Find to Hide Ratio

[rhinogeo]

I would rather see hides as a "quality rather than quantity" decision instead of being based on ratios.

The point is, more goes into our placing than most people realise. Placing should be done with a lot of thought and care, so unless you are prepared to do that then leave it to those how will take the time and effort to make it good, don't just do it by forced hand or to keep up numbers

<p>I didn't place my first cache until I had over 50 finds, and had been caching for 9 months or so </p><p>I always worry when I notice a newbie with a high caches Placed:Found ratio that they are in such a hurry to place caches that they lack the necessary exposure to quality caches to know the difference between sh!t and clay </p><p>YMMV </p>

[Dik:]

Personally I love the challenge of hiding. In nearly a year of caching I have over 200 finds and 9 hides. But I would have spent more time on placing the 9 hides than on finding 200.

For me there can be an instant of inspiration for a hide, but it usually gets worked over and will take a month or more to come to reality. There may be a container looking for a location, an answer looking for a question or a location looking for an access point. And then it just all comes together. I can be working on multiple hides simultaneously. Several ideas may merge into a single hide. An idea may morph into something completely different as the hide develops.

Hiding isn't for everyone. I would expect the majority to never place a hide, and that's fine by me.

But placing your own hides certainly enhances the appreciation of hides by others.

[Zytheran]

In the early days for me (2004) I was aiming for about 1 in 20, I have kept this up but the quality has been improving. However in the last year I have pretty much dropped off traditionals as there are plenty of teams who can do those at nice places . Leaving me to concentrate on the things I like, and do best, "challenging" and creative puzzles, which take a lot more work anyway.

One thing however is that we should be tolerant of new teams putting out pretty average caches. It's part of the initial enthusiasm to just do it. It does take time and experience of about 100 to 200 caches to see the range of what's possible. With time I've seen most teams improve in quality and that's a good thing.
People should also understand the maintenance requirements as they can be substantial and effectively forever if people are still enjoying the cache find.
On the other hand the constant stream of emails from happy cachers who enjoyed the find make it way, way, WAY worthwhile.
Even when they wanted to kill you when trying to find it..
The thing that amazes me is the effort people go to to create a brand new park just to put a cache in when I could swear there wasn't a park there the other week, or for the previous 30 years

[caughtatwork]

I would rather see hides as a "quality rather than quantity" decision instead of being based on ratios.

The point is, more goes into our placing than most people realise. Placing should be done with a lot of thought and care, so unless you are prepared to do that then leave it to those how will take the time and effort to make it good, don't just do it by forced hand or to keep up numbers

<p>I didn't place my first cache until I had over 50 finds, and had been caching for 9 months or so </p><p>I always worry when I notice a newbie with a high caches Placed:Found ratio that they are in such a hurry to place caches that they lack the necessary exposure to quality caches to know the difference between sh!t and clay </p><p>YMMV </p>

That's not just newbies you know

[Aushiker]

G'day

I used to work on a 1:5 ratio as that suited me. Now days I seem to be hiding more than I find. My caching time is more about walking time so if I walk in area without caches I tend to hide one or three

Andrew

[Spruce Mooses]

I voted that you should not feel obliged to place any. The game is at a stage now where you can find a cache almost everywhere you go, so if you do find a nice spot where there isn't one and you would like to put one there by all means go for it but you shouldn't be required to place one to play.

[Knot_gillty]

I ticked "should'nt feel obliged to place any". The same as what a number of people have said, as a newbie (51 finds), i would like to get more experience before placing a cache. I have one in mind, and have even bought the container and "goodies" but would like more experience in finding and working out the "better" ways of hiding. Some people like "drive bys", others like "puzzles or multis" and some even like "earthcaches". I just want to hide one that gets found and keeps getting found, gets good comments on the location, view or the hide. But what is "a quality cache"? A nice walk in a great park for someone might be a big hike in a rough bush for someone else.

[roundcircle]

I think we want to see quality, not quantity. Though what makes a quality cache is another topic thread.

New cachers shouldn't wait to long to give hiding a go. It's a good experience to set up a new hide. It gives you an appreciation for how much effort can go into a really good cache, and how hard it can be to find that perfect spot, or make up that cunning container. And I think it's a buzz to see the comments come in as a cache is found.

At the same time, I don't think new cachers need to aim to have a high hide to find ratio.

[Smelly Boot]

Finding a cache is great, hiding one can be even better. Just think, if it wasn't for people going out of their way to hide caches their wouldn't be any for us to find!!!!
Just one thing though - if you're willing to hide a cache you must be willing to look after it! We think this might be one reason for people being so willing to find without placing hides.

