Too many - Too soon

[+justintim1999]

Should there be a limit to the number of caches one person can own?

 

Should there be a time restraint between placing caches?

[+Great Scott!]

yes.

yes.

[+HHL]

Yes

Yes

May I ask for an additional limit on nonsense threads?

 

Hans

[+on4bam]

NO

NO

 

There should however be a limit on rules and guidelines

[+Walts Hunting]

NO

NO

 

There should however be a limit on rules and guidelines

Ditto

[+wmpastor]

There already is a limit on the number of caches one can own - it's just not a fixed number. It's the number a CO can maintain. I've seen that number as high as 1,000+! To me that would no longer be fun, but yes, people do it and seem to enjoy it. And if the CO doesn't maintain caches, they're archived - that enforces the limit.

 

Time between placing caches? No - just what the reviewer can handle.

[+Michaelcycle]

There already is a limit on the number of caches one can own - it's just not a fixed number. It's the number a CO can maintain. I've seen that number as high as 1,000+! To me that would no longer be fun, but yes, people do it and seem to enjoy it. And if the CO doesn't maintain caches, they're archived - that enforces the limit.

 

Time between placing caches? No - just what the reviewer can handle.

 

I guess you are not familiar with the "maintenance" plans of many power trail COs?

[+Manville Possum]

Ban powertrails, and set a limit on how many caches one account can own. The local powertrails seem to be tossed out by an abandoned account, that kind of cache ownership needs addressed.

[+Team Microdot]

set a limit on how many caches one account can own.

 

+1

Edited January 8, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+Team Microdot]

There already is a limit on the number of caches one can own - it's just not a fixed number. It's the number a CO can maintain.

 

You might be right on the first point - but not on the second. There are CO's out there who exceed the number of caches they can properly maintain. They are usually the ones who welcome throwdowns while admonishing anyone who dares to post a genuinely warranted Needs Maintenance log expecting to receive a reasonable response.

[+Touchstone]

....while admonishing anyone who dares to post a genuinely warranted Needs Maintenance log expecting to receive a reasonable response.

 

That, to me, is the real issue. A "reasonable response" should always be the expectation. Limits on Hides, seems doomed to failure, IMO. Effort should be directed at correcting the behavior/attitude, and not some arbitrary statistic on a Profile page.

[+dprovan]

Should there be a limit to the number of caches one person can own?

 

Should there be a time restraint between placing caches?

All I can imagine is that you're thinking all COs hide bad caches, so you expect this to reduce the number of bad caches set. But my experience is that most COs hide good caches, so it would have the reverse effect: it would reduce the number of good caches set. All it really does is punish people that hide a lot of caches, and I have no idea why you'd want to do that.

[+Team Microdot]

....while admonishing anyone who dares to post a genuinely warranted Needs Maintenance log expecting to receive a reasonable response.

 

That, to me, is the real issue. A "reasonable response" should always be the expectation. Limits on Hides, seems doomed to failure, IMO. Effort should be directed at correcting the behavior/attitude, and not some arbitrary statistic on a Profile page.

 

Any ideas on how the behaviour/attitude should be corrected, other than withdrawing cache placement rights for offending and offensive CO's?

[+Team Microdot]

Should there be a limit to the number of caches one person can own?

 

Should there be a time restraint between placing caches?

All I can imagine is that you're thinking all COs hide bad caches, so you expect this to reduce the number of bad caches set. But my experience is that most COs hide good caches, so it would have the reverse effect: it would reduce the number of good caches set. All it really does is punish people that hide a lot of caches, and I have no idea why you'd want to do that.

 

That's quite a lot of imagination in response to an OP with two completely open questions

[+TheVoytekBear]

I think any hard limits (caches owned, time to log a find) would do more bad than good. The rules we have now are OK. Of course that there will always be abandoned caches (e.g. because their owner gave up geocaching), but I prefer to treat is as a natural lice cycle than a disaster calling to change everything.

