Suggestion To Improve Geocaching As A Hobby

[+Hynr]

I would like to make a suggestion which, I believe, may reduce the incidence of geocachers losing interest in the hobby.

 

First a little background. Jeremy mentioned a while ago that if one has over 300 caches, then one is in the extreme minority of geocachers. When that came out I had about that many caches and was surprised in that statistic. Why are 95% of geocachers not sticking around?!? I am now pushing 700 and I can now see the problem. I have done most caches near my home; I have to get in the car and drive a substantial distance everytime I want to go caching. New caches come on line, but not with the regularity with which I would like to go geocaching. I now find myself leaving local caches for later, sort of the way some of the bottles of wine stay in my wine closet until the right time comes. I noticed some threads here in the forums that suggest that losing interest, when there are few new local caches, is common.

 

My suggestion is aimed at turning caches over and to get existing ones re-hidden at new locations so that veteran goecaches have local caches to hunt: I suggest that each cache, when approved is given a finite length of life. The owner would propose this duration when setting up the cache page at the web site. GC would set policy as to what the length might be but would be as flexible as most owners want to them to be (perhaps minimum of 1 month; and a maximum of 12 months, or 15, or something like that - but not infinity, which is what it is now). At the end of that period, the cache either has to be removed or it has to be extended. The expectation is that most would be removed and rehidden; exceptions would be based on log entries. Owners would be encouraged to service and rehide at different sites, or even in the same area, but at a different location. Guidelines would, of course, need to be established, but the end-effect should be that even in areas dense with caches, new caches will come on-line with some regularity so the locals who have already found all local caches would have a reason to continue to particiapte (and invest through new cache placement and membership fees).

 

I know this is difficult to understand for folks who have not run out of local caches.

 

And many of the folks who have lost interest are not here to speak for or against the proposal. I suspect I will be joining them in a few months.

[+GSVNoFixedAbode]

I generally just lurk here but I have to speak up on this occasion. You're trying to apply a global and somewhat drastic solution to a problem that is local. It may be local to a large number of places in the USA, but NOT elsewhere.

 

Putting a short lifespan on caches may well kill the sport in some areas! There are also caches that have stood the test of time; be real achievements to log (as well as set up); favourites for visitors; etc etc. Removing these after a limited period seems a backward step and against the spirit of it all.

 

I agree that problems of cache saturation need to be addressed, but not with such a drastic encompassing step! Perhaps this could be a local rule applied by approvers covering that area, but even then it seems extreme.

 

[goes hunting for flame retardant boiler suit and headgear ]

[+LaPaglia]

How about a suggestion to turn over old cachers. After you get 200 finds we clear your account and you can go back and start at number one again. You will undoubtedly have forgotten some of the last 200 caches. it will be fun again!!!!!

 

[+Hynr]

Even as it stands right now every cache has a finite life. It is absurd to think that it is forever.

 

I don't believe that there is a cache in existence today that has stood the test of time. Geocaching has only been around since 2001. I am not ruling out a 3 year lease for caches where that is appropriate. I too know of caches that I would want to have a very long life (years) if the owner is willing.

 

GSVNoFixedAbode, I would be curious how you see the proposal killing the sport in some areas. It would seem to me that if you have a cache that is in a spectacular place, then reincarnating it after a few years as a new cache in an new hiding place at that site would not hurt the newbie, yet restore interest by those who had found it before. Wouldn't that have a sustaining influence on geocaching?

[+GSVNoFixedAbode]

How about caches placed directly on a confluence point? ALl you'd really be doing is changing the cache owner and stopping continuity of logs.

 

For areas with few caches, and few cachers, having to remove them on a regular basis may end up reducing the number, and not attracting others to the sport.

[+strikeforce1]

Sorry Charlie "Hynr". Most cachers place their hides because of location / view of area. So, your telling me to "relocate". I think "NOT". That's why I / others spent the time picking that location.

 

Your comment on Geocaching only being around since 2001 is bull. GC.com has only been around that long. This game has been since the late 1980’s that I know of.

 

I just compared your stats and mine, my ratio is 1:21 while yours is 1:115. Maybe that’s why your running out of new hides. Out there you are just finding them, not hiding them.

 

You also need to re-read the rules: Paragraph 3, line 14, states in big bold letters, "If a cacher passes the 400 find mark, they need to place 1 cache for every ten they find". For sure you must have overlooked it. That's why there are no newer caches in your area. SF1

[+Hynr]

How about caches placed directly on a confluence point?  ALl you'd really be doing is changing the cache owner and stopping continuity of logs.

