Cache Quality Down The Drain.

[GammaPiSigma]

When I started in 2003 I was lucky enough to do a few of Tangle's great Ammo-can caches in the bush around Campbelltown so had a great appreciation for that aspect of the sport...I think encouraging new players to NOT place a cache until they have found a few is a good thing.

Agree with Damo here. We who live in the shadow of the anonymous one have been spoilt with quality caches that are fun, challenging and can generally be ridden to on our mtbs. My first cache find was a Tangles cache which was placed in an area that I had been going to since I was a kid, so it was a fond return to a great spot with many memories.

The quality of those early finds has had an effect on the way I hide and the expectations that I have of other caches. We can't force people to wait till they have found x-number of caches before hiding one, so as Damo said maybe some way of encouraging people to consider doing a few caches before deciding to hide a cache could have a positive effect.

Cheers,
Michael.

[Richary]

I agree with Sam Carter. Not necessarily for those of us who have been around for a while but for newcomers.

Yes originally 9 out of 10 might have been fairly ordinary with the other one being special. Now 90 out of 100 are ordinary with 10 being special. That's fine, but for those who go into it chasing the numbers they will for for the 90 and not the good 10. After all why spend half a day finding one cache when you can do 10 drive bys in the same time?

Which means when they place a cache, they will follow the ordinary box in a pointless park routing. Because that is what they have found.

I look back at my caching time. Do I remember the drive bys? Rarely. Do I remember the times I had to climb a trackless mountain, get eaten by leeches and stung by stinging nettles to get one smiley? Yes. And for the good reasons!

Just like I rememer the clever puzzles and the nice spots even if just off the highway - where the hider placed the cache because he or she wanted me to visit.

I guess as more easy caches go out the problem becomes self perpetuating. New finders will get those because they are easy. And hence plant more of the same type. Hopefully through cache events etc we can educate them and introduce them to the harder but much more satidfying ones. And yes, it has been a long time since I found a camo'd lunchbox. They are all just plain nowadays. I had better hide a few more as educational tools!

[petan]

I've been reading this thread (and the other older thread on the same topic) with interest. I only have one question .... what are you doing about it?

Have you ever provided feedback to a hide by a new cacher? Have you told them about what you really like about their hide? (location, actual hiding place, container etc etc) - there must be something that 'works'.

Have you gently recommended alternatives about things that might not be so great (eg have you thought about spray painting your container to camo it a bit better, if you hid it under the XXX it might be safer from muggles than the YYY space you have it now, etc etc etc) Maybe this last point might be better as a private email or PM.

Surely its about nurturing new players? Giving them some guidance about best practice and providing some positive reinforcement about what they are doing right. Sure, the wiki is there but really I wonder how many newbies have read it? Likewise the podcasts. For the record .... yes I am working my way through both but then I've had time on my hands over the holidays.

I'll go back to my hole now.

[Team Geo-Nads]

Having known Bronze for nearly as long as he has been caching, there are not many cachers out there who have given as much to help "newbies" enjoy their caching experience. He has made caching in the Central West of NSW and gotten tens of new cachers interested in the sport.

This sort of thing happens when numbers grow in any activity so we just have to think twice about the location to get the most out it for everyone.

[Wingaap]

As previously stated they will always been 'good' and 'bad' caches. Couldnt agree more. However, it is all subjective....isnt it?

Also agree with the comments relating to providing feedback/suggestions to new cachers. An event to welcome newbies and to provide examples of 'good' caches maybe of assistance.

In an effort to improve some caches, I've replaced containers, provided 'proper' logbooks and stash notes along with removing KFC towelettes and other such junk. I generally replace the junk with a couple of (what I class as) reasonable swaps. In addition I've archived quite a few of my caches and have embarked on program of putting out caches that are a little 'different'.

Simply bagging caches, whinging and complaining will do little to lift the standard. Get out there and be proactive.

Whilst this may assist in the area of the cache (container).......location is another matter. Once again it is subjective. For some locations the owner may have a connection to the particular spot. Perhaps something in the cache notes as to why the cacher choose this spot could be helpful...and would save the thought or comment of 'why here?"

No...I dont know how to solve the issue. However, I would like to think that I'm working to improve the situation not adding to it.

Guess I'll just have to wait for the logs to come in. Speaking of which.....decent logs would go a long way to improving the situation. A TFTC, found it, or find x of xx for the day does little to encourage anyone.

[Bronze]

A review so far:

Please let me know if I have misread or misquoted anyone listed.

Alansee notes that "there have always been good and bad caches".

CaleD from the Gold Coast drew our attention to a past thread and said people tended to agree that cache quality was down but his area seemed to be immune.

MrRouter claims it [caching] "has turned to numbers".

KevL rambled "in the early days of caching...there was an abundance of great locations...so you could put me effort into each...there are still many great spots for caches however the 'easy' ones are harder to find.

Team Carnage finds "the quality seems to go down as the cach equality density increases" and is off to Adelaide to prove or disprove this observation.

Caughtatwork said "Are others not subject to the same emotional bond that we have with a piece of plastic?" and went on to say "I think I might have to go around my own caches, archive a bunch and rehide them".