[DaNerdling]

I think there should be a limit but within reason. If you have 1000+ caches and a steady job I seriously question your ability to maintain (or even remember) every single one. A limit would cause users to be more creative with their caches so as to not waste a listing, and if they hit the limit, archive caches that aren't overly memorable. But at the same time, a limit of 25 or something silly like that is too far the other way. It's all about finding that sweet number I think would be a good idea. But hey, if you're a seasoned cacher who legitimately has nothing else better to do than maintain 1000+ caches, all power to you my friend.

Edited January 8, 2017 by DaNerdling

[+thebruce0]

Let's go back to this: Geocaching.com is a listing service. Therefore, even though we own the caches we put out, we are using their services for publicly listing them on a popular website. We can technically put as many caches out as we want, however close to each other we want, even breaking laws if we want -- we just can't list them all on geocaching.com; only the ones that abide by their listing guidelines. It's technically a privilege we may (or may not) pay for to be be able to utilize their service. Therefore they set the rules. Payment doesn't mean no rules.

 

What they are not doing is telling us what to do with our containers. We abide by their rules if we want to list them on their website. Because of reasons which they've decided are reasonable, they only want to be responsible for the listings (assuming they accurately descibe their physical components) set up according to the rules they feel are reasonable, such as minimum distance. If they start to feel that they want to limit the number of listings (and by hopeful extension the number of physical containers) published by its users, then that's their prerogative - but it's certainly not stopping us from still placing those other containers.

 

If you want to hide 3000 caches, that's entire up to you! You just can't list 3000 caches* on gc.com.

* or whatever number they feel is reasonable for their listing service, if they start limiting as such.

 

People also need to keep in mind - while the hide count was a factor that began this subject, the hide count was (reportedly) over 2500, which is nowhere near the vicinity of hides most every cacher has published here. It's an extreme case. Additionally, the more significant factor (reportedly) was the person's behaviour in the community, not merely hide count - but that's a different topic not for this thread.

 

So... should Groundspeak start limiting the number of listings that their users can own?

 

IMO: It's their listing service, so if their reasoning in my mind is reasonable, then I'm for it. Not likely if that limit is say 20. But if the limit is 2000? Sure, good chance I'd support the reasoning. Because if someone still wants to hide 3000 caches, they can do it; just not on gc.com.

 

If we want to get literal, I don't believe any agreement, let alone PM agreement, actually explicitly grants the right to list "unlimited" caches. So they're not reducing any customer right, rather clarifying due to excessive use. Much like an ISP may market "unlimited" until someone takes that to an extreme (then adds fine print, like throttling, because 'oh, we didn't expect someone would actually go to that extreme with bandwidth use, and we can't afford to hand it out without additional payment').

 

I think it's a little extreme to think that since a person with 2500+ finds is being throttled back that that means all our rights to list any number of caches will be affected any time soon.

[+DragonsWest]

Should there be a limit to the number of caches one person can own?

 

Should there be a time restraint between placing caches?

 

I believe there could be a realistic limit for an individual, but what of an account jointly managed?

 

Time restraint? I know this one has been kicked around for ages, but to be blunt about it nobody has a good answer and I'm certain reviewers don't wish to find themselves in the midst of yet another issue to wrestle with.

 

Food for thought - I live in a fairly cache rich area with a thriving body of active geocachers - we're trying to work out ways to engage and encourage new cachers through the non-profit group we created. What about the geocacher who lives in the boonies, where cachers are few and far between?

 

I've heard the argument framed that without new geocachers hiding new caches the supply becomes exhausted quickly. So, do we throttle new cachers and thus new placements? What's the best formula - can it be one size fits all? A tough ask, when you delve into it.

 

It's easy to stand in judgement on others habits. I don't relish the game being governed by more rules, particularly ones which hurt one area while helping another. Engaging new geocachers, encouraging them to come to events and meet veterans is the best answer I've heard and we really would like to connect with more people.

 

With a bunch of new rules handed down from the lily pad I don't see anything improving.

[+DragonsWest]

Let's go back to this: Geocaching.com is a listing service. Therefore, even though we own the caches we put out, we are using their services for publicly listing them on a popular website. We can technically put as many caches out as we want, however close to each other we want, even breaking laws if we want -- we just can't list them all on geocaching.com; only the ones that abide by their listing guidelines. It's technically a privilege we may (or may not) pay for to be be able to utilize their service. Therefore they set the rules. Payment doesn't mean no rules.

