Interesting stuff. I think a lot of people said something similar in the "Is Geocaching Dying?" thread.... which now seems to have disappeared
I think what most people could agree on is saturation in not a goal to be strived for. I have a friend in Canada who has just started to get into caching. After only a few weeks she has run into two huge snags...
1) She has to spend hours online before heading out caching "sifting" through the hundreds of closest to home caches to find something interesting or fun as a good chunk are LPC's, micros under bench seats or other non-descript efforts with 2 line descriptions. Tricky because a dud cache doesnt really rely on geography. You could have a cracker micro just 180m from a non-effort one.
2) Now she is now thinking of hiding a cache but is severely limited in her options of placement due to the cache density being so high. (Catch 22 - She is adding to that density I know! )
A nice way to potentially educate hiders would be a rating/feedback system. Unfortunately I cant see GS introducing a rating system on GC.com like we have here due to their thin-skinned expectation of their users and potential for abuse of such a system without policing
That means people have to use their log comments to provide feedback, but more often then not will simply "TFTC" if they didnt like it rather then providing an opinion to the owner and risk hurting their feelings.
I'll add my 2.5 cents here that I said there...
The best advise I can think to give to any potential hider is this.... Before you hide a cache ask yourself ONE
simple question... "Will finding this bring a smile to the faces of my fellow cachers?"
(Afterall that is who you are hiding it for!) There can be any number of reasons, and even a NANO
can satisfy this condition... if done right. Similarly an ammo can could fail (harder yes, but possible Im sure
...and at the end of the day I stand by my profile tagline: "To Cache for Numbers is not an Offence. To Hide for Numbers is Criminal!"