Cache Quality Down The Drain.

[Bronze]

Discussion topic:

Is it just me or has the quality of caching in general declined.



I have moved from inland to the coast (Lake Macquarie / Newcastle) and I must say that I am very disappointed with what I have found. Most I don't log and now I can't be bothered even planning a cache day. The last 10 caches found or attempted have been a waste of time and fuel.

Observations:
Caches are very generic with little of no attracting factors (eg View, History, Unique Location, Geology or Ambiance).
Caches are poorly described and are generally 'cheap' in quality.
Hiders rarely maintain the caches they own and finders do not indicate satisfaction or dissatisfaction in their log.

There is no point whining about a problem unless you are willing to offer a solution but first let be expand the question by asking:

Is this an isolated observation? Is cache quality being affected elsewhere? This is where old timers and those that have traveled can add input.

I have not logged a cache in a very long time. Some reasons because of cache quality, some because of competing interests and time / cost.

I thought I'd leave this topic opening and see what is explored. If it is a relevant issue and ask forum members to suggest ways this can be rectified. I have some ideas of my own but for now I would like to read what others thoughts are on cache quality and finders comments.

Warm regards and Happy New Year.

The Bronze.

[Alansee]

There have always been good and bad caches.

But it is a healthy thing to raise the subject from time to time.

[CaleD]

There was a bit of a chat about this last year (see http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... 65&start=0 )... people tended to say yes, but as Alansee suggested, there are always good ones and bad ones. Luckily I live in an area where there haven't been too many new caches since when I started in mid 2007, so my area seems to be (in my opinion anyway) somewhat immune.

[Mr Router]

Sorry budge but has turned to numbers did I say that Anywho good to see you back ol'son

[KevL]

I have actually been giving this some thought myself recently.
Start ramble:

In the early days of caching, long before I began, there was an abundance of great locations for caches. There were few caches so you could put more effort in to each.
Skip forward to today and every lookout, mountain top and recreation area has at least 1 cache, most major historical sites are covered. Some states apparently have some restrictions placed by government departments.
Roadside rest areas are also getting well covered.
I believe there are still many great spots for caches, however the "easy' ones are harder to find.

This has led to a couple of outcomes. First, micros in exposed/ high traffic areas. I call this extreme caching. In the case of these, the challenge is in actually getting your hands on the cache, not the cache itself.
Secondly, any suitable container jammed wherever you can hide it. As good a way to fill in a day as any I suppose but it becomes a numbers game.

I'm more picky most days as to what caches I might look for. I feel uncomfortable looking around children's playgrounds for instance so these can wait until I have grandkids.
When deciding on a location for a hide, I feel there has to be some purpose, a view or some history.

I suppose, for me anyway, its more the hunt and location than any "treasure" at the end.

end of ramble.

Kev

ps Welcome back Bronze, I've missed the teapots.

[Team Carnage]

I find the quality seems to go down as the cache density increases. (we will see if this stands true when I eventually get to Adelaide, most dense area in Aus)


I pride myself in carefully selecting a prime spot for a cache, always with a reason to go there, be it view, history etc etc.
I did an urban cache a few months back that was a magnetic stuck to the back of a rail on the edge of a busy road I found myself wondering why the cacher wanted to take people there?

[caughtatwork]

Yet we do not archive our own caches because we think they are good enough? Are others not subject to the same emotional bond that we have with a piece of plastic?

I think I might have to go around my own caches, archive a bunch and rehide them in a new and exciting place for others to come and find.

[the farmers 5]

Is it just me or has the quality of caching in general declined.

I have to disagree with this.I think there has never been a better time in Geocaching history to find a cache for all the great reasons.If you go back and look at the first few hundred placed in Australia,you will see why.There were some fantastic locations ,but some of the cache descriptions were small because they probaly had not many others to go by.Most of the early caches were small and very little swaps.Many were chinese takeaway containers and some of those still out there!But i am sure "sistema's " were not around till about 2004 ,four years after the start.So they could only use what what was available.
Since then it has exploded with brilliance over the last 4 years.Now a cache descrition is often lengthy ,detailed with the information required and some colourful photos.All types of sistema sizes fill the requirements now.Micros and nano's are often brilliant and more evident.Ammo cans are around and used with great flair.I think "Caught @ Work's are just about all Ammo cans.Swaps are much better now and often "FTF" prizes.

But probaly the biggest change that has skyrocketed in the last 4 years for the better has to be the "The brilliant art of illusion".I remember when Bendigo was the illusion capital of Australia as Romax virtually introduced the caching world to absolute brilliance.All that have cached there will understand!...But now ,.its everywhere and for the better .
More clever puzzles, brilliant multi's passing scenic locations,more historical caches,with most cemetaries covered through a noted past Australian,caching events,devious micros and much much more.Its truly never been a better time as i am sure Maccamob would agree,and they have seen it all.
The only reason i can think of that "Bronze" might think for cache decline, is this.When most cachers took up Geocaching a few years ago ,they were introduced by somebody already into it and shown the ropes on a "GPS",finding ,logging and also hiding a cache.
With a car "GPS" just about a standard item these days,people are looking on the net about "GPS'S",finding the Geocaching section and then progressing forward themselves with no assistance .This is often evident in a log when someone states "met my first caching team today after 12 months".
As each year goes by i can only see caches of all types getting better and better.

[Richary]

Starting with Bronze's comments, not I don't really think the quality has deteriorated. What has happened is you have moved from a country location to a near-city location.