 

What they are not doing is telling us what to do with our containers. We abide by their rules if we want to list them on their website. Because of reasons which they've decided are reasonable, they only want to be responsible for the listings (assuming they accurately descibe their physical components) set up according to the rules they feel are reasonable, such as minimum distance. If they start to feel that they want to limit the number of listings (and by hopeful extension the number of physical containers) published by its users, then that's their prerogative - but it's certainly not stopping us from still placing those other containers.

 

If you want to hide 3000 caches, that's entire up to you! You just can't list 3000 caches* on gc.com.

* or whatever number they feel is reasonable for their listing service, if they start limiting as such.

 

People also need to keep in mind - while the hide count was a factor that began this subject, the hide count was (reportedly) over 2500, which is nowhere near the vicinity of hides most every cacher has published here. It's an extreme case. Additionally, the more significant factor (reportedly) was the person's behaviour in the community, not merely hide count - but that's a different topic not for this thread.

 

So... should Groundspeak start limiting the number of listings that their users can own?

 

IMO: It's their listing service, so if their reasoning in my mind is reasonable, then I'm for it. Not likely if that limit is say 20. But if the limit is 2000? Sure, good chance I'd support the reasoning. Because if someone still wants to hide 3000 caches, they can do it; just not on gc.com.

 

If we want to get literal, I don't believe any agreement, let alone PM agreement, actually explicitly grants the right to list "unlimited" caches. So they're not reducing any customer right, rather clarifying due to excessive use. Much like an ISP may market "unlimited" until someone takes that to an extreme (then adds fine print, like throttling, because 'oh, we didn't expect someone would actually go to that extreme with bandwidth use, and we can't afford to hand it out without additional payment').

 

I think it's a little extreme to think that since a person with 2500+ finds is being throttled back that that means all our rights to list any number of caches will be affected any time soon.

 

Well reasoned and stated!

 

One person's reasonable upper limit may be 50 while another's (perhaps a retiree in a large area of BLM lands) limit could be in the thousands. It's an impossible yardstick without GC prying into the particulars of a player's life (how much moolah do you earn, are you retired, got a good car? how's your internet connection? Got a good source for all those containers?) etc.

 

The people with the quick answers, IMHO, may not have examined the issue from all sides.

[+dprovan]

That's quite a lot of imagination in response to an OP with two completely open questions

Thank you for noticing.

[+Team Microdot]

I think it's a little extreme to think that since a person with 2500+ finds is being throttled back that that means all our rights to list any number of caches will be affected any time soon.

 

You probably meant 2500+ hides?

[+Team Microdot]

That's quite a lot of imagination in response to an OP with two completely open questions

Thank you for noticing.

 

You're welcome

[+Team Microdot]

The people with the quick answers, IMHO, may not have examined the issue from all sides.

 

The people who insist on adding 'sides' to the argument rather than simply accepting that no solution is perfect and taking at least some action in a bid to improve things, IMHO, may not have realised that their time could be better spent.

 

This, after all, is not a matter of life and death.

[+justintim1999]

There already is a limit on the number of caches one can own - it's just not a fixed number. It's the number a CO can maintain.

 

You might be right on the first point - but not on the second. There are CO's out there who exceed the number of caches they can properly maintain. They are usually the ones who welcome throwdowns while admonishing anyone who dares to post a genuinely warranted Needs Maintenance log expecting to receive a reasonable response.

 

This is where I was going with this. I don't think there should be an actual limit on the amount of caches one can have but I do think that that number should be initially capped until the owner proves they can and will adequately maintain the caches they already have.

 

I've seen cachers rack up 30 hides in a relatively short period of time. Eventually the first needs maintenance pops up. Soon we realize that the owner has no intention of properly maintaining any of their hides but now the horse is already out of the barn and the caching community has to start the slow process of getting them archived.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't think there should be an actual limit on the amount of caches one can have but I do think that that number should be initially capped until the owner proves they can and will adequately maintain the caches they already have.

