Jump to content

Limit On New Caches


Recommended Posts

I've brought this up on other "cache quality" threads we've had around here:

 

As a TRAVELING CACHER, I don't necessarily know the reputations of the local cachers until I get to the area and start searching. True, pre-reading the cache logs DOES help, but in the end I've invested time/effort in targeting X number of caches and when it turns out to be a series of lamppost/dumpsters, or when it seems like it's 7 lamppost/dumpsters or random tree hollows for every 1 "good" cache/hide/location, it's frustrating.

 

Others on this thread of correctly stated what I will reiterate: A little "local peer pressure", respectfully submitted, can often go a long way toward helping correct the situation before it gets out of hand.

 

Now, there's a counter-argument that I've heard, and I just happen to "agree to disagree" with it, but I suppose it has its merit: There's room for ALL types of caches in a given region, even scads of "lame" ones that are put out for the sole purpose of giving "numbers runners" a chance to pad their stats. (See that JoGPS, I'm toning down my Nashville rant.) Now, as I said, I respectfully disagree with that argument, because I believe that 100+ of those type of cache DOES ADVERSELY AFFECT the reputation of an area, and does a DISSERVICE to those hiders in the area who DO place thoughtful caches in quality locations.

 

To that end:

 

<shameless plug>Dave's Note to Local Geocache Hiders</shameless plug>

 

-Dave R. in Biloxi

Link to comment

Personally I don't think a rating system would be effective. Mainly because someone or somepeople would be rating in a vengeance of people they don't care for. And then again, those ratings would be subjective because people get different things from caches. One may be looking for an easy walk while another is looking for an adventure. Both would rate it differently.

 

I'm more apt to put a limit on the amount one can list on the site. This goes along with the "can you maintain it" issue. Place a limit on that and then hat will be one more fator to worry about less. Of course it's not fool proof, because the person can easily make another account as someone already mentioned.

 

Mopars idea is good about the queries, except that not everyone is a member to get the queries, and many people cache outside an area and just download the coordinates. Some will not know who it's by when going after them. Once again, no real way of avoiding any of this.

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

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???

Opps :D , I guess a limit won't work well there either :D

Link to comment
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.

This is getting off topic a bit but....

No, PQs are not just for the numbers baggers.

Today was a perfect example. We had 6-7 caches we planned on doing in a certain area. Around 6pm (after 3 finds and 1 DNF) something unexpected came up that required us to stop caching and drive about 25 miles away. The actual situation only took a few minutes. If I had just loaded the GPSs with the 7 caches planned, we would have had to drive all the way back again. Instead, since I keep the nearest 400 or so unfound caches loaded in the GPS, we found a fairly new multi 2 miles down the road and spent the next 1.5hrs doing that. Another time I was stuck in a huge traffic jam on a highway. Since I wasn't really moving anyway, I checked and saw there was a park nearby with a few caches in it. By the time I finished, the accident was cleaned up and traffic was back to normal.

Link to comment
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.

Call me too lazy or too cheap, I just don't like to spend a lot of time planning before going on the hunt. I take my pq's and send them directly to the gps, select one within the radius I'm willing to travel to on this day and wait to see where it will take me. I like the game for the adventure, not the race for the number of finds.

 

I did, however, spend the time to read the posts in this topic and I quickly realized that a limiting rule would greatly affect those who are in it for the numbers, therefore not quite the easy fix I thought it could have been. Different people, different opinions, not everyone is ever going to agree on something.

 

I could start doing more planning, analyse cache descriptions, read the logs, pinpoint the location a map, etc. in an attempt to avoid bad surprises, but that would defy the purpose of the game, the way I play it. I'll just have to accept the fact that most people play the game differently than I do and be prepared for the odd "that was a waste of time" kind of cache.

Link to comment
...Call me too lazy or too cheap, I just don't like to spend a lot of time planning before going on the hunt. I take my pq's and send them directly to the gps, select one within the radius I'm willing to travel to on this day and wait to see where it will take me. I like the game for the adventure...

Your expectations are unrealistic. If you chose "Pot luck" as your method of geocache adventure planning, you are going to get exactly that. By thinking about your location, meaning if you pick an area off the beaten path and not down town or urban areas you can increase the odds of finds that you like. In the end you are right though, you are going to take the good adventures with the bad because of your style and taste in caches.

 

In all honesty you are more concerned about numbers than people who you are talking about when it comes to numbers. You seem to have forgottne that some big number cachers flat out love this RASH. Because they live and breathe caching they have a lot of finds. That's just how the ball bounces.

