Cache Quality

[+Team GPSaxophone]

In this other thread, SerenityNow brought up the point, "The responsibility of monitering the quality is in the approvers hands"

 

Is it really? Can a cache approver really know what the "quality" of a cache is by looking at the cache page? Can anyone?

 

What makes a cache high or low quality? Is it the wording on the cache page? How about the fancy graphics some people add to it? Is the quality determined by the container? The location? The proximity to some historic site?

 

How do you know until you get there?

 

If it's not the cache reviewer's job to judge quality, then it must be up to the people that find the cache. Certainly the finders will give an honest description of the quality in their logs.

 

Wait, you mean they don't want to hurt the hider's feelings by telling the truth?

 

Great, then how are we supposed to discourage low-quality caches?

[+fly46]

First off, if you don't like the quality, don't seek those hidden by people that have low quality hides... They'll get bored with hiding caches for themselves and quit.

 

To some extent it could be the approver's job - kind of. But they would have to have a set of guidelines and a way to interperet the data given to them.... And what constitutes a crappy cache? If it's called lame, do we consider it as such? What if they call it lame, but it's a really good quality hide? There are too many variables to make that work.

 

Part of it depends on what your definition of 'crappy' is.. Is a cache good quality because of the items in it? The location? The path used to get there? Experience? All of the above? Some of the above?

 

If a good quality cache means one that is maintained, then it's the cache hider - to place it in the first place and then make sure it is kept up...

Of course, it also falls on finders to trade up or equally, trash out when necessary, etc...

[+strikeforce1]

I say “post it as you see fit!”

I did one over the summer, is said “Contents – our usual stuff”.

 

When I got there, one of the first to find it, it was all geojunk to say the least.

I did a T/0 L/0, and posted I’d had seen, much better caches, that were older and hadn’t been maintained in a long time.

I couldn’t believe the condition!

I refused to hunt another one of their cachers.

 

SF1

[+Mastifflover]

Where's that dead horse picture?

[[MTB]_Intrepid]

Your dog ate it?

[+chaos reloaded]

All I can say for quality is today I visited three different caches and never even got out of the car when I saw where they were.

 

but then, maybe I'm just not cut for the urban micro scene.

[+sept1c_tank]

The responsibility lies within the beholder.

[+Prime Suspect]

To some extent it could be the approver's job - kind of. But they would have to have a set of guidelines and a way to interperet the data given to them.... And what constitutes a crappy cache? If it's called lame, do we consider it as such? What if they call it lame, but it's a really good quality hide? There are too many variables to make that work.

The question wasn't whether or not it could be the approvers responsibility, but if it is.

 

It isn't. That responsibility rests squarely on the cache owner's shoulders.

[+CO Admin]

From the Guidelines.

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. 

 

For all cache types please be sensible when choosing your location for cache placement. Please be aware of what may be a perceived to a non geocacher as dangerous or questionable behavior.  For example, suspicious looking characters wandering about near an elementary school.  The land may be public property, but keep in mind what is on the other side of that property line.  Also, clearly label your physical containers on the outside with appropriate information to reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as a danger to those that are unaware of our sport. 

 

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the approvers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed.  As a courtesy, the approver may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.  But as the cache owner you are responsible for placement and care of your cache. 

 

Before submitting your report you must visit the location to obtain accurate coordinates with a GPS. 

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for checking on your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.).  You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem.  This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing. 

 

 

Emphasis added for clarity

[CoyoteRed]

I'd prefer that the reveiwers not be in the business of applying subjective reasoning. It's bad enough that they have to do it with virts.

 

I'd rather that the cache hiders themselves applied a bit of thought to the hide and have in mind what they are presenting to their fellow cacher. My biggest beef with the direction that geocaching is going is the fact there are way too many junk caches. It's not just micros--though they are easier to create--a junk cache can be of any size.

 

You simply can't filter on "lame." Filtering out micos leaves regular-sized junk and you miss the cool micros. You can't create a rating system because of a growing crowd who enjoy the cheap find and would thusly rate a junk cache high.

 

Arguments for easy beginner caches are a ruse because you can still create a satisfying beginner's cache with a nice location and well maintained cache.

 

Arguments for mobility impaired cache are a ruse because Pyewacket creates some great caches and I wonder how the heck she did it. That's not to mention that "park-n-grabs" don't have to be junk either. A stratigic guardrail micro can bring you to a place you would have missed otherwise. "Shoe View" is a perfect example. A micro, no guardrail, but a great view.

 

Junk caches don't have to happen.

[+BlueDeuce]

The quality, when it come to approvers, is not the value of trade items or the cache placement (within guidelines) but rather the state of dis-repair.

