brendan714

See, that's just it. I had an amazing time and I want to share the story, but I have absolutely no opportunity to do so there. It would be a fantastic final log to let the cache page go out with a bang. Just like how I've had some incredible experiences going out and DNFing a cache. But I always log the experience online at the end of the day, regardless of the outcome! I've never experienced the disappointment of not being able to log at least SOMETHING at the end of the day. There's a very clear difference between zero days notice and any number greater than zero (30 days would have been fair?). I don't think anyone would agree that no warning whatsoever is fair. EDIT: I guess the big question is, why is the page locking necessary? Wouldn't just archiving be enough?

Your timing on this was not good. You said there was no plan to archive the caches and things would continue as they were, just with note writing. Then only a few weeks later they're archived for good with no warning. Did you really think this seemed fair? So why was this not addressed at publication and/or why was it not addressed sometime in the past 12 years? 12 YEARS! Part of the pain with this is that the Brass Cap and YOSM caches have remained practically unchanged for SO long until now. The biggest concern for me is that I went out on an epic adventure on Monday to find a brass cap. After a 12 hour day I returned home, only to see that the page was locked and I could not write up and share my story. An email to HQ asking for one final note to the page was met with a quick "nope". Many others I spoke with were left in the same predicament - after a long weekend with many finds to log (Monday is a holiday in Canada), the page was suddenly archived. To summarize: 1) You broke what I'd consider to be a promise by saying the pages weren't going to be archived. That only lasted a few weeks then ended without warning. 2) Your communication was awful. We would have at least appreciated a warning that the caches were going to be archived. We wouldn't have been happy about it, but it would have been better than no warning at all. Especially since I planned a huge geocaching trip only to have the pages locked on the same day. 3) Your willingness to correct the remaining issues is non-existent. There was no offer to let me write one final note on the log page. 4) It's a big slap in the face to some historic caches and amazing cache owners. It could have been handled in a MUCH more professional way. I'm disappointed that this is shaken off as an acceptable way to treat your clientele.

So..... What happened to Geocaching HQ's response to GC43F3 when I questioned duplicate found-it logs going away? "Fortunately for the fans of the cache, it is not being archived. None of the existing logs will be changed or removed. People who have already logged finds on it can continue to enjoy hunting for it in each new location, but log their visit and tell about their experience with a note instead of a find. Newer geocachers that have not yet attempted it, will be able to log their first find on the listing, and continue to log visits via a note. None of the fun experience needs to change." (bolding added by me for emphasis)

One comment I have is regarding the unpublished hides page on the dashboard. The listings are very spaced out, and have no special or distinguishing features other than the text written. It just looks really awkward. Another comment is that my recently viewed caches don't indicate owned caches. The little star in the upper left (where the smiley is for a found cache) would be nice. Also a few other things others have mentioned (like how the page keeps going back up to the top on every click when browsing through the gallery, for example). I'd also rather see my recent logs before recently viewed caches or my friend's logs. But with a few tweaks (and user insight) I think this new page can be great! I like the general style! I foresee some profile creativity in the future (banner photo, etc). And no loss of functionality =

I understand completely why a new logging page is being developed. But personally I have no idea why so many features from the old page have been (perhaps intentionally?) left out. Will all these features return in an improved form with new code? If so, fantastic! I can think of many ways the old logging page could be improved with new code! I know that could take some time so maybe that's one reason many features have been excluded in the beta form of the new logging page. But please keep the old logging page up and running until the functionality of the new one is improved to better the old one!

