cezanne

The system should identify those who might have a similar preference - this is important to make it work also in areas one is not familiar with. It's also less tiresome than looking manually through the lists of a larger number of cachers (BTW: favourite lists are public anyway - however they do not offer space for explanations and comments.)

Yes, they could as they could actively engage the cachers and not rely only on what someone bought or looked up. It's in some way easier to do for geocaches. However of course there always will be outliers but looking through some recommendations is easier and less tiresome than looking through hundreds or thousands of caches in areas one is unfamiliar with. Actively engage cachers how? Which cachers? Aren't the majority of cachers just going to lead to the same caches the so-called selective cachers are upset about? The majority does not play a role when it comes to how the recommendations of a cacher that seems to like similar caches than you look like. What I meant with actively engaging is that GS could obtain more data than just the FPs - they could e.g. provide some common reasons for why someone awards a FP.

Yes, they could as they could actively engage the cachers and not rely only on what someone bought or looked up. It's in some way easier to do for geocaches. However of course there always will be outliers but looking through some recommendations is easier and less tiresome than looking through hundreds or thousands of caches in areas one is unfamiliar with.

You did but I might be able to chalk that up to a language issue. "If a meta level is what a cache visit is really about, the focus changes which has a number of unfortunate impacts." The implication is that a person who focuses on meta level caching creates several unfortunate impacts. Unfortunate is negative in connotation so that means negative impacts for those who focus on meta level caching. You made no statement that said it didn't apply to everybody. Instead, you made a generalization about those who focus on specific types of caches for specific goals. I'm aware that unfortunate has a negative connotation. However what I meant was negative impacts on the large scale - not negative impacts caused by every single cacher. It has never ever been my attempt to make statements about the microcosmos of single cachers. It might also be that you understood "what a cache is really about" in a different manner than intended by me. It can well be that someone follows meta goals and still values a cache as a real object and treats it with the resulting respect in some sense. What I referred to is rather the situation when the meta goals are what dominates everything else. Let me use the example of streaks. I have no interest into streaks but I have high admiration for cachers who manage to maintain e.g. a year long streak under difficult personal conditions. However at least in my country many streakers are cheating in one or the other way and I have no admiration for their streaks. They do not harm me and my personal way of caching by maintaining their streaks with all their tricks, but it's just another sign of insincerity which I hardly ever encountered when geocaching started in my area. I'm sure that the negative impacts of the meta game will be smaller in areas where the culture, caching ethics, local community and other factors that influence how geocaching evolves are more immune against the kind of impacts that I mentioned. I'm confused. The meta argument is about those who do not care about the cache itself, not about those who care about the cache. Some cachers who wish to get say a 4.5/4.5 cache do not care about any aspect of the cache itself but only about the grid filling entry 4.5/4.5*. Whenever the actual cache out there is not of importance any longer, this naturally can cause issues. For example, someone who really values the cache and the container will have more reason to treat the container with care. This is not to say that everyone who is into filling their grid is careless with containers. This is also not to say that everyone who does not care about D/T grids treats containers carefully. It depends on the situation. If they do not mention that a cache is not findable, or there is no container to be found, yes, they are hurting other cachers. It has never been my intent to claim that someone who focuses on a specific cache harms the game (though it would be true for certain powertrails but that has not been my point and moreover it then again would not be about a single cache). The point I tried to make is that someone who visits a cache for the sake of the cache or the sake of the walk or something else which is more real than data points will more likely value certain aspects that could become completely meaningless and irrelevant for those who only care about the existence of a cache as a data point. This "more likely" is at least in my area backed up by empirical evidence in the sense of "more frequently occurring".

So because a cacher has spent quite a bit of money, it's unfortunate for them to receive a discover log from someone who might not have ever seen it? Delete the log. Problem solved. I said that discover logs are the more harmless part. One could do much worse things with the numbers. Moreover along these lines hardly anything in geocaching is a real problem. One can delete, ignore, forget etc