 

I do think there should be an actual limit on the amount of caches one can have if for no other reason than it's a simple control mechanism that can apply equally to everyone.

 

Let's say I'm a responsible CO who is lucky enough to place caches which require maintenance once every 12 months and I've used up my placement quota. I now need to wait 12 months to 'prove' that I can and will adequately maintain the caches I already have before I'm allowed to place more - and that's if any of my existing caches actually have a NM posted on them.

[+justintim1999]

I don't think there should be an actual limit on the amount of caches one can have but I do think that that number should be initially capped until the owner proves they can and will adequately maintain the caches they already have.

 

I do think there should be an actual limit on the amount of caches one can have if for no other reason than it's a simple control mechanism that can apply equally to everyone.

 

Let's say I'm a responsible CO who is lucky enough to place caches which require maintenance once every 12 months and I've used up my placement quota. I now need to wait 12 months to 'prove' that I can and will adequately maintain the caches I already have before I'm allowed to place more - and that's if any of my existing caches actually have a NM posted on them.

 

I'm only suggesting an initial cap. We can discuss numbers and duration but allowing any one cacher to put out caches without limits seems irresponsible unless they have demonstrated the commitment necessary to properly maintain them.

 

Lets say, for example, every cacher starts out with the ability to hide 5 caches. Before you can hide a sixth a reviewer looks at the maintenance records of your first 5 before allowing the next 5. A new cacher trying to hide 30 caches in a week should be a red flag.

 

If your an established cache owner in good standing I'm sure your reviewer will know this and getting additional hides approved will be a formality.

 

Much easier to deal with the weekend finder than the weekend hider.

[+Team Microdot]

I'm only suggesting an initial cap.

 

Why? I've seen a number of cachers who started out well and progressed to abandoning their hides to become junk while still actively finding years into their caching 'career'.

 

An initial cap wouldn't have had a positive impact on that outcome.

 

We can discuss numbers and duration but allowing any one cacher to put out caches without limits seems irresponsible unless they have demonstrated the commitment necessary to properly maintain them.

 

I agree to a degree - especially when I see newbie cachers throwing out caches with vibrant enthusiasm only to get bored and abandon their hides to become junk once the honeymoon period is over - but there's still the question of precisely how one demonstrates necessary commitment in a way that's measurable and properly relevant.

 

I get the impression that so many have had the stuffing knocked out of them for legitimately flagging up real issues with caches that merited CO attention by abusive CO's, often with more cache placements than they can realistically manage, and even sometimes their fan clubs, that many don't bother flagging up issues any more - just claim the smiley and move on. Heck - I've even done that myself on occasion. This being the case, what is left to measure to PROVE that a CO has the necessary commitment when the appearance that all is well with their caches doesn't align with the truth?

 

Lets say, for example, every cacher starts out with the ability to hide 5 caches. Before you can hide a sixth a reviewer looks at the maintenance records of your first 5 before allowing the next 5. A new cacher trying to hide 30 caches in a week should be a red flag.

 

If your an established cache owner in good standing I'm sure your reviewer will know this and getting additional hides approved will be a formality.

 

I would say that would be a lot more work for already busy volunteer reviewers.

 

I can't help wondering if some sort of caching karma system could be engineered by Groundspeak which would self-regulate the numbers, although I fully realise that would probably be a lot of work for Groundspeak and would open another planet-sized can of worms in terms of design, implementation and management.

[+justintim1999]

I'm only suggesting an initial cap.

 

Why? I've seen a number of cachers who started out well and progressed to abandoning their hides to become junk while still actively finding years into their caching 'career'.

 

An initial cap wouldn't have had a positive impact on that outcome.

 

We can discuss numbers and duration but allowing any one cacher to put out caches without limits seems irresponsible unless they have demonstrated the commitment necessary to properly maintain them.

 

I agree to a degree - especially when I see newbie cachers throwing out caches with vibrant enthusiasm only to get bored and abandon their hides to become junk once the honeymoon period is over - but there's still the question of precisely how one demonstrates necessary commitment in a way that's measurable and properly relevant.

