Ragnemalm
-
Posts
317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ragnemalm
-
-
10 hours ago, daddybeth said:
To be fair, it doesn't help that the concept of puzzle caches is never really well explained, so you would only search for them if you had specifically made the extra effort to understand them. The icon in the app looks a bit like the "help" symbol in computer programs, vs the clearer symbol for traditional and multi-caches.
You mean mystery caches? I thought we were rather talking about field puzzles.
Mysteries, multis with field puzzles, traditionals with field puzzles... they are all mental challenges but in different ways.
Mysteries, the ones you solve at home, and then go out in order to find a simple petling hanging at a low branch in a tree or behind a traffic sign, they are often very hard. We have lots of them in my areas, and they pose big troubles when placing new caches. A D2 mystery is often impossibly hard (but I consider that underrated). They get many logs (very high rate of copy-paste logs) but very few FPs so they are both popular and not popular.
Multis with field puzzles is what I often make. They get fewer logs but much higher % FP. The puzzles, as I make them, are easier since they are supposed to be solvable on location. Since I want to know whether my caches are fun or not (after all, I make them for the visitors), I am sensitive to FPs as well as informative logs, which I get from these.
Traditionals with field puzzles are often of mechanical or electronic nature, gadget caches. They can be very fun but they are sometimes damaged by rough treatment. I have a few and they relatively often need repairs so they must be close to home. Can be very hard to build.
That's quite a range of "puzzles"...
Like I mentioned before, I see no decline in interest for them, quite on the contrary.
-
.png)
1
-
-
21 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:
So are you doing it for the exercise? Or for the "accomplishment"?
There are about a dozen or more geocaches hidden within a 2 mile walk around my neighborhood, all of which I have found when I first began this hobby nearly 3 years ago, or they are placed or adopted by me or my husband. I walk for exercise, and often eyeball all of these, occasionally checking the logsheets, so I have revisited literally HUNDREDS of times. I don't want or need another smilie or icon for those revisits, and I don't log anything UNLESS someone has logged a DNF or a problem. Then I post an update, but that's rare.
Are you out walking for exercise? Do you need to accomplish something other than the exercise to motivate you to walk? Yes, I enjoy a good hike/walk with new caches to find, but we do need to drive a bit to find a good spot to hike with caches we haven't yet found. But as you said, it's not always practical to make the trip to do so. On those days, I walk around my neighborhood, checking already found caches.
The only time it was an issue was when we were going for a cache find every day in 2018 and we had to travel further and further to get it by the end of the year. Even then, I'm not sure we would have counted "re-finds" as our COTD. If it's a memborable enough re-find (with a friend new to geocaching, for example) I'll just use a Write Note log - I really don't need another stat.
I don't think I have never *ever* gotten a "note" for a revisit. I would like them but I only get notices of problems when someone is there the first time and find the cahce damaged. I have made several "revisit" note logs myself in order to help the CO but most cachers don't revisit. Most people need an encouragement to do that, and that is what I am after.
I cache for exercise and accomplishment, geocaching gives me both. We all know that, the multiple sides, get out, get active, see new places, overcome mental and physical challenges. But when the well is dry, what should I do? Dig somewhere else?
*Many* people have noticed that geocaching doesn't last for them, the whole area gets its logs and... then what? I have even seen the suggestion that caches should time out and be auto-archived after a certain time to make room for new ones, as a solution. No, I don't suggest that but that is what I hear.
-
20 hours ago, cerberus1 said:
Isn't reward the only draw here ? It appears you were here early enough to remember multiple logs on the same caches,
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that Groundspeak would want to rehash "multiple logging methods" again...
I've "revisited" caches time-to-time, most when near a spot I'm interested in (not necessarily the cache...), and stop while there to tell the CO his distant hide is still okay.
Multiple "found" logs were indeed allowed in the past. (I never did it except once by accident and then I corrected it.) What I propose is to allow that in a controlled fashion. If you may log it again, but not as another "found" but as "revisited", and only once more and beyond a time limit, then it becomes an accomplishment and not a cheat.
Reward, yes. It will be a "point" in your statistics that you may desire. One more thing to make challenges from, one more calendar that you can fill... That is what many are doing, right? So what do you do when the calendar is full? Fill it twice? Sure, but when there are few available nearby, how about starting on the "revisited" calendar? Or the "revisted" matrix?
There are several benefits, and you mention one that I find important: The CO gets confirmations that the cache is OK! This will also give other cachers the same confirmaton. So you consider whether you should take that 5 km hike to try that cache that hasn't been found in five years? Oh, someone made "revisit" on it! Good, then I will try! Caches will not be lonely quite as much! We can't make "lonely days" challenges any more
but this would help a little bit.
