elmuyloco5

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but perhaps it would be helpful if there was some way to note on the DNF page that a cache has been completed. From what I was getting from the OP, they weren't wanting to delete the history, but to organize their stats so they could easily tell which DNFs they have found the next time around. Maybe this exists and I'm missing it? If not, I could see where this might be helpful to people who wish to keep track of this sort of thing.

If you belong to Sam's, check out their outdoor gear section. Earlier in the year we purchased two internal frame packs for $45 each. They're swiss gear and have been great. They fit us both (hubby and myself) comfortably and they're a good size for an overnight pack. Our kids are getting internal frame ones for Xmas by a great company that makes scaled down packs for the little ones (good prices too). If Sam's is out, check out REI. They have their own "brand" of packs and they tend to be quite a bit less than the competitors and of decent quality. Check out Amazon for sleeping bags. We're looking ourselves, and you should be able to find one under $100 that packs small, good sized for larger adults, and weighs very little. We've found several that will work. Tents are our next research project, but you can probably find one on there too. Look all over the web for what you want and then google a sale for that item, or see if places like Overstock or Amazon carry them. Good Luck!!!

use Purell to get rid of yucky hand smell......we carry it with us (they even make cool little rubber things that allow you to hang it off your hiking pack. With three small kids, we get alot of use out of Purell. As for the film canisters, well we've used the white Fuji ones with no problems. Just checked on one today that was under 7 inches of snow and not a drop of water inside. The log was as dry as a bone.

That's not true at all. I pointed out ways you were both wrong. The problem is that your OP gave a little info about a situation and then asked the question. It's natural for others to ask what else was up. It was pretty clear there was more to the situation. Yes, there was a rude comment made to you by someone in this thread, and like I said, people can be harsh at times to the newbs on here. I'm one myself and have gotten my fair share of rudeness as well. You also have to learn to have a thick enough skin to brush them off and not worry about what they say. They cannot hurt you unless you let them. But you need to understand that you weren't innocent in the situation. You didn't handle things properly concerning some of the issues. I'm not saying that anyone ever has the right to be rude or harassing to anyone, but if you had followed the accepted procedure for some things, this guy might not have gotten as mad as he did. Again, no one's saying he has the right to act poorly, but you have to accept some fault in it. I think most of the responses you got were trying to show you what went wrong so that you wouldn't have to go through it all again in the future. From what I can see with the man's logs, they aren't that bad, and deleting them the way you did was spiteful. He might have been wrong by deleting your logs, but doing the same thing back to him, makes you no better than he is. We haven't read his emails to you so I don't think anyone is able to consider that into the equation. You were really upset about his logs on your cache and said how horrible they are, but to us they seemed fine. Maybe the letters really upset you to begin with, but aren't as bad as you first thought either. We still haven't read your log to him, so we don't have the full picture of the situation, and since he deleted it, we won't have it to read. But, in the future if you don't want people to ask questions about something, don't provide any info about it.

That must be because all the old people who retired there can't outrun lightning like I can. In the case of the guy we knew, it was a wrong place at the wrong time kinda thing. We were all leaving classes for the day and heading out to our cars. He stepped in a puddle just as lightning struck down at him. NM has a lot too, but they are beautiful to watch. The lightning here is often purple in color and since we don't have a lot of rain, it makes tremendous views. It is the same in AZ as well. I knew a guy while I was growing up in TN that got hit when it hit his tent and traveled down the poles (old Boy Scout tent) and through his metal cot. He lived, but the poor guy's hair has never recovered. It sticks straight off of his head in every direction. It's kinda funny, but you have to feel bad for the guy.

The OP must have deleted his post for the cache that he did of the guy he's complaining about as there isn't one with any of that info, and none in a NPS area in his profile. I looked at the NPS for Miss and AR (the two areas he caches) and there's very little NPS land at all, most of which are Battlefields, Scenic Parkways, etc. These types of places usually don't hold the same restrictions as other National Parks because they don't have the same requirements to preserve land and animal habitats like other NPS parks do. I would venture to guess that this member has permission to have placed their cache. If the OP is going to delete his log off of the guy's cache page, you have to wonder how polite it was to begin with. If there wasn't anything wrong with what he said to the guy, why delete it so people can't read it? Sounds like the guy might have a reason to be irritated with him, and honestly his posts weren't harrassing in my opinion. The OP wrote in his log on someone else's cache to watch out for snakes. How is this different than watching out for a dog?

