Jump to content

Cache Placing Limitations?


cwoper
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Look at what has happened in the past two years to Geocaching.When I started Geocaching two years ago, Cache quality and placement seemed to be a more thought-out process.Now there seems to be more lame Caches with more lame Geo-swag placed in lame locations.I'll admit it,I have not been the best person for logging "did not find",something that I will pay closer attition too and will partisipate in from now on,I should have logged these Caches that are so much more often now becoming the norm, and did not.There are Cachers in my area that place Cache after Cache when they have no way of maintaining such a large number of game pieces.I call these "Drive by Caches,"Caches that are practically thrown out of the car window as the placer drives by an area.Coords are off,the container looks like crap and the contents are total junk...My proposal is this;limit the number of Caches that a Cacher can place.Its as simple as that.This will make people(hopefully) take more time and effort to place a Cache.I maintain mine,others should do the same.I take pride in my Caches and they are of good quality.And for Cachings sake,TRADE FAIRLY.Is it all about the log?For some yes,I myself,love finding pins,buttons and patches, not wet, soggy,dog chewed Mctoys that take up Cache space and will never be traded anyway.I love finding the above mintioned items,Its awesome when I do,its a great thrill.We as a community need to swing the momentium of Caching upward,I feel that it is otherwise.I love Caching and Geocaching.com,but I am starting to fear that it is going to get so bad that nobody is going to care and this game that I love so much will cease to exist.

Link to comment

The logical progression of what you have observed in two years is that caches will grow and grow and good placement locations will be taken. One can only hope that pride, personal or otherwise, will compel players to hide with skill, stock with care, log with panache and trade with enthusiasm as they do grow.

 

One saving grace is that you will not be able to find them all, as placements will grow to outpace a person's ability to find them. So, what others write about a cache will be how players differentiate one from another. Eventually, there will be a steady state reached and then quality will force the "also ran" caches to be removed.

 

It is unclear under what circumstances that a cache should be archived. Should a good location be reserved? Is the locale borrowed for a period of time and then it gets freed up for a new cache by someone who reserved it? Sounds a bit like domain names on the Internet. Should we create a blackmarket that deals in prime cache locations? I do jest, but you get the idea.

 

Should we begin looking at cache traffic to determine archival candidates? Some caches because of their difficulty to terrain do not attract beginner players. These caches may go a month without a visit. Are these to be archived to free up the location for a more conspicuous cache?

 

You have posited an interesting question but it has complex ramifications in the long term. Right now the rules are simple. Chaotic systems have a way of exhibiting surprisingly intelligent behavior. The quality of caches in your area may improve on their own as new players in your area enter the game.

 

Cheers,

 

The Callan Crew Patriarch

Link to comment

How about some spaces amongst your sentences. Your rant is hard to read.

 

As to complaining about lame caches, be sure to mention it in your online logs.

 

This is how I do it.

 

"Well my wife and I spent 20 minutes digging through all the trash trying to find this cache. We gave up because we had to stop looking numerous times, to keep our daughter out of the broken glass, that is everywhere. This cache should be called "T is for trash," rather than ........."

Link to comment

Great examples Brian, and a very valid point. I've found a fair amount of caches in several distinct areas. In each area, the influence of the earlier cache placers is evident. If the newer cachers find well thought out cache placements in quality containers, they tend to hide the same. If a newbie finds nothing but gladware tossed under a bush on the side of the road, that's what they tend to hide themselves. The newbies can learn a lot from quality placements that have withstood the test of time.

Link to comment
Great examples Brian, and a very valid point. I've found a fair amount of caches in several distinct areas. In each area, the influence of the earlier cache placers is evident. If the newer cachers find well thought out cache placements in quality containers, they tend to hide the same. If a newbie finds nothing but gladware tossed under a bush on the side of the road, that's what they tend to hide themselves. The newbies can learn a lot from quality placements that have withstood the test of time.

Not so...There are many veteran Cachers that throw junk under bushes,distinct area are not.I'm not buying that...

Link to comment
Great examples Brian, and a very valid point. I've found a fair amount of caches in several distinct areas. In each area, the influence of the earlier cache placers is evident. If the newer cachers find well thought out cache placements in quality containers, they tend to hide the same. If a newbie finds nothing but gladware tossed under a bush on the side of the road, that's what they tend to hide themselves. The newbies can learn a lot from quality placements that have withstood the test of time.