 

I get the impression that so many have had the stuffing knocked out of them for legitimately flagging up real issues with caches that merited CO attention by abusive CO's, often with more cache placements than they can realistically manage, and even sometimes their fan clubs, that many don't bother flagging up issues any more - just claim the smiley and move on. Heck - I've even done that myself on occasion. This being the case, what is left to measure to PROVE that a CO has the necessary commitment when the appearance that all is well with their caches doesn't align with the truth?

 

Lets say, for example, every cacher starts out with the ability to hide 5 caches. Before you can hide a sixth a reviewer looks at the maintenance records of your first 5 before allowing the next 5. A new cacher trying to hide 30 caches in a week should be a red flag.

 

If your an established cache owner in good standing I'm sure your reviewer will know this and getting additional hides approved will be a formality.

 

I would say that would be a lot more work for already busy volunteer reviewers.

 

I can't help wondering if some sort of caching karma system could be engineered by Groundspeak which would self-regulate the numbers, although I fully realise that would probably be a lot of work for Groundspeak and would open another planet-sized can of worms in terms of design, implementation and management.

 

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

Again we come back to the number of cache finds and how long one has been in the game. maybe these should be the barometers used to allow cache ownership. Look, there is no real commitment to finding a cache, evidence by the ease at witch GS has made it possible and that's ok. Hiding a cache should be looked at differently.

 

Maybe a new cacher should have to wait a year before being allowed to hide more than 5 caches.

 

I guess I think cache ownership should be something you continuously earn.

Edited January 9, 2017 by justintim1999

[+on4bam]

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

One local newbie put an excellent series of caches out just three months after starting that earned him a great deal of favorites, not long after that he put another great series out again getting lots of favorites. Those were not 161m separation caches but individual handcrafted containers with varied hiding methods.

Everyone would have been worse off if there was a limit on hides.

 

As usual, GS is not giving information of what the idea about these new rules/guidelines is supposed to be or what triggered it to (maybe) go global. Caching habits are different in different areas but it seems again a "one size fits all" solution is proposed for a problem that may or may not exist globally.

[+justintim1999]

Should there be a limit to the number of caches one person can own?

 

Should there be a time restraint between placing caches?

All I can imagine is that you're thinking all COs hide bad caches, so you expect this to reduce the number of bad caches set. But my experience is that most COs hide good caches, so it would have the reverse effect: it would reduce the number of good caches set. All it really does is punish people that hide a lot of caches, and I have no idea why you'd want to do that.

 

Not at all. I want to decrease the number of fly-by-night hiders until the have proven themselves while increasing the good hides by those that have demonstrated the ability to handle the responsibility.

 

It's like selling a customer without a credit check then acting surprised when your not getting paid.

[+justintim1999]

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

One local newbie put an excellent series of caches out just three months after starting that earned him a great deal of favorites, not long after that he put another great series out again getting lots of favorites. Those were not 161m separation caches but individual handcrafted containers with varied hiding methods.

Everyone would have been worse off if there was a limit on hides.

 

As usual, GS is not giving information of what the idea about these new rules/guidelines is supposed to be or what triggered it to (maybe) go global. Caching habits are different in different areas but it seems again a "one size fits all" solution is proposed for a problem that may or may not exist globally.

 

I'm sure there are exceptions but I think the opposite is more the norm.

[+Team Microdot]

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

Again we come back to the number of cache finds and how long one has been in the game. maybe these should be the barometers used to allow cache ownership. Look, there is no real commitment to finding a cache, evidence by the ease at witch GS has made it possible and that's ok. Hiding a cache should be looked at differently.

 

Maybe a new cacher should have to wait a year before being allowed to hide more than 5 caches.

 

I guess I think cache ownership should be something you continuously earn.

 

In the circumstances I describe an early cap would not have helped.

 

The CO started off full of good intentions and maintained their caches for an extended period until they got bored of doing so and then just stopped.

 

It's clear that an initial cap would not have produced any measureable benefit in those circumstances.

 

And in those circumstances the number of finds and length of time in the game would not have been reliable barometers - the errant CO is still in the game, still finding caches, just not bothering to maintain their own caches.

