Becoming a CO

[+Krystal Tipps]

I don't know whether other countries have similar issues, but in the UK we have started to see a large number of COs who have virtually no finds and are causing issues. A very local example was a cacher who had 3 finds, then put out a cache. It was there for a few months then started getting DNFs due to cache being destroyed. In November the CO posted a 'disable' note and there it sat. Finally, this month I posted a NA as the CO still only had 3 finds and hadn't logged on since his disable note. He finally archived it. The main point of my post is, despite trying to keep geocaching as rule free as possible, I (and many others I have spoken to) feel that to become a CO you should have a certain number of finds prior to placing. With the free app (and don't get me started on that!!) huge numbers of people are just 'having a go' for a couple of weeks then not bothering, which is fine as long as they haven't started putting caches out! Thoughts anyone??

[+wmpastor]

Yes, good point about experience finding caches being very helpful in placing good caches. It is encouraged.

 

At least in the case you mentioned, the system worked and the cache went the NA-then-archived route.

[+Touchstone]

From the Guidelines:

 

We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one.

 

Now if we can just encourage people to read the Guidelines

[+FlyingDuc]

If the person is responsible and committed to maintaining the cache, I don't see a need for minimum number of finds. I think it's good to get some new blood in. If you're going to set a requirement for being a CO, perhaps it should be a privilege for premium members only. That way they at least have a little skin in the game.

 

On another, but related topic, I am in favor of cache ceilings. What I mean by that is that a single member should only be allowed to maintain (arbitrary number here) 30 caches. I've seen too many people in my area that own hundreds of caches each and are unable to maintain them. It's easier for them just to archive the caches than to perform maintenance on them. A lot of these neglected caches still appear on the list even after a year of DNFs listed.

[+L0ne.R]

How long had the cacher been a member? Too many people plant during the honeymoon phase. Sign up for an account and within a couple of months they hide a cache then drop out of sight. i would like to see a wait period of 3 months, but probably 1 month might sufficiently weed out the fly-by-nighters, the unsupervised children, the scout group projects, the geography class projects, etc.

The archival system works when used, but few people will post NMs, and only a handful of people will stick their necks out and post an NA. Many people will drop a throw down to "help". It can takes months, sometimes years before an abandoned cache is finally archived. Kudos for logging the NA..

[+macatac1961]

Add them to your Ignore list. If that person becomes a legitimate cacher you can easily remove it from the list.

[+L0ne.R]

1452433702[/url]' post='5558307']

 

On another, but related topic, I am in favor of cache ceilings. What I mean by that is that a single member should only be allowed to maintain (arbitrary number here) 30 caches. I've seen too many people in my area that own hundreds of caches each and are unable to maintain them. It's easier for them just to archive the caches than to perform maintenance on them. A lot of these neglected caches still appear on the list even after a year of DNFs listed.

 

I would love to see this. It's so frustrating to cache in areas that have greedy COs who carpet bomb then neglect their cache hides.

[Pup Patrol]

A lot of these neglected caches still appear on the list even after a year of DNFs listed.

 

Post a Needs Archived log on such caches.

 

B.

[+Mudfrog]

There's never been a waiting period or after so many finds limit. For years, i never thought there needed to be. But now, yes,,, either of these would be good.

 

Unfortunately, because cell phones and their apps are the biggest thing since bubble gum, their use for geocaching is what's focused on by GS. Desktop computers and gpsrs, things i believe more of us dedicated geocachers use, are being pushed aside. Most every update/change made to the website hampers us who still use these devices. Because of the sheer numbers of people playing with phones, this may be a good short term strategy. But long term,, i feel that we're slowly losing good people. Meanwhile, the fly by nighters fly in, get excited for two minutes, then move on to the next fun app they find. Many times, leaving junk behind that causes problems.

 

With GC.com encouraging this, it's not going away anytime soon.

[+Manville Possum]

Add them to your Ignore list. If that person becomes a legitimate cacher you can easily remove it from the list.