Florida is the lightening capital of our nation with NM being second. NM and WY are less populated so the data that was presented made it look different. I've lived in both FL and NM (currently). When we were stationed in FL, one of our classmates in the Navy was killed by a lightening strike on the Nuke base. I've seen many a tree struck right outside my house in the mountains here in NM too. We moved here from HI and the 4 years we spent there we never saw a single bolt of lightening, but did see a few funnel clouds. edited to add link: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/ltgcenter/ltgmain.html

Most ever one who has debated with you in this thread would agree that a missing cache of any kind is fustrating. That's not the issue at all. I know you understand what we are getting at, you have even used examples that prove our case, you just haven't made the connection to a cache. If you want to think of it in terms of Reliablity. Traditional caches are more reliable than mutli caches. My expectation when seeking a cache is to find the cache. It's part of the fun of caching. My expectation for a car is that it does the job. My Pontiac has fallen short, my Toyota shines. I trust my Toyota to work better than my Pontiac, I trust a traditional cache to be a cache I can find more than I trust a multi. But you used the analogy earlier that more parts of something equals more trouble all the time ( that's the basis of Fizzy's math). That must mean then that your Toyota is made of less parts than your Pontiac. My point was that no one buys things according to how many parts they are made of. I doubt many of know the part number difference of most things we choose btwn. Other factors must then play into why some items are more reliable......that's real world math. Since that's where were livin, that's what we gotta use. I never said being frustrated was the issue, I was saying that I can understand their frustration.....nothin wrong with that.

By itself that statement is probably accurate in light of the total number of caches. The difference is that any single multi is more likely to have an issue than any single traditional. It's as simple as that. I think where you get lost in Fizzy's logic is when you move from the total number of caches to a single cache. Since we hunt them one at a time, that's the important factor. Not lost, again the logic is not complete without all the variables. Fizzy was missing them....that's my point. No reason to rehash why, it's all up there in many posts above.

If the coin shows up in your cache inventory and it's not, that's also your problem (as the cache owner) to deal with. There are 2 user accounts that can mark a traveler as missing: the owner of the traveler and the owner of the cache. If you do maintenance on your cache and notice the traveler is missing (or if several logs state it is missing), you can go to the traveler's page and mark it as missing just as if you were the owner of that traveler. It would be a good idea to post a note on that page as well stating that you marked it as missing because it wasn't in your cache. Not everyone knows that is an option but hopefully a few more do now. To the OP, I wouldn't archive your cache and delete your finds. Let the logs stay and go back to having fun with geocaching. This situation will die down soon enough and everyone will be on their way. Hopefully it didn't discourage you permanently because geocaching is a lot of fun! Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "problem", what I was getting at was it wasn't the owner's fault. The OP said the missing geocoin was reason for a NM log. Can you imagine how many caches would receive NM's for all the missing TBs and geocoins out there? The OP should have just logged the coin was missing, and if the owner was responsible, they would notify the owner of the coin. But the owner of the coin can also tell where the last place the coin was and could also notify the owner to ask them about it as well. When you place a TB or a geocoin in a cache, it's a gamble whether or not it will travel or get taken. Unless the owner did the taking, it's not his fault and a cache without a coin isn't a cache needing maintenanced. The OP needs to understand this if he's going to avoid problems with other owners in the future.