Not so...There are many veteran Cachers that throw junk under bushes,distinct area are not.I'm not buying that...

There are just as many newbies placing garbage caches. I'm sure the percentage of junk caches hasn't changed much. I was finding plenty 3 years ago. Its just that with more caches, you're gonna find more junk.

 

There are many people out there who have the time to place and maintain lots of quality caches. Are you gonna tell them no more and instead have someone whose only exposure to geocaching has been Gladware in dog poop parks take their place?

Link to comment

Alas, geocaching is truly a view into human nature. It shows the good , the bad, and the ugly of how we value most things in our society. Fast food, instant gratification, and drive-by/thru caches are becoming synonymous. Lead by example… subvert the dominant paradigm and place the type of quality caches you truly want to find!

Link to comment

snat,your first point on your last post of this subject,I believe to be correct.However,your second point,I disagree with.Eventually,the people placing Gladeware in dog poop parks will have there limit and will be unable to place more"crapy"(pun intended) Caches...Limitations are only a thought.I know that everytime somebody makes a suggestion for a change,people get up tight about it and start on that "We already have enough rules"stuff.At least with this forum post may-be people will put more effort into there Caches that they place and what they may leave behind in a cache...

Link to comment

I agree, but making new rules doesn’t work. There are far to many caches were the hiders have 2 finds and a few hides. They are on for a few months and then disappear forever. The best way is to do what is all ready in place, if the hide doesn’t have any merit then as soon as it starts to determinate then the finder needs to post a needs to be archived. What that means when you run across a cache that needs some attention email the owner, if nothing happens then a needs to be archived needs to happen.

Link to comment
I agree, but making new rules doesn’t work. There are far to many caches were the hiders have 2 finds and a few hides. They are on for a few months and then disappear forever. The best way is to do what is all ready in place, if the hide doesn’t have any merit then as soon as it starts to determinate then the finder needs to post a needs to be archived. What that means when you run across a cache that needs some attention email the owner, if nothing happens then a needs to be archived needs to happen.

Yes,I know all of this...

Link to comment

I think the answer has to come from player feedback. People need to be more willing to post a "Needs to be archived", and if enough people do this, the approved should send an email to the cache owner asking them to defend their cache or have it archived.

 

I don't know how to implement this system so as to insure that it is done fairly, but it seems like that should be the solution rather than more rules.

 

nfa-jamie

Link to comment

How is it that you who clearly has ides on what makes a good cache, have even found anything you don't like?

 

How is it that you know it's a window toss, when being a smart person, would know how to avoid those caches, while some people who are slaves to the grind love a quick luchtime cache?

 

There is no universal good cache. Different strokes for differnet folks, and I'm glad that a standard cache dosn't have to run the "Wow" Gauntlet.

 

There is also no rule that makes it so you can't excercise a little discression in hunting these. I've had great luck looking at a map either on my GPS, PDA, or Computer and telling what the style of cache is. I plan my hunts.

 

People get out of this hobbby what they bring to it. Don't be doomed to a world of crappy hides lurking in under every bush.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
.My proposal is this;limit the number of Caches that a Cacher can place.

How about no more new rules? Rules don't always make a game better.

 

Or you if you must have new rules, how about no more whining?

 

In our area there are so few new caches being hidden that if we must have cache limits I say every cacher is required to hide 10 new caches.

 

Ooops, I was whining about rules there <_<

Link to comment

cwoper,

you can't get people to do what you want them to do. rules only apply to those that will follow them, after they figure out the tax code set of rules. Which is what it will be if you need to add a rule for every situation....

 

You know what you don't like, don't do things that way, do them the right way.

Trade up, add a dry logbook, don't place LAME caches (which is hard to define and harder to 'apply'). Some will follow your example, some won't, thats how it is.

Link to comment
There is no universal good cache.  Different strokes for differnet folks, and I'm glad that a standard cache dosn't have to run the "Wow" Gauntlet.

 

People get out of this hobbby what they bring to it.