Seems typical. Is anyone that opts out of the new page going to see a popup on the page asking for feedback about the page? FYI here is the survey link I was provided after submitting a log via the new logging page: LOGGING BETA SURVEY

There are many things going on with this new logging page that I would consider to be a huge step backwards from the old logging page. Most of the points I've found have been brought up by others. But I have to mention the two biggest items for me that change it from "bad" to "opt me out ASAP": 1) I can upload ONE photo. And on that one photo I cannot add a caption or description. My geocaching adventures cannot be appropriately documented with one uncaptioned photo. And a lot of the fun of geocaching for me is writing out my adventures and reading other's stories and looking at all their photos. I tried selecting multiple images to upload at once and I got an error message saying I can only upload one photo at once. But then I let that one photo upload and I tried to upload another... and couldn't figure out how to do it. 2) The canned maintenance logs are not helpful for cache owners. More detail is needed to appropriately respond to an issue. How will cache owners know what action to take unless the issue is explicitly detailed? Likewise, the canned maintenance logs are awful for geocachers who are trying to report a detailed issue to a cache owner. Even further, the canned maintenance logs aren't helpful for geocachers who want to find a cache. Unspecified maintenance issues could be anything. Is a cache that was logged with an unspecified issue worth my time to look for, or is it only a petty issue like 'the pencil inside the cache needs sharpening'? There's no way to tell. These two points are the big deal-breakers for me, but I do agree with almost all of the other issues brought up by other posters here.

I just noticed that there's location data in the EXIF data of the images posted onto some of my puzzle caches. Can this be removed without emailing the owner and/or deleting the photo?

Agreed. I can't believe in my wildest dreams that this would ever happen, but the new page I tried certainly has me scared (only one photo, a terribly small preview of the photo and no ability to caption it). If I'm only 'allowed' to upload one photo, I will still geocache, but my logs would turn into simple "TFTC"s. I would still write the story, but I would do so on a personal blog with no limitations. I use the geocaching site almost as a personal blog to share and record my adventures, and I hope that doesn't have to change. Time will tell. We long log writers who add several photos seem to be the 1% though, that's for sure. (Well, okay, the 3%. A recent check on my most popular cache - on a somewhat scenic mountain summit BTW - which has 400 finds shows only 12 cachers who posted 2 or more photos on their log) But I suppose if it's a feature that is used infrequently, it's gotta go to streamline things.

I still get the old logging page as well, but you can try out the "new and improved" logging page by setting up a draft and trying to finish it on the web page. Personally I was curious so I checked it out. All I can say is that I hope the developers and those in charge act on some of the comments on this page before it goes live for everyone for all normal website cache logging. Ding! Your logging webpage has been marked as needing maintenance for reason "other"...

The new logging page is a HUGE step backwards. I'm disappointed that this will be the future of logging. Here are my comments: I can only add one photo! I can't caption the said single photo! Why is the photo preview so small? Can't it be bigger? Or can't I expand it when I click on it at the very least? The 'needs maintenance' box doesn't need to always appear. Won't that be confusing for newer users? So if I want to suggest that a cache needs archiving, I need to log the cache, write a note, click needs maintenance then suggest that the cache should be archived? I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with just having a log type of "Needs archived"? When I click the needs maintenance box, I only have a few canned responses. Can't I write my own reasons for why I believe the cache needs maintenance? When I select 'other' there's no pop up or request for extra explanation? Where do I explain my request for maintenance? Hopefully I'm not expected to write it in my 'found it' log! The cache title and cache owner are in dark grey text. It's not prominent in bright colours like it should be / used to be. I didn't even know I could click on the title or owner until I scrolled over it with my mouse. The add coordinate function is lost. I just used that function the other day when a new cache had coordinates that were 15 meters off. Having my suggested coordinates bolded at the top of the log makes them clearly visible. It's inconvenient for me to have to write out the coordinates by hand in the log text. The add coordinate function gives me the coordinates then I just tweak them slightly to match my notes. It's less likely I will make a typing error this way too. The writing space seems tiny. It expands, but it just looks tiny. The old style looks big and inviting. When I give a favourite I'd like to know how many I have remaining. The text format bar has disappeared! How will I add bolding, italics, links, etc? I don't remember the markdown shortcuts, nor do I care to. That's what the bolding button is for! I just looked up and tried the markdown shortcut for bolding on some text and it didn't bold the text. Will it only appear when I submit the post? What about smileys? Following up from above, the function that allows me to preview how the text will look when I submit it is gone. It seems inconsistent that the "!" button says "Needs maintenance" beside it all the time while the camera and heart don't say "Add a photo" and "Add a favourite". The page looks like it was designed from a phone app (was it?). A web page does not and should not look like a phone app page because there's a much larger screen and a more precise selection tool (mouse vs. finger). There is room to include all of the functions that have been removed! Why is there a grey background and grey fonts? Why not black and white? Overall it seems like many, many features are removed. Please reconsider these points and realize that this is a step backwards, not an improvement!

