Promoting caches that will be abandoned/unmaintained?

[+niraD]

In another thread, fizzymagic stated that the guidelines create an incentive for hiding caches that will be abandoned and/or will have maintenance problems. To avoid taking that thread off-topic, let's discuss this issue here.

 

the guidelines incentivize caches that will be abandoned and/or have maintenance problems

I thought I knew the guidelines pretty well. But this is new to me. Can you point me to the relevant guideline section(s)?

As I wrote earlier, this thread is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. I would be happy to discuss it in a new thread.

[+narcissa]

I strongly believe that when they started to allow power trails, it inadvertently changed the game in many ways. The "throw down" behaviour that is the hallmark of many power trails has bled into the rest of the game, and too many cache owners seem to have an expectation that finders, not owners, are responsible for maintaining their caches for them.

[+Manville Possum]

Power trails are a prim example. Locally it appears that an account was created and abandoned after dumping 500 caches along a busy four lane highway for the community to maintain.

 

Allowing ownerless power trails has spoiled geocaching. Geocaching should get you off your couch and outdoors, not drive and stop every 528 feet to swap out pill bottles.

[+fizzymagic]

I don't have much time now, but I will begin the discussion with a couple of general statements.

 

The main problem with the guidelines, as they are currently formulated, is one of so-called "perverse incentives." That is, while the goals of the guidelines are laudatory, the actual result is quite different from what was intended.

 

Here's a quick example: the ban on temporary caches for events. The guidelines state that:

 

Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (traveling caches), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for one-time events) will not be published.

 

Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, people still want to place a bunch of caches to be used for an event. So what do they do? They place a bunch of temporary caches and lie to the reviewers, and then forget about them once the event is over.

 

The result? A large number of poorly-maintained caches surrounding an event, that the owner will not archive.

 

Another example: the cache maintenance guidelines.

The guideline states that, in the case of a Needs Maintenance log:

 

You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache.

 

The result? People don't tend to place caches in hard-to-reach spots that they might not visit very often, ad that it might take longer than 4 weeks to plan and execute a visit. Instead, there is a proliferation of urban micros and power trails along easily-accessible roads.

 

A secondary problem with the guidelines is what is missing: while there is an enormous amount of detail about cache maintenance responsibility, there is nothing about cache container quality. Here's the statement about "appropriate containers":

 

Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your cache will be hidden with landowner or land manager permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching, may view people searching the property as suspicious. Containers that could be perceived as a bomb or another dangerous item should not be placed. To reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as dangerous by non-geocachers, and being permanently archived by Groundspeak, use common sense when selecting hiding places and containers.

 

Did you notice the complete lack of anything referring to container durability or longevity?

 

I could go on and on, and I probably will, later. But you get the drift.

[+narcissa]

Further to my previous point, I am of the opinion that there is plenty of room for variation within the game, including "power trails" and other number-based caching. This need not be at the expense of cache quality and maintenance. I do not wish my comments to be mistaken for, or conflated with other comments that needlessly attack other cachers on the basis of personal preference.

[+L0ne.R]

Further to my previous point, I am of the opinion that there is plenty of room for variation within the game, including "power trails" and other number-based caching. This need not be at the expense of cache quality and maintenance. I do not wish my comments to be mistaken for, or conflated with other comments that needlessly attack other cachers on the basis of personal preference.

 

But how? I would like to see both types of play work well together. But as is often the case, the level of the least discriminating audience tends to win out. Abandoned/unmaintained caches/listings are the easiest route and provides the smiley that power cachers want? How do we have a game for the power cachers and quality pastime for the quality seekers?

Edited July 20, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+narcissa]

Further to my previous point, I am of the opinion that there is plenty of room for variation within the game, including "power trails" and other number-based caching. This need not be at the expense of cache quality and maintenance. I do not wish my comments to be mistaken for, or conflated with other comments that needlessly attack other cachers on the basis of personal preference.

 

But how? I would like to see both types of play work well together. But as is often the case, the level of the least discriminating audience tends to win out. Abandoned/unmaintained caches/listings are the easiest route and still provide the smiley that power cachers want? How do we have a game for the power cachers and quality pastime for the quality seekers?

 

Hold "power trail" owners to the same maintenance standards as other cache owners. Crack down on throw-downs; the onus should be on the cache owner to respond to reports of multiple containers and deal with them promptly. Perhaps consider being more strict about disabling and archiving caches.

[+wmpastor]

I strongly believe that when they started to allow power trails, it inadvertently changed the game in many ways. The "throw down" behaviour that is the hallmark of many power trails has bled into the rest of the game, and too many cache owners seem to have an expectation that finders, not owners, are responsible for maintaining their caches for them.

 

I see the point that a careless attitude in one part of the game (PTs) could seep into another part of the game. But don't most cachers never visit a PT? I know of none near me, and wouldn't visit even if I did.