Obviously in suburbia caches (unless devious micros) are generally less exciting because they can't lead you to a brilliant location like country ones can. Or in the rare cases they do the location has already been taken. Country ones I tend to find have been placed because someone wants you to visit that spot.

That brings me to Kev's comments. Which is basically saying what I did above. Now I could easily head around Suherland for example and probably grab 20 in a day if I had the stamina. Instead on Sunday I went up Putty Road and did some harder ones in Wollemi National Park. Find total for the day = 4. But probably a lot more satisfying day, not counting the bushwalking and bikeriding that was involved.

Bronze, if you have time head down and do a couple of the harder ones around Gosford. You won't be disappointed with the quality of those.

[agap2]

duplicate post sorry.

[agap2]

One observation I have is that those cachers who have been around a long time are only improving with their caches, so the new caches by these people are getting better and better!!! I have to say, caching would not be as interresting if it wasn't for these peoples experience and efforts!! I also recognise there are some classic old caches which will always be classics!!

also, I went to byron bay 6 months ago and there were only 2 caches!! in such an amazing location!! huh???

[Papa Bear_Left]

My gut feel from my reviewer's perspective is that the bell curve still applies to cache quality the way it always has.

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. Where once you'd yawn your way past a couple of boring-box-under-a-bush on your way to a clever or scenic cache, now you might come across a dozen of them in your area, and they're usually the easier ones to get to, sort of by definition.

As discussed elsewhere, though, there's the problem of newcomers starting off with the easy ones near their homes, then going out and placing caches just like them! Proud as punch that they're giving back to their new hobby, not realising that their string of film cans or 200ml Systemas in one-block parks probably won't give them a shining reputation...

Whereas the lucky newbies who cut their teeth on good, clever, well thought-out caches have a higher bar to reach, but the ones who meet the challenge get repaid by admiring logs instead of a string of bored "TNLN TFTC" cut'n'pastes.

[CraigRat]

Totally agree with PBL.
I think the percentages are probably the same, it's just there are more of both good and less good caches.

All it means is one needs to be selective with ones caching to avoid becoming too jaded or disappointed.

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

[Damo.]

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. A lunchbox or micro in a suburban park just isn't as much fun as a bushwalk for me.
It is a case of monkey-see-monkey-do though.
I was quite chuffed with log comments on my last couple of cache placements by some newbies who had started putting out caches in my local area and had never seen a camoflaged cache or an ammo can before and were quite impressed.
I think encouraging new players to NOT place a cache until they have found a few is a good thing.

[SamCarter]

From a post I made in another thread in October (stats are now a bit out, but not much):

I'm not at all convinced about the "The quality of cache hides are going downhill" argument.

Here are some stats, admittedly personal and subjective, BUT PERSONAL AND SUBJECTIVE ARE INHERENT IN EVALUATING CACHE QUALITY. I went and sorted through my finds in order of hiding (yay, the GCA website for being able to do this), and then went through the list counting caches that gave me a particularly enjoyably memorable experience (my "sweet and satisfying" finds, that brought a smile to my face when brought to recollection by my notoriously dodgy memory). Here are the results, based on my 480 finds (I'm probably ideally placed to do this apart from the memory issues: if it was a relative newbie then there might not be enough for a statistically significant result; if it was maccamob, they'd be there for ever!!!)

(Sorry for not having enough time to make this look good in html)

Year hidden 2000-2002 # finds 27 # of "memorable" hides 8 % good 29%
Year hidden 2003-2004 # finds 54 # of "memorable" hides 14 % good 26%
Year hidden 2005-2006 # finds 170 # of "memorable" hides 60 % good 35%
Year hidden 2007-2008 # finds 229 # of "memorable" hides 82 % good 36%


I reckon less than 10% of the 480 finds were "waste of time" caches, and the rest were ones that varied from "well, I didn't mind finding that" to "yep, that was pretty good".

Of course, enjoyment of a cache is a function of many things, not just the cache itself. These include the weather, the excitement of a new place not visited before, a surprise at the location, surprise or interest on route to the location, the company, the challenge of figuring out how to get there (e.g., puzzles, multis), the "I never knew that ..." moments, and so on. As a simple example, my enjoyment of "Long Forest West" was enhanced and made more memorable by the fact that it was a glorious morning when I found it, with the sun streaming through the trees at just the right magical angle to make the moss glow green. If it had been overcast and drizzly my memories of it would have been different: I am quite sure I'd have enjoyed it (it's a good and sizeable hide in a wonderful spot, and thus satisfying to find), but it might have been remembered a bit less fondly.

What the stats above DO highlight is 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. If you don't think that the new hides are of very good quality, just bear in mind that the stats suggest that there were proportionally as many poor hides in the past (the maths teacher in me says "Come on people, we're dealing with proportional reasoning here, where 9 out of 10 is just as good as 90 out of 100"). In fact, I think people have been getting more creative in their hides, puzzles, and modus operandi and, for me, that's good for caching.

End quote

The next comments are probably obvious, but may be useful.

You don't have to find every cache that is hidden. Use the gca site to find which caches and hiders have "Recommended" tags and high "Overall experience" ratings, and only go and look for them; read the logs to see how other people reacted before deciding whether or not to go out to find a cache; give up finding those by people whose hides you haven't liked (or wait until they do one that looks like it might be worth a second chance, and then praise it if it's good); decide what it is you like about caching, and only do caches that fit in with that (the descriptions usually give a bit of an idea); ; oh, yes, and hide some good ones so that folks in the area get to learn how much fun caching can REALLY be.