[+justintim1999]

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

Again we come back to the number of cache finds and how long one has been in the game. maybe these should be the barometers used to allow cache ownership. Look, there is no real commitment to finding a cache, evidence by the ease at witch GS has made it possible and that's ok. Hiding a cache should be looked at differently.

 

Maybe a new cacher should have to wait a year before being allowed to hide more than 5 caches.

 

I guess I think cache ownership should be something you continuously earn.

 

In the circumstances I describe an early cap would not have helped.

 

The CO started off full of good intentions and maintained their caches for an extended period until they got bored of doing so and then just stopped.

 

It's clear that an initial cap would not have produced any measureable benefit in those circumstances.

 

And in those circumstances the number of finds and length of time in the game would not have been reliable barometers - the errant CO is still in the game, still finding caches, just not bothering to maintain their own caches.

 

But don't you think the person you described would be more likely to at least archive and remove there caches when finished? I think with time and experience you develop an appreciation and respect for the game and those who play it.

[+thebruce0]

I think it's a little extreme to think that since a person with 2500+ finds is being throttled back that that means all our rights to list any number of caches will be affected any time soon.

 

You probably meant 2500+ hides?

 

Goes to show how many times we get to type "2500+ hides".

[+thebruce0]

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

One local newbie put an excellent series of caches out just three months after starting that earned him a great deal of favorites, not long after that he put another great series out again getting lots of favorites. Those were not 161m separation caches but individual handcrafted containers with varied hiding methods.

Everyone would have been worse off if there was a limit on hides.

Well, technically, no one would have known what they were missing (so not "worse off"), and at worst everyone would have learned patience.

[+Team Microdot]

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

Again we come back to the number of cache finds and how long one has been in the game. maybe these should be the barometers used to allow cache ownership. Look, there is no real commitment to finding a cache, evidence by the ease at witch GS has made it possible and that's ok. Hiding a cache should be looked at differently.

 

Maybe a new cacher should have to wait a year before being allowed to hide more than 5 caches.

 

I guess I think cache ownership should be something you continuously earn.

 

In the circumstances I describe an early cap would not have helped.

 

The CO started off full of good intentions and maintained their caches for an extended period until they got bored of doing so and then just stopped.

 

It's clear that an initial cap would not have produced any measureable benefit in those circumstances.

 

And in those circumstances the number of finds and length of time in the game would not have been reliable barometers - the errant CO is still in the game, still finding caches, just not bothering to maintain their own caches.

 

But don't you think the person you described would be more likely to at least archive and remove there caches when finished? I think with time and experience you develop an appreciation and respect for the game and those who play it.

 

Short answer - no.

 

In my experience, by the time a cacher has ceased to bother maintaining their caches the likelihood of them bothering to archive them is pretty low and the likelihood of them bothering to actually trail out to recover their geo-litter even lower.

[+Team Microdot]

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

One local newbie put an excellent series of caches out just three months after starting that earned him a great deal of favorites, not long after that he put another great series out again getting lots of favorites. Those were not 161m separation caches but individual handcrafted containers with varied hiding methods.

Everyone would have been worse off if there was a limit on hides.

Well, technically, no one would have known what they were missing (so not "worse off"), and at worst everyone would have learned patience.

 

I wouldn't have been worse off.

 

And who is to say that the breathing space wouldn't have allowed a different newbie to come along and place a different and equally excellent series of caches?

[+L0ne.R]

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

One local newbie put an excellent series of caches out just three months after starting that earned him a great deal of favorites, not long after that he put another great series out again getting lots of favorites. Those were not 161m separation caches but individual handcrafted containers with varied hiding methods.

Everyone would have been worse off if there was a limit on hides.

 

As usual, GS is not giving information of what the idea about these new rules/guidelines is supposed to be or what triggered it to (maybe) go global. Caching habits are different in different areas but it seems again a "one size fits all" solution is proposed for a problem that may or may not exist globally.

 

Why would everyone be worse off if there was a limit? 5 great hides along a trail is very nice. Is 25 hides necessarily better? Perhaps it is, if you are interested in more smileys.