[+igator210]

Before this dives into another bash of Power Trails and LPCs and other caches that aren't long walks in the woods.... some of these Park-n-Grabs, to those individuals that might not be able to take a long walk in the woods, are the ones they can find.

 

I'm not here to embrace all types of caches, but rather point out that for those people that are disabled or otherwise impaired and do want to go geocaching, these "easy" caches are something they can retrieve. Just because Geocaching was started by those people that liked disappearing into the woods, doesn't mean those that can't should be excluded.

 

Please don't bash all 1/1 caches.

Edited July 20, 2016 by igator210

[+narcissa]

I strongly believe that when they started to allow power trails, it inadvertently changed the game in many ways. The "throw down" behaviour that is the hallmark of many power trails has bled into the rest of the game, and too many cache owners seem to have an expectation that finders, not owners, are responsible for maintaining their caches for them.

 

I see the point that a careless attitude in one part of the game (PTs) could seep into another part of the game. But don't most cachers never visit a PT? I know of none near me, and wouldn't visit even if I did.

 

I am not going to speculate about statistics.

 

I have noticed that "throw-down" behaviour often affects non-power-trail caches in my area. Many cachers seem to assume that it's okay to drop caches when they can't find them, and many cache owners seem to expect that this is what cachers will do.

[+L0ne.R]

Before this dives into another bash of Power Trails and LPCs and other caches that aren't long walks in the woods.... some of these Park-n-Grabs, to those individuals that might not be able to take a long walk in the woods, are the ones they can find.

 

I'm not here to embrace all types of caches, but rather point out that for those people that are disabled or otherwise impaired and do want to go geocaching, these "easy" caches are something they can retrieve. Just because Geocaching was started by those people that liked disappearing into the woods, doesn't mean those that can't should be excluded.

 

Please don't bash all 1/1 caches.

 

But disabled people (of which I was one for about 6 months) want quality maintained caches to find too.

[+narcissa]

Before this dives into another bash of Power Trails and LPCs and other caches that aren't long walks in the woods.... some of these Park-n-Grabs, to those individuals that might not be able to take a long walk in the woods, are the ones they can find.

 

I'm not here to embrace all types of caches, but rather point out that for those people that are disabled or otherwise impaired and do want to go geocaching, these "easy" caches are something they can retrieve. Just because Geocaching was started by those people that liked disappearing into the woods, doesn't mean those that can't should be excluded.

 

Please don't bash all 1/1 caches.

 

But disabled people (of which I was one for about 6 months) want quality maintained caches to find too.

 

Whether a cache is on a power trail or not, it should be well-maintained. If I happen to cross a power trail on my own route, and find just one cache on the trail, I should be able to reasonably expect that the cache will be in place, and that the container I find was purposefully placed at that particular location by the cache owner or a specifically designated proxy.

[+igator210]

But disabled people (of which I was one for about 6 months) want quality maintained caches to find too.

 

I know. Its just that sometimes these threads spiral and lose focus of the topic. I love discussion like these, even if I don't participate in the discussion, and I just wanted to throw in my concern of where the thread could head.

[+niraD]

I strongly believe that when they started to allow power trails, it inadvertently changed the game in many ways.

Yes, but to be fair, numbers run trails were already appearing, even before the "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" language was dropped from the guidelines. Geocachers wanted them, so geocachers placed them, working around whatever objective criteria the volunteer reviewers were enforcing. And we all know how much the volunteer reviewers enjoy enforcing subjective criteria.

 

The "throw down" behaviour that is the hallmark of many power trails has bled into the rest of the game, and too many cache owners seem to have an expectation that finders, not owners, are responsible for maintaining their caches for them.

Throwdowns were happening even before the "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" language was dropped from the guidelines. For that matter, so was armchair logging, which is what leapfrogging and other divide-and-conquer techniques really are.

 

But certain numbers run trails did introduce the three cache monte technique, and in the process, institutionalized throwdowns as a maintenance plan (even if statements to that effect couldn't appear in the cache descriptions).

 

I see the point that a careless attitude in one part of the game (PTs) could seep into another part of the game. But don't most cachers never visit a PT? I know of none near me, and wouldn't visit even if I did.

Even those who never visit a numbers run trail are affected by them. The three cache monte is applied to caches where it is not welcome. As narcissa indicated, throwdowns are being used where they are not welcome. And numbers run trails and other carpet-bombing have other effects too.

