Hypocrisy In Caching... Surely Not

[+Pharisee]

Thanks for the feedback, guys. It's been interesting and informative.

Out of curiosity I checked all the caches that have been placed in the last month (placed on or after 15/03/05).

 

321 Traditionals (of which 57 are micros)

109 Multis (of which 17 are micros)

45 Mystery caches

13 Event caches

7 Letterbox caches

6 Earth caches

2 Virtuals (1 is the Old survey Monument cache)

 

So it's running at about 2:1 Trad : Multi/Mystery

 

MCL made one point that sort of rang true...

They get their main pleasure out of setting the things, not out of doing other people's.

 

I certainly got a lot of pleasure from the work and preparation involved in setting the more recent caches I've placed and I also get a lot of pleasure from reading the logs when people succeed in completing them. I even get a chuckle from the logs of one particular local cacher (often out caching with his dad ) who complains bitterly at every step and calls me a lot of rotten names.... but he still goes out and does them

 

However... I think it's time I set a couple more fiendishly simple traditional caches for those that prefer them. No offsets, no puzzles just a straightforward 'I hide it, you find it' sort of thing. "Mad Igor's Revenge" can go on the 'back burner' for a while

[+-Phoenix-]

Or the sugegstion that certain people are hijacking the concept.

 

One of the great things about GC is that its constantly evolving, and you very frequently see a new twists on the theme that adds yet another dimension to the whole concept.

 

Unless you are prepared to stand up and say that GC is absolutly perfect the way it is and any/all innovation along the theme is to be stamped out then developements are to be encouraged

[+Chris n Maria]

It's fine to not be a fan of a particular type of cache. What I take exception to is someone saying that because they are not a fan of them, that makes them 'not caches'.

 

T

It happened with virtuals And they became almost impossible to place.

Edited April 15, 2005 by Chris n Maria

[+Happy Humphrey]

Alan,

There've been a few puzzle caches placed recently where the locations have no special value

Although (obviously) I prefer caches that are in a location of interest, some areas are not really that scenic. In my opinion, that's exactly where the puzzle cache comes into its own. After all, if the scenery is superb, it's best to just set a simple trad cache and allow people to log their compliments on your fine choice of location.

 

I wouldn't expect to be taken to a complete dump to log a cache: but if a rather average area is the destination, why not add a bit of interest to the experience through your own ingenuity and creativity? I would question the value of straightforward caches where the location has no special interest, however.

 

By the way, I'm not very good at puzzles .

 

HH.

[+-Phoenix-]

Puzzles should go in locations of marginal interest, putting a Puzzle in a top class location, that is really a must see place excludes the placing of a conventional cache there, and consequently only brings it to the attentipn of thte minority of puzzle cachers

[+John Stead]

Although (obviously) I prefer caches that are in a location of interest, some areas are not really that scenic. In my opinion, that's exactly where the puzzle cache comes into its own. After all, if the scenery is superb, it's best to just set a simple trad cache and allow people to log their compliments on your fine choice of location.

 

I wouldn't expect to be taken to a complete dump to log a cache: but if a rather average area is the destination, why not add a bit of interest to the experience through your own ingenuity and creativity? I would question the value of straightforward caches where the location has no special interest, however.

 

By the way, I'm not very good at puzzles .

 

HH.

Not for the first time I find myself in full agreement with HH - creep that I am!

And that includes his last remark - now back to that puzzle I have been scratching my head over for a week or so and got a hint at the DomHeKnows event on Wednesday.

[Team 'James W']

and the 5 math series which are very easy since they are based upon GCSE math

 

...I can see a Mathematics MSc series coming up for you, Phoenix!

[+-Phoenix-]

As I recall I got a slap on the wrist for skipping class on the math series, and had to catch up on some of the coursework.

 

MSC maths huh....., though if you make it much harder than One in the Eye, then nobody will get it!

[Team 'James W']

Hmmm... I'll leave that one for Mrs James W I think, maths isn't my strongest point. (I found the GCSE series quite challenging during testing!)

 

As I recall I got a slap on the wrist for skipping class on the math series, and had to catch up on some of the coursework.

...Teacher must have been wrong, as the student turned out to be a star pupil in the end!!

 

FWIW I like caches with a long walk in/difficult approach/'wilderness' caches. Caching in mid wales/lakes/dales etc. is a treat.

 

James

 

(Editied for friday afternoon stupidity)

Edited April 15, 2005 by Team 'James W'

[+Kitty Hawk]

I don't understand why people get worked up about cache styles that don't suit them.

