you have to visit before you decide you don't like whatever this person is hiding?

1.2k · July 11, 2004

"I want more rules".

"We have enough Rules".

"I want less rules".

"Rules, I don't care about rules".

"We don't need more rules but the rules we have should agree with what I think is important".

"I'm going to cache the way I want no matter what".

And the every popular, "TPTB need to make me happy NOW since they owe us because without us they wouldn't exist".

Did I forget anyone??

1.2k · July 11, 2004

"I want more rules".
"We have enough Rules".

"I want less rules".

"Rules, I don't care about rules".

"We don't need more rules but the rules we have should agree with what I think is important".

"I'm going to cache the way I want no matter what".

And the every popular, "TPTB need to make me happy NOW since they owe us because without us they wouldn't exist".

Did I forget anyone??

Yes I did I forgot one group

"I want a Pony!!!!!!!!!"

July 11, 2004

I have recently (withen 1 month) hidden two around a lake about 50 miles away (one requires a boat to acess). 1 easy urban micro, 1 micro which has had mixed reviews to its difficulty. one couldnt find, some spent over an 1/2 half. some found withen minutes. and i plan to hide another clever micro in a local park.

I think the only lame one is the very urban one i hid in a local park. Even if a cache is lame, its a adventure any ways. Would you all just prefere to have finders and not hiders? you take the good with bad. evidently these people like this sport enough to hide a cache for you all to find it.

now if its the contents that make it lame, or how its hid, i dont know i dont think i read in this thread where that was stated. BUt let me ask what does make it lame in your opinion?

myself, i really havent found a cache i havent liked yet. except for one, it was 3.3 miles to get to it, great bike ride, very scenic, but it wasnt well hidden or camoed. but that was the last finders fault, not the hider.

aj

Edited July 11, 2004 by AJ of Dunbar

6.5k · July 11, 2004

"I want more rules".
"We have enough Rules".

"I want less rules".

"Rules, I don't care about rules".

"We don't need more rules but the rules we have should agree with what I think is important".

"I'm going to cache the way I want no matter what".

And the every popular, "TPTB need to make me happy NOW since they owe us because without us they wouldn't exist".

Did I forget anyone??

I require a direct specific quote or I'm Gonna Complain

1.5k · July 11, 2004

I am gonna side with the "No more rules" crowd. While cutting down on lame caches might not seem such a bad idea, it would be one more check/balance that both the hider and approver have to go through. My guess is that it would have a negative impact on people that hide good 'caches as well. Besides... how bad can a 'cache be????

July 11, 2004

If you dont like the caches placed by a certain person....dont visit anymore of them. Why try to create another rule which would do more harm than good. If a cacher has some good skills in hiding, why make him/her suffer from such a rule as well.

1.8k · July 11, 2004

Well, you don't know if they're crappy until you go to them. And if you live in a cache-starved area like I do, and don't feel like driving an hour every time you want to do a little caching, then even the crappy ones will satisfy a geocaching urge.

We're not only "cache-starved," but also "cacher-starved." In 8 months I had 4 very good caches (well, we don't have mountains here.). I intended that to stand. With all of your encouragement, though, I started a push. We've had the news article, and I added caches - up to 9, with two more soon, I hope. But I don't expand into other surrounding areas, hoping to get new cachers there who need their own space, and I will gradually either adopt out some of mine, or archive, when we get more people. Hopefully, the quality will stay decent.

"I want more rules".
"We have enough Rules".

"I want less rules".

"Rules, I don't care about rules".

"We don't need more rules but the rules we have should agree with what I think is important".

"I'm going to cache the way I want no matter what".

And the every popular, "TPTB need to make me happy NOW since they owe us because without us they wouldn't exist".

I like that.

1.8k · July 11, 2004

What makes a cache good doesn't have anything to do with numbers. And just because you don't think they're good hides doesn't mean they aren't good hides.

My area is also cacher-starved. The last thing we want to do is squelch the activity of the new cache hiders. From my experience, most of the people quickly develop cache placement skills...and the earlier ones often go away when the cache hiders themselves realize they don't meet their own standards. Geo-Darwinism, I suppose.

I tend to place caches 10-12 at a time, because it's easy for me to place them all at once after spending a lot of time looking for good places and preparing the cache containers. Should I be limited to 1 or 2 at a time?

July 11, 2004

Here we go yet again. First off who is to say whether or not a cache is lame. Secondly each cache page has a map that you can click on to see approx. where the cache is at, do it. If it is in an urban area and the rating is a 1/1 then guess what, it probably qualifies as what some of you are calling a lame cache. Let's look at this another way. Say for example I like challenging hikes. I see that the next cache closest to me is in the middle of town and rated a 1/1. Do I search for it and then complain afterwards, no I skip it. Then I see that the next cache is rated a 3/3 and there are no roads within 3-4 miles of the cache, bingo I'll go hunt for that one. I havn't found a requirement that you have to find every cache. Find the ones that you like, skip the ones that you don't and quit your snivellin.

July 11, 2004

If someone doesn't place good caches don't go to them. We have some locals that place lots of quality caches and I would not want them curtailed. (See I said it all with a smile.)