So there are multiple benefits, and nothing negative for us users. (Most of us already ignore Ape caches, right?) The cost is for Groudspeak to support another log type.
-
18 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
I have only ever revisited a cache to drop off a TB. I have no interest to do otherwise and I can't imagine being interested to do this if this were introduced.
Like I said, nobody would force you.
I have revisited *many* caches - the best ones. And when possible, I do that to improve the experience, to manage it in a different way, solving a puzzle that was originally solved by others in the same team, to overcome a physical challenge... There are plenty of reasons to do so, but I think a log type would encourage that.
-
20 minutes ago, arisoft said:
What do you mean? Geocaching is not a rewarding hobby?
Not when there are no caches left to find, when you must use half a day to get to the closest ones you havn't found. You want some kind of accomplishment but don't quite have the time to go on a multi-hour trip to do it.
That's when I consider switching to Turf just to get the exercise. And when cachers do that, we lose them.
-
https://patojen.wordpress.com/
https://geocaching.se/svenska-bloggar-vloggar/
https://geocachingkolmarden.wordpress.com/
Dessa är inte bloggar men nästan:
Geovloggen av Andreas Niva:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/geovloggen/
Found it! podcast:
-
16 minutes ago, arisoft said:
Delete the original find or change the log type to note and then revisit the cache as a new one. You can do this as many times you want.
From the point of view of making any kind of log, you do have a point. You can also do what we already do, post a note about the visit.
But there is no reward in doing that, nothing is added to your accomplishments, no change on your map or in your statistics (or whatever you care about). There is no attraction in that for keeping a cacher running out of local caches.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:
Do I have to sign the log again or is it just a suggestion?
Everything is a suggestion.
I consider that signing the log would make it "real", there is proof of the visit just like the found. But that is a matter of the status the log type would have.
-
I have a rather different experience.
Multi-caches are more frequent than ever here, mostly made by me and one other CO. I make the harder ones, he makes the easier ones, a good combination. But when I say "harder" that means medium, rarely really hard.
And I think the response is quite positive. The logs are pretty frequent and the FPs are too. In the list of the most popular recent caches (Wilson) the field puzzle multis totally dominate the top!
Of course, long and hard caches are not logged much, but those that are clearly not so long and that you can expect to be not so hard, they are quite popular. But even the hard ones are fairly popular. Only one, which involves the highest free climbing tree cache I ever made (and two other free climbs, one of them pretty hard), is rarely logged. I can understand that.
I think that many of the local cachers know that my field puzzles tend not to be impossible to solve, but rather something that you can solve in one visit. I aim for the "sweet spot" in difficulty, where the problem first have you puzzled, but after some thinking you do figure it out and get the nice feeling of success.
However, I think this is very much a question of local culture. I have a few in the neighbor regions, and they are significantly less popular both in visits and FPs despite being quite good.
-
I propose that "revisited" would be a useful log type, to go back to a cache that you found long ago and log it again, not as "found" but as "revisited".
Why? Because many cachers tend to give up when the entire area is covered and there aren't many new ones, and those who don't tend to waste much petrol to get to caches far away. If a revisit would count as a kind of log, you can take a second turn in your home area. I think this would be very good to keep beginners!
How? In order to make it interesting, significant time should pass between the first and second visit. Then the location as well as the hide may have changed. I would suggest at least one year, possibly more, but one year would be a decent balance to make the feature interesting for beginners.
I would suggest that you sign the log as usual, plus an "R" mark. On the map, I guess it could be a little marker in the corner on the "happy face" or something like that.
You should also be encouraged to visit it in a different way, another time of year, another time of day, or in some different way, You may visit that island cache by boat instead of walking on the ice, you may visit a cache at night, and not least, you can climb that tree that you previously logged standing on the ground while your pal climbed it.
Does it sound boring to revisit a cache you already found? Well, I have revisited many good caches, and there are also many caches that I never log in the first place because they are of no interest to me (in my case power trails, others skip high T). Like all caching, you can take it or leave it as you prefer.
Compare this to Turf or Pokemon Go. In Turf you visit the same place over and over, to reclaim it, and I believe you do the same in Pokemon Go. They can visit the same zone hundreds of times, and this is normal! I propose we could do it *twice*.
Finally, this could be a nice premium feature.
Any opinions, ideas, variations? Is there some reason why this would not benefit the hobby?