[+thebruce0]

Even I understood what justin meant by "been worse off". He just meant that the CO put out great caches, so if there was a limit, people would have been "worse off" by not getting to experience them. I disagree. But the argument wasn't about numbers caching.

[+DragonsWest]

The people with the quick answers, IMHO, may not have examined the issue from all sides.

 

The people who insist on adding 'sides' to the argument rather than simply accepting that no solution is perfect and taking at least some action in a bid to improve things, IMHO, may not have realised that their time could be better spent.

 

I like examining sides - it's a lot more work than jumping to a conclusion or pursuing a single approach to a perceived problem. I've been on these forums for years and the same issues covered in this thread have been beaten to death dozens of times. The only enjoyment I gain from these discussions is when someone poses a fresh perspective.

 

This, after all, is not a matter of life and death.

 

This is what some people say about football and the proper counter is and has always been, "It's much more important than that."

[+thebruce0]

[+justintim1999]

I would call it risk management and I think it would have absolutely helped. After the boredom has set in we may be dealing with only 5 bad caches rather than 50.

 

One local newbie put an excellent series of caches out just three months after starting that earned him a great deal of favorites, not long after that he put another great series out again getting lots of favorites. Those were not 161m separation caches but individual handcrafted containers with varied hiding methods.

Everyone would have been worse off if there was a limit on hides.

Well, technically, no one would have known what they were missing (so not "worse off"), and at worst everyone would have learned patience.

 

I wouldn't have been worse off.

 

And who is to say that the breathing space wouldn't have allowed a different newbie to come along and place a different and equally excellent series of caches?

 

Your right. I've seen many new cachers put out great caches. The idea would be to limit the number of caches being placed by flash in the pan cachers before the hide numbers get too out of control.

 

Hide as many caches as your commitment and maintenance record justifies. Don't allow numerous hides just because you can.

[+Team Microdot]

The people with the quick answers, IMHO, may not have examined the issue from all sides.

 

The people who insist on adding 'sides' to the argument rather than simply accepting that no solution is perfect and taking at least some action in a bid to improve things, IMHO, may not have realised that their time could be better spent.

 

I like examining sides - it's a lot more work than jumping to a conclusion or pursuing a single approach to a perceived problem. I've been on these forums for years and the same issues covered in this thread have been beaten to death dozens of times. The only enjoyment I gain from these discussions is when someone poses a fresh perspective.

 

So you prefer work to actually resolving issues. Duly noted

 

This, after all, is not a matter of life and death.

 

This is what some people say about football and the proper counter is and has always been, "It's much more important than that."

 

Obviously you're joking - I see that

[+on4bam]

Well, technically, no one would have known what they were missing (so not "worse off"), and at worst everyone would have learned patience.

 

Would you have been worse off if geocaching wasn't invented? You wouldn't know what you were missing, right?

 

Why would everyone be worse off if there was a limit? 5 great hides along a trail is very nice. Is 25 hides necessarily better? Perhaps it is, if you are interested in more smileys.

 

Maybe (the two series were 28 and 20 traditionals + bonus around a certain theme) if there was a limit some other CO would have thrown out his allowance of caches in that area and not cared about originality or maintenance and we wouldn't have known we were worse off either. Fact is, we enjoyed his series and they were within 10 Km from home so we were very happy not having to drive to far.

 

You might have read in other posts I don't care about more smileys, I care about good caches and nobody in their right mind would try to put a limit on how many good caches a CO can place.

 

Besides, if someone wanted to carpetbomb an area they just need to create some more (free) accounts. Problem solved.

[+DragonsWest]

The people with the quick answers, IMHO, may not have examined the issue from all sides.

 

The people who insist on adding 'sides' to the argument rather than simply accepting that no solution is perfect and taking at least some action in a bid to improve things, IMHO, may not have realised that their time could be better spent.

 

I like examining sides - it's a lot more work than jumping to a conclusion or pursuing a single approach to a perceived problem. I've been on these forums for years and the same issues covered in this thread have been beaten to death dozens of times. The only enjoyment I gain from these discussions is when someone poses a fresh perspective.

 

So you prefer work to actually resolving issues. Duly noted

 

This, after all, is not a matter of life and death.