 

Archiving a cache by someone other than the owner is in the control of the approver.

 

The "responsibility of monitering" normally can only happen by using the notes posted by cachers.

 

I hope and expect each approver to take responsibility and action when it is necessary.

Edited February 12, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The quality, when it come to approvers, is not the value of trade items or the cache placement (within guidelines) but rather the state of dis-repair.

 

Archiving a cache by someone other than the owner is in the control of the approver.

 

The "responsibility of monitering" normally can only happen by using the notes posted by cachers.

 

I hope and expect each approver to take responsibility and action when it is necessary.

Yes, when caches fall into disrepair, reviewers can archive them if they know about it. However, that's not the topic of this thread.

 

The question is "how are we supposed to discourage low-quality caches?"

 

I'm not after what happens when a cache degrades, that happens to any non-maintained cache. This thread is about poor-quality caches being placed that way.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

Of course, quality is in the eyes of the beholder and we all have our own ideas of what we find of low or high quality.

 

Of course, the approvers can not monitor the caches - that obviously falls to owners & finders who communicate openly with one another to ensure that quality is placed originally & maintained afterwards.

 

Many finders actually help owners by replacing wet logs or containers and doing repairs, as they are able, carrying supplies with them for this purpose. When notifed by email (not in the logs, please) or upon their own regular visits, owners must care for their caches.

 

The responsibility, therefore, falls on each of us to make each caching experience as good or better for those that follow us as it was for us when we first found it. It is truly a shared experience & responsibility.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Of course, quality is in the eyes of the beholder and we all have our own ideas of what we find of low or high quality.

 

Of course, the approvers can not monitor the caches - that obviously falls to owners & finders who communicate openly with one another to ensure that quality is placed originally & maintained afterwards.

 

Many finders actually help owners by replacing wet logs or containers and doing repairs, as they are able, carrying supplies with them for this purpose. When notifed by email (not in the logs, please) or upon their own regular visits, owners must care for their caches.

 

The responsibility, therefore, falls on each of us to make each caching experience as good or better for those that follow us as it was for us when we first found it. It is truly a shared experience & responsibility.

All that may be true, but you're talking about maintenence. That's a different thread. What about caches being placed that way?

[+welch]

I don't recall anyone coming up with a workable test for lame.

Much less a way to apply it equally.

[+horsegeeks]

Here we go again.....

[+BlueDeuce]

The question is "how are we supposed to discourage low-quality caches?"

I am on topic. If the cache is within guidelines the approver is not concerned about the quality unless someone posts a SBA concerning the state of repair.

 

Show me they are involved with trade items and placement (within guidelines), and then I'll discuss whether or not they should be.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The question is "how are we supposed to discourage low-quality caches?"

I am on topic. If the cache is within guidelines the approver is not concerned about the quality unless someone posts a SBA concerning the state of repair.

 

Show me they are involved with trade items and placement (within guidelines), and then I'll discuss whether or not they should be.

Your previous post was all about maintenance, not the quality of the cache.

 

Also, in the original post, I concluded that the reviewers are not responsible for checking the cache's quality. Maybe on virtuals, but not traditional caches.

 

Now, back to the topic:

 

What can we, the geocaching community, do to discourage people from placing lame (low quality) caches? One type of cache commonly associated with "lame" is the micro. Now, there are lame caches of all sizes, but what is it that makes a particular cache lame? How do we stop people from putting that kind out?

 

It doesn't just have to be about lamppost micros on every block (considered lame in many areas). I know it's hard to define "lame"; everyone has a slightly different opinion on it. What other caches are "lame" besides those particular micros?

[+GRANPA ALEX]

Sorry I was not clear but I did mention working together in placing caches 'originally' - we talk to one another and encorouge one another to work within certain quality parameters in placing caches

 

Open friendly & respectful dialog through phone & emails is the place it is done, in addition to times when we are together in person.

 

My thoughts were that we all share responsibility in placing and maintaining quality.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Sorry I was not clear but I did mention working together in placing caches 'originally' - we talk to one another and encorouge one another to work within certain quality parameters in placing caches

 

Open friendly & respectful dialog through phone & emails is the place it is done, in addition to times when we are together in person.

 

My thoughts were that we all share responsibility in placing and maintaining quality.

That's much clearer, I can see your point. If we really have a "community" here, we should be able to tell someone their cache stinks (in a nice way) and have them not get mad about it.