 

At the top of the cache listing is a box saying "Ignore listing". If you click on this button, whenever you do a search the offending cache will not appear and it will be as if it was never set.

 

Do it now, then you can be relaxed all weekend. No one will know.

[+Pieman]

Personally, I would only put my puzzle caches somewhere I thought was also interesting. I dare say there are excellent puzzles placed in not very interesting locations (although I have not yet done one). There are also 1/2 star difficulty caches in boring locations (of which I have done a very small number). Still don't see any problem with puzzle caches.

[MCL]

At the top of the cache listing is a box saying "Ignore listing". If you click on this button, whenever you do a search the offending cache will not appear and it will be as if it was never set.

 

Do it now, then you can be relaxed all weekend. No one will know.

Yes, Kittyhawk, but that is only for premium members.

 

Since I have no use for any of the other facilities that paying the fee gains me, I don't consider it worth it. That is, however, my own decision, I will admit.

[+Jan and the Percey Boys]

As the setter of one in the eye I suppose I ought to add my 2 pennyworth.

 

we like all types of caches

 

The younger boys like those which you have to gather clues around a village

and the bl**dy Mc D toys

 

I like puzzles that tax my head a bit

 

We all like the views and interesting locations often revisiting when we aren't caching - Hope Mountain has become a regular place to take the dog on a sunday afternoon

 

I accept that I enjoy the research to write descriptions of history. I like the opportunity to read the logs and see that peoples different views of a cache can be so varied. some people see it as too easy others too hard. so for instance one of mine I was berated for putting the difficulty too high and then a very experienced cacher spent 30 minutes looking for it and only found it by treading on it

 

I just fail to see peoples problems. Everybody comes to caching from different directions and with different backgrounds. Some are walkers and outdoor types, some computer nerds others puzzlers, mathmaticians, engineers etc etc. they therefore have different preferences and different goals in cahe finding and setting. Caching is not an exclusive club (and if it was I wouldn't want to be a member)

 

So keep on setting the types you like and finding those you like and ignore the rest

 

Bob - the oldest Percey Boy

[+Stuey]

So keep on setting the types you like and finding those you like and ignore the rest

Couldn't have summed it up better myself

[MCL]

Some interesting followups to my last post. A few people may have misinterpreted what i was trying to say.

 

First, when I use the term "puzzle cache" I am NOT using it in the current (new) definition given to it by GC.COM. but rather in the way I have always used it to refer to a lot of other caches that require a disproportionate amount of effort to do. maybe I should have called them "challenge" caches, because this includes some of the long, drawn-out multi caches that actually rate as a 1 or 2 difficulty, yet require six hours of walk to do them. Or again, they are simple multi caches rated difficulty 2 that happen to have 26 easy micro stages on the way.

 

I was only pointing out that recently there are a lot of new caches that fall into this category, and end up (as Pharisee was pointing out when he started this thread) not being done very much because frankly most people can't be bothered to allocate that much time to a single cache. You can argue as much as you like that these are perfectly valid caches and they should be allowed to be set and you are right but it is a hollow argument, because it doesn't get past the fact that they are just not being *done* by the majority of cachers. People are voting with their feet!

 

Secondly, we need to nail the lie that "since most caches being set are level 1 and 2, then theres not a problem"....No. There isn't a "problem" per se, because as someone pointed out, you just don't bother doing the ones you don't like the look of. But I do want to make the point that just because a new cache is set at level 1 or 2 (and the figure for 2 was higher than for 1) it can't *also* happen to be one of the awkward squad. Take an example cache which has, say, 15 clues to find from the fronts of buildings around a town. There is nothing "difficult" in doing any of the 15 and the multi ends up with a rating of 1 or 2, but it does happen to take eight and a half hours to do on foot. This places it within my group of "challenge" caches even though the statisticians among us overlook them and say "oh thats one of the easy ones" See what I mean?

 

Thirdly, I want to make it clear that i am not advocating the banning of these caches, (everyone has a right to lay them if they wish). So please don't think I am. I am not trying to restrict the freedom of people to do and set whatever caches they like. I was simply responding to Pharisee's original point by agreeing with him that yes, these caches do have a low find-rate and I was attempting to explain why. I still stand by my basic reasoning that it is the challenge/puzzle element that is putting the majority off, and yes of course there are still going to be people who do them but it is so sad to see all that effort by a setter, go into placing an awkward cache, sometimes with a great deal of outlay by the owner, only to see no-one or very few people actually attempt it. What a waste of time, effort, and money? ESPECIALLY when at the end of the day the cache setter starts to feel despondent about the fact that no-one is doing his cache!