Link to comment
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 work a 48 hour week and have 84 hides, nearly 70 of which are still active. I challenge you to find one that isn't in good shape and any complaints in the logs that weren't responded to and taken care of.

 

There are too many people making generalizations here. There are plenty of prolific hiders who take care of their caches and there are probably a lot more people with one or two caches who don't give a rat's patootie about their hides and let others fix them up, or clean up after them.

 

It's not the number of hides that matters, its the owner's willingness to take care of them that counts.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Bad caches and those that aren't maintained can be either the same thing or seperate issues. I do think that there is some consistency between owning a number of caches and "properly maintaining" them, which yet reallly has been defined. With the way the "guidelines" are written, there really is not much expectation on maintaining the cache except that you can respond and repair things in a timely manner, whatever that would truly be defined as. Just as BrainSnat can hide and maintain 84 caches, I would say that one could hide and maintain a cache that is a distance away. The truth of the matter is that no one can say one person who has many hides nearby can maintain any better than a person who hasa few hides a distance away and vice versa. And as stated before, every person is going to feel differently about a cache.

 

Yes you can tell people to stop whining, as it really isn't going to make a difference. At least on those situations when those who are in charge don't want to deal with it or personally don't have a problem with it. But then on the issues that is important to them, then it makes not much difference to others. It's a vicious circle. It all depends if you are on the inside or outside of that circle. :unsure:

Link to comment

Why do we keep hearing the same complaints over and over again?

 

Gee... There might be something in them!

 

I'm with the original poster here. Hide limits are the best way to curb the cache polluters. The really crappy caches (usually micros) are most often hidden by the tiny minority of cachers who play for numbers. Their junk hides would not be creating so much ill will if they did not hide so many of them. Nobody should be able to impose their particular band of geocaching on everyone else by the sheer number of caches they hide. Something needs to be done.

 

I'm not buying into "no more rules".

 

Where would we be today without the strict virtual rules?

Where would we be today without the 528 foot rule?

 

I'm glad these rules exist but your answer may vary according to your degree of numbers lust.

Link to comment

 

Where would we be today without the strict virtual rules?

Where would we be today without the 528 foot rule?

 

Without strict virtual rules we'd have more interesting caches than a micro stuck in a guardrail. Not that I mind those, it's just that I've enjoy all the virtuals I've done.

 

Without the 528 foot rule I'd be able to place two caches on opposite sides of a river :unsure:

 

Go ahead you rule needers. I'm fine with a minimum of rules, somehow I've managed to enjoy myself geocaching even when we only had a couple of rules.

Link to comment
Without the 528 foot rule I'd be able to place two caches on opposite sides of a river :unsure:

From what I've seen, you CAN place a cache in that fashion...just post your cache for approval and use the "Note to Approver" note to advise the approver that this is the case. (Approvers reading this thread: Agree? Disagree?)

 

-Dave R.

Edited by drat19
Link to comment
The really crappy caches (usually micros) are most often hidden by the tiny minority of cachers who play for numbers.  Their junk hides would not be creating so much ill will if they did not hide so many of them.  Nobody should be able to impose their particular band of geocaching on everyone else by the sheer number of caches they hide.  Something needs to be done.

Based on my experience, that generalization couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

Check out the logs for the caches placed by Team Dakiba and Team Nohoch, two prolific Southern California cachers and among the area's high-finders AND cache placers. Their caches are consistently among the best I have ever seen, and the logs for their caches reflect the creativity and careful consideration that go into each of their hides.

 

The lamest caches I tend to see are the ones where a person finds 3 caches, gets gung-ho and hides 10 caches, then loses interest and disappears. Cache quotas will only encourage THEM while hindering everyone else.

Edited by Team PerkyPerks
Link to comment
rat's patootie

Allright, you can go back and read B's whole post, but I just wanted to say "rat's patootie."

His point, I think, is: There are all kinds of people, and therefore all kinds of cachers.

Some people think "education" can cure anything...not so. It can help but it will never eradicate completely any behavior.

So, some will try, fail, experiment...just as you did...give them that room, please. Some rules are needed, but the fewer the better, and the more there are, the more violations and complaints. We will never attain perfection in caching.

Link to comment

I can't say I would be happy to have a limit set on the number of caches I can hide. But I do have an open mind and find it interesting so many people think there should be a limit. Which brings up that second question. Say there were a limit.....that would be how many/cacher. What about families? Single cachers? Couples? Would you get to place more micros that full size? If they are urban caches, which require higher maintenance, would you get less? Or would everything be equal? So....what is that magic number? As I said, I can think of many reasons why I would not like to have a limit placed, all which have been addressed here. But rather than beat the same dead horse, I would like to find out more information from those advocating the limits.