+1!

I do not care how often someone logs such a cache however it is a locationless cache and not a virtual. Have you ever looked into the concept of locationless caches which existed in the early years of gc.com? Actually, it's a moving cache... You are both incorrect. The collection of survey markers posted within the YOSM and the Brass Cap cache pages are virtual caches, not locationless or moving caches. The goal, in case you're not aware, is to visit a posted set of coordinates (ie the location of a particular survey marker) and read the data printed on the marker. You then email the data printed on the survey marker as proof of finding. They are NOT locationless (and they certainly aren't moving caches - see GCA0D6 for an example of a moving cache). See definitions below from the web page: Locationless caches: "Instead of finding a hidden container, you locate a specific object and log its coordinates." [this isn't the case - you are given coordinates which you must visit] Virtual caches: "A Virtual Cache is about discovering a location rather than a container. The requirements for logging a Virtual Cache vary—you may be required to answer a question about the location, take a picture, complete a task, etc... In any case, you must visit the coordinates before you can post your log." [this is correct] The interesting thing about YOSM and the Brass Cap page is that they both consist of hundreds of separate and completely unique virtuals, packaged into one GC code. What MKGees said is correct. One possible solution would be to make all the virtuals packaged on the YOSM and Brass Cap pages a unique cache page. This would fix the problem of multiple finds on one cache. BUT, it would involve publishing (in the case of the brass cap cache) 700+ virtuals throughout a huge area. This would likely be a nightmare to create the pages and transfer found it logs (especially photos!)! Keep in mind these are grandfathered geocaches. It is interesting to note that the CO (outforthehunt) is still an active cacher who maintains these caches. The brass cap cache page has been operating in this way for 15 years! To shut them down now would be unfair. If they were going to be shut down, it should have been over a decade ago when virtuals were given the hook!

Why does anyone care about anyone else's find count? I couldn't care less that my neighbour has 1 million cache finds. For that matter, I really don't care about my total find count. I don't play this game to only worry about stats or find count. Nor do I think that doing so is truly in the spirit of the game. Let people log caches the way they want to. It's just a game. If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?

It will be a very big hit to our local geocaching community if the much loved and well-maintained Brass Cap (GC43F3), Stash n Dash (GCA0D6) and Leap Frog (GC4411) geocaches are killed because of this new rule. I truly hope that exceptions are made for these caches. If the rule will only be enforced on new geocaches, then I'm all for it. If this rule is enforced on all caches (regardless of status), I'm afraid to see what will happen... I really hope my log on GC43F3 from my engagement day won't be turned from a "found it" to a note Also, what about geocaches that I haven't found that I've adopted from someone else? I was approached by an older lady after her husband passed away to adopt her cache in the backcountry (GC307YR). I haven't made it back there yet but the cache is there in good shape.... so I won't be able to log a find when I find it? Why do we really care if people log geocaches in somewhat non-traditional ways? It's just a game after all.

Unfortunately the Parks have more of an issue with public safety (ie unprepared geocachers heading into the backcountry and potentially getting in trouble) than anything else. They do care about going off-trail as well, but that seems like a lesser concern (people go off-trail around here all the time). I really don't think there's a reasonable solution at this point. I actually don't think they're too concerned with the actual physical container, as far as I understand from my discussions with Parks reps. What our Parks don't understand is that the majority of geocachers that set out on a backcountry trail are well prepared and knowledgeable backcountry travellers. Grandfathered cache pages have typically described hazards, terrain, distance, etc - I would argue that a geocacher is actually more knowledgeable than the average Joe hiker. And absolutely nothing stops you from doing the hike / bike / scramble / kayak / rock/ice climb anyway - those activities aren't restricted in the slightest! And yes, I agree, there's certainly a market they can tap into for revenue / positive public exposure.