 

For example, when a park or trail is saturated naturally, a new cache can still be a unique thing. Sure, it's in a cache dense area, and there will be those who treat all the caches in the area as just another +1 as part of a numbers run, but all the caches in the area are unique faces in a big crowd, like this:

eVKvinYFfBgBetpfhpXcFkkYzOvBjKiMnauNlMwqvdDlXqeCLYaNfdNurtqS

 

But when a park or trail is saturated by a numbers run trail or by a carpet-bomber, other caches nearby are treated as just another fungible container, lost in the sea of clones, like this:

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnvnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[ohgood]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

[+fizzymagic]

While I agree that power trails are part of the problem, I don't think they are at the root of the problem, except insofar as they set an example for cachers of poor maintenance and lousy containers.

 

A far greater problem is caused by cachers who join, hide a bunch of caches in their newfound enthusiasm, and then lose interest in the game and abandon the caches.

 

The only ways those caches can be maintained are by community maintenance or adoption. Geocaching culture has moved away from community maintenance, a fact that is hardly surprising given the shockingly bad containers used for the vast majority of hides. When I encounter such a hide, I subconsciously think "if the original hider didn't even care enough to use a decent container, why should I fix it for him?"

 

The poor container choices also encourage throwdowns -- a numbers junkie will simply assume that the original hider didn't care much and used some cheapo container, and throw down a new (and usually equally horrid) container.

 

The point here is that there are exactly zero consequences for a cacher who leaves out lousy hides when they leave or become disinterested in the game. If they come back and want to hide a new cache, they get a warning about their unmaintained caches, but that's pretty much it.

 

Another significant problem is caused by the hiding numbers hounds. That is, those people who take pride in their number of hides. Groundspeak HQ in completely unapologetic about encouraging this behavior. Mega-hiders are regularly held up as examples. It's not unusual to see cachers with over 200 hides featured in the "cacher of the month" blog, for example.

 

Contrary to the claims of the individuals involved, my experience with their hides is that, with rare exceptions, they tend to use the cheapest containers they can find (such as pill bottles, disposable food storage containers, or centrifuge tubes) and they don't maintain the caches adequately.

[+wmpastor]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

Exactly, and the way to "hit the caches you like" is to rely on favorite points and read the descriptions and some recent logs.

 

Oh, wait, that was another thread and that idea was already shot down.

 

And it's impractical anyway - serious cachers load 4,000 caches from a query for the weekend (I read that here in the forum) and who can actually do that much reading?

 

Easier to not read and then complain.

[+fizzymagic]

From the very beginning of geocaching, there has been a tendency for a significant number of cache hiders to go for the cheapest possible containers and logs. It's a part of human nature, but it contributes greatly to the maintenance problems we all see.

 

The total cost of your generic pill-bottle hide, including the log, is probably less than 10 cents. Maybe 15 if the hider bothers to cover it in camo duct tape. The container is leaky, degrades in UV light, and probably has a tiny zipper bag inside that is barely bigger than the log. The zipper bag is almost invariably torn and the log inside is wet.

 

Consider than for less than $2.00 you can make a geocache that will last far longer and require much less maintenance.

 

Let's start with the weakest point: the log. Buy 25 sheets of National Geographic Waterproof Paper for $20. You can get 8 micro logs per sheet, so that is 200 logsheets for $20, or 10 cents apiece. This paper does not degrade even if immersed in water, and is designed to hold inkjet ink, so for most pens, it does not smear. No zip bag required.

 

If the initial outlay of $20 seems like too much, get a group of cachers to go in on a package together and split the cost.

 

Next, get a large-sized Bison-tube-like container like these. $7 for 4, or $1.75 apiece.

 

Now you have a microcache that will last (because it's metal), and a log to go inside that won't disintegrate if it gets wet. And you have spent less than $2.

 

A similar argument can be made for full-sized containers and spending in the neighborhood of $10.

 

The point here is that we have a maintenance problem because cachers don't care about the quality of their hides. That lack of care is directly traceable to perverse incentives from the guidelines -- since the standard is nominally to get to you cache quickly when maintenance is required, most caches are hidden in muggle-rich urban areas and many go missing. As a result, most containers are cheap (because they will likely be muggled), and the care with which they are hidden reflects that cheapness, in a vicious circle that results in lousy containers.

[+fizzymagic]

One more thing. Please note that in the above posts, I am not complaining about poorly-maintained caches.

 

Personally, I don't find them a big problem, as I tend to avoid the kinds of caches that have serious maintenance problems. And when I do find a poorly-maintained cache, I am far more grateful to the CO for hiding it than I am upset about its condition.

 

I am, in these posts, trying to outline the causes of the maintenance problems that other people appear to be complaining about. In particular, I am attempting to show that the guidelines themselves have built-in perverse incentives that result in poorer cache maintenance.

 

And before anybody attacks me for not suggesting a better solution, understand that I don't think it's a problem requiring Geocaching.com intervention. I, personally, have no problems with the guidelines. And I don't have my undies in a knot over maintenance issues.

 

I am simply trying to explain why the maintenance issues exist (and will always exist), why the guidelines make them worse, and why the current things Geocaching.com is doing are not likely to help.