 

I think we need a ignore caches by user feature as well as an ignore cache feature.

 

Recently I have seen a new user that once a cache is published they will temp disable the listing and post "Waiting for new coordinates". I bet that irks the FTF people.

[+dprovan]

That happens once in a while in my area, but it's become less common over the years. I think that's because the experienced cachers recognize this issue, so as soon as a newbie's cache has problems, people will jump on it with the appropriate NMs and NAs to get the cache off the books. Although I can't support this with any evidence, I think this somehow ends up discouraging newbies, perhaps because the reaction to a poorly maintained newbie cache can be a little harsh, so when the newer newbies see what happened to the older newbies, they're a little more cautious about planting their first cache. There might also be an element of the "broken window theory" going on: the fewer bad caches a newbie sees in the environment, the more likely that they'll feel themselves held to the higher standard.

 

Add them to your Ignore list. If that person becomes a legitimate cacher you can easily remove it from the list.

No, sorry, I think the exact opposite is the solution. I think the reason this is more of a problem in some area may be precisely that the more experienced cachers ignore the problem allowing it to fester.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The main point of my post is, despite trying to keep geocaching as rule free as possible, I (and many others I have spoken to) feel that to become a CO you should have a certain number of finds prior to placing.

 

The problem with requiring a minimum number of finds before being allowed to place a cache is that it creates as system where those living in a cache dense area (areas that may not really need more caches) will be able to easily qualify to place caches, while those in areas that are cache sparse (and thus, could use more caches in the area) will find in difficult to qualify. Assuming that the minimum number was, as someone mentioned of the recommendation in the guideline, 20 hides, there would be a lot of places that would never grow. Of the 247 countries/territories that GS recognizes, 85 of them have fewer than 20 caches in the entire country.

 

A raw number of finds is not a reliable indicator of experience.

[+redsox_mark]

Whilst you will get some new cachers with great caches and some experienced cachers with poor ones; I would like to see a time based minimum before you can hide. As others have said, a sort of cooling off period.

 

Having said that, I'm not seeing this as a big problem myself (and I'm not that far from the OP). Every once in a while I see a cache like that from a brand new cacher; but not often.

[+narcissa]

I have known cachers with hundreds or thousands of finds who did the same thing. Sometimes caches don't last for one reason or another. If the cache is archived, it isn't an issue anymore. The game would be much better if cachers could take a breath and choose to be less offended every time they see a cache listing that is mildly annoying.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

I hid my first cache 6 days after my first cache find. It is still in place after 10 + years. Last summer I put in a piece of geoart (36 caches) with my original cache in the center.

If someone hides a bad cache (first or other), it should be noted in the first finder's log.

[+deuceice]

Being one of those Noobs with a cell phone, I agreethat newer people should have a wait time plus a certain number of finds. I would never have found the game had it not be for the app on my smartphone and I LOVE the game. I won't be able to spend money on a fancy GPS, but don't think I should be banned because I use the app. A grace period would be lovely and give those who will burn out a chance to do just that. My vote is for 3 Months and 100 finds. So it is written, so it shall be done. (I thought that was the rule anyhow, lol)

[+vw_k]

Having a large number of finds or being a premium member doesn't necessarialy mean you'll plant good caches. Anyone can spend a day finding lots of caches behind street signs and there are loads of great caches out there planted by people who, for whatever reason, choose to remain a basic member.

 

Allowing a "honeymoon period" might solve the issue of people caching for a week then abandoning their caches but I'd like to see a way of encouraging new cachers to read the guidelines and how-to guides. Education like this might also help prevent TBs from going missing due to incorrect logging or being picked up by people who quit soon after.

[+Tassie_Boy]

Being one of those Noobs with a cell phone, I agreethat newer people should have a wait time plus a certain number of finds. I would never have found the game had it not be for the app on my smartphone and I LOVE the game. I won't be able to spend money on a fancy GPS, but don't think I should be banned because I use the app. A grace period would be lovely and give those who will burn out a chance to do just that. My vote is for 3 Months and 100 finds. So it is written, so it shall be done. (I thought that was the rule anyhow, lol)

 

I'm glad you think that 100 finds is reasonable and that you are happy to tar everyone with the same geocaching brush but you'll find many who are not.