Our provincial and national parks in Alberta, Canada - as of about a year ago now. Parks effectively cover about 95% of our accessible mountain terrain so it's very disappointing for local backcountry geocachers.

Now would seem like a good time to explicitly explain the purpose of the original post! I've noticed my own interest in the game decline as of late. I find that surprising, since I really enjoy it! After much thought, I discovered that the biggest issue for me really stems from the fact that there's now been a barrier on new geocache placements in our parks. Given that about 95% of all the mountain hiking routes and 99% of the best mountain places within a daytrip drive are in the parks and are now off limits to geocaching, I find it hard to be really excited about the future of the game for backcountry geocaching. Backcountry caching is my favourite and it's what got me hooked onto the game in the first place - but what about urban caching? Most geocachers in our community don't head into the mountains to geocache. So why does it seem like the game is stagnating or declining in our local urban environment as well? My first thought was denial - but upon looking to Google Trends (take it or leave it), Project-GC and other sources it does, in fact, look like overall interest is declining. Why? That's where the original post to the other forum came in. I found that beginner/former geocachers had many different reasons for leaving the game, and I actually agreed with a lot of their comments! Of course the responses were much different (as expected) when I posted on this forum. Will I continue to love this game if a major chunk of it is removed? If the game continues its current course (ie stagnation), then I doubt it! I have no interest whatsoever in the app or making the website look more like the app (this seems to be the major focus of the game developers). My interest in geocaching for statistics (find count, Fizzy, Jasmer, challenges), which I once enjoyed quite a bit, is declining rapidly. One plus is that I still really enjoy placing geocaches and reading logs. But something new and interesting would really be nice - the game hasn't really evolved at all since I started playing in 2012. Numbers, statistics and correlations aside - will geocaching flourish over the next decade like it did for the previous decade? I really hope so. But I just don't see it happening personally or even in our community at this rate.

Alright, if I can put words in your mouth it sounds like you've answered the first question from my first post (So, the first question is whether you believe the trend is accurate?) as something like: "I don't necessarily believe the Google Trends data, but I believe it's possible that overall interest in geocaching could be on the decline." So, do you have any opinion on the second question? (Next, do you agree with any of the points these other geocachers have made? If you said yes to either of those (or if have your own suggestion), what are some possible solutions, in your opinion?)

Your analysis is only as good as your assumptions, and your assumptions are wildly speculative. Google is deliberately very vague about its total number of searches, and the estimates I've seen are all over the place. So while you might be relatively confident about your conclusions, please color me skeptical. Using July, 2011, as a score of 100, we see that Jan., 2014, had a score of 48 while Jan., 2015, had a score of 41. To some, that looks like a nearly 15% decline in Google searches for "geocaching." But the total number of Google searches probably increases most years. By one estimate, there were a total of 2.095 trillion Google searches in 2014 vs. 2.835 trillion searches in 2015. That's more than a 35% increase in total searches in a single year. If that estimate is true, then the number of "geocaching" Google searches actually increased by about 16% from Jan., 2014, to Jan., 2015, rather than declining nearly 15%. Of course, I have no idea how accurate that estimate is. The same source claims Google searches probably declined from 2013 to 2014. I'm not saying geocaching isn't on the decline; it might very well be. I'm simply saying the Google Trends data aren't showing what some people think they're showing. If you aren't careful, it's easy to be misled by certain statistics. You're right, it's just a guess (the numbers sure worked out well though!). There's no point contending numbers because they're all just estimates. But, as I've mentioned before, it's hard to argue with the Project-GC stats. I find it hard to believe that the number of active geocachers is significantly declining (fact, according to PGC) without the number of Google searches for Geocaching declining as well.