 

I am annoyed, however -- annoyed that Geocaching.com is spending resources implementing ineffective measures to solve an insoluble problem, while at the same time it has refused for years to implement simple changes that would improve usability for all users.

Edited July 21, 2016 by fizzymagic

[+narcissa]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

This isn't relevant to the post. We are discussing how the guidelines may contribute to unmaintained caches.

Edited July 21, 2016 by narcissa

[+L0ne.R]

One more thing. Please note that in the above posts, I am not complaining about poorly-maintained caches.

 

Personally, I don't find them a big problem, as I tend to avoid the kinds of caches that have serious maintenance problems. And when I do find a poorly-maintained cache, I am far more grateful to the CO for hiding it than I am upset about its condition.

 

I am, in these posts, trying to outline the causes of the maintenance problems that other people appear to be complaining about. In particular, I am attempting to show that the guidelines themselves have built-in perverse incentives that result in poorer cache maintenance.

 

And before anybody attacks me for not suggesting a better solution, understand that I don't think it's a problem requiring Geocaching.com intervention. I, personally, have no problems with the guidelines. And I don't have my undies in a knot over maintenance issues.

 

I am simply trying to explain why the maintenance issues exist (and will always exist), why the guidelines make them worse, and why the current things Geocaching.com is doing are not likely to help.

 

I am annoyed, however -- annoyed that Geocaching.com is spending resources implementing ineffective measures to solve an insoluble problem, while at the same time it has refused for years to implement simple changes that would improve usability for all users.

 

This is depressing. It seems that geocaching.com is doomed to a database full of more and more poor quality containers, in poor condition, replaced by other cachers with equally poor containers.

[+dprovan]

This is depressing. It seems that geocaching.com is doomed to a database full of more and more poor quality containers, in poor condition, replaced by other cachers with equally poor containers.

Not at all. I cache in an area with no problem with quality. Naturally bad caches happen, and caches fall into disrepair, and once in a while there's even a throwdown, but they're minor distractions in my geocaching experience. So quality can be maintained, but it has to be done by geocachers. Compared to the boots on the streets, nothing GS can do will be very effective.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

when a large park or long trail is completely saturated with caches of a type that some might not like it effectively makes that park or long trail unavailable to some for geocaching.

 

 

[+Pork King]

As has been stated, there will be bad hides/crappy containers/absent COs... the issue that I'm seeing a lot is cachers trying to be helpful, letting a cache limp along when it should just be archived. Take a look at the closest "what is in your cache bag" post. Duct tape, spare containers, baggies... I'm not saying a cacher can't help temporarily patch up a cache, but if you find a cache in disrepair, post a NM.

 

Instead now I have to read through 50 logs to find out that the container was changed from a bucket to a preform in '09, one cacher moved it 30 feet to a more suitable spot, and the log is now a Walmart receipt stuck to a nearby tree.

[+Touchstone]

In another thread, fizzymagic stated that the guidelines create an incentive for hiding caches that will be abandoned and/or will have maintenance problems. To avoid taking that thread off-topic, let's discuss this issue here.

 

The premise of your topic makes a faulty assumption (e.g. that people read the Guidelines)

[+Team Microdot]

As has been stated, there will be bad hides/crappy containers/absent COs... the issue that I'm seeing a lot is cachers trying to be helpful, letting a cache limp along when it should just be archived. Take a look at the closest "what is in your cache bag" post. Duct tape, spare containers, baggies... I'm not saying a cacher can't help temporarily patch up a cache, but if you find a cache in disrepair, post a NM.

 

Instead now I have to read through 50 logs to find out that the container was changed from a bucket to a preform in '09, one cacher moved it 30 feet to a more suitable spot, and the log is now a Walmart receipt stuck to a nearby tree.

 

All this.

 

And then the CO of the cr@ppy cache screams caching police happy as a sandboy so long as others are prepared to settle for a cr@ppy cache - or even bring one of their own to leave behind in the full knowledge that the original cache isn't even there, but furious at the idea that they might be expected to do what they agreed to do when they placed the cache that was already an excuse for a cache even when it was new

 

No doubt someone will be along in a minute or two to remind us that we all play the game in our own way

 

I fail to see what Groundspeak could do to the guidelines that would fix any of this - it's down to people, many of whom have a lowest-common-denominator attitude.

[ohgood]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

Exactly, and the way to "hit the caches you like" is to rely on favorite points and read the descriptions and some recent logs.

 

Oh, wait, that was another thread and that idea was already shot down.

 

And it's impractical anyway - serious cachers load 4,000 caches from a query for the weekend (I read that here in the forum) and who can actually do that much reading?

 

Easier to not read and then complain.

 

yeppers. nailed it.