Good point. Perhaps the guidelines could recommend durations of several years for well placed rural caches. But even there, if the owner were willing to go out and rehide, it would be an asset, but it could be left up to the owner.

 

For areas with few caches, and few cachers, having to remove them on a regular basis may end up reducing the number, and not attracting others to the sport.

Wouldn't it also follow that in areas of few caches, there are few geocachers? It would seem to me that if such a small group would embrace the concept of taking an exising cache container and rehiding it every few months then everyone would benefit from that? I would certainly agree that if there is room in the neighborhood, that a new cache might be better than a re-hide. But if I had a pick of a re-hide at a spectacular location or a lamp-post-skirt hide with little relevance, then I would pick the former.

 

I would agree that there is a risk that this could have the opposite effect if the guidelines are not set up with thoughtfulness and sensitivity.

[+CO Admin]

Sorry Charlie "Hynr". Most cachers place their hides because of location / view of area. So, your telling me to "relocate". I think "NOT". That's why I / others spent the time picking that location.

 

Your comment on Geocaching only being around since 2001 is bull. GC.com has only been around that long. This game has been since the late 1980’s that I know of.

 

I just compared your stats and mine, my ratio is 1:21 while yours is 1:115. Maybe that’s why your running out of new hides. Out there you are just finding them, not hiding them.

 

You also need to re-read the rules: Paragraph 3, line 14, states in big bold letters, "If a cacher passes the 400 find mark, they need to place 1 cache for every ten they find". For sure you must have overlooked it. That's why there are no newer caches in your area. SF1

OK jsut for the record, leterboxing, and placing caches with a map and compass have been around for a long time.

Geocaching has only been around since SA was turned off

President Turns Off GPS Selective Availability

Dateline: 05/02/00

 

In plain English, we are unscrambling the GPS signal. It's rare that someone can press a button and make something you own instantly more valuable, but that's exactly what's going to happen today. All the people who bought a GPS receiver for a boat or a car, or their riding lawn mower or whatever, to use in business and in recreation, are going to find that they're suddenly 10 times more accurate as of midnight tonight. - Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the Office of Science and Technology.

 

Not disputing your argument, just setting the facts straight.

[+Robespierre]

People change. Hobbies change. Not sure that I see that as a disaster.

[+Hynr]

Most cachers place their hides because of location / view of area. So,  your telling me to "relocate". I think "NOT". That's why I / others spent the time picking that location.

I guess there is a significant regional difference between what you see when you go geocaching and what I see. I would certainly expect that owners would select a long life expectancy for caches that are hidden with the level of attentiveness that you clearly invest (assuming a robust hiding place and a solid container).

 

I just compared your  stats and mine, my ratio is 1:21 while yours is 1:115. Maybe that’s why your running out of new hides. Out there you are just finding them, not hiding them

I can see that you are a much better geocacher than I am, with much greater wisdom and experience. I hope that when you reach the problem I describe, that you will have an some insight into how the problem might be solved.

 

You also need to re-read the rules: Paragraph 3, line 14, states in big bold letters, "If a cacher passes the 400 find mark, they need to place 1 cache for every ten they find".  For sure you must have overlooked it.    That's why there are no newer caches in your area.  SF1

Perhaps that "rule" is contributing to folks leaving, because in areas where there is great cache density, this is nonsense unless you expect that folks will stop geocaching when they reach some high number. Do you intend to have 70 caches to maintain when you hit 700 finds? Think about it...at some point you will be using all your free time to maintain your caches and none to go geocaching.

[gm100guy]

Have you ever gone back and checked those caches you first found. Alot of them may have been set up by others that have also left and now are geogarbage.

 

And if they are you can archive them and open an area up and someone can then go and hide a new cache near by for you to hunt.

 

[bug and snake]

You also need to re-read the rules: Paragraph 3, line 14, states in big bold letters, "If a cacher passes the 400 find mark, they need to place 1 cache for every ten they find".  For sure you must have overlooked it.    That's why there are no newer caches in your area.  SF1

Perhaps that "rule" is contributing to folks leaving, because in areas where there is great cache density, this is nonsense unless you expect that folks will stop geocaching when they reach some high number. Do you intend to have 70 caches to maintain when you hit 700 finds? Think about it...at some point you will be using all your free time to maintain your caches and none to go geocaching.

I thought you might find this link interesting: Cache Stats Possibly NOT typical, but INTERESTING none the less.