 

Improve cache quality

Step 1: Build relationships with other cachers

[+BlueDeuce]

Now, back to the topic:

 

What can we, the geocaching community, do to discourage people from placing lame (low quality) caches?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about:

 

"The responsibility of monitering the quality is in the approvers hands"

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Now, back to the topic:

 

What can we, the geocaching community, do to discourage people from placing lame (low quality) caches?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about:

 

"The responsibility of monitering the quality is in the approvers hands"

You missed my rhetorical questions following that:

In this other thread, SerenityNow brought up the point, "The responsibility of monitering the quality is in the approvers hands"

 

Is it really? Can a cache approver really know what the "quality" of a cache is by looking at the cache page? Can anyone?

The rest of the original post was the meat of this topic, including a question in bold print:

how are we supposed to discourage low-quality caches?

[+CO Admin]

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. 

 

Maintenance starts the second the cache is placed. its not all just about repair. You assume the responsibility to start with a good cache.

 

lets not start limiting peoples enthusiasm by becoming cache quality police.

[+JMBella]

Sorry I was not clear but I did mention working together in placing caches 'originally' - we talk to one another and encorouge one another to work within certain quality parameters in placing caches

 

Open friendly & respectful dialog through phone & emails is the place it is done,  in addition to times when we are together in person.

 

My thoughts were that we all share responsibility in placing and maintaining quality.

That's much clearer, I can see your point. If we really have a "community" here, we should be able to tell someone their cache stinks (in a nice way) and have them not get mad about it.

 

Improve cache quality

Step 1: Build relationships with other cachers

Exactly. We're going through something similar. It's a tough situation when you have someone who really loves that game and who is liked by the community. The last thing you want is to turn them off from caching entirely. I don't think it's something that can be done through email or phone, it has to be done in person. Subtle hints in the logs would help set up later discussions. Short, logs for their bad caches like, TNLNSL. and when they place a good cache, let them know how good it is. Go out of your way to write a Resounding Review. They will eventually get the message, I hope.

 

Another thing is to lead by example. Make sure your caches are all up to par. No Gladware containers and keep the lamp post micros to an absolute minimum (personally I see no point at all to these but...) I actually went as far as hiding caches that weren't great and called them Lame right in the Title. My thought was that if these were considered lame it would set the bar for as crappy as caches should get. Someone managed to "Out-Lame" me by a long shot.

Edited February 13, 2005 by JMBella

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Sorry I was not clear but I did mention working together in placing caches 'originally' - we talk to one another and encorouge one another to work within certain quality parameters in placing caches

 

Open friendly & respectful dialog through phone & emails is the place it is done,  in addition to times when we are together in person.

 

My thoughts were that we all share responsibility in placing and maintaining quality.

That's much clearer, I can see your point. If we really have a "community" here, we should be able to tell someone their cache stinks (in a nice way) and have them not get mad about it.

 

Improve cache quality

Step 1: Build relationships with other cachers

Exactly. We're going through something similar. It's a tough situation when you have someone who really loves that game and who is liked by the community. The last thing you want is to turn them off from caching entirely. I don't think it's something that can be done through email or phone, it has to be done in person. Subtle hints in the logs would help set up later discussions. Short, logs for their bad caches like, TNLNSL. and when they place a good cache, let them know how good it is. Go out of your way to write a Resounding Review. They will eventually get the message, I hope.

 

Another thing is to lead by example. Make sure your caches are all up to par. No Gladware containers and keep the lamp post micros to an absolute minimum (personally I see no point at all to these but...) I actually went as far as hiding caches that weren't great and called them Lame right in the Title. My thought was that if these were considered lame it would set the bar for as crappy as caches should get. Someone managed to "Out-Lame" me by a long shot.

Excellent points, JMBella

 

Improve cache quality

Step 1: Build relationships with other cachers

Step 2: Emphasize the positive with your logs

 

 

 

 

Stay out of this CO, we're not talking about being cache police. We're trying to find a positive way to improve the quality of caches.

[+Heirbaut Hunters]

Not sure I am in the right thread, but at least I searched the forum

 

In the Netherlands, the number of cachers are growing very fast. Therefore, the number of caches is growing rapidly as well. As such, nothing wrong with it. At this moment, anyone can place a cache; you have found 1 cache ever (or less)? You are allowed to place as many caches as you want. The big drawback here is that many of those caches are not too good or worse than they could have been (personal opinion). But they do apply to the approval rules. Also, approval rules at this moment make it not too easy to place a nice cache because you have to arrange approval from landowners. This can be of great pain because there is only one owner, but more that one trustee.