Link to comment
I'm with the original poster here. Hide limits are the best way to curb the cache polluters. The really crappy caches (usually micros) are most often hidden by the tiny minority of cachers who play for numbers. Their junk hides would not be creating so much ill will if they did not hide so many of them. Nobody should be able to impose their particular band of geocaching on everyone else by the sheer number of caches they hide. Something needs to be done.

 

As I said in an earlier post, that's a load of BS. Most of the lousy hides and unmaintained caches that I know of were placed by people with one or two hides and some of the best caches around were placed by people with 20, 30 and more hides.

 

If someone is sprinkling garbage caches around, that easily can be countered by someone who places quailty caches.

 

Check out the logs for the caches placed by Team Dakiba and Team Nohoch, two prolific Southern California cachers and among the area's high-finders AND cache placers. Their caches are consistently among the best I have ever seen, and the logs for their caches reflect the creativity and careful consideration that go into each of their hides.

 

And if some people here had their way, those two and others like them won't be allowed to place any more caches, while hundreds of gung-ho newbies can sprinkle around a dozen or so garbage caches, then leave the sport and the caches for others to take care of once they get bored.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Since we want to make broad generalizations I'll make one myself:

 

Experience cache hider with a whole bunch of hides = Excellent, well maintained caches in scenic or interesting locations.

 

Noobie cache hider with 2 hides = Gladware, dirty golf ball, drive and dump cache.

 

small-pointing.jpg

You make the call.

Link to comment
Since we want to make broad generalizations I'll make one myself:

 

Experience cache hider with a whole bunch of hides = Excellent, well maintained caches in scenic or interesting locations.

 

Noobie cache hider with 2 hides = Gladware, dirty golf ball, drive and dump cache.

That's OFTEN a reasonable generalization, JMB, but not always.

 

Cases in point: Think about the cachers who DO wait until they've found 30, 40, 50, or more caches, thus getting that good cross-section sampling, and then putting lots of thought/effort into their own.

 

Then, think about those hiders who have BLANKETED their areas with sub-par caches...hiders who have HUNDREDS of Finds to go with those tens/hundreds of Hides, and still do it ANYWAY, imposing (inflicting?) their particular brand of lamppost/dumpster/random-tree-hollow/bush-on-the-side-of-the-road hiding style on their metro area.

 

True, you haven't got that problem in the NYC Metro area, but trust me, it's VERY REAL in several of the metro areas I've cited in my articles on the subject that I've published and linked elsewhere on these threads.

 

-Dave R.

Link to comment
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.

There's no reason the rating can't be anonymous. And only show once 5 people have found the cache and rated it.

 

There's a cache owner in my neck of the woods that I hate to think people travel out of their way to see their caches. It would be great to have their caches rated low to warn people.

Link to comment
I'm with the original poster here. Hide limits are the best way to curb the cache polluters. The really crappy caches (usually micros) are most often hidden by the tiny minority of cachers who play for numbers. Their junk hides would not be creating so much ill will if they did not hide so many of them. Nobody should be able to impose their particular band of geocaching on everyone else by the sheer number of caches they hide. Something needs to be done.

 

As I said in an earlier post, that's a load of BS. Most of the lousy hides and unmaintained caches that I know of were placed by people with one or two hides and some of the best caches around were placed by people with 20, 30 and more hides.

 

If someone is sprinkling garbage caches around, that easily can be countered by someone who places quailty caches.

 

Check out the logs for the caches placed by Team Dakiba and Team Nohoch, two prolific Southern California cachers and among the area's high-finders AND cache placers. Their caches are consistently among the best I have ever seen, and the logs for their caches reflect the creativity and careful consideration that go into each of their hides.

 

And if some people here had their way, those two and others like them won't be allowed to place any more caches, while hundreds of gung-ho newbies can sprinkle around a dozen or so garbage caches, then leave the sport and the caches for others to take care of once they get bored.

It's not BS. Not in my experience anyway. I'm taking the position that anybody who hides a greater share is imposing their brand of geocaching on everybody else for better or worse. If this anybody hides a large number of caches that appeal to only a small minority of geocachers, the listings fill with caches that most people do not care to hunt. I do not think it is desireable to that there be too many Briansnat caches or Quest Master caches or anything else. I don't pretend to know what too many is but I'm willing to work within some reasonable limit. I am now working under a self-imposed limit of one per month since I started caching. The alternative is that certain cache polluters driven by numbers will hide way more of their share of caches that many people like me do not care to hunt. You may not have seen it where you live and I haven't seen it where I live but you had better believe that it happens elsewhere. I cannot counter garbage caches by hiding quality ones. My caches would just be a different kind of LAME if I hid too many of them. There are plenty of people who would not want to hunt them and resent that their listings were filled with my crap.