 

Edited for speelink - Grrrrrrrr.....

Why are spelling mistakes invisible 'till you hit the 'go' button then jump out and poke you in the eye?

Edited September 5, 2004 by bug&snake

[+bigredmed]

This is an example of a 4 dimensional argument. Both sides are correct, but not at the same time or place.

 

There are areas of the country that turn over caches (both intentionally and unintentionally) and there are caches that are really good that should stay around. There are caches that aren't that good that get hit by everyone that will in the first 90 days, then it sits for 6 months while waiting for the land management people to find it and destroy it or complain about geocaching and how it should be banned.

 

The local caching groups need to adopt a park or two and figure out how to map out geocaching courses or mixed types so that the park is not just littered with caches but also so that good ones can stay and others added in around them on a temporary basis. This allows the park to stay fresh for experienced cachers and yet the old caches that are architypal examples or particularly nice viewpoints could stay.

[+IV_Warrior]

I thought you might find this link interesting: Cache Stats Possibly NOT typical, but INTERESTING none the less.

 

It gets less "interesting" once you start reading some of the logs...........sometimes things aren't always what they seem in a "quick glance"

[Neos2]

To respond to one part of the original note--"95% of geocachers don't stick around" because the attrition rate in any hobby is high. People pick up a new hobby, enjoy it for a time, and then begin to devote less and less time to it as new interests are found or new responsibilities enter their lives.

 

To respond to your point, I do not think the solution to this problem is to add more rules. I don't think we need to implement a complicated standard procedure. There are liable to be so many exceptions to the norm here that it would only cause new problems.

 

Another solution to this problem is for all the folks who have hides out there to take a good look at what they have hidden and what else is in the area and tend to their caches based on the big picture. The responsible cache owners already do this, and take action when it is appropriate:

 

Is the cache interesting, challenging, different, fun--being visited by many people?

Great---keep it tended, well maintained.

 

Is the cache just there because a cache could be there--Have most of the locals found it already--Is there really nothing special about it?

Archive it, put something else there (or nearby), or let someone else have a crack at that spot.

 

If you find it hard to look at your own caches subjectively, you might consider joining a local caching society. People who know the area can put their heads together to decide what needs recycling. Members can swap ideas, containers, even cache locations.

 

I live in a cache-dense area. There are 200 caches within about 6 miles of my house. I don't think that they need to keep changing to keep me interested in caching. I have no objection to driving a few miles for some new caches.

I would not feel the same way if I lived somewhere where the nearest 10 caches were mine and the next 10 were 23 miles away.

[+SixDogTeam]

Most folk's hide to find ratio is low. Setting time limits on caches is not going to encourage anybody to hide more caches.

 

When we first started out, we were prolific finders; then we concdntrated on FTF's, then we concentrated on benchmarks, then we overdid locationless reverses, then we started hiding caches, then we started reading the forums...the point being when you get bored with one aspect, or caches become too far away, you can concentrate on another aspect--Having varied activities will help keep the sport alive. That's why things like the recent Jeep travel bug deal was so good--generated alot of interest...

[Tahosa and Sons]

I would like to make a suggestion which, I believe, may reduce the incidence of geocachers losing interest in the hobby.

 

I suggest that each cache, when approved is given a finite length of life.

Just let me know when I'm supposed to check out.

 

And who do you think is going to go back in the hills and re-plant some of my Mtn. Caches. Most cachers don't even go for those tough ones up the hill.

[+4agers]

Bigredmed is correct, this argument is 4D. A couple of things to think about though...

 

for If there is really a 95% attrition rate after 300 caches, it would be silly not to do something to keep these cachers interested in the game. I don't believe this sport is like the physical fitness industry and can actually sustain such high rates.

 

against If a mandatory lease expires and the cacher is no longer involved... we have probably just created a huge geo-litter problem.

 

for Which is a bigger problem? Geo-litter or the affect on the area after cachers are walking through for longer periods of time. It really doesn't take that many cachers to create a trail.

 

against What about caches that are at landmarks or someplace that are designed for large amounts of people to visit? Like a virtual. No need to have something like this ever expire.

 

for Several landmarks and interesting spots can have hundreds of interesting things in a small area. A downtown area would be a good example. If a virtual exists to show off a skyscraper, it could prevent another cacher from creating one for the veteran’s memorial next to it.

 

against Quality of caches could spiral. Everyone would just throw things out there because they know their cache won’t have a long shelf life.

 

for Quality could improve. If a great area could have two caches in a year people would get two great caches in a shorter period of time.