Well, you don't know if they're crappy until you go to them. And if you live in a cache-starved area like I do, and don't feel like driving an hour every time you want to do a little caching, then even the crappy ones will satisfy a geocaching urge.

Ok, but how many do you have to visit before you decide you don't like whatever this person is hiding?

Well, let's see.......our county, yes, COUNTY, now has a grand total of 9 caches. Until about 2½ months ago, there were just 3. I've hidden 4. Now, while I don't brag about the quality or lack thereof, of any of my caches I've hidden, I did put some thought into them, and I'm willing to bet that the local cachers were glad to have a few more within a decent driving distance. I can't find my own, so I'm hoping others will start hiding more, but if newbies come in here and read this about having more rules about how 'good' a hide is, wanna take bets on how comfortable they'll feel about venturing into hiding caches?

Oh, and the next county south of us has TWO!

So, to answer your question........HERE, that's not an issue yet. Not enough hides in a local area by one person to even matter. I don't think you'll find cachers in areas such as ours to even THINK about complaining about the caches. Maybe that will happen when there are say.......20 caches here?

I do understand the point here, but in many areas, beggars can't be choosers.

July 11, 2004

What makes a cache good doesn't have anything to do with numbers. And just because you don't think they're good hides doesn't mean they aren't good hides.

EXACTLY! Different strokes for different folks...

6.5k · July 11, 2004

Well, let's see.......our county, yes, COUNTY, now has a grand total of 9 caches. Until about 2½ months ago, there were just 3. I've hidden 4. Now, while I don't brag about the quality or lack thereof, of any of my caches I've hidden, I did put some thought into them, and I'm willing to bet that the local cachers were glad to have a few more within a decent driving distance. I can't find my own, so I'm hoping others will start hiding more, but if newbies come in here and read this about having more rules about how 'good' a hide is, wanna take bets on how comfortable they'll feel about venturing into hiding caches?

Oh, and the next county south of us has TWO!

So, to answer your question........HERE, that's not an issue yet. Not enough hides in a local area by one person to even matter. I don't think you'll find cachers in areas such as ours to even THINK about complaining about the caches. Maybe that will happen when there are say.......20 caches here?

I do understand the point here, but in many areas, beggars can't be choosers.

Ok, so If your in an area with lot of caches, figure out whos (whos which types) of caches you like, and forget about doing all the others (which are of much interest to you and therefore a high likelyhood of lamness). If you your in a low density area, then you don't even need to consider that, just find them all as you can.

Pipanella, I actually do understand the low density a little bit. My county now has like 15 caches, half of them mine. The other half I found already. I've found them all in the county east, to the south, and to the southwest (which only had like 2 anyways. The county to the west has two or three I haven't found. I will at some point drive out and get them, I just don't know when yet. The county to the NE has one (of like 4) I haven't found. The county to the north has a couple dozen, of them i've found only a few (6?), those along the southern edge and northward to Waterloo.

Maybe we can create new rules to appy to just high denisty areas like NJ, and SW CA?

July 11, 2004

Personally, I don't see how a person with a 40 hour a week job could possibly hide and PROPERLY maintain more than 4 to 6 caches.

Anyone still putting disposable cameras in their caches?

I work a 40-50 hour week and I have hidden 9 caches. I maintain them properly with visits every 2 weeks. I will go out the very next day if someone mentions a problem with the cache in their log. I don't think it's very difficult to maintain my caches. If something came up and I couldn't get out to maintain them, someone from my team would gladly go for me.

I have a disposable camera in one of my caches. The day after the camera was full, I went and replaced the camera with a new one. I then went and got the film developed and had the pictures posted to the cache page the very next day.

See the funny cachers!

6.4k · July 11, 2004

Maybe we can create new rules to appy to just high denisty areas like NJ, and SW CA?

Nope, that wouldn't work either, because many of the best caches in NJ were hidden by Briansnat (84 hides) or Tneigel (165 hides). These 2 guys aren't just tossing film canisters out the car window in rest area and parking lots; they are consistently bringing other cachers to new and interesting places. Surely we don't want a rule against hiding good caches???

Edited July 11, 2004 by Mopar

3.1k · July 11, 2004

I wish there was a limit imposed on the number of geocaches placed by a single member, other than simply keeping the caches 528ft. apart.

I wish everytime someone requested a new rule on the forums their find total was reduced by 10.

July 11, 2004

actually, it's pretty simple: read the logs before you head out...if it's a crappy cache, there's usually a statement to that effect (e.g. "lots of garbage around"...even better, the descriptions might appeal to one cacher and turn-off another (e.g. "muddy, thorny," etc)

July 11, 2004

actually, it's pretty simple: read the logs before you head out...if it's a crappy cache, there's usually a statement to that effect (e.g. "lots of garbage around"...even better, the descriptions might appeal to one cacher and turn-off another (e.g. "muddy, thorny," etc)

1.8k · July 11, 2004

Personally, I don't see how a person with a 40 hour a week job could possibly hide and PROPERLY maintain more than 4 to 6 caches.