Excellent words of wisdom! Lead by example. If you want more quality caches then place quality caches yourself. Paintfiction is an excellent example of this in my area. The area was starting to be awash in poorly placed micros (I plead guilty as charged <_< ). Paintfiction started his "Anti-micro Campaign" of placing camoed ammo cans in places where others might normally have hid a micro. This lead to many others in the area taking up the challange (Stressmaster, Marine Biologist, Macloud1, ICM, the Federation and others) and the quailty of hides improved within 2 months. If you want change, then be the change. Rules from the frog aren't the answer, local leadership is the answer.

Link to comment
I think the answer has to come from player feedback.

You know, I think if people were just a little more honest--I mean really honest, instead of just terse--in their logs about their lackluster experience, that would make hiders think twice about the quality of their caches. I've read a lot of posts about how one should be appreciative of any cache, and that there's something out there for everyone--but I think there needs to be a little more frankness in the logs about the quality of one's personal experience. If something really sucks for you, I think you should politely say something to that effect. Something like: "This cache is probably enjoyable for the numbers people, but my experience would have been more rewarding had I visited a more interesting location. I was in town for a short time and was hoping to encounter some of the places that make your area special." That might compel a hider to put a little more thought into placing caches that are more appealing to sight-seers.

Edited by Team Doggiewoggie
Link to comment
cwoper,

you can't get people to do what you want them to do. rules only apply to those that will follow them, after they figure out the tax code set of rules. Which is what it will be if you need to add a rule for every situation....

 

You know what you don't like, don't do things that way, do them the right way. 

Trade up, add a dry logbook, don't place LAME caches (which is hard to define and harder to 'apply'). Some will follow your example, some won't, thats how it is.

Welch, don't you get it? That's too much work!

 

Why should I have to read through the cache descriptions to figure out which caches I might enjoy, when the obvious solution is to change the rules so that everyone else simply has to place only the type of caches I am sure to like?

 

Stop being so selfish. <_<

Link to comment

RK makes a really good point. A lame cache is in the eyes of the beholder. A cache I might think is lame, someone else might really enjoy. I know what I like, and which I dislike. I find it fairly easy to avoid the ones I dislike. There are tools like GSAK, watcher, spinner, gpsbabel, etc. that will allow you to filter your GPX pocket queries so that it will keep your lame factor to a minimum. I have a few cache hiders that I don't enjoy hunting their caches. Their caches get filtered out and the waypoints never get sent to my GPS. Problem solved.

 

If I arrive at a cache site that I don't care for, I leave. To use one of cwoper's examples: I don't generally enjoy caches in dog parks. When I arrive at the cache site, I make an evaluation to see if I feel like hunting the cache. Some times I do, some times I don't. My choice. However, some cachers who cache with their dogs think dog park caches are the best thing ever! I've seen the logs to prove it. Just because one person doesn't like something doesn't mean that all people don't like it.

 

--Marky

Link to comment

Of course, people can just set up sock puppet accounts and create as many caches as they want.

 

The emphasis shouldn't be on limiting the number people can place. The emphasis should be on rewarding people for placing thoughtful, well placed caches. I still believe that a favorite caches system could encourage people to place good caches.

 

If that rating system were in place, if you have 15 caches that have been out there for a while, and none of them are listed as favorites by a minimum number of people, I would think that your caches aren't being well received. If I were in that situation, I'd go back and look at my style and see if there was a way I could place a cache so it would be well received by the community.

 

Us the carrot - not the stick.

donkey.gif

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment
.My proposal is this;

 

My proposal is either spend more time out there making the sport better instead of complaining about it, or learn how to type.

 

I am so tired of people going out there and complaining about how much crap is out there and then they don't do anything about it except come into the forums and complain.

 

How do I help the sport? Every full sized cache I place is stocked with CITO containers that are to be taken without trade. Even my micros under lightpoles (I have one so far, but I'm about to make a series with them) are clever or informative. I check my caches periodically, even if all is well with them. I move travel bugs and swag around if one is getting too full or too empty. I take people to interesting locations.

Link to comment
cwoper,

you can't get people to do what you want them to do. rules only apply to those that will follow them, after they figure out the tax code set of rules. Which is what it will be if you need to add a rule for every situation....