 

I'm glad that Perky Perks brought up Team Dakiba and Team Nohoch. They are a case in point. One of them, at least, is largely responsible for creating a so-called "power trail". This hiding style may appeal to Perky Perks who is quite obviously in the camp of the numbers cachers but if there is some poor slob in LaQuinta, CA (92253) that doesn't think that their hides are so great, he's pretty much screwed. Run a search on that zip if you don't believe me. This is a better example of why there should be limits!

Link to comment

It's all about the.................fun of the game! To each their own! I got 420 finds and 103 hides, I enjoy hiding more than finding. I have one quasi-powercaching trail. 11 caches in 2 miles roughly. All different and all interesting.

Edited by Firehouse16
Link to comment

In response to at least part of QM's last post: One "prolific" hider here in my area has an unusually large amount of garbage caches hidden under cedar trees. So many of them, that everytime I go caching and look for one of his, I can find it without the GPSr, because all I have to do is find one of those dang itchy, scratchy cedars. Now that he has so many done that way, others have taken to copying him, thinking that is the way it should be. People are hiding more and more, but rather than being creative, they are copying. So, I don't know what the answer is. I don't know how to go about getting people to hide caches someplace other than a crappy cedar tree. I have hidden 5 of them now, none of which are in cedars, only one is less than a half-mile walk, and all are out in the country. How many more have been hidden under those parameters since I hid mine? None. Not a one, as far as I can tell. I've gotten good comments on all of mine, so I know people like them, and find them challenging even if it is only because of the mosquitoes or poison ivy in the area. Still, planting 5 caches that I worked quite a while on to make good hasn't changed anything about the way others in the area hide their caches. I think rather than placing a limit on caches placed, TPTB should take a closer look at a hider's ratio of "temporarily disabled" caches to active. I know there are certain things that make caches "temporarily disabled", and often for extended periods of time, but come on....when a guy with over 80 hides has 25 of them TD'd, that's a bit extreme. And they're TD'd because they have been muggled, gotten wet, swept away in a flood, etc. Yet he's still planting (or trying to plant) more cedar tree caches a few feet off the trail, road, parking lot, etc. Our approver has cracked down on that, and I think other approvers should, too, if they haven't already.

Link to comment

What about a limit per time period as someone else mentioned? One a month? That at least gives time to research and work on the cache. Not saying that one would take all that time. But it would at least limit a bunch of crappy ones being placed at once or areas being overtaken by one person.Then by the time people were getting upwards in the numbers of hides, perhaps some of the older ones would of been archived or removed by then.

 

Who knows what the answer is. Is there really one? Everyone is not going to be happy. Rules are needed. Especially when you try to get thousands of people together for one common goal.

Link to comment
Where would we be today without the strict virtual rules?

Where would we be today without the 528 foot rule?

There would be more virtuals, some good ones and definently some stupid ones.

 

A little more dense. Depending on where in the world you are, your opinion of that might differ. If your area is already loaded with caches you may feel that a few more caches will be the straws that break the camels back. While if your area is not very dense, you may not care if any like a 'power trail' and such are being created.

I don't really want to see such things here, but I also don't see the rule528ft coming into play that often either. Not all places are the same. Not all people are the same. Creating a one size fits all rules aren't always the best.

Set a limt/time/whatever too low and everyone above that is squeezed and perhaps upset, set it too far the other way and it misses most of whatever its suppose to stop/control. Set it in the 'middle' and you still have both problems, its just their equalized ;) .

Link to comment
Now that he has so many done that way, others have taken to copying him, thinking that is the way it should be.  People are hiding more and more, but rather than being creative, they are copying.

Well said, Sparky! Prolific hiders of what we're calling "lame" caches are setting the example for new cachers, and the problem festers.

 

I'm not sure what the answer is (beyond continuing to fight the good fight, of course). I don't think the Hide Limits proposed by this thread are the answer (although it's better than "doing nothing").

 

I AM sure of this, though: TPTB essentially outlawed Virts and Loc'less caches (with exceptions) because they believed those type of caches were taking the game in the wrong direction, a direction the game was never intended to go. Well, SATURATION BOMBING an area with 50, 60, 100+ lamppost/dumpster/random-green-spot/bush-on-the-side-of-the-road/no-redeeming-quality-to-the-location-except-to-give-numbers-ho's-another-stat caches would seem to be the wrong direction, too...you think?