 

I don't have too many more finds than you but i have been caching 20x as long. What you propose punishes me and others who are picky about the caches they go for. By the time i placed my first (3 years in?) I could tell what was and wasn't a good cache without having my hand held and only 40 finds under my belt.

 

A new person with fresh ideas is a lot more valuable to the game than someone who has seen the same crud over and over and over again. Force them to wait that long and a fresh new, interesting hide idea is gone.

 

That is of course on top of the before mentioned problem of areas without the numbers in the first place. You propose 100 finds before hiding, there are only 32 caches in Zambia. You want caches when you travel but you want hiding restricted, you can't have it both ways.

[+ChileHead]

I see new cachers placing caches in areas that they are excited about. Maybe their coordinates are off, maybe the container is not water proof. But I'd much rather find a cache like this from a newbie, than wait until they get corrupted by the bulk of lousy caches out there and decide hiding a lamp post cache is what people want.

 

I hid my first cache a couple weeks after I started, after only having 6 finds or so. 13 years later it's still there (after being maintained a few times), and people enjoy the 3 mile hike to get it.

 

I'm glad there was no such rule when I started.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

That is of course on top of the before mentioned problem of areas without the numbers in the first place. You propose 100 finds before hiding, there are only 32 caches in Zambia. You want caches when you travel but you want hiding restricted, you can't have it both ways.

 

The caches in Zambia are scattered all over the country. When I was there in 2007 there was one virtual in Zambia and the next closest cache in Zambia was 200 miles away. Surprisingly, Zimbabwe now has 300 caches. There are 247 countries/territories on the Groundspeak countries list. 158 of them have fewer than 100 caches. The problem with a fixed minimum number of finds to qualify to place a cache is that areas that have the most caches (and which may not really need more) would become easy to place caches, and in areas where caches are the most needed it becomes extremely difficult.

 

[+Mudfrog]

Finding a few caches before placing one may be a good idea but i don't think it should be mandatory. The one thing i see helping is to have a waiting period. Doesn't have to be a long waiting period, just enough time to help determine if a person is mildly interested in pursuing our hobby. As fast as people move through apps, a couple of weeks would probably help.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Boy, this comes up a lot.

 

Lots of people change accounts, or split up a team account. To cite just a few reasons:

• 
   
  
• Break up or divorce and get their own account,
  
• Grow up and get off their parents' account,
  
• Move out and get their own account,
  
• Establish a second account (one to find with, one to hide with)
  
• Get harassed in the game, and move to a new account (happens more than you'd want it to)
   
  

 

Both 'wait-time' periods and a minimum find count hurts those people.

[+Mudfrog]

Boy, this comes up a lot.

 

Lots of people change accounts, or split up a team account. To cite just a few reasons:

• 
   
  
• Break up or divorce and get their own account,
  
• Grow up and get off their parents' account,
  
• Move out and get their own account,
  
• Establish a second account (one to find with, one to hide with)
  
• Get harassed in the game, and move to a new account (happens more than you'd want it to)
   
  

 

Both 'wait-time' periods and a minimum find count hurts those people.

 

Having to obtain minimum find count would not be a good idea as it could be virtually impossible for people in some areas.

 

Yes, the wait time would also affect everyone but it's not something that would cause much grief. Having to wait two weeks, even a month, is not a big deal for anyone wanting to pursue our hobby. Meanwhile, it helps to keep some of the fly by night caches from showing up.

[+L0ne.R]

Boy, this comes up a lot.

 

Lots of people change accounts, or split up a team account. To cite just a few reasons:

• Break up or divorce and get their own account,
• Grow up and get off their parents' account,
• Move out and get their own account,
• Establish a second account (one to find with, one to hide with)
• Get harassed in the game, and move to a new account (happens more than you'd want it to)

 

Both 'wait-time' periods and a minimum find count hurts those people.