 

You know what you don't like, don't do things that way, do them the right way. 

Trade up, add a dry logbook, don't place LAME caches (which is hard to define and harder to 'apply'). Some will follow your example, some won't, thats how it is.

Welch, don't you get it? That's too much work!

 

Why should I have to read through the cache descriptions to figure out which caches I might enjoy, when the obvious solution is to change the rules so that everyone else simply has to place only the type of caches I am sure to like?

 

Stop being so selfish. :)

You've hit it exactly on the head.

Link to comment
I think the answer has to come from player feedback.

You know, I think if people were just a little more honest--I mean really honest, instead of just terse--in their logs about their lackluster experience, that would make hiders think twice about the quality of their caches.

Another reason why a "finders rating system" might be a good idea....

 

E

Link to comment
I think the answer has to come from player feedback.

You know, I think if people were just a little more honest--I mean really honest, instead of just terse--in their logs about their lackluster experience, that would make hiders think twice about the quality of their caches.

Another reason why a "finders rating system" might be a good idea....

 

E

Yes a finder's rating system would be a great idea.......to make a lot of folks uncomfortable in placing caches for fear they wouldn't be well received. I know a few cachers that are reluctant to hide caches at all because they don't like any kind of criticism. There are a lot of us that are somewhat immune to criticism that would really like to know when folks like or dislike our caches. We hide caches that we would like to find ourselves and that is a wide range. Right now I wish there were a few more easy drive-up caches that we haven't found since I am still recovering from a broken ankle suffered while caching in a beautiful park south of Nashville. The easy micros and full size caches are an excellent way to get introduced to the hobby too. We love micros, tupperwares, ammo boxes and anything else but would be free to filter out any we don't want to find.

Link to comment

Caches should be maintained, but it is hard to do that if it is

hundreds of miles from the owner. I live within a half hour

of all mine, and they do get serviced. I did take over one in

a state park, but later pulled it to replace it with one in a county

park. I have more locations where I could place them, but

I would like others to use those locations. I want some to hunt,

too.

 

My view on contents is that the log is the thing, anything extra

is just that. I have had to pull stuff out of mine because of

dampness after a number of months with no visits.

I replaced one whole cache because of dampness, which was

the fastest way to clean it up. Mine are rural caches and will

never have the number of visits of ones in city locations.

Link to comment
Look at what has happened in the past two years to Geocaching.When I started Geocaching two years ago, Cache quality and placement seemed to be a more thought-out process.Now there seems to be more lame Caches with more lame Geo-swag placed in lame locations.

As a novice cacher I personally am glad that people continue to remind us new into the game (obsession, lifestyle, or however else you describe it) that cache creation is something that should not come lightly. I personally could have in my zeal and ignorance created a cache as soon as I got into the game, but instead, after reading the forums, I am taking the time to reasearch what works and what doesn't work when it comes to creating and placing a cache.

 

I personally thank those who are pursuing the cause of high quality caches, especially with high quality contents.

 

:)

Link to comment
.My proposal is this;

 

My proposal is either spend more time out there making the sport better instead of complaining about it, or learn how to type.

 

I am so tired of people going out there and complaining about how much crap is out there and then they don't do anything about it except come into the forums and complain.

 

How do I help the sport? Every full sized cache I place is stocked with CITO containers that are to be taken without trade. Even my micros under lightpoles (I have one so far, but I'm about to make a series with them) are clever or informative. I check my caches periodically, even if all is well with them. I move travel bugs and swag around if one is getting too full or too empty. I take people to interesting locations.

Stop complaining and learn how to type...now thats a post we can all sink our teeth into and learn from.

Link to comment
If I arrive at a cache site that I don't care for, I leave. To use one of cwoper's examples: I don't generally enjoy caches in dog parks. When I arrive at the cache site, I make an evaluation to see if I feel like hunting the cache. Some times I do, some times I don't. My choice. However, some cachers who cache with their dogs think dog park caches are the best thing ever! I've seen the logs to prove it. Just because one person doesn't like something doesn't mean that all people don't like it.

 

The problem there is that you already wasted your time driving to the place while you could have been hunting somewhere else. People often say, "if you don't like them, don't hunt them" but too often you have no idea until you get there that its a lame cache. True, you can often tell by the description and looking at a map, but sometimes that isn't foolproof. I've found excellent caches that I expected to be lame and lame ones where I expected something interesting.