 

we load a couple thousand caches prior to heading to an area we plan to hike, then cull the micros/notfounds/trails/similarly-blah caches and stick to the few that have lots of favorites and/or neat land formations nearby. we definitely aren't 'serious' about caching, but if someone found one of our phones might think we were with 15,000 or so caches listed, gpx tracks planning how to get to interesting sets, and the amount of organization involved in the directories like "caches that suck (micros)" "FIND ME TODAY" "caching with the kids" "caching with friendname" etc

 

it's actually kind of cool to hear the phone start chirping about a cache nearby, realize its another micro and say "just a micro" and everyone laugh as we keep walking instead of wasting time looking for it. so much nicer to keep moving instead of getting all "GRRRR I HATE MICROS!" and then wishing everyone tailored the game to our likes.

 

maybe someday i'll care about evil/micro caches, but right now, meh.

[ohgood]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

This isn't relevant to the post. We are discussing how the guidelines may contribute to unmaintained caches.

 

your very first post in this thread does not mention guidelines, and expresses an opinion instead, the this current post is equally not discussing guidelines. point ?

[ohgood]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

when a large park or long trail is completely saturated with caches of a type that some might not like it effectively makes that park or long trail unavailable to some for geocaching.

 

doh ! i hadn't taken the viewpoint of the CO's being restricted from placing GOOD (which is relevant to the CO and GC'ers likes) until you pointed out saturation being a problem.

 

thanks for revising my view

[+narcissa]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

This isn't relevant to the post. We are discussing how the guidelines may contribute to unmaintained caches.

 

your very first post in this thread does not mention guidelines, and expresses an opinion instead, the this current post is equally not discussing guidelines. point ?

 

Do you mean my paragraph where the very first sentence addresses the end of the guideline against power trails?

 

I strongly believe that when they started to allow power trails, it inadvertently changed the game in many ways.

[+redsox_mark]

I don't agree with the premise:

 

The guidelines create an incentive for hiding caches that will be abandoned and/or will have maintenance problems.

 

I read the examples given, and I understand the logic. But fail to see how the guidelines are really encouraging that. If I look at the second of the 2 examples:

 

You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache.

 

The result? People don't tend to place caches in hard-to-reach spots that they might not visit very often, ad that it might take longer than 4 weeks to plan and execute a visit. Instead, there is a proliferation of urban micros and power trails along easily-accessible roads.

 

 

I don't see that happening. If that was changed to 8 weeks.. or even changed to be "you can take as long as you like to maintain it", I don't think that would reduce the "proliferation of urban micros and power trails along easily-accessible roads. "

 

Now that's not to say the guidelines can't be improved; things can always be improved. With the maintenance guideline; it would be good to add a clause saying something like "For caches which are areas which are difficult to access, you will be allowed longer to check on it. Please work with your reviewer to agree on the specifics".

 

I still don't think that would make much difference.

 

Sure, as a hider I consider the fact that I need to maintain the cache. So I might be put off hiding a cache which can only be accessed via a 10 day canoe trip; as it will be hard to maintain. But for me, it's not the guidelines which are the issue.

[+L0ne.R]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

This isn't relevant to the post. We are discussing how the guidelines may contribute to unmaintained caches.

 

your very first post in this thread does not mention guidelines, and expresses an opinion instead, the this current post is equally not discussing guidelines. point ?

 

Do you mean my paragraph where the very first sentence addresses the end of the guideline against power trails?

 

I strongly believe that when they started to allow power trails, it inadvertently changed the game in many ways.

 

Yes. I completely agree that that was the tipping point.

[+L0ne.R]

I don't agree with the premise:

 

The guidelines create an incentive for hiding caches that will be abandoned and/or will have maintenance problems.

 

I read the examples given, and I understand the logic. But fail to see how the guidelines are really encouraging that.

 

I see you're point. Some of the guidelines speak about quality but people will skew their idea of quality and what maintenance means to suit their needs.

Or conclude that guidelines are not rules and they will participate as they see fit.

The important part is strong enforcement that comes from Groundspeak. Some reviewers try to do their part but it's not stemming the tide.

They'll be quick to post disables and archives when people participate in the process and post NMs and NAs but then along comes another for-the-numbers sack-full-of-pill-bottles set-em-and-forget-em CO and it starts all over again.

[+narcissa]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

This isn't relevant to the post. We are discussing how the guidelines may contribute to unmaintained caches.

 

your very first post in this thread does not mention guidelines, and expresses an opinion instead, the this current post is equally not discussing guidelines. point ?

 

Do you mean my paragraph where the very first sentence addresses the end of the guideline against power trails?

 

I strongly believe that when they started to allow power trails, it inadvertently changed the game in many ways.

 

Yes. I completely agree that that was the tipping point.

 

I think it would have been better, when this all started taking off, to create an attribute or a cache type for these numbers run caches.

