This topic contains 40 replies, has 18 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
There has been a significant number of newbies planting caches lately. And so it’s time to wonder again about whether or not there should be limits of some kind. Why? Becasue I think you can only acquire the expertise necessary to place AND maintain a good cache from experience. Finding X number of caches first means the person gets to see what others have done. What’s good, what’s not so good; what’s tacky, what’s great; how to, and how not to.
I certainly enjoy, and appreciate, all these new caches. Especially the ones in the Fox Valley area. The quality, and variety, are good. However …………
I just can not get beyond wondering about …. well, their staying power. Some of these newbies are going to be around for quite a while, and we will be seeing them on the trails, at the events, etc. But, some of them will fade. And leave caches behind.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that they should go with an initiation period, before placing a cache. In the past, generally a number has been suggested, such as having found 100 caches.
Depending on how often they cache, it might take quite a while to reach the 100 level. So, I think perhaps something like 6 months AND 50 caches might do the trick.
And I do not see GC.COM ever coming up with any such guidelines. I think it is more something older cachers should keep in mind when then come across a newbie who is interested in placing a cache. A talking point; a word of advice for them to consider.
This is something I have been promoting for a good while now. I see it as a two-part problem, the first being newbies that place caches which don’t meet the “wow” factor many of us are pursuing. This breeds more caches of a similar variety, as other newbies follow the example.
Secondarily comes the fact that I have done a few awesome caches that were placed by folks with a limited find count, but now those same caches have since been neglected.
This is definitely a topic that should be covered in every introduction to geocaching class along with being shared between cachers on the trails.Well said Marc!
I certainly have to agree with you Marc. We are all looking for that WOW !! Factor.
I have always believed in quality over quantity. Having guidelines, like you said of 50 to 100 finds would give us better quality. I sure had some quality caches this past weekend.I would have to disagree with the number of finds required. There is a geocacher name Iowa Tom who has only found 76 (some were event caches) and has hidden 62. He is an expert hider and all his hides are very interesting, different, clever, and well done. I can’t say how many finds he had before he started doing hides, but I’m sure it wasn’t very many. My brother, Timber Hawk, also only had a few finds before his first hides. I currently have 56 finds and 11 hides. I only had about 10 finds before I placed my first 4 hides. I have received much praise for my hides, and people have come from considerable distance to seek some of my caches based on their reputation. I spend a lot more time researching and organizing new hides than finding others’ caches. I guess what I’m trying to say is, “It doesn’t take many finds to figure out how to place caches with a real WOW factor.”
In the case of the lame newbie caches, it is probably more a case of lack of knowledge of cool public areas, a lack of creativity, or a lack of preparation. In general, I find that there are “finders” and there are “hiders”. Some people have proposed that after a certain number of finds, geocachers must create a certain number of hides. This is a BAD idea and I am convinced that this would be a sure way to generate a lot of lame caches.
I think the number of finds could be as low as 5 before placing a cache. I think rather than setting a find limit, it would be more beneficial to emphasize to potential hiders that the location should be either interesting, scenic, challenging, unique, etc. to consider it for a cache placement. Of course, the only problem with this is it can only be measured subjectively, not quantitatively.
Anyway, that my 2¢.
medoug.“I think the number of finds could be as low as 5 before placing a cache. I think rather than setting a find limit, it would be more beneficial to emphasize to potential hiders that the location should be either interesting, scenic, challenging, unique, etc. to consider it for a cache placement. Of course, the only problem with this is it can only be measured subjectively, not quantitatively.”
Ok, this is a great way of saying it. But….how do you get this information to a newbie before they plant a cache?
That’s part of the logic behind a time and number limit. Hopefully the newbie will absorb some of this over that time, from observing other caches and perhaps even meeting other cachers. If not, then what?
“it would be more beneficial to emphasize to potential hiders that the location should be either interesting, scenic, challenging, unique, etc.”
I have also seen caches placed by expirienced cache hiders with caches in not so scenic, or interesting places also. Don’t put it all on the noobs. Maybe it just has to be advertised that you would like to see higher quality caches. Or maybe sponser a placing a cache event to try to change the way people are veiwing a quality cache.
Everyone needs to start somewhere. Did Brett Favre throw a touchdown on his first pass? Did your first cache win cache of the month? It does take practice. I know my hides are not the most fantastic ones out there. But I am not jumping into placing any more micros just to place them. But I did need to get some out of the way just to test the water.
