Reviewing Notes
I've been reviewing caches again as a volunteer admin for geocaching.com and have started to see some interesting trends I thought I'd try to track in my blog. I have a bit of "feedback" developed from my experience with cache reviewing lately. Below I'm tracking some trends:
On Virtual Caches
With very, very few exceptions there are no good subjects for a virtual cache.
First, there are a lot of virtuals submission attempts. I like a good virtual cache as much as the next guy, but the last thing I want to spend a Saturday doing it tooling around the countryside looking at every other historical markers. And believe me there are tons. In fact, there's a web site, http://www.michmarkers.com that is entirely devoted to them. I can find 90% of the virtuals submitted there. If your virtual is on this kind of site... it's almost guranteed to be too common to qualify as a virtual. An old church is not unique. A hot pink church is. Do not submit a virtual for a feature that is in a park. From the guidelines at geocaching.com:
Virtual caches seem to be one step off from the "No-pencil" micro 35mm canister caches that are littering the world. This is, of course, a generalization but it seems to me that virtual cache placement is just plain lazy. It's for the people who can't be bothered to put $5 and a couple hours into building and hiding an interesting traditional.
Virtuals are something you shouldn't have to say, "Hmm... I think I'll place a virtual... what could I submit?" It's like "indecency" - hard to define in specific terms but we all know it when we see it. If you pull your car over to get a closer look at that giant walnut - it's probably a great virtual. If you're bringing people to something they are going to spend 19 seconds or less reading - don't bother. People can get all the information on historical sites they want right off google. Don't waste their time.
My suggestions to the public for improving the Virtual cache scene.
I've noticed some trends in traditional caches too. The first is that we're closing in on what may be the practical limit of cache population in the world. It's rare to see a cache more than 1-2 miles from another cache. Proximity is more and more becoming a top thing to review on a new listing, whereas in the past it was almost something you could skip. Now, I see caches placed literally 33feet from other caches and some on the exact spot of previously exisitng archived caches. It's really weird.
People are getting lazy. I see far more 35mm "No pencil" micros than anything else. It's really disappointing. Within the guidelines I'm bound to approve these wasteoids (again... generalization, but let's be honest - anyone out there have a 35mm micro stashed in a supermarket parking lot as a memory of their favorite cache?) while we're required by the guidelines to scrutinize the quality of virtuals. I'm not arguing that we should stop reviewing virtuals for quality, but there should be some metric in place for traditionals. There has long been talk about putting in a rating system. Those against this say it'd hurt people's feelings to have their caches called ugly. I'm starting to believe that a little dose of tough love now and again would be a good thing for Geocaching in general. Knowing that your 35mm no pencil micro sucks compared to JoeQ's nice ammo can in an interesting place in the same park wouldn't be bad IMO. Competition is good in a fair market ecnonmoy as it drives improvments. In the absence of competition, companies would be content to suck.
I wish people would do all the caches near where they try to place one too. More and more I'm seeing issues where the final stage of a multi is only a few feet from a newly placed cache. Since we don't track the multi's coordinates in a database (though we require they be posted for reviewing purposes) there's no way to key in to that fact until the owner of the multi emails you ticked off that you listed a cache so close to the final stage of their 19 stage multi. Gah. Sorry 'bout that. Now we have to go ask the other guy to move the cache and it's a great big mess and headache for everyone involved. Do every cache within 5 miles of where you want to place a cache. The final stage of a multi is generally required to be under 2 miles from the final stage. Some exceptions are out there, but this is the general rule of thumb. If you do all caches within 5 miles of where you want to place a cache you'll a) know a lot more about the caches hidden in the area and be ready to place one that's even better! b) not run into this multi problem.
Things I wish people would do before placing traditional caches:
On Virtual Caches
With very, very few exceptions there are no good subjects for a virtual cache.
First, there are a lot of virtuals submission attempts. I like a good virtual cache as much as the next guy, but the last thing I want to spend a Saturday doing it tooling around the countryside looking at every other historical markers. And believe me there are tons. In fact, there's a web site, http://www.michmarkers.com that is entirely devoted to them. I can find 90% of the virtuals submitted there. If your virtual is on this kind of site... it's almost guranteed to be too common to qualify as a virtual. An old church is not unique. A hot pink church is. Do not submit a virtual for a feature that is in a park. From the guidelines at geocaching.com:
Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?”If it's in a park, you clearly did not do this. There is virtually (haha) no way you can argue that a micro is impossible to place somewhere in a park. Geocachers have proven time and time again that with a modicrum of creativity, hides can be made almost anywhere. Heck, I found a traditional on the Las Vegas Strip. Ever been to Vegas? There's like a billion people there. If you can hide a traditional cache there, it can be done almost anywhere. Also, consider that the cache does not have to be placed there, you could use the sign, monument, gravestone, speed limit sign, or whatever as the first stop on a multi-cache tour.