 

Having to obtain minimum find count would not be a good idea as it could be virtually impossible for people in some areas.

 

Yes, the wait time would also affect everyone but it's not something that would cause much grief. Having to wait two weeks, even a month, is not a big deal for anyone wanting to pursue our hobby. Meanwhile, it helps to keep some of the fly by night caches from showing up.

 

And caches are expected to last awhile, cache owners must be ready to maintain caches for months, more likely years. If a cache owner can't wait 2 weeks-3 months, how likely are they to stick around for the long run after posting a cache? If they've created a new account they can begin the hide process - scout around for a good spot, buy a good container, camo it, start the cache listing, ask for a coordinate check; once the location is confirmed as available, start creating the page. The wait will mean a new account holder can spend more time thinking about the cache and the write-up, maybe even create a more interesting experience for finders.

Edited January 13, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I am in favor of a wait time for new accounts for publication of a new cache. Yes, it does put the onus on the review process. It also allows a reviewer to easily ignore the requirement if there is a valid reason, like those listed by TeamRabbitRun.

 

As for a general find count restriction, I'm not in favor of that idea. However, I would be in favor of a more targeted find count restriction. Something like, "You can't place a cache until you have found three caches of differing sizes." My idea is that like begets like, and finding a few differing sizes would show a new cacher a wider range of what a cache can be.

 

Skye.

[+jellis]

From the Guidelines:

 

We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one.

 

Now if we can just encourage people to read the Guidelines

Totally agree on that.

 

Your not alone, many areas have the same issue. Some of ours the coords are off, cache not placed or the cacher disappears right after they place it.

Not a CO, but I recently ran into some caches that disappeared and noticed some cachers may have taken the words " I grabbed the cache" literally. Cause caches were being DNFd after they logged them. Luckily they got bored and quit caching.

Edited January 14, 2016 by jellis

[+WarNinjas]

We placed our first cache within a few weeks of caching. After probably only one day of caching we started planning our first hide. It is still active over 4 years later. I think it has more to do with the person then then amount of time or finds then anything else.

[+barefootjeff]

As for a general find count restriction, I'm not in favor of that idea. However, I would be in favor of a more targeted find count restriction. Something like, "You can't place a cache until you have found three caches of differing sizes." My idea is that like begets like, and finding a few differing sizes would show a new cacher a wider range of what a cache can be.

 

Australia has lots of caches, but most of those are in the capital cities or along the coastal fringe. Go inland and they're very sparse, even in the larger towns. Gunnedah, for example, has a grand total of three, all traditionals, two small and a regular. Any restriction requiring a quantity or variety of finds would be the death knell for caching in many places.

 

Jeff

[+BAMBOOZLE]

We placed our first cache within a few weeks of caching. After probably only one day of caching we started planning our first hide. It is still active over 4 years later. I think it has more to do with the person then then amount of time or finds then anything else.

 

I agree completely.

[+Nerre]

I know of NOT ONE cacher who placed several caches before he logged his first one.

 

In Germany there are several owners who place caches under another account. Those are called sock puppet over here.

Some people do it to cheat, so they can log their own caches.

Some people do it to place caches, they don't want to be traceable to themselves for some reason. Like LPs or legal limbo caches.

 

Deal with it (if the caches are okay) or log an NA (if the sock puppet causes problems or publish [bad] caches).

Edited January 17, 2016 by Keystone
removed potty language

[+TeamRabbitRun]

We placed our first cache within a few weeks of caching. After probably only one day of caching we started planning our first hide. It is still active over 4 years later. I think it has more to do with the person then then amount of time or finds then anything else.

 

I agree completely.

 

+1

[+bflentje]

From the Guidelines:

 

We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one.

 

Now if we can just encourage people to read the Guidelines

Totally agree on that.