Lonsumdove from Jackson, WI is a great example of someone that didn’t have a lot of finds yet placed challenging caches that stumped a lot of veteran cachers.
My 2 cents …
(1) I think this would be impossible to control, other than to “suggest” it to newbies, but how many newbies are exposed to the “suggestions” (such as this forum) before placing that first hide.
(2) I think it would be tough to suggest a SPECIFIC amount of finds before your first hide. That would be different for so many people. As an example, I consider my self an excessively creative person (to the point of driving myself and others nuts, in the non-geo world), so I quickly understood what makes a good cache. While a “normal” person might take longer. Then I’ve seen some caches out there that make me shake my head by people that have been at this a long time (no one in particular, no one that’s reading this).
(3) I think it’s not really practical to “suggest” good caches, my concern has to weigh heavier on the newbie that plants something and then forgets about it. I’ve got such a person in our area and I’ve been sort of babysitting his 2 caches for about 2 years now. One of which I suspect is no longer findable, but I’ve not had time/desire to deal with it. This issue bleeds over into Travel Bugs too … I’ve got 3 TBs that got picked up by people that have only logged 2 to 5 finds over their career, it’s been over a year ago and now they don’t respond to emails.
I agree with the concept, but disagree with making any more “rules” for newbies.
Instruction, advice, tutoring, etc- all great ideas- but please- no more rules!Ive been at this since July 2003. I waited until Sept ’03 to hide my first. I placed a total of 4 in 2003. All are still active.
I only have 66 (offical, logged)finds- so by this kind of rule, I would Still not be “able” to hide a cache.
I now have 9 hides all together-placing another 5 in Mar of 05. These 5 are also still active- 3 have over 120 finds, one at 92 and my other at 66(had to diable each spring-high water)Funny thing is, living in the land of the “King of cache density” cough coguh-
I have seen some of the poorest caches placed by some of the more older, “wiser” cachers.
Cookie tins, plastic bags, caches on busy intersections, etc.
That is part of the reason my find count is so low. I prefer quality- and dont bother with many hides.From what I have seen- some of the newer cachers have some great ideas! Some thing so far out of the bax, as compared to older cachers- it amazing.
If you were to look at one of MN’s more prolific newer hiders-(All in Roseville)
you’d see he has some fantastic ideas, and is really showing a new twist to creativity.In the end, I hope it reamins open to each new cacher as to when to hide thier first cache. Hopefully, we as a community can help new cachers by providing what we can in advice, tutoring, mentoring, etc-
Most definitely, I wasn’t suggesting a rule of any kind. Being another in an area of high cache density, it still holds true as a suggestion. Particularly, I recommend that new cachers complete a few of each cache type (traditional, multi, earth, virtual, etc.) before they make their own placement.
There are a lot of cachers that do great with new placement, while just as many perhaps don’t understand that each cache should have a certain “wow” factor. Hunting some of the past COTM’s and COTM nominations is perhaps one of the better ways to get one’s feet wet in the sport.
All great points … besides we’re not GC.Com … how could we make “rules” any way … not that I think we should. We can only train and suggest.
The thing that sits wrong with me … is when you go to a cache location and find it hidden under a branch of a tree, when 100′ away is a perfect hollow tree with just the coolest hiding place. Again it might be my excessiveness, but I feel like the “good spot” was “wasted”. But again, the hider did NOT do anything wrong, so at this point quality is just an opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Team Hemisphere Dancer:
Did Brett Favre throw a touchdown on his first pass?Bretts’ first pass was completed to himself. So I guess a newbie should hide their first cache and then try and find it before having it published. LOL
Brett Farve’s firts pass as a Packer was too himself. What did he do in his first ever pass attempt?
“Favre’s very first pass in the NFL resulted in a touchdown … for the other team (it was intercepted).” Rethinking this, every newbies first cache should get muggled. LOL
Getting this thread back towards the topic.
Is worrying about the quality of the new caches, derived from the increasing popularity of the sport.
It seems as though there is a “brotherhood” of the old cachers and they seem to want it back to the old way. That is understandable I would feel the same way if I were one of the old cachers. But as this does increase in popularity we will get farther and farther from to old days.
Meet and greet type of events can have an effect on the quality of future caches by bridging the gap between the old cachers and the new.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.