 

Now, as I've said in other threads and in my articles, I LOVE to cache for numbers, but as a TRAVELING CACHER I don't visit a city/town/metro for a tour of its WalMart parking lots or its bushes-on-the-side-of-the-road. By contrast, a micro at a landmark of significance or with a worthwhile view is NOT lame, in my opinion...and all it takes on the part of local hiders is just a little more thought and discretion, to place caches at someplace OTHER than any ol' place that CAN support a cache even though it SHOULDN'T support one. When we see hiders NOT making this JUST A LITTLE MORE additional effort, we should be able to get them to RE-THINK the process BEFORE it becomes a "Dalmatian" situation.

 

Now I KNOW the folks on the GeoWoodstock thread were quick to profess how GREAT it was to be able to participate in the Profilic Numbers Runs that took place, and to sing the praises of the genuinely nice person (seriously, and I'm NOT patronizing, honest) who hid a majority of them, but I challenge any one of those praise-singers to tell us that most of those caches had ANY redeeming quality to them besides the numbers. Then, imagine you had traveled to Nashville WITHOUT the GeoWoodstock event (like I did last December), and ended up visiting those same cache sites. Would you feel like you got the tour of Nashville that you really came for?

 

If we can't PREVENT this proliferation from happening (which is what I'd rather see), then at least we should have the ability to CATEGORIZE these caches (as was suggested in the infamous Lil Otter thread a while back): "Worthwhile site" cache, vs. "Numbers run" cache. (And you'll note I DIDN'T say "micro" vs. "full-sizer", because as I said, one can hide a GOOD micro with a clever hide or a worthwhile location chosen).

 

Now I know there are those who would then argue "Well what makes a site worthwhile?", and that may be open for discussion, but sorry, the shopping center parking lot or random green spot or under a bush when there's a better hide spot within 300 ft type of hide is a "numbers run" cache, period...AND THOSE HIDERS KNOW IT. Call it what it is, and maybe you can please those who WANT those and also those who don't by giving them advance notice to avoid them.

 

-Dave R., still crusading...

Edited by drat19
Link to comment
I'm glad that Perky Perks brought up Team Dakiba and Team Nohoch. They are a case in point. One of them, at least, is largely responsible for creating a so-called "power trail". This hiding style may appeal to Perky Perks who is quite obviously in the camp of the numbers cachers but if there is some poor slob in LaQuinta, CA (92253) that doesn't think that their hides are so great, he's pretty much screwed. Run a search on that zip if you don't believe me. This is a better example of why there should be limits!

I'm glad you're so quick to make sweeping generalizations about people who you've never met and entire areas you've never found caches in. I've met many of the "poor slobs" in La Quinta (and I'm sure they'll be glad to hear you think of them as such) who aren't into numbers. And you know what? They love the caches out there. The topic of power trails has been discussed ad nauseum (primarily by people who have never seen one) and I'm not going to go there except to say that I challenge you to find a single person who has done even ONE of those caches and thought it sucked.

 

Obviously you can't please everyone with your cache hides--especially, apparently, those who have never found them.

 

Thank you for pointing out that I am nothing more than a rabid numbers cacher not worthy of an informed opinion. I truly appreciate the revelation.

Link to comment
If someone is sprinkling garbage caches around, that easily can be countered by someone who places quailty caches.

 

I don't see the logic in this. It doesn't work here. As soon as someone puts out a new cache, people swarm to it quicker than you can blink your eyes, no matter where or what the cache is. The whole "if you don't like them, hide something better" thing just doesn't work and doesn't really matter to the numbers crowd.

Link to comment

I've wondered about the mindset of people who need to change things that don't need changing. The need to have more and more rules. Oh we must rate everything.

 

Geocaching is great the way it is. Would I like to see changes, maybe in a couple of areas but I'd rather leave things the way they are than make changes that I wouldn't care for. That's the danger, pushing for something you want only to encourage changes you might end up hating.

 

Let's just leave it alone, go caching and stop the darn whining.

Link to comment
Since we want to make broad generalizations I'll make one myself:

 

Experience cache hider with a whole bunch of hides = Excellent, well maintained caches in scenic or interesting locations.

 

Noobie cache hider with 2 hides = Gladware, dirty golf ball, drive and dump cache.

That's OFTEN a reasonable generalization, JMB, but not always.

 

Cases in point: Think about the cachers who DO wait until they've found 30, 40, 50, or more caches, thus getting that good cross-section sampling, and then putting lots of thought/effort into their own.

