Requiring Finds Before Hiding Caches

[+geognerd]

Just wanna get opinions about this idea: Require a geocaching.com user to have logged at least 25 finds before allowing the user to place a new cache.

 

A new geocacher in my area placed a couple of caches in questionable locations, one of which was removed by the land manager. I feel that if a person has more experience geocaching, they are more knowledgeable of the rules and customs, and thus less likely to place caches that will be removed or muggled. Thoughts?

[+Renegade Knight]

Finding caches doesn't teach you anythign but how other people hide them. Being able to place them when you get the creative itch allows for the maximum creativity. The problem you noted would not have changed had they found 1 or 200 caches. Placing and finding are two different skill sets.

[+The Leprechauns]

Suppose you live in a rural area, there are only ten caches within 25 miles of you, and you discover geocaching while surfing the 'net. You're an experienced outdoorsman, and you know the perfect spot for a cache near a beautiful view of a river vally five miles away from your house. But first, you find those ten caches, and you conclude that an ammo box is the best type of container.

 

How's it fair to keep this hypothetical person from hiding a cache at a cool spot until he first drives hundreds of miles to find other ones?

[+Team Perks]

Keep in mind that the first cache was hidden by someone who had never found one.

 

The best caches I've found have actually been by people with very few finds. I'd hate to have missed out on those great caches because they didn't visit enough lampposts beforehand.

[Jeremy]

It is impractical. Since they agreed to the guidelines I think it would be more appropriate that they pass a reading test before placing a cache. But unfortunately that would be difficult to implement and enforce.

[+Marky]

There was a hider in the area whose caches are rated among some of the best in the area (and that's saying something, considering the density and quality in our area). At the time some of them were hidden, I think he had less than 10 finds.

 

--Marky

[+Glenn]

It is impractical. Since they agreed to the guidelines I think it would be more appropriate that they pass a reading test before placing a cache. But unfortunately that would be difficult to implement and enforce.

Instead of a check box you can make them have to type the words I agree in a text box.

 

Check boxes are so common now I sometimes catch myself checking without reading what I have just checked, just so I can get to the next page quicker. Making people type out I agree won't still get everyone to read the rules or follow them. But, it will get the attention of more people than the current check boxes do.

[+pghlooking]

Instead of a check box you can make them have to type the words I agree in a text box.

Oh sure. Make me cut and paste now.

[+as77]

The Hungarian geocaching website has a rule that says that people must find at least 20 caches outside the capital city in order to hide a cache. It has worked pretty well over several years now. (They have a number of other interesting rules, too, e.g. each "found" log requires a password that is hidden in the cache.)

[+geognerd]

Lots of excellent responses, which is what I was looking for. The Hungarian geocaching site rules mentioned seem sort of authoritarian, but fair. Good point about rural areas. My old hometown in Texas only had a handful of caches 6 months ago. Now it looks like they've got well over a dozen. So in rural areas, a 20-25 find requirement would make things tough for geocaching to grow. Someone has to plant the first seed, so to speak. I think our sport does an excellent job at policing itself, and you would have to agree that geocachers do look out for each other and the health of the sport.

[+Yamar]

Since they agreed to the guidelines I think it would be more appropriate that they pass a reading test before placing a cache. But unfortunately that would be difficult to implement and enforce.

It would be easier, as I've suggested, to implement many of the checks during submission time as warnings. Many of the rules are codeable such that warnings or errors can help reduce the load of the approvers so that only the acknowledged exception requests need to be dealt with.

[+fly46]

Coming from one of those areas where there weren't 25 caches... In order to find my first one, I'd have to travel at least 25 miles for that many finds... I like the system how it is now - and my first cache gets lots of finds and is still there over a year later.

[Charles Iverson]

Just wanna get opinions about this idea:  Require a geocaching.com user to have logged at least 25 finds before allowing the user to place a new cache. 

 

A new geocacher in my area placed a couple of caches in questionable locations, one of which was removed by the land manager.  I feel that if a person has more experience geocaching, they are more knowledgeable of the rules and customs, and thus less likely to place caches that will be removed or muggled.  Thoughts?

well that will be a bad thing to do

a plan might be to make them find at lest 6 of any kinds of caches or benchmarks

 

the thing about the new geocacher placing caches in "questionable places"

is a under statement i placed my first when i had no finds

and now i have 3 hidden and one is in a very busy place with muggles everywere

 

So a cache gets muggled/removed who cares you can allways place a new one.

And the placer will learn that that might not be the best place.

You say a couple caches what do you meen like 10?

And if the other ones are still there then don't you think they are placed right so they won't get muggled/removed.

 

Out here were I live its hard to tell what land you can place a cache on

it might be park service land or some guys land that does not have signs that say keep out.

 

As long as they keep the hides safe and in the rurls

who cares

 

And not to to be mean but i'v seen lots of logs

 

and if your just complaining about the caches being placed worng due to you can't get gps to them or at them thru the trees

you might want to get you Gps fixed

Yes people complain about caches being hidden under tree cover

Edited June 3, 2005 by Charles Iverson

[+CYBret]

Back when I started caching in early 2002 someone in the forums "recommended" that you get 14 finds under your belt before you hide one. I decided to follow that advice and it took me 4 months to rack up 14 finds. During that time I saw a lot of different containers, locations and techniques.