-
.png)
3
-
-
10 hours ago, frostengel said:
I have been told that the virtual is too long (especially for tourists). I have not only been told once. ;-)) But - I don't care and I am sure I would do it the same way if I ever had to do it again. The logs (especially those from the tourists) show me that I am right. :-) Or at least I am not totally wrong. ^^
Yes, it is amazing! I don't have a single cache with 100% FP. I have some that I thought were exceptionally good, but they still get too many "one more on the way". Even well designed T4.5's and D5's get that!
I can only congratulate you on that. Good work!
-
10 hours ago, frostengel said:
no, I had no problem at all getting this one published. And I do not see why I should have. :-) The cachers only need to download two pdfs and pdfs have never been a problem here.
You only need the full description, best printed out, no need for further website use.
Ah, sorry, now I mixed up your two links. I was thinking of the PacMan virtual, which uses positioning information somewhat like a Wherigo.
-
2 hours ago, frostengel said:
It didn't take me too long to create my own idea and in the end I created https://coord.info/GC7B76A. It is a rather long journey through my home town but not just going from coordinate to coordinate (which I have also seen) but with picture searches or following a textual description. So far the finders had fun and probably those who wouldn't have fun just don't do it. :-)
Assuming that this is indeed possible, you might have given me an idea. I have drafted it before and it sure would fit! So maybe, maybe I can thank you for it!
-
2 hours ago, frostengel said:
It didn't take me too long to create my own idea and in the end I created https://coord.info/GC7B76A. It is a rather long journey through my home town but not just going from coordinate to coordinate (which I have also seen) but with picture searches or following a textual description. So far the finders had fun and probably those who wouldn't have fun just don't do it. :-)
How on earth did you get that through?! I have drafted on similar things (hard to make JavaScript do good positioning though), but with the ambition to do it as a mystery or Wherigo, but I am not sure if the reviewers would like the demand of of accessing a web page even for that. For a virtual, the thought didn't even cross my mind! I don't think that would be allowed by our reviewers.
Did you have any arguments with reviewers? No objections about this way to do a virtual?
-
9 minutes ago, dprovan said:
If your wish is truly fun, and your motive is truly for people to have fun, why would it need to be mandatory? The people you want to have fun would do it voluntarily, wouldn't they? Why do you care about the people that will claim the find but don't want to have fun? You aren't making the cache for them, anyway.
True, I definitely make caches to be enjoyable, but I am quite fed up with "this was one more during the trip"-logs (in other words, couldn't care less for the point with the cache) and I fear that a virtual would be one. Especially now that they are rather many.
I will have to think twice whether my original idea can work as a non-mandatory one or not.
-
8 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:
When you asked Groundspeak to enter in the draw you should have gotten an idea of where you wanted it.
Oh, I did. But it wasn't approved.
Thanks to all that gave pointers to good examples! I will check all out.
-
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:
Thanks, I have seen that list, but the only thing *close* to fun is a mountain top, but a physical cache is usually a better choise for those places.
I have seen what the local virtuals are about, and the new ones are generally rather boring. "Go to a somewhat famous place and take a photo there." I wish I could do something better.
Sorry for being negative, I just don't want to make something that the visitors find dull.
-
Quote
The purpose of the required logging task is
to show that the geocacher was at the location. Anything other than that should be optional.
Acceptable logging tasks:- Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.
- Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).
- Photos of the geocacher at the location; a face cannot be required in the photo.
- Photos of a personal item at the location. Examples include a trackable or a piece of paper with the geocacher’s username.
I can't remember the exact reason why I talked about this with a reviewer but he confirmed that a photo may be required but you can't force cachers to do anything special here. The photo's reason is only to prove that the cacher is at the right place nothing more.
This takes away several creative ideas (and that's why it should be allowed) but it takes away some over creative ideas about people making fools of them (and that's why it may be good that this isn't allowed).
But my experience tells me that most cachers try to fulfill the optional wishes by the owners and that's great! :-)(In my humble opinion forming a C is not that creative but I would do it, of course.)
I need some help. I was given a virtual reward, and this quote summarizes my problems with it. I had some fun ideas, but... what can I do? Ask people to go and look at this church/whatever? Nothing more? Must a virtual be a D1?
In what way is this something I would want to create? Is there any way that I can make this *fun* to visitors? Is it impossible to make a fun virtual? Should I just reach for "archive" and get it over with?
I am not angry, I just feel helpless. I am given a once-in-a-lifetime to create... nothing?
Or should I go for the last statement and humbly hope that people follow my non-mandatory wish? Are there other COs with odd virtuals that share that experience?
Suggestions, please!
-
4 years ago and no conclusion? I was just trying to add "field puzzle" to a few letterboxes with pretty hard field puzzles. Considering that letterboxes can be anything, it seems especially valuable to include here. But no, I can't add it. No problem on a multi.