 

Then, think about those hiders who have BLANKETED their areas with sub-par caches...hiders who have HUNDREDS of Finds to go with those tens/hundreds of Hides, and still do it ANYWAY, imposing (inflicting?) their particular brand of lamppost/dumpster/random-tree-hollow/bush-on-the-side-of-the-road hiding style on their metro area.

 

True, you haven't got that problem in the NYC Metro area, but trust me, it's VERY REAL in several of the metro areas I've cited in my articles on the subject that I've published and linked elsewhere on these threads.

 

-Dave R.

I actually agree with you Dave and obviously I was just trying to make a point. There is a guy who started caching around here several months ago, found a bunch, asked questions and has been hiding nothing but great caches from day one.

 

I cannot counter garbage caches by hiding quality ones. My caches would just be a different kind of LAME if I hid too many of them. There are plenty of people who would not want to hunt them and resent that their listings were filled with my crap.

I have a hard time believing that if you take the time to hide really great caches that people are going to resent you if you hide "too many" of them. Where are these places and who are these people? You're telling me that if someone hides 20, 40, 80 absolutely amazing caches that they will be considered lame because they're hidden by the same person? Where is the logic in that?

Imposing limits certainly is not a be all end all solution. I can't speak for other areas too much but I can tell you that there is no way it would work in my area. In fact it would be devastating for this area. The only solution is to try and educate people. If someone uses a Gladware container, recommend they upgrade to a Rubbermaid or ammo box, explaining that the disposable containers don't hold up well. If someone hide a 50 cal ammo can with a golf ball and 2 old baseball cards, recommend that they add some more decent swag to the cache because it's a huge container and cachers tend to trade down. Tell them, "great cache, welcome to the sport. I found this great store that sells items that are perfect for caches". If you don't think this works, think again. I've done it and have always gotten a positive response.

There are so many other options rather than imposing more rules on everybody, when the problem seems to exists in only a few isolated places. Hold a noobie event, send them links to other caches that might be a good example, hide great caches yourself. Use your imagination instead of looking to the website to sprinkle some magic fairy dust and make everything perfect.

Link to comment
Let's just leave it alone, go caching and stop the darn whining.

Feeling guilty, Lazyboy? LOL

All I ever see you saying is, "Stop the whining." or "No more rules."

 

People don't want to make new rules to change the game to fit them. They want to keep people from degrading the game so much that it doesn't become fun anymore.

Link to comment
Let's just leave it alone, go caching and stop the darn whining.

Feeling guilty, Lazyboy? LOL

All I ever see you saying is, "Stop the whining." or "No more rules."

 

People don't want to make new rules to change the game to fit them. They want to keep people from degrading the game so much that it doesn't become fun anymore.

Some people really DO want to make new rules to change the game to fit them.

Not everyone but there are some that do.

Link to comment
If someone is sprinkling garbage caches around, that easily can be countered by someone who places quailty caches.

 

I don't see the logic in this. It doesn't work here. As soon as someone puts out a new cache, people swarm to it quicker than you can blink your eyes, no matter where or what the cache is. The whole "if you don't like them, hide something better" thing just doesn't work and doesn't really matter to the numbers crowd.

I'll bet that most of those people that swarmed to that new cache had fun doing it!! And really who did it hurt? ;)

Link to comment
If someone is sprinkling garbage caches around, that easily can be countered by someone who places quailty caches.

 

I don't see the logic in this. It doesn't work here. As soon as someone puts out a new cache, people swarm to it quicker than you can blink your eyes, no matter where or what the cache is. The whole "if you don't like them, hide something better" thing just doesn't work and doesn't really matter to the numbers crowd.

I'll bet that most of those people that swarmed to that new cache had fun doing it!! And really who did it hurt? ;)

True.

Link to comment
As a TRAVELING CACHER, I don't necessarily know the reputations of the local cachers until I get to the area and start searching. True, pre-reading the cache logs DOES help, but in the end I've invested time/effort in targeting X number of caches and when it turns out to be a series of lamppost/dumpsters, or when it seems like it's 7 lamppost/dumpsters or random tree hollows for every 1 "good" cache/hide/location, it's frustrating.

All right, that's from the opening post. Back to basics. When I went back to that, my automatic question was, "How would cache limits change that?"

I have to admit that I don't understand "city caching." I've done a day or two in the city, but even then have tried to cache in larger parks. And that doesn't mean it won't have problems. One of my favorite caches of all, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ec-c2c27896e230

is in distress right now. It's in a wonderful reestablished marsh, with a long boardwalk, and had a wonderful, expensive weatherproof container. You can view the "controlled burn," and I don't know what all happened....limits don't solve that.