Well said! The entire argument about the likelihood of stages of a multi going missing is proof that it is largely about the numbers. If I find 2 stages of a multi then run into a missing 3rd stage, how is that any different from finding 2 traditional caches then DNFing a third? I still enjoyed 3 searches and saw 3 unique places. If it is about the journey, the fun and the hunt, the result is the same. I've had some of my most enjoyable geocaching experiences during hunts where I came up empty. If people let the increased possibility of a multi cache stage missing deter them from hunting it, then that's their loss. Or did I miss the memo that said that said the smiley was mandatory for it to be fun? Thank you! I've been trying this whole time to show why the "reason" that the caches are "missing" is bogus. A missing cache is a missing cache, and if it really bothers you, you would be equally upset about a missing traditional. For some of us it is about the journey, but other's it's clearly not. I don't have issue with those who don't care about the journey, I just wish they'd have the guts to say it! Coyote and 4wheel: I know I'm new, I never pretended I wasn't. I'm not stubborn, and I even said in my posts (that is, if you read all of them), that my view of things might be wrong. The thing is, we all have no way of knowing who is right because we don't have the data to prove anything. Without data, we're all just guessing. You think that you are right, but if you've read the whole thread, you would see that there were plenty of people who have stated that they don't share in those same experiences. They have seen where multis are usually cared for better than traditionals and are muggled less. So, I can respect your experience (and alot more when people aren't rude about it like 4 wheel), but when someone else has just as much experience but doesn't agree with you, both opinions are left null and void. Fizzy's math is simple, and it doesn't fit a real world application. If were speaking in imaginary situations, Fizzy has is right down. But life isn't imaginary and someone confident in their answer would have no problem including what would happen in the real world. Since we're not all living in an imaginary place (although some may be ) it's real world math that matters. If I'm being stubborn about being accurate, well I guess it's just the perfectionist in me.

If those are the deleted logs from the owner, they don't sound that bad. Why not just put an owner maintenance log on your cache that says that you have talked with the owner of the dog and he agreed to keep him contained. All problems solved. Most email providers allow you to ignore a person's mail, so that would take care of it on that end. Even if you don't, you don't have to open the email....just hit the delete button. I'm sorry you see the forums that way. It's true that some people can be very hard on us newbs. I don't agree with all of your statements though and feel sad that you have gotten so bent out of shape from this thread. Maybe taking the night to relax and re-reading the posts might help you have a different perspective. You can't always take a difference in opinion as being mean to you. This is a forum, a place to exchange ideas. If you post something, people will come and tell you what they think. Don't expect them to always agree with you. I think, if you step back a bit, you might realize that some were trying to help you understand where you went wrong too. The logs really aren't that bad. I would have just left the first one myself and made my own note that I fixed it. It would've most likely ended your troubles right there.

Calm down, you've only found one multi. Go out and find a bunch and then report back about real applications and analysis. I am calm, not sure why you think I'm not. And how does me only doing one have anything to do with it? Sorry, I didn't see the "unless you've found x numbers of caches you can't have an opinion" clause. I wasn't aware that there were only 55 multis in the whole world and that made you the multi cache authority. We should all be so honored by your presence with us here today. Being new, as I clearly stated in my posts, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I personally don't care if you like multis, or anyone else. I've never tried to get anyone to change their minds about multis, I've only addressed the idea that there were more missing multis. It's a false statement....doesn't matter how many I've done. Thanks for trying to express your perceived superiority though, it says alot about your personality.

In that case, let's play cards sometime. First off, I want you to know that I was in no way trying to call you lazy. I don't think it's lazy to not want to put forth the effort to do a multi. It's simply a choice in how to cache. I'm sorry that it came off that way, it was not my point. What I was trying to say, and hopefully better this time, is that I read alot of reasons that people do or do not cache, and yet they contradict their reasons in their explanation. It seems as if the majority of them are saying what they think people want to hear, rather than saying the real reason behind their comment. I just say, don't be afraid to say the real reason. Everyone caches differently, and that's what makes this game/sport/whatever great. It wouldn't be as fun if we all did things the same way. To me, your reasons contradicted what you were stating and it appeared that you weren't giving the true reason you have problems with multis. I can see the frustration in a missing multi, but only if it's past the first stage. For me, it doesn't matter, but I can see how it could for others. The statistics behind cards has little to do with a comparison with these caches. You don't have the same level of variables in cards that you do with caches. I fully understand the math that Fizzy has posted. The problem I have with it, is that he has forgotten all the other variables that come into play when it's applied in a real world situation. I, and a few others, have suggested just a few of those variables in earlier posts. I know you're trying to be funny with the card comment. I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that other things affect the numbers of missing caches. On this, I think we all agree, missing caches are not fun. But, ignoring multis because you think they might be missing, only lessens the numbers of caches you can fun on, it won't ensure you will stop coming across missing caches.

