Perceptions of TC.com

Dave O’Connell stated the following:

Geocaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 1,761

Navicache.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 26
— 19 cross-listed physical caches active on both sites
— 4 cross-listed physical caches that have been archived at Geocaching.com
— 3 virtual caches not listed at Geocaching.com

Terracaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 5
— Includes 4 caches previously listed on Geocaching.com but transferred
— Combined hiking distance for all 5 of the Terracaches: 335 feet

So, by only playing on this listing service, I’ve missed out on three virtuals and five park and grabs. I’ll survive.

Sounds like a taker and not a giver. If one were to have that approach on GC.com, he would be labelled a parasite or rude. But if those same folks practice that attitude at TC.com, it is considered acceptable. Please . . . Dave, obviously you are not cut out to be a terracacher. You do not understand how to participate as a community member. You are only looking at it from what you can get out of the experience. And while that is a fine approach, you totally miss that you can get a hell of a lot out of it if you are willing to put something in. Use your knowledge to help the local scene. Rate the caches poorly so the hider understands he needs to put more work into it. Be a leader who sets an example. Be one not to accept less than the best. Or, continue to bash and play elsewhere. It is easier to do that, isn’t it?

Dan chimes in with:

Yup. There’s no denying that.

There are only 20 Terracaches within 100 miles of me – 3 of hich are mine. But I view that as a postive characteristic. In essence, it’s a blank slate.

As far as “park and grabs”; I see 9 caches listed in PA, 4 of which have been found once and the other 5 have yet to be found. The ratings range from 5.0 to 5.9 (where 5.0 is average).

So, some people must consider them worthy. It’s all relative. I have 328 “finds” here on GC.com and have listed in my profile 15 that I consider stand-outs – that’s it, just 15.

I have 14 finds on TC.com – one of them being my all-time favorite caching adventure (Take Me Out To The Ballgame), and one other that I rated “excellent”.

My point being that it’s a low percentage that I consider of good quality, but hopefully will be higher on TC.com because of their system.

This reminds me a lot of the holiday cache listed on Navicache. Not that it was one of my favorites or anything, but it was so much better than the five other caches which were eventually placed in the same park. I kept noting that there was another cache here that was worth seeking. I left notes in the logbooks of other caches, I e-mailed folks, I had threads about it on local boards. Not a person has sought that in two and one-half years. Not a one. Which goes to show that local folks are interested in the smileys, not the seeking of the cache. One cacher kept telling me that it was because he didn’t want to have to use multiple sites. Yet, that same cacher checks into the local club’s site more frequently than he does GC.com. It’s lunacy: armchair caches for smileys are preferred to adventure. Dan mentions a cache that is the best he has ever done (thanks, btw) and I bet not one sole will seek it out because of that post. It’ll be dismissed because it does not add to the smiley count. When established cachers note a particular cache, it is worth heeding. But because it is off geocaching, it will be ignored. Who loses out?

BrianSnat ponders

When you list a cache, it gets rated. Crummy caches get automatically archived – plain andsimple.

This is a mixed bag. People are allowed to rate caches before even finding them. I had a cache listed and archived before there was a single find. What’s the deal with that.

Brian, that is the community telling you it doesn’t want to hunt a bait vending machine. While you may think it is clever and unique, the community thought otherwise. Wait a few weeks and Jeremy will have a solution for you. You’ll survive.

The only guideline is “nothing illegal”.

You play as a responsible adult.

That’s what scares me. A lot of guidlines at GC.COM are common sense. Its not illegal to place a cache in a train station, but its really stupid.

And the community should police itself. Why do I need GC.com or TC.com to tell me otherwise? GC.com has told you now for two years that the bait cache is unacceptable. TC.com did not tell you that. But when you posted it, the community told you it didn’t want to hunt it. It seems like the system works. Of course, for the system to work, we need responsible cachers who understand supporting the community. Dave obviously doesn’t get it. The locals around me are uninterested. This all bodes well for TC.com in that only a certain breed of cacher will thrive on its site. Most of the rest play on GC.com which is where they are comfortable. And that is a good thing.

Also blogged on this date . . .

One thought on “Perceptions of TC.com”

  1. The other one does. Now, perhaps that model is working great and lives up to its advertising in Washington, Montana and Idaho – my friends there say that it is. Fine, they’re lucky to have more good caches to go after. But this is the Northeast forum.

    Indeed it is. And in the Northeast forum you had a northeast cacher attest that there are quality caches to seek in the northeast listed on another site. Yes, it isn’t particularly convenient to you. The site has been existence since October 2004. Pittsburgh hasn’t caught on yet. But as the article about caching that you are quoted in points out

    Geocaching has been slower to catch on in Pittsburgh than in some other places

    So, it sounds as though your area, of which you are a leader, is just slow to adopt caching. There certainly is nothing wrong with that, but why bash TC.com for not having something for you? Why not provide something for the community? That is why the site exists. I suspect you just aren’t interested in playing on another site. That is fine too, but you are mistaken about what is going on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.