 

On cynical days, I wonder if the reason they didn't is because it would completely shatter the illusion of any interest in quality or respect for land managers. Creating an attribute or type would be an open acknowledgement that some caches and cache owners are held to lower standards than others.

[+Team Microdot]

They'll be quick to post disables and archives when people participate in the process and post NMs and NAs but then along comes another for-the-numbers sack-full-of-pill-bottles set-em-and-forget-em CO and it starts all over again.

 

In my local area people who post NMs and NAs are actively verbally abused via logs to the caches in question - from individuals who have nothing whatsoever to do with the cache in question.

 

Others profusely thank whoever happened to throw down a cache to provide them with another smiley as if they have performed some miraculous service to geocaching.

 

These are the people who work hard to stem the flow of NM's and NA's - and if we can't even clean house ourselves as a community, if we're prepared to fight to perpetuate ownerless caches and stinking boxes of rubbish - why would a reviewer go out of their way to do our jobs for us?

 

The guidelines, as far as I can see, have very little impact in the real world.

[+bflentje]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

+1

 

The best statement in this thread.

[+Mudfrog]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

I adopted this method a few years back. Only thing is, almost everyone is hiding easy peasy lame container micro caches that aren't to my liking. People want easy and since that's what they like, that's what they hide. I would have to do a lot of driving and flying to get to caches that i find interesting. There's not a one within 50 miles so walking ain't happening.

[+Team Microdot]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

I adopted this method a few years back. Only thing is, almost everyone is hiding easy peasy lame container micro caches that aren't to my liking. People want easy and since that's what they like, that's what they hide. I would have to do a lot of driving and flying to get to caches that i find interesting. There's not a one within 50 miles so walking ain't happening.

 

Indeed.

 

So the walk on by attitude being promoted by some in this thread actually ends up costing people money. Yay.

[+bflentje]

Contrary to the claims of the individuals involved, my experience with their hides is that, with rare exceptions, they tend to use the cheapest containers they can find (such as pill bottles, disposable food storage containers, or centrifuge tubes) and they don't maintain the caches adequately.

 

Might be one of your rare exceptions..

 

I hid a 1"x4" centrifuge tube two years ago and forgot about it after being sidetracked with other cache issues. It dawned on me driving by "the spot" just a few days ago that I had hidden something there and never submitted for publication. To make good on not leaving trash, I made the stop, spent 30 minutes trying to find my own container, finally found it, fully in tact, with a completely dry log. It was in such good shape, I plan on re-using it as is. :-)

[+narcissa]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

I adopted this method a few years back. Only thing is, almost everyone is hiding easy peasy lame container micro caches that aren't to my liking. People want easy and since that's what they like, that's what they hide. I would have to do a lot of driving and flying to get to caches that i find interesting. There's not a one within 50 miles so walking ain't happening.

 

A cache can be interesting and poorly maintained.

 

A cache can be uninteresting and well maintained.

[+L0ne.R]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

I too walk past micro caches on a trail on my way to swag size caches.

 

But what I like are swag size, quality (i.e. watertight) well-maintained caches. So I walk past the micro to the covetted small cache and what do I find....a micro. I leave a log explaining that a 35ml pill bottle is not a small, small is 100ml to 1L and can usually hold at least a small travelbug. The owner does nothing, doesn't change the size.

And when they really are small or larger, they are saved-from-the-trash containers not suitable for the outdoors or a lot of handling. A damp or wet moldy mess. Despite the size, I can't leave a signature item in or a travelbug. The cache owner has never checked on the cache and has no intention of maintaining it.

 

There are no consequences for abandoning caches.

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

I adopted this method a few years back. Only thing is, almost everyone is hiding easy peasy lame container micro caches that aren't to my liking. People want easy and since that's what they like, that's what they hide. I would have to do a lot of driving and flying to get to caches that i find interesting. There's not a one within 50 miles so walking ain't happening.

 

Indeed.

 

So the walk on by attitude being promoted by some in this thread actually ends up costing people money. Yay.

 

I don't mind spending money on caching. In fact, i've taken plenty of trips to find just one good cache. But it's gotten to the point where those caches are rare to come across. As it stands now, there are a few in the Houston area (100 miles away) that look to be a little out of the ordinary and intersting. The next might be around the Austin area which is even farther out. Any closer, the same ole caches over and over.

 

I kinda agree with Fizzy's analysis of the situation but don't see it as the main problem. Here i go again, i think the app is the main culprit because people try it and then discard it. Let's face it, most gaming type apps that people try only stay on their phones for short times. People get the app, get excited about it, play for a little while, tire of it, then forget about it to play the next new app. This of course, leads to plenty of caches that will be abandoned and won't ever get any maintenance.

 

The other thing is that people get excited and hide bunches of caches in a short period of time only to find later, that maintenance is too difficult. There's really no consequences for not maintaining so they just skip out and abandoned them.