If you don't want micros, most of the time you can avoid them, but limits won't change that. If you don't want tupperware, the page usually says it. If, if, if....how would limits solve any "if?"

Bad cache owners tend to fade. Good cache owners may need a mentor - so, How about a "mentoring program,?" or something that MIGHT make a difference?

Link to comment
What about a limit per time period as someone else mentioned? One a month? That at least gives time to research and work on the cache. Not saying that one would take all that time. But it would at least limit a bunch of crappy ones being placed at once or areas being overtaken by one person.Then by the time people were getting upwards in the numbers of hides, perhaps some of the older ones would of been archived or removed by then.

 

Who knows what the answer is. Is there really one? Everyone is not going to be happy. Rules are needed. Especially when you try to get thousands of people together for one common goal.

And those people who have done research, chose their spots and prepared a bunch of caches, but only have one or two days in month where they can place them, how does this effect them?

Link to comment
If someone is sprinkling garbage caches around, that easily can be countered by someone who places quailty caches.

 

I don't see the logic in this. It doesn't work here. As soon as someone puts out a new cache, people swarm to it quicker than you can blink your eyes, no matter where or what the cache is.

That was in response to Quest Master's concern that one person's style of cache will become predominant in an area. So if BrianSnat is hiding numerous lame

Walmart micros and QuestMaster is hiding numerous quality caches, there will be a balance.

 

The whole "if you don't like them, hide something better" thing just doesn't work and doesn't really matter to the numbers crowd.

 

Sure it does. If you don't care for the Burger King dumpster micros, don't go for them. But a lot of people love them. That's the great thing about geocaching. It means different things to different people. If you are a numbers hound, there are plenty of these "lame" micros around so you can jack up your find count. If you like nice hikes to interesting areas, you don't have to look for the same caches that the numbers hounds prefer. And they certainly won't bother with the kind of caches that you prefer. Their attitude is more like "why should I spend 5 hours looking for one cache"? Hey, that's fine with me. I don't see why it bothers so many others.

 

Personally, if I lived in an area where there was one person hiding numerous, quality caches, I'd be very happpy. Since people tend to hid the kind of caches they've found, they'd be setting a good example for other geocachers. Good caches are contagious. And so are bad ones, so if someone in an area is setting a poor example by dumping numerous lame caches all over the place, again, I'd be happy if another geocacher countered it by placing numerous quality caches. Indeed, a single driven geocacher, placing numerous, quality caches might be the only way to combat the guy who is sowing his "garbage hides" all over the place.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
The whole "if you don't like them, hide something better" thing just doesn't work and doesn't really matter to the numbers crowd.

 

Sure it does. If you don't care for the Burger King dumpster micros, don't go for them.

Brian...

I'm generally in your corner on most of your comments around here, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

 

Unless a traveling cacher like myself gets a scouting report up front from a "leading" local on whose caches to avoid, there's no way to know if it's a lame BurgerKing/WalMart/etc micro UNTIL YOU GET THERE. And then, the traveling cacher has to sample X number of those hider's caches (and the resultant investment of wasted time except for gathering a few more stats) before drawing the conclusion, "OK, I see the trend here, I'm going to re-work my targets for the day to avoid this person's hides."

 

And, you can't necessarily rule out up front ANY hider who has hidden LOTS of caches in a given area...YOU (by reputation) are case in point. If I target your region and see that BrianSnat is the dominant hider, if I use other "lame cache polluted" metro areas as examples of what happens when a dominant hider or two SATURATION BOMBS an area, then I'd end up skipping YOUR apparently-excellent (by reputation) caches in your area (since you're apparently dominant in your area).

 

So again, what we're talking about here is either find a way to get these "cache polluters" to stop or slow down because of the direction they're taking the sport (by setting this example that "this is how the sport is" to new cache hiders, who copy it and fester the sore), or find a way to CATEGORIZE these types of hides in the form of "worthwhile location" vs. "numbers run cache", or the like.

 

-Dave R.

Link to comment
Let's just leave it alone, go caching and stop the darn whining.

Feeling guilty, Lazyboy? LOL

All I ever see you saying is, "Stop the whining." or "No more rules."

 

People don't want to make new rules to change the game to fit them. They want to keep people from degrading the game so much that it doesn't become fun anymore.

What you considering degrading is something others might consider improving, each new rule probably makes some happy and some pissed off.

 

Know why I keep asking people to stop whining and to stop asking for new rules?

 

Because there is an overabundance of both things already.