 

I've read the guidelines but only after the fact. If you're being honest with yourself, it is human nature to ignore the "fine print" until that fine print becomes a problem. I am not suggesting that anyone not read the guidelines. But to suggest you're going to get every to read it just isn't going to happen.

[+L0ne.R]

From the Guidelines:

 

We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one.

 

Now if we can just encourage people to read the Guidelines

Totally agree on that.

 

I've read the guidelines but only after the fact. If you're being honest with yourself, it is human nature to ignore the "fine print" until that fine print becomes a problem. I am not suggesting that anyone not read the guidelines. But to suggest you're going to get every to read it just isn't going to happen.

 

Very true.

 

And Groundspeak has done quite a bit in the last year to encourage new players to understand the guidelines before planting. We asked for a quiz and they created one. The quiz is right upfront, can't miss it on https://www.geocaching.com/play/hide. It's the first thing on the list, you have to scroll past it to get to #3 Submit your cache for review. And they provide links to the TOU and Guidelines in the cache submission form. You have to check the box in order to proceed. The encouragement is there.

 

We need to work with human nature. One way would be to slow people down, give them time to understand the game and work on their first cache.

Edited January 14, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+Mudfrog]

We placed our first cache within a few weeks of caching. After probably only one day of caching we started planning our first hide. It is still active over 4 years later. I think it has more to do with the person then then amount of time or finds then anything else.

 

I agree, to an extent. But i think we have to understand, even if a person has good intentions, is creative, has common sense, etc,, they can still be a person who might get very excited about the hobby but then decide to drop it after that initial excitement wears off. The time that it takes varies of course but there's no doubt that this initial excitement goes away really quickly for many people. If they do place a cache during this period, then there's the good chance it won't get picked up when they quit.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Mudfrog

[+Harry Dolphin]

We placed our first cache within a few weeks of caching. After probably only one day of caching we started planning our first hide. It is still active over 4 years later. I think it has more to do with the person then then amount of time or finds then anything else.

 

Yup. Hid our first cache after a month and a half of caching and about fifty finds. Eleven years and 56 finds later, it's still there!

[+Mudfrog]

We placed our first cache within a few weeks of caching. After probably only one day of caching we started planning our first hide. It is still active over 4 years later. I think it has more to do with the person then then amount of time or finds then anything else.

 

Yup. Hid our first cache after a month and a half of caching and about fifty finds. Eleven years and 56 finds later, it's still there!

 

You see a pattern here. I too hid my first cache within weeks of finding my first cache. Mine is a multi and it's still going as well. None of us were all that quick to the draw hiding our first. It's when people get that excitement of the first find and then try to hide their own a couple of days later that usually doesn't pan out.

[+WarNinjas]

I just checked and we had 3 caches published 6 days after finding our first cache. Then one the day after. All still active. I also see one of our caches placed less then 1 month after we found our first cache has 250 favorite points. If there had been a 1 month waiting period none of those caches might have been placed. We might have even lost interest because we couldn't hide caches and we like to hide them.

I think it is easier to weed out the players who loose interest in the game rather then to possibly loose a new cacher that might add some fun to the game. I also now see how a waiting period could help but I am glad it was not that way when we started.

[+Ant89]

Solution IMO is not to restrict the timeframe in which new cachers can begin hiding but for people to become more proactive in clearing up the rubbish. Personally if someone has not logged into the website for over 6 months, then they are IMO no longer active and an NA can be submitted.

 

I was told that the last login date does not show the last date in which a login from an app or other API partner was made. Perhaps the site needs to indicate the last login date regardless of access via a browser or though the API?

[+dprovan]

Solution IMO is not to restrict the timeframe in which new cachers can begin hiding but for people to become more proactive in clearing up the rubbish. Personally if someone has not logged into the website for over 6 months, then they are IMO no longer active and an NA can be submitted.

I'm sure everyone's sick of me pointing this out, but the time since the CO's been logged in is entirely irrelevant. Logged the NA if the cache warrants it whether the CO is active or not. Don't log an NA if the cache doesn't warrant one whether you'd guess the CO is idle or not.