Now that you have explained things more fully, the situation has changed a bit. The problem on this thread isn't that people are trying to police you, it's that you know the full story, but weren't telling it to us. I still see no problem with the error in coordinates, personally. I also see no issue with the missing coin. It's the coin's owner's problem, and not uncommon. You mention there is an easy fix to it, which is confusing to me. Maybe you could expand on that. And the terrain issue isn't something I would consider maintenance either. Now, as far as your contact to him and then no response. Well, that's how some people are. If his cache goes missing due to construction then it's his problem if he doesn't want to heed your warnings. But, I would think that one contact was enough on the situation. If the cache needed to be moved per landowner's request or if the cache was in disrepair, I could see multiple contacts. And then if they don't respond, a letter to the reviewer would be in place. As far as your cache and the dog. It sounds like you have taken the proper measures with the dog owner. I would suggest a note in your cache description about dogs barking or the like to keep future comments at bay. No there is no reason for this man to be rude. How do you ignore him? As far as I know, you can't. You CAN contact GC.com though with copies of his letters and comments in the log. I would not delete the logs so that you have proof. If he really is harassing you, then let GC take care of it. The problem is that you come on here and make your post with limited info on the situation. People are going to ask what the full story is before taking your side. You know what happened, but we don't. No one was trying to police you, we can only give our opinions off of the info you provide us. And, you have to understand that you might think that you came across to this gentleman nicely, but maybe someone on the other end of the letter wouldn't take it that way. Just like you took my posts as being mean to you, when I wasn't trying to in the least. With more info, it's easier for us to help you figure out just where things went wrong. With the expanded post about the situation, it's now apparent that he is logging to spite you. This isn't something that we can help with on the forums. You need to write a complaint to GC.com. You shouldn't delete your stuff and archive, that lets him have the upper hand and he won't ever learn not to treat people that way. Try GC first, then if you get nowhere, make your decision from there. Edited to add: I think most of us are trying to help you see where you have also gone wrong in this situation to keep you from having another issue in the future. Terrain and geocoins are not considered the owner's problem. If you stick your coin in a cache, you are taking a chance that it could go missing. The terrain is something that might need to be noted to alter, but there's tons of dangerous caches out there, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be where they are. Just don't do something you're uncomfortable with. It's nice to let the owner know if there's construction, but it's his choice to respond to it. You don't own the cache, so notifying him is where your responsibility ends. On the coordinates, 40 ft is really reasonable. Think of it like clocks. Your clock says one time, and my clock says another. The difference between the two could be 10 minutes off. Does that make one of us wrong? It most likely makes us both wrong, if you consider the standard by which we set time which could place the correct time inbetween ours. It's normal to have a margin of error with a GPS, just like with a clock. It's all in how you presented the issues to the owner. Remember, we haven't read your logs, we can only go by what you say. If you said in your log: Man, your coordinates are off! I found it 40 ft away, and what's with this terrain??? I nearly killed myself. The geocoin is missing and the cache is in a giant construction zone. UGH! Well, I could see why the guy would probably not be happy with it. Not saying that you said this, just that I can see both sides of the situation. But if you put it like: Found the cache. My GPS had it 40 ft off. There's a lot of construction around so you might want to check on the cache soon. Oh, by the way, the geocoin wasn't there and you might want to think about raising the terrain rating as some of it can be a bit dicey up here. See, it's a big difference. If you were super nice, then yeah, the guy's off his rocker and needs to be reported. But, before you go into a fight and involve GC.com, make sure you look back at the whole situation and make sure that you haven't done anything wrong either. And try to understand that what you considered problems, aren't usually considered by the caching public as needing maintenance. A note on the cache, and letters to the reviewer or owner would have been a better choice. And, unless you think there is an issue with it being on NPS property, please don't just assume that the owner is doing something wrong. That is the reviewers job to take care of. Notify them.