TheFarmers5 disagrees that "the quality of caching in general has declined". TF5 compared founding caches and argued that cache container quality has improved as has the quality of hiding locations, cacher cleverness (puzzles, camoflague etc.) and thinks that perhaps the change in "introduction to caching" may have an influence.

Richary says that I'm simply influenced by location change and that suburbian caches (devious micros excepted) are generally less exciting whereas country caches are more location centric. Richary went on to say that good caching requires a level of selectivity and you may have to pick and choose locations in order to improve the experience.

agap2 observed that "those cachers who have been around a long time are only improving with their caches" he went on to add that "there are some classic old caches which will always be classics!!". he noted also that places like Byron Bay on have 2 caches still.

Papa Bear Left responded with "the bell curve still applies to cache quality the way it always has". He went on to add "As the total number of cachers and caches goes up, however, the actual number of ordinary and mediocre caches goes up and probably becomes more visible." PBL also added that hiders quality has an influence on newby first hides and that logs can reflect cache quality, to quote "admiring logs instead of a string of bored "TNLN TFTC" cut'n'pastes."

CraigRat agreed with PBL above and added that there are just more of the good and the bad. He also said selectivity is needed to find quality "All it means is one needs to be selective with ones caching to avoid becoming too jaded or disappointed".

Damo said "It is a case of monkey-see-monkey-do." He also mentioned positive cache comments and the fact that new cachers should experience a few caches before hiding. "I think encouraging new players to NOT place a cache until they have found a few is a good thing."

SamCarter disagrees cache quality is declining and produced a typical "Math Teachers" quantativve / qualitive table of evidence based on his own experience. He went on to add the subjective nature of what can make a cache good from the time of day to the weather and other valid variables. In conclusion he stated "...that we are getting more new hides. So the absolute number of low quality hides is going up ... but so is the absolute number of excellent hides." supporting PBL and others.
SamCarter also offered good (obvious) advice in that finders can mitigate by using GCA recommendations, reading logs particularly those of similar interest and setting the example by hiding good caches for locals to emulate.

GammaPiSigma opened by quoting Damo point of experiencing high quality caches such as Tangles and reinterating that new hiders should not hide until they have found a few good caches. GPS went on to support how much of an influence notable hiders have on future hides of new cachers.

Richary returns to agree with SamCarter and restates the 9 in 10 / 90 in 100 proportinate ratio raised above. He add that as a result those that are (to paraphrase) numbers driven are more likely to hide park and driveby style caches. Richary guesses "as more easy caches go out the problem becomes self perpetuating. New finders will get those because they are easy. And hence plant more of the same type." He suggests "through cache events etc we can educate them and introduce them to the harder but much more satidfying ones."

Petan after reading both topics asks "I only have one question .... what are you doing about it? ". Petan suggests offering feedback by logs or PM (email) offering positive and critical feedback about the hide. To quote "Have you gently recommended alternatives about things that might not be so great". Petan also mentions the importance of fostering quality over quantity and cites resources like the GCA Wiki and podcasts.

GeoNads chimes in to my defence and blows my horn a little. He adds "This sort of thing happens when numbers grow in any activity so we just have to think twice about the location to get the most out it for everyone."

Wingaap concluded (While I was collating the above ) by saying "As previously stated they will always been 'good' and 'bad' caches. Couldnt agree more. However, it is all subjective....isnt it?" Wingaap also agreed with the need to foster new players and added that he has done hiw own review, cache container replacement and spring clean of crap contents "and have embarked on program of putting out caches that are a little 'different'." Aingaap concluded the thread so far by saying "Speaking of which.....decent logs would go a long way to improving the situation. A TFTC, found it, or find x of xx for the day does little to encourage anyone."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to review in a little less detail I see:

In general:
* cache quality could have changed but it is has it has been in proportion with it growth. (The bell curve)
* New cachers are influenced by the caches they find and as a result hide compared to what they have been subject to.
* Container quality has improved.
* In general terms rural caching relies more on location than cleverness of the hide for suburban.
* Long term cachers can influence the quality of caching by example.
* Logs should reflect the cache truthfully but with positive and constructive criticism.
* Events have a role in improving cache quality as do cachers that live in a region.

In more specific terms:
* My situation is likely a result of poor cache choice and I have selected 10 / 15 caches at the lower end of the bell curve.
* I have been spoiled for choice and quality coming from a region with not only good location but hiders who put thought into their hides.


Solutions:
I can continue to find caches but offer suggestions in my logs (+ve) and email (-ve) or constructive criticisms to the hider. Diplomatically
I can hide caches of a higher caliber to influence the quality level of caches with in the region.
I can hold event days to camo and prepare cache containers and within the event visit quality caches (say at Gosford etc.) to influence new caching teams to what makes a good find.
I can contact local caches and ask them what caches they thought were a good hide and find those.

Please feel free to add to this thread. It of course may be used as reference (like the other one).

Hopefully this thread has also influenced people (here in GCA) to go through their account and consider what are their better caches and which ones are a little ordinary. If you do improve a cache or archive it please be honest and log what and why you have made this decision so other caches follow suit.