Of course not. There isn't a guarantee for anything in real life. Me too but that does not mean that there are no ideas available which are better than the FP system which exists right now. No I have not changed my stance. The overall effect is not necessarily small - the small refered to the individual components that add together to the total effect. Of course it relates to both due to the counters for logged trackables and available badges and it relates to actions Groundspeak could set. Groundspeak is not responsible for what cachers are doing but they are responsible for the framework they set and apparently it's the bigger issue to mention the M game with its full name than to for example routinely post lists of all trackables at an event. Once again the original intent of something geocaching (for trackables that is that they travel and the owners and others can follow the travel) gets impacted by something which is not part of the original concept and is numbers oriented and ignores the underlying idea why trackables got invented. I neither visit those events nor do I log trackables from lists. I do not even write discover logs for trackables I encounter in caches but do not move along. It has not been about my own style of caching. If such lists get posted, people all around the world can use the numbers and not only write discover logs, they also could virtually move these trackables wherever they want and create chaos (that's of course the worst case scenario but also in the case when just discover logs arrive from different corners of the world this is unfortunate for the owners of the trackables who often invested quite some money). I agree that the original post did not mention events and trackables. The OP was not written with the intent to explain aspects that go wrong based on number oriented aspects in geocaching which have not played a role in the beginning. I could bring up many more examples but of course you can debate about the importance of each single of them. If you take them all together they however provide a clear pictures of the impacts of what I call number orientation at least in the areas I'm familiar with. In your area a whole lot seems to be different and I have never been there.

Where I live it is not so rare (though I also would not say it is the norm but happens frequently enough) and moreover the reviewers here do not interfere at all. But it was just one example anyway. There are so many effects on many different aspects.

The term meta level came from NiraD. I have explained before what I mean with number oriented and that I do not use number in the meaning that is restricted to counting something. Of course but those would have more interest into something that comes close to a real 3.5/3.5 - they would not appreciate a .5/1.5 rated as 3.5./3.5. There are cachers out there who love T=5* caches for the challenge or experience. Those typically do not like T=5* rated caches that are rated T=5* because the owner likes to own a T=5* cache or because finder like a T=5* cache they can easily get. Again you assume that the rating is reasonable. Fizzy and Jasmer were just arbitrary examples. What I tried to say is that if not the cache itself but some other aspect of it makes it interesting for the cachers the likelihood that the caching behaviour reflects that increases which of course does not mean that this happens for every such cacher who also follows meta goals. There is of course a huge individual influence and also a huge regional one. If the majority of cachers in an area does not comment any longer on the conditions of the caches they find, that's certainly an issue as a whole which you will not spot when you only look at individual caches where of course any effect will happen with a some probability (that can be larger or smaller). That's clearly wrong in my area. Many of those go for adventure caches that I would never be able to go for. Not only on cache runs. I also experienced how the log behaviour of many local cachers changed once they discovered certain meta goals they have not been aware of before. No, it's not about lazy loggers who always have existed. I clearly mean effects that are quite likely caused by following number oriented goals (in my sense not yours). When you approach individuals and ask them about their change of focus and behaviour, the answer almost always boils down to following such a kind of goal. Faking find dates e.g. has never been a phenomenon in the early years - there it only could happen that someone confused the date. Now it's used in a systematic manner in many areas I'm aware of. Of course it can happen on any cache but someone who caches for the cache has a larger interest to mention issues because they do not appreciate to encounter such caches out there when caching. Those for which a cache is a data point, often do not care. This again does not mean that everyone who sets number oriented goals (D/T grids, day grids, max number of cache types found per day, max number of countries per day, etc) is not caring (much) about the cache itself and its condition. I'm just saying that the likelihood for that going to happen increases and this is something I find a lot of evidence for in the areas I'm familiar with (including a changed behaviour of one and the same person before and after they learnt about certain goals and including having talked to such people). You can ask people and discuss about things with them. What I wrote was not saying that every single cacher who also follows meta goals fits what is a clear trend in areas I'm familiar with. In my opinion it causes problems at least in for example my country. I'm by far not familiar with the situation in North America. I have enough evidence for the areas I'm reasonably familiar with which once again does not apply that every cacher there matches the trend which is of course not true. This does not contradict my observations at all as it just says that the effects of the meta level are not the same in every region and that is not surprising as there are huge cultural and other differences as well (for example local reviewers and many other things). I never said that everyone who follows meta goals harms geocaching. There can be cachers who only care about the cache which harm geocaching and others who only cache for meta goals who are extremely considerate cachers.

That's what I'm thinking about when I mention the possibility of other communities. geocaching.com has become focused on geocaching, and I think that's reasonable. What I wrote above was not targeted at my personal case and not at any other specific cacher. We do not need book recommendation systems for every different sort of preference either. Even the very simple recommendation system at one of the competing sites already is better than nothing (the status quo at gc.com) and there are many ways to expand on it. I do think that cachers like Lone.R but also very different minded cachers could profit from such a system (which also NiraD sketched) a lot. This does not mean that you suggestion in itself is bad - different communities can make sense if there is enough critical mass. Improvements within this community can however still make sense too and there would be many more options than just a power trail icon.