You can find other caches, but you can't find the rest of that cache. And if it's the only cache in the area, tough luck. You can still find other caches. How does not finding one stage of a multi mean that you have to stop caching? And to say there wouldn't be any others near it, good grief. Really, this is an assumption that isn't going to happen with the majority of multi caches. What if there's no more traditionals near the one you couldn't find and you had to stop then?? Still the same situation. You can't compare one multi in the boondocks to 50 traditionals in a city. That's apples to oranges. My comments have always been about the big picture, all the traditionals compared to all of the multis, not just what you personally might find. After all we're talking about why multis in general are not as popular, not why they aren't just in your area. That's one place. What about the other four? Sure you haven't seen the other four, but if ONE place is all you get to go to in a missing traditional, then the ONE place you get to see on the missing multi is no different. We're not talking about what might have been. What if the traditional isn't an area that you like, what if .......what if ...... we could go on and on, but it has nothing to do with the reason you gave for not liking them. Not if they were all traditionals and I did them all. HUH? You said that you would get to see less places with a missing multi stage. You used the example of getting to the 3rd stage of the multi and having to stop. If you got to the third stage......you have seen 2 more places than the one stage that a traditional takes you to. How is this hard to understand? I'm not trying to be uncivil, and I'm truly sorry if it came across that way. I gave my opinion of your statement. To me, you say that there are all of these reasons. But the reasons that you gave don't make multis differ from traditionals in any other way than they take more effort to do. I have no problem if that's your reason for not doing them. We all do the caches that we like, or at least the ones we think we will. And I already explained my views on why I don't agree with the numbers your presenting....I really don't want to repeat it all.

I apologize as I didn't mean to come across rude when I had made my statement. This thread has been about the mathematical analysis of missing stages so long that I thought your comment was in reference to that. I agree that it certainly could be harder to complete certain multis and the fact that lots of containers seem to be smaller in multis, would definitely make it so if compared to the overall picture of traditionals. However, I would have to say that any cache, traditional or otherwise, with an equal rating should be equally hard to find. If Clayjar says that a multi cache must be a difficulty of 3, then you obviously couldn't compare them to a 1/1 cache (I haven't placed my multi yet, so I wasn't aware of the Clayjar stance on that situation) But you also couldn't compare any traditionals that are 3 stars either. Whether or not the findability for each stage is harder than a comparable traditional is debatable though. I totally agree with you though that there are many variables that can affect whether or not a multi is missing vs. a traditional cache. This is one of the main reasons I don't agree with Fizzy. His math works well on paper, but I don't think he will find the same answer in the real application. And, yes, the fact that they are not done as often has a big effect on the maintenance of the caches, as does the placement of multis. I definately think that those are points that would have to be considered in a real analysis.

I'm not trying to justify his "retaliation" as you call it, I'm giving you an honest opinion of the situation as you have presented it to me. I can't respond to the actual situation as I was not there, I'm only reading about it here. A dangerous terrain would warrant a comment on increasing the terrain rating, or even a note to watch out for something specific around the cache area. Please understand that what you would consider dangerous might be nothing to someone else. Even with three small kids, we have comfortably done caches that the owner claims as child unfriendly. However, I have made comments in my logs at many areas that I see potential issues with kiddos. All were polite and just trying to help note it for future cachers with children. But, again, we haven't read your original log to this member, so we can't see the context of what you posted. Most terrain issues can just be noted politely for others. You said that you made the NM log and left it alone in one statement, but then said that you contacted him 2 times in addition to your log and then also made a NM log. Those statements contradict each other. Why are you so concerned with this member fixing these items? None of them sound like a maintenance issue to me, personally. You also made mention that owner's don't help people "find" caches. Are you unable to find this cache that you're talking about? If so, how do you know there's a missing geocoin? It sounds to me like you still haven't explained the entire situation fully. I'm not blaming you for anything, but simply reacting to what you have given over as the situation. And, thanks, you reminded me to put a note about a barking dog at one of the new caches that I'm placing.