This thread is by no means closed. Please feel free to agree, disagree or sit on the fence.

Regards,

The Bronze.

[CaleD]

Nice review. I actually archived one of mine the other day, with another couple preparing for the chop

[tronador]

find x of xx for the day does little to encourage anyone.

Yes why do people write this? Quite frankly, I don't really care how many out of how many you have found for the day.
I would prefer you didn't write this at all.

[Mr Router]

This sort of thing happens when numbers grow in any activity so we just have to think twice about the location to get the most out it for everyone.

A cache is a cache

[Mr Router]

(Oh and good to see you post, Bronze!)

here here you little hacker tracker

[Richary]

Thanks Bronze, obviously a lot of work went into that summary. And I agree with the points.

As I have stated elsewhere I won't be putting out a cache under a bush in every local park that doesn't have one, even though some might consider that not giving back to the game. I will pick my locations because Sydney has enough caches to work with - so until I find somewhere that has a reason for one I won't plant it. If I find 1000 in Sydney and stick with the 3 I have hidden so far, that's cool.

There is one I placed in Adelaide I wasn't particularly proud of but the kids wanted to place it so we went ahead. Meant to pull it out before I left but instead it has been adopted. The others all had a reason.

So yes, education perhaps with a nice log suggesting how it could have been better but not coming across as criticism but as a consturctive suggestion for their next cache. I agree it is numbers driven for a lot of people (and yes if I was numbers driven would have cracked 2000 GC about 6 months ago). But people need to be led to the good ones rather than the boring ones. That enhances their interest hopefully and leads to better caches.

[Rabbitto]

"Things aren't getting worse. You're just getting less tolerant" - Rabbitto - 1982

<p>You can quote me.

<p>Before saying things are worse, first check if your perception has changed. "But how do I do that?" I hear you ask. Great question. Let's check these examples -

<p> Example 1
<br>I have an odd sense of humour. Bad? Well, maybe but let's just settle on odd for the sake of this argument. My brain will think of a very bad pun in any situation in about a nano-second from your last comment coming out of your mouth. If you have only just met me, you may think this humourous, possibly quirky, hopefully endearing. My strange ability does not stop at one or two. I can rattle them off all day every day. Ask anyone who has been on a geocaching trip with me.

There is one constant however. Sooner or later you will say "You are getting worse!". Haven't said it yet? Probably haven't hung around me long enough. Give it time. But have I gotten worse. Really, no. I have been able to do this since probably about 16 or 17 years old. It probably fine tuned over the first few years but it has been pretty constant since that time. So worse. definitely not. (Hey I have had to live with my brain every day for quite a while, I should know) So what has changed? Your perception. What was novel at first has now become grating. (Please do not ask me to stop. I cannot. The best that I can promise is that I will try to filter out some of the really bad ones out on a good day) But I digress...

<p> Example 2
<br>I used to work at Arnott's Biscuits for a good number of years. Every now and then we would be able to buy bargain priced biscuits from the staff shop. When 'Goldfish' first came out, they over produced for the opening production run and had them coming out of their ears. I hadn't tried them so I brought a packet home for the family and we all loved them.

<p>So the next day, I bought a box of 24......

<p>The first few packets were great. By the sixth or seventh packet the novelty was starting to wear off and by the tenth, we had all gone off them. Not wanting to waste, I continued on alone and within the next couple of packets I grew to loathe them. Ever heard the saying - Too much of a good thing? The last few packets were given away to neighbours and friends who all said "Wow, they are really nice". Same little crackers. Same taste. Now a different perception. They hadn't changed. So what was different? We were.

<p> Example 3
<br>At the Cadbury Chocolate factory they have (or at least had - it may have changed) a rule that staff were welcome to eat as much chocolate as they wanted whilst at work. As long as you don't take it out with you "Munch away". How much chocolate did they lose. A surprisingly small amount. It is the same tasty chocolate day in day out. But staff went all out for the first few days then their perception changed and they ate less and less.

<p> Example 4
<br>Listen to the Monty Python "Cheese Shop" sketch with particular reference to the Bazooki.

<p> The Point
<br> "Crickey, he has finally gotten to a point" Before saying that something is getting worse, don't forget to check your perception and experience in at the gate.

<p>Ever bought that great shirt that you loved but after a while you grew to hate it?

<p>Ever seen people have a relationship with someone they think is the bees knees, only to end up in a split a few years later.

<p>Ever thought that it was a good idea to get a tattoo and a few years later realise that it was a mistake (Sucks to be you, they don't easily come off)

<p>For all those who say, things are getting worse, try this test. Go back through your first 100 caches and your last 100 caches and run a comparison - but - Take off your rose colouered glasses for those first hundred and fairly compare to the last hundred. Be really, really fair. I'll bet that you find that the standard has not really changed that much.

<p>So perception aside, putting down the new breed of geocachers (those ones who are on their first day working at the Cadbury factory) this is the result....

<p>

Apparantly, thanks to the wonders of forums, I can quote me too.