 

What we can see now, is that people throw in micro's on every corner of the street. Nothing special with that corner; no history, no landmark, no nice view, just a corner. I might well be that in the neighborhood might be something more interesting, or, if the placer of the cache would have taken more time or would have had more geocaching-experience, he might have found a better place where a traditional cache could have been placed.

Approvers can do nothing. The micro on the corner of the street placed by 'John' with 1 found or less does agree to the approval rules, so approval is oke. However, most of the cachers feel this is cache is a real pain and just a cache to own a cache. My feeling is that this poor quality of caches is also maintained by the rules for caches as they are now. Why bother to arrange approval with the landlord/trustees with formal contracts etc etc while at the same time a micro 100 yards further is easy? The approvalrules as they are now bring discredit to geocaching easily.

 

Of course, there are numerous cachers who make the best of it! And although I very much dislike micro's, sometimes it is the only solution.

 

I would plead for additional approval rules:

• A cacher is only allowed to place a cache after 50 founds
  
• For every 10 founds, a cache can be placed
  

To my opinion, this prevents proliferation and brings more quality to caches.

[dunderhead]

My alter ego and I (see "is it ethical?), welcome any and every cache and will hunt them down rejoicing..you guys are spoilt.

I/We are reduced to geodashing..but that's OK..so far..oh for the day there's only one of us and he is whingeing about quality.

[+Heirbaut Hunters]

...welcome any and every cache...

including the garbage and rubbish not worth naming it a geocache. There goes a beautiful hobby down the drain...

[+briansnat]

would plead for additional approval rules:

 

* A cacher is only allowed to place a cache after 50 founds

* For every 10 founds, a cache can be placed

 

To my opinion, this prevents proliferation and brings more quality to caches.

 

Some of the best caches I've found were placed by people with a handful of finds and some of the worst where placed by people with thousands of finds. The number of finds has nothing to do with the quality of caches placed. In fact I've noticed that the caches of some big numbers cachers often go unmaintained, because they're usually out hunting caches, not fixing up their own.

 

As for your one cache per 10 finds rule, it would eliminate those who enjoy placing caches, but really aren't into searching for them.

[+The Leprechauns]

The proposal would foreclose caches like Swamp Thing, placed by a guy who was a geocacher for just one weekend back in 2002. Only 27 people have signed the logbook over the past four years. It's one of the caches I look at to tell who is really serious about finding good geocaches in my area.

 

In contrast, one of the top geocachers in our state, measured by find count, put a micro in the parking lot of his local Wal-Mart over the weekend. His hide meets the proposed rule described above. Yay for that.

 

I think we have quite enough rules for what ought to be a simple game. If you don't like a particular style of hide or a particular cache, either ignore it or express your opinion in a polite way.

[+Frettchen_2006]

As a newbie to all this, I plan to seek out the local vets for help in placing my first cache, whenever that may be. I don't think more rules should be introduced, else they would be 10 pages long and not many would read them anyway

 

However, I think it should be strongly encouraged for newbie/first time planters (regardless of number of finds, be it 1 or 1000) to seek out their local caching vets for tips, tricks, or maybe even ask them to go with you to place that first cache. Yes, it would kind of spoil it for that one vet, but wouldn't it be nice to place a cache knowing you've done all you could, and double checked it, to make your cache the best to your ability? Even if you've planted it already, you could always ask that someone do a "test run" and check your coordinates, hints, etc.

 

Maybe that falls under communication, but a 'mentor-like' program would definitely appeal to this newbie

[Tahosa and Sons]

I would plead for additional approval rules:

• A cacher is only allowed to place a cache after 50 founds
  
• For every 10 founds, a cache can be placed
  

To my opinion, this prevents proliferation and brings more quality to caches.

Rules like that can do nothing for the quality of the cache. Finding 50 caches in local parks, bike paths, Walmart Parking lots would not give the needed experience to hide a quality cache in the mountains. And when I joined on 9/1/01 there were few if any caches in the back country in No CO. So I decided to alleviate that problem with the placement of this cache. And I hid that cache on 9/26/01 but didn't even find my first cache until 10/03/01.

 

And if I were to place a cache for every 10 finds my hides would be short of the number that I have out there. And now that the weather is starting to open up, I won't have time to look for caches because I have to do a lot of hikes just to keep up the maintenance and quality of those caches in the hills.

 

Some of us are hiders which is the lifeblood of this game, and some are hunters. Some like micros and won't hike in the hills. Some of us like virtuals and dislike the thought of a tupperware container in a city park. And those nasty micros that many dislike can be a good cache for those that are physically impaired and can't do the challenging ones. Its quite simple if you don't like the cache that has been hid, well then just ignore it and look for what you like. And if there is nothing out there that appeals to you then hide one to meet your criteria, maybe someone else will like it and look for it. But don't forget the maintence after you hide it.