I spend at least 60 hours a week at work and still find time to maintain my 49 active caches. If plan well, use a good container, and keep them well hidden, odds are most of them won't need much maintenance aside from the routine checks every month or two.

7.2k · July 11, 2004

If it’s a crappy hide, say so.

Like you would criticize your hostess' cooking?

Many people are loathe to be critical in their logs. It's just not polite.

1.8k · July 11, 2004

Many people are loathe to be critical in their logs. It's just not polite.

That's why I look for caches whose logs consistently say stuff like "Quick hide, thanks" or "Found it!" or just "TNLNSL". Then I go find other ones.

July 11, 2004

We have in our area,people who want to do it all as far as cache hides and take up good and quality areas that others would enjoy placing a nice ,well desgned and placed cache. But others take the lose,and risk abject boredom for this . The benifit for these people is undoughtably the numbers game amoungst their few friends. It is my belief that if numbers are needed for caches in their personal areas, then these people should offer their help with the production and assist in the placement with others after a certain number of caches are placed by these over achievers. There for , not only bringing the quality of the caches up to a higher degree,but the maintenance will be spread amoungst a greater number of people, which would give a longer life to a well designed cache. There should, in my way of thinking , be a reward of a symbol placed or a number given for the people that lend assistance to others,old and new members, so that not only does our cache base become stronger, but our people base becomes stronger as well. This is where the numbers belong. I don,t think we need more rules to make our caching experience memorable. Just a better understanding of where our strengths lay.

Edited July 11, 2004 by BLUEFOOT

July 11, 2004

I wish everytime someone requested a new rule on the forums their find total was reduced by 10.

I think you illustrate exactly what the problem is in this discussion. Some people hunt because they like to discover nice places, for the adventure and the pleasure of a visit to a place that is worth it.

Some other people are out there simply to rack up the numbers, whether it's for the number of caches they place or the ones they find, or both. There is nothing wrong with this, and I can see why this type of geocacher has nothing to complain about finding many caches in the same area, even if they don't have anything particularly attractive.

However, for someone who takes geocaching as an excuse to travel and enjoy nice scenery, it's a different story. I'm not saying that ALL caches should be in places appearing on the cover of National Geographic, I also like to go out for a quick one.

4k · July 11, 2004

We have a hider in our area that has a lot of hides. I will often skip his on my list, and when I get bored or run out of others to do, I will go get his. They vary from very good to very lame. That is why I hold them out to do other caches first. I never quite know what to expect when finding his. At least they get me out of the house.

If the guy you're talking about has ALL lame caches (by your standards), then just don't hunt them. How hard is that compared to making more rules that would hurt the good hiders? I don't see the problem.

6.4k · July 11, 2004

If the guy you're talking about has ALL lame caches (by your standards), then just don't hunt them. How hard is that compared to making more rules that would hurt the good hiders? I don't see the problem.

Just another reason to use the Pocket Queries. Run the PQ through a program like Watcher before loading it into your GPS. If you know you don't like to do caches by team XYZ, add them to watcher's ignore list. If you don't feel like hunting micros with the kids today, filter micros out. Want a more challenging cache? Filter out 2/2 rated caches and lower. Most of the "problems" people seem to have with the site already have solutions, some people are just too lazy or too cheap to use them. It's easier to make up a "rule" so they they don't have to be bothered doing 30 seconds extra work.

July 11, 2004

I think you illustrate exactly what the problem is in this discussion. Some people hunt because they like to discover nice places, for the adventure and the pleasure of a visit to a place that is worth it.

And some people like both and don't want either limited.

Some other people are out there simply to rack up the numbers, whether it's for the number of caches they place or the ones they find, or both. There is nothing wrong with this, and I can see why this type of geocacher has nothing to complain about finding many caches in the same area, even if they don't have anything particularly attractive.

Now I'm confused. You started the thread by saying you wanted to limit the number of caches placed by a cacher and/or in a particular area. Now it seems that you're saying it's ok.

I can't always have it my way either though lord knows I try.

4k · July 11, 2004

If the guy you're talking about has ALL lame caches (by your standards), then just don't hunt them. How hard is that compared to making more rules that would hurt the good hiders? I don't see the problem.

Just another reason to use the Pocket Queries. Run the PQ through a program like Watcher before loading it into your GPS. If you know you don't like to do caches by team XYZ, add them to watcher's ignore list. If you don't feel like hunting micros with the kids today, filter micros out. Want a more challenging cache? Filter out 2/2 rated caches and lower. Most of the "problems" people seem to have with the site already have solutions, some people are just too lazy or too cheap to use them. It's easier to make up a "rule" so they they don't have to be bothered doing 30 seconds extra work.

Yup. Since I usually only have half a dozen or so caches on my list when I go caching, it's simple for me to filter out the ones I don't want to do without any of the extra programs. So I save a lot more time by just not loading those caches into the mix to begin with. I can see where the uber-cachers who will take a 500 cache pq on a trip would need to do that, though.

3.1k · July 11, 2004

Most of the "problems" people seem to have with the site already have solutions, some people are just too lazy or too cheap to use them. It's easier to make up a "rule" so they they don't have to be bothered doing 30 seconds extra work.

There ya go

Limit On New Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment