OK Old schoolers

[+Snoogans]

I really really really don't understand all this "fear" of numbers.

I was beaten to death by an abacus in a past life. At least, that's what Miss Cleo told me....

 

 

Now that's funny. I don't care who you are. That's a funny joke right there.

 

[+TrailGators]

I really really really don't understand all this "fear" of numbers.

I was beaten to death by an abacus in a past life. At least, that's what Miss Cleo told me....

 

 

Now that's funny. I don't care who you are. That's a funny joke right there.

 

 

Yea it was...

[+wavector]

Really? I never thought that I had to hide caches because that is one of the stats...I thought that if I hid caches, then there would be a stat showing how many I had hidden.

 

I don't have to find caches because there are numbers next to my user name either--but if I do, the numbers change so I can see how many I found.

 

 

The number of caches found is just one stat and is readily available in the profile, is there any good reason for placing that stat on every cache log written by every member of this site? I don't think there is. The number of Hides is just another Stat, is there any reason to highlight these two Stats in a Stat box to the exclusion of all other Stats? I don't think there is. If a seekers Find count was placed beside every DNF log that they wrote I see no issue acknowledging that it serves a purpose but having a seekers Find count beside every log written serves no purpose beyond emphasizing the importance of that "number".

 

I haven't seen any comments which could be called an expression of fear in regards to the "numbers", perhaps you could point out the comments you regard as fearful?

Any geocacher can choose to let the numbers guide their journey, you are free to do that.

I am questioning the value of emphasizing Finds and Hides to the exclusion of all other Stats, I am suggesting that placing just these two Stats into a Stat box separates them from all the other metrics tracked by this website. I think the emphasis on the "numbers" is one of the underlying causes when it comes to numerous Hides made without forethought or the numerous Hides that are made and never maintained. I think the emphasis on "Hides" rather than say perhaps "Owner Maintenance visits" is a reason many caches are unmaintained even after seekers point out problems. I reached my conclusions without having any fear of the "numbers", I can't think of anyone who is afraid of numbers, they just don't mean anything and many geocachers have expressed a similar sentiment, geocaching isn't about the numbers.

 

Perhaps the website emphasis on Hides and Finds has nothing to do with the way that new geocachers approach this activity but my own personal observations do not support that conclusion. I have seen new geocachers go out and Hide many new caches with little forethought. It is easy to find geocachers who continue to Hide caches while the "Needs Maintenance" attribute exists on many of the caches they have already hidden. I haven't looked at your profile so I am not sure where you geocache but you are blessed if this issue has skipped by your area. The complaints you see expressed on this thread and many other threads are very similar, there are many many caches being placed without forethought. I think this problem is going to get worse as new geocachers try this activity out. I think that one of the primary reasons that this happens today is this website's emphasis on the Find and Hide "numbers", that isn't an expression of fear so much as a warranted conclusion, but you are free to disagree.

[+Logscaler and Red]

Really? I never thought that I had to hide caches because that is one of the stats...I thought that if I hid caches, then there would be a stat showing how many I had hidden.

 

I don't have to find caches because there are numbers next to my user name either--but if I do, the numbers change so I can see how many I found.

 

 

... geocaching isn't about the numbers.

 

 

But I disagree.

 

Caching is about the numbers.

 

Otherwise it would be letter boxing now wouldn't it?

 

Just what is the problem with having the numbers there?

 

I use the numbers for DNF problems. I like seeing how others are doing.

 

Competing with them? For some friends, yes, but for the most part, No, just a reference point.

 

No one has given me a good reason to NOT have the numbers.

 

Unless it is like Red says, it is NUMBER ENVY.

 

Now, what ever happened to the original topic anyway?

 

Seems like this thread has run its course and needs to be locked down.

 

Logscaler.

[+Renegade Knight]

....The "other type" would be just as pleased hunting random waypoints as long as they get a smilie for their effort. The focus is not on the cache, but what that cache gives them here on this site....

 

Yes and no. I'll freely admit that this site (and others to a lesser extent) give something that makes caching a tad more fun than it would be if we all just loaded up waypoint.org.

 

But if waypoint.org gave out smilies for visits, I'm still not sure that people would give up the caches.

 

What I'm saying is that some may not enjoy your cache entirely as you would have them do, but they do enjoy it at least in part because it is a cache, and because you did set it, and because they could hunt it.

 

Note: I didn't say it was fun to have people short circuit a cache. I've shut down caches because they were doing that.

[+Renegade Knight]

I was thinking about some of the caches that are around now that were not around when I started and I thought of an interesting question for you all.

 

Imagine that you are at home doing some chores or yardwork. The phone rings and some guy that you don't know asks you to drive 5 miles into town. He tells you to drive behind a Taco Bell and check out a smelly garbage dumpster. There is no cache there. He just tells you that he thinks it's really fun, and that you should go check it out! Be honest. What would you do?

Same thing I did back in the day.

Make a choice.

[+The Jester]

I wouldnt say it is a fear of numbers.

I believe the theory goes something like this:

1) There are a large and growing percentage of caches in "uninspired" places. These are places that have no real value and are not a place you would want to visit or send someone. The only value with this place is that now someone placed a cache there. (NOTE: This is a theory, at least to me, because I do not know how to do a detailed report showing the number of "uninspired" caches as a percentage of active caches and graph that over time back to the begining of geocaching)

 

2) The reason someone placed this cache in this uninspired location is either:

a) Increasing the number of caches hidden that displays on the web site

Increasing the number of caches so that people can increase the number of caches found easier.

c) both a & b

 

Therefore, numbers recorded on the web site lead to an increase in "uninspired" caches.

(NOTE: Since we will never know the reasons behind why a cache is placed where it is, this is an entirely unprovable theory)

 

One should also extend past this theory to the next theory which is

 

"Uninspired" caches are BAD!!!!

I'm sorry, but I don't know how the two highlighted statements can exist in the same answer. If we don't know the reasons behind a cache, how can you call it "uninspired"? It may have been inspired by something not shared by the hider on the cache page.

 

I really dislike people putting any label on a cache, whether it is "lame" or "uninspired" or whatever, because that is opinion not fact. So a statement like "Unispired" caches are BAD!!!!" is wrong in my eyes. You are making a judgement without knowing the whole story.

[Neos2]

The number of caches found is just one stat and is readily available in the profile, is there any good reason for placing that stat on every cache log written by every member of this site? I don't think there is. The number of Hides is just another Stat, is there any reason to highlight these two Stats in a Stat box to the exclusion of all other Stats? I don't think there is. If a seekers Find count was placed beside every DNF log that they wrote I see no issue acknowledging that it serves a purpose but having a seekers Find count beside every log written serves no purpose beyond emphasizing the importance of that "number".

There are plenty of reasons to have the number beside the logs, as many people have pointed out numerous times. As you point out, you find some value in knowing a cachers find count when they DNF a cache--I find the same kind of value in knowing their find count when they find a cache. I read cache pages to find out which caches I want to visit.

 

I get fooled sometimes by people who only log certian caches etc, but in general if I see a log on a cache that raves about how awesome the cache was, how clever the hide, and how lovely the location, it encourages me to want to visit that cache if the person who wrote the log has 200 finds than if it comes from someone with 12 caches to their credit--and even more if the cacher had 800 finds. It's pretty easy to impress us when we are new, after we've seen a few caches, we become more discriminating--and more experienced. If someone with 10 finds says it's hard, but they found it after some searching, that tells me something different than if someone with with 700 finds says the same thing.

 

There are probably other good stats that could be there, but really the find count is the most innocuous. No reason to clutter up the page with extras. Those are probably best left on the personal profile pages.

[+BigHank]

I would be a bit cautious on using someone's find count as an indicator of the credence of their opinion of a cache. If someone has 700 finds, and they are all "toss from the car as you go by micros," then I would only give credence to their opinion regarding those type of caches, and not "travel bug motels" for instance.

 

Find counts have a limited utility, and are there mostly because, IMO, there are people to whom it is important, so why not accommodate them, just as the site accommodates people who "find" events, and "discover" travel bugs, and who collect coins and all the other stuff. If that's how someone wants to enjoy the game, then I applaud TPTB for making it possible for them to do so.

 

As far as the "old school" stuff that this started out on, well, I will say I enjoyed caching a lot more when we were sort of "under the radar" and only a few of us knew about it. When there were only one or two new caches, if that many, a week hidden in Nashville. I can recall seeing three new ones pop up on my screen one day when I checked during lunch. "Boy," I thought, "JoGPS sure was busy last night hiding those caches." And how I stayed after work three nights in a row, hunting one cache each night. You knew then that if SBell or JoGPS or a few others put out a cache, it was going to be a good one and worth looking for, now, it's a crap shoot whether or not a cache is a good one or not.....of course, that is all subject to my subjective definition of what a good cache is.

[vtmtnman]

 

But I disagree.

 

Caching is about the numbers.

 

Otherwise it would be letter boxing now wouldn't it?

 

Logscaler.

I see logscaler knows what's up.Too bad he dosen't comment in more threads.We could use more posters like him.Short and to the point.

 

As for my original topic,well,I foresaw the derailment in this thread when I started it,but everyone is being civil so I'm not asking for it to be closed yet.It touches topic every now and again.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Editied

Edited May 21, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[Clan Riffster]

If we don't know the reasons behind a cache, how can you call it "uninspired"?

By basic observation, followed by a bit of research? If I see a film canister tossed into some bushes at a Burger King, hidden by a cacher who owns 50 other film canister in BK bushes caches, with roughly 10 words on each cache page, this is my initial indication that the cache was uninspired. When I talk to the cacher at an event and ask them, "So, what's up with all those BK hides?" and they tell me something to the effect of, "I had all these film canisters. I had to hide them somewhere", that pretty much wraps it up for me. Opinion? Of course.

I really dislike people putting any label on a cache, whether it is "lame" or "uninspired" or whatever, because that is opinion not fact.

How about carpy? Is that OK?

Seriously though, I agree that someone saying a particular cache, (or even a particular type of cache) is lame is a completely subjective, biased opinion. What I think is carp, you might think is golden. No one is arguing otherwise. You have a right to express your opinion, just as I have a right to express mine. Right or wrong never really enter into the equation.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

I wouldnt say it is a fear of numbers.

I believe the theory goes something like this:

1) There are a large and growing percentage of caches in "uninspired" places. These are places that have no real value and are not a place you would want to visit or send someone. The only value with this place is that now someone placed a cache there. (NOTE: This is a theory, at least to me, because I do not know how to do a detailed report showing the number of "uninspired" caches as a percentage of active caches and graph that over time back to the begining of geocaching)

 

2) The reason someone placed this cache in this uninspired location is either:

a) Increasing the number of caches hidden that displays on the web site

Increasing the number of caches so that people can increase the number of caches found easier.

c) both a & b

 

Therefore, numbers recorded on the web site lead to an increase in "uninspired" caches.

(NOTE: Since we will never know the reasons behind why a cache is placed where it is, this is an entirely unprovable theory)

 

One should also extend past this theory to the next theory which is

 

"Uninspired" caches are BAD!!!!

I'm sorry, but I don't know how the two highlighted statements can exist in the same answer. If we don't know the reasons behind a cache, how can you call it "uninspired"? It may have been inspired by something not shared by the hider on the cache page.

 

I really dislike people putting any label on a cache, whether it is "lame" or "uninspired" or whatever, because that is opinion not fact. So a statement like "Unispired" caches are BAD!!!!" is wrong in my eyes. You are making a judgement without knowing the whole story.

"Uninspired" caches. "Lame" caches. "Boring" caches. Whatever you call them. Let's call them Insert Your own Adjective caches (IYA caches, for short.) I am new to this game, but I can kinda see what some old timers are trying to say. I say "some". Its probably not all or even most. But some have a kind of nostalgia for a time when a greater percentage of caches took you to a place worth visiting. Be it a scenic view, a historic place, a nice quiet spot in an otherwise noisy city. As a newbie, I kind of like that idea. If someone is going to the trouble of placing a cache, why not add in the extra factor of placing the cache somewhere worth visiting. Like, even if there was no game and no cache, this would still be a place I would want to show people.

 

As for the theory about IYA caches being BAD!!!, that was only a theory. An extension from the idea that, if things were better back in the day with a higher % of "cooler" caches, then the increased number of IYA caches is making things worse, thus IYA caches are bad.

 

Me, I don't care either way. I would not want to stop anyone from placing a cache anywhere they want. All I suggest it that a way be found to more easily sort out those IYA caches from the "cooler" caches so if someone doesn't want to visit that spot, they shouldn't have to go through much effort to avoid it.

 

P.S. As a side note, the Monkeys and I visited 2 caches today. Both were micros (magnetic key holder or smaller). Both were Terrain 1/ Difficulty 1.

 

The first brought me to a nice sitting area around a fountain. Had the fountain been running it would have been nicer, but all in all, a pleasant little place to visit. I had to walk all of 20 feet from where I parked to reach the cache spot.

 

The second brought me to a gas station with a clothes drop off box. No real scenic or historic value there. Also, within 20 feet of where I parked. Although I did gain some value in the 2nd cache, some cachers might want a way to automatically filter out the 2nd and leave a list of ony the first kind.

 

To me, the ability to filter this seems like a good idea to me. I will leave it up to the experts to determine how.

Edited May 21, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+Logscaler and Red]

 

I see logscaler knows what's up.Too bad he dosen't comment in more threads.We could use more posters like him.Short and to the point.

 

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

I used to post a lot but the response started getting way to personal - even e-mails off the forums with subtle threats of destruction to all my caches, of which some "walked" - that I decided it was not worth the effort to call a "spade a spade", so to speak.

 

I will pop in and read things but very seldom post anymore. These last few days have been an aberration from the norm for me.

 

Signing off now.

 

Good night. And good luck.

 

Logscaler.

Edited May 21, 2007 by logscaler & Red

[Clan Riffster]

To me, the ability to filter this seems like a good idea to me. I will leave it up to the experts to determine how.

Often, when an idea drifts up the chain of command far enough to be noticed by TPTB, they ask two questions:

1 ) Is there a market for it?

In this case, I'd say "Absolutely!". Enough folks on here have pointed out a desire to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, that it would be an easy sell. I know I for one would be willing to increase my membership dues to support the change, and I would definitely use it.

2 ) Is it plausible?

I'm not so sure it is. There are just too many variables for me to fathom how any sorting program could work.

[+briansnat]

But I disagree.

 

Caching is about the numbers.

 

Otherwise it would be letter boxing now wouldn't it?

 

Logscaler

 

Letterboxers have a PFX count (Planted, Found, Exchanges, i.e. met) and many sign their their names with this

PFX count and merit badges are awarded for reaching certain levels of finds and plants. So it could be argued that numbers are more a part of letterboxing than they are in geocaching.

 

Anyway, geocaching is only about the numbers for those who make it about the numbers.

 

BrianSnat P199 F567 X287

 

Often, when an idea drifts up the chain of command far enough to be noticed by TPTB, they ask two questions:

1 ) Is there a market for it?

In this case, I'd say "Absolutely!". Enough folks on here have pointed out a desire to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, that it would be an easy sell. I know I for one would be willing to increase my membership dues to support the change, and I would definitely use it.

2 ) Is it plausible?

I'm not so sure it is. There are just too many variables for me to fathom how any sorting program could work.

 

There is a third... Does it fit with our vision of what the sport is about?

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

Often, when an idea drifts up the chain of command far enough to be noticed by TPTB, they ask two questions:

1 ) Is there a market for it?

In this case, I'd say "Absolutely!". Enough folks on here have pointed out a desire to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, that it would be an easy sell. I know I for one would be willing to increase my membership dues to support the change, and I would definitely use it.

2 ) Is it plausible?

I'm not so sure it is. There are just too many variables for me to fathom how any sorting program could work.

 

There is a third... Does it fit with our vision of what the sport is about?

 

ClanRiffster,

These are some interesting bullet points. Question - When you use the word "market" do you mean it as something a good number of cachers might use or do you mean it as something Groundspeak can make money off of?

 

As for point #2, This site is basically a simple database with records and fields. It wouldn't be hard to add another field to a record and to the query engine to allow a cacher to sort by the criteria. The question is, what field could you add to allow you to filter away one of the Terrian1/Diff1/Micro/Traditional caches mentioned above but leave the other? And who would populate the field? The hider ? the finders? Both?

 

Brainsnat,

You also bring up a good question. First though, I must know about the "our" in "our vision. Do you mean the geocaching community in general or Groundspeak's vision (not knowing if you are one of "them")?

Assuming for a moment that both the community and Groundspeak's agendas are the same, I cannot see how giving the people the ability (if they so choose) to filter the caches on a more granular level could be against the best interests of the game.

[+Logscaler and Red]

But I disagree.

 

Caching is about the numbers.

 

Otherwise it would be letter boxing now wouldn't it?

 

Logscaler

 

Letterboxers have a PFX count (Planted, Found, Exchanges, i.e. met) and many sign their their names with this

PFX count and merit badges are awarded for reaching certain levels of finds and plants. So it could be argued that numbers are more a part of letter boxing than they are in geocaching.

 

Anyway, geocaching is only about the numbers for those who make it about the numbers.

 

BrianSnat P199 F567 X287

 

 

In my own smart a** way, I was meaning that in geocaching, we use Lat/long numbers to locate our prize unlike letterboxing which uses descriptions, therefore it is about the numbers.

 

I understand the count thing for letter boxing and it was not an issue.

 

Logscaler.

Edited May 21, 2007 by logscaler & Red

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I wouldnt say it is a fear of numbers.

I believe the theory goes something like this:

1) There are a large and growing percentage of caches in "uninspired" places. These are places that have no real value and are not a place you would want to visit or send someone. The only value with this place is that now someone placed a cache there. (NOTE: This is a theory, at least to me, because I do not know how to do a detailed report showing the number of "uninspired" caches as a percentage of active caches and graph that over time back to the begining of geocaching)

 

2) The reason someone placed this cache in this uninspired location is either:

a) Increasing the number of caches hidden that displays on the web site

Increasing the number of caches so that people can increase the number of caches found easier.

c) both a & b

 

Therefore, numbers recorded on the web site lead to an increase in "uninspired" caches.

(NOTE: Since we will never know the reasons behind why a cache is placed where it is, this is an entirely unprovable theory)

 

One should also extend past this theory to the next theory which is

 

"Uninspired" caches are BAD!!!!

I'm sorry, but I don't know how the two highlighted statements can exist in the same answer. If we don't know the reasons behind a cache, how can you call it "uninspired"? It may have been inspired by something not shared by the hider on the cache page.

 

I really dislike people putting any label on a cache, whether it is "lame" or "uninspired" or whatever, because that is opinion not fact. So a statement like "Unispired" caches are BAD!!!!" is wrong in my eyes. You are making a judgement without knowing the whole story.

 

I'll have to disagree with you here. There are the occasional micro in a place you're not sure what attracted interest and then there are the micros next to the dumpster showcasing nothing more than the back wall of the drugstore and some scattered trash. There's is a difference.

[+Too Tall John]

Letterboxers have a PFX count (Planted, Found, Exchanges, i.e. met) and many sign their their names with this PFX count and merit badges are awarded for reaching certain levels of finds and plants. So it could be argued that numbers are more a part of letterboxing than they are in geocaching.

This thought has crossed my mind before: I see the value of the #'s, especially when related to taking action on a DNF. If, instead of tagging each log with a number, it was tagged with a "merit badge" you could still get a good idea of how much experience the cacher has who reports the DNF, and yet not know how many finds they have exactly.

 

Heck, I'm not even proposing the number be hid altogether, I like to be able to go into someone's profile & see which caches they've done that I have, or might want to, or whatever. Besides, if #'s were hidden, someone'd come up with a site scraper to glean the info if they really wanted it, which would cut down on website performance. (I know that scrapers aren't allowed, but they would happen.)

 

A lot of emphasis seems to be put on the numbers because they are right there, up front on each log. If it were an icon rather than a number, it'd help to deemphasize the numbers. It would, however, goad the icon junkies!

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

I'll have to disagree with you here. There are the occasional micro in a place you're not sure what attracted interest and then there are the micros next to the dumpster showcasing nothing more than the back wall of the drugstore and some scattered trash. There's is a difference.

It is possible that the dirty alley to which I have been brought is the place where the hider's parents were both murdered by a madman, thus turning him to a life as a masked crime fighter (or some other story importance to the hider). I would hope that the hider would share that information in the cache description. Without it, I would be looking around at a plain old dirty alley.

 

Of course, since I am proposing the ability to filter out such sites automatically without opening each site description(if I desired), this site of vast significance to the hider, but no other seeming value, would have been filtered off.

Edited May 21, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+sbell111]

But I disagree.

 

Caching is about the numbers.

 

Otherwise it would be letter boxing now wouldn't it?

 

Logscaler

Letterboxers have a PFX count (Planted, Found, Exchanges, i.e. met) and many sign their their names with this

PFX count and merit badges are awarded for reaching certain levels of finds and plants. So it could be argued that numbers are more a part of letterboxing than they are in geocaching.

 

Anyway, geocaching is only about the numbers for those who make it about the numbers.

 

BrianSnat P199 F567 X287

Often, when an idea drifts up the chain of command far enough to be noticed by TPTB, they ask two questions:

1 ) Is there a market for it?

In this case, I'd say "Absolutely!". Enough folks on here have pointed out a desire to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, that it would be an easy sell. I know I for one would be willing to increase my membership dues to support the change, and I would definitely use it.

2 ) Is it plausible?

I'm not so sure it is. There are just too many variables for me to fathom how any sorting program could work.

There is a third... Does it fit with our vision of what the sport is about?

...which is closely tied to 'How will this affect our bottom line today and down the road?'

[+sbell111]

I wouldnt say it is a fear of numbers.

I believe the theory goes something like this:

1) There are a large and growing percentage of caches in "uninspired" places. These are places that have no real value and are not a place you would want to visit or send someone. The only value with this place is that now someone placed a cache there. (NOTE: This is a theory, at least to me, because I do not know how to do a detailed report showing the number of "uninspired" caches as a percentage of active caches and graph that over time back to the begining of geocaching)

 

2) The reason someone placed this cache in this uninspired location is either:

a) Increasing the number of caches hidden that displays on the web site

Increasing the number of caches so that people can increase the number of caches found easier.

c) both a & b

 

Therefore, numbers recorded on the web site lead to an increase in "uninspired" caches.

(NOTE: Since we will never know the reasons behind why a cache is placed where it is, this is an entirely unprovable theory)

 

One should also extend past this theory to the next theory which is

 

"Uninspired" caches are BAD!!!!

I'm sorry, but I don't know how the two highlighted statements can exist in the same answer. If we don't know the reasons behind a cache, how can you call it "uninspired"? It may have been inspired by something not shared by the hider on the cache page.

 

I really dislike people putting any label on a cache, whether it is "lame" or "uninspired" or whatever, because that is opinion not fact. So a statement like "Unispired" caches are BAD!!!!" is wrong in my eyes. You are making a judgement without knowing the whole story.

I'll have to disagree with you here. There are the occasional micro in a place you're not sure what attracted interest and then there are the micros next to the dumpster showcasing nothing more than the back wall of the drugstore and some scattered trash. There's is a difference.

I think the problem I have with LiveswithMonkees' post is that it is based on the assumption that he is aware of the reasons that people place caches that he doesn't like and that those reasons can only be number-related. I suspect that most cachers are less about the numbers than he believes and that cachers that are not 'about the numbers' are just as likely to place a cache that he doesn't like as cachers that are 'about the numbers'. Edited May 21, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Letterboxers have a PFX count (Planted, Found, Exchanges, i.e. met) and many sign their their names with this PFX count and merit badges are awarded for reaching certain levels of finds and plants. So it could be argued that numbers are more a part of letterboxing than they are in geocaching.

This thought has crossed my mind before: I see the value of the #'s, especially when related to taking action on a DNF. If, instead of tagging each log with a number, it was tagged with a "merit badge" you could still get a good idea of how much experience the cacher has who reports the DNF, and yet not know how many finds they have exactly. ...

If there were a real problem with people being 'about the numbers', this wouldn't solve it. 'Those people' would work very hard to earn the next merit badge and threads would be created to complain about them.

[Cracker.]

Well, the topic has tended toward the value of "numbers" direction...Thought I would throw a little change of direction in.

 

Everyone is talking about how to filter out "lame caches". Well, as subjective as what a 'lame" cache is to different people, it seems most people can agree that the lamp post micro, or the one next to the dumpster are 'lame".

 

How about instead of letting these caches continue to exist, and multiply, and then argue over ways to filter them, we do something about the root of the problem?

 

Around here, I've noticed caches I consider lame, that were placed by newbs. Luckily, not near as many as in other areas, I'm sure.

Its not that they were placed by newbs, per se. What gets me, is they were placed by newbs, within a month or so of them learning of geocaching, and then after a couple, or a few more months, they have not many finds, and worse, they havent logged into the site in months, or years.

Basically, these are the lame hides placed by people who came across caching as a "fancy", or "fad", and soon after, found it wasnt for them, whatever the reason.

 

As more people get into caching, I expect the people who will just "come and go" will be almost as great as people who will actually be "stayers".

 

I'm not saying newbs shouldnt place caches right away, I'm not saying they need X amount of finds before being allowed to run a cache by an approver.

 

What I'm saying is, shouldnt we as cachers be more pro-active in cleaning up these "left behind" caches?

 

Many of these may not even be "lame" to the worst extent.

But I think if the hiders havent shown recent activity on the site, these caches should be adopted or archived.

 

Now, I know this has been a general rule in the geocachers "ethic" or "creed" since the beginning...But how effectively are we actually implementing it?

 

I've seen abandoned caches (what I consider to be, since the hiders show no recent activity, and do not reply to emails), that cachers just keep finding and logging. I know most people dont want to be the "bad" guy and report a cache like this, but I think if we want to keep quality caches out there, and weed out the chaff, we all have to help.

 

To me, I guess the first thing that makes a lame cache for me, is one that I find in sore need of maintenance (ie water soaked, moldy log and contents, broken container). It could be in the best location, or take me on a great journey, but in the end its just lame someone would leave garbage at the end of the journey.

If it cant be maintained, it should be pulled, and the spot left for someone else to utilize.

Granted, I understand there are valid reasons why a hider may not be able to maintain the cache at times.

But if a log by an approver or an email from a fellow cacher gets no response, pull it.

 

If you find a cache that needs maintenance, take a minute to read previous logs to see if its been an ongoing thing. Then check the hiders profile and shoot them an email. ALSO, and I imagine this is where lots of people feel like the "bad" guy...Post a Needs Maintenance log, ALONG with your regular log.

 

This is such an easy thing to do, and I can only wonder how many "lame", unmaintained caches would be cleared out.

 

Also, like I mentioned, if a hider hasnt shown recent activity on the site, and does not reply to emails from other cachers or especially from an approver, it should be pulled or adopted out, regardless of how "lame", "excellent", or the condition of the cache is.

 

Basically, my advice to newbs, and even experienced cachers, on this situation is, if you just got into caching, and you feel the need to place a cache...Go ahead!

BUT...If you ever decide caching isnt for you, PLEASE,PLEASE, pull your caches!...Even if you dont feel like going back and physically pulling it, ALL IT TAKES IS A TWO MINUTE EMAIL TO AN APPROVER! How easy and effortless is that?

That way the approver can archive it, and make arrangements for a local cacher, or a local organization to physically pull it.

This gets rid of the abandoned cache, gets rid of what fellow cachers consider "chaff', physically cleaning up what could become litter and opens up the area for another cacher.

 

Sorry for being so longwinded on the subject, but I think if everyone just took a few minutes to write a NM log or shoot a quick email, we could eliminate a lot of the chaff, without having to figure out a way to filter it.

[+brdad]

Around here, I've noticed caches I consider lame, that were placed by newbs. Luckily, not near as many as in other areas, I'm sure.

Its not that they were placed by newbs, per se. What gets me, is they were placed by newbs, within a month or so of them learning of geocaching, and then after a couple, or a few more months, they have not many finds, and worse, they havent logged into the site in months, or years.

Basically, these are the lame hides placed by people who came across caching as a "fancy", or "fad", and soon after, found it wasnt for them, whatever the reason.

 

I think it's quite the contrary here - Many of the caches placed by new cachers are better than many of the ones placed by seasoned cachers. Many of the seasoned cachers get caught up in the numbers, and do all they can to promote their own and other cachers numbers, overlooking the original ideals of caching for the sake of the excitement of the smiley. For these cachers, the numbers are more of an attraction than even the old schoolers have for traditional caching, keeping them in the game even longer.

 

Another big factor is where they got their idea of what a cache was. If the first 20 caches you found were LPCs, you stand a good chance of thinking that's what a cache is. If your first caches were of nice views, that would influence you in that direction. All the more reason to set an example and set caches that are better than what you would like to find.

Edited May 21, 2007 by brdad

[+tozainamboku]

If someone is going to the trouble of placing a cache, why not add in the extra factor of placing the cache somewhere worth visiting. Like, even if there was no game and no cache, this would still be a place I would want to show people.

Some people think geocaching is about being a tour guide that takes you to interesting places and other people think is is about finding hidden containers. If you just want to find interesting places and and don't care about the cache you could try Waymarking. But look over there for a minute and see the controversy over some of the categories. They have a category for Burger King locations. I didn't see one for clothing donation boxes but I suspect that you could get one started there without much of a problem. The reason is that there are people who are interested in knowing where these places are. The concept of interesting place, like the virtual requirment for "Wow", is totally subjective. Sure most people would prefer a scenic view or a nice fountain in a park to a parking lot lamppost or a dumpster. But I suspect that a few people do find something that interest them about a cache hidden in at Wal*Mart. Perhaps they just like a cache along with their shopping or just the fact that they're in on the secret hidden behind the store is enough of a reason to find the cache.

 

I'll have to disagree with you here. There are the occasional micro in a place you're not sure what attracted interest and then there are the micros next to the dumpster showcasing nothing more than the back wall of the drugstore and some scattered trash. There's is a difference.

It is possible that the dirty alley to which I have been brought is the place where the hider's parents were both murdered by a madman, thus turning him to a life as a masked crime fighter (or some other story importance to the hider). I would hope that the hider would share that information in the cache description. Without it, I would be looking around at a plain old dirty alley.

 

Of course, since I am proposing the ability to filter out such sites automatically without opening each site description(if I desired), this site of vast significance to the hider, but no other seeming value, would have been filtered off.

For awhile I posted "Thanks for the smiley" (my version of DPM) for caches I though were being placed for no other reason than to hide another cache. But sometimes I would ask the hider privately if there was a reason for placing the cache there. Often there was a reason - sometimes personal - of why the location was picked. It may be a favorite restaurant, or a shopping mall that was built in the vacant lot where the cacher used to play as child, and sometimes it was even at an historic location that was described on the cache page but since I had just loaded the waypoint into my GPS and gone out to look for caches, I missed it. Sure, sometimes the reason was that the hider felt the area just needed another cache. But even that is a reasonable excuse if you look at it from the perspective of the "urban cacher" who doesn't have the time to drive out to the state park to go hiking but just wants to be able to find caches on their lunch hour or while running weekend errands.