 

This is what some people say about football and the proper counter is and has always been, "It's much more important than that."

 

Obviously you're joking - I see that

 

Nope, completely serious an I find the best way to resolve issues is to examine from as many sides as can be identified. I don't claim to have all the answers and I like to cast a wide net.

[+L0ne.R]

 

Besides, if someone wanted to carpetbomb an area they just need to create some more (free) accounts. Problem solved.

 

It might be a little obvious that Joe1 planted 5 caches in the park. Then the same day Mary2 (new account created that day) hides 5 more. Then another set of 5 new caches in the park are submitted by Bob3 (another new account created that day).

[+dprovan]

Not at all. I want to decrease the number of fly-by-night hiders until the have proven themselves while increasing the good hides by those that have demonstrated the ability to handle the responsibility.

Your original questions don't suggest such a possibility. If that's the proposal you want to discuss, you should start the thread with it, not ask "open ended" questions in the hope you can drive the discussion from them to your real proposal.

 

But no matter, let's step back to look at the problem being solved. How often does this happen? While I cannot deny I've seen a couple overenthusiastic newbies plant 20 or 30 caches and then lose interest, I've also seen several overenthusiastic newbies plant lots of caches, perform the necessary maintenance, and learn from their mistakes to become, within a year, much appreciated COs. The caches from the new COs that lost interest weren't great, but people found them, and they've mostly all disappeared already. Many of the caches from the new COs that worked out are gems. If the problem is caches that are only OK and don't last, then I have no interest fixing it with rules that might discourage those successful newbies from learning to plant gems.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

Responding to the OPs questions...

 

No limit, no time constraint.

 

As for how to improve the quality, I don't think hard, computer enforced limits will work. As already shown, sock puppet accounts get around most anything we can come up with. On the other hand, I don't want to add any more onto the reviewers either, and I certainly don't want to put them in the position of having to make subjective judgements.

 

I would suggest that after five (or some other small number) hides, any additional hides would require passing a one-time test. Successfully answer 10 to 20 questions about the cache hiding guidelines. At least that forces people to read the guidelines. Anyone can take the test at any time, they wouldn't have to wait until their sixth hide.

 

This would let someone hide a few caches, see if they are interested. To continue, they would need to spend 15 minutes taking a test. Yes, someone could create a lot of sock puppet accounts to get around this, but eventually that would take more time than just taking the test. One drawback to my idea is that would affect people that hide caches using multiple accounts. Maybe allow reviewers to mark an account as having passed the test.

 

If/when this is implemented, accounts that already have at least seven (or some other arbitrary number of) hides would be marked as having already passed the test.

[+niraD]

As for how to improve the quality, I don't think hard, computer enforced limits will work. As already shown, sock puppet accounts get around most anything we can come up with.

One suggestion is a delay between creating an account and being able to list a new cache. I don't see how sock puppet accounts can get around that. The new sock puppet account would have to wait for the delay to expire all over again.

 

(And I don't think a modest delay is unreasonable. If someone is going to maintain a cache for at least 3 months, then they should have enough commitment to wait for a few weeks before the cache is listed.)

 

I would suggest that after five (or some other small number) hides, any additional hides would require passing a one-time test. Successfully answer 10 to 20 questions about the cache hiding guidelines. At least that forces people to read the guidelines. Anyone can take the test at any time, they wouldn't have to wait until their sixth hide.

I like the idea, but I wouldn't wait until the 6th hide before requiring hiders to pass it. (And I don't see anything wrong with requiring experienced cache owners to take it before their first hide after the test is implemented.)

[+on4bam]

It might be a little obvious that Joe1 planted 5 caches in the park. Then the same day Mary2 (new account created that day) hides 5 more. Then another set of 5 new caches in the park are submitted by Bob3 (another new account created that day).

 

Some cachers have sleeping accounts already. Do you really think it's that hard to do? Just seeing the amount of trouble some will go through to log fake finds, I'm sure the same would be done for placing caches.

 

In all, I think some try to find a solution for an (almost) non existing problem resulting in yet more regulation.

But maybe, that's a good thing. It might get people to list caches on alternative sites and we might see some real competition.