 

Just so you'll know where I'm coming from..... I love locationless caches but they are gone, that's something I didn't care to see happen. On the other hand I can't stand puzzle caches, don't like them even a little bit and I'll go out of my way to avoid them. But you'll never see me trashing puzzle caches and asking for them to be banned. I know there are plenty of cachers who enjoy puzzles. I am not asking for new rules to suit the game to me.

 

I have hidden caches where you will have difficulty accessing in a day. I have also hidden caches under the base of a light pole in a parking lot. You know why? Because people enjoy both, not everyone, but most do. Some people can only access those parking light caches too. Wouldn't it suck to see them chased out of the hobby because some forum whiners convinced TPTB to quit listing those?

Link to comment

Am I correct in assuming this isn't a wide spread problem? In other words yes, I realize that there are locations where this is a very real issue, but isn't it in a few pockets and not a world wide epidemic? How do you impose a rule that will negatively effect the majority in order to positively effect the minority? That's what hide limits would do. It can't work, no way, no how, not ever. Now everyone get out there and hide some excellent caches before some bozo throws a gladware container out of their window 527 feet from where you wanted to place yours.

Link to comment

Please, no more rules and certainly no rating systems that could discourage folks from hiding caches. We like all kinds of caches, some more than others. Some people are so shy or sensitive that they wouldn't hide caches for fear of getting a bad rating. We like all caches, sometimes we are in for a long walk other times we are happy to stick our arms out the window. We were waiting in Jacksonville, while on our way back to NC, for a call and had a blast finding 9 caches in an hour and ten minutes. We enjoyed the Flow of the Haw and Hiding in the Dark better but had a good time nonetheless. Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

Link to comment
Please, no more rules and certainly no rating systems that could discourage folks from hiding caches.

It's my assertion that a well thought out rating system would discourage folks from hiding subpar caches.

 

My theory is if you foster competition on the hiding side of caching you would have more people actively vying to place the best caches around. The creation of lists of the best caches in the area would have folks thinking that unless they put out a darn good cache it wouldn't get visited, so why bother.

 

This has the benefit of self limiting caches, creation of better caches for whatever crowd you are targeting, removal of lesser performing caches, provide for visiting cachers to see the better caches in a new area, and increase the general health of the sport.

 

The only reason I can see for people to not openly discuss a workable rating system is a fear that their caches wouldn't fair well in said system.

 

The topic here is really about limiting crappy caches. A well thought out rating system coupled of a regional or local ranking ladder to foster competition would have the effect of limiting crappy caches.

Link to comment
Unless a traveling cacher like myself gets a scouting report up front from a "leading" local on whose caches to avoid, there's no way to know if it's a lame BurgerKing/WalMart/etc micro UNTIL YOU GET THERE. And then, the traveling cacher has to sample X number of those hider's caches (and the resultant investment of wasted time except for gathering a few more stats) before drawing the conclusion, "OK, I see the trend here, I'm going to re-work my targets for the day to avoid this person's hides."

 

I think most people can weed out the lame ones by checking the logs, looking at the maps and reading the page.

 

If I see a bunch of "found it, thanks" logs, for a cache that the map shows to be on the corner of 3rd Ave and Main Street and there is no mention of an historic, or scenic feature on the page, I'll probably pass.

 

Change one, or more of of those variables; for instance if there are numerous logs gushing with praise, or the map shows the cache to be next to a pond in a park, or the cache page mentions that its in front of the birth place of Paul Revere, then it becomes something that I would probably look for.

 

I still don't see how limiting the number of hides someone has will improve the overall quality of caches. For though you might stymie all the bozos who run out with 50 film canisters, containing 50 slips of paper, to hide them on their 50th birthday, you're also going to prevent the many imaginative, prolific hiders from making a positive contributon to their area.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Just putting in my two cents. I don't know what the answer would be but I can see the point of this thread.

 

A while ago in our area we had someone go out to just about every park that didn't have a cache and start throwing out micros.

 

These types of hiders can keep some of the people that have well thought out caches from being able to place them because someone is wanting to hide a large amount of caches that don't take any effort.

Link to comment
I still don't see how limiting the number of hides someone has will improve the overall quality of caches. For though you might stymie all the bozos who run out with 50 film canisters, containing 50 slips of paper, to hide them on their 50th birthday, you're also going to prevent the many imaginative, prolific hiders from making a positive contributon to their area.

I agree Brian. On this thread I've continued my ongoing crusade against PROLIFERATING an area with what we're calling "lame" cache hides, but I have also NOT been advocating hide limits (which the original poster on this thread did). Absent these hide limits, though, we need to somehow institute some controls against, or provide improved methods of filtering, those types of hides.

 

-Dave R.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...