 

As to the question of how to filter "uninspired" hides for the cacher who wants caches in "Wow" locations - I thinks we've seen several suggestions already in this thread. I personally like the idea of a NetFlix-like affinity scheme. "People who liked this cache also liked..." As the system learns your likes and dislikes it can recommend caches that you might also like. I also like the currently existing but under utilized method of bookmark lists. Premium members can setup up bookmark lists of caches based on various attributes and make them public so they show up on the cache page. So if you like historic caches you can set up a bookmark list of caches that took you to historic locations. Then other cachers can use this to find caches in historic locations. By combining lists from several cachers you can take this even farther - like TrailGators has done with his San Diego's Consensus Favorites list.

[vtmtnman]

Around here, I've noticed caches I consider lame, that were placed by newbs. Luckily, not near as many as in other areas, I'm sure.

Its not that they were placed by newbs, per se. What gets me, is they were placed by newbs, within a month or so of them learning of geocaching, and then after a couple, or a few more months, they have not many finds, and worse, they havent logged into the site in months, or years.

Basically, these are the lame hides placed by people who came across caching as a "fancy", or "fad", and soon after, found it wasnt for them, whatever the reason.

 

I think it's quite the contrary here - Many of the caches placed by new cachers are better than many of the ones placed by seasoned cachers. Many of the seasoned cachers get caught up in the numbers, and do all they can to promote their own and other cachers numbers, overlooking the original ideals of caching for the sake of the excitement of the smiley. For these cachers, the numbers are more of an attraction than even the old schoolers have for traditional caching, keeping them in the game even longer.

 

Another big factor is where they got their idea of what a cache was. If the first 20 caches you found were LPCs, you stand a good chance of thinking that's what a cache is. If your first caches were of nice views, that would influence you in that direction. All the more reason to set an example and set caches that are better than what you would like to find.

 

How priceless is that quote???

[+TrailGators]

As to the question of how to filter "uninspired" hides for the cacher who wants caches in "Wow" locations - I thinks we've seen several suggestions already in this thread. I personally like the idea of a NetFlix-like affinity scheme. "People who liked this cache also liked..." As the system learns your likes and dislikes it can recommend caches that you might also like. I also like the currently existing but under utilized method of bookmark lists. Premium members can setup up bookmark lists of caches based on various attributes and make them public so they show up on the cache page. So if you like historic caches you can set up a bookmark list of caches that took you to historic locations. Then other cachers can use this to find caches in historic locations. By combining lists from several cachers you can take this even farther - like TrailGators has done with his San Diego's Consensus Favorites list.

I wish we had a waymark like system (in our area-maybe use county as a divider) for geocaching that would allow people to submit cool caches to it. It could go through a peer review much like waymarks do. You could actually use this same idea for any kind of cache. Maybe this is something that's coming...

 

By the way, I really like your latest avatar Mr. T!

Edited May 21, 2007 by TrailGators

[+The Jester]

If we don't know the reasons behind a cache, how can you call it "uninspired"?

By basic observation, followed by a bit of research? If I see a film canister tossed into some bushes at a Burger King, hidden by a cacher who owns 50 other film canister in BK bushes caches, with roughly 10 words on each cache page, this is my initial indication that the cache was uninspired. When I talk to the cacher at an event and ask them, "So, what's up with all those BK hides?" and they tell me something to the effect of, "I had all these film canisters. I had to hide them somewhere", that pretty much wraps it up for me. Opinion? Of course.

I really dislike people putting any label on a cache, whether it is "lame" or "uninspired" or whatever, because that is opinion not fact.

How about carpy? Is that OK?

Seriously though, I agree that someone saying a particular cache, (or even a particular type of cache) is lame is a completely subjective, biased opinion. What I think is carp, you might think is golden. No one is arguing otherwise. You have a right to express your opinion, just as I have a right to express mine. Right or wrong never really enter into the equation.

OK, go back and read the first part of my statement: If we don't know the reasons.... Research gives you reasons. Would it make any difference to you about the BK hides if the hider had an obsession (or another reason) with BK and wanted a cache at each of his favorite eating place? The hides are the same, only the reason behind (stated or not) would change.

[vtmtnman]

They have a category for Burger King locations.

I thought this was BS.It's not.

 

<---click him to see for yourself.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

I think the problem I have with LiveswithMonkees' post is that it is based on the assumption that he is aware of the reasons that people place caches that he doesn't like and that those reasons can only be number-related. I suspect that most cachers are less about the numbers than he believes and that cachers that are not 'about the numbers' are just as likely to place a cache that he doesn't like as cachers that are 'about the numbers'.

 

OK, let me try to straighten a few things out here.

 

First, there are no caches I don't like. There are some I would prefer over others. It seemed to me, from earlier posts, that some old timers shared that opinion. I am willing to accept that all types of caches and cachers for that matter belong in the game. Other cachers may feel more strongly than I on this subject.

 

Second, as a newcomer, I am aware of very little concerning this game. Others in earlier posts suggested that "number cachers" were partly the cause of the increase in "lame" caches. I do not think anyone suggested that numbers were the only cause.

 

I would agree that most cachers are probably not about the numbers.

I would agree that regardless of what kind of cacher they are, they may place a cache that I (or some other cacher) does not like.

 

That is all fine and dandy. Place whatever caches wherever you want. Like I said, I accept all types of caches wholeheartedly. I would never suggest for a minute that there should be a restriction placed on where someone placed a cache (beyond what the current requirement call for).

 

All I would like is the ability to filter caches in a more granular fashion so that if there is a type of cache I prefer, I can automatically create a PQ for that type, get my list, upload it and go. As granular as possible. If I want to query a list of caches hidden by left handed cachers with usernames containing the letter Q which provided me a view of only the SE side of mountains less than 8000ft high, great. If that's what allows a cacher to enjoy the game more, so be it. For those of you who feel this type of querying is unnecessary, don't filter to that level.

 

I am just suggesting the addition of a choice. Right now, that choice is not available. Therefore, a cacher can get discouraged and leave what would otherwise be a cool game to him if he could only be able to filter out what displeases him and keep what pleases him.

 

Why would this be a bad option?

 

EDIT: I thought I would add one more thing here. I cache with 2 young children. As a result, it is impossible for me to cache without opening each cache description, checking out the map, examining the arial photos and determining the optimal path (both driving and hiking) to reach the cache. Why? because I cannot expect my 6yr old daughter to bushwhack through junk that I might be willing to do. Plus, as kids are, they are not as patient as we would always like.

 

So, although I can see how additional filtering tools might be able to help me, I am more playing advocate for others who may be out there but choose not to speak up.