 

I'm trying to explain to people why this situation is happening and how they can get out of it.

 

If I might be so bold as to lay out my own rules of thumb about how I approach a cache.

 

- If it is likely to take about an hour or less, then do it whatever it is.

- If it is likely to take more than two hours it goes in a special "Do I really want to do this cache" category that needs further investigation.

- I then take that special pile of caches and look hard at each one, trying to figure out why it will take so long. Is it because of large amounts of walking that could be trimmed by clever use of the car? (I'm limited to about a mile walk in one go because of arthritis) Or sometime split over a couple of trips/days? Another possibility is that a long multi can be partly solved by judicious use of alternate resources (yes, I mean Google, numbnuts!).

 

- Those that come through this vetting as worthy of doing because they take in a lot of historical interest etc may well be tackled in bits, or all at once, but they may equally well be discarded as simply "not worth the aggro". They may have no other interest value to them so I just don't do them. Caches that are likely to take many hours go in a special pile, and these have their printouts burned in a special ceremony which I find hugely satisfying and therapeutic. (What is it with guys and fires?)

 

These are entirley my own rules of thumb, and I humbly submit them only for illustrative purposes.

 

I thought the idea of caching was to find caches. I thought the idea of placing a cache was to have people find it. So when a cache owner has gone out of his way to make sure I can't find his cache, then I asssume he doesn't want it found and am only too happy to oblige.

 

Finally, I have to 'fess up about that log I wrote mentioning a cache that took me several days but which I nevertheless though was worth it in the end. Though my memory is a bit vague, I believe the cache was Masher's "Mission Impossible (beds)" when the great hook with this one was the clever bits of electronic equipment you had to operate all along the way. Guaranteed to appeal to a gadget freak like me! However, that cache was an exception, outstanding in it's own field (literally!). Very few other multis I have done come anywhere close. Sadly it is currently archived.

 

I also happen to be someone who enjoys solving puzzles. But I don't want to combine it with geocaching. I prefer to keep them separate. But that is just *my* preference.

[+Kitty Hawk]

At the top of the cache listing is a box saying "Ignore listing".  If you click on this button, whenever you do a search the offending cache will not appear and it will be as if it was never set.

 

Do it now, then you can be relaxed all weekend. No one will know.

Yes, Kittyhawk, but that is only for premium members.

 

Since I have no use for any of the other facilities that paying the fee gains me, I don't consider it worth it. That is, however, my own decision, I will admit.

Didn't realise it was members only.

[+Kitty Hawk]

I don't think that a cache setter setting a tricky cache with high difficulty would be disappointed by there being few finders, I think they would expect it, both from experience of other caches and knowing that the majority wouldn't take up the challenge.

 

There is a smallish percentage of cachers who enjoy a tricky cache, either setting one or the achivement of finding one. There are another group who would save a tricky cache to mark passing a milestone.

 

However, everyone (almost) is short of time and any cache that says "This will take you two minutes" is marked 1/1 and is in an area of decent cacher density will, by default, have a huge number of finds.

 

Any factor that reduces the convenience of a cache will reduce the number of finders. Ammo boxes are easier to find than micro's, traditionals are easier than multi's, 1/1's are easier than 2/2 which are easier than 3/3 and a cache out in the sticks will have fewer finders than one in, say, London.

 

I don't think people are voting with their feet, I think the second hand on their watch is doing the voting. (Oh, and the kids)

 

But it doesn't matter, variety is the spice of life, more variety will encourage more people into caching.

 

It would be a mundane hobby if the game was - Park the car, walk up that alley 0.1mile, find an ammo box under a bush with some parallel sticks on top, move on to next cache. Good for numbers, and these caches have their place, but they wouldn't further the hobby.

 

I'm speaking as someone whose closest to home cache is a 4.5/5 and I can't find it, and I've not used the ignore button. However, I will have a fifth attempt soon.

[+Happy Humphrey]

There are plenty of good opinions in this thread - thank for starting an interesting one, Pharisee!

 

I'd just like to make an observation on MCL's latest long post: a cache that takes over eight hours is surely mis-classified as a 1 or 2 difficulty. It it might help the cache owner if a private mail is sent suggesting an increase in rating, rather than just ignoring the cache through annoyance and frustration.

 

Even if no single part of the trail is difficult, the accumulated effort in getting round all the stages has to make the overall difficulty level quite high - I can't think that any cache that takes more than an hour minimum can really be difficulty level one.

 

HH.

[+Happy Humphrey]

This one sums up the problem of Difficult Cache Syndrome (DiCS for short!)