 

There is no universal good cache.  Different strokes for differnet folks...

 

No, but there are caches that the vast majority of geocachers find to be a waste of time. Usually the only people who like these are numbers hounds who appreciate any chance to log a smiley.

 

You know, I think if people were just a little more honest--I mean really honest, instead of just terse--in their logs about their lackluster experience, that would make hiders think twice about the quality of their caches.

 

Its hard telling someone their cache sucks. A cache is like a gift in a way and griping about someone's cache is similar to scorning someone's gift. I was always taught that if you don't like the gift, you still say thank you. Its also a surefire way to make an enemy and if you make a habit of it, you have a good chance finishing out of the running at the next event's "most popular" contest.

 

Having said all this, I still think arbitrary limits are a bad idea. As I said earlier, if someone has the time and inclination to place and maintain quality caches I'd hope they place 300 of them if they could. I agree with the others here who say the answer is to lead by example. If you don't like the quality of caches in your area, start placing quality caches of your own.

Link to comment
If I arrive at a cache site that I don't care for, I leave. To use one of cwoper's examples: I don't generally enjoy caches in dog parks. When I arrive at the cache site, I make an evaluation to see if I feel like hunting the cache. Some times I do, some times I don't. My choice. However, some cachers who cache with their dogs think dog park caches are the best thing ever! I've seen the logs to prove it. Just because one person doesn't like something doesn't mean that all people don't like it.

No, what you're supposed to do is hunt it anyway then berate the hider in the forums about how lame the cache was <_<

Link to comment
If I arrive at a cache site that I don't care for, I leave.  To use one of cwoper's examples: I don't generally enjoy caches in dog parks.  When I arrive at the cache site, I make an evaluation to see if I feel like hunting the cache.  Some times I do, some times I don't.  My choice.  However, some cachers who cache with their dogs think dog park caches are the best thing ever!  I've seen the logs to prove it.  Just because one person doesn't like something doesn't mean that all people don't like it.

No, what you're supposed to do is hunt it anyway then berate the hider in the forums about how lame the cache was <_<

That seems to be part of the hobby for some folks.

Link to comment

What snat said. It is hard to tell someone, either in a log or in person that the cache they placed lacks imagination, thought or effort. In this area we have some cachers that place excellent caches and if I see a new one by some folks I know it is worth the hike. Others place caches that are not always as good. Here's the problem. We live in a small community and interact with each other on a regular basis, in the logs, on the forums and in person. Some take even the mention that their cache is less than wonderful as an insult. I was taught to "play nice" but I was also taught to tell the truth. So do I not call a Lame a Lame and continue to play or do I confront and offend?

 

I keep my critisism to myself and put my compliments in writing.

 

Just the way I see it.

 

Clint

Link to comment
If I arrive at a cache site that I don't care for, I leave.  To use one of cwoper's examples: I don't generally enjoy caches in dog parks.  When I arrive at the cache site, I make an evaluation to see if I feel like hunting the cache.  Some times I do, some times I don't.  My choice.  However, some cachers who cache with their dogs think dog park caches are the best thing ever!  I've seen the logs to prove it.  Just because one person doesn't like something doesn't mean that all people don't like it.

No, what you're supposed to do is hunt it anyway then berate the hider in the forums about how lame the cache was <_<

That seems to be part of the hobby for some folks.

Yes, I wrote that comment tongue-in-cheek, but I have witnessed how true it is many times

Link to comment

In essence, cwoper has a point, at least for those of us that prefer the harder caches. There has been a recent explosion of "drive-by" caches in our neck of the woods. Some folks like them because, well, we aren't sure? Primarily just for driving up numbers I suspect, it becomes a matter of "I've got more than you, nanny-nanny boo!". And unfortunately quality may fall by the wayside in the search for quantity. Just leave them be and let them have fun too. TinyMoon and I mostly only go after the caches that have been there a looong time, have a low number of hits (meaning it's probably hard, i.e. fun!), and the cacher who placed them has a reputation for excellent well thought out hides. In stead of policing other's hides just police the ones you decide to go after.