Virtual caches seem to be one step off from the "No-pencil" micro 35mm canister caches that are littering the world. This is, of course, a generalization but it seems to me that virtual cache placement is just plain lazy. It's for the people who can't be bothered to put $5 and a couple hours into building and hiding an interesting traditional.
Virtuals are something you shouldn't have to say, "Hmm... I think I'll place a virtual... what could I submit?" It's like "indecency" - hard to define in specific terms but we all know it when we see it. If you pull your car over to get a closer look at that giant walnut - it's probably a great virtual. If you're bringing people to something they are going to spend 19 seconds or less reading - don't bother. People can get all the information on historical sites they want right off google. Don't waste their time.
My suggestions to the public for improving the Virtual cache scene.
- Read the guidelines. Don't think your hide is special somehow. Apply them to your potential submission in the strictest sense.
- Don't place a virtual cache for something you have seen more than twice in your life.
- Don't place a virtual cache as your first cache.
- Don't ever submit a virtual that's in a park. That's inexcusable. You can place some kind of traditional there, use the "thing" as a stage or clue.
I've noticed some trends in traditional caches too. The first is that we're closing in on what may be the practical limit of cache population in the world. It's rare to see a cache more than 1-2 miles from another cache. Proximity is more and more becoming a top thing to review on a new listing, whereas in the past it was almost something you could skip. Now, I see caches placed literally 33feet from other caches and some on the exact spot of previously exisitng archived caches. It's really weird.
People are getting lazy. I see far more 35mm "No pencil" micros than anything else. It's really disappointing. Within the guidelines I'm bound to approve these wasteoids (again... generalization, but let's be honest - anyone out there have a 35mm micro stashed in a supermarket parking lot as a memory of their favorite cache?) while we're required by the guidelines to scrutinize the quality of virtuals. I'm not arguing that we should stop reviewing virtuals for quality, but there should be some metric in place for traditionals. There has long been talk about putting in a rating system. Those against this say it'd hurt people's feelings to have their caches called ugly. I'm starting to believe that a little dose of tough love now and again would be a good thing for Geocaching in general. Knowing that your 35mm no pencil micro sucks compared to JoeQ's nice ammo can in an interesting place in the same park wouldn't be bad IMO. Competition is good in a fair market ecnonmoy as it drives improvments. In the absence of competition, companies would be content to suck.
I wish people would do all the caches near where they try to place one too. More and more I'm seeing issues where the final stage of a multi is only a few feet from a newly placed cache. Since we don't track the multi's coordinates in a database (though we require they be posted for reviewing purposes) there's no way to key in to that fact until the owner of the multi emails you ticked off that you listed a cache so close to the final stage of their 19 stage multi. Gah. Sorry 'bout that. Now we have to go ask the other guy to move the cache and it's a great big mess and headache for everyone involved. Do every cache within 5 miles of where you want to place a cache. The final stage of a multi is generally required to be under 2 miles from the final stage. Some exceptions are out there, but this is the general rule of thumb. If you do all caches within 5 miles of where you want to place a cache you'll a) know a lot more about the caches hidden in the area and be ready to place one that's even better! b) not run into this multi problem.
Things I wish people would do before placing traditional caches:
- Read the guidelines. Apply them to your cache in the strictest sense of the meaning. You're not special, you will be held to them like everyone else. Help us by knowing them well before placing a cache.
- Find at least 20 existing caches.
- Find all caches within 5 miles of the area you wish to place your traditional.
- Commit to spending $10 on the cache. Lock'N'Lock is available at Target for like $3 and makes a great cheap clear container. Spend another $7 at the dollar store on a logbooks, pencils, and swag and you'll have a pretty decent cache to put out there.
- Leave 35mm canisters off your "acceptable container" list. They're great for CITO canisters, but as caches they suck.
- Always, always, always put a writing utensil in your cache. There is no excuse for not having one except laziness. If you can't fit a pencil of some kind in it - it's too freakin' small.
posted by Mike @ 2:02 PM
0 comments