 

Today you could do it in an afternoon and not really learn anything.

 

I think it was good advice, but that's exactly what it was - advice. Take it or leave it. I chose to take it.

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to a requirement that stated that your first hide had to be a traditional cache (as opposed to a multi or mystery).

 

Bret

[+sbell111]

...On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to a requirement that stated that your first hide had to be a traditional cache (as opposed to a multi or mystery).

When I hid my first cache, I had about twenty finds. Only half a dozen or so were in my area. The rest were found during a weekend with my brother in the DC area. It was not my intention to wait to hide a cache, It just happened that way.

 

My first cache was (is) a multi. By most accounts it turned out pretty good. Since it is not the easiest cache in an area with tons of caches to choose from, it doesn't get many visits, but that's OK.

[+Team Dromomania]

I can think of 3 or 4 caches placed by newbies in this area which had some issues when the geocachers started showing up to find them. Comments were made to the owners and steps were made to make them better and safer caches. Again it comes down to self policing. Those newbies have gone on to place other well done caches.

 

We are the eyes and ears for the listing site. We don't need new rules but rather geocachers using common sense and helping each other out can solve most problems IMOHO.

 

I say NO to setting time or number limits before a cache can be place.

[+Criminal]

It doesn't matter if a cacher has 2 findes or 2000, if they're a twit, they will likely hide a dumb cache.

[+Tidalflame]

Yeah. Experience level really has very little with whether or not a person will hide a good cache. I think everyone can differentiate between good caches and bad caches - some people just don't care very much.

[+Marcie/Eric]

I've only found about 20 something. I'm still very new to finding caches. However when I first found GC.com, I immediatly thought of an entire series I could do near me, and a few other excellent things/views to see. Maybe they will turn out to be not-so-great when I do get around to placing. But I took the initiative then and contacted my local reviewer and inquired about it.

 

My point is, if you know an area, and have some intelligence, imagination, and half a dose of common sense, then you can come up with some seriously good caches. Otherwise your probably going to place something not as enjoyable.

 

I haven't really found a cache that really sucked. Except the ones I couln't find But some were definately better than others.

Edited June 4, 2005 by Marcie/Eric

[+briansnat]

Just wanna get opinions about this idea: Require a geocaching.com user to have logged at least 25 finds before allowing the user to place a new cache.

 

A newcomer may have a bunch of great ideas, then find 25 guardrail micros and think "Wow, this is all I have to do?". Forcing them to find a certain number of caches first will only show them how others in the area are hiding their caches. In some regions, this may not be the best thing.

 

I know of many veteran geocachers who place really lame caches and I know of some newcomers who have placed excellent ones.

 

I placed my first cache with only 1 find under my belt and the only thing I've learned since was that I didn't have to put so much thought into the location, contents and container. My first cache is still out there and to this day compares favorably to all my subsequent hides.

[WH]

I have found awesome caches hidden by newbies and lousy caches hidden by seasoned veterans.

[Jeremy]

I agree. And keep in mind that if this rule existed in '02, we wouldn't have any caches today

[+Ole og Susanne]

One of the best ones we have found was hidden by somone who only had/still has only one hide and no finds.

 

Ole

[+Isonzo Karst]

We just found an excellent multi by a hider with no finds and just the one hide. The multi highlights the trail that she put in. Wonderful. And one of the caches that always gets mentioned in "Florida's best" conversations was placed by a user with very few finds at the time.

[CrafterCat]

We just found an excellent multi by a hider with no finds and just the one hide. The multi highlights the trail that she put in. Wonderful. And one of the caches that always gets mentioned in "Florida's best" conversations was placed by a user with very few finds at the time.

Hiding caches is one of the best and most fun parts of caching. I was fortunate enough to be taught how to cache by my son, who was experienced and had placed many caches before I joined the game. I had just 4 or 5 finds when I placed my first cache, and it has been there for over a year now, with lots of cachers saying they liked it. But then, my son helped me place the cache, so I had good help. I think there should be no changes to the rules, but that newbies should seek the help of an experienced cacher before hiding their first few caches, until they get some experience of their own. Many cachers would be happy to help newbies, as we are. Cache on!

[+Hynr]

I also agree that there should not be a rule to force a certain number to have been found before placing one. The situation of having new cache hiders making some mistakes should be handled in a way that encourages them and channels their excitement into placing better caches, rather than to squash that excitement.

[+Bob Blaylock]

On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to a requirement that stated that your first hide had to be a traditional cache (as opposed to a multi or mystery).

  There go my two caches.

[+paul2tele]

I purposefully waited until I had 100 finds before I placed my first one. Just a personal benchmark I wanted to hit. Took me 11 months. My first placement was a multi.

 

To each his own, as long as they meet the placement guidelines.