 

 

These are a few of the things that rolled off the top of my head. I think it only proves one point. There really isn't a correct answer. I think TPTB will have to address these points sometime. When probably depends on if they will be making the choice for business viability for strategic purposes. Whether you like it or not, the decision made by this website will have the greatest impact on how this game is sustained and looked at for years to come.

[+CO Admin]

You also need to re-read the rules: Paragraph 3, line 14, states in big bold letters, "If a cacher passes the 400 find mark, they need to place 1 cache for every ten they find".  For sure you must have overlooked it.    That's why there are no newer caches in your area.  SF1

Perhaps that "rule" is contributing to folks leaving, because in areas where there is great cache density, this is nonsense unless you expect that folks will stop geocaching when they reach some high number. Do you intend to have 70 caches to maintain when you hit 700 finds? Think about it...at some point you will be using all your free time to maintain your caches and none to go geocaching.

 

No Seriously you need to read the guidelines as suggested. Because the "rule" that was quoted does not exist in the Geocaching guidelines. Therefor I have to wonder where you went back and read it to provide an argument about a rule that does not exist. Perhaps you really do need to read the guidelines completely before this discussion continues.

Edited September 5, 2004 by CO Admin

[+Renegade Knight]

Cache turnover has merit. Especially in an urban environment.

 

However just as Trade up or trade even is not a rule, it's a community standard, I'd do the same thing with this concept. Once most everyone has found it, consider archiving the cache so new blood can try out their ideas for the same area. I would not make it a iron clad rule.

[+CompuCash]

Sorry Charlie "Hynr". Most cachers place their hides because of location / view of area. So, your telling me to "relocate". I think "NOT". That's why I / others spent the time picking that location.

 

Your comment on Geocaching only being around since 2001 is bull. GC.com has only been around that long. This game has been since the late 1980’s that I know of.

 

I just compared your stats and mine, my ratio is 1:21 while yours is 1:115. Maybe that’s why your running out of new hides. Out there you are just finding them, not hiding them.

 

You also need to re-read the rules: Paragraph 3, line 14, states in big bold letters, "If a cacher passes the 400 find mark, they need to place 1 cache for every ten they find". For sure you must have overlooked it. That's why there are no newer caches in your area. SF1

interesting statistic found/hidden ratio -

 

mine is 1:6 - what does that make me? A super hider?

[+CompuCash]

Edited for speelink - Grrrrrrrr.....

Why are spelling mistakes invisible 'till you hit the 'go' button then jump out and poke you in the eye

 

interesting - happens to me all the time too!

[Jeremy]

Man, you guys just love rules.

[+Mopar]

First a little background. Jeremy mentioned a while ago that if one has over 300 caches, then one is in the extreme minority of geocachers. When that came out I had about that many caches and was surprised in that statistic. Why are 95% of geocachers not sticking around?!?

I think you are interpreting that statistic wrong.

I seriously doubt many people quit after 300 finds.

All that says is only a small percentage of cachers had reached that plateau on that date.

In my experience, most of the people who quit caching altogether do it within the first month or so. Just like any other hobby, they get interested in it, go out and find 5,10,20 caches in a few weeks, then real-life and other hobbies come back into play.

Since many people have only joined in the last year or so, they haven't had time to reach that mark caching at a reasonable rate.

Most cachers seem to prefer a more leisurely pace. They have a life, and geocaching is just one aspect of it. They may find a few caches on the weekend, or they may not. Look at Briansnat (do we HAVE to?). No one can argue he hasn't been an active cacher for the last 3yrs, yet he still has not reached 300 finds. And he lives in NJ, the state with the highest density of caches (overall) in the country.

 

No, the stat Jeremy quoted does not mean people quit after 300 finds, I think it means that in a game that is only 4yrs old, and has only exploded in the last year or 2, the avg cacher has not reached that goal yet.

I'm sure most people do NOT avg 1 cache find every day or 2.

[+Sagefox]

never mind.

Edited September 5, 2004 by Team Sagefox

[+Hynr]

Man, you guys just love rules.

The rule and attitude right now is the opposite what I am suggesting. Right now the rule is "no temporary caches"; I am suggesting a rule/attitude change that "all caches in existence today are temporary". In addition I am advocating that cache owners identify the exact degree to which their cache is temporary. In some cases that means months; in other cases it means a few years.

 

I know that we all have the ability now to archive our caches whenever we want and to set them up again a few feet/meters/yards/miles away. It is attitude that keeps us from doing it.