My experience on the trail is exactly what fizzy's math explains. I did not stop likeing Multi caches because Fizzy emailed me his calculations. I stopped because I kept getting frustrated while out looking for multi caches. When you say reality is different from the discussion, that's where we don't agree and my actual on the ground experience is different from your discussion. I can see your point of view, and I'm not debating your experience. unfortunately, we can't take just one member's experience, mine has been the opposite, so you can see how that just doesn't work out. Maybe my view of the situation is completely wrong, the only way we would ever know is to look at the archived caches (although that in and of itself can have it's problems as it's only viewing those that have been archived. Unfortunately, we couldn't look at all the active ones because too many owners alter their past logs) but since we can't obtain that info, we can't really see what the numbers say. It would be interesting though to see if real world applications differ from the theorized math. Here's another reason that the math doesn't always work to the situation (again not debating what you have personally seen). If you take a look at my profile, you will find alot of quick stop and grab caches. One might think then that those are the type we like. If you did a statistical analysis on my numbers, it would suggest that your assumption is so. But, it's quite the opposite. We are admittedly new to caching and we started with our state challenge caches. We like caching with a point. Because they are scattered all over the state, it requires a lot of time to get to each one. We have jobs and such, so we are understandably on a time limit to do those caches. So the caches that we did along the way had to be quick. Just because we did many fast ones though, you couldn't accurately assume that it means that we LIKED them better than ones that took longer. That's where paper math doesn't meet reality. I understand what you have observed in your area to be true, but just in that statement there are a ton of variables that might make it completely different from what others have seen. Many members have stated in this thread that they don't have the same observations as you do. So who's to say who is correct? I will say that we haven't done as many multis for a reason that hasn't been mentioned (it's kinda a chicken or the egg sort of thing). There aren't as many available for us to, so they are less likely to be in an area we will be caching. I have to disagree with your feelings on fun though too. I'm not saying that it's not how you have fun, but that it's not necessarily how everyone has fun. To me, and my caching family, it would be more fun to DNF a great multi that takes us to a beautiful spot 5 times, than to find another tupperware under a bush. I like finding the cache too. I've said several times in the forums that hints should be added and proper maintenance should be done as the point of caching is to FIND the cache (and hopefully one in good repair). But even feeling like that, I still have more fun DNFing a bunch of cool caches that have a point to them than going to the run of the mill cache in a bush.

What you just said here, is the crux of the matter. If I only have time for a few caches I'm going to pick the ones I'm most likely to have fun at. At the last I'm going to ignore the ones I'm least likely to enjoy. Since I like to find caches and not DNF them it's simple. "More likely to have less fun" matters a lot. Because of that, traditional caches win and that's what I'm going to look for. The fact that there are more traditional caches than multi's has no part in the decision. Nor does it change the math. If there were more multi caches than traditional I'd still seek the traditional caches for the same reasons. The multi caches have more problems that get in the way of my fun. I agree MORE FUN! Everything in life should be more fun. And if that's the reason you use, it's fine. But it doesn't make it an accurate depiction of reality. i don't dispute that you see it that way, rather that the way you see it is incorrect. You are assuming that because there are more parts that it is more likely to be missing. Like I said, the math might be right, but it's application to reality is not. Doesn't matter to me why you chose not to go, it only makes less for you to go. I'm not the OP on this thread, just pointing out that there are less missing multis so the reason is invalid, and also that the math might work on paper, but not out on the trail.

We weren't discussing which is harder to find, but what has more missing. I don't agree though that a multi will be harder to find, however it will take more time given the same distance and terrain. A 1/1 multi is much easier to find than a 5/5 traditional.

First for the cache you marked "NM": 40 ft off isn't that unusual, and I personally wouldn't say anything to an owner for it. If it were ridiculously off, then yes. As for it being in a National Park, are you sure they don't have permission? The NPS has opened up caching with permission and certain guidelines. It's not right to assume the owner has not obtained them. If you have a cause for concern, a letter to the reviewer is a better route to take. The owner cannot help if the area is under construction. It might have been better to politely let them know so that they could disable until the improvements were made to the area. That would benefit the owner as it would be less likely to be muggled or destroyed. The missing geocoin isn't the owner's fault either, and I'm not sure what you wanted the owner to do about it. Since we cannot read the comment you made to him, it's hard to tell how polite you were and if it would have sparked ill feelings towards you in the future. To handle the current situation, the best idea would most likely be to add a blurb in your cache description that mentions that there is a loud dog nearby, but that it is properly restrained (if that is true) and delete his log, while letting him know that you have noted it in the description. I would suggest that you keep the letter to him as polite as possible as it might work in your favor.