[+Mudfrog]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

I adopted this method a few years back. Only thing is, almost everyone is hiding easy peasy lame container micro caches that aren't to my liking. People want easy and since that's what they like, that's what they hide. I would have to do a lot of driving and flying to get to caches that i find interesting. There's not a one within 50 miles so walking ain't happening.

 

A cache can be interesting and poorly maintained.

 

A cache can be uninteresting and well maintained.

 

You're absolutely right.

 

But, similar to that the notion that premium members may be a little more dedicated to our hobby, a cache that has some thought put into it may be more likely to have a responsible owner.

[+dprovan]

And then the CO of the cr@ppy cache screams caching police...

What I think is important here is that CO's screaming "caching police" is a problem in itself. Too often I hear people using this as a "good reason" why people don't post NMs and NAs, but I think it's a good reason to post them, since a CO that objects to reasonable observations about a cache's state is the last thing anyone should tolerate.

 

...happy as a sandboy...

I had to look that one up.

 

I fail to see what Groundspeak could do to the guidelines that would fix any of this - it's down to people, many of whom have a lowest-common-denominator attitude.

I mainly agree with you here, but I'd say it depends more on community than merely on people. I lucked into picking up geocaching in a wide community where quality is taken very seriously, so I cannot honestly take any credit for the situation even though I have an attitude above LCD.

 

In my local area people who post NMs and NAs are actively verbally abused via logs to the caches in question - from individuals who have nothing whatsoever to do with the cache in question.

Another thing that shouldn't be tolerated. Well, verbal abuse itself shouldn't be tolerated in any case, of course, but even polite objections to NMs and NAs, when the objections are misguided, are a problem that needs to be solved. It's a problem solved by engaging and continuing, not by running and hiding.

 

Others profusely thank whoever happened to throw down a cache to provide them with another smiley as if they have performed some miraculous service to geocaching.

Well, no, I have to say I disagree with you here. Yes, there's a problem that such a CO wants people to replace the cache and, one might even say, encourages people to replace the cache. So we're agreed that attitude should be discouraged heartily. But on the other hand, as long as they do have that misguided attitude, I can't fault them for thanking someone for doing something they think is good just because you and I think it's bad.

 

These are the people who work hard to stem the flow of NM's and NA's - and if we can't even clean house ourselves as a community, if we're prepared to fight to perpetuate ownerless caches and stinking boxes of rubbish - why would a reviewer go out of their way to do our jobs for us?

So definitely the first thing is not to allow anyone to prevent NMs and NAs that should be posted, so I strongly encourage ignoring such reactions once you've determined the objections are invalid.

 

But as for the reviewer reaction, I see the reverse happening: when the local community isn't doing its job, reviewers seem willing to jump in and take up the slack. And I applaud the reviewers for trying to help, but I think a local community should be embarrassed when that happens.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

This isn't relevant to the post. We are discussing how the guidelines may contribute to unmaintained caches.

 

your very first post in this thread does not mention guidelines, and expresses an opinion instead, the this current post is equally not discussing guidelines. point ?

 

Do you mean my paragraph where the very first sentence addresses the end of the guideline against power trails?

 

I strongly believe that when they started to allow power trails, it inadvertently changed the game in many ways.

 

Yes. I completely agree that that was the tipping point.

 

Within a week of the removal of the "Don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" I posted here that I though it was the worst decision Groundspeak ever made.

 

As someone else pointed out, power trails and throwdowns did exist prior to that guideline change but we didn't see an explosion in the number (and size) of power trails until after that guideline was removed.

 

Since this thread is specifically about how changes in the guidelines may have impacted the number of abandoned/unmaintained caches I thought it would be worth looking at the guideline that was removed:

 

"Don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can"

 

The way I read this is that prior to the change in the guidelines, it was acceptable (it still is) to hide a cache every 600 feet, as long as it was done for some reason other than a spot was greater than 528' from another cache. When that guideline was removed it opened up the floodgates to power trails because the implication is that it is now acceptable to place a cache in some location based only on the fact that it's more than 528' from another cache. In other words, the various aspects of a cache that one might associate with "quality" (a good location, interesting location, unique hiding style, a challenging hide) no longer have to be considered. Because a potential CO doesn't have to think about using a good container or finding an interesting location, it just becomes a lot easier to toss a film can in a bush every 528' along a road, and makes it easier for a CO to create hundreds if not thousands of hides (more than one could easily maintain). Of course there are COs that somehow are able to place and maintain a *lot* of hides, but I suspect that outside the geocaching utopia that dprovan lives, there is a correlation between the number of hides a CO has and the level of maintenance that *the CO* provides.

 

 

 

[+fizzymagic]

In my opinion:

• The problem of cache quality and maintenance is a very difficult one.
  