[+niraD]

Personally if someone has not logged into the website for over 6 months, then they are IMO no longer active and an NA can be submitted.

Personally, if cache owners are reading all the logs posted to their caches (e.g., via the email notifications) and are dealing with their caches' issues (if any), then they are active, no matter how long it has been since they logged into the web site. Edited January 17, 2016 by niraD

[+narcissa]

Solution IMO is not to restrict the timeframe in which new cachers can begin hiding but for people to become more proactive in clearing up the rubbish. Personally if someone has not logged into the website for over 6 months, then they are IMO no longer active and an NA can be submitted.

 

I was told that the last login date does not show the last date in which a login from an app or other API partner was made. Perhaps the site needs to indicate the last login date regardless of access via a browser or though the API?

 

If login date is going to be used against COs in a vindictive manner whether they're maintaining their caches or not, perhaps it shouldn't be something visible to the public.

[+Itzzie]

I actually do not agree with a specified amount of finds in order to hide. Simply because I have a joint account with my cousin in addition to my personal account. We show 5 finds but have put out one of the top 10 multis in Nebraska. Just because the stats show that doesn't mean that they don't have experience. I personally didn't hide anything until I had 100 finds however, I did a ton of research and have a ton of seasoned cachers locally at my disposal. I do understand that some shouldn't be hiding however there shouldn't be a limit. Some folks may enjoy hiding rather than finding!

[+jellis]

Solution IMO is not to restrict the timeframe in which new cachers can begin hiding but for people to become more proactive in clearing up the rubbish. Personally if someone has not logged into the website for over 6 months, then they are IMO no longer active and an NA can be submitted.

I'm sure everyone's sick of me pointing this out, but the time since the CO's been logged in is entirely irrelevant. Logged the NA if the cache warrants it whether the CO is active or not. Don't log an NA if the cache doesn't warrant one whether you'd guess the CO is idle or not.

That's fine but I don't like when the CO is no longer active and the cache goes missing, another cacher comes along and replaces it. With some exceptions I understand but not newbie cachers who don't care and walk away and everyone else tries to keep the cache going just to get another find. Let it die and get archived and have someone else place a cache there who may actually maintain theirs.

[+dprovan]

That's fine but I don't like when the CO is no longer active and the cache goes missing, another cacher comes along and replaces it. With some exceptions I understand but not newbie cachers who don't care and walk away and everyone else tries to keep the cache going just to get another find. Let it die and get archived and have someone else place a cache there who may actually maintain theirs.

I prefer people don't try to maintain someone else's caches. But I see no reason to punish the cache by asking for it to be archived just because it has happened. It just doesn't make sense to begin with, even if I thought you could always be sure that the person replacing the cache wasn't acting as an actual agent of the CO.

[+The Perkins Family]

I don't think that 100 caches is fair, or even 20 because i have hid 4 (if i may say so my self) good caches and i have only found 30. And also i have found more caches than 30 because i used to not log geocache finds, i think that the cache owners who have stopped geocaching should be put on a list and if their geocaches need maintanence be emailed by a reviewer.

[+justintim1999]

That happens once in a while in my area, but it's become less common over the years. I think that's because the experienced cachers recognize this issue, so as soon as a newbie's cache has problems, people will jump on it with the appropriate NMs and NAs to get the cache off the books. Although I can't support this with any evidence, I think this somehow ends up discouraging newbies, perhaps because the reaction to a poorly maintained newbie cache can be a little harsh, so when the newer newbies see what happened to the older newbies, they're a little more cautious about planting their first cache. There might also be an element of the "broken window theory" going on: the fewer bad caches a newbie sees in the environment, the more likely that they'll feel themselves held to the higher standard.

 

Add them to your Ignore list. If that person becomes a legitimate cacher you can easily remove it from the list.

No, sorry, I think the exact opposite is the solution. I think the reason this is more of a problem in some area may be precisely that the more experienced cachers ignore the problem allowing it to fester.