Clearly we all need to hear the full story, but in the meantime, try to think about why someone might be posting a negative comment. I had one recently with a similar issue. I have a cache in the mountains and someone posted a note on the cache page. They put to watch out for poison ivy. This person had not actually looked for my cache or even went to the area anytime recently. But, in the past prior to my cache, they had seen poison ivy in the general area. I didn't want this as a note either on my cache as it made it look like there WAS poison ivy right there. So instead, I put in the cache description that in these mountains it was not uncommon to find poisonous plants and to please educate themselves on what to look out for prior to try the cache and to also come prepared with first aid items. I then wrote to the member and told them that I removed their note as we had not personally seen any up there, but that we had added the note to the description. It was a simple way to solve both of the issues and make sure the finders are safe as well.

How does a missing first stage not allow you to keep on moving to the next cache of the day? If the first stage is missing, you put forth no extra effort for the cache and no more time. It is no different than a tradtional missing. You've gotten to the first place they wanted you to get to in a missing first stage multi. That's no different than the first and only place they wanted you to get to on a traditional. And furthermore, if you have gotten to the third stage of a multi, you've already seen two more spots than you would see on a traditional. What you're saying is assuming that a multi only has the purpose to take you to the final stage, which is completely untrue for alot of them. Sounds more like an argument as to why multis are better, they take you to see more places. How is this different than a hard tradtional you can't find? Both are unfound. You see what is underlying in all of your statements is that it's the extra effort taken to do the multi, not the other stuff you've been saying. The other stuff is equal in both cases. There's nothing wrong with using the reason of "extra effort", but don't try to hide it behind the other points. I have no problem with people who are all about numbers, or anything else for that matter. I only have problems when they try to pretend their not. There's no reason to be ashamed that you don't want to put forth the extra effort and then not find the cache, why not just say that's your reason? The real problem behind this whole discussion is that the math doesn't necessarily fit the real world application. Does a car made of few parts mean that it breaks down less? If that were true we'd have Consumer Reports on which cars have the fewest parts, not consumer ratings of dependability. Do you shop for the TV or stereo made of the fewest parts? Certainly not. Just because something has more parts doesn't mean it will be the mostly likely to break down in reality. A statistical analysis doesn't always tell us the real truth. The incidence of rape increases with the increase of ice cream sales (this is actually true). But does this tell us that rapist like ice cream, or any other variable we could assume from it? No. Statistics are one way to look at a situation, but it just doesn't always give an accurate picture of everything. And rarely gives a good picture of something that is so subjective to human interaction.

