What is a reasonable and sustainable Hide:Find % ?

[Big Matt and Shell]

...some Yanks with several hundred (some over 1,000!) caches placed and I KNOW that there's no way they can be fulfilling their responsibility to maintain that many caches.

<P>The maintenance aside, you can bet they're not using Sistema containers! The last series of caches we put out cost us a small fortune! But I guess that is the price to pay for having a nice secure container with lots of swaps in it! Even at $1 per Nano, 1000+ caches becomes an expensive exercise...

[zactyl]

Mine's a shocking 32%.
Don't hit me.

Nah, you're finding some pretty good spots for film canisters in the urban environment.

[pprass]

... I have been thinking that I would like to hide more, but I want them to be good hides that people are going to enjoy above and beyond "just" finding a plastic box. That requires inspiration, and a good spot....

Your spot on SamCarter.
That's the point I think Rhino was intending to make with this thread. Just placing a cache out there because you have one to place is nonsense. Attracting people to an interesting spot that has some history, views or is tricky to find is what we look for and enjoy.

[Team GraMon]

WELL ...........
In our case it was that the "hide a cache" page looked too hard! - way to hard to do! - and it wasn't until we were shown how to "do" and "list" our first cache that we have in the last 2 weeks placed 4 caches and have 4 more in planning. Sometimes it is not all it seems with other cachers .. but that the cacher may bawk at the "hide a cache site" and needs to be shown how to make and list their first cache. So as to "hide to find" ratios - BLAH! -- offer to help a cacher that has never placed a cache, to place their first cache. [and if anyone wants help to list their first cache they may mail us as we now know how to do it]

[Freddo]

For a long time I tried to keep this ratio at 10%. As more and more cachers have hit the scene the ratio has slid to under 7%. Is Adelaide ready for a freddo splurge back up to 10%. I doubt it.

Yes maintaining 160+ caches is a problem. You get better and better at hiding them so the muggles won't find them. Makes it harder for the cachers too.

BTW our original ratio was two found/one placed.

[ian-and-penny]

IMHO hide/find % is irrelevant. If we all lead by example and put "good" caches out there, then those that follow will have an example to follow.

Also IMHO, cachers improve with time, and their hides get better. (and if they don't, some subtle feedback . . .)

[Crisp image]

I believe it is not all about the numbers!!! That said I feel good quality is better than quantity. Place caches that you can maintain and not have too many to maintain.
Thats my 2 cents worth
Happy Hunting
Crisp Image

[calumphing_four]

For a long time I tried to keep this ratio at 10%. As more and more cachers have hit the scene the ratio has slid to under 7%. Is Adelaide ready for a freddo splurge back up to 10%. I doubt it.

YES. Bring 'em on (Even though my forehead is still taking a battering with The Oracle.)

[Bewilderbeest]

[quote="rhinogeowhat do others think is a reasonable and sustainable Hide:Find percentage ?[/quote]

Four.



Okay, that might be slightly flippant, but it's a real YMMV question. Personally, I didn't feel ready to hide one until I had a fairly broad range of experience at finding. To me, that meant over 100 finds in at least two states, urban and rural finds and at least 10% each mystery and multi caches.

I agree with the earlier comments that I'd rather see a new hider hide their first cache somewhere worthwhile rather than just putting one out for the sake of it.

I also agree with the idea of not taking every possible hiding opportunity, so that there are plenty of quality spots left for newer people to use when they are ready to start hiding caches.

[setsujoku]

I see some Yanks with several hundred (some over 1,000!) caches placed and I KNOW that there's no way they can be fulfilling their responsibility to maintain that many caches.

sorry to jump back in the thread a bit

I guess it might not be quite as hard to maintain when you have caches only 161m apart, or on every light post. Makes maintenance nice and easy

[Udderchaos]

160m apart? sounds like mt gambier

[Dik:]

Actual hides to finds ratio is actually a worthless figure now there are so many playing the game.

But if you look at your statistics there is a much more usefull number called "Caching Karma". That's the ratio of others finds on your caches to your finds on the caches of others.

For the game to work properly the average "Caching Karma" across all cachers needs to be 100%

Prolific hiders are well above 100% on this, if you feel you need to pull your weight on the hiding front, then getting your "Caching Karma" over 100% is the best way.

PS My "Caching Karma" is at 64.88%, so I guess I need some more hides.

[rhinogeo]

Actual hides to finds ratio is actually a worthless figure now there are so many playing the game.

<p>IMHO it is not a 'worthless figure' </p> <p>I started this thread to discuss what is a <i><b>reasonable and sustainable</b></i> Hide:Find %, not how popular one's caches are</p>

But if you look at your statistics there is a much more usefull (sic) number called "Caching Karma". That's the ratio of others finds on your caches to your finds on the caches of others.

<p>The <i>Caching Karma</i> rating is skewed to those the have their hides in more populated and therefore more likely to be found areas. Cachers that are based in (or hide most of their caches in) rural/regional areas will inevitably have less finds and therefore a lower <i>karma</i> rating. The same would apply to those that hide challenging puzzle caches. FWIW my karma rating is 47.04% (589 finds on owned caches / 1,252 total finds)</p>

<p>For the game to work properly the average "Caching Karma" across all cachers needs to be 100%</p>

<p>Prolific hiders are well above 100% on this, if you feel you need to pull your weight on the hiding front, then getting your "Caching Karma" over 100% is the best way.</p>

For me to get to 100% karma I would therefore need to hide another 25 caches and have them found 27 times each before I found any more caches myself </p><p>I would then have twice as many caches to maintain .... fine if I hid micros in the suburbs but difficult to sustain and maintain for ammo boxes in the bush</p>
<p>I'm comfortable with my Hide:Find of 1.76% .... it's Noobs with Hide:Finds of > 100% hiding caches just for the sake of it that have me wondering if they will end up being just a <i>flash in the pan</i> leaving geojunk for the rest of us to cleanup after they lose interest and let their caches deteriorate </p>
<p>YMMV </p>

[fehrgo]

I'd have to say that with some of the caches I've found, I'd rather the hider had an infinite hide:find ratio. There are some people out there who are consistently bad, and never seem to get the point.

Others could hide twice as many and I would be happy.

[TeamAstro]

Astro : 1.7% (40 hides) but I feel as though I have "contributed". Maybe others don't.

I do think that there should be some min number of finds before some one goes out and places a cache (at least cache #1) - possibly based on the cache density of their home coords. Obviously it could be around 40 cache finds in Adelaide, but if you lived in remote somewhere, maybe say 5 before you hide one..... you get the idea...

Does caught at work have some stats on cache density??? Did I miss that stat? Could be hand for a number of things.

clear skies, TeamAstro