That's not true. For example the idea of a recommendation system like the one on amazon (or something along the lines) has often been suggested. I'm sure that if gc.com were a community project some gifted and engaged cachers would already have come up with such a system which of course requires access to the FP data (which also could have extended by some reason for a FP choice). People who want to buy books are also very different in their tastes. Right now the Groundspeak system cannot even list all caches that have been favourited by people who favourited a particular cache. Certainly not but the unclearer the guidelines are in these respects, the more inconsistency will result. Also when it comes to challenge caches, why do they recommend in the new guidelines that the T rating should be chosen according to the terrain difficulty and then publish challenge caches with 5/5 rating which clearly state that the terrain difficulty of the cache is 2* (and no it's not a challenge that requires one to find 5* caches). There are many small aspects that add together. For example when it comes to trackables a clear statement by Groundspeak that I are not happy if lists of trackable codes are posted as logs for events, would help a lot. Right now a lot of local abuse arises in many aspects and the few cachers are not happy with it are not heard as they are not believed when they argue that it is not supposed to be done that way.

What would those be? You seem to think this negatively affects the game or the cache somehow. I also fail to see how that personally impacts you with the sole exception of your example of a trail having multiple caches versus a walking multi, which isn't meta level at all, it's a numbers count. I had a much more general picture in mind than just my own geocaching experiences. There are so many impacts on different levels. Some impacts have been mentioned by briansnat as the counting is part of what I mean with number-orientation (it's a subset). Some other examples: D/T ratings and attributes are originally thought to be descriptive and to help the cache searchers and not to offer people a chance to fill a gap in their grids or obtain a badge. It helps the cache hider and future visitors of cache if information on the condition of a cache is provided in logs - they do not profit that much from logs which have become common in many areas which repeat the same log over the whole day and which mention the caches were found more or less easily and that some log books were wet (but not which). People start to write that they do not have time to write individual logs already when visiting say 6 caches a day. It can take months until it turns out that a cache has a problem and that's unfortunate both for the owner and for cachers who care about the condition and who care about whether there is a signable log book at the end. Cachers like Lone.R will in this manner not be able to filter out such caches. If people have goals like find 7 cache types per day, fill in two extra D/T combos, get a souvenir etc they often do not care about the caches itself that much and a wrong 5/5 serves their purpose just as well as a correct 5/5 so why should they even comment that the rating is not correct. Why should they care about a full log book when they can provide a photo and log a photo log and still achieve their goal. A properly maintained container and/or a description that accurately describes the geocache become much less important under such circumstances. If the main goal for a found it log is to mark a cache as found like hook off some task on some list, the log will likely have a different function and style than if the log is thought to share experiences.

Yes, that's it. Geocaching went in a different directions because of forces that are obvious in hindsight, and there's no reason at all to think the things that drove geocaching away from location can somehow be reversed. The somehow ironic thing is just that briansnat's quote is part of the cache placing guidelines at gc.com. I'm going to have to think about this. My initial reaction is that this distinction is entirely unrelated to the overall change in focus of the hobby. Actually this is a reason for the change to the negative that I regard as far more essential than the other aspect. Some of the early cache demonstrate well that not every cache back then was a hiking cache hidden at a nice location. If someone for example does not care about location but likes challenging search aspects or creative containers or difficult puzzles or caches filled with nice swag, they still care about something which is a real aspect of the cache and it is also more likely that they will comment in their log if something is wrong with the cache. If a meta level is what a cache visit is really about, the focus changes which has a number of unfortunate impacts.

Yes, what you wrote describes what I had in mind better than my own attempt. Thanks.

I get that it's changed, for better or for worse. But if you're struggling that much with it why then do you torture yourself and stick around? I understand what both you and Cezanne are saying but I am really finding it difficult to understand why you and those with your position have not moved on? It's ok to move on... << and I am being sincere and not suggesting anything nefarious. For Lone.R maybe this explains it all It sounds like she could still enjoy geocaching in areas with suitable hiders if she were able to find the areas and the suitable hiders there.