[homedg]

I just LOVE civil observations and preferences.
I also love A POLL.
SO as an adjunct to this topic What do people think about a ratio of:
No. of Finds on my HIDES vs. My FINDS
As a measure of balance?

[Rabbitto]

What happens if there is a 1:10 Ratio? (The maths) -

Step 1 - 51 people hide 1 cache

Step 2 - Everyone finds all the other caches. Now they have 50 finds each

Step 3 - To maintain the 1:10 ratio, everyone must hide 4 more caches.

Step 4 - Everyone finds all the other new caches. Now they have 250 finds each.

Step 5 - To maintain the 1:10 ratio, everyone must hide 20 more caches.

Step 6 - Everyone finds all the other new caches. Now they have 1,250 finds each.

Step 7 - To maintain the 1:10 ratio, everyone must hide 100 more caches.

Step 8 - Everyone finds all the other new caches. Now they have 6,250 finds each.

Step 9 - To maintain the 1:10 ratio, everyone must hide 500 more caches.

Step 10 - Everyone finds all the other new caches. Now they have 31,250 finds each.

And so on.....

Imagine the extrapolation if the number of geocachers also increased five-fold after each second step. (For those wondering, the answer after step 10 is around 100 million finds)

Therefore, as time goes on and the number of geocachers increase, the ratio should proportionately dilute in order to maintain the equilibrium. Where a 1:1 ratio was a necessity in the first few days of geocaching, the ratio has increased steadily since.

I would probably suggest that the average hide/find ratio in Australia has steadily doubled each year since inception.

Thus -

2000 1:1
2001 1:2
2002 1:4
2003 1:8
2004 1:16
2005 1:32
2006 1:64
2007 1:128

...which sounds about right. Note that this refers to the "average" ratio as a lot of the original hiders rates are way past this figure. This is not because they have been crazily hiding caches now but they, say, hid around 100 caches in 2002 when this translated out to a find ratio of 1:4 or 400 finds. These cachers may have hiden very few caches since but the current ratio of 1:128 would mean that they now had 12,800 finds which is clearly not true.

What this means going forward -

The sad but unfortunate ramifications of this theory is that once a cacher reaches or exceeds the caching ratio of that year that they will need to pull back on hides.

Also even sadder is that once a cacher has been overtaken by that ratio, it is unlikely that they will ever be able to get them into a position that gets them back on the right side of the ledger as

2008 - 1:256
2009 - 1:512
2010 - 1:1024
2011 - 1:2048
2012 - 1:4096

This sounds extremely far fetched now but imagine double the amount of cachers placing caches each year at the same rate as current placements and the theory gains legs. Let's say that an average of 1 in every 100 people in Australia has placed just 1 cache by the year 2012. That is 200,000 caches in Australia in 5 years and around 15 times the current level. Imagine at that time if there was still a 1:10 ratio.

To sum up -

No matter on your method or ability, every cacher deserves the opportunity to experience the joy of seeing those "found" logs come rolling in that we have all enjoyed over our time in the sport.

However -

We also bear the responsibilty to reach a point where we say "I have left my mark and it is my turn to slow down and pass the baton to the next generation of cachers"

[homedg]

Taking on Dik's comment:
"Personally I love the challenge of hiding. In nearly a year of caching I have over 200 finds and 9 hides. But I would have spent more time on placing the 9 hides than on finding 200. "
(Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing)
How many searchers have found, or looked for, these 9 caches?
If they are quality then I would suggest, PLENTY.
Hence my new line of thought, hide finds vs finds.
For those that have been in the game longer, then those early caches would have had piles of hits and hence it all adds to contributing to the game and so keps the ratio fair.

Just my thoughts.

[caughtatwork]

2000 1:1
2001 1:2
2002 1:4
2003 1:8
2004 1:16
2005 1:32
2006 1:64
2007 1:128

You and your binary numbers

[Dik:]

Taking on Dik's comment:
"Personally I love the challenge of hiding. In nearly a year of caching I have over 200 finds and 9 hides. But I would have spent more time on placing the 9 hides than on finding 200. "
(Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing)
How many searchers have found, or looked for, these 9 caches?
If they are quality then I would suggest, PLENTY.
Hence my new line of thought, hide finds vs finds.
For those that have been in the game longer, then those early caches would have had piles of hits and hence it all adds to contributing to the game and so keps the ratio fair.

Just my thoughts.

A fun urban cache and it gets hits galore until they built a fence around it, but put up a nice 6 stage multi with a 12 Km hike in 4* terrain and very few get to appreciate it.