Find Now, Log Later?

Pardon me for playing "Devil's Advocate," but what is there about geocaching that can't be learned from visiting the main website and then browsing the forums for half an hour? I mean, from reading the forums here, it's pretty clear that people don't even read the manual that came with their gps device. I can imagine some of the chapters to be found in the various books: "How to create an unnatural rock pile," "Techniques for placing sticks parallel to each other," "The most often misspelled words used in geocaching," [i think they are 'cemetery' and 'weird,' with 'discrete' coming in a close third.] and "How to get your Vacation Cache, Virtual Cache, or Locationless Cache Approved." An appendix to the book will list a website where one can download "the latest secrets for getting those non-conforming caches approved." [The Swiss Bank Account #s of the approvers accepting "gratuities."] I suppose books like that will prove to be more interesting to read in a few years, when the game has "matured" and 99% of the examples and links are no longer good ... sort of a "Nostalgic Look Back at Geocaching 2004."

As I understand it, TPTB pretty much allow people to place caches in areas they can demonstrate to be "within their stomping grounds," meaning areas they frequent on a regular basis. (I believe the individual's history of finds is used to determine this.) Caches of the dreaded and much maligned "vacation cache" variety are permitted if a local cacher is enlisted to serve as a surrogate for cache maintenance issues.

Wow, and here I thought that the cows could only fly in Nebraska. I saw "Van Helsing" this weekend. Great "flying cow" scene in Romania, which is also outside of Nebraska. And to answer Alan's question, two of my caches were 60 miles from home. The other 17 were all within 10 miles of home.

Well, the latest figures show that 5.4% of all registered geocachers (12,495 out of approximately 229,000) logged any caching activity within the preceding 7 days. 6,000 new accounts were apparently created during the week (judging by the number assigned the newest registered member), but 340 fewer accounts logged caching activity. A whopping 94.6% of registered geocachers did not log any geocaching activity. It has been mentioned in the forums many times that only a tiny fraction of the registered users ever visit the forums ... your thread made me wonder how the number of forum users (who would innundate the servers with their outpouring of grief ... on topic) compares to the number of users actively seeking geocaches.

I know how simple it would be, and I think many people will take undue advantage of the ability to do it. That's why I suggested a centralized, "official," geocaching.com owned-and-operated cache as a place for people that were unfairly denied a legitimate find to write their stories and claim their "smiley."

I certainly hope they wash their hands thoroughly before and after.

I don't log finds online any more, so I really couldn't care less how much more you people screw up a perfectly simple game, but I'd take wagers that a "password requirement" would cause logbooks worldwide to be stolen (or substituted with logbooks with false passwords as a "joke") within hours of such a rule being implemented.

No, the BEST way to discourage cheating, would be for cache owners to "police" their caches, and delete illegitimate find logs. Bingo. For those "looking for a clue," it couldn't be made any clearer or more concisely.

You already have that "choice;" nothing is preventing your from keeping your stats "private." Don't log your finds online at all, or log them as "notes." Keep your own stats in a personal database.

Me too.

It's happened in our area many times, so I'm surprised you would even need to ask. "It's all about the numbers." Why, I've heard that some people get the DTs if they haven't logged a "smiley" in the past few hours.

I think the number you are referring to is the number of active CACHES. It should be pointed out that "inactive" is not synonymous with "terminated."

I've seen many instances like this or where a cache is otherwise unavailable where a cacher (usually an ubercacher) will claim a find, after requesting permission from the cache owner, of course.

From logs I have read, it appears that large groups of people go caching together and one person finds the cache, then everybody else signs the log.

Okay. Nothing also suggests that the majority of people who have registered with the website remain as active members. The website is approximately 4 years old. Statistics provided by the website owner show that 90% of all geocachers that have played the game during the existence of the website have logged fewer than 55 caches. That would include over 223,000 people who registered at any time from "day one" until today. If you don't think that tends to suggest a high rate of attrition, then all you need to do to prove it to yourself is take a look at a random selection of user profile pages from 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years ago. Someone else suggested in this thread that 6 months of not having logged onto the website indicates an "inactive" cacher. (For newer accounts, I think 1/2 the length of time since registration would be reasonable.) I would call the results "irrefutable proof." Fewer than 13,000 accounts logged caching activity last week. That is less than 5% of the total registered users. They averaged almost 4.6 logs (not necessarily "finds") each for the week. Interesting. I, for one, will be watching those numbers very closely.

It's fun to go back and visit caches one was FTF on after several others have found the cache. In most cases, it is amazing how little the current 'state of the cache' resembles the original placement. But every now and then, one comes across a pleasant surprise ... a cache that remains hidden as well or better than it was originally.

"Ehh, Bobby ... whey-uh ahh the blond hahlitts du jour?"