[+Team Laxson]

I would plead for additional approval rules:

• A cacher is only allowed to place a cache after 50 founds
  
• For every 10 founds, a cache can be placed
  

To my opinion, this prevents proliferation and brings more quality to caches.

Rules like that can do nothing for the quality of the cache. Finding 50 caches in local parks, bike paths, Walmart Parking lots would not give the needed experience to hide a quality cache in the mountains. And when I joined on 9/1/01 there were few if any caches in the back country in No CO. So I decided to alleviate that problem with the placement of this cache. And I hid that cache on 9/26/01 but didn't even find my first cache until 10/03/01.

 

And if I were to place a cache for every 10 finds my hides would be short of the number that I have out there. And now that the weather is starting to open up, I won't have time to look for caches because I have to do a lot of hikes just to keep up the maintenance and quality of those caches in the hills.

 

Some of us are hiders which is the lifeblood of this game, and some are hunters. Some like micros and won't hike in the hills. Some of us like virtuals and dislike the thought of a tupperware container in a city park. And those nasty micros that many dislike can be a good cache for those that are physically impaired and can't do the challenging ones. Its quite simple if you don't like the cache that has been hid, well then just ignore it and look for what you like. And if there is nothing out there that appeals to you then hide one to meet your criteria, maybe someone else will like it and look for it. But don't forget the maintence after you hide it.

Well said. I can read the passion you have for gecaching.

 

BTW, we'll be hunting some of your caches later this year. I still need to go find The Old Ranch. How 'bout a GEO-TOUR in the area?

[+Heirbaut Hunters]

Ok. So the rules I plead for do not help to the opinion of many of you. But what may help? Mentoring may help, but cannot be made compulsory. Live and let live, don't know if that helps. Also, I am not sure whether or not areas in the States are so full that there is a cache every corner of the street. In NL, these areas exist.

Of course, having all kind of micro-hit-and-run caches have admirers as well and I respect that if the purpose was hit and run. Just want to discuss possibilities for the quality of caches without dealing with the personal opinion of approvers.

 

To have a few more rules, I do not care. Rules like 'no fire-arms in caches' do not apply here. Neither does 'no drugs in caches'; why would anyone put drugs in a cache here while you can get them more easily than a cache (oops )

 

So, iso yelling NO, help me with thinking possibilities, please

[+Team Snorkasaurus]

It seems self evident that we all have differing opinions of what makes a high quality cache versus a low quality one. Instead of criticizing other folks caches, I would suggest we start by looking at our own caches and caching habits:

 

1. Make sure the caches we place are as high quality as possible.

2. Maintain our caches regularly!

3. Praise the excellent caches placed by other folks.

 

If we place and maintain caches that are of high quality, we become an example for others. The quality of these caches will be reflected in the comments left by fellow geocachers. We should also be sure to praise the high quality caches we find, this lets other folks know in a very positive way that we appreciated their efforts and encourages future quality cache placement. "TNLNSL-TFTC" type logs are not particularly encouraging and seem insufficient when logging a truly excellent cache find.

 

If there are certain caches/cache types you feel are of poor quality or that you simply don't enjoy, then don't seek them out. Understand that just because you don't personally enjoy a specific type of cache doesn't mean that other folks are necessarily going to agree. I also believe that we should be prepared to help maintain the caches we find. If I locate a cache that needs some maintenance help, I will do whatever I can to leave it better than I found it thereby improving the experience for the next geocacher. Certainly a broken, rusty, water-logged geocache container will not be many people's idea of high quality, but it seems like much of this topic is quite subjective and unlikely to result in much more than disagreement. If we want to see better caches, why not simply provide an example by placing and maintaining better caches ourselves...

 

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Mahatma Gandhi

 

Edited April 3, 2006 by Team Snorkasaurus

[+fox-and-the-hound]

It seems self evident that we all have differing opinions of what makes a high quality cache versus a low quality one. Instead of criticizing other folks caches, I would suggest we start by looking at our own caches and caching habits:

 

1. Make sure the caches we place are as high quality as possible.

2. Maintain our caches regularly!

3. Praise the excellent caches placed by other folks.

 

If we place and maintain caches that are of high quality, we become an example for others. The quality of these caches will be reflected in the comments left by fellow geocachers. We should also be sure to praise the high quality caches we find, this lets other folks know in a very positive way that we appreciated their efforts and encourages future quality cache placement. "TNLNSL-TFTC" type logs are not particularly encouraging and seem insufficient when logging a truly excellent cache find.