Link to comment
If I arrive at a cache site that I don't care for, I leave.  To use one of cwoper's examples: I don't generally enjoy caches in dog parks.  When I arrive at the cache site, I make an evaluation to see if I feel like hunting the cache.  Some times I do, some times I don't.  My choice.  However, some cachers who cache with their dogs think dog park caches are the best thing ever!  I've seen the logs to prove it.  Just because one person doesn't like something doesn't mean that all people don't like it.

No, what you're supposed to do is hunt it anyway then berate the hider in the forums about how lame the cache was <_<

That seems to be part of the hobby for some folks.

Yes, I wrote that comment tongue-in-cheek, but I have witnessed how true it is many times

I like Briansnat's quote "Its hard telling someone their cache sucks. A cache is like a gift in a way and griping about someone's cache is similar to scorning someone's gift. I was always taught that if you don't like the gift, you still say thank you." I remember an old aunt of ours that taught first grade her whole life. In her later years she started giving us primer books for Christmas. Rather than hurting her feelings we just said thank you and gave her a hug. We appreciate all of the caches people put out for us to find. We like some more than others but they deserve a thank you for what they've done for us. Whether you complain about this gift in person or online is the same thing. Folks have never complained about our caches up to this point. There are those that don't search for some of them for their own reasons but that's OK. We have some easy ones and some hard ones and we will cotinue to place them like that. Hopefully a small part of the geocaching community won't have enough say to make it so we won't be able to continue on the path we have chosen.

Link to comment
In essence, cwoper has a point, at least for those of us that prefer the harder caches. There has been a recent explosion of "drive-by" caches in our neck of the woods. Some folks like them because, well, we aren't sure? Primarily just for driving up numbers I suspect, it becomes a matter of "I've got more than you, nanny-nanny boo!". And unfortunately quality may fall by the wayside in the search for quantity. Just leave them be and let them have fun too. TinyMoon and I mostly only go after the caches that have been there a looong time, have a low number of hits (meaning it's probably hard, i.e. fun!), and the cacher who placed them has a reputation for excellent well thought out hides. In stead of policing other's hides just police the ones you decide to go after.

Great

Link to comment
In essence, cwoper has a point, at least for those of us that prefer the harder caches. There has been a recent explosion of "drive-by" caches in our neck of the woods. Some folks like them because, well, we aren't sure? Primarily just for driving up numbers I suspect, it becomes a matter of "I've got more than you, nanny-nanny boo!". And unfortunately quality may fall by the wayside in the search for quantity. Just leave them be and let them have fun too. TinyMoon and I mostly only go after the caches that have been there a looong time, have a low number of hits (meaning it's probably hard, i.e. fun!), and the cacher who placed them has a reputation for excellent well thought out hides. In stead of policing other's hides just police the ones you decide to go after.

Great

The other obvious reason for the easier caches (other than bumping up numbers) is some folks, of course, can't make the longer hikes for physical reasons. I wish I would have left a few in our area of the easier ones while I am recovering from my broken ankle. (I can't wait to go on three new ones on the Haw River Trail, that's just me feeling sorry for myself)It's nice also to be able to do a cache or two at lunch and not get all dirty.

Link to comment
The other obvious reason for the easier caches (other than bumping up numbers) is some folks, of course, can't make the longer hikes for physical reasons.

 

An easy cache is not necessarily a lame cache. I've found many an easy cache that was in a unique, or interesting area, or that had an unusual twist.

Link to comment

That's true, of course. But even the "lame" caches have a place with the numbers folks (like me sometimes) and the beginners. When we went to Nashville we tried to have a mix of caches to search for. At five one morning I was in a park, up to my ears in mud. I found it and was tired at 5:30 in the morning. The next two were lightpole caches which was a welcome relief to this 58 year old bad jointed body. Found eleven that morning before Ms horsegeeks woke up at the hotel and was ready to go. I ran up my numbers that morning, sort of saw a nice park that we returned to later in the day and found a couple of really neat micros all before 8AM. I was in heaven (muddy though). The point is, and I know a lot of cachers at least in our area like to do the same thing we do. Leave something for everyone to do and don't discourage the people that hide "lame" caches. There are plenty of the other types out there to.

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...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...