[+Mopar]

The more I think about it, probably 50 finds a year or so should be considered "normal". If you take bad weather, spending time on other hobbies and activities, and a leisurely pace when finding caches, then going out 1 weekend every 3-4 weeks and finding 3-4 caches is a reasonable rate. Granted, some of us do 50 caches in a weekend, but I'm sure that if far from the norm, and those people probably need Geocachers Anonymous.

(To be fair, I'm one of them. Last weekend we did about 50 caches. It entailed 800 miles of driving, and 22 miles of hiking. Yes, I need help!)

At 50 caches a year, it will take people 6yrs to reach 300 finds, and the game has only been around 4yrs.

 

In other words, this whole new proposed "rule", besides being complicated and hard to enforce, is based on the wrong interpretation of existing data.

Edited September 5, 2004 by Mopar

[bug and snake]

The more I think about it, probably 50 finds a year or so should be considered "normal". If you take bad weather, spending time on other hobbies and activities, and a leisurely pace when finding caches, then going out 1 weekend every 3-4 weeks and finding 3-4 caches is a reasonable rate. Granted, some of us do 50 caches in a weekend, but I'm sure that if far from the norm, and those people probably need Geocachers Anonymous.

(To be fair, I'm one of them. Last weekend we did about 50 caches. It entailed 800 miles of driving, and 22 miles of hiking. Yes, I need help!)

At 50 caches a year, it will take people 6yrs to reach 300 finds, and the game has only been around 4yrs.

 

In other words, this whole new proposed "rule", besides being complicated and hard to enforce, is based on the wrong interpretation of existing data.

dadgum, I am in complete agreement with MOPAR!

 

It must be time to give it ALL up.....

 

Seriously though, good statement of how it really looks. Well to me anyhow.

[+BlueDeuce]

I know that we all have the ability now to archive our caches whenever we want and to set them up again a few feet/meters/yards/miles away. It is attitude that keeps us from doing it.

Don't worry, not everybody believes the geocaching world is flat.

 

Give it time and just put the concept out there when you get the chance.

[bug and snake]

I thought you might find this link interesting:  Cache Stats  Possibly NOT typical, but INTERESTING none the less.

 

It gets less "interesting" once you start reading some of the logs...........sometimes things aren't always what they seem in a "quick glance"

I didn't mean to raise the question of the degree of 'interesting'-ness in this case with regard to how that cacher goes about her business. That has been discussed here before and is well off topic for this thread. I wanted some numbers to plug in to the formula is all.

 

It came to mind that once a cacher gets into the really high numbers in the find stakes, and applying the '1:10 after 400' (not too strict) rule things can get more than slightly out of hand.

The example that I chose, while an extreme case, would entail hiding 628 caches. Not too practical when it comes to maintainance.

[Jeremy]

There seems to be a lot of circular reasoning happening in this thread. By your declarations, I abandoned the hobby since I personally have less than 200 finds to my name.

 

BTW, This is why I go geocaching. This kind of cache would end up archived by your forced rule.

 

 

(edited to show inspiration)

Edited September 5, 2004 by Jeremy

[+BlueDeuce]

Well I don't think the concept of reviving an area requires a rule, but in the defense of the OP he did say that "At the end of that period, the cache either has to be removed or it has to be extended."

 

Personally I think that's a bit extreme. The thing we should be considering is whether or not there is any benefit to the local community by determining if a cache still provides caching pleasure as it is, or if a new cache in the same general area would re-introduce what they enjoyed so much the first time. Surely no one disagrees that a cache owner should review their cache to decide if it's actually lame after all. We shouldn't review them to see if they aren't contributing to the community for other reasons?

 

I can list plenty of caches that are perfectly fine where they are. There are more good ones than bad. But, I can also list caches that wouldn't lose any of their attraction by being relocated and personally I see more of a benefit than a loss by moving them. Don't get me wrong I can certainly list caches that nothing would be gained by moving them, another crappy cache in the same crappy place.

 

I am not talking about wholesale relisting, I'm not talking about dumping working, viable, interesting, or historical caches. I'm not talking about adding to the burden of approvers by mass relistings. I'm talking about looking at the possibilities of what might be done to bring people back to an area to enjoy the hunt of geocaching. Saturation is only one answer. I'm asking to consider other avenues.