 

If there are certain caches/cache types you feel are of poor quality or that you simply don't enjoy, then don't seek them out. Understand that just because you don't personally enjoy a specific type of cache doesn't mean that other folks are necessarily going to agree. I also believe that we should be prepared to help maintain the caches we find. If I locate a cache that needs some maintenance help, I will do whatever I can to leave it better than I found it thereby improving the experience for the next geocacher. Certainly a broken, rusty, water-logged geocache container will not be many people's idea of high quality, but it seems like much of this topic is quite subjective and unlikely to result in much more than disagreement. If we want to see better caches, why not simply provide an example by placing and maintaining better caches ourselves...

 

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

Amen and well said! Your caches say a lot about who you are. We want people to search for our caches because they know who put them there, not just because they are there. Every area has it's standouts, we're fortunate to have a few. We want to be on that standout list. Say... there's an idea. How about a top10 type list of best caches and cache setters in an area voted annually. You can only elect another cacher or cache, not yourself or your own. Some people like incentive and this might be fun!

Edited April 3, 2006 by fox-and-the-hound

[dunderhead]

...welcome any and every cache...

including the garbage and rubbish not worth naming it a geocache. There goes a beautiful hobby down the drain...

 

OK I'll sit at home and sulk.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I say “post it as you see fit!”

I did one over the summer, is said “Contents – our usual stuff”.

 

When I got there, one of the first to find it, it was all geojunk to say the least.

I did a T/0 L/0, and posted I’d had seen, much better caches, that were older and hadn’t been maintained in a long time.

I couldn’t believe the condition!

I refused to hunt another one of their cachers.

 

SF1

 

I find your assumptions (i.e., those behind your statements) to be very interesting and they are:

• You seem to be saying that if there are now lousy trade items in a cache, then the cache hider must be responsible, that she or he must had placed lousy trade items in the cache to start with.
  
• You seem to be assuming that it is the reponsibility of the cache owner to constantly check on the quality of trade items and to upgrade them as needed to ensure constant high quality of trade items in their cache.
  
• You also seem to be saying that the quality of a cache is largely -- or entirely -- dependent upon the quality of the trade items to be found in it.
  

Well, here are my thoughts on the matter, arranged in the same order as the three bulleted assumptions listed above:

• In my experience, most cache owners (aka hiders) tend to place pretty good trade items in their new caches. However, if I am not one of the first four to eight finders, then the trade items which I will find in the cache will have little or no relationship to the quality of the trade items left by the hider (i.e., the original cache owner.) Rather, the trade items which I will find in the cache at that time will reflect the trading habits and the values (shudder !) of the previous four to ten (or more) cache finders. And, as many other threads have discussed, if the cache is located in easy terrain and is one which can be quite easily found, and is therefore rather family-friendly and kid-friendly, then, as we all know, the quality of the trade items will often decrease drastically after the first four to ten finders, because, whether we like it or not, many folks, particularly families with kids, trade down. In fact, many families with kids trade down drastically, and may caches which are easily found by families with kids end up loaded with only cookie crumbs, dirt and broken McToys in short order; this is where the jokes about McToys come from! On the other hand, if a cache has a rather high Difficulty and Terrain rating, and is hidden in a place where it cannot be accidentally muggled, then families with kids cannot access the cache, and the quality of trade items tends to remain very high. This is a very well-known phenomenon.
  
• My own personal feeling is that it is not the responsibilty of the cache owner to check on the quality of trade items curreently in the cache and to replace or upgrade items as needed. Rather, I feel that quality of trade items is entirely a function of, and a reflection of the values of, the local caching community, and not of the cache owner.
  
• Speaking for myself, the quality and quantity of trade items in a cache is a very minor and inconsequential issue. I do not seek caches in order to find trade items. I seek caches which are interesting hides placed in interesting places and where the journey to the cache will be interesting and fun as well. However, I must admit that I do get a bit grossed out when I find a cache (and they are almost always caches which are easily accessible to families with kids) which is filled with crumbs, broken McToys and a bit of dirt. Yuck!
  

[+tomturtle]

Perhaps creating a new feature on the cache page to allow people to rate the cache would help. There is a feature like that on terracaching.com which seems to work well. If the cache is rated too low, the cache could be referred to a reviewer to see if there is a problem or maybe it could just automatically be archived if it gets too low.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

It seems self evident that we all have differing opinions of what makes a high quality cache versus a low quality one. Instead of criticizing other folks caches, I would suggest we start by looking at our own caches and caching habits:

 

1. Make sure the caches we place are as high quality as possible.

2. Maintain our caches regularly!

3. Praise the excellent caches placed by other folks.

 

If we place and maintain caches that are of high quality, we become an example for others. The quality of these caches will be reflected in the comments left by fellow geocachers. We should also be sure to praise the high quality caches we find, this lets other folks know in a very positive way that we appreciated their efforts and encourages future quality cache placement. "TNLNSL-TFTC" type logs are not particularly encouraging and seem insufficient when logging a truly excellent cache find.