-
On 2018-06-23 at 12:20 PM, Brad&Janet said:
One question at a time. This may take a while
What is a high quality geocache?
Some like to chase total numbers – the more finds the better.
I absolutely agree that people are different and the variety is a great asset to the hobby. But that is where power trailing, quantity caching and multiple "filler" caches cause a problem: They fill all available space with same-same-same, they block many great locations with a film canister in a roadsign. And, maybe worst of all, they give a clear signal to beginners that the hobby is really all about the quantity!
So, should we really promote lack of variety in the name of variety? I have no problem at all with simple caches, as long as they are not same-same-same space fillers, packing identical caches all along all possible routes in an area.
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, º said:
· Stop discouraging caching purely for the numbers. The current promotion (hidden creatures) is a prime negative example.
You mean "encouraging", right?
6 hours ago, º said:· Have reviewers for different type of caches (puzzles, power-trails, T5s, ...) who actually understands this category and give useful advice to the less experienced hiders.
This is to some extent already the case. I know that earth caches have a separate reviewer here.
-
On 2018-06-19 at 12:13 AM, Geocaching HQ said:
What steps can Geocaching HQ take to improve geocache quality?
One particular issue came to mind: Challenge quality. There were rule changes made for making it easier to review challenges. I understand that, but the result was that (1) many fun and beneficial challenges are no longer allowed and (2) a considerable number of very bad challenges have arrived.
So what is a good challenge? It is *challenging*. It is a reasonable but not trivial task that you can perform in a limited time. It may also be one that is beneficial for the hobby as a side effect. Great example: Find one of the 10 caches in an area that have not been found in the longest time. Other decent challenges: Find 10 multis in a week. Find at least 6 types in one day. Having done it before accepting the challenge should *not* count!
And what is a bad challenge? "Look what I have done after caching for 8 years. You can't do that! Ha-ha!" This is what many challenges feel like. Double calendar? Full calendar with multis? That is not a challenge, it is a humiliation against beginners. They get a "challenge" that takes years to complete! Also, those non-challenge challenges are often solved *effortlessly* by experienced cachers. Oh, a new challenge. Click in checker. Done! Not a challenge!
Challenges should pose a reasonable challenge to *anyone*. Harder for some, easier for some, but not trivial to some and unreasonable for others. Working hard for a challenge for several years is not a challenge, it is *work*. And they should *never* be auto-fulfilled beforehand with no effort. Challenges are *accepted*, then fulfilled. What you did three years ago should not matter.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Beultjes said:What steps can Geocaching HQ take to improve geocache quality?
The last souvenir hunts have been about numbers instead of quality. The coming hunt requires 100 caches to be found. That makes people trying to find as many as possible instead of finding one good multicache. Because of trying to find as many instead of trying to find good caches cache owners place rounds with a bonus instead of a nice multicache with a good story.
I second that! Souvenirs that encourage power trailing are not good for the hobby. They encourage areas packed full with D1.5T1.5 petlings. How about finding caches of varying D/T? Varying types? Sizes?
-
1
-
-
On 2018-06-19 at 12:13 AM, Geocaching HQ said:
- In your mind, what is a high quality geocache?
Anything that has a *point*. Location, gadget cache, high D, high T, beautiful containers, unusual constructions, clever hiding place... doesn't matter which as long as the CO had a *reason* to make it, more than making "just another one".
- In your mind, what is a low quality geocache?
Simple same-same-same caches. Several identical trivialities after each other, all alike. Pointless fillers are not good but the worst are the repetitive ones.
- What steps can the community take to improve geocache quality?
Use your FPs and use them sensibly, place each FP as recommendation for a specific cache. Give good feedback (not necessarily long, just relevant) to good caches.
- What steps can Geocaching HQ take to improve geocache quality?
Not sure. Is there some way to disencourage bad trails? Limit the number of new caches per month? But there are often workarounds for such rules.
Like I mentioned before, I see no decline in interest for them, quite on the contrary..png)
but this would help a little bit..png)
Waning interest in puzzles
in General geocaching topics
Posted
I agree, it is unfair. If you need hints in order to solve it, it will cause hints to spread, and fewer and fewer will actually solve the problem but rather get a solution and your beautiful problem is shortcut to a simple one-more-log.
I fear that this happens with one of my most beautiful field puzzles. It is pretty hard, but quite elegant, but if you get the solution, do you appriciate that? You may not do that if the hint is too clear or you get it before even trying.
It is a problem that we can't get awy from, but I think it is worse for mysteries, where you can more easily trade solutions since you know beforehand that the puzzle is the whole thing. For a multi, the actual nature of the problem may come as a surprise, and hopefully that makes you try solving it before asking for cheats.