Edited September 5, 2004 by Elf Danach

[+strikeforce1]

No Seriously you need to read the guidelines as suggested. Because the "rule" that was quoted does not exist in the Geocaching guidelines. Therefor I have to wonder where you went back and read it to provide an argument about a rule that does not exist. Perhaps you really do need to read the guidelines completely before this discussion continues.

Yes, CO Admin and others , There is no rule . That is why I put a inline. I just thought, removing a well placed cache that is maintained, has to be removed after a certain time was just plain funny . It wasn't ment to be taken seriously ! Now, I'm rolling on the floor Laughing . And yes, letterboxing has been around alot longer.

[+strikeforce1]

Sorry Charlie "Hynr". Most cachers place their hides because of location / view of area. So,  your telling me to "relocate". I think "NOT". That's why I / others spent the time picking that location.

 

I just compared your  stats and mine, my ratio is 1:21 while yours is 1:115. Maybe that’s why your running out of new hides. Out there you are just finding them, not hiding them.  SF1

interesting statistic found/hidden ratio -

mine is 1:6 - what does that make me? A super hider?

In my Opinion: Yes, you are a super cacher! Keep up that ratio and we'll never run out of caches to do in a life time! SF1

[+tirediron]

Howya' gonna enforce it?

[+strikeforce1]

Have you ever gone back and checked those caches you first found. Alot of them may have been set up by others that have also left and now are geogarbage.

 

And if they are you can archive them and open an area up and someone can then go and hide a new cache near by for you to hunt.

 

I actually, do go back to many old ones. I also, help maintain very many that I drive near or by. I feel as a cacher, it's my duty to help with maintaining caches as much as finding them. Especially, when I'm alot closer to them than the owners, who I might add, are very good friends as well. I've even recovered a few caches that went MIA due to flooding. I even email players, who post that they took a tb and haven't logged it out of the cache after a week. It helps, to keep-things-up-to-date.

 

I guess that's why my ratio is lower than most. It's "MY RULE" to help out fellow cachers and caches that are within my reach. So, I just log a note to the effects, of the help that I did.

 

As for archiving that's one of those "curse words" I dislike. Instead of archiving, try adopting a orphaned cache.

 

SF1 The Happy Cacher

[+5]

You also need to re-read the rules: Paragraph 3, line 14, states in big bold letters, "If a cacher passes the 400 find mark, they need to place 1 cache for every ten they find".  For sure you must have overlooked it.    That's why there are no newer caches in your area.  SF1

Perhaps that "rule" is contributing to folks leaving, because in areas where there is great cache density, this is nonsense unless you expect that folks will stop geocaching when they reach some high number. Do you intend to have 70 caches to maintain when you hit 700 finds? Think about it...at some point you will be using all your free time to maintain your caches and none to go geocaching.

 

No Seriously you need to read the guidelines as suggested. Because the "rule" that was quoted does not exist in the Geocaching guidelines. Therefor I have to wonder where you went back and read it to provide an argument about a rule that does not exist. Perhaps you really do need to read the guidelines completely before this discussion continues.

Geez, thanks...

 

I was about to give up geocahcing just based on the fact I would soon have to spend the rest of my life wandering the earth looking for cache placement sites...

[+BlueDeuce]

Howya' gonna enforce it?

Didn't you hear? gc.com is deputizing local clubs.

[+Hynr]

There seems to be a lot of circular reasoning happening in this thread. By your declarations, I abandoned the hobby since I personally have less than 200 finds to my name.

 

BTW, This is why I go geocaching. This kind of cache would end up archived by your forced rule.

Jeremy, you are the one person here who has access to the database and could thus determine the cause for the low percentage of folks with high numbers and what the behaviour is of your clients once they reach the high numbers. I know it would take some time to do such an analysis and that perhaps no one in the office has the time or skill to do so. I also appreaciate the need to not make such information public. So I am not advocating that you disclose it.

 

On the other hand, listing your own personal situation as proof is not helpful to the discussion. The rest of us only have our experiences and impressions; but you actually have the real data.

 

I too love going to sites like the one in your photo. And if you did indeed place or find a cache at that specific location, then the next snowmelt may well render it's life pretty short as it will be underwater in a raging river. What would be wrong with listing that sort of life-expectancy right at the web page. And why not have GC recommend to the hider that every few months s/he re-create the cache nearby so as to encourage folks to come again and again?

 

You too are assuming that I am advocating that YOU and your staff would make the decision on the life of a cache. I am advocating having the owner do that.