 

If there are certain caches/cache types you feel are of poor quality or that you simply don't enjoy, then don't seek them out. Understand that just because you don't personally enjoy a specific type of cache doesn't mean that other folks are necessarily going to agree. I also believe that we should be prepared to help maintain the caches we find. If I locate a cache that needs some maintenance help, I will do whatever I can to leave it better than I found it thereby improving the experience for the next geocacher. Certainly a broken, rusty, water-logged geocache container will not be many people's idea of high quality, but it seems like much of this topic is quite subjective and unlikely to result in much more than disagreement. If we want to see better caches, why not simply provide an example by placing and maintaining better caches ourselves...

 

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

I feel that this was very well said! I agree! Thank you!

[gerboa]

...welcome any and every cache...

including the garbage and rubbish not worth naming it a geocache. There goes a beautiful hobby down the drain...

 

OK I'll sit at home and sulk.

 

Yes looks like the old "There goes the neighbourhood syndrome"

 

Surely we can protect ourselves from the riff-raff and "great unwashed" who are infiltrating

 

our beautiful hobby.

 

Apart from setting up an exclusive group of beautiful people, perhaps all caches submitted should be bought

 

from Niemann Marcus with an accompanying certificate, and that a lawyer will attest to the good standing of

 

the cachers in the community A further assessment might be made to see that the name does not offend

 

anyone. There must be numerous bodies happy to weigh in here.

 

An exclusive plot may be sought in the locale..probably the country/golf club where one need not come into

 

contact with undesirables. All this should satisfy the requirements of the beautiful sport.

 

No doubt someone with the "let it all hang out" mentality will demur, but what do they matter?

 

"Down the drain"...Hey someone actually hides stuff in drains..reach for the smelling salts.

[+Frettchen_2006]

There must be numerous bodies happy to weigh in here.

 

well...this body certainly isn't happy to be weighed in...a girl must keep her secrets

 

[+headybrew]

I feel the quality decision should NOT be made by the approver. They should apply the guidelines, nothing more.

 

They have far too much work to do to judge quality. And also, no one person should have that much power.

 

What is quality? All I can say is that quality is in the eye of the beholder. So it follows that the beholder, ie the members of this site, should be the ones to judge quality.

 

Rules have been mentioned. But who wants more rules? And who will enforce them? The already over-burdened approvers?

 

It has been discussed in this thread that the users can post an SBA log if they really feel that cache stinks. But that 1) is intended for caches that are outside the guidlines, not just "lame" and 2) may anger the hider.

So it seems the only option is to "politely" express your opinion.

 

Well, that's not much of an option is it? Wouldn't it be nice if the web site had some mechanism for quantifying the "beholders'" collective opinions? Some way to anonymously vote on a cache so that it is rated and the potential seeker can see that it's rated a 1 or a 10, and thus have something in additon to the description to go on?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Some of us like micros, some of us don't. In general, that's a matter of personal preference. I've found some rather pathetic ones, but I've also found some really good ones. The same is true of more traditional caches. Then again, some don't even look at mystery caches. Others love them. Personal preference.

I'm not big into 'swag'. It would seem to me that the quality of swag seems to be the responsibility of traders. Oddly, my Dollar Tree frogs seem to be quite popular. Who'd a thunk?

So, let's discuss cache quality that is not related to any of the above. Cache Owner A has a series of offset caches. "Go to this location, and count the number of x, y and z." Fair enough. That's what offset caches are all about. We'll even ignore, for the moment, that this cache owner seems to be spelling disadvantaged. "Count the number of platforms." That seems to depend on where you are standing, and which platforms should be counted. There are three options here. "Number of tierson the ladder." Finally figured out that what is meant is the number of rungs on the monkey bar. It's up in the air, and horizontal. It's not a ladder; it's a monkey bar. The closest thing to a ladder is the three tires connected by rope. But that number would be wrong. 'Black rolers'? After further clarification, black treads on the inclined ramp are what are meant. They do not roll. On another cache, digits were transposed. That was corrected after five DNFs.

Outside of 'ignore', what can be done about such a cache hider? E-mails for clarification are ignored.