No, sorry, "numbers" is, in fact, a geocaching term disconnected from its English meaning. Someone that caches for the numbers is focused on counting finds rather than searching for caches. When I use number in many of my cache listings it means exactly number and not necessarily something to be counted. Saying someone is caching for the numbers is not the same than saying that someone focuses on number oriented goals/aspects. I never intended to put them all into the same drawer. My intent was to contrast number oriented goals from non number oriented goals. In my first years of caching noone in my area knew about grids/day matrices/months to fill etc Now the most common thing when I meet someone out caching is that they have some argument related to numbers why they are visiting this cache today. First of all, number oriented goals are not negative per se. Hence accuse does not make sense. Second, I like all caches that send me on a long walk and allow me to report all my experiences in one log. The area where I live allows that much more easily for a multi cache. Third, my satisfaction after a walk does not come from the length and elevation data but from how it changes my emotions and how I feel physically. That was not all the point I tried to make. Lone.R misses the old times and it always has been about geocaches (the container) for her. I maybe understand what you mean, but I do not think that your statement above captures that. Most cachers I know care more about what I call number oriented goals than about the real properties of a geocache. For example if they need the 50-th cache classified as large most of them do not care that much whether their 50-th cache is a real large in the sense of Groundspeak or rather untypically large for the area and thus classified as large by the cache owner. Someone like Lone.R cares about what is really to be found at the cache site.

If number means find score definitely not. But of course all these goals are driven by features described with numbers and not by features like nice view, fun with friend, nice swag, creative container etc I prefer number oriented to statistics oriented as there are number orientations that I would not see as statistical in nature though most are of course in some sense statistical. When I use number oriented I do not have specifically those in mind which only care about smileys. That's not the meaning of number. Then you're in the minority. You're entitled to that opinion but most cachers that hear about a numbers oriented cacher are thinking of find count, not someone filling a Jasmer or a Fizzy. That might well be because a lot of abuse of language has become common in geocaching. I however did my best to describe that I include aspects like grid filling, D/T combos etc. so in my case it was not about someone being forced to guess what I mean with numbers. In German there are two different words: Anzahl and Zahl but in English number has both meanings and I do see that as fact backed up by the meaning of number which is not something invented by geocachers.

Apparently I formulated my statement in an unfortunate manner. I do not know you and I did not intend to rank what is more important for you than something else. I meant for cachers like you and also me (for different reasons) encountering a wet log is something we put less importance on than someone for whom the container is the key reason to visit that cache and who feels that visiting a cache with a broken container is a waste of time. That's true for me in some cases, but not all and there seem to be cachers out there for whom it is never the first option and that's the point I tried to make. I'm aware of that and I try to take into account that she feels that way and from that perspective I can understand why she has issues with selecting caches neither you nor I do have (I have other difficulties but not those).

If number means find score definitely not. But of course all these goals are driven by features described with numbers and not by features like nice view, fun with friend, nice swag, creative container etc I prefer number oriented to statistics oriented as there are number orientations that I would not see as statistical in nature though most are of course in some sense statistical. When I use number oriented I do not have specifically those in mind which only care about smileys. That's not the meaning of number.

You making false or ill-informed judgments about my geocaching methods and philosophies is akin to me making judgments about your forum participation. I agree that what Lone.R wrote does not seem to capture well a cacher like you who among others has hidden 155 Wherigos which is very amazing. Personally I do not care about the container aspect and even less about swag (it often even annoys me when I need to handle a container in difficult terrain or with muggle danger ahead). I think however that I can understand to some extent the pain Lone.R and other cachers feel who appreciated the role swag once played. These people have never been numerous in my area but they existed and I recall a few who enjoyed very much to create small items with all sorts of creative techniques (mostly female cachers) for leaving them in caches and who also enjoyed finding such stuff which has been left by other like-minded cachers. It is very hard to impossible to judge from home when selecting caches whether the contents of the container will be a pleasant experience for those who like to sweep through all sorts of geoswag and signature items. Many of us can compensate more easily if they did not like a particular aspect of a geocache if they enjoyed another aspect. The more uni-dimensional your preferences are, the more difficult this becomes. This is of course something on the personal level but still it is true that geocaching has changed and has made people happy in the early years who now are not happy any longer. On the other hand however the modern geocaching makes people happy who would have been very frustrated in the early years. There are winners and losers.