 

Apart from that, I am very interested in your assessment of whether there are lots of folks loosing interest and not renewing their membership or simply stopping to log finds after they hit high numbers. That would seem to me to be unhealthy for GC.com as a business so that you might be interested in suggestions for imroving the sustainability of your company. If you look at the title of this thread, it is not about creating rules and police; it is about sustainability of our hobby (and presumably your livelyhood).

[+Mopar]

OK, is it just me or does anyone else thing it's funny that of the 2 threads currently at the top of the forum, one is about making more rules to keep people from quitting, and the other is about people quitting because there are too many rules?

[+BlueDeuce]

OK, is it just me or does anyone else thing it's funny that of the 2 threads currently at the top of the forum, one is about making more rules to keep people from quitting, and the other is about people quitting because there are too many rules?

Sure. But maybe for perspective, RK could do a posting about what the forums would be like without controversy. (he's done one dedicated to the madhouse chatter).

[+sbell111]

I am against this proposed rule for the same reasons I gave the last three times it came up.

[+strikeforce1]

What would be wrong with listing that sort of life-expectancy right at the web page. And why not have GC recommend to the hider that every few months s/he re-create the cache nearby so as to encourage folks to come again and again?

Hynr, please go back to bed and get up on the other side, when you wake up!

Sleep on this tonight, and think of a few things besides FTF.

Do you realize how much database would be eaten up, by doing this and preserving the old logs.

 

By creating a new cache nearby, every few months, is absolutely ridicules. All this would do is make a cache “NEW” again!. Why would I go back to the same location over and over to find the same cache? Can you say redundant! I, as most, would like to be taken to new places to find a cache, instead of back to the “same old place”, again, and again, and again.

 

Another rule is: Cache Maintenance – what one is suppose to do, as needed.

 

I’m sure we could get rid of that rule with your idea! For sure nobody would be complaining about that! One less rule, right! Wrong, you just replaced it with this one!

 

They will be complaining about having to move their cache again! Oh did I say again! and again!, and again! Did I say every three months! Not me, I’ll be pulling mine the first time I’m told to move them, just so someone like you, can go and be FTF. So how would that help Geocaching! When everyone would be pulling their caches.

 

Oh that is something else to be addressed, “Who is the actual First Finder”. The person that originally found my cache two yrs ago, or you, because I had to list it as new! Then you lost the FTF in 3 months, because of your rule when I had to go and re-hide it 10 ft. away.

 

Please, please, please, go read the “how to place a cache rules” before commenting anymore!

 

If you feel you are deprived of caches in your area, why don’t you relocate to a more cache dense area! I’m sure there are a few on places not to far from where you live now. SF1

[+RichardMoore]

Jeremy, you are the one person here who has access to the database and could thus determine the cause for the low percentage of folks with high numbers and what the behaviour is of your clients once they reach the high numbers.

You are confusing facts with reasons. Jeremy has access to data that would tell how many cachers found how many caches, but that doesn't tell him why. I think you would need a behavioral analyst to try to figure that one out.

 

While I think I understand your reasons for wanting to limit cache life, I also understand the others who think it is unnecessary.

I just checked the listing of caches in my area. Of the nearest 200 caches, 8 of them were not found in August. Most of those 8 were found in late June. About half the caches (to be honest, I didn't get an exact count) have been found in the last 7 days.

New cachers are finding the caches, uber-cachers don't seem to have a problem driving the longer distances to find caches, and the rest of us are getting enough new caches to keep us happy. It's been a long time since anyone complained to me that there weren't enough new caches out there.

 

Or, you could always do what I did. I basically took a few months off from geocaching (call it geo-burnout), when I came back there were lots of new caches just a short distance away.

Edited September 5, 2004 by RichardMoore

[+BlueDeuce]

Hynr, please go back to bed and get up on the other side, when you wake up!

Sleep on this tonight, and think of a few things besides FTF.

Do you realize how much database would be eaten up, by doing this and preserving the old logs.

 

By creating a new cache nearby, every few months, is absolutely ridicules. All this would do is make a cache “NEW” again!. Why would I go back to the same location over and over to find the same cache? Can you say redundant! I, as most, would like to be taken to new places to find a cache, instead of back to the “same old place”, again, and again, and again.

 

Another rule is: Cache Maintenance – what one is suppose to do, as needed.

 

I’m sure we could get rid of that rule with your idea! For sure nobody would be complaining about that! One less rule, right! Wrong, you just replaced it with this one!

 

They will be complaining about having to move their cache again! Oh did I say again! and again!, and again! Did I say every three months! Not me, I’ll be pulling mine the first time I’m told to move them, just so someone like you, can go and be FTF. So how would that help Geocaching! When everyone would be pulling their caches.