Edited May 21, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[Cracker.]

I think it's quite the contrary here - Many of the caches placed by new cachers are better than many of the ones placed by seasoned cachers. Many of the seasoned cachers get caught up in the numbers, and do all they can to promote their own and other cachers numbers, overlooking the original ideals of caching for the sake of the excitement of the smiley. For these cachers, the numbers are more of an attraction than even the old schoolers have for traditional caching, keeping them in the game even longer.

 

Another big factor is where they got their idea of what a cache was. If the first 20 caches you found were LPCs, you stand a good chance of thinking that's what a cache is. If your first caches were of nice views, that would influence you in that direction. All the more reason to set an example and set caches that are better than what you would like to find.

 

Hmmm...well, OK...I have found some old caches that the hides themselves werent that inspiring, and I've found caches by someone new who puts out great hides.

 

I think somewhere in my longwinded rant, I said, or at least implied, my point wasnt really the quality of caches placed by newbs vs. "old skoolers".

We also have a few "old skool" cachers, Charter Members in fact, that have caches that I think are lame, or should even be archived. These are the same people that have 30-80 hides, that I think half of should be archived because they are unmaintained, in my opinion.

 

I agree with your second point. ALL THE MORE REASON for EVERYBODY to take a bit of an effort to weed out and archive abandoned caches. Again, by abandoned, I mean the hider has not shown activity on the site recently, and does not respond to emails. PERIOD! I dont care if its still a good cache or not, and if people are still finding and logging it. It should be looked at and reviewed by an approver.

Granted, if it IS a nice cache, it could be adopted out instead of archived.

[+TrailGators]

They have a category for Burger King locations.

I thought this was BS.It's not.

 

<---click him to see for yourself.

The great part is that you can ignore the entire category and I did ignore that one! No more BK or Mickey D's for me!

[+Renegade Knight]

...I agree with your second point. ALL THE MORE REASON for EVERYBODY to take a bit of an effort to weed out and archive abandoned caches. Again, by abandoned, I mean the hider has not shown activity on the site recently, and does not respond to emails. PERIOD! ...

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it. We all have more than enough work in our lives to do without spending more time looking over everone elses shoulders to make sure they are doing what they need to be doing.

 

I prefer to give folks some credit and only deal with the blatant issues. It's so much simpler.

 

I save the angst for the forums where I enjoy posting.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Place whatever caches wherever you want. ...

...All I would like is the ability to filter caches...

 

The first is the current system.

The second is not workable.

Even a netflix style system which may work well for you, would not work well for you kids until they too were rating cacyes.

 

You are stuck reading the cache pages as most owners intend for you to do to begin with.

 

You should see what wailing and gnashing of teeth happens when you tell the blind hunters "tough nuts, you don't read the cache page you deserve what you get".

[+sbell111]

... All I would like is the ability to filter caches in a more granular fashion so that if there is a type of cache I prefer, I can automatically create a PQ for that type, get my list, upload it and go. As granular as possible. If I want to query a list of caches hidden by left handed cachers with usernames containing the letter Q which provided me a view of only the SE side of mountains less than 8000ft high, great. If that's what allows a cacher to enjoy the game more, so be it. For those of you who feel this type of querying is unnecessary, don't filter to that level. ...

The problem is, as you add more and more information required from hiders, you are less and less likely to get the information you desire. People are much more likely to not give you any useful information, either by blindly clicking or choosing not to list the cache. Edited May 21, 2007 by sbell111

[vtmtnman]

They have a category for Burger King locations.

I thought this was BS.It's not.

 

<---click him to see for yourself.

The great part is that you can ignore the entire category and I did ignore that one! No more BK or Mickey D's for me!

I don't even frequent those place without Waymarking...those are definately on the ignore list.

[+TrailGators]

They have a category for Burger King locations.

I thought this was BS.It's not.

 

<---click him to see for yourself.

The great part is that you can ignore the entire category and I did ignore that one! No more BK or Mickey D's for me!

I don't even frequent those place without Waymarking...those are definately on the ignore list.

I have many other categories on the ignore list too. But I could care less if people want to find those places because they no longer exist for me because I can easily ignore them. This is why I would really like to see GC.com do something like this.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

... All I would like is the ability to filter caches in a more granular fashion so that if there is a type of cache I prefer, I can automatically create a PQ for that type, get my list, upload it and go. As granular as possible. If I want to query a list of caches hidden by left handed cachers with usernames containing the letter Q which provided me a view of only the SE side of mountains less than 8000ft high, great. If that's what allows a cacher to enjoy the game more, so be it. For those of you who feel this type of querying is unnecessary, don't filter to that level. ...

The problem is, as you add more and more information required from hiders, you are less and less likely to get the information you desire. People are much more likely to not give you any useful information, either by blindly clicking or choosing not to list the cache.

 

Possibly, I would like that information from both the hiders and for each finder. Only a suggestion.

 

Although I personally think your response portrays a more pessamistic view of your fellow cachers. I think if they are taking the time to log a cache or a find, they would take the extra few seconds necessary to accurately describe the location or their experience.

 

Personally, I believe people have a finite amount of time to afford to caching. Some people more than others. This caching time is the total amount of time spent:

hiding caches (if any)

listing caches (if any)

logging caches

searching for caches on the web site (possibly by filtering)

reading each cache description

hunting for caches

 

By adding additional filtering options, you can reduce the amount of cache descriptions a person needs to read. Therfore, they would have more time to accurately add the additional information their cache (or find)

Edited May 21, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

[+SeventhSon]

There seems to be more and more cachers wanting to merge their love of caching with their love of some other activity. They like to hike, and they wanna do both. They like to shop, and they wanna do both. If you search lamp post micros hoping to find a cool store to shop in, you're probably going to visit a lot of parking lots and get nothing more than the cache.

 

You can plan your caching around your hike, or you can plan your hike around your caching. One option will almost guarantee full satisfaction; the other is a gamble.

[Clan Riffster]

When you use the word "market" do you mean it as something a good number of cachers might use or do you mean it as something Groundspeak can make money off of?

From a TPTB standpoint, it would mean both. A marketable feature would be something they can exploit to demonstrate how their cache listing service is better than others, which, in turn, leads to more customers, which ultimately leads to more profit. Pocket queries are a good example of a marketable feature. A search function that would let me search for all the kewl micros, while sorting out all the carpy ones would definitely sell.