That matches well with my observations in particular if one interprets "the numbers" more widely and includes D/T combos, filled days, hidden months, and many number other oriented goals. Then I really think that in most areas numbers come into play for the majority of cachers. But of course it is not true that majority of cachers are hard core number hounds. The number orientation (in the above sense) has increased over the years with a significant impact on how geocaching has developped.

The game is the same. You find a cache, sign the log, and claim the find. To say so otherwise is irrelevant. The example above does not prove that the game is different. The motives and number of hides are different but it's still played the same way. More finds doesn't mean it's a different game than when it first started. It's exactly the same. What is different, and where we can find some common ground, is that the motives and reasons for placing a cache have changed. The game itself is still exactly the same. My intent was to say that the increased number orientation (let me call it that way) influenced the offer of caches that are available to me as finder. It's not true that I have the same offer as I had years ago and that is just more difficult to select the caches I enjoy. Their number has decreased also absolutely in my area and not only relative to the number of overall hidden caches. If you wish you can ignore the part about the reasons. Fact is that multi caches of the type mentioned above are hidden less often and are more often replaced by other formats many of which have not been allowed in earlier years.

I agree that hard core was not a well chosen term. However what is definitely true is that the majority of cachers meanwhile is numbers driven (not as their only goal and not necessarily the find score). I did not say anything about writing NM logs. The question is just if you could choose between such a cache getting archived a few days before you can get to it or you having still the choice to visit it (if a container is there) what would you choose? I think the latter and I do not blame you for that. I could imagine that getting the rare month, the rare combo and other rewards like the journey will make you think that your cache trip was not a waste of time. Something similar can happen to me if I experienced a nice hike where I find a wet log book at the end. Of course I will report the condition of the cache but I do not experience such caches as a waste of time and I'm not fully disappointed and would not wish I never had went for that cache. Do you get the difference for people who do not mainly care about the container and the contents?

So, mostly D1 through D2 caches? That's pretty searchable. Not necessarily as they can involve 10 and more stages and many km walk. My comment was however not meant with respect to the hardness of filtering out such caches but rather a reply to a previous comment that micros are more challenging.

Not so easy in areas where there are many caches which are not single stage caches. Everyone has different preferences. The ones above fit well to Lone.R 's preferences. I do not seek out for search challenges at all. I like when I know already from 50m distance where the cache will be.

Not necessarily and things are not independent from each other. I will provide just one example: Since cache series with say 20 traditionals and one bonus cache along a 5km are allowed, the number of such series has increased and the number of multi caches along a 5km trail (just an arbitrary example as the numbers are concerned) has decreased. Many cache hiders want to get more visits. many cache searchers want to end up with more finds per day and such series create more FPs - cachers can assign 2 FPs generated solely by a single such series. That's not the real issue for people like me. It's natural that selecting something when one is more selective is more difficult. However my point is that the offer in certain areas is influenced by how the scene has changed. Yes though these are not my most successful caches. I will continue to hide such caches where I clearly now that other cache designs would lead me end up with many more happy visitors. I'm not shying away from hiding caches along walking routes that are not spectacular - just nice walks with no special highlights. One cannot target for highlights all the year long. One does not eat a Christmas meal every day. I do not think that better is the right word. There are many cachers out there who will always think that instead of having a multi cache with x stages (regardless of virtual ones or physical one) a cache series which provides you with x finds will be better as it makes people end up with x finds and not only one. I think that one mainly needs to blame Groundspeak as they have no clear rules for what designates the size. If someone creates a 50cm high sculpture out of wood and colours it artfully and then drills a hole into the sculpture and places a pet preform with a log sheet there and then hides the sculpture say at a tree stump under pieces of bark, many cachers will argue that small is a legitimate size choice. Of course other or micro are also choices - none of them conveys all the information. I'm not Lone.R but I guess what she meant was something different. The majority of cachers out there take at least part of their motivation and many of their caching goals out of number related aspects. For example they want to hunt for cache X not because it is a nice place or an interesting cache but because it has been hidden in month they still miss or because it has a certain D/T combo. If you have such goals, you care more about these parameters of a cache and care less if you encounter a wet log book for such a cache. Given the choice whether you would prefer that such a cache you have long sought to visit gets archived shortly before your visit and getting the chance to visit it with the wet logbook, most who are driven by the stat aspect of that very cache would opt for the latter. I do think that for those who care a lot about the containers and their contents it is very difficult to make a good cache selection as the majority does not care about cache contents and so it is often not something you can get information about from logs and cache descriptions and certainly maps etc are useless anyway.