 

Oh that is something else to be addressed, “Who is the actual First Finder”. The person that originally found my cache two yrs ago, or you, because I had to list it as new! Then you lost the FTF in 3 months, because of your rule when I had to go and re-hide it 10 ft. away.

 

Please, please, please, go read the “how to place a cache rules” before commenting anymore!

 

If you feel you are deprived of caches in your area, why don’t you relocate to a more cache dense area! I’m sure there are a few on places not to far from where you live now. SF1

 

I could find an extremist response for dang near everything I do. It doesn't make it true.

Edited September 5, 2004 by Elf Danach

[+bigbill6]

Im in the Harriman state park area in New York.To date I have placed 45 caches

and we do not have that problem here.I suggest you place more caches...and maybe others will follow...

[+Imajika]

Okay, I have one cache in an area that doesn't get many visitors. It is in a park, with easy parking nearby but, for some reason, not many people go look for it. So I am to assume that everyone that's going to look for it all ready has and I should archive it now? The cache is still in good shape, everyone that has gone there makes a comment of how nice the area is and I can still maintain the cache when it needs it. I am not going to archive this cache.

 

The cache is a 1/2 and is an easy find. Several people that have found it told me it was their first cache find ever. They told me they appreciated having one close to home, in such a nice area and one that is easy for a first-timer. This is why I am not going to archive it. This cache lets new cachers get a feel for geocaching and how to use their GPS in the field. It lets them work their way up to the harder ones and gain experience.

 

I am not archiving this cache so someone else can place an insane 5/2 micro there. I found the spot and, as long as I am in Colorado and can maintain it, it will stay there. As long as people still log it now and then, it is going to stay there. The park is big enough to hide several other caches in. In fact there is another cache near mine (650 feet away).

 

I have only archived 2 of my caches. One because of problems with the container and the other was archived because it was stolen. As long as my caches get logged every now and then and are in good shape, I am leaving them there. When you first hide a cache there is a mad rush of people going to find it. I expect a lot of logs in the first month. I actually appreciate the logs after that first month a little bit more. It lets me know people are still looking for it and it is a nice surprise to see a found note in your mailbox.

 

I just find it hard to believe that there is NOWHERE else on earth to hide a cache other than my little spot at the Delaney Farm. I think it is silly to archive a cache because 'everyone has found it all ready'. New cachers pop up every day!

 

Just my 2 cents...I've rambled enough. Flame me or whatever, I am on pain meds for a broken toe so I don't care.

[+BlueDeuce]

I am not archiving this cache so someone else can place an insane 5/2 micro there.

Who said someone elses get to place a cache?

 

For an example, I have a cache place .7 miles along a trail. You find it, you enjoy it. Now was that cache placed a year ago or 2 months ago?

[+Imajika]

No one said that would happen for sure. But if I archive a cache because 'everyone has found it', someone else would hide something else there eventually I am sure. I found the spot and I like it.

 

IT'S MINE! :lol: ;)

 

My point was I found the spot, I like it, new cachers appreciate it, old cachers like the area, I can maintain the cache, new cachers pop up every day and it is a 'new' cache to them, so I don't think being forced to archive a cache is a good idea.

 

Maybe I will decide to archive the cache someday. Maybe I will quit caching, find another spot I like better, etc. But the decision to archive it should be left up to me. Not because of another rule.

[+BlueDeuce]

No one said that would happen for sure. But if I archive a cache because 'everyone has found it', someone else would hide something else there eventually I am sure. I found the spot and I like it.

 

IT'S MINE! :lol: ;)

 

My point was I found the spot, I like it, new cachers appreciate it, old cachers like the area, I can maintain the cache, new cachers pop up every day and it is a 'new' cache to them, so I don't think being forced to archive a cache is a good idea.

 

Maybe I will decide to archive the cache someday. Maybe I will quit caching, find another spot I like better, etc. But the decision to archive it should be left up to me. Not because of another rule.

no, that's the point. it's not because it's not worth listing. You should keep the location. (You don't have to give it up to relist it) If it's active and enjoyed by people consistantly then yes keep it.

 

If it is a good location that is pretty much played out by your locals and is only visited by people passing through then the question is would people enjoy another hunt in the same location. A new hide, a new hunt. What if you replaced it with a new hunt method more difficult than the first?

 

not every place is a top of a mountain.

Edited September 5, 2004 by Elf Danach