Well, I think most of us have probably registered at websites that we visited only once or twice ... perhaps registration was required to procure information we needed, or perhaps immediately after registering we discovered that whatever it was the website offered failed to meet our expectations, and we never visited it again. For example, geocaching.com has now registered over 223,000 users. I think we can agree that the number of people actively participating in the game is a fraction of that. For example, fewer than 13,000 registered users posted logs to cache pages during the previous week. In a game such as this, that is natural and to be expected; no doubt the weekly/seasonal fluctuation in user activity is huge. But it would be interesting to see the break-down of those 13,000 registered users ... How many were newly registered; how many have been registered for three months, six months, one year, etc.. Similarly, a study of usage trends over the past three months, six months, year, etc. would clearly disclose user (and registration) trends. Of course, such information is "privileged information." I have no doubt TPTB study all such trends, and more, very closely. I agree that being able to show potential sources of revenue that 223,000 people registered with the site is more impressive than showing that a significantly smaller number of registered users actually use the site on even a semi-regular basis or over a significant period of time.

WAIT! Say it ain't so!!! Something that you DON'T know??????????????????? Oh, sure, Billy ... and on the issue of "what constitutes an active member," apparently neither do TPTB. For example, I went back and took a look at the profile pages of people that registered the same day as you, June 17, 2001. In order to increase the sampling, I also looked at the profile pages of people that registered on August 29, 2001 and December 31, 2002. The results indicated that quite a few people that created accounts on those days never validated their accounts or never visited the website. Their status is listed as "inactive." That makes sense. Quite a few other accounts hadn't logged on in at least a year. (Some in well over two years.) Their status is listed as "active cachers." The smallest number of accounts were those "active" cachers who had logged onto the site within the past month. This information appears to support the statement I made in my initial post to this thread, where I said it appeared that the stats Jeremy presented tended to suggest that for most people, interest in the game is short-lived. Of course, one could also gauge this by looking at the registration numbers of the newest members and comparing that to the number of accounts that actually logged caches in the previous 7 days. (This info is found on the "About Geocaching" page.) Of course, that number is a tad too low, because some people choose not to log online... Thanks for coming out of retirement to post to this thread, Billy. I enjoyed your two previous posts from February of 2003. Despite the fact that you have been a member since June 17, 2001 and have accumulated no geocaching statistics, you are truly and officially an "active" geocacher. Hey Billy, have you ever noticed that many times, the membership dates listed on people's geocaching.com profile pages and on their forum profiles don't agree? In many cases, they are "off" by one day. I don't know why that is, either.

Gee, perhaps there should be an official "Unfairly Deleted Find" cache where, with the permission of TPTB, anybody who has unjustly been denied a legitimate find, or had their legitimate find deleted, can log their story and claim their "smiley."

Not really. It gradually climbs until you hit the last 10%. At 50% there are around 50 finds, for example. The majority of geocachers aren't as hardcore, either about finding caches or logging them online. I know at least 5 people locally who don't log online at all. Only 369 finds are currently needed to reach that first percentile, which could hardly be considered a "hardcore" number ... especially considering the length of time geocaching.com has now been in operation. (Actually, it would be interesting and illuminating to learn how many finds were needed to be in the "top ten" percentiles one year and two years ago.) Hmmm ... I just realized I have no idea how geocaching.com determines what determines an individual's status. I've viewed hundreds of profile pages where people logged into the website and posted logs for caches over a period of weeks, months or even years and then their "visible" activity ceased ... they ceased posting logs to cache pages and/or stopped logging in to the website. A large number of accounts designated as "Active Cachers" have apparently not logged into the website in well over a year ... or more. At what point do TPTB consider these people to be no longer active? I would think 6 months of having not logged into the site would earmark an account as inactive.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here ... are you talking about FTF prizes? Having been FTF on a few caches myself (probably 350 - 400 by now), I note from experience that a significant percentage of those caches (I'd guess something like 15% - 20%) had at least one of these problems: Bad coordinates (From being off a hundred feet or so to being miles and miles off.) Extremely inaccurate ratings (Both over- and under-rating of caches.) Defective Puzzles (Incorrect formulas, for example.) Ill-advised placements (where as a result of feedback, cache owners disabled their caches and moved the cache or elements of multicaches to better locations.) Illegal placements (Speaks for itself. The caches should never have been hidden in those locations.) Damaged Caches (The cache had already been discovered by animals or muggles and was strewn about an area.) The list could go on and on ... I think that helping to sort out such issues early in a cache's existence "takes away" a lot of aggravation for subsequent seekers. In my book, that equates to "giving back to the community."

I have. (Well, the persons who created the cache said it was a 7 mile hike.) Combination Rock was a terrific cache, but unfortunately someone had a grudge against Team Epitome and stole both of their caches.

Are you sure you haven't already lowered yourself below that individual's level? It appears to me that you did an excellent job casting aspersions and thoroughly trashing that individual. While I agree that deleting legitimate find logs is wrong, I note that in these forums people are quick to rush to judgment on the basis of scant information that may or may not be factual. Yep, one sure does encounter a heck of a lot of calumny in these forums.

Wow. Looking at those stats from the opposite direction, it shows that most geocachers don't actually find many caches. The stats also tend to suggest that a large number of people try the game and quickly drop it.