Exotic Dancer
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Exotic Dancer
-
-
-
OK, I decided to do what you said. I took a PQ for the 500 caches nearest to my Zipcode and ran it through a niftly little app written by Fizzymagic. Here are the results:
Containers:
1 ( 0.2%) Large
69 (13.8%) Micro
12 ( 2.4%) Not chosen
10 ( 2.0%) Other
312 (62.4%) Regular
95 (19.0%) Small
1 ( 0.2%) Virtual
The results do not seem to confirm what you are saying.
To either prove or disprove the micro spew theory you would need to take these numbers and chart the hide rates history. ie the total hides per month with the micro hide numbers charted on the same scale. You could then extrapolate the lines.
The point is not to prove or disprove the micro spew theory. Its to disprove the idea that there is a "notable market preference" for micro caches.
I appreciate your determination to argue for arguement's sake, however you data analysis is still seriously flawed. You are analyzing cumulative market history across all currently active caches. This metric is meaningless if your goal is to analyze market trends.
A meaningful TREND analysis would require you to look at hide preferences ranked and sorted over time. Go back a year or a year and a half and divide the study period into months, quarters, days, hours, what ever you prefer. The data will show that micro hides are growing. That growth is partially to blame for this thread in the first place.
To get back on topic, we can both agree that any smiley claimed without meeting the requirements on the cache listing, i.e. visit the site, find the cache, sign the log, send any emails required, pose for the webcam, what ever, is NOT A FIND, but rather a reflection on the poor geocharacter of the cacher.
-
The market survey you request is right under your nose. Look at the cache listings in gc.com They represent the desires and preferences of the geocaching community, both in what is hidden and what is hunted. You can run a significanty representative random sample or evaluate the entire cache population and you will find a notable market preference for micro caches. I don't have an opinion either way for or against micros, but I do have significant experience in reading and assessing market data and I have simply
OK, I decided to do what you said. I took a PQ for the 500 caches nearest to my Zipcode and ran it through a niftly little app written by Fizzymagic. Here are the results:
Containers:
1 ( 0.2%) Large
69 (13.8%) Micro
12 ( 2.4%) Not chosen
10 ( 2.0%) Other
312 (62.4%) Regular
95 (19.0%) Small
1 ( 0.2%) Virtual
The results do not seem to confirm what you are saying.
1. Unfortunately Zip Codes are a poor indicator of population density.
2. The key element to representative sampling is randomness. There is nothing random about selecting your own (or any other) zip code. What you have done is assess the entire population of caches in your local area. Such a narrowly focused sample is inadequate for drawing valid inferences about the State of New Jersey, let alone The United States, North America, the Western Hemisphere or the world.
3. Don't tell your grandmother how to suck eggs.
-
Other than a small population of GeoSnobs, the vast majority of the market likes micros and they like cache counts displayed. Groundspeak would be shooting itself in the foot to make the changes you are demanding.
Wow! You've gained an awful amount of knowledge about this sport and insight into what geocachers want in the 4 1/2 weeks you've been involved!
BTW, do you have the full results of the survey that proves that the vast majority of geocachers like micros? I was wondering what the actual numbers were. Also, was your survey a random telephone survey, self administered survey or an interview survey? What was your sample size? How about your margin of error? How did you go about getting a representative sample of geocachers?
My, what an honor to be ridiculed and belittled by none less than a moderator.
The market survey you request is right under your nose. Look at the cache listings in gc.com They represent the desires and preferences of the geocaching community, both in what is hidden and what is hunted. You can run a significanty representative random sample or evaluate the entire cache population and you will find a notable market preference for micro caches. I don't have an opinion either way for or against micros, but I do have significant experience in reading and assessing market data and I have simply shared what the data reflects. Sorry if it wasn't what you wanted to hear. At any rate your attack was unwarranted.
-
I've gotta believe TPTB have been reading at least some of these threads re the various stat-related issues going on. Anyone else curious as to their take on all this?
Hopefully TPTB are listening to their market base rather than a handful of obcessed GeoElitists who waste good daylight caching time in these forums trying to force their way of thinking on the rest of the community. If your views were widely shared, then micros would disappear, the player base would diminish and eventually geocaching would be reduced to something akin to kissing your sister, albet doing so 10 miles into the woods, on the side of a cliff somewhere, clinging to a poison ivy vine. Bye
(Don't forget to sign sis's log)
-
Well now, the way I see it, there's Peer Pressure and there is Market Pressure.
Groundspeak is a business that serves a market. Market Pressure has taken the focus of geocaching away from traditional "blood sweat and guts, Feel the Pain" macro caches to urban micro caches and even pico and nano caches. GET OVER IT!
If you want to use Peer Pressure to guide and mould the behavior of area cachers, go right ahead. Do so by hiding and promoting the style of cache you prefer. Publish your personal logging rules on your profile page for all to see. Host events that enforce YOUR philosophy concerning pocket caches, event caches and cache counts in general. SELL your agenda rather than demanding regulatory enforcement.
Other than a small population of GeoSnobs, the vast majority of the market likes micros and they like cache counts displayed. Groundspeak would be shooting itself in the foot to make the changes you are demanding. Marketing 101 says that would be mighty stupid. You should be thankful for all the MicroHeads in the Groundspeak market base. It is THEIR thousands of Premium memberships that finance and support the existance and continuous improvements of and to the Groundspeak infrastructure. They are subsidizing your continued enjoyment of your narrow definition of the sport.
Let the numbers stand. They are but one metric by which a geocacher's accomplishments are measured. If a cacher's numbers are low, then they are easily identifiable as someone who is ripe for mentoring and education in the accepted (and unacceptable) behaviors of the game. If a cacher's numbers are high, their logs are an open record which can lend insight into how their numbers stack up against yours. If their standards, as implied by their logs, are similar to yours, then you have found an equal with which to compare your accomplishments. If their standards are other than yours, then all you have found is another geocacher. The fact that they are happy caching to a lower standard than yours no more cheapens your accomplishments (and numbers), than your downloading a cache page or PQ via dialup is some how more noble than a find that was based on a high speed internet connection.
Bottom line: Hunt your preferred type(s) of caches and log caches according to your own personal standard, and go to bed each night knowing where you stand with respect to cachers who log to a lower standard and appear to have more finds than you. If you still feel that the game shouldn't be about the numbers then put your money where your mouth is and quit logging finds and start posting Notes instead. Bye.
-
If a stripper has a pocket cache it will make me wonder where.....never mind......
I recent that sterio type. Ill have you konw, theres a big difference between a stripper and a lap dancer and a table dancer. I should know cause I am in the entertainment business. Eney way, I accidentaly opened a new cache notification email. Is that a find or a DNF. ? I didnt read it so maybe it is an DNR (did not read - not Do Not Recesutate). I was wondering about that. Bye
How To Get The Size Of Cache For A Paperless Cache?
in How do I...?
Posted · Edited by Exotic Dancer
I think the question was about CACHEMATE.
"Container:" is the 6th line of text on both the "Description" screen and the "Overview" screen. It doesn't exactly jump out at you, and obviously, if container size isn't specified on the cache listing, this field is blank in Cachemate as well.
Bye
OOps. Edited cause I didn't mean to quote Briansnat so I removed the quote.
Bye