My point was, that if a stage in a multi is missing (or even just too difficult to find), then all the preceding stages count for nothing. What's the chances that you find two traditional caches, fail on the next, and then the two you previously found cannot be logged? Low, I'd say. Not the case if you've decided to seek a multicache. As an example, let's say that in a given area that you're going to find four in five caches on average. If you failed on one in five traditional caches, then you get to log four. Not too bad. If instead you went for a traditional cache and a four-stage multi but failed on the third stage, you only get to log one cache even though you actually found three. Plus, another cache becomes unfindable. Isn't that an obvious disadvantage in the multi v trad cache argument? Isn't that a good reason to avoid the multicache if time is tight? If there's plenty of time, though, it can actually add excitement to the search, as the more time you invest in the cache the more determined you are to finish it. I understand exactly what your getting at. And that's why I said that I can see why it's more frustrating, but the reason that it bothers you isn't that it is missing, it's that you're not getting your smiley for each stage. If you were upset only because the cache was missing, it would be equally upsetting for you to come across a missing traditional. And for that matter, if the multi caches always had the first stage missing, there would be no difference between them and a traditional, which only proves my point that it's because of the effort that must be put forth and the lack of smiley potential that is the true issue. And while I can feel for the frustration of the fact it takes more work to find a multi, you can easily compare that to the work it takes to find a traditional on a hike. What I'm getting at is for those who say it's because the multis go missing, what they are really saying is that the multis take more time, and therefore more effort. More effort and time for a missing or uncompletable cache is what is keeping people from the multis. I understand the feelings that people have towards this, eventhough I don't personally have them. What I've been trying to get across is that the comments made that "more multis are missing" is invalid. It's just not a true statement. Is it more likely to go missing, well sure, there's more stages. But ARE there more missing ones, no. So then at any given caching expedition, are you more likely to run across a multi or a traditional missing? The answer is a traditional, and yet this fact doesn't keep people from caching for traditionals. So the argument about missing multis doesn't work when you look at the overall picture. Ok, yes this is true, but really how often are signs going to mysteriously disappear, vs. being muggled. It's such a rare occurance, it's extraneous to the discussion. Just as I didn't mention all of the traditionals that require some electical or mechanical component and those breaking down, or batteries dying. What about those that require tools that you don't know about until you get there. We could go on and one about every variable that can cause a problem with a cache, but those issues are small and very infrequent. How is the first stage of a multi, missing, any different than an entire traditional missing? And with this logic, since there are more tradtionals missing altogether, how do you know that all 5 of your traditionals aren't going to be gone? Seems like that's a day ruiner to me too. Only true because of the failed common logic that more multis are missing apparently. The math works even when you simplify the problem to discuss it in the forums. That's all Fizzy has done. Yes some multi caches use existing signs etc. Some don't. More legs either way. Multi caches have more issues. More likely to have a leg missing. More likely to take more time. More likely to have something interrupt your search, More chances to get questioned by the police and if we are lucky, more fun if you finish it. But more likely to not finish them for a number of reasons. Worse only comes into play if you happen to like finding caches. That's why I cache. I don't cache for the DNF of it. What you are missing is the angle. Your observations are accurate, there are more traditionals than multi's, more traditionals are missing at any one time etc. However your conclusions though don't flow from your observations because of the angle you are looking at things at (or vice versa, the angle we are seeing it from). The odds of any one cache (and we only seek them one at a time...)having a problem of some kind is higher the more complex the cache. Multi's start out more complex because of the legs. Problems ensue. Most of us have noticed this and adapted our cache hunting habits to keep our fun meters as high as possible. Using my prior example. If you take away 1/3 of the containers on 3 part multi caches. You would have to take away 2/3 of the containers on traditional caches to have exactly the same odds of a DNF when you go to find a random cache. ================================== Completly changing the angle. Think in terms of machines. If you have two machines that both do the same thing, but one has less moving parts. The one with less moving parts will break down less often. Entirly because it has less parts to break. That makes it more likely to be working at any time you may walk up to it. I get what you're saying. But I wasn't trying to address that they are necessarily more likely because "more likely" doesn't matter. If I set out to do 10 caches and 5 are multi and 5 are traditional, sure the multis are more "likely" to be missing, but the fact of the matter is, since more tradtionals are, they are the ones that probably will be. So there's really no point to the argument. If you want to look at by thinking about machines, look at it this way: You buy two computers, one is a name brand with lots of extra bells and whistles that can break down, but it's repair history shows that fewer of this brand need to be fixed. And the next computer you bought is an off-brand with a poor repair history. Sure the first computer is more likely to need repairs if you look at the fact that it has more parts. But the second has a record of breaking down. Which would you buy? One last thing that hasn't been addressed is that you all are looking at this situation as just the number of stages. But in the real world, there are other things that can effect a cache besides numbers. Think about what causes these caches to be lost, environment and muggles. Multi caches by no means are always small within the stages, but most are. There are certainly a large number of traditionals that are small, but in comparison (again looking at the overall picture) because there are more traditionals than multis, there are also more of them that are larger containers. Smaller containers just by nature of being small are less likely to be seen. Therefore, less likely to muggled or destroyed by an animal. Next, because they are smaller, they also don't contain as much swag. Less swag equals less items that contain a scent which equates to less damage from an animal. And, also less swag means less of an enticement for muggles to steal. When we start taking in these factors, are multis really more likely to end up missing? Who knows. The point is, we can argue all day about a simple math equation, but the fact is, that equation doesn't fit the real world application. There are way too many variables to look at within both types of caches. Avoiding multis does nothing to help ensure you will come across less missing caches, it only ensures that you have less caches to do. Looking at past logs is the only thing that will consistantly help you. It's a shame that multis are seen in this light, but it's also a shame that caches along a hike aren't visited much either. The average human is lazy and like to get rewarded for least amount of effort possible.