We can compare consecutive years with relative confidence though. The total number of all Google searches between years is probably the same +/- 10% or so. Using July 2011 as a score of 100, we see that January 2015 had a score of 42, January 2016 was 34 and January 2017 was 22. I think it's fair to say that the total number of searches hasn't doubled in 2 years (this site has some old data that says searches only increased by 10% in 2012). So this data would tell us that, with a few assumptions, the total number of Google searches for Geocaching over the past few months of January has been decreasing. Here's an interesting side note. I posted some other stats from Project GC showing a drop of between 33%-39% active geocachers between January 2016 and January 2017. Let's say the total number of all Google searches increased 10%. We can bump January 2017's score up by 10% to account for that - say it's 24 now. (Jan 2017 adjusted score) / (Jan 2016 score) = 24/34 = 0.705. 2017 is 70.5% of 2016, meaning the score dropped 29.5%. That's pretty close to Project GC's numbers! I'm sure there's a direct correlation between the number of active geocachers and the number of Google searches for Geocaching. Let's take it one step further with some more data we have access to. Another post showed the number of active USA geocachers between 2015 and 2016 to have dropped by about 8%. I did some math: the average Google trends score (July 2011 being 100) across 2015 was 48 and across 2016 was 39. Let's add 10% to 2016's score to account for the increase in the total number of Google searches - that brings 2016's adjusted average score to 43. (2016 adjusted score) / (2015 score) = 43/48 = 0.896. 2016's score is 89.6% of 2015's score, meaning the score dropped 10.4%. Are these numbers close to the Project-GC numbers just by coincidence or is there a correlation? The 10% increase in total searches between years might be off, but I think that's a reasonable approximation. With the data available to us we can conclude that the number of active geocachers and Google searches for Geocaching are both declining in recent years.

I'd like it to stay as-is thanks. Now that the few caches we have left are mostly higher terrain, we haven't seen the issues of missing ammo cans by one-weekend-and-done free app users, who read little, if anything ("I thought you were supposed to rehide them...") about this hobby. Many of us archived our easier hides, and hid higher D/T because of those new players. Why not mark them PMO then? I don't know about you, but it wasn't the 1.5/1.5s that got me excited about this hobby 5 years ago. It was the challenging hikes and tricky but rewarding puzzles (and really those 2 combined got me hooked). If I were a newbie again and had to pay $30 to even just LOOK at the listings (assuming I don't know the website or other apps exist), I might have said "pfft" and walked right past this hobby. I've had that happen too (the majority of my caches are NOT PMO), but only once on my most popular geocache.

That depends entirely on which users are leaving. Are we talking about "muggles with apps" or other here-today-gone-tomorrow users? Or are we talking about those who contribute time/money towards supporting the local geocaching community in various ways? This is an important distinction, and one that I am discussing in another (non-geocaching) context. Attracting newbies who try out a hobby and then disappear is relatively easy, but it won't support the hobby in the long term. Attracting people who will stick with it is harder, and retaining the people who have been sticking with it is critical. We (mere plebes of the game) have no way of knowing. But arguably the best way to get more users to commit to the game is to get as many as you can to try it. A certain percent will love it and help the health of the community. Fewer users trying likely means fewer will stick around long-term. Where I'm from I know that the vast majority of average Joes don't even know the game exists. (PS, in my opinion, having the 'official' app restrict geocaches to 1.5/1.5s or whatever is a terrible way to excite new players)

I would tend to agree with this point. However, I suspect that these events just speed up the loss of interest. That is my experience. While I have been finding/hiding fewer and fewer caches each year, a dispute I had with a visiting Australian reviewer put a big time damper on my find count, and I have completely stopped hiding caches. Have you tried lately? Perhaps this "visiting" reviewer has now left? Is the reviewer really the main reason for your decline, or are there other reasons too? A reviewer shouldn't impact your ability to find geocaches.

First question: Why do you think that "opportunity has been exhausted"? I'd argue that Groundspeak and the hard-working app developers are hoping it's just getting started! Second question: Is a decrease in users really a good thing? If this website were a non-profit, then no issue! But it's a for-profit site. A decrease in users means a decrease in profits. Which could certainly mean bad news for the active players (we are almost like investors in a way, aren't we?). What about for the Groundspeak staff and the website infrastructure? What about investors who are looking for growth on their investments? I don't think it's a secret that a significant investment has gone into the development of the 'official' mobile apps. When there are bills to pay, I just don't see how a decrease in users can ever be a good thing.