• The decision by geocaching.com not to get involved in cache quality judgments makes intervention on their part largely ineffective.
  
• The current guidelines (along with a focus on bringing in new cachers at the expense of existing cachers) make the problem worse.
  

 

I do not have a better solution. IMO, geocaching.com should probably not be in the business of judging cache quality. I think they made the right decision. The issues with quality are an inevitable result of that decision (IMO, of course).

 

The persistent belief that some tweaks to the guidelines will somehow magically change human nature seems misguided to me. It's just not going to happen without significant incentives and/or consequences, and the imposition of those would be counter to geocaching.com's position as a listing service.

 

Some food for thought: Consider two cachers who hide caches. One spends 10 cents on the container and logsheet. The other spends 10 dollars.

• Which one will place the container so that it will be less likely to be muggled?
  
• Which one will be more committed to maintaining the cache?
  
• Which one will go out more quickly to check on the container at the first sign of trouble?
  
• Which container will last longer with less need for maintenance?
  

[+Uncle Alaska]

Some food for thought: Consider two cachers who hide caches. One spends 10 cents on the container and logsheet. The other spends 10 dollars.

• Which one will place the container so that it will be less likely to be muggled?
  
• Which one will be more committed to maintaining the cache?
  
• Which one will go out more quickly to check on the container at the first sign of trouble?
  
• Which container will last longer with less need for maintenance?
  

 

Thinking about your food example:

 

Cacher A: is a workaholic with 2 kids, a spouse, and a dog. Cacher A has a disposable income and found out about geocaching by accident in the app store. Cacher A dives in and money is no object, quality containers are bought and placed, but time for the new hobby is limited.

 

Cacher B: a single retired person with a limited, fixed income. Cacher B found out about geocaching through a friend and has been slowly building a pack with all the TOTT to find any cache. Money is tight, but Cacher B wants to get out and do things with his/her time.

 

Which of these two is more likely to consistently maintain their cache (regardless of quality)?

 

I think this "problem" or "issue" is very complex and has many angles. Not sure if there is ever going to be a magic solution. I appreciate the discussion, just think that every solution brought up in these forums will usually be shot down by another "what if" situation.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

The persistent belief that some tweaks to the guidelines will somehow magically change human nature seems misguided to me. It's just not going to happen without significant incentives and/or consequences, and the imposition of those would be counter to geocaching.com's position as a listing service.

I tend to agree that changing specific guidelines will not have much impact. However, maybe the format in which the guidelines are presented can be enhanced. What if there was some kind of best practices section added to some of the guidelines. It could contain things like, "Consider how people will access the container. Containers with small openings are problematic for geocachers trying to extract the log."

[+dprovan]

Cacher A: is a workaholic with 2 kids, a spouse, and a dog. Cacher A has a disposable income and found out about geocaching by accident in the app store. Cacher A dives in and money is no object, quality containers are bought and placed, but time for the new hobby is limited.

 

Cacher B: a single retired person with a limited, fixed income. Cacher B found out about geocaching through a friend and has been slowly building a pack with all the TOTT to find any cache. Money is tight, but Cacher B wants to get out and do things with his/her time.

 

Which of these two is more likely to consistently maintain their cache (regardless of quality)?

I think Cacher B will put out better caches, probably even spend more money on them, despite his financial position. Regardless of his disposable income, I predict Cacher A is still going to throw out whatever's convenient, and then he won't have an opportunity to learn from experience what does and doesn't work. So while I agree Cacher B will maintain his cache more consistently, I claim his cache will need less maintenance to begin with, too.

[+Uncle Alaska]

Cacher A: is a workaholic with 2 kids, a spouse, and a dog. Cacher A has a disposable income and found out about geocaching by accident in the app store. Cacher A dives in and money is no object, quality containers are bought and placed, but time for the new hobby is limited.

 

Cacher B: a single retired person with a limited, fixed income. Cacher B found out about geocaching through a friend and has been slowly building a pack with all the TOTT to find any cache. Money is tight, but Cacher B wants to get out and do things with his/her time.

 

Which of these two is more likely to consistently maintain their cache (regardless of quality)?

I think Cacher B will put out better caches, probably even spend more money on them, despite his financial position. Regardless of his disposable income, I predict Cacher A is still going to throw out whatever's convenient, and then he won't have an opportunity to learn from experience what does and doesn't work. So while I agree Cacher B will maintain his cache more consistently, I claim his cache will need less maintenance to begin with, too.

Maybe....my main point is, I can list Cacher A-Z and each can have a slightly different series of factors that will play into whether they will or won't regularly place and maintain quality caches. A few sentances added/ammended/or removed from the guidelines aren't going to change this (IMO). As Fizzy rightly stated (paraphrased): "the belief that tweaks to the guidelines will somehow magically change human nature seems misguided"