 

As for point #2, This site is basically a simple database with records and fields. It wouldn't be hard to add another field to a record and to the query engine to allow a cacher to sort by the criteria. The question is, what field could you add to allow you to filter away one of the Terrian1/Diff1/Micro/Traditional caches mentioned above but leave the other? And who would populate the field? The hider ? the finders? Both?

That's the gist of why I don't think it's workable. If the hider incorporates the data, the user is Dependant upon their input.

 

For example, the two micros you cited earlier:

1 ) a nice sitting area around a fountain, 20 feet from where I parked

 

2 ) a gas station with a clothes drop off box, 20 feet from where I parked

 

Under our current system, both of these are equal, yet you and I can agree that one is pleasant while the other is uninspired. For a hider based system to work, the hider of the uninspired cache would need to be willing to include the "Boring location" icon. What are the odds that someone who was willing to hide such an uninspired cache, would rate it properly? Would the owner of such a cache even be able to recognize that they have done nothing more than advance micro spew? The Carpy Cache Defenders claim that those folks who hide carp, do so because they actually like it. If this is true, then no hider compiled data will help. That leaves us with the finders rating the cache. From my limited experience with TC, the system works very well, but TPTB have already stated they do not want to copy another cache listing service.

[Clan Riffster]

Would it make any difference to you about the BK hides if the hider had an obsession (or another reason) with BK and wanted a cache at each of his favorite eating place? The hides are the same, only the reason behind (stated or not) would change.

Well, I suppose I would have to change my label from "Uninspired" to "Lame", since, in your hypothetical scenario, the hider was, at least to some degree, inspired by their BK obsession.

[+Renegade Knight]

There seems to be more and more cachers wanting to merge their love of caching with their love of some other activity. They like to hike, and they wanna do both. They like to shop, and they wanna do both....

 

Excellent and true. Geocaching dovetails well with a lot of activities. As old timers taper off geoaching as their first love they can still give it sloppy seconds as they get back to fishing, camping, hiking, shopping, or whatever it was that they did before they found geocaching and got a bit distracted.

[+LivesWithMonkeys]

There seems to be more and more cachers wanting to merge their love of caching with their love of some other activity. They like to hike, and they wanna do both. They like to shop, and they wanna do both....

 

Excellent and true. Geocaching dovetails well with a lot of activities. As old timers taper off geoaching as their first love they can still give it sloppy seconds as they get back to fishing, camping, hiking, shopping, or whatever it was that they did before they found geocaching and got a bit distracted.

So, what are you saying? That unless your standards are "Any cache will do" then Geocaching can no longer stand alone as an activity and must piggy-back off of some other activity you do enjoy?

 

Please clarify.

[vtmtnman]

There seems to be more and more cachers wanting to merge their love of caching with their love of some other activity. They like to hike, and they wanna do both. They like to shop, and they wanna do both....

 

Excellent and true. Geocaching dovetails well with a lot of activities. As old timers taper off geoaching as their first love they can still give it sloppy seconds as they get back to fishing, camping, hiking, shopping, or whatever it was that they did before they found geocaching and got a bit distracted.

If you think about it it's only natural.I mean my only cache in the wild as of right now is next to one of my fav fishin holes.I've got a couple more planned near other fishing spots,and one by an awsome little rock outcrop that gives you a spectacular view that I found while hunting one year(I just hope I can secure permission for it...it really defines hidden gems of spots).Someone else who caches and hunts on the same mountain could have a nice hunt with a cache mixed in.

 

It just seems that mixing shopping and caching isn't for everyone,which is cool too.

[+Renegade Knight]

There seems to be more and more cachers wanting to merge their love of caching with their love of some other activity. They like to hike, and they wanna do both. They like to shop, and they wanna do both....

 

Excellent and true. Geocaching dovetails well with a lot of activities. As old timers taper off geoaching as their first love they can still give it sloppy seconds as they get back to fishing, camping, hiking, shopping, or whatever it was that they did before they found geocaching and got a bit distracted.

So, what are you saying? That unless your standards are "Any cache will do" then Geocaching can no longer stand alone as an activity and must piggy-back off of some other activity you do enjoy?

 

Please clarify.

I'm saying if you like cooking it fits well with marrying someone who likes to eat. If you like wrenching, it fits well with enjoying 4x4 trails, if you are a crooked SOB who will do anything to get ahead, it will dovetail well with politics (or so it seems).

 

It's not a "good cache bad cache" thing. It's merely an activity that fits well with a lot of other activities that can make them more enjoyable. A lot of us cachers did things before caching. Before that we did something else. One hobby gave out to another which gave out to another. Geocaching still fits as we move on. Because of that it has a greater longevity than it would otherwise have.

[+TrailGators]

There seems to be more and more cachers wanting to merge their love of caching with their love of some other activity. They like to hike, and they wanna do both. They like to shop, and they wanna do both....

 

Excellent and true. Geocaching dovetails well with a lot of activities. As old timers taper off geoaching as their first love they can still give it sloppy seconds as they get back to fishing, camping, hiking, shopping, or whatever it was that they did before they found geocaching and got a bit distracted.

So, what are you saying? That unless your standards are "Any cache will do" then Geocaching can no longer stand alone as an activity and must piggy-back off of some other activity you do enjoy?

 

Please clarify.

I'm saying if you like cooking it fits well with marrying someone who likes to eat. If you like wrenching, it fits well with enjoying 4x4 trails, if you are a crooked SOB who will do anything to get ahead, it will dovetail well with politics (or so it seems).

 

It's not a "good cache bad cache" thing. It's merely an activity that fits well with a lot of other activities that can make them more enjoyable. A lot of us cachers did things before caching. Before that we did something else. One hobby gave out to another which gave out to another. Geocaching still fits as we move on. Because of that it has a greater longevity than it would otherwise have.

Evidentally some people like geocaching near garbage dumpsters. Now who would have been visiting those places prior to geocaching.....

[+tozainamboku]

Evidentally some people like geocaching near garbage dumpsters. Now who would have been visiting those places prior to geocaching.....

Before I started geocaching I was a homeless bum who would dig through dumpsters to find cans and bottles to take to the recycling center. Now I can look for a cache to find when I go dumpster diving

[+TrailGators]

Evidentally some people like geocaching near garbage dumpsters. Now who would have been visiting those places prior to geocaching.....

Before I started geocaching I was a homeless bum who would dig through dumpsters to find cans and bottles to take to the recycling center. Now I can look for a cache to find when I go dumpster diving