 

good observation. We have many good caches and good hiders in my area and not to many "bad" caches. Bad meaning not maintained. I honestly think that dprovan's point is one of the main reasons for it. We also have good reviewers and an active caching community that monitors these things and are not afraid to take appropriate action.

Edited January 25, 2016 by justintim1999

[+cleandrysurface]

We placed our first cache within a few weeks of caching. After probably only one day of caching we started planning our first hide. It is still active over 4 years later. I think it has more to do with the person then then amount of time or finds then anything else.

 

I agree completely.

 

Agreed. Which is the bigger, more annoying problem: The occasional noob that hides the occasional noob cache and then disappears, or a seasoned cacher who hides tens or hundreds of caches and then doesn't have the adequate resources to maintain them all?

 

I try to give noobs a break and not be too harsh on their first caches. If they lose interest after that, those caches typically get archived pretty quickly.

 

A seasoned cacher on the other hand, a known local in the caching community, poses a more difficult problem. I am much more hesitant to post a NM or NA log as a courtesy. THOSE are the caches that linger unfound for months or years because nobody wants to piss in their own pool.

[+Harry Dolphin]

We placed our first cache within a few weeks of caching. After probably only one day of caching we started planning our first hide. It is still active over 4 years later. I think it has more to do with the person then then amount of time or finds then anything else.

 

I agree completely.

 

Agreed. Which is the bigger, more annoying problem: The occasional noob that hides the occasional noob cache and then disappears, or a seasoned cacher who hides tens or hundreds of caches and then doesn't have the adequate resources to maintain them all?

 

I try to give noobs a break and not be too harsh on their first caches. If they lose interest after that, those caches typically get archived pretty quickly.

 

A seasoned cacher on the other hand, a known local in the caching community, poses a more difficult problem. I am much more hesitant to post a NM or NA log as a courtesy. THOSE are the caches that linger unfound for months or years because nobody wants to piss in their own pool.

 

Hmm... Placed my first cache after almost two months. Still in good condition eleven years later. Only checked on it once.

Did maintenance on one of my caches that hadn't been found in three years. Still there nine years later. Hey. They don't get a lot of finds. Something about hiking two miles with 400' of climb.

I recall one (count it: one) prolific hider who never did maintenance. Most have been archived.

Cell-phone newbies... Found a cache, hid a cache (with coords 70' off). Goodbye. Yes. They can get archived quickly. But a sad aspect to this game.

Sadder are the long-time cachers who stop. Did a great series. Found eleven. Three had been archived. Inactive for a year or two.

Or the evil cacher who hid a lot of evil caches. Great caches! But, he's gone. They're slowly getting archived. Not necessarily because they're missing, but because of the DNFs, and not being maintained: (Yup! Still there.)

Bigger problem? To me, it's the newbies.

[+Mudfrog]

New people can be creative and bring new ideas to our hobby. What i see these days though is that new people come into geocaching differently than how they did a few years back. In the past, most people, when they heard about geocaching, did some research on it. They went to gc.com to learn more and they asked questions if there was something they didn't quite understand. People had a better inkling of what to expect before diving into our hobby which i believe, led to fewer fly by nighters.

 

This is not the case today. Most people see the app, put it in their phone, and go. I doubt many are doing much research, if any. Most don't ask questions or look for advice from people more experienced. Because of this, more mistakes are made and more problems crop up. Many, i'd guess over 50%, are probably excited at first but then get bored quickly. It's not long before they move on to something new.

[+Tassie_Boy]

I think the best bet, for all of us is to lead by example. If you want to see better geocaches put out then be prepared to put out better geocaches yourselves and to keep on top of maintenance issues although i do think I'm probably preaching to the converted here.

Nothing is going to change if the 'standard'is sub par. Nothing is going to change while you can buy a Geocache of eBay and throw it straight in the first bush you find without any thought at all.

 

If we want change WE need to start the change.