This seems to me to be a major 'cache quality' problem. The reviewer has not been to the spot, and does not realize that the clues are screwed up. What is the proper way to handle this situation?

[+Logscaler and Red]

In this other thread, SerenityNow brought up the point, "The responsibility of monitering the quality is in the approvers hands"

 

Is it really? Can a cache approver really know what the "quality" of a cache is by looking at the cache page? Can anyone?

 

What makes a cache high or low quality? Is it the wording on the cache page? How about the fancy graphics some people add to it? Is the quality determined by the container? The location? The proximity to some historic site?

 

How do you know until you get there?

 

If it's not the cache reviewer's job to judge quality, then it must be up to the people that find the cache. Certainly the finders will give an honest description of the quality in their logs.

 

Wait, you mean they don't want to hurt the hider's feelings by telling the truth?

 

Great, then how are we supposed to discourage low-quality caches?

 

Peer pressure.

 

Local cachers swapping ideas at events will express what kind of caches will be accepted by the local caching community.

 

Pull no punches on your logs ONLY if you have a personal relationship with the cache hider. IE, chatted at events, hunted caches together, exchanged cache ideas, etc. Some people are very thin skinned these days and will take offense very easy.

 

If you have a lot of people signing your cache with only "TNLNSL", you might want to re-think your cache.

 

Yes, there is a spot for the drive by micro's for those who have physical limitations, kids, mobility problems, etc.

 

If you placed a micro cache at a historical locations, when that is the purpose to bring people to a location, maybe a "Waypoint" would be better served at these areas instead now that there is a website for this very thing.

 

There is also a spot for micro's in muggle prone area's. After all, who want's to loose a full sized cache when you could just loose a film can? At these locations, I tend to make a multi-stage cache hunt where possible.

 

The challange is to place a quality cache in areas you would want to bring people to.

 

Some people are just not up to the challange of placing a quality cache.

 

Some of us can think outside the box, other just outside a film can.

 

My nickels worth. If you want change, meet me on the trails somewhere.

 

Logscaler.

[vhs07]

...welcome any and every cache...

including the garbage and rubbish not worth naming it a geocache. There goes a beautiful hobby down the drain...

Not everyone lives in highly cache populated areas. I Joined 1 year ago this month and our town of 65,000 people had 5 hides in it then. Through the efforts of myself and a cache couple from Austin, we've increased that number to around 40. Yes, some are what I see referred to as "lame micros" but they are caches neverless. Actually, the one lamp post micro that we have, stumped me when it was first put out. I didn't know the "skirt" would lift up. I thought it was neat, as I had never seen one like it before. There was nothing "lame" about it to me. There are no mountians around here to hide on to give the finder a great view, no place to give the finder a long hike. The parks around here are mostly small. All property out of town is privatly owned, so we're mainly left to roadside hides, city and county parks, and the urban micros. I'm glad to see new caches and really happy to see new hiders. I only have 75 finds, but would never refer to any cache that I've found as "garbage and rubbish" as you do. If I lived in an area with hundreds and hundreds of hides, I might be more selective of what I look for. But since I don't, I will continue to look for any cache that's placed here and will be glad someone went to the trouble to place it.

[salmoned]

When a cache is trash, I CITO it. When a cache is lame, I "Found it." When a cache doesn't meet the guidelines, I SBA it. My personal opinion overrides anyone and everyone else's when choosing a course of action. If you're really concerned about cache quality, get rid of the lousy ones. What purpose is served by this continual whining? A cache exists at the discretion of each and every finder...

Edited April 6, 2006 by edchen

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

When a cache is trash, I CITO it. When a cache is lame, I "Found it." When a cache doesn't meet the guidelines, I SBA it. My personal opinion overrides anyone and everyone else's when choosing a course of action. If you're really concerned about cache quality, get rid of the lousy ones. What purpose is served by this continual whining? A cache exists at the discretion of each and every finder...

 

Ahem. . .

 

. . .are you talking "Geocache Vigilante" here, as in "Geocache Police Gone Wild", or did I miss something? I think I am horrified, but my dark side is starting to like this...

 

sigh!

 

[vhs07]

When a cache is trash, I CITO it. When a cache is lame, I "Found it." When a cache doesn't meet the guidelines, I SBA it. My personal opinion overrides anyone and everyone else's when choosing a course of action. If you're really concerned about cache quality, get rid of the lousy ones. What purpose is served by this continual whining? A cache exists at the discretion of each and every finder...

How do you"Get rid of the lousy ones" ??

[salmoned]

How do I get rid of the lousy ones? I described that in the first 3 sentences.

 

No, no vigilante force, just personal responsibility for the world around me.